PDA

View Full Version : Re-signing Harang last offseason... BRILLIANT!



Blitz Dorsey
09-19-2007, 11:02 AM
16-4, 3.61 ERA, 1.13 WHIP, 216.2 IP, 198 K, 51 BB, BAA .237.

What a year. Especially considering the team he plays on. Especially considering his home ball park. Especially considering we got him for the Tazmanian Devil aka Jose Guillen (along with a few scrubby pitchers like Joe Valentine who was supposed to be the centerpiece of the deal for the Reds).

And Krivsky deserves credit for not wasting time and getting this done last offseason. Great to know he is locked up. Some might criticize re-signing Arroyo since he was already locked up through 2008, but I liked re-upping him as well.

But that Harang deal... brilliant!

RedsManRick
09-19-2007, 11:09 AM
If he doesn't pick up some Cy Young votes this year, I might lose it.

mbgrayson
09-19-2007, 11:17 AM
I read the article today at the Post, and people keep saying we have to consider Aaron Harang's home field vs. Jake Peavy having the huge park at San Diego.

What is weird are Harang's home/road splits.

At GABP:
110 innings, 3.33 ERA, 102 Ks, 29 BBs, 13 HRs allowed, .237 BAA, and an 8-3 record.

Harang on the road:
99 innings, 4.00 ERA, 90 Ks, 20 BBs, 12 HRs allowed, .239 BAA, and a 7-1 record.

Harang has figured out how to pitch in GABP....

Peavy, on the other hand, same stats:
In San Diego:
118.1 innings, 2.59 ERA, 131 Ks, 32 BBs, 5 Hrs allowed, .223 BAA, and a 9-5 record.

Peavy on the road:
84.2 innings, 2.13 ERA, 94 Ks, 29 BBs, 5 Hrs allowed, .179 BAA, and a 9-1 record.


I certainly agree that signing Harang was HUGE. Good job WK!

Johnny Footstool
09-19-2007, 11:59 AM
While signing Harang was a good move, it was kind of an obvious one.

If Krivsky could have flipped Harang to the Yankees for, say, Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain, I would have classified that as "brilliant."

VR
09-19-2007, 12:52 PM
While signing Harang was a good move, it was kind of an obvious one.

If Krivsky could have flipped Harang to the Yankees for, say, Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain, I would have classified that as "brilliant."

I think the brilliance was the price they got him at for 4 years. That may have been the best contract in baseball for the year.

Falls City Beer
09-19-2007, 12:54 PM
If Krivsky could have flipped Harang to the Yankees for, say, Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain, I would have classified that as "brilliant."


I'll take Harang.

TOBTTReds
09-19-2007, 01:11 PM
Peavy, on the other hand, same stats:
In San Diego:
118.1 innings, 2.59 ERA, 131 Ks, 32 BBs, 5 Hrs allowed, .223 BAA, and a 9-5 record.

Peavy on the road:
84.2 innings, 2.13 ERA, 94 Ks, 29 BBs, 5 Hrs allowed, .179 BAA, and a 9-1 record.



That's crazy that Peavy is a road warrior considering his home park.

Harang is good. Most of his hits last night were with 2 outs. he knows how to pitch a game.

KronoRed
09-19-2007, 01:14 PM
If he doesn't pick up some Cy Young votes this year, I might lose it.

Get ready to lose it, Carlos in Chicago will get twice as many.

flyer85
09-19-2007, 01:17 PM
when you look at the dearth of starting pitching(even on some playoff teams), it is obvious that you have to build your nucleus of a solid starting staff from within.

edabbs44
09-19-2007, 01:59 PM
I think the brilliance was the price they got him at for 4 years. That may have been the best contract in baseball for the year.

Final judgement should be held until after next season, at least. If he goes out next year and wrecks his shoulder, the signing won't look as brilliant. Especially since he was under Cincy's control through next year.

But so far, it's pretty obvious that Reds fans should feel lucky that he is currently a Red.

Johnny Footstool
09-19-2007, 02:29 PM
I'll take Harang.

If you're going to actually build around a guy (i.e. spend the necessary cash), Harang's a good one. If you're going to cry poor and try to scrape by with a miserable bullpen and rotation, I'd rather have the grade-A prospects.

jojo
09-19-2007, 02:46 PM
Final judgement should be held until after next season, at least. If he goes out next year and wrecks his shoulder, the signing won't look as brilliant. Especially since he was under Cincy's control through next year.

But so far, it's pretty obvious that Reds fans should feel lucky that he is currently a Red.

If it was a good decision last winter, it would still be a good decision despite a later injury. It would just become a good decision that didn't work out. Frankly, extending Harang was a good decision.

Falls City Beer
09-19-2007, 02:47 PM
That's crazy that Peavy is a road warrior considering his home park.

Harang is good. Most of his hits last night were with 2 outs. he knows how to pitch a game.

Peavy's pitching style pretty much eliminates park as a factor in his numbers. He'd put up those numbers in my daughter's tee ball field.

Falls City Beer
09-19-2007, 02:52 PM
Harang at his current cost and at his current level of production is one of the top ten values in all of baseball.

I can fault Wayne for a lot. Extending Harang isn't one of them.

Puffy
09-19-2007, 02:53 PM
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/1094821/brilliant.jpg

jojo
09-19-2007, 02:58 PM
Harang may get some votes but the seasons that Peavy and Webb have had are really a class above Harang's IMHO.

PuffyPig
09-19-2007, 03:05 PM
Harang at his current cost and at his current level of production is one of the top ten values in all of baseball.

I can fault Wayne for a lot. Extending Harang isn't one of them.

That's funny.

Earlier in the season, you were suggesting that you hoped that Harang could turn things around so that we would hopefully find someone to take his contract off our hands at the trade deadline.

Stormy
09-19-2007, 03:12 PM
Harang may get some votes but the seasons that Peavy and Webb have had are really a class above Harang's IMHO.

I agree with everything else you've said throughout this thread, but I don't consider Webb on a different plane from Harang. In fact, I actually might even find an argument for favoring Harang. Webb is unhittable when he's on his game, and is a workhorse who can sometimes efficiently finish what he started, but he's also capable of some pretty wild outings control wise. Harang has better control, slightly better K/9, and they are nearly identical in WHIP, BAA etc... despite where Harang has to pitch his home games, and the inferior defense employed behind him.

Webb is superior at keeping the ball on the ground, and in the yard... so you can give him the nod, but they aren't in different classes IMHO.

Harang: 216.2IP 198K 51BB 3.61ERA 1.13WHIP .237BAA

Webb: 223.0IP 186K 68BB 3.03ERA 1.17WHIP .232BAA

Benihana
09-19-2007, 03:14 PM
While signing Harang was a good move, it was kind of an obvious one.

If Krivsky could have flipped Harang to the Yankees for, say, Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain, I would have classified that as "brilliant."

Completely disagree. Some people around here have to understand a bird in the hand, ESPECIALLY when it comes to starting pitching.

Harang is absolutely a top 10 value in baseball, especially when you look at the Zito and Zambrano deals (the latter of which was considered a steal!)

PuffyPig
09-19-2007, 03:15 PM
I agree with everything else you've said throughout this thread, but I don't consider Webb on a different plane from Harang. In fact, I actually might even find an argument for favoring Harang. Webb is unhittable when he's on his game, and is a workhorse who can sometimes efficiently finish what he started, but he's also capable of some pretty wild outings control wise. Harang has better control, slightly better K/9, and they are nearly identical in WHIP, BAA etc... despite where Harang has to pitch his home games, and the inferior defense employed behind him.

Webb is superior at keeping the ball on the ground, and in the yard... so you can give him the nod, but they aren't in different classes IMHO.

Harang: 216.2IP 198K 51BB 3.61ERA 1.13WHIP .237BAA

Webb: 223.0IP 186K 68BB 3.03ERA 1.17WHIP .232BAA

I agree.

Harang strikes out more, walks less but gives up more HR's. That bis likely atributable to where he pitches.

Webb is a great pitcher, but Harang is in that league.

PuffyPig
09-19-2007, 03:18 PM
While signing Harang was a good move, it was kind of an obvious one.

If Krivsky could have flipped Harang to the Yankees for, say, Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain, I would have classified that as "brilliant."

I expect that the Yankees would do that deal easily at the time that the Harang extension went down. I expect that they would do it today.

One Ace pitcher for 2 prospects who, while highly rated, might not amount to much.

If money wasn't a concern, would you trade Bruce and Bailey for a top #1 starter if you knew you could resign him?

