PDA

View Full Version : Why aren't the Reds trading Weathers?



Dan
07-31-2007, 11:33 AM
Seriously, the market for reliable relievers is red hot right now, so why aren't we selling high on Weathers? The Reds don't need him the rest of this season, and with some of the returns (Chase Wright, Clement, Davies) being offered for relievers, the Reds REALLY ought to be taking advantage of the market.

Latest rumor (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/) has Jeff Clement being offered by the Mariners for Al Reyes. Why aren't the Reds in on this one, seeing as how this year Weathers has better numbers, and he and Reyes are comparable in experience and age. Picking up Clement would be a coup.

RedLegSuperStar
07-31-2007, 11:34 AM
I saw Tampa Bay and Seattles possible trade and thought the same thing.. you have got to capitalize on a deal like that.

traderumor
07-31-2007, 11:38 AM
I'm guessing they are figuring with such a putrid bullpen that a bird in the hand (Weathers only consistent reliever in house and signed relatively cheap through next year) is worth two in the bush. I can see that argument having some merit. Since they are in need of relievers themselves, they would be in need of major league ready relievers in return, and the only reason they would net that is if a contender was looking for experience over relying on a young guy during a pennant race.

KronoRed
07-31-2007, 11:42 AM
They think they will need a closer next year.

camisadelgolf
07-31-2007, 11:42 AM
I'm on the Trade Weathers boat all the way. I just think there's too much risk that he'll have a down year next year.

BRM
07-31-2007, 11:43 AM
They think they will need a closer next year.

Just a couple of arms away from contention...

flyer85
07-31-2007, 11:43 AM
Weathers has had a nice season, expecting the same level of performance in the future is a recipe for failure. His track record suggests he is nothing more than a middling reliever having what is for him, an excellent season.

flyer85
07-31-2007, 11:44 AM
Just a couple of arms away from contention...Eddie and Bray. They are both almost ready. :eek:

BRM
07-31-2007, 11:45 AM
I'm on the Trade Weathers boat all the way. I just think there's too much risk that he'll have a down year next year.

I agree. I was a little surprised to read he wasn't available.

flyer85
07-31-2007, 11:48 AM
I agree. I was a little surprised to read he wasn't available.just another example of this organization being unable to differentiate current level of performance versus actual level of talent.

Players have "career" type seasons(usually a number of times). Being able to tell the difference between random events versus an actual increase in talent is the key. There is nothing in Weathers peripherals that suggest he has suddenly increased his talent level.

BRM
07-31-2007, 11:49 AM
Here's a little blurb about Weathers and Junior on mlbtraderumors.



The Mets are also talking to the Reds; could've been about Ken Griffey Jr. or David Weathers. From what we've heard, though, Weathers is not available. And would Junior approve a trade to the Mets? He vetoed a trade there once before.

RedLegSuperStar
07-31-2007, 11:52 AM
Conine

Always Red
07-31-2007, 11:53 AM
Just a couple of arms away from contention...

At this point, it is my opinion that Cast and Kriv truly do believe that.

After today, I can just imagine the quotes right now: "We couldn't find anyone out there better than the guys we already have. They just need to pitch better."

I'd also look for Mackanin to be extended to next year sometime in the next two weeks. Kriv seems very happy with the club as it is right now, and how it's playing under Pete.

I also think he's completely gunshy after all the criticism he received last year after the Big Trade. That's a problem...

Superdude
07-31-2007, 12:00 PM
I know keeping a semi respectable team on the field for the fans is a part of it, but building for the future and trying to compete for fourth place at the same time has always bugged me. If you're gonna sign a few free agents and try to compete next year, then keep him, but if you're just using Weathers as a way to avoid the cellar next season, it's a waste of value.

fearofpopvol1
07-31-2007, 12:04 PM
I'm not saying they will trade Weathers, but in all fairness, the deadline hasn't passed yet. Let's wait and see what happens.

