PDA

View Full Version : Does Phil Dumatrait ever need to pitch for the Reds again?



M2
09-09-2007, 06:32 PM
I'm thinking he doesn't.

He's terrifyingly outclassed by major league hitters. While I'm no huge fan of tossing a lot of starts at Elizardo Ramirez or Tom Shearn or Kirk Saarloos, they're at least viable disaster options. You can start them and have some hope you can get out of the game without surrendering double digits and without demolishing your bullpen along the way too.

Dumatrait needs to go away, at least for the rest of the season.

vaticanplum
09-09-2007, 06:39 PM
No.

I would be truly shocked if they ran him out there again this season.

Ron Madden
09-09-2007, 06:43 PM
Phil Dumatrait has failed miserably in my opinion.

Dumatrarait is just filler for a Minor League roster.

Red in Chicago
09-09-2007, 06:47 PM
Dumatrait needs to help Ricky Stone hand drywall

lollipopcurve
09-09-2007, 06:53 PM
I don't see much hope for him. Since he's never pitched out of the pen, and he doesn't seem to have any above-average pitch, there may not even be a backup plan for the guy. If the Reds have a bunch of young players they want to add to the 40-man, I wouldn't be surprised if he's a free agent this winter.

I wouldn't mind if they keep running him out there this month, though. Angling for draft position, you know.

pedro
09-09-2007, 06:56 PM
He's the worst starting pitcher I've ever seen make more than 1 start.

He's Eric Milton plus Brian Reith.

His crapulance as a pitcher is expanding faster than the universe.

Falls City Beer
09-09-2007, 06:57 PM
I think he is the sine qua non. The ne plus ultra. Non-pareil. Unassailable. Divine. Transcendental.

vaticanplum
09-09-2007, 07:03 PM
I think he is the sine qua non. The ne plus ultra. Non-pareil. Unassailable. Divine. Transcendental.

Hott

Chip R
09-09-2007, 07:04 PM
He's not gonna make it. Bye, Phil. Hope you have a nice career in AAA.

nate
09-09-2007, 07:07 PM
He's not gonna make it. Bye, Phil. Hope you have a nice career in AAA.

Or with another NL Central team!

Rojo
09-09-2007, 07:12 PM
All the best, Phil (http://www.amazon.com/What-Color-Your-Parachute-2008/dp/1580088678/ref=sr_1_4/104-7678271-5632731?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1189375830&sr=8-4)

mth123
09-09-2007, 07:18 PM
Say no to Phil, but who takes his place? Saarloos?:scared: Gosling? :pray: They were stretching Salmon out in AAA, maybe they should try to get 5 from him every 5th day.

LvJ
09-09-2007, 07:20 PM
Reminds me of the kid a few years ago. Something Austin?

JaxRed
09-09-2007, 07:25 PM
Well, he's wasting his time right now, and you can be fairly certain that he could be outrighted now, and no one will take claim him and he'll make it through Rule 5.

So, you should..... and then give him specific things to work on during Instructional League and Winter Ball.

BCubb2003
09-09-2007, 07:29 PM
I'm not calling anyone out here, just remembering how easy it is to throw these guys on the scrap heap when we're done with them and then start demanding the next bum ...


http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59973&highlight=dumatrait

Ltlabner
09-09-2007, 07:34 PM
The next time someone blindly says, "call up player XYZ because he can't be any worse than the guy we have now" please recall Phil Dumatrait's name.

Yes, yes they can be worse.

And yes, he should go back to Louisville and get ready to be traded or released.

mth123
09-09-2007, 07:44 PM
I'm not calling anyone out here, just remembering how easy it is to throw these guys on the scrap heap when we're done with them and then start demanding the next bum ...


http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=59973&highlight=dumatrait

Its true. But isn't that what sorting through the muck to see if anyone offers a possibility is all about? I think the reds need to make a decision on Dumatrait and now its an easy one. I'm guessing he won't be hard to DFA and get by w/o a claim. I prefer that this is out of the way in a season that is already lost.

The Baumer
09-09-2007, 07:45 PM
According to science, if we give Phil Dumatrait four more starts he HAS to revert to the mean by pitching four PERFECT GAMES. If he fails to do so, time & space will collide creating an entirely new universe and simultaneously leaving all of us trapped in the old one, cursing us to a lifetime of bad Reds baseball. There is an article about this in the November issue of Baseball Prospectus.

RedsManRick
09-09-2007, 07:48 PM
This just in: if you give up a fair amount of hits, don't strike very many guys out, and walk lots of guys in AAA, you will stink in the majors. Somewhat ironically, the only thing he's done well in AAA is keep the ball in the yard. Trading him was certainly the right thing to do, but it makes you realize that Kyle Lohse and Matt Belisle aren't really horrible options.

M2
09-09-2007, 07:55 PM
I wouldn't mind if they keep running him out there this month, though. Angling for draft position, you know.

I hadn't thought of that. Sneaky. I like it. Though Dumatrait would need to spread his putridity over 4 IP per outing. Even a team jockeying for a better draft pick can't allow a guy to erupt like he his in four of his six starts.

lollipopcurve
09-09-2007, 08:00 PM
Trading him was certainly the right thing to do, but it makes you realize that Kyle Lohse and Matt Belisle aren't really horrible options.

Belisle has a ways to go before he can be relied on over the course of a season. At least with Lohse you knew you'd get a league-average, if uneven, 180-200 innings. I opined when Lohse was traded the rotation would go into a tailspin...now here we are, and pretty soon it's 2008.

edabbs44
09-09-2007, 08:07 PM
This just in: if you give up a fair amount of hits, don't strike very many guys out, and walk lots of guys in AAA, you will stink in the majors. Somewhat ironically, the only thing he's done well in AAA is keep the ball in the yard. Trading him was certainly the right thing to do, but it makes you realize that Kyle Lohse and Matt Belisle aren't really horrible options.

Lohse and Belisle are horrible options if you really want to win in this league.

Caveat Emperor
09-09-2007, 08:46 PM
I hadn't thought of that. Sneaky. I like it. Though Dumatrait would need to spread his putridity over 4 IP per outing. Even a team jockeying for a better draft pick can't allow a guy to erupt like he his in four of his six starts.

Just give him the ol' Jason Marquis treatment: No hook, even when things get really bad. He's being pounded, but leave him to see what happens.

I honestly wonder what the score would've been today if Petey would've said to himself "I'm not pulling the kid until he gets 3 outs."

flyer85
09-09-2007, 09:23 PM
not until minor league numbers indicate much better command. If he has a future it would seem to be in the pen.

MrCinatit
09-09-2007, 09:46 PM
The guy looks absolutely clueless out there.
When I was watching one of his recent starts, he looked completely lost, completely dumbfounded and had a glazed look in his eyes. He had the same look on his face when Pole and Ross came out to talk to him, and continued with the same look on his face after they left.
Frankly, it would no longer surprise me if he was run out there again - mainly because I thought there was no way he would be run out there after his first two starts.

In fact, in running Phil out there constantly, I believe Wayne has been messing with this universe's PS (Perfect Sucktatude) factor. With the combined PS factors of Milton, Dumatrait, Castro, Moeller, Ellison, Cormier, Bellhorn, Saarloos, Santos, Stone, Majewski and Guardado; added to the PS factor earlier this year of Narron, would could actually be witnessing a Perfect Suckatude storm of historic levels. In fact, I believe the PS level of this team has become so great in recent years, the very physics of the universe are becoming inverted. After all, how could a team with so much Perfect Sucktatude have a better record than two other teams in the division?

RedsManRick
09-09-2007, 09:58 PM
Lohse and Belisle are horrible options if you really want to win in this league.

Look at Milwaukee (3 starters with 20+ starts and an ERA over 5.00), St. Louis (#3, #4, and #5 in terms of GS have ERA over 5.00), Arizona (#2 & #4 in terms of GS have ERA of 4.79 & 4.78).

Yet again Edabbs, you completely misconstrue a point. Here's another news flash. You can't have a staff with 5 above average starters on a below average budget in a pitcher's park.

However, even though in your mind there is no difference between a 5 ERA and an 8 ERA, there is one in reality. Having competent pitching at the back of our staff is important. I'm not advocating building around those guys, but I am saying that there is a very real difference between poor pitching, and god awful.

Every single team in the league has some pitchers who aren't very good. The quality of your crappy pitchers does have some impact on the quality of your team. Look at the 4th & 5th starters on this year's NL playoff teams. You have to be realistic.

And by the way, Kyle Lohse has a 4.46 ERA pitching half his games in 2 of the 3 worst pitcher's parks in the NL. Good? Nope. Better than league average? Yup. Of the 88 pitchers in the NL with 80+ IP (5.5 pitchers per team), only 43 have an ERA better than Lohse. That makes Lohse a weak #3 or a strong #4. Do I want him to pin my playoff hopes on him? Heck no. But if you want a rotation with 5 pitchers better than Lohse, good luck.

Giving away games by running out guys like Dumatrait out there with any regularity just kills a team.

vaticanplum
09-09-2007, 10:05 PM
I hadn't thought of that. Sneaky. I like it. Though Dumatrait would need to spread his putridity over 4 IP per outing. Even a team jockeying for a better draft pick can't allow a guy to erupt like he his in four of his six starts.

Man, man. I totally respect anyone who can respect the future at the expense of the present (and let me be clear that with teams like this in the state they are in, people like that are the exact people whom I think should be running baseball teams). At the same time, you have to be a special kind of crazy to do something like that. Future consideration or not, if I have to see Dumatrait pitch one more time this season, let alone four, I will throw myself off a cliff. Which would only be that much more dramatic if I were the GM responsible for it.

edabbs44
09-09-2007, 11:12 PM
Look at Milwaukee (3 starters with 20+ starts and an ERA over 5.00), St. Louis (#3, #4, and #5 in terms of GS have ERA over 5.00), Arizona (#2 & #4 in terms of GS have ERA of 4.79 & 4.78).

Yet again Edabbs, you completely misconstrue a point. Here's another news flash. You can't have a staff with 5 above average starters on a below average budget in a pitcher's park.

However, even though in your mind there is no difference between a 5 ERA and an 8 ERA, there is one in reality. Having competent pitching at the back of our staff is important. I'm not advocating building around those guys, but I am saying that there is a very real difference between poor pitching, and god awful.

Every single team in the league has some pitchers who aren't very good. The quality of your crappy pitchers does have some impact on the quality of your team. Look at the 4th & 5th starters on this year's NL playoff teams. You have to be realistic.

And by the way, Kyle Lohse has a 4.46 ERA pitching half his games in 2 of the 3 worst pitcher's parks in the NL. Good? Nope. Better than league average? Yup. Of the 88 pitchers in the NL with 80+ IP (5.5 pitchers per team), only 43 have an ERA better than Lohse. That makes Lohse a weak #3 or a strong #4. Do I want him to pin my playoff hopes on him? Heck no. But if you want a rotation with 5 pitchers better than Lohse, good luck.

Giving away games by running out guys like Dumatrait out there with any regularity just kills a team.

The problem with having Lohse and Belisle as 4th and 5th starters is that the #2 starter has an ERA of 4.40 and the #3 was named Eric Milton.

If Lohse was really the #4 or 5, then fine. Trot him out every 5th day. But the reality is that he wasn't the 4th best pitcher in the rotation, and that was/is the problem.

The season was over before Dumatrait even stepped into the state of Ohio, so I'm not sure how much he is killing an already dead team. The rest of the season is an open tryout...now they know that Dumatrait isn't good. Better than finding out next season when they aren't eliminated yet.

RedsManRick
09-09-2007, 11:30 PM
The problem with having Lohse and Belisle as 4th and 5th starters is that the #2 starter has an ERA of 4.40 and the #3 was named Eric Milton.

