PDA

View Full Version : What's your Personal Krivsky Deadline?



Pages : [1] 2

edabbs44
10-04-2007, 11:00 PM
Wayne's tenure as GM as obviously been one of a few highs and just as many, if not more lows. Since last offseason, there have been many different feelings expressed. Some have said "Give him until the ASB." Others, "Give him until the deadline." Others want him to have another year or more. So, I pose this question to you:

How much longer does Wayne have, in your eyes, to really get this team headed in the right direction?

I would venture to guess that most of you already know I think he should have been shown the door already. My feeling is that this team needed (and still needs) a nice overhaul, bringing some much needed young pitching into the organization. I haven't seen this happen. I haven't seen pitching be the highest priority in the two drafts Wayne has overseen. I haven't seen, for whatever reason, pitching be of any priority in the FA market last season. Because of these reasons, I am completely unsure how Wayne thinks he can acquire the pitching to compete in the National League. Most of his attempts to bring pitching into Cincy have failed miserably. For this team to have any shot in the Central, he needs to step up in the pitching market.

So since he is still here, I'm going to say that my new personal deadline for Krivsky is July 1st. By that time, we will have a good feeling of how the '08 pitching staff is faring and we will have seen what he did in the 2008 amateur draft. We will also have seen another few months of Stubbs, Watson and other Wayne draftees.

Until then, I will be waiting to see how this offseason goes.

So what's your PKD (Personal Krivsky Deadline)?

Aronchis
10-04-2007, 11:05 PM
There is no such things as deadlines. Either you feel like he can do it or not. Oh, stay out of his way as well(sadly that doesn't happen in Reds organizations).

RedsManRick
10-04-2007, 11:08 PM
While I don't have any definitive deadline, I have the feeling that my opinion of Krivsky will be very heavily influenced by how the Dunn and Junior situations have developed come this time next year. That should tell me pretty much everything I need to know.

Hoosier Red
10-04-2007, 11:17 PM
I think the definition of young pitching has to be established. Does it include guys who were coming up through the minors when he came in and after. Do they have to be given a chance to take their lumps at the Major league level? If so, you're looking at 2 years minumum.

If you're talking about forget about bumps, I want young guys who deal like Brandon Webb, and I want them yesterday, then like you EdAbbs, he should be gone.

I split the difference. I want young arms that can be productive this year(Belisle, Coutlangus, Burton) and I want some guys that are showing signs if a little rough at the major league level,(Bailey, Cueto, Maloney.)
If I don't see that this year, he gets the boot.

WVRedsFan
10-05-2007, 12:09 AM
My deadline came and went at the AS break this year. Taking over a club that went 75-87 the year before he was hired and turning into a 72-90 club two years later, while constantly tinkering with the weak pitching, was enough for me. Krivsky inherited a club that scored 820 runs and gave up 889 for a -.43 run differential per game. In 2007 the club scored 783 runs and gave up 853, for a run differential of -.44 per game.

What will happen? He'll get 5 years. Bob C talks a good game, but he likes Krivsky and Mackanin (and that's why Mack will probably stay too) and continues to believe that the parts are in place save one or two things. He's wrong, but that's the read I get. I'd say Krivsky's demise will come at the AS break in 2010.

And for you guys much more into sophisticated stats, i was using pen pencil and calculator, so if you can blow holes in this, fire away. I always figured that runs scored and runs allowed showed wins, losses and improvement pretty well. A lot I know...:)

MartyFan
10-05-2007, 05:20 AM
2008-2009 season we should be in the playoffs.

redsmetz
10-05-2007, 05:47 AM
2008-2009 season we should be in the playoffs.

I suspect you're right, but I doubt there's convincing some here of that.

I would disagree with Edabbs original premise; that WK has made some good on one hand, but many bad on the other. I'd suggest it's the other way around. No question, there have been some moves that have not worked out. A couple of examples just off the top of my head:

Cormier, I think he gambled that Cormier would help and could easily be flipped during the off-season.

As much as I've liked Juan Castro, I've come to recognize what many here on RZ say, that he's not a very good ballplayer and hasn't done much on the field to warrant his acquisition.

Mike Stanton has not worked out as hoped, although he had some stretches were he was a good pitcher, protestations on RZ notwithstanding.

I wouldn't put "The Trade" in the missed category as it really hasn't worked much for either team. We can argue until Gabriel blows his horn as to whether we could have gotten more elsewhere. Only time will tell whether the pitchers we received are ultimately worth the move. Kearns and Lopez aren't setting the world on fire, so not a terrible loss from our perspective.

The good? The list is extensive: Brandon Phillips, Josh Hamilton, Scott Hatteberg as a fill-in awaiting the development of Joey Votto, extending Adam Dunn (even including a contract that has made it hard to move him; intentional on both parties part in my opinion), two decent prospects flipping Jeff Conine, acquisition of additional bench strenght: Cantu, Pedro Lopez, Keppingers, Coats. Signing Gonzalez as a free agent (in spite of his off year defensively), when his mind wasn't elsewhere, his offense was a plus and to hear Phillips say, he helped him defensively.

A vast array of young pitching (some taking their knocks at the ML level, others in the minors): Coutlangus, Burton, Maloney, McBeth, Livingston (now injured), Alex Smit, Saarloos; and I'd include Bray & Majewski.

Has he been perfect? Of course not, but I'd say he's made more good acquisitions than bad and by a long shot. Our largest weakness still needs to be addressed and Mackanin keeps saying it - pitching, pitching, pitching. But he's moving us in the right direction, IMO.

Ltlabner
10-05-2007, 07:01 AM
The good? The list is extensive: Brandon Phillips, Josh Hamilton, Scott Hatteberg as a fill-in awaiting the development of Joey Votto, extending Adam Dunn (even including a contract that has made it hard to move him; intentional on both parties part in my opinion), two decent prospects flipping Jeff Conine, acquisition of additional bench strenght: Cantu, Pedro Lopez, Keppingers, Coats. Signing Gonzalez as a free agent (in spite of his off year defensively), when his mind wasn't elsewhere, his offense was a plus and to hear Phillips say, he helped him defensively.

A vast array of young pitching (some taking their knocks at the ML level, others in the minors): Coutlangus, Burton, Maloney, McBeth, Livingston (now injured), Alex Smit, Saarloos; and I'd include Bray & Majewski.


And he hasn't delt anyone away that wasn't able to ultematley be replaced. Nor has he signed any deals that anchor the team ala Milton. I don't care for the Stanton and Freel extensions but they certinally don't sink the team for any extended period of time.

His drafts have been pitching heavy. That his 1st pick this year wasn't a pitcher doesn't negate the fact they chose a huge number of pitchers in total. Lots of guys turn out to be successfull after being chosen in the later rounds.

He didn't panic at this years deadline and recoginized that pitching just wasn't going to happen.

His errors have been hashed to death. Extending Narron is one that hasn't been discussed, but that's been rectified. And as many here told us we weren't going to be competitive in 2007, if ever, so whether Narron sunk us or not is irrlevant. But in total, it was a mistake.

Frankly, I think setting a deadline is silly. As long as his positives generally continue to outweigh his negatives, and the team is showing signs of improvement desipte it's overall record, then he continues to keep the job.

But if you want a specific date......I guess I'll have to go with May, 2006.

RedFanAlways1966
10-05-2007, 07:16 AM
How much longer does Wayne have, in your eyes, to really get this team headed in the right direction?

So what's your PKD (Personal Krivsky Deadline)?

Too bad MLB has an out of control salary structure. It is tough to judge a captain when his ship is sailing upstream, while other captains get to sail downstream. It is tough to judge a carpenter when he gets to drive nails with a wrench, while other carpenters get to drive nails with a sledgehammer.

I'd rather see people put a deadline on how long they can take MLB seriously as a FAIR sport between teams. What is their MLBSDD (Major League Baseball Salary Dysfunction Deadline).

redsmetz
10-05-2007, 08:17 AM
And he hasn't delt anyone away that wasn't able to ultematley be replaced. Nor has he signed any deals that anchor the team ala Milton. I don't care for the Stanton and Freel extensions but they certinally don't sink the team for any extended period of time.

His drafts have been pitching heavy. That his 1st pick this year wasn't a pitcher doesn't negate the fact they chose a huge number of pitchers in total. Lots of guys turn out to be successfull after being chosen in the later rounds.

He didn't panic at this years deadline and recoginized that pitching just wasn't going to happen.

His errors have been hashed to death. Extending Narron is one that hasn't been discussed, but that's been rectified. And as many here told us we weren't going to be competitive in 2007, if ever, so whether Narron sunk us or not is irrlevant. But in total, it was a mistake.

Frankly, I think setting a deadline is silly. As long as his positives generally continue to outweigh his negatives, and the team is showing signs of improvement desipte it's overall record, then he continues to keep the job.

But if you want a specific date......I guess I'll have to go with May, 2006.

You mention one thing I had meant to say - that Krivsky has made the vast majority of his moves without giving up our premier prospects.

I agree that Freel and Stanton's contracts will probably prove to be problematic. It occurred to me when someone mentioned about Stanton's contract is guaranteed for 2009 with a combined 170 innings this year and next. That says to me that he will not be cut this year. He will either be here the entire year with us controlling his innings or his contract will be traded. No way do I want some other club locking hanging us with the '09 guarantee with them using him. They get a second year with us on the hook.

I know we've said this over and over and over again - changing the culture of a moribund club takes time. I think we're making progress. Even this disasterous season would have looked less worse without the plethora of injuries in the final weeks. We win some of those games we lost if we have our 1st string outfield. That's small comfort, but I like this club's core.

bucksfan2
10-05-2007, 08:50 AM
When I look at Kirvsky's tenure as a red I have to say he made this organization better. The record might not say that but the org is more talent rich now than it was before. To this date the three most contraversial players Krivsky gave away were Kearns, Lopez and Harris. To be quite honest in Kearn's and Lopez' situations he was able to increase both value and production for much less money and Harris was replaced by Keppy which was pretty much an even swap.

I think it is foolish to say Krivsky hasn't tried to add better pitching depth as well. Off the top of my head he has added Thompson, Maloney, Burton, Livingston, Jukich, etc which are all young arms. He hasn't spent foolish money on the FA market which is the most important thing. Last year of all the pitchers to hit the market (Mench, Lilly, Suppan, Marquis) the only one who held his weight was Lilly. None of them deserved the contracts they got and I am glad Krivsky didn't go after them.

To answer the original question I give him this full year until I start to question his merits as a GM. It is difficult if not damn near impossible to improve a team over a 2 year stint without increasing payroll. I would imagine that an Cast. has said he wants Jr. to be in a reds uniform when he hits #600 which is a primary reason Jr has not been traded. Dunn has increased his value with his solid year last year. While his contract is a little tricky he will have some demand as the trade deadline increases. He has increased the procuction at most positions without increasing payroll. By doing that I think he has earned a chance for atleast 1+ years.

nate
10-05-2007, 09:06 AM
How much longer does Wayne have, in your eyes, to really get this team headed in the right direction?

I think the organization is turning in the right direction already and that is the result of the last four years of drafts.

So, I think Wayne should have until the end of his contract (which, I believe is through next year) to implement his plan. So far, he's added a lot of young pitching through the draft, resigned several key players (and one or two "not-so-key" players) and dug up a couple of gems. This will be his second off-season to strengthen the club so we'll see what transpires whilst stroking our collective beards.

BTW, overall, I still give him a "C" for his performance so far.

Kc61
10-05-2007, 10:03 AM
At least two more years. You can't keep switching GMs. You have to let Krivsky's plan work or fail. For those who don't think there is a plan, it seems to be -- keeping the team afloat while building with minor leaguers. So far it hasn't worked, but the farm is getting stronger.

Any new GM will require a year or maybe more to get settled, change personnel and front office folks, etc. Want to go through that still again?

Let's give WK some more time.

edabbs44
10-05-2007, 10:50 AM
Too bad MLB has an out of control salary structure. It is tough to judge a captain when his ship is sailing upstream, while other captains get to sail downstream. It is tough to judge a carpenter when he gets to drive nails with a wrench, while other carpenters get to drive nails with a sledgehammer.

I'd rather see people put a deadline on how long they can take MLB seriously as a FAIR sport between teams. What is their MLBSDD (Major League Baseball Salary Dysfunction Deadline).

I agree that it is unfair, but we would need a GM who can overcome that imbalance. If we can't get one, then it's time to fold up shop and head home.

edabbs44
10-05-2007, 10:51 AM
You mention one thing I had meant to say - that Krivsky has made the vast majority of his moves without giving up our premier prospects.

The team went from 80 wins last season to 72 wins this past season. If he did give up premier prospects for that result, he should not only be fired but also barred from the sport.

edabbs44
10-05-2007, 11:09 AM
I suspect you're right, but I doubt there's convincing some here of that.

I would disagree with Edabbs original premise; that WK has made some good on one hand, but many bad on the other. I'd suggest it's the other way around. No question, there have been some moves that have not worked out. A couple of examples just off the top of my head:

Cormier, I think he gambled that Cormier would help and could easily be flipped during the off-season.

As much as I've liked Juan Castro, I've come to recognize what many here on RZ say, that he's not a very good ballplayer and hasn't done much on the field to warrant his acquisition.

Mike Stanton has not worked out as hoped, although he had some stretches were he was a good pitcher, protestations on RZ notwithstanding.

I wouldn't put "The Trade" in the missed category as it really hasn't worked much for either team. We can argue until Gabriel blows his horn as to whether we could have gotten more elsewhere. Only time will tell whether the pitchers we received are ultimately worth the move. Kearns and Lopez aren't setting the world on fire, so not a terrible loss from our perspective.

The good? The list is extensive: Brandon Phillips, Josh Hamilton, Scott Hatteberg as a fill-in awaiting the development of Joey Votto, extending Adam Dunn (even including a contract that has made it hard to move him; intentional on both parties part in my opinion), two decent prospects flipping Jeff Conine, acquisition of additional bench strenght: Cantu, Pedro Lopez, Keppingers, Coats. Signing Gonzalez as a free agent (in spite of his off year defensively), when his mind wasn't elsewhere, his offense was a plus and to hear Phillips say, he helped him defensively.

A vast array of young pitching (some taking their knocks at the ML level, others in the minors): Coutlangus, Burton, Maloney, McBeth, Livingston (now injured), Alex Smit, Saarloos; and I'd include Bray & Majewski.

Has he been perfect? Of course not, but I'd say he's made more good acquisitions than bad and by a long shot. Our largest weakness still needs to be addressed and Mackanin keeps saying it - pitching, pitching, pitching. But he's moving us in the right direction, IMO.

I'm sorry, but did you actually include Saarloos under the category of "the good"? Majewski also? How about Smit, with his 5.32 ERA in High A ball as a 21 year old? Coats? Pedro Lopez? The "flipping of Conine"? Shouldn't the acquisition of Conine be under the bad? I find these hard to swallow as being "good."

Also, there are a lot of names here that shouldn't be classified as "good" as well. It would probably be better to classify them as being "not bad so far." Couter and McBeth and others of that category would make sense here.

MrCinatit
10-05-2007, 11:10 AM
I've been pretty tough on the guy, but there are a couple of things to take into account:

1) It is like Wayne took over in a card game, and found the other guy was hording 2's, 3's and a lot of jokers. He has not only had to rebuild from the O'Brien years, but the very painful and damaging Bowden years.

2) As a small market team, the Reds chances of going from the second division to a pennant winner in one year are pretty slim. I would love to think we would be able to go out there and sign/trade for some of the best players on the market today - but we don't hold the cards (ie, players) and Bob does not quite have the cash (at least, I don't believe he does).
As painful as it is, the building process sometimes has to be slow, and we as fans tend to be asked to have more patience than we actually have.
After all, 1990 is a far way back.

3) I think we are cursed by The Big Red Machine. Those years were great as a Reds fans, but we were spoiled into thinking that our team should consist of the best players out there - and that any weakness we have would easily be filled by trading for the likes of a Joe Morgan. I for one long for those days, and of the magic of a Bob Howsam.
Unfortunately, those years are long behind us. We (again) no longer have the chips. The free-agency era has violently changed the ways teams build teams - and it seems we are forever cursed at watching young players move on once they become too expensive.

So, what is the point?
I guess I am saying give Wayne more of a chance. It is rather interesting watching him collect young players seemingly for nothing - some of those players giving us some hope for the future.
I just wish he would stop going after guys in my own age bracket.

paulrichjr
10-05-2007, 11:12 AM
At least two more years. You can't keep switching GMs. You have to let Krivsky's plan work or fail. For those who don't think there is a plan, it seems to be -- keeping the team afloat while building with minor leaguers. So far it hasn't worked, but the farm is getting stronger.

Any new GM will require a year or maybe more to get settled, change personnel and front office folks, etc. Want to go through that still again?

Let's give WK some more time.

I agree completely. The best teams are those that have stability. Braves, Indians, (even Yanks), Twins (until this year), A's...etc. We have got to get to where we have the same stability. WayneK has made a couple of mistakes (Hancock was the biggest in my mind - cost us at least 4 or 5 games last year with that sorry bullpen)...but he has made many many improvements. Records can be deceiving because so much can happen over a season, but he is certainly making a lot of progress. One major thing that he has done is kept the payroll very flexible. No long-term contracts except to Harang and Arroyo. They are the only 2 that should have long-term contracts before this winter.

Unless he makes some really dumb moves over this winter, I give him at least 2 more years.

Benihana
10-05-2007, 11:19 AM
I wouldn't mind seeing Jocketty hired as President of the club with Wayne retaining GM duties for at least the next two years. IMO, he's done enough good to warrant keeping the job until all the youngsters are ready to really make an impact.

Bringing in Phillips, Hamilton, Arroyo, et. al. and resigning Harang has made the organization much better, no question about it. Let's see what happens when Bailey and Cueto are regulars in the rotation, and Votto and Bruce are regulars in the lineup.

Falls City Beer
10-05-2007, 11:25 AM
The question should be: has he bought himself more time?

I disagree with arbitrarily assigning someone a tenure to "complete" a plan. Frequent (at least twice a season) holistic judgments should be made, centering on trades, acquisitions, drafts, and roster construction. And no, in the first couple of seasons "wins" shouldn't be the ultimate criterion--it should be very low in consideration.

IslandRed
10-05-2007, 11:49 AM
Truth be told, I'm ambivalent.

My memory is not so short that I don't remember the absolute train wreck of an organization Krivsky inherited. It wasn't a winner, and there was no reason anyone should have expected it to be. Winning 80 games in 2006 was a pure mirage. From the lowest level to the highest, I think the organization has more talent and better off-field personnel than it did. It has yet to show up in the major-league club's won-lost record, but it will.

Having said that, I was struck by a recent article pointing out the cold hard truth of being a GM. Being one of the 30 most qualified people might get a guy a GM job; it doesn't make him a winner. On a level playing field, he has to be a top-15 guy to win. Add in an extra degree of difficulty -- average-at-best payroll (and that's if Castellini bumps it up) and no city cachet -- and maybe it takes a top-10, top-12 GM to win here. I'm far from convinced Krivsky is that good.

The club is not in a bad position from which to move forward. We have a base of good young position players we can control for awhile. Combined with the extension of Harang and Arroyo, we've extended our window of opportunity considerably. For the first time in years, I can see a good Reds team coming that won't need miracles to get there. But we still have some restructuring work to do with the lineup and we still need to add pitching to supplement what we hope is on the way from the farm. It's on Krivsky to do those things.

Bottom line, this offseason is critical. We have opportunities to take a big step forward. We also have the opportunity to blow it, or simply run in place. By spring training I'll be less ambivalent about Krivsky -- one way or the other.

RedlegJake
10-05-2007, 02:25 PM
Unless you are absolutely sure that K is a glaring failure then changing now just perpetuates the revolving door that the Reds FO has become. The team never gets settled in, a philosophy never gets established, and the team keeps treading water. At this point I give Krivsky another 2 years at least.

gonelong
10-05-2007, 02:45 PM
I agree completely. The best teams are those that have stability. Braves, Indians, (even Yanks), Twins (until this year), A's...etc. We have got to get to where we have the same stability.

The stability is not as responsible for the success as much as the success is responsible for the stability.

I suspect there is quite a bit of OJT for GMs. The ones that have some initial success can spend a lot longer learning and perfecting their sision and execution of that vision.

I am pretty luke-warm on Wayne. I think we are better off than we were before, but not quite as far as I would have hoped.

I'd like to give Wayne another season to see what he comes up with. At the very least he isn't harming the organization the way
Dan'O was.

GL

redsmetz
10-05-2007, 02:49 PM
I'm sorry, but did you actually include Saarloos under the category of "the good"? Majewski also? How about Smit, with his 5.32 ERA in High A ball as a 21 year old? Coats? Pedro Lopez? The "flipping of Conine"? Shouldn't the acquisition of Conine be under the bad? I find these hard to swallow as being "good."

Also, there are a lot of names here that shouldn't be classified as "good" as well. It would probably be better to classify them as being "not bad so far." Couter and McBeth and others of that category would make sense here.

I think I'll choose not to herniate over every little thing. Yeah, I included them. They're young arms - something everyone here cries about ("vet love"). Will they pan out? That remains to be seen and possibly not. He has brought in so many young arms, we probably need chaperones on road trips.

I don't disagree that Saarloos was not good this year; and Majewski continues to struggle. And really, the overarching question will be which will come first? The end of the Korean War or the grievance on Majewski? That said, some still believe Majewski is capable of being the pitcher who did well in Washington.

Yes, Conine was a good move and he did exactly what I expected he would with Conine. Conine was an adequate back up in a position that was in a transition year (waitng for Votto - someone should write a play, no? :)). He wasn't super and in the end, we flipped him for two decent prospects. I put that in the good category.

Unfortunately, Krivsky could help little old ladies across the street, find the cure for a disease and bring world peace and I don't think you'd be satisfied. I don't understand the disdain, but that's your choice, not mine.

mth123
10-05-2007, 09:08 PM
Truth be told, I'm ambivalent.

My memory is not so short that I don't remember the absolute train wreck of an organization Krivsky inherited. It wasn't a winner, and there was no reason anyone should have expected it to be. Winning 80 games in 2006 was a pure mirage. From the lowest level to the highest, I think the organization has more talent and better off-field personnel than it did. It has yet to show up in the major-league club's won-lost record, but it will.

Having said that, I was struck by a recent article pointing out the cold hard truth of being a GM. Being one of the 30 most qualified people might get a guy a GM job; it doesn't make him a winner. On a level playing field, he has to be a top-15 guy to win. Add in an extra degree of difficulty -- average-at-best payroll (and that's if Castellini bumps it up) and no city cachet -- and maybe it takes a top-10, top-12 GM to win here. I'm far from convinced Krivsky is that good.

The club is not in a bad position from which to move forward. We have a base of good young position players we can control for awhile. Combined with the extension of Harang and Arroyo, we've extended our window of opportunity considerably. For the first time in years, I can see a good Reds team coming that won't need miracles to get there. But we still have some restructuring work to do with the lineup and we still need to add pitching to supplement what we hope is on the way from the farm. It's on Krivsky to do those things.

Bottom line, this offseason is critical. We have opportunities to take a big step forward. We also have the opportunity to blow it, or simply run in place. By spring training I'll be less ambivalent about Krivsky -- one way or the other.


Pretty much my take. Last winter was a huge black mark IMO. Another like that and he should be gone. If he does better than that, the team should be a contender.

RFS62
10-05-2007, 09:39 PM
I suspect there is quite a bit of OJT for GMs. The ones that have some initial success can spend a lot longer learning and perfecting their vision and execution of that vision.


GL



Yep. OJT is the Reds MO.

Aronchis
10-05-2007, 09:50 PM
It isn't this offseason that is critical, it is the development of young players that is critical, especially with the pitching staff. We need our young pitchers and relief pitchers to grow into roles over the next 2 years.

paulrichjr
10-06-2007, 12:17 AM
Pretty much my take. Last winter was a huge black mark IMO. Another like that and he should be gone. If he does better than that, the team should be a contender.

Tell me one team that added more young cheap talent last offseason than the Reds did. Last winter was one of the best offseasons I have ever seen as a Reds fan. Adding Hamilton and Burton for free (basically).

Signing two of the best starters in baseball to cheap fairly long-term contracts.... Awesome
Not making a dumb move with another Eric Milton contract...Great

Do 1/2 that good this winter and I will be very happy.

mth123
10-06-2007, 03:14 AM
Tell me one team that added more young cheap talent last offseason than the Reds did. Last winter was one of the best offseasons I have ever seen as a Reds fan. Adding Hamilton and Burton for free (basically).

Signing two of the best starters in baseball to cheap fairly long-term contracts.... Awesome
Not making a dumb move with another Eric Milton contract...Great

Do 1/2 that good this winter and I will be very happy.

I saw a team that was positioned to move into contention with the right pitching additions. Instead WK chose to burn his resources by resigning Lohse, and adding Stanton, and Saarloos. He needed a RH bat and chose to go with Conine. Re-signing Castro is another example of his inability to put his team together at the major league level.

IMO WK has shown ability to make great "scout" moves. Burton and Hamilton are two great examples and Keppinger also to a lesser degree. Phillips was another and I am pretty happy with his salvage value from some of his mistakes or misfortune like Jose Castro (Conine), Matt Maloney (Lohse), Marcus McBeth and Ben Jukich (both from Denorfia with Jukich a big sleeper IMO). Even so, there are lots of scouts. The difference between a scout and a GM is an ability to take the talent that the scouts root out and assemble a team (in some cases by trading some of it). When WK needs to put his finishing touches on the team, going with guys like Stanton and Conine suggests to me that as a GM, WK is a pretty good scout. I like a lot about WK, but this will be his second offseason and IMO its time for him to show that he can make the leap from scout to GM. Another offseason like last year and I'll be pretty convinced that he can't.

