PDA

View Full Version : Reds aquire a pitcher, and other transactions.



Matt700wlw
03-12-2008, 02:39 PM
TRANSACTIONS: Today the Reds claimed off waivers from the Giants LHP Jose Capellan; outrighted to Sarasota LHP Alexander Smit; optioned to Louisville RHP Richie Gardner and LHP Tyler Pelland; reassigned to minor league camp C Chris Kroski, LHP Matt Maloney and LHP Adam Pettyjohn...the Reds have 57 players remaining in camp…

KoryMac5
03-12-2008, 02:45 PM
delete

cumberlandreds
03-12-2008, 02:45 PM
TRANSACTIONS: Today the Reds claimed off waivers from the Giants LHP Jose Capellan; outrighted to Sarasota LHP Alexander Smit; optioned to Louisville RHP Richie Gardner and LHP Tyler Pelland; reassigned to minor league camp C Chris Kroski, LHP Matt Maloney and LHP Adam Pettyjohn...the Reds have 57 players remaining in campů


We will look back at this move in october and say this was the key to a pennant winning season. ;)

princeton
03-12-2008, 02:47 PM
outrighted Smit-- so I assume that he cleared waivers and remains our property, and thereby clears a 40 man roster spot

Roy Tucker
03-12-2008, 02:49 PM
Is it this guy?

http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20071206&content_id=2319669&vkey=pr_sf&fext=.jsp&c_id=sf

redsmetz
03-12-2008, 02:50 PM
We will look back at this move in october and say this was the key to a pennant winning season. ;)

I see your wink, but this has been one of Krivsky's strong suits, picking up waiver wire guys in his tenure.

cumberlandreds
03-12-2008, 02:52 PM
I see your wink, but this has been one of Krivsky's strong suits, picking up waiver wire guys in his tenure.

Maybe he's out next Brandon Phillips? Who knows? I hope so anyway. :)

IslandRed
03-12-2008, 02:56 PM
Is it this guy?

http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/news/press_releases/press_release.jsp?ymd=20071206&content_id=2319669&vkey=pr_sf&fext=.jsp&c_id=sf

I believe you're right. This is NOT the Jose Capellan who used to be the Braves prospect, and who pouted his way out of the Brewers organization last year.

If Capellan was a Rule V selection by the Giants, I assume he retains that status with us...

M2
03-12-2008, 03:03 PM
I believe you're right. This is NOT the Jose Capellan who used to be the Braves prospect, and who pouted his way out of the Brewers organization last year.

Correct.

Here's the stats for this Jose Capellan:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=31934

Hasn't pitched above the New York-Penn League.

Highly unlikely Capellan will be getting a sniff of the majors this year.

princeton
03-12-2008, 03:09 PM
we'll need to acquire the other one to unite the set.

they can room with the Drew Andersons.

Reds will look anywhere for lefties.

LoganBuck
03-12-2008, 03:11 PM
A scouting report: http://www.baycityball.com/tag/jose-capellan/

redsmetz
03-12-2008, 03:19 PM
A scouting report: http://www.baycityball.com/tag/jose-capellan/

In the major league phase the Giants drafted 21-year-old LHP Jose Capellan from the Red Sox farm system.


I'm assuming since we claimed him off waivers that the Bosox declined to buy him back and we got him off waivers that way. Does that mean he no longer needs to stay on the ML roster? I'm thinking it does.

Unassisted
03-12-2008, 03:21 PM
Somehow, it's comforting to have a GM who collects pitchers from the scrap heap instead of toolsy outfielders.

jojo
03-12-2008, 03:22 PM
I'm assuming since we claimed him off waivers that the Bosox declined to buy him back and we got him off waivers that way. Does that mean he no longer needs to stay on the ML roster? I'm thinking it does.

I believe he's got to stay on the roster all season even though he was a waiver wire pick up.

I guess there is no room for Stanton now. :D

flyer85
03-12-2008, 03:22 PM
Highly unlikely Capellan will be getting a sniff of the majors this year.he can't be stuck in the minors by the Reds, either he is on the 25 man roster or goes thru waivers before being offered back to Boston.

flyer85
03-12-2008, 03:30 PM
there is certainly a lot to like in his numbers but it is hard to see him sticking around.

Chip R
03-12-2008, 03:38 PM
he can't be stuck in the minors by the Reds, either he is on the 25 man roster or goes thru waivers before being offered back to Boston.


Not if he re-negotiates his contract. ;)

camisadelgolf
03-12-2008, 03:41 PM
outrighted Smit-- so I assume that he cleared waivers and remains our property, and thereby clears a 40 man roster spot

I believe you're correct.


A player assigned outright to the minor leagues for the first time in his career must accept the assignment. Thereafter, a player has the choice of 1) rejecting the assignment and becoming a free agent immediately, or 2) accepting the assignment and become a free agent at the end of the season if he has not been returned to the 40-man roster.

A player with 3 years of Major League service may refuse an outright assignment and choose to become a free agent immediately or at the end of the season.

A player with 5 years of Major League service who refuses an outright assignment is entitled to the money due according to the terms of his contract.

princeton
03-12-2008, 03:41 PM
I'll bet we stash him for the season at the FAR end of the bullpen.

a lingering hamstring injury, a minor league rehab, then 25 major league innings, tops.

redsmetz
03-12-2008, 03:45 PM
From a piece by Rob Neyer


A player drafted onto a Major League roster in the Rule 5 draft must remain in the majors (on the 25-man active roster or the DL) for all of the subsequent season, or the drafting club must attempt to return him to his original club. However, since a returned Rule 5 player must first be placed on outright waivers, a third club could claim the player off waivers. But of course, that club would then also have to keep him in the majors all season, or offer him back to his original club.

Occasionally, the drafting club will work out a trade with the player's original team, allowing the drafting club to retain the player but send him to the minors.

So I was mistaken on the order of things and it looks like he'll have to stick with us or we work out a trade with the Bosox.

lollipopcurve
03-12-2008, 03:46 PM
The team is scrambling for lefty bullpenners -- if Capellan can throw strikes as a loogy, I say carry him.

dougdirt
03-12-2008, 03:47 PM
The team is scrambling for lefty bullpenners -- if Capellan can throw strikes as a loogy, I say carry him.

I don't know about that.... they sent Tyler Pelland to AAA with 2 innings under his belt.

Benihana
03-12-2008, 03:49 PM
The team is scrambling for lefty bullpenners -- if Capellan can throw strikes as a loogy, I say carry him.

What about Affeldt, Bray, and/or Coutlangous?

camisadelgolf
03-12-2008, 03:51 PM
I'm assuming since we claimed him off waivers that the Bosox declined to buy him back and we got him off waivers that way. Does that mean he no longer needs to stay on the ML roster? I'm thinking it does.

He wouldn't be offered back to the Red Sox until after he clears waivers. The rule 5 stipulations still apply. What has me curious is that Capellan has only two years in the minor leagues and he was already eligible for the rule 5 draft. He must have been signed when he was only 16 years old.

Here's a scouting report:

Capellan works with an arsenal of three pitches that he mixes in well. His fastball sits around 89-91 mph which moves away from righties and in on lefties. Doesn’t get enough swings-and-misses with his fastball, but he does have good command to paint corners. His mid-70s curveball has plus-potential with a nice bite, but Capellan still needs to perfect his command of the pitch. The curve is his best pitch, and he uses it to get out of jams very well. Variations of his curve can also get up to the mid 80s with slurve-type movement. His changeup sits around 78-79 mph and is average to above average. Capellan’s 3/4 delivery is fairly smooth and repeatable. As a lefty, he has a quick sidearm pickoff move to first base. Great clubhouse guy, mature and intimidating mound presence. Good focus. Needs to work on keeping his weight down.

His MLB player page:
http://sanfrancisco.giants.mlb.com/team/player_career.jsp?player_id=456417

Another informative page:

Diehard Prospect No. 49: Jose Capellan

By Jerry Beach

Posted Jan 8, 2007


Editor’s Note: Diehard Magazine is in the midst of its second annual countdown of the top 50 prospects in the Red Sox chain today. Check here daily for the latest in-depth scouting report! And subscribe to our print magazine in order to learn even more on the top 50. Today: Prospect no. 49, pitcher Jose Capellan.

As the third-youngest pitcher on the Diehard Top 50 list—and the pitcher with the least amount of experience with the Red Sox’ American-based affiliates—it’s a bit early to project where Jose Capellan will end up, particularly since he split last season between the rotation and the bullpen with the short-season Gulf Coast League Red Sox.

But the Sox like what they’ve seen so far out of the southpaw. Much like his fellow young left-hander Felix Doubront, Capellan makes up for average velocity with a versatile arsenal and an uncommon maturity and presence on the mound.

“He’s got a good mix of pitches,” Sox farm director Mike Hazen said. “A good changeup. He throws strikes.”

For the short-term, Capellan’s home appears to be the rotation, though he fared far better in relief last season for the GCL Sox. He made six starts in the GCL, during which he posted a 4.68 ERA and allowed opposing batters to hit .263 against him. He lasted more than four innings just once and gave up three runs or more three times, but even though his statistics were not overly impressive, the peripherals reflected his ability: He struck out 23 and walked just six in 25 innings as a starter.

Capellan made four of his final five appearances out of the bullpen and thrived as a long reliever. He earned a win in each of those four appearances, during which he allowed just two earned runs on 14 hits in 19 innings and struck out 20 while walking just one. Eight of the hits he allowed came in one four-inning appearance Aug. 15. Overall as a reliever, Capellan posted a 0.77 ERA, allowed opposing batters to hit just .198 against him and posted a strikeout-to-walk ratio of more than 8-to-1 (25 strikeouts, three walks).

Now the task for Capellan and the Sox is to figure out a way to translate that dominance to a starting role. Clearly, with three five-inning stints under his belt as a reliever—as opposed to only one as a starter—Capellan has enough stuff and durability to face a lineup more than once. He’ll get that chance this year.

“It’s tough [with] someone that young to really say ‘Hey, this is what this guy is,’” Hazen said. “But I think he’s going to have a chance to make a rotation spot at some point during [the 2007 season].”

BRM
03-12-2008, 03:51 PM
I don't know about that.... they sent Tyler Pelland to AAA with 2 innings under his belt.

Pelland didn't seem to get much of a shot to make the club, did he?

traderumor
03-12-2008, 03:52 PM
What about Affeldt, Bray, and/or Coutlangous?Maybe he meant to say a lefty who could get somebody out ;)

Benihana
03-12-2008, 03:53 PM
He wouldn't be offered back to the Red Sox until after he clears waivers. The rule 5 stipulations still apply. What has me curious is that Capellan has only two years in the minor leagues and he was already eligible for the rule 5 draft. He must have been signed when he was only 16 years old.

So when will Juan Duran be Rule V eligible? ;)

New Fever
03-12-2008, 03:53 PM
Jim Callis of BA, wasn't very high on him during their Red Sox Top 10 chat. He basically said that he was a pitchability guy that was not in good physical condition and did not have good stuff. He also said that he didn't think he would make the Giants bullpen.

RedsManRick
03-12-2008, 03:53 PM
Cooter just destroyed lefties last year. He walked way too many, but they couldn't touch him. If he can locate at all, he fills the role.

edabbs44
03-12-2008, 03:54 PM
outrighted Smit-- so I assume that he cleared waivers and remains our property, and thereby clears a 40 man roster spot

edabbs44
03-12-2008, 03:55 PM
TRANSACTIONS: Today the Reds claimed off waivers from the Giants LHP Jose Capellan; outrighted to Sarasota LHP Alexander Smit; optioned to Louisville RHP Richie Gardner and LHP Tyler Pelland; reassigned to minor league camp C Chris Kroski, LHP Matt Maloney and LHP Adam Pettyjohn...the Reds have 57 players remaining in campů

Same Smit, different day.

*BaseClogger*
03-12-2008, 04:00 PM
I'd love to find a way to hold on to this guy, he looks like a pretty nice prospect...


Cooter just destroyed lefties last year. He walked way too many, but they couldn't touch him. If he can locate at all, he fills the role.

This is exactly what I have been thinking. I remember watching him strike out Barry Bonds last year on an 86 (!) mph fastball.
Coutlangus should be paired with Bray because Bray has actually been more successful against RH hitters than LH hitters thus far in his career. If Coot is handled correctly, as a LOOGY used to stop a rally with runners already on base, he will be very effective...

princeton
03-12-2008, 04:02 PM
it was a bait and switch on Dusty. compared to Sergio Valenzuela, this guy will look like Fernando Valenzuela

Krivsky Rule of Thumb: spend nothing on lefthanders or catchers.

Chip R
03-12-2008, 04:03 PM
Cooter just destroyed lefties last year. He walked way too many, but they couldn't touch him. If he can locate at all, he fills the role.


Of course they couldn't touch him. Why swing if the pitcher can't throw a strike?

As for Cappellan, I'd trade Castro and/or Stanton to them to get the rights to him.

camisadelgolf
03-12-2008, 04:05 PM
So when will Juan Duran be Rule V eligible? ;)

In case you were really wondering, he will need to be on the 40-man roster after the 2012 season.

lollipopcurve
03-12-2008, 04:06 PM
Cooter just destroyed lefties last year. He walked way too many, but they couldn't touch him. If he can locate at all, he fills the role.

This is true. But he's had real trouble throwing strikes, and this kid's minor league numbers show good control.

M2
03-12-2008, 04:16 PM
Pelland didn't seem to get much of a shot to make the club, did he?

You've got to impress somebody before they give you a shot. I can't recall so much as a word written about him since the start of ST. Baker hasn't mentioned him, no one's on the Reds team has been buzzing about him, the scribes seemingly took no notice of him. His two outings were forgettable as well.

Just as a side thought, if the Reds really like this Capellan kid maybe they can deal Pelland over to the Red Sox for him?

Danny Serafini
03-12-2008, 04:17 PM
Well, if nothing else when they send him back to Boston they can recoup the $25K they lost on Valenzuela.

flyer85
03-12-2008, 04:19 PM
Well, if nothing else when they send him back to Boston they can recoup the $25K they lost on Valenzuela.
they had to pay some $$$ for a waiver claim ... not sure how much.

BRM
03-12-2008, 04:20 PM
You've got to impress somebody before they give you a shot. I can't recall so much as a word written about him since the start of ST. Baker hasn't mentioned him, no one's on the Reds team has been buzzing about him, the scribes seemingly took no notice of him. His two outings were forgettable as well.

Just as a side thought, if the Reds really like this Capellan kid maybe they can deal Pelland over to the Red Sox for him?

Pelland has never really generated much buzz. Outside of Redszone that is.

redsmetz
03-12-2008, 04:20 PM
Well, if nothing else when they send him back to Boston they can recoup the $25K they lost on Valenzuela.

Presumably we've paid the Giants a waiver fee (last I coudl see, it was $20G's).

Oops! I see Flyer beat me to the punch.

M2
03-12-2008, 04:25 PM
Pelland has never really generated much buzz. Outside of Redszone that is.

If he hadn't been part of the return for Scott Williamson I suspect he'd draw as much notice around here as Ramon Ramirez.

In Reds lore right now, I don't know where to rank Pelland respective to luminaries like Eddie Priest, Justin Atchley, Brett Haring and Randi Mallard.

blumj
03-12-2008, 04:31 PM
I saw him pitch once, he pitched in "Futures at Fenway" last season, 2 of the Red Sox minor league teams play regular season games there on the same day. He pitched okay, but there was nothing too interesting about him. I wasn't surprised the Red Sox didn't protect him from the rule 5, I was really surprised he was selected, surprised again now that the Reds claimed him off waivers. And I'll be really stunned if the Reds, or anyone, can manage to keep him on a 25 man roster all season, or will imagine it'll be worth it to even try once they get a good look at him. From the NYPL to MLB? Yikes.

Steve4192
03-12-2008, 04:34 PM
Somehow, it's comforting to have a GM who collects pitchers from the scrap heap instead of toolsy outfielders.

Old leatherpants was just as fond of picking up pitchers as he was of picking toolsy outfielders. He darn near got a Cy Young year out of one of his waiver pickups (Pete Schourek, 1995).

blumj
03-12-2008, 04:41 PM
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showtopic=7476&st=0&#entry1410600
Not much there, but here's his SOSH page.

Patrick Bateman
03-12-2008, 04:47 PM
If he hadn't been part of the return for Scott Williamson I suspect he'd draw as much notice around here as Ramon Ramirez.

In Reds lore right now, I don't know where to rank Pelland respective to luminaries like Eddie Priest, Justin Atchley, Brett Haring and Randi Mallard.

I felt that way when Pelland was still being groomed as a starter, but since his move to the bullpen I've begun to think of him as a cut above those types, as in a guy that should stick in the majors eventually (I'm thinking midseason).

His K rates took a huge jump once in the bullpen (and acceptable control that he never showed in the rotation) and had moderate success in AA/AAA (K/9 over 9 in AAA albeit only 27 innings). Now I don't think he has enough control to be a top lefty in the pen, but I certainly see him in the mix as a borderline set-up guy.

He's always had good stuff for a lefty, but is basically a two pitch pitcher that has always limited his upside (and the top reason that I attribute his dismal failures as a starter). Still, I like him more than Capellan who simply doesn't have the raw stuff that Pelland has. I do worry that he could be no better than what Coutlangus showed last season (massive control problems), but I think he is talented enough to hold his own while working in the strikezone.

redsmetz
03-12-2008, 04:52 PM
http://sonsofsamhorn.net/index.php?showtopic=7476&st=0&#entry1410600
Not much there, but here's his SOSH page.

From that page:



Game # OPP Score IP H R ER BB SO HR Notes
3 SEA L 5-3 1-3 0 0 0 0 0 0 Relieved Tim Lincecum for 1 batter in the 3rd
5 ChC W 8-6 1 3 2 2 0 1 1 Gave up a two-run homer to Andres Torres
11 LAA T 6-6 1 3 1 1 0 0 1 Gave up a solo home run to Torrii Hunter

Clearly his problem this spring was pitching to players with "Torr" in their names.

princeton
03-12-2008, 04:58 PM
Old leatherpants was just as fond of picking up pitchers as he was of picking toolsy outfielders. He darn near got a Cy Young year out of one of his waiver pickups (Pete Schourek, 1995).

his pitching fetish was for former high draft picks (e.g. Schourek, 2nd rounder)

blumj
03-12-2008, 05:02 PM
http://soxprospects.com/players/capellan-jose.htm

And his soxprospects page.

lollipopcurve
03-12-2008, 05:08 PM
In Reds lore right now, I don't know where to rank Pelland respective to luminaries like Eddie Priest, Justin Atchley, Brett Haring and Randi Mallard.

Pelland is nowhere near the luminary each of these gentlemen was. I remember Priest started a game or two.