If Lohse was really the #4 or 5, then fine. Trot him out every 5th day. But the reality is that he wasn't the 4th best pitcher in the rotation, and that was/is the problem.

The season was over before Dumatrait even stepped into the state of Ohio, so I'm not sure how much he is killing an already dead team. The rest of the season is an open tryout...now they know that Dumatrait isn't good. Better than finding out next season when they aren't eliminated yet.

Well, unless you think Dumatrait is trying out for the #3 spot, or has a legitimate chance of being better than Lohse, I'm not sure I see your point. Lohse and Belisle are both better options at the back end than is Dumatrait -- and regardless, that doesn't solve our problem of needing a legitimate #3.

I do know that regardless of the numbers you attach to them, I'd rather have Matt Belisle in my rotation than Phil Dumatrait. A 5.00 ERA and 175 IP makes you one of the best #5 starters in baseball. Don't get rid of your decent #4 and #5 guys because they failed to be #3s. And certainly don't go replacing them with guys who don't belong in the majors at all.

marcshoe
09-09-2007, 11:33 PM
As to the original post, Dumatrait didn't need to pitch the last three starts (including the one before he was sent down) for the Reds. I haven't read the thread, but there's no excuse for sending him out there over and over again. It isn't good for him and it isn't good for the team.

Patrick Bateman
09-09-2007, 11:43 PM
Attatching the #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 tags to starting pitchers is a fairly useless excercies. Every guy needs to take the mound every 5th day.

Suggesting Lohse doesn't belong in the rotation because the Reds haven't found a #2 yet makes no sense. He is either good enough to pitch in a roation or he's not. Simple as that.

I don't see the Reds going out and finding a #2 right now, and they don't neccessarily have to. Those types just aren't available. What might be possible is finding 5 guys who deserve to pitch in a major league rotation. For the msot part of the season the Reds had 4 guys until Lohse was dealt. So right now the Reds are at 3. They don't need to find elite pitchers, but if they can land a couple sub 4.50 ERA pitchers then they can boast a solid rotation. Perhaps only Harang would present a true top of the rotation talent, but they wouldn't have to trot out the likes of Dumatrait very often.

Having above average 4's and 5's can fill the void left by not having top end talent. I'm not saying go sign Lohse for 7-8M annually for 4 seasons, but pitchers of his ilk deserve rotation spots even if they don't post ERA's below 4.00

edabbs44
09-09-2007, 11:58 PM
Suggesting Lohse doesn't belong in the rotation because the Reds haven't found a #2 yet makes no sense. He is either good enough to pitch in a roation or he's not. Simple as that.

True. But Kyle Lohse isn't getting this team to the playoffs, as a #2 or a #5. Unless Cincy wants to fill in the rest of the rotation so that Lohse is their 4th best pitcher, then that might make sense. But until they do, acquiring a Lohse type pitcher would be a waste of money, IMO.

Patrick Bateman
09-10-2007, 12:28 AM
True. But Kyle Lohse isn't getting this team to the playoffs, as a #2 or a #5. Unless Cincy wants to fill in the rest of the rotation so that Lohse is their 4th best pitcher, then that might make sense. But until they do, acquiring a Lohse type pitcher would be a waste of money, IMO.

Well you could make the same argument that no single move will get this team to playoff contention, therefore nobody should ever be acquired since it would be deemed a waste of money.

Any move that will improve the team relative to the cost should be made. If the Reds could get Lohse to such a cheap contract that it would be a worthwhile expenditure, then they should sign him. The overall lack of talent on the team shouldn't hold Krivsky back from making beneficial moves.

OldXOhio
09-10-2007, 09:19 AM
He's the worst starting pitcher I've ever seen make more than 1 start.

He's Eric Milton plus Brian Reith.

His crapulance as a pitcher is expanding faster than the universe.

Never a good thing when your pitches turn wood bats into aluminum. I swear I've never seen a pitcher get his so hard, so often, so regularly. No matter how bad you are, it's difficult to give up back to back to back jacks like that.

lollipopcurve
09-10-2007, 10:09 AM
Well you could make the same argument that no single move will get this team to playoff contention, therefore nobody should ever be acquired since it would be deemed a waste of money.

Any move that will improve the team relative to the cost should be made. If the Reds could get Lohse to such a cheap contract that it would be a worthwhile expenditure, then they should sign him. The overall lack of talent on the team shouldn't hold Krivsky back from making beneficial moves.

Absolutely -- well said. This team is 3 starters shy of a rotation, 2 if you believe in Belisle, and with the expected toll of injuries you really want 6-7 guys heading into a season. Guys like Silva and Lohse, while expensive, would be valuable additions. Price of doing business these days. Pitchers will be even more expensive in the future -- you can count on it.

Ltlabner
09-10-2007, 10:41 AM
Well you could make the same argument that no single move will get this team to playoff contention, therefore nobody should ever be acquired since it would be deemed a waste of money.

Any move that will improve the team relative to the cost should be made. If the Reds could get Lohse to such a cheap contract that it would be a worthwhile expenditure, then they should sign him. The overall lack of talent on the team shouldn't hold Krivsky back from making beneficial moves.

Very well said. The idea that one single move has to make us World Series winners otherwise it is a waste is silly. Improvement is a series of moves that result in the end goal. Demanding that one magic bullet move be made, or that 20 magic bullet moves all be made on the same day is the stuff of internet GM dreamers.

BuckeyeRedleg
09-10-2007, 10:46 AM
I make 5 trips down I-71 (from Columbus) to watch the Reds every summer.

If they want to use him up the remainder of the season, fine, but for every start Phil Dumatrait makes for the Reds from 2008 and beyond, it will be one less trip I make.

edabbs44
09-10-2007, 11:24 AM
Well you could make the same argument that no single move will get this team to playoff contention, therefore nobody should ever be acquired since it would be deemed a waste of money.

Any move that will improve the team relative to the cost should be made. If the Reds could get Lohse to such a cheap contract that it would be a worthwhile expenditure, then they should sign him. The overall lack of talent on the team shouldn't hold Krivsky back from making beneficial moves.


Very well said. The idea that one single move has to make us World Series winners otherwise it is a waste is silly. Improvement is a series of moves that result in the end goal. Demanding that one magic bullet move be made, or that 20 magic bullet moves all be made on the same day is the stuff of internet GM dreamers.

I think you guys are missing my point. Kyle Lohse isn't getting this team to the playoffs. If the Reds want to add Lohse to a few other major acquisitions, then fine. But if not, then use the money you would have spent on Lohse and drop it into the draft.

A few million spent on Lohse over someone else isn't going to get this team to the playoffs. Drafting the best player available in each round of the draft next season has a better chance at getting this team to where they need to be in the future.

Falls City Beer
09-10-2007, 12:22 PM
Attatching the #1, 2, 3, 4, 5 tags to starting pitchers is a fairly useless excercies. Every guy needs to take the mound every 5th day.

Suggesting Lohse doesn't belong in the rotation because the Reds haven't found a #2 yet makes no sense. He is either good enough to pitch in a roation or he's not. Simple as that.

I don't see the Reds going out and finding a #2 right now, and they don't neccessarily have to. Those types just aren't available. What might be possible is finding 5 guys who deserve to pitch in a major league rotation. For the msot part of the season the Reds had 4 guys until Lohse was dealt. So right now the Reds are at 3. They don't need to find elite pitchers, but if they can land a couple sub 4.50 ERA pitchers then they can boast a solid rotation. Perhaps only Harang would present a true top of the rotation talent, but they wouldn't have to trot out the likes of Dumatrait very often.

Having above average 4's and 5's can fill the void left by not having top end talent. I'm not saying go sign Lohse for 7-8M annually for 4 seasons, but pitchers of his ilk deserve rotation spots even if they don't post ERA's below 4.00


Matt Belisle may become that "third" pitcher capable of holding down a spot in a MLB rotation--but he's about as cuspy/AAAA a pitcher as you're going to find. Three Matt Belisles are distinctly NOT sufficient to comprise the bottom 60% of the Reds' rotation. Three Arroyos circa 2007 are sufficient--but Matt Belisle represents a massive dropoff from even 2007 Arroyo.

The Reds need:

1. Someone better than Lohse to man their third spot
2. A guy on a Lohse-ish level to man spot 4
3. A slightly better than Belisle to man the five spot (which admittedly is a swing spot; consistency here is not as important or expected.)

RedsManRick
09-10-2007, 01:07 PM
I don't have the time to go through the exercise, but how many runs would we saved if we took all the starts made by guys other than Belisle, Harang, and Arroyo and replaced them with a 5.00 ERA?

I agree that I don't want 2 more Belisle's in the rotation. However, I think we might be discounting the effect of simply having 5 guys who belong in a rotation at all. If nobody else gets to this, I'll come back and run the numbers during lunch.

lollipopcurve
09-10-2007, 01:16 PM
how many runs would we saved if we took all the starts made by guys other than Belisle, Harang, and Arroyo and replaced them with a 5.00 ERA?

Well, since Lohse posted a 4.58 with the Reds, you're going to be losing runs there.

M2
09-10-2007, 01:30 PM
One thing to keep in mind with Lohse is we may have been watching his version of a contract push. I was fine with keeping a highly motivated Kyle Lohse around in case the team found itself in some sort of race for the postseason. Yet he's a guy I'd be loath to hand an extended contract.

Cyclone792
09-10-2007, 01:32 PM
I don't have the time to go through the exercise, but how many runs would we saved if we took all the starts made by guys other than Belisle, Harang, and Arroyo and replaced them with a 5.00 ERA?

I agree that I don't want 2 more Belisle's in the rotation. However, I think we might be discounting the effect of simply having 5 guys who belong in a rotation at all. If nobody else gets to this, I'll come back and run the numbers during lunch.


Well, since Lohse posted a 4.58 with the Reds, you're going to be losing runs there.

All Reds starters not named Harang, Arroyo, or Belisle have combined for 198 earned runs allowed in 302.2 innings, and that's a 5.89 ERA. To knock that ERA down to 5.00, the earned runs would have to be knocked down to 168, or a net improvement of 30 runs (i.e. 3 wins).

I'll take it a step further with the bullpen. The average NL relief ERA this season is 4.05, whereas the Reds bullpen has a 5.27 ERA (257 earned runs in 438.2 innings). If the Reds bullpen posted a league average bullpen ERA, then their earned runs total would be knocked down to 197 or 198 (ERAs of 4.04 and 4.06 respectively). That's another 60 runs there, or 6 wins.

Add the above up, that's 90 runs, or 9 wins. The Reds would be in a pennant race right now with 5 ERAs out of the starting pitchers behind Harang/Arroyo/Belisle and an average NL bullpen.

Falls City Beer
09-10-2007, 02:20 PM
I'll be honest: a whole bunch of really smart folks consider Matt Belisle a viable rotation option, and I am stumped. Now, I'm not saying that he won't become an option next year--that he won't make strides for next year. He may. But this year, Matt Belisle's been flat-out Miltonic. I mean, really bad. Screw luckiness or unluckiness, he's been awful--the only thing the guy has going for him is good control. He doesn't have an overwhelming K total, he gives up a lot of homers, he surrendered a .500 SLG percentage (.850 OPSA). He's going to have to make big, big improvements to become the #3 level pitcher we're looking for, though he's not far from the #5 we could use.

Just being good enough to "crack" a rotation isn't what the Reds need as far as improving their rotation. I think things like Dumatrait have caused the Reds to lower their expectations for what should come out of the lower 60% of the rotation. Matt Belisle should represent the lowest 20% not the middle 20%.