Ravenlord
10-06-2007, 03:19 AM
While I don't have any definitive deadline, I have the feeling that my opinion of Krivsky will be very heavily influenced by how the Dunn and Junior situations have developed come this time next year. That should tell me pretty much everything I need to know.

you stole the words from my mouth when i read the thread topic.

Aronchis
10-06-2007, 03:38 AM
I saw a team that was positioned to move into contention with the right pitching additions. Instead WK chose to burn his resources by resigning Lohse, and adding Stanton, and Saarloos. He needed a RH bat and chose to go with Conine. Re-signing Castro is another example of his inability to put his team together at the major league level.

IMO WK has shown ability to make great "scout" moves. Burton and Hamilton are two great examples and Keppinger also to a lesser degree. Phillips was another and I am pretty happy with his salvage value from some of his mistakes or misfortune like Jose Castro (Conine), Matt Maloney (Lohse), Marcus McBeth and Ben Jukich (both from Denorfia with Jukich a big sleeper IMO). Even so, there are lots of scouts. The difference between a scout and a GM is an ability to take the talent that the scouts root out and assemble a team (in some cases by trading some of it). When WK needs to put his finishing touches on the team, going with guys like Stanton and Conine suggests to me that as a GM, WK is a pretty good scout. I like a lot about WK, but this will be his second offseason and IMO its time for him to show that he can make the leap from scout to GM. Another offseason like last year and I'll be pretty convinced that he can't.

You looking for a magical move around every corner. It simply isn't going to happen all the time.

The future of Reds baseball isn't some mythical offseason move but position Homer Bailey and Jay Bruce to lead the team into the next decade as a cornerstone franchise of MLB. That day we have been patiently waiting for the last 2 years(Maybe 10 years for many) begins in 2008 and expands in 2009. If Bruce and Bailey are doing what we expect in the future, the Reds better be a constant contender. If they aren't, something has gone very very wrong.

If I was BobC, that is how I would evaluate Wayne and ask myself has he done that to extend him as GM.

mth123
10-06-2007, 04:07 AM
You looking for a magical move around every corner. It simply isn't going to happen all the time.

The future of Reds baseball isn't some mythical offseason move but position Homer Bailey and Jay Bruce to lead the team into the next decade as a cornerstone franchise of MLB. That day we have been patiently waiting for the last 2 years(Maybe 10 years for many) begins in 2008 and expands in 2009. If Bruce and Bailey are doing what we expect in the future, the Reds better be a constant contender. If they aren't, something has gone very very wrong.

If I was BobC, that is how I would evaluate Wayne and ask myself has he done that to extend him as GM.


Not saying a magical move has to occur. But no more Stantons, Cormiers, Saarlooses, Castros or Conines please. I prefer backfilling with minor league free agents to those types of additions. Killer acquistion = rave reviews. Over priced dreck = black mark. In between while growing the depth on the farm = perfectly acceptable given the other scouting type addidtions.

Ravenlord
10-06-2007, 04:15 AM
Not saying a magical move has to occur. But no more Stantons, Cormiers, Saarlooses, Castros or Conines please. I prefer backfilling with minor league free agents to those types of additions. Killer acquistion = rave reviews. Over priced dreck = black mark. In between while growing the depth on the farm = perfectly acceptable given the other scouting type addidtions.

Saarloos was equabily priced dreck. him utterly imploding was more chance. i still contend given a full MLB season he'd do better next year than what he didt his past one.

GAC
10-06-2007, 05:33 AM
Not saying a magical move has to occur. But no more Stantons, Cormiers, Saarlooses, Castros or Conines please. I prefer backfilling with minor league free agents to those types of additions.

Those magical moves aren't so common place anymore. Not an impossibility, since we did get two guys like Harang and Arroyo in like manner. But a rarity.

But I believe that is the goal he is trying to work towards, and we have seen improvement in those areas. One has to look at the state (or condition) of our farm system and young talent that was close to ML ready when he took over last year. Where was that talent? You got Votto, Bailey, and Bruce. Not much of a "well" to go to and rely on to fill needs.

So do you try and rush these kids - which I think they did with Bailey - or try to buy some time while also acquiring other minor league free agents to bolster/rebuild that system?

That's why the Hattebergs, Conines, Womacks, Castros, Stantons, Ellisons were here IMO. Low investments (for the most part). Buy us some time. Nothing more. And when there was no longer any need for some of these players they could easily be jettisoned. I don't for a minute believe that WK is attempting to build around these guys.

And we have some youth on this team. EE was already in the system; but he's brought in guys like Phillips, Hamilton, Keppinger, Hopper, Cantu, Coates. And at very little risk or investment too. These are all yong ballplayers that can help us/contribute while maybe making others expendable/tradeable. I see us having more options now.

WK is facing the same daunting, uphill task that 30 other GMs are going to be facing in this off-season.... bolstering their rotations/bullpens. It's not a problem particular only in Cincy. There's a highly competitive market in this area right now. I look at the potential pitcher FA list going into this off-season, and it doesn't buoy my hopes at all. I certainly don't want him to over-reach (and overpay).

And it use to be that a GM could, at the trading deadline, unload a player(s) and acquire top prospects from teams trying to stay in contention. That seems to have changed. GMs are getting smarter and hoarding that young talent. They're not so quick to give it up anymore. That makes it tougher. Look what was rumored offered for the likes of even an Adam Dunn? Mediocracy.

And then there are some situations WK is stuck with and really has no control over.... bad, guaranteed contracts. MIlton is now off the books. Jr's comes off after this next season. There's 20 mil right there. And I really have no problem with Jr in RF, holding down the fort for Bruce who could be ready, given a look-see at some point next year.

In some areas we do have to be patient in.

So yeah - WK, in the area of pitching, has his work cut out for him. No doubt. Going into the '08 season, we're probably looking at him counting on Harang, Arroyo, Belisle, and Bailey. After that, who knows? Shearn, Gosling, Dumatrait? Not thrilled. But again, I look at the market and what is available, and what route would you take? Risk management.

The bullpen? We've seen some positive signs in the second half with a couple guys; but still some huge question marks. I can understand his signing Stanton when you look at his record overall and what he did the year before; but I was against the signing overall. I'd eat that contract in a second and simply lick my wounds. But he won't. Not if there is that chance he can trade him.

Do you bring back Everyday Eddie? Again - what do they have behind him?

Yep. WK has his work cut out for him in the area of improving this pitching. Is he gonna go out and try to find that 1 year "Ken Hill, Mike Morgan, or Greg Maddox" to try and fill the void?

mth123
10-06-2007, 05:36 AM
Saarloos was equabily priced dreck. him utterly imploding was more chance. i still contend given a full MLB season he'd do better next year than what he didt his past one.

He walks more than he Ks and gives up a lot of homers. I can't think of any circumstance where that is a good thing. He didn't implode. His patterns were well known prior to the 2007 season. Getting him after the A's DFA'd him as an NRI on a minor league deal with a chance to make the team in Spring would have been equabily priced. Trading for him, paying him $1 Million plus and making him the primary acquisition for the rotation last winter was what I would call a failure.

mth123
10-06-2007, 05:55 AM
Those magical moves aren't so common place anymore. Not an impossibility, since we did get two guys like Harang and Arroyo in like manner. But a rarity.

But I believe that is the goal he is trying to work towards, and we have seen improvement in those areas. One has to look at the state (or condition) of our farm system and young talent that was close to ML ready when he took over last year. Where was that talent? You got Votto, Bailey, and Bruce. Not much of a "well" to go to and rely on to fill needs.

So do you try and rush these kids - which I think they did with Bailey - or try to buy some time while also acquiring other minor league free agents to bolster/rebuild that system?

I acknowledge that some pricey vet placeholders are needed. But this team broke spring training with Castro, Lohse, Saarloos, Hatte, Weathers, Cormier, Conine, and Stanton. That is a third of the roster. A couple of those worked out and the rest were predictably crummy. Get young minor league free agents for the more fringey roles and use the savings for an upgrade or two at the other spots.

GAC
10-06-2007, 06:11 AM
I acknowledge that some pricey vet placeholders are needed. But this team broke spring training with Castro, Lohse, Saarloos, Hatte, Weathers, Cormier, Conine, and Stanton. That is a third of the roster. A couple of those worked out and the rest were predictably crummy. Get young minor league free agents for the more fringey roles and use the savings for an upgrade or two at the other spots.

I thoroughly agree. I can see no justification with Castro being on this roster next year. Not with what I have seen with what we had in the second half. WK will have a hard time justifying it if he does so.

I like Hatte to further strengthen the bench and backup Votto.

Conine served his purpose IMO, and we got a couple minor leagers, Sean Henry and Jose Castro, in return. Don't know much about these kids other then what Baseball America has stated; but that should be your objective with guys like a Conine....

This was an excellent move by the Reds. Conine played in 80 games for the Reds this season and he was 57 for 215 (.265 avg, .729 OPS) and he scored 23 runs, hit 6 homers and drove in 32 runs. The Reds will now use Jorge Cantu in Conine’s spot as a platoon partner for Scott Hatteberg. Cantu has played in 2 games for the Reds now and he is 3 for 5 with 3 RBIs. Sean Henry is a 22-year old right hand hitting outfielder who was the Mets’ #23 prospect coming into this season according to Baseball America. Henry has played in 114 games in A-ball this season and he is 132 for 450 (.293 avg, .810 OPS) with 59 runs scored, 11 homers, 57 RBIs and 18 stolen bases. 20 year old switch-hitting shortstop Jose Castro has really improved as a baseball player this season and he appears to have a bright future for the Reds. He has played in 77 games in A-ball and he was 98 for 308 (.318 avg, .746 OPS) with 47 runs scored, 2 homers, 25 RBIs and 7 stolen bases.

I liked the Lohse trade for minor leaguer Maloney. We'll see on that one.

Cormier was a bust. Put that one on the negative side of WK's register.

Weather's did an excellent job, but I understand people's wariness with him due to his age. And David has even said he is not comfortable in the closer role, and is best suited as a setup man.

On the position player side of the ledger I see where we have improved ourselves. Especially in the area of bench strength. I think that hurt us last year. Again - I hope that pushes guys like Castro out, and keeps WK from making "Conine" acquisitions.

Pitching is gonna be his biggest hurdle.

And I agree with your comments on Saarloos. You want to pitch for me, then show me something. Same thing with Coffey.

I agreed with a comment that Jeff Brantley made in reference to some of these guys in our bullpen. It seems they got comfortable and didn't feel their jobs were threatened because of the bind we were in in that area. That needs to stop.

redsmetz
10-06-2007, 07:15 AM
I thoroughly agree. I can see no justification with Castro being on this roster next year. Not with what I have seen with what we had in the second half. WK will have a hard time justifying it if he does so.

I like Hatte to further strengthen the bench and backup Votto.

Conine served his purpose IMO, and we got a couple minor leagers, Sean Henry and Jose Castro, in return. Don't know much about these kids other then what Baseball America has stated; but that should be your objective with guys like a Conine....

This was an excellent move by the Reds. Conine played in 80 games for the Reds this season and he was 57 for 215 (.265 avg, .729 OPS) and he scored 23 runs, hit 6 homers and drove in 32 runs. The Reds will now use Jorge Cantu in Conine’s spot as a platoon partner for Scott Hatteberg. Cantu has played in 2 games for the Reds now and he is 3 for 5 with 3 RBIs. Sean Henry is a 22-year old right hand hitting outfielder who was the Mets’ #23 prospect coming into this season according to Baseball America. Henry has played in 114 games in A-ball this season and he is 132 for 450 (.293 avg, .810 OPS) with 59 runs scored, 11 homers, 57 RBIs and 18 stolen bases. 20 year old switch-hitting shortstop Jose Castro has really improved as a baseball player this season and he appears to have a bright future for the Reds. He has played in 77 games in A-ball and he was 98 for 308 (.318 avg, .746 OPS) with 47 runs scored, 2 homers, 25 RBIs and 7 stolen bases.

I liked the Lohse trade for minor leaguer Maloney. We'll see on that one.

Cormier was a bust. Put that one on the negative side of WK's register.

Weather's did an excellent job, but I understand people's wariness with him due to his age. And David has even said he is not comfortable in the closer role, and is best suited as a setup man.

On the position player side of the ledger I see where we have improved ourselves. Especially in the area of bench strength. I think that hurt us last year. Again - I hope that pushes guys like Castro out, and keeps WK from making "Conine" acquisitions.

Pitching is gonna be his biggest hurdle.

And I agree with your comments on Saarloos. You want to pitch for me, then show me something. Same thing with Coffey.

I agreed with a comment that Jeff Brantley made in reference to some of these guys in our bullpen. It seems they got comfortable and didn't feel their jobs were threatened because of the bind we were in in that area. That needs to stop.

GAC, this is an excellent synopsis of the state of the Reds this season.

I especially like the final comment from Brantley. With have quite a number of pitchers under 30 years old some of whom had uneven years. I want to know who is going to help those pitchers move a step up. We are loaded with such pitchers and I'd like to see a number of them making the jump like Jared Burton did later in the season. If that can be done, many of these moves WK has made this year will prove very valuable. I'm not from the "pre-determination school" that some here on RZ are - I'm not convinced that people are always locked into what their numbers are and can never improve or only have downsides.

The BRM made do with some fairly average pitchers, but those WS champ teams each had six and seven pitchers respectively who won double digits those two years. I always remind folks that Gary Nolan pitched for those teams years after I thought he'd been washed up - can you imagine the skewering he'd have gotten on RZ?

Again, excellent summation, GAC.

fearofpopvol1
10-06-2007, 01:42 PM
I saw a team that was positioned to move into contention with the right pitching additions. Instead WK chose to burn his resources by resigning Lohse, and adding Stanton, and Saarloos. He needed a RH bat and chose to go with Conine. Re-signing Castro is another example of his inability to put his team together at the major league level.

IMO WK has shown ability to make great "scout" moves. Burton and Hamilton are two great examples and Keppinger also to a lesser degree. Phillips was another and I am pretty happy with his salvage value from some of his mistakes or misfortune like Jose Castro (Conine), Matt Maloney (Lohse), Marcus McBeth and Ben Jukich (both from Denorfia with Jukich a big sleeper IMO). Even so, there are lots of scouts. The difference between a scout and a GM is an ability to take the talent that the scouts root out and assemble a team (in some cases by trading some of it). When WK needs to put his finishing touches on the team, going with guys like Stanton and Conine suggests to me that as a GM, WK is a pretty good scout. I like a lot about WK, but this will be his second offseason and IMO its time for him to show that he can make the leap from scout to GM. Another offseason like last year and I'll be pretty convinced that he can't.

But how do you know that he didn't attempt to make trades and other teams wern't biting? As you know, the pitching market has gotten more expensive and less sexy in the last couple years. Should Wayne have traded away the farm for a pitcher with a 4.5 career ERA? Should the Reds have locked up another 3 year Milton type of contract for Milton money? I don't know about you, but I'd rather stand pat than enter into a bad contract that could haunt the organization for a few years. I'm all for taking risks, but they have to make sense and we simply don't know what went on last offseason. Now on the flipside, I'm not necessarily saying that Krivsky couldn't have done more or couldn't have produced fruitful results. What I am suggesting is that we simply don't know what all the circumstances were last offseason and as a result, should give the guy another offseason.

pedro
10-06-2007, 01:53 PM
I saw a team that was positioned to move into contention with the right pitching additions. Instead WK chose to burn his resources by resigning Lohse, and adding Stanton, and Saarloos. He needed a RH bat and chose to go with Conine. Re-signing Castro is another example of his inability to put his team together at the major league level.

IMO WK has shown ability to make great "scout" moves. Burton and Hamilton are two great examples and Keppinger also to a lesser degree. Phillips was another and I am pretty happy with his salvage value from some of his mistakes or misfortune like Jose Castro (Conine), Matt Maloney (Lohse), Marcus McBeth and Ben Jukich (both from Denorfia with Jukich a big sleeper IMO). Even so, there are lots of scouts. The difference between a scout and a GM is an ability to take the talent that the scouts root out and assemble a team (in some cases by trading some of it). When WK needs to put his finishing touches on the team, going with guys like Stanton and Conine suggests to me that as a GM, WK is a pretty good scout. I like a lot about WK, but this will be his second offseason and IMO its time for him to show that he can make the leap from scout to GM. Another offseason like last year and I'll be pretty convinced that he can't.

This scout vs. gm dichotomy you keep bringing up is a fallacy. Every player brought is scouted, some work out, some don't.

mth123
10-06-2007, 06:17 PM
But how do you know that he didn't attempt to make trades and other teams wern't biting? As you know, the pitching market has gotten more expensive and less sexy in the last couple years. Should Wayne have traded away the farm for a pitcher with a 4.5 career ERA? Should the Reds have locked up another 3 year Milton type of contract for Milton money? I don't know about you, but I'd rather stand pat than enter into a bad contract that could haunt the organization for a few years. I'm all for taking risks, but they have to make sense and we simply don't know what went on last offseason. Now on the flipside, I'm not necessarily saying that Krivsky couldn't have done more or couldn't have produced fruitful results. What I am suggesting is that we simply don't know what all the circumstances were last offseason and as a result, should give the guy another offseason.

Don't know that he didn't try and it not work out. He still brought in Stanton, Saarloos and Conine. Worse than doing nothing IMO.

mth123
10-06-2007, 06:19 PM
This scout vs. gm dichotomy you keep bringing up is a fallacy. Every player brought is scouted, some work out, some don't.

Of course all players are scouted. WK is good at it IMO. But a GM's job is not the same as a scout's job. The scout finds players and gives them a whirl. A GM makes decisions about resource allocation and roster construction. I see WK doing pretty well at the former while failing at the latter.

fearofpopvol1
10-06-2007, 06:47 PM
Don't know that he didn't try and it not work out. He still brought in Stanton, Saarloos and Conine. Worse than doing nothing IMO.

While I agree those wern't the best options, they wern't all that bad either.

When you look at Conine, he was relatively inexpensive and we got rid of him midseason. We also received 2 prospects for him that do have upside, even though they may not amount to much.

I liked the Saarloos gamble actually, even if it didn't payoff. It was inexpensive, he was a groundball pitcher and it really didn't cost us much. It's unfortunate he didn't produce, but I liked the thinking with it.

Stanton was definitely the biggest bust and the most disappointing acquisition. I actually had less of a problem with Wayne signing him than most. My biggest gripe were the terms of the contract (2 years and with 140 appearences combined he automatically gets a 3rd year I believe). Stanton had a successful career as a reliever and while you could argue he had nothing left in the tank when he came to the Reds, proven success is hard to find and he didn't any prior seasons that were this bad. Either way, I'm not defending Stanton. He was horrible and I think the Reds would be best just cutting their losses now.

If those are the biggest gripes from last offseason, I don't think there's too much to complain about.

redsmetz
10-06-2007, 07:14 PM
While I agree those wern't the best options, they wern't all that bad either.

When you look at Conine, he was relatively inexpensive and we got rid of him midseason. We also received 2 prospects for him that do have upside, even though they may not amount to much.

I liked the Saarloos gamble actually, even if it didn't payoff. It was inexpensive, he was a groundball pitcher and it really didn't cost us much. It's unfortunate he didn't produce, but I liked the thinking with it.

Stanton was definitely the biggest bust and the most disappointing acquisition. I actually had less of a problem with Wayne signing him than most. My biggest gripe were the terms of the contract (2 years and with 140 appearences combined he automatically gets a 3rd year I believe). Stanton had a successful career as a reliever and while you could argue he had nothing left in the tank when he came to the Reds, proven success is hard to find and he didn't any prior seasons that were this bad. Either way, I'm not defending Stanton. He was horrible and I think the Reds would be best just cutting their losses now.

If those are the biggest gripes from last offseason, I don't think there's too much to complain about.

I agree with your assessments.

On Stanton, I'm of the mind that we're stuck with him because we really don't want someone else controlling him this year where they can saddle us with the 2009 guarantee. We either must trade his contract (perhaps with some money) or use him this year sparingly so he doesn't exceed the 140 innings. Interestingly, looking at his stats over the last few years, he seems to alternate good and bad years - maybe he's got one more tankful for us. We best hope he does because we don't want another team hanging us with his '09 contract if we DFA him.

mth123
10-06-2007, 07:47 PM
While I agree those wern't the best options, they wern't all that bad either.

When you look at Conine, he was relatively inexpensive and we got rid of him midseason. We also received 2 prospects for him that do have upside, even though they may not amount to much.

I liked the Saarloos gamble actually, even if it didn't payoff. It was inexpensive, he was a groundball pitcher and it really didn't cost us much. It's unfortunate he didn't produce, but I liked the thinking with it.

Stanton was definitely the biggest bust and the most disappointing acquisition. I actually had less of a problem with Wayne signing him than most. My biggest gripe were the terms of the contract (2 years and with 140 appearences combined he automatically gets a 3rd year I believe). Stanton had a successful career as a reliever and while you could argue he had nothing left in the tank when he came to the Reds, proven success is hard to find and he didn't any prior seasons that were this bad. Either way, I'm not defending Stanton. He was horrible and I think the Reds would be best just cutting their losses now.

If those are the biggest gripes from last offseason, I don't think there's too much to complain about.

Except, those were his "assemble the team" moves specifically designed to address the teams three glaring needs: a starter, relief pitching and a RH Bat. If those needs had been successfully addressed the team would have been in contention all year as opposed to completely buried by Memorial Day.

We all knew that Stanton was old and iffy with a high probablility of declining, Conine hadn't had a season worthy of his bat being in the middle of the line-up since 1999 and Saarloos walked more than he K'd and gave up HR by the bucketful in a pitchers park like Oakland. Despite all the moves that added to the talent pool (Hamilton, Burton, etc.), when it came time to position the team for a competitive season, WK laid a big egg IMO.

jojo
10-06-2007, 08:06 PM
Concerning Lohse, there's a possibility that Krivsky's story will be this in 6 years: he traded a low ball minor league, run of the mill arm for 200 cheap, slightly above league average innings from Lohse before flipping him for 6 years of cheap inning eating from Maloney...

Even if Maloney turns out to be another turd, the calculus seems to have already worked out on this one...

Falls City Beer
10-06-2007, 08:35 PM
Concerning Lohse, there's a possibility that Krivsky's story will be this in 6 years: he traded a low ball minor league, run of the mill arm for 200 cheap, slightly above league average innings from Lohse before flipping him for 6 years of cheap inning eating from Maloney...

Even if Maloney turns out to be another turd, the calculus seems to have already worked out on this one...

If Maloney's turd then he's a turd--ideas are wonderful, but if the return doesn't help, who cares? I won't beat Krivsky up for a deal like that because nothing was lost in the process, but really, neutral moves don't move the team forward. They're just so much futzing around, wasting time and resources on the margins of talent instead of striking at the heart for talent that can become a genuine plus on the field.

jojo
10-06-2007, 08:59 PM
If Maloney's turd then he's a turd--ideas are wonderful, but if the return doesn't help, who cares? I won't beat Krivsky up for a deal like that because nothing was lost in the process, but really, neutral moves don't move the team forward. They're just so much futzing around, wasting time and resources on the margins of talent instead of striking at the heart for talent that can become a genuine plus on the field.

That of course fails to acknowledge that Krivsky gave up a paltry sum for 200 league average quality innings in the rotation... ignore Maloney and the progression can't even be described as "neutral" accurately.

Falls City Beer
10-06-2007, 09:07 PM
That of course fails to acknowledge that Krivsky gave up a paltry sum for 200 league average quality innings in the rotation... ignore Maloney and the progression can't even be described as "neutral" accurately.

So you're giving him credit for flipping guys at the right time, namely Lohse before he became expensive. Okay, yeah, that was smart. But what has it done to change the longterm fortune of the club. Like I said, it's just futzing around at the margins of talent. Neither move (Ward for Lohse or Lohse for Maloney) will likely do any heavy-lifting for this club or ultimately change this club's fortunes. Lohse and Maloney still represent sub-average skill sets, and neither has great stuff.

jojo
10-06-2007, 09:32 PM
So you're giving him credit for flipping guys at the right time, namely Lohse before he became expensive. Okay, yeah, that was smart. But what has it done to change the longterm fortune of the club. Like I said, it's just futzing around at the margins of talent. Neither move (Ward for Lohse or Lohse for Maloney) will likely do any heavy-lifting for this club or ultimately change this club's fortunes. Lohse and Maloney still represent sub-average skill sets, and neither has great stuff.

Krivsky essentially flipped Ward for Maloney if you want to remove Lohse's innings from the equation... One guy has yet to make it out of A ball and the other will likely be in the Reds rotation at some point next year. I dunno but that seems like the kind of "meh" moves most fans wish their GM would make.

fearofpopvol1
10-06-2007, 11:06 PM
I like Maloney's upside more than I like Ward's for sure.

edabbs44
10-07-2007, 12:14 AM
Krivsky essentially flipped Ward for Maloney if you want to remove Lohse's innings from the equation... One guy has yet to make it out of A ball and the other will likely be in the Reds rotation at some point next year. I dunno but that seems like the kind of "meh" moves most fans wish their GM would make.

You forgot about the millions dropped on Lohse. That, to me, is a large issue. The Reds shouldn't be pissing away millions on "league average" pitchers when they need horses. Lohse's league averageness got him a 6-12 record. Sweet.

So Krivsky essentially flipped Ward and roughly $6 million for Maloney. Awesome.

Oh...and saying that Maloney "will likely be in the Reds rotation next year" has more to do with the Reds rotation than Maloney. Dumatrait made it there this season. That worked out well. Maloney looked good after coming over, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

WVRedsFan
10-07-2007, 12:41 AM
You forgot about the millions dropped on Lohse. That, to me, is a large issue. The Reds shouldn't be pissing away millions on "league average" pitchers when they need horses. Lohse's league averageness got him a 6-12 record. Sweet.

