PDA

View Full Version : Is Majewski back to 2006 form?



AmarilloRed
08-25-2007, 02:57 PM
He has been doing much better lately. In 2006 he had a record of 3-2 , a 3.58 ERA, 46 games, 55 1/3 IP, 49 hits, 24 runs , 22 earned, 4hrs, 25 walks, and 34 strikeouts. He has been struggling until the month of August. In this month he is 0-0 with a 3.38 ERA, 9 games, 3 runs, 3 earned( 2 of the runs on HR), 2hr, o walks, and 2 strikeouts. I will be the first to admit it is a small sample size and I will be watching to see what he does the rest of the year. However, if he really is healthy and remains consistant, I think he will help the Reds in the 6th and 7th innings in the future.

jmac
08-25-2007, 03:12 PM
He has been doing much better lately. In 2006 he had a record of 3-2 , a 3.58 ERA, 46 games, 55 1/3 IP, 49 hits, 24 runs , 22 earned, 4hrs, 25 walks, and 34 strikeouts. He has been struggling until the month of August. In this month he is 0-0 with a 3.38 ERA, 9 games, 3 runs, 3 earned( 2 of the runs on HR), 2hr, o walks, and 2 strikeouts. I will be the first to admit it is a small sample size and I will be watching to see what he does the rest of the year. However, if he really is healthy and remains consistant, I think he will help the Reds in the 6th and 7th innings in the future.

It would be nice to think of an effective group of Burton/Bray/Weathers/Maj going into 08.
It still scares me watching Maj come into the game though.

UC_Ken
08-25-2007, 03:16 PM
If he's back to old form we'll have one of the best bullpens in baseball next season. Our bullpen has been great since the emergence of Bray and Burton. Throw in Gary and probably a talented minor leaguer like Salmon and we could really have something next season.

AmarilloRed
08-25-2007, 04:23 PM
One thing to remember is that Washington is a different stadium. Fly balls that would be outs in washington are HRs in GABP. Still, as long as he gets ground ball outs he should be OK.

Doro
08-25-2007, 04:24 PM
ya one positive is that good bullpens often seem to pop up out of nowhere. (like the '99 bullpen) They didnt have a real shut down type reliever going into the season but Williamson, Graves, Sullivan and more all stepped up.

Muggerd
08-25-2007, 04:24 PM
I never gave up on majewski

Jay Bruce
08-25-2007, 05:44 PM
The thing about Majewski is that he was not very good during his "good" years with Washington, just lucky. In 2005, whenhe posted a 2.93 ERA, his K/9 was an anemic 5.23, while he also walked 3.87/9, too many considering his lack of K's. He was made to look good by the fact that he only gave up 0.21 HR/9. However, this was done with a HR/FB ratio of 2.2 %, ridiculously lucky even when you consider that he was pitching in RFK.

Last year with the Nationals, where he had a 3.58 ERA before the trade, his peripheral stats were very similar to 2005, and he looked like someone pitching well because of downright luck. After he was traded to the Reds his K/9, BB/9 and HR/9 were negligibly different, yet his ERA rose to 8.40. He was actually unlucky with the Reds, as his BABIP against was a luck equalizing .465.

Basically, Majewski was not a good pitcher to begin with but has been a bad, as well as unlucky pitcher since he put on a Reds uniform. If Majewski is back to 2006 form, it simply means that he is pitching with luck on his side, as opposed to against him.

Screwball
08-25-2007, 05:48 PM
The thing about Majewski is that he was not very good during his "good" years with Washington, just lucky. In 2005, whenhe posted a 2.93 ERA, his K/9 was an anemic 5.23, while he also walked 3.87/9, too many considering his lack of K's. He was made to look good by the fact that he only gave up 0.21 HR/9. However, this was done with a HR/FB ratio of 2.2 %, ridiculously lucky even when you consider that he was pitching in RFK.

Last year with the Nationals, where he had a 3.58 ERA before the trade, his peripheral stats were very similar to 2005, and he looked like someone pitching well because of downright luck. After he was traded to the Reds his K/9, BB/9 and HR/9 were negligibly different, yet his ERA rose to 8.40. He was actually unlucky with the Reds, as his BABIP against was a luck equalizing .465.

Basically, Majewski was not a good pitcher to begin with but has been a bad, as well as unlucky pitcher since he put on a Reds uniform. If Majewski is back to 2006 form, it simply means that he is pitching with luck on his side, as opposed to against him.

Wow, very interesting stuff. I was curious about his peripherals, but too lazy to look them up. It seems we really can't expect Majewski to repeat any sort of success with consistency. If anything, we should expect to see a guy that will get rocked if he doesn't have Lady Luck standing next to him.

Jay Bruce
08-25-2007, 06:03 PM
Wow, very interesting stuff. I was curious about his peripherals, but too lazy to look them up. It seems we really can't expect Majewski to repeat any sort of success with consistency. If anything, we should expect to see a guy that will get rocked if he doesn't have Lady Luck standing next to him.

You are exactly right, which is what made trading for him in the first place a bad idea. I had no problem acquiring Bray in the deal, but was not happy with the inclusion of Majewski once I looked at the stats. The reason for the trade was to improve the bullpen, yet it should have been apparent that Majewski was not the arm to go after, much less give up something of value (at the time) for him.

ChatterRed
08-25-2007, 06:38 PM
Argh. Here we go again.

Boy, I sure wish we had Kearns back and not Hamilton. I sure wish Lopez was at SS instead of Gonzo/Keppinger.