RANDY IN INDY
07-31-2007, 12:06 PM
flyer85 is right on the money. Weathers should be available. There are no guarantees that he will continue to pitch well at his age. I think it would be a terrible mistake not to trade him if the offer is right.

puca
07-31-2007, 12:07 PM
I hope its just posturing.

I fear that it is either a misguided opinion on Weather's value to the Reds future or despiration on Wayne's part to save his job.

Danny Serafini
07-31-2007, 12:08 PM
How much longer must this myth of Weathers having a career year that's unrepeatable continue? Here are his ERAs each year starting with 2000:

3.07
2.41
2.91
3.08
4.15
3.94
3.54
3.35

Total 2000-2007: 3.29

Weathers is performing around where he should, he actually is a decent pitcher. There's always some degradation with age, but it's perfectly reasonable to think he'll put up a sub-4 ERA next year.

RANDY IN INDY
07-31-2007, 12:11 PM
The guy is almost 38 years old. For a non-contending team, that is reason enough to trade him if you can get a couple of really good prospects from a team that needs to win now. This is the kind of move that smart GM's make.

Stormy
07-31-2007, 12:16 PM
I hope its just posturing.

I fear that it is either a misguided opinion on Weather's value to the Reds future or despiration on Wayne's part to save his job.

Well if it's not posturing it's a sure sign of a small minded F.O. that is utterly incapable of the task of rebuilding a basically last place small market ballclub. You have a soon to be 38 year old reliver arguably posting his best season since 2001 or 2002. You have a team in desperate need of talented young arms, and at numerous positions on the field where there is little organizational depth or impact (C, SS, CF). And you have a market that is clearly on the brink of wildly overpaying for well past their prime relievers. That's the 'perfect storm' for a small market GM, and yet it's at least possible that he's more concerned about Weathers being the buffer between the 2007 Reds playing .425 ball, and playing .400 ball, than he is about rebuilding this club for the future.

PuffyPig
07-31-2007, 12:17 PM
How much longer must this myth of Weathers having a career year that's unrepeatable continue? Here are his ERAs each year starting with 2000:

3.07
2.41
2.91
3.08
4.15
3.94
3.54
3.35

Total 2000-2007: 3.29

Weathers is performing around where he should, he actually is a decent pitcher. There's always some degradation with age, but it's perfectly reasonable to think he'll put up a sub-4 ERA next year.


What you say is absolutely correct.

But if someone will give us, say Jeff Clement for him, you jump on that.

But you don't have to trade him for the best return available, like we did with Lohse.

membengal
07-31-2007, 12:21 PM
Well if it's not posturing it's a sure sign of a small minded F.O. that is utterly incapable of the task of rebuilding a basically last place small market ballclub. You have a soon to be 38 year old reliver arguably posting his best season since 2001 or 2002. You have a team in desperate need of talented young arms, and at numerous positions on the field where there is little organizational depth or impact (C, SS, CF). And you have a market that is clearly on the brink of wildly overpaying for well past their prime relievers. That's the 'perfect storm' for a small market GM, and yet it's at least possible that he's more concerned about Weathers being the buffer between the 2007 Reds playing .425 ball, and playing .400 ball, than he is about rebuilding this club for the future.


There it is.

redsrule2500
07-31-2007, 12:22 PM
We wouldn't win a game the rest of the season unless the starter went 9.

Danny Serafini
07-31-2007, 12:24 PM
What you say is absolutely correct.

But if someone will give us, say Jeff Clement for him, you jump on that.

But you don't have to trade him for the best return available, like we did with Lohse.

Agree totally. He's not untouchable by any means, but he's also not someone I dump just for the sake of dumping. It's got to be a quality offer to make me deal.

RedLegSuperStar
07-31-2007, 12:26 PM
We wouldn't win a game the rest of the season unless the starter went 9.

Huh? Weathers isn't the only arm that can save a game or win a game. That's a lot of high stature you hold for a single player. He however is the most consistent but Coutlangus, Burton, and Santos have been good as of late.

