PDA

View Full Version : mike stanton!



toledodan
08-18-2007, 10:27 PM
:bash::rant2::bang::help:


enough said!:D

CTA513
08-18-2007, 10:38 PM
Best pitcher in the Reds organization.

:cool:

jojo
08-18-2007, 11:06 PM
http://www.freesmileys.org/emo/rpg020.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org)

KronoRed
08-18-2007, 11:42 PM
Can everyday Eddie get in on some of that? ;)

MrCinatit
08-18-2007, 11:56 PM
Good thing Coutlangus is not with the big club - no way does he help...I would rather have crusty veterans burning up payroll, innings pitched, and ballgames rather than give youngsters a chance in a lost season. Same goes for Salmon.
Oh, yeah, and I hope Wayne smartens up and signs Milton to a 7-year contract before the year ends - we don't want any of that getting away!

Hooligan
08-19-2007, 12:07 AM
Does Stanton have a contract for next year? I thought he signed a 2 year deal.

Unassisted
08-19-2007, 12:19 AM
:bash::rant2::bang::help:

enough said!:D

Not enough for me, since I didn't catch today's game. I suspect that this would have been a more appropriate comment for the game thread. It's not like RedsZone's current favorite whipping boy needed yet another thread to flog him. The thread title landed one of my pet peeves, too. :thumbdown

Ron Madden
08-19-2007, 12:21 AM
Does Stanton have a contract for next year? I thought he signed a 2 year deal.

Yep. Stanton will still be here stinking it up again next year.
:explode:

TOBTTReds
08-19-2007, 12:31 AM
Yep. Stanton will still be here stinking it up again next year.
:explode:

Possibly the year after too, if he hits a his clause, which at this pace he will.


signed 2-year deal worth $5.5M thru 2008 season on 11/20/06- + he receives salaries of $2M in 2007 and $3M in 2008- + the deal includes a team option for 2009 worth $2.5M or a $500K buyout- + the option becomes guaranteed at a value of $2.75M with 140 games pitched combined in 2007 and 2008-

burn it up before he gets to 140 games please.

fearofpopvol1
08-19-2007, 12:59 AM
Can everyday Eddie get in on some of that? ;)

I was thinking the same thing.

Falls City Beer
08-19-2007, 01:02 AM
Garbage. Human waste. Go away.

Ron Madden
08-19-2007, 01:23 AM
We keep hearing the Reds can't afford to give Adam Dunn a $3M raise.

Yet they can pay Stanton $3M to do what he does?

Tell me one more time just so I'll understand. I don't think they should do it this a way.

:confused:

macro
08-19-2007, 01:26 AM
No offense to anyone who has participated, but this thread doesn't deserve to be in the Old Red Guard. I'm going to leave it open in case someone wants to salvage it.

WVRedsFan
08-19-2007, 01:49 AM
No offense to anyone who has participated, but this thread doesn't deserve to be in the Old Red Guard. I'm going to leave it open in case someone wants to salvage it.

Totally agree, Macro.

Nothing is being said here that hasn't been said a million times before. Mike Stanton is a stand up guy who takes responsibility for what happens on the field. He's not doing well. he knows it, we know it, and the world knows it. Like I said the game thread, the mystery is why we go to him so often. Let's let the Sun Deckers trash him. I'm sure he's just as upset as we are, but unlike some others, he handles it with class.

Wow, did I say that?

RedsFan75
08-19-2007, 09:19 AM
Mike Stanton does at times have one of the nicest curve's and it can be absolutly knee buckling on lefties.

But it seems that hitters are avoiding it waiting on his less spectular fastball.

LvJ
08-19-2007, 10:11 AM
Any other team he would be DFA'd by now.

GAC
08-19-2007, 10:28 AM
Any other team he would be DFA'd by now.

Looking at the state of numerous MLB team's bullpen struggles this year - I sincerely doubt it.

RedLegSuperStar
08-19-2007, 10:57 AM
Stanton started the season off so horribly.. then he got in a groove where he was lights out. I think the Reds should just run him out there in big leads or just to retire a batter.. something to build that confidence back.