Jay Bruce
08-25-2007, 06:41 PM
I'm not saying that I want Kearns and Lopez back. I'm simply saying that Majewski was a bad pitcher that should not have been traded for in the first place. All of his peripherals said that he had been lucky, and was due to start pitching bad. I had no problem dealing Kearns and Lopez for worthwhile commodities, Majewski simply wasn't.

UC_Ken
08-25-2007, 08:40 PM
I'm not saying that I want Kearns and Lopez back. I'm simply saying that Majewski was a bad pitcher that should not have been traded for in the first place. All of his peripherals said that he had been lucky, and was due to start pitching bad. I had no problem dealing Kearns and Lopez for worthwhile commodities, Majewski simply wasn't.

Any time you get the best player in a deal you've done ok. We got Bray and they got a couple below average position players. I'll take that.

kaldaniels
08-25-2007, 08:41 PM
Argh. Here we go again.

Boy, I sure wish we had Kearns back and not Hamilton. I sure wish Lopez was at SS instead of Gonzo/Keppinger.

Been there, said that....any minute now you'll get a response saying "it was about the "return" on Kearns/FLo that has everyone upset."

Screwball
08-25-2007, 08:51 PM
Any time you get the best player in a deal you've done ok. We got Bray and they got a couple below average position players. I'll take that.

So you consider the price of a good (not great) reliever to be 2 average to slightly below avg. (at the time) position players?

BTW, I'm not trying to be snarky here. It's an honest question.

AmarilloRed
08-25-2007, 08:51 PM
In any case, as long as he continues to pitch this well I would be glad to have him in the bullpen.

UC_Ken
08-25-2007, 10:09 PM
So you consider the price of a good (not great) reliever to be 2 average to slightly below avg. (at the time) position players?

BTW, I'm not trying to be snarky here. It's an honest question.

I'm not talking about what I thought about the trade at the time. I'm saying that we are better off today than we would be if we had not made that trade. We acquired the only difference maker in the trade.

AmarilloRed
08-26-2007, 01:11 AM
At the time and even now, the bullpen was a weakness on the ball club. We have a team that can score plenty of runs, and Wayne decided to trade from what he believed was a source of strength(our position players), and shore up a weakness (our bullpen. The Trade did not help us last year, but if Bray and Majewski are both doing well it will help us now and in the future.

The Snow Chief
08-26-2007, 04:19 AM
So you consider the price of a good (not great) reliever to be 2 average to slightly below avg. (at the time) position players?

BTW, I'm not trying to be snarky here. It's an honest question.

Bray was potential. He was in his first mlb season. He was a former #1 draft pick and was good in his rookie season with the potential to be very good. I thought Bray was the centerpiece of the trade when it happened and I have defended the trade on here and elsewhere since day one.

What very few people also realize is that the trade allowed us to free up salary on underperforming players who had FA looming and acquire players are very cheap now and can be controlled for years to come. There is a premium on that in baseball, yet no one seems to include it in evaluating the trade.

Orenda
08-26-2007, 04:20 AM
I'm not talking about what I thought about the trade at the time. I'm saying that we are better off today than we would be if we had not made that trade. We acquired the only difference maker in the trade.

Except for when the Nationals played the reds. Kearns and Lopez were big difference makers in those games.

Orenda
08-26-2007, 04:33 AM
What very few people also realize is that the trade allowed us to free up salary on underperforming players who had FA looming and acquire players are very cheap now and can be controlled for years to come. There is a premium on that in baseball, yet no one seems to include it in evaluating the trade.

Well that is because the reds were in the thick of things and the trade was supposed to solidify the pen. That happened for about 10 games then the pen struggles continued and the offense fell apart. So essentially the money we freed up allowed us to go get Alex Gonzalez and Mike Stanton. On the bright side Bray has earned a spot and Majewski should be able to drive the bus to and from Louisville. Thompson is promising and we now have Hamilton. I'm willing to accept that the trade may have brought on events that improves the club for the future, but that was not the specific reason for the trade at the time. Making the trade a failure, in my opinion.

Jay Bruce
08-26-2007, 05:35 AM
What very few people also realize is that the trade allowed us to free up salary on underperforming players who had FA looming and acquire players are very cheap now and can be controlled for years to come. There is a premium on that in baseball, yet no one seems to include it in evaluating the trade.

I completey understand this thinking about the trade, in that we got to control Bray for 6 years and Majewski for 4, while also trading away 2 players about to become overpaid in arbitration. I liked the theory of the trade, but not the execution.

The problem I had with the trade is that Majewski was not worth acquiring (even for nothing, much less a starting calibre position player), even though he would be inexpensive for a while. While he had a good ERA for a year and a half, he was doing it mostly on the part of luck. Eventually that luck was going to run out, which happened fairly quickly after the trade, costing the Reds wins last year.

Even during his return in August, were he is percieved to be back on track, he only has 2 K's in 8 innings and has given up a HR, while to his credit, has only walked one guy. This is a pitcher who had relied completey on BABIP, and will only continue to "pitch well" when luck is on his side. It is a roller coaster ride we will have the pleasure to endure for the entirety of Majewski's stay with the team. Majewski was simply a bad target for the Reds to acquire, regardless of the justification for the trade.

AmarilloRed
08-26-2007, 02:18 PM
Not every pitcher is a strikeout pitcher; there are plenty of relief pitchers who succeed by putting the ball in play and getting outs. Luck will always be a factor with any pitcher, but I fear you are overestimating its effect with Majewski. When he is on, he will get plenty of ground ball outs. The Trade is looking to be a better trade as time goes on. We got a good set-up man/closer in Bray; and we got a good middle reliever in Majewski. It took Majewski some time to recover from his injury, but he is healthy now and he looks to help the Reds bullpen for some time to come.

