PDA

View Full Version : Compare and contrast...



TRF
03-13-2008, 02:18 PM
There is a very good discussion going on about how good/bad a job Krivsky is doing. I'd like to compare the job he is doing with what JimBo is doing with the Nats.

There are some similarities. JimBo has added some very good young talent. His fetish remains Toolsy OF's, but he flat stole Milledge from the Mets, and I like the Dukes acquisition as well. He's set up for the future at C with Flores, who needs a little more seasoning, but for now is a good backup. His infield minus Zimmerman is a mess, and 1B is a problem. I like a lot of his relievers, Hanrahan moving to the pen is a good move, and Rauch/Cordero is a potent combo at the back end, similar to Burton/Weather/Cordero for the Reds.

Milledge reminds me of BP, having fallen out of favor at a young age. Tremendous upside. Dukes reminds me of Hamilton in that he must be monitored. We all know the upside and flaws of WMP and Kearns.

JimBo needs some health from his rotation, but I think the Nats can make it tough on the two teams that expect to win the NL East.

redsrule2500
03-13-2008, 02:52 PM
JimBo needs some health from his rotation, but I think the Nats can make it tough on the two teams that expect to win the NL East.

Honestly, I don't see the Nats anywhere but the basement.

PuffyPig
03-13-2008, 03:09 PM
[QUOTE=TRF;1570869]
JimBo needs some health from his rotation....QUOTE]

First he needs a rotation....

Spitball
03-13-2008, 03:59 PM
I'd like to compare the job he is doing with what JimBo is doing with the Nats.


I don't see the comparison. As I see it, the Reds desperately needed pitching and had a surplus of outfielders. Krivsky traded from depth and acquired a need. The jury is still out on the verdict.

Bowden had two second basemen, two first basemen, no qualified shortstops, an outfield, but he needed starting pitching. He once again acquired more outfielders. The jury is also still out.

TRF
03-13-2008, 04:01 PM
Shawn Hill, if healthy is at least as good as Arroyo. Patterson also is finally healthy after two years. Can he return to his 2005 form? Bergman is right now better than Belisle is, better than Arroyo too (IMO). I'd love him in the Reds rotation. Lannan and Chico have the benefit of being LH, but don't have much in the way of upside.

My point is I see some similarities in the two. Both GM's excel at dumpster diving. both are doing whatever they can to flood their system with talent, and often do so through unconventional means. And at least one isn't afraid to use a Segway. :)

edabbs44
03-13-2008, 04:03 PM
I like what Jimbo has been doing with the draft and intl markets.

The intent is good. I will be a few years before we can judge execution. But I like the direction.

TRF
03-13-2008, 04:03 PM
I don't see the comparison. As I see it, the Reds desperately needed pitching and had a surplus of outfielders. Krivsky traded from depth and acquired a need. The jury is still out on the verdict.

Bowden had two second basemen, two first basemen, no qualified shortstops, an outfield, but he needed starting pitching. He once again acquired more outfielders. The jury is also still out.

The Reds also had a surplus of 2B and went and got Phillips. Note I didn't say good 2B, but a surplus nonetheless. They had a surplus of OF's and took a chance on Hamilton.

JimBo may have had a surplus of OF's but now he has 4 that will set up his OF for a decade or more. He's got a very, very good 3B in Zimmerman, a position battle at 1B between Young and Johnson with Marrero waiting in the wings. Bowden also spent a ton of money on the draft, 5th most last year. 6 of the Nats top 10 prospects are pitchers, 3 of them LH. bodes well for their future. Krivsky is just coming into his own while Bowden is learning how to deal with an owner that isn't afraid to spend a little. Krivsky is on his 3rd manager, Bowden is on his first really as he had Robby assigned to him, and for his first choice, he did very well in selecting Acta.

I'm not saying they are the same guy, but they have a lot of similarities.

M2
03-13-2008, 04:07 PM
Shawn Hill, if healthy is at least as good as Arroyo. Patterson also is finally healthy after two years. Can he return to his 2005 form? Bergman is right now better than Belisle is, better than Arroyo too (IMO).

In order:

No he's not.

I doubt that.

No he's not.

westofyou
03-13-2008, 04:14 PM
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/03/11/AR2008031103372.html


Nats Still Don't Know Opening Day Pitcher

By Barry Svrluga
Washington Post Staff Writer
Wednesday, March 12, 2008; E01

LAKE BUENA VISTA, Fla., March 11 -- With no fans in the stands and half his teammates preparing for a road trip, Shawn Hill played catch with an athletic trainer early Tuesday afternoon in right field at Space Coast Stadium, two sets of 25 nice, easy tosses. The Washington Nationals right-hander said he considered the experience a "positive sign" as he tries to overcome mysterious pain in his right forearm, and the club plans for him to throw again on Thursday.

Hill, though, is realistic: Opening Night is two weeks from Sunday. Given Hill's current condition -- with no definite plans to throw from a mound and thus build up arm strength -- the Nationals head into their final 17 exhibition games giving no public indications as to who will throw the first pitch at Nationals Park.

"To be honest, I don't know that I'll be ready, even if I crank it up from today full speed," Hill said Tuesday. "I don't know that I would even be able to get there. . . . It would be an honor. But at the same time, if I can get back and . . . if I can make 30-some odd starts, I'll be more than happy. I can live without that opener."

Hill's forearm is not the only blip the Nationals are taking into consideration as they try to form a five-man rotation over the next two weeks. They are dealing with Odalis P¿rez's visa issues, John Patterson's arm strength, Matt Chico's mechanics, John Lannan's inexperience and a bit of inconsistency from both Jason Bergmann and Tim Redding.

Plus, the Nationals could still pursue another pitcher. Jeff Weaver, who won the clinching game of the 2006 World Series for St. Louis but struggled to a 6.20 ERA in 27 starts for Seattle last season, is still a free agent. His younger brother, Jered, is a pitcher for the Los Angeles Angels, and he told the Los Angeles Times that the Cardinals and Nationals have been in touch with Weaver.

Washington General Manager Jim Bowden declined to comment Tuesday night on the club's potential interest in Weaver. It is all but certain, however, that the club would offer Weaver no more than a one-year deal, one that might not be guaranteed.

"There's a lot of questions left to be answered in the next couple of weeks," Bowden said. "We have more choices. . . . We're not there yet."

Even if the Nationals landed Weaver, it's doubtful he would be in shape by the opener. So, as Manager Manny Acta said recently, "We have Plan B's." Acta, Bowden and pitching coach Randy St. Claire are working through several contingencies.

One possibility under consideration is to bring only four starters to Washington for Opening Night. The Nationals have a day off scheduled after playing two games, then play six straight. It's possible, then, that the club could ask the third starter to pitch April 2 in Philadelphia, then come back on three days' rest to pitch April 6 in St. Louis. The fourth starter, too, would have to pitch on short rest -- April 3 in Philadelphia and then April 7 at home against Florida.

If the Nationals choose that route, Hill wouldn't be needed until April 13 against Atlanta at Nationals Park.

"I think probably four starters and seven relievers is how we start," Bowden said. "But it's always something that could change."

Even if that's the choice, it still leaves the question of who throws the first pitch at the new park March 30 against the Braves. Patterson was the Opening Day starter in 2007, an experience for which, in retrospect, he wasn't ready. He allowed six runs in 3 2/3 innings in a loss to Florida, the first of just seven starts he made in a season cut short by injuries.

But Patterson -- who threw three scoreless innings, allowed three singles, walked none and struck out three Tuesday night against the Braves at Disney's Wide World of Sports -- has professed his health all spring, and club officials have said he has met every mark. Asked if Patterson would be a candidate to start the opener, Acta said, "I don't see why not."

But there is another wrinkle. If Patterson is to start the opener, he must make one of his remaining three spring starts on short rest. Patterson is, as much as anything, a pitcher who prefers a routine. Still, Acta said there is plenty of time to handle Patterson carefully -- if, indeed, he is the choice for the opener.

"That's why we're not doing it right now, panicking -- 'Oh, Shawn's not ready, maybe we should move [Patterson] right now,' " Acta said. "No. He's coming off an injury, so we're going to wait up until the end of camp, see where Hill is, see where Patterson is -- which is still two weeks to go. And then if we have to make a move, we'll make it."

Patterson's start Tuesday night was more impressive on paper than it was in person. His fastball hovered mostly between 85 and 87 mph, and he needed 60 pitches to survive three innings. Patterson, though, had a sharp breaking ball, and said he isn't concerned with his velocity because he still needs to build arm strength.

"If I was obsessing about it, I'd have stood out there and tried to throw it through the wall," he said.

Patterson knows, too, all the questions about who will throw the opener. He said it's "an important day for the city of Washington." But with more than two weeks left, he's not obsessed with that, either.

"Right now, nobody knows who it is," Patterson said. "We're all trying to earn that spot. They're not just going to give it to somebody."

TRF
03-13-2008, 04:20 PM
In order:

No he's not.

I doubt that.

No he's not.

Bergman isn't better than Belisle? I think he is. Hill may have been a product of his home park, but he's pretty good. I actually hope Patterson is 100%. Anything to stifle the Mets and Phils a little.

RedsManRick
03-13-2008, 04:30 PM
Bergman isn't better than Belisle? I think he is. Hill may have been a product of his home park, but he's pretty good. I actually hope Patterson is 100%. Anything to stifle the Mets and Phils a little.

Bergmann 07 (age 25)
K/9: 6.71
BB/9: 3.28
HR/9: 1.40
BABIP: .253
GB/FB: 0.66
DIPS: 4.88

Belisle 07 (age 26)
K/9: 6.33
BB/9: 2.18
HR/9: 1.32
BABIP: .331
GB/FB: 1.15
DIPS: 4.54

Bergman sure looks like he got a nice bump from being an extreme flyball pitcher in a big park. Home ERA was 2 runs better than his road ERA. Put Bergman in GABP with our defense and let's see how they compare...

pedro
03-13-2008, 04:31 PM
The Nats will stink this year and Bowden will be fired before the world series, if not sooner.

M2
03-13-2008, 04:32 PM
Bergman isn't better than Belisle? I think he is. Hill may have been a product of his home park, but he's pretty good. I actually hope Patterson is 100%. Anything to stifle the Mets and Phils a little.

Hill is not pretty good and now he's not all that healthy either. He's pitched a grand total of 143 innings in the majors and he just so happens to have an OPS+ identical to Matt Belisle (whom we're all thinking might be able to pull himself up to average).

John Patterson is almost never healthy, which has been a major contributor in his being consistently overrated (he doesn't get to pitch enough to definitively prove the hype wrong).

If Bergmann (currently boasting a career OPS+ of 84) gets 30 starts for the Nats this year, it will be a sign of the team's utter lack of major league pitching, not Bergmann's quality. I'd rather have Josh Fogg.

If you want something to stifle the Mets and Phils, I suggest you look to the Braves, though I doubt there's a force on the planet that's going to keep the Mets below 90 wins.

lollipopcurve
03-13-2008, 04:36 PM
Bowden -- he could build two completely different decent starting lineups before he could assemble a single mediocre starting rotation.

camisadelgolf
03-13-2008, 05:07 PM
Last year, the Nationals gave up the fifth-most homeruns in MLB while being in the stadium that takes away the most homeruns. It's almost unfathomable. The pitching staff was also a leader in categories such as blown saves, worst save percentage, worst K/BB ratio, worst WHIP, etc.