VR
09-19-2007, 03:28 PM
I agree with everything else you've said throughout this thread, but I don't consider Webb on a different plane from Harang. In fact, I actually might even find an argument for favoring Harang. Webb is unhittable when he's on his game, and is a workhorse who can sometimes efficiently finish what he started, but he's also capable of some pretty wild outings control wise. Harang has better control, slightly better K/9, and they are nearly identical in WHIP, BAA etc... despite where Harang has to pitch his home games, and the inferior defense employed behind him.

Webb is superior at keeping the ball on the ground, and in the yard... so you can give him the nod, but they aren't in different classes IMHO.

Harang: 216.2IP 198K 51BB 3.61ERA 1.13WHIP .237BAA

Webb: 223.0IP 186K 68BB 3.03ERA 1.17WHIP .232BAA

When you consider the pitcher-friendly parks of the NL West vs. the hitter's paridise of NL Central....it makes me wonder what impact that has on final stats. I'm sure there's some sort of stat out there that measures those variables as well.

What really gets me about the Cy Young talk, is that most prognosticators use a team's overall success as an important measurement for the award.,..."leading a team to the postseason".

I think nothing is further from the truth. One pitcher can never do that. You can make an argument that a position player has that impact (sans Banks and others), but a starting pitcher? He has no control AT ALL over 80% of his team's games.

He does have control over 20% of them. I'd give Harang incredible bonus points in the Cy Young voting to win 80% of his games for a team that wins exactly 40% of it's other games....that's w/o considering the hitter's parks he pitches most of his games.

He did pitch in a couple of pitcher's parks this year (SEA and SD), and that was a very very bad deal for the opposition.

RedsManRick
09-19-2007, 03:44 PM
He does have control over 20% of them. I'd give Harang incredible bonus points in the Cy Young voting to win 80% of his games for a team that wins exactly 40% of it's other games....that's w/o considering the hitter's parks he pitches most of his games.

This is somewhat of a bogus stat which says as much about the quality of the Reds other pitchers than anything else. There's an implication that the entire team sucks, when in fact the offense he has supporting him is actually quite good. It's just that our other pitchers are so bad. If the other Reds pitchers were decent, the difference between their winning percentage and Harang's would be much better. He shouldn't get extra credit for pitching on an otherwise horrible staff.

It would be like quoting Albert Pujols' OPS relative to the offense's collective OPS without him.

Harang has been great enough that he doesn't need this sort of argument to augment his case. Ironically, it's this sort of point that will probably grab the attention of the NY/LA/CHI crowd that has trouble recognizing much of anything outside their collective market.

Johnny Footstool
09-19-2007, 03:54 PM
Completely disagree. Some people around here have to understand a bird in the hand, ESPECIALLY when it comes to starting pitching.

Harang is absolutely a top 10 value in baseball, especially when you look at the Zito and Zambrano deals (the latter of which was considered a steal!)

Like I said, if the plan is to actually spend the money necessary to build around Harang, you keep him.

But if the plan is to flounder along in mediocrity, hoping for a magical windfall to push the team 5 games over .500, then I'd rather have the prospects.

Mario Soto was a top-10 value for the Reds in the early '80s, but the team still sucked.



If money wasn't a concern, would you trade Bruce and Bailey for a top #1 starter if you knew you could resign him?

If the team had a legitimate shot at a World Series, yes. Absolutely.

jojo
09-19-2007, 04:00 PM
I agree with everything else you've said throughout this thread, but I don't consider Webb on a different plane from Harang. In fact, I actually might even find an argument for favoring Harang. Webb is unhittable when he's on his game, and is a workhorse who can sometimes efficiently finish what he started, but he's also capable of some pretty wild outings control wise. Harang has better control, slightly better K/9, and they are nearly identical in WHIP, BAA etc... despite where Harang has to pitch his home games, and the inferior defense employed behind him.

Webb is superior at keeping the ball on the ground, and in the yard... so you can give him the nod, but they aren't in different classes IMHO.

Harang: 216.2IP 198K 51BB 3.61ERA 1.13WHIP .237BAA

Webb: 223.0IP 186K 68BB 3.03ERA 1.17WHIP .232BAA

Here's one reason for my argument-using metrics that essentially summarize the peripherals of each, Webb is a cut above Harang:

FIP:
Webb= 3.19; Harang= 3.70;

xFIP:
Webb= 3.34; Harang= 3.88;

Benihana
09-19-2007, 04:08 PM
Like I said, if the plan is to actually spend the money necessary to build around Harang, you keep him.

But if the plan is to flounder along in mediocrity, hoping for a magical windfall to push the team 5 games over .500, then I'd rather have the prospects.

Mario Soto was a top-10 value for the Reds in the early '80s, but the team still sucked.



If the team had a legitimate shot at a World Series, yes. Absolutely.

Still disagree all day.

I don't know if I would trade Aaron Harang (with his current contract) for anyone in baseball. He is worth twice his weight in gold.

As far as building around the guy, I agree the Reds need to wake up and do that. But dealing him away and starting from scratch will just set you ten paces back on the path you are already on. Let me explain:

You would hope that between Hughes and Chamberlain, ONE of them can amount to a pitcher as good as Harang. The chances of that happening are less than 50%. Then, you have to hope that they can survive their youth without serious injury. Again, maybe 50% at best. THEN, you have to be able to re-sign him to a deal WAY below market value, which in this day, the chance is less than 20%.

If you do the math, you have less than a 4% chance of getting back to the same point you are already at if you trade Harang for two pitching prospects. Regardless of the Reds' situation, I will PASS

PuffyPig
09-19-2007, 04:11 PM
Here's one reason for my argument-using metrics that essentially summarize the peripherals of each, Webb is a cut above Harang:

FIP:
Webb= 3.19; Harang= 3.70;

xFIP:
Webb= 3.34; Harang= 3.88;

I agree that Webb has gotten better results than Harang.

But I'm guessing the ballparks have something to say about that.

Stormy
09-19-2007, 04:11 PM
Here's one reason for my argument-using metrics that essentially summarize the peripherals of each, Webb is a cut above Harang:

FIP:
Webb= 3.19; Harang= 3.70;

xFIP:
Webb= 3.34; Harang= 3.88;

Understood. Do you think that inordinate emphasis is placed upon the allowance of HRs in that equation, making it inherently unfavorable towards Harang (due to style and ballpark factors)?

Johnny Footstool
09-19-2007, 04:14 PM
Understood. Do you think that inordinate emphasis is placed upon the allowance of HRs in that equation, making it inherently unfavorable towards Harang (due to style and ballpark factors)?

The parks don't matter this season.

Harang's HR/9 is virtually the same in both Home and Away games.

Webb's HR/9 is also virtually the same in both Home and Away games -- and about half that of Harang's.

Falls City Beer
09-19-2007, 04:24 PM
That's funny.

Earlier in the season, you were suggesting that you hoped that Harang could turn things around so that we would hopefully find someone to take his contract off our hands at the trade deadline.

Harang would be the first to tell you he had a pretty awful start to the season.

But I don't recall saying I wanted someone to take his contract off the Reds' hands.

He still surrenders too many homers to be a truly great pitcher, but he is a very, very good pitcher, particularly at his salary scale.

Johnny Footstool
09-19-2007, 04:30 PM
Still disagree all day.

I don't know if I would trade Aaron Harang (with his current contract) for anyone in baseball. He is worth twice his weight in gold.

As far as building around the guy, I agree the Reds need to wake up and do that. But dealing him away and starting from scratch will just set you ten paces back on the path you are already on. Let me explain:

You would hope that between Hughes and Chamberlain, ONE of them can amount to a pitcher as good as Harang. The chances of that happening are less than 50%. Then, you have to hope that they can survive their youth without serious injury. Again, maybe 50% at best. THEN, you have to be able to re-sign him to a deal WAY below market value, which in this day, the chance is less than 20%.

If you do the math, you have less than a 4% chance of getting back to the same point you are already at if you trade Harang for two pitching prospects. Regardless of the Reds' situation, I will PASS

Prospects are under your control for 6 years -- longer than Harang's current deal. Most of those years they will be criminally underpaid. The idea is to take those cash savings and use them to fill other holes.

Harang is a great pitcher, but it takes more than one great pitcher to make a good team.

Stormy
09-19-2007, 04:43 PM
The parks don't matter this season.

Harang's HR/9 is virtually the same in both Home and Away games.

Webb's HR/9 is also virtually the same in both Home and Away games -- and about half that of Harang's.