Jay Bruce
08-26-2007, 02:53 PM
When you are not a strikeout pitcher, it means that more balls are being put into play by the batter. When the ball is put into play, luck is a much larger factor in getting the out, since, over the history of baseball, hitters have batted around .300 when the ball is hit into play, and is not a homerun. When the pitcher notches a strikeout, the batter has a 0% chance of getting on base. Because Majewski is not a strikeout pitcher, luck will play a much larger part into getting hitters out than someone like Bray, who has the ability to strike people out. Majewski has also hurt himself during his major league career by walking too many guys for his lack of strikeout ability, exacerbating the problem when a batter gets a hit. Becauseof this, Majewski will be too inconsistent year to year to rely on as a primary setup man. Majewski may have his years with a low ERA, but he is just as likely to have a poor ERA as well.

The Snow Chief
08-26-2007, 04:17 PM
Well that is because the reds were in the thick of things and the trade was supposed to solidify the pen. That happened for about 10 games then the pen struggles continued and the offense fell apart. So essentially the money we freed up allowed us to go get Alex Gonzalez and Mike Stanton. On the bright side Bray has earned a spot and Majewski should be able to drive the bus to and from Louisville. Thompson is promising and we now have Hamilton. I'm willing to accept that the trade may have brought on events that improves the club for the future, but that was not the specific reason for the trade at the time. Making the trade a failure, in my opinion.

1) If you think the purpose of the trade was solely for 2006, then I think you bought a bill of goods sold by the Reds front office. You don't trade experience of a rookie and a guy with 1.5 years of major league service time if the main purpose is making a run that specific year.

2) The Reds did not have a team capable of making a serious run at the WS in 2006. I realize the Cardinals did not have that much better of a record, but they underachieved and were injured and turned it on at the right time. Unlike the Cardinals, the 2006 Reds did not have another gear to go to. The Reds overachieved until late August.

AmarilloRed
08-26-2007, 04:30 PM
Two grounds outs and a strikeout in this game. I think he is a player to count on in the future. He did give up a hit, but he got a scoreless inning. I never counted him as a set-up man; he is more a middle reliever.

The Snow Chief
08-26-2007, 04:31 PM
Jay Bruce:

I agree with you that Majewski was far from an ideal trade centerpiece. However, I feel that you and many others on here have made the mistake of viewing the trade from the perspective that Majewski was its centerpiece. Bray was the centerpiece and Majewski fell somewhere between a throw-in and and Bray. I have said that from the time the trade was made.

A relief pitcher who is a (1) young; (2) former top 10 overall pick; (3) left hander; and (4) pitching better than MLB average in his rookie season does not come cheaply. It would not be of the magnitude of the Reds giving up Bailey, but I certainly think it would be comparable to the Reds giving up a guy like Cueto. As you know, that does not come cheaply.

The front office spun the trade as a way to help the 2006 bullpen. I think they were hoping that would be the case but had a greater motivation - one that politically could not be disclosed due to the fans starving for a winner now based on losing caused by past years of poor management. I believe they wanted to improve the qaulity of the organization long term by getting a couple young, cheap pitchers and moving a couple of over priced position players with free agency looming. I think the front office felt they could improve upon Kearns and Lopez' production or get close to their production at a much cheaper price tag - and they have done so.

- TSC

Orenda
08-26-2007, 05:14 PM
Jay Bruce:

I agree with you that Majewski was far from an ideal trade centerpiece. However, I feel that you and many others on here have made the mistake of viewing the trade from the perspective that Majewski was its centerpiece. Bray was the centerpiece and Majewski fell somewhere between a throw-in and and Bray. I have said that from the time the trade was made.

A relief pitcher who is a (1) young; (2) former top 10 overall pick; (3) left hander; and (4) pitching better than MLB average in his rookie season does not come cheaply. It would not be of the magnitude of the Reds giving up Bailey, but I certainly think it would be comparable to the Reds giving up a guy like Cueto. As you know, that does not come cheaply.

The front office spun the trade as a way to help the 2006 bullpen. I think they were hoping that would be the case but had a greater motivation - one that politically could not be disclosed due to the fans starving for a winner now based on losing caused by past years of poor management. I believe they wanted to improve the qaulity of the organization long term by getting a couple young, cheap pitchers and moving a couple of over priced position players with free agency looming. I think the front office felt they could improve upon Kearns and Lopez' production or get close to their production at a much cheaper price tag - and they have done so.

- TSC

Alot of this reads like revisionist history to me.

The Snow Chief
08-26-2007, 05:26 PM
Alot of this reads like revisionist history to me.


Really, well here is a link to an article I wrote just over one month into this season and well before Bray and Majewski came back to the Reds this year. Anyone who knows me knows that I have been defending the trade since day one. Why can't some people just admit that they were wrong about this trade? I've been wrong about other baseball moves and it does not make me an idiot or a bad person.

http://shysterball.blogspot.com/search?q=Mark+Noel

SMcGavin
08-26-2007, 05:45 PM
Alot of this reads like revisionist history to me.

I think you may be right as far as the FO's plan at the time. I think WK made the move to try to win last year. But what is not revisionist history is the way the trade has turned out. If I had the chance to reverse the trade, I would not do it. If the Nats offered me both Kearns and Lopez for Bray, I would say no. It wasn't my feeling at the time, but it is now.

Muggerd
08-26-2007, 05:47 PM
What ever form he is in right now I am digging it.