The Nationals pitching staff is just horrible, and a large portion of any of its limited success is due to RFK Stadium and a lucky BABIP.

As for the offensive squad, they produced the fewest runs in baseball last year. It's a Jim Bowden-made team if there has ever been one.

Maybe dougdirt could say more, but my impression of Bowden's drafts in Washington are that they are too heavy on position players (particularly outfielders), although there have been some good picks, and that the pitchers have had mixed results with most of them leaning toward being busts or projecting to have little impact in the big leagues.

TRF
03-13-2008, 06:12 PM
Actually, hasn't offense been Bowden's strength? It certainly looks better this year than last, especially if Milledge and Dukes mature and progress.

I'm not saying the rotation is perfect, but I certainly doubt JimBo's job is on the line this year. If his minor league system falls apart, maybe, but I doubt ownership in WASH thinks the team is ready to win THIS year.

And this isn't about that. I was noting the similarities AS I SEE them between Bowden and Krivsky. Both dumpster dive, both are infusing young talent at all levels. Bowden is coming off a decent draft where he spent a LOT of money, something he has not had the luxury of in a looong time. Krivsky essentially spent 2 mil on a 2nd round pick last week. I see parallels is all.

And I happen to really like the Nats OF. there is a ton of potential there coupled with a brand new park. Should be interesting. Also, IMO Bowden certainly got the best of WK in "The Trade". FeLo may get cut, but Kearns turned a corner after the ASB. The move to a new park will help even more. I see an .880+ OPS from him as not impossible, and even likely.

Pitching is an issue, but WK inherited at least 2 and possibly 3 of his SP's (Harang, Belisle and possibly Cueto) That's more serendipitous than any kind of skill.

cincrazy
03-13-2008, 06:57 PM
Actually, hasn't offense been Bowden's strength? It certainly looks better this year than last, especially if Milledge and Dukes mature and progress.

I'm not saying the rotation is perfect, but I certainly doubt JimBo's job is on the line this year. If his minor league system falls apart, maybe, but I doubt ownership in WASH thinks the team is ready to win THIS year.

And this isn't about that. I was noting the similarities AS I SEE them between Bowden and Krivsky. Both dumpster dive, both are infusing young talent at all levels. Bowden is coming off a decent draft where he spent a LOT of money, something he has not had the luxury of in a looong time. Krivsky essentially spent 2 mil on a 2nd round pick last week. I see parallels is all.

And I happen to really like the Nats OF. there is a ton of potential there coupled with a brand new park. Should be interesting. Also, IMO Bowden certainly got the best of WK in "The Trade". FeLo may get cut, but Kearns turned a corner after the ASB. The move to a new park will help even more. I see an .880+ OPS from him as not impossible, and even likely.

Pitching is an issue, but WK inherited at least 2 and possibly 3 of his SP's (Harang, Belisle and possibly Cueto) That's more serendipitous than any kind of skill.

I don't really think it's accurate to give WK little credit for this team's pitching depth. Sure, Harang and the like might have been here already, but he's added Volquez, Burton, Arroyo, etc., pieces that Bowden NEVER adds. He never gives up Pena for Arroyo, he never gives up Hamilton for Volquez, and I doubt he has the foresight to pick up Burton.

Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but I just think that Jim Bowden is a bad GM who might be a worse person.

Will M
03-13-2008, 07:14 PM
Bowden is a terrible terrible terrible GM.

nuff said

TRF
03-13-2008, 08:28 PM
I don't really think it's accurate to give WK little credit for this team's pitching depth. Sure, Harang and the like might have been here already, but he's added Volquez, Burton, Arroyo, etc., pieces that Bowden NEVER adds. He never gives up Pena for Arroyo, he never gives up Hamilton for Volquez, and I doubt he has the foresight to pick up Burton.

Sorry if I sound a bit harsh, but I just think that Jim Bowden is a bad GM who might be a worse person.
through '99 he was lauded as a great GM, clever with payroll and willing to take flyers on players nobody wanted. In '94-'95 he had one of the best teams in baseball.

There are far worse GM's than Bowden. I could care less what he's like as a person.

westofyou
04-11-2008, 12:59 PM
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-nationals-pitching

Nats general manager Bowden takes not-so-veiled shot at struggling starters




WASHINGTON (AP)—Only two National League teams have a staff ERA higher than Washington’s 4.71, and Nationals general manager Jim Bowden took a not-so-veiled shot Thursday at the starting rotation he assembled.

Asked whether he’ll have a tough roster decision to make once right-hander Shawn Hill is ready to come off the 15-day disabled list, Bowden smirked.

“You’re not watching our pitching staff? The decisions are really easy. It’s simple: Get me better pitching,” the GM said. “I’ve got lots of moves I can make.”

The Nationals allowed 10 runs in each of their previous two games, against the Florida Marlins on Monday and Wednesday. Both nights, Florida scored seven runs while Washington’s starters—Tim Redding, then Jason Bergmann—were in the game.

Hill had hoped to be Washington’s opening day starter, but he went on the disabled list during spring training with a bothersome right forearm. He is slated to make a second minor league rehab start Sunday at Triple-A Columbus.

Bowden was asked whether that upcoming appearance will be enough for Hill to be ready to pitch for the Nationals.

“I hope so. I’m rooting for him,” Bowden said. “I don’t like watching starting pitchers give up seven runs a game. I’m not a fan of that. I don’t want our fans to have to watch that. So I’m looking for pitchers that are going to stand up and get people out, keep us in ballgames.”

Redding is 1-1 with a 0.82 ERA—six of the runs he allowed in his four innings Monday were unearned—and John Lannan is 0-1 with a 2.70 ERA in one appearance. But the numbers look far worse for Bergmann (0-1, 10.45), Odalis Perez (0-1, 6.00) and Matt Chico (0-1, 5.56).

Perez started Thursday’s game against Florida, hoping to end Washington’s six-game skid.

“We’re playing hard. We’re playing good baseball. Are we getting every clutch hit we need? No. Are we getting the quality starts maybe we need to win? No,” manager Manny Acta said. “But we’re still playing decent baseball out there. The guys are playing hard, working hard, giving me the effort.”

The Nationals think they could have their closer, Chad Cordero, back by the weekend. The right-hander, who went on the disabled list with shoulder tendinitis before pitching in a game, is scheduled to make a second rehab appearance at Class-A Potomac on Friday.

He threw one inning there Wednesday, and Acta said, “He had good command. Just want to see him one more time out there.”

“My shoulder felt great. I was able to throw my fastball and my slider for strikes, and that’s what I really needed to go down there—to see if I was able to do that,” Cordero said.

His velocity was around 86-88 mph, Bowden said, which is 3-5 mph slower than where Cordero tops out.

“We’re not concerned,” Bowden said.

Chip R
04-11-2008, 01:08 PM
“You’re not watching our pitching staff? The decisions are really easy. It’s simple: Get me better pitching,” the GM said. “I’ve got lots of moves I can make.”



Gosh, Jim, isn't that your job?

TRF
04-11-2008, 01:25 PM
He could be referring to his scouts or his minor league coaches. The Nats have a long road ahead of them, but here are the things JimBo has done right IMO

Hiring Acta as his Manager
Hiring Larkin and Rijo as special advisors (yeah, it goes to his Reds bias, but so what?)
He had by all accounts a very good draft in 2007
Increased presence in Latin America (much better than the Reds thus far. Juan Duran was a fluke signing)
Robbed the Mets of Milledge
I like the acquisition of Dukes too.He's got a ton of pitching issues, and it wasn't anything he could fix in a year. He should have snapped up Claudio Vargas. He's going to have to get better help in evaluating pitchers. I like Rijo for PR in the DR (heh, rhymes) but not so much as a teacher. I'm surprised JimBo didn't go after Almarez.

I like what he's done so far in rebuilding the Nats, but they were in far worse shape when he got there.

pedro
04-11-2008, 01:37 PM
Considering the fact that Bowden has been on the job 1.5 years longer than Krivsky I think it can be argued that he's done a considerably worse job.

TRF
04-11-2008, 01:53 PM
Considering the fact that Bowden has been on the job 1.5 years longer than Krivsky I think it can be argued that he's done a considerably worse job.

I'd say it was more of a wash. Bowden wasn't handed Bruce, Bailey Votto and Cueto. The Nat's ML system was the worst in baseball, while the Reds, when Krivsky arrived had a system on the rise. Krivsky hasn't added too much to it though.

RedlegJake
04-11-2008, 01:56 PM
Bowden is creative and can dumpster dive with the best of em. He remains horrible at judging starting pitching but always seems to build a decent pen and loves tools opposed to results too much, imo. Jimbo is also a liar, deceptive, without integrity. I don't think I'm too harsh - he has always seemed smarmy and self serving to me.

I believe K when he says Bowden misrepresented Majewski's health. I also believe baseball believes him but Bowden covered himself well enough that it's a hard charge to prove. Kriv has done a solid job with the Reds so far. Bowden has the Nats looking bad, imo. Decent pen, toolsy outfielders, lousy starting pitching, character ??s, and little to no chance at being competitive in the east. K has outperformed him on nearly every level. I don't see any parallels.

pedro
04-11-2008, 02:01 PM
I'd say it was more of a wash. Bowden wasn't handed Bruce, Bailey Votto and Cueto. The Nat's ML system was the worst in baseball, while the Reds, when Krivsky arrived had a system on the rise. Krivsky hasn't added too much to it though.

I think it's probably not too fair to give Bowden the full extra 1.5 years on the job too b/c the new ownership group didn't take over until mid 2006.

However, even taking away Bruce, Bailey, Votto & Cueto, I think Wayne's done a much, much better job than Bowden so far.

Bowden did draft Zimmerman, which was a good move, but I'm not sure he's done anything else of note with the draft.

I know Wayne darfted Stubbs and Menarasco (sp?) which are somewhat dubious moves but overall I like the talent he's added through the draft.

Cyclone792
04-11-2008, 02:09 PM
Jim Bowden ... remembering him is like remembering a bad nightmare over and over. As far as I'm concerned, throw him in the same dumpster along with all the other clowns in recent Reds history, such as ...

Marge Schott
Carl Lindner
Dan O'Brien
Bob Boone
Tom Robson
Dave Miley
Jerry Narron

With Bowden's name on that list, those are eight high class winners right there.

TRF
04-11-2008, 02:11 PM
toolsy outfielders
ok, why is this bad again? Milledge and Kearns will hit. Kearns at least is getting on base, so he isn't killing them.

In fact, I really like the Nats offense. It hasn't fully clicked just yet, like the Reds, but they can do some damage with the bat. Nick Johnson is off to a terrific start, they have a solid bench.

But man that SP is a wreck. Krivsky has done a better job there, but considering he walked into the job with a bona fide ace, and Cueto and Bailey in the minors, it does make it easier. He traded for Arroyo, a good #3, but Josh Fogg has a job. Not much excuse for that.

Krivsky is lauded for taking chances on Phillips and Hamilton, but JimBo has "toolsy" OF's in Dukes and Milledge?