KronoRed
09-10-2007, 02:23 PM
Dumatrait should have never been called up, getting Paul Wilson back would have served the same purpose.

lollipopcurve
09-10-2007, 02:52 PM
I'll be honest: a whole bunch of really smart folks consider Matt Belisle a viable rotation option, and I am stumped. Now, I'm not saying that he won't become an option next year--that he won't make strides for next year. He may. But this year, Matt Belisle's been flat-out Miltonic. I mean, really bad. Screw luckiness or unluckiness, he's been awful--the only thing the guy has going for him is good control. He doesn't have an overwhelming K total, he gives up a lot of homers, he surrendered a .500 SLG percentage (.850 OPSA). He's going to have to make big, big improvements to become the #3 level pitcher we're looking for, though he's not far from the #5 we could use.

I agree. I'm definitely pleased he made it through the year injury-free -- that's a big thing. However, he always seems to be changing his mix of pitches. He started the year using his slider and fastball and working in a cutter -- supposedly he was abandoning the curve he'd used in relief in previous years. Now, apparently, he's abandoned the cutter and is back to the curve. Maybe the coaching is poor, I don't know. Also, as Chris Welsh has pointed out a number of times, he's been awful with men on base. Seems to me the guy's got to figure out his repertoire and then refine it so he can make pitches when he has to. He's got good stuff, but I question his understanding of the craft. I'd like to see the Reds continue with him in the mix, but for me he's a #5 -- and not even that if he doesn't improve or if his back flares up again.

Patrick Bateman
09-10-2007, 02:54 PM
I'll be honest: a whole bunch of really smart folks consider Matt Belisle a viable rotation option, and I am stumped. Now, I'm not saying that he won't become an option next year--that he won't make strides for next year. He may. But this year, Matt Belisle's been flat-out Miltonic. I mean, really bad. Screw luckiness or unluckiness, he's been awful--the only thing the guy has going for him is good control. He doesn't have an overwhelming K total, he gives up a lot of homers, he surrendered a .500 SLG percentage (.850 OPSA). He's going to have to make big, big improvements to become the #3 level pitcher we're looking for, though he's not far from the #5 we could use.

Just being good enough to "crack" a rotation isn't what the Reds need as far as improving their rotation. I think things like Dumatrait have caused the Reds to lower their expectations for what should come out of the lower 60% of the rotation. Matt Belisle should represent the lowest 20% not the middle 20%.

It's not so much that people are enamoured with Belisle's abilities, it's that IMO, he represents the ability to hold down a rotation spot at a cheap cost. Considering the cost of pitchers, and shear lack of alternatives, he is a commodity that I like to have around.

Look at the best FA pitchers on the market. Silva, Lohse, etc. Belisle is as good as those guys, and they are going to get 7-8M+ in free agency.

The only route to get pitching other than from within is trades, and I don't see any way that the Reds are going to go get 3 sub 4.50 ERA pitchers this offseason. No chance. They don't have the assets to do (without severely sacrificing the future) it while staying within budget. It's just not possible.

And that's why Belisle is a good guy to have around. Perhaps you're not a big fan of luck stats, but his peripherals suggest he is a far better pitcher than Milton. And he is. That really shouldn't be an argument.

I could easily see Belisle providing 4.50 ERA calibre pitching next season at a very cheap price. Considering the cost of that type of pitcher using other avenues, the Reds best give Belisle as many chances as possible.

So no, having a rotation of guys with ERA's above 5.00 would not be the plan. I like Belisle quite a bit and see him as more than what you described. Finding another couple of decent enough pitchers that could produce a 4.50-4.75 ERA this season would be a major upgrade. Few teams can even suggest that they have 5 guys that are that good. A rotation like that is good enoguh to compete (especially in this division).


As Cyclone said, if you can do that, plus field even an average bullpen, and you have a contender. It doesn't take a lot. You don't need 5 aces, and unless you are Boston, it aint going to happen.

Now obviously the Reds should set their sights higher. They can try to dangle some young prospects, and veterans to get an affordable above average starter, but that's going to be a tricky situation in this market. No team will be looking to actively shop good pitchers. Having 5 starters worthy of rotation spots would be a major step in the right direction, and having to live without seeing guys like Shearn, Dumatrait, Saarloos, Ramirez, etc. would be an unusual treat.

Caveat Emperor
09-10-2007, 03:20 PM
Most teams tend to spread their #5 starts over several different mediocre pitchers, thereby minimizing the number of innings any one mediocre pitcher has to throw.

If you add all those numbers together, you end up (on most teams) with a pitcher that looks remarkably similar to Matt Belisle.

As long as he's cheap, he's pretty much a league average #5 guy. I'm OK with that, as long as the team doesn't overpay a penny for it.

M2
09-10-2007, 03:22 PM
I'll be honest: a whole bunch of really smart folks consider Matt Belisle a viable rotation option, and I am stumped. Now, I'm not saying that he won't become an option next year--that he won't make strides for next year. He may. But this year, Matt Belisle's been flat-out Miltonic. I mean, really bad. Screw luckiness or unluckiness, he's been awful--the only thing the guy has going for him is good control. He doesn't have an overwhelming K total, he gives up a lot of homers, he surrendered a .500 SLG percentage (.850 OPSA). He's going to have to make big, big improvements to become the #3 level pitcher we're looking for, though he's not far from the #5 we could use.

Just being good enough to "crack" a rotation isn't what the Reds need as far as improving their rotation. I think things like Dumatrait have caused the Reds to lower their expectations for what should come out of the lower 60% of the rotation. Matt Belisle should represent the lowest 20% not the middle 20%.

I agree that no way, no how should Belisle be viewed as a top 3 starter for the Reds rotation. That said, he could be useful.

Though first comes the question of what Matt Belisle shows up in 2008. If he's the same guy who pitched this year, then his use to the team is as a cheap innings eater in the #5 slot and no more than that. He'd be of limited value, but his price tag would be limited enough to justify keeping him around just to prevent more Dumatraits from taking the mound.

Then there's the option that Matt Belisle will improve. It's no secret that many pitchers improve after they get some major league experience and Belisle will finish this season with roughly 300 in the bigs, which seems to be the magic number. For instance, that's where Aaron Harang was after 2004. Belisle's 2007 is also a little bit better, relatively speaking, than Harang's '04 (87 OPS+ to 82).

Belisle isn't a K monster, but he's at a 6.14 K/9, which is roughly average. It's better than Kyle Lohse was doing. In fact the main difference between Lohse and Belise is a .301 BABIP for Lohse and a .333 BABIP for Belisle. So it's not really much of a stretch to assert that even if Belisle only gets a little bit better he could, in combination with some better defense behind him, find himself around a 4.50 ERA.

The Reds have invested the time and innings in him and I'm not talking about some sort of radical Harangian improvement. All I'm saying is he could be a perfectly average sort. Put a good defense behind him and score some runs and he can be effective (e.g. like what the Cardinals did with Suppan and Marquis).

Obviously you'd still want another top starter, but Belisle could add stability over the course of a season and stability has been something eluding the Reds on the pitching front for ages. I don't think anybody's pimping Belisle as a world beater, but he's useful for what he does at his current price and there's a chance he could be a bit better next season. He's certainly worth sticking at the back of the rotation and he saves you the time and psychic pain of seeking out a Ramon Ortiz (who'd be a step down) to do the same job.

Falls City Beer
09-10-2007, 04:29 PM
I'm not saying dump the guy (he's cheap, under control, has a decent fastball); I'm saying, consider him filler, #5 material.

A good team would. And I want the Reds to be good.

M2
09-10-2007, 04:46 PM
I'm not saying dump the guy (he's cheap, under control, has a decent fastball); I'm saying, consider him filler, #5 material.

A good team would. And I want the Reds to be good.

I think that's what everybody's doing, considering him to be a #5 guy. His upside in that is that he's a #5 whose name you can write down in pen as opposed to one who's a complete crapshoot.

Patrick Bateman
09-10-2007, 05:27 PM
I think that's what everybody's doing, considering him to be a #5 guy. His upside in that is that he's a #5 whose name you can write down in pen as opposed to one who's a complete crapshoot.

Exactly. Belisle is never going to be a world beater or anything, but he definitely deserves a rotation slot. I'd throw him in the rotation next season with no hesitation and expect that he will hold his own. Not a guy to be mistaken as a top or middle guy, but still fine nonetheless.

Falls City Beer
09-10-2007, 06:18 PM
I think that's what everybody's doing, considering him to be a #5 guy. His upside in that is that he's a #5 whose name you can write down in pen as opposed to one who's a complete crapshoot.

Fair enough. Though in addition to finding two guys who are *clearly* better than Belisle, I'd also be looking to find a couple of guys who would give him a run for that #5 slot. While it may take a stroke of luck to find a Norm Charlton circa 1990/Ron Villone 1999, good GMs do the homework necessary to see that those "lucky" strokes happen more often than they don't.

In the end, no one but Arroyo and Harang should feel in the least bit entitled to a rotation slot next year.

Help Wanted: Three MLB Starters.

RedsManRick
09-10-2007, 06:40 PM
You said best in your earlier post AK, "Having 5 starters worthy of rotation spots would be a major step in the right direction." That's really it.

Sure, we'd love to have a few legitimate middle of the rotation starters. However, it's pretty clear that we aren't going to get them in FA and would be unwise to try. We're going to have to develop those guys.

In the meantime, if we could just get two more guys of the Belisle mold, it would be a positive development and would actually be a significant improvement. None of the teams competing in the NL Central go 5 strong in their rotation. We absolutely should aspire to getting to that point, but we should recognize the achievable middle ground.

Perhaps this Maloney kid can fit that role (though I see Yusmeiro Petit). My mind went immediately to Dustin Moseley and Chris Reitsma. These types of guys who won't cost us Jay Bruce, but would be an upgrade over our other options. Aaron Heilman maybe? Guys who are undervalued by teams precisely for what they aren't rather than what they are. Maybe Cueto steps up. Maybe Bailey rebounds.

Let's just keep in mind that we don't HAVE to get that 4.00 ERA guy(s) to notably improve our SP production. Every team in baseball would love to have a few more solid starters. Realistically, we cannot afford them in FA and trading them would likely just be a shifting of production that wouldn't result in a net improvement of the team. It should not be #3 or bust.

Falls City Beer
09-10-2007, 07:46 PM
You said best in your earlier post AK, "Having 5 starters worthy of rotation spots would be a major step in the right direction." That's really it.

Sure, we'd love to have a few legitimate middle of the rotation starters. However, it's pretty clear that we aren't going to get them in FA and would be unwise to try. We're going to have to develop those guys.

In the meantime, if we could just get two more guys of the Belisle mold, it would be a positive development and would actually be a significant improvement. None of the teams competing in the NL Central go 5 strong in their rotation. We absolutely should aspire to getting to that point, but we should recognize the achievable middle ground.

Perhaps this Maloney kid can fit that role (though I see Yusmeiro Petit). My mind went immediately to Dustin Moseley and Chris Reitsma. These types of guys who won't cost us Jay Bruce, but would be an upgrade over our other options. Aaron Heilman maybe? Guys who are undervalued by teams precisely for what they aren't rather than what they are. Maybe Cueto steps up. Maybe Bailey rebounds.

Let's just keep in mind that we don't HAVE to get that 4.00 ERA guy(s) to notably improve our SP production. Every team in baseball would love to have a few more solid starters. Realistically, we cannot afford them in FA and trading them would likely just be a shifting of production that wouldn't result in a net improvement of the team. It should not be #3 or bust.

If the Reds have three guys in the rotation putting up numbers just like Belisle's 2007 numbers, then the Reds will look next year a lot like they look this year.

They've got to get better. They can't regard status quo as working--unless they want to punt 2008.

Think about it: Lohse's number blow away Belisle's numbers. So you have to substitute Lohse's four months with Belisle's.

RedsManRick
09-10-2007, 07:57 PM
If the Reds have three guys in the rotation putting up numbers just like Belisle's 2007 numbers, then the Reds will look next year a lot like they look this year.

They've got to get better. They can't regard status quo as working--unless they want to punt 2008.

