PDA

View Full Version : Doc sez Krivsky FIRED!



Pages : 1 2 3 [4] 5

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 03:54 PM
Wayne turned a team that was a marginal contender (2006) into a 72 win team last year. How did the team lose wins if the talent level was increasing?

Did you really think that 2006 team was an 80 win team? Do you really think Harang/Cueto/Volquez/Arroyo/Belisle is worse than Harang/Milton/Claussen/Dave Williams/Paul Wilson?

M2
04-24-2008, 03:56 PM
The win-loss record seems to agree with me that Wayne hasn't increased the overall ML talent base. In the end, isn't the goal to win games?

DanO had more wins in each of his two seasons than Wayne did last year.

Notice, I said ML talent. I didn't say potential, because potential is nebulous to measure.

Again, while Wayne had some good pickups, he shot himself in the foot with many bad ones, and the W-L showed that. He also did a generally poor job with his payflex money.

That's about the worst assessment of where the team has been and the direction it's headed that you could come up with.

Honestly, the 2006 club minus Arroyo, Phillips, Hatteberg and Ross winds up with a top 5 draft pick. DanO inherited a club built to score and constantly failed to find pitching (spectacularly so). He built the TWO WORST PITCHING STAFFS IN REDS TEAM HISTORY. I put that in caps because it's impossible to emphasize that enough. Literally, not one person he traded for remains with the franchise. It took less than two years to weed out every single one of his trade acquisitions. That's astounding incompetence, an utter blackout when it comes to improving the major league roster.

Krivsky had a flourish when he first took over the club, slumped like crazy after The Trade, had a do-nothing offseason prior to 2007, reaped the bitter harvest of that do-nothing offseason during the season, got himself back together and has been generally doing pretty well since last summer. He's hardly been perfect, but Walt Jocketty inherits a franchise with some promise while Krivsky inherited a franchise emitting a gangrenous stench.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 03:56 PM
I agree with you. But I do think that the production is right in line with the other teams.

So how can that be explained? That's one mystery I can't figure out. If you take his acquisitions on player specific level (adding Hamilton/Volquez, Phillips, Arroyo) to the emerging base of Harang/EdE/Cueto and Griffey's health, the team should have improved in the W/L column. Why is the team still bad?
.

Now you're starting to see the point. If Wayne truly added all this talent and did such a great job, how come the W-L does not reflect it?

It's not due to "Bad luck". It's not due to lineups either.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-24-2008, 03:59 PM
It's not due to "Bad luck". It's not due to lineups either.

Although it puzzles me that one of the hottest hitters in baseball currently (EE) is batting 6th in a lineup that's struggling to score runs.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 04:00 PM
Because it takes time for all the ingredients to come together to form a meal. It can take years to translate talent into a quality W/L record. Krivsky inherited a roster with profound present and future problems. Just because the club now has some paths to success doesn't mean it will instantly find one of those paths. Critical and hard decisions still need to be made about how to make THIS collection of talent into a winner.

Change the word "talent" to "potentail" and I'll agree with you.
If you argue that Wayne increased the long term potential of this club, I might agree with you.
But I define talent as producing results.

Also, Wayne acquired a lot of bad players which drug down the team's talent level and W-L record. Blowing money on Freel, Gonzo, Stanton and other guys that get significant playing time is not helping your total talent level. It reverses additions in talent from guys like Phillips.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 04:03 PM
How you can even pretend Wayne left the reds worse off than he found them is mind boggling.

A lot depends on Arroyo. If he doesn't rebound, Wayne has left us with a Milton like albotross.

I think people don't remember how good the starting eight was when Wayne arrived compared to how it is now. Not to mention, the bullpen still isn't fixed.

Do you not agree that 2007 was a horrible season for Wayne? 72 wins is not moving forward. Now, I expect this team to do better than 72 wins, but they aren't going to hit 500 without changes.

M2
04-24-2008, 04:04 PM
And it's not a whole lot better now. He was handed a solid everyday lineup.
He was handed Harang. He was handed Cueto, EdE, Homer, and Votto.

I don't think he was handed Cueto, Votto, Bruce and Bailey. Look at what they were doing with DanO's muddleheaded farm system in place. All of them, save Bruce, were struggling. I'm not sure any one of those kids would be anywhere near where they are at the moment if Krivsky doesn't pull off a complete overhaul of the development system. The franchise has literally gone from one repeatedly unable to get more than a single successful season from its prospects to one in which prospects consistently advance. It's a massive gain for the franchise. Without that, we'd be watching an old Reds team suffering an ugly decline. Giants offense with Rangers pitching.

pedro
04-24-2008, 04:08 PM
I think you are putting too much weight on year to year w/l records ignoring the fact that the 2005 team played above it's head due to some career offensive years from players who just weren't that good and that the 2006 team overachieved as well giving the illusion that the roster was better than it was.

When Wayne took over Tony Womack was the second baseman, the Reds had the worst defensive SS in the last 60 years, and they had 4 OF's, no first baseman and 1 starting pitcher. But yeah, they're worse off now.

M2
04-24-2008, 04:09 PM
That's not only a flawed standard to apply when critiquing payroll decisions, it really doesn't speak to the argument against the signing made by the "numbers" guys.

I don't have a toteboard with the central premise of every numbers-based take on the Cordero signing, but I do recall BP (Joe Sheehan I believe) trotting out the tired "small markets can't afford expensive closers" show pony. IIRC, my take was something along the lines, "Yes, let's not consider the particulars when a bland dictum will do."

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 04:09 PM
Outside of The Trade what moves that Krivsky made got generally panned by "baseball people"?

He only made three high profile trades and two of them (for Arroyo and Volquez) caused no national hue and cry. He signed Cordero, which drew fire from the stats folks, but the "baseball people" were mostly complimentary of the move. So he got slammed for one dog of a trade, that's hardly makes the Reds baseball's whipping boy.


He was widely criticised for the contracts he gave Stanton and Weathers before the 2007 season. He was accused by baseball people of overpaying for relief pitching and driving the market up.

Like you said, he made three high profile trades. One was a consensus bad (Wash), one was a consensus good (Arroyo), and one got mixed reviews -- too close to call at this point.

But it wasn't the big moves that Wayne made which killed the Reds. It was the smaller moves like Stanton and AGon. It was also his non-moves: ignoring the Reds' needs, and not targeting the right people. Why he chose to give Stanton that big contract in the same year Chad Bradford was a FA is beyond me and I will never understand that.

Caveat Emperor
04-24-2008, 04:12 PM
The franchise has literally gone from one repeatedly unable to get more than a single successful season from its prospects to one in which prospects consistently advance.

People forget -- we're not all that far removed from Stephan Smitherman being named minor league POY for the Reds org and the future hopes of the rotation being pinned on timebombs like Thomas Pauley and Richey Gardner.

The farm system is light years better than it has ever been.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 04:13 PM
Did you really think that 2006 team was an 80 win team? Do you really think Harang/Cueto/Volquez/Arroyo/Belisle is worse than Harang/Milton/Claussen/Dave Williams/Paul Wilson?

It goes beyond the starting pitching. I acknowledge that Wayne improved the starting pitching at the expense of other areas in the team.

The question is: Did it work? Doesn't appear to have worked. Now we have a very good rotation (notice the compiment to Wayne :) ).. But in spite of that very promising rotation, we are still struggling.

Baseball has a 25 man roster. 3 good starting pitchers can't carry the other 22 guys..

westofyou
04-24-2008, 04:15 PM
Why he chose to give Stanton that big contract in the same year Chad Bradford was a FA is beyond me and I will never understand that.

Because one was left handed and the other was right handed, the Reds were looking for LH relievers, hence Stanton, Guadero and Cormier, the GAB is heavy LH power park, the need to try and stop that game is needed..

Perhaps Bradford's right arm and his split against LH was the reason?

Career vs LH's - .403/.453/.856

Seems pretty understandable to me.

pedro
04-24-2008, 04:20 PM
It comes down to this, if one wants to savor the taste of marshmallows toasted in the flames of a burning building called the 2005 Reds have at it.

Me? I'm happy to wait until dinner is served.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 04:22 PM
That's Krivsky had a flourish when he first took over the club,
Agreed


slumped like crazy after The Trade,


agreed again.



had a do-nothing offseason prior to 2007, reaped the bitter harvest of that do-nothing offseason during the season,


Here I disagree. Wayne did considerable damage to the club in the offseason prior to 2007. He spent a bunch of money on bad players.. I don't need to repeat the list as I've typed it out a dozen times already.
This was the offseason that Wayne eroded the progress he made when he first arrived. About the only good thing you can say about that offseaon was the Rule V draft.

Also, in 2007, some of the bad moves that Wayne made in 2006 started to bite him.. He had no RH hitting now. The defense had gotten worse, despite the promise of AGon's gold glove. Ross predictably slumped. Arroyo was still good, but he started to come back to earth. In other words, some of the early moves that initially looked brilliant began to revert back to their expected performance.

I'm puzzled that you can look at a 72 win club and say that Wayne did a good job.. This year, some young talent arrived from the farm, but they were players that Wayne inherited from the "bucket of puke".








while Krivsky inherited a franchise emitting a gangrenous stench.

And that stench was responsible for most of the good players on the current team.. basically, all the good players except Phillips, Arroyo, Volquez, and possibly Burton is good.
That's Wayne's legacy. He added those three good players and a bunch of bad ones.

M2
04-24-2008, 04:23 PM
Change the word "talent" to "potentail" and I'll agree with you.
If you argue that Wayne increased the long term potential of this club, I might agree with you.
But I define talent as producing results.

Also, Wayne acquired a lot of bad players which drug down the team's talent level and W-L record. Blowing money on Freel, Gonzo, Stanton and other guys that get significant playing time is not helping your total talent level. It reverses additions in talent from guys like Phillips.

Everyone acquires bad players. It's easy to do. What Krivsky didn't do was acquire bad frontline players. So Stanton was a bad middle reliever. It happens. They had hoped for more for Majewski and Bray, which is part of what made that such an awful deal, but outside of that move I see mostly success when it comes to frontline players. Lohse turned out to be a solid (if mercurial) starter. Hatteberg gave the franchise arguably his two best years. Gonzalez hit better than expected (though he didn't live up to his billing in the field).

I define talent as having the present talent to play well in the majors. I don't think the current Reds fit together all that well, but they've got talent. That talent has created the immediate potential for success (even if I don't necessarily expect it). Those sorts of options weren't on the table with the roster he inherited. That team had exactly zero chance for a good season. Krivsky's moves in his first two months on the job absolutely saved that team from oblivion.

Cyclone792
04-24-2008, 04:24 PM
He was handed Harang. He was handed Cueto, EdE, Homer, and Votto.

I had a lot of problems with Krivsky, but the farm system is where he undeniably had a flurry of success. This farm system was garbage not long before Krivsky arrived - thanks in part to Carl Lindner and his puppet, aka your boy John Allen - and Krivsky did have a very large role in turning a system of garbage into a system with a nice stockpile of talent that's fun to watch and follow.

You seem to be forgetting that part of the minor league player development aspect is minor league player development itself. You can draft all the right people with every single pick, but if you don't have the foundation and plan for each and every prospect to learn, develop, and succeed then drafting all the right guys initially won't amount to jack.

So while Krivsky may have been "handed" those guys above, it was him setting up the foundation for those guys to develop and move through the system in the manner that they have.

Set up a Krivsky scorecard, and it's clear to me that he scores an A for the work he did getting this farm system not only back on the map, but at the top of the map along with just a few other teams. He helped pour the foundation, and it's his foundation in the current farm system which will play a key role in determining the Reds' success over the next few years.

Whether Krivsky or Jocketty is the best man moving forward from this point can be debated, but what cannot be debated is the fact that Krivsky did some marvelous work carving the youth foundation and creating a successful farm system and minor league player development program.

M2
04-24-2008, 04:25 PM
I believe that trade was blasted on this board when it went down.

I don't think we count as "baseball people." We're fans on a message board.

M2
04-24-2008, 04:39 PM
Wayne did considerable damage to the club in the offseason prior to 2007. He spent a bunch of money on bad players.. I don't need to repeat the list as I've typed it out a dozen times already.

This was the offseason that Wayne eroded the progress he made when he first arrived. About the only good thing you can say about that offseaon was the Rule V draft.

He spent some money on bad players, but I've always been of the inclination that players 16-25 on the roster aren't terribly important if players 1-15 aren't very good. Krivsky scored a 1-15 guy with Hamilton and traded him for, so far, another 1-15 guy in Volquez (who fills the starting pitching void). Unfortunately he didn't do nearly enough big things that offseason and it left the team as a rank also-ran. It also made it far easier to fixate on the smaller moves that didn't pan out, even if they didn't ultimately matter than much in the big picture.


I'm puzzled that you can look at a 72 win club and say that Wayne did a good job.. This year, some young talent arrived from the farm, but they were players that Wayne inherited from the "bucket of puke".

They were chunks of food he saved from that bucket and turned into cuisine. As mentioned before, Cueto, Votto and Bailey were struggling mightily before Krivsky. Cueto was an unknown with a 5.02 ERA in the GCL. Votto had become a relative non-prospect after posting a .755 OPS in high A. Bailey had just put up a 4.43 ERA and 1.46 WHIP in his first full season of professional baseball.

Meanwhile the main acquisitions during the winter of 2005-6 had been Dave Williams, Tony Womack and Chris Hammond. I think people forget what a near-death experience the club had that winter.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 04:51 PM
I don't think he was handed Cueto, Votto, Bruce and Bailey. Look at what they were doing with DanO's muddleheaded farm system in place.


Obviously DanO did not do irrepairable harm to them, since they turned out fine. There's no way to prove or disprove that Wayne somehow helped or hurt their development more than DanO did.

But who picked up all those players and put them into the system? Not Wayne.

I mean, if Volquez wins the Cy Young award next year, is the board going to give credit to Jocketty? I doubt it, and they shouldn't. Wayne should get that credit for acquiring the player.






All of them, save Bruce, were struggling. I'm not sure any one of those kids would be anywhere near where they are at the moment if Krivsky doesn't pull off a complete overhaul of the development system.


Now you're just being silly.

Votto: http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=15203
Votto had a great 2002-2004. He slipped a little bit in 2005. Was that
because of DanO, or just growing pains? In any event, he had a great 2006.
I doubt he had a good 2006 because suddenly Wayne showed up. After all, people are quick to point out that Wayne was hired only 1 week before spring training started, and thus had little time to make many changes.

Ceuto: http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=18931
This kid was signed in 2005 at age 19. He pitched a grand total of 49 IP before Wayne arrived. Is it fair to say he was struggling?

So, in short, you are exaggerating about how Wayne "Saved the prospects from DanO". I'm no fan of DanO, but you have to give him credit for those prospects.

Tell me exactly what Wayne overhauled. Sure, Wayne gets credit for getting rid of DanO's wacky tandem pitching system and orders to take the first pitch, but any GM with common sense would've done that. I forget who brought Soto back into the Reds system. I think it was DanO, but maybe I'm wrong. Whoever brought Soto in deserves major props, because I think Soto helped Ceuto more than anyone.






The franchise has literally gone from one repeatedly unable to get more than a single successful season from its prospects to one in which prospects consistently advance. It's a massive gain for the franchise. Without that, we'd be watching an old Reds team suffering an ugly decline. Giants offense with Rangers pitching.

But again, so far all the fruit of the farm system has not come from players that Wayne has added to the system. Hopefully we'll see some good results from Wayne's drafts down the road.

It's kind of interesting, but I can not think of any prospects that Wayne has acquired from other teams, other than Thompson. So while the Wash trade was a disaster, I will give him props for identifying Thompson. If I am forgetting someone, please let me know. Oh yeah, there's Malony, but he does not project well (hope I'm wrong) But I think it is a bit odd, as other Reds' GMs have tried to stock the farm from trades for prospects. Wayne seemed to focus on ML ready guys.. although there is nothing wrong with that either.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 04:54 PM
I think you are putting too much weight on year to year w/l records .

What is a good yardstick then for measuring ML talent from year to year.

Would it be better to use run differential , team WHiP, or what?

Just curious what your yardstick is.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 04:58 PM
Because one was left handed and the other was right handed, the Reds were looking for LH relievers, hence Stanton, Guadero and Cormier, the GAB is heavy LH power park, the need to try and stop that game is needed..

Perhaps Bradford's right arm and his split against LH was the reason?

Career vs LH's - .403/.453/.856

Seems pretty understandable to me.

The Reds needed a RH setup man badly. That's why they picked up Maj.

I mean, come one. You are trying to defend the Stanton signing now?
When you have a bullpen like the Reds that needs a lot of help, isn't it much better to spend your money on the best overall talent (Bradford)?
The Reds already had Cormier in tow. They had Bray as well.
It never makes sense to give a guy like Stanton a big contract just because he's left handed when he's a bad risk.

If Wayne had signed Bradford and someone on this board argued that he should've signed Stanton instead, you would've laughed him off the board.

pedro
04-24-2008, 05:06 PM
What is a good yardstick then for measuring ML talent from year to year.

Would it be better to use run differential , team WHiP, or what?

Just curious what your yardstick is.

Realism.

Take a look at the roster and offensive stats from 2005. That was a 72 win team built on smoke and mirrors. That team could have easily lost 105 games. the fact that they didn't means little to me.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 05:08 PM
Everyone acquires bad players. It's easy to do. What Krivsky didn't do was acquire bad frontline players. So Stanton was a bad middle reliever. It happens. They had hoped for more for Majewski and Bray, which is part of what made that such an awful deal, but outside of that move I see mostly success when it comes to frontline players. Lohse turned out to be a solid (if mercurial) starter. Hatteberg gave the franchise arguably his two best years. Gonzalez hit better than expect (though he didn't live up to his billing in the field).

I define talent as having the present talent to play well in the majors. I don't think the current Reds fit together all that well , but they've got talent. .

I bolded the part that explains the failure of Wayne.



That talent has created the immediate potential for success (even if I don't necessarily expect it). Those sorts of options weren't on the table with the roster he inherited. That team had exactly zero chance for a good season. Krivsky's moves in his first two months on the job absolutely saved that team from oblivion


Most of the good talent on the current team was inherited by Wayne.
I agree that Wayne tried to leverage the trade bait he had on this team, which was a vast improvement to DanO's approach of doing nothing and just watching Wily Mo and Kearns age.

A big problem I have with Wayne is that he was given an unprecedented amount of money to spend and he generally spent it poorly. He made many bad choices. You can not deny that. AGon was a failure. Hat filled a need when he was signed, but like many players, Wayne did not know when to let go. Hat's option was picked up this year for no good reason at all. It was a waste of about 2 million, plus it is causing a roster crunch where Cast has to eat contracts. Now if Hat was the only mistake like that, it's fine. But Wayne filled up his entire bench with mistakes like that (long term contracts to bad players), and placed several in his bullpen. Wayne took for granted he could just walk into Cast's office and get him to eat a contract. Many people on the board felt the same.. I remember people saying they had no problem with Wayne giving Player X a contract because Cast would eat it if need be..