I'm not sure I draw the same conclusion from those numbers, Johnny. Regardless of the splits, Harang still pitches half of his games in arguably the second least forgiving park in baseball in terms HR allowance. Likewise, looking at his road splits, he surrendered 7 of his remaining 12HRs in a 2 start span in the somewhat friendly confines of Wrigley/Miller. In his other road starts, he was pretty darn stingy in giving up the longball by comparison.

Anyway, your point stands that Harang is by nature nowhere near the extreme groundball pitcher that Webb is, and therefore by definition is going to surrender vastly more HRs. However, I was asking jojo if the statistic he was using to quantify Webb's vast superiority didn't lean so heavily on HR allowance (without regard to ballpark effects) as to make it a somewhat tenuous arbiter between guys like Harang and Webb?

RedsManRick
09-19-2007, 04:46 PM
Prospects are under your control for 6 years -- longer than Harang's current deal. Most of those years they will be criminally underpaid. The idea is to take those cash savings and use them to fill other holes.

Harang is a great pitcher, but it takes more than one great pitcher to make a good team.

But do you want to take the risk turning 1 great pitcher in to two not-great ones? Don't get me wrong, I think Harang for those two is a very interesting offer, but I can think of other ways to build a team that don't require giving up a legitimate ace.

On a side note, unlike hitters, who acquire a lot of at bats across the spread of opposing ballparks, pitchers are likely to have a less well distributed road park influence.

I ran the numbers for Harang and his road-park averages:
(CHI 3, PIT 2, STL 2, MIL 1, ATL 1, NYM 1, PHI 1, SEA 1, HOU 1, CLE 1, SD 1)
- Runs factor is .990
- HR factor is .962

Peavy's road-park averages:
(LAD 3, ARI 2, NYM 1, STL 1, HOU 1, SF 1, CIN 1, FLA 1, WAS 1, TB 1)
- Runs factor is 1.002
- HR factor is .989

Somewhat surprisingly, Harang has had it easier on the road than Peavy, using this year's Park Factors.

Ltlabner
09-19-2007, 04:52 PM
Prospects are under your control for 6 years -- longer than Harang's current deal. Most of those years they will be criminally underpaid. The idea is to take those cash savings and use them to fill other holes.

Harang is a great pitcher, but it takes more than one great pitcher to make a good team.

I guess I'm too stuck in "old school" ways and risk adverse, but the constant churning of prospects through a system (because you trade your stars as soon as you can) doesn't strike me as a good way to build a solid team.

Obviously you need prospects and fresh ones. But if you are always trading your stars for prospects, when do you get around to actually fielding a good team? You're constantly waiting around to see if a guy will pan out, or as he works through his "learning curve". You are relying on a large percentage of prospects working out, and those prospects working out roughly at the same time.

I guess I'm closed minded, but I don't like the "lets trade everybody and aim to be sucessfull on April 27, 2012 method.

Johnny Footstool
09-19-2007, 04:59 PM
I'm not sure I draw the same conclusion from those numbers, Johnny. Regardless of the splits, Harang still pitches half of his games in arguably the second least forgiving park in baseball in terms HR allowance. Likewise, looking at his road splits, he surrendered 7 of his remaining 12HRs in a 2 start span in the somewhat friendly confines of Wrigley/Miller. In his other road starts, he was pretty darn stingy in giving up the longball by comparison.

Anyway, your point stands that Harang is by nature nowhere near the extreme groundball pitcher that Webb is, and therefore by definition is going to surrender vastly more HRs. However, I was asking jojo if the statistic he was using to quantify Webb's vast superiority didn't lean so heavily on HR allowance (without regard to ballpark effects) as to make it a somewhat tenuous arbiter between guys like Harang and Webb?

See, I view HR allowance as a fairly important indicator, regardless of pitching style. Derek Lowe is a more extreme groundball pitcher than Brandon Webb, pitching in an extreme pitcher's park, and yet he still gives up more homers than Webb. I think it's fair to use HR/9 as a point of comparison between pitchers, even those with vastly different pitching styles.

Johnny Footstool
09-19-2007, 05:12 PM
But do you want to take the risk turning 1 great pitcher in to two not-great ones? Don't get me wrong, I think Harang for those two is a very interesting offer, but I can think of other ways to build a team that don't require giving up a legitimate ace.

I can, too. I'd much rather see the Reds keep Harang and pony up the cash to sign much-needed free agents (does anyone still think Ted Lilly would have been a bad acquisition?). But I don't think they're going to do that.


I guess I'm too stuck in "old school" ways and risk adverse, but the constant churning of prospects through a system doesn't strike me as a good way to build a solid team.

Obviously you need prospects and fresh ones. But if you are always trading your stars for prospects, when do you get around to actually fielding a good team? You're constantly waiting around to see if a guy will pan out, or as he works through his "learning curve". You are relying on a large percentage of prospects working out, and those prospects working out roughly at the same time.

I guess I'm closed minded, but I don't like the "lets trade everybody and aim to be sucessfull on April 27, 2012 method.

The flip side is Mario Soto on the 1982 Reds -- a Jaguar parked in front of a rusted-out trailer home. The people inside are starving and wearing rags, but hey, at least they drive a Jag.

Blitz Dorsey
09-19-2007, 05:19 PM
While signing Harang was a good move, it was kind of an obvious one.

If Krivsky could have flipped Harang to the Yankees for, say, Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain, I would have classified that as "brilliant."

Nah, Hughes hasn't proven anything... give me Harang.

Roy Tucker
09-19-2007, 05:23 PM
(some desktop calculator scribbling)

At ~$700 an ounce, gold is worth about $11,200 per pound.

Harang weighs in at 275 lbs. or about ~$3M in gold. Twice that is ~$6M.

RedEye
09-19-2007, 05:42 PM
If money wasn't a concern, would you trade Bruce and Bailey for a top #1 starter if you knew you could resign him?

Yes, yes, yes... provided you do due diligence on his health record, etc. Proven #1 SP are the hardest commodity to get in MLB. They are exceedingly rare... and even "top" prospects like Bailey rarely turn into the dominant aces they are projected to be. Some might argue that the Red Sox gave up too much to get Beckett (Hanley, Anibal Sanchez, etc.) but I think they might still consider the deal even now. Beckett has been an absolute workhorse and a key to their playoff run this year. Hanley has been ridiculously good, but IMO his offensive production is ultimately more replaceable (albeit rarely in just one player).

klw
09-19-2007, 05:49 PM
Reds record when Harang starts 24 wins 8 losses
Reds record when anyone else starts 45 wins 74 losses

PuffyPig
09-19-2007, 06:01 PM
Harang would be the first to tell you he had a pretty awful start to the season.

But I don't recall saying I wanted someone to take his contract off the Reds' hands.

He still surrenders too many homers to be a truly great pitcher, but he is a very, very good pitcher, particularly at his salary scale.


In reference to a comment that someone made to "Trade Harang", you responed on the May 20,2007, game thread as follows:

"Wrong time. Should have done it in the offseason. Though it would be nice to get his numbers into reasonable shape for July 31"

This was after a number of posts where you had complained about Harang making too much money for his production.

registerthis
09-19-2007, 06:02 PM
The idea is to take those cash savings and use them to fill other holes.

But you've just created a gaping hole in your rotation.

#1 starter is, thankfully, a position the Reds don't have to worry about for a few years. As far as players on the current roster, harang is probably the *last* one I look to deal. The return had better be immense, because I firmly believe he is the best pitcher in the NL not named Peavy or Webb.

registerthis
09-19-2007, 06:07 PM
I can, too. I'd much rather see the Reds keep Harang and pony up the cash to sign much-needed free agents (does anyone still think Ted Lilly would have been a bad acquisition?).

Gil Meche, too. I still think a 5 year deal for any pitcher is an abundantly risky proposition, but Meche has been pretty darn productive in K.C. this season. If the Reds had somehow been able to sign both Lilly and Meche in the offseason, we'd likely have punched our ticket to the playoffs by now.

Unassisted
09-19-2007, 06:19 PM
http://img.villagephotos.com/p/2005-10/1094821/brilliant.jpg

http://img213.imageshack.us/img213/8841/krivskypaysharangco4.jpg

Falls City Beer
09-19-2007, 06:21 PM
In reference to a comment that someone made to "Trade Harang", you responed on the May 20,2007, game thread as follows:

"Wrong time. Should have done it in the offseason. Though it would be nice to get his numbers into reasonable shape for July 31"

This was after a number of posts where you had complained about Harang making too much money for his production.