Think about it: Lohse's number blow away Belisle's numbers. So you have to substitute Lohse's four months with Belisle's.

I have thought about. So has Cyclone, as our posts state. If every start by somebody not named Harang, Belisle, and Arroyo (that includes Lohse) were made by somebody who put up a 5.00 ERA, this team would be 3 games better than it is right now.

Certainly we could use more improvement than that. Every team could user 2 more starters who can put up 4.25 ERAs. However, that's really my entire point. Running out a stream of sub-replacement pitchers can really kill you. Sure, we need to improve a lot of things, including our bullpen and defense. But getting 2 guys who can put up 30 starts of a 5.00 would move our rotation to middle of the pack in the NL -- good enough to compete.

No matter how much on you insist on the absolute necessity of acquiring 2 #3 starters in order to have a prayer, it simply isn't true. There's a lot to be gained by improving the bottom of the roster.

Besides, for all your insisting, you still haven't indicated how in the world this team can acquire the type of pitching you think it needs without absolutely gutting the offense, putting us right back at square one in terms of run differential. This theoretical "trade Homer Bailey for a #3" stuff doesn't cut it - we need real possibilities that fit in to the big picture. We simply cannot make up all the differential by adding better starting pitchers through FA and/or trades. It's simply not realistic.

Patrick Bateman
09-10-2007, 07:58 PM
If the Reds have three guys in the rotation putting up numbers just like Belisle's 2007 numbers, then the Reds will look next year a lot like they look this year.



I think we're talking about what we expect belisle to do next year. I expect better results than his 2007 numbers, and there is pretty strong evidence that suggests that much better numbers should be expected.

Nobody is talking about finding 3 guys with an ERA over 5.00. That`s not the goal that we have set.

Falls City Beer
09-10-2007, 09:26 PM
I have thought about. So has Cyclone, as our posts state. If every start by somebody not named Harang, Belisle, and Arroyo (that includes Lohse) were made by somebody who put up a 5.00 ERA, this team would be 3 games better than it is right now.

Certainly we could use more improvement than that. Every team could user 2 more starters who can put up 4.25 ERAs. However, that's really my entire point. Running out a stream of sub-replacement pitchers can really kill you. Sure, we need to improve a lot of things, including our bullpen and defense. But getting 2 guys who can put up 30 starts of a 5.00 would move our rotation to middle of the pack in the NL -- good enough to compete.

No matter how much on you insist on the absolute necessity of acquiring 2 #3 starters in order to have a prayer, it simply isn't true. There's a lot to be gained by improving the bottom of the roster.

Besides, for all your insisting, you still haven't indicated how in the world this team can acquire the type of pitching you think it needs without absolutely gutting the offense, putting us right back at square one in terms of run differential. This theoretical "trade Homer Bailey for a #3" stuff doesn't cut it - we need real possibilities that fit in to the big picture. We simply cannot make up all the differential by adding better starting pitchers through FA and/or trades. It's simply not realistic.

So your theory is: wait. Forget about trades.

There are a number of ways to improve; I've never limited it to JUST getting two #3 level pitchers. That's pretty untenable.

But why not one #3 starter? If that's an impossible task, then Wayne Krivsky needs to go, and someone who can find one needs to be installed. Because someone this winter will find a #3 starter without gutting his preexisting roster. I want that to be the Reds' GM. I don't want defeatism or "wait for the farm" to be a solution. Those are reactive and bankrupt solutions. Especially when a Central crown does not require a 95 win team anymore.

RedsManRick
09-10-2007, 09:40 PM
So your theory is: wait. Forget about trades.

There are a number of ways to improve; I've never limited it to JUST getting two #3 level pitchers. That's pretty untenable.

But why not one #3 starter? If that's an impossible task, then Wayne Krivsky needs to go, and someone who can find one needs to be installed. Because someone this winter will find a #3 starter without gutting his preexisting roster. I want that to be the Reds' GM. I don't want defeatism or "wait for the farm" to be a solution. Those are reactive and bankrupt solutions. Especially when a Central crown does not require a 95 win team anymore.

My theory is that the cost to acquire a proven #3 starter is likely not worth it -- be it via trade or FA. We have to develop that level of talent or we can't win, end of story.

You're right, somebody will find a #3 starter without gutting their roster. And a number of other teams will make commitments hoping that they get a #3 and end up a with a #5. Those teams, if they have limited resources, will be in trouble. Ask the Giants. It's like justifying buying a lottery ticket because somebody with the same odds as you is going to win. That's the wrong calculation.

I'm not saying not to try - but don't reach. Don't give Carlos Silva 25M. Don't trade away Jay Bruce or Johnny Cueto to get a Matt Morris. Absolutely try and get one at a reasonable cost, because you never know, but don't rely on an offseason strategy which requires you to acquire one from outside of the organization.

Falls City Beer
09-10-2007, 09:49 PM
My theory is that the cost to acquire a proven #3 starter is likely not worth it -- be it via trade or FA. We have to develop that level of talent or we can't win, end of story.

You're right, somebody will find a #3 starter without gutting their roster. And a number of other teams will make commitments hoping that they get a #3 and end up a with a #5. Those teams, if they have limited resources, will be in trouble. Ask the Giants. It's like justifying buying a lottery ticket because somebody with the same odds as you is going to win. That's the wrong calculation.

I'm not saying not to try - but don't reach. Don't give Carlos Silva 25M. Don't trade away Jay Bruce or Johnny Cueto to get a Matt Morris. Absolutely try and get one at a reasonable cost, because you never know, but don't rely on an offseason strategy which requires you to acquire one from outside of the organization.

From where I sit, the one surefire, absolute guarantee in this whole discussion is: if the Reds don't bring talent from outside this organization this winter and over the course of next season, they WILL not win the Central next year.

That's *thee* one unassailable premise in this whole discussion. The in-house solutions to this team's woes don't exist and they won't grow to exist next year. Maybe in 2009--a lot of things can happen in two years, but not for next year.

Where you go from there is what's being debated.

(By the way, you're totally predicating your argument on intimating that MY sole argument is to acquire an already-expensive pitcher. Nothing could be further from the truth. Number 3 pitchers come in all ages and salary brackets).

RedsManRick
09-10-2007, 11:46 PM
From where I sit, the one surefire, absolute guarantee in this whole discussion is: if the Reds don't bring talent from outside this organization this winter and over the course of next season, they WILL not win the Central next year.

That's *thee* one unassailable premise in this whole discussion. The in-house solutions to this team's woes don't exist and they won't grow to exist next year. Maybe in 2009--a lot of things can happen in two years, but not for next year.

Where you go from there is what's being debated.

(By the way, you're totally predicating your argument on intimating that MY sole argument is to acquire an already-expensive pitcher. Nothing could be further from the truth. Number 3 pitchers come in all ages and salary brackets).

Ok, let's do this your way. Which #3 should we go get and what will it take to get them? Give me at least one name and circumstance.

Last year I was told that Jason Jennings would be the #3 guy who could carry us to a playoff appearance. I sure am glad we didn't trade Bailey for him.

Spitball
09-11-2007, 12:13 AM
Last year I was told that Jason Jennings would be the #3 guy who could carry us to a playoff appearance. I sure am glad we didn't trade Bailey for him.

It will take much, much more wisdom than targeting a Jennings. I can recall at least one poster championing a deal that would have included Bailey for Jennings. We must have gone 15 rounds over that one...
;)

Team Clark
09-11-2007, 12:16 AM
Dumatrait needs to be coached... period. There are guys with less talent out there contributing. Simply because they know how to pitch.

M2
09-11-2007, 02:03 AM
Dumatrait needs to be coached... period. There are guys with less talent out there contributing. Simply because they know how to pitch.

He's gotten eight years of professional coaching and his problems have been known since before the Reds traded for him (lack of control, lacks a quality third pitch, inconsistent velocity). He might point out something that folks have been mentioning around here for a long time, that the Reds organization doesn't do a good job of teaching control (in which case beware Homer Bailey). Yet at this point -- 26 and seemingly with no better feel for pitching than he had on the day he was drafted -- I think you have allow for the very real possibility that Dumatrait doesn't have the repertoire (or perhaps makeup) to succeed against top level hitters. He invites too much of a beating not to get one.

edabbs44
09-11-2007, 09:27 AM
The Reds need a new philosophy. They can't afford decent FA pitching. No one wants to see them deal prospects or offense for pitching. They seemed to have shunned the top tier of pitching during the last two drafts, instead focusing on position players.

I've been asking for well over a year now...how does this team ever expect to get enough pitching to compete?

lollipopcurve
09-11-2007, 09:50 AM
The Reds need a new philosophy. They can't afford decent FA pitching. No one wants to see them deal prospects or offense for pitching. They seemed to have shunned the top tier of pitching during the last two drafts, instead focusing on position players.

I've been asking for well over a year now...how does this team ever expect to get enough pitching to compete?

I agree that they need to devote more $$$ to the draft/foreign markets so that they can bring the best possible amateur talent they can sign into the organization.

However, I disagree about their ability to sign "decent" FA pitching. They have the $$$ to do it this offseason, if they jettison Griffey & Dunn (a bitter pill, perhaps, but it's one Billy Beane has had the Oakland organization swallow several times, right?) and they'll certainly have it next offseason, when those guys will be gone for sure. In my book, "decent" is league-average, or close to it -- and that's out there. Even if it's just one guy, it leaves you with one less hole to fill, and right now the Reds starting pitching depth is riddled with holes.

Team Clark
09-11-2007, 11:59 AM
He's gotten eight years of professional coaching and his problems have been known since before the Reds traded for him (lack of control, lacks a quality third pitch, inconsistent velocity). He might point out something that folks have been mentioning around here for a long time, that the Reds organization doesn't do a good job of teaching control (in which case beware Homer Bailey). Yet at this point -- 26 and seemingly with no better feel for pitching than he had on the day he was drafted -- I think you have allow for the very real possibility that Dumatrait doesn't have the repertoire (or perhaps makeup) to succeed against top level hitters. He invites too much of a beating not to get one.

I hate to tell you this but just because you are in an organization doesn't mean you are 1) being coached 2) being coached by someone who knows what they are talking about or 3) being coached by someone who actually gives a hoot. There are A LOT of Reds minor leaguers who in simple terms are just hung out to dry.

RedsManRick
09-11-2007, 12:37 PM
I hate to tell you this but just because you are in an organization doesn't mean you are 1) being coached 2) being coached by someone who knows what they are talking about or 3) being coached by someone who actually gives a hoot. There are A LOT of Reds minor leaguers who in simple terms are just hung out to dry.

I know you cannot name specifics TC, but it is an issue of certain players being ignored or not taught, or is it a failure of the organization to teach certain skills?

flyer85
09-11-2007, 12:52 PM
PD lacks command which suggest inconsistent mechanics and release point. No reason to give up on him just yet because he has a good arm. The problem is that there is nothing to suggest that he has gotten any closer to figuring it out.

Falls City Beer
09-11-2007, 12:53 PM
Ok, let's do this your way. Which #3 should we go get and what will it take to get them? Give me at least one name and circumstance.

Last year I was told that Jason Jennings would be the #3 guy who could carry us to a playoff appearance. I sure am glad we didn't trade Bailey for him.

Couple of points:

1. I've already given you some thoughts on possibilities. I'm sure there are others--it's difficult, though, not knowing who's available and who isn't. It's why I almost never propose trades--we seldom know who is actually available. I can target ideals, but I'm not sure how helpful that is.

2. A "healthy" Jennings would have the Reds closer to the front of the pack; but I also stipulated that the team needed bullpen help, too, if they REALLY wanted to hang around at the top.

So, a healthy Jennings and a couple of bullpen arms almost certainly has the Reds near or at the top.

If you want to puff your chest about me being wrong about Jennings' health, have at it.