Always Red
08-19-2007, 11:32 AM
Stanton started the season off so horribly.. then he got in a groove where he was lights out. I think the Reds should just run him out there in big leads or just to retire a batter.. something to build that confidence back.

He was awful, and then he was very good, and now he is awful again.

garbage? Human waste? :eek: ....mmmm...not really, just bad relief pitching.

I think Wayne is going with these guys to see if they can pitch, to make a final decision on them before next year. There are only 6 weeks left in the Reds season, and this team needs to make a tough decision on Mike Stanton (especially), as they owe him a lot of money for next year, and an option for 2009, IIRC.

Stanton has pitched well for many, many years. He's never pitched this poorly before, but of late, that seems to happen to a lot of Reds relief pitchers, doesn't it?

I think we'll see a lot of Stanton and Majewski, and maybe even Coffey after Sept 1st, the rest of this season, so a decision can be made on them for next season. Personally, I'd love to see them both rebound, this team can use the help.

Coffey and Majewski seem to have suffered from the same malady, IMO- their FB's stopped moving at all (straight as an arrow), they are wild in the zone (ie- everything over the heart of the plate) and neither have a decent offspeed pitch to keep hitters guessing. I think those are things that can be fixed.

well, I hope so, anyway!

Stanton may just be out of gas. Kriv has been cursed this year, nearly everyone he signed or extended this year has been off-kilter, nearly all year.

Roy Tucker
08-19-2007, 12:02 PM
I read this in this AM's Enquirer...

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070819/SPT04/708190398/1062/SPT



In his previous outing, Stanton gave up four runs without retiring a batter. Since coming off the disabled list July 4, his ERA is 8.15.

"It's one of those runs - not to make any excuses, because there are none," Stanton said. "If I make a good pitch, they foul it off. They're just not missing mistakes."

I've noticed this too. His problem is that he has lost bite off his breaking ball (i.e. stuff) and batters, even though fooled, can get enough of his "good" pitches to foul them off. I haven't looked up the numbers, but I'd imagine his number of pitches per batter is high.

Eventually, he has to put a pitch in the strike zone and, with diminished stuff, they are very hittable.

He's had a couple spells this year where he has pitched decently. But he has to be much more consistent than what he's been. I just don't think he has enough left in the tank and we won't see him pitching for the Reds next year.

puca
08-19-2007, 12:06 PM
He was awful, and then he was very good, and now he is awful again.


He was awful, and then was very lucky, and now is awful again.

Even during his "good stretch" he was giving up a ton of baserunners. He just had the good fortune that they weren't crossing the plate. It happens sometimes. That is why ERA is not a good metric to use for relievers. Stuff-wise, Mike Stanton has be done for 2-3 years.

wally post
08-19-2007, 01:25 PM
He was awful, and then was very lucky, and now is awful again.

Even during his "good stretch" he was giving up a ton of baserunners. He just had the good fortune that they weren't crossing the plate. It happens sometimes. That is why ERA is not a good metric to use for relievers. Stuff-wise, Mike Stanton has be done for 2-3 years.

ONLY our GM thought differently:rolleyes:

MississippiRed
08-20-2007, 12:50 AM
We keep hearing the Reds can't afford to give Adam Dunn a $3M raise.

Yet they can pay Stanton $3M to do what he does?

Tell me one more time just so I'll understand. I don't think they should do it this a way.

:confused:

Excellent Waylon Jennings reference. I recommend Kriv/Mac use another Waylon song: This time, will be the last time.

camisadelgolf
08-20-2007, 03:49 AM
I understand the frustrations with the Mike Stanton signing, but you have to put it in perspective. They were 58 free agent pitchers signed this off-season, and 22 of them were paid more than Stanton, so it's not really fair to expect the same out of him as those players. Of the 36 guys earning the same as or less than Stanton, Stanton is doing about equal to or better than, believe it or not, two-thirds of them. It's just a horrible, horrible market, and the Reds had almost nothing to work with thanks to the previous regimes.