Orenda
08-26-2007, 06:00 PM
I think you may be right as far as the FO's plan at the time. I think WK made the move to try to win last year. But what is not revisionist history is the way the trade has turned out. If I had the chance to reverse the trade, I would not do it. If the Nats offered me both Kearns and Lopez for Bray, I would say no. It wasn't my feeling at the time, but it is now.

Now i can agree with that. I wouldn't trade Bill Bray for Kearns or Lopez either, but if I had an abundance of bullpen help with marginal offense I would certainly consider it. The nationals pen is moving right along without Bray and Majewski as it is. Btw Snow Chief Bray was the 13th pick in 04 draft and im certainly not clicking on your link to read your "article." If you want to post it, I'll read it.

Jay Bruce
08-26-2007, 06:04 PM
Jay Bruce:

I agree with you that Majewski was far from an ideal trade centerpiece. However, I feel that you and many others on here have made the mistake of viewing the trade from the perspective that Majewski was its centerpiece. Bray was the centerpiece and Majewski fell somewhere between a throw-in and and Bray. I have said that from the time the trade was made.

- TSC

I have agreed all along that Bray was the centerpiece. However, I can assure you that the Reds would not have done the trade without the involvment of another reliever. The problem was that they viewed Majewski as a viable upgrade to the bullpen to the first place, and were willing to acquire him as a large part of the deal. If it was simply for Bray, with Majewski as a throw in, we were giving up too much value at the time, regardless of how the trade has worked out.

The Snow Chief
08-26-2007, 07:49 PM
I have agreed all along that Bray was the centerpiece. However, I can assure you that the Reds would not have done the trade without the involvment of another reliever. The problem was that they viewed Majewski as a viable upgrade to the bullpen to the first place, and were willing to acquire him as a large part of the deal. If it was simply for Bray, with Majewski as a throw in, we were giving up too much value at the time, regardless of how the trade has worked out.

If Majewski were a throw-in, then maybe at the time it could have looked a little one sided if you only look at Bray-Maj. for Kearns-Lopez. However, we still received Daryl Thompson, Brendan Harris, and Royce Clayton while only giving up Ryan Wagner additionally. If you view Wagner and Thompson cancelling each other out (which I think is more than fair the way Wagner flamed out), then you get this trade:

Nationals: Kearns, Lopez
Reds: Bray, Majewski, Harris, and Clayton

I think that was more than a fair trade even last year (before the Kearns, Lopze spiral). I would have traded Kearns for Bray straight up and I certainly would have taken Majewski, Harris, and Clayton for Lopez. I think other teams knew that he is, other than 2005, an average bat, a bad defensive player, and an overpriced Scott Boras client. That combination does not make teams throw their best prospect at.

improbus
08-26-2007, 08:00 PM
The Magic Man's ERA at RFK was actually worse the last two years than it was away, so the ballpark wasn't really the cause of his success.
Also, he only gave up 2 HR in '05, and only 4 before getting hurt last year, so when healthy, he keeps the ball in the ballpark, which is absolutely imperative at GABP.

The Snow Chief
08-26-2007, 08:00 PM
Now i can agree with that. I wouldn't trade Bill Bray for Kearns or Lopez either, but if I had an abundance of bullpen help with marginal offense I would certainly consider it. The nationals pen is moving right along without Bray and Majewski as it is. Btw Snow Chief Bray was the 13th pick in 04 draft and im certainly not clicking on your link to read your "article." If you want to post it, I'll read it.

For some reason I was thinking he was 10th. I don't think three spots changes the analysis measurably, but thanks for the correction.

Hey, if you don't want to read the blog article, that's your choice. There was an entire thread on it that went double digit pages back in May so I am not going to post it in the text and re-hash all the points made therein. I just linked it to rebut your statement about revisionist history.

When the trade was first announced I was skeptical. After just a couple days (when I had the opportunity to look at the history/stats of the return), I was no longer against the trade. You obviously were not in favor of it and now that it appears to have worked out you are attacking others as if no one could have possibly thought that the trade was a good idea a year ago. It's no big deal dude, people can be wrong on a transaction and still know baseball. It happens to everyone from GMs to message board posters. It was just wrong to accuse others of flip-flopping with no basis for doing so.

gilpdawg
08-26-2007, 08:00 PM
Well that is because the reds were in the thick of things and the trade was supposed to solidify the pen. That happened for about 10 games then the pen struggles continued and the offense fell apart. So essentially the money we freed up allowed us to go get Alex Gonzalez and Mike Stanton. On the bright side Bray has earned a spot and Majewski should be able to drive the bus to and from Louisville. Thompson is promising and we now have Hamilton. I'm willing to accept that the trade may have brought on events that improves the club for the future, but that was not the specific reason for the trade at the time. Making the trade a failure, in my opinion.
Trades should ALWAYS be evaluated on a long term basis. By your logic, the Tigers trading John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander in 1987 was a success, because Alexander won a lot of games for them down the stretch. After all, that was the specific reason for THAT trade as well.

The Snow Chief
08-26-2007, 08:02 PM
The Magic Man's ERA at RFK was actually worse the last two years than it was away, so the ballpark wasn't really the cause of his success.
Also, he only gave up 2 HR in '05, and only 4 before getting hurt last year, so when healthy, he keeps the ball in the ballpark, which is absolutely imperative at GABP.

You are right, the RFK argument does not hold water. He may be nothing more than a 6th or 7th inning guy, but if he is even that he than tips the trade balance considerably in the Reds' favor.