I'm sure you won't shrink from an I-told-you-so about Homer's complete inability to find the strike zone. I didn't want to go there in this discussion, but since you seem hung up on my being wrong about Jennings' health....

Honestly, I can EASILY see a circumstance whereby the next team that signs Jennings gets him on the cheap because of his injury, only to have him return and be a Radke-esque innings eater for many years. And conversely, I can see where Bailey may never pitch another major league pitch--except for maybe a VanPoppel-ish bullpen stint at age 33.

edabbs44
09-11-2007, 01:19 PM
I agree that they need to devote more $$$ to the draft/foreign markets so that they can bring the best possible amateur talent they can sign into the organization.

However, I disagree about their ability to sign "decent" FA pitching. They have the $$$ to do it this offseason, if they jettison Griffey & Dunn (a bitter pill, perhaps, but it's one Billy Beane has had the Oakland organization swallow several times, right?) and they'll certainly have it next offseason, when those guys will be gone for sure. In my book, "decent" is league-average, or close to it -- and that's out there. Even if it's just one guy, it leaves you with one less hole to fill, and right now the Reds starting pitching depth is riddled with holes.

I agree...esp with the "bitter pill" line.

Right now, they have an opportunity to "replace" the offense of Griffey and potentially Dunn with the offense of Bruce and Votto in the forseeable future. To me, this is how the smaller mkts need to play it. Griffey will not be around much longer and potentially Dunn as well. IF they can turn those guys into young pitching and then have Votto, Bruce, Hamilton and Phillips to build around for the offense, things start to look a bit brighter.

RedsManRick
09-11-2007, 01:24 PM
Great, so sign Jennings to a low-risk deal in FA this offseason (1 year, 4M guaranteed with incentives and options) and maybe you get a #3 starter for less than market. That's a low risk move that I would gladly make. There is reasonable upside and manageable downside.

That's VERY different than trading away a potential ace (and yes, I believe the assessment of the hundreds of experts who think Bailey has a good chance to be a very good pitcher over your assessment of him never panning out) for 1 year of a guy who's ceiling is as a #3. It's an unsustainable plan. Say Jennings put up 200 innings of a 4.00 ERA for the Reds this year. That puts us where, 5 games back instead of 9? Oh, and less Homer Bailey.

I'm not puffing my chest out and bragging about how smart I am. I'm using it as an example of why trading away a top prospect for a non-impact player with 1 year left on his deal isn't a smart part of what needs to be a short AND long term plan. There are other ways to acquire the Jason Jennings of the world -- taking a reasonable risk in FA on a guy coming off an injury without commit big bucks for example. There are not other ways of acquiring a potential ace who you control for 6 years below market value.

I know you've put ideas out there, and my point is that they haven't worked out. Where would we be today had we made that Jennings/Bailey deal? You absolutely have to get more pitching, but you don't have to take stupid risks to do it. You don't have to trade one of the best prospects in the game or give a mediocre player a big time FA deal.

While organizations like the Reds have to be resourceful in obtaining talent, at the same time we have to be careful and not make any stupid mistakes. We don't have the margin for error to lose a big trade or sign a stinker FA. I understand there will be some risk involved, but our failure to build a winning organization has not been for a lack of risk taking. It's been taking the wrong ones.

Ron Madden
09-11-2007, 02:59 PM
It maybe just me but... I really do not have any trust in Wayne to receive fair value in return of eighther a Dunn or Griffey trade.

lollipopcurve
09-11-2007, 03:21 PM
It maybe just me but... I really do not have any trust in Wayne to receive fair value in return of eighther a Dunn or Griffey trade.

You're right -- he won't get equal value for Dunn. Griffey is another matter because Griffey carries a big injury risk and just getting salary relief in dealing him could wind up looking like a win if Junior runs into another big injury. As for Dunn, the best chance they have of getting good talent for him will be in the draft picks they receive (if they offer him arbitration, which they should) when he signs elsewhere as a free agent. It's the same thing Beane has had to do in Oakland with Tejada and Giambi and others.

I doubt the Reds would get much for Dunn on the trade market next June, because there would be too much money and too little time remaining on his contract -- we saw how the efforts to trade him this year worked out, and that was when he was healthy and hitting well. No guarantee he'll be as attractive next year.

So, having no faith in the trade market for Dunn in 08, and believing he has no interest in staying in Cincy, I think the choice the Reds face with Dunn is whether they want to take the draft picks now or a year from now. If they wait, they'll have dropped millions, maybe 13MM, on a player playing with one foot out the door. My take is that it's best to get on with the future. Spend the money on players who will be here beyond 08. Remember, Harang and Arroyo are signed through 2010, so the Reds might as well start moving resources to players (pitchers, primarily) who could be here then, too.

oneupper
09-11-2007, 03:34 PM
It maybe just me but... I really do not have any trust in Wayne to receive fair value in return of eighther a Dunn or Griffey trade.

The problem is that neither has significant positive ""trade value".

Griffey can arguably justify his salary for 2008 and perhaps it would be slightly below what similar production could cost in the market.

The same goes for Dunn.

Griffey is basically a one-year rental at this point.
Pick up Dunn's option and he'll become something similar (he has a no-trade clause but could agree to be traded).

But that's not bad. And it sure is better than a couple of years ago in Griffey's case.

Guys like Freel and Stanton have NEGATIVE trade value, meaning you'd have to send them along with a pile of cash (remember Jason LaRue...wonder how THAT worked for KC) or get someone with an equally crappy contract in return.

Teams understand this and that's why prospects are so highly valued (deservedly or not) and good pitching gets nowhere near the table these days.

edabbs44
09-11-2007, 04:31 PM
It maybe just me but... I really do not have any trust in Wayne to receive fair value in return of eighther a Dunn or Griffey trade.

Is it b/c of the market or because it's Wayne?

jojo
09-11-2007, 04:44 PM
I'm using it as an example of why trading away a top prospect for a non-impact player with 1 year left on his deal isn't a smart part of what needs to be a short AND long term plan.

It's kind of surreal to see this even being argued....

Red Heeler
09-11-2007, 05:01 PM
Originally Posted by RedsManRick
I'm using it as an example of why trading away a top prospect for a non-impact player with 1 year left on his deal isn't a smart part of what needs to be a short AND long term plan.

A guy who can log a bunch of innings at slightly under league average ERA IS an impact player. As for the notion of trading away top prospects for guys with only one year left on their contracts, St. Louis has done it several times. Then they actually sign the incoming player to an extension. I would gladly trade Bailey for a Bronson Arroyo clone that I thought I could lock up for 3-4 years.

M2
09-11-2007, 05:11 PM
I hate to tell you this but just because you are in an organization doesn't mean you are 1) being coached 2) being coached by someone who knows what they are talking about or 3) being coached by someone who actually gives a hoot. There are A LOT of Reds minor leaguers who in simple terms are just hung out to dry.

Well no duh. No one said he was getting good coaching, but over the past eight years Dumatrait's surely run into a few competent coaches. He was a top 10 prospect in the Reds and Red Sox systems so I'm fairly confident he had some attention paid to him.

So could Dumatrait benefit from better coaching? Maybe. But he's surely received some good advice over the last eight years and I see no indication he's done anything with it.

Some kids absorb everything. Bobby Livingston seemed to be one of those. Some absorb nothing, which seems to be Dumatrait's M.O.

Ron Madden
09-11-2007, 05:46 PM
Is it b/c of the market or because it's Wayne?

A lil' bit of both.

RedsManRick
09-11-2007, 06:05 PM
A guy who can log a bunch of innings at slightly under league average ERA IS an impact player. As for the notion of trading away top prospects for guys with only one year left on their contracts, St. Louis has done it several times. Then they actually sign the incoming player to an extension. I would gladly trade Bailey for a Bronson Arroyo clone that I thought I could lock up for 3-4 years.

Just curious, which of Eric Ludwick, T.J. Mathews, Blake Stein (McGwire), Kent Bottenfield and Adam Kennedy (Edmonds) are comprable to Homer Bailey?

I would glady trade Matt Maloney, Chris Dickerson, and Miguel Perez for another Bronson Arroyo, assuming we could sign him long term. I would not trade Homer Bailey for 1 year of him with the hope that he might sign an extension -- not to mention the hope that he's actually worth an extension.

Remember BJ Ryan for Juan Guzman? Made a nice impact that year, but not quite enough. Didn't resign him. BJ Ryan turns out to be an all-star closer.

How about Brady Clark for Sean Estes? Estes was garbage and Clark had a nice little 3 year run as a league average CF on the cheap.

I'm not saying don't pursue a legitimate #3. Just don't take unnecessary risk to do so. If I could trade Bailey or shell out 25M in FA for a #3 I could count on for a number of years, I'd do it. But if you try to tell me that Carlos Silva or Jason Jennings fits that bill, I call shenanigans.

Team Clark
09-11-2007, 06:23 PM
Well no duh. No one said he was getting good coaching, but over the past eight years Dumatrait's surely run into a few competent coaches. He was a top 10 prospect in the Reds and Red Sox systems so I'm fairly confident he had some attention paid to him.

So could Dumatrait benefit from better coaching? Maybe. But he's surely received some good advice over the last eight years and I see no indication he's done anything with it.

Some kids absorb everything. Bobby Livingston seemed to be one of those. Some absorb nothing, which seems to be Dumatrait's M.O.

I'll go along with that. Pretty good point. Great post! :thumbup:

Falls City Beer
09-11-2007, 07:37 PM
Just curious, which of Eric Ludwick, T.J. Mathews, Blake Stein (McGwire), Kent Bottenfield and Adam Kennedy (Edmonds) are comprable to Homer Bailey?

I would glady trade Matt Maloney, Chris Dickerson, and Miguel Perez for another Bronson Arroyo, assuming we could sign him long term. I would not trade Homer Bailey for 1 year of him with the hope that he might sign an extension -- not to mention the hope that he's actually worth an extension.

Remember BJ Ryan for Juan Guzman? Made a nice impact that year, but not quite enough. Didn't resign him. BJ Ryan turns out to be an all-star closer.

How about Brady Clark for Sean Estes? Estes was garbage and Clark had a nice little 3 year run as a league average CF on the cheap.

I'm not saying don't pursue a legitimate #3. Just don't take unnecessary risk to do so. If I could trade Bailey or shell out 25M in FA for a #3 I could count on for a number of years, I'd do it. But if you try to tell me that Carlos Silva or Jason Jennings fits that bill, I call shenanigans.

What you're talking about isn't taking the wrong risks. It's taking no risks.

You wouldn't trade Bailey for a #3 because you would A. protest that he's expensive B. claim he was too old at 27. C. claim he was an injury risk.

You want guarantees. There are none. Except that Bailey is VERY unlikely to ever even crack a MLB rotation. And that if the Reds do nothing over the offseason, they will be an equally bad team.

Let's turn the tables--and don't talk in vagaries--how would YOU fix the Reds pitching issues? And don't say: wait. Unless you are willing to fess up to that being your position, which I absolutely believe it is. You think the farm holds the pieces to a contender. But I want you to think proactively and pretend that your feet have been put to the fire by Castellini: he wants a team that will finish above .500 next season. Whom do you target? And how do you target them?

RedsManRick
09-11-2007, 08:25 PM
What you're talking about isn't taking the wrong risks. It's taking no risks.

You wouldn't trade Bailey for a #3 because you would A. protest that he's expensive B. claim he was too old at 27. C. claim he was an injury risk.

You want guarantees. There are none. Except that Bailey is VERY unlikely to ever even crack a MLB rotation. And that if the Reds do nothing over the offseason, they will be an equally bad team.

