PDA

View Full Version : Unrealistic expectations



Pages : [1] 2

RFS62
08-02-2007, 08:38 AM
One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the level of expectations baseball fans have for managers and general managers.

In our case, we expect our GM hires to be Branch Rickey, Billy Beane and Bob Howsam all rolled into one.

We expect our field managers to be Sparky Anderson.

And who do we hire to fill these jobs? Pretty much men who have little if any actual experience on the major league level in that job description.

We hire general managers who have worked under successful mentors for years and are deemed "ready" for their shot at the show.

We hire field managers who have either toiled in the minor leagues, played in the big leagues, or maybe both.

We pay them all on the low end of the scale for major league jobs.

Then we we scratch our heads when they don't win every trade and push every right button in every situation.

You get what you pay for. We do on the job training in Cincinnati.

No matter how smart or how prepared you may be from years of watching someone else do the job well, it's different when you get the big chair.

Every complicated job is like that. All the romantic stories about how Sparky came in and led the Big Red Machine to glory gloss over the fact that he inherited a stud filled lineup. The personnel made Sparky good, and he got great as he grew and learned his craft on its highest level.

Krivsky, no matter how smart he may or may not be, is still learning on the job, as ALL first time GMs are... as Billy Beane did.... as John Schurholtz did.... as Walt Jocketty did.

Narron did too, to a lesser degree, after a brief stint in Texas.

You pay for experience and a track record. We don't pay. We throw them down a well, don't teach them how to swim, don't throw them a rope, then we get mad at them when they drown.

redsmetz
08-02-2007, 09:01 AM
One thing that never ceases to amaze me is the level of expectations baseball fans have for managers and general managers.

In our case, we expect our GM hires to be Branch Rickey, Billy Beane and Bob Howsam all rolled into one.

We expect our field managers to be Sparky Anderson.

And who do we hire to fill these jobs? Pretty much men who have little if any actual experience on the major league level in that job description.

We hire general managers who have worked under successful mentors for years and are deemed "ready" for their shot at the show.

We hire field managers who have either toiled in the minor leagues, played in the big leagues, or maybe both.

We pay them all on the low end of the scale for major league jobs.

Then we we scratch our heads when they don't win every trade and push every right button in every situation.

You get what you pay for. We do on the job training in Cincinnati.

No matter how smart or how prepared you may be from years of watching someone else do the job well, it's different when you get the big chair.

Every complicated job is like that. All the romantic stories about how Sparky came in and led the Big Red Machine to glory gloss over the fact that he inherited a stud filled lineup. The personnel made Sparky good, and he got great as he grew and learned his craft on its highest level.

Krivsky, no matter how smart he may or may not be, is still learning on the job, as ALL first time GMs are... as Billy Beane did.... as John Schurholtz did.... as Walt Jocketty did.

Narron did too, to a lesser degree, after a brief stind in Texas.

You pay for experience and a track record. We don't pay. We throw them down a well, don't teach them how to swim, don't throw them a rope, then we get mad at them when they drown.

This is a bit of a red herring. I pointed out earlier this season that Jerry Narron pay wasn't far out of whack with regards to some other managers who are having success. For example, and it jumps out at you, he was just below Willie Randolph. Elsewhere you see Grady Little and Charlie Manuel.

I think you'd have to look at a multitude of factors to determine whether there's a correlation. Years of experience, ML and minor league; team's payroll, coaching staff etc.

It's just too simple to say the Reds' woes are due to the lower pay of their manager and GM. It's easy to throw out the old axiom "you get what you pay for", but I don't think it's that simple in baseball.


source Bill Madden, NY Daily News
Joe Torre, NYY $7.5 million
Lou Piniella, CHC $3.5 million tied with MIL
Bobby Cox, ATL $3 million
Tony La Russa, STL $2.8 million
Mike Scioscia, LAA $2 million
Jim Leyland, DET $2 million
Bruce Bochy, SF $1.75 million
Terry Francona, BOS $1.65 million
Phil Garner, HOU $1.5 million
Mike Hargrove, SEA $1.3 million
Ron Gardenhire, MIN $1.25 million
Ozzie Guillen, CHW $1.1 million
Eric Wedge, CLE $1.025 million
Jim Tracy, PIT $1 million
Bob Melvin, ARI $875,000
Buddy Bell, KC $825,000
Ned Yost, MIL $825,000 tied with CHI-N
Clint Hurdle, COL $800,000
Charlie Manuel, PHI $800,000
Willie Randolph, NYM $700,000
Jerry Narron, CIN $600,000
Grady Little, LAD $600,000
Sammy Perlozzo, BAL $600,000
Ron Washington, TEX $600,000
Joe Maddon, TAM $550,000
John Gibbons, TOR $500,000
Manny Acta, WAS $500,000
Bob Geren, OAK $500,000

Blue represents Division leaders; Red, of course, is our beloved team

bucksfan2
08-02-2007, 09:01 AM
I agree and disagree with your statement. I think most of the fans have unrealistic expectations of the front office. It is not a little over a year and a half into Krivsky tenure and people are already barking becaues the reds don't have a winner on the field. What we as fans also dont know is what roll the owner or the financial officer has in the decisions that are made. For example what happens if Krivsky had Jr traded a few weeks ago. However Allen runs into Cast's office and says you cant trade Jr we will lose too much money if you do. None of us fans are privy to the discussions that happen within the front office. IMO the biggest thing for GM's is that the owner and fan base let a guy come in and make the changes he wants to make. He has a plan and just because the media doesn't print the plan let the GM see his plan happen.

As for the field manager you get what you pay for. IMO over the past 10 years the reds had one manager who knew what he was doing. This isn't rocket science, it is just watching the game being played. Guys like Knight, Boone, Miley, and Narron have no pull over most of the players here. They have no past history of success. They micro managed the players they could and made decisions that left you scratching your head. IMO a good manager can be worth 10 games a season. A bad manager can lose you 15-20 games a season. The problem is that this is hard to quantify. Moves a manager makes, esp in regards to pitching, can hurt a team for the next week. A move made in one game may have an effect on the games played for the rest of a series.

You need to find the right type of manager for your club. The style of a manager effects each team differently. I look at Joe Torre and wonder why he is such a good manager. Many people would fail in that Yankee situation because of the ego's, payroll, expectations, but Torre massages each player differently and wins games. IMO Torre wouldn't make a good manager of this reds club. His style of managing wouldn't work with the reds. The most important thing for a front office to find a manager is to find the one who best fits the personality of our club.

RFS62
08-02-2007, 09:10 AM
This is a bit of a red herring. I pointed out earlier this season that Jerry Narron pay wasn't far out of whack with regards to some other managers who are having success. For example, and it jumps out at you, he was just below Willie Randolph. Elsewhere you see Grady Little and Charlie Manuel.




I'm not saying it's due to low pay. I'm saying the low pay is a reflection of their experience, or lack thereof.

It's the lack of experience that I'm talking about in both positions.

I've trained a lot of very bright people over the years in my line of work. They all knew the job very well on an academic level before they moved up to making in the field decisions.

Invariably, once you get the job and the decisions become your own, you realize how much more to it there is than you could have ever imagined, no matter how well prepared or educated about the job description you may be.

There is a tremendous benefit to time on the job when you are calling the shots. You learn a lot, no matter how smart or how well prepared you may be.

That's what we've been doing. On the job training in key positions.

redsmetz
08-02-2007, 09:27 AM
RFS62, thanks for the clarification. Doesn't it place us in a quandry with folks wanting to throw people overboard and then beginning again (even with more experienced people having to learn our system and it's assets)? A

It's interesting that over a third of the current managers are in their first managerial job (not counting the interims). Most are fairly successful this season (or in recent seasons), although some have endured some difficulties as they've grown in the job.

The first timers are Scioscia, LAA; Guillen, CHI-A; Gardenhire, MIN; Wedge, CLE; Yost, MIL; Hurdle, COL; Randolph, NYM; Washington, TEX; Gibbons, TOR; Acta, WAS; and Geren, OAK. One more, Joe Maddon is in his first full-time gig having been a interim for about 20 games in two seasons prior to going to Tampa Bay.

That's quite a collection and many of those clubs are in the hunt in their division or the Wild Card. Everybody has to learn at some point and sometimes there are difficulties. Heck, while Sparky had some experience managing in the minors, he was still "Sparky Who?" when he was introduced here. Now he's a Hall of Famer.

RANDY IN INDY
08-02-2007, 09:37 AM
You are as good as what you throw out on the field, day in, day out. Therein lies the problem. Couple that with a small payroll and a fast turnaround is usually not in the works.

Marc D
08-02-2007, 10:17 AM
Inexperience does not make one see value in a Juan Castro, Cormier, Narron, Bray, Majewski, or a Stanton. Many people who have no GM experience whatsoever could have told you they are worthless before team resources were squanderd on them.

Likewise, putting a small bet down on the long shot at the track and having a couple win does not indicate some kind of clairvoyance. If that trait was in place the first list wouldn't be so long.

WK isn't being taken to task because he hasn't built a winner in less than 2 years. He's being taken to task because he hasn't shown any ability whatsoever, outside of dumpster diving, to do so.

He's taken a bad team and made it worse. Tenure's got nothing to do with it, its a lack of ability. Let him wreck someone elses team to get his OJT.

redsmetz
08-02-2007, 11:40 AM
Inexperience does not make one see value in a Juan Castro, Cormier, Narron, Bray, Majewski, or a Stanton. Many people who have no GM experience whatsoever could have told you they are worthless before team resources were squanderd on them.

Likewise, putting a small bet down on the long shot at the track and having a couple win does not indicate some kind of clairvoyance. If that trait was in place the first list wouldn't be so long.

WK isn't being taken to task because he hasn't built a winner in less than 2 years. He's being taken to task because he hasn't shown any ability whatsoever, outside of dumpster diving, to do so.

He's taken a bad team and made it worse. Tenure's got nothing to do with it, its a lack of ability. Let him wreck someone elses team to get his OJT.

I would suggest that the ledger sheet is more heavily weighted on the good selections: Hatteberg, Phillips, Hamilton, Arroyo, Burton, Coutlangus, Gonzelez, re-upping Weathers and so on. Some would disagree with you have Bray on that list, and I think Stanton doesn't necessarily belong on your list either (as we're now seeing him).

It's not a perfect world and there is plenty of give and take each way.

Cooper
08-02-2007, 11:43 AM
If i was an owner -I'd pay big for a GM with a good track record and spend a small amount on a manager.

If you have a good GM who can implement and carry out an organizational philosophy and plan --then the Manager becomes just another employee to carry out that mission. If the GM is smart enough and knows what he's doing -you won't need a Manager who costs a lot.

I guess i'm referring to the Billy Beane route.

pedro
08-02-2007, 11:50 AM
Likewise, putting a small bet down on the long shot at the track and having a couple win does not indicate some kind of clairvoyance.

.

Nor does giving the guy no credit for doing so. Krivsky tried to back fill the roster with vets b/c he had the budget to do so, there weren't a lot of better options available, and b/c he apparently believed they could be moderately competitive in a weak division. Unfortunately the bullpen imploded and Encarnacion, Freel and Ross really never showed up this year. Now we're dining on that sour fruit. It happens. Regardless, all the hand wringing and second guessing in the world doesn't change the fact that a lot of folks here have unbelievably unrealistic expectations and can't divine the difference between short term stop gap acquisitions and long term strategy.

Will Krivsky turn out to be a bad GM? Quite possibly. But just b/c he's not shaking it off for you after you pee doesn't mean he's clueless.

Marc D
08-02-2007, 12:01 PM
Regardless, all the hand wringing and second guessing in the world doesn't change the fact that a lot of folks here have unbelievably unrealistic expectations and can't divine the difference between short term stop gap acquisitions and long term strategy.

So appearantly you can? I would like some enlightenment on this. What exactly is his long term strategy? I ask because I haven't seen the first indicator he has one.

Nice to know we have a non angry clairvoyant in our midst.


But just b/c he's not shaking it off for you after you pee doesn't mean he's clueless.

You stay classy.

westofyou
08-02-2007, 12:08 PM
Nice to know we have a non angry clairvoyant in our midst.

At least it's a different path up the mountain to Frankensteins house that the rest of the mob takes every day.

pedro
08-02-2007, 12:13 PM
So appearantly you can? I would like some enlightenment on this. What exactly is his long term strategy? I ask because I haven't seen the first indicator he has one.





I don't know. But I'm willing admit that I don't unlike a good many of you who seem to have such a great idea of what's going on.

pedro
08-02-2007, 12:15 PM
At least it's a different path up the mountain to Frankensteins house that the rest of the mob takes every day.

In the velvet darkness of the blackest night
Burning bright, there's a guiding star
No matter what or who you are.

There's a light over at the Frankenstein Place
There's a light burning in the fireplace
There's a light, light in the darkness of everybody's life.

I can see the flag fly, I can see the rain
Just the same, there has got to be
Something better here for you and me.

There's a light over at the Frankenstein Place
There's a light burning in the fireplace
There's a light, light in the darkness of everybody's life.

The darkness must go down the river of nights dreaming
Flow morphia slow, let the sun and light come streaming
Into my life, into my life.

There's a light over at the Frankenstein Place
There's a light burning in the fireplace
There's a light, light in the darkness of everybody's life.

Johnny Footstool
08-02-2007, 12:19 PM
Cue squirt guns and newspapers
In the velvet darkness of the blackest night
Burning bright, there's a guiding star
No matter what or who you are.

There's a (Cue lighters) light over at the Frankenstein Place
There's a light burning in the fireplace
There's a light, light in the (Lighters off; scream "virgin" at anyone still holding a lighter) darkness of everybody's life.

redsmetz
08-02-2007, 12:20 PM
If i was an owner -I'd pay big for a GM with a good track record and spend a small amount on a manager.

If you have a good GM who can implement and carry out an organizational philosophy and plan --then the Manager becomes just another employee to carry out that mission. If the GM is smart enough and knows what he's doing -you won't need a Manager who costs a lot.

I guess i'm referring to the Billy Beane route.

By the Billy Beane route, do you mean selecting someone to be a first time GM who had spent just ten years on the management side, four of which were as an Assistant GM? If so, then that's Billy Beane.

Krivsky on the other hand spent 26 years as an assistant GM and is also in his first GM position. Beane inherited a heck of an organization and has had ten years to continue to build on what Alderson left him.

pedro
08-02-2007, 12:21 PM
Thanks Johnny. I forgot the stage instructions.

Marc D
08-02-2007, 12:31 PM
I don't know. But I'm willing admit that I don't unlike a good many of you who seem to have such a great idea of what's going on.


I have zero idea what his long term plan is. I can only go by what I have seen so far and the bottom line is he has made the team worse than what it was when he took over.

I may be just a poor dumb mob member but when I see a guy hired to improve something and 2 years later its worse than when he took over I start to doubt his ability.

Stormy
08-02-2007, 12:33 PM
I would suggest that the ledger sheet is more heavily weighted on the good selections: Hatteberg, Phillips, Hamilton, Arroyo, Burton, Coutlangus, Gonzelez, re-upping Weathers and so on. Some would disagree with you have Bray on that list, and I think Stanton doesn't necessarily belong on your list either (as we're now seeing him).

It's not a perfect world and there is plenty of give and take each way.

I think the bad outweighs the good by about a 3-to-1 basis, and including guys like Gonzalez on your list amazes me. He has an OBP of .297 (tie-2nd lowest among regular NL SS), would be leading the league in errors by a huge margin at his position (despite a modest zone rating) if not for his recent bereavement leave (of which I pray for the best), and has a pretty hefty pricetag for 3 years.

And as long as we are on the topic, I just don't understand the torch you continue to carry for Stanton, always as though he's really improved and is now showing why he was signed. He just came off by far his worst month: a 7.45ERA 1.76WHIP in July and the numbers don't lie as he was hit hard and regularly in July. Of course, all of his months look pretty putrid aside from his June ERA, as he's getting raked at a .300+ clip, while surrendering plenty of EBH power in the process.

pedro
08-02-2007, 12:34 PM
I have zero idea what his long term plan is. I can only go by what I have seen so far and the bottom line is he has made the team worse than what it was when he took over.

I may be just a poor dumb mob member but when I see a guy hired to improve something and 2 years later its worse than when he took over I start to doubt his ability.

Things aren't always what they appear on the surface.

(although many times they are, we'll just have to wait and see.)

edabbs44
08-02-2007, 12:45 PM
I would suggest that the ledger sheet is more heavily weighted on the good selections: Hatteberg, Phillips, Hamilton, Arroyo, Burton, Coutlangus, Gonzelez, re-upping Weathers and so on. Some would disagree with you have Bray on that list, and I think Stanton doesn't necessarily belong on your list either (as we're now seeing him).

It's not a perfect world and there is plenty of give and take each way.

If the ledger was more heavily weigthed on the good vs the bad, the team wouldn't be where they currently are. And to say that some of these acquisitions can be judged as "good" is a bit optomistic. Burton? Arroyo is currently Jekyll and Hyde, and I'm not looking forward to when that extension kicks in. Hatteberg was an absolute non-entity down the stretch last season and has already started the patented 2nd half fade. Gonzalez hasn't shown much, as his defense has been less than advertised (but he does have some issues off the field).

In addition, I can't believe you think Stanton isn't a negative. He has been a debacle.

Bottom line is that the total product is what GMs are ultimately graded on, not by picking and choosing certain moves that work out. He just isn't cutting it.

westofyou
08-02-2007, 12:46 PM
I may be just a poor dumb mob member but when I see a guy hired to improve something and 2 years later its worse than when he took over I start to doubt his ability.

The game is littered with great GM's that eat dirt to get where they want.

Considering the recent draft and financial history of the Reds the rope that a GM gets from folks around here is not only greased but it's extra short and frayed.

Branch Rickey couldn't turn this bus around as fast as dictated by some here.

Shapiro 2002


2000 2nd 90 72 .556 5
2001 1st 91 71 .562 +6 AL CENTRAL CHAMPIONS
2002 3rd 74 88 .457 20.5
2003 4th 68 94 .420 22
2004 3rd 80 82 .494 12
2005 2nd 93 69 .574 6
2006 4th 78 84 .481 18


Dave Dombrowski 2003

2000 3rd 79 83 .488 16
2001 4th 66 96 .407 25
2002 5th 55 106 .342 39
2003 5th 43 119 .265 47
2004 4th 72 90 .444 20
2005 4th 71 91 .438 28
2006 2nd 95 67 .586 1 AL CHAMPIONS

pedro
08-02-2007, 12:49 PM
The game is littered with great GM's that eat dirt to get where they want.

Considering the recent draft and financial history of the Reds the rope that a GM gets from folks around here is not only greased but it's extra short and frayed.

Branch Rickey couldn't turn this bus around as fast as dictated by some here.

Shapiro 2002


2000 2nd 90 72 .556 5
2001 1st 91 71 .562 +6 AL CENTRAL CHAMPIONS
2002 3rd 74 88 .457 20.5
2003 4th 68 94 .420 22
2004 3rd 80 82 .494 12
2005 2nd 93 69 .574 6
2006 4th 78 84 .481 18


Dave Dombrowski 2003

2000 3rd 79 83 .488 16
2001 4th 66 96 .407 25
2002 5th 55 106 .342 39
2003 5th 43 119 .265 47
2004 4th 72 90 .444 20
2005 4th 71 91 .438 28
2006 2nd 95 67 .586 1 AL CHAMPIONS

But I thought that dirt would taste like chocolate!

Marc D
08-02-2007, 01:06 PM
The game is littered with great GM's that eat dirt to get where they want.

Considering the recent draft and financial history of the Reds the rope that a GM gets from folks around here is not only greased but it's extra short and frayed.

Branch Rickey couldn't turn this bus around as fast as dictated by some here.




I see an active Dan O.

You see a potentially great GM worth comparing to Dombrowski and Shapiro.

To each his own. I hope you are right, I honestly do. My fear is that we wait to make sure, Bob C realizes WK isn't the guy and we've added a few more years to the unending misery.

westofyou
08-02-2007, 01:10 PM
You see a potentially great GM worth comparing to Dombrowski and Shapiro.

No I see a guy who came on at the start of ST 18 months ago under a new owner he didn't know and taking over a team that already had the franchises worst pitching in a 120 plus history and hadn't had a first round draft choice since 1998 even sniff big league success.

In short it was a mess, not a walk in the park.

edabbs44
08-02-2007, 01:11 PM
The game is littered with great GM's that eat dirt to get where they want.

Considering the recent draft and financial history of the Reds the rope that a GM gets from folks around here is not only greased but it's extra short and frayed.

Branch Rickey couldn't turn this bus around as fast as dictated by some here.

Shapiro 2002


2000 2nd 90 72 .556 5
2001 1st 91 71 .562 +6 AL CENTRAL CHAMPIONS
2002 3rd 74 88 .457 20.5
2003 4th 68 94 .420 22
2004 3rd 80 82 .494 12
2005 2nd 93 69 .574 6
2006 4th 78 84 .481 18


Dave Dombrowski 2003

2000 3rd 79 83 .488 16
2001 4th 66 96 .407 25
2002 5th 55 106 .342 39
2003 5th 43 119 .265 47
2004 4th 72 90 .444 20
2005 4th 71 91 .438 28
2006 2nd 95 67 .586 1 AL CHAMPIONS

The Indians and Tigers got rid of some key players in this time period, causing the team to endure some lean years. If the poor performance of the Reds was due to Krivsky trading their best players for prospects (i.e., fire sale), I think most would understand. IIRC, Detroit dealt their #1 starter in '02 and Cleveland lost players like Colon and Ramirez. The Reds haven't had any excuse like that.

pedro
08-02-2007, 01:13 PM
I see an active Dan O.

You see a potentially great GM worth comparing to Dombrowski and Shapiro.

To each his own. I hope you are right, I honestly do. My fear is that we wait to make sure, Bob C realizes WK isn't the guy and we've added a few more years to the unending misery.

I think the point he's making isn't that there's evidence that Krivsky is a great GM but that it isn't always so easy to tell at this point in any GM's tenure. At least if your primary measuring stick is on field performance at the major league level.

Personally I feel that Krivsky will likely get canned after the season and that Walt Jocketty will be the GM next year.

westofyou
08-02-2007, 01:15 PM
I think most would understand. IIRC, Detroit dealt their #1 starter in '02 and Cleveland lost players like Colon and Ramirez. The Reds haven't had any excuse like that.

Ramirez left in 2000, Colon netted Sizemore, Lee and Phillips, I don't think that hurt them a bit.

Jeff Weaver was the Tigers # 1 starter, he was dealt as much for character issues as performance.

NJReds
08-02-2007, 01:18 PM
No I see a guy who came on at the start of ST 18 months ago under a new owner he didn't know and taking over a team that already had the franchises worst pitching in a 120 plus history and hadn't had a first round draft choice since 1998 even sniff big league success.

In short it was a mess, not a walk in the park.

How much did Marge's cost-cutting ways with respect to scouts and player development hurt this franchise. I think that the organization is still recovering from that.

westofyou
08-02-2007, 01:23 PM
How much did Marge's cost-cutting ways with respect to scouts and player development hurt this franchise. I think that the organization is still recovering from that.

Immensely, the organizations cash flow and scouting network was stripped bare and they're still feeling it today. Look at the shrinking market size, radio and tv network, the delay in building the stadium, the lack of more then a smattering of impact players over the last 20 years that were Reds originally. That's all from the last 20 years and it's all being dealt with by the new ownership group and GM. Poor management and no cash is the games biggest white whale, just look at the history of the Phillies or the A's, or the Reds in the 30's. Ten years of bad decisions can haunt you, 20 can kill the fans soul.

edabbs44
08-02-2007, 01:25 PM
Ramirez left in 2000, Colon netted Sizemore, Lee and Phillips, I don't think that hurt them a bit.

Jeff Weaver was the Tigers # 1 starter, he was dealt as much for character issues as performance.

What are you talking about?

You don't think trading Colon and losing Ramirez hurt the performance of the team around the time Shapiro took over? You aren't making any sense.

If WK had to trade Dunn, Harang and Griffey this offseason, no one would blame Wayne for the mess that takes the field every night.

WVRedsFan
08-02-2007, 01:29 PM
RFS62 is 100% correct. And if you'll notice he did not give his opinion on Krivsky, just that he was learning, and I'll agree with that. The larger question is while he's in learning mode, will the fans ever come back to the stadium regularly. I can't answer that question.