I said about a week ago that if Wayne could finish .500 this year, I would support giving him an extension, but I had serious reservations that the team could make it to .500...

Wayne had 3 years. All I asked from him was to get to .500. That's not unreasonable. I don't know what Cast's yardstick was, but Wayne's job was to improve the W-L record, and he clearly failed. It doesn't mean that Wayne is an idiot, but he clearly failed.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 05:10 PM
.

So while Krivsky may have been "handed" those guys above, it was him setting up the foundation for those guys to develop and move through the system in the manner that they have.
.

What extraordinary thing did Wayne do to help those prospects succeeed.
Other than getting rid of DanO's goofy ideas. What changes did Wayne do?
If you can point out something Wayne did to help those guys, then I'll be more inclined to agree with you.

GAC
04-24-2008, 05:10 PM
Think of how much offensive talent he has shipped out and got very little return for.

Pena
Kearns
Lopez
Harris
Ross
Hamilton (not saying that wasn't a good trade)

Pena, Lopez, Harris, Ross were/are offensive talents? That's just downright laughable. What are they doing now? Is Lopez even starting?

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 05:13 PM
Realism.

Take a look at the roster and offensive stats from 2005. That was a 72 win team built on smoke and mirrors. That team could have easily lost 105 games. the fact that they didn't means little to me.

Not a very quanitative measure, so it's hard for me to discuss.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-24-2008, 05:16 PM
Ryan Franklin, Josh Hancock......

We'd let guys go and they succeed elsewhere.

Then go out and break the bank for garbage.

Wayne was cursed with the bullpen. Bad decisions and bad luck as well. A recipe for getting the axe.

pedro
04-24-2008, 05:19 PM
Not a very quanitative measure, so it's hard for me to discuss.

I'm not looking really for feedback on something I don't feel you understand.

I'm just telling you how I see it. The marginal success of the 2005 team was a mirage. The lack of sustained success by a large number of that years key contributers is obvious to anyone who cares to analyze things at a more in depth level than merely wins and loses.

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 05:21 PM
Pena, Lopez, Harris, Ross were/are offensive talents? That's just downright laughable. What are they doing now? Is Lopez even starting?

Career OPS for the hitters listed:

Wily Mo Pena - .776
Felipe Lopez - .722
Cody Ross - .799
Austin Kearns - .805
Brendan Harris - .750

Josh Hamilton (.916 OPS) is the only big bat he's dealt. Kearns is a decent hitter but nothing special since his shoulder injury. Now I didn't like the way Wayne seemed to somewhat ignore the offense, but it's not like he dealt away five All-Star hitters.

redsmetz
04-24-2008, 05:21 PM
I said about a week ago that if Wayne could finish .500 this year, I would support giving him an extension, but I had serious reservations that the team could make it to .500...

Wayne had 3 years. All I asked from him was to get to .500. That's not unreasonable. I don't know what Cast's yardstick was, but Wayne's job was to improve the W-L record, and he clearly failed. It doesn't mean that Wayne is an idiot, but he clearly failed.

He wasn't far off from bringing this club to .500 in his tenure over his two years and one month that he was given. He had a .467 record, off by 12 wins. Yes, that's alot, but again, he wasn't given much of a shot in what really was a brief time in baseball time.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-24-2008, 05:24 PM
I'm just telling you how I see it. The marginal success of the 2005 team was a mirage.

The 2005 team went 73-89, playing 1 game below their pythag (74-88).

The 2006 team was the mirage at 80-82 (4 games above their pythag of 76-86).

pedro
04-24-2008, 05:31 PM
The 2005 team went 73-89, playing 1 game below their pythag (74-88).

The 2006 team was the mirage at 80-82 (4 games above their pythag of 76-86).

My point is that 2005 run scoring was built on the backs of a lot of career years and last gasps. It was a formula that was completely unsustainable.

2006 a mirage too? Absolutely.

Ltlabner
04-24-2008, 05:33 PM
I think people don't remember how good the starting eight was when Wayne arrived compared to how it is now. Not to mention, the bullpen still isn't fixed.

:laugh:

I figured an objective discussion of the good and bad of one Wayne Krivsky couldn't last long around here.

If you really consider Womack, Lopez, LaRue, Freel, Willy Mo, Dave Williams, Eric Milton, Brandon Claussen and Paul Williams "good" then there's really no point in discussing anything further. Obiviously a serrious discussion will not be possible.

pedro
04-24-2008, 05:37 PM
:laugh:

I figured an objective discussion of the good and bad of one Wayne Krivsky couldn't last long around here.

If you really consider Womack, Lopez, LaRue, Freel, Willy Mo, Dave Williams, Eric Milton, Brandon Claussen and Paul Williams "good" then there's really no point in discussing anything further. Obiviously a serrious discussion will not be possible.

no kidding.

I think RR is just in denial because Bowden has 3 of those players in his starting lineup now and well, that's just working out great.

Ltlabner
04-24-2008, 05:38 PM
I define talent as having the present talent to play well in the majors. I don't think the current Reds fit together all that well, but they've got talent. That talent has created the immediate potential for success (even if I don't necessarily expect it). Those sorts of options weren't on the table with the roster he inherited. That team had exactly zero chance for a good season. Krivsky's moves in his first two months on the job absolutely saved that team from oblivion.

Stop it with all that reason and stuff.

Boil it down to wins and losses because that's all I can process at one time.

So I guess the 2005 Chicago White Sox were a "solid orgization" because they won the World Series. But by 2007 they were a "horrable origization" because they only won .444% of their games and finished 24 games out of 1st place.

I guess the 2006 Tigers were "great" at 95-67 but the francise when down the tubes one year later with a 88-74 campaign.

It's almost like measuring the airline industry's strength based on quarter to quarter revenue. Of coruse the goal of any business is to make money, but any airline can eek out a profit over 3 months. Doesn't mean the airline is suddenly a powerhouse in the industry.

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 05:38 PM
Wayne Krivsky is the new John Allen.

M2
04-24-2008, 05:47 PM
Obviously DanO did not do irrepairable harm to them, since they turned out fine.

Michael Myers didn't kill Jamie Lee Curtis either, doesn't make him any less menacing. DanO was stopped before his gross incompetence could cripple the franchise. Yet it's inarguable that he had almost every kid on the farm headed in the wrong direction. The record is clear and overwhelming on this count.


I mean, if Volquez wins the Cy Young award next year, is the board going to give credit to Jocketty? I doubt it, and they shouldn't. Wayne should get that credit for acquiring the player.

I'd give credit to the manager and pitching coach for bringing him along so well, and to the GM that hired that manager and pitching -- just like I'm crediting the GM that put together the developmental system that started producing players rather than ruining them.


Now you're just being silly.

Votto: http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=15203
Votto had a great 2002-2004. He slipped a little bit in 2005. Was that
because of DanO, or just growing pains? In any event, he had a great 2006.
I doubt he had a good 2006 because suddenly Wayne showed up. After all, people are quick to point out that Wayne was hired only 1 week before spring training started, and thus had little time to make many changes.

You know what used to happen when the Reds would have a supposed big bat post a .775 OPS and drop off the prospect radar (e.g. Steve Smitherman)? That kid would disappear forever.

In fact, Votto was vocal about how the system around him was killing his game. O'Brien's regime had that kid thoroughly screwed up and headed down a real bad path. Silly would be ignoring the stark evidence that talented kids like Votto were in trouble throughout the Reds system when DanO was in charge. Honestly, the only kid who experienced any sort of consistent success in 2004-5 was Chris Denorfia.


Ceuto: http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=18931
This kid was signed in 2005 at age 19. He pitched a grand total of 49 IP before Wayne arrived. Is it fair to say he was struggling?

Overall 4.78 and 1.31 WHIP at the lowest rungs of the developmental ladder? How is that not struggling? I consider the fact that he only pitched limited innings in the DanO regime to be a blessing. Think of all the deprogramming he didn't have to endure.


So, in short, you are exaggerating about how Wayne "Saved the prospects from DanO". I'm no fan of DanO, but you have to give him credit for those prospects.

Give him credit for what? Sure, they got acquired during his reign, but none of them were thriving. It took O'Brien's regime less than a year to destroy the top 10 prospects list he inherited when he took the job and he was well on his way to undermining every single good draft pick/minor league signing made during 2004 and 2005 (and there weren't many). Given the evidence, I doubt he'd have delivered a single one of those kids, save maybe Jay Bruce.


Tell me exactly what Wayne overhauled.

He immediately overhauled the developmental leadership (relegating Naehring to a busywork job). He overhauled the instructional personnel. He changed the instructional methodology in multiple areas (e.g on top of what you mentioned, you haven't heard a peep about pitch-to-contact either) and the assessment criteria. Basically, beyond who's doing the teaching, how they're doing the teaching and how the prospects get graded, he didn't do anything.


It's kind of interesting, but I can not think of any prospects that Wayne has acquired from other teams, other than Thompson.

I agree Krivsky could have and should have acquired more prospects from other teams, but you're missing Maloney, Bray, Burton and Hamilton. While Phillips and Volquez may not have had rookie status, they were young players not established in the majors (Volquez still isn't, but he's so far looking groovy). I'm also really starting to get interested by Sean Henry. He's like the opposite of Javon Moran. Here's yet another kid who's thriving in the new Reds system. It's epidemic these days. Seriously, how can you not spot the difference?

Falls City Beer
04-24-2008, 05:47 PM
Wayne Krivsky is the new John Allen.

Wayne Krivsky's the new Joan of Arc.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-24-2008, 05:49 PM
My point is that 2005 run scoring was built on the backs of a lot of career years and last gasps. It was a formula that was completely unsustainable.

2006 a mirage too? Absolutely.

Gotcha. The thing about 2006, most of us realized it was a mirage. Either Wayne didn't see it or ownership wouldn't let him see it.

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 05:53 PM
Another great post by M2.

Shaun Cumberland is another prospect Wayne Krivsky acquired last year as a throw in in the Jorge Cantu deal. He's a 23 year old outfielder hitting .319/.448/.574 with a 11 BB/5 K ratio in 47 atbats in Chattanooga. Baseball America seems to like him.

pedro
04-24-2008, 05:54 PM
Wayne Krivsky's the new Joan of Arc.

Yup, they've both been burned on the stake.

Although I'm guessing that wasn't the part of the story you were referring to.

M2
04-24-2008, 05:54 PM
Wayne was cursed with the bullpen.

Yep, it was his biggest flaw at the major league roster level. To be kind, he was bullpen challenged (not exactly what you'd expect from the guy who brought Joe Nathan to the Twins, but still true).

It's one of the reasons I thought spending on Cordero made sense. Might as well pony up for the good stuff if you can't successfully scrimp it. The pen still needs work, but Cordero at the back at least creates a logical endpoint.

pedro
04-24-2008, 05:58 PM
Gotcha. The thing about 2006, most of us realized it was a mirage. Either Wayne didn't see it or ownership wouldn't let him see it.

I think it doomed him from the start because I don't believe Castellini truly understood how bad things were or how far they were from actually competing.

pedro
04-24-2008, 05:58 PM
This makes me happy.



Name W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR HB BB SO WHIP HLD GF
Daryl Thompson 2 0 0.76 4 4 0 0 0 23.2 16 3 2 1 0 1 25 0.72 0 0

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 06:01 PM
This makes me happy.



Name W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR HB BB SO WHIP HLD GF
Daryl Thompson 2 0 0.76 4 4 0 0 0 23.2 16 3 2 1 0 1 25 0.72 0 0


and this:

Bill Bray: 6.2 IP, 3 H, 1 R, 3 BB, 12 K

Spring~Fields
04-24-2008, 06:02 PM
Wayne turned a team that was a marginal contender (2006) into a 72 win team last year. How did the team lose wins if the talent level was increasing?

2006-2007
Wasn't Krivsky hamstrung by Miltions contract along with Griffey and Dunn contracts? If those three don't come through big time and carry the team isn't Krivsky cooked going in ? Where was he supposed to get the funds to bring in FA or who or what was he suppose to trade with to get better players? Were they even available in that time frame in consideration of the resources that Krivsky and the Reds could offer in exchange?

pedro
04-24-2008, 06:04 PM
Thompson has struck 25 guys and walked 1.

If he keeps this up he'll be in AAA by the all star break.

M2
04-24-2008, 06:05 PM
This makes me happy.



Name W L ERA G GS CG SHO SV IP H R ER HR HB BB SO WHIP HLD GF
Daryl Thompson 2 0 0.76 4 4 0 0 0 23.2 16 3 2 1 0 1 25 0.72 0 0


It blows my mind. This is not the same Daryl Thompson as the kid who pitched in A ball last year or in the DC/Montreal system before that. Maybe this is just an unconscious few months the kid is having, but the ability to get C prospects to take big leaps is the hallmark of a top system.

Matt700wlw
04-24-2008, 06:06 PM
and this:

Bill Bray: 6.2 IP, 3 H, 1 R, 3 BB, 12 K

I'm still trying to figure out exactly why he's not here, more than anybody.

Spring~Fields
04-24-2008, 06:06 PM
Wayne Krivsky's the new Joan of Arc.

I see him more as the guys who took the fall for the man at the top, Nixon, during watergait. ;)

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 06:06 PM
Thompson has struck 25 guys and walked 1.

If he keeps this up he'll be in AAA by the all star break.

Yep. Dusty has said some great things about him. I wouldn't be too surprised if we see him in Cincy at some point this season.

And I just hope Castellini doesn't go on one of his impatient tirades again and force Jocketty to trade prospects like Thompson and Bailey for a quick fix.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-24-2008, 06:08 PM
I think it doomed him from the start because I don't believe Castellini truly understood how bad things were or how far they were from actually competing.

I agree.

Spring~Fields
04-24-2008, 06:13 PM
Ryan Franklin, Josh Hancock......

We'd let guys go and they succeed elsewhere.

Then go out and break the bank for garbage.

Wayne was cursed with the bullpen. Bad decisions and bad luck as well. A recipe for getting the axe.

I think that I would give the master of pitching Duncan credit for those guys fairing decently after leaving the Reds. I wish Castellini would have brought Duncan over.

GAC
04-24-2008, 06:14 PM
The more I think about it, I really have lost a lot of respect for Bob C over this. People commend this guy for his intolerance and stated impatience at not winning, and say that is a good sign or characteristic of an owner.

Since when is impatience a virtue? Especially when weighed against the task at hand. It wasn't like WK inherited a team moving in the upwards swing of things.

And Bob's response - "the losing stops now" - can be added to the catalog of his other cliched one liners, right next to "win now".

I could see, and it would be more acceptable, if the Reds struggled in '08, if he decides not to renew the guy's contract at season's end. But to abruptly fire the guy 22 games into the season like that was totally classless IMO.

Bob C, since bringing his buddy Jocketty in this past January, was looking for a reason, any reason, to dump Krivsky.

So if we are to believe Bob when he says the losing stops now; then I wonder if he is going to deal with Walt the same if he doesn't immediately stop it? Again, that is the logic, as I see it, as to why you fire a guy 22 games into a season - this new guy has a plan to implement and immediately stop the bleeding. Will Bob show Walt (and Dusty) the same impatience if we lose 90 games this year, and start off next season on a bad note?

Are some of the fans who gave Krivsky such a short leash, many wanted him canned after his first year, gonna take the same approach with Jocketty if this time next year we still are struggling under .500?

Especially since Jocketty has inherited a team, regardless of this slow start, that is in better shape, top to bottom, then the one Wayne did.

I'm really looking forward to Jocketty's drafts too. ;)

Chip R
04-24-2008, 06:19 PM
I think Bob's finding out that being an owner's a lot harder than he thought without all the attendance revenue that came in while he was in StL. I'm wondering if Carl Lindner is having a nice chuckle over all this.

gm
04-24-2008, 06:25 PM
So I predict an increase in talent, a pretty good record for a small market, but underachievement and an eventual decay of the farm system that seemed to be getting things together.

he's probably the right GM for this owner...

Yeah, it's gonna be pretty hard to build a farm system now, with an impatient owner, a prospect-trading GM and a Mgr who likes to play the vets

(OTOH, this could be the perfect storm for the "go for the golden championship season and screw the multi-year playoff run" formula that you've put forward, for years)

My fear remains...Dusty will get us there, but not get us over the hump. That kind of heartbreak can be even more painful than the slow death by paper cuts we've experienced for the past 7 years

Caveat Emperor
04-24-2008, 06:42 PM
It's epidemic these days. Seriously, how can you not spot the difference?

It will go down, in my book, as the hallmark of the Wayne Krivsky era: the Reds finally learned how to develop the talent they drafted.

Up and down the minor leagues, kids are succeeding and moving levels at appropriate intervals. And, importantly, it isn't just the superstars and high draft picks that are moving -- the kids who will eventually become replacement level big leaguers, good bench players, bullpen pitchers, mid/back of the rotation starters, etc. are all developing nicely too. That simply wasn't the case when O'Brien was here (or when Bowden was here, for that matter). Overwhelming talent powered its way out of the farm system in a "kill-or-be-killed" kind of atmosphere. Virtually everything else languished and died on the vine.

How soon we all forget that BS about pitching starters half games -- having one guy pitch 1-5 and then a second starter pitch 4-9? Think that didn't screw up a few starters trying to stretch themselves out and handle pitching deep into games? Or the "take a pitch" rule? No wonder Votto was so screwed up -- anyone with an internet connection knew that you could pump a meatball in for strike 1 to get ahead in the count every time, and he'd have to sit and look at it.

For anyone to say Krivsky didn't do a good job with the farm system, or it was the product of someone else's work, is simply laughable. It has zero basis in reality and is contrary to every empirical and observational bit of data out there.

Or, maybe people would like to return to the days where William Bergolla was considered a "great prospect" and you weren't a real man until you'd seen Kremcheck at least twice in your minor league career.

westofyou
04-24-2008, 06:51 PM
Wayne Krivsky's the new Joan of Arc.

And Bob Castellini might be the new Robespierre.

Spring~Fields
04-24-2008, 06:54 PM
For anyone to say Krivsky didn't do a good job with the farm system, or it was the product of someone else's work, is simply laughable. It has zero basis in reality and is contrary to every empirical and observational bit of data out there.



:clap::clap::clap::clap:

He was doing the right thing. The Reds did not have the talent resources to trade to bring in quality players or pitching. The Reds did not have the money resources of the big markets to buy high quality players so Krivsky went to the only source of resources that he could and that was to build up the present and future in the minor league system. Which would have given him the needed resources in time to build a solid productive franchise.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 07:02 PM
Did you really think that 2006 team was an 80 win team? Do you really think Harang/Cueto/Volquez/Arroyo/Belisle is worse than Harang/Milton/Claussen/Dave Williams/Paul Wilson?