So Krivsky essentially flipped Ward and roughly $6 million for Maloney. Awesome.

Oh...and saying that Maloney "will likely be in the Reds rotation next year" has more to do with the Reds rotation than Maloney. Dumatrait made it there this season. That worked out well. Maloney looked good after coming over, but let's not get ahead of ourselves.

Save your breath, edabbs44. Those that drink the Krivsky Kool-Aid only see the positives and ignore the negatives. When and if we start winning more than we lose or atl least show improvement will I give Krivsky props. For those so easily pleased, i am reminded that many fought for Bowden and O'Brien with the same arguments. Just give up.

SteelSD
10-07-2007, 01:18 AM
Save your breath, edabbs44. Those that drink the Krivsky Kool-Aid only see the positives and ignore the negatives. When and if we start winning more than we lose or atl least show improvement will I give Krivsky props. For those so easily pleased, i am reminded that many fought for Bowden and O'Brien with the same arguments. Just give up.

To be fair, Krivsky took over a 2005 team that produced a 75-87 Pythag record and has produced the following since:

2006: 76-86 Pythag
2007: 75-87 Pythag

At best, we've seen wheel-spinning while waiting for prospects drafted by someone else to make a real impact. And he's wasted millions of dollars to do that. Not quite so good.

WVRedsFan
10-07-2007, 02:07 AM
To be fair, Krivsky took over a 2005 team that produced a 75-87 Pythag record and has produced the following since:

2006: 76-86 Pythag
2007: 75-87 Pythag

At best, we've seen wheel-spinning while waiting for prospects drafted by someone else to make a real impact. And he's wasted millions of dollars to do that. Not quite so good.

I have a lot of respect for your posts and you've hit onto something here. I appreciate the fact that you post with facts instead of making wild comments about the intelligence of posts you don't agree with.

That said, as I sit here responding to a baseball mesage board at nearly 2:00 in the morning (which shows the relative intelligence of this writer), I look at the many moves of our GM and see that since he came here, not much has changed. A game or two gained or a game or two lost, all the time waiting for that kid who will come up and make a difference. Laying the groundwork as they say. I've gone far beyond expecting anything positive with this club to happen because so many are so satisfied with just the scenario you present. The same old thing. So while the multitudes of fans of this team wait for something good to happen because we've improved the farm system or the jury's out on this player or that player, we continue to sit spinning our wheels just waiting.

Going against my better judgment, I give to you Mike Stanton, Mr. Majewski, Rheal Cromier, and many others pegged to improve our bullpen without success (and two or the three with extended contracts). I give to you Juan Castro, the extended Todd Coffey, the extended Jerry Narron, Kirk Saarloos, Santos, and the unforgettable Kyle Lohse. Couple that with the changes we've made. First base has had Hatteberg, Conine, Cantu, and later Votto (who should have made the club out of spring training). A winner at second with Phillips, the acquisition of Gonzo at short (to replace Lopez and the "best defensive shortstop", Royce Clayton). I don't see much to crow about because the result has been the same.

But, again, I'll get responses to this post that WK hasn't had enough time, and I can live with that. DanO didn't have enough time either after season after season of losing records. Or so they used to say.

I've decided to just watch and let the chips fall where they may. Yes, I'm a non-believer and will continue to be until the wins exceed the losses. Call me a realist, and that's OK, but until someone can show me something that has actually changed the losing I'll continue to be a non-believer. When the Reds win, and regardless of whatever mess many seem to think was there before, I'll believe. Until then, I can't give praise regardless of who is GM whether it be WK, Dan O'Brien or even Walt Jockety.

pedro
10-07-2007, 02:53 AM
To be fair, Krivsky took over a 2005 team that produced a 75-87 Pythag record and has produced the following since:

2006: 76-86 Pythag
2007: 75-87 Pythag

At best, we've seen wheel-spinning while waiting for prospects drafted by someone else to make a real impact. And he's wasted millions of dollars to do that. Not quite so good.

Krivsky spent 10-15% of the payroll in 2007 chasing rainbows.

I know that.

But the money was there to be spent and it's not like there were a plethora of other choices available. Even so, Krivsky did manage to add 3 pretty nice players this year in Hamilton, Burton and Keppinger, without losing any front line prospects or really squandering a lot of longterm cash.

He's doing a pretty good job IMO. Regardless, I do expect the Reds to do better in 2008 and if they don't, then I'll be ready to move on too.

GAC
10-07-2007, 07:42 AM
Krivsky spent 10-15% of the payroll in 2007 chasing rainbows.

I know that.

But the money was there to be spent and it's not like there were a plethora of other choices available. Even so, Krivsky did manage to add 3 pretty nice players this year in Hamilton, Burton and Keppinger, without losing any front line prospects or really squandering a lot of longterm cash.

He's doing a pretty good job IMO. Regardless, I do expect the Reds to do better in 2008 and if they don't, then I'll be ready to move on too.

As a Kool-Aid drinker - my sentiments exactly. Especially the highlighted part. ;)

This has to be done incrementally IMO. It can't be accomplished overnight.

Now some illustrate that we have lost 8 games in a comparison between last year's and this year's won-loss record. And that is true.

But is that really a true indicator that we are heading in the wrong direction, and that no improvements at all have been made on this team?

From a position player perspective, I like what we I see going into the '08 season. You're likely going to be seeing alot more younger players, and less of the Castros and Conines. I think our bench is going to be stronger.

It's obvious that the biggest hurdle is pitching. A hurdle that every other GM is facing in this off-season. That is not making excuses for WK. Just acknowledging a reality.

WK, as well as everyone of us on here, know that we need to add another starter and bolster this bullpen. The tough question is.... where are we going to get them from?

It would have been nice, when he took over last year, if he would have had some pitching prospects in the farm system that were possibly ready for the next level. Or at least had a couple that we felt safe at giving a shot. Even our top prospect in 21 yr old Bailey showed us that wasn't the case. So, due to "severity" of the need, we decide to try kids like Dumatrait, Gosling, and a 30 yr old career minor leaguer named Shearn?

What does that tell us about the state of our farm system?

And yet some contend that Wayne should have had this problem corrected and our farm system turned around from last year to this year.

Your bro made a statement a few weeks ago that greatly influenced my thinking when it comes to the "evolution" of this market on pitching.... that GM's are hoarding there cheap, young talent.

It use to be that the trading deadline was an opportune time for a team to unload a talented player, maybe one who was a pending FA, for top young prospects. I'm wondering if those days aren't past?

GM's seem to be saying "Yeah, I'd like to have an "Adam Dunn". But I look at the scarcity of pitching in this market, and I wonder which is the more valuable commodity right now? Even when it comes to young pitching prospects."

Where was that big trade everyone was talking about in these last two trading deadlines? Lohse for Maloney? What does that tell us?

No denying that WK has his work cut out for him in this area. He wasn't the only GM, when it came to their rotations/bullpens, who was "throwing stuff up against the wall and hoping somehow it would stick." ;)

And I see more of the same around MLB going into the '08 season IMO. The potential FA pitcher list just doesn't give me goosebumps.

GAC
10-07-2007, 07:46 AM
Save your breath, edabbs44. Those that drink the Krivsky Kool-Aid only see the positives and ignore the negatives.

I prefer Goofy Grape. ;)

http://www.theimaginaryworld.com/pac59.jpg

Ltlabner
10-07-2007, 08:00 AM
The Reds shouldn't be pissing away millions on "league average" pitchers when they need horses.

Haven't you been saying all year that other teams are smarter than the Reds for spending millions (and signing long term deals to boot) on the likes of the Lilly's and Supan's and Menche's and Marquis' of the world?

Compared to all these other guys, Loshe was a reasonable cost and got flipped for tallent. Oh yea, he wasn't signed to 3, 4 or 5year deal either.

Ltlabner
10-07-2007, 08:23 AM
I appreciate the fact that you post with facts instead of making wild comments about the intelligence of posts you don't agree with.

Pot, meet kettle......


Save your breath, edabbs44. Those that drink the Krivsky Kool-Aid only see the positives and ignore the negatives.


I've gone far beyond expecting anything positive with this club to happen because so many are so satisfied with just the scenario you present. .


Call me a realist.


When the Reds win, and regardless of whatever mess many seem to think was there before.


I know, I know. I'm sure my post will result in another "don't attack me" response. But you are trotting out the same old agruments. Nobody here has touted Krivsky as the 2nd comming, nor has anybody here turend a blind eye to his mistakes.

He's made mistakes. For about the billionth time, Stanton, Castro and Cormier were total mistakes. Extending Narron was a mistake. Conine was a mistake, but he did mitigate itby flipping him. Bringing up Hommer was a huge mistake. Keeping instead of selling Freel was a mistake. In retrospect (because I liked the move at the time) Sarrloos was a big mistake. Santos is a wash, IMO, but will toss him in the mistake column. Of course, the grandaddy of them all, for which he shall be eternally branded, "the trade". Oh yea, he's mean to EE and doesn't exude warmth and charm in the press.

Happy? Now, your turn. How about admitting some positives and then objectivley weighing them to see if he has more debits and credits?

You can go back to "but the record stunk". Duh. We all see that. But you conviently gloss over: Phillips, Burton and Hamilton (three huge low cost, high ceiling guys), going with Cooter (not a stud, but shows promise), giving Weathers a low-cost, short deal that resulted in cheep and effective closer work, not freaking out at the deadline and trading away key talent. EE was handed the starting 3b job, lost it, but was allowed to win it back. Jr defly and quietly moved to RF. Pena for Arroyo. Picked up McBeth, another prospect AND cash for an injured 4th OF who didn't take one AB in 2007. Recoginized general improvement to the farm system. Bringing in Pete Mac to helm the ship for the rest of the year (threre is some value in having the ship righted and restoring some order in the clubhouse). The host of 2 year deals are bummers, he hasn't signed any 5 year "Milton" deals that hamper the team significantly. He drafted a boat-load of pitching this year.

I understand some folks see a lot of little mistakes that have contributed to a dismal 2007 campaign. I see a lot of little mistakes that generally hurt in the short term, combined with a lot of positives that generally help in the long-term. I'll take long term positives over short term mistakes any day.

He can certinally eat up that good-will very quickly with bad moves in the off-season, but IMO his positives outweigh his negatives which warrents continued employment.

jojo
10-07-2007, 08:24 AM
Save your breath, edabbs44. Those that drink the Krivsky Kool-Aid only see the positives and ignore the negatives. When and if we start winning more than we lose or atl least show improvement will I give Krivsky props. For those so easily pleased, i am reminded that many fought for Bowden and O'Brien with the same arguments. Just give up.

Are you suggesting I drink Krivsky kool aid?

Any GM that pays roughly $5M for 200 innings of slightly above league average in their rotation should have that move count as a positive. When that deal also has the potential to give you more cheap innings for your rotation in the very near future, I don't know how it could be counted as a failure.

I'd suggest some in the anti Krivsky crowd are drinking sugar-free Koolaid (blech).

Personally I prefer to drink water and not have red dye #9 bias my opinion in either direction. :cool:

jojo
10-07-2007, 08:32 AM
without losing any front line prospects or really squandering a lot of longterm cash.

He's doing a pretty good job IMO. Regardless, I do expect the Reds to do better in 2008 and if they don't, then I'll be ready to move on too.

I tend to agree. He's basically bided his time waiting for roster turnover and plugged holes with stopgaps that wouldn't anchor the franchise for multiple years while picking up as much undervalued youth as he could. Krivsky can be criticized for not being more aggressive to win a division that has been very weak the last two seasons. That said, the future looks a lot brighter for the Reds now than it did two winters ago. You don;t have to give him credit for the farm pretty much collectively taking a huge leap last season but as Pedro suggest, he didn't do anything to undermine it.

I don't think Krivsky is the best GM in the game. But I think it's pretty unfair to only view him through muddy glasses.

redsmetz
10-07-2007, 08:34 AM
Your bro made a statement a few weeks ago that greatly influenced my thinking when it comes to the "evolution" of this market on pitching.... that GM's are harding there cheap, young talent.

It use to be that the trading deadline was an opportune time for a team to unload a talented player, maybe one who was a pending FA, for top young prospects. I'm wondering if those days aren't past?

GM's seem to be saying "Yeah, I'd like to have an "Adam Dunn". But I look at the scarcity of pitching in this market, and I wonder which is the more valuable commodity right now? Even when it comes to young pitching prospects."

Where was that big trade everyone was talking about in these last two trading deadlines? Lohse for Maloney? What does that tell us?

No denying that WK has his work cut out for him in this area. He wasn't the only GM, when it came to their rotations/bullpens, who was "throwing stuff up against the wall and hoping somehow it would stick." ;)

And I see more of the same around MLB going into the '08 season IMO. The potential FA pitcher list just doesn't give me goosebumps.

The irony is that the Lohse trade was the biggest move at the deadline and that Lohse will likely be the most coveted pitcher in this year's free agency class.

The market today is such that few prime pitching prospects can be had in a reasonable trade. I don't think the Reds get Aaron Harang for a Jose Guillen in today's market (and remember that was a 3 young pitchers for one trade). I think the market is that tight.

Maybe it's Kool-Aid drinking, but I think that the Reds have added a plethora of pitchers to an anemic system in the past year or two. Now we all know that all will not be stellar pitchers, but we're taking some raw talent to see if we can mold them into serviceable ML pitchers. I applaud that.

And all of that, as many have noted, without giving up one prime prospect of our own. It amazes me that there are so many naysayers who don't give any credit for that.

jojo
10-07-2007, 08:35 AM
Pot, meet kettle......










I know, I know. I'm sure my post will result in another "don't attack me" response. But you are trotting out the same old agruments. Nobody here has touted Krivsky as the 2nd comming, nor has anybody here turend a blind eye to his mistakes.

He's made mistakes. For about the billionth time, Stanton, Castro and Cormier were total mistakes. Extending Narron was a mistake. Conine was a mistake, but he did mitigate itby flipping him. Bringing up Hommer was a huge mistake. Keeping instead of selling Freel was a mistake. In retrospect (because I liked the move at the time) Sarrloos was a big mistake. Santos is a wash, IMO, but will toss him in the mistake column. Of course, the grandaddy of them all, for which he shall be eternally branded, "the trade". Oh yea, he's mean to EE and doesn't exude warmth and charm in the press.

Happy? Now, your turn. How about admitting some positives and then objectivley weighing them to see if he has more debits and credits?

You can go back to "but the record stunk". Duh. We all see that. But you conviently gloss over: Phillips, Burton and Hamilton (three huge low cost, high ceiling guys), going with Cooter (not a stud, but shows promise), giving Weathers a low-cost, short deal that resulted in cheep and effective closer work, not freaking out at the deadline and trading away key talent. EE was handed the starting 3b job, lost it, but was allowed to win it back. Jr defly and quietly moved to RF. Pena for Arroyo. Picked up McBeth, another prospect AND cash for an injured 4th OF who didn't take one AB in 2007. Recoginized general improvement to the farm system. Bringing in Pete Mac to helm the ship for the rest of the year (threre is some value in having the ship righted and restoring some order in the clubhouse). The host of 2 year deals are bummers, he hasn't signed any 5 year "Milton" deals that hamper the team significantly. He drafted a boat-load of pitching this year.

I understand some folks see a lot of little mistakes that have contributed to a dismal 2007 campaign. I see a lot of little mistakes that generally hurt in the short term, combined with a lot of positives that generally help in the long-term. I'll take long term positives over short term mistakes any day.

He can certinally eat up that good-will very quickly with bad moves in the off-season, but IMO his positives outweigh his negatives which warrents continued employment.

Yep.

Falls City Beer
10-07-2007, 09:04 AM
I think Dave Littlefield kept his Pirates roster free of big, cumbersome contracts, too. All the while bringing along prospects without "hurting" them: Z. Duke, T Gorzelanny, etc.

Just sayin.

I look for things in the *positive* column of the ledger.

And those are: Hamilton, Burton, Phillips, Arroyo.

Now it's time to start seeing a difference made in the pythag. next season. If that doesn't show up, get thee gone, Wayne.

edabbs44
10-07-2007, 09:48 AM
I think Dave Littlefield kept his Pirates roster free of big, cumbersome contracts, too. All the while bringing along prospects without "hurting" them: Z. Duke, T Gorzelanny, etc.

Just sayin.

I look for things in the *positive* column of the ledger.

And those are: Hamilton, Burton, Phillips, Arroyo.

Now it's time to start seeing a difference made in the pythag. next season. If that doesn't show up, get thee gone, Wayne.

I'm gonna hold off on Burton for the time being, as he could be anywhere next year from awesome to Todd Coffey part deux.

The Arroyo acquisition is another one I want to wait on. It has worked out marvelously for now, but I still think his extension was a huge, unnecessary risk. That salary could look awful

I waited on Hamilton for a while this season and he dismissed all of my concerns pretty easily. Hopefully he keeps his nose clean and continues to take the city by storm.

Phillips...what can anyone say?


The biggest issue I have with Wayne's "successes" is that they are mostly longshots. It's not everyday that a former #1 overall draft picks become available for basically nothing. Same with former top 5 overall minor league prospects.

Typically, a team has to be built through the draft, FA signings and trades. Wayne has not impressed me in these areas over the entire body of his work. I don't see him continuing to find gems like Phillips and Hamilton because they are the exceptions and not the rules. Hopefully he comes around in the other areas.

There are drafts and FA markets every year. Hamiltons happen once per generation, if that.

edabbs44
10-07-2007, 09:51 AM
Krivsky spent 10-15% of the payroll in 2007 chasing rainbows.

I know that.

But the money was there to be spent and it's not like there were a plethora of other choices available.

The money could have been spent on the farm system. He could have doubled his draft budget and signed a few top international FAs.

Instead it was blown on guys like Mike Stanton and Rheal Cormier.

redsmetz
10-07-2007, 09:56 AM
The money could have been spent on the farm system. He could have doubled his draft budget and signed a few top international FAs.

Instead it was blown on guys like Mike Stanton and Rheal Cormier.

But there is no indication that the Reds went cheap on the draft. In fact, they signed a good number of their picks in a year when MLB changed some of the rules and worked to keep signings within their respective slots.

Likewise, I find it hard to believe that money spent on Stanton or Cormier has kept them from running a vigorous development program in Latin America. I know WK didn't start that program, but we're seeing those players showing up all over the U.S. minor league teams. And we're seeing signings from Europe, Australia and Asia.

So how exactly had these two signings impeded that development as much as you claim?

edabbs44
10-07-2007, 10:03 AM
Haven't you been saying all year that other teams are smarter than the Reds for spending millions (and signing long term deals to boot) on the likes of the Lilly's and Supan's and Menche's and Marquis' of the world?

Compared to all these other guys, Loshe was a reasonable cost and got flipped for tallent. Oh yea, he wasn't signed to 3, 4 or 5year deal either.

Manipulating what I have said doesn't make it true.

My biggest issue last off-season was that Wayne didn't make a real decision of what he was going to do with this team. Was he going to try and win now, or was he looking a few years down the line? That's what teams have to do to be somewhat successful. Either try and win in the near term or the long term.

Wayne tried to play both sides. He spent money hinting at trying to win now while not spending a ton of money/prospects to damage long-term possibilities.

Personally, I thought he wasted his money last off-season and said the same from jumpstreet. AGon? Total waste of money. Same with Lohse, Cormier, Conine, Stanton, etc. I said last off-season that these guys will not materially impact the team and any money spent on them would be a waste. Can anyone truly say that they are really excited about those acquisitions from a year ago? Does anyone believe that a lot more could have been done with the money spent on these guys?

My belief was that, if Wayne truly thought this team was close, he should have went after the Meches and Lillys of the world. But if he didn't, that money should have been put into mutual funds until he was ready to spend it. The money wasn't expiring last offseason. There were plenty of places to spend money like that. He could have drafted the BPA over the first 5 or 6 rounds of the '07 and/or '08 drafts. He could have signed a few bonus babies from the DR. He could have socked it away for a rainy day or for a FA he liked.

There were many options. He, IMO, picked the worst.

edabbs44
10-07-2007, 10:10 AM
But there is no indication that the Reds went cheap on the draft. In fact, they signed a good number of their picks in a year when MLB changed some of the rules and worked to keep signings within their respective slots.

Likewise, I find it hard to believe that money spent on Stanton or Cormier has kept them from running a vigorous development program in Latin America. I know WK didn't start that program, but we're seeing those players showing up all over the U.S. minor league teams. And we're seeing signings from Europe, Australia and Asia.

So how exactly had these two signings impeded that development as much as you claim?

They may have not completely "gone cheap", but they didn't go expensive either.

Porcello (DET), Harvey (LAA), Arrieta (BAL), Middlebrooks (BOS) and McGeary (WAS) were all potential first rounders who slid due to monetary demands. 4 of the 5 signed above slot. Harvey is headed to UNC.

Stanton's contract alone could have paid for Arrieta, Middlebrooks and McGeary. Think about it.

nate
10-07-2007, 10:36 AM
Personally, I thought he wasted his money last off-season and said the same from jumpstreet. AGon? Total waste of money. Same with Lohse, Cormier, Conine, Stanton, etc. I said last off-season that these guys will not materially impact the team and any money spent on them would be a waste. Can anyone truly say that they are really excited about those acquisitions from a year ago? Does anyone believe that a lot more could have been done with the money spent on these guys?

I disagree about AGon. He'll be acceptable at short and / or tradable...perhaps even in the offseason.

Lohse has been explained quite well in this thread. Oddly, Lohse _this_ offseason may be the equivalent of Lilly and Meche _last_ offseason.

Frenchy is gone and was terrible.

Conine was exactly what I thought he was going to be: a gift certificate for two minor leaguers.

Stanton was bad and will probably continue to be bad next year. If so, look for some extended DL time. I suppose the worst case scenario for some is he's "not bad" and those inning pile up triggering the third year. I don't think that will happen though. I'm thinking he might be on the shuffleboard court by July of next year.

edabbs44
10-07-2007, 10:41 AM
I disagree about AGon. He'll be acceptable at short and / or tradable...perhaps even in the offseason.

Lohse has been explained quite well in this thread. Oddly, Lohse _this_ offseason may be the equivalent of Lilly and Meche _last_ offseason.

Frenchy is gone and was terrible.

Conine was exactly what I thought he was going to be: a gift certificate for two minor leaguers.

Stanton was bad and will probably continue to be bad next year. If so, look for some extended DL time. I suppose the worst case scenario for some is he's "not bad" and those inning pile up triggering the third year. I don't think that will happen though. I'm thinking he might be on the shuffleboard court by July of next year.

People tend to forget that Conine was acquired for that same gift certificate, along with paying him a salary of $2 million or so.

And I disagree with the Gonzalez assessment. After his contract is up, people will not really care that he was here for 3 years. And I don't think he's all that tradeable, until possibly at next year's deadline.

Falls City Beer
10-07-2007, 11:24 AM
What is also intriguing, to say the least, is that Wayne's second best move (behind the Arroyo trade) was his decision to extend Harang, Arroyo, and Dunn. Now it appears that Wayne may not take advantage (or may not be able to take advantage) of having these three difference-makers locked up to reasonable contracts. I think it's past time for Castellini to turn Krivsky loose with the pocketbook and bring in MLB contributors. It's time to win this division. It's no longer time for excuses. Shoulder to the rock, fellas.

GAC
10-07-2007, 11:30 AM
People tend to forget that Conine was acquired for that same gift certificate, along with paying him a salary of $2 million or so.

I don't think people have forgot. They see Conine for what he was.... a RH'd bat, with the exit of Aurlia, to platoon with Hatte at 1B. I don't see that 2 mil as money that was pee'd away when one looks at the intent behind it, and the fact we did get a couple prospects in return for that investment.

As I posted earlier, Baseball America gave the Reds good marks on those two prospects they got from the Mets for Conine.

And when we had this discussion earlier in the year - as to WHO the Reds should have acquired instead of Conine - no one was coming up with/suggesting very viable alternatives.

One example was Eduardo Perez. Would he have made that much of a difference? Would we have been able to trade him for prospects, like we did with Conine? Highly doubtful. He was invited to the Sox ST camp and disappeared. He played nowhere in '07.

GAC
10-07-2007, 11:43 AM
I think it's past time for Castellini to turn Krivsky loose with the pocketbook and bring in MLB contributors. It's time to win this division. It's no longer time for excuses. Shoulder to the rock, fellas.

They need pitching. Throw out some available names the Reds should go after.

jojo
10-07-2007, 11:54 AM
One example was Eduardo Perez. Would he have made that much of a difference? Would we have been able to trade him for prospects, like we did with Conine? Highly doubtful. He was invited to the Sox ST camp and disappeared. He played nowhere in '07.

Here's one guy that I argued for- Craig Wilson (.172/.304/.259 albeit in only 58 AB though). His '07 makes Conine's with the Reds look all-starish (.265/.320/.409)... Taking on Conine's $2M looks a lot better than outbidding the Giants for Aurilia (2yrs/$8M for .252/.304/.368 in year one). BTW, the Reds basically got league average production from first base in '07 (Reds: .304/.373/.476; the NL: .284/.365/.481) at a cost of somewhere around $3.5M.

Not too shabby considering that they had to hedge their bets because a long term deal to someone would block Votto (and really there wasn't anyone to offer a longterm deal to...).

Falls City Beer
10-07-2007, 12:43 PM
Here's one guy that I argued for- Craig Wilson (.172/.304/.259 albeit in only 58 AB though). His '07 makes Conine's with the Reds look all-starish (.265/.320/.409)... Taking on Conine's $2M looks a lot better than outbidding the Giants for Aurilia (2yrs/$8M for .252/.304/.368 in year one). BTW, the Reds basically got league average production from first base in '07 (Reds: .304/.373/.476; the NL: .284/.365/.481) at a cost of somewhere around $3.5M.