Hey, the kid still has a chance to contribute at the major league level. I wouldn't bury him yet.

edabbs44
03-12-2008, 05:10 PM
I see your wink, but this has been one of Krivsky's strong suits, picking up waiver wire guys in his tenure.

While he has picked a few winners, he has also picked more than a few losers.

camisadelgolf
03-12-2008, 05:10 PM
his pitching fetish was for former high draft picks (e.g. Schourek, 2nd rounder)

Exactly. I think part of the problem was a lack of budget in scouting (I don't know how much of that is Bowden's fault), but it seemed like his philosophy was along the lines of, "Well, we're not going to spend money on scouting and drafting, so let's pick up some five-tool outfielders. Anyway, so I'll just let the other teams do all that 'scouting of pitchers' stuff, and then I'll pick up an outfielder with five tools. When the pitchers fall out of favor with their respective clubs, we'll pick up five-tool outfielders and scoop up the pitchers at bargain prices and hope we can rehash what made the players worthy of high-round draft choices and then pick up some five-tool outfielders. After and before that, we'll pick up a few more five-tool outfielders, though, because THEY HAVE FIVE TOOLS! OMG! THE NEW STADIUM WILL ALLOW US TO COMPETE FOR ETERNITY! LET'S PICK UP A FIVE-TOOL OUTFIELDER TO CELEBRATE!"

Usually, said pitchers would have close to a 1:1 K/BB ratios, and if they had success, it was thanks to a lucky BABIP figure. While the stock was high, the pitcher was then traded for a, you guessed it, five-tool outfielder.

camisadelgolf
03-12-2008, 05:12 PM
While he has picked a few winners, he has also picked more than a few losers.

Doesn't every GM do that?

BRM
03-12-2008, 05:15 PM
Per C. Trent:



Talked to the Krivdawg, Capellan is subject to the regular Rule V rules -- for the Reds to keep him, they need to have him on the Major League roster all season. There was a $25,000 fee to claim him.

redsmetz
03-12-2008, 05:26 PM
While he has picked a few winners, he has also picked more than a few losers.

I don't know what to say. Ya win some, ya lose some. The truth is that presently our system is stocked with a plethora of young pitchers grabbed off of waivers from other teams. I think he's had more success than not over the long haul.

princeton
03-12-2008, 05:33 PM
Doesn't every GM do that?


no.

many GMs pick no winners at all.

edabbs44
03-12-2008, 05:34 PM
I don't know what to say. Ya win some, ya lose some. The truth is that presently our system is stocked with a plethora of young pitchers grabbed off of waivers from other teams. I think he's had more success than not over the long haul.

Care to share the names of the "plethora" of young pitchers picked off waivers littering the system who we can actually say are successes at this point?

princeton
03-12-2008, 05:50 PM
Care to share the names of the "plethora" of young pitchers picked off waivers littering the system who we can actually say are successes at this point?

Burton (Rule 5) looks good. Coutlangus is serviceable at the least. It's often argued on this website that Volquez came directly out of playing the Rule 5 game. So that's three.

Livingston, Smit, and now Capellan are the others.

Three cheap young arms, contributing at the major league level, in two years is an outstanding record.

camisadelgolf
03-12-2008, 06:01 PM
Care to share the names of the "plethora" of young pitchers picked off waivers littering the system who we can actually say are successes at this point?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but so far, through waivers, Krivsky has acquired only five pitchers: Mike Gosling, Jon Coutlangus, Bobby Livingston, Alex Smit, and Jose Capellan. Teams just don't like to get rid of pitchers, apparently. As for the pitchers that have been claimed from the Reds off waivers, there have been Rick White, Jason Standridge, Mike Gosling, and Phil Dumatrait. There hasn't been anything amazing to report on either side, but I feel comfortable saying that Way-K has come out on top when it comes to this subject.

redsmetz
03-12-2008, 06:03 PM
Care to share the names of the "plethora" of young pitchers picked off waivers littering the system who we can actually say are successes at this point?

I won't be able to research it tonight or tomorrow, as my wife and I have somewhere to go tonight and I'm picking my son up frmo OSU tomorrow, so maybe Friday. There are guys we picked up that have upside to them.

princeton
03-12-2008, 06:19 PM
Scott Schoeneweis was essentially a waiver claim, who (along with Pile O. Cash) was converted into Todd Frazier :thumbup:

camisadelgolf
03-12-2008, 06:22 PM
Scott Schoeneweis was essentially a waiver claim, who (along with Pile O. Cash) was converted into Todd Frazier :thumbup:

If you want to get into 'essential' waiver claims, then yes, Krivdawg practically looks like a genius.

princeton
03-12-2008, 06:38 PM
If you want to get into 'essential' waiver claims, then yes, Krivdawg practically looks like a genius.

IIRC, Philips and Keppinger were both DFAs at the time of their acquisitions, which is one step short of a waiver claim. It's an "educated" waiver claim.

my guess is that no GM in the game over the same time frame has come close to acquiring a similar number of significant players using the bottomfeeding approach.

now if we can just spend as well as we don't spend...

OnBaseMachine
03-12-2008, 06:59 PM
Left-handed pitcher Jose Capellan was claimed off waivers from the Giants. Capellan, 21, was selected in the Rule 5 Draft from the Red Sox in December. Last season with Class A Lowell, he was 4-3 with a 3.69 ERA in 14 starts. He walked 11 and struck out 71.

Reds scout Ross Sapp watched Capellan with the Giants in Arizona and recommended the acquisition. Although a starter in the Minors, he will pitch from the bullpen if he makes the team out of camp.

"I'm just anxious to see him," said Reds general manager Wayne Krivsky. "Ross sent in some video on him. We had a chance to watch him. It was good."

Under Rule 5 provisions, Capellan would have to stay on the Reds' 25-man roster all season or be offered back to Boston. Cincinnati paid $25,000 for the waiver claim but would get the money back if he doesn't make the team.

http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080312&content_id=2422293&vkey=spt2008news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

edabbs44
03-12-2008, 08:04 PM
Burton (Rule 5) looks good. Coutlangus is serviceable at the least. It's often argued on this website that Volquez came directly out of playing the Rule 5 game. So that's three.

Livingston, Smit, and now Capellan are the others.

Three cheap young arms, contributing at the major league level, in two years is an outstanding record.

The statement was that the system is stocked with a plethora of young arms that were picked up off waivers and that he has had more success than not.

Volquez, no matter how you spin it, was not picked up off waivers.
a success.

Coutlangus and Burton? Let's wait until this year to really say that they are a success.

Even if all three were actually picked up off waivers and were actually successes, they still wouldn't make up a plethora.

redsmetz
03-12-2008, 09:50 PM
The statement was that the system is stocked with a plethora of young arms that were picked up off waivers and that he has had more success than not.

Volquez, no matter how you spin it, was not picked up off waivers.
a success.

Coutlangus and Burton? Let's wait until this year to really say that they are a success.

Even if all three were actually picked up off waivers and were actually successes, they still wouldn't make up a plethora.

Okay, I found some time tonight, and I was incorrect to say that a plethora of young arms were claimed off of waivers. Since Krivsky has been GM, he has only claimed four pitchers off waivers: Michael Gosling, Jon Coutlangus, Bobby Livingston and Alexander Smit. Gosling was middling, Coutlangus remains to be seen (but as many have noted could work well in a specific role), Livingston showed some promise, but his career is in peril and we'll have to see if Smit makes it through waivers (I assume that's still taking place) and see how he plays out.

Krivsky actually picked up far more position players via waivers, some of whom are still in the system.

He has been picking, IMO, players via trades who are in various places in our system. While I was inaccurate to say he'd claimed a good number (four is not that many; five now with today's pick up), I think he has replenished a very depleted system. Is it perfect? No, but it's headed in the right direction.

I do think it's a long shot for this kid to make the club, but if the Red Sox buy him back, no financial loss on our part.

Nonetheless, my statement was not correct.

princeton
03-13-2008, 08:58 AM
The statement was that the system is stocked with a plethora of young arms that were picked up off waivers and that he has had more success than not.

I have two statements. You should try to disprove them:

1. Krivsky has played the waiver/DFA/Rule 5 game better than any other GM in the game.

2. You're cranky

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 09:35 AM
I have two statements. You should try to disprove them:

1. Krivsky has played the waiver/DFA/Rule 5 game better than any other GM in the game.

2. You're cranky

1) Valid statement. But this is not what was said. Plus, I would rather have a GM who plays other "games" better than that game. That game is, for the most part, an immaterial part of the picture. Guys like Hamilton and Phillips are one in a million. Krivsky could GM for another 20 years and he probably won't see opportunities like that again.

2) Cranky? Maybe. I don't know. Just because I responded to a ludicrous statement doesn't mean I'm cranky.

But I don't think I should be seen as cranky just because I don't agree with everything the FO has done. I think, for the most part, my assessment has been pretty spot on. I have waited just like all the WK backers have told me. I think he has had ample time to improve the major league ballclub.

If he fails to have success this year, there is no way anyone will be able to defend him.

princeton
03-13-2008, 09:45 AM
That game is, for the most part, an immaterial part of the picture. Guys like Hamilton and Phillips are one in a million.

apparently not.

Krivsky was dealt a bad hand, but personally has added a lot of talent to the team-- more than any other GM in the game, I suspect. He has added draft picks, too, and signed everyone important and improved the team's fiscal base.

Holding him to a higher standard than all other GMs is tough. But go ahead and find one that's done a better job. You won't, but look hard.

Gonzalez was the big addition that hasn't worked out so far, but most of that is due to injury and personal problems. I don't recall anyone saying "don't add him because he's a new father"

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 10:29 AM
apparently not.

2 in a million? Bottom line is that, if proven to be more talented than others in this realm, it isn't exactly a great field to be talented in.

Everyone knew that Hamilton/Phillips had talent. Wayne wasn't alone in that regard. They just also carried risk, for whatever the reason. Wayne had available spots on the roster and took a shot. Worked out tremedously.

But I don't think I'd be going out on a limb to say that the odds aren't good for opportunities like that to present themselves again in the near future.


Krivsky was dealt a bad hand, but personally has added a lot of talent to the team-- more than any other GM in the game, I suspect. He has added draft picks, too, and signed everyone important and improved the team's fiscal base.

He also produced a 72-90 record last year. This year is TBD, but I don't think anyone is expecting much.

He "added" DPs from the loss of Aurilia and Schoeneweis. Not sure if he should be given credit for adding DPs from Aurilia. Also he hasn't gotten rave reviews on a lot of his DPs as of yet. But it's still early.

Added a lot of talent? Really? A lot? I couldn't care less unless the team wins. And so far it hasn't happened.

I've said it before. Everyone likes to point out all of his wins, yet doesn't look at the bottom line.


Holding him to a higher standard than all other GMs is tough. But go ahead and find one that's done a better job. You won't, but look hard.

That could be the most comical statement I have seen in a while. Sorry. That is truly ridiculous.

What would you say if the guy actually finished in the vicinity of .500 last year? Rename the GABP after him? Rename the team?


Gonzalez was the big addition that hasn't worked out so far, but most of that is due to injury and personal problems. I don't recall anyone saying "don't add him because he's a new father"

I agree that he went through a lot last year and I wouldn't wish that on anyone, but I don't know if we can blame his play on his personal problems. The guy had one of his best offensive seasons ever. I think if his family issues were really affecting his play, we would have seen it affect his overall game.

princeton
03-13-2008, 10:41 AM
That could be the most comical statement I have seen in a while. Sorry. That is truly ridiculous.


did you find somebody?

lollipopcurve
03-13-2008, 10:42 AM
But I don't think I should be seen as cranky just because I don't agree with everything the FO has done.

not a single person on this board agrees with everything the FO has done

westofyou
03-13-2008, 10:45 AM
not a single person on this board agrees with everything the FO has done

Some find fault with EVERYTHING.. that's evident.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 10:47 AM
did you find somebody?

I honestly thought you were joking.

Without even leaving the state, I would say that Shapiro has done a better job as a GM than Krivsky has done.

I think that a lot of GMs have done a better job than Krivsky has done. And that isn't really based on the other GMs doing great jobs. It's more about him doing a bad job.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 10:48 AM
Some find fault with EVERYTHING.. that's evident.

I didn't realize this team won the WS last year.

Or won the pennant.

Or the division.

Or the WC.

Or were in the race in September.

Or in August.

Or in July.

princeton
03-13-2008, 10:50 AM
Without even leaving the state, I would say that Shapiro has done a better job as a GM than Krivsky has done.

maybe-- he's certainly had enough time-- but can we hire him? and wasn't this the guy that took over a team with 91 wins, and watched it win 68-78 for four or five years? you like him? he doesn't sound like you, frankly. No pennants in 6 years of work.

really, find somebody for me. get to work.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 11:14 AM
maybe-- he's certainly had enough time-- but can we hire him? and wasn't this the guy that took over a team with 91 wins, and watched it win 68-78 for four or five years? you like him? he doesn't sound like you, frankly. No pennants in 6 years of work.

There's a difference. When Shapiro watched it win 68-78 games for 4-5 years, he knew it was going to happen. Wayne claims that he is trying to win. I guess if he tried to lose, maybe they would have a better shot at winning?

Did Shapiro up payroll like Krivsky has?

Did he try to win?

I guess that's the best question. Did he try to win and fail (like WK), or did he take one step back in order to take 5 steps forward? I think it's the latter, while Wayne is accomplishing the former.

camisadelgolf
03-13-2008, 11:34 AM
I didn't realize this team won the WS last year.

Or won the pennant.

Or the division.

Or the WC.

Or were in the race in September.

Or in August.

Or in July.

I don't think it's fair to judge Krivsky by those things just yet. If he had inherited the Yankees, would he have done a great job if he got the 2007 Yankees into the playoffs? Given his budget and what he inherited, I'm surprised the team even has a chance at .500 this year. He's done an amazing job thus far, but what's yet to be seen is if he can add the necessary pieces to make the club a playoff contender. If it weren't for Krivsky, this team would very probably be headed down the path of the Kansas City Royals and Pittsburgh Pirates.

camisadelgolf
03-13-2008, 11:38 AM
There's a difference. When Shapiro watched it win 68-78 games for 4-5 years, he knew it was going to happen. Wayne claims that he is trying to win. I guess if he tried to lose, maybe they would have a better shot at winning?

Did Shapiro up payroll like Krivsky has?

Did he try to win?

I guess that's the best question. Did he try to win and fail (like WK), or did he take one step back in order to take 5 steps forward? I think it's the latter, while Wayne is accomplishing the former.

I'm not saying Krivsky isn't trying to make this team compete, but don't you think it's likely that he's putting more effort into ensuring that this team can compete for several years to come instead of pawning off the farm system for soon-to-be free agents? Part of being a good general manager entails being a good liar, and I don't think Krivsky's revealing his entire plan when he claims that he's trying to make the Reds compete sooner than later.

princeton
03-13-2008, 11:38 AM
I'll put it in your terms. Shapiro lost big for much of his first five years. He has no WC's, no pennants. Wayne is just a two year loser.

now-- name me another 4 or 5 guys. You said that this would be easy.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 11:46 AM
I'll put it in your terms. Shapiro lost big for much of his first five years. He has no WC's, no pennants. Wayne is just a two year loser.

now-- name me another 4 or 5 guys. You said that this would be easy.

Wayne has increased payroll by roughly 30% in 2 years. Shapiro stripped down payroll in order to compete consistently down the line.

Shapiro stated his goal and has met it.

Wayne's goal has been to win now. He is not meeting it.

Regarding 4 or 5 other guys, I don't really have time to make cases for GMs doing a better job than Wayne. But I think that you would have to say that Epstein is doing a better job. Beane has a very good history. Dombrowski as well.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 11:46 AM
I'm not saying Krivsky isn't trying to make this team compete, but don't you think it's likely that he's putting more effort into ensuring that this team can compete for several years to come instead of pawning off the farm system for soon-to-be free agents? Part of being a good general manager entails being a good liar, and I don't think Krivsky's revealing his entire plan when he claims that he's trying to make the Reds compete sooner than later.

I would have rather seen him pawn off the bigger names to get more pieces for down the road.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 11:50 AM
I don't think it's fair to judge Krivsky by those things just yet. If he had inherited the Yankees, would he have done a great job if he got the 2007 Yankees into the playoffs? Given his budget and what he inherited, I'm surprised the team even has a chance at .500 this year. He's done an amazing job thus far, but what's yet to be seen is if he can add the necessary pieces to make the club a playoff contender. If it weren't for Krivsky, this team would very probably be headed down the path of the Kansas City Royals and Pittsburgh Pirates.

Suprised at having a chance at .500?

The guy was handed a pitcher who turned into a legit #1.
He pulled off a miracle in getting Phillips for nothing.
He pulled off another miracle to get Hamilton.
He has Adam Dunn, Encarnacion and a healthy Griffey.
He inherited a farm system with a few top end talents ready to contribute this year.
He was given millions and millions of dollars to turn around an atrocious bullpen.
Related to above, he was authorized to spend the most money ever on a FA reliever.

If he isn't near .500, something is wrong.

princeton
03-13-2008, 12:00 PM
Regarding 4 or 5 other guys, I don't really have time to make cases for GMs doing a better job than Wayne. But I think that you would have to say that Epstein is doing a better job. Beane has a very good history. Dombrowski as well.

you know that Dave Dombrowski's first four Tiger teams lost 106, 119, 90, and 91 games-- correct?

and that Beane took a team that won 78 and watched it win only 65 and 74 games? He did get a pennant in year 4-- barely (91 wins).

so the guys that you like (and whom I like too, BTW) really took a track like Wayne has taken so far.

and if Cueto does well, he'll be the first Reds GM whose system produced a homegrown starting pitcher since... Bob Howsam, I do believe (Tom Browning).

Wayne's not just a GM; he might be The Exorcist

camisadelgolf
03-13-2008, 12:06 PM
I would have rather seen him pawn off the bigger names to get more pieces for down the road.

If the plan is for the Reds to compete in 2007 and 2008 and then go all out in 2009 or 2010, what sense does it make to trade players who can help you during both of those time periods (Aaron Harang, Adam Dunn, Brandon Phillips, Bronson Arroyo, Edwin Encarnacion, etc.)? One of the only big names I can think of is Ken Griffey, but best of luck to you if you think he's tradeable.

As for the players he hasn't found a new home for yet (Scott Hatteberg, Ryan Freel, Dave Weathers, Alex Gonzalez, etc.), it's probably because he's waiting for a better offer or for the market to pick up in the Reds' favor.

In fact, look at the Major League players he has departed with. With the exception of Brendan Harris, and maybe Kyle Lohse, all the Major League players he has gotten rid of have depreciated in value. For whatever reason, he's gotten a pretty good knack of knowing when a player's career is crashing (Jason LaRue) and gets rid of him very quickly, if possible.