The Snow Chief
08-26-2007, 08:11 PM
Trades should ALWAYS be evaluated on a long term basis. By your logic, the Tigers trading John Smoltz for Doyle Alexander in 1987 was a success, because Alexander won a lot of games for them down the stretch. After all, that was the specific reason for THAT trade as well.

Do not inject common sense into this debate.

improbus
08-26-2007, 08:27 PM
You are right, the RFK argument does not hold water. He may be nothing more than a 6th or 7th inning guy, but if he is even that he than tips the trade balance considerably in the Reds' favor.

Put it this way, he's not Coffey, Stanton, Hammond, Cormier, Stone, Saarloos, Shackelford, White, or Mays.

757690
08-26-2007, 08:39 PM
In terms of Majewski's stats, those were his stats during the first two years of his career. Players have been known to get better, as they gain experience and learn from that experience.
Look at Brandon Lyon, Heath Bell and Rafeal Bentancourt's careers. They are three of the top set up men today, and they are much better than they were in first few seasons.
I see Majewski as a solid 7th or 8th inning guy for next year.
One more point, I HATE the expression "guy who can miss bats." K's are way overrated, especially for set up men. Some of the best relievers in history were groundball pitchers.
I would much rather have a David Weathers than a Jay Howell.

Orenda
08-26-2007, 08:45 PM
You obviously were not in favor of it and now that it appears to have worked out you are attacking others as if no one could have possibly thought that the trade was a good idea a year ago. It's no big deal dude, people can be wrong on a transaction and still know baseball. It happens to everyone from GMs to message board posters. It was just wrong to accuse others of flip-flopping with no basis for doing so.

I never knew how you felt about the trade so it would be impossible for me to accuse you of being a flip flopper. The revisisionist history comment was in response to your arguement about the reds FO spinning the trade to be about winning in 06 and deciding that Kearns and Lopez had met their maximum value for their price. I understand that logic and am not argueing with that if that is your opinion. I just thought that your rationalization of why they made the move while it has its valid points presently came off as a little revisionist. Because its easy to say the reds knew they could replace Kearns and Lopez after striking gold with Kepp/Hamilton after the fact, to fit in as a rationalization for a previous set of events. And as to the success of the trade Bray and Majewski have not lived up to the expectations, Bray because of injury and Majewski (well you know the story). The overall performance of the bullpen this season and the end of last is the main reason why you can't call this trade a success yet. If anything its a wash. And yes gilpdawg the success of Smoltz's career makes that trade look bad, but Doyle Alexander performed at a level that Smoltz wasn't going to realistically be able to at that point in his career. So fault the tigers for trying to win for one immediate season.

Orenda
08-26-2007, 08:59 PM
.

The Snow Chief
08-26-2007, 09:40 PM
I never knew how you felt about the trade so it would be impossible for me to accuse you of being a flip flopper. The revisisionist history comment was in response to your arguement about the reds FO spinning the trade to be about winning in 06 and deciding that Kearns and Lopez had met their maximum value for their price. I understand that logic and am not argueing with that if that is your opinion. I just thought that your rationalization of why they made the move while it has its valid points presently came off as a little revisionist. Because its easy to say the reds knew they could replace Kearns and Lopez after striking gold with Kepp/Hamilton after the fact, to fit in as a rationalization for a previous set of events. And as to the success of the trade Bray and Majewski have not lived up to the expectations, Bray because of injury and Majewski (well you know the story). The overall performance of the bullpen this season and the end of last is the main reason why you can't call this trade a success yet. If anything its a wash. And yes gilpdawg the success of Smoltz's career makes that trade look bad, but Doyle Alexander performed at a level that Smoltz wasn't going to realistically be able to at that point in his career. So fault the tigers for trying to win for one immediate season.

Fair enough, but I'm going to give WK and his staff the benefit of the doubt in entering into conjecture on their rationale behind the trade. You're right that none of us will ever know, but on the whole, I have liked WK's moves. Now signing Stanton, trading for Cormier, extending Freel, etc. were bad moves. But none of them were so bad as to have disasterous long term consequences. On the other hand, picking up Phillips, Hamilton, Burton, and Keppinger for peanuts will have huge long term consequences for the franchise IMO. I also liked that he signed Harang long term. Same with Arroyo, although he might have overpaid a bit on that one.

Jay Bruce
08-26-2007, 09:44 PM
One more point, I HATE the expression "guy who can miss bats." K's are way overrated, especially for set up men. Some of the best relievers in history were groundball pitchers.
I would much rather have a David Weathers than a Jay Howell.


As long a pitchers walks almost no batters, and gives up almost no homeruns, then yes, strikeouts may be overrated. However, Majewski has walked 3.87/9 and 3.71/9 in his two years of extended major league experience, too many for a pitcher who doesn't strike out many batters.

Also, I may be too young to remember Howell, but why would you rather have Weathers than Howell? Over his career, Howell had an ERA of 3.34, with 7.1 K/9, 3.1 K/9 and 0.61 HR/9. In comparison,
Weathers has an ERA of 4.32, with K/9 of 6.49, BB/9 of 3.95 and HR/9 of 0.85. There is nothing there to suggest that Weathers is a superior pitcher in any way.

GoReds33
08-26-2007, 09:53 PM
Put it this way, he's not Coffey, Stanton, Hammond, Cormier, Stone, Saarloos, Shackelford, White, or Mays.
No, but he was last year.:D

The Snow Chief
08-26-2007, 09:58 PM
Whichever side of the trade we are on, its nice to see the young pitchers showing some signs of promise. Those two and Burton have really changed the dynamic of the bullpen.