Yes, they won 80 games? How are they not an 80 win team.. because their pythag said they weren't? I find it silly that a realitively simple formula is deemed more valuable than the actual outcome of the season. The pythag formula has holes in it.. Let's take this season for example. We have three starting pitchers that are effective most of the time, and two disasters.
If Fogg gives up 15 runs in a start, that is one loss in real life, but it skews the Pythag record.

I do think the rotation is improved. The problem is with the rest of the team.
So I give Wayne credit for upgrading two slots in the rotation, possibly three if Arroyo returns to form. But there was a lot more work to be done. That's why the team is losing.

Matt700wlw
04-24-2008, 07:03 PM
Story from mlbtraderumors.com

Brian Gunn On Walt Jocketty

Brian Gunn is a regular at Baseball Analysts and The Hardball Times, among other places. Recalling his fine "GM In A Box" piece on Walt Jocketty in the THT annual a few years back, I asked him to dispel his wisdom once again on the Cards ex-GM back in October of 2007. An excerpt of his piece follows.

WALT JOCKETTY
By Brian Gunn

New Reds GM Walt Jocketty was a big-game hunter with the Cardinals. He generally looked elsewhere for talent, and he landed some of the biggest names around. Here’s a brief look at his legacy.

JOCKETTY’S STRENGTHS

Jocketty built arguably the premier National League franchise of this decade. Since 2000, the Cardinals own more regular-seasons wins than any other NL team, won more playoff games, won more league titles, and, of course, won it all in 2006.

How did Jocketty do it? First of all, he was fearless. A master wheeler-dealer, nobody did a better job turning lemons into lemonade, often flipping questionable talent for marquee players.

Consider:

Jocketty landed, via trade, Mark McGwire, Jim Edmonds, Edgar Renteria, Darryl Kile, Scott Rolen, Dennis Eckersley, Todd Stottlemyre, Fernando Vina, Larry Walker, Will Clark, Adam Wainwright, and Woody Williams.

Here are the most notable players he gave up to get them: Eric Ludwick, T.J. Mathews, Kent Bottenfield, Adam Kennedy, Braden Looper, Pablo Ozuna, Manny Aybar, Jose Jimenez, Placido Polanco, Bud Smith, Steve Montgomery, Jay Witasick, Juan Acevedo, Chris Narveson, Jose Leon, one year of J.D. Drew, and the waning days of Ray Lankford’s career.

It’s an astonishing haul. Generally Jocketty would use the same formula: go after some established but underappreciated star, give up a few middling prospects for him, let him soak in the cozy St. Louis fan experience, win ballgames, re-sign the guy to an extension (often with a hometown discount), win more ballgames, then repeat the whole process as one big feedback loop. Jocketty was a master at that (and he was probably the best trading-deadline dealer there ever was – that’s how he got McGwire, Clark, Williams, Rolen, Walker, Chuck Finley, and Fernando Tatis).

Jocketty’s other big strength? Cobbling together a pitching staff on the cheap. It took him a while to get the hang of it – Cards’ hurlers in the ‘90s were usually awful. But Jocketty, along with rehab specialists Tony La Russa and pitching coach Dave Duncan, were able to buy low for arms like Chris Carpenter, Jeff Suppan, and Darryl Kile, and let them succeed in front of those reliable St. Louis infielders. At its best it worked beautifully. For example, in 2005 the Cards led the majors in ERA with a starting rotation that cost, altogether, $17 million – or less than what Roger Clemens alone made that year.

JOCKETTY’S WEAKNESSES

He was never that great at developing talent from within. Oh sure, he had his moments – he drafted and signed both Rick Ankiel and J.D. Drew when other teams wouldn’t touch ‘em for fear of being out-negotiated by Scott Boras. And of course, Jocketty was responsible for Albert Pujols, merely the best player in the league, if not all of baseball. But by and large the Cards’ cupboard ran rather bare during the Jocketty years. Baseball America has recently ranked them near the bottom of all major-league farm systems, and the Cards have been especially weak locating talent overseas. Perhaps that’s the flipside of Jocketty’s wheeling-and-dealing prowess – it gave him a sense that the team didn’t need to develop from within in order to succeed.

Jocketty’s other big weakness was that he tended to construct rather shallow rosters. Often the ballclub would be led by big shots like Pujols, Edmonds, and Rolen, while the margins were raggedy at best. Cards fans no doubt remember some of the team’s biggest playoff games left in the hands of shlubs like Craig Paquette, Garrett Stephenson, or Jason Marquis. To be fair, however, Jocketty improved in this area over the last couple years. The Cards’ bench and bullpen were among the best in the league this past year, and role players were crucial to winning the World Series in 2006.

JOCKETTY’S BEST MOVE

Landing McGwire was a masterstroke that rejuvenated the franchise, but I’d still go with the trade of Bottenfield and Kennedy to the Angels for Jim Edmonds. In 1999 Bottenfield was an 18-game winner while Edmonds was an underperformer clouded by “character issues.” But Jocketty noticed that Bottenfield’s peripherals were weak, Edmonds were strong, and he moved on a deal. Kennedy ended up a dependable starter in Anaheim, but Edmonds ended up the best centerfielder in baseball for a number of years.

JOCKETTY’S WORST MOVE

I can still remember December 18, 2004, when the Cards traded starter Danny Haren, reliever Kiko Calero, and hitting prodigy Daric Barton for Mark Mulder. As others have pointed out (I can’t remember where), Calero for Mulder straight-up would’ve been a poor deal for the Cards, to say nothing of losing Haren and Barton. When I first heard the news I became literally sick to my stomach, and the feeling hasn’t quite gone away.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 07:07 PM
Everyone acquires bad players. It's easy to do. What Krivsky didn't do was acquire bad frontline players. So Stanton was a bad middle reliever. It happens. They had hoped for more for Majewski and Bray, which is part of what made that such an awful deal, but outside of that move I see mostly success when it comes to frontline players. .

He acquired bad front line players as well. AGon, Ross, depended on Freel/Deno to be a starter, picked up Clayton to be the starting SS.
I don't mind Patterson so much, but some think he was a horrible signing.
Fogg looks like he's a disaster. I am praying Arroyo snaps out of his funk and is not a disaster.

Maybe you don't count bullpen arms as frontline players, but he had a lot of failures there too, which was a big drag on the team last year, and hurt the W-L record. Again, maybe you don't think the W-L record is a fair way to evaluate him, but that's what sells tickets, and that's what Cast cares about.

You can have the best starting pitcher in the world. If he pitches a no hitter through 8 innings, and then Stanton comes in and blows it, the fans are going to walk away sad.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 07:10 PM
I'm not looking really for feedback on something I don't feel you understand.

I'm just telling you how I see it. The marginal success of the 2005 team was a mirage. The lack of sustained success by a large number of that years key contributers is obvious to anyone who cares to analyze things at a more in depth level than merely wins and loses.

I was just asking what your yardstick was.

I'm not saying the 2005 team was a juggernaut by any means. But I'm not so sure one can say that we've improved significantly or at all since then.

Wayne arrived to mediocrity, and when he left, the team was still mired in mediocrity.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 07:12 PM
He wasn't far off from bringing this club to .500 in his tenure over his two years and one month that he was given. He had a .467 record, off by 12 wins. Yes, that's alot, but again, he wasn't given much of a shot in what really was a brief time in baseball time.

My expecation was to make the team 500 for this year, not his career record.

The team played ok in 2006, for whatever reason, and then regressed the next year. My expection for Wayne was just to get us a .500 season this year. I don't see it happening without huge changes. In fact, the recent freefall of this team makes it kind of difficult to predict exactly how bad it will get.

Reds Nd2
04-24-2008, 07:15 PM
How soon we all forget that BS about pitching starters half games -- having one guy pitch 1-5 and then a second starter pitch 4-9? Think that didn't screw up a few starters trying to stretch themselves out and handle pitching deep into games?

The Cardinals used a tandem starter system at Quad Cities last season. Just sayin'.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 07:18 PM
:laugh:

I figured an objective discussion of the good and bad of one Wayne Krivsky couldn't last long around here.

If you really consider Womack, Lopez, LaRue, Freel, Willy Mo, Dave Williams, Eric Milton, Brandon Claussen and Paul Williams "good" then there's really no point in discussing anything further. Obiviously a serrious discussion will not be possible.

And if you chose to just cherry pick the worst players off that team, you obviously aren't looking for an objective discussion either.

That would be like me listing Belisle and Fogg as key players in this season.

But if you want to tell me why you think this team has moved forward, be my guess. I'm just saying Wayne took the 2006 80 win team to a 72 win team. And then this year's team looks to be another sub 500 team..

I guess I don't understand all the anger at Wayne being fired.

And the fact that the 2006 Reds were 4 runs better than their pythag.. Why does that matter? That doesn't prove they are a mirage because the Pythag record is just a quick and sloppy calculation that ignores the all the variables that actually go into a 162 game schedule. The pthyag is not gospel.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 07:20 PM
no kidding.

I think RR is just in denial because Bowden has 3 of those players in his starting lineup now and well, that's just working out great.


Nope, I'm in denial because no one has presented evidence that Wayne actually improved the team.

Here's what I've read:

"Just looking over the team when Wayne arrived and now, it looks better"
"But the rotation is better" (I agree with this, but it ignores the rest of the holes on the team)
"Win-Loss isn't a good way to evaluate the talent of a team"
"The pythag record says..."

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 07:21 PM
Wayne Krivsky is the new John Allen.

Nope. He's the new martyr on Redszone.

GAC
04-24-2008, 07:33 PM
He acquired bad front line players as well. AGon, Ross, depended on Freel/Deno to be a starter, picked up Clayton to be the starting SS.

AGon a BAD frontline player? Regardless of the fact he had personal problems last year with his son that most say contributed to his erratic season, the guy, by the AS break, had some pretty solid offensive numbers, especially in the power department. He wasn't BAD. Its sad he has incurred an injury to start this season; but that is not his fault. IMHO, he shored up a position (SS) that we were very weak in since the days of Larkin.

Clayton was fodder thrown into that deal. If WK had intentions of him being our everyday starting SS, which IMO he didn't, then he wouldn't have signed AGon then.


Fogg looks like he's a disaster. I am praying Arroyo snaps out of his funk and is not a disaster.

With the uncertainty surrounding Homer, they signed Fogg to a 1 yr deal worth 1 mil. And he came in with no guarantee he'd make the rotation. No, most weren't high on this signing; but he was an arm that came very cheap, low risk, and he went 10-9 with a 4.94 ERA in 29 starts with the Rockies. I had no problem at all with them signing arms like this, as well as Affeldt who are here until kids like Bailey, Cueto, and Volquez show some level of maturity, stability. Far better then throwing huge amounts at a Lohse-type.


Maybe you don't count bullpen arms as frontline players, but he had a lot of failures there too, which was a big drag on the team last year, and hurt the W-L record.

True. But how has the BP overall performed this year so far? Other then Coffey, they have performed quite well. Check out the numbers. ;)

GAC
04-24-2008, 07:43 PM
The Cardinals used a tandem starter system at Quad Cities last season. Just sayin'.

Yep.

What I want to see from Jocketty as the season progresses is what does he identify as the specific problem areas on this team that are contributing to their losing/struggles, and what he tends to do, because we have such an impatient owner, to address them pretty quickly?

It's obvious to Bob C that he didn't like the direction WK was taking us, so I'll wait and see what Walt has to suggest. The clock is ticking. ;)

Spring~Fields
04-24-2008, 07:52 PM
JOCKETTY’S WEAKNESSES
He was never that great at developing talent from within.
But by and large the Cards’ cupboard ran rather bare during the Jocketty years.
Baseball America has recently ranked them near the bottom of all major-league farm systems, and the Cards have been especially weak locating talent overseas.
Perhaps that’s the flipside of Jocketty’s wheeling-and-dealing prowess – it gave him a sense that the team didn’t need to develop from within in order to succeed.



Flashbacks to the Marge Schott era

GAC
04-24-2008, 07:53 PM
but again, he wasn't given much of a shot in what really was a brief time in baseball time.

My position exactly. One has to look at the condition of this organization from top to bottom when he took it over, and what his predecessors left him - the farm system, scouting and coaching, what talent we had, contracts he had nothing to do with yet we were still under obligation to, etc.

Bob C obviously expected an immediate turn around with his WIN NOW ideology, and unless he was ready to pony up like a Steinbrenner and others, then IMHO he was being somewhat unfair and irrational.

But lets see what he does now that his good friend is now in there. If the Reds still continue to under perform to Cast's expectations, then does Jocketty, as GM, have the guns to fire Dusty, if he feels that is what is needed, and bring in his type of manager? ;)

Because as far as I'm concerned,even though this team has it's weaknesses, what I have seen of Baker's management style so far in these early stages of the season doesn't impress me one bit.

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 07:55 PM
Yes, they won 80 games? How are they not an 80 win team.. because their pythag said they weren't? I find it silly that a realitively simple formula is deemed more valuable than the actual outcome of the season. The pythag formula has holes in it.. Let's take this season for example. We have three starting pitchers that are effective most of the time, and two disasters.

That team played well above their heads. The writing was on the wall for that team to return to earth in 2007. And they did. To expect last years team to win 80+ games is crazy.

Aronchis
04-24-2008, 07:56 PM
A very bad vibe is coming from Redsdom. Considering the talent the Reds have or coming up and the potential to mold it into a winner, I think everybody is scared it will fall apart and they will blow it. Cast isn't doing much for us to forget Schott, Lindner,Allen,Bowden,O'brien yadda yadda.

Moral is at a alltime low and the players are playing like it.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 07:57 PM
Michael Myers didn't kill Jamie Lee Curtis either, doesn't make him any less menacing. DanO was stopped before his gross incompetence could cripple the franchise. Yet it's inarguable that he had almost every kid on the farm headed in the wrong direction. The record is clear and overwhelming on this count.

I agree DanO had some bad ideas. But any GM would've came in and killed the tandem system and the "must take the first pitch" system.





You know what used to happen when the Reds would have a supposed big bat post a .775 OPS and drop off the prospect radar (e.g. Steve Smitherman)? That kid would disappear forever.


Probably because Smitherman just didn't have talent. The Reds made bad drafts that year, unlike DanO, who made good drafts.
And again, I will point out that Wayne ran Amalarez and the other scouts which found those crown jewels.
I guess I disagree with the premise that the Reds have always had major league talent in their system (eg Smitherman) but somehow ruined it.
For example, was Olmedo ever really a legit ML prospect? Of course not.
All the coaching in the world wouldn't have made him a major leaguer.
The Reds didn't ruin him at all. They hyped him (and other nonprospects up) to give the fans hope.
Under Allen, the draft was obviously underfuned. People were signed based on signablitiy alone. Some of the blame also falls to Bowden who made bad choices with the money he had.







In fact, Votto was vocal about how the system around him was killing his game. O'Brien's regime had that kid thoroughly screwed up and headed down a real bad path.


I don't ever remember reading this. I am not accusing you of making it up, but I have never heard of this. Still, Votto was thriving from 2002-2004.
He had one bad year in the minors. Doesn't seem thoroughly screwed up to me...




Silly would be ignoring the stark evidence that talented kids like Votto were in trouble throughout the Reds system when DanO was in charge. Honestly, the only kid who experienced any sort of consistent success in 2004-5 was Chris Denorfia.


Votto had a good 2004. Homer and Cueto were just added to the system around that time. Isn't it reasonable to expect a high school kid like Homer and a 19 year old like Ceuto to struggle in their first pro seasons? It's not as if these guys were college grads and expected to dominate.

I just don't see how you can make a case.. In fact, by your reasoning, I could look up Wayne's draft class:

Stubbs OPSed 768 and 785 in his first seasons (2006-2007).
Mesoraco OPSed 580 in his first year.
As a comparison:
Votto OPSed in 2005, his only bad year, which seemed to indicate the Reds
screwed him up

Now, do I really think the Reds screwd up Stubbs and Mesoraco. Of course not, but that is the logic you are applying to Homer, Votto, and Ceuto.
Those three guys are good now. It's hard to say that DanO screwed them up and they would've never had careers if Wayne didn't swoop in and save them, but that's what you are claiming.





Overall 4.78 and 1.31 WHIP at the lowest rungs of the developmental ladder? How is that not struggling? I consider the fact that he only pitched limited innings in the DanO regime to be a blessing. Think of all the deprogramming he didn't have to endure.


Maybe because it's his first pro season, and we shouldn't judge him on less than 50 IP, because it's a learning experience? If I was so inclined, I could probably generate a large list of good ML pitchers that had just as bad or worse first year minor league records..





Give him credit for what? Sure, they got acquired during his reign, but none of them were thriving.


Other than Votto, all these guys basically only had one year of minor league experience. It's a weak judgement. Are you ready to give up on Stubbs, Moresco and the rest of Wayne's draftees that didn't dominate in their first year of pro ball?

Votto dominated the minors in every year but 2005. Who knows why. But he recovered. He probably recovers regardless of who the GM is, simply because he's a great hitter.




It took O'Brien's regime less than a year to destroy the top 10 prospects list he inherited when he took the job and he was well on his way to undermining every single good draft pick/minor league signing made during 2004 and 2005 (and there weren't many). Given the evidence, I doubt he'd have delivered a single one of those kids, save maybe Jay Bruce.

Not accurate. Here's baseball America's 2005 top 10 prospect list. This was published in Jan 2005.

1. Homer Bailey, rhp
2. Edwin Encarnacion, 3b
3. Richie Gardner, rhp
4. Joey Votto, 1b
5. B.J. Szymasnki, of
6. Thomas Pauly, rhp
7. Todd Coffey, rhp
8. William Bergolla, 2b/ss
9. Tyler Pelland, lhp
10. Paul Janish, ss

Four of those guys made it to the major leagues. That's pretty darn good.
It's questionable whether #8-10 were legit prospects to begin with.

Who was ruined on that list? IIRC, Gardner battled injury problems.
Was BJ a legit prospect or a bad pick?

I can't find the 2004 list quickly off google, but we can go through that one as well.





I agree Krivsky could have and should have acquired more prospects from other teams, but you're missing Maloney, Bray, Burton and Hamilton. While Phillips and Volquez may not have had rookie status, they were young players not established in the majors (Volquez still isn't, but he's so far looking groovy). I'm also really starting to get interested by Sean Henry. He's like the opposite of Javon Moran. Here's yet another kid who's thriving in the new Reds system. It's epidemic these days. Seriously, how can you not spot the difference?


I just can't see the cause and effect clearly defined. Are we getting a rush of young talent now because we are picking better in the draft/trades/acquisions or is it because of Wayne's system changes.

I tend to think it's from better selection of players. As flawed as Jimbo's and DanO's minor league systems may have been, the truly good players were still able to thrive and make it to the bigs. When the Reds count on guys like Olmedo to contribute big (he was a top 10 prospect at one time), obviously they are going to fail, no matter how good the system is.

I think you are overestimating how important the minor league system is.
Someone like Ceuto is going to make it to the big leagues as long as his workload is managed in the minors to protect his arm. Someone like Dunn is going to make it no matter what. And like I said, bad prospects are never going to make it.