KronoRed
08-20-2007, 02:38 PM
Sure, but why a 3 year deal for a pitcher that old?

RedsManRick
08-20-2007, 03:00 PM
I'm not a big fan of the "well, everybody else did something stupid, so therefore we should be excused" line. There will be 21 out of the other 29 teams sitting home in October. Let's not use them as our comps. We need to be better than 80% of baseball if we're gonna have a shot at winning anything.

Stanton is fine if you can afford paying millions for a marginal upgrade in middle relief over innings that might otherwise go to a 6.50+ ERA AAA veteran type guy. Stanton is a better option than say, Mike Burns, if you have a few million bucks to spend this year and next on a prettier mop up guy.

The conventional wisdom of lefties pitching forever is based on the premise that they continue to be able to get out other lefties. Unfortunately, Stanton isn't a LOOGY. He's just an old, left handed middle reliever who strikes out too few and gives up lots of hits. Just a poor decision from the get-go.

camisadelgolf
08-20-2007, 03:40 PM
Sure, but why a 3 year deal for a pitcher that old?

Just in case it makes a difference, it's two years plus a club option for the third (unless he makes 140 appearances--in which case, the third year is guaranteed).

By the way, his past two outings have skewed everything quite a bit. Less than a week ago, and I know it's not saying much, he was doing better than Todd Coffey, Gary Majewski, Kirk Saarloos, Victor Santos, Eddie Guardado, Marcus McBeth, Rheal Cormier, Ricky Stone, Matt Belisle, Bobby Livingston, Homer Bailey, Eric Milton . . .

My point is A.) good pitchers don't grow on trees, and B.) Mike Stanton's not the problem.

Is he over-paid by a million or two? Sure. Was signing him to a multi-year contract a bad idea? Probably. Is a million dollars or two going to make a difference this season or next season? No way. Like I said, if the Reds signed anyone for what Mike Stanton is making, he would most likely be doing just as poorly or worse.

Here are the 26 players who were available for $2M (Stanton's 2007 salary) or less in 2007:

1 yr $ 380,000 Antonio Alfonseca decent ERA, but peripheral numbers are terrible and is usually asked to pitch to only one or two hitters per game
2 yr $ 4,000,000 John Bale has pitched only 14.1 innings
minor league Brandon Claussen is struggling in AAA
1 yr $ 430,000 Scott Dohmann has pitched only 13 innings
minor league Willie Eyre is performing below average
1 yr $ 1,650,000 Aaron Fultz is performing well in 25.2 innings as LOOGY
minor league Runelvys Hernandez is doing horribly
3 yr $ 1,920,000 Yoslan Herrera is underwhelming in AA
minor league Dan Kolb has pitched 3 innings
1 yr $ 500,000 Brian Lawrence has pitched 16 innings
minor league Brian Moehler is performing below average in mop-up role
1 yr $ 1,500,000 Tomo Ohka is performing poorly
1 yr $ 1,750,000 Darren Oliver is performing capably
1 yr $ 380,000 Russ Ortiz is performing below average
minor league Arthur Rhodes hasn't pitched
1 yr $ 1,600,000 J.C. Romero is performing well as a LOOGY
minor league Scott Sauerbeck hasn't pitched
minor league Aaron Sele is performing below average
1 yr $ 1,750,000 Russ Springer is performing well
1 yr $ 750,000 Tanyon Sturtze hasn't pitched
1 yr $ 1,000,000 Claudio Vargas is performing below average
minor league Rick White is performing disastrously
1 yr $ 500,000 Jerome Williams is performing disastrously
1 yr $ 900,000 Scott Williamson has pitched 14.1 innings
minor league Mike Wood is performing average
minor league Victor Zambrano is performing disastrously

Mike Stanton is having the worst year of his career in pretty much every way. You can blame it on his age (although I don't see why he would change so much between the ages of 39 and 40), but I think it mostly comes from how he has been used this year.

flyer85
08-20-2007, 03:43 PM
PECOTA thought Stanton was going to be bad(and he has been), no reason to blow a wad of cash for what stood a good chance of being below replacement level performance ... course I doubt the Reds know anything about that.