Benihana
03-13-2008, 12:07 PM
I think Wayne has done a pretty good job. Show me one GM, not just current but in the last 20 years, that's taken over a disaster like the O'Brien-era Reds and put up winning season after winning season right away.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 12:08 PM
you know that Dave Dombrowski's first four Tiger teams lost 106, 119, 90, and 91 games-- correct?

and that Beane took a team that won 78 and watched it win only 65 and 74 games? He did get a pennant in year 4-- barely (91 wins).

so the guys that you like (and whom I like too, BTW) really took a track like Wayne has taken so far.

and if Cueto does well, he'll be the first Reds GM whose system produced a homegrown starting pitcher since... Bob Howsam, I do believe (Tom Browning).

Wayne's not just a GM; he might be The Exorcist

Cueto has as much to do with Krivsky as Bruce does. Giving him credit for Cueto is not exactly legit.

If you are willing to give Wayne years and years of slack to try and prove that he will produce a winning system, that's you. From what I have seen, I think we'll end up with years and years of losing and ending up back to square one.

camisadelgolf
03-13-2008, 12:14 PM
Suprised at having a chance at .500?

The guy was handed a pitcher who turned into a legit #1.
He pulled off a miracle in getting Phillips for nothing.
He pulled off another miracle to get Hamilton.
He has Adam Dunn, Encarnacion and a healthy Griffey.
He inherited a farm system with a few top end talents ready to contribute this year.
He was given millions and millions of dollars to turn around an atrocious bullpen.
Related to above, he was authorized to spend the most money ever on a FA reliever.

If he isn't near .500, something is wrong.

We're also talking about a team that has recently included Eric Milton, Ken Griffey, Jr. (Griffey and his contract have helped the team?), Jason LaRue, Dave Williams, no Bronson Arroyo, no Edinson Volquez, no Jared Burton, etc.

Turning nothing into something is a skill he is very good at, even if you (unfairly) leave out the Josh Hamilton and Brandon Phillips acquisitions.

princeton
03-13-2008, 12:25 PM
If you are willing to give Wayne years and years of slack to try and prove that he will produce a winning system, that's you. From what I have seen, I think we'll end up with years and years of losing and ending up back to square one.

the problem is that you're not supporting your argument at all. You actually give me examples that disprove your argument. That's not good.

I can support my claims. This GM took a team with bad contracts and low talent, and plucked more cheap young talents with great contracts than any GM in baseball over the same period. When he buys guys, they are guys that we actually need (shortstop, closer). When he trades guys, they are the right guys to trade (FeLo, WMP). He doesn't trade away the top prospects (Cueto) even when he easily could have in order to save his own job (Blanton). He doesn't give out bad contracts (Milton, though Cordero will be interesting); he actually gives out good contracts (Harang, Arroyo). His farm system doesn't cause pitchers to blow out their shoulders (Richie Gardner et al). There's even the possibility that a Reds GM might have put into place a system that can actually develop a pitcher (Cueto). It's been 20 freaking years (Browning, Dibble). I can't say that I'm convinced by one spring training, and I still think that they could blow Cueto up, but color me intrigued.

Krivsky might not be the best GM in baseball. the hardest thing in the game is to turn a team from a winner to a consistent winner, or from a winner to a WC, and who knows if he'll be able to do that. He needs a winner first. but his performance has been top 5 so far. The Reds need to extend him.

*BaseClogger*
03-13-2008, 12:32 PM
Wayne has increased payroll by roughly 30% in 2 years. Shapiro stripped down payroll in order to compete consistently down the line.

Shapiro stated his goal and has met it.

Wayne's goal has been to win now. He is not meeting it.

Regarding 4 or 5 other guys, I don't really have time to make cases for GMs doing a better job than Wayne. But I think that you would have to say that Epstein is doing a better job. Beane has a very good history. Dombrowski as well.

Wait, so Krivsky gets no credit for improving the team because payroll is increased, but then you use Epstein and Dombrowski as examples of more successful GM's??? They each GM teams in huge markets!

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 12:34 PM
the problem is that you're not supporting your argument at all. You actually give me examples that disprove your argument. That's not good.

I haven't tried to support anything. I don't have the time to research every GM and give statistical backup. I don't think the guy has done anywhere near a good job.


I can support my claims. This GM took a team with bad contracts and low talent, and plucked more cheap young talents with great contracts than any GM in baseball over the same period. When he buys guys, they are guys that we actually need (shortstop, closer).

Did we need Stanton? How about Affeldt? Ross's extension? Freel's contract? Thoughts on Castro? Cormier's extension?


When he trades guys, they are the right guys to trade (FeLo).

I would love to see Kearns on this team right now. That's just me.


He doesn't trade away the top prospects (Cueto) even when he easily could have in order to save his own job (Blanton).

He's made 2 actual, real trades that involved risk since he started. He also produced a really bad pitching staff last year. Let's see if holding on to Cueto is going to work out. I didn't like Blanton, but the Cincy staff still looks questionable this year.


He doesn't give out bad contracts (Milton, though Cordero will be interesting); he actually gives out good contracts (Harang, Arroyo).

Arroyo's contract is a questionable one. More examples of poor contracts can be found above. I also think the Gonzo move was a bad one.


His farm system doesn't cause pitchers to blow out their shoulders (Richie Gardner et al).

He's got time for that. And I am of the belief that luck has a part to play in the injury game. People get hurt. It is part of the game.


There's even the possibility that a Reds GM might have put into place a system that can actually develop a pitcher (Cueto). It's been 20 freaking years (Browning, Dibble). I can't say that I'm convinced by one spring training, and I still think that they could blow Cueto up, but color me intrigued.

I would argue that Cueto isn't a direct correlation to Krivsky. If it is, then I could make the argument that Homer's struggles are also directly related.

princeton
03-13-2008, 12:51 PM
I would argue that Cueto isn't a direct correlation to Krivsky. If it is, then I could make the argument that Homer's struggles are also directly related.

1 out of 2 is acceptable. We've gone 0 for 20 years.

camisadelgolf
03-13-2008, 12:56 PM
Do you think Aaron Harang, Bronson Arroyo, Brandon Phillips, Francisco Cordero, and many other pending contract extensions would have happened if Wayne Krivsky didn't put together a team that was as close as it is to being good? Everyone knows that, as the team is built right now, it's most likely a .500 team or so, but the young players are getting better and will hopefully be producing big numbers some time soon and put the Reds in a position to be one of the favorites to get into the playoffs.

TRF
03-13-2008, 01:03 PM
Color me semi-converted on Krivsky. What he's done over the past year has opened my eyes a bit. IMO he understands the need for youth, but that need is tempered by the fact that that youth needs veterans to mentor them. Stanton was a disaster on the mound, but how much can he help guys like Bray, Cout, Pelland and Viola? How much can Weathers help Burton Salmon and Roenicke?

Hamilton and Phillips and Burton are not miracle deals. They were calculated risks for a team that needed to take some risks to infuse genuine talent. Trading Hamilton is another calculated risk, one that has a secondary benefit of ACTUALLY helping BOTH teams. Makes for a good relationship and paves the way for future deals (Teagarden?)

Some of his moves in 2006, his rookie year so to speak, just floored me, but now I see them as Krivsky searching for the right vets to help the younger guys along. Probably the biggest single reason the Rays have not been successful is they have so much talented youth, but little discipline. They shipped off two mega talents (IMO) to enforce that discipline. Hell, the Nats had to hire a former cop just to watch Dukes 24/7.

Krivsky's restraint is what I am starting to like the most. He didn't throw money at Silva, didn't trade the farm for Haren, who is only going to get more expensive. He didn't do the same for Bedard, who has no great track record as far as durability goes. He kept the systems jewels, and added to them with Maloney, Volquez and this Castro kid looks pretty good. (you have no idea how hard it was to type that.)

Jeff Keppinger may be the most interesting acquisition. The kid can clearly hit. He needs a position, and if the Reds had to move him, he could bring a decent return, probably at the low A/high A level, therefore infusing more talent into what looks to be a healthy(!) talent rich system. Plus Krivsky just dove in head first with astute scouting and an org that understands the rules in the Juan Duran signing. He scooped every other team on that one. And you just know the Yankees or Dodger would have bid high on this kid.

I worry about his drafts a bit still. I think he's had two stinkers of 1st round picks. But overall, I like the direction. It just took me awhile to see what the direction was.

jojo
03-13-2008, 01:13 PM
1. Krivsky has played the waiver/DFA/Rule 5 game better than any other GM in the game.


One of Krivsky's strengths lies in scouting. That said, having a roster that is so far from competing that it can consistently use a spot on their 25 man roster to take chances on guys who are out of options and rule 5 picks etc seems to me a bit of cheaply bought nobility when suggesting he's played the procedure game better than his colleagues. He's had an......advantage.

That of course takes nothing away from the fact he's leveraged it.

princeton
03-13-2008, 01:17 PM
One of Krivsky's strengths lies in scouting. That said, having a roster that is so far from competing that it can consistently use a spot on their 25 man roster to take chances on guys who are out of options and rule 5 picks etc seems to me a bit of cheaply bought nobility when suggesting he's played the procedure game better than his colleagues. He's had an......advantage.

there are really only 2-3 teams that shouldn't play the waiver game, and even one of them (Sox) plays it.

Krivsky has just been better at it.

Jay Bruce
03-13-2008, 01:21 PM
Did we need Stanton? How about Affeldt? Ross's extension? Freel's contract? Thoughts on Castro? Cormier's extension?

These are all short term contracts that don't hamstring the club in the long run. A lot of these contracts were basically made to have someone at the major league level, allowing the young arms to further develop in the minors until they are truly ready. It's never a bad idea to have pitching depth (even if it is Josh Fogg). You can debate the merits of these deals, but they aren't enough to vilify Krivsky to the degree you do.



Arroyo's contract is a questionable one. More examples of poor contracts can be found above. I also think the Gonzo move was a bad one.


What exactly do you find questionable about signing an excellent middle of the rotation starter to a market level deal? As you like to say, Gil Meche got 11 million a year on the free agent market. Because of that, I have no problem with the Arroyo deal.




I would argue that Cueto isn't a direct correlation to Krivsky. If it is, then I could make the argument that Homer's struggles are also directly related.

You have to at least give him credit for going two full seasons without any major arm injuries. We'll see how that goes this year with Dusty Baker at the helm, but so far, his record with the pitchers is a breath of fresh air compared to the previous administrations.

gonelong
03-13-2008, 01:40 PM
Suprised at having a chance at .500?

The guy was handed a pitcher who turned into a legit #1.
He pulled off a miracle in getting Phillips for nothing.
He pulled off another miracle to get Hamilton.
He has Adam Dunn, Encarnacion and a healthy Griffey.
He inherited a farm system with a few top end talents ready to contribute this year.
He was given millions and millions of dollars to turn around an atrocious bullpen.
Related to above, he was authorized to spend the most money ever on a FA reliever.

If he isn't near .500, something is wrong.

Two miracles makes Wayne eligible for sainthood (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=57691&highlight=wayne+saint) which is pretty sweet. Joining up with "St. Gullet (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2162&highlight=saint)" will allow the Reds to boast of two saints in the fold. (St. Gullet had 3 lousy miracles to his name. One was getting Jimmy Hanes 14 Ws one year, and as I understand it, two of 'em was card tricks.)

GL

M2
03-13-2008, 01:57 PM
So far I'd say Krivsky's been a good maintenance man, but the jury's out on his architect skills.

That's not a slam against him. He's dealt creatively and decisively with a lot of the disrepair he inherited (and we should never underestimate the mess he inherited from Dan O'Brien). The work he's done with the development system (Cueto, Bailey and Votto were all scuffling in 2005) has been astounding - and it points to Tim Naehring being one of the greatest evils ever visited upon the franchise.

What Krivsky has yet to do is show he's got the ability to take the roster and spin it into an 85+-win contender. I know that's easier said than done, but it's where the big decisions need to be made. He's made two big moves on that front - The Trade and the Cordero signing. While he certainly moved the right folks in the The Trade, he got the wrong return and the team sputtered. Beyond that, he misdiagnosed the problem. The Reds' bullpen settled in the latter half of 2006 despite The Trade and it didn't amount to squat.

The Cordero signing might also be misdiagnosis if Cordero isn't given anything to lock down. The signing could look brilliant if the offense, defense and pitching up to Cordero all pan out, but there's a lot of chaos in that mix right now. The good news is if Belisle can be stable this year and Volquez and/or Cueto can be good (and I'm aware that's a fair amount of "if") then this club has enough starting pitching. It's staggering to consider, because it's been so long since we could rationally entertain that notion, but there is a possibility (I'd say it's still well short of a probability) that the Reds could have enough of a rotation to contend. Yet if that happens, if the starting pitching and closing are in place, it's still an open question if the offense/defense/setup relief is ready to roll.

He could draw two cards to a straight in the rotation in 2008 and still not have a winner on his hands. If that happens, there's a mirror he needs to consult.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 02:00 PM
1 out of 2 is acceptable. We've gone 0 for 20 years.

Cueto is far from being deemed a success. He hasn't even thrown a major league pitch.

fearofpopvol1
03-13-2008, 02:02 PM
These are all short term contracts that don't hamstring the club in the long run. A lot of these contracts were basically made to have someone at the major league level, allowing the young arms to further develop in the minors until they are truly ready. It's never a bad idea to have pitching depth (even if it is Josh Fogg). You can debate the merits of these deals, but they aren't enough to vilify Krivsky to the degree you do.



What exactly do you find questionable about signing an excellent middle of the rotation starter to a market level deal? As you like to say, Gil Meche got 11 million a year on the free agent market. Because of that, I have no problem with the Arroyo deal.




You have to at least give him credit for going two full seasons without any major arm injuries. We'll see how that goes this year with Dusty Baker at the helm, but so far, his record with the pitchers is a breath of fresh air compared to the previous administrations.

Re: Cueto, not only that, but not giving in to trading him to "win now" in what could've been a disaster.

traderumor
03-13-2008, 02:04 PM
One of Krivsky's strengths lies in scouting. That said, having a roster that is so far from competing that it can consistently use a spot on their 25 man roster to take chances on guys who are out of options and rule 5 picks etc seems to me a bit of cheaply bought nobility when suggesting he's played the procedure game better than his colleagues. He's had an......advantage.

That of course takes nothing away from the fact he's leveraged it.The bottom of your roster is a great place to go from thin to depth, and the waiver wire is a great place to find that type of filler. Thus, the faint praise seems unfair. For a team with limited means, it is justified praise, indeed.

KoryMac5
03-13-2008, 02:19 PM
I like a lot of the moves Wayne has made, for the most part many of us are in agreement that he is very good at low risk high upside moves. He also has a good ability to work out contract extensions with many of our more effective players, that are finacially sound. However, what we think of Wayne will be tied to whether or not he can work out a fair extension with Dunn. So far neither side has approached the other about getting a deal done. If Adam walks at the end of the year, Wayne will be a new addition to George Carlin's seven dirty words.

jojo
03-13-2008, 02:21 PM
there are really only 2-3 teams that shouldn't play the waiver game, and even one of them (Sox) plays it.

Krivsky has just been better at it.

How many teams realistically were in a position to risk making Phillips their second baseman (or even carry another middle infielder on their 25 man roster) in '06 and of those teams how many were in a position to pass before the Reds pounced?

That's the pool of GM's that Krivsky "out-maneuvered" with Phillips.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 02:22 PM
These are all short term contracts that don't hamstring the club in the long run. A lot of these contracts were basically made to have someone at the major league level, allowing the young arms to further develop in the minors until they are truly ready. It's never a bad idea to have pitching depth (even if it is Josh Fogg). You can debate the merits of these deals, but they aren't enough to vilify Krivsky to the degree you do.

No, but they are a piece. There was a lot of wasted money on those guys. I am still in awe of the amount of time that has been spent on reshuffling the bullpen....to no avail.


What exactly do you find questionable about signing an excellent middle of the rotation starter to a market level deal? As you like to say, Gil Meche got 11 million a year on the free agent market. Because of that, I have no problem with the Arroyo deal.

I question the fact that he did the extension when he did. The timing was poor, as BA was under contract for another two years. He goes down with an arm injury this year and it will look awful, since he could have waited.


You have to at least give him credit for going two full seasons without any major arm injuries. We'll see how that goes this year with Dusty Baker at the helm, but so far, his record with the pitchers is a breath of fresh air compared to the previous administrations.

I think that has more to do with luck than anything. Milton and Mercker both had TJ surgery. While they weren't "major" in the sense of production, they were major surgeries. Those names could easily switch to Harang and Arroyo just by luck.

And I think the previous posts were more related to the minors than the majors, but since you brought Dusty into the mix I was just responding to your post.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 02:24 PM
How many teams realistically were in a position to risk making Phillips their second baseman (or even carry another middle infielder on their 25 man roster) in '06 and of those teams how many were in a position to pass before the Reds pounced?

That's the pool of GM's that Krivsky out-maneuvered with Phillips.

That is 100% correct and the same point I was trying to make earlier. WK wasn't smarter than Cashman just because he risked a roster spot on Phillips. He just had less to lose.

princeton
03-13-2008, 02:33 PM
How many teams realistically were in a position to risk making Phillips their second baseman (or even carry another middle infielder on their 25 man roster) in '06 and of those teams how many were in a position to pass before the Reds pounced?

That's the pool of GM's that Krivsky "out-maneuvered" with Phillips.

it's funny how Krivsky keeps maneuvering to cut to the front of the waiver and Rule 5 line to grab Keppinger, Phillips, and Hamilton, yet Zoners keep saying "Accident"

there are better counterarguments than the ones that you're using. You and your friend need to find them.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 02:43 PM
it's funny how Krivsky keeps maneuvering to cut to the front of the waiver and Rule 5 line to grab Keppinger, Phillips, and Hamilton, yet Zoners keep saying "Accident"

there are better counterarguments than the ones that you're using. You and your friend need to find them.

Keppinger is going to have to produce more than a couple of hundred ABs to really be deemed a success. Jury is out.

Phillips and Hamilton were former top prospects who were failing for different reasons.

Krivsky had a risk tolerance that suited the Phillips and Hamilton pickups. He also had holes in the roster where he could minimally hide these guys where he hoped they would do something.

Krivsky hit the motherload on those two. But I'd like someone to tell me the last time the former #1 prospect in all of baseball fell out of favor for non-baseball related reasons, where the guy still had talent but was basically released. Those opportunities don't happen every year.