Let's turn the tables--and don't talk in vagaries--how would YOU fix the Reds pitching issues? And don't say: wait. Unless you are willing to fess up to that being your position, which I absolutely believe it is. You think the farm holds the pieces to a contender. But I want you to think proactively and pretend that your feet have been put to the fire by Castellini: he wants a team that will finish above .500 next season. Whom do you target? And how do you target them?

Good risk? Giving Jose Guillen a 1 year deal and then flipping him for Aaron Harang, Joe Valentine, and Jeff Bruksch. Brandon Phillips for a PTBNL. Josh Hamilton for $50,000. Bronson Arroyo for Wily Mo. Scott Hatteberg for $750,000 in FA. Jeff Keppinger for Russ Haltiwanger. Giving Corey Lidle a 1 year deal and then flipping him for Javon Moran, Joe Wilson, and Elizardo Ramirez. Aaron Boone & Gabe White for Brandon Claussen and Charlie Manning. Pokey Reese and Dennys Reyes for Gabe White and Luke Hudson.

These were all deals with some solid upside and not much downside. Am I going to win championships with deals like this. Probably not, though Harang, Phillips, and Hamilton help. Good risks are ones you can afford to take and lose.

My position is opportunistically acquire pitching without locking myself in to major commitments or trading away players with greater future value while continuing to develop the pitching I have.

I tell Castellini that if he wants a .500 team next season come hell or highwater that I won't do it at the more likely expense of a .500 team in the seasons beyond that. If he doesn't like that answer then I take my pink slip and move on.

I'd have traded Hatteberg in July. I'd be shopping Junior next summer. I'd be trying to buy low on Ervin Santana. But above all else, I'd spent as much money as I possibly could drafting the top talent and investing in player development around the world. There's no better ROI in baseball.

I tell Castellini that the way to build a winner is to continually grow your asset base with taking significant risks of eroding it. Now, if you want to tell me that we're not capable of developing starting pitching or trading for it without mortgaging the farm, then I'm going to apply for a job with the Twins, Braves, or Angels and figure out how they did it. If they tell me it was dumb luck, then I'd be telling Castellini that his only hope is a putting his money on a few roullete numbers and crossing his fingers.

jojo
09-11-2007, 09:52 PM
Good risk? Giving Jose Guillen a 1 year deal and then flipping him for Aaron Harang, Joe Valentine, and Jeff Bruksch. Brandon Phillips for a PTBNL. Josh Hamilton for $50,000. Bronson Arroyo for Wily Mo. Scott Hatteberg for $750,000 in FA. Jeff Keppinger for Russ Haltiwanger. Giving Corey Lidle a 1 year deal and then flipping him for Javon Moran, Joe Wilson, and Elizardo Ramirez. Aaron Boone & Gabe White for Brandon Claussen and Charlie Manning. Pokey Reese and Dennys Reyes for Gabe White and Luke Hudson.

These were all deals with some solid upside and not much downside. Am I going to win championships with deals like this. Probably not, though Harang, Phillips, and Hamilton help. Good risks are ones you can afford to take and lose.

My position is opportunistically acquire pitching without locking myself in to major commitments or trading away players with greater future value while continuing to develop the pitching I have.

I tell Castellini that if he wants a .500 team next season come hell or highwater that I won't do it at the more likely expense of a .500 team in the seasons beyond that. If he doesn't like that answer then I take my pink slip and move on.

I'd have traded Hatteberg in July. I'd be shopping Junior next summer. I'd be trying to buy low on Ervin Santana. But above all else, I'd spent as much money as I possibly could drafting the top talent and investing in player development around the world. There's no better ROI in baseball.

I tell Castellini that the way to build a winner is to continually grow your asset base with taking significant risks of eroding it. Now, if you want to tell me that we're not capable of developing starting pitching or trading for it without mortgaging the farm, then I'm going to apply for a job with the Twins, Braves, or Angels and figure out how they did it. If they tell me it was dumb luck, then I'd be telling Castellini that his only hope is a putting his money on a few roullete numbers and crossing his fingers.

While I agree with your approach, IMHO, Santana is going to make some team a nice shiny pot of sorrow.

He's a scout's dream with the sweet looking stuff but it's translated into flyball tendencies, average make 'em miss tendencies and average command during his first 80+ major league starts. His career best xFIP is 4.98. His home/road splits are inexplicable but frankly scary. Obviously he could develop into something more but buying low on Santana is still likely going to mean giving up quality talent in return which effects the risk associated with him.

Falls City Beer
09-11-2007, 10:20 PM
Good risks are ones you can afford to take and lose.

By its very nature, your definition of a "good risk" is self-canceling. What you've described is "no risk."

Risk by its definition *implies* the possibility of negative consequences. Otherwise, it's a certainty. You may think I'm playing word games, but I think it strikes to the heart of our differing attitudes toward contending in a division where 84 wins gets you a trophy. You want to wait; I want to act. There's no shame in your position. I just differ from it because I believe some other team will *act* themselves to year in and year out contention if the Reds don't seize some opportunities. Meanwhile, the Reds will have an awesome offense and still have the same old atrocious pitching staff.

RedsManRick
09-11-2007, 11:34 PM
By its very nature, your definition of a "good risk" is self-canceling. What you've described is "no risk."

Risk by its definition *implies* the possibility of negative consequences. Otherwise, it's a certainty. You may think I'm playing word games, but I think it strikes to the heart of our differing attitudes toward contending in a division where 84 wins gets you a trophy. You want to wait; I want to act. There's no shame in your position. I just differ from it because I believe some other team will *act* themselves to year in and year out contention if the Reds don't seize some opportunities. Meanwhile, the Reds will have an awesome offense and still have the same old atrocious pitching staff.

I didn't say no negative consequences. But I wouldn't go to Vegas and put any money on the table that couldn't afford to go home without.

You can want to act all you want. Last year your wanting to act would've netted us Jason Jennings for Homer Bailey. Do what you want to do this year? Just be sure not to include trading Bailey, you already lost him last year...

I can appreciate your frustration and want for lack of patience. But I don't think trading away top prospects for veterans or spending big money on mediocre at best free agents will turn us in to a winner next year or beyond.

Red Heeler
09-12-2007, 12:08 AM
Just curious, which of Eric Ludwick, T.J. Mathews, Blake Stein (McGwire), Kent Bottenfield and Adam Kennedy (Edmonds) are comprable to Homer Bailey?



Bottenfield, 31, went 18-7 with a 3.97 ERA last season, and made the All-Star teamKennedy, 24, was the Cardinals' minor-league player of the year in 1999

Smith, 22, was named Cardinals minor league pitcher of the year in 2000 and made his big league debut last year, going 6-3, 3.83 in 16 games. He no-hit the Padres in September in just his 11th major league start, and won Game Four of the NL Division Series against the Diamondbacks.
Don't forget that Placido Polanco went to the Phils for Rolen, too.

Bailey has yet to do bupkis in the Majors. Could he be a great one? Yes, he could. However, he could also flame out.

The Reds need to be looking at trying to win something while Harang and Arroyo are in town. Bailey might help in that regard. Packaging him and say, Hamilton, could get the Reds a pitcher who could win them a championship.

Spitball
09-12-2007, 12:26 AM
So, a healthy Jennings and a couple of bullpen arms almost certainly has the Reds near or at the top.


You can't claim any wisdom on the "couple of bullpen arms" part. That was a given by everyone on this board, including the 12 year old girls who had grown tired of their AOL chatrooms. However, you were alone in advocating the trading of Bailey for one year of Jennings. The same Jennings who had been injured as recently as 2005 and who had a WHIP of 1.701 as recently as 2004. He had a very good year in 2006, but he was not worthy of gambling a Bailey-type prospect on that type of history. I give the Rockies credit for taking advantage of his career year and unloading him at the right time.

Thank goodness the Reds were not tempted to gamble with a Bailey for a Jennings coming off a career year after several crappy and injury filled years. I hope, if I'm ever bold enough to make such a bold proclamation and arrogantly argue with detractors, I am man enough to admit that perhaps I was wrong without formulating qualifications.

Caveat Emperor
09-12-2007, 01:37 AM
Risk by its definition *implies* the possibility of negative consequences. Otherwise, it's a certainty. You may think I'm playing word games, but I think it strikes to the heart of our differing attitudes toward contending in a division where 84 wins gets you a trophy. You want to wait; I want to act. There's no shame in your position. I just differ from it because I believe some other team will *act* themselves to year in and year out contention if the Reds don't seize some opportunities. Meanwhile, the Reds will have an awesome offense and still have the same old atrocious pitching staff.

Risk is good when you can afford to lose every so often.

Look at it like a poker game -- when you're the big stack, you can afford to play a few odd hands to see what pops up or push someone all-in to try and knock another competitor out. When you're the short stack, you have to be more judicious about the risks you take because your margin for error is so much smaller.

That, in a nutshell, is the problem the Reds have faced for most of this decade -- their margin for error with Risk is so slim that a Risk going wrong sets the team back substantially. Payroll is so tight that a bad risk (Milton et. al) directly effects the ability to sign other players. Prospect talent and Major league talent is so limited that a bad risk leaves the cupboard completely bare.

I'm all for calculated risk, but I damn sure don't want to watch the Phil Dumatraits and Norris Hoppers of the world for another 10 years because some knucklehead went and traded all the cows for magic beans.

Team Clark
09-12-2007, 01:55 AM
I know you cannot name specifics TC, but it is an issue of certain players being ignored or not taught, or is it a failure of the organization to teach certain skills?

The more I see the more the issue lends itself to coaches not coaching the whole roster. Coaches pick the handful of players that they feel will "make it" and give them the attention. In turn the coaches have someone they can hang a star on. "I coached him and made him what he is"... See Brook Jacoby and Adam Dunn. (Not a great example but one that Redszone members can identify with)

I have named Ted Power in the past because I had a pitcher at Louisville tell me that in all the time Ted was with him he barely spoke to him. So, what it boils down to is a starting pitcher the Reds thought was a prospect but didn't have good numbers was left hung out to dry. Just great. Exactly what the Reds need. Typical of Ted but not unheard of in Minor League Baseball. What is MOST alarming is this behavior is exactly what got Ted fired at Dayton.

It has always been my belief that as long as you have a uniform you should be afforded every opportunity the same as the Ace pitcher or dazzling position player. There is not ONE Coach that I know of who can say with absolute certainty that the 12th pitcher in A ball or the last bench player doesn't have what it takes to play this game at a higher level. Maybe he doesn't have what it takes....but IGNORING him sure isn't HELPING this guy!!


Sometimes a player just clicks and his development can sky rocket. Just as a "can't miss" prospect can fall like a meteor. Player Development starts with the men in uniform who are there to communicate the Organization's philosophy and how to adapt that to your game. Teaching these young men how to deal with pressure, make adjustments to their game, refine their approach, ensure they are getting rest, etc... is so damn critical. If you are getting paid to coach you better damn well do it!!!

jojo
09-12-2007, 07:39 AM
The more I see the more the issue lends itself to coaches not coaching the whole roster. Coaches pick the handful of players that they feel will "make it" and give them the attention. In turn the coaches have someone they can hang a star on. "I coached him and made him what he is"... See Brook Jacoby and Adam Dunn. (Not a great example but one that Redszone members can identify with)

I have named Ted Power in the past because I had a pitcher at Louisville tell me that in all the time Ted was with him he barely spoke to him. So, what it boils down to is a starting pitcher the Reds thought was a prospect but didn't have good numbers was left hung out to dry. Just great. Exactly what the Reds need. Typical of Ted but not unheard of in Minor League Baseball. What is MOST alarming is this behavior is exactly what got Ted fired at Dayton.

It has always been my belief that as long as you have a uniform you should be afforded every opportunity the same as the Ace pitcher or dazzling position player. There is not ONE Coach that I know of who can say with absolute certainty that the 12th pitcher in A ball or the last bench player doesn't have what it takes to play this game at a higher level. Maybe he doesn't have what it takes....but IGNORING him sure isn't HELPING this guy!!