RedsManRick
08-20-2007, 03:46 PM
Is he over-paid by a million or two? Sure. Was signing him to a multi-year contract a bad idea? Probably. Is a million dollars or two going to make a difference this season or next season? No way. Like I said, if the Reds signed anyone for what Mike Stanton is making, he would most likely be doing just as poorly or worse.

And there's the rub. If all you expect out of a bullpen guy is an ERA in the high 4s or worse and some innings being eaten, don't spend your money on that in FA. Every team has somebody at AA or AAA who can come up and provide innings. If you don't have that guy, you probably aren't in contention anyways. We've got Brad Salmon wasting away so that we can fund Mike Stanton's retirement.

Sure, it's only a few million on Stanton, but it's also a few milliion on Cormier, a few million on Conine, a million on Juan Castro etc. and suddenly you've spent a superstar's worth on guys who you could have replaced in house if you had the guts to do so. If your table shows us anything, it's that crop of mediocre FA talent simply isn't worth the risk for the very limited upside they provide.

Free agency is for impact players you can't obtain otherwise and replaceable bit pieces that you can acquire at virtually no cost. That middle ground is where the market is the most inefficient and the easiest way to waste your money.

flyer85
08-20-2007, 04:04 PM
the key to success through innovation starts by asking Peter Drucker’s naive question of “if we weren’t already doing things this way, is this the way we would start?” If the organization is ready and willing to embrace change that organization can exploit inefficiencies in the market.

camisadelgolf
08-20-2007, 04:35 PM
And there's the rub. If all you expect out of a bullpen guy is an ERA in the high 4s or worse and some innings being eaten, don't spend your money on that in FA. Every team has somebody at AA or AAA who can come up and provide innings. If you don't have that guy, you probably aren't in contention anyways. We've got Brad Salmon wasting away so that we can fund Mike Stanton's retirement.

Sure, it's only a few million on Stanton, but it's also a few milliion on Cormier, a few million on Conine, a million on Juan Castro etc. and suddenly you've spent a superstar's worth on guys who you could have replaced in house if you had the guts to do so. If your table shows us anything, it's that crop of mediocre FA talent simply isn't worth the risk for the very limited upside they provide.

Free agency is for impact players you can't obtain otherwise and replaceable bit pieces that you can acquire at virtually no cost. That middle ground is where the market is the most inefficient and the easiest way to waste your money.

The Reds were in contention when they traded for Cormier, and Cormier wouldn't allow the trade unless there was an extension, so I don't think it's fair to include him in this part of the conversation. Jeff Conine has been worth his salary so far, so I'm not going to complain about trading for him. Juan Castro is making less than $1M, so I'd be nitpicking if I complained about that.

However, here is a list of every single pitcher who was signed in the most recent off-season who made more than Stanton's salary of $2M and less than the $7.175M the Reds would have saved if they hadn't signed Juan Castro, Jeff Conine, Rheal Cormier, and Mike Stanton. Please tell me which of these pitchers you would have signed before the season started.