Not too shabby considering that they had to hedge their bets because a long term deal to someone would block Votto (and really there wasn't anyone to offer a longterm deal to...).

Or they could have ignored the scouting reports that said Votto was a bust in the field and promoted Votto. They would have gotten that OPS line and more for major league minimum. (That was classic Terry Ryan thinking right there).

jojo
10-07-2007, 01:12 PM
Or they could have ignored the scouting reports that said Votto was a bust in the field and promoted Votto. They would have gotten that OPS line and more for major league minimum. (That was classic Terry Ryan thinking right there).

Considering Votto had a lot to prove after just a single breakout year at AA, I wouldn't fault the Reds for not automatically making him a part of their 25 man roster last spring....

Falls City Beer
10-07-2007, 01:15 PM
Considering Votto had a lot to prove after just a single breakout year at AA, I wouldn't fault the Reds for not automatically making him a part of their 25 man roster last spring....

Then keep Hatteberg and bring along Votto slowly.

We both know why Conine was brought on: to be Hatteberg's righty platoon partner, an antiquated concept in its own right--handedness in platooning is pretty silly, I think you'll agree. He was brought on for the wrong reasons, and he didn't really provide anything except leaching 2 million from the Reds' limited coffers.

jojo
10-07-2007, 01:24 PM
Then keep Hatteberg and bring along Votto slowly.

We both know why Conine was brought on: to be Hatteberg's righty platoon partner, an antiquated concept in its own right--handedness in platooning is pretty silly, I think you'll agree. He was brought on for the wrong reasons, and he didn't really provide anything except leaching 2 million from the Reds' limited coffers.

I think Conine was brought in because he had hit lefties very well over his career which complemented Hatteberg's splits against righties. Also Conine was meant to strengthen the bench by giving them a righty option that supposedly could play several positions (remember that crazy talk about his ability to play outfield?). While you can argue whether at this stage in his career Conine really fit the bill for any of those roles, there really isn't anything silly about the underlying concept of leveraging platoon splits IMHO.

Falls City Beer
10-07-2007, 01:26 PM
I think Conine was brought in because he had hit lefties very well over his career which complemented Hatteberg's splits against righties. Also Conine was meant to strengthen the bench by giving them a righty option that supposedly could play several positions (remember that crazy talk about his ability to play outfield?). While you can argue whether at this stage in his career Conine really fit the bill for any of those roles, there really isn't anything silly about the underlying concept of leveraging platoon splits.

Platoon splits end up being more sound than fury--more often than not the better hitter of the two gets squeezed out of ABs due to handedness. Had Hatteberg gotten the ABs that Conine got, I don't imagine the OPS from 1B would have suffered much at all. Had Votto shared ABs with Hatteberg, my guess is that, with his power, the OPS from 1B would have been higher than it was this season.

WVRedsFan
10-07-2007, 01:35 PM
Pot, meet kettle......

I know, I know. I'm sure my post will result in another "don't attack me" response. But you are trotting out the same old agruments. Nobody here has touted Krivsky as the 2nd comming, nor has anybody here turend a blind eye to his mistakes.

I understand some folks see a lot of little mistakes that have contributed to a dismal 2007 campaign. I see a lot of little mistakes that generally hurt in the short term, combined with a lot of positives that generally help in the long-term. I'll take long term positives over short term mistakes any day.

He can certinally eat up that good-will very quickly with bad moves in the off-season, but IMO his positives outweigh his negatives which warrents continued employment.

No, I'm over that somewhat. And it really wasn't you I was talking about, but...

I'm so passionate about this club that I sometimes go overboard--especially when I'm stuck in Alabama and can't sleep at 2:00 AM, and I have to listen to some idiot go on and on about the Braves and how pitiful the Reds are in a campground. Try it some time and see if you don't hate it.

Krivsky will be around for some time and he will either continue to do the things he's done or improve (in my eyes). Either way, we are the ultimate losers as fans. Abner, We've never had a GM that some (many?) haven't supported with the same arguments being made about WK today. The fact that I use the same arguments over and over is the same reason his supporters use the same arguments over and over. I quit. For now.

pedro
10-07-2007, 01:35 PM
Then keep Hatteberg and bring along Votto slowly.

We both know why Conine was brought on: to be Hatteberg's righty platoon partner, an antiquated concept in its own right--handedness in platooning is pretty silly, I think you'll agree. He was brought on for the wrong reasons, and he didn't really provide anything except leaching 2 million from the Reds' limited coffers.

Hatteberg's 3 year splits vs. LHP say hi.

Falls City Beer
10-07-2007, 03:23 PM
Hatteberg's 3 year splits vs. LHP say hi.

But why spend 2 million for what you can get at major league minimum (e.g. Conine's OPS)?

Plus the important ABs Votto could have gotten against lefties.

mth123
10-07-2007, 03:33 PM
But why spend 2 million for what you can get at major league minimum (e.g. Conine's OPS)?

Plus the important ABs Votto could have gotten against lefties.

Exactly. Conine's OPS versus LHP in 2005 = .700. In 2006 = .737. Minor League Free Agents were available for that role. Conine improved to .774 versus LHP in 2007, but I'd wager that the increase was GABP driven. FWIW Jayson Werth (who Philly signed in favor of keeping Conine) had an OPS versus LHP of 1.058 for $500K. Josh Phelps had an OPS versus LHP of .892. Neither had GABP in their corner.

This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. With his GM hat on, Krivsky chose a more expensive less productive option. When it came time to dump him and specifc roles to be filled weren't a factor in the move, WK donned his scouts cap and was able to add some talent to the organization. I'm glad he's a pretty good scout. I want him to be a good GM.

RedsManRick
10-07-2007, 04:00 PM
We both know why Conine was brought on: to be Hatteberg's righty platoon partner, an antiquated concept in its own right--handedness in platooning is pretty silly, I think you'll agree. He was brought on for the wrong reasons, and he didn't really provide anything except leaching 2 million from the Reds' limited coffers.

You're making the case that either this isn't such thing as real platoon splits (which is hilarious) or that taking advantage of them is not intelligent. Either way, wow.

As Jojo pointed out, the Reds got league average production from free agency at the cost of $3.5M. Now, maybe you can make the case that the Reds didn't need to do that -- that Votto was really ready to go. However, that's hardly a case against utilizing a platooning guys who have significantly better success against pitchers throwing from one side versus the other (such as Hatteberg's career .803 OPS vR and .673 OPS vL).

The only problem with the Reds 1B platoon, if you insist there was one, was that Conine was a stupid choice for his part of the platoon because he doesn't hit anybody terribly well these days, righty or lefty.

As for those "important at bats versus lefties" for Votto, in 2006 at AA, he OPS'd .904 vR and .669 vL. I don't think I want a guy OPS'd .669 in AA against lefties to learn how to him them in the majors with no real backup. What would you be saying about Krivsky if he handed the job to Votto and he struggled? I can see the whining about rushing him now.

The idea that Votto would've outperformed the platoon duo with no time at all spent in AAA is pure speculation. He got league average offensive production for $3.5M and allowed a prospect to fully develop in the process. And we're whining about it as if that's why this team has struggled. Was it the most optimal situation -- maybe not. Maybe Votto would've come up and OPS'd .900 for the league minimum. Or maybe he would've come up, got dominated by lefties, had the struggles go to his head and Javier Valentin would've been our 1B for half the season. Of all the possibilities, I'd say 1B worked out pretty well in 2007.

Yes, Hatteberg could/should have been dealt at the break. But who knows what the market was for him. Was anybody interested?

dougdirt
10-07-2007, 04:13 PM
Considering Votto had a lot to prove after just a single breakout year at AA, I wouldn't fault the Reds for not automatically making him a part of their 25 man roster last spring....
Come on now, you have to give Votto more credit than that. He was good in rookie ball, good in Single A and real good in AA. He was poor in Sarasota after having to take the first pitch of every at bat, leaving him in a hole nearly every at bat. Vottos career numbers look pretty good from year to year with the exception of 2005.

mth123
10-07-2007, 04:20 PM
The only problem with the Reds 1B platoon, if you insist there was one, was that Conine was a stupid choice for his part of the platoon because he doesn't hit anybody terribly well these days, righty or lefty.

This is the entire problem. Stupid choices. Add 2 old LHP in the pen as stupid choices. A no range defense minded utility IF, a high walk, low K, HR prone acquisition for the rotation , etc. etc. etc. and the sum effect of the stupid choices undermines any progress made in the pure talent acquisition successes that the organization experienced.

RedsManRick
10-07-2007, 04:24 PM
Come on now, you have to give Votto more credit than that. He was good in rookie ball, good in Single A and real good in AA. He was poor in Sarasota after having to take the first pitch of every at bat, leaving him in a hole nearly every at bat. Vottos career numbers look pretty good from year to year with the exception of 2005.

I agree, it's not like he was a 1 year wonder in 2006 or anything. However, I think there's a big difference between the attitude towards him as a prospect and the willingness to commit to him at a position without any real other in house option. Especially before he had a single AAA at bat and there were questions about his defense.

He seemed ready when he came up in September, but I don't think any of us can say how much he was helped by the year in AAA and if we would've seen the same Votto in April.

Falls City Beer
10-07-2007, 04:31 PM
You're making the case that either this isn't such thing as real platoon splits (which is hilarious) or that taking advantage of them is not intelligent. Either way, wow.

As Jojo pointed out, the Reds got league average production from free agency at the cost of $3.5M. Now, maybe you can make the case that the Reds didn't need to do that -- that Votto was really ready to go. However, that's hardly a case against utilizing a platooning guys who have significantly better success against pitchers throwing from one side versus the other (such as Hatteberg's career .803 OPS vR and .673 OPS vL).

The only problem with the Reds 1B platoon, if you insist there was one, was that Conine was a stupid choice for his part of the platoon because he doesn't hit anybody terribly well these days, righty or lefty.

As for those "important at bats versus lefties" for Votto, in 2006 at AA, he OPS'd .904 vR and .669 vL. I don't think I want a guy OPS'd .669 in AA against lefties to learn how to him them in the majors with no real backup. What would you be saying about Krivsky if he handed the job to Votto and he struggled? I can see the whining about rushing him now.

The idea that Votto would've outperformed the platoon duo with no time at all spent in AAA is pure speculation. He got league average offensive production for $3.5M and allowed a prospect to fully develop in the process. And we're whining about it as if that's why this team has struggled. Was it the most optimal situation -- maybe not. Maybe Votto would've come up and OPS'd .900 for the league minimum. Or maybe he would've come up, got dominated by lefties, had the struggles go to his head and Javier Valentin would've been our 1B for half the season. Of all the possibilities, I'd say 1B worked out pretty well in 2007.

Yes, Hatteberg could/should have been dealt at the break. But who knows what the market was for him. Was anybody interested?

I'm saying platoons that really work are often rarer than most think.

You and jojo are often the ones arguing that the Reds should do every single thing to keep the Reds' payroll exceedingly low, so much so that you often eschew real talent gains based on the price tag. Now when I point out that what Conine produced could have been gotten by minor league talent, you argue *for* the acquisition of an aging replacement-level first baseman at $2 million per? I'm not sure I follow your logic.

I'd argue that it's in contracts like Conine's where the Reds could save some SERIOUS cash; if you guys want to debate whether or not the Reds should sign real value like Dunn, fine. I'll just keep cutting out the eminently replaceable parts sucking at the Reds' teat.

Falls City Beer
10-07-2007, 04:42 PM
This is a perfect example of what I'm talking about. With his GM hat on, Krivsky chose a more expensive less productive option. When it came time to dump him and specifc roles to be filled weren't a factor in the move, WK donned his scouts cap and was able to add some talent to the organization. I'm glad he's a pretty good scout. I want him to be a good GM.

This is a pretty interesting distinction. One that I find impossible to disagree with.

He has been pathetic in roster construction/deployment. And he's obviously not cracked the whip soon enough on his minor league system, both acquisition and development.

I wonder if the guy's just been much too loose of a delegator? Too nice, maybe?

RedsManRick
10-07-2007, 04:44 PM
I'm saying platoons that really work are often rarer than most think.

Based on? As evidenced by? I'm not saying you're wrong here, but can you at least site something to back that claim up? And besides, the Reds 1B platoon did work out. Jeff Conine's .774 OPS vL was one of the highest on the Reds (sadly) and higher than Hatteberg has put up against lefties in any year in his career. So why are we complaining? Because that wasn't worth what it cost? I've agreed to that already.



You and jojo are often the ones arguing that the Reds should do every single thing to keep the Reds' payroll exceedingly low, so much so that you often eschew real talent gains based on the price tag. Now when I point out that what Conine produced could have been gotten by minor league talent, you argue *for* the acquisition of an aging replacement-level first baseman at $2 million per? I'm not sure I follow your logic.

Firstly, "every single thing to keep the Reds' payroll exceedingly low"? Feel free to find the post(s) where I espouse that. That sort of misrepresentation accomplishes nothing. Payroll efficiency? Not wasting money in FA on minimally productive players? Absolutely. I agreed that Conine was a fairly poor choice for his half of the platoon and agree that somebody like Jesse Gutierrez could've filled that role just fine. I won't disagree with you that Krivsky chose poorly in that regard. However, he did acquire two prospects for Conine, so it wasn't a complete waste. You can't exactly go buy the prospects outright. (except from Latin America)


I'd argue that it's in contracts like Conine's where the Reds could save some SERIOUS cash; if you guys want to debate whether or not the Reds should sign real value like Dunn, fine. I'll just keep cutting out the eminently replaceable parts sucking at the Reds' teat.

Again, let's not conflate the poor decision to sign Conine with the logic of not bringing up Votto and the logic of using a platoon in general. Both of those latter issues are quite defensible and I'm not sure you'll find too many people who are now or were ever fans of the Conine signing -- either from the economic or the production perspective. You don't need to spend any money to get the right handed half of a 1B platoon -- those guys are all over the place in AAA.

I agree with you, one of the recurrent mistakes that teams like the Reds make is that they waste significant portions of their payroll on replacement (or sub-replacement) level talent -- failing to realize that they have comparable options either in house or available as minor league free agents.

If the upside of guy you're going to pay $2-3M is him barely justifying that investment, then it's better not made -- unless you have no other way to get that kind of production and that production will make a competitive difference.

nate
10-07-2007, 04:48 PM
Now when I point out that what Conine produced could have been gotten by minor league talent, you argue *for* the acquisition of an aging replacement-level first baseman at $2 million per? I'm not sure I follow your logic.

I see the logic as buying development time for one of your prospects, acquiring more talent for the lower and mid levels, shoring up the bench a bit and creating a RH part of the platoon at 1st.

If you think its too high a price to pay for something like that, that's up to you. To me, its a move that neither excites or repulses.

Falls City Beer
10-07-2007, 04:55 PM
I think there's a cause and effect relationship between Votto's "readiness" and the signing of Conine.

So I'll conflate, if you don't mind.

And I'm sitting here reading several posts that say Conine's signing is defensible, so while no one comes out and says Conine's signing was "great" or "good," it is being described as defensible. And I disagree with that.

And I'd say the fact that the vast majority of MLB teams use platoons as a last-ditch effort to get value out of a position is not a bad place to start when evaluating the efficacy of platoons. Guys don't like being platooned. And really, it's almost impossible to prove their efficacy because we have no way of knowing what a guy like Hatteberg would do against both lefties and righties. Unless both hitters represent extreme tendencies of handedness in batting (like say 1.100 OPS against lefties and .500 against righties) over many seasons, platoons are likely to be little more than neat experiments, and in the case of Conine, certainly not worth $2 million dollars.

jojo
10-07-2007, 06:00 PM
I'm saying platoons that really work are often rarer than most think.

To be fair a lot of platoons are really compromises in disguise meant to make the most out of a less than ideal situation. You need to look no further than Aurilia/Hatteberg in '05 and '06 for an example of how effective a platoon by design can be. I ate a lot of crow for that one by the way....


You and jojo are often the ones arguing that the Reds should do every single thing to keep the Reds' payroll exceedingly low

I can't speak for RMR, but I've never argued that. NEVER. I've consistently advocated spending money wisely (which is why I often drone on about how to best evaluate players). I've argued that it's not a sin to pay fair value for wins (and in fact it's a given that a team will have to for a portion of it's roster). I've even argued there is a time and a place to purposely overpay for wins. Basically, I'm far less concerned about payroll level than I am about the degree payroll manages risk.


so much so that you often eschew real talent gains based on the price tag. Now when I point out that what Conine produced could have been gotten by minor league talent, you argue *for* the acquisition of an aging replacement-level first baseman at $2 million per? I'm not sure I follow your logic.

Once again, I can't speak for RMR, but I haven't argued for Conine per se. Rather, it made no sense to platoon two guys who can't hit left handers so they needed someone to play first who could bat against lefties and Krivsky's solution didn't place them at a disadvantage while it gave them fair value. I don't share Krivsky's allegiance to proven veteran grit and like I said earlier it's easy to argue whether Conine at this point in his career really fit the roles he was acquired to fill. Anyway, Krivsky didn't pay the whole $2M owed Conine and he flipped him for something potentially useful. As sins go, that one was at least partially atoned.


I'd argue that it's in contracts like Conine's where the Reds could save some SERIOUS cash; if you guys want to debate whether or not the Reds should sign real value like Dunn, fine. I'll just keep cutting out the eminently replaceable parts sucking at the Reds' teat.

I think you're right that overpaying several marginal players can be a significant drag to a roster just like overpaying a huge contract can be because all of those "little"ones add up quickly.

That said, I've never argued the Reds should cut bait on Dunn simply to save $13M (in fact I've argued that the Reds should pick up his option). In general, concerning Dunn, I've argued that his defense mitigates his overall value to the RS/RA equation but nonetheless the market will dictate that he be paid like he can in fact hit and catch because the impact of defense is still largely ignored. Moreover, since he's a true three outcome guy and those types of players historically have aged earlier, a long term deal for Dunn is very risky because there is very little margin of error for decline in his bat given his glove.

It's not really accurate to characterize these issues as some generic *payflex* argument IMHO.

RedsManRick
10-07-2007, 06:03 PM
I think there's a cause and effect relationship between Votto's "readiness" and the signing of Conine.

So I'll conflate, if you don't mind.

Umm... I'm not even sure what your point is here. Yes, Conine was signed because the organization felt that Votto was not ready. So they decided to get as much production as possible at a reasonable cost. Thus the platoon. Scott Hatteberg has never hit lefties at an acceptable level with a career .673 OPS in over 1000 PA. Two full years of PA, sub-replacement production. I'm glad we went with a platoon there. I've already said that Conine was a bad choice for his half -- but that doesn't have anything to do with Votto.

The idea that Votto was absolutely ready to go but was held back in part by Conine is silly. He was held back because the Reds didn't think he was ready and had a solid, cheap option already in place to let him develop for 1 more year. During the course of the season, if anybody held him back from being promoted, it was Hatteberg, who hit .310/.394/.474 (a higher OPS than Votto's in AAA). Forgive me if I don't cry over the fact that a prospect who had never played above AA and needed to work on his defense was held back by a league average 1B platoon that cost $3.5M. That's simply not worth complaining about. Yes, there were better choices than Conine. I think we've covered that.

If you want to talk about what Votto might have done, let's look at what he did in the majors in 2007.

62 PA vR: 1.025 OPS
27 PA vL: .642 OPS

His 2007 minor league splits aren't available yet, but here's 2005 and 2006:

2005 vR: .829 OPS
2005 vL: .590 OPS

2006 vR: 1.068 OPS
2006 vL: .756 OPS

Maybe he figured lefties out in AAA, but I'm going to go out on a limb and say he probably didn't. Interested to see the numbers if anybody has them. To me, that looks like a guy who's going to get eaten alive by lefties at the major league level -- for a while at least. If we're talking about getting him exposure to lefties, I'd say getting to play everyday in AAA accomplished that.


And really, it's almost impossible to prove their efficacy because we have no way of knowing what a guy like Hatteberg would do against both lefties and righties.

Again, Hatteberg has over 1000 PA during which he has a .673 OPS vL. Particularly for a 37 year old who isn't likely to gain some newfound ability, that says it is quite unlikely that he would hit them well in 2007. Presumably, the Reds were looking at Conine's career .855 OPS vL and figured that .855 was significantly better than .673 for 200 PA. I agree, the cost wasn't worth it in light of existing options. But the logic of using a relatively cheap platoon partner is sound.

Jeff Conine was a waste of money in 2007. But to equate him with Mike Stanton, Rheal Cormier, or Juan Castro is just wrong -- particularly given that we did get some return on the money in the form of prospects, production aside.

As for guys "not liking" platoons. Well, if they are productive, I don't really care what they like. Personally, I don't like a sub-.700 OPS versus lefties from my 1B.

And the fact that most teams use them as a last ditch effort to get cheap production tells me nothing more than just that. The Reds needed a stop gap until they felt Votto was ready. For $3.5M they got a league average 1B and a pair of prospects. I'd say mission accomplished.

Why are you bemoaning the case that Conine wasn't worth $2M. Defensible, maybe - given his career vL OPS, ability to play OF, and "veteran leadership, for folks who care about that kind of thing. An outrage? Hardly. Nobody is really disagreeing with you on the point that the Conine signing was not a great decision.

jojo
10-07-2007, 06:10 PM
And I'd say the fact that the vast majority of MLB teams use platoons as a last-ditch effort to get value out of a position is not a bad place to start when evaluating the efficacy of platoons. Guys don't like being platooned. And really, it's almost impossible to prove their efficacy because we have no way of knowing what a guy like Hatteberg would do against both lefties and righties. Unless both hitters represent extreme tendencies of handedness in batting (like say 1.100 OPS against lefties and .500 against righties) over many seasons, platoons are likely to be little more than neat experiments, and in the case of Conine, certainly not worth $2 million dollars.

Bill James would be rolling over in his grave if he was dead. Just saying.... :cool:

One of the easiest phenomenon to verify in baseball is the platoon effect.

jojo
10-07-2007, 06:21 PM
Come on now, you have to give Votto more credit than that. He was good in rookie ball, good in Single A and real good in AA. He was poor in Sarasota after having to take the first pitch of every at bat, leaving him in a hole nearly every at bat. Vottos career numbers look pretty good from year to year with the exception of 2005.

Joey has had some serious question marks about his game both offensively and defensively that really didn't begin to get definitively answered until his big step forward in '06. I don't think many major league clubs would have added Joey to their 25 man roster last off season (when Krivsky was making the decisions pertaining to first base).

Falls City Beer
10-07-2007, 06:23 PM
Bill James would be rolling over in his grave if he was dead. Just saying.... :cool:

One of the easiest phenomenon to verify in baseball is the platoon effect.

Why don't more teams have them?

In theory, they should be all over the place (they often save money, they appear to give a composite that is useful), but they're not. Why? Why do teams, even stat-friendly teams, tend to avoid them?

dougdirt
10-07-2007, 06:35 PM
Joey has had some serious question marks about his game both offensively and defensively that really didn't begin to get definitively answered until his big step forward in '06. I don't think many major league clubs would have added Joey to their 25 man roster last off season (when Krivsky was making the decisions pertaining to first base).

Defensively there were some questions about him for a while.... he was a converted catcher, so it was bound to be that way. His bat though, all I had ever heard was that his swing was a little long (still hear that sometimes).

I am not sure I would have added him to the 25 man in the offseason, but I think that his 'breakout 2006' wasn't exactly what you made it out to be. He had hit very well everywhere he went with the exception of 1 year when he was restricted on what he could actually do.

RedsManRick
10-07-2007, 06:39 PM
Why don't more teams have them?

In theory, they should be all over the place (they often save money, they appear to give a composite that is useful), but they're not. Why? Why do teams, even stat-friendly teams, tend to avoid them?

Read Moneyball lately? Professional baseball teams have a long history of doing things that cost them money and don't improve their chances of winning and avoiding things that would save them money and improve their chances. That said,

Stat-friendly teams like Arizona (Jackson/Clark), Padres (Sledge/Bradley), Boston (Youkilis/Hinske) & (Drew/Pena), Cleveland (Nixon/Gutierrez)?

To say nothing of Milwaukee (Menchkins), Chicago (Floyd/Murton), or Tigers (Thames/Monroe).

They're all over the place -- more teams have a platoon somehwere than don't. Sure, there are flavors of it. And they aren't "all over the place" for the reasons we've mentioned. It requires the lack of a better single player option -- ie. the use of two roster spots which don't necessary serve any other particular function. It requires players willing (or without the choice) to put themselves in position to platoon - most players will hold out for a full time gig because they care more about getting playing time than the team getting the optimal performance. And lastly, because often the guys who hit one side well, hit the other side pretty well too -- or at least better than a guy who otherwise wouldn't play.

Defensive replacements can be useful. Pinch runners can be useful. ROOGY's can be useful. However, they are only useful in certain limited circumstances. Just because they aren't "all over the place" (assuming you still think that platoons are rare) doesn't mean they aren't a good thing -- or more importantly, the best use of talent & money for the 2007 Reds at 1B.

Ltlabner
10-07-2007, 07:14 PM
I'm so passionate about this club that I sometimes go overboard--especially when I'm stuck in Alabama and can't sleep at 2:00 AM, and I have to listen to some idiot go on and on about the Braves and how pitiful the Reds are in a campground. Try it some time and see if you don't hate it.

We don't agree on much, but I definatley feel for you having to endure that!

WVRedsFan
10-08-2007, 01:46 AM
We don't agree on much, but I definatley feel for you having to endure that!