You're taking my quote out of context--that was an "if" scenario, as in, if they were to trade him in a fire sale situation.

I wasn't and am not concerned about the length or expense of Harang's contract. But if they'd decided to take the rebuild route (which I don't espouse, necessarily), then Harang was their brightest and shiniest chip. Still is.

Falls City Beer
09-19-2007, 06:22 PM
If the Reds had somehow been able to sign both Lilly and Meche in the offseason, we'd likely have punched our ticket to the playoffs by now.

There wouldn't be a team within 15 games of the Reds. Still, that's a ton of cash tied up in some fairly volatile pitchers.

RedsManRick
09-19-2007, 06:27 PM
I can, too. I'd much rather see the Reds keep Harang and pony up the cash to sign much-needed free agents (does anyone still think Ted Lilly would have been a bad acquisition?). But I don't think they're going to do that.


It's easy to make those decisions in retrospect. If you can know that you're getting Ted Lilly or Gil Meche, that's great. But in pursuing those sorts of options, you also run the risk of getting Adam Eaton, Vicente Padilla, Dannys Baez, Barry Zito, or Jason Schmidt.

If it was simple to sort between them, Lilly wouldn't have been offered less per annum than Padilla. Sure, getting the right guy might put us in the playoffs. But getting the wrong leaves us in real big trouble. Ask Dan O'Brien how much he'd love to have the Milton contract back. It's the sort of deal you really can't afford to get wrong.

Furthermore, you don't have to sign a big FA pitcher to have success. The A's, Twins, Marlins, and White Sox all built playoff caliber starting rotations in the last 5 years without going the FA route through solid player development and intelligent trading. The odds of "winning" a free agent deal like that are just too low for me to want to take that kind of risk, where the downside is a significantly hobbled payroll.

It's very alluring to put on those rose colored glasses and overestimate one's ability to get the 2008 Lilly or Meche. Furthermore, let's see how those contracts play out over the next 3-4 years. 1 playoff appearance would be great at this point. But imagine that Meche regresses to Seattle form. Where does that leave the Royals in their ability to tap FA next time?

Falls City Beer
09-19-2007, 06:29 PM
It's easy to make those decisions in retrospect. If you can know that you're getting Ted Lilly or Gil Meche, that's great. But in pursuing those sorts of options, you also run the risk of getting Adam Eaton, Vicente Padilla, Dannys Baez, Barry Zito, or Jason Schmidt.

If it was simple to sort between them, Lilly wouldn't have been offered less per annum than Padilla. Sure, getting the right guy might put us in the playoffs. But getting the wrong leaves us in real big trouble. Ask Dan O'Brien how much he'd love to have the Milton contract back. It's the sort of deal you really can't afford to get wrong.

Furthermore, you don't have to sign a big FA pitcher to have success. The A's, Twins, Marlins, and White Sox all built playoff caliber starting rotations in the last 5 years without going the FA route. The odds of "winning" a free agent deal like that are just too low for me to want to take that kind of risk, where the downside is a significantly hobbled payroll.

It's very alluring to put on those rose colored glasses and overestimate one's ability to get the 2008 Lilly or Meche. Furthermore, let's see how those contracts play out over the next 3-4 years. 1 playoff appearance would be great at this point. But imagine that Meche regresses to Seattle form. Where does that leave the Royals in their ability to tap FA next time?

Johnny and Puffy were pimping Lily from the get-go last offseason. No retrospect there.

pedro
09-19-2007, 06:34 PM
Ted Lilly's had the best year of career. I'm not sure he hasn't exceeded everyone's expectations, the Cubs included.

Personally I still don't think it was a good risk and there are three years left to see how good an acquisition it really was.

TMBS, if the Reds had signed Lilly and he'd done this they might be in the hunt for the playoffs right now.

Falls City Beer
09-19-2007, 06:39 PM
TMBS, if the Reds had signed Lilly and he'd done this they might be in the hunt for the playoffs right now.

You have consider that the Cubs would be replacing Lilly's starts with God knows who, so yeah, I'd say taking his starts from the Cubs and giving them to the Reds would have helped pretty immensely.

That's another important thing about true talent acquisition. Not only does your team benefit from it, but the other team is hurt by not having it.

Lesson: Don't sit on your hands this offseason, Wayne.

PuffyPig
09-19-2007, 06:55 PM
You're taking my quote out of context--that was an "if" scenario, as in, if they were to trade him in a fire sale situation.

I wasn't and am not concerned about the length or expense of Harang's contract. But if they'd decided to take the rebuild route (which I don't espouse, necessarily), then Harang was their brightest and shiniest chip. Still is.

I don't think I took it out of context.

You first said that we should have traded him in the offseason i.e. before we signed him to a contract that you said paid him more than his contribution.

You were blasting Harang all game. You certainly didn't make any suugestion that you calling him our "brightest and shiniest chip". Just the opposite.

PuffyPig
09-19-2007, 07:00 PM
Ted Lilly's had the best year of career. I'm not sure he hasn't exceeded everyone's expectations, the Cubs included.

Personally I still don't think it was a good risk and there are three years left to see how good an acquisition it really was.

TMBS, if the Reds had signed Lilly and he'd done this they might be in the hunt for the playoffs right now.

Lilly is having a good year, but he's benifited from the good Cubs defense with a .270 BABIP.

His HR/FB rate is also less than his career norms for no apparent reason other than luck.

He's likely more a 4.50-4.75 ERA guy having a career year.

And yes, if we had him, and he was doing the same as us, we likely would be in the playoffs.

Which, of course, the direct opposite of the fact that everyone was saying we needed about 5 new pitchers to compete. Now, one extra starter this year has us in the playoffs.:eek:

RedsManRick
09-19-2007, 07:29 PM
Johnny and Puffy were pimping Lily from the get-go last offseason. No retrospect there.

I don't doubt it. And you were pimping Jason Jennings. Heck, I was pimping Vincente Padilla. It doesn't change the fact that your odds aren't good. Some people will be right, some won't. There's only one Krivsky. Can he afford to be wrong?

You can take action and be the Cubs. Or you can take action and be the Astros. I'm not advocating Wayne just sit on his hands, but don't make the false conclusion that action necessarily leads to success or that inaction, insofar as you've defined it, necessarily leads to failure.

Topcat
09-19-2007, 07:36 PM
Use money to buy players coming out in draft that are near ready MLB pitchers aka Jered Weavers etc, sure its a gamble on them but its the same on Free agent market. That is the best way to spend extra $$$$ available. Porcello's, Kershaws etc. Sure you deal with the devil Boras but its a far wiser investment than expecting 5 good years out of the likes of Ted Lilly.

jojo
09-19-2007, 07:52 PM
However, I was asking jojo if the statistic he was using to quantify Webb's vast superiority didn't lean so heavily on HR allowance (without regard to ballpark effects) as to make it a somewhat tenuous arbiter between guys like Harang and Webb?

xFIP essentially substitutes league average HR rate for the pitchers actual HR rate. So since similar gaps exist between their FIPs and xFIPS, i'd argue no, in this case the differences aren't due to park effects on HR rate.

PuffyPig
09-19-2007, 08:10 PM
I don't doubt it. And you were pimping Jason Jennings. .

And Barry Zito.

We all pimped some winners and some losers.

Certainly Lilly and Meche weren't the hands on favorites to be the winners. vs. Schmidt or Zito.

jojo
09-19-2007, 08:22 PM
By my poor memory here are a list of free agent starters signed to at least $7M/year last season most of which required greater than 3 year commitments:

Weaver, Batista, Meche, Zito, Lilly, Schmidt, Suppan, Mussina, Pettitte, Clemens, Padilla, Eaton.

How many paid off in year 1? I'd argue Meche, Lilly, Pettite, Clemens and Batista. How many look like a good bet over the course of their contracts at the money they're owed (ignoring the 1 year guys)? I'd argue none.

As an aside, the Yanks scored two touchdowns with Pettitte and Clemens. Both have been well above league average and while being paid massively (well really Pettitte was market rate), risk was dramatically mitigated by their one year deals. The same could be said for the Ms and Weaver. While he hasn't been nearly as good as the two Yankee studs, he's been roughly league average (FIP=4.63) in his 19 starts since coming off of the DL.

The lesson? There's probably less than a 50% chance that signing a free agent pitcher is going to represent a dramatic improvement over league average. There's a really good chance that such a contract is going to bite you in the butt (causing a severe laceration and probably a puncture wound) on the back end of the deal. Probably the best way to keep from being bit on the back end is to overpay a little while not having a contract with a backend.