757690
08-26-2007, 10:00 PM
Also, I may be too young to remember Howell, but why would you rather have Weathers than Howell? Over his career, Howell had an ERA of 3.34, with 7.1 K/9, 3.1 K/9 and 0.61 HR/9. In comparison,
Weathers has an ERA of 4.32, with K/9 of 6.49, BB/9 of 3.95 and HR/9 of 0.85. There is nothing there to suggest that Weathers is a superior pitcher in any way.

AmarilloRed
08-26-2007, 10:01 PM
In any case , Gary Majewski is pitching in August the way we hoped he would last year. BTW Snow Chief, I seem to recall an excellent thread you made a while back called ReAssessing the Kearns Trade. I remember your reputation went from 0 to 120 back when we had a reputation system, and you were favorably commented on by several members of ORG. I would appreciate it if you let me know what that thread was called. I would be interested to read it again.

757690
08-26-2007, 10:06 PM
Also, I may be too young to remember Howell, but why would you rather have Weathers than Howell? Over his career, Howell had an ERA of 3.34, with 7.1 K/9, 3.1 K/9 and 0.61 HR/9. In comparison,
Weathers has an ERA of 4.32, with K/9 of 6.49, BB/9 of 3.95 and HR/9 of 0.85. There is nothing there to suggest that Weathers is a superior pitcher in any way.

Sorry, my bad. I meant J.P. Howell of the Devil Rays. Jay Howell was a much better pitcher than either Stormy or J.P.

And yes, Majewski did walk too many, but I think that is more likely to improve as he gains experience.
The only stat that counts for a reliever is how many runs he lets in. How he keeps runs from scoring is irrelevant.

Screwball
08-26-2007, 10:14 PM
How he keeps runs from scoring is irrelevant.

Not when you're assessing his performance to predict future performance. For example, Livingston was living on the edge in his first few starts - giving up a lot of baserunners but was able to strand them, resulting in a good ERA. However, it was pretty apparent he just couldn't sustain said good ERA by giving up so many hits and walks, and sure enough, as he made more starts and pitched more innings, those baserunners came around to score.

With Majewski, his peripherals scream of a guy who will not be able to sustain any type of consistent success in the future. He'll have his good streaks where he's an effective reliever, but when the luck isn't on his side (i.e., something completely out of his control), we'll see the guy that was reviled by just about everybody in the Reds' fanbase.

AmarilloRed
08-26-2007, 10:24 PM
I found it . It was called ReAssessing "Reassessing the Kearns Trade" . It was your first post, Snow Chief, and I look forward to reading it tonight when I have the time. It will be very interesting , Screwball, to see how Majewski does in September. He may very well return to his bad ways, or he will continue to be the good reliever he was in August. With the current state of our bullpen, I expect we will see him next year.

ChatterRed
08-26-2007, 10:25 PM
I think when it comes to young players that "peripherals" mean squat. I wonder what Glavine, Smoltz and some other great pitchers "peripherals" were in their first couple of seasons?

Many future good/great players/pitchers improve over time by fixing their "problem" areas.

I look at upside and hope the player improves their strengths and minimizes their weaknesses.

Therefore, "peripherals" in young players don't mean much.

The Snow Chief
08-26-2007, 10:31 PM
In any case , Gary Majewski is pitching in August the way we hoped he would last year. BTW Snow Chief, I seem to recall an excellent thread you made a while back called ReAssessing the Kearns Trade. I remember your reputation went from 0 to 120 back when we had a reputation system, and you were favorably commented on by several members of ORG. I would appreciate it if you let me know what that thread was called. I would be interested to read it again.

Thanks for the kind words. The whole debate about "the trade" is what turned me on to this site. Before then, I had just been posting on the mlb site. In early May, I stopped by my best friend from work's office who writes a baseball blog on the side and we shot the breeze. I told him my thoughts on "the trade." He wrote a blog article based on my points about "the trade" called "Reassessing the Kearns trade." Rob Neyer from ESPN picked up the article and linked it in one of his articles. Someone on ORG found it from there and started a thread on it. My friend told me that it was picked up by Redszone. I then found the board and read the responses to my friend's article.

The main points made by many ORG posters was that even if the trade may work out better in the long term, we (1) didn't get enough return; and (2) the trade cost us a shot of glory in 2006. After reading that, I had remembered intuitively that the whole team seemed to slump in September. I then researched the September splits and found that the highest September BA among Griffey, Dunn, EE, Phillips, Hatteburg, and Ross was .214. From that, I authored "Reassessing reassessing the Kearns trade" which was both the title of my first thread (and post) here and the article that my friend was kind enough to put on his blog. I'll post links to both articles below.

http://shysterball.blogspot.com/2007/05/reassessing-kearns-trade.html

http://shysterball.blogspot.com/2007/05/guest-shyster-mark-noel-rants-on-about.html

The Snow Chief
08-26-2007, 10:51 PM
I found it . It was called ReAssessing "Reassessing the Kearns Trade" . It was your first post, Snow Chief, and I look forward to reading it tonight when I have the time. It will be very interesting , Screwball, to see how Majewski does in September. He may very well return to his bad ways, or he will continue to be the good reliever he was in August. With the current state of our bullpen, I expect we will see him next year.