Sometimes a player just clicks and his development can sky rocket. Just as a "can't miss" prospect can fall like a meteor. Player Development starts with the men in uniform who are there to communicate the Organization's philosophy and how to adapt that to your game. Teaching these young men how to deal with pressure, make adjustments to their game, refine their approach, ensure they are getting rest, etc... is so damn critical. If you are getting paid to coach you better damn well do it!!!

Proof of concept:

JJ Putz says :wave:

jojo
09-12-2007, 07:48 AM
Forget hindsight.

Really,suggesting the Reds trade one of the best pitching prospects in baseball (and the 6 years you'd control him) for one year of a guy who at the time had had 1 season that was basically a little above league average (due to a confluence of marginal improvements in his peripherals versus his career numbers) is a bit absurd on the face of it when framing a debate by discussing risk/reward.

RFS62
09-12-2007, 09:13 AM
Expanding on Team Clark's comments, I don't think people realize how little instruction most low level minor leaguers get.

It's a combination of things, IMO. First, the extremely low pay the manager and coaches on that level get practically insures that you won't get many quality people to fill the jobs.

I've long thought this system is backwards. MLB teams should have their finest instructors at the low levels, trying to teach fundamentals as quickly as possible. Instead, we have guys making a salary in the 20K range, often times less than they could make as an entry level school teacher, and trust multi-million dollar investments to their care.

There is so much that can go wrong with a young man starting his career, often leaving home for the first time in his life.

Yet we throw them to the wolves, and really it becomes very Darwinian as to who survives and who doesn't.

Roving instructors are often the only personalized instruction a kid gets, and it's very sporadic and infrequent.

People have an idealized concept of the life of a minor league player. It's a hard, hard road, with very little money and tremendous pressure at every turn.

Falls City Beer
09-12-2007, 11:18 AM
You can't claim any wisdom on the "couple of bullpen arms" part. That was a given by everyone on this board, including the 12 year old girls who had grown tired of their AOL chatrooms. However, you were alone in advocating the trading of Bailey for one year of Jennings. The same Jennings who had been injured as recently as 2005 and who had a WHIP of 1.701 as recently as 2004. He had a very good year in 2006, but he was not worthy of gambling a Bailey-type prospect on that type of history. I give the Rockies credit for taking advantage of his career year and unloading him at the right time.

Thank goodness the Reds were not tempted to gamble with a Bailey for a Jennings coming off a career year after several crappy and injury filled years. I hope, if I'm ever bold enough to make such a bold proclamation and arrogantly argue with detractors, I am man enough to admit that perhaps I was wrong without formulating qualifications.

Arrogantly argue with detractors? So I disagreed and that makes me arrogant?

Wow, what a witch trial. I suppose I should be brought up for contempt of the court of brilliant elders.

So, all-knowing one, where is Homer Bailey? How is he now? How has his career path been working out lately? Do you actually know where he is and what he is doing?

If you want to deconstruct Jennings, you're right; he got injured and I was wrong for not seeing that.

But heal thyself: how is Bailey right now? How does his future look now? How much is he worth in trade now? Do you feel better, the same, or worse about his future today than you did last offseason?

In fact, I don't care how you feel about Bailey's future because the only opinions on his future that matter are the opinions of other GMs, and I can guarantee you they regard Bailey as damaged goods at this point, and would not be willing to trade much of anything by way of MLB talent to get him from the Reds.

jojo
09-12-2007, 11:52 AM
But heal thyself: how is Bailey right now? How does his future look now? How much is he worth in trade now? Do you feel better, the same, or worse about his future today than you did last offseason?

In fact, I don't care how you feel about Bailey's future because the only opinions on his future that matter are the opinions of other GMs, and I can guarantee you they regard Bailey as damaged goods at this point, and would not be willing to trade much of anything by way of MLB talent to get him from the Reds.

At the risk of getting splashed with some of the snark dust, I'd like to suggest that despite the disappointment alot of Reds fans may feel about Homer not being an answer this season, his ceiling, prospect status, value to the Reds organisation, and perceived value to other organisations haven't changed much since spring training. There is absolutely no shame in a 21 yo uber prospect flaming out in his short introduction to the majors.

Falls City Beer
09-12-2007, 12:23 PM
At the risk of getting splashed with some of the snark dust, I'd like to suggest that despite the disappointment alot of Reds fans may feel about Homer not being an answer this season, his ceiling, prospect status, value to the Reds organisation, and perceived value to other organisations haven't changed much since spring training. There is absolutely no shame in a 21 yo uber prospect flaming out in his short introduction to the majors.


What would you say GMs think about his subsequent mysterious disappearance, injury, and weird recovery status cloaked in silence and obfuscation?

There may not be shame in a flame-out, but there is a serious hit in value. Perceived value, maybe; but that's all that counts until he proves otherwise.

jojo
09-12-2007, 01:10 PM
What would you say GMs think about his subsequent mysterious disappearance, injury, and weird recovery status cloaked in silence and obfuscation?

Other GMs have scouts and doctors and could request a medical report. Since we have no clue what the Reds have been doing with Homer or anything about his medical status, it's pointless to argue how his medical status might effect his value. Obviously if Homer has a torn labrum, that would effect his value. If he's got an issue with his groin, it really doesn't.


There may not be shame in a flame-out, but there is a serious hit in value. Perceived value, maybe; but that's all that counts until he proves otherwise.

Really, it's hyperbole to suggest there is a serious hit in value associated with a 21 yo failing in a brief stint in the majors. A healthy Homer is just as valuable today as he was in May in a real and a perceived sense.

RedsManRick
09-12-2007, 01:17 PM
I can think of 29 organizations who would give their left nut to have Homer Bailey in their system. As a 1-1 comparison, I bet there aren't 15 minor leaguers for whom we couldn't trade Bailey.

jojo
09-12-2007, 01:32 PM
I can think of 29 organizations who would give their left nut to have Homer Bailey in their system. As a 1-1 comparison, I bet there aren't 15 minor leaguers for whom we couldn't trade Bailey.

I bet Homer couldn't get you Jay Bruce.... :D

:beerme:

registerthis
09-12-2007, 02:17 PM
I think it's premature to write Bailey off, but I do understand FCB's point about a serviceable pitcher at the major league level being more valuable than a potential ace currently struggling in the minors. Perceived value can be a dangerous thing--witness the litany of "bad trades" that go down each year because some franchise was willing to part with a solid MLB-er in exchange for a can't-miss future star, only to find out that the "can't miss" has turned into a "most assuredly did miss".

That's where scouting and player development become to unbelieveably important. No one should understand Bailey's strengths, weaknesses and trajectory better than those in the Reds player development system. They should understand how to determine if Bailey's improving and, if he is, in what areas he is doing so. They should also be able to determine--with a reasonable degree of certainty--his career trajectory at this point. Determining Bailey's future with Reds needn't be a crapshoot, it should be an educated decision. If the Reds have managers, coaches, and player development personnel in their minor league system who are unable to deliver accurate and helpful information to Krivsky and Co. regarding Bailey's development and, by extension, his likely future with the franchise, then the Reds should seek out personnel who CAN perform those tasks. Right now, the reds have a lot riding on this kid's shoulders with regards to the long term success and health of the franchise. If he's not up to the task, the Reds need to be determining that now, while his value is still high.

Falls City Beer
09-12-2007, 02:24 PM
Other GMs have scouts and doctors and could request a medical report. Since we have no clue what the Reds have been doing with Homer or anything about his medical status, it's pointless to argue how his medical status might effect his value. Obviously if Homer has a torn labrum, that would effect his value. If he's got an issue with his groin, it really doesn't.



Really, it's hyperbole to suggest there is a serious hit in value associated with a 21 yo failing in a brief stint in the majors. A healthy Homer is just as valuable today as he was in May in a real and a perceived sense.

Right. And we all know how often medical reports on pitchers are completely wrong and total shots in the dark. And why the secrecy about his whereabouts? Why no updates on his status? It smells like suppression of information, and I can guarantee that every front office regards that, fairly or unfairly, as a huge red flag. If the Reds were being transparent about his status, and the extent of his injury were just his groin, I would agree that little has been done to hurt his overall value. But it hasn't been transparent, and he's still "injured." That hurts his value. You are plain wrong, jojo, to suggest that his oddly long absence doesn't hurt his value, and that each passing day where he isn't rehabbing and throwing continues to add to the negative perception of his well-being.

My guess is that the front office is standing around crossing their fingers that he hasn't gone all Steve Blass or that his injury isn't greater than first advertised.

RedsManRick
09-12-2007, 02:33 PM
Right. And we all know how often medical reports on pitchers are completely wrong and total shots in the dark. And why the secrecy about his whereabouts? Why no updates on his status? It smells like suppression of information, and I can guarantee that every front office regards that, fairly or unfairly, as a huge red flag. If the Reds were being transparent about his status, and the extent of his injury were just his groin, I would agree that little has been done to hurt his overall value. But it hasn't been transparent, and he's still "injured." That hurts his value. You are plain wrong, jojo, to suggest that his oddly long absence doesn't hurt his value, and that each passing day where he isn't rehabbing and throwing continues to add to the negative perception of his well-being.

My guess is that the front office is standing around crossing their fingers that he hasn't gone all Steve Blass or that his injury isn't greater than first advertised.

HIPAA. You actually cannot legally disclose medical treatment information about a patient without their consent. Furthermore, what is there to gain by disclosing that information publicly? I'm right there with you regarding the frustration with WK treating everything like a state secret. But when it comes to health matters, they get a pass.

I'm sure you're right though. They really have no clue what's going on or what they're doing. That doesn't mean I have blind faith that Bailey will be fine and will become an ace. But let's not jump to conclusions simply because we don't have the information we (as fans) want on the timetable we (as fans) want.

Of course, given that medical reports on pitchers are often "completely wrong and total shots in the dark", what's the rush to get this bad information anyways?

TOBTTReds
09-12-2007, 02:35 PM
Sometimes a player just clicks and his development can sky rocket. Just as a "can't miss" prospect can fall like a meteor. Player Development starts with the men in uniform who are there to communicate the Organization's philosophy and how to adapt that to your game. Teaching these young men how to deal with pressure, make adjustments to their game, refine their approach, ensure they are getting rest, etc... is so damn critical. If you are getting paid to coach you better damn well do it!!!

They could play when we put them on the plane....if you know what I mean.

PD and scouting needs to work together a bit more often in all organizations. Disagreements among those two groups can lead to descention that is not good throughout the organization. I'm afraid Cincy has a lot of that.

Falls City Beer
09-12-2007, 02:44 PM
HIPAA. You actually cannot legally disclose medical treatment information about a patient without their consent. Furthermore, what is there to gain by disclosing that information publicly? I'm right there with you regarding the frustration with WK treating everything like a state secret. But when it comes to health matters, they get a pass.

I'm sure you're right though. They really have no clue what's going on or what they're doing. That doesn't mean I have blind faith that Bailey will be fine and will become an ace. But let's not jump to conclusions simply because we don't have the information we (as fans) want on the timetable we (as fans) want.

Of course, given that medical reports on pitchers are often "completely wrong and total shots in the dark", what's the rush to get this bad information anyways?


I'm not impatient. I don't care about Bailey. I just think that even the most patient of GMs or press who follow the Reds have to wonder about the health and whereabouts of Bailey. And that hurts his value. Hell, just throw the press a bone. Lie. But this silent act is doing no one any favors.

jojo
09-12-2007, 03:06 PM
You are plain wrong, jojo, to suggest that his oddly long absence doesn't hurt his value, and that each passing day where he isn't rehabbing and throwing continues to add to the negative perception of his well-being.

Once again a trade partner wouldn't rely on the Reds medical staff or the Reds scouts to make their decision, especially if there were any health concerns at all.