Dan
07-31-2007, 12:35 PM
We wouldn't win a game the rest of the season unless the starter went 9.

Does that really matter the rest of this season?

KronoRed
07-31-2007, 12:52 PM
Does that really matter the rest of this season?

Does if the ultimate goal is .500

dougdirt
07-31-2007, 12:58 PM
I wouldn't say the Reds arent talking about Weathers. I got word that he was involved in trade talks this weekend but the Reds turned down a trade that involved both Weathers and Ross who would have been heading to the Braves. The Braves offer was less than I would have expected although I guess they would have been taking on a lot more salary than the Reds, but I wouldn't have taken the offer either.

Still, I don't think Weathers is off the market, I think its just going to take the right deal. 4 hours and counting.

Dan
07-31-2007, 01:00 PM
Does if the ultimate goal is .500

The ultimate goal should be a World Series win. Anything less, and it doesn't matter if you win 81 games or 61 games.

puca
07-31-2007, 01:23 PM
Well if it's not posturing it's a sure sign of a small minded F.O. that is utterly incapable of the task of rebuilding a basically last place small market ballclub. You have a soon to be 38 year old reliver arguably posting his best season since 2001 or 2002. You have a team in desperate need of talented young arms, and at numerous positions on the field where there is little organizational depth or impact (C, SS, CF). And you have a market that is clearly on the brink of wildly overpaying for well past their prime relievers. That's the 'perfect storm' for a small market GM, and yet it's at least possible that he's more concerned about Weathers being the buffer between the 2007 Reds playing .425 ball, and playing .400 ball, than he is about rebuilding this club for the future.

Very well said.

Johnny Footstool
07-31-2007, 01:28 PM
The ultimate goal should be a World Series win. Anything less, and it doesn't matter if you win 81 games or 61 games.

I think there are tiers you shoot for. World Series Contender is the top, followed by Playoff Contender, then .500 Ballclub. The Reds are nowhere near any of these, so they fall into the last category: Rebuilding. Wins don't really matter when you're rebuilding. And you don't rebuild by hanging onto 37 year old relievers who have value on the trade market.

PuffyPig
07-31-2007, 01:42 PM
The ultimate goal should be a World Series win. Anything less, and it doesn't matter if you win 81 games or 61 games.


Except that if you win 81 games you are much closer to your ultimate goal of getting a team good enough to win the world series.

There are many exapmles of team that went from 81 wins to the world series the next year.

There are few that made it after winning only 61 games.

puca
07-31-2007, 01:49 PM
Except that if you win 81 games you are much closer to your ultimate goal of getting a team good enough to win the world series.

There are many exapmles of team that went from 81 wins to the world series the next year.

There are few that made it after winning only 61 games.

Except that if the goal is to win 81 games, then it has to be to win 81 games with a team on the upswing. Winning 81 games with a bunch of players that won't be around the next year is a pretty pointless exercise.

pedro
07-31-2007, 01:53 PM
I'd only trade weathers if the return was really good. The Reds have such huge BP problems that dumping the only guy who is doing well, who also happens to be signed to cheap contract for 2008, on the assumption that after two solid years he can't possibly repeat his success, seems a bit short sighted to me. There's no reason to dump him IMO.

Dan
07-31-2007, 02:15 PM
Except that if you win 81 games you are much closer to your ultimate goal of getting a team good enough to win the world series.

There are many exapmles of team that went from 81 wins to the world series the next year.

There are few that made it after winning only 61 games.

But that doesn't happen in a vacuum. The Reds in the 80s went from one of the worst teams to winning the WS in 6 years. Mostly it was due to an infusion of good young players. There wasn't a plan to get to .500 the first year, then become a playoff contender, then a WS contender, and finally win a championship. It was, let's put the best players on the field we can and see what happens.