$ 4,000,000 Danys Baez 41.1 IP 5.88 ERA 1.38 WHIP
$ 4,250,000 Joe Borowski 49 IP 5.51 ERA 1.45 WHIP
$ 3,000,000 Chad Bradford 49.1 IP 3.47 ERA 1.38 WHIP
$ 5,000,000 Octavio Dotel 27.1 IP 4.61 ERA 1.46 WHIP
$ 2,250,000 Alan Embree 55 IP 3.60 ERA 1.24 WHIP
$ 6,875,000 Adam Eaton 133 IP 6.36 ERA 1.62 WHIP
$ 5,000,000 Keith Foulke hasn't pitched
$ 6,000,000 Eric Gagne 40.1 IP 4.02 ERA 1.34 WHIP
$ 3,500,000 Roberto Hernandez 39 IP 6.23 ERA 1.80 WHIP
$ 4,000,000 Kei Igawa 62.1 IP 6.79 ERA 1.68 WHIP
$ 2,500,000 Jose Mesa 39 IP 5.77 ERA 1.44 WHIP
$ 3,100,000 Ramon Ortiz 93.1 IP 5.01 ERA 1.40 WHIP
$ 4,000,000 Joel Pineiro 53 IP 4.25 ERA 1.38 WHIP
$ 2,100,000 Chris Reitsma 23.2 IP 7.61 ERA 1.94 WHIP
$ 3,600,000 Scott Schoeneweis 42.2 IP 5.06 ERA 1.57 WHIP
$ 3,750,000 Justin Speier 34 IP 2.91 ERA 0.97 WHIP
$ 3,000,000 Jamie Walker 46 IP 3.13 ERA 1.26 WHIP
$ 4,000,000 Kip Wells 132.1 IP 5.24 ERA 1.53 WHIP
$ 6,000,000 Woody Williams 159 IP 4.92 ERA 1.37 WHIP

I see only a couple players who could've made a noteworthy difference for the Reds. One is Jamie Walker, who will be 38 years old and making $4.5M in 2009. The other is Justin Speier, who will be 36 years old and making $5.25M in 2010. Those two are two huge investments for middle relief, if you ask me. I'm not sure the Reds can afford those kinds of risks. I think Mike Stanton was worth a shot. Also, Stanton still has a chance to turn things around.

flyer85
08-20-2007, 04:59 PM
The Reds were in contention when they traded for Cormier, and Cormier wouldn't allow the trade unless there was an extensionthey should have been smart enough not to want him in the first place. He was a disaster waiting to unfold.

camisadelgolf
08-20-2007, 05:10 PM
they should have been smart enough not to want him in the first place. He was a disaster waiting to unfold.

The Reds should have known David Ross wouldn't be leading National League catchers in homeruns. They should've known that Brandon Phillips and his .206 batting average through 135 games was going to be lucky to hit over .250. Sometimes things work out, and sometimes they don't. Pretty much no matter what, there was always a better option. Signing Mike Stanton would have been one of the best conracts out of the ones I just listed. The Reds may have had better options, but the majority of their contract options were worse.

flyer85
08-20-2007, 05:21 PM
Cormier's peripheral were a disaster and his xERA was well over 4 at the time of the trade ... a smart FO would have known what they were likely to get.

Cormier is an example of why "sometimes they don't" and it was predictable.


To the untrained ear, these scouts were unbelievably convincing,some of their subjective opinions almost sounded like they were objective ... while having a complete lack of empirical evidence to support (their) claims.

camisadelgolf
08-20-2007, 05:31 PM
Part of being a good manager is knowing when to put which player son the field, and Jerry Narron showed he wasn't very good at that. If Mackanin were manager at the beginning of the year, maybe Cormier would be leading relievers in ERA again. :dunno:

flyer85
08-20-2007, 05:36 PM
If Mackanin were manager at the beginning of the year, maybe Cormier would be leading relievers in ERA again. :dunno:Cormier in the first half of 2006 was nothing more than a complete fluke basely more on good fortune than anything else ... his peripherals(extremely low K rate, extremely low BABIP) pointed to a regression to the mean was coming and it was going to be a hard fall.

He was an excellent bet to fall of the planet in terms of performance and he did ... who knew.

RedsManRick
08-20-2007, 05:40 PM
The Reds were in contention when they traded for Cormier, and Cormier wouldn't allow the trade unless there was an extension, so I don't think it's fair to include him in this part of the conversation. Jeff Conine has been worth his salary so far, so I'm not going to complain about trading for him. Juan Castro is making less than $1M, so I'd be nitpicking if I complained about that.

However, here is a list of every single pitcher who was signed in the most recent off-season who made more than Stanton's salary of $2M and less than the $7.175M the Reds would have saved if they hadn't signed Juan Castro, Jeff Conine, Rheal Cormier, and Mike Stanton. Please tell me which of these pitchers you would have signed before the season started.