I msut admit that it was horrible. I'm back home again now. One of the things we all have in common, regardless of our difference of opinion about Wayne Krivsky, Adam Dunn, and (shudder) Mike Stanton is a love of the Reds.

Whether this team is on the right track is the subject of much discussion, which is why we have this forum. I think we all need to lighten up a bit and realize that not everyone can agree with each other. It's not normal to always agree. Despite the present political climate where things are always black and white, we are all in the same boat. We forget that so much.

Peace.

redsmetz
10-08-2007, 05:43 AM
Bill Peterson's take in this week's City Beat viz the state of the Reds and Krivsky:

URL for this story: http://citybeat.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A141950


The Reds' Lack of Bullpen Help Doomed Their Season

By Bill Peterson

The Reds are no closer to winning a championship today than they were on the day club owner Bob Castellini announced his purchase and promised a championship in January 2006. Then again, George Steinbrenner, with all his New York money, couldn't have finished that job in 20 months. But the Reds, with their limited resources, should have improved.

After two seasons the Reds aren't better. They're just different, and most of the difference occurred last year. The Reds don't hit as much, but they pitch better, believe it or not, and are more reliable defensively.

Yet the difference adds up to less than nothing -- 73 wins in 2005 compared with 72 wins for the season ended on Sept. 30. In another sense, the difference is substantial, due to declining franchises in St. Louis and Houston. The Reds finished 27 games out of first place in 2005, compared with 13 games out this year.

So the Reds are different but no better, though they're closer to the top of the National League Central division. It's a net gain for the Reds, but how much credit can they claim?

The 2007 season has to go down as a big disappointment. The Reds would be in the playoffs right now with an improvement of six games from last year's 80 victories. Instead, they regressed by eight games and were out of the running by mid-June.

Wayne Krivsky's second year as general manager taught us all a lesson, and one must figure he learned it as well as anyone. His first year brought numerous changes on the fly, including a ball club constantly turning over, changing its theme and freshly infused. His second season, at least the first three months of it, brought stagnation and a presumption that the club was going in the right direction, as if to defy the daily results as the Reds blew lead after lead through June.

It could be that next season will prove Krivsky right for standing on his hand this year. But three months later, the season is defined by the hopeless, sinking events of May, when the Reds lost 12 games on .500, and June, when they lost another six, mostly because of the NL's worst bullpen and a lack of action by the front office.

We're not privy to Krivsky's talks with other ball clubs, nor do we know exactly how the Reds value the people in their organization, but we can surmise that he either couldn't find available relief pitching or couldn't find a deal for relief pitching that made sense to him. Whichever it was, the diminishment of urgency to fix the bullpen contrasted with 2006, when Krivsky went so far as to make a deal over which he took blistering heat for the sake of his relief staff.

Gripped by a notion that the Reds could spend an offensive surplus to bolster their bullpen, Krivsky essentially dealt Austin Kearns and Felipe Lopez to Washington for relievers Bill Bray and Gary Majewski during the 2006 season. Krivsky probably was on to something. Sadly, it wasn't reliable relievers.

As the Reds withstood a demoralizing run of losses this May and June because of their awful relief pitching, Krivsky kept waiting for Bray, Majewski and Eddie Guardado to come back from injury. While he fiddled, the season burned.

As the season ended, all three relievers were back, but none were effective. Between them, Bray, Majewski and Guardado pitched 51 innings this season with a 7.41 ERA.

The lesson, of course, is that you should never be terribly surprised or caught off guard or left without recourse if the ball club you have in May and June isn't the one you thought you had in February and March. A major league roster is a living document, as they say in government circles, which means that if it isn't changing and growing it's dying and losing relevance.

The Reds died and lost relevance before the All-Star break because their GM didn't breathe life into their bullpen.

Maybe Bray, Majewski and Guardado will come back next year, will be twice as effective and the Reds can work them for an extra 170 innings combined. But if the Reds are counting on it, we could be back here at the same time next year having the same discussion.

The Reds finished this season with a 5.10 bullpen ERA, the worst in the NL. So scary was the prospect of calling a reliever that former manager Jerry Narron rode his starting pitchers too hard, particularly Bronson Arroyo, who suffered the ill effects through the middle months.

Once the Reds replaced Narron with Pete Mackanin at the start of July, they played at about the rate that won the division, turning in a 41-39 record. But the Chicago Cubs clinched in the Reds' town, in their stadium and with their former manager, Lou Piniella, the kind of proven winner the Reds haven't hired since Marge Schott ran Davey Johnson out of town in 2005.

Now more than ever, this ball club is Castellini's baby, because the owner faces a number of crucial calls in the next year or two. Adam Dunn is up for a $13 million option next season, and it seems a foregone conclusion that the Reds will bring him back. But after 2008, the contracts for Dunn, Krivsky and Junior Griffey all expire.

Furthermore, the Reds are looking for a manager. The name of Tony LaRussa keeps floating around, due to his relationship with Castellini from the latter's days as part of the St. Louis ownership group.

But none of that will matter if the Reds don't improve their bullpen. For clubs in the Reds' general strata of revenues and payroll, middle relief is a dicey proposition. It's often the last part of a ball club to be addressed even though it's responsible for the most crucial portions of the game.

Clubs that won't bat an eye at paying $10 million for a guy to pitch the ninth inning with a two-run lead will try to grub through tie games in the seventh inning for minimum wage. If the Reds can't even afford that much, then they need to either re-think the bullpen or work more ingeniously on the back end of their pitching staff.

Krivsky gave it a good try in 2006. In 2007, he didn't. The first way worked better.

WVRedsFan
10-08-2007, 10:03 AM
This is one of the more intelligently written articles I've seen on the subject , and rings true. Whether or not you support the GM and/or the ownership, the subject leads to the same old discussion.

I imagine that the owner turns this over in his mind daily.

bucksfan2
10-08-2007, 10:15 AM
First of all Conine wasn't signed he was traded for. At the time I thought it was a stupid move but as the season went on I didn't feel that way. Conine did what he was signed for. He didn't do anything to hurt the club and gave Votto more time in AAA to develop. What happens if Votto becomes the player we hope he becomes and the Conine for $2 M allows Votto to get his feet wet and aviod becoming a super 2 player?

redsmetz
10-08-2007, 10:26 AM
This is one of the more intelligently written articles I've seen on the subject , and rings true. Whether or not you support the GM and/or the ownership, the subject leads to the same old discussion.

I imagine that the owner turns this over in his mind daily.

I think it highlights what the point of the thread is - that Krivsky doesn't have an unlimited amount of time. I think everyone on each side would agree that the team must show significant progress in the coming year. I think (and hope) they will, but only time will tell.

WVRedsFan
10-08-2007, 10:28 AM
I think it highlights what the point of the thread is - that Krivsky doesn't have an unlimited amount of time. I think everyone on each side would agree that the team must show significant progress in the coming year. I think (and hope) they will, but only time will tell.

To be fair, he also doesn't have the unlimited amount of money some think he does. Spending the money wisely is very important, which I'd bet he didn't know when he took the job (although the Twins have been a model of this for years).

redsmetz
10-08-2007, 10:38 AM
To be fair, he also doesn't have the unlimited amount of money some think he does. Spending the money wisely is very important, which I'd bet he didn't know when he took the job (although the Twins have been a model of this for years).

This part jumped out at me from Peterson's column:


We're not privy to Krivsky's talks with other ball clubs, nor do we know exactly how the Reds value the people in their organization, but we can surmise that he either couldn't find available relief pitching or couldn't find a deal for relief pitching that made sense to him. Whichever it was, the diminishment of urgency to fix the bullpen contrasted with 2006, when Krivsky went so far as to make a deal over which he took blistering heat for the sake of his relief staff.

As much as some have hoped for more transparency from WK, it really is impossible for various reasons for straightforward talk viz potential deals - who we're willing to part with, who we'd like to acquire (MLB prohibits that).

There is no question we're limited by payroll constraints, although I don't know if they're as extreme as we think. I'm anxious for the off-season to get underway, to see how this starts coming down.

westofyou
10-08-2007, 10:41 AM
Spending the money wisely is very important, which I'd bet he didn't know when he took the job

30 years in the game and he didn't know this?

And yet we "superfans" do?

Balderdash.

WVRedsFan
10-08-2007, 10:58 AM
30 years in the game and he didn't know this?

And yet we "superfans" do?

Balderdash.

OK. Let's assume he did know. Then where does that leave him? Or are we doomed to judge him after Castellini fires him? Or he leaves for greener pastures?

I think he got the same sales pitch Bob gave us which was, "We're going to contend right away and we will spend money if we're in contention."

There was a reason he didn't make a move in May. it may well be that the right deal didn't come along or he was told not to spend money. We'll never know which.

Kc61
10-08-2007, 10:59 AM
You watch the playoffs, you realize that this article is fundamentally correct. Most of these teams have a couple of excellent starters and a few relievers who can throw wicked stuff for an inning or two. The playoff teams, for the most part, aren't getting by with slow pitch relievers and big sluggers.

A winning formula isn't that difficult to figure out. It may not be that simple to get these guys, but what you need is clear.

We all got excited because Jared Burton looked like a tough major league reliever. Krivsky needs to add a good starter and two or three more Burtons and then we're talking.

And you know, watching the playoffs, I'm less concerned whether the Reds hit 600 foot home runs. Arizona's offense is no great shakes, look where they are.

I think Krivsky deserves some time, but unless he puts a premium on having 7 or 8 good arms on the staff, it's all for naught.

Falls City Beer
10-08-2007, 11:07 AM
You watch the playoffs, you realize that this article is fundamentally correct. Most of these teams have a couple of excellent starters and a few relievers who can throw wicked stuff for an inning or two. The playoff teams, for the most part, aren't getting by with slow pitch relievers and big sluggers.

A wining formula isn't that difficult to figure out. It may not be that simple to get these guys, but what you need is clear.

We all got excited because Jared Burton looked like a tough major league reliever. Krivsky needs to add a good starter and two or three more Burtons and then we're talking.

And you know, watching the playoffs, I'm less concerned whether the Reds hit 600 foot home runs. Arizona's offense is no great shakes, look where they are.

I think Krivsky deserves some time, but unless he puts a premium on having 7 or 8 good arms on the staff, it's all for naught.

This is really true. There's no great undiscovered country in baseball. It's about as simple as you're going to get, sports-wise.

How you get it is where the frontier lies.

redsmetz
10-08-2007, 11:35 AM
It sounds like Mackanin's mantra is holding true - Pitching Pitching Pitching (and then some more pitching!).

Kc61
10-08-2007, 12:04 PM
It sounds like Mackanin's mantra is holding true - Pitching Pitching Pitching (and then some more pitching!).


Some of these relievers, a couple of the guys on Cleveland for example, have electric stuff. Who knows if they will be effective for very long, but they are almost unhittable right now.

Sort of the Nasty Boys formula. Those guys were all at their best in 1990.

So you need a stream of great bullpen arms. As guys fade, you bring up new ones. Reds just don't have that.

Reds do have Roenicke, Pelland, Viola in the high minors. Add some more to that list and maybe we're headed someplace better. Watching some of these guys on the playoff teams, you wonder if the way to go is with, mostly, a very young bullpen, but only guys with top level stuff, regardless of polish.

westofyou
10-08-2007, 12:15 PM
Sort of the Nasty Boys formula. Those guys were all at their best in 1990.

So you need a stream of great bullpen arms. As guys fade, you bring up new ones.


"Relievers are iffy, they tend to have a good year and then a bad year"

Bill DeWitt

One of the Howsam mantras was to pick pitchers to develop who were all at least 6 feet tall and had a fastball. He felt that at the worst they could be turned into a reliever and you might catch some of the good years that DeWitt spoke of above.

The Reds for years had hard throwers coming up and others behind them, mostly because of the drafting philosophy of Howsam that was in the culture of the team.

But the culture got poisoned over time by poor management, little dollars and a lack of urgency to repair it.

RedsManRick
10-08-2007, 12:22 PM
And you know, watching the playoffs, I'm less concerned whether the Reds hit 600 foot home runs. Arizona's offense is no great shakes, look where they are.

Arizona is where they are because Stephen Drew had only 1 less hit and more RBI than Aramis Ramirez, Derrek Lee, and Alfonso Soriano combined. Don't equate the Cubs failure to do anything offensively against two very mediocre pitchers as a recipe for success.

Your general point is on target. What strikes me as the real insight is that in many cases, the key relievers aren't big FA acquisitions or super prospects. You don't have to spend $20M to have an effective pen. In fact, I don't see too many David Weathers types floating around in those pens. I do see a lot of younger hard throwers who were starters earlier in their careers.

For an organization with a payroll like ours, we need to stop spending money on replaceable parts like 1B platoon, defensive MI backup, and middle relief and start getting those spots filled from the wealth of low cost talent floating around the game.

WVRedsFan
10-08-2007, 01:18 PM
For an organization with a payroll like ours, we need to stop spending money on replaceable parts like 1B platoon, defensive MI backup, and middle relief and start getting those spots filled from the wealth of low cost talent floating around the game.

Let's see...

Jeff Conine
Juan Castro
Jorge Cantu
Mark Belhorn
Jerry Gil
Pedro Lopez
Chris Dickerson

Name one of those players who will ever prove to be anything close to a major league regular (with the exception of Conine, of course).

Yep, they're cheap, but the million or so spent on these (as well as Jason Ellison and Buck Coats among others) could help with pitching.

pedro
10-08-2007, 01:23 PM
Let's see...

Jeff Conine
Juan Castro
Jorge Cantu
Mark Belhorn
Jerry Gil
Pedro Lopez
Chris Dickerson

Name one of those players who will ever prove to be anything close to a major league regular (with the exception of Conine, of course).

Yep, they're cheap, but the million or so spent on these (as well as Jason Ellison and Buck Coats among others) could help with pitching.

You have to fill out the roster and more than half those guys made the major league minimum so I 'm not really sure what you expect. I have not heard once or seen example of proof that the missing piece in the Reds search for pitching has been a budgetary short fall so I think your argument rings pretty hollow.

bucksfan2
10-08-2007, 01:33 PM
Let's see...

Jeff Conine
Juan Castro
Jorge Cantu
Mark Belhorn
Jerry Gil
Pedro Lopez
Chris Dickerson

Name one of those players who will ever prove to be anything close to a major league regular (with the exception of Conine, of course).

Yep, they're cheap, but the million or so spent on these (as well as Jason Ellison and Buck Coats among others) could help with pitching.

I dont know Cantu has produced in years before. I would say that driving in 117 runs in a season qualifies as producing at a major league level. Just because you dont like Krivsky or even some of the moves he has made doesn't mean that the players he brought in aren't good players. Too often on this board many players get discarded because they aren't the top at their respected position. A major league club is made up of 25 players who each have a roll to do. Some are better than the average and others aren't.

pedro
10-08-2007, 01:36 PM
I dont know Cantu has produced in years before. I would say that driving in 117 runs in a season qualifies as producing at a major league level. Just because you dont like Krivsky or even some of the moves he has made doesn't mean that the players he brought in aren't good players. Too often on this board many players get discarded because they aren't the top at their respected position. A major league club is made up of 25 players who each have a roll to do. Some are better than the average and others aren't.

Very true. A lot of folks expect every player to be a superstar and have a ton of power or they automatically SUCK! Even the Yankees play Shelley Duncan and Doug Mientkiewicz.

RedsManRick
10-08-2007, 01:39 PM
Let's see...

Jeff Conine
Juan Castro
Jorge Cantu
Mark Belhorn
Jerry Gil
Pedro Lopez
Chris Dickerson

Name one of those players who will ever prove to be anything close to a major league regular (with the exception of Conine, of course).

Yep, they're cheap, but the million or so spent on these (as well as Jason Ellison and Buck Coats among others) could help with pitching.

Ummm... yes? You seem to be agreeing with me in a very combative way.

Why sign (trade for) Jeff Conine when you have Jesse Gutierrez? Why sign Juan Castro when you have when you have Pedro Lopez? Why sign Jason Ellison when you have Chris Dickerson?

Pretty sure we're in agreement here.

westofyou
10-08-2007, 01:40 PM
Merv Rettemund
Bill Plummer
Ed Armbrister
Heity Cruz
Billy Bates
Brian Johnson
Chris Stynes
Champ Summers
Junior Kennedy
Joel Youngblood
Paul Blair
RickAurbach
Rafael Santo Domingo
Keith Mitchell
Vince Coleman
Curt Lyons
Mike Kelly
Luis Quinones
Leon Durham
Ron Roenike
Jeff Treadway
Marty Brown
Dallas Williams
Rich Gale
Keefe Cato

Yeah... the Reds never have obtained fringe bench ballast before Krivsky was GM

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 03:17 PM
Very true. A lot of folks expect every player to be a superstar and have a ton of power or they automatically SUCK! Even the Yankees play Shelley Duncan and Doug Mientkiewicz.

The Yankees can get away with paying a little less for a good glove at 1B (Mientkiwicz) because they have ARod, Posada, Jeter, Abreu, Damon, etc etc etc.

This has been my argument from last off-season. There is no reason to spend $14M over 3 years on Gonzalez when the team is currently where they are. If you have a gaping hole at SS and you have solid hitting in other areas and a solid rotation/bullpen, then Gonzalez makes all the sense in the world. But when your bullpen is Tampa-like and your rotation after your front 2 is KC-like, then acquiring someone like Gonzalez is just completely unnecessary.

Spend the money on the farm system when you are not within shouting distance of October baseball. Then, when you are ready, spend it wisely. Makes all the sense in the world.

pedro
10-08-2007, 03:20 PM
The Yankees can get away with paying a little less for a good glove at 1B (Mientkiwicz) because they have ARod, Posada, Jeter, Abreu, Damon, etc etc etc.

This has been my argument from last off-season. There is no reason to spend $14M over 3 years on Gonzalez when the team is currently where they are. If you have a gaping hole at SS and you have solid hitting in other areas and a solid rotation/bullpen, then Gonzalez makes all the sense in the world. But when your bullpen is Tampa-like and your rotation after your front 2 is KC-like, then acquiring someone like Gonzalez is just completely unnecessary.

Spend the money on the farm system when you are not within shouting distance of October baseball. Then, when you are ready, spend it wisely. Makes all the sense in the world.

Someone's got to play SS and for the money I think AG was a decent enough choice. Having a good SS is never unnecessary. the notion that the Reds are trading major league salary for minor league development is a fallacy.

Falls City Beer
10-08-2007, 03:25 PM
Someone's got to play SS and for the money I think AG was a decent enough choice. Having a good SS is never unnecessary. the notion that the Reds are trading major league salary for minor league development is a fallacy.

Pedro Lopez is a weak stick, but he out-everything-ed Gonzalez with the glove. I'll take his D and put that 3.5 million I'd save in a pitcher's pocket.

Kc61
10-08-2007, 03:30 PM
Arizona is where they are because Stephen Drew had only 1 less hit and more RBI than Aramis Ramirez, Derrek Lee, and Alfonso Soriano combined. Don't equate the Cubs failure to do anything offensively against two very mediocre pitchers as a recipe for success.

Your general point is on target. What strikes me as the real insight is that in many cases, the key relievers aren't big FA acquisitions or super prospects. You don't have to spend $20M to have an effective pen. In fact, I don't see too many David Weathers types floating around in those pens. I do see a lot of younger hard throwers who were starters earlier in their careers.

For an organization with a payroll like ours, we need to stop spending money on replaceable parts like 1B platoon, defensive MI backup, and middle relief and start getting those spots filled from the wealth of low cost talent floating around the game.

The way I'd put it -- it isn't worth agonizing about Gonzalez v. Keppinger, Ross v. some other catcher, etc. Until the Reds have some arms like I've seen the last week, it won't matter. Maybe I just watch too many Reds games and not enough other games, but my eyes have been opened this last week as to the number of young relievers with great stuff floating around.

All of these debates over position players seem secondary as I watch this. Maybe it's different over 162 games in the regular season, but the winning formula today seems to be focused on having 7 or 8 great arms and, as for everything else, let the chips fall where they may.

Yes, the Red Sox and Yanks have excellent lineups. They are unusual because they have all those resources. But mostly I see a bunch of pretty good teams with some outstanding arms.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 03:30 PM
Someone's got to play SS and for the money I think AG was a decent enough choice. Having a good SS is never unnecessary. the notion that the Reds are trading major league salary for minor league development is a fallacy.

I find that hard to believe. I truly believe that Wayne has input on budgets for player development and if he wanted to allocate some additional money from the overall budget towards the draft, then that's his right.

I doubt Bob tells him he gets $70M for payroll and $6M for the draft and that's it for both, no questions asked.

You are correct, though. Someone does have to play SS. But unless they got ARod and put him at SS (along with a few good pitchers), whoever they had at SS wouldn't have made a difference. The only difference would be in the savings.

Caveat Emperor
10-08-2007, 03:30 PM
Pedro Lopez is a weak stick, but he out-everything-ed Gonzalez with the glove. I'll take his D and put that 3.5 million I'd save in a pitcher's pocket.

In pitching dollars, $3.5 million will buy you roughly 10 starts from a pitcher worth having.

Maybe the Reds can work out a Timeshare deal with a couple other basement dwellers and make a run at someone this offseason.

Falls City Beer
10-08-2007, 03:31 PM
In pitching dollars, $3.5 million will buy you roughly 10 starts from a pitcher worth having.

Maybe the Reds can work out a Timeshare deal with a couple other basement dwellers and make a run at someone this offseason.

It all adds up. Save where you can. Allocate it where it's needed.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 03:33 PM
The way I'd put it -- it isn't worth agonizing about Gonzalez v. Keppinger, Ross v. some other catcher, etc. Until the Reds have some arms like I've seen the last week, it won't matter. Maybe I just watch too many Reds games and not enough other games, but my eyes have been opened this last week as to the number of young relievers with great stuff floating around.

All of these debates over position players seem secondary as I watch this. Maybe it's different over 162 games in the regular season, but the winning formula today seems to be focused on having 7 or 8 great arms and, as for everything else, let the chips fall where they may.

Yes, the Red Sox and Yanks have excellent lineups. They are unusual because they have all those resources. But mostly I see a bunch of pretty good teams with some outstanding arms.

Perfect example: Joba Chamberlain. Fell b/c of "rumors" about injury and whatnot. Yanks swooped in and went over slot to get him to sign.

Genius...$1.15 million and 1 year later, he's in NY. You could get 5 chances at a Joba for what Stanton will be stealing from Castellini.

pedro
10-08-2007, 03:34 PM
I find that hard to believe. I truly believe that Wayne has input on budgets for player development and if he wanted to allocate some additional money from the overall budget towards the draft, then that's his right.

I doubt Bob tells him he gets $70M for payroll and $6M for the draft and that's it for both, no questions asked.

You are correct, though. Someone does have to play SS. But unless they got ARod and put him at SS (along with a few good pitchers), whoever they had at SS wouldn't have made a difference. The only difference would be in the savings.

Did the Reds under draft or not sign any of their picks this year b/c of money? No. So frankly I could care less if they save money or not. If they can sign a better player than they have (at any position) at a reasonable salary then they should. period.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 03:34 PM
In pitching dollars, $3.5 million will buy you roughly 10 starts from a pitcher worth having.

Maybe the Reds can work out a Timeshare deal with a couple other basement dwellers and make a run at someone this offseason.

Or Rick Porcello.

redsmetz
10-08-2007, 03:35 PM
Ummm... yes? You seem to be agreeing with me in a very combative way.

Why sign (trade for) Jeff Conine when you have Jesse Gutierrez? Why sign Juan Castro when you have when you have Pedro Lopez? Why sign Jason Ellison when you have Chris Dickerson?

Pretty sure we're in agreement here.

I can answer two of the three -

Jesse Gutierrez ultimately doesn't bring us Sean Henry or Jose Castro, two decent prospects. We'll reshash this forever and a day, but Conine came in and filled a need while Votto progressed through the minors. He didn't hurt us - the money was inconsequential.

Juan Castro was signed before we claimed Pedro Lopez off waivers. Some of this year's pick up may make Castro superfluous, including Lopez, but the fact is, he wasn't available until May. We had room on our 40 man roster and could grab him and have him available if the need arose (which it did).

Ellison v. Dickerson, I have no idea, but I'm not going to sweat that one. But again, Ellison made just around the ML minimum, so it's basically a wash, IMO.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 03:37 PM
Did the Reds under draft or not sign any of their picks this year b/c of money? No. So frankly I could care less if they save money or not. If they can sign a better player than they have (at any position) at a reasonable salary then they should. period.

They didn't get the best player available when they drafted. So I guess it depends on your definition of "overdraft".

Mesoraco vs Porcello. I don't think anyone would take Devin over the pride of NJ if money wasn't an issue.

pedro
10-08-2007, 03:40 PM
They didn't get the best player available when they drafted. So I guess it depends on your definition of "overdraft".

Mesoraco vs Porcello. I don't think anyone would take Devin over the pride of NJ if money wasn't an issue.

Well, personally I think the Tigers took one hell of an expensive risk. Considering what it took to sign him I'm glad the Reds didn't do the same.


Porcello signed a four-year major league contract worth $7.28 million deal with the Detroit Tigers on August 14, 2007, the largest contract ever given to a high school player.

Ltlabner
10-08-2007, 03:42 PM
Well, personally I think the Tigers took one hell of an expensive risk. Considering what it took to sign him I'm glad the Reds didn't do the same.

No kidding. And if that youngsters arm explodes they get the joy of spending all that money for 4 years.

I'm not saying don't take risks (guys like Phillips, Hamilton, etc). You have to be successfull. But I'm glad the Reds have not gone "all in" on a player in the quest to be sucesssfull in October (for one year).

EDIT: I read that quick. I thought it was $72million not $7.28 million.