If the system was more important than the players selected, then how come Wayne's system hasn't produced major leaguers from lesser prospects? Shouldn't the marginal guys benefit even more than the #1 draft picks?

Spring~Fields
04-24-2008, 07:58 PM
But lets see what he does now that his good friend is now in there. If the Reds still continue to under perform to Cast's expectations, then does Jocketty, as GM, have the guns to fire Dusty, if he feels that is what is needed, and bring in his type of manager? ;)

Because as far as I'm concerned,even though this team has it's weaknesses, what I have seen of Baker's management style so far in these early stages of the season doesn't impress me one bit.

They have burnt the boats and the bridges now, all three, Castellini, Jocketty and Baker. It will be win or be chased back to the cabbage patch and cornfields for them now if they don't.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 08:00 PM
2006-2007
Wasn't Krivsky hamstrung by Miltions contract along with Griffey and Dunn contracts? If those three don't come through big time and carry the team isn't Krivsky cooked going in ? Where was he supposed to get the funds to bring in FA or who or what was he suppose to trade with to get better players? Were they even available in that time frame in consideration of the resources that Krivsky and the Reds could offer in exchange?


Dunn wasn't hamstringing the team. He was producing.
Milton was making 8 million/year, I think?
Well, this year we are paying Stanton and Castro about 4 million not to play.
We are also paying Gonzo about 3-4 million for nothing. We are paying Freel 3 million for nothing. Wayne dug himself a much bigger hole that the Milton contract he inherited..

Falls City Beer
04-24-2008, 08:04 PM
I guess the litmus test about whether it was Wayne's wizardry with the farm is if it falls apart under Walt. We'll see.

Spring~Fields
04-24-2008, 08:05 PM
Dunn wasn't hamstringing the team. He was producing.
Milton was making 8 million/year, I think?
Well, this year we are paying Stanton and Castro about 4 million not to play.
We are also paying Gonzo about 3-4 million for nothing. We are paying Freel 3 million for nothing. Wayne dug himself a much bigger hole that the Milton contract he inherited..

I am thinking more like cause and affect with the financial and talent contraints that Krivsky had when he took over the high risk position. Then when it comes to Castellini and his rush, I am thinking more about stimulus-stimulus response, each had their effect to cause Krivsky to make some of those bad decisions that you speak of. He had to deal with previous regimes mess/garbage dump and his new owners irrationality to cope with. Hard to do.

Chip R
04-24-2008, 08:06 PM
Because as far as I'm concerned,even though this team has it's weaknesses, what I have seen of Baker's management style so far in these early stages of the season doesn't impress me one bit.


But you were never on board with Dusty in the first place. I'm thinking that the Reds would have to be close to undefeated now for you to be impressed with him.

I was never on board with the Dusty hiring but I've taken a "wait and see" view. He came here with a rep of killing pitchers' arms - especially young ones - and also with a rep of favoring crafty vets over youth. So far both have been proven to be false. Votto is playing every day, Encarnacion is still on the 25 man roster and actually hitting the ball as well as he's ever been, Castro and Stanton were cut. His lineups are pretty goofy but if no one's hitting, you can construct a lineup any way you want and it's not going to make a bit of difference.

Really, this wasn't about Wayne. It was about Bob's man-love for Walt. Billy Beane or John Scherholz, or Branch Rickey or Bob Howsam could have been the GM and if they had the same results Wayne did, they would have been fired too. If Walt was still with the Cards, you better believe Wayne would still be GM.

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 08:07 PM
I don't ever remember reading this. I am not accusing you of making it up, but I have never heard of this. Still, Votto was thriving from 2002-2004.
He had one bad year in the minors. Doesn't seem thoroughly screwed up to me...


A change in general managers in Cincinnati has taken the handcuffs off Joey Votto, allowing the Chattanooga first baseman to put a choke-hold on Southern League pitchers.

Votto felt restricted his ability to do much of anything last season at Class-A Sarasota where his stats included a mundane .256 batting average plus 122 whiffs in 464 at-bats.

According to Votto, former Reds general manager Dan O'Brien required minor league hitters to take a first strike, under the guise of teaching patience and enabling youngsters to learn how to hit when behind in the count.

Phooey, or words to that effect, said Votto.

Through his first 105 games, the Reds No. 2 pick in the 2002 draft was on target for the league's Triple Crown since he was leading in batting average (.319) plus home runs (20) and was second in RBI (64). Votto also was leading in doubles (36), slugging percentage (.569) and OPS (.970).

Under first-year general manager Wayne Krivsky, the player is back in the driver’s seat, which, as Votto explains, allows for survival, if not excellence.

"You face a guy like (Justin) Verlander and you're screwed," Votto told the Cincinnati Post. "He'd throw a 95 to 97 fastball down the middle. You’re 0-and-1 and he'd come inside at 97 again and maybe it's strike two. Then, he'd throw an 0-2 slider or an 0-2 changeup. That put you at a real disadvantage.

"That's why I struggled so badly last year."

http://www.minorleaguenews.com/baseball/features/articles2006/08/fab50/31.html

Reds Nd2
04-24-2008, 08:07 PM
What I want to see from Jocketty as the season progresses is what does he identify as the specific problem areas on this team that are contributing to their losing/struggles, and what he tends to do, because we have such an impatient owner, to address them pretty quickly?

Perhaps Mr. Jocketty can teach Mr. Castellini that the season is a marathon and not a sprint.


It's obvious to Bob C that he didn't like the direction WK was taking us, so I'll wait and see what Walt has to suggest. The clock is ticking. ;)

And in my humble opinion that's too bad, because I thought Mr. Krivsky had the Reds going in the correct direction.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 08:09 PM
AGon a BAD frontline player?


Yep, one of Wayne's bigger mistakes. Declining. Supposedly a great glove but wasn't. Gave him a three year deal. All he could do was occasionally hit a HR.
We've gotten zero production out of him this year. His career might be over now. Wayne himself found two better alternatives.. harris and keppinger.





Clayton was fodder thrown into that deal. If WK had intentions of him being our everyday starting SS, which IMO he didn't, then he wouldn't have signed AGon then.


Wayne told his advisors that he didn't care who played SS for the rest of 2006 and 2007. That's pretty obvious because he settled for clayton on the stretch drive.

I have no real problem with the Fogg signing you discuss below. It was a reasonable risk, but it's still bad. Not nearly as bad as Freel, Stanton, AGon and some of the other multi-year goofs Wayne made.



True. But how has the BP overall performed this year so far? Other then Coffey, they have performed quite well. Check out the numbers. ;)

So far, it's been better. Time will tell. Although you must admit that the pen was so horrible last year, that it wasn't too difficult to improve it.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 08:12 PM
That team played well above their heads. The writing was on the wall for that team to return to earth in 2007. And they did. To expect last years team to win 80+ games is crazy.

Ok then.. if the team was expected to fall to earth, Wayne should've done something about it.

Based on Wayne's choices, yes it was foolish to expect 80 wins in 2007. If he had chosen wisely, it was fairly easy to tweak that team into another 80 win team. Instead we got Stanton, etc.. Isn't this a point you made about Wayne all last season, his poor choices? Why is this all forgiven by you now?
Not calling you out, but I'm kind of surprised that you are giving Wayne so much support now.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 08:14 PM
A very bad vibe is coming from Redsdom. Considering the talent the Reds have or coming up and the potential to mold it into a winner, I think everybody is scared it will fall apart and they will blow it. Cast isn't doing much for us to forget Schott, Lindner,Allen,Bowden,O'brien yadda yadda.

Moral is at a alltime low and the players are playing like it.

How do you know this? Maybe Wayne rubbed the players the wrong way with his people skills and they're glad he's gone. Maybe they respect Jocketty and think he'll fix the team. It's all pure speculation, but I seriously doubt any player cries over a GM getting fired (except maybe Sean Casey). This is the same guy they have to negotiate their pay with and the same guy that can trade them to another city, etc.. The players understand the business aspect of it.

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 08:16 PM
Ok then.. if the team was expected to fall to earth, Wayne should've done something about it.

Based on Wayne's choices, yes it was foolish to expect 80 wins in 2007. If he had chosen wisely, it was fairly easy to tweak that team into another 80 win team. Instead we got Stanton, etc.. Isn't this a point you made about Wayne all last season, his poor choices? Why is this all forgiven by you now?
Not calling you out, but I'm kind of surprised that you are giving Wayne so much support now.

Would you rather he traded Jay Bruce and Johnny Cueto for a quick fix and just completely abort the plan of building toward the future just for a couple extra wins? No thanks.

And no. I wasn't happy about the Stanton signing but it's not something I thought he should be fired over.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 08:16 PM
I guess the litmus test about whether it was Wayne's wizardry with the farm is if it falls apart under Walt. We'll see.

Well, there will be excuses if Wayne's picks don't make it to the majors. (Walt screwed up the system again).

However, if the picks make it to the big leagues, then Wayne gets the credit.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 08:18 PM
I am thinking more like cause and affect with the financial and talent contraints that Krivsky had when he took over the high risk position. Then when it comes to Castellini and his rush, I am thinking more about stimulus-stimulus response, each had their effect to cause Krivsky to make some of those bad decisions that you speak of. He had to deal with previous regimes mess/garbage dump and his new owners irrationality to cope with. Hard to do.

Wayne had very little financial constraints. Cast spent freely.
Wayne probably had more financial flexiblity than any Reds GM ever had since free agency was inacted. The problem is Wayne did not spend wisely for the most part.

Aronchis
04-24-2008, 08:20 PM
How do you know this? Maybe Wayne rubbed the players the wrong way with his people skills and they're glad he's gone. Maybe they respect Jocketty and think he'll fix the team. It's all pure speculation, but I seriously doubt any player cries over a GM getting fired (except maybe Sean Casey). This is the same guy they have to negotiate their pay with and the same guy that can trade them to another city, etc.. The players understand the business aspect of it.

Maybe, but I am reading things as:

Cast: Mr.Magoo
Jocketty: Past his prime GM
Baker: Overpaid pre-madonna who isn't worth the dirt he lives on=

Fan apathy, player apathy, no money for Reds, losses, ete ete ete.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 08:22 PM
A change in general managers in Cincinnati has taken the handcuffs off Joey Votto, allowing the Chattanooga first baseman to put a choke-hold on Southern League pitchers.

Thanks for posting that.
I have acknowledged that forcing them to take the first strike was idiotic.
I remember complaining about it at the time.
But any GM with common sense would've revoked that rule.
Would it have ultimately ruined Votto? I don't think so. It would've hurt his minor league stats, but as soon as the restriction was lifted and he had three strikes instead of two, he would've started hitting better.

I thought the DanO regime screwed up his swing or something like that.
So Wayne does get credit for removing the obviously stupid things DanO did. But any Gm would've done that.

That's my arguement.. Not that DanO was a genius. but that Wayne didn't do anything special with the minors. DanO needed to be canned too, don't get me wrong, but he deserves credit for picking homer, bruce, and cueto.

GAC
04-24-2008, 08:34 PM
But you were never on board with Dusty in the first place. I'm thinking that the Reds would have to be close to undefeated now for you to be impressed with him.

That's right I wasn't on board. But it doesn't mean I have not tried to show any objectivity in my observations of Dusty as far as managing this team so far this season.

IN DUSTY WE TRUSTY :D


I was never on board with the Dusty hiring but I've taken a "wait and see" view.

And I came back a few days later, when the temper had somewhat dissipated, and like everyone else who opposed this hiring, said I'd give him his chance. Someone obviously missed that post. ;)

I'm not calling for his firing. Only that from what I've seen so far, and I know it's still a small window, concerning his managing skills, lineup construction, game time substitutions/decisions, I'm not impressed at all.


His lineups are pretty goofy

Don't insult Goofy like that. ;)


but if no one's hitting, you can construct a lineup any way you want and it's not going to make a bit of difference.

I agree that players/teams slump. So there is some truth to what you're saying Chip. And I have not been too overly concerned about this early season offensive slump either. But a manager's lineup construction can contribute to certain player's slumps/hitting because of where you're batting them.

IMHO he doesn't maximize, or even minimize, various player's talent/abilites in that batting order.

Examples?

We all know that Dunn is an OB machine. Yes, he's struggling right now. Could batting him 5th, where pitchers can be far more selective (they are walking him more), be causing him press and exasperate that slump? I personally think so. Put himuphigher in the order where we know he's not only going to get on base, but see more quality pitches.

His justification for batting a Patterson leadoff, who he has seen first hand in Chicago, and who he knows struggles to hit and get on base, but because he is fast, is just mind boggling. He's even an embarassment to "old school" thought.

He has a kid by the name of Keppinger who, IMO, is a typical leadoff man (in the likes of a Rose).

Where he bats EE s another one.


Really, this wasn't about Wayne. It was about Bob's man-love for Walt.

Geez! Now I gotta go to work trying to get that image out of my mind. :lol:


If Walt was still with the Cards, you better believe Wayne would still be GM.

Absolutely true. And he did a terrible job in the way he handled this, with some pretty weak excuses IMO.

cincyinco
04-24-2008, 08:39 PM
I guess the litmus test about whether it was Wayne's wizardry with the farm is if it falls apart under Walt. We'll see.

I see it going like this:

We're seeing Wayne's results with the farm, and we have his detractors saying he didn't do much. He walked into a system on the rise. He's lucky. he already had Votto, Cueto, Bruce, Bailey, etc.

But if the farm does fail under WJ, the blame will fall squarely on his shoulders.

Thats how RedsZone rolls!

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 08:43 PM
Funny quote from Trent:

Nobody inside the clubhouse may be panicking, but they certainly are outside. A couple more losses, and the popcorn vendor in section 514 may get worried that Castellini is looking for another scapegoat. Losing may not be accepted by Castellini, but it seems to keep happening.

http://www.thelotd.com/ctrent/blog

Chip R
04-24-2008, 08:47 PM
I agree that players/teams slump. So there is some truth to what you're saying Chip. And I have not been too overly concerned about this early season offensive slump either. But a manager's lineup construction can contribute to certain player's slumps/hitting because of where you're batting them.

IMHO he doesn't maximize, or even minimize, various player's talent/abilites in that batting order.

Examples?

We all know that Dunn is an OB machine. Yes, he's struggling right now. Could batting him 5th, where pitchers can be far more selective (they are walking him more), be causing him press and exasperate that slump? I personally think so. Put himuphigher in the order where we know he's not only going to get on base, but see more quality pitches.

His justification for batting a Patterson leadoff, who he has seen first hand in Chicago, and who he knows struggles to hit and get on base, but because he is fast, is just mind boggling.

He has a kid by the name of Keppinger who, IMO, is a typical leadoff man (in the likes of a Rose).

Where he bats EE s another one.


A leadoff hitter's primary job is to get on base so the guys behind him can drive him in. These guys in the 3-5 spots should have a pretty good slugging percentage so they can score the leadoff hitter from 1st if he doesn't advance to 2nd. But that's the problem with the Reds. Even if Kepp was leading off, no one's able to dive him in. Maybe EE can do it now but he was as brutal as anyone the first couple of weeks. Maybe Ty Cobb could steal 2nd, 3rd and home but that's still only 1 run.

For the last couple of weeks, Dunn has had EE hitting behind him for the most part. But if he gets on base, EE's usually not knocking him in or if Dunn doesn't get on, EE gets a hit with no one on. It's not anyone's fault really, it's just that most of the offense has been slumping all at the same time.

Patterson's no leadoff hitter, except in Dustyworld, but Ricky Henderson could lead off and he'd have a tough time scoring run if no one else is hitting the ball.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 09:34 PM
Would you rather he traded Jay Bruce and Johnny Cueto for a quick fix and just completely abort the plan of building toward the future just for a couple extra wins? No thanks.

And no. I wasn't happy about the Stanton signing but it's not something I thought he should be fired over.

I'd have no problem with trading anyone if it made the team better.

I don't see a whole lot of difference in trading Bruce vs trading Hamilton. Both are huge upside bats with a lot of athletism. I don't understand why some people think Bruce is untouchable yet Hamilton was ok..

The point is Wayne didn't have to trade Bruce or Ceuto to make the team better. Obviously there's hundreds of possible moves that don't involve those two guys.

Wayne made a lot more mistakes besides Stanton. That's why the team stunk last year and continues to stink, despite the youth infusion.

REDREAD
04-24-2008, 09:35 PM
Maybe, but I am reading things as:

Cast: Mr.Magoo
Jocketty: Past his prime GM
Baker: Overpaid pre-madonna who isn't worth the dirt he lives on=

Fan apathy, player apathy, no money for Reds, losses, ete ete ete.

As long as the team wins, 99% of the fans could care less who the manager or GM is.

Walt is going to be under the same microscope as Wayne was.

OnBaseMachine
04-24-2008, 09:37 PM
I'd have no problem with trading anyone if it made the team better.

I don't see a whole lot of difference in trading Bruce vs trading Hamilton. Both are huge upside bats with a lot of athletism. I don't understand why some people think Bruce is untouchable yet Hamilton was ok..


Because Bruce just turned 21 and Hamilton is about to turn 27? Maybe because Josh Hamilton has a long injury history and drug abuse and Bruce doesn't? And Hamilton's struggles against lefties. My bet is every organization out there would prefer Jay Bruce to Josh Hamilton.

reds44
04-24-2008, 09:39 PM
I'd have no problem with trading anyone if it made the team better.

I don't see a whole lot of difference in trading Bruce vs trading Hamilton. Both are huge upside bats with a lot of athletism. I don't understand why some people think Bruce is untouchable yet Hamilton was ok..

Really?

Bruce is 21, Hamilton is 27
Hamilton is injury prone
Hamilton has a history of abusing drugs.
Hamilton is one more drug slip up away from being out of the league

Ltlabner
04-24-2008, 09:50 PM
Nope, I'm in denial because no one has presented evidence that Wayne actually improved the team.

Lopez or Kepp?
Womack or Phillips?
Williams or Volquez?
Closer by committe or Cordero?
Milton or Cueto?
Just about anybody in the 2005 bullpen or Burton?
The first baseman we didn't have in 2005 or Votto?
Willy Mo or Dunn penciled into LF ?

Yep, not a single sign of improvement whatsoever.

I know, you'll take each one of these examples and give a convoluted reason why Wayne gets zero credit for any of these moves. We can see that coming from a mile ahead.

Oh yea, before you reply about me cherrypicking the success stories, nobody is saying that the Stanton, Cormier, extending Freel, extending Coffey, et al were good moves. The defense stipulates that those moves sucked.

Falls City Beer
04-24-2008, 09:53 PM
Lopez or Kepp?
Womack or Phillips?
Volquez or Williams?
Closer by committe or Cordero?
Milton or Cueto?
Just about anybody in the 2005 bullpen or Burton?
The first baseman we didn't have in 2005 or Votto?
Willy Mo or Dunn penciled into LF ?