Simple fact is, Krivsky walked into a much better situation than JimBo did. WK has made 3-4 very good moves, addressing 2B and SP (Arroyo, Volquez, Maloney). JimBo has made 3-4 very good moves. Getting Milledge and Dukes for nothing, has built a solid bullpen, and has an overall youth movement going on. I really like Flores at C. I'm thinking the job is his by the end of the year. Lo Duca is a place holder.

westofyou
04-11-2008, 02:26 PM
Simple fact is, Krivsky walked into a much better situation than JimBo did.
And not much of it was because of Jim Bowden.

redsmetz
04-11-2008, 02:44 PM
He could be referring to his scouts or his minor league coaches. The Nats have a long road ahead of them, but here are the things JimBo has done right IMO

Hiring Acta as his Manager
Hiring Larkin and Rijo as special advisors (yeah, it goes to his Reds bias, but so what?)
He had by all accounts a very good draft in 2007
Increased presence in Latin America (much better than the Reds thus far. Juan Duran was a fluke signing)
Robbed the Mets of Milledge
I like the acquisition of Dukes too.He's got a ton of pitching issues, and it wasn't anything he could fix in a year. He should have snapped up Claudio Vargas. He's going to have to get better help in evaluating pitchers. I like Rijo for PR in the DR (heh, rhymes) but not so much as a teacher. I'm surprised JimBo didn't go after Almarez.

I like what he's done so far in rebuilding the Nats, but they were in far worse shape when he got there.

TRF, I'm guessing you won't be satisfied until we all echo that Bowden = Krivsky or we're joining your chorus of WK's no good or whatever.

You list seems more opinion than fact. I'll agree hiring Acta was a good move, but that doesn't dismiss that Baker can prove to have been an astute hire as well.

I'd love to have Barry Larkin working with the Reds, but there were issues between him and some of the team's management and he's where he is. You yourself acknowledged that Rijo is more PR than a value as a coach and I'll counter Mario Soto has have genuine effect on our pitchers. While not a direct hire by Krivsky, we've added Walt Jockety as a special advisor. We've got Bench & Griffey Sr. in the same type roles as Larkin & Rijo.

Increased presence in Latin America; you state "far better than the Reds" - and yet, the Nats last year had no team in the VSL where we shared one with the Rays. The Nats had two teams in the DSL to our one. I think we don't have a VSL team this year, but will have the DSL one.

The Reds presently have quite a number of prospects coming up from Latin America sprinkled throughout their system. And don't discount the effect of having three Domicans on this year's roster who seem poised to have good seasons - that will be considerable PR down there. And the Duran signing can have a similar effect. I just don't see your pat "far better than the Reds". Not to mention our growing work elsewhere in the world (I'm not familiar with the Nats scouting elsewhere, so I can't compare).

As for the Milledge and Dukes acquisitions, those do seem like they can possibly work out. But remember, it's Bowden - be very wary (that rhymes too).

Again, though, it seems you're wanting to grind an ax. I'm not buying it.

WMR
04-11-2008, 02:47 PM
I really think the Nats will make a strong run at 100 losses this season.

I'm still lukewarm on Krivsky, but I think he's in a whole different stratosphere than Bowden.

bucksfan2
04-11-2008, 03:14 PM
Bowden is pretty much hated it this city which I think tends to skew things. There is no doubt that the guy didn't know how to develop pitchers. Remember when OBrien came in and made those radical changes to the minor league pitching staffs? Everyone was in shock and didn't know what to think.

The reds main flaw was the lack of starting pitching during his tenure. It may be arguable how much imput Bowden has on that. Was it scouting? Was it the scouts that Bowden didn't like but the Reds brass kept because of their loyality? Was it the lack of money put into the draft? I think the inability of the entire front office has fallen strictly Bowden's shoulders.

The guy could find offensive players. He had a knack for toolsey players and knew how to build an offense. Which begs the question did he build the offense because he knew the limilted funds to FO was throwing into the reds and he know offense sells better than pitching? In a 5-6 year span look at the guys he brought through the reds organization. Vaughn, Cammeron, Jr, Encarnacion, Konkerko, Casey, and Guillen to name a few.

Was it really Bowden or was it an inept front office?

westofyou
04-11-2008, 03:21 PM
Was it really Bowden or was it an inept front office?

What's the difference?

Is it the general or his officers?

I'd say the leader of any staff is ultimately responsible for all results myself.

TRF
04-11-2008, 03:26 PM
And not much of it was because of Jim Bowden.

You mean except for Jr, Dunn, Kearns, EE, and Votto right? Nevermind the fact that Allen crippled JimBo's drafts, forcing him to punt a 1st round pick, and ignore Kazmir because of signability issues.

4 of the current starting 8 are because of JimBo. And he's been gone almost 5 years.

Spring~Fields
04-11-2008, 03:31 PM
Unfortunately Krivsky and staff has had to spend their tenure with the Reds cleaning up Bowdens ten year mess. It took Bowen ten years to create it, it will take time to fix it.

We as fans have just endured 7 seven losing seasons from the house that Bowden built, due to bad pitching because Bowden did not develop any during his tenure woth mentioning or that could be found when Krivsky took over.

Jim Bowden has never won anything and has been a GM much longer than Krivsky. He is a master of the lip and tongue but a pitching staff he will have none of.

So far I have seen him collect some head cases that were basically discarded.

bucksfan2
04-11-2008, 03:33 PM
What's the difference?

Is it the general or his officers?

I'd say the leader of any staff is ultimately responsible for all results myself.

Huge difference. If the President told the commanding general to go to battle but gave him sticks and stones and wanted to defeat automatic rifles no matter how smart the general was he wouldn't defeat the enemy.

Spring~Fields
04-11-2008, 03:34 PM
4 of the current starting 8 are because of JimBo.

I missed that apparently, can you explain that in depth and support the claim with objective facts from third party source documentation?

TRF
04-11-2008, 03:35 PM
Unfortunately Krivsky and staff has had to spend their tenure with the Reds cleaning up Bowdens ten year mess. It took Bowen ten years to create it, it will take time to fix it.

We as fans have just endured 7 seven losing seasons from the house that Bowden built, due to bad pitching because Bowden did not develop any during his tenure woth mentioning or that could be found when Krivsky took over.

Jim Bowden has never won anything and has been a GM much longer than Krivsky. He is a master of the lip and tongue but a pitching staff he will have none of.

So far I have seen him collect some head cases that were basically discarded.

Sorry, but we were all fans during JimBo's reign. I seem to remember glowing praises writ of the man during '99. his 98 draft was pretty darn good. If you want to lay blame for the state of the system as a whole, John Allen gets a big chunk, as does Marge. That Jimbo was able to produce a division winner in '95, a team that should have been in the playoffs in '99 with the constraints placed on him is kind of amazing. Marge gutted the farm, and Allen gutted it even more.

TRF
04-11-2008, 03:37 PM
I missed that apparently, can you explain that in depth and support the claim with objective facts from third party source documentation?

snarkiness is unbecoming without emoticons.

westofyou
04-11-2008, 03:38 PM
he's been gone almost 5 years.

Thank god... the last 5 years have been the worst pitching in Reds team history except when they were owned by the bank.

That's his legacy... not Junior, not Dunn, nor the nebulous EE and equally unproven Votto.

Spring~Fields
04-11-2008, 03:40 PM
What's the difference?

Is it the general or his officers?

I'd say the leader of any staff is ultimately responsible for all results myself.

He was the general manager and in charge of operations. It was his responsibiltiy. I agree with you WOY.

The Results that Bowden got and the results that followed speak for themselves. What did he win?

westofyou
04-11-2008, 03:42 PM
Huge difference. If the President told the commanding general to go to battle but gave him sticks and stones and wanted to defeat automatic rifles no matter how smart the general was he wouldn't defeat the enemy.

The man had his sleeves rolled up and he was picking the players and the staff that worked for him, true he was limited by his budget but he certainly wasn't the first GM faced with that dilemma.

He built it and it got stuck in the mud, he was jettisoned... leaving behind a shell of the franchise he took over in 1993.

Was it all his fault?

No.... but he certainly can't play the part of the martyred genius who is now been exiled to a job much bigger than the one he was unjustifiably ousted from.

That's just fiction.

TRF
04-11-2008, 03:46 PM
Thank god... the last 5 years have been the worst pitching in Reds team history except when they were owned by the bank.

That's his legacy... not Junior, not Dunn, nor the nebulous EE and equally unproven Votto.

Sorry, but that legacy is to be shared with John Allen and Uncle Carl. Allen's heavy hand is all over the Reds drafting woes from Sowers to Gruler to the ML contracts given to Espinosa and Sardinha. Drafting pitching has never been anything resembling a strong suit for JimBo. Making him draft anyone while crippling his draft budget and his scouting staff leans towards the unfair a bit.

woy, I've seen you write plenty on how Marge crippled the Reds when it came to the minor leagues. How much of that was Bowden's fault?

Spring~Fields
04-11-2008, 03:51 PM
snarkiness is unbecoming without emoticons.

I guess you and I don't have any supporting evidence for "4 of the current starting".

It is not snarkiness. I simply don't appreciate any man that appears to lack integrity, and appears to have issues with ethics and character.

He was paid well to produce a lousy performing product for the Reds fans, millions of them who paid their time and dollar, and tax dollars, they believed in him, bought into his sales pitch and got burned.

I am still waiting for what he sold all of us, "we are building for 2003". Can I expect delivery on that anytime soon now Jimbo?

The accountant or cpa Allen in this case the former chief financial officer has a legal responsibility to do due dilligence with fiduciary responsibilities to the owner ship group and to work to achieve their financial goals under the prudent man theory. He is still with the Reds, Bowden is not.

Ltlabner
04-11-2008, 03:51 PM
when Krivsky arrived had a system on the rise.

Huh?

The same system that had Dave Williams and a broken Brandon Claussen & Paul Wilson? With Eric Milton as the #2 starter? The same system that handed Wayne a declining Jason LaRue and Javy V as a catching duo? The same system that planned on Dianjilo Jimeniz at 2B? The same system who's big prospects (Bruce, Bailey, Votto, Cueto) were on nobody's radar screen at the time? A farm system best described as broken down and barren?

The idea that the franchise was "on the rise" when Wayne came to town is pure fiction. Wayne's screwed the pooch on some deals, but he's been making slow steady progress to the point where we have gone from dismal to a ray of hope of resembling a competitive team.

REDREAD
04-11-2008, 03:53 PM
JimBo needs some health from his rotation, but I think the Nats can make it tough on the two teams that expect to win the NL East.


Bowden is the perfect GM for teams like Lindner's Reds and the Nationals.. in other words, teams that don't want to spend money.

He usually designs a decent offense and bullpen which makes the games exciting/entertaining.

Bowden has also shown that when he has a team close to contention, he adds the right pieces (1994,1995, 1999).

For whatever reason, the Reds had no farm budget when Bowden was in charge.. but he has made some good picks. Yes, his good picks were all position players, but they were good picks still. He does have a problem with drafting starting pitchers. He seems to do pretty well at trading for starting pitchers and signing free agents. He targets the right guys in trades, generally. Sure, he was forced to sign guys like Jimmy Anderson when the mandate was that he could only sign FA for 500k or less..

Wayne also has some strengths and weakness which I'm sure others will cover.

I'm not saying Bowden is a genius, but I think he is above average.

As for Wayne, I was not a big fan of him last year, but I am going to see how this season unfolds. We have a lot more years to judge Bowden on than we have for Wayne. But I can guarantee that Wayne would not have thrived under John Allen either, particularly since Wayne has liberally used Free Agency (very liberally compared to the Allen era) No GM could have thrived under Allen.