I just found the thread and read some of the posts. Man, there were more anti-trade people than I thought. Screwball had some good posts in there. If I were JohnnyFootstool and AtomicDumpling, I would not want to look back at some of the stuff I wrote in this one :eek:

AmarilloRed
08-27-2007, 03:01 AM
I finally finished reading all 262 posts on the thread. It seemed the prevailing opinion was that neither Bray or Majewski was very good, and that the two relievers were never going to be worth the position players we gave up. I took the wait-and -see method in the thread, and that seems to have been the best approach with how they have performed since they were both called up. The Trade did not help us in 2006, but both players could now help us in September and in the future. One thing I noticed, there was a lot of talk about Majewski being in Louisville and building up his arm strength. I noticed on Gameday today he was hitting 93-94, so it sounds like he has now rebuilt his arm from where it was earlier. In the later part of the thread, it mentioned that Majewski was a little bitter after what he went through. I would hope he is able to get past what happened last year, and simply learn to deal with the way things are now.

ChatterRed
08-27-2007, 08:56 AM
The fact still remains that based on the slump of nearly the entire lineup in September, the trade had little to do with not making the playoffs last season. Kearns and Lopez, being up for contracts, were not worth what Leatherpants will probably pay them, and WK found more than adequate replacements in Gonzalez, Hamilton, and Keppinger.

Longterm, Bray and Majewski may still turn out to do more for this team in the coming years than Kearns and Lopez. More reason that trades should be evaluated down the line than right away.

Orenda
08-27-2007, 09:01 AM
One thing I noticed, there was a lot of talk about Majewski being in Louisville and building up his arm strength. I noticed on Gameday today he was hitting 93-94, so it sounds like he has now rebuilt his arm from where it was earlier. In the later part of the thread, it mentioned that Majewski was a little bitter after what he went through. I would hope he is able to get past what happened last year, and simply learn to deal with the way things are now.

Majewski has been dealing around 93-94 for a while. I saw him pitch in person against the Angels mid June and that is where his velocity was at, and I believe it was in that range when he first arrived in May. He was ineffective then and sent back down. I don't think you can take his gun readings as a barometer of his built up arm strength and current success. Im glad he's pitching better (small sample) but I wouldn't say its because his arm is now built up. Enough people have already posted about his "luck factor", so I wont touch that. I haven't been able to watch many of this past weeks games so I haven't gotten to see him pitch, but my unproffessional opinion from seeing his last stint with the reds was that he didnt seem to show the needed confidence to succeed. I relize they have no stats for confidence, so feel free to call me ridiculous.

Cicero
08-27-2007, 11:12 AM
I also saw him in June. He gave up the lead and blew Homer's W. As I recall he walked in one of the runs. I felt terrible for him as he walked off the field with his shoulders slumped to the chorus of boos. The guy has had a rough year and I am glad to see him coming out of it.

AmarilloRed
08-29-2007, 02:19 AM
Mixed results for Majewski tonight. He pitched a scoreless inning in the first game but gave up a hit. He then had a bad game in the nightcap. He blew a save, allowed 2 hits, 1 run, 1 earned in 2/3 of an inning . His ERA rose to 7.74 in the second game.

INRedsFan
08-29-2007, 12:41 PM
The fact still remains that based on the slump of nearly the entire lineup in September, the trade had little to do with not making the playoffs last season. Kearns and Lopez, being up for contracts, were not worth what Leatherpants will probably pay them, and WK found more than adequate replacements in Gonzalez, Hamilton, and Keppinger.

Longterm, Bray and Majewski may still turn out to do more for this team in the coming years than Kearns and Lopez. More reason that trades should be evaluated down the line than right away.

I agree that WK did a great job with the Gonzalez, Hamilton, Keppinger, Bray and Phillips deals. We all know that we need to strengthen our pitching if we are to be a contender.

What thoughts do you have about pitchers that are available in the majors or minors that are worth going after. I will throw one out.....Brian Bullington in the Pirates organization.....he is with their AAA Indianapolis organization and is a former #1 pick. There is really not room in the Pirates organization for him. The Reds could have picked him up this season for about $800K. I think he is worth a shot. Who are some other pitching prospects that we should be looking at?

AmarilloRed
08-31-2007, 02:54 AM
Somehow Majewski got his 5th hold tonight, but it was not pretty. 1 1/3 IP, 1 hit, 1 run, 1 earned, 0 walks, and 1 strikeout. His ERA is now at 7.46. It seems Majewski does not fare as well when he pitches more than 1 inning.

redsupport
08-31-2007, 11:34 PM
the gift that never stops

NorrisHopper30
08-31-2007, 11:35 PM
wow

Krawhitham
08-31-2007, 11:36 PM
Why use Eddie in a close game?

Muggerd
08-31-2007, 11:37 PM
Why use Eddie in a close game?

because mackanin has turned into Mr. Micro manager

HokieRed
08-31-2007, 11:38 PM
Mackanin is not the guy.

GoReds33
08-31-2007, 11:39 PM
Mackanin is not the guy.My mind isn't completly made up yet, but I agree with you to this point. Managing by the seat of your pants only gets you so far.:)

Muggerd
08-31-2007, 11:40 PM
Mackanin is not the guy.

He might have been before he started playing the game by the book every night. Seriously this is retarded.

jmac
09-01-2007, 12:12 AM
because mackanin has turned into Mr. Micro manager

His style doesnt bother me as much "if" he had the guys to use.
But bringing in guys with ERA's of 9,17, and 6 is not what you call a bullpen.
Early in the year our problem was getting game to 9th. Then Burton has come along and Bray done decent as well .
However, if we have to get a lead from the 6th to the 8th we are in trouble as evidenced tonight.