IF we could see one iota of improvement in this team, I'd let him slide, but we've seen the team go down. The mix of players (whether or not they are good individually) has been horrible. He overvalues traits that simply will not promote a winner (veteran, proven, ec., even if they're over the hill). He is quick to judge long-term success even though it never pans out (Narron, Arroyo, etc.), and yet grants long term contracts to those he first signs (Cromier, Stanton). Yes, he's learning, but he's not getting good marks. And he's spending money on this fodder, too.

I really didn't expect to win the division in a couple of years, but I was expecting at least a competitive team. Since last April or May, all I've seen is a continual decline and nothing being done about it. The players that were already here, Encarnacion, Dunn, Griffey, Freel, have performed fairly well (with the notable exception of Freel who seems to have finally gone back to what he was before he became a star). Outside of Hateberg and Phillips, the acqisitions have been a disaster. All of them. That speaks volumes.

But, like my old buddy pedro, I don't think it matters much. Wayne will be gone come October and Jockety or someone else--whoever Castellini wanted to begin with--will be on board with a new manager. Then we can start this whole process agains with hopefully better results.

westofyou
08-02-2007, 01:30 PM
What are you talking about?

You don't think trading Colon and losing Ramirez hurt the performance of the team around the time Shapiro took over? You aren't making any sense.

If WK had to trade Dunn, Harang and Griffey this offseason, no one would blame Wayne for the mess that takes the field every night.
Ramirez left and they won the division title that year, it must have crushed them eh?

When Colon was dealt they were 5 games under .500 and 7.5 games back, I'm sure they were making the right move since he was FA to be.

Marc D
08-02-2007, 01:31 PM
I think the point he's making isn't that there's evidence that Krivsky is a great GM but that it isn't always so easy to tell at this point in any GM's tenure. At least if your primary measuring stick is on field performance at the major league level.

I can't speak for everyone in the anti WK crowd but I personally have never measured him based on just plain W's and L's. I have said many times I'm looking for benchmarks that show me he's on the right track or not. Just like looking at a prospects stats can give you insight(for lack of a better word) I think weighing the good and the bad from the first 18 months can do the same for WK.

Is it a lot of guess work? Yes but if a prospects's numbers show me he can't get on base or hit for power in the minors I don't need to see him fail in the majors for 5 years to validate my assumptions.

He's got Arroyo(kinda), BP, maybe Ross and maybe Hamilton on the plus side of the ledger and a much longer list on the bad side. There is sufficient cause imo for people to doubt WK's ability regardless of tenure and based on much more than just W's and L's from the MLB team.


Personally I feel that Krivsky will likely get canned after the season and that Walt Jocketty will be the GM next year.

I hope very much that you are right.

Stormy
08-02-2007, 01:35 PM
The Indians [edit] got rid of some key players in this time period, causing the team to endure some lean years. If the poor performance of the Reds was due to Krivsky trading their best players for prospects (i.e., fire sale), I think most would understand.

You're 100% accurate about the Indians, and the Reds unwillingness to make the hard decisions necessary to rebuild. I'd guess that the vast majority of fans would gladly 'eat the dirt' of lean years, if they saw decisive moves being made to renovate the team. Instead, we get half measures, indecision, and a demonstrated desire to try to 'win now', 'stay competetive' with a team that's not even close. The penchant to contend rather than go through the pains of a rebuild are the ENTIRE problem, so telling the fanbase that they don't have the stomach for it is about 180 degrees from what is actually taking place.

M2
08-02-2007, 01:41 PM
I think it's unrealistic to expect every move to turn up roses. Sometimes a move that looks great on paper doesn't pan out and that's fine.

I'm also cool with the notion that sometimes a non-conventional or counter-intuitive move is in order.

That said, what I do think is realistic is that the GM be able to clearly explain his philosophy and direction. Wanting to have a good team with a good farm system satisfies neither requirement. IMO, some GMs are inarticulate on this matter because they lack direction. They make moves in a haphazard fashion and they hope it adds up to a whole.

No matter what you might have thought about Jim Bowden, he excelled at explaining why he was doing what he was doing and what the desired outcome of the move was. Fault him all you like for his moves not delivering the goods, but it's no coincidence he spent more than a decade in the Reds' GM job. You could take JimBo to task for execution, but you always understood his line of thinking.

IMO, it's unrealistic to expect to last very long if you go the inscrutable route. Either you win or you're gone. An example from the managerial side, the second Jimy Williams' teams start losing he's out the door. Why? Because he gives you nothing to judge him on except for what he just did. If you don't like what's happening he can't be bothered to explain how things will improve in the future.

Pete Mackanin seems to do a pretty good job on explaining himself. He hasn't offered up a ton in terms of vision, but that's to be expected from an interim manager.

I think Wayne Krivsky needs to dispel the notion that he's lacking in the direction department and establish what his expectations are for the club in terms of performance and style of play. He'd probably find him that people would be forgiving if the club misses on the performance end if they have a clear idea as to what the driving forces are behind the team.

M2
08-02-2007, 01:43 PM
You're 100% accurate about the Indians, and the Reds unwillingness to make the hard decisions necessary to rebuild. I'd guess that the vast majority of fans would gladly 'eat the dirt' of lean years, if they saw decisive moves being made to renovate the team. Instead, we get half measures, indecision, and a demonstrated desire to try to 'win now', 'stay competetive' with a team that's not even close. The penchant to contend rather than go through the pains of a rebuild are the ENTIRE problem, so telling the fanbase that they don't have the stomach for it is about 180 degrees from what is actually taking place.

Excellent post. A big problem with the Reds in recent years is the front office and ownership haven't been able to be honest with themselves and instead have been content to pursue follies.

edabbs44
08-02-2007, 01:46 PM
Ramirez left and they won the division title that year, it must have crushed them eh?

When Colon was dealt they were 5 games under .500 and 7.5 games back, I'm sure they were making the right move since he was FA to be.

Doesn't matter if it was the wrong or right move to make. You were comparing the struggles of each team relative to the newly hired GMs. I said that Shapiro lost players like Manny, Colon, Alomar, etc which was the major factor as to why Shapiro "struggled" at the outset of his tenure. Dombrowski traded his best pitcher. Krivsky hasn't had to deal with anything like that and he is still struggling. I would have no issue with the current performance of the team if Wayne had to deal Griffey, Dunn and Harang over the last year. But that isn't the case.

There's no comparison.

edabbs44
08-02-2007, 01:47 PM
You're 100% accurate about the Indians, and the Reds unwillingness to make the hard decisions necessary to rebuild. I'd guess that the vast majority of fans would gladly 'eat the dirt' of lean years, if they saw decisive moves being made to renovate the team. Instead, we get half measures, indecision, and a demonstrated desire to try to 'win now', 'stay competetive' with a team that's not even close. The penchant to contend rather than go through the pains of a rebuild are the ENTIRE problem, so telling the fanbase that they don't have the stomach for it is about 180 degrees from what is actually taking place.

Couldn't have said it better myself.:thumbup:

redsmetz
08-02-2007, 01:55 PM
I see an active Dan O.

You see a potentially great GM worth comparing to Dombrowski and Shapiro.

To each his own. I hope you are right, I honestly do. My fear is that we wait to make sure, Bob C realizes WK isn't the guy and we've added a few more years to the unending misery.

I can't say whether Krivsky will rank with either of them, but they both had some fairly disappointing years (and that's being mild on Dumbrowski). Any Tigers fan could have said the same thing about Dave Dumbrowski - they were absolutely worse than we are now. The Tigers lost 119 games the first year DD was General Manager (they'd lost 102 games the year before when he was president). They subequently lost 90 and 91 games respectively the next two years before going to the Series in 2006).

There is no magic wand. I don't care to be part of the mob that screams for the head of Wayne on a platter. It's so completely too short a time to know if he's a good GM or not.

The original premise was that one should hire a raw manager or GM. I mentioned that nearly half of all the present managers are on their first team at this moment. Many of them are doing quite well. The original premise also suggested that a seasoned GM would be a better choice - someone else suggested a Billy Beane model. I pointed out that Wayne had more than six times the experience of as an assistant GM as Beane did.

These really are red herrings, as I said. We could spit lists of successes and failures back and forth and even those can't touch on it well enough because it's just too early to know. This team has had needs all throughout its system and the truth is it must field a team at the ML level with some players or another. I do know we've now twice gone through the trade season without giving up one significant prospect. We'll be shedding some troublesome contracts, etc. There is certainly not enough data available to judge the matter - protestations here notwithstanding.

pedro
08-02-2007, 01:59 PM
Doesn't matter if it was the wrong or right move to make. You were comparing the struggles of each team relative to the newly hired GMs. I said that Shapiro lost players like Manny, Colon, Alomar, etc which was the major factor as to why Shapiro "struggled" at the outset of his tenure. Dombrowski traded his best pitcher. Krivsky hasn't had to deal with anything like that and he is still struggling. I would have no issue with the current performance of the team if Wayne had to deal Griffey, Dunn and Harang over the last year. But that isn't the case.

There's no comparison.

Again, the Tribe won the division in Manny's first year in Boston.

Dombrowski traded Jeff Weaver. So what?

pedro
08-02-2007, 02:02 PM
Another thing regarding Shapiro is that he had the benefit of 10 years in the Indians organization prior to his becoming GM. That's 10 years in what was already a well run franchise. So yeah, there's no comparison but it isn't merely in relation to the factors you mentioned but also those you so conveniently overlook.

edabbs44
08-02-2007, 02:02 PM
Again, the Tribe won the division in Manny's first year in Boston.

Dombrowski traded Jeff Weaver. So what?

You don't think that the "struggles" of those GMs in the lean years were related to the rebuilding processes they were undergoing?

Stormy
08-02-2007, 02:10 PM
You don't think that the "struggles" of those GMs in the lean years were related to the rebuilding processes they were undergoing?


Again, you're right. Think of it in these terms, in 2001 Cleveland was still enjoying the conclusion of their streak of 6 of 7 first place finishes. Then consider that on the cusp of Shapiro's advent they still had a 'prime years' version of Thome (1040+OPS), R. Alomar (who was perhaps the elite MI in the game at the time, 950OPS GG 2B), Juan Gonzalez (970OPS), Ellis Burks (920OPS), Omar, Vizquel's superb glove, Colon (who was enjoying his best season in 2002 at the time of the trade 2.55ERA), and a truly elite veteran bullpen.

A few left prior to Shapiro's watch, but most left during, and not in some piecemeal 'how can we retain our winning ways, but still start a rebuild' manner akin to the Reds' current M.O. So, the drop-off Shapiro should have inherited in terms of production was *enormous* as those players departed either during, or immediately preceding his arrival. However, to state it in oversimplification, Shapiro had a visionary plan delineating the path of a complete overhaul, and adhered to it through the lean years of divestment of talent.

Sure, there were ups and downs, there were moves that backfired, and there were shortlived successes, but in the end, following that plan lead the Indians to youthful promise and respectability within 2+ years! By 2004 they were .500, and it was a .500 that showed promise and direction for the future with all o fthe youth starting to blossom (as opposed to a near .500 like the 2006 Reds where everything conspires to make a patsy look like a mildly competetive squad despite little future promise, and the unwitting GM falls for the mirage hook line and sinker). For a franchise of Cleveland's size to divest themselves the first place talent of Thome, Alomar, Vizquel, Ramirez, Burks, Juan Gon, Colon, their veteran BP etc... mostly in 2000-2002 and to be completely rebuilt and headed towards future contention by 2004-2005, and built for the longhaul of long-term success, is fantastic.

Too bad we haven't seen 1 single sign, not 1 (much less dozens) that Krivsky is folowing any such plan or has any idea how to move his veterans and develop and acquire the right blend of youth.

pedro
08-02-2007, 02:12 PM
Again, you're right. Think of it in these terms, in 2001 Cleveland was still enjoying the conclusion of their streak of 6 of 7 first place finishes. Then consider that on the cusp of Shapiro's advent they still had a 'prime years' version of Thome (1040+OPS), R. Alomar (who was perhaps the elite MI in the game at the time, 950OPS GG 2B), Juan Gonzalez (970OPS), Ellis Burks (920OPS), Omar, Vizquel's superb glove, Colon (who was enjoying his best season in 2002 at the time of the trade 2.55ERA), and a truly elite veteran bullpen.

A few left prior to Shapiro's watch, but most left during, and not in some piecemeal 'how can we retain our winning ways, but still start a rebuild' manner akin to the Reds' current M.O. So, the drop-off Shapiro should have inherited in terms of production was *enormous* as those players departed either during, or immediately preceding his arrival. However, to state it in oversimplification, Shapiro had a visionary plan delineating the path of a complete overhaul, and adhered to it through the lean years of divestment of talent.

Sure, there were ups and downs, there were moves that backfired, and there were shortlived successes, but in the end, following that plan lead the Indians with youthful promise and respectability within 2 years! By 2004 they were .500, and it was a .500 that showed promise and direction for the future with all o fthe youth starting to blossom (as opposed to a near .500 like the 2006 Reds where everything conspires to make a patsy look like a mildly competetive squad despite little future promise). For a franchise of Cleveland's size to divest themselves the first place talent of Thome, Alomar, Vizquel, Ramirez, Burks, Juan Gon, Colon, their veteran BP etc... in 2001-2003 and to be completely rebuilt and headed towards future contention by 2004-2005, and built for the longhaul of long-term success, is fantastic.

Too bad we haven't seen 1 single sign, not 1 (much less dozens) that Krivsky is folowing any such plan or has any idea how to move his veterans and develop and acuire the right blend of youth.

And you too are conveniently ignoring the fact that Mark Shapiro was a long term employee of an already well run franchise. There is absolutely no comparison between the situations inherited by Shapiro and Krivsky.

Stormy
08-02-2007, 02:18 PM
And you too are conveniently ignoring the fact that Mark Shapiro was a long term employee of an already well run franchise. There is absolutely no comparison between the situations inherited by Shapiro and Krivsky.

That's true. I have never brought the comparison up (ever) as I'm not big on comparing disparate organizations. I simply responded to others in this thread who had made an assertion that Cleveland's GM had gone through similar ordeals to what the Reds currently face. I disagree. My premise is that a GM with a well structured, visionary plan (whether they be lifelong members of an organization, or newcomers like Theo) demonstrate their adherence to that plan methodically. I'd love for someone to even venture any supportable theory as to what in the wild world of sports blueprint Wayne Krivsky's inexplicablly contradictory moves adhere to at this point? :)

Moreover, any evidence from his transactions, and from the type of player prototypes and roster he pursues, that it would be a successful design? Not to my eyes, not even a little.

edabbs44
08-02-2007, 02:21 PM
And you too are conveniently ignoring the fact that Mark Shapiro was a long term employee of an already well run franchise. There is absolutely no comparison between the situations inherited by Shapiro and Krivsky.

One day you're gonna wake up and figure out that the excuses for Krivsky have run out and that each day with him as GM was another day that this team moved further from contention. I've asked this to many people, but how long will it take for you to change your mind on this guy? Or do you think this team is headed in the right direction?

pedro
08-02-2007, 02:24 PM
One day you're gonna wake up and figure out that the excuses for Krivsky have run out and that each day with him as GM was another day that this team moved further from contention. I've asked this to many people, but how long will it take for you to change your mind on this guy? Or do you think this team is headed in the right direction?

I don't know. Ever think maybe one day you're going to wake up and figure out that you've been yelling and screaming and you were wrong? Sorry but you've hardly got a stranglehold on the truth.

edabbs44
08-02-2007, 02:29 PM
I don't know. Ever think maybe one day you're going to wake up and figure out that you've been yelling and screaming and you were wrong? Sorry but you've hardly got a stranglehold on the truth.

I doubt it. I am fairly confident that this guy isn't the cure for this team and he pretty much proves me right every day. Who knows, he might change his approach and turn out to be alright. But I'd be willing to bet money it doesn't happen.

So do you have any thoughts as to when this guy's grace period is over for you, or will you just continually bash anyone who dares says something negative about Wayne? You have been playing the "He's only been here for X months" card for a while now.

Johnny Footstool
08-02-2007, 02:30 PM
Dombrowski traded Jeff Weaver. So what?

That trade netted Jeremy Bonderman.

What is important is not that Dombrowski had losing seasons in Detroit. It's that those losing seasons helped build a rock-solid team.

redsmetz
08-02-2007, 02:35 PM
I doubt it. I am fairly confident that this guy isn't the cure for this team and he pretty much proves me right every day. Who knows, he might change his approach and turn out to be alright. But I'd be willing to bet money it doesn't happen.

So do you have any thoughts as to when this guy's grace period is over for you, or will you just continually bash anyone who dares says something negative about Wayne? You have been playing the "He's only been here for X months" card for a while now.

Maybe you're right. It probably would be a good plan (which is what everyone wants after all, right) if we hire a new GM every other year. We can do the hiring of a new manger during the off year too. That will bring vision and stability to the Redlegs.

pedro
08-02-2007, 02:39 PM
I doubt it. I am fairly confident that this guy isn't the cure for this team and he pretty much proves me right every day. Who knows, he might change his approach and turn out to be alright. But I'd be willing to bet money it doesn't happen.

So do you have any thoughts as to when this guy's grace period is over for you, or will you just continually bash anyone who dares says something negative about Wayne? You have been playing the "He's only been here for X months" card for a while now.

I'd give him through the end of 2008. Continuity is important IMO.

And I don't "bash anyone who dares says something negative about Wayne". I do however take issue with posters who act like they know everything. You sort out the difference.

bucksfan2
08-02-2007, 02:42 PM
I am sorry and this may offend people but to constantly complain about firing a gm who took over a dismal organizatoin after 18 months on the job is just stupid. If you don't see immediate improvement out of a club and you replace gm's every 18-24 months your organizatoin is going to continue to spin its wheels. People say that Krivsky doesn't have a plan, is that true? Maybe Krivsky does have a plan he has just not introduced it to the public/media so it can be manipulated. Look at the whole Jocketty thing and what happens when the media creates a rumor. The only connection that Jocketty is that he worked for the Cards while Castillini was a minority owner. I for one would be shocked if he ever sets foot as the reds GM. This rumor was started by Doc on sports talk one night and I bet every time someone mentions it he just smiles.

Every GM is going to make some bad decisions. Every GM is going to make good decisions. The good ones don't let the bad decisions reck the ball club for the foreseeable future. It would be foolish to think that a guy who has spent upwards of 20 years in the game of baseball would get a chance as a GM and not have a plan. Conversly it would be foolish of an owner who just inherited a ballclub to hire a GM who during the interview process said I dont have a plan. It is also foolish to think that a GM can come in, wave his magic wand and change the entire culture, farm system, organization in 18 months. This isn't magic guys this is major leauge baseball. For those think that Krivsky had enough time to turn around this club, name another GM, who didn't have boatloads of cash, who turned around a team who had 8 straight losing seasons to a winner in less than 18 months.

edabbs44
08-02-2007, 02:48 PM
Maybe you're right. It probably would be a good plan (which is what everyone wants after all, right) if we hire a new GM every other year. We can do the hiring of a new manger during the off year too. That will bring vision and stability to the Redlegs.

OK...and then, when this team looks like Tampa Bay in red uniforms in a couple of years, we can all throw our arms in the air and figure it out then. I guess they've sucked for so long now, what's another couple of years?

Stormy
08-02-2007, 02:50 PM
Maybe you're right. It probably would be a good plan (which is what everyone wants after all, right) if we hire a new GM every other year. We can do the hiring of a new manger during the off year too. That will bring vision and stability to the Redlegs.

I like what I know of Wayne Krivsky as a person. I'm certain that he's a very astute student of the game, as well. I like the idea of continuity in the F.O., as I think the carnival atmosphere turnover has been a major source of franchise dysfuntion this decade, to date. I would have no problem giving Wayne 4-5 years to turn this around, but there has to be some methodical demonstration of progress in the right direction in terms of his transactions.

I'm still waiting for any two consecutive moves that indicate any such plan or directional progress. I have, however, seen numerous shifts of direction, and plenty of 1 step forward, 3 steps back routines. When Krivsky took the reigns, I didn't expect this to be a winning team by 2007, or even 2008, but I expected the appropriate moves to establish the young cornerstones, to acquire future youthful depth, and to divest the team of player's who need to me moved for return or salary relief. I haven't seen any hint of those taking place. I hope I'm wrong.

bucksfan2
08-02-2007, 02:52 PM
I'm still waiting for any two consecutive moves that indicate any such plan or directional progress. I have, however, seen numerous shifts of direction, and plenty of 1 step forward, 3 steps back routines.

Im just curious as to what you consider the 3 steps back moves?

Stormy
08-02-2007, 02:53 PM
For those think that Krivsky had enough time to turn around this club, name another GM, who didn't have boatloads of cash, who turned around a team who had 8 straight losing seasons to a winner in less than 18 months.

It's 7 consecutive losing seasons, and Krivsky's own teams comprise 2 of those 7 years. Not a single person expects him to turn around this franchise in 18 months, and I've stated I expected losing teams for 3 years after he took the helm. However, one does expect some signs of a rebuild taking place, rather than a GM who keeps stating and demonstrating that he thinks we're contending right now without a rebuild. That won't work, and it hasn't, and now we're 2 seasons into a new regime and haven't even started the heavy lifting or laying of the foundation for the long overdue renovation.

redsmetz
08-02-2007, 02:56 PM
OK...and then, when this team looks like Tampa Bay in red uniforms in a couple of years, we can all throw our arms in the air and figure it out then. I guess they've sucked for so long now, what's another couple of years?

Changing GM's every other year isn't going to land them where you're predicting - as Tampa Bay?

Did you honestly believe that this team would contend this year? I certainly didn't - I've said all along they're aiming for 2008. Is that possible now? I sure don't know, but bringing in yet another GM will set us back for sure.

IslandRed
08-02-2007, 02:57 PM
You're 100% accurate about the Indians, and the Reds unwillingness to make the hard decisions necessary to rebuild. I'd guess that the vast majority of fans would gladly 'eat the dirt' of lean years, if they saw decisive moves being made to renovate the team.

Agreed wholly on the first sentence. You might be a little too sure of the second sentence, though. If we're going to use the Indians as a guide, their fans were so understanding of the need to rebuild that half their fans went away between 2001 and 2003 and are only slowly trickling back, despite the strong 2005 that signaled the end of the rebuild phase and being in a strong position to make the postseason this year. Other teams have blown it up, only to find that a lot of fans didn't stick around to see how it came out. The Marlins have managed to perfect the destroy-and-rebuild cycle to the point where they can win a World Series and no one much cares.

Now, those are not exact parallels. I still think Cincinnati is more of an inherent baseball town than most, and would come back out for a winner. But from the standpoint of a new owner, he can be forgiven for not wanting to take over the team and, for his first act, tell the fans "check back in a few years."

pedro
08-02-2007, 02:57 PM
It's 7 consecutive losing seasons, and Krivsky's own teams comprise 2 of those 7 years. Not a single person expects him to turn around this franchise in 18 months, and I've stated I expected losing teams for 3 years after he took the helm. However, one does expect some signs of a rebuild taking place, rather than a GM who keeps stating and demonstrating that he thinks we're contending right now without a rebuild. That won't work, and it hasn't, and now we're 2 seasons into a new regime and haven't even started the heavy lifting or laying of the foundation for the long overdue renovation.

I think you might need to take issue with the owner on that count b/c I'm not sure he's authorized what you're seeking. I surely haven't seen any evidence of it anyway.

edabbs44
08-02-2007, 02:58 PM
Im just curious as to what you consider the 3 steps back moves?

Going from a .451 winning percentage in 2005 to a .417 winning percentage today doesn't really illustrate many steps forward, does it?

edabbs44
08-02-2007, 02:59 PM
Agreed wholly on the first sentence. You might be a little too sure of the second sentence, though. If we're going to use the Indians as a guide, their fans were so understanding of the need to rebuild that half their fans went away between 2001 and 2003 and are only slowly trickling back, despite the strong 2005 that signaled the end of the rebuild phase and being in a strong position to make the postseason this year. Other teams have blown it up, only to find that a lot of fans didn't stick around to see how it came out. The Marlins have managed to perfect the destroy-and-rebuild cycle to the point where they can win a World Series and no one much cares.