I think both Bowden and Wayne look a lot smarter if they have Boston's budget.. any GM that's not a total idiot looks a lot smarter when money isn't a factor and he can pluck arbitration eligible guys from small markets.

TOBTTReds
04-11-2008, 03:54 PM
This has to be a joke...this whole thread. Krivsky would puke if he knew someone thought he was doing an equal job to JimBo. Bowden is one of the most arogent people in baseball. He treats his front office and players like garbage. I'll agree he made to good trades to get OF'ers, but that seems to be his only specialty.

TRF, defend JimBo letting Soriano walk for a couple draft picks.

Also, how is the Duran signing a fluke? Someone that Kriv hired, found a 3 day loophole in the "when is your birthday and the end of the season" system, and signed him. That is knowing your stuff. Bob Miller made a great move, not a fluke.

TRF
04-11-2008, 03:56 PM
The man had his sleeves rolled up and he was picking the players and the staff that worked for him, true he was limited by his budget but he certainly wasn't the first GM faced with that dilemma.

He built it and it got stuck in the mud, he was jettisoned... leaving behind a shell of the franchise he took over in 1993.

Was it all his fault?

No.... but he certainly can't play the part of the martyred genius who is now been exiled to a job much bigger than the one he was unjustifiably ousted from.

That's just fiction.

A) I never said his firing was unjustified. I merely wanted a discussion comparing two GM's, one of whom just happened to work in Cincinnati.

2. I think his firing was needed as Cincinnati needed a fresh start. Except, that didn't happen. Allen was still here, Carl was still a bad owner, and as bad as some make Bowden out to be, I'd take him 10 times in a row over O'Brien. Bowden never would have signed Eric Milton, though he might have gone after Ortiz.

Exiled was right. He had a very tenuous grasp on his positiion in Washington with ownership initially being MLB, then finally being sold. He had to get fans into a football stadium not conducive to offense, when we all know chicks dig the longball. He had to do this knowing as soon as the Nats were sold he could be out of a job. He's in a good spot now, but he better hope he's got some pitching on the horizon. I thought Patterson was healthy. Apparently not. Knowing his penchant for scrap heap projects, I'm surprised Colon wasn't an option for them.

TRF
04-11-2008, 03:58 PM
This has to be a joke...this whole thread. Krivsky would puke if he knew someone thought he was doing an equal job to JimBo. Bowden is one of the most arogent people in baseball. He treats his front office and players like garbage. I'll agree he made to good trades to get OF'ers, but that seems to be his only specialty.

TRF, defend JimBo letting Soriano walk for a couple draft picks.

Easy. JimBo needed fan support. Not diehards, but casual fans. Keeping Soriano for a year put butts in the seats, and he was never going to get equal or even close to equal value for him. Take the picks and let him walk.

REDREAD
04-11-2008, 03:59 PM
I don't see the comparison. As I see it, the Reds desperately needed pitching and had a surplus of outfielders. Krivsky traded from depth and acquired a need. The jury is still out on the verdict.

Bowden had two second basemen, two first basemen, no qualified shortstops, an outfield, but he needed starting pitching. He once again acquired more outfielders. The jury is also still out.


Sure Bowden had two second basemen, but according to this board, Felipe is useless, Young is fat with a bad contract, and Johnson is hurt (IIRC).

I see nothing wrong with picking up Millage and Duke for a song. A rebuildng team needs to stockpile talent, regardless of position. Also, the Nats could've signed Lohse and Fogg, but again, if they are totally rebuilding, is that a wise use of resources? We heard that argument when the Reds had Lohse, that Wayne needed to "Blow it up"..

I guess my point is that the Reds are trying to win and the Nats are rebuilding. They are at different stages, thus their player acquision strategy will be different.

TRF
04-11-2008, 04:00 PM
I guess you and I don't have any supporting evidence for "4 of the current starting".


Bowden drafted Dunn and Votto, traded for Jr. and EE.

That's 4 of the starting 8. He also brought Freel into the org.

And Todd Coffey.

REDREAD
04-11-2008, 04:11 PM
Considering the fact that Bowden has been on the job 1.5 years longer than Krivsky I think it can be argued that he's done a considerably worse job.

I'm not so sure. Bowden inherited a very bad Montreal team that was about to get contracted. Minaya raped his farm system before he arrived.
Many of the decent players Bowden inherited (like Armas Jr, etc) had a very short shelf life.

Sure, he's got work to do on the pitching, but he started with very little.

In contrast, Wayne inherited a decent core of Kearns, Dunn, Pena,Jr, EdE, Lopez, Votto (I think), Harang, Ceuto, Homer, Bruce (I think).. LaRue and Freel were a "short shelf life" guys that Wayne inherited and had to deal with, but Wayne didn't have to build a starting lineup from scratch and had some nice pieces to trade.

Wayne deserves applause for Phillips, Hamilton, Arroyo, and Patterson.
Maybe by the end of the season, I will say he deserves applause for Volquez.. too soon to say.. But I think Wayne had the advantage of starting with a better ML and minor league roster.

And Wayne seems to be as bad (or worse) at building a bullpen as Bowden is at building a rotation.

WMR
04-11-2008, 04:15 PM
You think our bullpen sucks this season?

I think it will end up being a strength.

Spring~Fields
04-11-2008, 04:16 PM
Bowden drafted Dunn and Votto, traded for Jr. and EE.

That's 4 of the starting 8. He also brought Freel into the org.

And Todd Coffey.

Some have argued that the Griffey contract hamstrung this organization by putting a large percentage of their budget in one player vs risk. Above you point out that Bowden drafted, acquired four offensive players, that speaks to the problem, he had no pitching and he had ten years to address the problem along the way, Bowden had ten years to work on drafting and building up the pitching throughout his system but failed to do so.

I can't accurately compare and contrast Krivsky and Bowden until Krivsky has had the same amout of time at the position of general manager of operations.

In my opinion Bowden is doing in D.C. what he did here, and with opm, other peoples money, high turn over bringing in a piece here and a piece there to tweak fan interest in his moves, but his moves net a poor end product on the field for the fans.

Pitching wins in baseball not offense. I learned that from Bowden. I as a fan use to love to hear Bowden and his smooth speak about offensive players etc. I loved it!! Then one day it dawned on me that the Reds had no pitching and were really not very good. Then his ten year plan was manifested over the past seven and I was convinced Bowden was good, good with the communications side but challenged on the producing side.

REDREAD
04-11-2008, 04:16 PM
TRF, defend JimBo letting Soriano walk for a couple draft picks.
.


That's easy to defend. The market didn't give him what he wanted.
Let's suppose, for example that Dunn made it clear that he was going to walk at the end of the year. The Reds shop him, and the best offer they get is 3 marginal prospects that are expected to be bench players at best. Do you make the trade? Do you cave into the buyer's lowball offer? The Pirates are an easy mark at the trade deadline because they will always take the "Best offer" for their veterans, even if it's crap. So they make trades like sending Lofton and ARameriez to Chicago for garbage. They've made other dumb trades like that as well, which prevent them from ever accumulating enough talent to actually move forward.

Bowden had a price for Soraino. If no one met that price, it's best to walk away.. The next time Bowden shops a pending FA, teams will know they can't lowball him. There were several teams that could've really used Soriano that year who wouldn't cough up the price and lost out..

So, if the choice was draft picks or marginal talent, I think it's best to take draft picks, especially because Washington has the money to spend in the draft.. From the reports I read, Bowden got more for Hernandez than he was offered for Soriano..

REDREAD
04-11-2008, 04:20 PM
Bowden drafted Dunn and Votto, traded for Jr. and EE.

That's 4 of the starting 8. He also brought Freel into the org.

And Todd Coffey.

He also brought in Kearns, Lopez, and Wily Mo who were trade bait that Wayne could work with.

When he left, LaRue still had a little in his tank as well.
He also left about 10 guys (including Guillen) that the transitional GMs were able to trade. Sadly, the only good trade they made was for Harang.

He left the cupboard realitively full for DanO/Wayne, much fuller than Minaya left the Expos..

REDREAD
04-11-2008, 04:22 PM
You think our bullpen sucks this season?

I think it will end up being a strength.

Too early to tell how anyone other than Cordero will hold up.
We've got a bunch of wildcards and some age/injury/inexperience issues.
Although replacing Maj, Stanton, and Bray helps.

REDREAD
04-11-2008, 04:26 PM
he had no pitching and he had ten years to address the problem along the way, .

When he had money, we had pitching.. Harnish, Wells, Guzman, Neagle and a great pen.. I agree that his draft record for pitching was not so good, outside of some relievers.. I long contended that it was a mistake to draft all those pitchers and the Reds should've focused on position players, since they had success doing that.


He targeted Penny prior to the 2003, rumor was there was a deal worked out but Allen squashed it.
He targeted many other pitchers, but after Allen took over, he couldn't spend any money.

In short, while Lindner was running the show, the budget was too tight to bring in any outside talent..

bucksfan2
04-11-2008, 04:28 PM
Some have argued that the Griffey contract hamstrung this organization by putting a large percentage of their budget in one player vs risk. Above you point out that Bowden drafted, acquired four offensive players, that speaks to the problem, he had no pitching and he had ten years to address the problem along the way, Bowden had ten years to work on drafting and building up the pitching throughout his system but failed to do so.

I can't accurately compare and contrast Krivsky and Bowden until Krivsky has had the same amout of time at the position of general manager of operations.

In my opinion Bowden is doing in D.C. what he did here, and with opm, other peoples money, high turn over bringing in a piece here and a piece there to tweak fan interest in his moves, but his moves net a poor end product on the field for the fans.

You first statement is what plagued the reds for a decade. They spent, sometimes, on big name players (Larkin and Jr) but didn't spend anywhere else.

Bowden likes the limelight, likes his name in the papers, and likes to be recognized at baseball games. I wouldnt take him back in a heart beat. I think it us unfair to critize him to the point that we reds fans do for the poor decade we have seen. IMO that John Allen did much more damage that Bowden ever could have done. He ran the reds strictly by dollars and cents. He told Bowden yes or no based upon where it fit into the books.

redsmetz
04-11-2008, 04:33 PM
And Wayne seems to be as bad (or worse) at building a bullpen as Bowden is at building a rotation.

I think this is a canard that will be put to rest this season. The supposedly terrible bullpen Wayne's put in place this season is a dreadful 2-1 in 31 innings pitched with a 2.61 ERA, only 9 walks and a WHIP of 0.97, a BAa of
.194 and two saves. Just awful.

And yes, I know it's early, but frankly, he's finally put in place a reasonably decent bullpen and, thus far, it's doing quite well. But let's hang on to some of those old canards.

Benihana
04-11-2008, 04:40 PM
I honestly can't believe this thread. I don't even think JimBo is in the same universe as Krivsky.

JimBo is very good at acquiring outfielders, there's no doubt about that. But his utter and complete disregard for bringing quality pitching into an organization makes him a terrible GM in my opinion.

Look at his record over the last ten years. How many quality pitchers has he brought to Cincinnati or Washington? I mean, look at the first damn trade the Reds made the day Bowden was fired- we got Aaron Harang! (And Matt Belisle a few days later IIRC)

(not to mention Dan O's scouting departments brought in Cueto and Bailey, and Krivsky traded for Arroyo and Volquez)

RedlegJake
04-11-2008, 04:43 PM
The simple fact is if the Reds win the WS there are some posters who will still claim Krivsky could have won 5 more games if he just did this or that...they minimize every stride the Reds have made since K took over as being inherited or happenstance, harp on every mistake, and give offhand credit for his best moves. That's the lot of a GM. Not every person will like them no matter what they do. I understand because I feel the same way about Jim Slimeball Bowden.