PS: DiceK probably should be considered in the above free agent class. IMHO, he's a bit of a special case though as he's not the usual free agent. None the less, his signing was a HR IMHO.

Johnny Footstool
09-19-2007, 08:30 PM
The guys I really wanted were Lilly, Dotel, Justin Speier, and Baez (bad call there).

All that cash would have been worth the Reds' first real playoff appearance in 12 years.

pedro
09-19-2007, 08:32 PM
The guys I really wanted were Lilly, Dotel, Justin Speier, and Baez (bad call there).

All that cash would have been worth the Reds' first real playoff appearance in 12 years.

Dotel's been a waste of money as well.

jojo
09-19-2007, 08:33 PM
One thing to consider when using hindsight-context. How would some of the guys we're talking about have done with the Reds defense behind them?

Patrick Bateman
09-19-2007, 08:37 PM
One thing to consider when using hindsight-context. How would some of the guys we're talking about have done with the Reds defense behind them?

Lilly would have probably been a 4.50 ERA guy. Solid, but not spectacular in any sense. Still he has been a quality pitcher this season and definitely made strides in his AL days. He's probably the best bet of all of the others long term right now.

Johnny Footstool
09-19-2007, 08:37 PM
But you've just created a gaping hole in your rotation.


For a couple of years, yes. But what good is a #1 starter on a miserable team? Did Erik Bedard keep the Orioles from sucking this season? Did Harang keep the Reds from doing the same?


Dotel's been a waste of money as well.

The Dotel signing worked out just fine for KC, who flipped him for a cheap, young arm with a high ceiling. And word around the league is that other teams were prepared to offer more, but Drayton Moore really wanted Kyle Davies because he helped scout and draft him.

pedro
09-19-2007, 08:43 PM
The Dotel signing worked out just fine for KC, who flipped him for a cheap, young arm with a high ceiling. And word around the league is that other teams were prepared to offer more, but Drayton Moore really wanted Kyle Davies because he helped scout and draft him.

yeah, but it was high risk move giving that kind of salary to a guy who has only managed to throw 31 innings this year and hasn;t pitched in a month.

If Dotel had hurt himself a week earlier KC would have been left holding a 5 million dollar bag of poop.

Johnny Footstool
09-19-2007, 08:45 PM
yeah, but it was high risk move giving that kind of salary to a guy who has only managed to throw 31 innings this year and hasn;t pitched in a month.

If Dotel had hurt himself a week earlier KC would have been left holding a 5 million dollar bag of poop.

$5 million isn't a lot in 2007. For a team going nowhere, it makes sense to take risks like those.

westofyou
09-19-2007, 08:48 PM
$5 million isn't a lot in 2007. For a team going nowhere, it makes sense to take risks like those.

Yeah, I'd love to hear the whining if Krivsky did such a thing and got the injury known as Octavio Dotel.

pedro
09-19-2007, 08:48 PM
$5 million isn't a lot in 2007. For a team going nowhere, it makes sense to take risks like those.

Then I suppose it doesn't make much sense to beat on the Reds for signing Stanton. It was a risk. It didn't cost much. It didn't work out.

Ltlabner
09-19-2007, 08:49 PM
Oh god...I can't imagine the hystronics and meltdown if Wayne signed Lilly and Menche to the deals they got. Would make "the trade" look like pre-school.

Sure, those clubs got good years out of those guys. We'll see what happens down the road and how much people are touting them if they revert to norms or completley implode. Where'd Barry Zito dissapear to by the way? Wasn't he supposed to be the second comming?

But if we signed those guys Wayne would have taken a beating and the hue and cry would have been deafining.

westofyou
09-19-2007, 08:49 PM
Then I suppose it doesn't make much sense to beat on the Reds for signing Stanton. It was a risk. It didn't cost much. It didn't work out.

Right.. and that French guy, that's a team trip to Zips.

mbgrayson
09-19-2007, 09:24 PM
ESPN just now did a little graphic showing Peavy, Webb, Penny, and Harang's numbers for NL Cy Young consideration. They favored Peavy, but Aaron is getting mentioned this year.

Falls City Beer
09-19-2007, 09:27 PM
I don't doubt it. And you were pimping Jason Jennings. Heck, I was pimping Vincente Padilla. It doesn't change the fact that your odds aren't good. Some people will be right, some won't. There's only one Krivsky. Can he afford to be wrong?

You can take action and be the Cubs. Or you can take action and be the Astros. I'm not advocating Wayne just sit on his hands, but don't make the false conclusion that action necessarily leads to success or that inaction, insofar as you've defined it, necessarily leads to failure.

Inaction doesn't have to lead to failure. But inaction, as the Reds roster is currently constructed (or deployed), will lead to a sub .500/pythag negative team next season. There's simply no way around that fact. If you want to wait, maybe what's there will eventually pull the Reds into a positive pythag territory, but it will not happen as early as next season.

RFS62
09-19-2007, 09:28 PM
ESPN just now did a little graphic showing Peavy, Webb, Penny, and Harang's numbers for NL Cy Young consideration. They favored Peavy, but Aaron is getting mentioned this year.



Yeah, maybe Aaron will get a vote from one of the Cincy writers this year, for a change.

Falls City Beer
09-19-2007, 09:28 PM
ESPN just now did a little graphic showing Peavy, Webb, Penny, and Harang's numbers for NL Cy Young consideration. They favored Peavy, but Aaron is getting mentioned this year.

He should get mentioned. But a sober analysis will show Webb and Peavy well ahead.

Matt700wlw
09-19-2007, 09:41 PM
He should get mentioned. But a sober analysis will show Webb and Peavy well ahead.

Peavy is on a level above everybody...

Other than ERA, I can't put Webb "well ahead" of Harang.

Webb


W-L ERA K Walks WHIP
16-10 3.03 186 68 1.17


Harang


W-L ERA K Walks WHIP
16-4 3.61 198 51 1.13

KronoRed
09-19-2007, 09:45 PM
Yeah, maybe Aaron will get a vote from one of the Cincy writers this year, for a change.

Nah, he doesn't hustle enough :cool:

Falls City Beer
09-19-2007, 09:51 PM
I don't doubt it. And you were pimping Jason Jennings. Heck, I was pimping Vincente Padilla. It doesn't change the fact that your odds aren't good. Some people will be right, some won't. There's only one Krivsky. Can he afford to be wrong?

You can take action and be the Cubs. Or you can take action and be the Astros. I'm not advocating Wayne just sit on his hands, but don't make the false conclusion that action necessarily leads to success or that inaction, insofar as you've defined it, necessarily leads to failure.

I'd argue that Carlos Lee and Jason Jennings represent next to none of the Astros' problems. No, Lee and (a hurt) Jennings didn't help them, but it wasn't their addition that hurt that team. That ship was well below the tide before those two showed up. What the Astros gave up to get Jennings have contributed next to nil to the Rockies.

Action is good; I can think of very few cases where inaction has won out over action as the best course. It just has to be the right action and enough action--especially when you're talking about a team like the Reds, who are still so talent-starved.

Falls City Beer
09-19-2007, 09:54 PM
Peavy is on a level above everybody...

Other than ERA, I can't put Webb "well ahead" of Harang.

Webb


W-L ERA K Walks WHIP
16-10 3.03 186 68 1.17


Harang


W-L ERA K Walks WHIP
16-4 3.61 198 51 1.13


As has been mentioned, Webb in a park not unlike GAB has given up far fewer HRs than Harang. Some may not care about that fact, but it matters to me a lot.

Webb's the better of the two pitchers. By a respectable margin.

Patrick Bateman
09-19-2007, 09:54 PM
Peavy is on a level above everybody...

Other than ERA, I can't put Webb "well ahead" of Harang.

Webb


W-L ERA K Walks WHIP
16-10 3.03 186 68 1.17


Harang


W-L ERA K Walks WHIP
16-4 3.61 198 51 1.13


Webb's great ability to induce ground balls is the main difference between the two. It's not as far off as many would lead you to think, but from where I stand Webb is noticably better.

Matt700wlw
09-19-2007, 09:55 PM
Webb's great ability to induce ground balls is the main difference between the two. It's not as far off as many would lead you to think, but from where I stand Webb is noticably better.

Yes. He is better...but Peavy stands alone in my book


Frankly...I'd take any of them :D

Falls City Beer
09-19-2007, 09:55 PM
Yes. He is better...but he's not Peavy level.