Muggerd
09-01-2007, 12:14 AM
His style doesnt bother me as much "if" he had the guys to use.
But bringing in guys with ERA's of 9,17, and 6 is not what you call a bullpen.
Early in the year our problem was getting game to 9th. Then Burton has come along and Bray done decent as well .
However, if we have to get a lead from the 6th to the 8th we are in trouble as evidenced tonight.
I dont understand the logic of bringing in our worst bullpen guy to face the middle of the line up with a lot of power from the cards with the bases loaded and 2 outs.

For once this season I thought stanton was a better option.

DeadRedinCT
09-01-2007, 12:16 AM
Maybe use Gosling in the spot that Coutlangus was used tonight. Then use Coutlangus in the spot that Guardado was used.

Muggerd
09-01-2007, 12:18 AM
Maybe use Gosling in the spot that Coutlangus was used tonight. Then use Coutlangus in the spot that Guardado was used.

:thumbup:

BUTLER REDSFAN
09-01-2007, 12:33 AM
In the 2 seasons we have had "the magic man" whenever i see him on tv i honestly don't think i've ever seen him get a batter out.

AmarilloRed
09-01-2007, 02:10 AM
All right, he has not shone his last 2 appearances. He lowered his ERA from 14.85 to 7.47 from Aug.10 to Aug.28, and it went back to 9.17 the last 2 games. Will the real Gary Majewski please stand up?:dunno:

boognish
09-01-2007, 10:19 AM
Majewski gives up too many batted balls and too many walks, as other posters have mentioned in this and other threads. His main skill, keeping the ball in the park, is likely not sustainable. My personal opinion is that many fans have such a deep desire for Maj to succeed based on the laughing stock "The Trade" made our GM in the eyes of the national media...Maj is a below average pitcher whose full season ERAs will usually be closer to 6 than 4. There really isn't much more to see here.

ChatterRed
09-01-2007, 11:56 AM
Well, we can't pitch Burton every night. He has very few choices beyond Burton and Weathers.

Muggerd
09-01-2007, 12:07 PM
Well, we can't pitch Burton every night. He has very few choices beyond Burton and Weathers.

How about the whole events before he felt he needed to pull people because the book says so.

Why was there such a quick hook on shearn

Why was he using cout in the 5th inning

why did he pull cout in the 6th

why would you bring in your worst bullpen arm in a bases loaded situation in a 1 run game?

jmac
09-01-2007, 02:21 PM
How about the whole events before he felt he needed to pull people because the book says so.

Why was there such a quick hook on shearn

Why was he using cout in the 5th inning

why did he pull cout in the 6th

why would you bring in your worst bullpen arm in a bases loaded situation in a 1 run game?

These were my thoughts as well.
If you pull your starter in the 5th then you cant mix and match the rest of the game or better have 15 relievers.

Muggerd
09-01-2007, 02:23 PM
These were my thoughts as well.
If you pull your starter in the 5th then you cant mix and match the rest of the game or better have 15 relievers.

I dont understand why he brought in cout over gosling. I would rather save cout for a more important spot but hey we are talking about the reds here, they dont really do much of anything that makes sense.

and the whole have to save arms thing is pretty much moot after last night with call ups coming.

AmarilloRed
09-01-2007, 06:47 PM
Majewski did well from Aug.10 to Aug.28, but he has struggled his last 2 appearances.

AmarilloRed
09-01-2007, 06:56 PM
I created this thread because he was doing well at the time. He has lately had 2 bad appearances, but that will not make his season.As long as he is getting ground balls, he will be a successful reliever. If his command slips and those ground balls turn into hits he is in trouble. A number of members have mentioned that luck is a factor with Majewski. He will continue to get appearances, and we can determine if he has a future with this team at the end of the year.

redsupport
09-02-2007, 01:56 AM
he is dross, pure unadulterated garbage

AmarilloRed
09-02-2007, 02:15 AM
he is dross, pure unadulterated garbage

Was he like that in Washington in 2005 and 2006 when he compiled
a ERA of 2.93 in 2005 and a ERA of 3.58 in 2006? He may allow more home runs in GABP than he would there, but there is no reason to say that of Gary. He has struggled some since coming to Cincinnati, but that is a small sample size. He showed a lot of promise in August, and he may well help our bullpen in September and next year if the manager realizes it is not good to stretch him out. In any case, I expect we will continue to agree to disagree about this redsupport; unless he really does show at the end of September that he can no longer pitch because his injury last year affected him more than we think.

Jay Bruce
09-02-2007, 03:11 PM
Was he like that in Washington in 2005 and 2006 when he compiled
a ERA of 2.93 in 2005 and a ERA of 3.58 in 2006?

He may not have been pure, unadulterated garbage as redsupport so eloquently suggested, but he was lucky to have ERA's that low.

Some of it may have been park effects from RFK, but during those years, he struckout under 6 per 9 innings, while also walking more than 3.5 per 9. If you don't strike out alot of batters, you need to have excellent control in order to succeed, which Majewski did not show.

Also, he may keep the ball on the ground for the most part, but when he gave up only 0.21 HR/9 in 2005, his HR/FB ratio was only 2.2%. Average luck would suggest that he should have given up 4 times that amount. The ERA's look good, but there was a big enough sample size out there to suggest that it wouldn't continue, and unfortunately, it has hit the Reds in a big way.

AmarilloRed
09-02-2007, 06:55 PM
It may very well have been luck, as I have been told by many members. Very well. I will watch his progress in September, and see how he finishes out. There is room for Majewski to sink or swim, as only Bray, Burton and Weathers can be assumed to have safe roster spots next year . Gary will also need to compete with the young players in AAA and some of the old hands like Guardado and Stanton for a place in the bullpen next year . If he can show anything in September, he has a chance to be in the Reds bullpen in 2008.