Spring~Fields
04-11-2008, 04:43 PM
When he had money, we had pitching.. Harnish, Wells, Guzman, Neagle and a great pen.. I agree that his draft record for pitching was not so good, outside of some relievers.. I long contended that it was a mistake to draft all those pitchers and the Reds should've focused on position players, since they had success doing that.


He targeted Penny prior to the 2003, rumor was there was a deal worked out but Allen squashed it.
He targeted many other pitchers, but after Allen took over, he couldn't spend any money.

In short, while Lindner was running the show, the budget was too tight to bring in any outside talent..

Yes I just caught my major error and false statement when I wrote "no pitching" as if he never had any good pitchers which is false. I usually catch all or nothing statements, then I turned around and did it myself. :bang:

TRF
04-11-2008, 04:45 PM
I think this is a canard that will be put to rest this season. The supposedly terrible bullpen Wayne's put in place this season is a dreadful 2-1 in 31 innings pitched with a 2.61 ERA, only 9 walks and a WHIP of 0.97, a BAa of
.194 and two saves. Just awful.

And yes, I know it's early, but frankly, he's finally put in place a reasonably decent bullpen and, thus far, it's doing quite well. But let's hang on to some of those old canards.

He also put together last year's pen. the one with the 5.10 era and the 1.54 WHIP.

I'll give the man credit for THIS year's pen. but again, he inherited Weathers and Coffey, and to a certain extent Mercker. Lincoln is scrap heap diving at it's best, and his arm could explode at any time.

TRF
04-11-2008, 04:56 PM
I honestly can't believe this thread. I don't even think JimBo is in the same universe as Krivsky.

JimBo is very good at acquiring outfielders, there's no doubt about that. But his utter and complete disregard for bringing quality pitching into an organization makes him a terrible GM in my opinion.

Look at his record over the last ten years. How many quality pitchers has he brought to Cincinnati or Washington? I mean, look at the first damn trade the Reds made the day Bowden was fired- we got Aaron Harang! (And Matt Belisle a few days later IIRC)

(not to mention Dan O's scouting departments brought in Cueto and Bailey, and Krivsky traded for Arroyo and Volquez)

Pete Shourek, Denny Neagle, Pete Harnisch, David Wells, Juan Guzman, John Smiley, Dave Burba, Jeff Shaw, Jeff Brantley, Scott Williamson, Danny Graves, Scott Sullivan, Kent Mercker, Brett Tomko (well for two seasons he was good.) Dennys Reyes (just flat stole him from the Dodgers) Stan Belinda, and he drafted BJ Ryan. He got good seasons out of Elmer Dessens, Chris Reitsma, John Reidling and Jim Brower.

It's not the best track record no, but the more Allen and later Carl handcuffed him, the worse it got.

TOBTTReds
04-11-2008, 04:57 PM
That's easy to defend. The market didn't give him what he wanted.
Let's suppose, for example that Dunn made it clear that he was going to walk at the end of the year. The Reds shop him, and the best offer they get is 3 marginal prospects that are expected to be bench players at best. Do you make the trade? Do you cave into the buyer's lowball offer? The Pirates are an easy mark at the trade deadline because they will always take the "Best offer" for their veterans, even if it's crap. So they make trades like sending Lofton and ARameriez to Chicago for garbage. They've made other dumb trades like that as well, which prevent them from ever accumulating enough talent to actually move forward.

Bowden had a price for Soraino. If no one met that price, it's best to walk away.. The next time Bowden shops a pending FA, teams will know they can't lowball him. There were several teams that could've really used Soriano that year who wouldn't cough up the price and lost out..

So, if the choice was draft picks or marginal talent, I think it's best to take draft picks, especially because Washington has the money to spend in the draft.. From the reports I read, Bowden got more for Hernandez than he was offered for Soriano..

Ohh, that is how trades work. :p:

I imagine (or guarantee) there were people out there willing to give up some pretty good talent, worth much more than a few picks in the draft.

I understand Bowden set his price, but eventually he has to lower his price to: a little bit above the draft picks he got in return.

TOBTTReds
04-11-2008, 05:00 PM
I'll give the man credit for THIS year's pen. but again, he inherited Weathers and Coffey, and to a certain extent Mercker. Lincoln is scrap heap diving at it's best, and his arm could explode at any time.

And so far those two have been hurting the pen's stats, so are you trying to dis-prove your point?

TRF
04-11-2008, 05:03 PM
Weathers has started out slow. Coffey isn't killing the pen, but he hasn't been stellar either. Mercker so far has been great. We know what Weathers did last year, and Coffey in 2006. And, it's been what.. 9-10 games? There is a decent chance that at least 2 of the three have good seasons.

Benihana
04-11-2008, 05:07 PM
Pete Shourek, Denny Neagle, Pete Harnisch, David Wells, Juan Guzman, John Smiley, Dave Burba, Jeff Shaw, Jeff Brantley, Scott Williamson, Danny Graves, Scott Sullivan, Kent Mercker, Brett Tomko (well for two seasons he was good.) Dennys Reyes (just flat stole him from the Dodgers) Stan Belinda, and he drafted BJ Ryan. He got good seasons out of Elmer Dessens, Chris Reitsma, John Reidling and Jim Brower.

It's not the best track record no, but the more Allen and later Carl handcuffed him, the worse it got.

I should have specified starting pitching. And I said in the last ten years.

But let's use your list anyway: Schoureck had a good year or two. Harnisch and Smiley were pretty solid guys who came to the Reds as veterans and still turned in a nice couple of years. Burba was ok- although Bowden traded him away for a superflous postion player, and Guzman was a two month rental (which he gave up a future all-star for, no less.)

While he did get Neagle, he also traded him away for a pile of garbage in the middle of a pennant race no less. So I'll call that a scratch.

Other than that, he literally brought in nothing. Zero. And that's for 10 YEARS OF WORK! The starting pitching he drafted never did ANYTHING (Gruler, Gillman, Moseley, Snare, Kelly, Edens, Pauly) nor did the starting pitching he acquired via trades (Reith, Yarnall, Winchester, Aramboles, Dempster, etc.). As a wise man once said "It's the pitching, stupid."

TRF
04-11-2008, 05:19 PM
I should have specified starting pitching. And I said in the last ten years.

But let's use your list anyway: Schoureck had a good year or two. Harnisch and Smiley were pretty solid guys who came to the Reds as veterans and still turned in a nice couple of years. Burba was ok- although Bowden traded him away for a superflous postion player, and Guzman was a two month rental (which he gave up a future all-star for, no less.)

While he did get Neagle, he also traded him away for a pile of garbage in the middle of a pennant race no less. So I'll call that a scratch.

Other than that, he literally brought in nothing. Zero. And that's for 10 YEARS OF WORK! The starting pitching he drafted never did ANYTHING (Gruler, Gillman, Moseley, Snare, Kelly, Edens, Pauly) nor did the starting pitching he acquired via trades (Reith, Yarnall, Winchester, Aramboles, Dempster, etc.). As a wise man once said "It's the pitching, stupid."

Casey was hardly superfluous. Guzman was a two month rental in the midst of a pennant race. It was the right move, and everyone on the board would have made the same trade. But after 2000 Allen tied his hands. There were a number of "done deals" that JimBo had in the works get quashed by Allen. I remember the Penny deal. Also a trade for Rolen, was all but done. Bowden got hosed on Dempster. It seem like there was another deal in place around the time Rolen was dealt for some pitching that fell through, but I can't remember the details.

redsmetz
04-11-2008, 05:33 PM
He also put together last year's pen. the one with the 5.10 era and the 1.54 WHIP.

I'll give the man credit for THIS year's pen. but again, he inherited Weathers and Coffey, and to a certain extent Mercker. Lincoln is scrap heap diving at it's best, and his arm could explode at any time.

There's no question he put together last years. There's no denying that, but many of us here have said that rebuilding this team could not be done in one or two years, that it might take three or more. Again, it's very very early, but I think we've made considerable strides this season. The pen's not perfect, but it's much improved. We have depth we haven't had in years - look at how many guys from last year's pen are either gone or are down in Louisville.

RedsManRick
04-11-2008, 05:40 PM
Bowden got hosed on Dempster. It seem like there was another deal in place around the time Rolen was dealt for some pitching that fell through, but I can't remember the details.

Juan Encarnacion, Wilton Guerrero, and Ryan Snare. Which piece moved for Dempster made JimBo get hosed? Sure, it didn't work out -- but it was a decent risk.

I think you're referring to getting Chuck Finley -- another moved blocked by salary.

Finley ended up in St Louis and a had a very good 2nd half. Of course, the Cards traded the immortal Luis Alfonso Garcia and a PTBNL for him -- the PTBNL was Coco Crisp.

By and large, trading 2nd tier prospects and worse for veteran midseason help is good business. Trading 1st tier prospects isn't.

Benihana
04-11-2008, 08:40 PM
Casey was hardly superfluous. Guzman was a two month rental in the midst of a pennant race. It was the right move, and everyone on the board would have made the same trade. But after 2000 Allen tied his hands. There were a number of "done deals" that JimBo had in the works get quashed by Allen. I remember the Penny deal. Also a trade for Rolen, was all but done. Bowden got hosed on Dempster. It seem like there was another deal in place around the time Rolen was dealt for some pitching that fell through, but I can't remember the details.

I don't have a problem with the Guzman deal. Trading your ace pitcher (not once, not twice, but thrice) for one decent (but not great) player and a bunch of junk is abominable. Bowden traded David Wells, Dave Burba, and Denny Neagle all in the midst of their primes for Sean Casey and not a single other player who had anything resembling a major league career (Curtis Goodwin, Brian Reith, Ed Yarnall, Jackson Melian, and Drew Henson.) My biggest problem with Bowden is that he only knows how to acquire outfielders. He is the anti-Krivsky, continuously trading away good pitchers for outfielders with upside. Two out of three of Krivsky's biggest trades have been the exact opposite philosophy, dealing Pena and Hamilton for Arroyo and Volquez. That's worked out pretty well I'd say. The one time Bowden tried to tackle this approach, he failed miserably- as Ryan Dempster

And despite the fact that it was his strong suit, Bowden still had some major mishaps when it came to stockpiling position players. He chose to keep Casey and Boone over Konerko (huge mistake), demanded to keep Pokey Reese over Mike Cameron (strike two), and traded Paul O'Neill for Roberto Kelly (sit down.)

And I haven't even addressed his miserable, miserable drafts- year after year. His first round picks were John Oliver, CJ Nitkowski, Brandon Larson, Austin Kearns, Ty Howington, David Espinosa, Chris Gruler, and Ryan Wagner. UGH!!!!!

One thing I will give ol' JimBo is that he was fairly impressive at assembling bullpens. Whether it was skill or just plain dumb luck is another story.