Yep, not a single sign of improvement whatsoever.

I know, you'll take each one of these examples and give a convoluted reason why Wayne gets zero credit for any of these moves. We can see that coming from a mile ahead.

Oh yea, before you reply about me cherrypicking the success stories, nobody is saying that the Stanton, Cormier, extending Freel, extending Coffey, et al were good moves. The defense stipulates that those moves sucked.

I don't know what Redread's response is going to be, but I've not seen one single honest accounting of what Wayne actually did do.

I think he did make the team better--but I'm not deluded into thinking he was taking this team anywhere that a bunch of other GMs couldn't have. The Reds don't need an okay GM; they need a great one.

Ltlabner
04-24-2008, 09:59 PM
I don't know what Redread's response is going to be, but I've not seen one single honest accounting of what Wayne actually did do.

I think he did make the team better--but I'm not deluded into thinking he was taking this team anywhere that a bunch of other GMs couldn't have. The Reds don't need an okay GM; they need a great one.

You calling me a liar punk? :p:

While I was a fan of Krivs approach, I do agree 100% with the last para. With the state of decay of the entire orginization, ownership and the fanbase, it will take a very tallented GM to do more than just "improve" the team, especially with the length of time most GM's get to work their magic.

pedro
04-24-2008, 10:03 PM
I don't know what Redread's response is going to be, but I've not seen one single honest accounting of what Wayne actually did do.

I think he did make the team better--but I'm not deluded into thinking he was taking this team anywhere that a bunch of other GMs couldn't have. The Reds don't need an okay GM; they need a great one.

That may be true but Redread has been claiming that Krivsky left the Reds worse off than he found them which is ludicrous.

GAC
04-24-2008, 10:10 PM
I don't know what Redread's response is going to be, but I've not seen one single honest accounting of what Wayne actually did do.

I think he did make the team better.

If you're going to say that, then give honest accounting as to how? ;)

reds44
04-24-2008, 10:18 PM
Lopez or Kepp?
Womack or Phillips?
Williams or Volquez?
Closer by committe or Cordero?
Milton or Cueto?
Just about anybody in the 2005 bullpen or Burton?
The first baseman we didn't have in 2005 or Votto?
Willy Mo or Dunn penciled into LF ?

Yep, not a single sign of improvement whatsoever.

I know, you'll take each one of these examples and give a convoluted reason why Wayne gets zero credit for any of these moves. We can see that coming from a mile ahead.

Oh yea, before you reply about me cherrypicking the success stories, nobody is saying that the Stanton, Cormier, extending Freel, extending Coffey, et al were good moves. The defense stipulates that those moves sucked.
The 2005 Cincinnati Reds scored 820 runs, and had a team line of .261/.339/.446. They had a team ERA of 5.15, and allowed 889 runs, good for a Pythagorean of 75-87. They were managed by Dave Miley and Jerry Narron.

Final Record: 73-89

The 2007 Cincinnati Reds scored 783 runs, and had a team line of .267/.335/.436. They had a team ERA of 4.94, and allowed 853 runs, good for a Pythagorean of once again 75-87. They were managed by Jerry Narron and Pete Mackanin.

Final Record: 72-90

The Reds had improved pitching under Krivsky, and much worse hitting. The end results was nearly identical. The 05 team was outscored by 69 runs, and the 07 team was outscored by 70 runs. They got there different ways, but the end result: bad.

He improved the farm system (and while there is no doubt he did, I think he gets too much credit for it), but other than that the results were nearly identical.

Ltlabner
04-24-2008, 10:30 PM
The 2005 Cincinnati Reds scored 820 runs, and had a team line of .261/.339/.446. They had a team ERA of 5.15, and allowed 889 runs, good for a Pythagorean of 75-87. They were managed by Dave Miley and Jerry Narron.

Final Record: 73-89

The 2007 Cincinnati Reds scored 783 runs, and had a team line of .267/.335/.436. They had a team ERA of 4.94, and allowed 853 runs, good for a Pythagorean of once again 75-87. They were managed by Jerry Narron and Pete Mackanin.

Final Record: 72-90

The Reds had improved pitching under Krivsky, and much worse hitting. The end results was nearly identical. The 05 team was outscored by 69 runs, and the 07 team was outscored by 70 runs. They got there different ways, but the end result: bad.

He improved the farm system (and while there is no doubt he did, I think he gets too much credit for it), but other than that the results were nearly identical.

But RR was making the case that Wayne got a great team and left the overall orgization in worse shape. Clearly that position is laughable.

He was also saying there was absoultey no evidence of improvements. Clearly they have been made unless you just refuse to admit it to yourself.

Obviously the overall problems was that his mistakes blunted his successes to the point that unless everything fell into place we'd struggle.

There's really no point it discussing it further. There's nothing I can post that will change your mind regarding the Crime Dog, especially if folks can't see past the win/loss column as the only measuring stick of success.

GAC
04-24-2008, 10:31 PM
He improved the farm system (and while there is no doubt he did, I think he gets too much credit for it), but other than that the results were nearly identical.

If improving the farm system is the objective - and most would tell you that it takes a few years to see any type of positive results - how long did kids like EE, Votto, Bailey, Ceuto, Volquez (while in the Texas system), and other examples, spend in that system before results were seen and they got their shot at the ML level?

Yet with WK the results should have been immediate? 2 years, IMHO, is simply not enough time to be able to make a proper and valued decision in that respect when it comes to one's drafts and their progress.

WVRedsFan
04-24-2008, 10:31 PM
The starting lineup in 2005 (pre-Krivsky):

1B - Casey
2B - Olmedo-Freel
3B - Aurilia
SS - Lopez
LF - Dunn
CF - Griffey, Jr.
RF - Kearns
C - LaRue

Today:

1B - Votto
2B - Phillips
3B - Encarnacion
SS - Keppinger
LF - Dunn
CF - Patterson
RF - Griffey, Jr.
C - Bako

The winners:

1B - Krivsky
2B - Krivsky
SS - Krivsky
3B - Krivsky
LF - Same
CF - 2005
RF - 2005
C - 2005

Your take??

reds44
04-24-2008, 10:35 PM
The starting lineup in 2005 (pre-Krivsky):

1B - Casey
2B - Olmedo-Freel
3B - Aurilia
SS - Lopez
LF - Dunn
CF - Griffey, Jr.
RF - Kearns
C - LaRue

Today:

1B - Votto
2B - Phillips
3B - Encarnacion
SS - Keppinger
LF - Dunn
CF - Patterson
RF - Griffey, Jr.
C - Bako

The winners:

1B - Krivsky
2B - Krivsky
SS - Krivsky
3B - Krivsky
LF - Same
CF - 2005
RF - 2005
C - 2005

Your take??
Encarnacion got 211 ABs as a rookie with the 05 team as well, but other than that there is not much to disagree with.

This years team has no chance even sniffing 820 runs, and I'll be surprised if they match last year's number of 783.

GAC
04-24-2008, 10:38 PM
Obviously the overall problems were that his mistakes blunted his successes to the point that unless everything fell into place we'd struggle.

Very true. And what area that needed dire improvement that "blunted" any successes WK may have had?....

PITCHING

And unless you have an owner who is willing to really open up the ol' pocket book and spend in a market that was very tough,competitive, and lean, then you have to take a different route - as a majority of clubs found themselves in - and try develop it.

And yes, that not only involves time (patience), but also some risktaking. And sometimes youcomeout OK, and sometimes you may get burned.

But some seem to think that the pitching market, whether it's starters or bullpen, is just overflowing/beaming with talent waiting to be gobbled up, and that it should be hard for any GM, even a Krivsky, to gobble it up.

Yet last year alone I read where many team's struggles/weaknesses was due to not being able to pitching/bullpen.

Ltlabner
04-24-2008, 10:39 PM
The starting lineup in 2005 (pre-Krivsky):

1B - Casey
2B - Olmedo-Freel
3B - Aurilia
SS - Lopez
LF - Dunn
CF - Griffey, Jr.
RF - Kearns
C - LaRue

Today:

1B - Votto
2B - Phillips
3B - Encarnacion
SS - Keppinger
LF - Dunn
CF - Patterson
RF - Griffey, Jr.
C - Bako

The winners:

1B - Krivsky
2B - Krivsky
SS - Krivsky
3B - Krivsky
LF - Same
CF - 2005
RF - 2005
C - 2005

Your take??

I'd argue that the CF situation is about the same as 2005. Jr's offense combined with injuries and fading defense is offset by Pattersons greatly improved defense and horrific bat.

Catching goes to 2005, but LaRue was toast. It wasn't as if he could have just continued with LaRue and been successfull. Then again, he could have come up with a better replacement that the Ross/Javy/Bako experience. So I'd say that's more of a wash.

This is only my perception, and is without looking at numbers, but I'd have to give the nod to Kearns 2005 over Jr 2008.

reds44
04-24-2008, 10:43 PM
But RR was making the case that Wayne got a great team and left the overall orgization in worse shape. Clearly that position is laughable.

He was also saying there was absoultey no evidence of improvements. Clearly they have been made unless you just refuse to admit it to yourself.

Obviously the overall problems was that his mistakes blunted his successes to the point that unless everything fell into place we'd struggle.

There's really no point it discussing it further. There's nothing I can post that will change your mind regarding the Crime Dog, especially if folks can't see past the win/loss column as the only measuring stick of success.
There is very little doubt that Krivsky left the organization is better shape, but the ML team is basically the same. The question is, did Krivsky improve the organization enough to offset his failure to improve this club at the highest level. With an impatient owner, the answer turned out to be no.



If improving the farm system is the objective - and most would tell you that it takes a few years to see any type of positive results - how long did kids like EE, Votto, Bailey, Ceuto, Volquez (while in the Texas system), and other examples, spend in that system before results were seen and they got their shot at the ML level?

Yet with WK the results should have been immediate? 2 years, IMHO, is simply not enough time to be able to make a proper and valued decision in that respect when it comes to one's drafts and their progress.

The 2005 team had a payroll of $61,892,583.
Today the Reds have a payroll of $74,277,695.

$13,000,000 and no sign of improvement at the highest level. Eventually he needed to do more than care take somebody elses prospects.

If in 5 years we have a team running around with Krivsky prospects on the highest level and we are making the playoffs, we'll all look back at Krivsky and say maybe he shouldn't have been canned. Right now all those guys are questions, and BCast wanted answers.

reds44
04-24-2008, 10:46 PM
I'd argue that the CF situation is about the same as 2005. Jr's offense combined with injuries and fading defense is offset by Pattersons greatly improved defense and horrific bat.

Catching goes to 2005, but LaRue was toast. It wasn't as if he could have just continued with LaRue and been successfull. Then again, he could have come up with a better replacement that the Ross/Javy/Bako experience. So I'd say that's more of a wash.

This is only my perception, and is without looking at numbers, but I'd have to give the nod to Kearns 2005 over Jr 2008.
Griffey had 35 homers and 92 RBI in just under 500 ABs (112 games) in 2005.

His season line was .301/.369/.576

Agreed on the catching situation. LaRue had a really good year in 2005, but he just hit the wall in 2006.

Kearns 05: .240/.333/.452 with 18 HR and 67 RBI in 387 AB (K'd 107 times).

pedro
04-24-2008, 11:02 PM
I'd argue that the CF situation is about the same as 2005. Jr's offense combined with injuries and fading defense is offset by Pattersons greatly improved defense and horrific bat.

Catching goes to 2005, but LaRue was toast. It wasn't as if he could have just continued with LaRue and been successfull. Then again, he could have come up with a better replacement that the Ross/Javy/Bako experience. So I'd say that's more of a wash.

This is only my perception, and is without looking at numbers, but I'd have to give the nod to Kearns 2005 over Jr 2008.


That's a good point about merely comparing the catchers 2005 vs. 2008. Larue turned into a pumpkin after 2005 so in essence Krivsky was left with nothing.

As for the Jr. vs. Kearns debate I'm not convinced Kearns in 2008 is going to be any better than Griffey in 2008 and that is the real question.

Caveat Emperor
04-24-2008, 11:24 PM
The starting lineup in 2005 (pre-Krivsky):

1B - Casey
2B - Olmedo-Freel
3B - Aurilia
SS - Lopez
LF - Dunn
CF - Griffey, Jr.
RF - Kearns
C - LaRue

Today:

1B - Votto
2B - Phillips
3B - Encarnacion
SS - Keppinger
LF - Dunn
CF - Patterson
RF - Griffey, Jr.
C - Bako

1B: Krivsky
2B: Krivsky
3B: Krivsky
SS: Krivsky
LF: PUSH
CF: PUSH
RF: Krivsky
C: 2005

CF pushes because Griffey's defense was so abysmally bad that it offsets the additions made by his bat in my mind. Maybe you give a tick to 2005, but man -- Griffey couldn't hack it in CF and it was obvious to anyone with a pair of eyes.

LF pushes because Dunn is Dunn -- and I think this year's Dunn might have his best year ever.

I give C to 2005, mostly because I expect Bako to return to earth any second now.

Here's where the difference REALLY shows:

2005:
SP1 - Aaron Harang
SP2 - Eric Milton
SP3 - Ramon Ortiz
SP4 - Brandon Claussen
SP5 - Luke Hudson / Paul Wilson

2008:
SP1 - Aaron Harang
SP2 - Bronson Arroyo
SP3 - Edinson Volquez
SP4 - Johnny Cueto
SP5 - Matt Belisle / Josh Fogg / TBD

On that chart, I go:

SP1: Krivsky
SP2: Krivsky
SP3: Krivsky
SP4: Krivsky
SP5: Krivsky

Makes a big difference, IMO.

Matt700wlw
04-25-2008, 12:11 AM
Jason Stark, ESPN

Ready, Aim, Fire Dept.:

Reds owner Bob Castellini has no idea how many people in baseball he alienated by firing his GM, Wayne Krivsky -- as well-liked and highly respected a man as you'll find in the business."They just went from a team you root for to a team you root against," is the way one veteran baseball man put it Wednesday.

"There's nothing worse than these owners who treat the national pastime like it's the frigging stock market," said an official of one team. "They think it's got to keep going up, up, up, every day. But that's just not the way of works. This is a game of human beings."

reds44
04-25-2008, 12:15 AM
Jason Stark, ESPN

Ready, Aim, Fire Dept.:

Reds owner Bob Castellini has no idea how many people in baseball he alienated by firing his GM, Wayne Krivsky -- as well-liked and highly respected a man as you'll find in the business."They just went from a team you root for to a team you root against," is the way one veteran baseball man put it Wednesday.

"There's nothing worse than these owners who treat the national pastime like it's the frigging stock market," said an official of one team. "They think it's got to keep going up, up, up, every day. But that's just not the way of works. This is a game of human beings."
Well now I'm really going to have trouble sleeping tonight.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-25-2008, 12:27 AM
"They just went from a team you root for to a team you root against," is the way one veteran baseball man put it Wednesday.

What good did it do the Reds when they were the cute little guy everyone rooted for?

I wonder if Jason and his "veteran baseball people" feel this way about the Evil Empire in NY.

KronoRed
04-25-2008, 12:29 AM
Yeah you don't need other teams in baseball, except when you want to trade with them...

Tommyjohn25
04-25-2008, 12:33 AM
What good did it do the Reds when they were the cute little guy everyone rooted for?

My thoughts exactly. I'm sick of rooting for the Little Engine That "Couldn't" but sure as George Grande still gave it the ol' college try!

SteelSD
04-25-2008, 01:04 AM
If improving the farm system is the objective - and most would tell you that it takes a few years to see any type of positive results - how long did kids like EE, Votto, Bailey, Ceuto, Volquez (while in the Texas system), and other examples, spend in that system before results were seen and they got their shot at the ML level?

Yet with WK the results should have been immediate? 2 years, IMHO, is simply not enough time to be able to make a proper and valued decision in that respect when it comes to one's drafts and their progress.

Sorry, GAC, but when you pass on Tim Lincecum for Drew Stubbs the window for evaluation is immediate. Krivsky botched a lot of jobs, but that was a complete and total gaffe.

Krivsky's drafts aren't exactly teeming with high-level fast-moving prospects. Even the better college players drafted during his tenure are sitting in A-Ball right now. Yet the guys you cited were all teenagers when they began professional ball.

Like Dan O'Brien, Wayne Krivsky was working on a five-year plan with a three-year contract. Guys like that deserve to be working in baseball, but never as MLB General Managers.

oregonred
04-25-2008, 01:10 AM
Here's where the difference REALLY shows:

2005:
SP1 - Aaron Harang
SP2 - Eric Milton
SP3 - Ramon Ortiz
SP4 - Brandon Claussen
SP5 - Luke Hudson / Paul Wilson

2008:
SP1 - Aaron Harang
SP2 - Bronson Arroyo
SP3 - Edinson Volquez
SP4 - Johnny Cueto
SP5 - Matt Belisle / Josh Fogg / TBD

On that chart, I go:

SP1: Krivsky
SP2: Krivsky
SP3: Krivsky
SP4: Krivsky
SP5: Krivsky

Makes a big difference, IMO.

Great point. Memories of gascans Milton/Ortiz as the #2/#3's on the 2005 list is enough to give me a case of the hives. This team is in so much better shape then 2005, hopefully Jocketty can put the final pieces together. I'm appalled the way Bob C fired Krivsky before the Break, but at least I won't lose any sleep at night with a proven winning GM at the helm. He's the anti-Mike Brown.

WVRedsFan
04-25-2008, 01:23 AM
Sorry, GAC, but when you pass on Tim Lincecum for Drew Stubbs the window for evaluation is immediate. Krivsky botched a lot of jobs, but that was a complete and total gaffe.

Krivsky's drafts aren't exactly teeming with high-level fast-moving prospects. Even the better college players drafted during his tenure are sitting in A-Ball right now. Yet the guys you cited were all teenagers when they began professional ball.

Like Dan O'Brien, Wayne Krivsky was working on a five-year plan with a three-year contract. Guys like that deserve to be working in baseball, but never as MLB General Managers.

You make a great point. I guess it all comes down to this (and I keep repeating myself). Wayne Krivsky is a good baseball man not suited for the GM position. Castellini hired him a rookie GM who was overwhelmed at how bad this club was. First, he brought in some help and then panicked as he watched the bullpen implode. He made some more moves and nothing worked, but he kept trying, making mistakes along the way. It was a job for a much more experienced man. Unfortunately, Castellini set him up for failure. Castellini knew it last year and apparently decided he'd be gone at the end of his contract. It was like hiring the kid down the street to manage your business. It's a good idea, but when it doesn't work, you're the guy who looks stupid. I think Castellini feels that way tonight. Especially if he even hears about the conversations on RedsZone.

Jpup
04-25-2008, 04:02 AM
Kinsler, Pedroia, Cano, Hill, Utley, just off the top of my head.