That's the key: putting the best team out there. And if the year isn't going your way, decide on the core you want to keep and figure out the best thing to do with the rest. (Trading Lohse and his 5 whole wins for a AA pitcher was the best thing to do.) In this case, Weathers, because of his age, is part of 'the rest.' And with the market the way it is, deciding what to do with him should be quite simple.

Stormy
07-31-2007, 03:09 PM
Except that if the goal is to win 81 games, then it has to be to win 81 games with a team on the upswing. Winning 81 games with a bunch of players that won't be around the next year is a pretty pointless exercise.

For example, if we were to win 81 games in 2008 (which with the current makeup of this team is an enormous stretch in my opinion). We would have won 81 games with our top producer exiting via Free Agency (Dunn), with our other top producer (Griffey) reaching age 38+ and nearing the end of his tenure with the Reds, and with our closer (Weathers) reaching 39 years of age before the season's end. Nevermind that this isn't an 81 win team in 2008, or that it's probably unlikely to expect Griffey to stay this healthy and productive again, or that Weathers isn't likely to remain quite this effective, or that Harang and Arroyo probably can't continue to pitch 200+IP of workhorse ball every fifth day with no viable help in the back 3/5 of the rotation and without benefit of a bullpen upgrade etc...

The point is *even if* retaining everyone led the 2008 team to 81 wins, it's an express train headed nowhere, as their key performers have likely reached the point of no return, and as the new reinforcements are actually pretty sparse aside from Votto and Bruce and maybe Bailey in the immediate future. Terrible design, assuming there even is one.

Johnny Footstool
07-31-2007, 03:52 PM
The Reds not listening to offers for Weathers makes about as much sense as the Pirates not listening to offers for Solomon Torres.

Matt700wlw
07-31-2007, 03:57 PM
I'm on the Trade Weathers boat all the way. I just think there's too much risk that he'll have a down year next year.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again....his stock has never, ever been higher...and it never will be again.

He WILL NOT pitch this good next year....in fact, he'll never pitch this good again. He's probably been more lucky than anything, in all honestly, but still...

BRM
07-31-2007, 03:58 PM
The Reds not listening to offers for Weathers makes about as much sense as the Pirates not listening to offers for Solomon Torres.

Is there any chance Weathers gets through waivers next month? I don't think he would personally.

puca
07-31-2007, 04:01 PM
Its not only the way he's pitching, but with the lack of a top-notch starter on the block, there seems to be a bit of a feeding frenzy for relief pitchers.

puca
07-31-2007, 04:01 PM
Is there any chance Weathers gets through waivers next month? I don't think he would personally.

Not a chance.

pedro
07-31-2007, 04:05 PM
Depends on who is looking to get him. He could slip through to a second or third place team but I doubt he'd make it all the way to the first place team. After all, why would a team that isn't in contention want him? He's worthless right?

IslandRed
07-31-2007, 04:11 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again....his stock has never, ever been higher...and it never will be again.

That's the theory. I'm skeptical the real-life market is backing it up. I would like to see him traded for a high-ceiling arm, but do we have any actual evidence that such an offer is or has been on the table? Or are we just guessing there should be? I've heard next to no buzz surrounding Weathers, and that's before Krivsky "pulled him off the table." (Quotes intentional; I suspect that was just posturing to let other teams know Weathers wasn't going to be dumped for scraps.)

I guess there's an argument to be made that the return now, unexceptional though it might be, will be better than it will be later, but I'd rather try again in the offseason if the offers now are that underwhelming.

Matt700wlw
07-31-2007, 04:16 PM
That's the theory. I'm skeptical the real-life market is backing it up. I would like to see him traded for a high-ceiling arm, but do we have any actual evidence that such an offer is or has been on the table?



It could also mean other teams realize the same thing I stated...what we're seeing and what they're seeing isn't going to last...so he's not worth picking up.

Caveat Emperor
07-31-2007, 04:23 PM
I'd only trade weathers if the return was really good. The Reds have such huge BP problems that dumping the only guy who is doing well, who also happens to be signed to cheap contract for 2008, on the assumption that after two solid years he can't possibly repeat his success, seems a bit short sighted to me. There's no reason to dump him IMO.