SteelSD
04-12-2008, 01:07 AM
I don't have a problem with the Guzman deal. Trading your ace pitcher (not once, not twice, but thrice) for one decent (but not great) player and a bunch of junk is abominable. Bowden traded David Wells, Dave Burba, and Denny Neagle all in the midst of their primes for Sean Casey and not a single other player who had anything resembling a major league career (Curtis Goodwin, Brian Reith, Ed Yarnall, Jackson Melian, and Drew Henson.) My biggest problem with Bowden is that he only knows how to acquire outfielders. He is the anti-Krivsky, continuously trading away good pitchers for outfielders with upside. Two out of three of Krivsky's biggest trades have been the exact opposite philosophy, dealing Pena and Hamilton for Arroyo and Volquez. That's worked out pretty well I'd say. The one time Bowden tried to tackle this approach, he failed miserably- as Ryan Dempster.

What's interesting is that you cite Dave Burba as a major loss, but it was the trade of OF Deion Sanders that produced both Burba and Mark Portugal. That's a prime example of how Bowden sent away an OF for some pretty good arms. Those two were significant pieces of the 1995 squad that reached the NL Championship series. So was David Wells, who was acquired for C.J. Nitkowski (a player you feel had no value) and not much else.

When Bowden traded Burba and Wells (Portugal left via FA), the return was:

Curtis Goodwin (Wells)
Trovin Valdez (Wells)
Sean Casey (Burba)

Other than Casey, not good. It does suck that the Reds received only Ed Yarnall, Brian Reith, Jackson Melian, and Drew Henson for Neagle and Mike Frank. Yet, without that trade, the Reds might not have someone you consider a huge "win" for Krivsky: Bronson Arroyo via Wily Mo Pena; acquired after Henson flipped out about not wearing the Yankee pinstripes he's currently not wearing. Neagle and Rob Bell were acquired from Atlanta for Bret Boone and Mike Remlinger. Of course, Bell was flipped later to Texas for Ruben Mateo and Edwin Encarnacion. The same Edwin Encarnacion who's currently starting for the Reds at Third Base nearly five years after Denny Neagle threw his last MLB pitch.

It's amazing how some things work out.


And despite the fact that it was his strong suit, Bowden still had some major mishaps when it came to stockpiling position players. He chose to keep Casey and Boone over Konerko (huge mistake), demanded to keep Pokey Reese over Mike Cameron (strike two), and traded Paul O'Neill for Roberto Kelly (sit down.).

Konerko had no place to play with Casey around at the time and was acquired for...shhh...pitching (Denys Reyes, Jeff Shaw). Konerko obviously wasn't a Third Baseman and his trade netted the Reds Mike Cameron, who you appear to think was a significant player (and I'd agree). But Bowden dealt pitching to acquire your "Strike One" player who was then traded for your "Strike Two" player, who was then part of trade for what was at the time the major piece (Cameron) used to acquire Ken Griffey Junior. It's unfortunate that some rely on hindsight analysis based on later injury history to position that trade as being a major issue for the franchise, but it was a masterful negotiation.

In the end, Jim Bowden churned two relievers, Brett Tomko, and chaff for an All-Century player at age 30. As unfortunate as Griffey's injuries have been over the past few seasons, that's the kind of talent churn I want from a GM and it included absolutely zero solid starting pitchers.


And I haven't even addressed his miserable, miserable drafts- year after year. His first round picks were John Oliver, CJ Nitkowski, Brandon Larson, Austin Kearns, Ty Howington, David Espinosa, Chris Gruler, and Ryan Wagner. UGH!!!!!

I have huge issues with Bowdens drafts as well. That being said, they did end up producing the principal involved (Nitkowski) in the David Wells trade as well as one of the guys (Kearns) involved in The Trade where the Reds acquired the outstanding combination of Gary Majewski and Bill Bray. Krivsky did so well in that trade that the reliever combination has produced nothing thusfar and both are toiling in AAA. Bowden also drafted Adam Dunn, who sucks.

I don't like Jim Bowden. His drafts produced absolutely nothing resembling good starting pitching. The Reds couldn't draft and develop such during his tenure. It's why he was very rightly fired.

But for a good period of time, he made a lot of right moves and set himself up for another lot of right moves. During that period, he churned talent like a master.

George Anderson
04-12-2008, 01:09 AM
And I haven't even addressed his miserable, miserable drafts- year after year. His first round picks were John Oliver, CJ Nitkowski, Brandon Larson, Austin Kearns, Ty Howington, David Espinosa, Chris Gruler, and Ryan Wagner. UGH!!!!!



Don't forget the Reds didn't have a first round pick in 95' because of the acquisition of the legendary Damon Berryhill.

pedro
04-12-2008, 03:13 AM
I thought Bowden did a pretty decent job for the Reds up through 2000 but I don't think he's been a good GM since then.

Benihana
04-12-2008, 02:22 PM
What's interesting is that you cite Dave Burba as a major loss, but it was the trade of OF Deion Sanders that produced both Burba and Mark Portugal. That's a prime example of how Bowden sent away an OF for some pretty good arms. Those two were significant pieces of the 1995 squad that reached the NL Championship series. So was David Wells, who was acquired for C.J. Nitkowski (a player you feel had no value) and not much else.

When Bowden traded Burba and Wells (Portugal left via FA), the return was:

Curtis Goodwin (Wells)
Trovin Valdez (Wells)
Sean Casey (Burba)

Other than Casey, not good. It does suck that the Reds received only Ed Yarnall, Brian Reith, Jackson Melian, and Drew Henson for Neagle and Mike Frank. Yet, without that trade, the Reds might not have someone you consider a huge "win" for Krivsky: Bronson Arroyo via Wily Mo Pena; acquired after Henson flipped out about not wearing the Yankee pinstripes he's currently not wearing. Neagle and Rob Bell were acquired from Atlanta for Bret Boone and Mike Remlinger. Of course, Bell was flipped later to Texas for Ruben Mateo and Edwin Encarnacion. The same Edwin Encarnacion who's currently starting for the Reds at Third Base nearly five years after Denny Neagle threw his last MLB pitch.

It's amazing how some things work out.



Konerko had no place to play with Casey around at the time and was acquired for...shhh...pitching (Denys Reyes, Jeff Shaw). Konerko obviously wasn't a Third Baseman and his trade netted the Reds Mike Cameron, who you appear to think was a significant player (and I'd agree). But Bowden dealt pitching to acquire your "Strike One" player who was then traded for your "Strike Two" player, who was then part of trade for what was at the time the major piece (Cameron) used to acquire Ken Griffey Junior. It's unfortunate that some rely on hindsight analysis based on later injury history to position that trade as being a major issue for the franchise, but it was a masterful negotiation.

In the end, Jim Bowden churned two relievers, Brett Tomko, and chaff for an All-Century player at age 30. As unfortunate as Griffey's injuries have been over the past few seasons, that's the kind of talent churn I want from a GM and it included absolutely zero solid starting pitchers.



I have huge issues with Bowdens drafts as well. That being said, they did end up producing the principal involved (Nitkowski) in the David Wells trade as well as one of the guys (Kearns) involved in The Trade where the Reds acquired the outstanding combination of Gary Majewski and Bill Bray. Krivsky did so well in that trade that the reliever combination has produced nothing thusfar and both are toiling in AAA. Bowden also drafted Adam Dunn, who sucks.

I don't like Jim Bowden. His drafts produced absolutely nothing resembling good starting pitching. The Reds couldn't draft and develop such during his tenure. It's why he was very rightly fired.

But for a good period of time, he made a lot of right moves and set himself up for another lot of right moves. During that period, he churned talent like a master.

First, at no point did I ever say the Jr. trade was a bad trade, so don't accuse me of using hindsight based off injuries to evaluate that deal. I commented that his insistance to include Mike Cameron instead of Pokey Reese was a mistake. Other than that misstep, I agree that the Jr. negotiations were masterful.

And the Deion-Portugal/Burba trade with San Fran was a good one indeed, so score one for JimBo there. However, you brush over the Neagle debacle like it was nothing, when in fact it was a disaster of titanic proportions. Bowden did land Pena eventually from the wreckage, but I've never said he was bad at acquiring toolsy outfielders- or even any position players for that matter. Bowden was very adept at acquiring hitting and bullpen talent. He was just worthy of an F- when it came to starting pitching, and that is why he is a D+ caliber GM in my book, as starting pitching is at least 50% of winning.

And if we are going to talk about the trades he made that were vetoed by ownership, let's talk about the Barry Larkin trade to the Mets. I believe we would have acquired Alex Escobar (surprise, a toolsy OF) for an All-Star shortstop. Awesome! How about trading the "useful" and "default-ace" pitcher Elmer Dessens for Felipe Lopez? That's surely a move that would help a pitching-starved team. And as far as Konerko goes, Konerko did have a place to play (1B), but Bowden erroneously thought that Casey was better. It's tough to justify that one.

Wheelhouse
04-12-2008, 04:48 PM
Jim Bowden, seems to me, is just the architect of hundreds of badly played baseball games. One playoff team in twelve years makes him not worthy of comment in my book. Moving on... from what I've seen of Krivsky, he's a great trader, under certain conditions. He's made some terrific moves in the offseason (and Phillips early in the season.). His scouts are excellent and he listens to them. He's not as interested in the flashy name player than the talented player who is just on the cusp of breaking out. However, when he's asked to got out and fill a piece of the puzzle immediately, like at trading deadline, he hasn't fared as well. Maybe that's where Jocketty will be the biggest help.

Spring~Fields
04-12-2008, 05:45 PM
I agree that the Jr. negotiations were masterful.



I have read where some argued or were under the impression that those negotiations were a bit controlled by Juniors unwillingness to go to any other team than Cincy, if that was true how hard would it be to negotiate?

SteelSD
04-12-2008, 08:59 PM
First, at no point did I ever say the Jr. trade was a bad trade, so don't accuse me of using hindsight based off injuries to evaluate that deal. I commented that his insistance to include Mike Cameron instead of Pokey Reese was a mistake. Other than that misstep, I agree that the Jr. negotiations were masterful.

Didn't accuse you of anything (the word "some" doesn't necessarily mean "you"). As for the Cameron vs. Reese debate, I agree that Cameron was the better player. But you're assuming it was an "either/or" demand from Bowden when it may have been a "both" request from the M's.

In any case, Reese was the one option the Reds had at second base, was coming off one of the best defensive efforts at 2B I've ever seen, and the Reds had Dmitri Young, Dante Bichette, Alex Ochoa, and Michael Tucker already in the fold with Junior about to join. Regardless of Pokey's offensive projection (which was the final straw that pulled me into sabermetrics, BTW), I think we can see the thought process behind wanting to deal from a position of strength.


And the Deion-Portugal/Burba trade with San Fran was a good one indeed, so score one for JimBo there. However, you brush over the Neagle debacle like it was nothing, when in fact it was a disaster of titanic proportions. Bowden did land Pena eventually from the wreckage, but I've never said he was bad at acquiring toolsy outfielders- or even any position players for that matter. Bowden was very adept at acquiring hitting and bullpen talent. He was just worthy of an F- when it came to starting pitching, and that is why he is a D+ caliber GM in my book, as starting pitching is at least 50% of winning.

Ed Yarnall was a pretty highly thought-of pitching prospect and had completed a solid 1999 season in AAA at age 23 (3.47 ERA, 0.31 HR/9, 9.04 K/9, 3.53 BB/9). He may have been pyrite, but he might be the most valuable pyrite ever seen- having been involved in the acquisitions of Mike Piazza (1998), Mike Lowell (1999), and then Denny Neagle (2000).