I see only a couple players who could've made a noteworthy difference for the Reds. One is Jamie Walker, who will be 38 years old and making $4.5M in 2009. The other is Justin Speier, who will be 36 years old and making $5.25M in 2010. Those two are two huge investments for middle relief, if you ask me. I'm not sure the Reds can afford those kinds of risks. I think Mike Stanton was worth a shot. Also, Stanton still has a chance to turn things around.

And you've made my point for me, twice.

Firstly, if you have to give an old, mediocre at best reliever an extension to acquire him, or give a 40 year old middle reliever a 2 year deal with an option to sign him, he probably isn't worth it -- and he knows it. Hence the request for as much guaranteed money as possible before the end of the line rather than an opportunity to get a more lucrative offer after a successful season. And I don't care if we were in contention, adding Rheal Cormier doesn't improve a bullpen. If adding Rheal Cormier does improve your bullpen, you're not really in contention.

Secondly, I wouldn't have signed any of those pitchers, and that's my point. Signing a middle reliever in free agency costs you a few million bucks and likely doesn't even improve your team. We have people on the board crying poor about Adam Dunn, wanting to cut him loose rather than give him a $3M boost that still leaves him below market price. The free agent market is a very inefficient use of money when it comes to pitchers. For $13M would you rather have Dunn or Joe Borowski, Joey Table, and Woody Williams?

Stop trying to find the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th guys on your pitching staff in free agency and save your FA dollar for a guy you can count on to make a real impact. And yes, there aren't very many of those. Sometimes it might mean sitting on your hands one year so you don't have $3M already committed to an ineffective 41 year old the next.

I won't even touch the idea that when a pitcher pitches determines whether he's the league ERA leader or a scrub. There are shades of gray, but it's pretty simple. Good pitchers pitch well, bad pitchers pitch poorly. Misuse can make a good pitcher worse, but it's pretty hard to make a crappy pitcher better through usage patterns. And if you can do that, why not just sign good pitchers and then make them even better...

camisadelgolf
08-20-2007, 05:44 PM
Cormier in the first half of 2006 was nothing more than a complete fluke basely more on good fortune than anything else ... his peripherals(extremely low K rate, extremely low BABIP) pointed to a regression to the mean was coming and it was going to be a hard fall.

He was an excellent bet to fall of the planet in terms of performance and he did ... who knew.

Personally, I agree with you. I think acquiring Cormier wasn't a very good idea. But your argument goes both ways. If he performs horribly, then he should follow that up by doing well. Cormier's WHIP as a Red was 1.76. His career WHIP was 1.28. He had a 3.71K/9IP as a Red, but for his career, it was 5.60. His ERA as a Red was 5.29, and for his career, it was 4.03. That would imply he should've started pitching well at some point this year. There was nothing he did in St. Louis that implied he had lost whatever it was that had given him success for over ten years. Like I said, if he had been used at better times, I think you would've seen much better results. I don't think he was a good acquisition, but I don't think it was as bad of an acquisition as a lot of people are saying.

flyer85
08-20-2007, 05:53 PM
But your argument goes both ways. If he performs horribly, then he should follow that up by doing well. The argument goes both ways ... only ... if the peripherals do not support the current performance (be it good or bad). In Cormier's case his xERA has ~4.5 at the time of the trade which showed his performance was a fluke and completely unsustainable.

The opposite case was why I suggested early last year that they go after Wuertz after nothing more than a run of bad luck got him banished to the minors.

camisadelgolf
08-20-2007, 05:59 PM
The argument goes both ways ... only ... if the peripherals do not support the current performance (be it good or bad). In Cormier's case his xERA has ~4.5 at the time of the trade which showed his performance was a fluke and completely unsustainable.

The opposite case was why I suggested early last year that they go after Wuertz after nothing more than a run of bad luck got him banished to the minors.

You're right. I'm guessing the Reds thought he could sustain it just a little bit longer. I didn't think he would, but when I saw that they had to give up only Justin Germano, I wasn't angry about the Reds givinig it a shot.