Yup.

I'd listen to offers for Weathers, but the bottom line really is that if you trade Weathers right now, he's someone you'll have to immediately replace in the offseason via trade or free agency.

Unless I'm blown away, I don't see a reason to move Weathers -- especially if this club harbors any delusions of being competitive in the free agency market this winter and possibly putting a winning ballclub on the field in 2008.

Johnny Footstool
07-31-2007, 04:25 PM
Depends on who is looking to get him. He could slip through to a second or third place team but I doubt he'd make it all the way to the first place team. After all, why would a team that isn't in contention want him? He's worthless right?

No, he'd be a valuable contributor on a contending team.

It's just that his value is being wasted on the Reds.


Yup.

I'd listen to offers for Weathers, but the bottom line really is that if you trade Weathers right now, he's someone you'll have to immediately replace in the offseason via trade or free agency.

Unless I'm blown away, I don't see a reason to move Weathers -- especially if this club harbors any delusions of being competitive in the free agency market this winter and possibly putting a winning ballclub on the field in 2008.

Weathers *can* be replaced via free agency or an off-season trade. Easily. That's how he was acquired in the first place.

The idea is to turn some of Weathers' current performance into younger, cheaper, future performance via a trade.

bucksfan2
07-31-2007, 04:29 PM
The deal has to be great because the reds still have to try and win games. Without weathers in the pen that would become very difficult. I could see moving him at the beginning of next season if you knew Guardado would be back but right now they are probably asking for too much.

Marc D
07-31-2007, 04:29 PM
I'd listen to offers for Weathers, but the bottom line really is that if you trade Weathers right now, he's someone you'll have to immediately replace in the offseason via trade or free agency.



What happens if we don't? We finish 6th in 2008?

Unassisted
07-31-2007, 04:30 PM
I've said it before, and I'll say it again....his stock has never, ever been higher...

If you look at post 18 in this thread, you'll see that Weather's ERA in '07 is the lowest it's been in 5 years, but in '01 and '02, it was under 3. He's not the flash-in-the-pan that you're painting him to be. The trend over the last 5 years is downward. He may be getting older, but he's also learning how to pitch more effectively within his limitations.

As I've said before, losing Weathers means the '07 Reds will lose more games between now and the end of the season. There isn't an heir apparent at closer. So since he's under contract for '08, it's not hard to imagine that losing Weathers would also cost the '08 Reds some games.

Johnny Footstool
07-31-2007, 04:36 PM
Here's the big question: *why* do the Reds need to try and win games now? What purpose will that serve? Why sacrifice an opportunity to improve in the long term for a few thousand ticket sales in August?

Unassisted
07-31-2007, 04:39 PM
Here's the big question: *why* do the Reds need to try and win games now? What purpose will that serve? Why sacrifice an opportunity to improve in the long term for a few thousand ticket sales in August?

They have an owner who's said to be impatient. Maybe it's a point of pride to Castellini not to go to owner's meetings with a club that has the worst record? Maybe he's concerned about disappointing 2007-8 season ticketholders?

We haven't heard of what the return for Weathers would be. There's no point in dumping him for flotsam when he's someone who can help the club win and doesn't cost much.

Since there's no heir apparent, if his replacement costs just as much or requires the Reds giving up prospects in a trade, what have the Reds really gained?

puca
07-31-2007, 04:40 PM
If you look at post 18 in this thread, you'll see that Weather's ERA in '07 is the lowest it's been in 5 years, but in '01 and '02, it was under 3. He's not the flash-in-the-pan that you're painting him to be. The trend over the last 5 years is downward. He may be getting older, but he's also learning how to pitch more effectively within his limitations.

As I've said before, losing Weathers means the '07 Reds will mean the Reds lose more games between now and the end of the season. There isn't an heir apparent at closer. So since he's under contract for '08, it's not hard to imagine that losing Weathers would also cost the '08 Reds some games.