And let's just take a moment to examine the claim of a "disaster of titanic proportions". Denny Neagle was very lucky to post an ERA of even 4.27 in 1999 while giving up a Milton-esque 23 HR in 111.7 IP. Neagle posted those numbers after having to sit out the beginning of the season to "strengthen" his shoulder (foreshadowing?). He righted himself for a time in 2000, but when he was dealt, the Reds were sitting with a 46-46 record. Not exactly the middle of a pennant race. There was no way they were going to re-sign Neagle; who received a bloated contract after the season. A little over two seasons later and the Rockies terminate his contract for behavioral issues after Neagle undergoes elbow and shoulder surgeries.

Bowden always did have a bit of a knack for knowing when to let a pitcher go even if we don't necessarily like the return. That trade was no "disaster", epic or otherwise.


And if we are going to talk about the trades he made that were vetoed by ownership, let's talk about the Barry Larkin trade to the Mets. I believe we would have acquired Alex Escobar (surprise, a toolsy OF) for an All-Star shortstop. Awesome!

There were more players rumored to be involved in that deal. And really, let's face facts here. Barry Larkin was about to turn 37 years old. At that age, he certainly didn't project, going forward, to be the "All Star" Barry Larkin we all grew to love in the 1990's. But instead of accepting the trade, Larkin declined and ownership then signed him to an albatross-like contract considering the team's lack of pitching and payroll constrictions. Predictibly, the aging Larkin's offensive game dropped off the map (next 3-years OPS+ number of 90, 74, and 94) and he was as fragile as ever.

That was easily the right time to deal Larkin. It's unfortunate to watch our heroes fall to earth (and I'm a HUGE Larkin fan), but it would have been better that Larkin had been dealt regardless of the return. It's also unfortunate that we don't know what the return actually would have been as I don't know of a reliable list.


How about trading the "useful" and "default-ace" pitcher Elmer Dessens for Felipe Lopez? That's surely a move that would help a pitching-starved team.

"Default-Ace" is like "Least fat fat chick". Elmer Dessens posted a .268 BABIP in 2002. Another example of knowing when to deal a guy. While we'd all love to steal the best prospect from another team for middling talent, Lopez was probably as good as we could expect back from that trade.


And as far as Konerko goes, Konerko did have a place to play (1B), but Bowden erroneously thought that Casey was better. It's tough to justify that one.

Do you know that the White Sox would have accepted Sean Casey rather than Konerko for Cameron? If not, then why position another "either/or" scenario. And you do realize that Casey out-performed Konerko in 1999, right? And 2000. It's actually an interesting case study because we can compare them straight-up from 1999 through 2005 (Casey's last season in Cinci):

Sean Casey 1999-2005: 612.21 RC (0.148 RC per PA)
Paul Konerko 1999-2005: 627.08 RC (0.148 RC per PA)

Prior to 2006, the Reds lost pretty much nothing by trading Konerko instead of Casey. Down to the thousandth of a point per Plate Appearance, they're identical. After 2005, it's certainly another story but exactly how many 12 million dollar players can the Reds really afford to have on the roster?

Benihana
04-12-2008, 09:18 PM
Didn't accuse you of anything (the word "some" doesn't necessarily mean "you"). As for the Cameron vs. Reese debate, I agree that Cameron was the better player. But you're assuming it was an "either/or" demand from Bowden when it may have been a "both" request from the M's.

In any case, Reese was the one option the Reds had at second base, was coming off one of the best defensive efforts at 2B I've ever seen, and the Reds had Dmitri Young, Dante Bichette, Alex Ochoa, and Michael Tucker already in the fold with Junior about to join. Regardless of Pokey's offensive projection (which was the final straw that pulled me into sabermetrics, BTW), I think we can see the thought process behind wanting to deal from a position of strength.



Ed Yarnall was a pretty highly thought-of pitching prospect and had completed a solid 1999 season in AAA at age 23 (3.47 ERA, 0.31 HR/9, 9.04 K/9, 3.53 BB/9). He may have been pyrite, but he might be the most valuable pyrite ever seen- having been involved in the acquisitions of Mike Piazza (1998), Mike Lowell (1999), and then Denny Neagle (2000).

And let's just take a moment to examine the claim of a "disaster of titanic proportions". Denny Neagle was very lucky to post an ERA of even 4.27 in 1999 while giving up a Milton-esque 23 HR in 111.7 IP. Neagle posted those numbers after having to sit out the beginning of the season to "strengthen" his shoulder (foreshadowing?). He righted himself for a time in 2000, but when he was dealt, the Reds were sitting with a 46-46 record. Not exactly the middle of a pennant race. There was no way they were going to re-sign Neagle; who received a bloated contract after the season. A little over two seasons later and the Rockies terminate his contract for behavioral issues after Neagle undergoes elbow and shoulder surgeries.

Bowden always did have a bit of a knack for knowing when to let a pitcher go even if we don't necessarily like the return. That trade was no "disaster", epic or otherwise.



There were more players rumored to be involved in that deal. And really, let's face facts here. Barry Larkin was about to turn 37 years old. At that age, he certainly didn't project, going forward, to be the "All Star" Barry Larkin we all grew to love in the 1990's. But instead of accepting the trade, Larkin declined and ownership then signed him to an albatross-like contract considering the team's lack of pitching and payroll constrictions. Predictibly, the aging Larkin's offensive game dropped off the map (next 3-years OPS+ number of 90, 74, and 94) and he was as fragile as ever.

That was easily the right time to deal Larkin. It's unfortunate to watch our heroes fall to earth (and I'm a HUGE Larkin fan), but it would have been better that Larkin had been dealt regardless of the return. It's also unfortunate that we don't know what the return actually would have been as I don't know of a reliable list.



"Default-Ace" is like "Least fat fat chick". Elmer Dessens posted a .268 BABIP in 2002. Another example of knowing when to deal a guy. While we'd all love to steal the best prospect from another team for middling talent, Lopez was probably as good as we could expect back from that trade.



Do you know that the White Sox would have accepted Sean Casey rather than Konerko for Cameron? If not, then why position another "either/or" scenario. And you do realize that Casey out-performed Konerko in 1999, right? And 2000. It's actually an interesting case study because we can compare them straight-up from 1999 through 2005 (Casey's last season in Cinci):

Sean Casey 1999-2005: 612.21 RC (0.148 RC per PA)
Paul Konerko 1999-2005: 627.08 RC (0.148 RC per PA)

Prior to 2006, the Reds lost pretty much nothing by trading Konerko instead of Casey. Down to the thousandth of a point per Plate Appearance, they're identical. After 2005, it's certainly another story but exactly how many 12 million dollar players can the Reds really afford to have on the roster?

Disagree on all counts.

The Reds were in 2nd place when the Reds traded Neagle, and it was after the All-Star Break. That is in the midst of a pennant race. Once again, I wasn't fundamentally opposed to trading Neagle, but the return was awful.

Ditto for Barry Larkin. The return was Alex Escobar and Grant Roberts. I had no problem dealing Larkin, but that return would have brought us nil in talent.

As far as Elmer Dessens goes, I'll use your least fat fat chick analogy: I'd rather have the least fat fat chick than five hippos, which is what the remainder of the Reds' pitchers were. And again, no problem with dealing Dessens, but a huge problem with the return.

Konerko vs. Casey? I'll let the board decide who they would have rather had.

The problem with JimBo wasn't neccessarily who he traded away, but his unbelieveable ineptitue at receiving starting pitching talent in return.

TRF
04-12-2008, 11:00 PM
Do you know that the White Sox would have accepted Sean Casey rather than Konerko for Cameron? If not, then why position another "either/or" scenario. And you do realize that Casey out-performed Konerko in 1999, right? And 2000. It's actually an interesting case study because we can compare them straight-up from 1999 through 2005 (Casey's last season in Cinci):

Sean Casey 1999-2005: 612.21 RC (0.148 RC per PA)
Paul Konerko 1999-2005: 627.08 RC (0.148 RC per PA)

Prior to 2006, the Reds lost pretty much nothing by trading Konerko instead of Casey. Down to the thousandth of a point per Plate Appearance, they're identical. After 2005, it's certainly another story but exactly how many 12 million dollar players can the Reds really afford to have on the roster?


Disagree on all counts.


Konerko vs. Casey? I'll let the board decide who they would have rather had.



Here is the problem. Steel showed how Casey and Konerko were pretty much identical players offensively in the time frame that Casey was a Red an Konerko a White Sox. Defensively, Casey is probably a slight upgrade. Your dispute is I'll let the board decide?

But I'll go to my original argument. Krivsky walked into a MUCH better situation than JimBo did. by far. Not even close really. Bowden has a much bigger hole to dig himself out of. For all the ragging we all do for him assembling Reds-East, He's got a core of young talented players on offense. Milledge, Dukes, WMP, Kearns, Zimmerman is a nice core. You know he'll deal Kearns as soon as he gets his value up. He's got a better presence in Latin America than the Reds do. Soto may be loved in the DR, but Rijo is revered. But that farm was a complete shambles when he took over, while the Reds farm was on the rise. And it's a top 5 system now because of the talent JimBo (Votto) and O'Brien (Bailey, Bruce, Cueto) brought in. Krivsky's drafts, not so much. So far, Krivsky has benn adept at dumpster diving young players, but not drafting them. I'll harp on this forever till he proves otherwise, but the rotation this year could have been Harang, Lincecum, Cueto, Volquez, Arroyo. Gah! That still kills me.

JimBo has his OF set for the next 5-6 years. He's got as talented a 3B this side of David Wright in the NL. He's got a young catcher learning at the heels of LoDuca. He's got a closer he can flip at the deadline this year and he can ask a mint for him. He'll get it too, or he'll keep him. He needs SP in the worst way. And that's all he really needs. Now will he identify the right young SP? I dunno, but it'll be fun to watch over the course of the year. I don't see him in the hot seat at all. If the new owners wanted him gone, he'd have been gone the day they took over.

SteelSD
04-12-2008, 11:36 PM
Disagree on all counts.

The Reds were in 2nd place when the Reds traded Neagle, and it was after the All-Star Break. That is in the midst of a pennant race. Once again, I wasn't fundamentally opposed to trading Neagle, but the return was awful.

Neagle was dealt on the last day of the All Star Break- July 12th. At that point, the Reds were 43-44 (not 46-46, my mistake) and had a Run Differential of -25. The Cardinals were 50-36 with a Run Differential of +79. That's 7.5 Games back. Nothing resembling the "midst of a pennant race". I think you're maybe confused as to the timing of the trade?

The Pythags at that time were:

CIN: 41-46
STL: 50-36

The Reds ended up 10 games back of the Cardinals. They finished 9 games back of the Wild Card (NYM). Even though they actually over-performed their Pythag in the first half, the Reds would have needed to produce a record of 52-23 (that's .693 ball) to even grab even the Wild Card playoff slot. It was the Reds' poor start that was the catalyst for the Neagle trade rather than a July 12th "pennant race" that should have kept him. A "pennant race" doesn't likely involve playing nearly as well as the 2001 Seattle Mariners for a full half.

With a history of a shoulder issues, the risk in keeping Neagle at that point was that he'd eventually revert to the pitcher we saw in 1999. And that's exactly what happened. While I would have also preferred the targets to be better, Neagle was sold at his high point with no hope of re-signing him and while he was potentially injured.


Ditto for Barry Larkin. The return was Alex Escobar and Grant Roberts. I had no problem dealing Larkin, but that return would have brought us nil in talent.

That deal would have avoided paying Larkin major money with a short budget leash right before his offensive and defensive games projected to fall off a cliff.