Now, those are not exact parallels. I still think Cincinnati is more of an inherent baseball town than most, and would come back out for a winner. But from the standpoint of a new owner, he can be forgiven for not wanting to take over the team and, for his first act, tell the fans "check back in a few years."

Cincy couldn't give tickets away at the end of last year, when they were in a real playoff race. Remember the 1/2 price ticket and hot dog bonanza against the Cards? I don't think a few rebuilding years would really damage their current attendance level.

Marc D
08-02-2007, 03:02 PM
There is certainly not enough data available to judge the matter - protestations here notwithstanding.


In your opinion that may be the case. Its hardly a matter of fact as you are stating it.

I have seen plenty that sends up warning signals that this guy could very well be out of his depth. That is my opinion and obviously not a matter of fact.

Roy Tucker
08-02-2007, 03:03 PM
I'm as impatient as the next guy and the Reds run from 2000 through this year has driven me a little nuts, but I think hanging with WK at least through 2008 is prudent.

I'd like the rebuilding of a team be a orderly and methodical thing, but after the reigns of Schott and Lindner, we have a pretty dysfunctional organization. Krivsky is doing a lot of OJT. Some things are going to work and some things aren't. It's going to be messy for a while.

If I were a betting man, I'd bet of WK being unsuccessful. But I also thought Kurt Stillwell was better than Barry Larkin and that Eric Davis was a bum.

So I at least have enough sense to realize I don't know everything and sometimes just stand back, open a beer, let events play out as they will, and not get too wrapped around the axle about it.

redsmetz
08-02-2007, 03:08 PM
Going from a .451 winning percentage in 2005 to a .417 winning percentage today doesn't really illustrate many steps forward, does it?

Sort of up there with a .342 "winning" record to a .265 record, then back to back .444 and .438 that Detroit put up. The World Series after that wasn't too bad though.

bucksfan2
08-02-2007, 03:08 PM
I'm still waiting for any two consecutive moves that indicate any such plan or directional progress. I have, however, seen numerous shifts of direction, and plenty of 1 step forward, 3 steps back routines. When Krivsky took the reigns, I didn't expect this to be a winning team by 2007, or even 2008, but I expected the appropriate moves to establish the young cornerstones, to acquire future youthful depth, and to divest the team of player's who need to me moved for return or salary relief. I haven't seen any hint of those taking place. I hope I'm wrong.

I would say the likes of Cueto, Bailey, Bruce, Votto in AAA show signs of a club that will have an infusion of youth next season.

bucksfan2
08-02-2007, 03:12 PM
Going from a .451 winning percentage in 2005 to a .417 winning percentage today doesn't really illustrate many steps forward, does it?

I would counter that by saying this club has underperformed and last years club overperformed. I would also state the that health of the organizatoin as a whole is better this year than last year. Just my 2 cents.

ochre
08-02-2007, 03:13 PM
I think you might need to take issue with the owner on that count b/c I'm not sure he's authorized what you're seeking. I surely haven't seen any evidence of it anyway.
That's the part I still don't get. Everyone hails Cast as the franchise savior. I have yet to see anything that makes me think he's anything but a less catatonic Lindner. The strange business connections between those two still have me scratching my head. I think the problems in this organization still run right up to the top.

Johnny Footstool
08-02-2007, 03:15 PM
Sort of up there with a .342 "winning" record to a .265 record, then back to back .444 and .438 that Detroit put up. The World Series after that wasn't too bad though.

You're looking at the W-L records without looking at the processes behind those records.

The Tigers made significant moves during those terrible seasons, moves that helped them get younger and better. They traded away highly-valued veterans (Jeff Weaver) for ML-ready talent (Jeremy Bonderman).

Krivsky seems to want to hang onto his highly-valued veterans in hopes of "competing" in the near future. Unfortunately, by the time that future rolls around (2009 or 2010), those veterans will be gone or significantly less valuable.

pedro
08-02-2007, 03:17 PM
That's the part I still don't get. Everyone hails Cast as the franchise savior. I have yet to see anything that makes me think he's anything but a less catatonic Lindner. The strange business connections between those two still have me scratching my head. I think the problems in this organization still run right up to the top.

I don't think he's much like Lindner. I think he'll spend money. But I do get the sense that he's impatient and probably unrealistic. But that's just my perception and isn't backed by anything.

remdog
08-02-2007, 03:21 PM
That's the part I still don't get. Everyone hails Cast as the franchise savior. I have yet to see anything that makes me think he's anything but a less catatonic Lindner. The strange business connections between those two still have me scratching my head. I think the problems in this organization still run right up to the top.

I think you are looking in the right direction when you view Castellini's position.

I was happy to see Krivsky hired but I've been disappointed with his 'contend and rebuild at the same time' approach. It is a very tough thing to do and Wayne himself seems to have conflicts with that approach nearly everyday.

Castellini, OTOH, does seem to be alright with the status quo. He talks a good game from time to time but I don't really get a clear indication from him that he's solidly behind building a winner----more like the illusion of 'contending' is 'good enough' for him.

Rem

remdog
08-02-2007, 03:23 PM
I do however take issue with posters who act like they know everything.

You must have some interesting dinner conversations with yourself. :)

Rem

M2
08-02-2007, 03:23 PM
And you too are conveniently ignoring the fact that Mark Shapiro was a long term employee of an already well run franchise. There is absolutely no comparison between the situations inherited by Shapiro and Krivsky.

Why would coming from in-house matter? Seems to me either you've got a plan or you're going the improv route.

pedro
08-02-2007, 03:28 PM
Why would coming from in-house matter? Seems to me either you've got a plan or you're going the improv route.

Mostly because you'd have much better idea of who the players and other members of the organization were from top to bottom and b/c you probably would have spent a lot more time coming into the job thinking about what you'd do when/if you got it. Conversely, if you're new to an organization it's going to take you a while to figure out who the players are from top to bottom and what the skills/weaknesses are of all the staff members at both the major an minor league level. That takes time and I don't think it's insignificant.

pedro
08-02-2007, 03:29 PM
You must have some interesting dinner conversations with yourself. :)

Rem

Mostly we talk about you.

IslandRed
08-02-2007, 03:35 PM
Castellini, OTOH, does seem to be alright with the status quo. He talks a good game from time to time but I don't really get a clear indication from him that he's solidly behind building a winner----more like the illusion of 'contending' is 'good enough' for him.

This kind of goes back to my post earlier in the thread... I think he wants to win. But like almost every other new owner ever, he'd like to find a way that doesn't involve losing gobs of money or driving attendance down even further. Eventually he may concede that he bought a terrible organization, and there's no fast, easy road from terrible to good. Then we'll see what he chooses to do.

remdog
08-02-2007, 03:37 PM
Mostly we talk about you.


We? As in you and yourself, no doubt. :laugh:

Rem

M2
08-02-2007, 03:45 PM
Mostly because you'd have much better idea of who the players and other members of the organization were from top to bottom and b/c you probably would have spent a lot more time coming into the job thinking about what you'd do when/if you got it. Conversely, if you're new to an organization it's going to take you a while to figure out who the players are from top to bottom and what the skills/weaknesses are of all the staff members at both the major an minor league level. That takes time and I don't think it's insignificant.

I'm sorry, but I expect any new GM to know who the players in the organization are pretty much as he walks through the door on his first day. In fact, it seems like a basic requirement for the first interview. Obviously you don't necessarily need to know that organization's equivalent of Brock Till, but you should know the 40-man roster and the top 30 prospects cold.

I mean why is this person the GM if he/she doesn't know the players and have a concrete notion of what to do with them?

Staff might take a little longer, but event there, the GM ought to come in with a clear idea of what the staff needs to accomplish. Seems to me you're describing what would happen if someone completely unprepared for the job got hired.

Stormy
08-02-2007, 03:48 PM
Seems to me you're describing what would happen if someone completely unprepared for the job got hired.

You mean they didn't? ;) I assumed that's what we were watching transpire.

Johnny Footstool
08-02-2007, 03:51 PM
I'm sorry, but I expect any new GM to know who the players in the organization are pretty much as he walks through the door on his first day. In fact, it seems like a basic requirement for the first interview. Obviously you don't necessarily need to know that organization's equivalent of Brock Till, but you should know the 40-man roster and the top 30 prospects cold.

Isn't that how O'Binder got the job (and the nickname)?

pedro
08-02-2007, 03:52 PM
I'm sorry, but I expect any new GM to know who the players in the organization are pretty much as he walks through the door on his first day. In fact, it seems like a basic requirement for the first interview. Obviously you don't necessarily need to know that organization's equivalent of Brock Till, but you should know the 40-man roster and the top 30 prospects cold.

I mean why is this person the GM if he/she doesn't know the players and have a concrete notion of what to do with them?

Staff might take a little longer, but event there, the GM ought to come in with a clear idea of what the staff needs to accomplish. Seems to me you're describing what would happen if someone completely unprepared for the job got hired.

I don't think it's all that cut and dried. Any large company such as the Reds has a culture and you really don't know what that is until you're in the door and once you are in that culture doesn't change immediately just because the new boss is in town. And let's face it, Shapiro inherited a good company culture that he was already intimately involved with when he got the job. As for the players, yeah, you just have a good idea of who the best players are and the 40 man roster but it takes time to really evaluate things from top to bottom and nobody is going to walk into a job with that in depth knowledge unless they've already been part of the organization. Honestly, I can't fathom how you could think that wasn't an advantage.

redsmetz
08-02-2007, 03:59 PM
You're looking at the W-L records without looking at the processes behind those records.

The Tigers made significant moves during those terrible seasons, moves that helped them get younger and better. They traded away highly-valued veterans (Jeff Weaver) for ML-ready talent (Jeremy Bonderman).

Krivsky seems to want to hang onto his highly-valued veterans in hopes of "competing" in the near future. Unfortunately, by the time that future rolls around (2009 or 2010), those veterans will be gone or significantly less valuable.

There's a Catch 22 there though. Last year many bemoaned trading Kearns & Lopez in "The Trade" and claimed they could have gotten more. This year, the market was dampened for whatever reason, and we stood pat. I'd rather they do that than sell off valuable assets for a pittance.

I personally think that Dunn's contract was purposely set up to make a trade difficult (but that's merely my opinion). And Junior's situation is what it is - it's an older contract of a player with injury history who holds 10/5 rights. That impacts trades too.

I see some spots filled with stop gap veterans (1st/short) until players in the future are ready. I think that's why it made sense to give Gonzo a three year deal - we have no one in the minors ready to be our everyday shortstop. Have they been perfect substitutes? No. Was there a reason for the moves - I think there were.

The most glaring weakness is the building of the present bullpen. It has not congealed, it has continued to be a mess this year as much as it was last year. And yet, we have gathered some young talent that may prove to be good pick ups - and I mentioned Burton earlier - he should be at a lower level, but we have to keep him here to see he remains our player. This pen is much younger than many people give them credit for.

And most of all, we've moved forward without jettisoning the small number of genuine prospects we do have. In year's past, Jim Bowden would have sold all of them for the "here and now".

None of this is perfect, but it's not the complete mess that people think it is despite our current record.

M2
08-02-2007, 04:09 PM
I don't think it's all that cut and dried. Any large company such as the Reds has a culture and you really don't know what that is until you're in the door and once you are in that culture doesn't change immediately just because the new boss is in town. And let's face it, Shapiro inherited a good company culture that he was already intimately involved with when he got the job. As for the players, yeah, you just have a good idea of who the best players are and the 40 man roster but it takes time to really evaluate things from top to bottom and nobody is going to walk into a job with that in depth knowledge unless they've already been part of the organization. Honestly, I can't fathom how you could think that wasn't an advantage.

Company culture's one thing, but the GM is being hired to manage that roster starting immediately. If he's not prepared for it then he shouldn't be the GM.

I'm not really sure what "evaluate things from top to bottom" means. I mean, I don't want my GM fretting over finding a stopgap 3B in high A, but he'd better not be up in the air over whether the major league 3B is a keeper. He better walk in understanding the strengths and weaknesses of the current club and with a clear idea of what kind of help the farm will be able to offer over the next few years.

He'd better have some kind of a working plan (e.g. I'm going to build around X, Y and Z and seek out players with attributes a, b and c to fill around them). Even if he's walking into an awful company culture, the GM should have a vision for where he wants to take the franchise and a clear idea of what will be needed for it to get there.

pedro
08-02-2007, 04:15 PM
I mean, I don't want my GM fretting over finding a stopgap 3B in high A, but he'd better not be up in the air over whether the major league 3B is a keeper.

I think that brings up an interesting point. Many here, myself included, were convinced last year that the major league 3rd baseman was a keeper and yet he's one of the main reasons the Reds have done so poorly this year. Is Krivsky to be lauded at this point for keeping the guy or chastised for not flipping him when his value was higher? I ask b/c I haven't seen a lot from EE this year that has made me think he'll ever become the hitter we all thought he'd be. And before anyone jumps in and blames EE's play on how he has been handled I'll just say I don't buy it so don't bother.

Ltlabner
08-02-2007, 04:19 PM
I'm currious.

What's the name of that franchise that communicated a plan for rebuilding to the fans, never deviated from it once as different opportunities arose, and/or targeted players were not able to be signed/traded for, methodically went step-by-step and simultanously rebuilt a decimated farm system while fielding a competitive team?

The name of the orginization escapes me...it's the one that never made a mistake, always made the right moves, and always had all the money and right trade bait to get exactly what they wanted every time. Oh yea, it's the same orgization where the young GM came in with a plan only to find out the orgizational problems were worse than he realized..but that didn't matter, he just filled out the flowchart and forged ahead without difficulty.

I'm having a hard time putting my finger on the name of that originzation. Wish I could remember who it was so I could email Wayne and suggest he get some pointers from that guy.

Ltlabner
08-02-2007, 04:32 PM
He'd better have some kind of a working plan (e.g. I'm going to build around X, Y and Z and seek out players with attributes a, b and c to fill around them). Even if he's walking into an awful company culture, the GM should have a vision for where he wants to take the franchise and a clear idea of what will be needed for it to get there.

M2, I agree totally with this. I'm all about bosses and company owners who operate this way.

But comming in like Patton and forging ahead doesn't always mean that plans will unfold without flaw, players woln't under-perform, moves woln't blow up in your face, etc.

It also doesn't say anything about the orgizational members who may not be particularly motivated to help the new GM succeed (for various reasons). It doesn't address the lower level manager who says "up yours" and doesn't put the new GM's programs into place, or more likely, only does so half-hartedly. That guy can coast for a while until his antics are uncovered and dealt with. But how much delay does that put into the excecution of a plan?

And it doesn't mean that the existing memebers of the orgization will carry out the new GM's vision as he would have them do it. Now, Krivs been here long enough that he's basically got his team in place. But there's a lag from the time a GM starts, until he actuall gets to know the people to report to them and how competant they are in the job (not to mention Krivsky took over right before spring training so he had a lot bigger fish to fry for a long time).

So while I like leaders who operate as you suggest, it's also not as simple was comming in, laying out your plan and storming ahead. Especially in an orginization that's been in a mess for a long time.

M2
08-02-2007, 04:32 PM
I think that brings up an interesting point. Many here, myself included, were convinced last year that the major league 3rd baseman was a keeper and yet he's one of the main reasons the Reds have done so poorly this year. Is Krivsky to be lauded at this point for keeping the guy or chastised for not flipping him when his value was higher? I ask b/c I haven't seen a lot from EE this year that has made me think he'll ever become the hitter we all thought he'd be. And before anyone jumps in and blames EE's play on how he has been handled I'll just say I don't buy it so don't bother.

EE's had a poor year, but he's young and hardly the first guy to suffer a sophomore slump. Before I chucked him in the Craig Worthington pile I'd want to see how he handles next season. He's still got the bat speed, but he's not meeting the ball cleanly this season.

I'm not opposed to giving him some competition. That said, this is one of those cases where a GM has to trust his evaluation skills. If you're convinced the kid has the goods and that he'll turn the corner, you show patience (the Twins waited a baseball eternity, five seasons, on Michael Cuddyer). Obviously the GM should be willing to constantly challenge his assumptions, but if the feeling is the kid is going to bounce back from this, then patience is in order. Fortunately, as a low budget organization languishing in the division cellar, patience is something the Reds can afford.

nate
08-02-2007, 04:33 PM
I'm currious.

What's the name of that franchise that communicated a plan for rebuilding to the fans, never deviated from it once as different opportunities arose, and/or targeted players were not able to be signed/traded for, methodically went step-by-step and simultanously rebuilt a decimated farm system while fielding a competitive team?

The name of the orginization escapes me...it's the one that never made a mistake, always made the right moves, and always had all the money and right trade bait to get exactly what they wanted every time. Oh yea, it's the same orgization where the young GM came in with a plan only to find out the orgizational problems were worse than he realized..but that didn't matter, he just filled out the flowchart and forged ahead without difficulty.

I'm having a hard time putting my finger on the name of that originzation. Wish I could remember who it was so I could email Wayne and suggest he get some pointers from that guy.

The Toledo Easter Bunnies.

nate
08-02-2007, 04:36 PM
I'm still waiting for any two consecutive moves that indicate any such plan or directional progress..

Sorry, only reached this point in the thread so by the time I get to the end, someone may've responded.

Here are two, sorry not "consecutive" but within "proximity."

7/30/07 Acquired LHP Matt Maloney from the Philadelphia Phillies in exchange for RHP Kyle Lohse.

7/12/07 Claimed LHP Alexander Smit off waivers from the Twins.

These moves are part of the plan to improve the talent in the minor league system. These pitchers are not currently world beaters but they may be solid major league players within the next 2-4 years.

Stormy
08-02-2007, 04:44 PM
I'm currious.

What's the name of that franchise that communicated a plan for rebuilding to the fans, never deviated from it once as different opportunities arose, and/or targeted players were not able to be signed/traded for, methodically went step-by-step and simultanously rebuilt a decimated farm system while fielding a competitive team?


Wow! Is that really what you're reading here? The posters you are attempting to lampoon are espousing the exact opposite: A willingness of visionary GMs to weather the storms of the lean years, as they adhere to a guiding organizational plan for rebuilding a formidable franchise. Make the hard decisions, divest the team of talent which doesn't fit the long-term plan, and develop the youthful framework for the future of the franchise. There are plenty of miscalculations, and mistakes along the road, accompanied by a temporary bottoming out of the W/L record. It's the exact opposite of what the Reds have been trying to accomplish, as they attempt to pump water out of the ship while still sailing, rather than pulling into port and making the proper adjustments to make the ship sea worthy again.

M2
08-02-2007, 04:45 PM
M2, I agree totally with this. I'm all about bosses and company owners who operate this way.

But comming in like Patton and forging ahead doesn't always mean that plans will unfold without flaw, players woln't under-perform, moves woln't blow up in your face, etc.

I know. That's essentially what I said here (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1431608&postcount=36).

Mistakes will be made. I get that. Alterations will be required. Yet it's that core plan which will help you make those alterations (e.g. I've got less of X than I expected, so I'm going to need more of Q to compensate for it).

It also doesn't say anything about the orgizational members who may not be particularly motivated to help the new GM succeed (for various reasons). It doesn't address the lower level manager who says "up yours" and doesn't put the new GM's programs into place, or more likely, only does so half-hartedly. That guy can coast for a while until his antics are uncovered and dealt with. But how much delay does that put into the excecution of a plan?

As for "storming ahead," we've all had jobs. What have you found works better, the new boss laying out his/her vision for how things should work at the outset or the new boss coming in and not really offering anything in the way of direction?

Ltlabner
08-02-2007, 04:47 PM
What have you found works better, the new boss laying out his/her vision for how things should work at the outset or the new boss coming in and not really offering anything in the way of direction?

And you know Wayne has come in and not given the FO staff, minor league manager, player development people and scouts any direction how?

gonelong
08-02-2007, 04:47 PM
I'm currious.

What's the name of that franchise that communicated a plan for rebuilding to the fans, never deviated from it once as different opportunities arose, and/or targeted players were not able to be signed/traded for, methodically went step-by-step and simultanously rebuilt a decimated farm system while fielding a competitive team?

I don't even ask this of the companies I invest in.

How about a vision of where we expect to be in 2-3 years, and how you expect to get there.

Hire better employees is not much of a plan and not one I'll be investing my time/money in.

18 months in I would expect some sort of plan to be emerging ... I see none. If the organization doesn't want to articulate the plan then its as good as not having one as far as attracting me to spend my time/money at the ballpark. The only draw they have at that point is performance, and that has been sorely lacking.

Heck, even a mutual fund will tell you their investing philosophy.

GL

M2
08-02-2007, 04:56 PM
And you know Wayne has come in and not given the FO staff, minor league manager, player development people and scouts any direction how?

I didn't say he hadn't.

I have noted that he's been incomplete in explaining that direction to the fans and that it could buy him a lot of good will if he did. I certainly hope the staff is less in the dark than we are.

Ltlabner
08-02-2007, 04:56 PM
A willingness of visionary GMs to weather the storms of the lean years, as they adhere to a guiding organizational plan for rebuilding a formidable franchise. Make the hard decisions, divest the team of talent which doesn't fit the long-term plan, and develop the youthful framework for the future of the franchise. There are plenty of miscalculations, and mistakes along the road, accompanied by a temporary bottoming out of the W/L record.

You mean like trading some tallent that didn't fit the "long-term plan" for relief pitching last year? Yea, folks here really stood by Wayne for that one. Like picking up youthfull guys like Cantu (as an recient example)? He went over big. Heck Wayne "divested the team of young tallent" when he traded Willy Mo and people still moaned over that one.

You want the GM to "weather the storm" of the lean years, yet I've yet to see evidence many here at RZ are prepared to do the same.


It's the exact opposite of what the Reds have been trying to accomplish, as they attempt to pump water out of the ship while still sailing, rather than pulling into port and making the proper adjustments to make the ship sea worthy again.

That last para was interesting. You've been saying over and over that you can't see any evidence of a plan for the team. Yet, here you clearly identify what Wayne has obviously been trying to accomplish with a plan to try to rebuild and compete at the same time.

Not saying the compete while rebuilding plan is a good one, but it's still a plan none the less.

Ltlabner
08-02-2007, 05:01 PM
I didn't say he hadn't.

I have noted that he's been incomplete in explaining that direction to the fans and that it could buy him a lot of good will if he did. I certainly hope the staff is less in the dark than we are.

I tend to agree with you here. If he was skilled at handling the press and communicating his vision through them, it would make his life much easier.

Some folks would rather keep you in the dark than give you the details of what they are thinking to avoid being questioned and nit-picked over what they shared.

Wayne is most definatley a "keep it to himself" guy when it comes to the press and general public. Does he operate this way behind closed doors with the staff? Don't know.

pedro
08-02-2007, 05:08 PM
EE's had a poor year, but he's young and hardly the first guy to suffer a sophomore slump. Before I chucked him in the Craig Worthington pile I'd want to see how he handles next season. He's still got the bat speed, but he's not meeting the ball cleanly this season.

I'm not opposed to giving him some competition. That said, this is one of those cases where a GM has to trust his evaluation skills. If you're convinced the kid has the goods and that he'll turn the corner, you show patience (the Twins waited a baseball eternity, five seasons, on Michael Cuddyer). Obviously the GM should be willing to constantly challenge his assumptions, but if the feeling is the kid is going to bounce back from this, then patience is in order. Fortunately, as a low budget organization languishing in the division cellar, patience is something the Reds can afford.

I think that's fair. The reason I asked is that I think it's only fair to point out that sometimes GM's make what many believe to be the right decision and yet it adversely effects the teams W/L record in the short term.

Rojo
08-02-2007, 05:10 PM
In my line a work there's a what we say we're doing and what we're doing. Maybe Krivsky's trying to keep a good team around Jr through next year, hope for the best and begin tear down next summer.

Not saying that's the plan, but if it were he could hardly come out and say it.

ochre
08-02-2007, 05:12 PM
There's a Catch 22 there though. Last year many bemoaned trading Kearns & Lopez in "The Trade" and claimed they could have gotten more. This year, the market was dampened for whatever reason, and we stood pat. I'd rather they do that than sell off valuable assets for a pittance.