But, unless you believe the Reds can contend in 2008, he will be of no help the next time it really matters. If he can be traded to fill some of the gaping holes on this roster with talent that will be here beyond next year, then moving him is the only thing that makes sense.

Obviously we have no idea what David Weather's trade value is, but it is unlikely to ever be higher than it is today. It is not so much that he can't pitch this well next year, but without a useful starter on the market and so many teams in need of pitching, it seems to be a seller's market.

Caveat Emperor
07-31-2007, 04:41 PM
Weathers *can* be replaced via free agency or an off-season trade. Easily. That's how he was acquired in the first place.

The idea is to turn some of Weathers' current performance into younger, cheaper, future performance via a trade.

Really.

I haven't studied the list of free agents for the upcoming '08 class in depth yet, but I'd hazard to guess that you're going to be hard press to "easily" find someone that has the track record of David Weathers and the ability to reproduce David Weathers' numbers at the same cost of David Weathers.

And I think you missed my point -- I'm completely OK with trading Weathers if you *actually* get younger, cheaper, future performance from Weathers. But more crap returns like the Germanos, Bongs, Nelsons, Chicks, Hancocks, Ramirezs, Harrises, and any of the other marginal-talent minor leaguers masquerading as real return that have passed through this system recently?

Pass.

puca
07-31-2007, 04:42 PM
They have an owner who's said to be impatient. Maybe it's a point of pride to Castellini not to go to owner's meetings with a club that has the worst record? Maybe he's concerned about disappointing 2007-8 season ticketholders?

We haven't heard of what the return for Weathers would be. There's no point in dumping him for flotsam when he's someone who can help the club win and doesn't cost much.

Since there's no heir apparent, if his replacement costs just as much or requires the Reds giving up prospects in a trade, what have the Reds really gained?

Do you believe that the team's roster as it stands now can compete in 2008? Without trading players that are in demand, how can the roster be reshaped?

Johnny Footstool
07-31-2007, 04:42 PM
But in Wayne's World, *everybody* is overpaying for relievers.

If Octavio Dotel can net the Royals Kyle Davies, surely Weathers could bring a decent AAA reliever.

flyer85
07-31-2007, 04:44 PM
But in Wayne's World, *everybody* is overpaying for relievers.

If Octavio Dotel can net the Royals Kyle Davies, surely Weathers could bring a decent AAA reliever.WK has shown the ability to go dumpster diving and come up with some goodies but has not shown a consistent ability to come out a winner when giving up something in return.

Johnny Footstool
07-31-2007, 04:45 PM
Really.

I haven't studied the list of free agents for the upcoming '08 class in depth yet, but I'd hazard to guess that you're going to be hard press to "easily" find someone that has the track record of David Weathers and the ability to reproduce David Weathers' numbers at the same cost of David Weathers.

The point is not to find a one-for-one David Weathers replacement. The point is to find a reasonable reliever at a reasonable price. It can be done. That's how the Reds found Weathers in the first place.


And I think you missed my point -- I'm completely OK with trading Weathers if you *actually* get younger, cheaper, future performance from Weathers. But more crap returns like the Germanos, Bongs, Nelsons, Chicks, Hancocks, Ramirezs, Harrises, and any of the other marginal-talent minor leaguers masquerading as real return that have passed through this system recently?

Pass.

That falls on the shoulders of the scouting department. If they can't sort through the flotsam and identify real talent, well, the Reds should just close shop.

Razor Shines
07-31-2007, 04:46 PM
If you look at post 18 in this thread, you'll see that Weather's ERA in '07 is the lowest it's been in 5 years, but in '01 and '02, it was under 3. He's not the flash-in-the-pan that you're painting him to be. The trend over the last 5 years is downward. He may be getting older, but he's also learning how to pitch more effectively within his limitations.