No, he's not been as good as Peavy this season.

jojo
09-19-2007, 09:58 PM
Webb's great ability to induce ground balls is the main difference between the two. It's not as far off as many would lead you to think, but from where I stand Webb is noticably better.

I absolutely agree with the notion that Webb's insane ground ball tendencies separates him from Harang.

Patrick Bateman
09-19-2007, 10:02 PM
Yes. He is better...but Peavy stands alone in my book


Frankly...I'd take any of them :D

I don't know about that. I think it's fairly close. Peavy does have Petco which helps, and that's reflected in his HR rate considering he isn't a groundball machine.

I think in similar settings, I think you would have 2 guys with very different approaches arriving near the same point. Webb's durability doesn't hurt either.

Stormy
09-19-2007, 11:34 PM
Webb's great ability to induce ground balls is the main difference between the two. It's not as far off as many would lead you to think, but from where I stand Webb is noticably better.

I think you, and jojo, are right in that Webb's nearly unparalelled ability to induce groundballs, and the accompanying deflation that causes in his HR rate, make him a uniquely talented pitcher (and superior to Harang). My original comments simply alluded to the fact their GB/FB, HR/9 propensity's aside, Webb and Harang have some extremely similar productivity as pitchers. Also I wasn't sure if that GB/FB disparity, and exclusion of ballpark factor, made FIP the best metric for comparison's sake.

Their numbers are eerily similar in terms of most traditional metrics, right down to the fact that they both have recorded 20 Quality Starts so far this season. The IPs, WHIP, BAA, K/9, K/BB etc... are nearly identical with mild variances in favor of Harang's control, and Webb's ability to suppress EBH/HR. They are 2 durable workhorses who take the ball regularly, work fairly deep into games, and produce very similar results. Webb is superior to the extent that he's very difficult to take deep, whereas Harang is more HR prone in a much less favorable HR park.

Johnny Footstool
09-20-2007, 12:24 AM
Then I suppose it doesn't make much sense to beat on the Reds for signing Stanton. It was a risk. It didn't cost much. It didn't work out.


Right.. and that French guy, that's a team trip to Zips.

Apples and oranges. Stanton's and Cormier's upside wasn't anything near Dotel's. You might as well compare Dotel to Eric Milton.

And the oft-injured Dotel still brought something of decent value in a trade. A healthy Stanton and Cormier brought nothing but heartache.

registerthis
09-20-2007, 09:34 AM
Lilly is having a good year, but he's benifited from the good Cubs defense with a .270 BABIP.

That's really not all that far away from what's to be expected. I know the value of a low/high BABIP gets batted around here a lot, and I tend to fall along the lines of those who believe that pitchers have more control over their BABIP rate than some might believe. But the league average BABIP rate is somewhere between .290-.300 or so. A .270 BABIP is a little bit low, but hardly anything I'd hang my hat on when building a case for a regression next year by Lilly. Which is not to say he isn't having a career year--he might very well be--but he's also a pretty fine pitcher.

Patrick Bateman
09-20-2007, 09:40 AM
I think you, and jojo, are right in that Webb's nearly unparalelled ability to induce groundballs, and the accompanying deflation that causes in his HR rate, make him a uniquely talented pitcher (and superior to Harang). My original comments simply alluded to the fact their GB/FB, HR/9 propensity's aside, Webb and Harang have some extremely similar productivity as pitchers. Also I wasn't sure if that GB/FB disparity, and exclusion of ballpark factor, made FIP the best metric for comparison's sake.

Their numbers are eerily similar in terms of most traditional metrics, right down to the fact that they both have recorded 20 Quality Starts so far this season. The IPs, WHIP, BAA, K/9, K/BB etc... are nearly identical with mild variances in favor of Harang's control, and Webb's ability to suppress EBH/HR. They are 2 durable workhorses who take the ball regularly, work fairly deep into games, and produce very similar results. Webb is superior to the extent that he's very difficult to take deep, whereas Harang is more HR prone in a much less favorable HR park.


Yes we are talking about 2 pitchers mainly cut from the same cloth. They fit the mold of a durable innings eater who never showed the electric stuff you would expect out of an ace pitcher, yet with a solid mix of pitches, have been able to grind out consistent success.

I'm not trying to put down Harang. I have argued for a long time that he deserves more press. IMO, he is a legit ace. I have argued that point with Keith Law too after one of his articles where he referred to Harang as a #3 pitcher. The ability to appreciate Harang's contributions makes it even easier to value what Brandon Webb has been able to do over the last few seasons.

westofyou
09-20-2007, 09:41 AM
Apples and oranges. Stanton's and Cormier's upside wasn't anything near Dotel's. You might as well compare Dotel to Eric Milton.

And the oft-injured Dotel still brought something of decent value in a trade. A healthy Stanton and Cormier brought nothing but heartache.

And a bunch of posts crying about the money... which I'm sure would have occurred if Dotel was signed by the Reds.

Despite your constant assertions that it wouldn't.

27 IP for 5 million bucks is a crap signing, no matter how you try to paint it, the fact that the Royals got the mess known as Kyle Davies for that doesn't make that 27 IP and 5 million bucks any less of a stupid signing from where I sit.

PuffyPig
09-20-2007, 09:51 AM
Action is good; I can think of very few cases where inaction has won out over action as the best course. It just has to be the right action and enough action--especially when you're talking about a team like the Reds, who are still so talent-starved.

I think the reason why "inaction" seldolm wins out, is you never hear about he inaction.

I'm glad that the Reds didn't trade Bailey for Jennings.

I'm glad that the Reds didn't sign Mark Mulder as a FA.

I'm glad that the Reds didn't trade Bruce a couple of years ago for an established starter named Matt Clement.

All are cases of inaction, and all are likely untrue scenarios. But you never hear about all the things the GM declines to do.

Johnny Footstool
09-20-2007, 10:06 AM
And a bunch of posts crying about the money... which I'm sure would have occurred if Dotel was signed by the Reds.

Despite your constant assertions that it wouldn't.

I don't remember caring what most RedsZoners would think about signing Dotel. I just remember wishing the Reds would have had the guts to take the risk.


27 IP for 5 million bucks is a crap signing, no matter how you try to paint it, the fact that the Royals got the mess known as Kyle Davies for that doesn't make that 27 IP and 5 million bucks any less of a stupid signing from where I sit.

That must be an awfully high horse you're sitting on.

The Royals took a calculated risk (which ended up only costing them about $3.5 million, incidentally) and it paid off. Their organization is stronger for it.

Meanwhile, the Reds are paying Cormier $2.5 million to pitch for the Braves' AAA club, and they're paying Stanton $5.5 million spread over two season to exude veteran presence and post an ERA over 5.00.

So which organization took stupid risks?

westofyou
09-20-2007, 10:13 AM
That must be an awfully high horse you're sitting on.

Yeah, that was totally called for.

Now I know why I've been avoiding this place.

Johnny Footstool
09-20-2007, 10:22 AM
Yeah, that was totally called for.

Now I know why I've been avoiding this place.

I thought it was pretty mild, considering that you bluntly said an idea I supported was "crap" and "stupid."

Our discourse is usually better than that.

Falls City Beer
09-20-2007, 11:45 AM
I think the reason why "inaction" seldolm wins out, is you never hear about he inaction.

I'm glad that the Reds didn't trade Bailey for Jennings.

I'm glad that the Reds didn't sign Mark Mulder as a FA.

I'm glad that the Reds didn't trade Bruce a couple of years ago for an established starter named Matt Clement.

All are cases of inaction, and all are likely untrue scenarios. But you never hear about all the things the GM declines to do.


Sure--and "inaction" was Wayne's last offseason. You saw what that got the Reds.

Simply put, there are aggressive and mostly active GMs (Schuerholz, Jocketty, Beane, Cashman) and then there are timid, inactive GMs (Littlefield, Krivsky, Ryan, O'Brien). Sure the active GMs sometimes hold their cards, and yes, sometimes the timid ones make moves, but *in general*, the active and aggressive ones lean toward more action and the timid ones favor holding their cards. However, it's the active GMs' teams who are the ones who most often see postseason play.

I know which ones I prefer.

lollipopcurve
09-20-2007, 12:01 PM
timid, inactive GMs (Littlefield, Krivsky, Ryan, O'Brien)


Krivsky, in his short tenure, has been more active than inactive. Look at his whole record if you're eager to splash a label on him after less than 2 years on the job.

jojo
09-20-2007, 12:03 PM
Sure--and "inaction" was Wayne's last offseason. You saw what that got the Reds.