Nevermind!

Caveat Emperor
10-08-2007, 03:46 PM
Or Rick Porcello.

If you want to pay Eric Milton money to a kid barely old enough to shave, be my guest. Amazing how quickly we all forget about Howington, Gruler, Basham, et. al.

If you want to talk about good fiscal sense, throwing money at high school pitching ranks just slightly above investing ones life savings in scratch-off tickets.

bucksfan2
10-08-2007, 03:49 PM
Perfect example: Joba Chamberlain. Fell b/c of "rumors" about injury and whatnot. Yanks swooped in and went over slot to get him to sign.

Genius...$1.15 million and 1 year later, he's in NY. You could get 5 chances at a Joba for what Stanton will be stealing from Castellini.

And you are going to tell me that if the reds went over slot on 5 players and paid them each $1M that they would all turn out to be impact players in the bigs in less than a full season? Any time you draft a player you are at risk, especially with young pitchers. I dont care how much of a sure thing a player seems to be, there is never such a thing as a sure thing.

As for Gonzales what do you want the reds to do at SS. The guy is probably under market value for what he brings to the table. He played this entire season season with his young son in the hospital and put of pretty good offensive numbers. If you look at the contracts out there Gonzales for roughly $5 M a year is a bargain. Sure you could devot all that money to the draft and sign players out of slot but you still need to put a competent team on the field in the majors. Contracts like Gonzales aren't going to stop you from doing anything on the FA market.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 03:52 PM
Well, personally I think the Tigers took one hell of an expensive risk. Considering what it took to sign him I'm glad the Reds didn't do the same.

Porcello is only one example. There are numerous players who slide due to contract concerns, and then the bigger mkts are waiting at the end of the rainbow with a pot of gold.

Pitching is risky. Free agent pitching is risky, drafting pitching is risky and trading for pitching is risky. Sometimes you have to show some testicular fortitude and take a risk. I have no clue how Wayne believes he will ever acquire enough pitching to win without taking on some risk.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 03:53 PM
If you want to pay Eric Milton money to a kid barely old enough to shave, be my guest. Amazing how quickly we all forget about Howington, Gruler, Basham, et. al.

If you want to talk about good fiscal sense, throwing money at high school pitching ranks just slightly above investing ones life savings in scratch-off tickets.

One year of Milton or the rights to Porcello.

Stanton + Conine or the rights to Porcello.

Easy as hell.

pedro
10-08-2007, 03:55 PM
I have no clue

you said it yourself ;)

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 03:59 PM
And you are going to tell me that if the reds went over slot on 5 players and paid them each $1M that they would all turn out to be impact players in the bigs in less than a full season? Any time you draft a player you are at risk, especially with young pitchers. I dont care how much of a sure thing a player seems to be, there is never such a thing as a sure thing.

No, I don't think that they would all be impact players. But I think they have a better chance of impacting a Cincinnati pennant race than Mike Stanton will. Whoops...I mean positively impact a Cincinnati pennant race. My bad.


As for Gonzales what do you want the reds to do at SS. The guy is probably under market value for what he brings to the table. He played this entire season season with his young son in the hospital and put of pretty good offensive numbers. If you look at the contracts out there Gonzales for roughly $5 M a year is a bargain. Sure you could devot all that money to the draft and sign players out of slot but you still need to put a competent team on the field in the majors. Contracts like Gonzales aren't going to stop you from doing anything on the FA market.

It's not necessarily Alex Gonzalez I care that much about. It's spending $14M on a guy who isn't going to get this team into the playoffs. What's the point of spending $14M on a guy when your pitching staff is as bad as it is? Even if he hit 40 HRs and they finished 15 games out because of the pitching staff, what would it matter? Everyone was positively giddy about how much his defense will help the pitching staff. I was one of the only ones who said he'd only be able to help enough if he was allowed to sit in the bleachers and catch HRs for outs.

redsmetz
10-08-2007, 04:03 PM
Porcello is only one example. There are numerous players who slide due to contract concerns, and then the bigger mkts are waiting at the end of the rainbow with a pot of gold.

Pitching is risky. Free agent pitching is risky, drafting pitching is risky and trading for pitching is risky. Sometimes you have to show some testicular fortitude and take a risk. I have no clue how Wayne believes he will ever acquire enough pitching to win without taking on some risk.

Frankly, it seems to me the Reds took some risk in drafting Mesoraco, coming off surgery last year. But he was highly thought of throughout baseball, with some predicting him as low as 4th to the Pirates or as late as 16th to the Blue Jays. We grabbed him first. Here's some blog entries about him


The Pirates would like to take Wieters here but a request submitted to ownership to spend big money was quickly denied. That had the team turning to college pitching, with Detwiler their No. 1 target. Unfortunately, the Pirates have been taking college pitchers in the first round for years, with each one requiring surgery and making the Pirates feel like they are stuck in Groundhog Day. Which brings us to Devin Mesoraco. The catcher from Punxsutawney is the fastest rising player in the draft, thanks to outstanding private workouts, including one in front of Pittsburgh decision makers on Sunday in which he sprayed balls all over the field hitting with a wood bat. His combination of offensive and defensive skills rank with anyone around at this point and the local product angle makes for some much-needed good PR for a team that desperately needs it.


7. Milwaukee Brewers: Devin Mesoraco, C, Punxsatawney HS (PA)
The Brewers would love for one of the college arms to get to them like Moskos or Detwiler, and they'd even consider taking Nick Schmidt, but they've had Mesoraco, the fast-rising prep catcher, in their sights for a while now and will decide to pull the trigger.


16. Toronto Blue Jays: Devin Mesoraco, C, Punxsatawney HS (Pa.)
The Blue Jays showed last year in taking Travis Snider that they are not afraid to take a high school player if it's a good fit. They've got two picks in the first round (16 and 21) and it wouldn't be surprising if they take one prepster and one college player. It's just a question of which one comes first.

Like with San Francisco, the logic could be to get the high schooler first because he may not be around for their second selection. Remember the name Mesoraco. He's moving up charts about as quickly as any player this year, with some thinking he's the best all-around catching prospect in the class. When all is said and done, the Jays may have to look elsewhere because Mesoraco could be long gone.


16. Toronto - Devin Mesoraco, C, HS (Pennsylvania)

Just yesterday, I had Mesoraco as my guess….but I had to re-evaluate. Toronto seems like they will take a prep player here, and they generally shy away from high school pitchers. If Cleveland takes Dominguez, that means Mesoraco is likely the top high school position player on the board, and he’s a non-Boras guy, so he will probably sign for slot money. This is painful, because I really wanted him in Philly.

coachw513
10-08-2007, 04:09 PM
Wayne's tenure as GM as obviously been one of a few highs and just as many, if not more lows. Since last offseason, there have been many different feelings expressed. Some have said "Give him until the ASB." Others, "Give him until the deadline." Others want him to have another year or more. So, I pose this question to you:

How much longer does Wayne have, in your eyes, to really get this team headed in the right direction?

I would venture to guess that most of you already know I think he should have been shown the door already. My feeling is that this team needed (and still needs) a nice overhaul, bringing some much needed young pitching into the organization. I haven't seen this happen. I haven't seen pitching be the highest priority in the two drafts Wayne has overseen. I haven't seen, for whatever reason, pitching be of any priority in the FA market last season. Because of these reasons, I am completely unsure how Wayne thinks he can acquire the pitching to compete in the National League. Most of his attempts to bring pitching into Cincy have failed miserably. For this team to have any shot in the Central, he needs to step up in the pitching market.

So since he is still here, I'm going to say that my new personal deadline for Krivsky is July 1st. By that time, we will have a good feeling of how the '08 pitching staff is faring and we will have seen what he did in the 2008 amateur draft. We will also have seen another few months of Stubbs, Watson and other Wayne draftees.

Until then, I will be waiting to see how this offseason goes.

So what's your PKD (Personal Krivsky Deadline)?

A day late, dollar short in the discussion, but...

I said at the trade deadline that the next 6 months would define the Reds' organization for the next decade...nothing has changed that opinion...

The questions revolving around Dunn, Griffey, which young "star" is a more valuable trade commodity than building block, where to find at least 1 quality #3 type starter, how to stabilize and elevate the performance of the bullpen...whew!!...there clearly are a number of positive "solutions" to these questions, but can WK find them??...I don't know...these problems aren't the ones he's so clearly solved (micro-roster moves becoming big successes-BP, Hamilton, Hatte, Burton, etc)...

Rather this is the Macro-roster shaping...whatever vision, direction Krivsky sees for this team, this organization will be answered over the offseason...he as of yet has been unable to reshape the Macro-roster of the Reds...we still have a dearth of pitching, still have bullpen issues, still have a power-dependent lineup...that lack of macro-improvement scares me immensely...

I give WK 1 more year...a year to be decisive...to take the surplus of OF, the surplus of LH power bats, the potential of decent moveable parts and create a pitching staff that can compete and a lineup that can manufacture its way out of slumps...

Come on Wayne...think more Wily Mo for Arroyo than Germano for Cormier...improve the front-end of the roster and the back-end will come better into focus...

Honestly??...I'm slowly falling into the abyss of diminished expectations...probably due to consecutive seasons of rooting for the Reds and now the Dolphins...drugs, anyone :eek:

RedsManRick
10-08-2007, 04:47 PM
One year of Milton or the rights to Porcello.

Stanton + Conine or the rights to Porcello.

Easy as hell.

Edabbs, for once I think we're in agreement.

pedro
10-08-2007, 04:53 PM
One year of Milton or the rights to Porcello.

Stanton + Conine or the rights to Porcello.

Easy as hell.

Being that Krivsky inherited the Milton contract you're once again falling prey to a logical fallacy.

Plus you're discounting the possibility that Mesoraco may actually have some value to the Reds in the long run as well.

Honestly if you're litmus test for wisely spending money is dolling out the most money ever and a major league contract to an 18 year high school pitcher I'm pretty sure you're beyond the grasp of any reasonable argument.

RedsManRick
10-08-2007, 04:57 PM
Being that Krivsky inherited the Milton contract you're once again falling prey to a logical fallacy.

Plus you're discounting the possibility that Mesoraco may actually have some value to the Reds in the long run as well.

Honestly if you're litmus test for wisely spending money is dolling out the most money ever and a major league contract to an 18 year high school pitcher I'm pretty sure you're beyond the grasp of any reasonable argument.

The specifics he mentioned may not be perfect, but the point is correct. Instead of spending millions on marginal at best veterans for the last 6-7 roster spots, fill those spots with young guys and plow those millions in to the draft and player development. Maybe not an $8M singing bonus, but the point stands.

pedro
10-08-2007, 05:01 PM
The specifics he mentioned may not be perfect, but the point is correct. Instead of spending millions on marginal at best veterans for the last 6-7 roster spots, fill those spots with young guys and plow those millions in to the draft and player development. Maybe not an $8M singing bonus, but the point stands.

The fact remains that the Reds still are a business that derives it's revenues based on attendance at the major league level and I still believe that taking a risk that they could be somewhat competitive in a crappy division is a valid choice, whether you guys like it or not. The draft isn't the only way to acquire players. Flipping vets like they did with Conine does the trick too.

jojo
10-08-2007, 05:27 PM
What's the point of spending $14M on a guy when your pitching staff is as bad as it is?

I think the point of signing him was to make the pitching staff better....

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 05:34 PM
I think the point of signing him was to make the pitching staff better....

Worked out tremendously.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 05:37 PM
Being that Krivsky inherited the Milton contract you're once again falling prey to a logical fallacy.

Plus you're discounting the possibility that Mesoraco may actually have some value to the Reds in the long run as well.

Honestly if you're litmus test for wisely spending money is dolling out the most money ever and a major league contract to an 18 year high school pitcher I'm pretty sure you're beyond the grasp of any reasonable argument.

Doling out basically the same money for a 40 year old reliever is much, much dumber, IMO. Especially when that "18 year old HS pitcher" is a top notch prospect and that 40 year old reliever should have been DFAed this season.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 05:37 PM
Edabbs, for once I think we're in agreement.

Nice doing business with you. ;)

jojo
10-08-2007, 05:46 PM
Worked out tremendously.

Well it is pretty tough to predict when a guy on your roster will have a catastrophic family issue.....

Concerning run prevention, overpaying a little bit to upgrade your defense makes a lot of sense in a climate where the alternative is to overpay dramatically in the hopes of eating some innings and then sticking that guy in front of a defense that will make it less likely he'll eat innings. The decision was defendable even if year one wasn't optimal and that's the point. When criticizing GMs I think it's more informative to evaluate the soundness of the decision than to evoke results-based hindsight.

Falls City Beer
10-08-2007, 05:56 PM
Well it is pretty tough to predict when a guy on your roster will have a catastrophic family issue.....

Concerning run prevention, overpaying a little bit to upgrade your defense makes a lot of sense in a climate where the alternative is to overpay dramatically in the hopes of eating some innings and then sticking that guy in front of a defense that will make it less likely he'll eat innings. The decision was defendable even if year one wasn't optimal and that's the point. When criticizing GMs I think it's more informative to evaluate the soundness of the decision than to evoke results-based hindsight.

Except that even PBP metrics were saying that Gonzalez had lost a step or two....

And it showed. Keep trotting out the family excuse; what I saw was that he was slow.

I'll take a Pedro Lopez any day of the week--trade Gonzalez if possible.

pedro
10-08-2007, 05:57 PM
Doling out basically the same money for a 40 year old reliever is much, much dumber, IMO. Especially when that "18 year old HS pitcher" is a top notch prospect and that 40 year old reliever should have been DFAed this season.

Distorting numbers again are we?

The fact is that the Tigers are giving almost twice as much to the 18 year old as the Reds are giving Stanton over a two year period. Not to mention giving a 40 man roster spot to an 18 year old which is a crappy way to run a franchise. So Stanton didn't work out. Life is like that sometimes.

jojo
10-08-2007, 06:03 PM
Except that even PBP metrics were saying that Gonzalez had lost a step or two....

And it showed. Keep trotting out the family excuse; what I saw was that he was slow.

I'll take a Pedro Lopez any day of the week--trade Gonzalez if possible.

PBP metrics suggested he was an above average defender who was in the second tier of shortstops. We saw basically average defense from him and to me, it was clear his head wasn't in Cincinnati from the get go.

Falls City Beer
10-08-2007, 06:08 PM
PBP metrics suggested he was an above average defender who was in the second tier of shortstops. We saw basically average defense from him and to me, it was clear his head wasn't in Cincinnati from the get go.

Whose to say that these family issues are going to go away? It's time to get a plus defender at short--who isn't 30+ years old, either.

I know it sounds callous, but I'd cut bait with Gonzalez the first chance I got--he wasn't very good this season and he's getting older.

redsmetz
10-08-2007, 06:10 PM
The fact is that the Tigers are giving almost twice as much to the 18 year old as the Reds are giving Stanton over a two year period. Not to mention giving a 40 man roster spot to an 18 year old which is a crappy way to run a franchise. So Stanton didn't work out. Life is like that sometimes.

The last time the Reds got creative and signed two draft picks to major league contracts, it was disasterous (Dane Sardinha and David Espinoza). And we were saddled with sticking Wily Mo Pena for two years that he would have been better served in the minors (and, yes, I know that wasn't our doing - it just shows the difficulty of placing youngsters on the 40 man roster so soon)

dougdirt
10-08-2007, 06:22 PM
Perfect example: Joba Chamberlain. Fell b/c of "rumors" about injury and whatnot. Yanks swooped in and went over slot to get him to sign.

Genius...$1.15 million and 1 year later, he's in NY. You could get 5 chances at a Joba for what Stanton will be stealing from Castellini.

There weren't rumors of injury with Chamberlain... he was topping out around 93 MPH his last season in college when he was previously throwing as hard as he is throwing now and he was in really bad shape. Hindsight is always 20/20, but when a kid is losing 6 MPH on his fastball in 1 year, there are some serious concerns going on there. Turns out, the concerns were a little unwarranted and the kid was just out of shape a little bit. The Yankees took a gamble that only a few teams can and it payed off big time for them.

What happens if the Reds took him at #8 last year instead of Stubbs, and it turns out his elbow or shoulder was trashed and we payed him 1.3 million and then he had to go under the knife.... can you imagine how you would feel then?

dougdirt
10-08-2007, 06:26 PM
If you want to talk about good fiscal sense, throwing money at any amatuer pitching ranks just slightly above investing ones life savings in scratch-off tickets.

There, I fixed that for you.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 06:29 PM
Distorting numbers again are we?

The fact is that the Tigers are giving almost twice as much to the 18 year old as the Reds are giving Stanton over a two year period. Not to mention giving a 40 man roster spot to an 18 year old which is a crappy way to run a franchise. So Stanton didn't work out. Life is like that sometimes.

Distorting? Stanton has $5.5M guaranteed. So that's $5.5 million vs $7 million, what Porcello got from Detroit. Double what Stanton gets from Cincy equates to $11 million. I'm way closer than you are.

In addition, his 2009 $2.75M option kicks in if he reaches 140 games in '07-'08. He pitched in 69 games this year...71 isn't out of reach for 2008, especially if he somehow keeps his ERA in the 4s and the Reds are within shouting distance of a playoff spot.

That countdown will be a lot of fun...though common sense tells us that the Stanton watch will be the only magic number many of us will care about in 2008.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 06:33 PM
There weren't rumors of injury with Chamberlain... he was topping out around 93 MPH his last season in college when he was previously throwing as hard as he is throwing now and he was in really bad shape. Hindsight is always 20/20, but when a kid is losing 6 MPH on his fastball in 1 year, there are some serious concerns going on there. Turns out, the concerns were a little unwarranted and the kid was just out of shape a little bit. The Yankees took a gamble that only a few teams can and it payed off big time for them.

What happens if the Reds took him at #8 last year instead of Stubbs, and it turns out his elbow or shoulder was trashed and we payed him 1.3 million and then he had to go under the knife.... can you imagine how you would feel then?

What happens if the Reds took a guy at #8 and he struggles at the plate in Low A ball, when many of the top 10 picks of that same draft are knocking on the door of the majors?

Lots of ifs. Bottom line is that Joba is working out for the team who drafted him and he is pitching in the playoffs. Wayne needs to show some guts and draft some top tier pitching. If he doesn't have the sac to take some risks to get what he needs, then he should pack it in as he will have no business being in the position he's in.

dougdirt
10-08-2007, 06:54 PM
What happens if the Reds took a guy at #8 and he struggles at the plate in Low A ball, when many of the top 10 picks of that same draft are knocking on the door of the majors?
Stubbs was pretty good in the second half of the season and he was playing hurt all year. Its not about how fast you get to the finish line, its how good you are when you get there.



Lots of ifs. Bottom line is that Joba is working out for the team who drafted him and he is pitching in the playoffs. Wayne needs to show some guts and draft some top tier pitching. If he doesn't have the sac to take some risks to get what he needs, then he should pack it in as he will have no business being in the position he's in.

2006 draft - Pitchers in the top 10
Luke Hochevar - ERA of 4.69 in AA and 5.12 in AA and AAA this year.
Greg Reynolds - Made his last start in the first week of June, hasn't pitched since with a shoulder injury. Rockies said it wasn't serious at first.... but thats over 3 months off for a 'not serious' injury.
Brad Lincoln - surgery. out for a year.
Brandon Marrow - 60 games out of the Mariners bullpen. 1.67 WHIP thanks in large part to 50 walks in 63 innings.
Andrew Miller - 5.63 ERA for the Tigers this year. Was rushed big time thanks to his contract and stupid management.
Clayton Kershaw - Complete stud, top 10 prospect in baseball.
(drew stubbs was drafted here)

So lets say any of those pitchers fell to the Reds in 2006, Odds were not good that they came away with something anyone would like right now outside of Kershaw. Marrow has good stuff, but over 7 walks per 9 innings is insanely bad.

So back to your original point, the other guys in the top 10 might all be a little closer to the bigs than Stubbs, but they are all hurting their team for those who are there that aren't named Tim Lincecum and Evan Longoria, and really other than Kershaw, the others all have a lot of work to do before being actual contributors in the major leagues.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 07:08 PM
Stubbs was pretty good in the second half of the season and he was playing hurt all year. Its not about how fast you get to the finish line, its how good you are when you get there.



2006 draft - Pitchers in the top 10
Luke Hochevar - ERA of 4.69 in AA and 5.12 in AA and AAA this year.
Greg Reynolds - Made his last start in the first week of June, hasn't pitched since with a shoulder injury. Rockies said it wasn't serious at first.... but thats over 3 months off for a 'not serious' injury.
Brad Lincoln - surgery. out for a year.
Brandon Marrow - 60 games out of the Mariners bullpen. 1.67 WHIP thanks in large part to 50 walks in 63 innings.
Andrew Miller - 5.63 ERA for the Tigers this year. Was rushed big time thanks to his contract and stupid management.
Clayton Kershaw - Complete stud, top 10 prospect in baseball.
(drew stubbs was drafted here)

So lets say any of those pitchers fell to the Reds in 2006, Odds were not good that they came away with something anyone would like right now outside of Kershaw. Marrow has good stuff, but over 7 walks per 9 innings is insanely bad.

So back to your original point, the other guys in the top 10 might all be a little closer to the bigs than Stubbs, but they are all hurting their team for those who are there that aren't named Tim Lincecum and Evan Longoria, and really other than Kershaw, the others all have a lot of work to do before being actual contributors in the major leagues.

Stubbs has a long way to go. A better second half in Low A isn't much to brag about, unless you performed the way he did before.

Look at some of the guys drafted right after Stubbs. Lincecum, Scherzer and Kiker have all been solid if not spectacular.

Plus the Watson pick made no sense to me when a pitcher like Brett Anderson is still on the board. That just flat out baffled me. But whatever.

Picthing is risky. We all know that. But your never gonna have it unless you take some risks. Small to mid mkt teams need to build up as much young pitching talent as humanly possible. When it takes $10M per year in 4 and 5 year deals to sign mid tier FA pitchers, it makes hoarding your own young pitching even more mandatory.

dougdirt
10-08-2007, 07:38 PM
Stubbs has a long way to go. A better second half in Low A isn't much to brag about, unless you performed the way he did before.

Look at some of the guys drafted right after Stubbs. Lincecum, Scherzer and Kiker have all been solid if not spectacular.

Plus the Watson pick made no sense to me when a pitcher like Brett Anderson is still on the board. That just flat out baffled me. But whatever.

Picthing is risky. We all know that. But your never gonna have it unless you take some risks. Small to mid mkt teams need to build up as much young pitching talent as humanly possible. When it takes $10M per year in 4 and 5 year deals to sign mid tier FA pitchers, it makes hoarding your own young pitching even more mandatory.

1st bold response : Stubbs hit .298/.387/.500 while playing great defense in CF. I dont think any previous performance makes an .887 OPS out of a Top Notch defensive CFer less or more impressive. Something obviously changed from the first two months of the season and the second two.... regardless an .887 OPS is very good out of a centerfielder.

And yet the Reds have one of the top 3 combo's in all of baseball in terms of starting pitching prospects in baseball.... and thats only if you count Phil Hughes as a prospect to team with Chamberlain.

You make it come off like the Reds don't have young starting pitching with promise. Yeah, you can never have enough, but at least the Reds have some, which is a lot more than most teams can say. A lot of teams wish they had 1 Johnny Cueto or Homer Bailey.... to be more precise about 24 teams do. We have both of them.

For what its worth, Kiker, who you seemingly like a lot more than Stubbs, ranked 17th in the MWL according to BA while Stubbs came in at #10.

jojo
10-08-2007, 07:48 PM
Whose to say that these family issues are going to go away? It's time to get a plus defender at short--who isn't 30+ years old, either.

I know it sounds callous, but I'd cut bait with Gonzalez the first chance I got--he wasn't very good this season and he's getting older.

I don't think it's callous-there was plenty of room for argument about Gonzo before the season started. It's probably just an item the Reds hope they've already checked off.

jojo
10-08-2007, 07:56 PM
You make it come off like the Reds don't have young starting pitching with promise. Yeah, you can never have enough, but at least the Reds have some, which is a lot more than most teams can say. A lot of teams wish they had 1 Johnny Cueto or Homer Bailey.... to be more precise about 24 teams do. We have both of them.

I think this is a great point to remember when the pitching,pitching,pitching,pitching,pitching,pitch ing,pitching,pitching,pitching,pitching,pitching,
pitching mantra drones through the radio speakers...

First spending a ton of money on bullpen arms is ludicrous and second, the Reds have three candidates for their rotation that are close enough to be real considerations for serious innings next season (Homer,Cueto, Belisle).

Both Homer and Cueto probably should get a significant number of innings in the Reds rotation next year. It's probably not extreme hyperbole to wonder if the Reds have room for a $12M/yr free agent in their '08 rotation.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 07:57 PM
And yet the Reds have one of the top 3 combo's in all of baseball in terms of starting pitching prospects in baseball.... and thats only if you count Phil Hughes as a prospect to team with Chamberlain.

You make it come off like the Reds don't have young starting pitching with promise. Yeah, you can never have enough, but at least the Reds have some, which is a lot more than most teams can say. A lot of teams wish they had 1 Johnny Cueto or Homer Bailey.... to be more precise about 24 teams do. We have both of them.

Krivsky has nothing to do with those 2. Homer was a top 10 draft pick. He kind of helps my point.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 07:58 PM
I think this is a great point to remember when the pitching,pitching,pitching,pitching,pitching,pitch ing,pitching,pitching,pitching,pitching,pitching,
pitching mantra drones through the radio speakers...

First spending a ton of money on bullpen arms is ludicrous and second, the Reds have three candidates for their rotation that are close enough to be real considerations for serious innings next season (Homer,Cueto, Belisle).