So, was that a "win now", or a "build for the future" move? That's what I (and perhaps others) want to know. Sure we can't know what's really going on upstairs, but the nature of most of the moves that have been made strike me as erratic, at least from the perspective of discerning what the organizational direction is. Perhaps that's a function of artificial constraints imposed by ownership (don't tear it completely down; contend while we reload), or perhaps it's the peter principle in action. That's what we won't find out for a couple of more years I guess.

When O'Brien was hired I felt that it was fairly realistic for this organization to set a realistic time line on the return to competitive-ness. I felt that it could be roughly 3-5 years. That hasn't materialized. There was a fairly young, fairly talented young offensive core. It looked like the team would be primed for that core to develop together, while talent was developed through the minors. At the point, 3-5 years from then (read as roughly now), some of that talent would be ready and it would make sense to make some free agent moves to get over the top. Now it seems that the summit of the offensive potential is, temporally, behind us. The most realistic option at this stage, in my mind, is to gut it and acquire as much young potential as possible. The downside to that is, of course, that you've just admitted the best case scenario is now (still) 3-5 years from competing.

Perhaps, all other things being equal, that is what Krivsky would prefer. I just don't see the organizational decisiveness that is required for that type of task thus far. Nearly all indicators are, either mixed messages in the aggregate, or fairly inconsequential moves that have little apparent overall impact, whether looking at the now, or some arbitrary "date to compete" in the future.

So, instead of climbing the stairs of success, I'm afraid this organization is continuing to trudge up the down escalator of mediocrity.

nate
08-02-2007, 05:15 PM
I didn't say he hadn't.

I have noted that he's been incomplete in explaining that direction to the fans and that it could buy him a lot of good will if he did. I certainly hope the staff is less in the dark than we are.

Really not being snarky here at all...I promise.

Can you please link me to an example of another GM explaining their direction to the fans? I'd really be interested in seeing and example of what it is you'd like Wayne to do.

For reals!

M2
08-02-2007, 05:18 PM
Not saying the compete while rebuilding plan is a good one, but it's still a plan none the less.

Achievability is a necessary part of planning. I mean, "winning the lottery" could be your stated financial plan, but it's really more of a fond wish.

With a different mix of talent I'd say rebuilding on the fly (which used to gm's catchphrase) would be a perfectly fine plan. It's what JimBo did in 1997 and 1998. I was for it and it worked to a limited extent. Unfortunately the 1999-2001 drafts failed miserably and JimBo didn't sell high with a few players like he did with John Smiley, Dave Burba, Jeff Brantley, Jeff Shaw and Reggie Sanders/Bret Boone. Essentially he needed to churn the roster again and he didn't do it.

With this version of the Reds I think the moves are more limited and the hole is deeper. Krivsky has to plan accordingly. One thing he has done consistently is fish for "lost" players - Phillips, Hamilton, now Cantu. Yet I don't see enough on the rebuild side. This franchise needs more starting pitching options and still could use long-term answers at C and SS (CF possibly too, though Jay Bruce may play there early in his career).

ochre
08-02-2007, 05:20 PM
Really not being snarky here at all...I promise.

Can you please link me to an example of another GM explaining their direction to the fans? I'd really be interested in seeing and example of what it is you'd like Wayne to do.

For reals!
Not exactly what you are asking for, but this probably comes close:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Moneyballsbn.jpg

:)

I'd say, further, that the Braves, Yankees, and Red Sox are good examples of teams, generally, stick to their organizational philosophy quite well. They may not come right out and say what it is, but their actions generally fall in a consistent pattern.

Ltlabner
08-02-2007, 05:24 PM
With this version of the Reds I think the moves are more limited and the hole is deeper. Krivsky has to plan accordingly. One thing he has done consistently is fish for "lost" players - Phillips, Hamilton, now Cantu. Yet I don't see enough on the rebuild side. This franchise needs more starting pitching options and still could use long-term answers at C and SS (CF possibly too, though Jay Bruce may play there early in his career).

A couple of people have touched on it. If it's rebuild while competing, I'm willing to bet that Wayne leads more towards rebuilding while BCast leans more towards competing now (since that's pretty much what he's said from day 1).

It's been said before, but the compete while rebuilding plan is what often leads to these disparate moves that seem to contridict each other.

M2
08-02-2007, 05:24 PM
Really not being snarky here at all...I promise.

Can you please link me to an example of another GM explaining their direction to the fans? I'd really be interested in seeing and example of what it is you'd like Wayne to do.

For reals!

Well, there's the book "Moneyball". I imagine someone will be posting Theo Epstein's explanation of why he hired Terry Francona soon enough. FWIW, I get to hear, read, see a lot of Theo in Boston and he and owner John Henry are remarkably candid in how they evaluate players, what they expect from the current team and what they want in the future (Epstein uses Youkilis, Pedroia and Papelbon as poster boys almost constantly).

I'll try to do some digging later, but if you remember JimBo's comments after he moved Dave Burba and Jeff Shaw, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

ochre
08-02-2007, 05:25 PM
With a different mix of talent I'd say rebuilding on the fly (which used to gm's catchphrase) would be a perfectly fine plan.
Generally speaking, and specifically with the Reds, I think it's just as much a resource (deep pockets) issue. There are only a few teams out there that can realistically afford to do this. The uncertainty factor of prospects, and established playes for that matter when injuries are considered, makes successfully rebuilding on the fly quite expensive.

M2
08-02-2007, 05:26 PM
It's been said before, but the compete while rebuilding plan is what often leads to these disparate moves that seem to contridict each other.

Agreed, and the franchise needs to come to grips with the reality that the contradiction will likely keep this club in the cellar. Essentially, it's got to stop playing the lottery.

M2
08-02-2007, 05:30 PM
Generally speaking, and specifically with the Reds, I think it's just as much a resource (deep pockets) issue. There are only a few teams out there that can realistically afford to do this. The uncertainty factor of prospects, and established playes for that matter when injuries are considered, makes successfully rebuilding on the fly quite expensive.

True, there comes a time when you've got to buy what you need to get you over the top. The '99 Reds spent on Greg Vaughn, Denny Neagle and Pete Harnisch, almost doubled the payroll. That's a big reason why things came together that season. Then the market exploded and the franchise chose not to explode with it, making rebuilding on the fly a much tougher proposition.

Johnny Footstool
08-02-2007, 05:32 PM
A couple of people have touched on it. If it's rebuild while competing, I'm willing to bet that Wayne leads more towards rebuilding while BCast leans more towards competing now (since that's pretty much what he's said from day 1).

It's been said before, but the compete while rebuilding plan is what often leads to these disparate moves that seem to contridict each other.

And the "compete" portion is currently in a sad state.

Ltlabner
08-02-2007, 05:33 PM
Agreed, and the franchise needs to come to grips with the reality that the contradiction will likely keep this club in the cellar. Essentially, it's got to stop playing the lottery.

Just playing Devils Advocate...

Could it be argued that trying to patch together a "competitive" team in the very weak NL Central and trying to eak into a division win is a solid plan?

Whereas, trying to trade all your tallent, re-stock the franchise, hope that everybody comes along at the same pace and all your trades work out, every player you want is available, none of your mistakes derail you too much and have everything come together generally at the same time to forge a strong team for the future is a "lottery ticket" ?

I'm not advocating this..just wondering aloud.

WVRedsFan
08-02-2007, 05:42 PM
Wow! Is that really what you're reading here? The posters you are attempting to lampoon are espousing the exact opposite: A willingness of visionary GMs to weather the storms of the lean years, as they adhere to a guiding organizational plan for rebuilding a formidable franchise. Make the hard decisions, divest the team of talent which doesn't fit the long-term plan, and develop the youthful framework for the future of the franchise. There are plenty of miscalculations, and mistakes along the road, accompanied by a temporary bottoming out of the W/L record. It's the exact opposite of what the Reds have been trying to accomplish, as they attempt to pump water out of the ship while still sailing, rather than pulling into port and making the proper adjustments to make the ship sea worthy again.

Welcome to the New Old Red Guard, Stormy. We created this new board so that baseball can be discussed in intelligent terms with no arrogance and without the smart alleck-ness of that nasty old board that I can't remember the name of. Here, if we disagree with you, we insult or make fun of you. Enjoy your stay.

nate
08-02-2007, 05:43 PM
Well, there's the book "Moneyball". I imagine someone will be posting Theo Epstein's explanation of why he hired Terry Francona soon enough. FWIW, I get to hear, read, see a lot of Theo in Boston and he and owner John Henry are remarkably candid in how they evaluate players, what they expect from the current team and what they want in the future (Epstein uses Youkilis, Pedroia and Papelbon as poster boys almost constantly).

I'll try to do some digging later, but if you remember JimBo's comments after he moved Dave Burba and Jeff Shaw, that's the sort of thing I'm talking about.

I think the Sox guys might be the exception rather than the rule. I'd still be interested in seeing things they communicate that you would like Wayne to do.

Regarding Burba and Shaw, I don't really remember JimBo giving some comments explaining the deal. I do remember this, though:


On Saturday, Larkin removed the captain's C from his jersey, and on Sunday he wrote 34, 49, 28 and 41 with a question mark next to it as a tribute to departed teammates Dave Burba, David Weathers, Lenny Harris and Jeff Shaw. Four miniature jerseys were taped to the dugout wall during the game and in an empty locker room after the game bearing the ex-teammates' numbers.

A sign along the left-field line indicated some dismay at what would happen if Larkin were traded: ''No Larkin, No hassle parking.''

''The organization is trying to achieve something,'' Larkin said. ''But what that is, I'm not so sure.''

BRM
08-02-2007, 05:45 PM
''The organization is trying to achieve something,'' Larkin said. ''But what that is, I'm not so sure.''


That's probably how some of the current Reds feel now.

nate
08-02-2007, 05:46 PM
That's probably how some of the current Reds feel now.

The power of tradition!

edabbs44
08-02-2007, 05:54 PM
Really not being snarky here at all...I promise.

Can you please link me to an example of another GM explaining their direction to the fans? I'd really be interested in seeing and example of what it is you'd like Wayne to do.

For reals!

Mark Shapiro was pretty candid after dealing Colon.

RedsManRick
08-02-2007, 06:26 PM
I didn't have the opportunity to read the whole thread, but my complaint is a failure of process, not one of outcome. I can understand failure of outcome. There's bad luck. There are unexpecteds that cannot be controlled. But when the process is poor, not only is the outcome is poor, but there's very little hope for improvement. Good decisions can lead to bad outcomes. Bad decisions can lead to good outcomes. However, over time, good outcomes, sustainable good outcomes, are the result of good decision making.

The Reds continue to fail to have a cohesive system of decision making, a process, an organization philosophy that has been consistently executed and has had a positive outcome. Ironically, Dan O'Brien seemed to be the most principled GM in this regard. He had a philosophy which he implemented system wide and was willing to stick to. Of course, I would argue that his system sucked hard, but at least it was a system.

The Braves have a system. The Twins have a system. The A's have a system. The Yankees have a system. The Red Sox have a system. They each differ due both to leadership and circumstance. They each have their pluses and misuses, their failures and success, and each of those franchises has experienced varying levels of sustained success. But they have experienced success and it has been sustained. They didn't just fluke in to it with a combination of career years and a crappy division. They built a winner.

Sort of turning this question on it's head, what is the Reds organizational philosophy? List 5-10 things that the Reds do in order to build a consistent winner; the things that define the Reds' organization philosophy towards building a sustaining winning organization. Then, go back and judge how well they actually do those things.

If they do them poorly, ask why. If they do them well, but still can't build a winner, ask why. If you can't build a list that really characterizes the organization's philosophy, ask why. I can't do this with the Reds. Now yes, there has been turnover and each new leadership group will have it's own philosophy. However, as I look across baseball, I can look at nearly every winning organization and touch on some key points of how and why they do business. When I look at the perennial losers, I can't. Or, if I can, their philosophy sucks and their just too stupid to realize it -- but usually those guys get fired quickly because they stand with their philosophy and when it fails, they fail. Some of those perennial losers have had the same management for quite some time, so that excuse doesn't hold water for long.

When you don't have a system, blame tends to scatter. You blame your failures on bad coaches. You blame your failures on injuries. You blame your failures on prospects who "just didn't pan out". You blame your failures on insufficient budget or market size. Sure, there's some legitimate blame to go to those things. But winning organizations deal with those problems too, and they keep winning. Losing organizations keep making the same mistakes over and over again, and eventually they run out of other people to blame -- see Bowden, Jim. I'm 100% willing to admit that there is luck involved. But the Braves didn't luck in to 15 straight pennants and they didn't buy them either. The A's kept winning even after getting lucky through smart decision making. Luck helps, but as Branch Rickey said, "Luck is the residue of design."

I'm absolutely willing to give Krivsky the benefit of the doubt, that he has a plan. That he and BC have an organizational philosophy. However, they have not clearly communicated one to the fans beyond "defense & pitching = good", "(unlike everybody else...) we want to win", and "we're not patient". In the absence of clear communication, all we have our best guesses from the evidence at hand and the results on the field.

My best guess shows an organizational philosophy that scares the crap out of me. I can't tell you how they'd describe it, but it's characteristics are evident. It poorly measures and values defensive ability, it doesn't understand run production, it can't develop players to their potential, and overvalues aesthetic qualities that don't necessarily translate to winning baseball. Maybe I'm wrong. But if I'm wrong, I'll then defer to the results on the field. Given that, my conclusion doesn't look much better. In the absence of actually winning baseball games, and given only murky evidence of a philosophy in the player transaction tea leaves, I, as a fan, expect an explanation of how the organization plans to win baseball games in the future. Absent that, what am I left with other than blind hope? Maybe some people can live with that (they're called them Cubs fans). Personally, I can't.

redsmetz
08-02-2007, 06:33 PM
I didn't have the opportunity to read the whole thread, but my complaint is a failure of process, not one of outcome. I can understand failure of outcome. There's bad luck. There are unexpecteds that cannot be controlled. But when the process is poor, not only is the outcome is poor, but there's very little hope for improvement.

The Reds continue to fail to have a cohesive system of decision making, a goal, a process, whatever that has been consistently executed and had positive outcome. Ironically, Dan O'Brien seemed to be the most principled GM in this regard. He had a philosophy which he implemented system wide. Of course, I would argue that his system sucked, but at least it was a system.

The Braves have a system. The Twins have a system. The A's have a system. The Yankees have a system. The Red Sox have a system. They each differ due both to leadership and circumstance. They each have their pluses and misuses and each of those franchises has experienced vary levels of sustained success. But they have experienced success and it has been sustained. They didn't fluke in to it with a combination of career years and a crappy division.

Sort of turning this question on it's head, what is the Reds organizational philosophy. List 5-10 things that the Reds do in order to build a consistent winner. The things that define the Reds' organization philosophy towards building a sustaining winning organization. Then, go back and judge how well they actually does those things.

If they do them poorly, ask why. If they do them well, but still can't build a winner, ask why. If you can't build a list that really characterizes the organization's philosophy, ask why. I can't do this with the Reds. Now yes, there has been turnover and each new leadership group will have it's own philosophy. However, as I look across baseball, I can look at nearly every winning organization and touch on some key points of how and why they do business. When I look at the perennial losers, I can't. And some of those perennial losers have had the same management for quite some time, so that excuse doesn't hold water for long.

I've got to get to some chores here after dinner, but these questions I think are important ones. And I think they differ from what are we spending on a manager or a GM or is the GM learning on the fly, etc.

The other day someone asked about five pitchers for the Cubs, noted their good records and asked how much they got them for in FA. I never knew for sure if the person was making a point that they hadn't been free agents, but everyone of them was developed by the Cubs (four drafted, one Latin FA). We need something through the whole system. I haven't seen or heard the up and down organizational credo (if you will), but I'd like to know we're a group that's on the same page (and not just no facial hair in the minors!).

Gotta run.

Falls City Beer
08-02-2007, 06:54 PM
In general, people who have to "learn on the job" are those who forever attain a terrain vague in their careers. Typically, they're folks who should never have been promoted in the first place, and at every stop on their career ladder-climb, they're always sort of miscast. Social promotion types if you will. Not true genuises who seize what they get.

RedsManRick
08-02-2007, 07:05 PM
The other day someone asked about five pitchers for the Cubs, noted their good records and asked how much they got them for in FA. I never knew for sure if the person was making a point that they hadn't been free agents, but everyone of them was developed by the Cubs (four drafted, one Latin FA). We need something through the whole system. I haven't seen or heard the up and down organizational credo (if you will), but I'd like to know we're a group that's on the same page (and not just no facial hair in the minors!).

That post was me. And yes, that was my point. :p:

vaticanplum
08-02-2007, 07:48 PM
I think it's unrealistic to expect every move to turn up roses. Sometimes a move that looks great on paper doesn't pan out and that's fine.

I'm also cool with the notion that sometimes a non-conventional or counter-intuitive move is in order.

That said, what I do think is realistic is that the GM be able to clearly explain his philosophy and direction. Wanting to have a good team with a good farm system satisfies neither requirement. IMO, some GMs are inarticulate on this matter because they lack direction. They make moves in a haphazard fashion and they hope it adds up to a whole.

No matter what you might have thought about Jim Bowden, he excelled at explaining why he was doing what he was doing and what the desired outcome of the move was. Fault him all you like for his moves not delivering the goods, but it's no coincidence he spent more than a decade in the Reds' GM job. You could take JimBo to task for execution, but you always understood his line of thinking.

IMO, it's unrealistic to expect to last very long if you go the inscrutable route. Either you win or you're gone. An example from the managerial side, the second Jimy Williams' teams start losing he's out the door. Why? Because he gives you nothing to judge him on except for what he just did. If you don't like what's happening he can't be bothered to explain how things will improve in the future.

Pete Mackanin seems to do a pretty good job on explaining himself. He hasn't offered up a ton in terms of vision, but that's to be expected from an interim manager.

I think Wayne Krivsky needs to dispel the notion that he's lacking in the direction department and establish what his expectations are for the club in terms of performance and style of play. He'd probably find him that people would be forgiving if the club misses on the performance end if they have a clear idea as to what the driving forces are behind the team.

That is precisely why when I am a GM, I will keep a blog. Probably a comments-disabled blog, but a blog nonetheless. It will force me to develop a plan; communicate it to the people who keep my business running; check in to re-evaluate, re-examine and re-communicate it on a regular basis; and answer for it when I don't. It will also, I believe, make the fans feel more invested in the team and bring more of their good selves down to the ballpark more often. There needs to be some degree of secrecy, obviously -- there will be no specifics or potential trades discussed, just a general philosophy and a record of direction for the team.


Just playing Devils Advocate...

Could it be argued that trying to patch together a "competitive" team in the very weak NL Central and trying to eak into a division win is a solid plan?

Whereas, trying to trade all your tallent, re-stock the franchise, hope that everybody comes along at the same pace and all your trades work out, every player you want is available, none of your mistakes derail you too much and have everything come together generally at the same time to forge a strong team for the future is a "lottery ticket" ?

I'm not advocating this..just wondering aloud.

I actually think that's exactly what the entire National League HAS been doing for at least a decade. All the GMs have to do to keep job security is win the division. You're not going to get fired if you win the division. They haven't adjusted to the designated hitter, they haven't faced the facts interleague play. they only try to squeeze out of the division. I think this is a HUGE reason for the increasing disparity between the leagues. The National League teams, by and large, are not trying to be great. They're just trying to be good enough.

redsmetz
08-02-2007, 08:08 PM
That is precisely why when I am a GM, I will keep a blog. Probably a comments-disabled blog, but a blog nonetheless. It will force me to develop a plan; communicate it to the people who keep my business running; check in to re-evaluate, re-examine and re-communicate it on a regular basis; and answer for it when I don't. It will also, I believe, make the fans feel more invested in the team and bring more of their good selves down to the ballpark more often. There needs to be some degree of secrecy, obviously -- there will be no specifics or potential trades discussed, just a general philosophy and a record of direction for the team.

You ought to send that idea to WK - I'm not saying he buys it, but it would give some output to fans thirsty for direction. And, as you note, it will keep him acountable.


I actually think that's exactly what the entire National League HAS been doing for at least a decade. All the GMs have to do to keep job security is win the division. You're not going to get fired if you win the division. They haven't adjusted to the designated hitter, they haven't faced the facts interleague play. they only try to squeeze out of the division. I think this is a HUGE reason for the increasing disparity between the leagues. The National League teams, by and large, are not trying to be great. They're just trying to be good enough.

Wow! I've never seen in that way, but that makes some sense. We used to be the premier league (in my opinion), but this makes a lot of sense. I think MLB really misses having two league offices who could press their teams to achieve greater things.

RFS62
08-02-2007, 08:47 PM
He'd better have some kind of a working plan (e.g. I'm going to build around X, Y and Z and seek out players with attributes a, b and c to fill around them). Even if he's walking into an awful company culture, the GM should have a vision for where he wants to take the franchise and a clear idea of what will be needed for it to get there.



"Everybody's got a plan until they get hit" - Mike Tyson


I love that quote. Best thing he said before he faded into bolivian.

I have no doubt that Krivsky had a plan when he took over the club. No doubt at all. I'm sure he sold his plan to Castellini, complete with charts and binders, just like O'Brien before him.

You can't tell me a Dukie like Krivsky didn't have a well thought out, well articulated plan to win the job in the interview process.

"Build through the draft.... pitching and defense..... the Twins way".....

I also have little doubt that he was blunt in his assessment of the Reds fortunes when he took over. Just like any remodeling contractor who comes in to bid a job, he probably said "how in the hell did this happen... what was the last guy thinking when he put in that window". You always blame the guy before you for the mess you inherit.

And I have no doubt that he was stunned beyond belief when they started off hot. Suddenly, against all odds, they were in contention. Now what?

After all the lip service Castellini gave when he took over, how could you turn your back on the fact that they actually were in contention in a weak division. The year choses you, ya know.

So now, the "blame the last guy" and blow it up plan is out the window... at least partly. We allocate just enough of our resources to both "win now" and "blow it up and rebuild" to insure that neither plan works.

He shuffled the deck constantly, making what he considered incremental improvements. Any little deal he could swing to improve the club, in his eyes.

Then, the Pythagorean Gods struck down the Reds hopes with a mighty vengeance. And a terrible smiting it was, indeed. "The plan" was in tatters, and the worst part was it looks to me like the front office actually believed that we weren't far from contending, after all. I know I did.

A tweak here, a tune up there, and we're potentially a .500 ballclub in a dismal mess of a division.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The fools gold of last years start lured us into serving the dual masters of "win now" and "rebuild". And with our limited resources, ya can't do both effectively. Maybe you can, but we sure didn't.

We abandoned "the plan" that got Krivsky the job when we bought into the idea that we were close enough to contend after last years start. And now, a year later, we finally realize just how costly that little jaunt off the track has become.

But the year choses you. How could we not? What would have been the public reaction if they had said before we imploded last year "nah.... it's fools gold... we're staying the course".

The plan was more of a guideline than a set in stone blueprint. We took a hit on 18, after winning with that strategy for half the season.

The house always wins in the long run, and our luck ran out.

Now, we've been smacked around enough to see the light. We're back to the original "hey, we really suck" rebuilding plan, a year later and a good bit of our stash of chips down.

nate
08-02-2007, 08:54 PM
[b][i]Now, we've been smacked around enough to see the light. We're back to the original "hey, we really suck" rebuilding plan, a year later and a good bit of our stash of chips down.

"A" to the "men" my brother from another mother.

A-men.

WVRedsFan
08-02-2007, 08:55 PM
Tremendous post, RFS62. Just about spot on.

My only fear is the train wreck is just beginning.

edabbs44
08-02-2007, 09:04 PM
Tremendous post, RFS62. Just about spot on.

My only fear is the train wreck is just beginning.

The tear down will happen, it's just a matter of when. If I am Bob, I am offering the entire FO from Florida a rather large chunk of change to run this team from the ground up.

Stormy
08-02-2007, 09:17 PM
"Everybody's got a plan until they get hit" - Mike Tyson
So now, the "blame the last guy" and blow it up plan is out the window... at least partly. We allocate just enough of our resources to both "win now" and "blow it up and rebuild" to insure that neither plan works.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again. The fools gold of last years start lured us into serving the dual masters of "win now" and "rebuild". And with our limited resources, ya can't do both effectively. Maybe you can, but we sure didn't.

We abandoned "the plan" that got Krivsky the job when we bought into the idea that we were close enough to contend after last years start. And now, a year later, we finally realize just how costly that little jaunt off the track has become.