I'd rather have a guy who drafts well and builds an organization that will produce successful seasons on a consistent season. The first couple of years of Wayne don't give me that feeling.

jojo
03-13-2008, 02:44 PM
it's funny how Krivsky keeps maneuvering to cut to the front of the waiver and Rule 5 line to grab Keppinger, Phillips, and Hamilton, yet Zoners keep saying "Accident"

there are better counterarguments than the ones that you're using. You and your friend need to find them.

Where have I argued accident? I've argued opportunity has been leveraged but it's not appropriate to suggest he should be compared to all GMs in this regard since the majority don't belong in the cohort due to lack of opportunity. That's two dramatically different things.

BTW, my view of Krivsky can't be accurately generalized in the way you're trying.......

princeton
03-13-2008, 02:54 PM
Where have I argued accident? I've argued opportunity has been leveraged but it's not appropriate to suggest he should be compared to all GMs in this regard since the majority don't belong in the cohort due to lack of opportunity.

opportunity's your argument?

frankly, that's even worse. with 25 spots, there's always opportunity. opportunity can only be used as an excuse in the first round of the baseball draft.

princeton
03-13-2008, 02:59 PM
Those opportunities don't happen every year.

players that eventually become very good are on waiver or Rule 5 list every year. It's a great tool for a small market team. Krivsky is the most aggressive GM at jumping to the front of the line on those opportunities.

REDREAD
03-13-2008, 03:00 PM
Old leatherpants was just as fond of picking up pitchers as he was of picking toolsy outfielders. He darn near got a Cy Young year out of one of his waiver pickups (Pete Schourek, 1995).

Yes, Harnish wasn't a bad pickup either. Neither was getting Mercker out of retirement.

Some like Bere and Avery didn't work out so well, but that's to be expected. Parris and Villone were also junk heap pickups.

I believe Belinda was released by Pitt before we picked him up, but I can't remember. Jeff Shaw was a low budget FA pickup. Heredia (2003) worked out pretty well too, although I can't remember if there were other teams interested in him.

Heck, it seemed as if every year, we had one or three scavenger jobs on the pitching staff.

jojo
03-13-2008, 03:02 PM
opportunity's your argument?

frankly, that's even worse. with 25 spots, there's always opportunity. opportunity can only be used as an excuse in the first round of the baseball draft.

Then answer the previous question. Since opportunity is rampant, how many teams were in the mix with Krivsky for a guy like Phillips in '06?

REDREAD
03-13-2008, 03:05 PM
IIRC, Philips and Keppinger were both DFAs at the time of their acquisitions, which is one step short of a waiver claim. It's an "educated" waiver claim.

Don't remember Keppinger, but just because a guy is DFAed doesn't mean he's given away.
Still a great trade by Wayne, but it's on a different level than a Rule V pick or picking up a player no one wants. For example, if Fogg pitches close to ML average, that is a genius pick up.

Volquez shouldn't be counted as much, the Reds gave up a lot to get him. If you want to play through multiple degrees, every player on a MLB team can eventually be traced to the cost of a draft pick or just cash.

pedro
03-13-2008, 03:05 PM
Then answer the previous question. Since opportunity is rampant, how many teams were in the mix with Krivsky for a guy like Phillips in '06?

If I'm interpreting the rules correctly then 22 teams had a cut at Phillips before he fell to the reds.

jojo
03-13-2008, 03:09 PM
players that eventually become very good are on waiver or Rule 5 list every year. It's a great tool for a small market team. Krivsky is the most aggressive GM at jumping to the front of the line on those opportunities.

Just curious, since the inception of the rule 5 draft, what percentage of players drafted went on to be major league regulars with any team, let alone, the one that drafted them?

REDREAD
03-13-2008, 03:09 PM
I have two statements. You should try to disprove them:

1. Krivsky has played the waiver/DFA/Rule 5 game better than any other GM in the game.


Well, the prevailing opinion on the board now is that Josh is a ticking time bomb that will fall off the edge of the earth at any time. :) So, that kind of takes a lot of the shine off his Rule V resume. :lol:

I do agree with you on Rule V. Getting anything useful out of Rule V is a big score.

As far as waiver wire pickups, I don't think Wayne has done great shakes. Countlangus may or may not stick. Keppinger is a decent utility guy. I don't count Philllips as a waiver pickup, because he was an actual trade. Just like I don't count any post trade deadline trades as waiver pickups, even though technically, some are.

jojo
03-13-2008, 03:10 PM
If I'm interpreting the rules correctly then 22 teams had a cut at Phillips before he fell to the reds.

Which ones actually had a roster spot for him?

princeton
03-13-2008, 03:12 PM
Then answer the previous question. Since opportunity is rampant, how many teams were in the mix with Krivsky for a guy like Phillips in '06?

he was DFA'd. Which teams weren't in the mix?

the ones dumber than the Reds, apparently.

princeton
03-13-2008, 03:15 PM
Just curious, since the inception of the rule 5 draft, what percentage of players drafted went on to be major league regulars with any team, let alone, the one that drafted them?

lots of players are eligible for Rule 5, but go undrafted. Magglio Ordonez was once eligible, for instance.

princeton
03-13-2008, 03:16 PM
If I'm interpreting the rules correctly then 22 teams had a cut at Phillips before he fell to the reds.


that's how many would have had a shot if Reds hadn't worked out a deal between the DFA and the waiver period.

camisadelgolf
03-13-2008, 03:16 PM
If I'm interpreting the rules correctly then 22 teams had a cut at Phillips before he fell to the reds.

Phillips was DFAed and therefore did not need to clear waivers before being traded to the Reds for Jeff Stevens.

Danny Serafini
03-13-2008, 03:17 PM
Which ones actually had a roster spot for him?

The Reds didn't really have a roster spot for him, they were already crawling with second basemen. They made the move anyway, and it worked.

pedro
03-13-2008, 03:17 PM
Which ones actually had a roster spot for him?

That's a matter of opinion.

REDREAD
03-13-2008, 03:17 PM
apparently not.

Krivsky was dealt a bad hand, but personally has added a lot of talent to the team-- more than any other GM in the game,

But it's not producing results.

2007 72 wins
2006 80 wins
2005 73 wins

Wayne has been given a generous amount of spending money every year he's been here, but hasn't increased the ML talent to the point where it's making a real difference.

I imagine we'll get some more wins this year if everyone stays healthy, largely from Fogg and Cordero.. maybe Affedlt if he can handle starting. But it won't be largely from the prospects, most of which he inherited.

I really can't agree that he's done a great job adding minor league talent. Who has he added? Malony .. good trade, but future #5 at best... Volquez, added a high price.

Wayne has also added some really mediocre and bad players over his reign. Especially in pitching.

The funny thing is that I think he's a lot more like Bowden than most people want to admit. He's not as an outrageous personality, but his methods are pretty similiar.. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the talent to build a bullpen like Bowden has. Wayne seems to be pretty good at recognizing defense and hitters (like Bowden) though. I think Bowden was better at bottom feeding.

Patrick Bateman
03-13-2008, 03:19 PM
I question the fact that he did the extension when he did. The timing was poor, as BA was under contract for another two years. He goes down with an arm injury this year and it will look awful, since he could have waited.


I disagree. I think the Reds were at the point where they needed to show commitment to Arroyo if they wanted to keep him. If Arroyo is left without a long term deal in the last year of the deal, he may very well look to free agency. All things equal (money, years, guaranteed rotation spot) Arroyo would probably go back to Boston. The Reds showed him the money and gave him stability and that's what will keep him here. You leave it to this year with free agency in sight and I think the chances of him leaving rise dramatically.

Additionally by signing him when they did, the Reds didn't need to give him 4-5 additional years, instead they just extended the commitment 2 years (unguaranteed 3rd year with the option). The Reds are on the hook for his age 32 and 33 seasons. If they waited until now, a 4-5 year pact seems to be the going rate and suddenly your paying 12M+ for age 34-36 type of seasons. At that point the odds suggest your looking at the decline phase of Arroyo's career.

The way I see it is if you want Arroyo in the fold, you were going to have to give him a 4+ year deal at some point, and your going to have to forecast his success for 2+ years down the road. I'd rather make that gamble while he's still relatively young rather than waiting until his goat starts to grey.

redsmetz
03-13-2008, 03:20 PM
We're also talking about a team that has recently included Eric Milton, Ken Griffey, Jr. (Griffey and his contract have helped the team?), Jason LaRue, Dave Williams, no Bronson Arroyo, no Edinson Volquez, no Jared Burton, etc.

Turning nothing into something is a skill he is very good at, even if you (unfairly) leave out the Josh Hamilton and Brandon Phillips acquisitions.

You forgot Tony Womack in your first litany.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 03:21 PM
players that eventually become very good are on waiver or Rule 5 list every year. It's a great tool for a small market team. Krivsky is the most aggressive GM at jumping to the front of the line on those opportunities.

Very good? Every year?

But let's be clear here...Wayne took the guys who EVERYONE knew had talent. He didn't snag some unknown guys. That, to me, would be more impressive.

Again, former top 5 prospects don't hit the waiver wire too often. If this guy Capellan went on to be very good, I would say that was a more impressive move than taking a shot on Hamilton.

But also, these are low risk moves. WK could do a hundred of these per year and the worst you would hear is "He didn't risk anything." No risk, high reward and he has cashed in.

The down side is that this is, historically, a very dry well. I think Krivsky has found more success in this space than we could expect in 10 years.

jojo
03-13-2008, 03:23 PM
The Reds didn't really have a roster spot for him, they were already crawling with second basemen. They made the move anyway, and it worked.

The Reds weren't crawling with legitimate middle infielders in March of '06.......

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 03:24 PM
I disagree. I think the Reds were at the point where they needed to show commitment to Arroyo if they wanted to keep him. If Arroyo is left without a long term deal in the last year of the deal, he may very well look to free agency. All things equal (money, years, guaranteed rotation spot) Arroyo would probably go back to Boston. The Reds showed him the money and gave him stability and that's what will keep him here. You leave it to this year with free agency in sight and I think the chances of him leaving rise dramatically.

Additionally by signing him when they did, the Reds didn't need to give him 4-5 additional years, instead they just extended the commitment 2 years (unguaranteed 3rd year with the option). The Reds are on the hook for his age 32 and 33 seasons. If they waited until now, a 4-5 year pact seems to be the going rate and suddenly your paying 12M+ for age 34-36 type of seasons. At that point the odds suggest your looking at the decline phase of Arroyo's career.

The way I see it is if you want Arroyo in the fold, you were going to have to give him a 4+ year deal at some point, and your going to have to forecast his success for 2+ years down the road. I'd rather make that gamble while he's still relatively young rather than waiting until his goat starts to grey.

Wayne paid BA after a monster career year. He regressed a bit last year. This year would have been the last year on his last contract and he would have been highly marketable in a trade for prospects.

If the Reds don't put a winning team together in the next 3 years or he goes down with an arm injury this year, I think WK will have bombed in this move.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 03:25 PM
But it's not producing results.

2007 72 wins
2006 80 wins
2005 73 wins

Wayne has been given a generous amount of spending money every year he's been here, but hasn't increased the ML talent to the point where it's making a real difference.

I imagine we'll get some more wins this year if everyone stays healthy, largely from Fogg and Cordero.. maybe Affedlt if he can handle starting. But it won't be largely from the prospects, most of which he inherited.

I really can't agree that he's done a great job adding minor league talent. Who has he added? Malony .. good trade, but future #5 at best... Volquez, added a high price.

Wayne has also added some really mediocre and bad players over his reign. Especially in pitching.

The funny thing is that I think he's a lot more like Bowden than most people want to admit. He's not as an outrageous personality, but his methods are pretty similiar.. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the talent to build a bullpen like Bowden has. Wayne seems to be pretty good at recognizing defense and hitters (like Bowden) though. I think Bowden was better at bottom feeding.

Great post and my sentiments exactly.

Everyone falls all over themselves congratulating Wayne on all of these great moves he has made, yet the major league club still stinks.

TRF
03-13-2008, 03:34 PM
But it's not producing results.

2007 72 wins
2006 80 wins
2005 73 wins

Wayne has been given a generous amount of spending money every year he's been here, but hasn't increased the ML talent to the point where it's making a real difference.

I imagine we'll get some more wins this year if everyone stays healthy, largely from Fogg and Cordero.. maybe Affedlt if he can handle starting. But it won't be largely from the prospects, most of which he inherited.

I really can't agree that he's done a great job adding minor league talent. Who has he added? Malony .. good trade, but future #5 at best... Volquez, added a high price.

Wayne has also added some really mediocre and bad players over his reign. Especially in pitching.

The funny thing is that I think he's a lot more like Bowden than most people want to admit. He's not as an outrageous personality, but his methods are pretty similiar.. Unfortunately, he doesn't have the talent to build a bullpen like Bowden has. Wayne seems to be pretty good at recognizing defense and hitters (like Bowden) though. I think Bowden was better at bottom feeding.

2005 was DanO, not WK. So in his first year the team improved 7 wins. I'd say that was Arroyo all by himself.

princeton
03-13-2008, 03:41 PM
But it's not producing results.

2007 72 wins
2006 80 wins
2005 73 wins
.

oh, no-- we're recapitulating the early years of Billy Beane/Dave Dombrowski/Mark Shapiro. The horror.

you didn't like Bowden, you didn't like DanO, you didn't like John Allen.

so, after 17 years of that, just how many wins were you expecting at the beginning?

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 03:44 PM
lots of players are eligible for Rule 5, but go undrafted. Magglio Ordonez was once eligible, for instance.

Could you back up your statement related to very good players being available every year?

cincyinco
03-13-2008, 03:57 PM
I look at it like this:

Wayne came in with a house that was rotting from the inside out, termite infested.. crumbling foundation.

Yeah, he did what he had to do to keep the house from falling in(he kept the MLB competitive with a rally cry around "win now" and limited resources), and in the meantime he's been rebuilding that foundation so when the time comes(we're approaching, see the birth of cueto, trade for volquez, etc.) the house can finally stand up without falling in on itself.

We're about to see the fruits of the farm system emerge and produce something. The pipeline has been laid, and the players are starting to trickle through, and we'll have running water to the big league club.

RedsManRick
03-13-2008, 03:59 PM
I look at it like this:

Wayne came in with a house that was rotting from the inside out, termite infested.. crumbling foundation.

Yeah, he did what he had to do to keep the house from falling in(he kept the MLB competitive with a rally cry around "win now" and limited resources), and in the meantime he's been rebuilding that foundation so when the time comes(we're approaching, see the birth of cueto, trade for volquez, etc.) the house can finally stand up without falling in on itself.

We're about to see the fruits of the farm system emerge and produce something. The pipeline has been laid, and the players are starting to trickle through, and we'll have running water to the big league club.

I basically agree. But 2008 is the year that we need to see the walls go up. Another season left in the rain watching the foundation cure will not do.

princeton
03-13-2008, 04:08 PM
Could you back up your statement related to very good players being available every year?


oh, if there were only time. You'd have to go through the players that went through waivers unclaimed, which isn't recorded, as well as the claimed ones, which is recorded, to get a complete picture. You'd also have to have the list of Rule 5 eligibles, which isn't published.

but go through the Reds roster if you like. Arroyo, Burton, Coffey, Freel have all been eligible for Rule 5, with Arroyo and Burton actually claimed. Phillips was out of options and was DFAd. Keppinger was DFAd. Weathers has an interesting history. Cordero came close-- he was dealt partly because he was out of options, but figured out the game just before he went through the DFA process. Big chunk of roster and some very good players in there.

I suspect that the process works better for pitchers than for hitters, but you still can see your Hamiltons and Phillips and Keppingers out there.

the key thing with waivers/Rule 5 is not to focus on the percentage of players that make it, but on the sheer number of players that make it. The percentage will be low, but that does not mean that there are not are opportunities. There always are.

backbencher
03-13-2008, 04:45 PM
But also, these are low risk moves. WK could do a hundred of these per year and the worst you would hear is "He didn't risk anything." No risk, high reward and he has cashed in.

The down side is that this is, historically, a very dry well. I think Krivsky has found more success in this space than we could expect in 10 years.

How is this supposed to be a bad thing?

I sure wish my broker could find me some "no risk, high reward" opportunities to cash in.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 04:51 PM
How is this supposed to be a bad thing?

I sure wish my broker could find me some "no risk, high reward" opportunities to cash in.

It's not a bad thing.

Buying a $1 scratch off lottery ticket is another low risk, high reward proposition. If you hit for $100, it's awesome. But it isn't a great way to put food on the table since the failures will outweigh the successes.

backbencher
03-13-2008, 05:08 PM
It's not a bad thing.

Buying a $1 scratch off lottery ticket is another low risk, high reward proposition. If you hit for $100, it's awesome. But it isn't a great way to put food on the table since the failures will outweigh the successes.

Unless picking the winning ticket is a skill, rather than luck.

Krivsky seemed to have a pretty good sense that the "lucky" Josh Hamilton ticket was sitting in the Cubs' slot in last year's Rule V draft.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 05:15 PM
Unless picking the winning ticket is a skill, rather than luck.

Krivsky seemed to have a pretty good sense that the "lucky" Josh Hamilton ticket was sitting in the Cubs' slot in last year's Rule V draft.

The problem is that former #1 overall draft picks don't frequently hit the waiver wire or the Rule V draft pool.

TRF
03-13-2008, 05:37 PM
It's not a bad thing.

Buying a $1 scratch off lottery ticket is another low risk, high reward proposition. If you hit for $100, it's awesome. But it isn't a great way to put food on the table since the failures will outweigh the successes.

So, list his failures. In the high reward/low risk arena, where has he failed?

Oh, I can name a lot of his FA acqusitions that made me wanna puke. Mays, Yan (who I thought had at least some potential), I never liked Franklin, who is now a good pitcher it seems. I hated the Guardado move as I just KNEW he was done. I hated trading Medlock for Cantu. In fact, I hate a lot of his moves. But his successes FAR outweigh his failures as his successes seem built for the long haul. Arroyo, BP, Volquez. That's not a bad core of players this GM brought the Reds. Add them to the best players the previous regimes brought in: Jr., Dunn, EE, Votto: Bowden. Harang: the interim GM's (don't remember which one did that deal) DanO: Bailey, Cueto, Bruce. He's kept the right players, and dealt the rest for need.

He got good prospect for Jeff Connine. That alone amazes me.

Ltlabner
03-13-2008, 06:12 PM
Well, the prevailing opinion on the board now is that Josh is a ticking time bomb that will fall off the edge of the earth at any time. :) So, that kind of takes a lot of the shine off his Rule V resume. :lol:

Nah. He was a great pickup and produced quite a bit in a little amount of time (both in terms of performance and "feel good story" aspects). Recogonizing that his risks might outweigh the chance of continued rewards doesn't dimish the shine of the pickup at all.