Both Homer and Cueto probably should get a significant number of innings in the Reds rotation next year. It's probably not extreme hyperbole to wonder if the Reds have room for a $12M/yr free agent in their '08 rotation.

$12M = Gil Meche.

We might have to hire a grief counselor on the board if they signed someone like him.

dougdirt
10-08-2007, 08:06 PM
Krivsky has nothing to do with those 2. Homer was a top 10 draft pick. He kind of helps my point.

You are right, Dano was directing the ship when both signed on with the team.

That said though Arroyo and Harang are both signed through 2011 and 2012 I believe. Bailey is here and ready to produce. Cueto isn't that far behind. We aren't in the Washington Nationals situation here. Would I like Lincecum over Stubbs? Sure. Would I like Porcello over Mesoraco? Again, sure. I don't think Porcello made any sense to take though with his demands and Lincecum was a big oops to everyone in the top 9, but there were serious questions about his command among other things.

dougdirt
10-08-2007, 08:07 PM
$12M = Gil Meche.

We might have to hire a grief counselor on the board if they signed someone like him.

If the Reds had Gil Meche this year they may have made the playoffs. *maybe a stretch, but he would have easily been the Reds #2*

pedro
10-08-2007, 08:11 PM
Doug, I hope I'm wrong but I think you're in for a huge let down with Bailey next year. If he can't get his walks down he's going to put up an ERA above 5.00 and be lucky to average 5 innings an outing with all the pitches he'll be throwing.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 08:12 PM
For what its worth, Kiker, who you seemingly like a lot more than Stubbs, ranked 17th in the MWL according to BA while Stubbs came in at #10.

Cool...and Brett Anderson is #3, who they passed over for Watson. No clue what the thought process was there.

Can't explain the Kiker ranking, but we shall see. His numbers were somewhat impressive.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 08:13 PM
You are right, Dano was directing the ship when both signed on with the team.

That said though Arroyo and Harang are both signed through 2011 and 2012 I believe. Bailey is here and ready to produce. Cueto isn't that far behind. We aren't in the Washington Nationals situation here. Would I like Lincecum over Stubbs? Sure. Would I like Porcello over Mesoraco? Again, sure. I don't think Porcello made any sense to take though with his demands and Lincecum was a big oops to everyone in the top 9, but there were serious questions about his command among other things.

Watching how Bowden is directing the future of that franchise makes me a tad bit jealous. They are doing everything a smaller mkt franchise should be doing, IMO.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 08:14 PM
If the Reds had Gil Meche this year they may have made the playoffs. *maybe a stretch, but he would have easily been the Reds #2*

If the Reds were serious about contending, Gil Meche would have made a lot of sense. But to be serious, they needed to make an actual attempt at fixing the bullpen.

dougdirt
10-08-2007, 08:20 PM
Doug, I hope I'm wrong but I think you're in for a huge let down with Bailey next year. If he can't get his walks down he's going to put up an ERA above 5.00 and be lucky to average 5 innings an outing with all the pitches he'll be throwing.

I have plenty of faith he can get his walks down below 4 next season. Bailey threw a lot more strikes while healthy than while he was injured. All I know, is that when he was healthy (6 of his 9 starts) he pitched darn well with a sub 4.00 ERA. He benefitted from keeping the ball in the park over that span, only allowing 1 HR over those 35 innings though. His walk rate needs to get lower than the 4.62/9 he posted while healthy, but I have confidence that it will happen. I also see his strikeout rate going up in the process.

Caveat Emperor
10-08-2007, 08:21 PM
Picthing is risky. We all know that. But your never gonna have it unless you take some risks. Small to mid mkt teams need to build up as much young pitching talent as humanly possible. When it takes $10M per year in 4 and 5 year deals to sign mid tier FA pitchers, it makes hoarding your own young pitching even more mandatory.

And yet you advocate throwing $7+ million contracts at high school arms, as was done with Porcello...

Stockpiling arms is fantastic, but putting all of your financial eggs in a basket being carried by a guy still wearing his varsity jacket is asking for disappointment.

The Reds problem isn't (nor has it been in recent memory) top flight prospects -- they always seem to have 1 or 2 guys who are at the top of the ranking sheets -- the problem has been depth. What you, and everyone else, should be most interested in is the Reds identifying good pitching talent in mid-late rounds that can be developed into cheap #3/#4 starters and middle relief pitching. Being able to generate that kind of talent in-house will cut significantly into the payroll and free the team to use money on more deserving top-flight talent in other areas.

dougdirt
10-08-2007, 08:23 PM
Watching how Bowden is directing the future of that franchise makes me a tad bit jealous. They are doing everything a smaller mkt franchise should be doing, IMO.

Well what is it that they are doing that the Reds aren't?

Ltlabner
10-08-2007, 08:30 PM
And yet you advocate throwing $7+ million contracts at high school arms, as was done with Porcello...

Stockpiling arms is fantastic, but putting all of your financial eggs in a basket being carried by a guy still wearing his varsity jacket is asking for disappointment.

And throwing double digits and 3+ years to the Gil Mench's types of the world. Seems to me you can't "stockpile arms" if you spend your entire war chest on a couple of arms.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 08:36 PM
And yet you advocate throwing $7+ million contracts at high school arms, as was done with Porcello...

Stockpiling arms is fantastic, but putting all of your financial eggs in a basket being carried by a guy still wearing his varsity jacket is asking for disappointment.

The Reds problem isn't (nor has it been in recent memory) top flight prospects -- they always seem to have 1 or 2 guys who are at the top of the ranking sheets -- the problem has been depth. What you, and everyone else, should be most interested in is the Reds identifying good pitching talent in mid-late rounds that can be developed into cheap #3/#4 starters and middle relief pitching. Being able to generate that kind of talent in-house will cut significantly into the payroll and free the team to use money on more deserving top-flight talent in other areas.

1) If Porcello equates to "all of the Reds financial eggs", then they need to get out of the business.

2) I have not said "Porcello or bust", or anything resembling that. I think they should be putting a heavy emphasis on pitching in the early rounds of the draft. Why they waited until their 3rd pick to take a pitcher this past year is beyond me. Why they took a "toolsy" OFer in the 1st round and then took Watson in the second with Anderson out there last year baffles me to this day. Porcello is just an example. Maybe if they took Lincecum and Anderson last year then they could justify passing on the best HS pitcher in the draft this year.

westofyou
10-08-2007, 08:47 PM
Well what is it that they are doing that the Reds aren't?


Washington is considering not tendering a contract to shortstop Felipe Lopez, who is eligible for salary arbitration.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/article.php?articleid=6802

pedro
10-08-2007, 08:52 PM
Well what is it that they are doing that the Reds aren't?

Don't you know? They won 73 games. Not 72.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 08:53 PM
Well what is it that they are doing that the Reds aren't?

7/2/06


WASHINGTON -- The Nationals agreed to terms with shortstop Esmailyn Gonzalez of the Dominican Republic on Sunday. The switch-hitting Gonzalez, 16, will earn a $1.4 million signing bonus and report to the Dominican Summer League Nationals this week.
The signing is considered significant for the Nationals because it demonstrates that they intend to compete with the Braves, Yankees and Red Sox for the best talent in Latin America. In fact, incoming president Stan Kasten considers the Gonzalez signing the equivalent to the Braves signing outfielder Andruw Jones and shortstop Rafael Furcal in 1993 and 1996, respectively. Jones and Furcal are now stars in the big leagues.


1/12/07


For the first time in five years, the Nationals could spend freely in the draft. Though they had two first-round picks and two second-rounders, they didn’t have to worry about signability like they had in the past. Though they didn't sign second-round righthander Sean Black, they landed two legitimate first-rounders in outfielder Chris Marrero and righthander Colten Willems and went over slot money to sign shortstop Stephen King (third round), lefthander Glenn Gibson (fourth) and righty Hassan Pena (13th

1/18/07


The Washington Nationals' aggressive mining of the international talent market continued yesterday with the signing of four Venezuelan teenagers, days after two team executives traveled to the country on a scouting trip and only a week after the team landed a quartet of players from the Dominican Republic.

"When I first came in, [the team] had a budget of zero" for international scouting, General Manager Jim Bowden said last week. "After discussions with [ownership] we were able to reallocate some dollars for Latin America. We walked. Now, I think we're jogging. And eventually, we'll be sprinting."


8/17/07

When scouts and front-office personnel of the Washington Nationals gathered in June in a conference room at RFK Stadium, they sat in front of a board adorned with the names of high school and college prospects, hundreds of them, all ranked. At No. 10 sat a high school pitcher from Massachusetts named Jack McGeary. And next to McGeary's name was the word "Unsignable."

" 'Unsignable' to us meant 'signable' later in the draft -- we hope," General Manager Jim Bowden said. "But we didn't know."

Late Wednesday night, in a deal that both sides hailed as creative and which the Nationals believe provided a signature moment in the development of their franchise, the team signed the unsignable McGeary for a $1.8 million bonus. The deal was, in a sense, a surprise to all sides. McGeary had slipped to the sixth round because teams believed he would honor a commitment to Stanford.


These are the types of moves that need to be made.

dougdirt
10-08-2007, 08:55 PM
1) If Porcello equates to "all of the Reds financial eggs", then they need to get out of the business.

2) I have not said "Porcello or bust", or anything resembling that. I think they should be putting a heavy emphasis on pitching in the early rounds of the draft. Why they waited until their 3rd pick to take a pitcher this past year is beyond me. Why they took a "toolsy" OFer in the 1st round and then took Watson in the second with Anderson out there last year baffles me to this day. Porcello is just an example. Maybe if they took Lincecum and Anderson last year then they could justify passing on the best HS pitcher in the draft this year.

How many teams spent 7 million on the draft this year? I bet its less than 6 teams, and thats for the entire draft. As for emphasizing pitching in the draft, I get that, but if its not there, don't overdraft it....

Also, for things that baffle you.... unless you were out on the road scouting hundred of players pre draft, your opinion on who the Reds should have taken means very little (likewise, mine means very little as well). As for taking Watson... it makes sense to me. The guy has very good pitches and a very projectable body type. I didn't get the pick at the time really, but its a moot point right now.

dougdirt
10-08-2007, 09:06 PM
The Reds went over slot to ink Evan Hildenbrandt this year. Of course the international market is a little different. I dont know how the Reds are doing in the international scheme of things as far as signing mid level talent (although since guys are signed at age 16 and 17, how much do we really know?)
That said, the Reds have plenty of players from the Dominican, Venezuela and the rest of the international world. They have enough to field a team in the DSL and the VSL as well as bring over several guys each year to the US who show more promise than the others. Just because you don't hear about them all the time doesn't mean its not happening.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 09:06 PM
How many teams spent 7 million on the draft this year? I bet its less than 6 teams, and thats for the entire draft. As for emphasizing pitching in the draft, I get that, but if its not there, don't overdraft it....

Also, for things that baffle you.... unless you were out on the road scouting hundred of players pre draft, your opinion on who the Reds should have taken means very little (likewise, mine means very little as well). As for taking Watson... it makes sense to me. The guy has very good pitches and a very projectable body type. I didn't get the pick at the time really, but its a moot point right now.

Wel according to BA, only 6 teams spent over $7M in signing bonuses for their first 10 rounds. The Tigers only spent $7.3 million. I guess the ML contract kind of dilutes the numbers.

And in reference to my scouting lifestyle, I agree with you 100%. I know no more than others on the board. I'm more concerned with the philosophy than the actual players. But in that respect if we all didn't have opinions, then we can get rid of this board. :)

Regarding Watson/Anderson, I just saw many publications projecting him in the middle of the 1st round. That's the type of guy you take in the 2nd if he's there, IMO.

edabbs44
10-08-2007, 09:09 PM
The Reds went over slot to ink Evan Hildenbrandt this year.

Jumping the slot by $75-80k isn't the kind of aggressiveness I was looking for. But I guess it's a start.

dougdirt
10-08-2007, 09:15 PM
Wel according to BA, only 6 teams spent over $7M in signing bonuses for their first 10 rounds. The Tigers only spent $7.3 million. I guess the ML contract kind of dilutes the numbers.
True but only a handful of guys got MLB contracts.... so it was probably more like 8 or 9 teams. Still, not a good percentage of teams.


And in reference to my scouting lifestyle, I agree with you 100%. I know no more than others on the board. I'm more concerned with the philosophy than the actual players. But in that respect if we all didn't have opinions, then we can get rid of this board. :)
Well if we got rid of the board, the rest of my life would surely be more productive thats for sure lol. As far as their philosophy goes, I just want them taking the best player available at every pick that will actually sign with them. Its all I ask for. Whether I think they are nutjobs (see my reaction to Stubbs, Drew on draft day 06) or brilliant, I just want them taking the guy they think has the best chance to make it to the Reds.



Regarding Watson/Anderson, I just saw many publications projecting him in the middle of the 1st round. That's the type of guy you take in the 2nd if he's there, IMO.
Still comes down to, did they take Watson because they thought he had more potential or not? If they thought so, then regardless of what someone elses scouts thought, ours disagreed with that one.

mth123
10-09-2007, 05:45 AM
Except that even PBP metrics were saying that Gonzalez had lost a step or two....

And it showed. Keep trotting out the family excuse; what I saw was that he was slow.

I'll take a Pedro Lopez any day of the week--trade Gonzalez if possible.

Amen!!!! I've been saying this for a while. If the point was to upgrade the defense at SS, the Reds didn't need to spend all that jack on Gonzalez. The minor leagues are filled with easily acquired players who could do as well or better defensively. The Reds proved it when Lopez was acquired.

As for the offensive difference, Gonzalez himself is an out machine who in 2007 added occasional power. Over Gonzalez career his power stats have been very inconsistent hitting 7, 9, 2, 18, 23, 5, 9, and 16 HRs during the seasons of this decade. His slugging percentage has also bounced around .319, .376, .325, .443, .419, .368, .397 and .468. It doesn't seem like his power is anything to rely on and as such doesn't really differentiate him from other players. The defense can be had more cheaply and if Gonzalez is an out machine, the only real difference between Gonzalez and a cheap defensive minded replacement is a few HR and Gonzalez history says that you can't really count on him for that either.

As a MI with a reputation, Gonzalez may be able to bring back a useful arm to boot. He gets more expensive the next 2 years and Lopez looks like a capable replacement with Keppinger playing occassionally to provide an offensive boost when the rest of the offense is slumping. I'd be on the horn with SF, Toronto and Baltimore trying to move Gonzo.

dougdirt
10-09-2007, 07:26 AM
Amen!!!! I've been saying this for a while. If the point was to upgrade the defense at SS, the Reds didn't need to spend all that jack on Gonzalez.
I understand the Reds are 'small market', but 5 million a year on average is a lot of money for a veteran player since when?

If people don't like his play its one thing, but 5 million a year is not much money for a veteran starter.

mth123
10-09-2007, 07:38 AM
I understand the Reds are 'small market', but 5 million a year on average is a lot of money for a veteran player since when?

If people don't like his play its one thing, but 5 million a year is not much money for a veteran starter.

You save where you can to pay for the things you really need. The Reds need SS no doubt. Gonzalez being average defensively is nothing worth $5 Million. Those giuys are a dime a dozen. In this case it comes down to offense. That is something the Reds could always use but a low OBP guy with unreliable power is not anything worth paying for when there are greater needs elsewhere. It isn't a case of market in this case. Gonzalez may be worth market as a veteran player, but the Reds have greater needs to use that money on.

I could pay 6 figures for a fancy car and it would probably be worth it in the market, but the fact is it doesn't make any sense if I need the money to put food on the table. The Reds need the money for the pitching staff.

dougdirt
10-09-2007, 07:52 AM
The Reds needed pitching, but they also needed a shortstop. The Reds spent money much worse in 07 than on Gonzo.

redsmetz
10-09-2007, 08:04 AM
You save where you can to pay for the things you really need. The Reds need SS no doubt. Gonzalez being average defensively is nothing worth $5 Million. Those giuys are a dime a dozen. In this case it comes down to offense. That is something the Reds could always use but a low OBP guy with unreliable power is not anything worth paying for when there are greater needs elsewhere. It isn't a case of market in this case. Gonzalez may be worth market as a veteran player, but the Reds have greater needs to use that money on.

I could pay 6 figures for a fancy car and it would probably be worth it in the market, but the fact is it doesn't make any sense if I need the money to put food on the table. The Reds need the money for the pitching staff.

I think you're being fairly short sighted. Yes, they need more pitching. No, I don't believe Gonzalez kept them from securing that.

In fact, Gonzo didn't cost us $5 Million last year, his contract called for a salary of $3.5 Million. It goes up each year, so, yes, he becomes more expensive as the contract advances through the years. But the guy he replaced (Lopez) made $3.9 Million, so we saved half a million there - and we got better production out of Gonzo in 3/4 of the games Lopez played in.

The Gonzalez signing works because it's a good acquisition in which we have about a three year need because we have no one coming up in our system at that position. Frankly he had a fabulous year (errors notwithstanding) given the diffulties he had throughout the season.

Gonzo coming to the Red wasn't a mistake that caused this season to go awry.

Falls City Beer
10-09-2007, 08:06 AM
I think you're being fairly short sighted. Yes, they need more pitching. No, I don't believe Gonzalez kept them from securing that.

In fact, Gonzo didn't cost us $5 Million last year, his contract called for a salary of $3.5 Million. It goes up each year, so, yes, he becomes more expensive as the contract advances through the years. But the guy he replaced (Lopez) made $3.9 Million, so we saved half a million there - and we got better production out of Gonzo in 3/4 of the games Lopez played in.

The Gonzalez signing works because it's a good acquisition in which we have about a three year need because we have no one coming up in our system at that position. Frankly he had a fabulous year (errors notwithstanding) given the diffulties he had throughout the season.

Gonzo coming to the Red wasn't a mistake that caused this season to go awry.

Gonzalez wasn't why the season went awry. He just makes too much for his skill set and age. Too much for the Reds at least.

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 08:15 AM
I could pay 6 figures for a fancy car and it would probably be worth it in the market, but the fact is it doesn't make any sense if I need the money to put food on the table. The Reds need the money for the pitching staff.

Makes too much sense. It's like pimping out your bathroom when your entire house is condemned. Only you'll need a new bathroom by the time you are alllowed to move in.

Gonzalez will likely be gone when the Reds can get in better position to make a run. If Wayne goes out and makes enough noise this offseason to do that, then having Gonzo makes more sense. But until he takes his pitching staff seriously, having Gonzalez is wasted funds.

Many trumpeted the Gonzalez signing as a way to boost the pitching staff. A much better way to improve the pitching staff is to acquire better pitching. Just a friendly tip.

redsmetz
10-09-2007, 08:16 AM
Gonzalez wasn't why the season went awry. He just makes too much for his skill set and age. Too much for the Reds at least.

How did we take a beautiful game like baseball and reduce it to "skill set and age" - Good Lord! The guy's only 30 years old. We're not playing Strat-o-Matic, we're talking about a game played by flesh and blood human beings. Call me a traditionalist, but I'd rather not have the life sucked out something as wonderful as baseball.

Sorry to go off on you, but I think we're straining at gnats here and when it all comes down to dots and dashes and decimal points and dollar signs, it removes the sheer joy of the thing from it for me. I don't know about "skill sets and age", but I do know we signed a decent shortstop for a reasonable rate for a period of time when this club has a need at that position.

jojo
10-09-2007, 08:20 AM
Gonzalez wasn't why the season went awry. He just makes too much for his skill set and age. Too much for the Reds at least.

Assuming Gonzo was a neutral defender in '07, he was basically a 2 win player as his bat was roughly 20 runs over replacement. "Any old shortstop" from the minor leagues would be expected to be a neutral to slightly above average defender who hits replacement level. Basically,with Gonzo, the Reds got somewhere around 2 wins at a premium position for $3.5M (the going rate for a win seems to be $3-4M). For as much of a disappointment Gonzo's defense seemed to be to our eyes, it in the very least was not a drag on the Reds RS/RA. Given his salary, he actually was a positive in '07. Also lets not forget that only getting neutral defense from shortstop represented a significant upgrade over previous years.

jojo
10-09-2007, 08:26 AM
A much better way to improve the pitching staff is to acquire better pitching. Just a friendly tip.

Sure I guess if getting better pitching is both possible and you're able to afford it. But I don't understand why the issue has to be framed as either/or....

bucksfan2
10-09-2007, 08:43 AM
If you think $3.5M for the first year and a total of $15M over the life of the contract is way too much money for a starter I want to know what form of baseball you are watching. It is actually a really reasonable contract which increases his trade value. Is he a top SS no, but he isn't paid like a top SS. Look at the big FA SS of last offseason. Lugo signed a 4 year $36M deal with the Red Sox to hit .237 with a .294 OBP and made 19 Errors. All number pale in comparison to Gonzales and Lugo will make more money in the first 2 years of the contract then Gonzales will make total. The thing is if the Sox didn't offer him that kind of money someone else would have been out there giving him around the same.

Before you say that $15M over 3 years is way too much for a starter realize that this is 2007 and not 1990. $5M a year contracts aren't going to hinder you club at all.

redsmetz
10-09-2007, 08:46 AM
Sure I guess if getting better pitching is both possible and you're able to afford it. But I don't understand why the issue has to be framed as either/or....

I think that's what strikes me. I understand that all of the various contracts add up to the whole, but I assume it's a bit fluid, albeit with some limitations at the top of the final number.

That said, I know folks have talked about the money that could have gone to this pitcher or that pitcher, but I don't think we'll ever be able to know what efforts were made to land a free agent pitcher. We always hear the old axiom "it takes two to tango" and we don't know if we were rebuffed by some or we just didn't pursue them. I don't know how we can know that ultimately.

Winning breeds winning - let's construct a team that is a desirable place for free agents to want to come to. I'd like to think we're coming near that point with the basic core of starters and up and coming prospects.

GAC
10-09-2007, 09:05 AM
You save where you can to pay for the things you really need. The Reds need SS no doubt. Gonzalez being average defensively is nothing worth $5 Million. Those giuys are a dime a dozen.

Gonzalez is an above average SS defensively. And if those guys are a dime a dozen then throw out some names that could have been had last off-season that this FO missed out on?

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 09:05 AM
Sure I guess if getting better pitching is both possible and you're able to afford it. But I don't understand why the issue has to be framed as either/or....

Because there wasn't much acquiring of better pitching last offseason.

This team isn't an Alex Gonzalez away from anything. That's the problem. If you are going to spend $14 M on a guy, it should be on a guy who can really help your pitching staff. And I realize $14M isn't going to get you much pitching by itself, but it should be added to the pitching budget, whatever that might be.

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 09:07 AM
Gonzalez is an above average SS defensively. And if those guys are a dime a dozen then throw out some names that could have been had last off-season that this FO missed out on?

They shouldn't have acquired Gonzalez period. They could have resigned Clayton for $1M and I would have been fine with it, as long as the money saved was spent elsewhere to improve the organization.

jojo
10-09-2007, 09:32 AM
They shouldn't have acquired Gonzalez period. They could have resigned Clayton for $1M and I would have been fine with it, as long as the money saved was spent elsewhere to improve the organization.

The point isn't saving money, it's sending it wisely. They got good value for Gonzo's production in '07.

Royce Clayton by contrast was both a minus bat and glove (VORP= -2; his defense probably was in the range of -5 runs). Paying Clayton $1M for something equal to or less than replacement level would seem to be the antithesis to the philosophy you're arguing....

Really what is the point of paying market value for pitching that saves you runs on the RA side of the equation if by skimping on your position players, you're giving back defensive runs? Despite what some on air personalities continually drone, when it comes to actually having to formulate a roster, in practical terms, baseball isn't as simple as pitching,pitching,pitching, pitching.....

Overall, Gonzo basically was two wins better than Clayton at a cost of roughly $2.5M more. That's a bargain.

To put it into perspective, try formulating a list of pitchers that were available last off season that would've improved the Reds RS/RA by 20 runs for $3.5M (it's actually a pretty short list if you ignore salary).

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 09:42 AM
The point isn't saving money, it's sending it wisely. They got good value for Gonzo's production in '07.

Royce Clayton by contrast was both a minus bat and glove (VORP= -2; his defense probably was in the range of -5 runs). Paying Clayton $1M for something equal to or less than replacement level would seem to be the antithesis to the philosophy you're arguing....

Nope..it's actually exactly what I am talking about.

Why pay decent money for someone who isn't going to help you get to the playoffs? This team is not a Gonzalez away. So why spend $14M on him, when that money can be put towards drafting better players or signing intl FAs?

Same with Stanton, Conine, Cormier and the rest of the million dollar nothings. If you aren't going to get someone who will make a difference, then don't bother spending any money. Go bottom tier and save your money until the time comes when you can make a difference.

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 09:45 AM
To put it into perspective, try formulating a list of pitchers that were available last off season that would've improved the Reds RS/RA by 20 runs for $3.5M (it's actually a pretty short list if you ignore salary).

Here's a novel concept....take the $3.5 million and spend it on the farm system.

The only difference in those 2 wins is Cincy getting the 7th pick in next year's draft rather than the 5th. Now when the same thing happens this year and next when his salary starts to increase, you'll get the same response from me.

jojo
10-09-2007, 09:48 AM
Nope..it's actually exactly what I am talking about.

Why pay decent money for someone who isn't going to help you get to the playoffs? This team is not a Gonzalez away. So why spend $14M on him, when that money can be put towards drafting better players or signing intl FAs?

I think when 85 wins is a legitimate goal for your division and you're coming off of a 80 win season while staring at a FA market where the Suppans of the world are getting 4 yr(plus an option year)/$40M deals, upgrading shortstop by 2-3 wins (compared to '06) by simply throwing a little money at that item on your list (at below market price for wins) is almost a no brainer imperative.