Simply put, there are aggressive and mostly active GMs (Schuerholz, Jocketty, Beane, Cashman) and then there are timid, inactive GMs (Littlefield, Krivsky, Ryan, O'Brien). Sure the active GMs sometimes hold their cards, and yes, sometimes the timid ones make moves, but *in general*, the active and aggressive ones lean toward more action and the timid ones favor holding their cards. However, it's the active GMs' teams who are the ones who most often see postseason play.

I know which ones I prefer.

Well, Krivsky wasn't exactly inactive last off season. For instance, guys like Hamilton, Burton, Gonzo, Saarloos, Stanton, Weathers, Conine, Livingston and McBeth say :wave:

The agents for Harang, Arroyo and Coffee say :wave:

Really given how the bullpen was shaped, it could be argued that the Reds would've been ahead if Krivsky wasn't so active last off season.

Besides, this particular debate begs the question that last seasons free agent market was one that Krivsky should've been knee deep in and the fact that he wasn't signing a bunch of guys is a major reason for the Reds '07 record.

RedsManRick
09-20-2007, 12:28 PM
Again, FCB, the issue isn't a matter of activity, but of what type. Krivksy has been very active in his tenure. He just hasn't made any big splashes in free agency. Your basic premise seems to be that the only way, or at least the best way, for us to get over the hump is to spend significant money in free agency. I disagree.

It's like saying you aren't playing the stock market if you aren't day trading. Sure, you make a lot of money quickly by day trading? But you can also screw over your finances pretty quickly too if you screw it up. The best portfolio is a diversified one built on solid slow growth stocks/bonds, with higher risk, higher reward stocks mixed in up to your level of acceptable losses.

If Castellini wanted to build an instant winner, he's going to need to open his checkbook in a very significant way, a la the Cubs. To ask Krivksy to play the FA market within his current budget constraints is like telling him to cash out his IRA and play roulette.

I don't know how you can look at the organization and not believe that it's in a much better spot than it was when Krivsky took over. Admittedly, he's not fully responsible for that -- as Bailey, Cueto, and Bruce were O'Brien moves. However, being overly aggressive can really screw you up too. Just ask Tim Purpura. I'm not going to sing WK's praises just because he didn't trade 3 top prospects for Jason Jennings or sign Eric Milton, but you have to consider the whole package.

Bowden spun his wheels and didn't have the patience to build. O'Brien was so focused on building that he completely screwed up the major league team. So far Krivsky has done a decent job of both. He's extended our best players with reasonable contracts. He's acquired 2 core players for nothing. He's significantly expanded our pool of young pitching talent, which is starting to bear some fruit - Burton, Bray, McBeth, Coutlangus.

He's certainly got a lot of work to do. If 2 years from now we still haven't gotten anywhere in terms of wins and losses, if the minors aren't producing enough help for the major league roster, and he still refuses the big FA signing, you have a point. But 2 years in, when progress is evident, the avoidance of a big time risk is a good thing in my book. It's not like there was a solid FA there for the taking at a reasonable contract, and he passed.

If you're going to fault him for not signing Ted Lilly, you have to credit him for not signing Barry Zito, Jason Scmidt, Vicente Padilla, et. al.

Johnny Footstool
09-20-2007, 12:31 PM
I wouldn't characterize Krivsky as "timid", but rather "risk-averse."

Considering how badly his one big risk blew up in his face, I can understand why he is that way.

PuffyPig
09-20-2007, 01:01 PM
Simply put, there are aggressive and mostly active GMs (Schuerholz, Jocketty, Beane, Cashman) and then there are timid, inactive GMs (Littlefield, Krivsky, Ryan, O'Brien). Sure the active GMs sometimes hold their cards, and yes, sometimes the timid ones make moves, but *in general*, the active and aggressive ones lean toward more action and the timid ones favor holding their cards. However, it's the active GMs' teams who are the ones who most often see postseason play.

I know which ones I prefer.

Jocketty was active last year???

Thats' news to me.

He went into the offseason losing 4 out of his 5 starters.

He signed Mulder to a really dumb contract (inaction would have been better) and signed Wells. He hoped to fill the other spots from within or whatever. It was a complete disaster as the Cards had the worst starters in the majors this year. That waas basically Jocketty's offseason.

Wayne brought in Hamilton in a bold surprising move that shocked everyone. This is after bringing in Arroyo, Phillips and Ross for either nothing or repalcable parts.

He made the big trade last year at the deadline to change our releif pitching. Most at the time would have prefered inaction, though it has turned out OK.

Wayne has been nothing but active since he has been here. And he's got much criticism on this board for it.

Falls City Beer
09-20-2007, 03:34 PM
Krivsky, in his short tenure, has been more active than inactive. Look at his whole record if you're eager to splash a label on him after less than 2 years on the job.

Active his first season, snoozed over the offseason, shuffled deck chairs within this season.

On balance, he's been reticent. Now if people want to stupidly impugn a raider like Jocketty for sitting on his hands this offseason and measure that against his entire resume as some sort of comparison to Wayne, well, I'm not sure there's much more for me to add.

Wayne started out great guns, got bit, and has been working the easy, riskless margins (Hamilton, Gonzalez, etc) since. I just hope that doesn't become standard operating procedure. It's why Littlefield and Ryan got the axe.

And the stock market metaphor I find particularly telling: Wayne wants to retire with some comfort; but come on, that's the opposite of what a baseball franchise should ever want. Winning teams want and get the big score. Guys like Wayne sip prune juice and garden.

McBeth and Bray are good pitchers? Really? You typed that in earnest?

jojo
09-20-2007, 03:43 PM
Active his first season, snoozed over the offseason, shuffled deck chairs within this season.

On balance, he's been reticent. Now if people want to stupidly impugn a raider like Jocketty for sitting on his hands this offseason and measure that against his entire resume as some sort of comparison to Wayne, well, I'm not sure there's much more for me to add.

Wayne started out great guns, got bit, and has been working the easy, riskless margins (Hamilton, Gonzalez, etc) since. I just hope that doesn't become standard operating procedure. It's why Littlefield and Ryan got the axe.

And the stock market metaphor I find particularly telling: Wayne wants to retire with some comfort; but come on, that's the opposite of what a baseball franchise should ever want. Winning teams want and get the big score. Guys like Wayne sip prune juice and garden.

McBeth and Bray are good pitchers? Really? You typed that in earnest?

I think it's pretty ridiculous to evaluate a GM with authority after less than two years on the job. It's easy for us to sit here and say he inherited junk crap but even so a good GM would've gone for the gusto and have made caviar by now....

What big moves did Krivsky fail to make last off season that would've been considered a good move for the Reds?

I'll start. In my mind (obviously this is debatable) there were three good moves available for starting pitching- Pettitte, Clemens and Dice K. There is no way Krivsky had a chance to make any of them.....

Johnny Footstool
09-20-2007, 03:45 PM
What big moves did Krivsky fail to make last off season that would've been considered a good move for the Reds?



Didn't we already visit this?

Lilly, Speier, Dotel.

jojo
09-20-2007, 03:49 PM
Didn't we already visit this?

Lilly, Speier, Dotel.


I think in only rare cases is 4 years for a 30 and over free agent starter a wise move. Four years and $40M for Lilly doesn't have a great chance of working out.

RedsManRick
09-20-2007, 03:55 PM
And the stock market metaphor I find particularly telling: Wayne wants to retire with some comfort; but come on, that's the opposite of what a baseball franchise should ever want. Winning teams want and get the big score. Guys like Wayne sip prune juice and garden.

McBeth and Bray are good pitchers? Really? You typed that in earnest?

FCB, the problem is that you want to judge Krivksy for the extended inaction of Littlefield and Ryan. There is a time and a place. Krivksy has been opporuntistic, and yet you want to ignore his activity as and focus on his inactivity. He hasn't had enough time to establish any sort of pattern from which we can judge him in this manner. Littlefield and Ryan both had a decade.

As I said earlier, if over the next few years his current approach doesn't improve us and he fails to do anything more, then you can judge him for that failure. But you can't hang for the crime that he has yet to commit.

I don't believe I said McBeth and Bray are "good" pitchers. I said they are examples of a greater amount of higher ceiling bullpen depth than we've had in the past. Are they Joe Nathan and Billy Wagner? Of course not. But the point isn't those 2 in particular, but that the pool is deeper and higher quality than it's been in the past. Certainly it's not there yet. But you can't deny that there are positive signs.

Again, I know you're impatient. But you simply cannot fix a bad major league roster and weak minor league system in the 20 months Krivsky's been here.