As I've said before, losing Weathers means the '07 Reds will mean the Reds lose more games between now and the end of the season. There isn't an heir apparent at closer. So since he's under contract for '08, it's not hard to imagine that losing Weathers would also cost the '08 Reds some games.

But he's never before had more than 15 saves. This year he has 20, possibly tricking another team into thinking that he's a legit back end reliever. I like Weathers a lot, it's just that I like him as a middle reliever. I also think that his stock is as high as it will ever be. I'd like to move him now for some young arms.

bucksfan2
07-31-2007, 04:49 PM
But he's never before had more than 15 saves. This year he has 20, possibly tricking another team into thinking that he's a legit back end reliever. I like Weathers a lot, it's just that I like him as a middle reliever. I also think that his stock is as high as it will ever be. I'd like to move him now for some young arms.

With as much scouting as there is out there the reds aren't going to trick any team about Weathers. When every reds fan knows that Weathers is the closer because he is the best option the reds have the rest of the league isn't stupid.

camisadelgolf
07-31-2007, 04:51 PM
Even if Weathers has a 4.00+ ERA, he'll still be reasonably priced. My personal opinion on Weathers is that he performs best when those around him aren't doing well. I think if you were to put him on an excellent team, he would basically be the 2007 version of Todd Coffey. I don't have any statistical evidence of it, but to me, it seems like Weathers struggles the most when the rest of the team is doing well. I think there's some psychological answer to it, but I'll just quit talking while I'm not too far behind.

Roy Tucker
07-31-2007, 04:51 PM
I view the Reds keeping Weathers for 2008 as sort of like the last All-Star player held back for extra innings. They have to field a team and someone has to play.

The meta-question is how far would Cincinnati attendance plummet if the Reds had a stretch like the 2001-2005 Tigers. Detroit took a pretty big attendance hit after moving into Comerica in 2000.



2007 AL Cent 61-44 1 1,732,689 36,866 3rd out of 14
2006 AL Cent 95-67 AL,2 2,595,937 32,049 5th out of 14
2005 AL Cent 71-91 4 2,024,431 24,993 10th out of 14
2004 AL Cent 72-90 4 1,917,004 23,667 9th out of 14
2003 AL Cent 43-119 5 1,368,245 16,892 13th out of 14
2002 AL Cent 55-106 5 1,503,623 18,679 12th out of 14
2001 AL Cent 66-96 4 1,921,305 23,720 9th out of 14
2000 AL Cent 79-83 3 2,438,617 30,106 7th out of 14

Unassisted
07-31-2007, 04:52 PM
Do you believe that the team's roster as it stands now can compete in 2008? Without trading players that are in demand, how can the roster be reshaped?

Either payroll has to go up or offseason trades have to happen. I think Castellini fears the local backlash that would result from letting the team bottom out-even though that may be the best way to get better in the long run. We can afford to sit behind our screens and take the long view. Castellini has external realities that won't let him pull the plug and let the ship sink.

Johnny Footstool
07-31-2007, 04:55 PM
Either payroll has to go up or offseason trades have to happen. I think Castellini fears the local backlash that would result from letting the team bottom out-even though that may be the best way to get better in the long run. We can afford to sit behind our screens and take the long view. Castellini has external realities that won't let him pull the plug and let the ship sink.

If Castellini's vision is so myopic that he'd rather stay the course and finish fifth than risk a short-term dropoff for a long-term improvement, I want him to sell the team.

I don't think that's the case. At least I hope it isn't.

Marc D
07-31-2007, 04:58 PM
With as much scouting as there is out there the reds aren't going to trick any team about Weathers. When every reds fan knows that Weathers is the closer because he is the best option the reds have the rest of the league isn't stupid.

They make dumb trades all the time. Just last year a certain GM made a trade for some guy with a bad shoulder iirc. All the scouting in the world didn't stop that.

Secondly I think most can see that Stormy is a good middle reliever not a true lights out closer. That still has value to a contender trying to shore up its pen for the stretch run. A lot more value than he should have for a team thats in last place with him.