Now, we've been smacked around enough to see the light. We're back to the original "hey, we really suck" rebuilding plan, a year later and a good bit of our stash of chips down.

Man, that was really a fantastic post in both style and content. I might print that out and have it framed. Anyway, the passages quoted above, in particular, all allude to the concept of having 'the plan' derailed by the unexpected opportunity to 'contend now' which presented itself in 2006. I think that is probably a pretty accurate assessment. However, looking at all the peripherals available which indicated that 2006's hot start was an anomoly, would a GM not consult such barometers thoroughly enough to realize that April-May of 2006 was mostly mirage?

If not, did the lesson of June-September's nosedive not prepare him to return to the path prior to 2007? Instead we see moves which smack of a continued belief that this team was a tweak away, so add the veteran 1B bat platoon, add the veteran glovesmith SS to an above market 3 year deal, add the latest round of veteran arms to the bullpen, extend Arroyo at the moment of his highest ever career value, raise and extend Freel etc... If not for Hamilton's absolute miracle of a turnaround, Wayne's entire offseason would have been spent cobbling together veterans ostensibly to make an impact in 2007, and we wouldn't have added an impact youngster since Phillips 18 months and counting.

So, did Wayne still believe the April-May of 2006 was real, and everything after illusion? Did the crash and burn of 2006 not give him pause enough to also return to 'build for the future'? I can see reflexively reacting to 2006 success and bolstering the team when the year is 'choosing you', but I can't see contining to buy into it after the egg this team laid all last summer.

And now we find ourselves more than halfway through 2007, and we're completely stagnant again. We find ourselves headed back to last place with a bullet, and 20 games under, in a weak division. And yet, we're standing pat. Griff couldn't be moved during his most productive year of the decade, the Dunn situation is no closer to being resolved, but we're closer to watching him walk for a Drew Stubbs, our tattered bullpen anchored by a stalwart soon to be 38 year old Weathers for another year, our farm's crown jewel rushed and then injured for naught, and our only 'ready' minor league stud bat blocked by a @40 year old platoon that couldn't be traded, and perhaps a new .290OBP Cantu experiment?

Where are we going with all of this? I have little problem with Wayne getting burned the first time with 'the trade' even if redflags should have been everywhere preventing him from doing it, but to then follow suit with the offseason moves of 2007, and the trading season passing without event... that really leads me to believe that he's lost the plot and isn't likely to find it again.

red-in-la
08-02-2007, 09:21 PM
"Everybody's got a plan until they get hit" - Mike Tyson


I love that quote. Best thing he said before he faded into bolivian.



Is that where Tyson ended up.....hum.....:eek:

"The next time I say let's go to somewhere like Bolivia, let's go to Bolivia"

- Butch Cassidy (well, really Paul Newman)

Aronchis
08-02-2007, 09:31 PM
Bob going back to all the GM candidates that turned him down before: Hey, I am a patient man.

GAC
08-02-2007, 09:34 PM
No I see a guy who came on at the start of ST 18 months ago under a new owner he didn't know and taking over a team that already had the franchises worst pitching in a 120 plus history and hadn't had a first round draft choice since 1998 even sniff big league success.

In short it was a mess, not a walk in the park.

Preach it brother! :thumbup:

But to say that is translated as "Krivksy love".

No - it's simply "Can we give this guy a chance to SEE if he is the guy that can turn this organization around?"

What I would like to know from those have have this "hate" for Krivsky because he hasn't somehow magically turned this team around in 18 months - and maybe this could be a separate thread discussion....

Lets play "You're The Owner/GM"

Taking into consideration all the variables present, evaluate this organization from top to bottom and what issues need to be addressed to turn this team in the right direction, and then, tell us what your plan of action would be, what steps you'd take, and how long you'd give yourself to realistically implement that plan and see results.

But what direction would you go?

To get from point "A" to point "B", you first have to evaluate the existing shape of your starting point and where to begin.

Falls City Beer
08-02-2007, 09:38 PM
We're at the same point in Krivsky's tenure that we were in DanO's when everyone wanted him canned. What's different? What distinguishes Krivsky *substantively* from DanO?

NJReds
08-02-2007, 09:47 PM
We're at the same point in Krivsky's tenure that we were in DanO's when everyone wanted him canned. What's different? What distinguishes Krivsky *substantively* from DanO?

I agree. I have no hope for a turnaround anytime soon. I though Castellini would make a difference. I have to admit, he talked a good game, but it's same-old, same-old.

edabbs44
08-02-2007, 09:51 PM
Preach it brother! :thumbup:

But to say that is translated as "Krivksy love".

No - it's simply "Can we give this guy a chance to SEE if he is the guy that can turn this organization around?"

What I would like to know from those have have this "hate" for Krivsky because he hasn't somehow magically turned this team around in 18 months - and maybe this could be a separate thread discussion....

Lets play "You're The Owner/GM"

Taking into consideration all the variables present, evaluate this organization from top to bottom and what issues need to be addressed to turn this team in the right direction, and then, tell us what your plan of action would be, what steps you'd take, and how long you'd give yourself to realistically implement that plan and see results.

But what direction would you go?

To get from point "A" to point "B", you first have to evaluate the existing shape of your starting point and where to begin.

I don't have the energy to do a top to bottom of this entire franchise, but here's where I would focus my energy.

1) I wouldn't have signed anyone Wayne signed this off-season. I would have used Salmon, Dumatrait, Shack, Bailey, signed Eduardo Perez and anyone else I could have to fill in for the millions of dollars pissed away on Stanton, wasted on Conine, and thrown away on Gonzalez and Lohse.

2) With the money saved, I would have taken the best player (with an emphasis on pitching) available throughout the draft. Rick Porcello, how much would you like? Matt Harvey? Sign right here!

3) I would take the rest of the money saved and dump it into the international free agent market. The BoSox signed Michael Almanzar for $1.5 million? Why not make it $2 mil? Sign here Mike!

What would be the difference for this season? The major league club would suck worse? Big deal. The future would look a hell of a lot brighter.

Yachtzee
08-02-2007, 10:11 PM
Mark Shapiro was pretty candid after dealing Colon.

I can remember not long after taking over, Mark Shapiro sat down with Cleveland Scene Magazine and outlined his plan for the future of the Indians. It was very insightful and he still follows that plan.

Stormy
08-02-2007, 10:45 PM
I can remember not long after taking over, Mark Shapiro sat down with Cleveland Scene Magazine and outlined his plan for the future of the Indians. It was very insightful and he still follows that plan.


Right on, Yachtzee. Here's a link to some of that insightful material. What an enormous difference there could be with an innovative GM at the helm of our own franchise.

http://www.cleveland.com/gameplan/

SteelSD
08-02-2007, 11:22 PM
What I would like to know from those have have this "hate" for Krivsky because he hasn't somehow magically turned this team around in 18 months...

That's. Not. It.

Frankly, I didn't figure that Wayne Krivsky could "magically turn the team around in 18 months". What I've been looking for are:

Expectation #1: Consistent, measurable projected Pythag improvement.

Reality: Hasn't happened. The team played to a Pythag of 75-87. In 2006, despite a number of Krivsky moves geared to "win now", the team played to a 76-86 Pythag. The result of Krivsky's machinations in 2006 allowed me to project a 72-Win season coming into 2007. Unfortunately, the Reds are playing to a 70-92 Pythag record currently should they continue their current Run Diff pace.

Krivsky has taken a mediocre team and made it worse. Let's face facts...

Wayne Krivsky acquired 7 of the 15 players who appeared in tonight's game. Many nights it's well over 50%. When you've done that and your team is worse you get no quarter because that means you've put a whole lot more than just a "fingerprint" on your MLB product over 18+ months. This isn't a team relying on nothing but holdovers from previous regimes. This is Krivsky's product. Enjoy.

Expectation #2: When your mantra is "pitching and defense", then we need to see improvement in the pitching and the defense.

Reality: Coming into tonight's game, the Reds had the third-worst ERA in the National League and had given up the second-most Runs per Game in the National League. They have the third-worst Defensive Efficiency Rate (DER) in baseball, bested by only the multiple-player-out-of-position Florida Marlins and the tragically inept mess of jeans-selling that is the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

Expectation #3: When you're determined to build a bullpen, then build it.

Reality: When David Weathers is untouchable we've got what we call an issue. The Reds are tied for dead last in the National League in bullpen ERA at 4.94. They're third-to-last in Runs per Inning Pitched. Subjectively, I can't remember so many Inherited Runners to cross the plate once a reliever enters the game. They've been waiting on Eddie Guardado and Bill Bray to provide a significant boost. Mike Stanton is seen as an asset. Rheal Cormier is still being paid. The DFA shuttle from MLB to AAA and back again has been endless. When you're easily moving around relief pitchers no one else wants when just about anyone wants even marginal relief pitchers then it's pretty clear that you've screwed something up.

Expectation #4 When you're determined to draft the best player available, actually draft the best player available.

Reality: Drew Stubbs over Tim Lincecum. Please. Teenage Catcher- the longest of long shots- in the middle of the first round.

Expectation #5: Be articulate in your communication of your plan during times of adversity. Promote confidence for your fan base.

Reality: "Get better, get better players, play better." is not a plan. Krivsky's "plan" hasn't produced the desired results in any way, shape, or form. He's done a decent job at hitting on castoffs (Arroyo, Phillips, Hamilton) but has yet to maximize any kind of value when trading higher-value MLB chips and, considering the trade deadine lack of movement, he appears to dramatically overvalue veteran players he thinks he can count on.

Unfortunately, the vast majority of veteran players he's acquired are just plain bad. There's absolutely no reason for Scott Hatteberg (the one "good"), Jeff Conine, Mike Stanton, and Jeff Conine to still be on this team after the trade deadline. Ryan Freel, despite his current OBP, should have been able to draw some interest. Griffey should have been a moveable piece for a contending team looking for an offensive boost. But the only move was an obvious trade of a soon-to-be-gone Kyle Lohse.

Yay.

I could continue, but that would be pointless. There's little Krivsky has done to impress me. When you take a team that has a real offense and then backslide in order to acquire bad pitching and bad defense to an end result of "worse projected record than you inherited", you get a vote of no confidence from me. Call that unfair all you like, but when you set out to do specific things and then don't do them, that's where I'm left.

WVRedsFan
08-02-2007, 11:39 PM
Bravo, Steel.

That's it in a very large nutshell.

RFS62
08-02-2007, 11:45 PM
.... looking at all the peripherals available which indicated that 2006's hot start was an anomoly, would a GM not consult such barometers thoroughly enough to realize that April-May of 2006 was mostly mirage?

If not, did the lesson of June-September's nosedive not prepare him to return to the path prior to 2007? Instead we see moves which smack of a continued belief that this team was a tweak away, so add the veteran 1B bat platoon, add the veteran glovesmith SS to an above market 3 year deal, add the latest round of veteran arms to the bullpen, extend Arroyo at the moment of his highest ever career value, raise and extend Freel etc...


I think that remembering the context of his start last season is important when considering his moves.

He finally has his dream job, and he immediately signs Dunn to a multi-year deal. Then, he picks up Bronson and Phillips.

The media was in love with him. The team was winning, when nobody thought they had a prayer.

He was spinning straw into gold, and getting a ton of national publicity. The world was his oyster, at long last, after all these years of preparation and hard work.

But such is the two-edged sword of wheeling and dealing. "The trade", his all-in move to chase the dream of last season, blew up in his face in a very public way. Regardless of how you assess that deal, and Lord knows we've beaten it to death around here, it signaled the beginning of the end of his magical season.

He went from media darling to being soundly pummeled in both the local and national press for that trade.

I still believe he deserves a chance to turn it back around. I think he was swept up in circumstances beyond his control, with the shadow of Castellini's promise to "contend now" looming large in the background of every decision he made.

But as much as I think he's been pulled in different directions by many different factors, judging his performance is part of the turf... part of the deal you sign up for when you take the helm of a major league team.

He came out of the gate like Secretariat. Right now, he's heading for the final turn looking more like Mr. Ed.

WVRedsFan
08-03-2007, 12:04 AM
I still believe he deserves a chance to turn it back around. I think he was swept up in circumstances beyond his control, with the shadow of Castellini's promise to "contend now" looming large in the background of every decision he made.

He came out of the gate like Secretariat. Right now, he's heading for the final turn looking more like Mr. Ed.

Well, I don't know. I had to fire a guy who was not doing well about 5 years ago. He came in like gangbusters. Made probably 20 sales in 10 days and then settled into a comfortable 4or 5 per week for a month. Then, the mistakes came. He did this wrong or that wrong. Pretty soon, everything was a mess--worse than before I hired him. I gave him a chance to redeem himself and it just got worse. So bad that I had to spend a bunch of money just to clean it all up.

No. He needs to go. He's proven all he needs to prove to me. And I guarantee this. If he's allowed to try to turn it around, the risk is he will do like my guy and screw it up more. The news that he's calling the shots (on lineup) for MacKlanin is very telling, especially with having no OBP at the top of the lineup outside of Griffey. The Reds in their current condition can't afford any more screwups if we want to contend anytime in my lifetime.

Caveat Emperor
08-03-2007, 12:09 AM
Expectation #5: Be articulate in your communication of your plan during times of adversity. Promote confidence for your fan base.

This has been brought up several times in this thread -- articulation of a plan to the fanbase.

I'd guess that if Wayne Krivsky opened a website tomorrow and posted his 10 point plan for returning the Reds to greatness, there'd be about 20,000 people in this city excited -- the exact same 20,000 people that make up an average attendance night at GABP. In short, the same people who are die hard Reds fans and who are going to be at the ballpark no matter what comes out (or doesn't come out of) of the GM's mouth.

The very real fact is that if this team blows the operation up and rebuilds tomorrow, they'll still probably average 20,000 per home date. If they do nothing and continue to suck, they'll average about 20,000 per home date. The other 25,000 people will show up when the team stops talking about winning and actually starts winning.

The fanbase? I couldn't give less of a crap about what gets said to them, because the only thing the fanbase responds to, in the long term, is winning. Winning baseball brings fans to the ballpark and gets fans excited about the product, not a plan for winning or some vague notion of how winning may be possible in the future.

Ltlabner
08-03-2007, 07:39 AM
Expectation #2: When your mantra is "pitching and defense", then we need to see improvement in the pitching and the defense.

Reality: Coming into tonight's game, the Reds had the third-worst ERA in the National League and had given up the second-most Runs per Game in the National League. They have the third-worst Defensive Efficiency Rate (DER) in baseball, bested by only the multiple-player-out-of-position Florida Marlins and the tragically inept mess of jeans-selling that is the Tampa Bay Devil Rays.

Steel...hard to argue with your post. Lots of good stuff in there. Also hard to argue when the team record stinks.

Two thoughts however. The overall team DER is likely brought down by Gonzo, as is any other team defensive metric. One fact that tends to get glossed over is that his 10 month old son has been in and out of the hospital for most of his (?) short life. That's going to distract a player. They are human.

It's interesting that we are asked to give EE slack for the mental effects of being "jerked around" by the team, and Dunn for the effects of the press hounding on him. But Gonzo has what I would argue to be an even more pressing personal issue and it largley goes unmentioned.

Not saying this is a defensive powerhouse team if Gonzo isn't distratcted, just that any team defensive metrics will be squed by his less that stellar year and that there is a very good reason why he might be distracted. I'd argue if Gonzo puts in a normal good (but not great) year in the field along with his suprising bat then he's not a bad move at short at all. Not a fantastic way to fill the SS position, but a decent way to anchor an important position.

Also, its interesting that you chose ERA when you reguarly argue that ERA is a horrable way to measure pitching performance. Not saying that the rest of the numbers don't stink (they likely do) just thought it was odd.

nate
08-03-2007, 08:39 AM
That's. Not. It.

Frankly, I didn't figure that Wayne Krivsky could "magically turn the team around in 18 months". What I've been looking for are:

Expectation #1: Consistent, measurable projected Pythag improvement.

Reality: Hasn't happened. The team played to a Pythag of 75-87. In 2006, despite a number of Krivsky moves geared to "win now", the team played to a 76-86 Pythag. The result of Krivsky's machinations in 2006 allowed me to project a 72-Win season coming into 2007. Unfortunately, the Reds are playing to a 70-92 Pythag record currently should they continue their current Run Diff pace.

In 2005, they played to a Pythag of 75-87
In 2004, 67-95 (they WAY overperformed that year)



Krivsky has taken a mediocre team and made it worse. Let's face facts...

I respectfully disagree, he's taken a bad team and made it pretty bad.


Expectation #2: When your mantra is "pitching and defense", then we need to see improvement in the pitching and the defense.

The pitching, bad as it is, was actually worse in 2004 - 2005.



YEAR G ERA IP H R ER HR BB SO ERA+ K/9 K/BB BB/9 HR/9
2004 162 5.19 1443.7 1595 907 832 236.0 572 992 77 6.18 1.73 3.57 1.47
2005 163 5.15 1433 1657 889 820 219.0 492 955 86 6.00 1.94 3.09 1.38
2006 162 4.51 1445.7 1576 801 725 213.0 464 1053 106 6.56 2.27 2.89 1.33
2007 108 4.80 967.7 1063 560 516 110.0 334 704 96 6.55 2.11 3.11 1.02


Yeah, not ready to start printing out playoff tickets based on these numbers but indications that we're starting to strike out more batters (probably because of Aaron Harang), giving up fewer home runs (probably because of the lack of Eric Milton) and allowing fewer runs compared to the league. The BB/9 was trending down but is creeping up again. Still, nowhere near as frustrating as the 2004 rate.

No, its not "good" but neither is it "worse".

No argument on the defense other than to say it seemed it was better at the beginning of the season. I can't claim to understand defensive stats enough to argue which system is better than the other. I can remember an interview with Arroyo where he was very happy with the Gonzales signing and pointed out how much good defense helps a pitcher out.


Reality: When David Weathers is untouchable we've got what we call an issue. The Reds are tied for dead last in the National League in bullpen ERA at 4.94. They're third-to-last in Runs per Inning Pitched. Subjectively, I can't remember so many Inherited Runners to cross the plate once a reliever enters the game. They've been waiting on Eddie Guardado and Bill Bray to provide a significant boost. Mike Stanton is seen as an asset. Rheal Cormier is still being paid. The DFA shuttle from MLB to AAA and back again has been endless. When you're easily moving around relief pitchers no one else wants when just about anyone wants even marginal relief pitchers then it's pretty clear that you've screwed something up.

Yes, its bad. It was actually worse before in 2004-2005. Danny Graves thinks you're #1!


Reality: Drew Stubbs over Tim Lincecum. Please. Teenage Catcher- the longest of long shots- in the middle of the first round.

Well, at least Wayne has 9 other GMs he can commiserate with over letting Lincecum go. Yes, I'd prefer to have him over Stubbs right now...no question.


Expectation #5: Be articulate in your communication of your plan during times of adversity. Promote confidence for your fan base.

Reality: "Get better, get better players, play better." is not a plan. Krivsky's "plan" hasn't produced the desired results in any way, shape, or form. He's done a decent job at hitting on castoffs (Arroyo, Phillips, Hamilton) but has yet to maximize any kind of value when trading higher-value MLB chips and, considering the trade deadine lack of movement, he appears to dramatically overvalue veteran players he thinks he can count on.

A lot of teams are having that problem. Talent, even mediocre talent is being held close.


Unfortunately, the vast majority of veteran players he's acquired are just plain bad. There's absolutely no reason for Scott Hatteberg (the one "good"), Jeff Conine, Mike Stanton, and Jeff Conine to still be on this team after the trade deadline. Ryan Freel, despite his current OBP, should have been able to draw some interest. Griffey should have been a moveable piece for a contending team looking for an offensive boost. But the only move was an obvious trade of a soon-to-be-gone Kyle Lohse.

Don't make it worse by giving us Conine twice!

The other moves...who knows? Maybe Ryan Freel _wasn't_ an attractive piece. I mean, when you're being outplayed by NoHo, something's wrong.

Griffey could veto anything he didn't like so not only do you have to find a trade partner, the criteria are narrowed by the whims of Kenneth the younger.


I could continue, but that would be pointless. There's little Krivsky has done to impress me. When you take a team that has a real offense and then backslide in order to acquire bad pitching and bad defense to an end result of "worse projected record than you inherited", you get a vote of no confidence from me. Call that unfair all you like, but when you set out to do specific things and then don't do them, that's where I'm left.

Fair enough. For me, this offseason is going to determine what I think they should do with management. Currently, I give Wayne a C/C-.

GAC
08-03-2007, 08:45 AM
Not exactly what you are asking for, but this probably comes close:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/c/cd/Moneyballsbn.jpg

:)

I'd say, further, that the Braves, Yankees, and Red Sox are good examples of teams, generally, stick to their organizational philosophy quite well. They may not come right out and say what it is, but their actions generally fall in a consistent pattern.

That's true; but they also are in a position (have the luxury) to be able to throw around big money when something goes awry or they need to fill a hole. Who all was really in the running for Gagne? And look what he forsook to play for the Sox and a post-season appearance. Would he have done that for other interested teams? I sincerely doubt it. Just for the sake of discussion - If Krivsky had offered up Dunn for Gagne and some high level prospects, do you think Gagne would have dropped the no-trade clause in his contract to come to the Reds? Again, I doubt it.

SteelSD
08-03-2007, 09:12 AM
Not saying this is a defensive powerhouse team if Gonzo isn't distratcted, just that any team defensive metrics will be squed by his less that stellar year and that there is a very good reason why he might be distracted. I'd argue if Gonzo puts in a normal good (but not great) year in the field along with his suprising bat then he's not a bad move at short at all. Not a fantastic way to fill the SS position, but a decent way to anchor an important position.

Even if I accepted the reasoning that he's been distracted, I don't see Alex Gonzalez' season as "good thing gone wrong". Instead, it's "mediocre thing gone wrong". There was little chance that Gonzalez was going to live up to his hype defensively- at least not enough to have more than a residual positive effect on the Reds DER.


Also, its interesting that you chose ERA when you reguarly argue that ERA is a horrable way to measure pitching performance. Not saying that the rest of the numbers don't stink (they likely do) just thought it was odd.

The Reds are also fourth to last in Equivalent Runs Against and hold the same slot in Adjusted EQR. Amusingly, they've actually been helped by Kyle Lohse's annoyingly inconsistent walk year to the point of his trade. I didn't want to keep him around, but barring some really unlikely stuff (like Phil Dumatrait being good) it's likely to get worse.

bucksfan2
08-03-2007, 09:30 AM
I am going to go off on a little tangen here. I will first say that I have never read moneyball nor do I ever plan on reading it. IMO that money ball has lead you its readers to believe that they know more than your GM's in the game. It has brought about a whole new world of subjective stats that have a large portion of their make up in human bias. I liken Moneyball and baseball success to someone reading a financial book, dumping $100,000 into the market and think they can follow the book and triple that money in a year. It just doesn't happen.

I know there are a lot of us on RZ who are passionate fans. There are a lot of us who watch a lot of baseball. There are a lot of knowledgable fans who bring different sides, view points, and stats to the table. However to my knowledge there aren't any front office people in redszone. There aren't any people who spend 15 hours a day on baseball. There aren't any of us whose sole job is to analyze the farm systems of every team in baseball. Go over to the minor league section and there are posters bashing Drew Stubbs, many of whom have never seen the guy actually play baseball. Many of us rely on stats and other information to analyze certain players without even watching them play a game. Wayne Krivsky for the past 26 years has spend countless hours per day with the game of baseball. No one knows who or what was offered for certain players during the trade deadline. No one knows what kind of deals he passed up. I am sure that if Wayne thought the trades were not going to help the state of this organization he wouldn't make the move.

The frustrating thing for me is not people being critical, more its people disliking Krivsky because the disagree with a certain move. Every move the guy makes there are some people on this board that lash into him. 18 months on the job, that is all he has had. He took over 18 months ago with a team that had its top prospects no higher than A ball. They had 4 outfielders who wanted playing time and the worst defense in baseball. He was stuck with bad contracts and little monetary flexibility. I will continue to say this, if you are only going to give your gm's 18 months to turn this team into a contender then you are going to have a poor ballclub on your hands for the next 20.

*I do not mean to offend anyone by this, just a rant, if I offended anyone I apologize.