Falls City Beer
10-09-2007, 09:51 AM
The point isn't saving money, it's sending it wisely. They got good value for Gonzo's production in '07.

Royce Clayton by contrast was both a minus bat and glove (VORP= -2; his defense probably was in the range of -5 runs). Paying Clayton $1M for something equal to or less than replacement level would seem to be the antithesis to the philosophy you're arguing....

Really what is the point of paying market value for pitching that saves you runs on the RA side of the equation if by skimping on your position players, you're giving back defensive runs? Despite what some on air personalities continually drone, when it comes to actually having to formulate a roster, in practical terms, baseball isn't as simple as pitching,pitching,pitching, pitching.....

Overall, Gonzo basically was two wins better than Clayton at a cost of roughly $2.5M more. That's a bargain.

To put it into perspective, try formulating a list of pitchers that were available last off season that would've improved the Reds RS/RA by 20 runs for $3.5M (it's actually a pretty short list if you ignore salary).

Of course Gonzo's better than Clayton, even Clayton at $1 million.

But Pedro Lopez gives you better D than Gonzo for $500,000. Lopez is the real bargain here. You just have to be smart to enough to see it.

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 09:52 AM
I think when 85 wins is a legitimate goal for your division and you're coming off of a 80 win season while staring at a FA market where the Suppans of the world are getting 4 yr(plus an option year)/$40M deals, upgrading shortstop by 2-3 wins (compared to '06) by simply throwing a little money at that item on your list (at below market price for wins) is almost a no brainer imperative.

And they were still 13 wins off that "legitimate goal", and 7 wins off of last year's pace even with Gonzalez.

Tremendous.

jojo
10-09-2007, 10:00 AM
Here's a novel concept....take the $3.5 million and spend it on the farm system.

Signing Gonzo didn't take $3.5M from the farm system coffers...

Ltlabner
10-09-2007, 10:00 AM
Why pay decent money for someone who isn't going to help you get to the playoffs? This team is not a Gonzalez away. So why spend $14M on him, when that money can be put towards drafting better players or signing intl FAs? .

I know we've been round and round about this, so I'm not trying to convince you of anything. But everytime you mention the "why spend the money if we aren't a playoff team" it makes me think of building a house. It's as if you are saying, "well, we can't afford the granite countertops, so we might as well build the walls out of tissue paper".

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 10:09 AM
I know we've been round and round about this, so I'm not trying to convince you of anything. But everytime you mention the "why spend the money if we aren't a playoff team" it makes me think of building a house. It's as if you are saying, "well, we can't afford the granite countertops, so we might as well build the walls out of tissue paper".

Just some of the weird stuff floating around my brain.

Or it's like getting a set of $10,000 spinner rims on a '73 Pinto. Or those same granite countertops in a kitchen with no sink or oven.

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 10:11 AM
Signing Gonzo didn't take $3.5M from the farm system coffers...

And you know this how?

jojo
10-09-2007, 10:19 AM
And they were still 13 wins off that "legitimate goal", and 7 wins off of last year's pace even with Gonzalez.

Tremendous.

Which of course in no way suggests getting a good deal for Gonzo's production was a bad move.

Hindsight is a great thing. It's easy to argue on October 9th that the Reds shouldve simply sacrificed this season and hyperbolically fed their farm the resources they waisted on their '07 roster. However, using that logic, it could be argued the money spent on Harang, Arroyo, and Dunn was completely waisted (despite all three representing good bargains) and the decisions to keep them rather than flip them for prospects were bad ones. While I know that's taking your argument to an extreme that you're really not suggesting, in essence you are arguing that the Reds shouldn't be trying to win now despite playing in a division that's essentially for the taking.

Anyway, I get it. You think the Reds are better off funneling the money they spend on the margins of their roster into the farm system. The Clayton/Gonzo example, however, is a poor one to use to justify your philosophy because, at least for this year, the Gonzo deal is really much closer to an example of what the Reds should be doing rather than what they shouldn't be doing.

jojo
10-09-2007, 10:20 AM
And you know this how?

Because typically that's not the way major league teams set their budgets.

bucksfan2
10-09-2007, 10:22 AM
Of course Gonzo's better than Clayton, even Clayton at $1 million.

But Pedro Lopez gives you better D than Gonzo for $500,000. Lopez is the real bargain here. You just have to be smart to enough to see it.

So let me get this straight. A guy with a total of 16 games played and 52 at bats is a real bargain? Explain please. While Lopez may have some upside there is no way you could have had him as your starting SS at the beginning of the year. Statements like this just leave me scratching my head.

jojo
10-09-2007, 10:23 AM
Or it's like getting a set of $10,000 spinner rims on a '73 Pinto. Or those same granite countertops in a kitchen with no sink or oven.

Actually it's like getting a sink on sale even though you might have to wait while to find an affordable oven.

westofyou
10-09-2007, 10:26 AM
So let me get this straight. A guy with a total of 16 games played and 52 at bats is a real bargain? Explain please. While Lopez may have some upside there is no way you could have had him as your starting SS at the beginning of the year. Statements like this just leave me scratching my head.

Nope there is no way, especially since Gonzalez was inked in November and Lopez was picked up six months later in late May.

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 10:32 AM
Which of course in no way suggests getting a good deal for Gonzo's production was a bad move.

Hindsight is a great thing. It's easy to argue on October 9th that the Reds shouldve simply sacrificed this season and hyperbolically fed their farm the resources they waisted on their '07 roster. However, using that logic, it could be argued the money spent on Harang, Arroyo, and Dunn was completely waisted (despite all three representing good bargains) and the decisions to keep them rather than flip them for prospects were bad ones. While I know that's taking your argument to an extreme that you're really not suggesting, in essence you are arguing that the Reds shouldn't be trying to win now despite playing in a division that's essentially for the taking.

No hindsight here...I was hypercritical of that signing the day it was made.

And I'm not in favor of playing for 85 wins. I'm in favor of doing what's best for the franchise. If the Reds were to sacrifice their future for 85 wins and a 1st round thrashing, then what's the point? Why not try to build a successful franchise in relation to the rest of the MLB and not just in relation to the division?


Anyway, I get it. You think the Reds are better off funneling the money they spend on the margins of their roster into the farm system. The Clayton/Gonzo example, however, is a poor one to use to justify your philosophy because, at least for this year, the Gonzo deal is really much closer to an example of what the Reds should be doing rather than what they shouldn't be doing.

Clayton/Gonzo is a beautiful example because it is reality. You are correct when you say the Gonzo deal is closer to what they should be doing. But it needs to be done with 7 or 8 other moves to really get the full effect of the transaction. Getting a 2 win player when you end up with 72 wins is a useless move. If the team went and got better pitching and then added Gonzo, I would feel much better with his signing.

jojo
10-09-2007, 10:33 AM
Of course Gonzo's better than Clayton, even Clayton at $1 million.

But Pedro Lopez gives you better D than Gonzo for $500,000. Lopez is the real bargain here. You just have to be smart to enough to see it.

I actually like the idea of Lopez but I'm not prepared to accept his defense is significantly better than Gonzo's especially given we've seen a down year for Gonzo with some circumstances that could've been mitigating (I know that's an arguable point).

Now considering their bats things are much clearer. Lopez's bat is basically replacement level. Concerning Gonzo, last off season an average of the big five projections systems thought Gonzo would do this as a Red in '07: .282/.339/.463, which wasn't too far off from what he did give the Reds: .272/.325/.468.

When looking at the overall values of Gonzo and Lopez in '07, I think Gonzo definitely was worth that extra $3M.

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 10:34 AM
Actually it's like getting a sink on sale even though you might have to wait while to find an affordable oven.

And while the cost of the sink escalates throughout its lifetime, you might not be able to afford that oven until the contract runs out on that sink.

jojo
10-09-2007, 10:39 AM
And I'm not in favor of playing for 85 wins. I'm in favor of doing what's best for the franchise. If the Reds were to sacrifice their future for 85 wins and a 1st round thrashing, then what's the point? Why not try to build a successful franchise in relation to the rest of the MLB and not just in relation to the division?

Here's the thing though. Making the playoffs provides both an immediate and near future revenue boom that in turn allows both payroll and the player development budget to increase.

jojo
10-09-2007, 10:42 AM
And while the cost of the sink escalates throughout its lifetime, you might not be able to afford that oven until the contract runs out on that sink.

We're only talking $14M over 3 years.... if that (essentially paying slightly below market value for production over the course of the contract at a premium position) is keeping the Reds from buying an oven, they really should be renting rather than building their dream home....

pedro
10-09-2007, 10:51 AM
I think the idea that the Reds are going to somehow automatically make the organization stronger by ignoring the product that generates revenue and indiscriminately dumping money into the minor leagues is pretty juvenile. It's analogous to a software company saying "you know, we're not going to sell our product anymore because it's not the best and we aren't going to dominate the marketplace. Instead we're going to invest all our money in a new product, which may not, in the end, even work. See you in five years!"

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 10:52 AM
Here's the thing though. Making the playoffs provides both an immediate and near future revenue boom that in turn allows both payroll and the player development budget to increase.

Which is dandy...no one said you can't try and make the playoffs while trying to make the team as good as possible. It's the insinuation that the Gonzo signing was smart because he equated to 2 wins and the Reds were trying to make the leap from 80 to 85. Somehow that plan got all messed up as they made the leap from 80 to 72, which included the 2 win boost from Gonzo.

I never said that making the playoffs is a bad thing. But let's be honest...the Reds were in somewhat of a playoff race in '06 and fans were not rushing to the stadium. So if the Reds made it to the playoffs this season in the same fashion they could have in '06 (lethargic and viewed as being a product of the competition and not a product of the Reds' play), do you really think there would have been a material revenue boost? Especially if they were knocked out in 3 games, getting only one game at home?

But that's off topic.

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 11:03 AM
I think the idea that the Reds are going to somehow automatically make the organization stronger by ignoring the product that generates revenue and indiscriminately dumping money into the minor leagues is pretty juvenile. It's analogous to a software company saying "you know, we're not going to sell our product anymore because it's not the best and we aren't going to dominate the marketplace. Instead we're going to invest all our money in a new product, which may not, in the end, even work. See you in five years!"

The Reds, after "making the organization stronger" this past offseason, went from 80 wins to 72 wins. I think the CEO of the software company would have a lot of questions to answer if that took place under his watch.

But, to be honest, I think the correct analogy would be watching a software company have layoffs because of the current market conditions. Not signing Gonzalez doesn't equate to stopping sales altogether. That comparison is a bit dramatic, IMO.

pedro
10-09-2007, 11:07 AM
You're ignoring the fact that team revenues are derived from the major league product and that revenue is what is going to allow the Reds to compete in the future.

Falls City Beer
10-09-2007, 11:12 AM
I actually like the idea of Lopez but I'm not prepared to accept his defense is significantly better than Gonzo's especially given we've seen a down year for Gonzo with some circumstances that could've been mitigating (I know that's an arguable point).

Now considering their bats things are much clearer. Lopez's bat is basically replacement level. Concerning Gonzo, last off season an average of the big five projections systems thought Gonzo would do this as a Red in '07: .282/.339/.463, which wasn't too far off from what he did give the Reds: .272/.325/.468.

When looking at the overall values of Gonzo and Lopez in '07, I think Gonzo definitely was worth that extra $3M.

Gonzo's offense could have been made up for in a number of ways (Votto). What the team needs more than O is elite defense at a premium position.

Gonzalez isn't a terrible contract or choice, but Lopez is optimal, IMO.

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 11:41 AM
You're ignoring the fact that team revenues are derived from the major league product and that revenue is what is going to allow the Reds to compete in the future.
Just a few questions:

Do you think that the signings of Gonzalez, Cormier, Stanton and Moeller and the trade for Cormier caused a boost in revenues or stopped an exodus of season ticket holders?

If the Reds did compete this season, it likely would have had more to do with the weakness of the division than the quality of the product Wayne put on the field. In '06, the Reds were in a playoff race and Bob had to have a half price ticket and hit dog sale to get fans to show up to the key St Louis series. Do you think fan reaction would have been different this season as comapred to last season, which would have equated to a boost in revenue?

Ltlabner
10-09-2007, 11:46 AM
Do you think fan reaction would have been different this season as comapred to last season, which would have equated to a boost in revenue?

The team has to win consistantly for a period of time for the fans to come back in mass.

After the team won for a few months, when the division was weak, after years of losing it shouldn't shock anyone that the fans didn't suddenly flock to GABP.

But the more they win, the better the attendence will be.

Besides, folks like yourself we screaming all last year that the competition was smoke and mirrors. Why does is supprise you the the casual fan figured out the same thing?

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 11:55 AM
The team has to win consistantly for a period of time for the fans to come back in mass.

After the team won for a few months, when the division was weak, after years of losing it shouldn't shock anyone that the fans didn't suddenly flock to GABP.

But the more they win, the better the attendence will be.

Besides, folks like yourself we screaming all last year that the competition was smoke and mirrors. Why does is supprise you the the casual fan figured out the same thing?

Even if the competition was smoke and mirrors, it doesn't mean you can't go out and watch a game and root for your team. This is the first year I haven't flown out to Cincy for a weekend and went to 3 games in years.

And I agree that
the more they win, the better the attendence will be. That's my point. Signing Gonzo to a 3 year contract likely will not make this team a consistent winner over a long period of time, unless the signing is coupled with multiple other large FA signings.

pedro
10-09-2007, 11:59 AM
Just a few questions:

Do you think that the signings of Gonzalez, Cormier, Stanton and Moeller and the trade for Cormier caused a boost in revenues or stopped an exodus of season ticket holders?

If the Reds did compete this season, it likely would have had more to do with the weakness of the division than the quality of the product Wayne put on the field. In '06, the Reds were in a playoff race and Bob had to have a half price ticket and hit dog sale to get fans to show up to the key St Louis series. Do you think fan reaction would have been different this season as comapred to last season, which would have equated to a boost in revenue?

I think that while AG certainly isn't a draw unto himself (few players are) getting a major league quality SS gives the impression that the team is attempting to compete which certainly doesn't hurt attendance.

Cormier was brought in to try and help compete in 2006 and Stanton was brought in to try and provide depth to the pen which obviously was this teams Achilles heel. I also think the Reds thought they'd be able to flip them at the deadline for some prospects if they were out of the race or if guys from the minors pitched their way into the majors. I know a lot of folks believe that the Reds should have just gone with kids, but that's a dicey proposition b/c if the kids wash out, then where do you turn? To me, planning depth is always a good thing.

Moeller? Just an extra catcher to provide organizational depth. It's inconsequential.

Finally, it's not always about boosting revenue, sometimes it's about maintaining it. While I don't know that attendance was boosted by any of these players I am certain that doing nothing and purposely tanking the season from the get go is a sure way to assure that revenues drop.

dougdirt
10-09-2007, 12:06 PM
That's my point. Signing Gonzo to a 3 year contract likely will not make this team a consistent winner over a long period of time, unless the signing is coupled with multiple other large FA signings.
The thing is, you are focusing on 1 step of the plan, and not the entire thing. This offseason is not here yet. You have no clue what the Reds are going to do. What do the Reds need to compete next year? Pitching. Why is that? Because everywhere else but catcher is well in hand for the future. Coming into last season, we couldn't say that. Maybe this year is where we take those steps forward to get a little more pitching.

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 12:13 PM
The thing is, you are focusing on 1 step of the plan, and not the entire thing. This offseason is not here yet. You have no clue what the Reds are going to do. What do the Reds need to compete next year? Pitching. Why is that? Because everywhere else but catcher is well in hand for the future. Coming into last season, we couldn't say that. Maybe this year is where we take those steps forward to get a little more pitching.

Maybe. Maybe not.

I'd bet that they don't get anyone who will make enough of an impact to really take this team to the next level. But I could be wrong.

The other thing is that, while you say "everywhere else but catcher is well in hand for the future", Gonzo is only here for another 2 years. And that's where some of my discontent lies. If step 1 is Gonzo, how long will it take until the final step takes place? Looking at this team, they need to make a whole lot of upgrades in the pitching dept to actually compete. Do we believe that Gonzo will still be here when that happens? Or is he just a really, really expensive stopgap?

pedro
10-09-2007, 12:14 PM
Since when is less than 5 million a year for a competent major league SS "really really expensive"?

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 12:19 PM
I think that while AG certainly isn't a draw unto himself (few players are) getting a major league quality SS gives the impression that the team is attempting to compete which certainly doesn't hurt attendance.

Attendance dropped this season from last season, almost 1k per game. It certainly didn't help attendance either.


Cormier was brought in to try and help compete in 2006 and Stanton was brought in to try and provide depth to the pen which obviously was this teams Achilles heel. I also think the Reds thought they'd be able to flip them at the deadline for some prospects if they were out of the race or if guys from the minors pitched their way into the majors. I know a lot of folks believe that the Reds should have just gone with kids, but that's a dicey proposition b/c if the kids wash out, then where do you turn? To me, planning depth is always a good thing.

Planning depth is always good, but that plan flunked is a rather large way. Does Wayne have any liability in that arena? Spending millions on the league's worst bullpen?


Moeller? Just an extra catcher to provide organizational depth. It's inconsequential.

Inconsequential, but truly unnecessary.


Finally, it's not always about boosting revenue, sometimes it's about maintaining it. While I don't know that attendance was boosted by any of these players I am certain that doing nothing and purposely tanking the season from the get go is a sure way to assure that revenues drop.

Again, I cannot see how Gonzo and the rest of them maintained anything. With Dunn, Harang, Arroyo, Phillips and Griffey still around, their attendance would not collapse because Gonzalez wasn't signed.

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 12:20 PM
Since when is less than 5 million a year for a competent major league SS "really really expensive"?

Not a "really, really expensive" SS, but a "really, really expensive" stopgap.

pedro
10-09-2007, 12:24 PM
Sometimes it's not progress that's important. It's the impression of progress. The impression of progress helps maintain attendance. Going into the season with Juan Castro as the SS does not give the impression of progress. Plus it makes me puke.

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 12:30 PM
Sometimes it's not progress that's important. It's the impression of progress. The impression of progress helps maintain attendance. Going into the season with Juan Castro as the SS does not give the impression of progress. Plus it makes me puke.

I'll take progress over the impression of progress anyday.

Plus, if Wayne coupled the announcement of the resigning of "Replacement Level shortstop X" with an interview saying that they are going to maintain the core of the team while dumping millions into the farm system and then actually follow-through on that statement, I think that would give a very nice impression of progress.

The core of the team is young. If they choose, they can have this core around for a long time. Hamilton, Dunn, Phillips, Harang, Bruce, Votto, Homer, Cueto, etc etc etc. Now supplement them with younger top talents from the draft and you are talking about a team who could compete with anyone in a few years rather than possibly compete in the NL Central next year.

pedro
10-09-2007, 12:32 PM
I'll take progress over the impression of progress anyday.

Plus, if Wayne coupled the announcement of the resigning of "Replacement Level shortstop X" with an interview saying that they are going to maintain the core of the team while dumping millions into the farm system and then actually follow-through on that statement, I think that would give a very nice impression of progress.

The core of the team is young. If they choose, they can have this core around for a long time. Hamilton, Dunn, Phillips, Harang, Bruce, Votto, Homer, Cueto, etc etc etc. Now supplement them with younger top talents from the draft and you are talking about a team who could compete with anyone in a few years rather than possibly compete in the NL Central next year.

Telling folks in Cincinnati that you're not going to try and compete and that you'll be spending money on the minor leagues isn't going to help maintain attendance. You ever been there?

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 12:38 PM
Telling folks in Cincinnati that you're not going to try and compete and that you'll be spending money on the minor leagues isn't going to help maintain attendance. You ever been there?

Never said "not going to try and compete." I think the Reds will be hard-pressed to ever really reduce attendance that much, unless they pulled a "Major League" like maneuver. They seem to be close to as bad as it will get. I'm sure it can get worse, but I don't think it would ever get that bad.

And trotting out that bullpen this season was more of an indication of not trying to compete than not signing Gonzalez would have been.

pedro
10-09-2007, 12:40 PM
Again, I wonder if you've ever actually been to Cincinnati?

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 12:42 PM
Again, I wonder if you've ever actually been to Cincinnati?

A few times. But I think that's for a different discussion.

pedro
10-09-2007, 12:43 PM
A few times. But I think that's for a different discussion.

Let's just say that attendance isn't driven by fans who pay as much attention as the typical poster on RZ. Impressions are important.

jojo
10-09-2007, 12:44 PM
Not a "really, really expensive" SS, but a "really, really expensive" stopgap.

Gonzo really shouldn't be lumped in with the Stantons and Courmiers in this discussion. They can be reasonably replaced with a guy from the minor leagues. That can't be said about Gonzo or his '07.

If paying less than market value for a win is truly a problem for the Reds, then this discussion is really skirting the most important issue altogether (i.e. why is there a major league franchise in Cincy?)....

If signing a player to a three year contract doesn't qualify him as part of your future, then I'm sorry, I'm not sure what major league team to root for because there are darn few that can live up to the demands your philosophy seems to be dictating. Perhaps, it's time to buy some Tampa gear and in the mean time hope that in five years the Reds will have had the same track record of success with player development so that we can start watching them again?

In year two of Gonzo's contract, ignoring old farts like Jr and Weathers, the Reds could have a lineup consisting of EE, Phillips, Votto, Dunn, Hamilton and Bruce with a rotation getting innings from f Harang, Arroyo, Belisle, Bailey, Cueto, Maloney and a pen relying on arms like Bray, Burton, Cout, Coffey, Salmon, McBeth. Collectively, thats a mean age of 13 if my abacus isn't wacky....

I don't get the notion that they shouldn't try to add to it, especially if the production can be had efficiently, because they have an even greater need to give 18 year olds bigger signing bonuses.

The Reds future IS now in a lot of regards....

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 12:52 PM
Gonzo really shouldn't be lumped in with the Stantons and Courmiers in this discussion. They can be reasonably replaced with a guy from the minor leagues. That can't be said about Gonzo or his '07.

If paying less than market value for a win is truly a problem for the Reds, then this discussion is really skirting the most important issue altogether (i.e. why is there a major league franchise in Cincy?)....

If signing a player to a three year contract doesn't qualify him as part of your future, then I'm sorry, I'm not sure what major league team to root for because there are darn few that can live up to the demands your philosophy seems to be dictating. Perhaps, it's time to buy some Tampa gear and in the mean time hope that in five years the Reds will have had the same track record of success with player development so that we can start watching them again?

In year two of Gonzo's contract, ignoring old farts like Jr and Weathers, the Reds could have a lineup consisting of EE, Phillips, Votto, Dunn, Hamilton and Bruce with a rotation getting innings from f Harang, Arroyo, Belisle, Bailey, Cueto, Maloney and a pen relying on arms like Bray, Burton, Cout, Coffey, Salmon, McBeth. Collectively, thats a mean age of 13 if my abacus isn't wacky....

I don't get the notion that they shouldn't try to add to it, especially if the production can be had efficiently, because they have an even greater need to give 18 year olds bigger signing bonuses.

The Reds future IS now in a lot of regards....

There are so many ifs in that year 2 scenario that I can't even believe it. Maloney? McBeth? Coffey? Cout? Cueto?

Big ifs there...but I think we are closer than we think. That's the exact line of thinking necessary. You are talking about year 2 of Gonzo's contract, I am thinking year 3 or 4. So instead of spending money for the now, spend that money for 2-3 years from now and you are talking about a potential top tier team who is able to sustain that success even when people depart.

jojo
10-09-2007, 01:02 PM
There are so many ifs in that year 2 scenario that I can't even believe it. Maloney? McBeth? Coffey? Cout? Cueto?

Big ifs there...but I think we are closer than we think. That's the exact line of thinking necessary. You are talking about year 2 of Gonzo's contract, I am thinking year 3 or 4. So instead of spending money for the now, spend that money for 2-3 years from now and you are talking about a potential top tier team who is able to sustain that success even when people depart.

Well I have a foggier crystal ball that isn't willing to write off the next two seasons. If the 25 man roster can be made better simply by paying a fair price for production (especially if they don't have an option representing a cheaper reasonable facsimile), then they should do it. Those are the good kinds of contracts.

Year one of Gonzo's contract is a feather in Krivsky's cap IMHO and it was a down year for Gonzo defensively.

edabbs44
10-09-2007, 01:02 PM
Let's just say that attendance isn't driven by fans who pay as much attention as the typical poster on RZ. Impressions are important.

Taking a step back is fine if you end up taking a few steps forward overall.

But again, I don't see the average Cincy fan complaining that Wayne didn't sign Gonzalez or spend millions on the bullpen arms that he did.

Those in Cincy might be able to answer this question. In relation to the buzz around the Reds team over the past few years, how has the Votto/Bailey/Bruce/Cueto buzz been? Better, worse, nothing at all? I think the promiose of a strong system should be able to generate some fan interest in the least.

This team is primed to actually be good over the next few years, if they get the pitching. Wayne's job is to sustain the momentum.

pedro
10-09-2007, 01:06 PM
Taking a step back is fine if you end up taking a few steps forward overall.

But again, I don't see the average Cincy fan complaining that Wayne didn't sign Gonzalez or spend millions on the bullpen arms that he did.

Those in Cincy might be able to answer this question. In relation to the buzz around the Reds team over the past few years, how has the Votto/Bailey/Bruce/Cueto buzz been? Better, worse, nothing at all? I think the promiose of a strong system should be able to generate some fan interest in the least.

This team is primed to actually be good over the next few years, if they get the pitching. Wayne's job is to sustain the momentum.

Nowhere do fans go and see a major league team b/c it has good prospects in the minors. Buzz or not.

I'm pretty sure a lot of fans would have been turned off by the idea of Castro at SS and that's who the Reds had when they signed AG.