I watch every Yankee game and every Reds game. There is absolutely no way that Robbie Cano is better at 2nd than Brandon Phillips. Give it up. Dustin Pedroia ain't much either.

jojo
04-25-2008, 08:10 AM
I watch every Yankee game and every Reds game. There is absolutely no way that Robbie Cano is better at 2nd than Brandon Phillips. Give it up. Dustin Pedroia ain't much either.

Here's what a survey of the PBP-based defensive metrics thought of second base in '07:



UZR Dewan PMR Justin
Ellis Hill BP Utley
Utley Utley Utley BP
Hudson Hudson Hudson Ellis
Cano Ellis Cano Hill
Hill Cano Kinsler Kinsler
Giles Matsui Ellis Polanco
? BP Hill Hudson


When considering how best to compare systems (they aren't all created equal), I'd weight them something like this: UZR=45%; Dewan's +/-: 25%; PMR: 20%; Justin's translations: 10%.

Brandon is a plus defender. I'd stop short of labeling him an elite one relative to his peers at second.

Team Clark
04-25-2008, 09:34 AM
Jason Stark, ESPN

Ready, Aim, Fire Dept.:

Reds owner Bob Castellini has no idea how many people in baseball he alienated by firing his GM, Wayne Krivsky -- as well-liked and highly respected a man as you'll find in the business."They just went from a team you root for to a team you root against," is the way one veteran baseball man put it Wednesday.

"There's nothing worse than these owners who treat the national pastime like it's the frigging stock market," said an official of one team. "They think it's got to keep going up, up, up, every day. But that's just not the way of works. This is a game of human beings."

Intersting take by Mr. Stark. I certainly agree with the notion that Owners (and most fans) react emotionally. At times the game is treated like a stack of strat-o-matic cards. The game moves on but hurt feelings in this game last FOREVER. Cast just bruised the good 'ol boy network.

Funny how things have turned out this week. For the better part of ten years the Reds have had a VERY difficult time getting "good" baseball people to take jobs in the organization without seriously overpaying or grand standing. You might get a guy like Terry Reynolds to come along but those guys are far and few between. Just as an example, it took Krivksy TWO YEARS to find someone even mildly interested in taking the Director of Player Development role away from Naehring. Even then the role had to be filled internally, twice.

Numerous Coordinator roles have been shifted and some left open because well...the Reds are at the BOTTOM when it comes to paying staff and coaches AND no one worth their weight wants to come to the Reds organization to work for peanuts.

Couple the fact that the Reds are the last resort for FO work, and the recent firing of Krivsky, I can hardly wait to see what type of magic wand Jocketty will yield. Baseball backlash is very difficult to overcome. Jocketty MAY be able to get a few of HIS guys to come over but I doubt it's more than 2-3. It will be an interesting year.

If Jocketty is going to change the culture he needs to start from A ball on up. Hire and properly pay QUALIFIED coaches, hire the right scouts, put the proper people in the office who will actually do the work, stop promoting old interns, give your crosscheckers some autonomy, etc...

OldXOhio
04-25-2008, 09:41 AM
Jason Stark, ESPN



Wayne Krivsky -- as well-liked and highly respected a man as you'll find in the business."

Am I the only one this is news to?

redsmetz
04-25-2008, 09:45 AM
Am I the only one this is news to?

I'm not surprised by it whatsoever. While he wasn't a gladhanding yacker with the press (which I think ultimately helped with his demise), he seemed to be well respected. The only GM he'd had an issue with was Jim Bowden - go figure. No one's surprised by that. I'll guarantee you, Walt Jockety won't talk to Jim Bowden. Just ask Jeff Brantley about that.

redsmetz
04-25-2008, 09:49 AM
Intersting take by Mr. Stark. I certainly agree with the notion that Owners (and most fans) react emotionally. At times the game is treated like a stack of strat-o-matic cards. The game moves on but hurt feelings in this game last FOREVER. Cast just bruised the good 'ol boy network.

Funny how things have turned out this week. For the better part of ten years the Reds have had a VERY difficult time getting "good" baseball people to take jobs in the organization without seriously overpaying or grand standing. You might get a guy like Terry Reynolds to come along but those guys are far and few between. Just as an example, it took Krivksy TWO YEARS to find someone even mildly interested in taking the Director of Player Development role away from Naehring. Even then the role had to be filled internally, twice.

Numerous Coordinator roles have been shifted and some left open because well...the Reds are at the BOTTOM when it comes to paying staff and coaches AND no one worth their weight wants to come to the Reds organization to work for peanuts.

Couple the fact that the Reds are the last resort for FO work, and the recent firing of Krivsky, I can hardly wait to see what type of magic wand Jocketty will yield. Baseball backlash is very difficult to overcome. Jocketty MAY be able to get a few of HIS guys to come over but I doubt it's more than 2-3. It will be an interesting year.

If Jocketty is going to change the culture he needs to start from A ball on up. Hire nad properly pay QUALIFIED coaches, hire the right scouts, put the proper people in the office who will actually do the work, stop promoting old interns, give your crosscheckers some autonomy, etc...

I don't think you can under estimate the importance of what you've described here. It is the mundane, day in day out, tedious grunt work of daily building a thorough and completely integrated development and baseball operations. It's not sexy and it takes time, something many of us having been saying around since the day Krivsky walked through the door.

And it takes time to clean out the mess that's accumulated from twenty plus years of neglect to a once storied baseball operation. And that doesn't translate immediately to the W-L column at the ML level and Bob Castellini will in all likelihood be shocked when he sees that is true. I think Krivsky was only beginning to scratch the service of that in his two plus years as the GM. And, no question, he may have made some mistakes along the way, but I think the direction was moving upward. I hope that Castellini's overreaction to a slow start doesn't undo much of that hard work that's taken place since 2006.

Chip R
04-25-2008, 10:02 AM
If Jocketty is going to change the culture he needs to start from A ball on up. Hire nad properly pay QUALIFIED coaches, hire the right scouts, put the proper people in the office who will actually do the work, stop promoting old interns, give your crosscheckers some autonomy, etc...


Not that I'm against this but I'm thinking whomever does this would be either the first of one of very few - especially on the pay.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 10:04 AM
I am thinking more like cause and affect with the financial and talent contraints that Krivsky had when he took over the high risk position. Then when it comes to Castellini and his rush, I am thinking more about stimulus-stimulus response, each had their effect to cause Krivsky to make some of those bad decisions that you speak of. He had to deal with previous regimes mess/garbage dump and his new owners irrationality to cope with. Hard to do.


But every GM has stresses like that. They're all expected to improve the club.
If they don't improve the club, they are fired. At least Wayne was given money to improve the club. I would think that working under Cast is a lot easier than working under Marge or Lindner.. do you not agree?

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 10:08 AM
Because Bruce just turned 21 and Hamilton is about to turn 27? Maybe because Josh Hamilton has a long injury history and drug abuse and Bruce doesn't? And Hamilton's struggles against lefties. My bet is every organization out there would prefer Jay Bruce to Josh Hamilton.

Bruce might ultimately end up better than Hamilton, or he might not.
The experts seem to agree with you, but many can't miss prospects do miss or do not perform to the very lofty expectations set for them. Or perhaps Bruce will need some time to grow into being a star. EdE is a good example of a great prospect that has taken some time to get some consistency. In fact, he's still not completely there yet.

Hamilton has his warts as well.

It all depends on a GM's perception. Bruce might be worth 20% more or something like that, but it's not as big of a gap as you think. They are comparable talents. Josh had 5 more years until FA and is pretty much established. Bruce has 6 more years to FA, but is not yet established.
It all depends on what the club needs.

And I'm not slamming Bruce in this post, I just think Hamilton became very underrated on this board as soon as he was traded. No one seems to worry about Hamilton's drug use until after he was traded.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 10:10 AM
Lopez or Kepp?
Womack or Phillips?
Williams or Volquez?
Closer by committe or Cordero?
Milton or Cueto?
Just about anybody in the 2005 bullpen or Burton?
The first baseman we didn't have in 2005 or Votto?
Willy Mo or Dunn penciled into LF ?


That comparison is obviously stilted and not legitimate.
Dunn was here and in LF before Wayne arrived, for example.

redsmetz
04-25-2008, 10:15 AM
But every GM has stresses like that. They're all expected to improve the club.
If they don't improve the club, they are fired. At least Wayne was given money to improve the club. I would think that working under Cast is a lot easier than working under Marge or Lindner.. do you not agree?

For the big league GM, Marge was fabulous to work for when it came to putting together your team on the field. If Bowden came to her and said he needed something, more times than not, she opened her wallet. Her failure (and ultimately Bowden's for not resisting it) is she gutted the scouting program (the infamous "we're just paying them to watch baseball games" comment). Ironically, as TeamClark aptly points out, this is where the rubber meets the road. And as I said, that's not sexy, it's not exciting, but it's where good teams go to stay good and to improve.

Team Clark
04-25-2008, 10:17 AM
Not that I'm against this but I'm thinking whomever does this would be either the first of one of very few - especially on the pay.

I do not mean to make it sound simple because it's not. This is a monumental task. However, it MUST be done. At some point you have to say enough is enough. The guys drafted in round 10 or later have to be developed too if you get what I am saying. If the organization is "simply not going to lose anymore" then it has to be from top down, IMO.

When you are always a day late and a dollar short picking up guys off the Major and Minor League waiver wire, drafting someone who has already peaked, not getting all the info you need to and from your Major League scouts, have an atrocious history of advance scouting, guys not answering the phones and/or not communicating info across the board in your Baseball Operations Dept. These are all bad things. Sure, all these things can happen to any organization. I completely understand that. However, the successful organizations have this happen INFREQUENTLY not on a consistent basis. The Reds organization for some time now have been the latter.

Like RFS once said about Wayne "Blow it up WALT, make it yours"...

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 10:21 AM
The 2005 Cincinnati Reds scored 820 runs, and had a team line of .261/.339/.446. They had a team ERA of 5.15, and allowed 889 runs, good for a Pythagorean of 75-87. They were managed by Dave Miley and Jerry Narron.

Final Record: 73-89

The 2007 Cincinnati Reds scored 783 runs, and had a team line of .267/.335/.436. They had a team ERA of 4.94, and allowed 853 runs, good for a Pythagorean of once again 75-87. They were managed by Jerry Narron and Pete Mackanin.

Final Record: 72-90

The Reds had improved pitching under Krivsky, and much worse hitting. The end results was nearly identical. The 05 team was outscored by 69 runs, and the 07 team was outscored by 70 runs. They got there different ways, but the end result: bad.

He improved the farm system (and while there is no doubt he did, I think he gets too much credit for it), but other than that the results were nearly identical.

Yep, that's my point example.
This year is obviously shaping up as a huge mess as well.

I did say Wayne made this team worse. I suppose "Worse" may be a harsh word, but I will say that at best the Reds just "ran in place" under his tenure.
So, at best, the Reds just maintained the same talent level Wayne had when he arrived. Considering all the young prospects that Wayne inherited (which has pretty much been unprecendent in the last 20 years of Reds' history), I'd expect to see some clear improvement. Wayne's failure was that while he made a few brilliant moves, he made many more dumb moves that negated his good ones. Wayne's defenders seem to shrug off his inablilty to fill C and CF. They also shrug off his horrible bullpens and bad contracts. Even Keppinger, one of Wayne's "wins" is a flawed player. His defense is mediocre at best (reminds me of Mark Lewis). He needs to keep hitting a .310 pace or so in order to justify keeping him in the lineup. Kepp may do that. I hope he does. Because if he stops hitting, he becomes a liability.

I actually expected to see marginal improvement this year from boosting the starting pitching, but I underestimated how bad the position players would play. Naturally, some of the guys are going to start to hit, but this is still a poorly designed team.

princeton
04-25-2008, 10:22 AM
And again, I will point out that Wayne ran Amalarez and the other scouts which found those crown jewels.

Here's your problem: you don't know a whole lot. That's OK, but you don't admit that you don't know a whole lot.

Wayne ran Almaraz (whose value you know because I told it to you) off, but nobody else of value that I'm aware of. Brian Wilson died-- I don't think that you pin that one on WK, do you? Larry Barton Jr left, but Larry Barton Jr was probably as responsible for scores of poor drafts as anyone, being the California supervisor during a very long period of zero Reds productivity in the strongest part of the US market.

Whenever you go into specifics, you come off as mentally challenged. You have two single effective arguments, and I'll restate them for you: 1. some of WayneK's moves backfired and 2. the Reds lost 90 games last year. These aren't good arguments, as I'll show, but your other arguments are simply laughable and it's not worth the time.

first, about moves that backfired: if you use that as a yardstick, then you will tend to admire all GMs that do nothing, because nothing backfires. Joe McIlvaine was well-known that way; DanO was another good example. But because these guys don't make positive moves, either, the team doesn't improve. So the real yardstick is to add up the positives, subtract the negatives, and figure out how positive the total number of moves have been. WayneK, as a very aggressive GM working to improve pitching (which is the hardest thing to accumulate without having moves backfire) had an overwhelmingly positive record. He conjured top major league players out of waiver claims, DFAs, Rule 5's, and aggressive trades. It was a talent that he had over all other GMs in the game, and one that would have been terrific to have in Cincy for a long time.

Now, the problem with the "90 games were lost" argument is that most great GMs have lost big during the first 3 years of a rebuilding job. And you need a great GM in Cincy. So you really need a better argument. being a nice guy, I'll try to point you in the right direction here ;) Ideally, what you'd like to be able to do is to look at what those great GMs accomplished during their first three years, as opposed to what poor GMs accomplished over their first three years. What are those differences, and did Krivsky's rebuilding job look more like that of a great GM or like that of a poor one? I'm confident that it's the former, because man, I've SEEN some bad GMs.

Have a look at the first three years of guys like Branch Rickey, Billy Beane, Mark Shapiro, etc. Compare them to the Dan O'Briens and others. stop all other arguments. Focus your efforts into something productive and interesting. Maybe you'll teach us something.

redsmetz
04-25-2008, 10:28 AM
And I'm not slamming Bruce in this post, I just think Hamilton became very underrated on this board as soon as he was traded. No one seems to worry about Hamilton's drug use until after he was traded.

That's a bit of a rewrite of history here on Redszone. Many people said throughout the 2007 season that this was a looming possibility. There were folks who repeatedly said we ought to sell Hamilton at an elevated price while we could because they all but believed it was inevitable that he'd have a relapse. I was not among those who believed it is sure to happen, although one can never say for certain that an addict will not relapse.

And since the trade, that voice has still been heard some, but quite a lot of people here have stated regularly that this seems to be one of those "win win" trades and have wished Hamilton well.

Team Clark
04-25-2008, 10:30 AM
One other thing. I had the great fortune to meet Walt Jocketty on many occasions. The first time I ever met him was eight years ago on an elevator at old Busch Stadium. I had my credentials on and was headed downstairs to the main lobby area where players, staff and VIP's come in to the stadium. Walt held the elevator for a few of us. (Not a lot of GM's would do that) I introduced myself to him and I have to tell you, the man is VERY engaging. Warm, pleasant, professional, someone you like to be around.

I saw him the next day talking to a small group and he gave me a wink in passing. Little things like that make you feel important in Baseball. Acknowledgment is pretty darn important. I saw him again the next spring and he just draws you in. Talks to you like you are the ONE he wants to be talking too. Just a great handler of people. I hope a lot of that rubs off in Redsland.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 10:34 AM
But RR was making the case that Wayne got a great team and left the overall orgization in worse shape. Clearly that position is laughable.

He was also saying there was absoultey no evidence of improvements. Clearly they have been made unless you just refuse to admit it to yourself.

Obviously the overall problems was that his mistakes blunted his successes to the point that unless everything fell into place we'd struggle.

There's really no point it discussing it further. There's nothing I can post that will change your mind regarding the Crime Dog, especially if folks can't see past the win/loss column as the only measuring stick of success.

No, I never claimed Wayne inherited a "Great team". I said he got a solid base of position players and a lot of players that had trade value. He leveraged Pena. That was good. He didn't leverage some other guys that he could have.
I also said that Wayne had a maginal contender in 2006. And I acknowledge that picking up Arroyo and Phillips was one reason why that team improved from 2005. Wayne started off awesome. I agree with that. Then he started to slip.

And yes, there is no evidence of improvements, other than removing DanO's bizzare ideas in the minors, which any GM would've done immediately. No one has given me any concrete things that Wayne did to boost the minor systems, other than "he didn't screw up anyone". His two drafts do not look so good. He ran several very good scouts out of the organization. His people skills were poor. He didn't listen to his advisors. He made very disturbing comments such as "I don't care who plays SS" and then plugged Clayton in.
That shows a pretty fundamental lack of knowledge on what it takes to push a marginal contender over the top. He felll in love with washed up arms, and loved to talk longshots on guys that he knew were injured (Maj, Gauarado).

My contention is that even if DanO had stayed here for 3 more years (which I didn't want, Wayne was better than DanO).. but even if DanO still stayed here, Homer, Votto and Ceuto would've been able to succeed in spite of the wacky things DanO did.. the only difference is that DanO's "innovative" ideas would be seen as good, because some young talent finally arrived.

What's laughable is some people thinking that Wayne was this great innovator that turned the club around, despite looking at W-L record, and win differential. Not to mention, the defense of last years team was one of the worst defensive teams the Reds have trotted out there in a long, long time.
Wayne helped that a little bit this year. Phillips and Patterson are plus gloves. Bako is not a gold glover but he's a huge step up from Valentine, who got a lot of playing time last year. The problem is that Bako and Patterson might not hit enough to keep their jobs all season.

I honestly do not understand all the mourning over Wayne's departure. Jocketty is not going to ruin Homer or Bruce or anyone else in the minors. He might trade them, but if he does he won't get ripped off.
People act as if Wayne was the glue that held the entire organization together, while we have heard that he was actually a destructive force in the organization.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 10:41 AM
The starting lineup in 2005 (pre-Krivsky):

Today:

Your take??

My take is that the only clear positive impact Wayne had on the lineups was bringing in Phillips. Keppinger vs Lopez is a push, in fact the 2005 Lopez was probably better. Any GM would've inherited Votto and EdE. Probs to Bowden for bringing them into the Reds.

Now in fairness to Wayne, LaRue was aging and about to expire and it's hard to find catchers of that quality (when Larue was in his prime). That's a tough job.

But that's just comparing hitting. Compare the defense, and the 2005 lineup was better, even with Lopez in there. The only defensive upgrade Wayne has made vs the 2005 team is Phillips.. and Patterson (when he actually plays).

M2
04-25-2008, 10:45 AM
Not accurate. Here's baseball America's 2005 top 10 prospect list. This was published in Jan 2005

I said 2004, that would be the group DanO inherited. Though, note how the 2005 list mostly circled the drain during that year.

In two years, the man obliterated what he had inherited and was on his way to obliterating the next group. All DanO's developmental system did over the course of two years was fail miserably. Krivsky turned an aircraft carrier, pretty much on a dime. The Reds went from being a system where everyone was headed backwards to one which is actually producing talent. It's a major achievement.