SteelSD
08-03-2007, 09:50 AM
I am going to go off on a little tangen here. I will first say that I have never read moneyball nor do I ever plan on reading it. IMO that money ball has lead you its readers to believe that they know more than your GM's in the game. It has brought about a whole new world of subjective stats that have a large portion of their make up in human bias.

That's not what "Moneyball" is about.

BTW, there are ways to enter a discussion without again pepetuating an anti-stats bias or telling posters they don't have a right to analyze performance because they don't work as General Managers of a MLB baseball team. I don't build cars for a living, but if I'm driving one and the wheels fall off, I'm pretty sure I can figure out that there's a problem.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-03-2007, 09:58 AM
I am going to go off on a little tangen here. I will first say that I have never read moneyball nor do I ever plan on reading it. IMO that money ball has lead you its readers to believe that they know more than your GM's in the game.

If you have never read the book, how can you make this blanket assumption?

rdiersin
08-03-2007, 10:03 AM
It has brought about a whole new world of subjective stats that have a large portion of their make up in human bias.


I find this statement interesting. Any wish to expand? As I see it, stats use data that is objective. That is, no distinctions are made and the good "stats" tend to estimate something, whether it is runs scored or what have you, by using some output recorded data (i.e. hits, doubles, K's). By definition, they are using recorded events and trying to match them to recorded events (RS etc.) to see how, say, scoring runs evolves. There's not much there to subjective about.

GAC
08-03-2007, 10:04 AM
I don't have the energy to do a top to bottom of this entire franchise, but here's where I would focus my energy.

1) I wouldn't have signed anyone Wayne signed this off-season. I would have used Salmon, Dumatrait, Shack, Bailey,

They have all had playing time, and not faired too well. I was not impressed with Dumatrait the other night at all.


signed Eduardo Perez

How is signing a 37 yr old 1bman going to set us in the right direction for the future? We already have one who has performed equal or better then Perez....

Hatteberg .... AVG .306 HR 8 RBI 34 OBP .402 SLG .469
Perez .... AVG .253 HR 9 RBI 33 OBP .324 SLG .452


and anyone else I could have to fill in for the millions of dollars pissed away on Stanton, wasted on Conine, and thrown away on Gonzalez and Lohse.

That is easy for anyone to come out and SAY... "I'd have signed ANYONE but...", but who are the "anyones" you think you could have signed?

I agree with you on Stanton; but if you look at his numbers for SF last year, and his overall career, as well as our BP situation, I can understand the signing.

Gonzalez? The guy signed a 3 yr/14 mil contract. His '07 salary is 3.5 Mil with incremental increases over the next 2 years. Looking at the market, who was available, you find that excessive and wasteful spending? OK. How would you have addressed the SS situation/need? The guy has struggled defensively somewhat this year, that is obvious. But his offense the first half of the season has been the best we've seen from a SS since Larkin. Especially the power numbers. So far... 14 Hrs, 45 RBIs, .453 SLG%. GABP factor? So explain how his acquistion has hurt this team? The .298 OB%? That alone is why he shouldn't be on this team? He brings nothing else to the table? No, that is why he should be batting at the bottom half the order. And I am also gonna cut the guy some slack because he has had to struggle with some pretty heavy pesonal difficulties with his son. You don't think that won't weigh on somebody and effect their performance to a degree?

But again - how should they have better addressed this situation? BP to SS? OK. You have then created a void at 2B with no solution except experimenting with guys like Freel. Would people then be complaining about Phillip's and Freel's lackluster OB%.


2) With the money saved, I would have taken the best player (with an emphasis on pitching) available throughout the draft. Rick Porcello, how much would you like? Matt Harvey? Sign right here!

Two more high school pitchers. Out of 53 selections, the Reds selected 31 pitchers in this year's draft. The two you mentioned were impressive HS pitchers. So are some of the others the Reds did select.



3) I would take the rest of the money saved and dump it into the international free agent market. The BoSox signed Michael Almanzar for $1.5 million? Why not make it $2 mil? Sign here Mike!

You think it would have been that easy? The kid is only 16 and the son of former MLB pitcher and current Red Sox minor leaguer Carlos Almanzar. What makes you think he would have signed with the Reds over the Sox?


The future would look a hell of a lot brighter.

How? I'm no expert on the minor leagues; but you're coming from the position that all of Krivsky's draft picks (and this is his first one) are useless and/or make our future dimmer. How do you know this to be true when they are all unproven kids years away? You don't know if any of them are going to pan out and make our future brighter. That is the chance you take. There are no guarantees.

bucksfan2
08-03-2007, 10:31 AM
I find this statement interesting. Any wish to expand? As I see it, stats use data that is objective. That is, no distinctions are made and the good "stats" tend to estimate something, whether it is runs scored or what have you, by using some output recorded data (i.e. hits, doubles, K's). By definition, they are using recorded events and trying to match them to recorded events (RS etc.) to see how, say, scoring runs evolves. There's not much there to subjective about.

Some stats use data that is objective. They use fundamental baseball measueres to measue a certain output. avg, obp, era, runs scored, rbi, whip, etc. these stats use actual data with little to no human interference in creating the stat. There are a lot of more technical stats that are created that take into consideration a lot of human bias. I can't think of many right now for example win shares is a stat, era adjusted for ball park, anytime you try and adjust something for the different ball parks, zone ratings, etc. These stats all use some form of human bias in order to create the stat. It is my opinion that anytime someone creats a stat that intends to calculate something that is not cut and dry there is a lot of bias that tends to devalue the stat.

I do not mean to get into a statistical debate just explaining myself.

rdiersin
08-03-2007, 10:36 AM
Some stats use data that is objective. They use fundamental baseball measueres to measue a certain output. avg, obp, era, runs scored, rbi, whip, etc. these stats use actual data with little to no human interference in creating the stat. There are a lot of more technical stats that are created that take into consideration a lot of human bias. I can't think of many right now for example win shares is a stat, era adjusted for ball park, anytime you try and adjust something for the different ball parks, zone ratings, etc. These stats all use some form of human bias in order to create the stat. It is my opinion that anytime someone creats a stat that intends to calculate something that is not cut and dry there is a lot of bias that tends to devalue the stat.

I do not mean to get into a statistical debate just explaining myself.

Thanks for taking the time to expand on what you meant.

M2
08-03-2007, 10:44 AM
You can't tell me a Dukie like Krivsky didn't have a well thought out, well articulated plan to win the job in the interview process.

"Build through the draft.... pitching and defense..... the Twins way".....

Thing is, that's not a plan. It may sound like a plan, but it's mostly lip service. Everyone drafts. Everyone wants pitching. Everyone aspires to playing quality defense.

The devil really is in the details. The Reds don't have enough pitching and defense right now and the farm system isn't going to be delivering it in the near-term. So how do you fix that? And how do you balance that with putting runs across the plate?

I don't think Krivsky walked in not having a basic plan. He certainly has reorganized the developmental system (and I'd say for the better -- honestly, it couldn't get worse). That should bear some fruit in the future, though I'd like to see greater restraint shown with the organization's top pitchers in order to avoid a race to futility.

Where I find the plan incomplete is in the major league composition area. Krivsky seems opportunity driven. That's not a bad thing, but, as has been mentioned by others, there's some hard choices that need to be made and continue to be tabled. Krivsky might be able to clear that up if he did a better job of explaining where he thinks the team is at and then drawing the picture of where he'd like to go. He'd probably be well-served in explaining the industry dynamics too (e.g. "No one wants to make a trade these days, where you get something and give something. Everyone wants something for nothing."). Right now we're being asked to create context around too many seemingly incongruous moves. I'll say it again, JimBo lasted a decade because he was a good communicator.

I agree chasing the shadow of last year's false hope hurt the franchise, though I'm not sure if the front office understands how bad things are. I'll be pleasantly surprised if they tear down the team and bring in some high-end talents for the future. My expectation is we're going to see more deck chair arrangement.

westofyou
08-03-2007, 10:58 AM
signed Eduardo Perez and anyone else I could have to fill in for the millions of dollars pissed away on Stanton, wasted on Conine, and thrown away on Gonzalez and Lohse.

You mean Eduardo Perez, the guy who is the announcer on Baseball Tonight?

Yeah he'd be a great signing, just stunning.

BRM
08-03-2007, 10:59 AM
You mean Eduardo Perez, the guy who is the announcer on Baseball Tonight?

Yeah he'd be a great signing, just stunning.

Why not go after Orestes Destrade while we're at it?

edabbs44
08-03-2007, 11:24 AM
You mean Eduardo Perez, the guy who is the announcer on Baseball Tonight?

Yeah he'd be a great signing, just stunning.

1) Yep, the same Eduardo Perez who had an .835 OPS vs LHPs in 2006. Conine has a .789 OPS vs LHPs this season.

2) They could have Gammons or Olney instead of Conine and they'd still be in last place. What's the difference?

gonelong
08-03-2007, 11:32 AM
Some stats use data that is objective. They use fundamental baseball measueres to measue a certain output. avg, obp, era, runs scored, rbi, whip, etc. these stats use actual data with little to no human interference in creating the stat.

All those stats have been defined by humans and wouldn't exist without them. AVG, OBP, ERA, RBI, and WHIP are all affected by the subjective opinion of the official scorer.


There are a lot of more technical stats that are created that take into consideration a lot of human bias. I can't think of many right now for example win shares is a stat, era adjusted for ball park, anytime you try and adjust something for the different ball parks, zone ratings, etc. These stats all use some form of human bias in order to create the stat.

Zone ratings sure ... its also why many consider them to be unreliable and why they are generally cited and accepted as evidence but not proof.

ERA adjusted ball park? Not so much on the subjective part there. They take the numbers and adjust them based on the numbers of other Eras. If the league hit 3000 Hrs one year and 2800 the next then a HR in the second year was probably more valuable than in the first year.


It is my opinion that anytime someone creats a stat that intends to calculate something that is not cut and dry there is a lot of bias that tends to devalue the stat.

Agreed, but that is why some stats are readily accepted by many (OPS, RC/27, etc.) and others (DIPS ERA, CERA) are not.


I do not mean to get into a statistical debate just explaining myself.

Not a problem. :)

GL

edabbs44
08-03-2007, 11:37 AM
They have all had playing time, and not faired too well. I was not impressed with Dumatrait the other night at all.

Same with the millionaires on the roster. I'd rather go with the cheap labor if the same results would be had.



How is signing a 37 yr old 1bman going to set us in the right direction for the future? We already have one who has performed equal or better then Perez....

Hatteberg .... AVG .306 HR 8 RBI 34 OBP .402 SLG .469
Perez .... AVG .253 HR 9 RBI 33 OBP .324 SLG .452

Maybe I should have been clearer...Perez would probably have been just as effective and cheaper than Conine. But I would wait and see what happens the rest of the year...Hatteberg was the golden boy for the first half of '06 as well. But he was an absolute joke down the stretch last year.



That is easy for anyone to come out and SAY... "I'd have signed ANYONE but...", but who are the "anyones" you think you could have signed?

I agree with you on Stanton; but if you look at his numbers for SF last year, and his overall career, as well as our BP situation, I can understand the signing.

Gonzalez? The guy signed a 3 yr/14 mil contract. His '07 salary is 3.5 Mil with incremental increases over the next 2 years. Looking at the market, who was available, you find that excessive and wasteful spending? OK. How would you have addressed the SS situation/need? The guy has struggled defensively somewhat this year, that is obvious. But his offense the first half of the season has been the best we've seen from a SS since Larkin. Especially the power numbers. So far... 14 Hrs, 45 RBIs, .453 SLG%. GABP factor? So explain how his acquistion has hurt this team? The .298 OB%? That alone is why he shouldn't be on this team? He brings nothing else to the table? No, that is why he should be batting at the bottom half the order. And I am also gonna cut the guy some slack because he has had to struggle with some pretty heavy pesonal difficulties with his son. You don't think that won't weigh on somebody and effect their performance to a degree?

But again - how should they have better addressed this situation? BP to SS? OK. You have then created a void at 2B with no solution except experimenting with guys like Freel. Would people then be complaining about Phillip's and Freel's lackluster OB%.

My main issue is that millions were spent and the team is currently in last place. They could have used Juan Castro at SS and the team wouldn't be worse than they are now. That's a problem.



Two more high school pitchers. Out of 53 selections, the Reds selected 31 pitchers in this year's draft. The two you mentioned were impressive HS pitchers. So are some of the others the Reds did select.

You think it would have been that easy? The kid is only 16 and the son of former MLB pitcher and current Red Sox minor leaguer Carlos Almanzar. What makes you think he would have signed with the Reds over the Sox?

How? I'm no expert on the minor leagues; but you're coming from the position that all of Krivsky's draft picks (and this is his first one) are useless and/or make our future dimmer. How do you know this to be true when they are all unproven kids years away? You don't know if any of them are going to pan out and make our future brighter. That is the chance you take. There are no guarantees.

I did an analysis of all top 10 pitching prospects in the AL and the vast majority were drafted early on, like 1st round early on. Just because you use 31 of 53 picks on pitching doesn't mean you focused on pitching. Most good current pitching prospects come from very early in the draft. The fact that he used his first 2 on position players shows that pitching isn't a main focus here.

Chip R
08-03-2007, 12:04 PM
Nice discussion, folks. This is a prime example of how to discuss a topic without it turning into a flame war.

pedro
08-03-2007, 12:07 PM
If you look at Perez's splits between Chicago & Seattle last year you'll see he tanked the end of the year too. bad. Perhaps there was a reason he retired?

BRM
08-03-2007, 12:10 PM
If you look at Perez's splits between Chicago & Seattle last year you'll see he tanked the end of the year too. bad. Perhaps there was a reason he retired?

His OPS by month in 2006:

April - 1.089
May - .984
June - .780
July - .645
Aug - .500
Sep - .495

RedsManRick
08-03-2007, 12:17 PM
Excellent point, M2. It's not the what as much as the how. Everybody wants to win. Everybody wants to score lots of runs and prevent runs from scoring. Stating those as your objective is a goal, not a plan. The plan IS the details.

M2
08-03-2007, 12:27 PM
I did an analysis of all top 10 pitching prospects in the AL and the vast majority were drafted early on, like 1st round early on. Just because you use 31 of 53 picks on pitching doesn't mean you focused on pitching. Most good current pitching prospects come from very early in the draft. The fact that he used his first 2 on position players shows that pitching isn't a main focus here.

Though if you look at who the top pitchers in each league are, they're hardly ever a collection of top picks. Top pitching picks are great if you want highly-rated prospects, but nowhere near as effective if you want good pitching in the majors.

Far as I can tell, pitching depth is the best way deliver pitching from your system. The other thing you can do is go out and find struggling young pitchers whom you think can improve.

So I don't necessarily have a problem with the Reds taking position players with the top pick in the last two drafts, though my choices would have been Tim Lincecum and Rick Porcello.

RFS62
08-03-2007, 12:35 PM
Excellent point, M2. It's not the what as much as the how. Everybody wants to win. Everybody wants to score lots of runs and prevent runs from scoring. Stating those as your objective is a goal, not a plan. The plan IS the details.


And it's not just the "what" and the "how". You also have to factor the "why" in there as well. None of it happened in a vacuum. It's been a dynamic and fluid situation in which the focus and motivations have changed a number of times as it played out.

And even as much as we've analyzed, talked about and picked this topic apart, we still don't have complete knowledge of all the factors.

But this thread has reminded me of why I love talkin' baseball with you guys.

edabbs44
08-03-2007, 12:38 PM
If you look at Perez's splits between Chicago & Seattle last year you'll see he tanked the end of the year too. bad. Perhaps there was a reason he retired?

He would have fit in perfectly with the '06 Reds then.

edabbs44
08-03-2007, 12:48 PM
Though if you look at who the top pitchers in each league are, they're hardly ever a collection of top picks. Top pitching picks are great if you want highly-rated prospects, but nowhere near as effective if you want good pitching in the majors.

Far as I can tell, pitching depth is the best way deliver pitching from your system. The other thing you can do is go out and find struggling young pitchers whom you think can improve.

So I don't necessarily have a problem with the Reds taking position players with the top pick in the last two drafts, though my choices would have been Tim Lincecum and Rick Porcello.

Not quite sure what you mean...if drafting pitching isn't the best way to have good pitching in the majors, what is? And as a follow up, what's the best way for a small to mid mkt team to build effective major league pitching?

RedsManRick
08-03-2007, 02:15 PM
Some stats use data that is objective. They use fundamental baseball measueres to measue a certain output. avg, obp, era, runs scored, rbi, whip, etc. these stats use actual data with little to no human interference in creating the stat. There are a lot of more technical stats that are created that take into consideration a lot of human bias. I can't think of many right now for example win shares is a stat, era adjusted for ball park, anytime you try and adjust something for the different ball parks, zone ratings, etc. These stats all use some form of human bias in order to create the stat. It is my opinion that anytime someone creats a stat that intends to calculate something that is not cut and dry there is a lot of bias that tends to devalue the stat.

I do not mean to get into a statistical debate just explaining myself.

Hits are subjective too. Should it have been an error? Don't forget walks. Balls and strikes are subjective. There are levels of granularity, but everything is an interpretation of an event at some level.

pedro
08-03-2007, 02:20 PM
He would have fit in perfectly with the '06 Reds then.

yup because then you could have complained about him too!

edabbs44
08-03-2007, 02:51 PM
yup because then you could have complained about him too!

Gotta perform to get cheers from me. Pretty simple.

My philosophy is that Perez would have been a cheaper alternative to Conine, who wasn't expected to do much anyway. Money savings then pumped into the farm system via draft and intl FAs. Win win.

pedro
08-03-2007, 02:57 PM
Gotta perform to get cheers from me. Pretty simple.

My philosophy is that Perez would have been a cheaper alternative to Conine, who wasn't expected to do much anyway. Money savings then pumped into the farm system via draft and intl FAs. Win win.

Perez made 1.7 Million last year. Conine makes 2 million this year Somehow I don't think that assumed 300,000 savings makes all that big a deal.

edabbs44
08-03-2007, 03:02 PM
Perez made 1.7 Million last year. Conine makes 2 million this year Somehow I don't think that assumed 300,000 savings makes all that big a deal.

From this past spring:


CHICAGO -- Infielder Eduardo Perez agreed Monday to a minor league contract with the Chicago White Sox and was invited to the team's spring training camp.

The 37-year-old Perez is a career .247 hitter with 79 home runs and 294 RBIs in 754 games over 13 major-league seasons. He's played with the Angeles, Reds, Cardinals, Devil Rays, Indians and Mariners.

Perez, the son of Hall of Fame first baseman Tony Perez, split last season between Cleveland and Seattle. He batted .253 with nine homers and 33 RBIs in 80 games.

If added to the major league roster, he would get a base salary of $575,000.

pedro
08-03-2007, 03:04 PM
From this past spring:

and he did so well that he was cut and now he's not even playing.

bucksfan2
08-03-2007, 03:08 PM
Perez made 1.7 Million last year. Conine makes 2 million this year Somehow I don't think that assumed 300,000 savings makes all that big a deal.

There is a reason that Perez is on baseball tonight and Conine is playing right now. At first I did not like trade but as of right now Conine has done nothing that says he is not a useful platoon first baseman.

edabbs44
08-03-2007, 03:08 PM
and he did so well that he was cut and now he's not even playing.

And even if he went 0 for 600 with the Reds this season, they'd still be in last place. That's my whole point. And even so, the CWS already have a very good righty 1st baseman. They don't need a platoon guy. Cincy needed one and traded for Jeff Conine and his $2 million salary. Sign Perez for 200 PAs and save $1.5 million and 2 minor leaguers.

Anyway, thank God Conine is on the roster, or else they'd really be in trouble.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-03-2007, 03:18 PM
Conine is the bottom of the barrel in regards to 1B production. Jesse Gutierrez would probably serve just as decent a back-up at 400K.

Don't get me wrong, Conine is not the sole reason this club is pitiful. I guess the point is that I don't understand throwing away $1.5 M for a 40-year old replacement level player that has no future (beyond 2007) on a ballclub.

edabbs44
08-03-2007, 03:42 PM
Conine is the bottom of the barrel in regards to 1B production. Jesse Gutierrez would probably serve just as decent a back-up at 400K.

Don't get me wrong, Conine is not the sole reason this club is pitiful. I guess the point is that I don't understand throwing away $1.5 M for a 40-year old replacement level player that has no future (beyond 2007) on a ballclub.

Exactly.

M2
08-03-2007, 04:41 PM
Not quite sure what you mean...if drafting pitching isn't the best way to have good pitching in the majors, what is? And as a follow up, what's the best way for a small to mid mkt team to build effective major league pitching?

I didn't say not to draft pitching, but those ultra high picks who look so pretty on the prospect lists often get surpassed by guys who never were hot prospects. It's not grabbing that one name arm that gets you a good pitching staff, it's finding 6-10 guys every draft who can reach the high minors and show some proficiency. Then you'll have some keepers and the depth to trade for what you can't develop.

M2
08-03-2007, 04:46 PM
And even as much as we've analyzed, talked about and picked this topic apart, we still don't have complete knowledge of all the factors.

Absolutely true. I'll take it even a step farther, the team never has complete knowledge of all the factors either.

That doesn't even get into the science/art of weighing the factors. It's a tough job, no doubt about it.

Certainly this summer has been a horrible trade market. I'm glad Krivsky didn't give anyone away, but it puts him in an excruciatingly uneasy position. I'm sure he knows he's got to make some scores in the trade market over the next year. If the market doesn't open up, Wayne's personal window for success could close.

Johnny Footstool
08-03-2007, 05:10 PM
Certainly this summer has been a horrible trade market. I'm glad Krivsky didn't give anyone away, but it puts him in an excruciatingly uneasy position. I'm sure he knows he's got to make some scores in the trade market over the next year. If the market doesn't open up, Wayne's personal window for success could close.

The thing that cheeses me off is that Krivsky missed some real opportunities last offseason, and as a result the Reds were left high and dry at the deadline.

He could have signed either Dotel (good risk) or Gagne (poor risk) this offseason -- both were looking for jobs as closer, and both signed relatively cheap. The Reds were in desperate need of a closer and should have been able to afford either of those guys. But he passed, content to ride Weathers until Eddie Guardado healed.

Both of those guys ended up getting traded for real young talent -- a good return for a $5 million investment. So Wayne's lack of vision is what really hurt the team at the deadline.

edabbs44
08-03-2007, 05:32 PM
I didn't say not to draft pitching, but those ultra high picks who look so pretty on the prospect lists often get surpassed by guys who never were hot prospects. It's not grabbing that one name arm that gets you a good pitching staff, it's finding 6-10 guys every draft who can reach the high minors and show some proficiency. Then you'll have some keepers and the depth to trade for what you can't develop.

Absolutely...but there's nothing wrong with using a 1st round draft pick on a pitcher. The first pick last year and first 2 this year went on position players. With the way pitching prices have gone, I am completely shocked that they didn't try and load up.

GAC
08-03-2007, 05:51 PM
Conine is the bottom of the barrel in regards to 1B production. Jesse Gutierrez would probably serve just as decent a back-up at 400K.

Don't get me wrong, Conine is not the sole reason this club is pitiful.

Exactly. We're arguing (discussing) that peripheral moves like a Conine contributes to this teams current woes or holding us back from improving, when, IMO, moves like this are pretty insignificant. The problem is much deeper IMO.


we are completley missing the point I guess the point is that I don't understand throwing away $1.5 M for a 40-year old replacement level player that has no future (beyond 2007) on a ballclub.

I've always felt that players like Conine, who were given 1 yr deals, are seen as "stopgap" players whom this FO realizes aren't the future; but those players that are (or could be) the future just aren't ready yet. Or it's meant to give them another year of development. Like a Votto for instance. You're trying to fill a role as cheaply as possible and for the meantime.

But I am hoping that Krivsky does some serious "house cleaning" of alot of these players at season's end. Guys like Conine, Moeller, Castro need to be gone.

But again, these players aren't the main reason this team is woeful. IMHO, it has always led back to not having a sucessfull farm system where scouting and player develoment is your primary supply. And that is my primary concern (question)..... since taking voer this team, HOW LONG should they be allowed to try and correct.

Everyone likes this Keppinger kid. So do I so far. But he is an example of someone who didn't come up through our farm system, but who Krivsky snatched from someone else's farm system.