Wasn't Josh Burton a Rule V guy too? It's not like he's a complete piece of junk (albiet with very little track record thus far).

Ltlabner
03-13-2008, 06:14 PM
But it's not producing results.

No one can deny that the effects of his moves are not showing up in the standings as yet. Then again, vary rarely can one big move turn a dismal team into a good one overnight. Often it takes a serries of smaller moves that lead up to sucess.

I know that opens the "how long should it take" debate, but because the results have not translated into a winning record as yet, doesn't necessarly mean the individual moves he made were horrable.

Patrick Bateman
03-13-2008, 06:30 PM
Wayne paid BA after a monster career year. He regressed a bit last year. This year would have been the last year on his last contract and he would have been highly marketable in a trade for prospects.

If the Reds don't put a winning team together in the next 3 years or he goes down with an arm injury this year, I think WK will have bombed in this move.

I see what you're saying, but I'll take the bird in hand on this one. The Reds haven't come up with much better than Arroyo lately, and having the chance to lock down a guy like that at a reasonable rate is something that makes sense to me.

After watching what superior players like Santana brought in the year before free agency, I'm not particularly optimistic the Reds would get more than 1 interesting prospect. Recently teams have been hoarding their players. Unless a team was prepared to knock down the door with a nice package of players, I'd hold on to him, because the odds suggest your not going to come up with a pitcher of Arroyo's quality very easily. What I'm saying is that the market seems better for buyers than it does sellers.

We also have a decent oportunity of doing the same in 2 years anyways. Arroyo has been healthy as a horse and is still fairly young. I like his chances of avoiding serious injury, at least moreso than his peers. I'm a little gunshy of moving what good pitchers we do come up with, because it's easy to see that it could be a long time before we come up with another one.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 08:20 PM
So, list his failures. In the high reward/low risk arena, where has he failed?

It's difficult to actually call a low risk move a failure. That's the definition of low risk.

But to list the low risk moves he has made that have not worked out, even in the slightest, to this point?

Mays
Yan
Franklin
Jason Johnson
Cantu
Gosling
Alex Sanchez
Kata
Cody Ross
Robert Manuel
Juan Castro
Brandon Watson
Cormier
Hollandsworth
Tim Bausher
Sun Woo Kim
Jerry Gil
Chad Moeller
Bubba Crosby
Saarloos
Bellhorn
Hermanson
Lightenberg
Meadows
Santos
Pedro Lopez
Coats
Ellison
Venezuela

That's a lot. Maybe they all aren't "high reward", but you never know with some of these guys. These moves were basically "low risk, no reward". Now if any of those worked out, people would be trumpeting WK as the patron saint of lost causes for each one. Instead, they are just viewed as "didn't cost much" moves. But in actuality it shows that Wayne isn't King Midas when it comes to these kind of acquisitions.


Oh, I can name a lot of his FA acqusitions that made me wanna puke. Mays, Yan (who I thought had at least some potential), I never liked Franklin, who is now a good pitcher it seems. I hated the Guardado move as I just KNEW he was done. I hated trading Medlock for Cantu. In fact, I hate a lot of his moves. But his successes FAR outweigh his failures as his successes seem built for the long haul. Arroyo, BP, Volquez. That's not a bad core of players this GM brought the Reds. Add them to the best players the previous regimes brought in: Jr., Dunn, EE, Votto: Bowden. Harang: the interim GM's (don't remember which one did that deal) DanO: Bailey, Cueto, Bruce. He's kept the right players, and dealt the rest for need.

See above.


He got good prospect for Jeff Connine. That alone amazes me.

Good? We'll see, I guess. Depends on the definition of good.

redsmetz
03-13-2008, 08:41 PM
It's difficult to actually call a low risk move a failure. That's the definition of low risk.

But to list the low risk moves he has made that have not worked out, even in the slightest, to this point?

Mays
Yan
Franklin
Jason Johnson
Cantu
Gosling
Alex Sanchez
Kata
Cody Ross
Robert Manuel
Juan Castro
Brandon Watson
Cormier
Hollandsworth
Tim Bausher
Sun Woo Kim
Jerry Gil
Chad Moeller
Bubba Crosby
Saarloos
Bellhorn
Hermanson
Lightenberg
Meadows
Santos
Pedro Lopez
Coats
Ellison
Venezuela


The reality is that the vast majority of these acquisitions were nothing more than roster filler, many of them as much for AAA as for the ML cub. Frankly run through the transactions of each club and you see move after move after move like these.

Certainly there are some failures here (Saarloos comes to mind) and some miscalculations (Cormier clearly didn't work out and wasn't able to be moved, which is what I have posited WK intended ultimately). But most are just fillers and it's no different than EVERY other club.

No one in this discussion is suggesting that WK has been perfect. No GM is, but he's still done more good than bad and this organization is stronger for the efforts he's put forward.

Everyone knows this club has been in the dumps for far too long. But as much as the detractors dislike, you really don't turn situations like ours around very quickly. There's just no getting around that.

princeton
03-13-2008, 08:42 PM
That's a lot.

not percentages; you look at yields

the yields are outstanding.

Jay Bruce
03-13-2008, 08:47 PM
It's difficult to actually call a low risk move a failure. That's the definition of low risk.

But to list the low risk moves he has made that have not worked out, even in the slightest, to this point?

Mays
Yan
Franklin
Jason Johnson
Cantu
Gosling
Alex Sanchez
Kata
Cody Ross
Robert Manuel
Juan Castro
Brandon Watson
Cormier
Hollandsworth
Tim Bausher
Sun Woo Kim
Jerry Gil
Chad Moeller
Bubba Crosby
Saarloos
Bellhorn
Hermanson
Lightenberg
Meadows
Santos
Pedro Lopez
Coats
Ellison
Venezuela

That's a lot. Maybe they all aren't "high reward", but you never know with some of these guys. These moves were basically "low risk, no reward". Now if any of those worked out, people would be trumpeting WK as the patron saint of lost causes for each one. Instead, they are just viewed as "didn't cost much" moves. But in actuality it shows that Wayne isn't King Midas when it comes to these kind of acquisitions.


Every GM in the history of baseball has a list of failures similar to this. Not every GM has been able to make acquisitions like Hamilton and Phillips, however.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 09:02 PM
The reality is that the vast majority of these acquisitions were nothing more than roster filler, many of them as much for AAA as for the ML cub. Frankly run through the transactions of each club and you see move after move after move like these.

Certainly there are some failures here (Saarloos comes to mind) and some miscalculations (Cormier clearly didn't work out and wasn't able to be moved, which is what I have posited WK intended ultimately). But most are just fillers and it's no different than EVERY other club.

No one in this discussion is suggesting that WK has been perfect. No GM is, but he's still done more good than bad and this organization is stronger for the efforts he's put forward.

Everyone knows this club has been in the dumps for far too long. But as much as the detractors dislike, you really don't turn situations like ours around very quickly. There's just no getting around that.

I was asked to list his failures in the low risk moves. My point is that if Hamilton and/or Phillips failed, they would have been just tossed on the pile of "not a big deal" moves like these. Obviously Hamilton and Phillips worked out well. But I wouldn't use them as hard evidence of Wayne being a good GM. While those moves worked out tremendously, no one can build a team on those types of moves. Those opportunities just don't present themselves often enough.

My issue is that, outside of those moves, Wayne hasn't knocked me dead. Even with acquisitions like those two along with Arroyo where he has given up basically nothing, the team was 72-90 last year. 72-90.

Think about that. Wayne increased payroll, pulled off two miracles like BP and Hamilton where he gave up nothing to get legit major league production, gave up nearly nothing for Arroyo, and still only won 72 games. By the way, Griffey also stayed healthy for the most part and Dunn had a big bounceback year.

How the hell does your team get worse than the previous year and even two years ago?

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 09:03 PM
Every GM in the history of baseball has a list of failures similar to this. Not every GM has been able to make acquisitions like Hamilton and Phillips, however.

Don't measure a GM's performance transaction by transaction. It's like taking a 20 question test and pointing out that you nailed 5 of them.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 09:04 PM
not percentages; you look at yields

the yields are outstanding.

Overall yield has sucked a little.

Patrick Bateman
03-13-2008, 09:25 PM
Every GM in the history of baseball has a list of failures similar to this. Not every GM has been able to make acquisitions like Hamilton and Phillips, however.

Oh ya, that list is just the ebbs and flows of an organization (you know the type that EVERYONE perpetually has). Does anyone really think that Matt Kata or Sunny Kim was brought in to be great shakes? Well no, guys like Kata were spring training fodder and Kim was brought in on an emergency basis for one start.

There's the odd guy on there like Cormier that was a poor attempt to plug a hole, but in the end that collective list cost us nothing even remotely meaningful.

I'm with princeton, when your talking about minor transactions like that, the ones that cost nothing, the only thing that really matters are the success stories. It's a no loss situation when you go that avenue. And Krivsky has plucked out more than his fair share. IMO, it's been his biggest strength to date.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 10:03 PM
Oh ya, that list is just the ebbs and flows of an organization (you know the type that EVERYONE perpetually has). Does anyone really think that Matt Kata or Sunny Kim was brought in to be great shakes? Well no, guys like Kata were spring training fodder and Kim was brought in on an emergency basis for one start.

There's the odd guy on there like Cormier that was a poor attempt to plug a hole, but in the end that collective list cost us nothing even remotely meaningful.

I'm with princeton, when your talking about minor transactions like that, the ones that cost nothing, the only thing that really matters are the success stories. It's a no loss situation when you go that avenue. And Krivsky has plucked out more than his fair share. IMO, it's been his biggest strength to date.

A problem I often see on this board is where people see a post, they only read that post, and completely misinterpret what was actually being said.

The list I provided was in response to such quotes as:


Unless picking the winning ticket is a skill, rather than luck.

Krivsky seemed to have a pretty good sense that the "lucky" Josh Hamilton ticket was sitting in the Cubs' slot in last year's Rule V draft.

I don't think Wayne has some superhuman sense when it comes low risk transactions. The list just showed that when you sift through enough dirt, you'll find some gold. If Matt Kata blew up for whatever reason, WK would be lauded for his psychic like instincts. If you want to cheer the wins, you have to at least acknowledge the losses.

If Hamilton relapsed or just flat out failed, the excuse would have been "Did anyone actually think that Hamilton was brought in to be great shakes?"


So, list his failures. In the high reward/low risk arena, where has he failed?

This was the one that I really was responding to. A direct request for a list of failures.


I wasn't showing that list as proof that he sucks as a GM or anything. It was shown only to balance out the argument. People run around here responding to any critique of Krivsky with "Hamilton, Arroyo and Phillips", "Hamilton, Arroyo and Phillips." Some have trouble acknowledging the fact that the team was a laughingstock last year or that this year might be more of the same.

Here's to hoping it isn't.:beerme:

redsmetz
03-13-2008, 10:06 PM
I was asked to list his failures in the low risk moves. My point is that if Hamilton and/or Phillips failed, they would have been just tossed on the pile of "not a big deal" moves like these. Obviously Hamilton and Phillips worked out well. But I wouldn't use them as hard evidence of Wayne being a good GM. While those moves worked out tremendously, no one can build a team on those types of moves. Those opportunities just don't present themselves often enough.

My issue is that, outside of those moves, Wayne hasn't knocked me dead. Even with acquisitions like those two along with Arroyo where he has given up basically nothing, the team was 72-90 last year. 72-90.

Think about that. Wayne increased payroll, pulled off two miracles like BP and Hamilton where he gave up nothing to get legit major league production, gave up nearly nothing for Arroyo, and still only won 72 games. By the way, Griffey also stayed healthy for the most part and Dunn had a big bounceback year.

How the hell does your team get worse than the previous year and even two years ago?

Well if things always went in a linear fashion, but life rarely works like that. You seem to believe that success can only be measured one step in front of the other and the reality is, things rarely happen that way. I'm not quite sure why you can't see what many here are saying, but progress has been made. Two seasons doesn't tell the whole tale - frankly I think we're moving forward. But there seems no convincing you of that.

Patrick Bateman
03-13-2008, 10:22 PM
A problem I often see on this board is where people see a post, they only read that post, and completely misinterpret what was actually being said.


And my post was based on reference to this point:


But in actuality it shows that Wayne isn't King Midas when it comes to these kind of acquisitions.

That list didn't show that. Most of those moves were nothing. They weren't made for the point in picking out the next 'Brandon Phillips'. Most were roster management. Those aren't failures of moves. They are the moves that every single team in baseball makes to field a 25 man roster when injuries and other inconveniences arise.


I don't think Wayne has some superhuman sense when it comes low risk transactions. The list just showed that when you sift through enough dirt, you'll find some gold. If Matt Kata blew up for whatever reason, WK would be lauded for his psychic like instincts. If you want to cheer the wins, you have to at least acknowledge the losses.

Does it matter how things get accomplished? The fact of the matter is that Krivsky has reeled in more fish using this method then his peers have during the same time period. Every team had the same opportunity to grab a Josh Hamilton, contending or not.

I really don't care about these types of losses when they cost nothing to acquire. I'll acknowledge the Juan Castro's of the world who are given roster spots over more deserving players, but that's a different matter altogether. I'll acknowledge the Gary Majewski's when actual talent/assets are used to acquire such player.

If your point is that Krivsky can't turn every single minor transaction into an important organizational cog, then bravo, your right.

But I find it far more important to look at the end result of these moves. Krivsky has found more than a few gems from nothing.

BTW, I read all of your posts, and my responses didn't misinterpret your position in any way. Your trying to discredit what Krivsky has done because of chaff and roster fluxuation not turning into gold.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 10:28 PM
Well if things always went in a linear fashion, but life rarely works like that. You seem to believe that success can only be measured one step in front of the other and the reality is, things rarely happen that way. I'm not quite sure why you can't see what many here are saying, but progress has been made. Two seasons doesn't tell the whole tale - frankly I think we're moving forward. But there seems no convincing you of that.

I do believe progress has been made. I never disputed that. I see the acquisitions of players such as Hamilton/Volquez and Phillips as huge moves to make this team better. I loved the trade for Arroyo. When I was told about the trade at work, a guy I work with called me "Kirk Gibson" because I did a WS fist pump.

But while you might believe that there is no convincing me of the Reds progress (which is 100% wrong), I believe that many posters on here just flat out ignore facts that are right in front of them.

After 2006, I wasn't a big fan of his. The FO basically lied when they said that they would spend $$$ if they were in a race. They were. They didn't.

Many told me to wait it out, he scored David Ross, BP and Arroyo and hadn't even been here for a full offseason! What could he do with a full offseason?!? Don't worry about lats year!

He then snagged Hamilton. This guy was a magician! The bullpen was overhauled! Alex Gonzalez was the best fielder in baseball! He alone would shave a run off the team's ERA, they cried from the mountaintops.

90 losses later, a few on this board starting questioning him. Then he signed Baker. You would have thought that they hired Hitler. The offseason was rocky. The pitchers would be lined up outside of Kremchek's office, they said. He spent the most money ever on a reliever, then did basically nothing for the rest of the staff.

Many freaked when Hamilton got traded. Young pitching is risky. Hamilton was a future stud. The offseason was in shambles. Then Volquez and Cueto started lighting it up in Florida. All is alright again.

Here's a perfectly plausible scenario for 2008: The Reds go 74-88. Volquez goes 11-8, 4.20 ERA. The team fails, yet everyone is giddy over the Volquez acquisition that it buys WK more time on the board since Rome wasn't built in a day and the team is still making progress. But the team will have still only won 74 games.

I can totally see that happening.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 10:35 PM
That list didn't show that. Most of those moves were nothing. They weren't made for the point in picking out the next 'Brandon Phillips'. Most were roster management. Those aren't failures of moves. They are the moves that every single team in baseball makes to field a 25 man roster when injuries and other inconveniences arise.

Do you actually think that Krivsky saw Phillips as a lock to do what he is doing? Do you think he thought Hamilton would do what he did last year?

For the most part, those transactions were the same as the others. "Hey, it's not goign to cost that much. If they flunk, who cares?" Same thing. If it doesn't work out, nothing lost.

You can call it roster management. A lot of those guys were picked up when Wayne was trying to stay in a playoff race in the fall of '06. That isn't roster management.


Does it matter how things get accomplished? The fact of the matter is that Krivsky has reeled in more fish using this method then his peers have during the same time period. Every team had the same opportunity to grab a Josh Hamilton, contending or not.

Not every team had giant gaps in their roster where they were willing to let one (let alone two) players waste away on the bench if necessary. Do you really think Boston had an open roster spot for Josh Hamilton, not knowing what he would do?


I really don't care about these types of losses when they cost nothing to acquire. I'll acknowledge the Juan Castro's of the world who are given roster spots over more deserving players, but that's a different matter altogether. I'll acknowledge the Gary Majewski's when actual talent/assets are used to acquire such player.

Your namesake wasn't an actual talent/asset?


If your point is that Krivsky can't turn every single minor transaction into an important organizational cog, then bravo, your right.

Not my point at all. Again, I was being told that Wayne had a special ability to turn garbage into gold.


But I find it far more important to look at the end result of these moves. Krivsky has found more than a few gems from nothing.

He sure has.


BTW, I read all of your posts, and my responses didn't misinterpret your position in any way. Your trying to discredit what Krivsky has done because of chaff and roster fluxuation not turning into gold.

OK.

Patrick Bateman
03-13-2008, 10:46 PM
Do you actually think that Krivsky saw Phillips as a lock to do what he is doing? Do you think he thought Hamilton would do what he did last year?

Of course not.... but that was a transaction made that boasted a high ceiling.


Not every team had giant gaps in their roster where they were willing to let one (let alone two) players waste away on the bench if necessary. Do you really think Boston had an open roster spot for Josh Hamilton, not knowing what he would do?

Well they had a full spring training to find out. What harm is there is giving a guy at-bats in ST to see what he has. If Hamilton played like he did for the Reds, then I'm sure any team could have found a place for him. Especially in the AL with the DH... much easier to hide a rule V guy, especially one with defensive value.


Your namesake wasn't an actual talent/asset?

What part of "I'll acknowledge the Gary Majewski's when actual talent/assets are used to acquire such player" didn't you get? Maj and Castro were examples of players that I saw fit to 'neg' Krivsky for.



Not my point at all. Again, I was being told that Wayne had a special ability to turn garbage into gold.

No, you were told that Krivsky has done a good job of finding meaningful players from these low risk types of moves. 99% of these types of moves fail to result in finding meaningful players. You could find a laundry list of similar players for every single major league team. What you can't find is a list of successes that could match Krivsky over the same period. And that's where the difference lies.

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 10:52 PM
No, you were told that Krivsky has done a good job of finding meaningful players from these low risk types of moves. 99% of these types of moves fail to result in finding meaningful players. You could find a laundry list of similar players for every single major league team. What you can't find is a list of successes that could match Krivsky over the same period. And that's where the difference lies.