I have a feeling this trade deadline will pass just like the offseason did. Our FO essentially doing nothing and expecting different results while the faithful excuse this by citing a slow trade market again.

Stormy
07-31-2007, 05:19 PM
If Castellini's vision is so myopic that he'd rather stay the course and finish fifth than risk a short-term dropoff for a long-term improvement, I want him to sell the team. I don't think that's the case. At least I hope it isn't.

Exactly, Lonny Bootstool. This is not some aging team that's been in contention, or finished in 2nd place the last 5 years, and now the F.O. has to go through an arduous dismantle and rebuild to get back into contention for the future. This is a team that in any given year is a great candidate to finish in last place, in what has been a traditionally weak division, for as far back as the eye can see. It's not painful to rebuild a 5th place team in the hopes of improving for the future, unless you're content with flashes of mediocrity and the status quo.

I don't expect BCast bought the Reds to languish in 5th place.

Johnny Footstool
07-31-2007, 05:32 PM
Exactly, Lonny Bootstool. This is not some aging team that's been in contention, or finished in 2nd place the last 5 years, and now the F.O. has to go through an arduous dismantle and rebuild to get back into contention for the future. This is a team that in any given year is a great candidate to finish in last place, in what has been a traditionally weak division, for as far back as the eye can see. It's not painful to rebuild a 5th place team in the hopes of improving for the future, unless you're content with flashes of mediocrity and the status quo.

I don't expect BCast bought the Reds to languish in 5th place.

It's kind of like a guy with a torn meniscus who would rather take 20 Advil a day and limp around than just get surgery and get his knee fixed.

Yes, making the necessary changes are going to be kind of painful for a while, but if you do it right, that dull, persistent ache goes away for several years.

Caveat Emperor
07-31-2007, 05:36 PM
It's kind of like a guy with a torn meniscus who would rather take 20 Advil a day and limp around than just get surgery and get his knee fixed.

Yes, making the necessary changes are going to be kind of painful for a while, but if you do it right, that dull, persistent ache goes away for several years.

Thats a poor analogy, because it presupposes the only way to fix this ballclub is to blow the operation up and start from scratch.

While that is certainly an option, it definately isn't the only path to the promised land -- especially if the team decides in the offseason to spend a their Milton Money in a more prudent manner and bumps payroll to add another couple relievers and a solid RH bat.

westofyou
07-31-2007, 05:44 PM
While that is certainly an option, it definately isn't the only path to the promised land

Five Year Plans are for Losers.

Bill Veeck


What's that smell man?

Cheech Marin

Razor Shines
07-31-2007, 07:28 PM
With as much scouting as there is out there the reds aren't going to trick any team about Weathers. When every reds fan knows that Weathers is the closer because he is the best option the reds have the rest of the league isn't stupid.

Yeah I don't know what I was thinking. GM's don't ever get fooled on players, that never happens.

OnBaseMachine
07-31-2007, 08:01 PM
Good thing the Reds held on the Weathers because we need him to help us make a push for only 15 games below .500. Woohoo! We didn't need Wladimir Balentien or Jeff Clement anyway.:rolleyes:

pedro
07-31-2007, 08:02 PM
Good thing the Reds held on the Weathers because we need him to help us make a push for only 15 games below .500. Woohoo! We didn't need Wladimir Balentien or Jeff Clement anyway.:rolleyes:

Good thing we know what was really offered for him so we can yell about it.

camisadelgolf
07-31-2007, 11:19 PM
Good thing the Reds held on the Weathers because we need him to help us make a push for only 15 games below .500. Woohoo! We didn't need Wladimir Balentien or Jeff Clement anyway.:rolleyes:

Weathers can help the team win next year, and if the Reds continue to do poorly, they can still trade Weathers (because there will always be a shortage of pitching in baseball). I'm not losing any sleep over Weathers not being traded. If the Reds and Weathers have bad years next year, then I might be a little annoyed.