I have thoroughly been disappointed (frustrated) with our farm system for many years now. It is the "life blood" of any organization. Especially a team like the Reds. I'm simply hoping that Cast/Kriv realizes this, and start to do something about it. But again, that takes time to correct. And more importantly, it's not a process where you are going to see immediate results.

nate
08-03-2007, 06:10 PM
I have thoroughly been disappointed (frustrated) with our farm system for many years now. It is the "life blood" of any organization. Especially a team like the Reds. I'm simply hoping that Cast/Kriv realizes this, and start to do something about it. But again, that takes time to correct. And more importantly, it's not a process where you are going to see immediate results.

Exactly. Who was the last pitcher we drafted that made it to the big league club and was successful?

RedsManRick
08-03-2007, 07:49 PM
Exactly. Who was the last pitcher we drafted that made it to the big league club and was successful?

Here are the pitchers in the last 15 years who the Reds drafted and made their major league debut with the Reds. You can judge their level of success.

Year: Player (Rd)
1992: Curt Lyons (6)
1993: Scott Sullivan (2)
1994: CJ Nitkowski (1), John Reidling (22)
1995: Brett Tomko (1), Justin Atchley (12), Lance Davis (16), Scott MacRae (32)
1997: Scott Williamson (9)
1998: Josh Hall (7), B.J. Ryan (17), Brad Salmon (31),Todd Coffey (41)
2003: Ryan Wagner (1)
2004: Homer Bailey (1)

I see Sullivan, Tomko, and Williamson as the only significant contributors here. Salmon, Coffey, and Bailey could yet be.

BJ Ryan had 2 IP before we traded him for Guzman in 1999. What's sad is that there aren't really even that many guys who we drafted and had any success elsewhere. Here are the number of Reds draftees who made the majors at all, ever, from each draft since 1992 and the guys who you'd consider "established major leagers":

1992: 8 (2: Eric Owens, Chad Fox)
1993: 6 (2: Scott Sullivan, Paul Bako)
1994: 6 (2: CJ Nitkowski, Aaron Boone)
1995: 10 (3: Brett Tomko, Ray King, Rob Mackowiak)
1996: 2 (Brady Clark signed as MLFA)
1997: 5 (1: Scott Williamson)
1998: 9 (5: Austin Kearns, Adam Dunn, BJ Ryan, Todd Coffey, Terrmel Sledge)
1999: 3 (1: Ben Broussard)
2000: 5 (1: Dustin Moseley)
2001: 1
2002: 1
2003: 1 (1: Ryan Wagner)
2004: 0

If we just consider the 9 years 1992-2000, we averaged 6 guys who ever made the majors and 2 MLB regulars in each draft. If you can assume that at any point in time there are 15 MLB regulars per team, that totals 450 regulars in the league at a given time. If each team produced 2 MLB regulars per draft class, that would be 60 per year, more than enough to keep the majors stocked with players given the average career length of a guy who makes it and sticks. So maybe we have "unrealistic expectations".

What we've really failed to do is develop any stars. Sullivan was a horse, but no star. Tomko was a reliable back of the rotation guy. Williamson peaked in his rookie year after 2 years in the minors and lasted 2 more before his arm blew up. BJ Ryan debuted the year after being drafted and then found success after a few years as a sub-par middle reliever in Baltimore. Wagner burst on the scene as a draftee and has gone downhill with performance and injury since then.

Since Tomko, the only pitchers we've "developed" have been college reliever types who usually surface quickly, burn brightly for a few years and then bust. Dunn is the only multi-year all-star we've developed in 15 years. Not that those guys grow on trees, but that pretty much says it all. Broussard, Clark and Kearns are decent major leaguers, but nothing special - more in the Boone mold.

Redsland
08-03-2007, 08:16 PM
I assume you only went back to '92 so as to exclude the great Larry Luebbers from the discussion.

;)

nate
08-03-2007, 08:26 PM
Here are the guys in the last 15 years who the Reds drafted and made their major league debut with the Reds...

Thanks, RMR. That's really interesting.

vaticanplum
08-03-2007, 08:57 PM
Fantastic post, RedsManRick. Really interesting.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-03-2007, 09:02 PM
I've always felt that players like Conine, who were given 1 yr deals, are seen as "stopgap" players whom this FO realizes aren't the future; but those players that are (or could be) the future just aren't ready yet. Or it's meant to give them another year of development. Like a Votto for instance. You're trying to fill a role as cheaply as possible and for the meantime.

I agree. I just don't see the reason to spend $2M on a stopgap player when you can bring one up from AAA or sign a Bellhorn type of player to a major legaue minimum kind of deal.

It's not a huge deal. I just don't understand the logic. It's not like a Conine is going to put you over the top, so why not save $1.6 M and bring up a RH bat like Gutierrez to act as the stop gap.

pedro
08-03-2007, 09:48 PM
I agree. I just don't see the reason to spend $2M on a stopgap player when you can bring one up from AAA or sign a Bellhorn type of player to a major legaue minimum kind of deal.

It's not a huge deal. I just don't understand the logic. It's not like a Conine is going to put you over the top, so why not save $1.6 M and bring up a RH bat like Gutierrez to act as the stop gap.

I think they did it because they wanted to make sure that they got a committed platoon partner for Hatteberg that they knew would OPS over 700, play decent defense, not strike out a lot, be someone that old geezer fans can appreciate, and maybe be a good influence to the other players. I think that's what they got too.

Considering the investment and the fact that the Reds weren't going anywhere anyway this year it isn't that big a deal. I don't think the Reds will be worse next year for having Jeff Conine on the team this year.

BTW the current 1B tandem is on pace for 100 RBI's and 91 runs (granted they have had extra ab's b/c of PH appearances) and is getting paid 3.5 Million dollars. I think that's pretty good bang for the Reds buck.

ochre
08-03-2007, 10:05 PM
Dude. You totally skipped Brandon Larson, Chad Mottola and Pat Watkins! It doesn't get any more established than that triumvirate...

pedro
08-03-2007, 10:17 PM
Dude. You totally skipped Brandon Larson, Chad Mottola and Pat Watkins! It doesn't get any more established than that triumvirate...

I was really more a Mike Frank guy myself.

No one broke my heart like Paul Householder though.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-03-2007, 11:04 PM
I think they did it because they wanted to make sure that they got a committed platoon partner for Hatteberg that they knew would OPS over 700, play decent defense, not strike out a lot, be someone that old geezer fans can appreciate, and maybe be a good influence to the other players. I think that's what they got too.

Again, I agree. It's just I feel that any journeyman RH hitting first-baseman in the minors could give you all that (except someone "that old geezer fans can appreciate") for $1.6M less.

That's the thing. I think Wayne really cared what the casual fan thought about this pickup and he spent $1.6M extra to make them think he was really trying to win, when he knew it didn't matter. That's what worries me. I want a GM that doesn't give a crap what "Joe average fan" thinks.

It's not a big deal, but a bunch of these "no big deals" equal signing a Gagne or Dotel in FA and look what the Rangers have acquired for Gagne. Just add Stanton and Conine and it equals Gagne interms of dollars spent.

So I agree it's a little thing, but these "little things" that our GM spins his wheels on don't seem to make much sense. Honestly, when I heard Conine was signed, I was angry. Why? He bores me. And I knew he was simply a RH platoon to compliment Hatteberg and he was a waste of what precious money this small market team has to spend.

mth123
08-03-2007, 11:24 PM
Again, I agree. It's just I feel that any journeyman RH hitting first-baseman in the minors could give you all that (except someone "that old geezer fans can appreciate") for $1.6M less.

That's the thing. I think Wayne really cared what the casual fan thought about this pickup and he spent $1.6M extra to make them think he was really trying to win, when he knew it didn't matter. That's what worries me. I want a GM that doesn't give a crap what "Joe average fan" thinks.

It's not a big deal, but a bunch of these "no big deals" equal signing a Gagne or Dotel in FA and look what the Rangers have acquired for Gagne. Just add Stanton and Conine and it equals Gagne interms of dollars spent.

So I agree it's a little thing, but these "little things" that our GM spins his wheels on don't seem to make much sense. Honestly, when I heard Conine was signed, I was angry. Why? He bores me. And I knew he was simply a RH platoon to compliment Hatteberg and he was a waste of what precious money this small market team has to spend.

:thumbup:

pedro
08-03-2007, 11:33 PM
Again, I agree. It's just I feel that any journeyman RH hitting first-baseman in the minors could give you all that (except someone "that old geezer fans can appreciate") for $1.6M less.

That's the thing. I think Wayne really cared what the casual fan thought about this pickup and he spent $1.6M extra to make them think he was really trying to win, when he knew it didn't matter. That's what worries me. I want a GM that doesn't give a crap what "Joe average fan" thinks.

It's not a big deal, but a bunch of these "no big deals" equal signing a Gagne or Dotel in FA and look what the Rangers have acquired for Gagne. Just add Stanton and Conine and it equals Gagne interms of dollars spent.

So I agree it's a little thing, but these "little things" that our GM spins his wheels on don't seem to make much sense. Honestly, when I heard Conine was signed, I was angry. Why? He bores me. And I knew he was simply a RH platoon to compliment Hatteberg and he was a waste of what precious money this small market team has to spend.

I think Conine was acquired as a "culture" guy. That isn't always useless.

If the only difference is money why not have a vet you know will be a good clubhouse guy? Unless he's blocking someone I don't see the harm.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-03-2007, 11:46 PM
I think Conine was acquired as a "culture" guy. That isn't always useless.

If the only difference is money why not have a vet you know will be a good clubhouse guy? Unless he's blocking someone I don't see the harm.

You are probably right, but how many "culture" guys do you need, especially when they are at or below replacement value? Juan Castro was signed for this reason as well and he not only takes a roster space (before his injury) but $1 M on the payroll as well.

If you are a good/great team and you add a "culture" guy to the equation as your 25th man, fine, but when you have an average to below-average team which is what many here knew this team was, coming into the season, why waste your time (roster spots and money) on a Conine, Castro, or a Moeller ($3.7M)?

Did Wayne really think this team was one or two veteran clubhouse presences away from winning the whole thing? If he did, he needs to go.

BCubb2003
08-04-2007, 12:05 AM
Dude. You totally skipped Brandon Larson, Chad Mottola and Pat Watkins! It doesn't get any more established than that triumvirate...

Chad Mottola got a bobblehead night this year.

pedro
08-04-2007, 12:09 AM
You are probably right, but how many "culture" guys do you need, especially when they are at or below replacement value? Juan Castro was signed for this reason as well and he not only takes a roster space (before his injury) but $1 M on the payroll as well.

If you are a good/great team and you add a "culture" guy to the equation as your 25th man, fine, but when you have an average to below-average team which is what many here knew this team was, coming into the season, why waste your time (roster spots and money) on a Conine, Castro, or a Moeller ($3.7M)?

Did Wayne really think this team was one or two veteran clubhouse presences away from winning the whole thing? If he did, he needs to go.

Wayne is certainly pushing the envelope in this respect, I do realize that. And while I'd prefer a little less reliance on this type of player I do understand the compulsion that leads to these types of acquisitions..

westofyou
08-04-2007, 12:15 AM
May 22nd 1999

“There's no point crying over spilt milk,” General Manager Jim Bowden said Friday. “We are where we are.

Cooper
08-04-2007, 06:05 PM
Good teams don't go out and hire "culture" guys. They hire players that can lead them toward more wins.

Losing teams always have pleanty of guys who are good in the clubhouse, yet need a new manager to make the team hustle.

Why would a team accumulate a bunch of culture guys....you could have the 12 disciples on a losing team and the clubhouse would still be a mess. Losing takes on a life of its own.

RedsManRick
08-05-2007, 01:32 AM
Bad culture can sabotage a team with great talent. No amount of great culture can make a team with mediocre talent good enough to win. Get the talent, then worry about the culture, or at least do them together. Getting a culture guy on a 74 win team isn't very helpful.

pedro
08-05-2007, 12:54 PM
Bad culture can sabotage a team with great talent. No amount of great culture can make a team with mediocre talent good enough to win. Get the talent, then worry about the culture, or at least do them together. Getting a culture guy on a 74 win team isn't very helpful.

I'd have liked a better player too but when you are looking for a one year stop gap platoon player while you wait for your long term solution (Votto) to develop and the market is thin then sometimes getting a guy who you know will produce at a certain level and be a good guy ain't such a bad thing.

mth123
08-05-2007, 03:05 PM
I'd have liked a better player too but when you are looking for a one year stop gap platoon player while you wait for your long term solution (Votto) to develop and the market is thin then sometimes getting a guy who you know will produce at a certain level and be a good guy ain't such a bad thing.

.266/.324/.402/.726 from the 1B and clean-up spots. A lot of minor league vets (who "hustle" just as much) could do that for $1.6 Million less. I think when teams make an obvious mistake somebody always invokes hustle, leadership, veteraness and other stuff no one can verify or disprove as a method of justification. Conine was an obvious mistake on the day he was acquired at his already determined salary. A perfect example of frittering away resources that were needed elsewhere.

pedro
08-05-2007, 03:42 PM
.266/.324/.402/.726 from the 1B and clean-up spots. A lot of minor league vets (who "hustle" just as much) could do that for $1.6 Million less. I think when teams make an obvious mistake somebody always invokes hustle, leadership, veteraness and other stuff no one can verify or disprove as a method of justification. Conine was an obvious mistake on the day he was acquired at his already determined salary. A perfect example of frittering away resources that were needed elsewhere.

and they may have had to cycle to several before they got one that did. those numbers aren't impressive but don't confuse that with the idea that there are a bunch of guys easily available that can produce even at that level.

edabbs44
08-05-2007, 03:51 PM
I'd have liked a better player too but when you are looking for a one year stop gap platoon player while you wait for your long term solution (Votto) to develop and the market is thin then sometimes getting a guy who you know will produce at a certain level and be a good guy ain't such a bad thing.

The mistake was that Conine, at $2 million, wasn't really worth that much more than having Hatteberg be the full-time 1B.

mth123
08-05-2007, 04:08 PM
and they may have had to cycle to several before they got one that did. those numbers aren't impressive but don't confuse that with the idea that there are a bunch of guys easily available that can produce even at that level.

I don't know. Those numbers are near replacement level for a 1B. Just because Conine is a better hitter than say Moeller, Ross, Hopper or Castro, people think he is succeeding. He's a 1B. Teams cut 1B with numbers like those.

pedro
08-05-2007, 05:04 PM
I don't know. Those numbers are near replacement level for a 1B. Just because Conine is a better hitter than say Moeller, Ross, Hopper or Castro, people think he is succeeding. He's a 1B. Teams cut 1B with numbers like those.

really? because if there was store where better than replacement level first baseman could be had at bargain basement prices why don't the yankees shop there?

btw- here is the list of superstars the yankees have played at 1B this year.



Player TEAM POS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
A Phillips NYY 1B 40 130 22 39 6 1 2 19 53 8 21 0 0 .343 .408 .300
D Mientkiewicz NYY 1B 50 124 17 28 7 0 4 16 47 10 16 0 0 .292 .379 .226
J Phelps NYY 1B 36 80 8 21 2 0 2 12 29 6 19 0 0 .330 .363 .263
S Duncan NYY DH 10 29 7 9 0 0 5 10 24 4 6 0 0 .394 .828 .310

mth123
08-05-2007, 07:52 PM
really? because if there was store where better than replacement level first baseman could be had at bargain basement prices why don't the yankees shop there?

btw- here is the list of superstars the yankees have played at 1B this year.



Player TEAM POS G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
A Phillips NYY 1B 40 130 22 39 6 1 2 19 53 8 21 0 0 .343 .408 .300
D Mientkiewicz NYY 1B 50 124 17 28 7 0 4 16 47 10 16 0 0 .292 .379 .226
J Phelps NYY 1B 36 80 8 21 2 0 2 12 29 6 19 0 0 .330 .363 .263
S Duncan NYY DH 10 29 7 9 0 0 5 10 24 4 6 0 0 .394 .828 .310


And this list just proves my point. Phelps was about equal to Conine for 20% of the cost (and would probably surpass Conine if he played in GABP and Conine in the death to RH yankee stadium). The numbers say that Phillips and Duncan are both better than Conine (again for 20% of the cost) and Mientkiewicz is there for his glove.

As bad as all those guys were, the Yankees didn't seem to have much interest in a very available Conine at the deadline. Even teams with big bucks like the Yankees see the folly of wasting any of it on players of Conine's caliber.

RANDY IN INDY
08-06-2007, 08:02 AM
and they may have had to cycle to several before they got one that did. those numbers aren't impressive but don't confuse that with the idea that there are a bunch of guys easily available that can produce even at that level.


Totally on the mark, Pedro.:beerme: It's easy to make it sound easy, but finding the right one is not. You win some and you lose some but hindsight is always 20/20.

GAC
08-06-2007, 09:29 AM
The Indians and Tigers got rid of some key players in this time period, causing the team to endure some lean years. If the poor performance of the Reds was due to Krivsky trading their best players for prospects (i.e., fire sale), I think most would understand. IIRC, Detroit dealt their #1 starter in '02 and Cleveland lost players like Colon and Ramirez. The Reds haven't had any excuse like that.

And the Indians were able to let those players go too because of the soundness of their farm system. They slashed payroll down to the mid-30's, "suffered" a couple lean years, and have bounced right back with what? Young talent developed in the farm system for the most part. They then have "complimented" that with key free acquisitions.

edabbs44
08-06-2007, 11:50 AM
And the Indians were able to let those players go too because of the soundness of their farm system. They slashed payroll down to the mid-30's, "suffered" a couple lean years, and have bounced right back with what? Young talent developed in the farm system for the most part. They then have "complimented" that with key free acquisitions.

Bounced back with some key players acquired during those rebuilding years. Hafner, Sizemore, Lee are some who have helped them. No reason why this can't be done in Cincinnati.

You have Bruce, Votto and Bailey almost ready to make an impact. You have some key guys already on the roster with youth on their side. They are in decent position right now to make a run in the next few years.

Johnny Footstool
08-06-2007, 12:25 PM
You win some and you lose some but hindsight is always 20/20.

It's not really about hindsight. It's about foresight. We expect our GM at least to be able to read the big "E" on that eyechart.

KronoRed
08-06-2007, 12:39 PM
It's not really about hindsight. It's about foresight. We expect our GM at least to be able to read the big "E" on that eyechart.

Nah, that's a sideways W

RANDY IN INDY
08-06-2007, 04:17 PM
It's not really about hindsight. It's about foresight. We expect our GM at least to be able to read the big "E" on that eyechart.

Looks really clear, now, doesn't it?;)

mth123
08-06-2007, 07:52 PM
Looks really clear, now, doesn't it?;)

Except half of this board (or more) was able to see that the bullpen was going to be awful and was complaining that Conine was replacement level when they were acquired. For the record I suggested keeping Harris and letting him platoon at 1B or going with Phelps and putting the money towards an upgrade to Lohse or the pen. I know that I'm not an expert. That is all the more reason to expect a major league GM to be able to see things that even I can see.

As for the snarky hindsight remark and the one in the quote, it looks like hindsight to those that don't look forward and only look back. Some on here are too busy posting roll eyes smileys when people predict or discuss these things and then call it hindsight later when the mistake is discussed down the road.

RANDY IN INDY
08-06-2007, 07:56 PM
Always on the mark, are you?

RANDY IN INDY
08-06-2007, 07:58 PM
You know, none of this business is as easy as it sometimes looks on this board, be it hitting, pitching, fielding or making the right moves in the front office.

edabbs44
08-06-2007, 08:05 PM
You know, none of this business is as easy as it sometimes looks on this board, be it hitting, pitching, fielding or making the right moves in the front office.

If someone can't take the heat...

RANDY IN INDY
08-06-2007, 08:08 PM
And I really question how many people that have it all worked out on this board could take the heat that goes along with being a Major League GM. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that nobody on this board knows about, and that is why a lot of this really means squat.

edabbs44
08-06-2007, 08:23 PM
And I really question how many people that have it all worked out on this board could take the heat that goes along with being a Major League GM. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that nobody on this board knows about, and that is why a lot of this really means squat.

As fans, it's our job to root for what's best for the Reds franchise.

As GM, it's Wayne's job to make this team both profitable and a winner.

GAC
08-06-2007, 08:48 PM
Bounced back with some key players acquired during those rebuilding years. Hafner, Sizemore, Lee are some who have helped them. No reason why this can't be done in Cincinnati.

You have Bruce, Votto and Bailey almost ready to make an impact. You have some key guys already on the roster with youth on their side. They are in decent position right now to make a run in the next few years.


That's true. But the point is that that they have "balance", and alot of their success, beginning in the 90's, has come via their sound farm system, which enabled them to allow players like Belle, Ramirez, Thome, and Vizquel to walk. IMO, they are a "Moneyball" team.

edabbs44
08-06-2007, 09:00 PM
That's true. But the point is that that they have "balance", and alot of their success, beginning in the 90's, has come via their sound farm system, which enabled them to allow players like Belle, Ramirez, Thome, and Vizquel to walk. IMO, they are a "Moneyball" team.

Totally agree. But Cincy has the opportunity now to make that push. When Bruce, Bailey, Votto, Cueto, etc are reaching their better years, they could be supplemented with today's draft picks and intl FAs.

They need to look at this as the beginning of an era. Sure it might be lean for a couple of years. But if they do it right with a little luck, this could be the beginning of something good.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-06-2007, 09:40 PM
Except half of this board (or more) was able to see that the bullpen was going to be awful and was complaining that Conine was replacement level when they were acquired. For the record I suggested keeping Harris and letting him platoon at 1B or going with Phelps and putting the money towards an upgrade to Lohse or the pen. I know that I'm not an expert. That is all the more reason to expect a major league GM to be able to see things that even I can see.

As for the snarky hindsight remark and the one in the quote, it looks like hindsight to those that don't look forward and only look back. Some on here are too busy posting roll eyes smileys when people predict or discuss these things and then call it hindsight later when the mistake is discussed down the road.

Took the words right out of my keyboard.

:beerme:

SteelSD
08-06-2007, 10:18 PM
Except half of this board (or more) was able to see that the bullpen was going to be awful and was complaining that Conine was replacement level when they were acquired. For the record I suggested keeping Harris and letting him platoon at 1B or going with Phelps and putting the money towards an upgrade to Lohse or the pen. I know that I'm not an expert. That is all the more reason to expect a major league GM to be able to see things that even I can see.

As for the snarky hindsight remark and the one in the quote, it looks like hindsight to those that don't look forward and only look back. Some on here are too busy posting roll eyes smileys when people predict or discuss these things and then call it hindsight later when the mistake is discussed down the road.

Well stated, as usual. What I'm really confused about is the indignation shown by those who continually push the "wait-and-see" agenda after waiting-and-seeing the current team. Krivsky was handed a team that projected about 76 Wins. After all his machinizations, promises to fix the pitching and defense, and near-complete focus on fixing the bullpen, he now has a team that projects 72 Wins and will probably fall short of that.

Wayne Krivsky has not done anything he's promised. He hasn't even made positive strides toward producing what he's promised. What exactly are folks "waiting-to-see"? Guy says he can do something he can't do and wasted a payroll bump in the process. The near future relies on draft picks Krivsky didn't make. Anything after that requires reliance on a plan even Dan O'Brien didn't forward (the 10-year plan).

DO NOT WANT!!!!!!

Caveat Emperor
08-06-2007, 11:03 PM
DO NOT WANT!!!!!!

Incidentally, this is a point to consider.

Who is going to want this job if Krivsky gets canned on October, after only 20 months on the job?

You've got an owner that, apparently, doesn't want to hear the term "rebuilding," is demanding winning baseball now, sets a spending limit in the moderate/low-moderate range, and has an itchy trigger finger. Oh yeah, and just for giggles, you're in charge of a middling farm system that punted its #1 pick last year.

I'm not for or against WK being canned at this point, but I don know 3 regime changes in 5 years isn't the way to build a healthy organization or attract the best and brightest people to your front office. Nobody wants a job where they're forced to have Kinkos on speed dial.

RedsManRick
08-06-2007, 11:06 PM
I guess it could be worse. We could have D'Angelo Jiminez starting at SS (http://mlb.mlb.com/news/boxscore.jsp?gid=2007_08_06_wasmlb_sfnmlb_1).