Give me the GM that can build an entire team over the one who makes 50 low risk moves in 3 years and nails 3 of them.

Wayne has yet to show that he can put together an entire team. Hell, he has yet to show that he can put together an entire bullpen.

Patrick Bateman
03-13-2008, 11:00 PM
Give me the GM that can build an entire team over the one who makes 50 low risk moves in 3 years and nails 3 of them.

Wayne has yet to show that he can put together an entire team. Hell, he has yet to show that he can put together an entire bullpen.


My viewpoint couldn't have less to do with that. I agree with you to a point on Krivsky's failures. There are plenty of things that he's done wrong. But I thought that was a different discussion? It certainly wasn't something I've discussed in this thread.

My point was in evaluating the job he's done on the low risk moves.... an area that has shown to be one of his better traits.

princeton
03-14-2008, 08:04 AM
Overall yield has sucked a little.


the yield of Phillips, Hamilton, Burton, Keppinger, and Schoeneweiss/first round draft choice trumps yield of every team in baseball over past couple of years.

you're still cranky.

edabbs44
03-14-2008, 08:10 AM
the yield of Phillips, Hamilton, Burton, Keppinger, and Schoeneweiss trumps every team in baseball over past couple of years.

you're still cranky.

Using W-L as a barometer, it really doesn't.

If Wayne's title was Director of Lost Causes, he would be a superstar. Since he is the GM of the big league ballclub, I hope for more production on the field.

princeton
03-14-2008, 08:16 AM
Using W-L as a barometer, it really doesn't.

using W-L as a barometer, you'd have been cranky about everyone from Branch Rickey to Dave Dombrowski.

you need a more sophisticated eye.

edabbs44
03-14-2008, 08:58 AM
using W-L as a barometer, you'd have been cranky about everyone from Branch Rickey to Dave Dombrowski.

you need a more sophisticated eye.

Thanks for the heads-up on my eyes.

It's ridiculous to compare Dombrowski's early years to WK's situation. Look at the facts.

Dombrowski took over as GM after the 2002 season. Let me know if you see a difference between him and Krivsky.

2002: $55MM payroll, $1M median salary
2003: $49MM, $320k
2004: $46MM, $362k
2005: $69MM, $962k
2006: $82MM, $865k
2007: $95MM, $1.9MM

Reds:

2005: $61MM, $550k
2006: $60MM, $1.3MM
2007: $68MM, $1.06MM


Looks like Dombrowski tore it down in order to build it back up. He didn't try to "win now" when he couldn't. He tore it up, then built it back and has been a success.

If Wayne tore it down, I would not care at all about the record over the last 2 years as long as he was spending money on the future. What's Cincy's payroll going to be this year? $75-80MM? For what? Wayne has believed that this team can win now. Except he lost 90 games last year and may not reach .500 this year.

princeton
03-14-2008, 09:18 AM
Thanks for the heads-up on my eyes.

It's ridiculous to compare Dombrowski's early years to WK's situation.

I see two GMs that took over teams that had long been poorly managed, struggled for a while as a result, got more production out of the developmental system, redid the scouting, and focused in particular on the pitching.

I've seen the same thing out of many very good GMs that you happen to like.

In fact, I think that WayneK has done better, faster, because he has managed to add some major league talent out of basically nothing (waivers, Rule 5, DFAs)

I guess that the argument that you're making is, dangit, we knew we were going to struggle for three years due to long-term mismanagement, yet this guy didn't have guts enough to lose bigger early by trading off guys like Jr or Dunn or Harang or Arroyo when he should have turned those guys into prospects for the longterm!

personally, I think that's only a good argument with respect to Dunn. Kearns, whom you said that you wanted to keep, was converted into young pitchers. I'm not sure that Jr was ever tradeable for anything of use. And if the Reds are competitive earlier than expected (due to adding Phillips and friends via waivers, etc), then keeping Harang and Arroyo will turn out to have been canny not problematic.

really, beyond Dunn, I'm not sure what else could have been dunn. Being competitive within four years was really the best case scenario-- I figured that it'd take five because WayneK was essentially hired late in 2006, so that should have been a lost year -- and it looks like they'll hit that easily.

In fact, they just may be competitive in three years, which would be outstanding. Too much young pitching, poor OF defense, and loss of AGonz may make that not happen, but it's closer than I thought it'd be.

redsmetz
03-14-2008, 09:30 AM
I've been intrigued by this discussion and was curious about one GM mentioned, Mark Shapiro. I wanted to see what he'd done, wanted to look at his transactions, etc. It's interesting to me because his first two years were worse than Wayne's first two years.

Shapiro was hired 11/1/01 under very different circumstances than WK was hired. His hiring was a few days before the World Series ended. Likewise, he'd been with the organization for 10 years and clearly knew his system and had some part in helping put together some of the club he was inheriting. He had a full off-season to begin his moves and made a good number of trades in which he began piecing together the club that won their division last season. Some of those trades involved jettisoning some of their club's nucleus which had been signed as youngsters to long term deals.

That nucleus of then young players, signed to long term deals, was a club that had gone to the post season six times in the previous eight years. There were also two second place finishes when they didn't get to the playoffs. Now someone mentioned that Shapiro made statements that they were going to tear things down and rebuild (I'm paraphrasing here, but I think this is an accurate assertion). Having come off that previous success, one doesn't need to come in and tell fans you're there to win now. In fact, when Shapiro took over, the Indians were at the point that clubs in their position often find themselves - it's time to start bringing in new blood, developing or collecting younger talent to move forward.

WK was hired late in the post-season, new to the organization and had a lot of learning of the organization to do. Certainly that can be construed as an excuse, but the fact is the Reds were placed in a terrible position when MLB dragged their feet on the transfer of ownership.

And yet, WK in his first two years exceeded what Mark Shapiro did. The Indians were 74-88 in his first season (2002) finishing third in the Central Division; the same position the Reds finished in WK's first season when the team went 80-82. The next season (2003), the Tribe dropped considerably, falling to 4th place with a record of 68-94; compared to the Reds 5th place finish with a 72-90 record. Head to head, the Indians were 142-182 in Shapiro's first two seasons, with the Reds being 152-172 in WK's first two seasons.

In his subsequent seasons, the Indians then went back to 3rd place (which wouldn't surprise me as the place the Reds finish this year), moved up to 2nd, dropped back to 4th and finally won the Central Division championship last year in the sixth year of Shapiro's tenure.

And reviewing the transactions in just the first year as Cleveland's GM, Shapiro signed just as much filler and dreck as the Reds have while making other moves which started to gather the talent that led to last year's division title (including picking up Brandon Phillips).

Now, my point isn't to say Krivsky's better than Shapiro or that Shapiro ultimately was doing a better job that brought success, but, rather, to show that we're not on a much different path than what Shapiro was doing. And WK has done it coming in late and learning our organization.

BTW, in his six years, Shapiro's Indians have gone 489-493 with two 90+ win seasons, their only winning seasons during his time at the helm - the 2nd place finish and the Central Division title. Interestingly, Cleveland more or less had the same managerial situation we have - Eric Wedge was Shapiro's 3rd manager having inherited Charlie Manuel, Joel Skinner finishing out the 2003 season and starting Shapiro's third year with Eric Wedge at the helm.

You couldn't pick two more similar GM's in my opinion and yet Shapiro is vaunted by some as an exemplar and WK is derided as going in the wrong direction. Frankly, I just don't understand it.

TRF
03-14-2008, 09:39 AM
It's difficult to actually call a low risk move a failure. That's the definition of low risk.

But to list the low risk moves he has made that have not worked out, even in the slightest, to this point?

Mays
Yan
Franklin
Jason Johnson
Cantu
Gosling
Alex Sanchez
Kata
Cody Ross
Robert Manuel
Juan Castro
Brandon Watson
Cormier
Hollandsworth
Tim Bausher
Sun Woo Kim
Jerry Gil
Chad Moeller
Bubba Crosby
Saarloos
Bellhorn
Hermanson
Lightenberg
Meadows
Santos
Pedro Lopez
Coats
Ellison
Venezuela

That's a lot. Maybe they all aren't "high reward", but you never know with some of these guys. These moves were basically "low risk, no reward". Now if any of those worked out, people would be trumpeting WK as the patron saint of lost causes for each one. Instead, they are just viewed as "didn't cost much" moves. But in actuality it shows that Wayne isn't King Midas when it comes to these kind of acquisitions.


Good? We'll see, I guess. Depends on the definition of good.

My mistake, it was two prospects, Castro a slick fielding SS, and Sean Henry an OF. Ages 20 and 21, both were at AA for the Reds. Both hit pretty well at high A for the mets.

None of those guys you listed were high reward. not a single one. they were roster filler at best, and every team makes transactions like this. Look at the Yankees OF over the last decade. Some interesting guys in there.

But keep looking for an excuse to bash him I know I certainly did. I must have typed Joe Freaking Mays a couple of dozen times.

But overall, the talent he's added FAR outweighs adding filler like you listed. Good significant talent can outlast a GM. JimBo added Jr., Dunn, EE and Votto, and he'd been gone almost 5 years. If Krivsky were fired today, we could see a reds team 5 years from now with BP, Volquez, Maloney, Jose Castro, Dorn, heck, even Stubbs. If he ever gets that whole hitting thing down. :)

But he isn't going to be fired today. In fact, I don't think his job is on the line at all, even if the Reds don't reach the post season. That gives him a year to add talent, which thus far he's been adept at doing.

But I'll howl like crazy if Affeldt is in the rotation come opening day. ALL GM's make mistakes, it's ok to point them out, just like it's ok to credit them with success. The Reds 25 man roster is better today than last year at this time, and certainly better than the year before.

princeton
03-14-2008, 09:47 AM
Now, my point isn't to say Krivsky's better than Shapiro or that Shapiro ultimately was doing a better job that brought success, but, rather, to show that we're not on a much different path than what Shapiro was doing.


I'll say it: WK's performance over his first two years is much more impressive than the first two years of Shapiro's tenure.

when that job began, Indians were well run but had to cut talent due to salaries, and lacked young talent due to trades; Reds were simply not well run at all, needed pitching desperately, yet hadn't even produced a starting pitcher in 20 freaking years. So changing the Reds was a much bigger task. Plus Wayne had to learn who in the organization was good and who wasn't, whereas Shapiro already knew. Finally, Wayne was hired late but didn't have a lost year-- he found Phillips and Arroyo right off the bat. Finding cheap major league talent fastforwarded the Reds timetable by a year or two.

but turning a team into a consistent winner is a different task. I think that he'll do a great job at it-- a lot of that is managing the finances and making coldhearted decisions, and he seems to do that very well.

coachw513
03-14-2008, 10:37 AM
How the hell does your team get worse than the previous year and even two years ago?

Here's where I beg to differ...do you REALLY think this franchise is in worse shape than 2 years ago??...yes, I know the record but do you REALLY believe the roster as constituted today is worse than 2 years ago??

Going into the spring of '06 I have the Reds with the following 40 man roster (players different than '08 in bold):
P: Grant Balfour, Matt Belisle, Mike Burns, Travis Chick, Brandon Claussen, Todd Coffey, Phil Dumatriat, Justin Germano, Michael Gosling, Chris Hammond, Aaron Harang, Kent Merker, Eric Milton, Elizardo Ramirez, Brian Shackleford, Jason Standridge, Ryan Wagner, David Weathers, Rick White, Dave Williams, Paul Wilson

C: Jason LaRue, Miguel Perez, Dane Sardinha, Javier Valentin

IF: Rich Aurilia, William Bergolla, Edwin Encarnacion, Ryan Freel, Scott Hatteberg, Matt Kata, Felipe Lopez, Ray Olmedo, Joey Votto, Tony Womack

OF: Chris Denorfia, Adam Dunn, Ken Griffey, Austin Kearns, Wily Mo Pena

And now in March '08:
P:Jeremy Affeldt, Bronson Arroyo, Homer Bailey, Matt Belisle, Bill Bray, Jared Burton, Jose Capellan, Todd Coffey, Francisco Cordero, Jon Coutlangus, Josh Fogg, Richie Gardner, Aaron Harang, Bobby Livingston, Gary Majewski, Marcus McBeth, Tyler Pelland, Ramon Ramirez, Mike Stanton, Daryl Thompson, Edinson Volquez, David Weathers

C: Ryan Hanigan, David Ross, Craig Tatum, Javier Valentin

IF: Juan Castro, Edwin Encarnacion, Alex Gonzalez, Scott Hatteberg, Paul Janish, Jeff Keppinger, Brandon Phillips, Joey Votto

OF: Drew T Anderson, Chris Dickerson, Adam Dunn, Ryan Freel, Ken Griffey, Norris Hopper

That's 29 different players than 2 years ago...I agree that we should not evaluate WK in a vacuum ("Hey, look what he did in getting BPhillips!!") but if instead we look at the entirety of our roster I just can't agree that we are "worse"...

This place was a mess when Krivsky took over 2 years ago, and though there have been personnel "bobbles" that have occurred and the fact I'm not really sure about the "Dusty" effect, there is no doubt in my mind that this club is better equipped to compete in regards to pitching, youth and overall talent...

I appreciate your consistent stance that improvement should eventually reflect itself in the W-L column, but maybe this speaks to the incredible underachievement of last year's club in the 1st half of the season due to a flammable bullpen and the Narron malaise rather than an overall lack of franchise improvement??

edabbs44
03-14-2008, 11:52 AM
I've been intrigued by this discussion and was curious about one GM mentioned, Mark Shapiro. I wanted to see what he'd done, wanted to look at his transactions, etc. It's interesting to me because his first two years were worse than Wayne's first two years.

Shapiro was hired 11/1/01 under very different circumstances than WK was hired. His hiring was a few days before the World Series ended. Likewise, he'd been with the organization for 10 years and clearly knew his system and had some part in helping put together some of the club he was inheriting. He had a full off-season to begin his moves and made a good number of trades in which he began piecing together the club that won their division last season. Some of those trades involved jettisoning some of their club's nucleus which had been signed as youngsters to long term deals.

That nucleus of then young players, signed to long term deals, was a club that had gone to the post season six times in the previous eight years. There were also two second place finishes when they didn't get to the playoffs. Now someone mentioned that Shapiro made statements that they were going to tear things down and rebuild (I'm paraphrasing here, but I think this is an accurate assertion). Having come off that previous success, one doesn't need to come in and tell fans you're there to win now. In fact, when Shapiro took over, the Indians were at the point that clubs in their position often find themselves - it's time to start bringing in new blood, developing or collecting younger talent to move forward.

WK was hired late in the post-season, new to the organization and had a lot of learning of the organization to do. Certainly that can be construed as an excuse, but the fact is the Reds were placed in a terrible position when MLB dragged their feet on the transfer of ownership.

And yet, WK in his first two years exceeded what Mark Shapiro did. The Indians were 74-88 in his first season (2002) finishing third in the Central Division; the same position the Reds finished in WK's first season when the team went 80-82. The next season (2003), the Tribe dropped considerably, falling to 4th place with a record of 68-94; compared to the Reds 5th place finish with a 72-90 record. Head to head, the Indians were 142-182 in Shapiro's first two seasons, with the Reds being 152-172 in WK's first two seasons.

In his subsequent seasons, the Indians then went back to 3rd place (which wouldn't surprise me as the place the Reds finish this year), moved up to 2nd, dropped back to 4th and finally won the Central Division championship last year in the sixth year of Shapiro's tenure.

And reviewing the transactions in just the first year as Cleveland's GM, Shapiro signed just as much filler and dreck as the Reds have while making other moves which started to gather the talent that led to last year's division title (including picking up Brandon Phillips).

Now, my point isn't to say Krivsky's better than Shapiro or that Shapiro ultimately was doing a better job that brought success, but, rather, to show that we're not on a much different path than what Shapiro was doing. And WK has done it coming in late and learning our organization.

BTW, in his six years, Shapiro's Indians have gone 489-493 with two 90+ win seasons, their only winning seasons during his time at the helm - the 2nd place finish and the Central Division title. Interestingly, Cleveland more or less had the same managerial situation we have - Eric Wedge was Shapiro's 3rd manager having inherited Charlie Manuel, Joel Skinner finishing out the 2003 season and starting Shapiro's third year with Eric Wedge at the helm.

You couldn't pick two more similar GM's in my opinion and yet Shapiro is vaunted by some as an exemplar and WK is derided as going in the wrong direction. Frankly, I just don't understand it.

Shapiro dropped payroll to microscopic levels.

2001: $92MM.
2002: $78MM.
2003: $48MM
2004: $34MM

Wayne has increased payroll in the same timeline.

Shapiro's plan was to lose while saving money and building the youth. He nailed both sides.

Krivsky's plan is to win now while not sacrificing the future. He's been 50% successful.

As an owner, I'd much rather spend $34MM to lose than $75MM to do the same thing.

edabbs44
03-14-2008, 12:00 PM
I appreciate your consistent stance that improvement should eventually reflect itself in the W-L column, but maybe this speaks to the incredible underachievement of last year's club in the 1st half of the season due to a flammable bullpen and the Narron malaise rather than an overall lack of franchise improvement??

If a club of underachievers was put together, that is on the GM.

I would believe that Krivsky was also involved in the extension of Narron.

And the bullpen is definitely on Krivsky.

redsmetz
03-14-2008, 12:05 PM
I'll say it: WK's performance over his first two years is much more impressive than the first two years of Shapiro's tenure.

when that job began, Indians were well run but had to cut talent due to salaries, and lacked young talent due to trades; Reds were simply not well run at all, needed pitching desperately, yet hadn't even produced a starting pitcher in 20 freaking years. So changing the Reds was a much bigger task. Plus Wayne had to learn who in the organization was good and who wasn't, whereas Shapiro already knew. Finally, Wayne was hired late but didn't have a lost year-- he found Phillips and Arroyo right off the bat. Finding cheap major league talent fastforwarded the Reds timetable by a year or two.

but turning a team into a consistent winner is a different task. I think that he'll do a great job at it-- a lot of that is managing the finances and making coldhearted decisions, and he seems to do that very well.

Yes, you are right - I should not have been so timid in my comparison and the conclusion I was reaching.

A couple of other items that jumped out at me. I looked at the players listed as being drafted in Shapiro's first two years. His first class only shows two players making the majors thus far and not having much success. His second year draft shows three players in the majors, although they've done alright.

Another thing that struck me viz WK's start here - he pitched two of O'Brien's big moves fairly quickly - cutting Tony Womack and trading Dave Williams for a minor league player. He didn't hesitate to undo two terrible moves from the earlier regime.

coachw513
03-14-2008, 12:22 PM
If a club of underachievers was put together, that is on the GM..