I still see where someone could make the case that Krivsky wasn't the guy to take the Reds to the next level, but it's preposterous to argue that he didn't equip the team with a working feeder system.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 10:47 AM
That's a good point about merely comparing the catchers 2005 vs. 2008. Larue turned into a pumpkin after 2005 so in essence Krivsky was left with nothing.
.

Wayne did a good job predicting that LaRue was declining. He just made the mistake of falling in love with the Ross' career season. If the Reds had a solid #1 catcher, then Valentine isn't too bad as a #2 catcher, although personally I'd much rather have a guy like Bako that can actually catch.

Many of Wayne's moves follow a similiar thread. He gets part of the solution right, but doesn't completely implement it right. The guy definitely wasn't an idiot. It's too bad he couldn't stop himself from making the bad moves that got him fired.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 10:49 AM
Jason Stark, ESPN

Ready, Aim, Fire Dept.:

Reds owner Bob Castellini has no idea how many people in baseball he alienated by firing his GM, Wayne Krivsky --

All this proves is that Stark was a Wayne fan and callled a couple executives that he knew liked Wayne.

It's quite silly to think that Wayne's firing caused a national day of Mourning, and that the Reds have "alienated" the entire baseball world. :lol:

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 10:51 AM
Yeah you don't need other teams in baseball, except when you want to trade with them...


Jim Bowden continues to prove that popularity is not a requirement to making trades. It's pretty ludicrous to think people are going to freeze Walt out of trade talks in protest. I imagine Walt is a pretty popular guy too.

Spring~Fields
04-25-2008, 10:52 AM
But every GM has stresses like that. They're all expected to improve the club.

Much has been discussed about Krivsky, moving forward to the present.

REDREAD,

Lets move away from hindsight to foresight.

How do you suppose and anticipate that Jocketty "will improve the club"?

What changes ?
What moves ?
Where will his focus for improvement be ?
How will he accomplish them ?
What upgrade ?
Where will he start first?
What kind fo W/L do you anticipate he will finish this year and next with?
What kind of time frame will he need to accomplish what you expect him to?
How much will it cost the investors, how much in budget terms?
Where will he be much improved over previous GM's?

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 10:59 AM
Unfortunately, Castellini set him up for failure. Castellini knew it last year and apparently decided he'd be gone at the end of his contract. It was like hiring the kid down the street to manage your business. It's a good idea, but when it doesn't work, you're the guy who looks stupid. I think Castellini feels that way tonight. Especially if he even hears about the conversations on RedsZone.

I disagree that Cast set Wayne up for failure.
Cast wanted to win, gave Wayne plenty of money, ate contracts, etc.
Cast was supportive of Wayne and publicly gave him support during his entire reign.
Cast obviously had his doubts about Wayne at the end of the 2007 season, yet still gave Wayne one more offseaosn to turn things around. People fail to see the flip side of Wayne getting canned when he did.. Wayne basically was given one more chance. People say that 20 games is not enough, to grade him on this year, but it's pretty obvious that when you look at this team objectively, that it's not a very good team. It's not going to sell a lot of tickets.

Cast gave Wayne clear objectives. Wayne admited to ignoring them partially and even bragged about it on his way out.. Similiar to DanO.. he had to validate himself that the Reds were somehow a budding dynasty and he just wasn't given enough time, which is hogwash. Yes, I am embellishing a bit, but Wayne was proud of himself for refusing to trade prospects to improve the big league club. Wayne comes across as a know-it-all that doesn't listen to anyone and refuses to acknowledge his mistakes. He even went through the trouble to try and rationalize the Cormier trade to one of the reporters and ask that it be "stricken from his record".. I can see how his act wore thin with Cast. It's frustrating having an underling that is not on the same page as you, who will not listen, who defies the company's vision, and who will not even acknowledge that he might be wrong.

bucksfan2
04-25-2008, 11:02 AM
You make a great point. I guess it all comes down to this (and I keep repeating myself). Wayne Krivsky is a good baseball man not suited for the GM position. Castellini hired him a rookie GM who was overwhelmed at how bad this club was. First, he brought in some help and then panicked as he watched the bullpen implode. He made some more moves and nothing worked, but he kept trying, making mistakes along the way. It was a job for a much more experienced man. Unfortunately, Castellini set him up for failure. Castellini knew it last year and apparently decided he'd be gone at the end of his contract. It was like hiring the kid down the street to manage your business. It's a good idea, but when it doesn't work, you're the guy who looks stupid. I think Castellini feels that way tonight. Especially if he even hears about the conversations on RedsZone.

I disagree with you on this comment. Wayne was brought in to do a job. He was brought in to bring winning baseball back to Cincinnati. Some of Castellini's first words as the reds owner was that he was going to bring winning baseball to Cincinnati. Castellini isn't a stupid man so I would assume that when he interviewed Wayne, Wayne had a plan. He laid his plan on the table and Castellini had to agree with WK because he hired him. The biggest problem for Wayne was when the 06 Reds got out to a hot start and Cast. wanted to win right away.

The plan was accelerated after the 06 season. Cast wanted to win right away and went away from WK's original plan. When you take a 5 year plan and try to force it into 3 years you are headed for disaster. Unfortuantly for WK he had owner who had been with St. Louis for a long period of success and didn't remember how that success was achieved. Jocketty now come in with a pretty firm foundation in tact and will have the albatros of the corner outfielders at his disposal in the 08 offseason. He will have the flexibility that I would have like to see Wayne work with.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 11:03 AM
Numerous Coordinator roles have been shifted and some left open because well...the Reds are at the BOTTOM when it comes to paying staff and coaches AND no one worth their weight wants to come to the Reds organization to work for peanuts.


Maybe this is something Walt can change. I assume the front office staff was well paid in StL, as they had many good people. Maybe instead of investing in Stanton type guys, Walt will actually invest in infrastructure. It's interesting that the Reds are still underpaying their guys though. I didn't realize that. I guess Marge/Lindner's legacy lives on.




If Jocketty is going to change the culture he needs to start from A ball on up. Hire and properly pay QUALIFIED coaches, hire the right scouts, put the proper people in the office who will actually do the work, stop promoting old interns, give your crosscheckers some autonomy, etc...

Let me ask you this (if you know).. to what extent, if any, did Wayne actually overhaul the minor league system. Was he the one that got rid of Naehring, or was that DanO.. I'm just wondering if Wayne shook things up in the minors or pretty much kept the same system in place (other than removing DanO's wacky ideas).

redsmetz
04-25-2008, 11:25 AM
I disagree that Cast set Wayne up for failure.
Cast wanted to win, gave Wayne plenty of money, ate contracts, etc.
Cast was supportive of Wayne and publicly gave him support during his entire reign.
Cast obviously had his doubts about Wayne at the end of the 2007 season, yet still gave Wayne one more offseaosn to turn things around. People fail to see the flip side of Wayne getting canned when he did.. Wayne basically was given one more chance. People say that 20 games is not enough, to grade him on this year, but it's pretty obvious that when you look at this team objectively, that it's not a very good team. It's not going to sell a lot of tickets.

Cast gave Wayne clear objectives. Wayne admited to ignoring them partially and even bragged about it on his way out.. Similiar to DanO.. he had to validate himself that the Reds were somehow a budding dynasty and he just wasn't given enough time, which is hogwash. Yes, I am embellishing a bit, but Wayne was proud of himself for refusing to trade prospects to improve the big league club. Wayne comes across as a know-it-all that doesn't listen to anyone and refuses to acknowledge his mistakes. He even went through the trouble to try and rationalize the Cormier trade to one of the reporters and ask that it be "stricken from his record".. I can see how his act wore thin with Cast. It's frustrating having an underling that is not on the same page as you, who will not listen, who defies the company's vision, and who will not even acknowledge that he might be wrong.

As I often ask on RZ when someone writes with such certainty - just how is it that "Cast obviously had his doubts about Wayne at the end of the 2007 season"? Did you have a private meeting with him because I sure don't recall hearing anything that specific in the press.

You further state, "Wayne admited to ignoring them partially and even bragged about it on his way out." Would you care to be more specific about that? You say, "Wayne was proud of himself for refusing to trade prospects to improve the big league club," but you refuse to overlook that ultimately this may well be Krivsky's greatest legacy. Not just refusing to trade "prospects," but in fact our TOP prospects that every club around MLB was clamoring for.

That didn't play to the mobbed masses, but it's put us in a position we have not been in since the 1967-1970 era. That period was, by the way, Bob Howsam's first four years - in his 1st three he gave us 3rd and 4th place finishes (I can't recall which one repeated).

This is getting very tiresome and I'll agree with those who have said "what's done is done", so I'll hope we can continue our improvement (yes, that's an accurate statement, the current W-L of the ML club notwithstanding) and not sell off the huge amount of talent that on the cusp of arriving (or have arrived). I, for one, don't want to sit here five years from now and see one of our top guys being someone else's perennial All Star.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 11:29 AM
Here's your problem: you don't know a whole lot. That's OK, but you don't admit that you don't know a whole lot.

:lol: This coming from you. The self proclaimed expert.



Wayne ran Almaraz (whose value you know because I told it to you) off, but nobody else of value that I'm aware of.


Because surely, you'd know about it, right?



Brian Wilson died-- I don't think that you pin that one on WK, do you?


And what purpose did this serve, oh yeah.. it's to set up the personal attack which is coming.




Whenever you go into specifics, you come off as mentally challenged.


Insults are the last result of someone that can not form an effective response.




You have two single effective arguments, and I'll restate them for you: 1. some of WayneK's moves backfired and 2. the Reds lost 90 games last year. These aren't good arguments, as I'll show, but your other arguments are simply laughable and it's not worth the time.


Let's see. Wayne couldn't improve us in wins or run differential. But that's not important.. ok... Wayne made many moves that backfired, which caused the poor W-L record.. but that is not important.. ok..





first, about moves that backfired: if you use that as a yardstick, then you will tend to admire all GMs that do nothing, because nothing backfires.


No, didn't say that. I said Wayne made some good moves, but his bad moves largely negated his good ones. When did I ever say that a GM should do nothing? I gave Wayne credit for working hard and trying, unlike DanO. So, once again, you are making faulty assumptions in your attempt to discredit my valid arguement. What a great response. REDREAD didn't like Wayne because he prefers a GM that does nothing. :rolleyes:



Joe McIlvaine was well-known that way; DanO was another good example.


And I said many times that Wayne was better than DanO.




But because these guys don't make positive moves, either, the team doesn't improve. So the real yardstick is to add up the positives, subtract the negatives, and figure out how positive the total number of moves have been.


And that's exactly what I did. Wayne came up negative, or at best broke even. That's not progress.





Now, the problem with the "90 games were lost" argument is that most great GMs have lost big during the first 3 years of a rebuilding job.


He was not hired to tear down the entire team like in 1997 and rebuild from scratch. He was hired to take the talent he had and take it to the next level.
That's the fundamental disconnnect you and Wayne had. It wasn't his job to just put the ML team on autopilot and focus on picking up as many prospects as possible..It was his job to improve the ML team.






And you need a great GM in Cincy. So you really need a better argument. being a nice guy, I'll try to point you in the right direction here ;)


My god, thank you, I'd be totally lost without you, being mentally challenged and all.. :rolleyes:





, and did Krivsky's rebuilding job look more like that of a great GM or like that of a poor one?


Again, it was not his job to tear down and rebuild. Cast wasn't on the Pirates model. He was on the StL model.




Have a look at the first three years of guys like Branch Rickey, Billy Beane, Mark Shapiro, etc. Compare them to the Dan O'Briens and others. stop all other arguments. Focus your efforts into something productive and interesting. Maybe you'll teach us something.

Ok, I will look at Shapiro. Did he sign as many bad FAs as Wayne did? Did he eat as many contracts as he did? Did Shapiro have a fetish for picking up injuried players and hoping for the best? Did Shapiro largely ignore defense and offense? Did Wayne make any trades like Shaperio did? When did Wayne make a trade like Diaz for Hafner? When did Wayne make pick up a Sizemore?
When did Wayne make a trade like Edwardo Perez for Carbera? When did Wayne trade a guy with warts like Milton Bradley for a guy like Gutierez.

The only clear Shapero-like trade that Wayne did was taking Phillips from Shaperio :) Arroyo started off looking good, but now he's questionable.
Sure, we didn't give up much to get him. The talent exchange is good. But, it looks like Wayne made a mistake extending him.. another example of a bad idea negating a good one. At the time, I supported the Arroyo extension, despite many people on this board objecting to it.. but guess what? I was wrong on that one, just as Wayne was.

What's laughable is comparing Wayne to Shapero. Totally laughable. Especially since Shapero is brillant at deciding when to extend players and when to cut bait on them. One of the best in the business. That was Wayne's Achilles' heal. He extended pretty much everyone indescriminately.


Comparing Wayne to Beane is just as bad, but I will leave that exercise for someone else.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 11:30 AM
That's a bit of a rewrite of history here on Redszone. Many people said throughout the 2007 season that this was a looming possibility. .

A few did bring up that risk with Hamilton, but at least 85% of the board was caught up in the exciting of Wayne stealing Hamilton, envisioning MVP number, etc. After Hamilton was traded, there was a large reversal of opinion.

OnBaseMachine
04-25-2008, 11:33 AM
And I'm not slamming Bruce in this post, I just think Hamilton became very underrated on this board as soon as he was traded. No one seems to worry about Hamilton's drug use until after he was traded.

Well, I saw plenty of people who expressed concern of a relapse, and quite a few also brought up his injury past.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 11:33 AM
Wayne ran Almaraz (whose value you know because I told it to you) off, but nobody else of value that I'm aware of.

This is not unmajor.

And Wayne's last draft was a total bust. I don't know if these phenomena were connected, however.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 11:48 AM
This is not unmajor.
.

I think people unrightly dismiss Wayne's poor communication/people skills too.
It's hard to be a good manager if you don't listen to any of your people.
I imagine the good people Wayne had left felt totally unenpowered and were hestitant to disagree with him.

Perhaps the bad drafts happened because the "little" people figured that since Wayne's inner circle had it all figured out and weren't going to listen to their input anyhow.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 11:52 AM
Well, I saw plenty of people who expressed concern of a relapse, and quite a few also brought up his injury past.


The point is that arguably Hamilton is a great talent too. Regardless of whether you think he's worth 40% of Bruce or 99% of Bruce, he's a great talent. If you are willing to trade Hamilton, why not at least be open to trading Bruce? What if trading Bruce could net a haul like Bartolo Colon got when he was traded (prospects Sizemore, Cliff Lee, and Phillips) .. wouldn't you do that? Now I admit that is unlikely but the point is that no one should be untouchable.

My point wasn't to go back and claim I knew what the collective thinking of the board was.

Chip R
04-25-2008, 11:57 AM
I think people unrightly dismiss Wayne's poor communication/people skills too.
It's hard to be a good manager if you don't listen to any of your people.
I imagine the good people Wayne had left felt totally unenpowered and were hestitant to disagree with him.

Perhaps the bad drafts happened because the "little" people figured that since Wayne's inner circle had it all figured out and weren't going to listen to their input anyhow.


Walt had a rep of having "poor communication skills" because he wouldn't/couldn't work with the SABR guys there. It's a non-starter because he could have been Dale Freaking Carnegie and if Walt Jocketty was lurking about and the Reds had a similar record, he would have been out the door just like Wayne.

MikeS21
04-25-2008, 12:01 PM
Team Clark,

It seems that we have this same conversation quite often, and once again I'd like to bounce a couple thoughts off you. It seems to me that the main issue with the Cincinnati Reds is not necessarily the guys on the field, but it is the decision making process that determines which players are on the field. And this same problem has existed the the Reds' FO since the days of Marge Schott and JimBo. I don't think the FO needs to get together every morning and hold hands and sing "Kum-Bah-Yah" but the Reds' FO turmoil is a joke that doesn't seem to be ending any time soon. And I really think that the fiasco on the field will never get solved until the internal problems get solved.

I'm bringing this up, because I pretty much asked you this same question on O'Brien and on Krvisky, and now I pose this question to you about Walt Jocketty. Based on your knowledge of the FO problems, and based on what you know about Jocketty, do you think Walt Jocketty has the ability to set a positive tone in the FO, and bring in outside advisors who can assist him in areas he is weakest at: ie: scouting and development.

From things that have been said about Krivsky, I get the impression he was not the easiest person to work for. Losing Johnny Almarez was probably the worst mistake Krivsky made - including all the bad contracts. Evidently Krivsky refused to listen to advice, and then treated his advisors as if they were clueless. I'm wondering if Walt Jocketty will listen to advice, or at least show his advisors some respect even if he chooses to go against their advice.

And I'm wondering how the circumstances of him leaving St. Louis - his clash with Jeff Luhnow - how much should we read in to that? Luhnow seems to have actually got the Cardinal's farm system moving in a positive direction. And I think he did it with a philosophy that differed from Jocketty. That tells me Jocketty can't deal well with folks who disagree with him. Every GM needs someone who can give him a sound, opposing point of view. Can Jocketty handle that? Will he bring such a person into the FO?

OnBaseMachine
04-25-2008, 12:05 PM
This is not unminor.

And Wayne's last draft was a total bust. I don't know if these phenomena were connected, however.

His last draft is a total bust? Do what? Oh, and many draft experts thought the Reds had a great draft. Let's take a closer look at the 2007 draft:

Devin Mesoraco, C - drafted 15th overall after quickly jumping up the drafts boards after a great season. Was named the 11th best prospect in the GCL by Baseball America. Not my favorite pick but all my desired picks were off the board by #15.

Todd Frazier was a 1st round Comp. pick and is looking like a huge steal. Baseball America named him the best prospect in the Pioneer League last year and he's off to a .314/.415/.657 - 1.072 OPS start in Dayton. He's got a big bat and is expected to move quickly through the minors.

Kyle Lotzkar was the Reds second Comp. pick and he also looks to be another possible steal. At age 17 Lotzkar posted a 3.10 ERA and struckout 36 batters in 29 innings between GCL and Billings. He touches 95 with his fastball and mixes in a curve with a changeup. Baseball America rated him as the 13th best prospect in the GCL and the second best player from Canada last year.

Zach Cozart, a SS, was the second round pick. I wasn't a huge fan of this pick but he's expected to reach the majors quickly because of his gold glove caliber defense. Scouts have likened him to Adam Everett.

Scott Carroll was the 3rd round pick. He throws 94 with a splitter and profiles as a reliever.

Nefi Soto, a SS who profiles as a 3B or LFer was the Comp. pick in the third round. He also looks like a possible steal. Baseball America and Prospectus seem to like him a lot. He supposedly has a lot of raw power and after hitting .303/.355/.454 in the GCL last year, Baseball America named him the 8th best prospect in the GCL.

Wayne may have also found a few gems in later rounds. Evan Hildenbrandt was drafted in the 6th round and has a nice power arm with a good curveball. Brandon Waring, a 7th round pick, OPS'ed .984 last season and hit 20 homeruns in 267 atbats. This year he's hitting .293/.341/.533 with five homers in 75 atbats in Dayton. BA named him the 5th best prospect in the Pioneer League.