I don't think there is anything necessarily shocking about an organisation being cautious with one of its most valuable commodities because of a groin issue. Its an injury that a pitcher can't really work through (at least without the risk of making it worse). Unfortunately it appears like the Reds tried to do just that as Homer had 4 starts following the initial injury in Philadelphia. Generally, groin injuries don't sound alarm bells for a pitcher's worth. Basically it takes a while to recover from but it's not an elbow or shoulder and there is no indication that I know of that suggests Homer has dealt with chronic groin issues.

Without any tangible evidence that the Reds are hiding something, it's tough to form a valid argument that concludes Homer's "perceived value is dramatically decreased" by what the Reds are doing with him. This is especially so since being cautious with one of the best pitching prospects in the game is exactly what a team ought to do.

RedsManRick
09-12-2007, 03:08 PM
I'm not impatient. I don't care about Bailey. I just think that even the most patient of GMs or press who follow the Reds have to wonder about the health and whereabouts of Bailey. And that hurts his value. Hell, just throw the press a bone. Lie. But this silent act is doing no one any favors.

Unless we're trying to trade him, his "value" is irrelevant. And if we're trying to trade him, than presumably we'd provide whatever information is necessary - though I imagine the team acquiring him would be making all of their own evaluations. I don't think that most teams take their player valuation cues from the mass media.

And I would argue it's doing Homer Bailey a favor.

jojo
09-12-2007, 03:20 PM
I'm not impatient. I don't care about Bailey. I just think that even the most patient of GMs or press who follow the Reds have to wonder about the health and whereabouts of Bailey. And that hurts his value. Hell, just throw the press a bone. Lie. But this silent act is doing no one any favors.

There really is no big mystery or conspiracy. He's been in Sarasota nursing his groin back to health. The Reds scheduled him to pitch in the Florida State league playoffs but were rebuffed by the league due to his veteran status. So now Bailey is down there working daily with Sarasota's pitching coach 1 on 1.

M2
09-12-2007, 03:31 PM
Once again a trade partner wouldn't rely on the Reds medical staff or the Reds scouts to make their decision, especially if there were any health concerns at all.

I don't think there is anything necessarily shocking about an organisation shutting down one of its most valuable commodities because of a groin issue. Its an injury that a pitcher can't really work through (at least without the risk of making it worse). Unfortunately it appears like the Reds tried to do just that as Homer had 4 starts following the initial injury in Philadelphia. Generally, groin injuries don't sound alarm bells for a pitcher's worth. Basically it takes a while to recover from but it's not an elbow or shoulder and there is no indication that I know of that suggests Homer has dealt with chronic groin issues.

Without any tangible evidence that the Reds are hiding something, it's tough to form a valid argument that concludes Homer's "perceived value is dramatically decreased" by what the Reds are doing with him. This is especially so since being cautious with one of the best pitching prospects in the game is exactly what a team ought to do.

Generally groin issues clear up before two months lapse. You don't need to be Hercule Poirot to notice there's something suspicious about Bailey's absence this summer. Maybe it's some other physical malady, maybe it's mental. Maybe it won't be anything that carries over, maybe it will. Since we don't know what it is, there's no real way of knowing what level of concern to attach to it.

I know this much. If I were a rival GM and Bailey's name came up, my first question would be what exactly is it that went haywire with him this summer.

jojo
09-12-2007, 04:02 PM
Generally groin issues clear up before two months lapse. You don't need to be Hercule Poirot to notice there's something suspicious about Bailey's absence this summer.

Where is this mysterious two month abscence?

Homer reportedly injured his groin on June 26th in Philadelphia. He made two more starts with the Reds while nursing the injury before being optioned to Louisville on July 8th. He started the 12th and the 17th for the bats before going on the disabled list with due to his groin on July 19th. He began throwing again on July 27th and went to Sarasota August 13th to prepare for his rehab starts. He started Aug 25th and 30th with the Sarasota Reds but couldn't pitch in the FSL playoffs because of his major league service time. He's now in Sarasota working daily with Tim Brown.

Basically he injured his groin, made four starts after the injury and then didn't pitch in a game for a month while recuperating. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Falls City Beer
09-12-2007, 04:32 PM
Where is this mysterious two month abscence?

Homer reportedly injured his groin on June 26th in Philadelphia. He made two more starts with the Reds while nursing the injury before being optioned to Louisville on July 8th. He started the 12th and the 17th for the bats before going on the disabled list with due to his groin on July 19th. He began throwing again on July 27th and went to Sarasota August 13th to prepare for his rehab starts. He started Aug 25th and 30th with the Sarasota Reds but couldn't pitch in the FSL playoffs because of his major league service time. He's now in Sarasota working daily with Tim Brown.

Basically he injured his groin, made four starts after the injury and then didn't pitch in a game for a month while recuperating. Seems pretty reasonable to me.


If it's reasonable, then it should be reasonable to hear updates on "one of the most heralded prospects in baseball."

Again, why the silence?

RedsManRick
09-12-2007, 04:44 PM
If it's reasonable, then it should be reasonable to hear updates on "one of the most heralded prospects in baseball."

Again, why the silence?

Has WK been asked and refused to answer, or has he just failed to set up a press conference announcing that there is no new news?

M2
09-12-2007, 04:45 PM
Where is this mysterious two month abscence?

Homer reportedly injured his groin on June 26th in Philadelphia. He made two more starts with the Reds while nursing the injury before being optioned to Louisville on July 8th. He started the 12th and the 17th for the bats before going on the disabled list with due to his groin on July 19th. He began throwing again on July 27th and went to Sarasota August 13th to prepare for his rehab starts. He started Aug 25th and 30th with the Sarasota Reds but couldn't pitch in the FSL playoffs because of his major league service time. He's now in Sarasota working daily with Tim Brown.

Basically he injured his groin, made four starts after the injury and then didn't pitch in a game for a month while recuperating. Seems pretty reasonable to me.

Fair enough, it was five weeks between games. Though that's still a long spell away for an injury that usually clears up within a 15-day DL stint. It's still an especially long spell for a groin inury that was deemed to be not so severe that he couldn't make four starts before he went on the DL, which is where I'm getting the two months from (the Reds clearly thought he could heal up while still pitching - and my apologies for conflating the two without being more specific).

Also, why is he throwing on 7/27 if his groin is still tender? Isn't he supposed to healing? And if he's good enough to throw on 7/27, then why did it take another 17 days to start preparing for his rehab starts? You're either healthy enough to pitch or you're not.

I mean, if we're doing the math on this, it's seven crappy starts over almost ten weeks of the baseball season that got swallowed up by this groin injury. That's nothing like your standard groin injury.

So either the Reds completely missed the severity of this groin pull (certainly possible) or there's more going on than we're being told (also certainly possible). If there's one thing we all should have learned from watching the Reds over the years it's that whenever players spend longer than usual on the shelf and the club insists its nothing to be concerned about, it's always something to be concerned about.

Falls City Beer
09-12-2007, 04:46 PM
Has WK been asked and refused to answer, or has he just failed to set up a press conference announcing that there is no new news?

There aren't even puff pieces. I'm not talking about a press conference. Since when does Wayne have to be the one to address the press? Why can't the press talk to Bailey? Why can't the press talk to his coaches? What's with the code of silence?

RedsManRick
09-12-2007, 05:57 PM
There aren't even puff pieces. I'm not talking about a press conference. Since when does Wayne have to be the one to address the press? Why can't the press talk to Bailey? Why can't the press talk to his coaches? What's with the code of silence?

So now it's Wayne's fault that the press hasn't done a puff piece? Or that the press hasn't talked to Bailey or his coaches?

Maybe you can get C Trent to dig around a little. You have zero evidence that anything is being covered up. The last information we received told us not to expect any news for a while. The press has not been proactive in seeking new information. Yet you insist on blaming the GM for a code of silence.

I don't like the WK's reticence to publicize his thoughts and intentions any more than the next guy, but this position is laughable.

jojo
09-12-2007, 06:21 PM
Also, why is he throwing on 7/27 if his groin is still tender? Isn't he supposed to healing? And if he's good enough to throw on 7/27, then why did it take another 17 days to start preparing for his rehab starts? You're either healthy enough to pitch or you're not.

He wasn't pitching on the 27th. He basically was playing catch after a couple weeks of not being allowed to touch a baseball.


I mean, if we're doing the math on this, it's seven crappy starts over almost ten weeks of the baseball season that got swallowed up by this groin injury. That's nothing like your standard groin injury.

So either the Reds completely missed the severity of this groin pull (certainly possible) or there's more going on than we're being told (also certainly possible). If there's one thing we all should have learned from watching the Reds over the years it's that whenever players spend longer than usual on the shelf and the club insists its nothing to be concerned about, it's always something to be concerned about.

I'm not sure the club is insisting anything really. BTW, the above time line was essentially constructed via rotoworld, press releases on mlb.com and milbc.com so, IMHO, the Reds certainly aren't being secretive or avoiding the issue. While Homer as an issue has been lost in the local press likely because the Reds have been winning and there are other things to talk about (or out of sight, out of mind), those in the industry probably have a pretty good idea of what's been going on with Homer.

As for not trusting the Reds concerning the health of their pitchers, I suppose they've earned the lack of trust over the last decade.

M2
09-12-2007, 06:28 PM
While Homer as an issue has been lost in the local press likely because the Reds have been winning and there are other things to talk about (or out of sight, out of mind), those in the industry probably have a pretty good idea of what's been going on with Homer.

I sincerely doubt that last part. Those 29 other teams don't probably know much more than you or I. Frankly, my larger concern is the Reds don't really know what's up with him. Seems to me the hope right now is maybe it will go away.

Falls City Beer
09-12-2007, 07:10 PM
So now it's Wayne's fault that the press hasn't done a puff piece? Or that the press hasn't talked to Bailey or his coaches?

Maybe you can get C Trent to dig around a little. You have zero evidence that anything is being covered up. The last information we received told us not to expect any news for a while. The press has not been proactive in seeking new information. Yet you insist on blaming the GM for a code of silence.

I don't like the WK's reticence to publicize his thoughts and intentions any more than the next guy, but this position is laughable.

I have no clue if there is an imposed code of silence, but I don't think it's a mystery that it's the Reds who tell the local press what to print and what not to print. There's little investigative journalism going on vis. the Reds from the local rags. So why aren't more mainstream press sources getting any information on this "most heralded top 15 in all the minor leagues prospect who's vanished?" The total silence surrounding him is a story unto itself.

Incidentally, I never said that it was Wayne declaring the code of silence. I don't know who it is or, frankly, if there is one. All I know is that Bailey may or may not be in Sarasota, and may or may not be injured, and may or may not be rehabbing. I don't think it's nosy or impetuous to expect to hear an update about the crown jewel in the Reds' farm system. You may find that strange to want to know how he's doing, but I don't, and I doubt much that others do.

Falls City Beer
09-12-2007, 07:12 PM
I sincerely doubt that last part. Those 29 other teams don't probably know much more than you or I. Frankly, my larger concern is the Reds don't really know what's up with him. Seems to me the hope right now is maybe it will go away.

No kidding. Yeah, because the Reds have been so smoking hot as to reach 15 games below .500, Bailey's moved to the backburner. If anything, I'd expect more pieces on the future, rather than the present, because the present is about as ugly as it can get.

BRM
09-13-2007, 11:27 AM
Speaking of Homer Bailey, John Fay wonders why he isn't starting Saturday's game.



Nothing against Saarloos getting a shot, but if Homer Bailey is healthy enough to start a Florida State League playoff game, shouldn't he be making that start? Bailey was going to start until the FSL said he couldn't because of veteran status.

KronoRed
09-13-2007, 02:20 PM
IMO the Reds have seen what they needed to see out of Bailey and he's been given his marching orders on what to improve before he comes back