As far as Elmer Dessens goes, I'll use your least fat fat chick analogy: I'd rather have the least fat fat chick than five hippos, which is what the remainder of the Reds' pitchers were. And again, no problem with dealing Dessens, but a huge problem with the return.

That team was going nowhere with or without Dessens, the guy just had a career year he wouldn't likely repeat as a Starter, and the Reds had no replacement for Larkin at Short.


Konerko vs. Casey? I'll let the board decide who they would have rather had.

An appeal to the masses? No need. We know that the two were virtual clones of each other offensively through 2005. We also don't know that the White Sox would have selected Casey over Konerko at the time of the Cameron trade.


The problem with JimBo wasn't neccessarily who he traded away, but his unbelieveable ineptitue at receiving starting pitching talent in return.

Bowden's issues were all draft-and-develop when it pertains to Starting Pitching. That's why I hate him. In fact, I'm probably the least likely person on Redszone to defend Bowden.

But your statement above smells a whole lot like what critics of "The Trade" have been saying since that abomination went down. That trade cost the Reds more in a single move than anything Bowden ever did. It's easy to forget that, via trade, Bowden grabbed a whole lot of value (both offense and pitching) throughout his tenure. He was great at dumpster-diving (as is Krivsky). His trade targets when dealing MLB talent weren't necessarily optimal, but he was always someone who focused in on toolsy former-high draft picks. Hmn.

In the end, the difference between Bowden and Krivsky will center on how well Krivsky does at drafting and developing his picks.

TRF
04-13-2008, 01:26 AM
In the end, the difference between Bowden and Krivsky will center on how well Krivsky does at drafting and developing his picks.

Winner!

And that boys and girls was the reason for the topic. I had to wait six pages for someone to actually see the similarities and then note the potential difference?

tsk tsk.

Benihana
04-13-2008, 06:06 AM
Neagle was dealt on the last day of the All Star Break- July 12th. At that point, the Reds were 43-44 (not 46-46, my mistake) and had a Run Differential of -25. The Cardinals were 50-36 with a Run Differential of +79. That's 7.5 Games back. Nothing resembling the "midst of a pennant race". I think you're maybe confused as to the timing of the trade?

The Pythags at that time were:

CIN: 41-46
STL: 50-36

The Reds ended up 10 games back of the Cardinals. They finished 9 games back of the Wild Card (NYM). Even though they actually over-performed their Pythag in the first half, the Reds would have needed to produce a record of 52-23 (that's .693 ball) to even grab even the Wild Card playoff slot. It was the Reds' poor start that was the catalyst for the Neagle trade rather than a July 12th "pennant race" that should have kept him. A "pennant race" doesn't likely involve playing nearly as well as the 2001 Seattle Mariners for a full half.

With a history of a shoulder issues, the risk in keeping Neagle at that point was that he'd eventually revert to the pitcher we saw in 1999. And that's exactly what happened. While I would have also preferred the targets to be better, Neagle was sold at his high point with no hope of re-signing him and while he was potentially injured.



That deal would have avoided paying Larkin major money with a short budget leash right before his offensive and defensive games projected to fall off a cliff.



That team was going nowhere with or without Dessens, the guy just had a career year he wouldn't likely repeat as a Starter, and the Reds had no replacement for Larkin at Short.



An appeal to the masses? No need. We know that the two were virtual clones of each other offensively through 2005. We also don't know that the White Sox would have selected Casey over Konerko at the time of the Cameron trade.



Bowden's issues were all draft-and-develop when it pertains to Starting Pitching. That's why I hate him. In fact, I'm probably the least likely person on Redszone to defend Bowden.

But your statement above smells a whole lot like what critics of "The Trade" have been saying since that abomination went down. That trade cost the Reds more in a single move than anything Bowden ever did. It's easy to forget that, via trade, Bowden grabbed a whole lot of value (both offense and pitching) throughout his tenure. He was great at dumpster-diving (as is Krivsky). His trade targets when dealing MLB talent weren't necessarily optimal, but he was always someone who focused in on toolsy former-high draft picks. Hmn.

In the end, the difference between Bowden and Krivsky will center on how well Krivsky does at drafting and developing his picks.


Nope, sorry. Won't let you off that easy (or as easy as TRF wants to.) In your above statement, you continuously defend every Bowden move because it was the correct player to move at the time. Again, I don't necessarily argue with you there. Where I do argue is to the return, and in every single case mentioned above, the return was abominable, due in most part to the lack of any starting pitching in any return. He dealt away a #1 starting pitcher four times as well as a Hall of Fame shortstop and a perennial All-Star, receiving a grand total of not so much as a single starting pitcher of major-league caliber. By my count, Krivsky has acquired at least two of those so far, and that doesn't include any current minor leaguers- of which there are a multitude more than there were in the Bowden era. I think the battle is already won in my book, and that's disregarding the draft and development genre, which everyone agrees is Bowden's biggest weakness.

redsmetz
04-13-2008, 07:52 AM
Winner!

And that boys and girls was the reason for the topic. I had to wait six pages for someone to actually see the similarities and then note the potential difference?

tsk tsk.

Rather than seeking applause, it might be good to ask why you didn't cut to the chase in your very first post. It's been evident through this all that you've been intent on showing that Wayne is Jimbo and vice versa. Or that Krivsky's no good and why can't you all see this. Obviously we can't evaluate the entire picture until we've seen the results of several years of drafted players making their way through the system. At this short view, we can see that no one's arm has fallen off or that we've drafted any first rounders who plainly indicated they had no intention of going pro yet. So, perhaps, under your approach, WK gets the nod so far.

SteelSD
04-13-2008, 12:19 PM
Nope, sorry. Won't let you off that easy (or as easy as TRF wants to.) In your above statement, you continuously defend every Bowden move because it was the correct player to move at the time. Again, I don't necessarily argue with you there. Where I do argue is to the return, and in every single case mentioned above, the return was abominable, due in most part to the lack of any starting pitching in any return. He dealt away a #1 starting pitcher four times as well as a Hall of Fame shortstop and a perennial All-Star, receiving a grand total of not so much as a single starting pitcher of major-league caliber.

Which #1 starters are you speaking of? During his tenure with the Reds, the SP's of interest who were dealt (by my count) were:

John Smiley
David Wells
Dave Burba
Denny Neagle

Now here's a list of SP's of interest he acquired via trade:

Erik Hansen (w/Bret Boone)
Mark Portugal
Dave Burba
David Wells
Denny Neagle
Juan Guzman

Here's what it cost to acquire those pitchers:

Dan Wilson/Bobby Ayala
Deion Sanders/John Roper/Scott Service/David McCarty/Ricky Pickett
CJ Nitkowski/David Tuttle/Mark Lewis
Brett Boone/Mike Remlinger
BJ Ryan/Jacobo Sequea

Now, name the MLB-caliber Starting Pitchers Bowden dealt for the MLB-caliber Starting Pitchers he acquired.

Additionally, here are his FA SP signings of interest:

John Smiley
Pete Harnisch
Elmer Dessens

Pete Schourek was acquired off waivers. Did the Reds receive an optimal return on any of the pitchers traded away? Well, Smiley turned into Danny Graves; who posted 182 Saves with the Reds. Burba grabbed 3-time All Star Sean Casey. Neagle morphed into Wily Mo Pena. And it's not like Bowden didn't target pitching in the latter deal. Ditto with Grant Roberts in the Larkin deal. He just missed on Yarnall, as did two other GM's in consecutive seasons prior (along with the entire scouting establishment) and Roberts.

As pedro noted, the well ran dry after 2000, but while you may blame Bowden for not maximizing the talent return on the SP's he dealt, you also need to remember that he acquired them from outside the organization in the first place. And he did so without trading away any Starting Pitching. Had Bowden been able to supplement his ability to find MLB rotation pieces with intelligent draft/developmental strategy, we wouldn't be having this conversation. That was his failing and when coupled with the extreme shifting of the MLB payroll landscape, the condition turned terminal as Bowden was unable to compensate.


By my count, Krivsky has acquired at least two of those so far, and that doesn't include any current minor leaguers- of which there are a multitude more than there were in the Bowden era. I think the battle is already won in my book, and that's disregarding the draft and development genre, which everyone agrees is Bowden's biggest weakness.

Krivsky's acquired two MLB-caliber SP's so far? Assuming Voquez works out, I'd agree. But he syphoned through a lot of dreck to do so as well. After acquiring Arroyo, Krivsky's singular mission was to find pitching in any form. Yet, until Volquez (again, assuming he works out) it was mission-not-accomplished and we saw miss after miss after awful miss. Kyle Lohse was the closest thing resembling an actual "hit" on the pitching front and that's a pretty darned low bar.

cincrazy
04-13-2008, 12:46 PM
Here is the problem. Steel showed how Casey and Konerko were pretty much identical players offensively in the time frame that Casey was a Red an Konerko a White Sox. Defensively, Casey is probably a slight upgrade. Your dispute is I'll let the board decide?

But I'll go to my original argument. Krivsky walked into a MUCH better situation than JimBo did. by far. Not even close really. Bowden has a much bigger hole to dig himself out of. For all the ragging we all do for him assembling Reds-East, He's got a core of young talented players on offense. Milledge, Dukes, WMP, Kearns, Zimmerman is a nice core. You know he'll deal Kearns as soon as he gets his value up. He's got a better presence in Latin America than the Reds do. Soto may be loved in the DR, but Rijo is revered. But that farm was a complete shambles when he took over, while the Reds farm was on the rise. And it's a top 5 system now because of the talent JimBo (Votto) and O'Brien (Bailey, Bruce, Cueto) brought in. Krivsky's drafts, not so much. So far, Krivsky has benn adept at dumpster diving young players, but not drafting them. I'll harp on this forever till he proves otherwise, but the rotation this year could have been Harang, Lincecum, Cueto, Volquez, Arroyo. Gah! That still kills me.

JimBo has his OF set for the next 5-6 years. He's got as talented a 3B this side of David Wright in the NL. He's got a young catcher learning at the heels of LoDuca. He's got a closer he can flip at the deadline this year and he can ask a mint for him. He'll get it too, or he'll keep him. He needs SP in the worst way. And that's all he really needs. Now will he identify the right young SP? I dunno, but it'll be fun to watch over the course of the year. I don't see him in the hot seat at all. If the new owners wanted him gone, he'd have been gone the day they took over.

IMO, the Nationals have way more than starting pitching to address. Sure they're set at 3rd and possibly catcher, but I'm not nearly as high on the OF. I don't think Wily Mo will ever amount to anything, Dukes and Milledge are far from certain things, and Kearns has never had a 25 homer or 90 rbi season, let alone stay healthy. Their middle infield is currently a mess, and the injury-prone Nick Johnson and Da-Meat Hook doesn't scream for stability at first.

I think Bowden did a very poor job in Cincinnati, and I think he's creating another mess in Washington that somebody else is going to have to dig out of. Bowden certainly had his hits in Cincinnati, I won't deny that. Landing Greg Vaughn was a coup, and other acquisitions such as Harnisch, Casey and Graves worked for a stretch. But he was completely inept at building for the future, and I don't think anything has really changed in that regard.

Say what you will about WK, he's certainly had his share of "Well, that was a mistake" moments. But if Jim Bowden were still the GM of this club, we'd have no Arroyo, no Volquez, no Harang, and Josh Fogg would probably be our "ace."