Redsland
08-06-2007, 11:13 PM
Who is going to want this job if Krivsky gets canned on October, after only 20 months on the job?
If I was a baseball man who thought Wayne got fired because of poor planning, poor implementation, poor evaluation skills, lack of vision, and lack of ingenuity, and if I furthermore thought that I had those skills by the bushel, you better believe I'd want the job.

Cooper
08-06-2007, 11:17 PM
There a a thousand guys who could do the job and do it well with the type of parameters Wayne K. has to abide by.

You could make a case that organization is farther behind than when he started.

Ltlabner
08-07-2007, 06:54 AM
I'm not for or against WK being canned at this point, but I don know 3 regime changes in 5 years isn't the way to build a healthy organization or attract the best and brightest people to your front office. Nobody wants a job where they're forced to have Kinkos on speed dial.

Great point.

I've got a few customers where the staff is a revolving door. Trust me, they do not attract the most qualified or the highest calliber applicants. Word gets around quickly that the owner/boss is tempermental and the realitiy is you aren't going to be in that position for long. Sure, there's a laundry list of people who are willing to take the job, and even think *they* are the special one who can get the job done. Sure enough...I make a call a few months later and they are gone.

It also has the effect of running off other qualified staff because they do not want to work for an originization where job security is so tenious.

Not saying Kriviskys time should or shouldn't be up. But all of the folks who just want to lop off people's heads after a short time...it doesn't work in the real world.

nate
08-07-2007, 07:14 AM
You could make a case that organization is farther behind than when he started.

I'd really like to hear that case.

nate
08-07-2007, 07:33 AM
Wayne Krivsky has not done anything he's promised. He hasn't even made positive strides toward producing what he's promised. What exactly are folks "waiting-to-see"? Guy says he can do something he can't do and wasted a payroll bump in the process. The near future relies on draft picks Krivsky didn't make. Anything after that requires reliance on a plan even Dan O'Brien didn't forward (the 10-year plan).

Fixed? No. Improving? Maybe:

Average run differential per season under Dan O'Brien: -113
Average run differential per season under Wayne Krivsky (to date): -56
Average run differential per season under Wayne Krivsky (projected to 162 games): -72

Average runs allowed per season under Dan O'Brien: 898
Average runs allowed per season under Wayne Krivsky (projected to 162 games): 843

Wayne hasn't had a magic bullet here but its more a testament to how bad the pitching _was_. It has improved. Baby steps, Bob.

H. P. Lovecraft couldn't have conjured horrors more terrifying than the 2004 pitching staff.

remdog
08-07-2007, 08:17 AM
But all of the folks who just want to lop off people's heads after a short time...it doesn't work in the real world.

Steinbrenner has made a very good career acting in exactly the manner you say doesn't work. So have people like Michael Eisner (Disney), Sumner Redstone (Viacom), Donald Trump, Howard Hughes and going all the way back to John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnagie. Demanding people to be sure. And they might not be someone you'd like to hang out with but they attract ambitious, quality people because of the challenge/reward ratio. Bob Castellini made his money in a tough, fragmented industry. I doubt he got where he is because being average is acceptable.

Rem

bucksfan2
08-07-2007, 08:30 AM
Steinbrenner has made a very good career acting in exactly the manner you say doesn't work. So have people like Michael Eisner (Disney), Sumner Redstone (Viacom), Donald Trump, Howard Hughes and going all the way back to John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnagie. Demanding people to be sure. And they might not be someone you'd like to hang out with but they attract ambitious, quality people because of the challenge/reward ratio. Bob Castellini made his money in a tough, fragmented industry. I doubt he got where he is because being average is acceptable.

Rem

I think too often on this board we take a reactionary position to the reds. We think because they are struggling is because the people running the club are stupid or not baseball people. There is not a single person who owns a baseball club who is ignorant or even close to it. I think you go from two different spectrums when comparing owners across sports. On one end you have the Mark Cuban's and the other you have the Carl Linders. Cuban wants to win, realized that in order to change you need to change the culture. I watched a behind the glory show on Cuban and I was suprised how changing the little things really makes your organization more desirable. On the other side you have Linder. A guy who owns the team because he can. A guy who has no interest on how the team does as long as the money flows in. I think Cast leans more towards the Cuban side than the Linder side. However he as well as the fans need to learn paitence. Most spontaneous decisions that are made don't return the results that you had wished they would have.

RANDY IN INDY
08-07-2007, 08:32 AM
I would say those people that you mentioned, rem, are very demanding but also willing to put their money where their mouth is. If Castellini is going to be that kind of impatient with his ballclub, he better be ready to pour the money in (in more than a few area's) to make it work.

Ltlabner
08-07-2007, 08:44 AM
Steinbrenner has made a very good career acting in exactly the manner you say doesn't work. So have people like Michael Eisner (Disney), Sumner Redstone (Viacom), Donald Trump, Howard Hughes and going all the way back to John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnagie. Demanding people to be sure. And they might not be someone you'd like to hang out with but they attract ambitious, quality people because of the challenge/reward ratio. Bob Castellini made his money in a tough, fragmented industry. I doubt he got where he is because being average is acceptable.

Rem

Your post presuposes that:
- the only way to be successfull is to rapidly cycle through employees

- the success of those orginizations is soley attributable to the rapid cycling of employees

- the sucess of those orginizations is soley attributable to the people in charge you identified

- People are attracted to those orginizations only due to the thrill of working for a boss that might fire them at any minute

So, frankly, I don't think your conclusions hold much water (shurg).

That last line is utter tripe. Which poster has said, "Yes, I want the Reds to be average!". That's right...nobody has.

Cautioning against firing people capricously is totally unrealted and unconnected with being satisfied with an average orginization. Trying to make that link is a red herring of galatic proportions.

Maybe Wayne's not the guy. But I hardly think cautioning against a mob mentality to run him out of town is the same as saying, "we just want to be average".

Falls City Beer
08-07-2007, 08:48 AM
Your post presuposes that:
- the only way to be successfull is to rapidly cycle through employees

- the success of those orginizations is soley attributable to the rapid cycling of employees

- the sucess of those orginizations is soley attributable to the people in charge you identified

- People are attracted to those orginizations only due to the thrill of working for a boss that might fire them at any minute

So, frankly, I don't think your conclusions hold much water (shurg).

That last line is utter tripe. Which poster has said, "Yes, I want the Reds to be average!". That's right...nobody has.

Cautioning against firing people capricously is totally unrealted and unconnected with being satisfied with an average orginization. Trying to make that link is a red herring of galatic proportions.

I'm not sure that what you're saying is true about what rem is saying. I think rem was saying that there's a place for the "demanding" boss in this business. Firing someone is only one component of being "demanding."

SteelSD
08-07-2007, 08:51 AM
Fixed? No. Improving? Maybe:

Average run differential per season under Dan O'Brien: -113
Average run differential per season under Wayne Krivsky (to date): -56
Average run differential per season under Wayne Krivsky (projected to 162 games): -72

Average runs allowed per season under Dan O'Brien: 898
Average runs allowed per season under Wayne Krivsky (projected to 162 games): 843

Wayne hasn't had a magic bullet here but its more a testament to how bad the pitching _was_. It has improved. Baby steps, Bob.

H. P. Lovecraft couldn't have conjured horrors more terrifying than the 2004 pitching staff.

nate, you keep bringing up 2004, but Wayne Krivsky wasn't given the 2004 team. The team he was given projected 76 Wins after producing a Pythag of 75-87 in 2005. That's the reality of what Krivsky was handed. From there, Krivsky's moves produced a team that projected fewer Wins every step of the way and that has everything to do with Krivksy negatively impacting the Run Differential during his tenure. That's happened by negatively impacting the offense in an attempt to produce a "pitching and defense" model that doesn't pitch very well and doesn't play anything resembling decent defense while squandering resources along the way.

That's "erosion", not "improvement" and that kind of backsliding earns nothing but an "F" grade from me, unless such backsliding happens while flipping productive MLB pieces for a boatload of high-value very projectible prospects. But that hasn't happened.

Going forward, if the Reds are going to hit a potential window available to them over the next couple years, it'll likely be due to the maturization of prospects Krivsky didn't draft.

Ltlabner
08-07-2007, 08:53 AM
I'm not sure that what you're saying is true about what rem is saying. I think rem was saying that there's a place for the "demanding" boss in this business. Firing someone is only one component of being "demanding."

I don't have any issue with demanding.

My only comment is that firing lots of people just because isn't a great way to build an orginization.

And before someone says it, no, I don't have a problem for firing people who are incompetant or can't hack it.

GAC
08-07-2007, 09:12 AM
I would say those people that you mentioned, rem, are very demanding but also willing to put their money where their mouth is. If Castellini is going to be that kind of impatient with his ballclub, he better be ready to pour the money in (in more than a few area's) to make it work.

Exactly. If he doesn't want to "hear" rebuild and wants to win now, then he has to have understood, looking at the shape of this organization when he decided to buy the majority shares, that he'd better be ready to poney up some serious money.

remdog
08-07-2007, 09:15 AM
Your post presuposes that:
- the only way to be successfull is to rapidly cycle through employees

- the success of those orginizations is soley attributable to the rapid cycling of employees

- the sucess of those orginizations is soley attributable to the people in charge you identified

- People are attracted to those orginizations only due to the thrill of working for a boss that might fire them at any minute

So, frankly, I don't think your conclusions hold much water (shurg).

That last line is utter tripe. Which poster has said, "Yes, I want the Reds to be average!". That's right...nobody has.

Cautioning against firing people capricously is totally unrealted and unconnected with being satisfied with an average orginization. Trying to make that link is a red herring of galatic proportions.

Maybe Wayne's not the guy. But I hardly think cautioning against a mob mentality to run him out of town is the same as saying, "we just want to be average".

Nowhere did I say any of the things that you accuse me of nor does my position presuppose any of them.

Your post is totally off base and insulting on top of it.

Rem

remdog
08-07-2007, 09:24 AM
I would say those people that you mentioned, rem, are very demanding but also willing to put their money where their mouth is. If Castellini is going to be that kind of impatient with his ballclub, he better be ready to pour the money in (in more than a few area's) to make it work.

I agree. And we don't know how big that commitment will be or how deep his pockets are.

Castellini definately has to do some 'investment spending' with this team. At the same time he should be demanding as far as performance by the people spending that money. For the '07 season Bob opened up the wallet a bit. Many, many on this board challenged the way Wayne spent his new found allowance even before ST started. And, to date, Bob can't be very happy with the results of Wayne's spending. If Bob decides to open the wallet even further for '08 (and, IMO, he should if he ever wants to get this team out of the morass they are in) Wayne's going to have to come up with better decisions and better results.

Rem

Ltlabner
08-07-2007, 09:26 AM
Nowhere did I say any of the things that you accuse me of nor does my position presuppose any of them.

Your post is totally off base and insulting on top of it.

Rem

I commented that firing lots of people isn a good thing. You said Steinbrenner and others have done well doing 'exactly' what I said doesnt work. And I gave you a bunch or reasons why you cant lay the reasons for their success at the feet of firing lots of people.

Not sure how that off base. Sorry if poking holes in your argument insulted you.

nate
08-07-2007, 09:34 AM
nate, you keep bringing up 2004, but Wayne Krivsky wasn't given the 2004 team. The team he was given projected 76 Wins after producing a Pythag of 75-87 in 2005. That's the reality of what Krivsky was handed. From there, Krivsky's moves produced a team that projected fewer Wins every step of the way...

Sorry to interrupt, but I don't understand:

2005 Pythagorean W-L: 75-87
2006 Pythagorean W-L: 76-86

Its basically the same, not fewer. This year will probably be fewer, though:

2007 Pythagorean W-L: 72-90 (my guess)


...and that has everything to do with Krivksy negatively impacting the Run Differential during his tenure.

Again, sorry, I don't understand:

Run differential
2005: -69
2006: -52
2007: -60 (to date)

By the end of the year, it might be true:

2007: -92 (projected to 162 games)

But so far, the run differential is closer to 0 than it was even in 2005.


That's happened by negatively impacting the offense in an attempt to produce a "pitching and defense" model that doesn't pitch very well and doesn't play anything resembling decent defense while squandering resources along the way.

Absolutely, we've scored fewer runs:

2005: 820
2006: 749
2007: 519 (to date)
2007: 793 (projected to 162 games)

It does look like we're trending to score more runs this year.


That's "erosion", not "improvement" and that kind of backsliding earns nothing but an "F" grade from me, unless such backsliding happens while flipping productive MLB pieces for a boatload of high-value very projectible prospects. But that hasn't happened.

I'm just a piano player so I could be wrong, although I'm not a drummer so I don't think I'm too far off. Please explain where I'm off in my calculations and conclusions. I don't see erosion, I see pretty much the same thing that I saw last year and the year before that. I _do_ see promise underneath the topsoil in the minor leagues.


Going forward, if the Reds are going to hit a potential window available to them over the next couple years, it'll likely be due to the maturization of prospects Krivsky didn't draft.

Maybe.

Let it be known that I don't think the Reds are good nor does there exist instrumentation capable of measuring the vast range of difference between where the Reds are now and "good".

I'm simply stating that they're not "worse" than they were before.

SteelSD
08-07-2007, 10:11 AM
Sorry to interrupt, but I don't understand:

2005 Pythagorean W-L: 75-87
2006 Pythagorean W-L: 76-86

Its basically the same, not fewer. This year will probably be fewer, though:

2007 Pythagorean W-L: 72-90 (my guess)

nate, Krivsky took over prior to 2006 (thanks for dropping 2004) and has subsequently produced a unit projecting fewer Wins while actually attempting to produce a unit capable of winning more games.

When you start with a 76-win projection and lop four Wins off that projection over the course of a season and an offseason while trying desperately to improve the team, that's a big fat failure.


Again, sorry, I don't understand:

Run differential
2005: -69
2006: -52
2007: -60 (to date)

By the end of the year, it might be true:

2007: -92 (projected to 162 games)

But so far, the run differential is closer to 0 than it was even in 2005.

nate, that's -92 number you have there means that Krivsky lost 40 Runs versus 2006 while producing the 2007 team. The Run Diff is moving further away from 0, not closer.


Absolutely, we've scored fewer runs:

2005: 820
2006: 749
2007: 519 (to date)
2007: 793 (projected to 162 games)

It does look like we're trending to score more runs this year.

Actually, the 2007 projection I have in my handy spreadsheet notes this for 162 games:

758 Runs Scored
846 Runs Allowed

Overall, the Reds look to gain only 9 Runs offensively versus 2006 and project to allow 45 more Runs on the pitching side versus last year. That's a net RD hit of -36 Runs. Versus 2005, the Reds will have lost 62 Runs offensively and project to allow 43 fewer Runs.

Ironically, the loss of Kyle Lohse will most likely widen that gap as Krivsky tries out replacement level after replacement level starter in his rotation slot for the remainder of the season. Not that I wanted to keep Lohse. But the time to trade him was prior to this season to max his value. In the end, Krivsky's actually added to the negative Run Differential via the implementation of his "plan". It's quite possible that the 2007 Reds will finish 100 or more Runs in the RD "red"- all the result of a little talk, a lot of action, and absolutely no result.


I'm simply stating that they're not "worse" than they were before.

When you spend the entirety of your tenure actually pushing your Run Differential to the point where it's more negative than when you started, that's the definition of "worse".

Falls City Beer
08-07-2007, 10:35 AM
nate, Krivsky took over prior to 2006 (thanks for dropping 2004) and has subsequently produced a unit projecting fewer Wins while actually attempting to produce a unit capable of winning more games.

When you start with a 76-win projection and lop four Wins off that projection over the course of a season and an offseason while trying desperately to improve the team, that's a big fat failure.



nate, that's -92 number you have there means that Krivsky lost 40 Runs versus 2006 while producing the 2007 team. The Run Diff is moving further away from 0, not closer.



Actually, the 2007 projection I have in my handy spreadsheet notes this for 162 games:

758 Runs Scored
846 Runs Allowed

Overall, the Reds look to gain only 9 Runs offensively versus 2006 and project to allow 45 more Runs on the pitching side versus last year. That's a net RD hit of -36 Runs. Versus 2005, the Reds will have lost 62 Runs offensively and project to allow 43 fewer Runs.

Ironically, the loss of Kyle Lohse will most likely widen that gap as Krivsky tries out replacement level after replacement level starter in his rotation slot for the remainder of the season. Not that I wanted to keep Lohse. But the time to trade him was prior to this season to max his value. In the end, Krivsky's actually added to the negative Run Differential via the implementation of his "plan". It's quite possible that the 2007 Reds will finish 100 or more Runs in the RD "red"- all the result of a little talk, a lot of action, and absolutely no result.



When you spend the entirety of your tenure actually pushing your Run Differential to the point where it's more negative than when you started, that's the definition of "worse".

Nice post. I would only add that Wayne has "accomplished" this with payroll increases, as well. I might be a bit more understanding if payroll had been slashed, but Cast has actually given the payroll a slightly meaningful boost since he arrived. Not massive, but more than just an operating cost raise.

nate
08-07-2007, 10:52 AM
nate, Krivsky took over prior to 2006 (thanks for dropping 2004) and has subsequently produced a unit projecting fewer Wins while actually attempting to produce a unit capable of winning more games

When you start with a 76-win projection and lop four Wins off that projection over the course of a season and an offseason while trying desperately to improve the team, that's a big fat failure.

Well, we will have to sit through the remainder of the games to see how it plays out. It would only take about 7 wins above their current record for this year's team to play to last year's Pythag.


nate, that's -92 number you have there means that Krivsky lost 40 Runs versus 2006 while producing the 2007 team. The Run Diff is moving further away from 0, not closer.

I know, its a projection and we'll have to see where it ends up at season's end.



Actually, the 2007 projection I have in my handy spreadsheet notes this for 162 games:

758 Runs Scored
846 Runs Allowed

Right on. I hadn't modified the current number of games played. I currently get:

757.46 Runs Scored
845.03 Runs Allowed


Overall, the Reds look to gain only 9 Runs offensively versus 2006 and project to allow 45 more Runs on the pitching side versus last year. That's a net RD hit of -36 Runs. Versus 2005, the Reds will have lost 62 Runs offensively and project to allow 43 fewer Runs.

Yes, that's what the projection says.


Ironically, the loss of Kyle Lohse will most likely widen that gap as Krivsky tries out replacement level after replacement level starter in his rotation slot for the remainder of the season. Not that I wanted to keep Lohse. But the time to trade him was prior to this season to max his value. In the end, Krivsky's actually added to the negative Run Differential via the implementation of his "plan". It's quite possible that the 2007 Reds will finish 100 or more Runs in the RD "red"- all the result of a little talk, a lot of action, and absolutely no result.

We have to play out the season to see where it ends up in relation to the projection. However, if they find the right pitching solution (I'm not saying they will) or the right offensive gears click (I think this is more likely) the run dif could skew back toward 0.


When you spend the entirety of your tenure actually pushing your Run Differential to the point where it's more negative than when you started, that's the definition of "worse".

I agree that _that_ is worse.

I said elsewhere that this offseason will really determine for me if I think Wayne can turn the club around. I also think that the perceived value of talent is at an all-time high and GMs are hording it like squirrel's nuts (ahem).

WVRedsFan
08-07-2007, 11:06 AM
Not butting in, but I keep wondering how many off-seasons is Castellini going to give Krivsky? After an active 2006 season, the off season would have to be considered unsuccessful by many folks' standards and this season, it's been a wash. When he watches other GMs make deals that make their clubs better, I'd have to think that the end is near for Wayne.

westofyou
08-07-2007, 11:33 AM
Not butting in, but I keep wondering how many off-seasons is Castellini going to give Krivsky? After an active 2006 season, the off season would have to be considered unsuccessful by many folks' standards and this season, it's been a wash. When he watches other GMs make deals that make their clubs better, I'd have to think that the end is near for Wayne.

More then one would be a nice thing, I'd love to see the list of guys who did more without the benefit of a couple of off seasons.

I bet it's a short list myself.

Johnny Footstool
08-07-2007, 11:40 AM
And I really question how many people that have it all worked out on this board could take the heat that goes along with being a Major League GM. There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes that nobody on this board knows about, and that is why a lot of this really means squat.

The fact that they have a hard job doesn't mean they are above criticism.

If the CEO of the company you work for invests 50% of the company's assets in buggy whips, butter churns, and nakedoldmen.com, would he be above reproach?

edabbs44
08-07-2007, 11:44 AM
More then one would be a nice thing, I'd love to see the list of guys who did more without the benefit of a couple of off seasons.

I bet it's a short list myself.

I don't think many dispute what you are saying, but Wayne has not shown much in the way of improving the team to be given more of a grace period. In the short time he has had here, he has done little to instill much confidence in the fan base.

westofyou
08-07-2007, 11:51 AM
In the short time he has had here, he has done little to instill much confidence in the fan base.

On Redszone and in New Jersey right?

Because from what I surmise from my recent trip to Cincinnati and talking to the locals there and the fact that attendance is exactly where it was last year that if he hasn't "instilled" confidence it's yet to hit the locals and their plans to go to the game.

Now when the season tickets sales dive and they burn him in effigy like the Dodger Fans did to Alston in 1960 I'll fully believe that the locals are up in arms about his brief tenure.

WVRedsFan
08-07-2007, 11:54 AM
More then one would be a nice thing, I'd love to see the list of guys who did more without the benefit of a couple of off seasons.

I bet it's a short list myself.


I guess that's the way it is when you hire people who have to have "on the job training."

But my comment was on Castellini. I have to believe he's looking at someone else because of his impatience. Just a hunch.

Mario-Rijo
08-07-2007, 11:57 AM
*Red = No longer on the MLB team

The problem
Coffey - 30 runs in 44.2 IP for an ERA of 6.04
Saarloos - 27 runs, 29.2 IP, 8.19 ERA
Stanton - 22 runs in 39.1 IP for an ERA of 5.03
Majewski - 10 runs, 5.2 IP, 15.88 ERA
Stone - 6 runs, 5.1 IP, 10.13 ERA
Cormier - 3 runs, 3 IP, 9.00 ERA

The Rookies
Bailey - 22 runs, 28 IP, 6.99 ERA
MacBeth - 9 runs, 10.2 IP, 7.59 ERA
Dumatrait - 6 runs, 3.1 IP 16.20 ERA

The Starters
Milton - 18 runs, 31.1 IP, 5.17 ERA
Belisle - 76 runs, 130 IP, 5.26 ERA

That in a nutshell has been your problem for this version of the Reds.

3 rookies (who shouldn't be expected to be saviors), and although there #'s look bad it's a small sample size on all three and 2 of which seem to have what it takes, they just need some refining.

2 starters 1 of which wasn't expected to hang around much anyway and the other could do much better if he didn't have Valentin attached to his hind end. Which makes me wonder how bad everyone else does with Valentin back there? Maybe 3 catchers is the way to go.

6 relievers 3 of which didn't pitch a whole lot and 4 of which are no longer on the roster. 1 needs to go further down in the minors to straighten out both his stuff and his confidence. The other needs a retirement plan.

Salmon up Coffey down to Sarasota (High A)
Stanton released and replaced by Bray

This is what is needed for the short term.

But this isn't a whole lot to fix, and nearly every other player hasn't necc. had a bad year and in fact quite a few are having equal or better years than last. Maybe a case could be made for EE not playing up to par (his defense has improved), and Gonzo's defense not being up to par but his offense has been a surprise. And if managers would stop overrusing Arroyo and Harang we could get better production there. Other than that everybody has done pretty well.

Chip R
08-07-2007, 12:00 PM
More then one would be a nice thing, I'd love to see the list of guys who did more without the benefit of a couple of off seasons.

I bet it's a short list myself.


Not everyone can live up to the high standards set by Bob Quinn.

M2
08-07-2007, 12:15 PM
Mario, your breakdown of the "problem" is a familiar red herring. The Reds don't have a systemic lack of talent, it's the fault of a few bad apples. If the team could just get rid of Todd Van Poppel, Mike Matthews, Gabe White, Juan Padilla, Brian Reith, Jimmy Haynes and Jose Acevedo everything would be hunky dory.

It's real easy to replace bad pitchers with more bad pitchers. Replacing them with good pitchers takes a concerted effort, far beyond the scattershot practices Reds GMs have employed during the 21st century. The key is to get the two or three arms who can truly make a difference rather than grabbing a dozen random guys and hoping to get lucky.