Inherently, a team can't overachieve unless it has been constructed to perform better than it does, yes??


I would believe that Krivsky was also involved in the extension of Narron.

And the bullpen is definitely on Krivsky.

Both situations which have improved to whatever degree you wish to agree to...

But you still haven't answered my question...do you think the Reds are "worse off" than 2 years ago??

I agree that WK hasn't always made the right moves, but the sum of all his moves have pushed this franchise forward IMHO...

redsmetz
03-14-2008, 12:27 PM
Shapiro dropped payroll to microscopic levels.

2001: $92MM.
2002: $78MM.
2003: $48MM
2004: $34MM

Wayne has increased payroll in the same timeline.

Shapiro's plan was to lose while saving money and building the youth. He nailed both sides.

Krivsky's plan is to win now while not sacrificing the future. He's been 50% successful.

As an owner, I'd much rather spend $34MM to lose than $75MM to do the same thing.

So is your beef that the Reds haven't won yet or that they're spending too much money? Krivsky produces a better two year start than Shapiro and he's doing poorly because he paid too much money to win ten more games?

Castellini has worked budgets for what the team can afford and still move towards being a competitive team on an ongoing basis. We've produce more wins than the Indians did in Shapiro's first two seasons.

Another point, I think, is it's difficult to compare the Indians salaries then to our's now. They did not have the Griffey salary and Dunn has just moved into the elite pay ranks (and yet it's market competitive). The Indians are just now starting to lock in some of their young talent to long term contracts (e.g. Sizemore, Peralta), much as Krivsky is starting to do with our players (e.g. Phillips) and paid a premium for another position that desperately needed addressing (Cordero), but we got the best closer available on the free agent market.

None of this is perfect, but it's a heck of a lot better than you're willing to concede. I'm with the earlier poster who suggested signing Krivsky up for a longer contract.

MartyFan
03-14-2008, 12:42 PM
Sorry but the truth is that Special K and Mr. C have been turning this tug boat around since they walked through the front office doors.

Strapped, saddled and in the deep end of the pool with a couple of HUGE salaries by players that were not performing (Junior and Milton) and while I realize one of those players was physically unable to perform and the other one, incapable...you don't walk into that situation and do everything you would like.

At the same time Special K has acquired some good young talent, bottom fed very well and plucked a couple surprises from other organizations.

The marketing of this team has gotten better and more aggressive under Mr. C. They are paying attention to what the fans want and they are responding to it.

He has strengthened the front office and imho sharpened the scouting staff to be better than anything the Reds have had since before the Schott (and killed) era.

Nobody performs their job 100% ON all the time...Even medicine is still just a "practice"...so all this *****ing and moaning about what a poor job Special K has done is laughable. Maybe some of you baseball messiahs can do better? If so, put your name in the hat and let us know when you get an interview.

pedro
03-14-2008, 01:43 PM
I'd also like to point out that Shapiro's first two years weren't his first in the Cleveland organization, and organization I might add, that was already in pretty good shape. He'd been with the Indians since 1991. That's a huge advantage over coming in cold to a lousy organization that had been screwed by Dan O'Brien.

edabbs44
03-14-2008, 01:53 PM
So is your beef that the Reds haven't won yet or that they're spending too much money? Krivsky produces a better two year start than Shapiro and he's doing poorly because he paid too much money to win ten more games?

My beef is that some people will take Shapiro or Dombrowski's first couple of years, look at their W/L records, compare to Krivsky's and then say that Wayne's been better because he has more wins.

Meanwhile, those GMs took a look at what they needed to do, decided that not going for it at that time was not the best option, stripped down the payroll, added young talent, and BAM! Wins out the wazoo a few years later.

Wayne stepped in, decided that the team can win now, started adding payroll....and here we are.

I don't know how much more clear I can be.

Krivsky is trying to win now. He has been given more money than any GM in recent memory. He should be winning more than GMs who dismantled the teams they inherited in order to win later. If he didn't, then there would be much more to talk about.

edabbs44
03-14-2008, 01:54 PM
I'd also like to point out that Shapiro's first two years weren't his first in the Cleveland organization, and organization I might add, that was already in pretty good shape. He'd been with the Indians since 1991. That's a huge advantage over coming in cold to a lousy organization that had been screwed by Dan O'Brien.

Legit point.

Patrick Bateman
03-14-2008, 02:00 PM
My beef is that some people will take Shapiro or Dombrowski's first couple of years, look at their W/L records, compare to Krivsky's and then say that Wayne's been better because he has more wins.

Meanwhile, those GMs took a look at what they needed to do, decided that not going for it at that time was not the best option, stripped down the payroll, added young talent, and BAM! Wins out the wazoo a few years later.

Wayne stepped in, decided that the team can win now, started adding payroll....and here we are.

I don't know how much more clear I can be.

Krivsky is trying to win now. He has been given more money than any GM in recent memory. He should be winning more than GMs who dismantled the teams they inherited in order to win later. If he didn't, then there would be much more to talk about.

I'm not sure how much he really is trying to win now. It seems more to me that he's just saying that publicly for the fans... get people out to the stadium.

At the same time he's still really retooling.... adding young talent via waivers and such, developing prospects and refusing to move them for short term additions. His actions aren't that of a a GM really putting a full effort in win now mode. I think Krivsky has selected a core of the team that can be major players when the young guys are ready and rebuild the rest of the team to add around that core. The Reds aren't totally far off and as such don't need a strip down right to the foundation like the other teams did.

redsmetz
03-14-2008, 02:00 PM
My beef is that some people will take Shapiro or Dombrowski's first couple of years, look at their W/L records, compare to Krivsky's and then say that Wayne's been better because he has more wins.

Meanwhile, those GMs took a look at what they needed to do, decided that not going for it at that time was not the best option, stripped down the payroll, added young talent, and BAM! Wins out the wazoo a few years later.

Wayne stepped in, decided that the team can win now, started adding payroll....and here we are.

I don't know how much more clear I can be.

Krivsky is trying to win now. He has been given more money than any GM in recent memory. He should be winning more than GMs who dismantled the teams they inherited in order to win later. If he didn't, then there would be much more to talk about.

Can we look at the subsequent four years for Shapiro? He produced two winning seasons out of the four, but only finished in the money, last year with a trip to the League Championship Series, falling 4 games to 3 to the Bosox. The other winning season was just a second place finish.

His third year, which is what Wayne is going into this year, was no better than Wayne's first year with the Reds.

I'm not trying to be snide here - I'm really not. Where's the problem? One playoff appearance in seven years; two winning seasons after his club went six out of the previous eight?

You can't say that the Reds aren't on the same track. We've done better already than his first two years.

edabbs44
03-14-2008, 02:14 PM
Can we look at the subsequent four years for Shapiro? He produced two winning seasons out of the four, but only finished in the money, last year with a trip to the League Championship Series, falling 4 games to 3 to the Bosox. The other winning season was just a second place finish.

Just a 2nd place finish with 93 wins in a very strong division. Don't forget that they don't play in a horrific division.


His third year, which is what Wayne is going into this year, was no better than Wayne's first year with the Reds.

Again, he tore the team down to it's core. The timelines do not matchup.

But, if you want to play that game, Shaprio's first year in 2002 was better than Wayne's 2nd year based on W/L record.


I'm not trying to be snide here - I'm really not. Where's the problem? One playoff appearance in seven years; two winning seasons after his club went six out of the previous eight?

Would you like to see the Reds be in the position Cleveland is currently in at some point in the near future?


You can't say that the Reds aren't on the same track. We've done better already than his first two years.

Again, you just flat out ignore the fact that Shapiro ripped apart the team upon him taking over. I can't figure out why you choose to ignore that fact.

jojo
03-14-2008, 02:14 PM
Can we look at the subsequent four years for Shapiro? He produced two winning seasons out of the four, but only finished in the money, last year with a trip to the League Championship Series, falling 4 games to 3 to the Bosox. The other winning season was just a second place finish.

His third year, which is what Wayne is going into this year, was no better than Wayne's first year with the Reds.

I'm not trying to be snide here - I'm really not. Where's the problem? One playoff appearance in seven years; two winning seasons after his club went six out of the previous eight?

You can't say that the Reds aren't on the same track. We've done better already than his first two years.

Cleveland's whole organization has been transformed..... I think the above sells Shapiro's accomplishments a little short.

redsmetz
03-14-2008, 02:26 PM
JoJo and EDabbs, it doesn't matter to me whether the whole system was torn apart or whether we paid more payroll than they did. The point is, there is no empirical evidence that our front office isn't heading in the same direction, albeit in a different manner than Cleveland did or Detroit did or whoever.

Folks seem to take umbrage with the Reds talk of "winning now" and it strikes me as naive to not see that given the dreadful state of the franchise in the previous ten plus years that they would say anything other than that. So were Castellini and Krivsky supposed to step up to the microphone and say, "we know we've been stinking up the joint for a long time, but we're going to tear it down and let it stink some more for a few years, but trust us."?

In fact, as another posted noted, they've basically tore the place down anyway, adding some prime parts, babied some of their best prospects to where they either ready or just about ready (something this club hasn't done with pitching in twenty years - again as has been noted time and again) and are basically on the same path as Cleveland is. Just another way.

redsmetz
03-14-2008, 02:28 PM
Cleveland's whole organization has been transformed..... I think the above sells Shapiro's accomplishments a little short.

Yes, you're right it does. I had mentioned earlier that it wasn't my intention to suggest that Shapiro is not doing a good job. I think he is. But because he is, doesn't mean we're not moving in the same direction.

TRF
03-14-2008, 02:50 PM
My beef is that some people will take Shapiro or Dombrowski's first couple of years, look at their W/L records, compare to Krivsky's and then say that Wayne's been better because he has more wins.

Meanwhile, those GMs took a look at what they needed to do, decided that not going for it at that time was not the best option, stripped down the payroll, added young talent, and BAM! Wins out the wazoo a few years later.

Wayne stepped in, decided that the team can win now, started adding payroll....and here we are.

I don't know how much more clear I can be.

Krivsky is trying to win now. He has been given more money than any GM in recent memory. He should be winning more than GMs who dismantled the teams they inherited in order to win later. If he didn't, then there would be much more to talk about.


You keep leaving out the part where Krivsky has added talent.

Arroyo
Phillips
Volquez
Burton
McBeth
Maloney
Ross

He's now in the position of being able to promote existing talent from the system

Votto
Bruce
Cueto
Bailey
Salmon
Rosales
Janish

While some of his draft choices are head scratchers, overall he's added talent to the minor leagues via draft, trade ind international FA.

Castro
Henry
Dorn
Duran
Chiu

His management of the progression of minor leaguers has been very good. Steady progression unless a kid kicks the door down.

LeCure
Cueto
Pelland
Wood
Rosales
Dorn
Bruce
Stubbs

The above list repeats some players, but shows that they were handled either in the first or second method. Dorn, Bruce and Cueto jumped levels. LeCure was a steadier progression. Pelland was rightly identified as being better in the pen. and on and on and on....

All of these under Krivsky's watch. some of his moves still make me cringe at times, but every boss has those. Overall, the man has done a good job. I would like to see him draft better in the early rounds though.

nate
03-14-2008, 02:51 PM
JoJo and EDabbs, it doesn't matter to me whether the whole system was torn apart or whether we paid more payroll than they did. The point is, there is no empirical evidence that our front office isn't heading in the same direction, albeit in a different manner than Cleveland did or Detroit did or whoever.

Folks seem to take umbrage with the Reds talk of "winning now" and it strikes me as naive to not see that given the dreadful state of the franchise in the previous ten plus years that they would say anything other than that. So were Castellini and Krivsky supposed to step up to the microphone and say, "we know we've been stinking up the joint for a long time, but we're going to tear it down and let it stink some more for a few years, but trust us."?

In fact, as another posted noted, they've basically tore the place down anyway, adding some prime parts, babied some of their best prospects to where they either ready or just about ready (something this club hasn't done with pitching in twenty years - again as has been noted time and again) and are basically on the same path as Cleveland is. Just another way.

Well said!

TRF
03-14-2008, 02:52 PM
Again, he tore the team down to it's core. The timelines do not matchup.

But, if you want to play that game, Shaprio's first year in 2002 was better than Wayne's 2nd year based on W/L record.

Krivsky was in a position to add talent WITHOUT tearing a team down. He kept HIS core, or rather what he identified as his core. That seems to be Dunn, BP, EE, Harang, Arroyo.

jojo
03-14-2008, 04:41 PM
JoJo and EDabbs, it doesn't matter to me whether the whole system was torn apart or whether we paid more payroll than they did. The point is, there is no empirical evidence that our front office isn't heading in the same direction, albeit in a different manner than Cleveland did or Detroit did or whoever.

Folks seem to take umbrage with the Reds talk of "winning now" and it strikes me as naive to not see that given the dreadful state of the franchise in the previous ten plus years that they would say anything other than that. So were Castellini and Krivsky supposed to step up to the microphone and say, "we know we've been stinking up the joint for a long time, but we're going to tear it down and let it stink some more for a few years, but trust us."?

In fact, as another posted noted, they've basically tore the place down anyway, adding some prime parts, babied some of their best prospects to where they either ready or just about ready (something this club hasn't done with pitching in twenty years - again as has been noted time and again) and are basically on the same path as Cleveland is. Just another way.

For the record, I was complementing Krivsky before complementing Krivsky was cool (as illustrated by just a smattering of my posts on the subject):


I don't think Krivsky is going anywhere anytime soon.


Just a couple of points. Dave's a sharp fellow with a comprehensive knowledge of the league (both at the major and minor league levels) and this list has more to due with how the organisations are run from a philosophy/decision making standpoint rather than a ranking based upon a summation of recent successes and failures per se (i.e. often decisions that turn out well were in fact poor ones and vice versa so he's critiquing the decision making processes not the results).

He's too hard on the Reds IMHO. As I stated in a recent thread about Krivsky, in my opinion the differences between the 40 man roster of January '06 and how the 40-man will look in April '08 will be pretty substantial considering the overall talent level/ceilings of individuals and the rosters ability to legitimately compete for the division.


Really, I think when building a contender using an absolute adherence to w-l record or even pythags (i.e. "results-based analysis") can cloud things and here's why:

I think the '08 Reds 40-man will be clearly much better talent-wise than the '06 one before Krivsky (almost to a man). The difference will actually be pretty startling I think. You can argue that Krivsky didn't draft guys like Bruce, Bailey and company, but really their presence in the system colored his roster decisions.


Not really. Before Krivsky, the projected '06 roster had zero depth and was mostly a combination of age in it's decline phase, I'm not sure what was supposed to be firstbase, the promise of youth that was about to become painfully obvious would never be realized, an old pen of turdaciousness, a rotation that, my god, is still hard to believe was considered a legit major league rotation and absolutely zero reason to pick up the phone to the Louisville shuttle (well that's not absolutely true because Deno was stuck there God rest his soul).

Contrast that to what the '08 roster might look like and remember a good portion of it's best parts will be under control for multiple years. Heck, the Reds '08 bench is likely to be better than what was penciled in as the Reds starting infield of February '06.......

Here's my take (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1538378&postcount=202) on his skillset:


IMHO, Krivsky has provided in spades exactly what he was billed to provide when he was brought on i.e. an ability to collect young, cheap talent and an emphasis on strengthening scouting (and player development) while being a poor valuator of major league talent.


A faithful summary would've been Krivsky's strengths are player development/scouting which allows him to effectively work the margins to find cheap, young talent. However, he's not so good at valuing established major league talent.


We've seen Krivsky work well at the margins and we've seen the farm he's inherited mature. We seen him wallow around in a failed attempt to build a serviceable pen that ultimately led to dramatically overpaying for a closer. We haven't seen him build anything lasting.

That's all I'm saying. He's had the luxury of playing to his strengths in an environment where he almost couldn't help but make the Reds better. I'm not ready to extrapolate that to a claim that he's following a defined path toward sustainable success.

edabbs44
03-14-2008, 04:46 PM
Krivsky was in a position to add talent WITHOUT tearing a team down. He kept HIS core, or rather what he identified as his core. That seems to be Dunn, BP, EE, Harang, Arroyo.

If he puts a winner on the field in the next 2 years, then I'll be fine. If he doesn't, then it will be more than fair to question if he did what was right for the franchise.

If Cincy is a winner in 2 years and remains as such for a period of time, I will gladly eat some humble pie.

TRF
03-14-2008, 04:55 PM
try some now. compare the first two seasons of Shapiro/Krivsky as a whole. Compare records, maturation of existing top prospects, talent brought in via draft, FA, waiver Rule V, trades, and the international market.

So far I see the Reds in better shape.

jojo
03-14-2008, 05:45 PM
try some now. compare the first two seasons of Shapiro/Krivsky as a whole. Compare records, maturation of existing top prospects, talent brought in via draft, FA, waiver Rule V, trades, and the international market.

So far I see the Reds in better shape.

If all that mattered was projected performance over the next decade (i.e. ignoring our hearts), I'd trade the Reds' organization for Cleveland's everyday of the week.

edabbs44
03-14-2008, 08:26 PM
try some now. compare the first two seasons of Shapiro/Krivsky as a whole. Compare records, maturation of existing top prospects, talent brought in via draft, FA, waiver Rule V, trades, and the international market.

So far I see the Reds in better shape.

Way to load it up for Wayne. Maybe you should also add the categories "elderly relievers acquired" and "most $1 hot dogs sold".

Shapiro acquired many very useful players. I think it would be ridiculous to look at his resume transaction by transaction. I think everyone knows what he has done.

If Wayne is above 90 wins in 2009, then I'll give him all the praise he can handle. But he won't be there. And I don't think this current team has the staying power to last. That's the problem with trying to win now and trying to win later. You are spending resources now on guys who are getting older. The Reds have Harang and Arroyo at the top of the rotation. By the time that Cueto/Homer get to the point where they could be legit front line ML starters (which probably won't happen this year, or next year), they'll be looking for replacements for Harang and Arroyo. By the time Bruce is likely ready for prime time, Jr will be long gone and Dunn may be as well.

We'll see what happens.

redsmetz
03-14-2008, 09:09 PM
Way to load it up for Wayne. Maybe you should also add the categories "elderly relievers acquired" and "most $1 hot dogs sold".

Shapiro acquired many very useful players. I think it would be ridiculous to look at his resume transaction by transaction. I think everyone knows what he has done.

If Wayne is above 90 wins in 2009, then I'll give him all the praise he can handle. But he won't be there. And I don't think this current team has the staying power to last. That's the problem with trying to win now and trying to win later. You are spending resources now on guys who are getting older. The Reds have Harang and Arroyo at the top of the rotation. By the time that Cueto/Homer get to the point where they could be legit front line ML starters (which probably won't happen this year, or next year), they'll be looking for replacements for Harang and Arroyo. By the time Bruce is likely ready for prime time, Jr will be long gone and Dunn may be as well.