Your imagined alternative scenario is overly optimistic, cherry-picking the best possible would-be outcomes, rather than honestly assessing all of the possibilities. There are lots of outstanding questions about the growth of the organization and future success on the field. I'm not advocating we give WK a free pass until 2010. He has a long way to go before I call him a success and we need to start seeing results at the major league level as soon as next year.

You are very prematurely calling him a failure because he didn't go out and sign Ted Lilly or Gil Meche and we didn't make the playoffs in his 2nd season here after taking over one of the worst all around franchises. You are simply being unrealistic. I understand you want him to take more risks. I just can't wait until he does and then you call him shortsighted and careless if and when that risk doesn't pay off.

It seems as if we're arguing the merits of 2 different likelihood distributions of overall organization health moving forward based on our different approaches:

A.) The RMR Approach
5% chance of significant improvement
25% chance of solid improvement
40% chance of minor improvement
15% chance of minor regression
10% chance of solid regression
5% chance of stellar regression

B.) The FCB approach
30% chance of significant improvement
10% chance of solid improvement
5% chance of minor improvement
10% chance of minor regression
20% chance of solid regression
25% chance of stellar regression

I'm trying to maximize the overall chance for improvement. You're trying to maximize the chance for significant improvement. I suppose both claims have their merits. You have your style, I have mine.

I'm sure you'd tweak the percentages -- I'm curious how you'd break it down.

Johnny Footstool
09-20-2007, 04:29 PM
I think in only rare cases is 4 years for a 30 and over free agent starter a wise move. Four years and $40M for Lilly doesn't have a great chance of working out.

The question is, would it have put the Reds into playoff contention in 2007? I think the answer is "yes."

2008? Possibly.

Beyond that, who knows? But IMO, a return to the playoffs would be worth the expense. And in 4 years, Lilly's salary won't seem all that expensive compared to the rest of baseball.

RedsManRick
09-20-2007, 04:36 PM
The question is, would it have put the Reds into playoff contention in 2007? I think the answer is "yes."

2008? Possibly.

Beyond that, who knows? But IMO, a return to the playoffs would be worth the expense. And in 4 years, Lilly's salary won't seem all that expensive compared to the rest of baseball.

I think the problem with that some of us have is the assumption that were we to pursue a pitcher in FA, that we would get Ted Lilly, or whatever this year's version of Lilly is. That's where the argument lies. Not in whether or not Ted Lilly, as he's pitched in 2007, is worth the contract he was given.

If I can go back in time and sign Lilly to the contract the Cubs gave him, knowing how he'd pitch this year, I'd do it -- and I bet Jojo et all would as well. Unfortunately, you have to make the commitment ahead of time. History shows that there are more Miltons than Lillys in FA.

It's that the choice to pursue that type of pitcher leaves open the distinct possibility of getting the next Milton, Zito, Schmidt, Eaton, etc. that makes it such an attractive decision. It's not just the risk of that specific failure, but the impact that failure would have on the ability to do anything else. It's a significant opportunity cost lost if you screw up, beyond the fact that you are potentially handcuffed with an expensive contract given to a non-contributor.

lollipopcurve
09-20-2007, 04:41 PM
Lilly, Speier, Dotel.

Is it fair to blame our GM for not outmaneuvering every other club for a few of the free agents who worked out well, while withholding credit for not signing those who didn't work out?

For example, people on here were clamoring for a Schmidt signing and a Zito signing. Those guys cost about a full roster's worth of Mike Stantons, plus premium draft picks. How'd you like the team to have those contracts now?

PuffyPig
09-20-2007, 04:56 PM
Now if people want to stupidly impugn a raider like Jocketty for sitting on his hands this offseason and measure that against his entire resume as some sort of comparison to Wayne, well, I'm not sure there's much more for me to add.



And where do you're beloved Cards sit today.

In shambles I would say.

A farm system with a wasteland of talent. If you can say that about the Reds farm system, you can say it twice about the Cards. They have half the number of propsects that we have, and little depth.

Their major league roster is void of competitive players.

They have Pujols, who's beginning to look like the 35 year old man he's claimed to be. Anyway, aside frim him (and he is still great), their greatest talents (Rolen, Edmonds, Carpenter, Mulder, Izzy) all look old, past their prime, expensive and/or injured. And they are.

What else to they have?

Do they have a Hamilton on the way? Or a Bruce (well they do with Rasmus). They're best pitching prospect (Reyes) lost a gazillion games this year. Wainwright looks good though. They need a new SS next year. And a secondbaseman. And maybe a thirdbaseman. They have a bunch of OF's, but none are really any good. Maybe Ankiel, but he couldn't really get on base in the minors, so I wouldn't hold out hope.

They are essentially a rag tag bunch, and Jocketty bet against all odds thet a bunch of old broken down players could remain proctive. He won with Izzy. He lost bigtime with Rolen, Edmonds and Mulder. Carpenter was unfortuneate, but he did extend him prematurely for an extra 3 years for no reason.

he should have sat on his hands when it came to Carpenter, Wells, Edmonds, Kennedy etc. But he needed to turn this bunch over, instead of believing they could fluke a WS again. Now, he one more year removed, he's got few (if any) trading chips) and little to trade for.

When Wayne came we were in a shambles. We are much less so. You can'rt exepct him to turn every over in 1-2 years, especially on a limited budget. But we are getting closer.

Falls City Beer
09-20-2007, 05:06 PM
And where do you're beloved Cards sit today.

In shambles I would say.

A farm system with a wasteland of talent. If you can say that about the Reds farm system, you can say it twice about the Cards. They have half the number of propsects that we have, and little depth.

Their major league roster is void of competitive players.

They have Pujols, who's beginning to look like the 35 year old man he's claimed to be. Anyway, aside frim him (and he is still great), their greatest talents (Rolen, Edmonds, Carpenter, Mulder, Izzy) all look old, past their prime, expensive and/or injured. And they are.

What else to they have?

Do they have a Hamilton on the way? Or a Bruce (well they do with Rasmus). They're best pitching prospect (Reyes) lost a gazillion games this year. Wainwright looks good though. They need a new SS next year. And a secondbaseman. And maybe a thirdbaseman. They have a bunch of OF's, but none are really any good. Maybe Ankiel, but he couldn't really get on base in the minors, so I wouldn't hold out hope.

They are essentially a rag tag bunch, and Jocketty bet against all odds thet a bunch of old broken down players could remain proctive. He won with Izzy. He lost bigtime with Rolen, Edmonds and Mulder. Carpenter was unfortuneate, but he did extend him prematurely for an extra 3 years for no reason.

he should have sat on his hands when it came to Carpenter, Wells, Edmonds, Kennedy etc. But he needed to turn this bunch over, instead of believing they could fluke a WS again. Now, he one more year removed, he's got few (if any) trading chips) and little to trade for.

When Wayne came we were in a shambles. We are much less so. You can'rt exepct him to turn every over in 1-2 years, especially on a limited budget. But we are getting closer.

Rides come to an end. Great teams fall apart. The BRM did. The Yankees of the late 90s did.

But they got a ring. And that's all that matters.

Johnny Footstool
09-20-2007, 05:11 PM
Is it fair to blame our GM for not outmaneuvering every other club for a few of the free agents who worked out well, while withholding credit for not signing those who didn't work out?

The question was who could Krivsky have signed to help the Reds. Those three names I listed are guys that a few of us had been wanting since the end of 2006.


For example, people on here were clamoring for a Schmidt signing and a Zito signing. Those guys cost about a full roster's worth of Mike Stantons, plus premium draft picks. How'd you like the team to have those contracts now?

Schmidt and Zito were marquee pitchers bound to get top-dollar contracts. Lilly, OTOH, was in a slightly lower salary tier, with peripherals that suggested he could be nearly as effective as the more expensive Schmidt and Zito. That's one of the reasons some of us thought the Reds should target him.

Speier was another pitcher in a slightly lower salary tier than the marquee relievers. The Angels snapped him up pretty quickly, but I don't know if the Reds even showed any interest in the guy. Too busy setting their sights on Stanton? Maybe.

Dotel, we've discussed.

RedsManRick
09-20-2007, 06:01 PM
Rides come to an end. Great teams fall apart. The BRM did. The Yankees of the late 90s did.

But they got a ring. And that's all that matters.

FCB, I think there's a very interesting comparison to be drawn between the Reds of 2007 and the Cardinals of 1999. I'm going to write something up tonight. I think we'll both find some things in there to support the arguments we've been making. Thanks for the idea.