Ron Madden
08-21-2007, 05:30 AM
Kinda funny.. how much the Phillies improved after the fire sale they held at the trading deadline in '06.

They sure missed Rheal Cormier, didn't they?

;)

flyer85
08-21-2007, 09:39 AM
Kinda funny.. how much the Phillies improved after the fire sale they held at the trading deadline in '06.

They sure missed Rheal Cormier, didn't they?

;)... and Ryan Franklin.

REDREAD
08-21-2007, 10:21 PM
The . Please tell me which of these pitchers you would have signed before the season started.


I was hoping they would sign Bradford all during the last offseason.
I can't believe Baltimore got him that cheap.
Would've added the solid RH reliever that our pen desparately needed.

There's no reason to give a relatively expensive, multiyear contract to a guy like Stanton who is obviously old and fading, particularly when the Reds already had Cormier under contract.

It just wasn't a good risk at all. A lot of folks called it before the season started.

If they really wanted Stanton, they should've just offered him a one year deal. At least that way, they wouldn't be sabotaging 2008.

Wayne has shown poor judgement by giving multiyear deals to players he shouldn't be. It was dumb to give Freel and Castro multiyear deals, and many people called it at the time as well.

camisadelgolf
08-22-2007, 03:40 AM
I was hoping they would sign Bradford all during the last offseason.
I can't believe Baltimore got him that cheap.
Would've added the solid RH reliever that our pen desparately needed.

There's no reason to give a relatively expensive, multiyear contract to a guy like Stanton who is obviously old and fading, particularly when the Reds already had Cormier under contract.

It just wasn't a good risk at all. A lot of folks called it before the season started.

If they really wanted Stanton, they should've just offered him a one year deal. At least that way, they wouldn't be sabotaging 2008.

Wayne has shown poor judgement by giving multiyear deals to players he shouldn't be. It was dumb to give Freel and Castro multiyear deals, and many people called it at the time as well.

The only reason Stanton came to the Reds was because they were the only team to add a potential third year on Stanton's contract. When the signing happened, I was a little skeptical, but I still think Stanton can turn things around next year. (I'm not saying he will--I'm just saying it's possible.)

Obviously, Chad Bradford would've been a better player to sign. The Orioles might have regrets about it when they're paying him $3.5M in 2009, but for now, it looks like a good season. However, of the 20 or so contracts I listed, no more than a fourth of them would've helped the Reds more than hurt them. Mike Stanton's chances of success this year might not have been great, but I think his odds were better than the majority of options the Reds had. For the record, I think many pitchers are aware of GABP's reputation and avoid signing here at all costs, so perhaps that's a factor in who the Reds can sign.

Redsland
08-22-2007, 05:41 PM
The only reason Stanton came to the Reds was because they were the only team to add a potential third year on Stanton's contract.
So you're saying that if the Reds hadn't offered him that third year, then we wouldn't have had the pleasure of watching him this year?

I'm not seeing how that's a bad thing. ;)

In fact, it's more evidence that Wayne is out of his depth. Every other GM decided that instead of giving Stanton another year, he'd go in another direction. Wayne bucked the trend and 56 games of 5.80 ERA and 1.7 WHIP later, here we are.

Like REDREAD said, Wayne has a curious habit of throwing multi-year contracts at guys who figure to be role players at best.

flyer85
08-22-2007, 05:51 PM
So you're saying that if the Reds hadn't offered him that third year, then we wouldn't have had the pleasure of watching him this year?

I'm not seeing how that's a bad thing. ;)wanting to even offer Stanton a first year(much less three) is one of the WK moves that leaves me ... :dunno:

Falls City Beer
08-22-2007, 06:46 PM
Two sins: 1. They gave Mike Stanton a decent chunk of change.

2. They keep pitching him, despite the fact that his career's over.

Once again, money trumps sound decision-making.

harangatang
08-25-2007, 11:13 PM
BUMP

edabbs44
08-25-2007, 11:21 PM
If Stanton had any pride, he would retire.