We'll see what happens.

Yikes! Can we say Circle of Life? It's the same thing every team goes through. For goodness sakes, look at Cleveland's contracts now - they've just entered into similar long term deals with some of their players which will be fairly expensive by the end of their terms.

I think what dismays me the most is that you fail to understand why Krivsky and Castellini would be doing the "all in" talk after a decade of ineptitude, hence the need to sell tickets still while rebuilding this shipwreck called the Reds and Cleveland coming off of eight years of success followed by the same end of contract issues with their then aging players and the need to retool.

Every club goes through this. A mile back I mentioned off hand that I wouldn't be surprised to see the Reds finish in the same place (3rd) as Shapiro's Indians did in his third season. I think you're right that we still haven't reached the point where we can win. I've been derided at times for suggesting that turning this ship around takes time. Today I pointed out that it has taken Shapiro seven seasons to reach the post-season and somehow we're not allowed to following a similar timetable - and all because we uttered "win now" instead of "tear it down". Really, this is getting absurd.

OnBaseMachine
03-14-2008, 09:11 PM
Don't know if this has been posted yet...

Capellan: He's a big guy

Jose Capellan, the 21-year-old left-hander, arrived in the camp today. He is living example of why you can't trust media guide listing for young players.

He's listed at 6-foot-2, 170 pounds.

"I think that was on his birth certificate," pitching coach Dick Pole siad.

Capellan's actual size: 6-4, 275 pounds. He was 6-2, 170 when he signed at 17.

Capellan threw 2 1/3 innings for the Giants before the Reds picked him up off waivers. He is going to throw a bullpen today.

"I worked hard in big league camp," he said. "I'm ready."

Capellan remains under Rule 5 rules. The Reds must keep him the 25-man roster all year or offer him back to the Boston Red Sox at $25,000 -- half the cost of a Rule 5 selection.

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/redsinsider/2008/03/capellan-sighting-hes-big-guy.asp

TRF
03-14-2008, 09:13 PM
I've been one of WK's biggest critics. And I can see how much he's accomplished.

Funny, I notice you sidestepped the idea of comparing. I don't want you to gout, find the info and post it, just actually research it in your spare time. I hated the Stanton signing. I hated "the trade". I actually wasn't a fan of the trade that brought Lohse, but loved the one that sent him packing. The Reds gained a better prospect than they lost dealing for him, and a more advanced prospect to boot.

The system seems primed to support the rotation with young TOR talent right now. The corner infielders look to be set for at least the next 5-6 years, 2B too. The Reds need a SS in the worst way, and there are a number of avenues that the Reds can take to address this need. The OF is set for this year, and I see a corner OF ready for 2009 (Dorn)

The pen is the biggest need, and Krivsky seems to have a number of YOUNG power arms in the system (Pelland, Roenicke, Salmon, ok he's not young young, but he is a power arm.) And more coming.

I see great things in the near future. Yeah, some things need to click. Cueto needs to be ready, Volquez needs to be for real. But the Reds are ahead of schedule BECAUSE they didn't have to burn it to the ground.

And you can ignore that all you want, but its true.

pedro
03-14-2008, 09:14 PM
Scouting Report: Capellan works with an arsenal of three pitches that he mixes in well. His fastball sits around 89-91 mph which moves away from righties and in on lefties. Doesn't get enough swings-and-misses with his fastball, but he does have good command to paint corners. His mid-70s curveball has plus-potential with a nice bite, but Capellan still needs to perfect his command of the pitch. The curve is his best pitch, and he uses it to get out of jams very well. Variations of his curve can also get up to the mid 80s with slurve-type movement. His changeup sits around 78-79 mph and is average to above average. Capellan's 3/4 delivery is fairly smooth and repeatable. As a lefty, he has a quick sidearm pickoff move to first base. Great clubhouse guy, mature and intimidating mound presence. Good focus. Needs to work on keeping his weight down.

OnBaseMachine
03-14-2008, 09:41 PM
At one time I was a big critic of Wayne Krivsky but that has really changed over the past year or so. I'm very pleased with the direction he has this organization headed in - I've never seen this much young talent in this organization since I've been a fan. Look at all the talent he has acquired for basically nothing: Phillips, Burton, Hamilton, Coutlangus, and Keppinger. He then flipped Josh Hamilton for a guy who looks like he could go all Jose Rijo on the NL this year. That trade is going to end up being the deal we look back on and say it's what put the Reds back on the map. Yeah, I like Volquez that much.

The most important thing in the Krivsky era has been the health and develoent of the Reds top prospects. Look at the past regimes...all the top prospects seemed to come down with career ending injuries and the few that stayed healthy could never take that step forward. Since Krivsky was hired our top prospects have maintained their health (knock on wood) and have progressed throughout the upper levels.

Aside from the Kearns/Lopez trade (and that trade still has a chance to improve from a Reds standpoint, if Bray stays healthy and lives up to his potential, not to mention Daryl Thompson has looked strong so far this spring), and letting Juan Castro hang around, I think Krivsky has did a very solid job. I don't think anyone can argue that the man can negotiate contracts - the Arroyo/Harang/Phillips extensions are steals for the Reds compared to what other players at their positions are getting.

One other thing that I love about Krivsky is his understanding of the importance of the Dominican Republic and International signings in general. The signing of Juan Duran shows the Reds are serious about being big players in the DR...and it's not just the Dominican Republic, in the last year the Reds have signed players from the Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Panama, Taiwan, Australia, Venezuela, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands, plus a few drafts picks from Canada. That's impressive.

edabbs44
03-14-2008, 10:35 PM
I've been one of WK's biggest critics. And I can see how much he's accomplished.

Funny, I notice you sidestepped the idea of comparing. I don't want you to gout, find the info and post it, just actually research it in your spare time. I hated the Stanton signing. I hated "the trade". I actually wasn't a fan of the trade that brought Lohse, but loved the one that sent him packing. The Reds gained a better prospect than they lost dealing for him, and a more advanced prospect to boot.

OK. Of the 93 win 2005 team, Shapiro traded for Crisp, Sizemore, Lee and Hafner when they were very young.

Not bad.

He also signed Millwood (2.86 ERA) in 2005, Wickman (2.47 ERA) in 2004 and 2005, Howry (2.47 ERA) in 2004 after he was released by Boston, Betancourt (2.79 ERA) in 2003 after being dumped by Boston in 2000 and traded Lawton for Rhodes (2.08 ERA) in 2004.

How's that staff? Add Lee to the mix (3.79 ERA) and you can say that he did a pretty damn good job.

Wayne has been treading water in the team pool and drowning in the bullpen pool during his first two years. Shapiro was laying the tracks for a strong infrastructure and future.


The system seems primed to support the rotation with young TOR talent right now. The corner infielders look to be set for at least the next 5-6 years, 2B too. The Reds need a SS in the worst way, and there are a number of avenues that the Reds can take to address this need. The OF is set for this year, and I see a corner OF ready for 2009 (Dorn)

Young TOR talent? Not from WK.
Corner infielders are set? Wayne didn't acquire them.
2b: All Wayne and he gets all the credit.
SS: If they need one in the worst way, then why was $14MM dumped on AGon? Straight up bad move from the start.
OF for this year: Not Wayne.
Dorn in 2009? Let's see him get more than 90 ABs above A ball before he gets a starting job in the show next year.


The pen is the biggest need, and Krivsky seems to have a number of YOUNG power arms in the system (Pelland, Roenicke, Salmon, ok he's not young young, but he is a power arm.) And more coming.

Pelland? Nothing to do with Wayne. Roenicke? I hope he is as good as advertised. Salmon? Should have been up 2 years ago.


I see great things in the near future. Yeah, some things need to click. Cueto needs to be ready, Volquez needs to be for real. But the Reds are ahead of schedule BECAUSE they didn't have to burn it to the ground.

Who's schedule? I don't agree with that at all. Since everyone is hot for comparing to Shapiro, Cleveland won 93 games in year 4. This is year 3 of WK.


And you can ignore that all you want, but its true.

It isn't true.

jojo
03-14-2008, 11:12 PM
The most important thing in the Krivsky era has been the health and develoent of the Reds top prospects. Look at the past regimes...all the top prospects seemed to come down with career ending injuries and the few that stayed healthy could never take that step forward. Since Krivsky was hired our top prospects have maintained their health (knock on wood) and have progressed throughout the upper levels.

It's subtle issues such as this that should be some cause for pause. Should Krivsky be given full credit for the most important thing to happen on his watch when that thing is tied to "knock on wood"?

Cincy player development looks a lot better from top to bottom through a prism of the maturation of the inherited "big four". How much is this really due to Krivsky and will he be able to keep the Reds system in a top tier after their graduation? These are questions that shouldn't be begged I think.



I don't think anyone can argue that the man can negotiate contracts - the Arroyo/Harang/Phillips extensions are steals for the Reds compared to what other players at their positions are getting.

Harang's extension looks to provide value, Arroyo's basically is market rate and Phillips' extension projects to be an overpay. Cordero's contract, well, is just is an eye popper (one that requires aspirin). Dunn's extension will basically have been a market rate deal if his '08 resembles his '07. Gonzo's contract is an overpay. Stanton's contract reveals a severe blind spot. Lohse and Fogg's deals offer hope that Milton will never occur again. Freel's extension looks to be ugly. Castro's contract is blatant pissing away money at the periphery. He's a great guy and I'm sure they've got their reasons. Coffey's contract is a little puzzling.

Yah!, the Reds are spending money to keep guys. Meh, on the value they're getting.


One other thing that I love about Krivsky is his understanding of the importance of the Dominican Republic and International signings in general. The signing of Juan Duran shows the Reds are serious about being big players in the DR...and it's not just the Dominican Republic, in the last year the Reds have signed players from the Czech Republic, Dominican Republic, Panama, Taiwan, Australia, Venezuela, Italy, Germany, and the Netherlands, plus a few drafts picks from Canada. That's impressive.

Cool. They have finally gotten in the growing line.

OnBaseMachine
03-14-2008, 11:18 PM
Yeah, I think I'll hand out some credit to Krivsky for keeping these guys healthy and progressing throughout the system. The past couple FO's couldn't seem to accomplish that...I don't think it's a coincidence.

jojo
03-14-2008, 11:20 PM
Yeah, I think I'll hand out some credit to Krivsky for keeping these guys healthy and progressing throughout the system. The past couple FO's couldn't seem to accomplish that...I don't think it's a coincidence.

What has he done differently?

OnBaseMachine
03-14-2008, 11:21 PM
What has he done differently?

You would have to ask him that question. Whatever it is, it's worked better than the previous regime.

M2
03-14-2008, 11:57 PM
What has he done differently?

Put in place coaches and farm staff capable of teaching. The proof is in the pudding. Prospects in the Reds organization died on the vine year after year after year under JimBo and DanO (common denominator: Tim Naehring).

We can't call the Reds a quality finishing school yet, but the instant dropout rate has been majorly curtailed. It is a HUGE change and it cuts across all prospect types from top to fringe.

Topcat
03-15-2008, 05:04 AM
Put in place coaches and farm staff capable of teaching. The proof is in the pudding. Prospects in the Reds organization died on the vine year after year after year under JimBo and DanO (common denominator: Tim Naehring).

We can't call the Reds a quality finishing school yet, but the instant dropout rate has been majorly curtailed. It is a HUGE change and it cuts across all prospect types from top to fringe.

perfect statement and coming from me it pains me to agree with what you just said, but you summed it up perfectly and in succinct fashion:thumbup:.

princeton
03-15-2008, 05:11 AM
Capellan's actual size: 6-4, 275 pounds.

he's an offensive tackle. Krivsky likes 'em large but...

the thing about 275 lb 21-year-olds is that they often turn into 325 lb 24 year olds.

mth123
03-15-2008, 06:39 AM
he's an offensive tackle. Krivsky likes 'em large but...

the thing about 275 lb 21-year-olds is that they often turn into 325 lb 24 year olds.

I think that is a real risk too, but if the Reds like him, they may take a shot or at least make a deal.

I read a rumor somewhere that Ryan Freel is at the top of the Red Sox list of guys to backfill for Coco Crisp should the Sox successfully deal him. I wonder if Freel to the Sox for Capellan's rights would be a deal the team would do. At first I thought that a Freel for Capellan deal was simply not enough return for Freel, but a case for making a deal like that can be made.

Getting out from under Freel's contract may make it easier to cut bait on Stanton, if necessary in the heated bullpen race, and the Reds seem to have a lot of guys to play multi-postion utilty guy. Dusty seems to like Jolbert Cabrera and Jerry Hairston Jr. Also, with 2 LH 1B and 12 pitchers on the roster and a SS with a questionable health status, a guy who can put SS on his list of multi-position abilities may have a leg up. For all of Freel's multi-position ability goodness, SS isn't one of the positions he can list. Add that Dusty has made a few comments about finding a surprise rookie every year, and this year it may be Adam Rosales. Rosales would provide RH pop with ability to play 1B against LH if need be. He could fill in at every IF spot (including SS) and play some OF too. Couple those options with the obvious cost savings from moving Freel to free up a spot and I could easily see the Reds dealing Freel for a fairly minor return like Capellan's rights.

Ron Madden
03-15-2008, 06:52 AM
I think that is a real risk too, but if the Reds like him, they may take a shot or at least make a deal.

I read a rumor somewhere that Ryan Freel is at the top of the Red Sox list of guys to backfill for Coco Crisp should the Sox successfully deal him. I wonder if Freel to the Sox for Capellan's rights would be a deal the team would do. At first I thought that a Freel for Capellan deal was simply not enough return for Freel, but a case for making a deal like that can be made.

Getting out from under Freel's contract may make it easier to cut bait on Stanton, if necessary in the heated bullpen race, and the Reds seem to have a lot of guys to play multi-postion utilty guy. Dusty seems to like Jolbert Cabrera and Jerry Hairston Jr. Also, with 2 LH 1B and 12 pitchers on the roster and a SS with a questionable health status, a guy who can put SS on his list of multi-position abilities may have a leg up. For all of Freel's multi-position ability goodness, SS isn't one of the positions he can list. Add that Dusty has made a few comments about finding a surprise rookie every year, and this year it may be Adam Rosales. Rosales would provide RH pop with ability to play 1B against LH if need be. He could fill in at every IF spot (including SS) and play some OF too. Couple those options with the obvious cost savings from moving Freel to free up a spot and I could easily see the Reds dealing Freel for a fairly minor return like Capellan's rights.


I like the way you think.

:beerme:

jojo
03-15-2008, 08:55 AM
Put in place coaches and farm staff capable of teaching. The proof is in the pudding. Prospects in the Reds organization died on the vine year after year after year under JimBo and DanO (common denominator: Tim Naehring).

We can't call the Reds a quality finishing school yet, but the instant dropout rate has been majorly curtailed. It is a HUGE change and it cuts across all prospect types from top to fringe.

While Naehring was booted from the organization last September, he was Krivsky's top-ranking on-field instructor in the minors serving as the Reds' minor league field coordinator during the time the Reds system has gained recognition under Krivsky.

Tim Reynolds has been the director of player development for only a year. That hardly seems long enough to transform a system from the 20's to top 5.

Removing the big four from the system will be the ultimate tell.

Will M
03-15-2008, 02:25 PM
I think that is a real risk too, but if the Reds like him, they may take a shot or at least make a deal.

I read a rumor somewhere that Ryan Freel is at the top of the Red Sox list of guys to backfill for Coco Crisp should the Sox successfully deal him. I wonder if Freel to the Sox for Capellan's rights would be a deal the team would do. At first I thought that a Freel for Capellan deal was simply not enough return for Freel, but a case for making a deal like that can be made.

Getting out from under Freel's contract may make it easier to cut bait on Stanton, if necessary in the heated bullpen race, and the Reds seem to have a lot of guys to play multi-postion utilty guy. Dusty seems to like Jolbert Cabrera and Jerry Hairston Jr. Also, with 2 LH 1B and 12 pitchers on the roster and a SS with a questionable health status, a guy who can put SS on his list of multi-position abilities may have a leg up. For all of Freel's multi-position ability goodness, SS isn't one of the positions he can list. Add that Dusty has made a few comments about finding a surprise rookie every year, and this year it may be Adam Rosales. Rosales would provide RH pop with ability to play 1B against LH if need be. He could fill in at every IF spot (including SS) and play some OF too. Couple those options with the obvious cost savings from moving Freel to free up a spot and I could easily see the Reds dealing Freel for a fairly minor return like Capellan's rights.

1. Freel has looked healthy this spring. I tend to think his trade value could be higher than just Capellan. Especially since the Reds can have Capellan gor free if they keep him on the roster. With creative use of the DL and injury rehab this usually means ~3 months out of the year.

2. I like Hat but I would like to see both Freel and Hat gone by opening day. I think Hat won't get much playing time and Freel's role has been taken by Kep and Hopper.

mth123
03-15-2008, 02:31 PM
1. Freel has looked healthy this spring. I tend to think his trade value could be higher than just Capellan. Especially since the Reds can have Capellan gor free if they keep him on the roster. With creative use of the DL and injury rehab this usually means ~3 months out of the year.

2. I like Hat but I would like to see both Freel and Hat gone by opening day. I think Hat won't get much playing time and Freel's role has been taken by Kep and Hopper.

I agree with both points, but the $4 Million commitment to Freel in 2009 is a real drag on his value. I'd love to see Freel and Hatte paired with a lower level prospect or two and converted to a reliable late inning lefty. The team would look much better with some more certainty in the bullpen.

M2
03-15-2008, 05:13 PM
While Naehring was booted from the organization last September, he was Krivsky's top-ranking on-field instructor in the minors serving as the Reds' minor league field coordinator during the time the Reds system has gained recognition under Krivsky.

The way I understood it is Krivsky moved him to a busy work job from the jump, leaving Naehring without an ounce of authority over much of anything.

wheels
03-15-2008, 06:16 PM
The way I understood it is Krivsky moved him to a busy work job from the jump, leaving Naehring without an ounce of authority over much of anything.

That's how I was reading it as well.

camisadelgolf
03-16-2008, 02:15 PM
What has he done differently?

I think one difference is that he hasn't drafted a bunch of ticking time-bombs. I'm no mechanics expert, but after looking at Ryan Wagner's delivery, I figured it was only a matter of time before his arm blew up. I'm only guessing, but I'd figure a big difference is that he has people in the organization who specialize in identifying flawed mechanics. People often cite 'bad luck' as a reason for the Ty Howingtons, Chris Grulers, Tom Paulys, etc., but at some point, I think you just have to say that there weren't enough quality people in the organization to identify what was wrong.