He also drafted quite a few relievers in rounds 14-30 who are dominating in Dayton right now: Joseph Krebs (14th), Jeff Jeffords (19th), and Jeremy Horst (21st).

Charles Snowden, a HS lefty he drafted in the 16th round and somehow convinced to sign, pitched in the GCL last year posted a 3.51 ERA and had a 5 BB/30 K in 25.2 innings.

Calling Wayne's latest draft a bust is not true. The 2007 Reds draft is among the best in baseball IMO.

WVRedsFan
04-25-2008, 12:06 PM
I disagree with you on this comment. Wayne was brought in to do a job. He was brought in to bring winning baseball back to Cincinnati. Some of Castellini's first words as the reds owner was that he was going to bring winning baseball to Cincinnati. Castellini isn't a stupid man so I would assume that when he interviewed Wayne, Wayne had a plan. He laid his plan on the table and Castellini had to agree with WK because he hired him. The biggest problem for Wayne was when the 06 Reds got out to a hot start and Cast. wanted to win right away.

The plan was accelerated after the 06 season. Cast wanted to win right away and went away from WK's original plan. When you take a 5 year plan and try to force it into 3 years you are headed for disaster. Unfortuantly for WK he had owner who had been with St. Louis for a long period of success and didn't remember how that success was achieved. Jocketty now come in with a pretty firm foundation in tact and will have the albatros of the corner outfielders at his disposal in the 08 offseason. He will have the flexibility that I would have like to see Wayne work with.

I'm really tired of talking about ths, but one more comment.

He never intended to set Wayne up for failure, but Wayne's skill set was apparenly not good enough tok do the job as quickly as Castellini wanted it to be done. That's all. Look, I was not a Krivsky fan, but I can look at how bad the situation was and see very clearly that molding this into a winning club was going to take a seasoned GM. Unfortunately, Castellini hired a rookie. Wayne sold himself to Castellini and the owner thought he could do the job quickly. When it didn't happen, he set Wayne free.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 12:08 PM
Walt had a rep of having "poor communication skills" because he wouldn't/couldn't work with the SABR guys there. It's a non-starter because he could have been Dale Freaking Carnegie and if Walt Jocketty was lurking about and the Reds had a similar record, he would have been out the door just like Wayne.

Maybe, we'll have to see how Walt plays out. I will be just as hard on him as I've been on Wayne if he fails.
From what I read, there was a power struggle in StL that Jocketty lost.
Maybe he had bad communication skills or maybe he was simply fighting to keep his authority. I don't know. I do know that Jocketty was in StL for a long time and people really seemed to like him there until the new guys came in and the power struggle ensued.

Sea Ray
04-25-2008, 12:08 PM
Walt had a rep of having "poor communication skills" because he wouldn't/couldn't work with the SABR guys there. It's a non-starter because he could have been Dale Freaking Carnegie and if Walt Jocketty was lurking about and the Reds had a similar record, he would have been out the door just like Wayne.

I'm confused. Did you mean Wayne had a rep of poor communication skills?

M2
04-25-2008, 12:12 PM
And Wayne's last draft was a total bust.

I've got a Todd Frazier that says it wasn't.

I think the fair criticism of the last two drafts is the top picks have been shaky decisions, but both drafts have supplied some intriguing players after those top picks (which might have more to do with the system doing a good job of instruction than of the scouts identifying talent).

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 12:14 PM
I've got a Todd Frazier that says it wasn't.

I think the fair criticism of the last two drafts is the top picks have been shaky decisions, but both drafts have supplied some intriguing players after those top picks.

One quick-mover from a draft?

I'll give Wayne credit for improving the development system, but I have been deeply unimpressed with his drafts. In two years, it's Frazier and some marginal bullpen arms.

MikeS21
04-25-2008, 12:15 PM
Walt had a rep of having "poor communication skills" because he wouldn't/couldn't work with the SABR guys there. It's a non-starter because he could have been Dale Freaking Carnegie and if Walt Jocketty was lurking about and the Reds had a similar record, he would have been out the door just like Wayne.
Chip, here's a link that illustrates exactly what you're talking about:

http://www.stltoday.com/stltoday/sports/stories.nsf/cardinals/story/0869BF4C947FF49686257436000C0338?OpenDocument

Notice this one paragraph:


In his final year in St. Louis, Jocketty likewise grew more irritable to some, even paranoid, while fulminating over Jeff Luhnow's rise and perceived lack of accountability. Left to dangle for several months without a contract after the 2004 World Series, the situation cemented Jocketty's sense that he was little appreciated by higher-ups smitten with new-wave scouting, quantitative analysis and Ivy League outsiders.

It all boils down to the "old school" vs. "new school" argument. The ownership in St. Louis bought into the new school of thinking.

TRF
04-25-2008, 12:17 PM
Here's your problem: you don't know a whole lot. That's OK, but you don't admit that you don't know a whole lot.

Wayne ran Almaraz (whose value you know because I told it to you) off, but nobody else of value that I'm aware of. Brian Wilson died-- I don't think that you pin that one on WK, do you? Larry Barton Jr left, but Larry Barton Jr was probably as responsible for scores of poor drafts as anyone, being the California supervisor during a very long period of zero Reds productivity in the strongest part of the US market.

Whenever you go into specifics, you come off as mentally challenged. You have two single effective arguments, and I'll restate them for you: 1. some of WayneK's moves backfired and 2. the Reds lost 90 games last year. These aren't good arguments, as I'll show, but your other arguments are simply laughable and it's not worth the time.

first, about moves that backfired: if you use that as a yardstick, then you will tend to admire all GMs that do nothing, because nothing backfires. Joe McIlvaine was well-known that way; DanO was another good example. But because these guys don't make positive moves, either, the team doesn't improve. So the real yardstick is to add up the positives, subtract the negatives, and figure out how positive the total number of moves have been. WayneK, as a very aggressive GM working to improve pitching (which is the hardest thing to accumulate without having moves backfire) had an overwhelmingly positive record. He conjured top major league players out of waiver claims, DFAs, Rule 5's, and aggressive trades. It was a talent that he had over all other GMs in the game, and one that would have been terrific to have in Cincy for a long time.

Now, the problem with the "90 games were lost" argument is that most great GMs have lost big during the first 3 years of a rebuilding job. And you need a great GM in Cincy. So you really need a better argument. being a nice guy, I'll try to point you in the right direction here ;) Ideally, what you'd like to be able to do is to look at what those great GMs accomplished during their first three years, as opposed to what poor GMs accomplished over their first three years. What are those differences, and did Krivsky's rebuilding job look more like that of a great GM or like that of a poor one? I'm confident that it's the former, because man, I've SEEN some bad GMs.

Have a look at the first three years of guys like Branch Rickey, Billy Beane, Mark Shapiro, etc. Compare them to the Dan O'Briens and others. stop all other arguments. Focus your efforts into something productive and interesting. Maybe you'll teach us something.

A harsh response, but spot on in the analysis of Krivsky.

I'll say this, I lambasted Krivsky on a lot of things, especially in 2006. The man made blunder after blunder following three great moves. now looking at this in the macro, i see what he was trying to do. Nearly every move he made after Arroyo,Phillips, Ross was for pitching. a lot didn't work out. A whole lot. But the man knew what he had in the pipeline (Bailey, Cueto) and he knew that wasn't enough. He knew he had to change the culture from rookie ball up. Not drafting Lincecum was IMO a mistake, but Stubbs is starting to get real interesting. Not Jay Bruce interesting, but more like Reggie Willits interesting, and that's a good thing.

He was daring in that he'd take major risks with the 25 man roster. In 2 years he added a starting 2B, starting CF and a dominant setup man to the 25 man roster via waiver claim and Rule 5 draft. That's ballsy. He then flipped the feel good freaking story of the year for a SP that has come out dominating so far and actually seems to be getting better. And then there is Keppinger. Complete steal.

And the offensive talent is on the rise too. Bruce's ETA should be mid-May. He'll be in CF, but is likely KGJ's replacement. Dorn and Stubbs are getting closer as well. Valaika, Rosales, Francisco, and a couple of STUDS at Dayton. It isn't that the Reds are poised to compete this year, it's that the organization is poised to compete for a long time.

Unlike others, I won't dismiss Dano and Jimbo's contributions. They are there. DanO lucked into some talent rich drafts. He also is a contributer to reducing the workload on the SP's in the minor leagues. Bowden is responsible for 4 of the starting 8, plus a pitcher or two.

But Krivsky gets marks for bringing a more professional approach to the organization as a whole. My hope is Jocketty saw the value in what Krivsky accomplished and continues to build on it. My fear is he trades Cueto/Bailey for a Mulder or Zito type, without realizing their value because he needs to win now.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 12:19 PM
It all boils down to the "old school" vs. "new school" argument. The ownership in St. Louis bought into the new school of thinking.

I have friends who live in St. Louis who know the situation fairly well--the St. Louis organization was also unable to sustain its spending ways, so when the "new school" guys promised a winner on a budget, they were "smitten." It really was pretty simple. They wanted to scale back spending.

Chip R
04-25-2008, 12:27 PM
I'm confused. Did you mean Wayne had a rep of poor communication skills?


Nope. Maybe it was just a recent thing because those SABR kids wouldn't get off his lawn and otherwise he's a regular hail-fellow-well-met but what happens if Bob hires some wunderkind who dazzles Bob with numbers? Is Walt going to throw a hissy fit and retire or is he going to be able to work with this guy? Is Walt open to new ways of looking at things or is he going to be stodgy old-school and justify it by telling people that his way worked in StL so it should work in Cincinnati?

M2
04-25-2008, 12:30 PM
One quick-mover from a draft?

I'll give Wayne credit for improving the development system, but I have been deeply unimpressed with his drafts. In two years, it's Frazier and some marginal bullpen arms.

You said "total bust," so, yeah, Frazier alone punts that out the window.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 12:34 PM
Nope. Maybe it was just a recent thing because those SABR kids wouldn't get off his lawn and otherwise he's a regular hail-fellow-well-met but what happens if Bob hires some wunderkind who dazzles Bob with numbers? Is Walt going to throw a hissy fit and retire or is he going to be able to work with this guy? Is Walt open to new ways of looking at things or is he going to be stodgy old-school and justify it by telling people that his way worked in StL so it should work in Cincinnati?

You guys are acting like a bunch of girls who got stood up for prom.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 12:34 PM
You said "total bust," so, yeah, Frazier alone punts that out the window.

You're right. "Lemon with hood ornament."

Chip R
04-25-2008, 12:35 PM
You guys are acting like a bunch of girls who got stood up for prom.


So we should just take it on blind faith that because Walt won a world championship in StL he can do the same here?

Tommyjohn25
04-25-2008, 12:36 PM
So we should just take it on blind faith that because Walt won a world championship in StL he can do the same here?

IMO his record speaks for itself. That's not blind faith at all by my definition.

jojo
04-25-2008, 12:37 PM
So we should just take it on blind faith that because Walt won a world championship in StL he can do the same here?

The hire doesn't inspire a lot of confidence IMHO....

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 12:37 PM
IMO his record speaks for itself. That's not blind faith at all by my definition.

Thank you. I know what side of the bread folks are buttering with blind faith.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 12:39 PM
The hire doesn't inspire a lot of confidence IMHO....

I have my doubts, too. I really do. But Cast isn't going to hire a numbers guy. So then you're left with Wayne vs. well, all the old school GM/GM candidates out there. Of that second subset, Jocketty's still probably the best.

redsmetz
04-25-2008, 12:41 PM
It all boils down to the "old school" vs. "new school" argument. The ownership in St. Louis bought into the new school of thinking.

Are you trying to start a war on Redszone??? :D

Chip R
04-25-2008, 12:42 PM
IMO his record speaks for itself. That's not blind faith at all by my definition.


Just because he had success in StL doesn't mean he will here. Just like MIN had success while Wayne was there didn't mean it would translate into success when he came here and it didn't.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 12:44 PM
Just because he had success in StL doesn't mean he will here. Just like MIN had success while Wayne was there didn't mean it would translate into success when he came here and it didn't.

The MIN method is the 10 year plan. No thanks--we were only in year three.

Tommyjohn25
04-25-2008, 12:50 PM
Just because he had success in StL doesn't mean he will here. Just like MIN had success while Wayne was there didn't mean it would translate into success when he came here and it didn't.

I understand what you're saying. But Wayne wasn't the GM in Minnesota. Jocketty was in charge, for a long time, and his track record speaks for itself IMO. Nothing is ever a sure thing in baseball, but having the gaudy resume that Jocketty has built makes it a safer bet, I think.

Chip R
04-25-2008, 12:56 PM
The MIN method is the 10 year plan. No thanks--we were only in year three.


Bob hired him fully knowing that and then he fires him in year 2.1.

Wayne's fired and there's nothing that can be done about that. Walt's definitely got the credentials but I can't help but worry some that the "Best City In Baseball" wasn't built around a steroid needle.

One of Walt's fortes was to trade for a guy, let him bask in the love of the StL fans and then sign him to a multi-year deal somewhere below market value. You think he can repeat that here?

osuceltic
04-25-2008, 12:56 PM
Not sure if this blurb from Jayson Stark had been posted yet. This, by the way, is how I feel about this whole thing. I think it's absurd. And for a guy with terrible people skills, it sure sounds like he got along with a lot of people.


• Ready, Aim, Fire Dept.: Reds owner Bob Castellini has no idea how many people in baseball he alienated by firing his GM, Wayne Krivsky -- as well-liked and highly respected a man as you'll find in the business.

"They just went from a team you root for to a team you root against," is the way one veteran baseball man put it Wednesday.

Sure, Krivsky made his share of mistakes. Goes with the turf. But have there been three bigger steals in the past two years than Bronson Arroyo for Wily Mo Pena, Brandon Phillips for Jeff Stevens, or Josh Hamilton for 50,000 bucks? And Jeff Keppinger for Russ Haltiwanger is right up there, too.

So why was this guy fired again? Because this team came out of spring training with a little promise and then started 9-12? Ridiculous. The Yankees, Phillies, Cubs and Rockies were all 9-12 or worse last year this time -- and made the playoffs.

"There's nothing worse than these owners who treat the national pastime like it's the frigging stock market," said an official of one team. "They think it's got to keep going up, up, up, every day. But that's just not the way of works. This is a game of human beings."

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 12:59 PM
Sorry, GAC, but when you pass on Tim Lincecum for Drew Stubbs the window for evaluation is immediate. Krivsky botched a lot of jobs, but that was a complete and total gaffe.

Krivsky's drafts aren't exactly teeming with high-level fast-moving prospects. Even the better college players drafted during his tenure are sitting in A-Ball right now. Yet the guys you cited were all teenagers when they began professional ball.

Like Dan O'Brien, Wayne Krivsky was working on a five-year plan with a three-year contract. Guys like that deserve to be working in baseball, but never as MLB General Managers.

Nice points. I think Krivsky is getting showered with praise for doing something that roughly 20 other MLB teams seem capable of doing with regularity: maintain at least a respectable minor league development system.

It's so stunning that the Reds would actually produce any pitching of worth because by comparison to the last 25 years--you know, when the Reds produced exactly NO pitching from their farm--a Cueto making it out of the system alive seems the equivalent of the arrival of a great prophet. Which in truth, production of a good starter should be something that happens with at least *some* regularity; perhaps not a Cueto-good arm, but MLB starters nevertheless.

I'm not taking that away from Wayne; I'm acknowledging that he was able to do what hadn't been done for 20 years in Cincy. But then, when you think about the owners and GMs of the last 20 years, you realize that taking that step is really not that huge, and one that, if even semi-competent people are in place, has occurred with regularity in many other franchises.

SteelSD
04-25-2008, 01:01 PM
I have my doubts, too. I really do. But Cast isn't going to hire a numbers guy. So then you're left with Wayne vs. well, all the old school GM/GM candidates out there. Of that second subset, Jocketty's still probably the best.

Still, I'd feel a little more comfortable had Dave Duncan tagged along...

Just sayin'.

gm
04-25-2008, 01:02 PM
but it's put us in a position we have not been in since the 1967-1970 era. That period was, by the way, Bob Howsam's first four years - in his 1st three he gave us 3rd and 4th place finishes (I can't recall which one repeated)

I would add that the Red's farm system of the mid-late 80's was a strength (Davis, Larkin, O'Neill, etc) that led to the 1990 WSC. Marge put an end to that, and Cast/Kriv has only recently revived it. Now (potentially) Jocketty will use those assets to rebuild the big league club.

Stark's comments are troubling, it will be difficult for WJ to attract quality "baseball people" when it's known that the owner is a loose cannon. But hey, that's why Walt gets the big bucks. If Cast has to overpay scouts and coaches to join the Red's system, that won't hurt my feelin's, none

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 01:05 PM
Still, I'd feel a little more comfortable had Dave Duncan tagged along...

Just sayin'.

Things could always be better. I'm not saying the situation's ideal. But in the matrix where reality collides with idealism, the Reds came out okay.

OnBaseMachine
04-25-2008, 01:09 PM
I am a huge, huge Tim Lincecum fan but why is his walk rates of 6.57 his freshman year, 6.12 his sophomore year, and 4.52 his junior year overlooked? I'm not bashing the kid because I like Tim Lincecum a lot. In fact, I was pushing for the Reds to draft Lincecum. I was upset when they passed on him for Stubbs but it's not like he was a sure thing with those high walk rates.

BRM
04-25-2008, 01:14 PM
I am a huge, huge Tim Lincecum fan but why is his walk rates of 6.57 his freshman year, 6.12 his sophomore year, and 4.52 his junior year overlooked? I'm not bashing the kid because I like Tim Lincecum a lot. In fact, I was pushing for the Reds to draft Lincecum. I was upset when they passed on him for Stubbs but it's not like he was a sure thing with those high walk rates.

Looks like his walk rate improved each year. ;)

I'd say his K/9's of 12.9, 11.3, and 14.2 were pretty big reasons folks loved him. It was widely known he had an electric arm.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 01:15 PM
Wayne's fired and there's nothing that can be done about that. Walt's definitely got the credentials but I can't help but worry some that the "Best City In Baseball" wasn't built around a steroid needle.

I'm guessing you're playing devil's advocate here. I don't know. But this is pretty much inflammatory nonsense, IMO.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 01:16 PM
Looks like his walk rate improved each year. ;)

I'd say his K/9's of 12.9, 11.3, and 14.2 were pretty big reasons loved him. It was widely known he had an electric arm.

That, and it's not like BBs were universally shunned by Wayne--he traded for Volquez.

It was a bad call. End of discussion.

OnBaseMachine
04-25-2008, 01:25 PM
That, and it's not like BBs were universally shunned by Wayne--he traded for Volquez.

It was a bad call. End of discussion.

As I said before, I'm a fan of Lincecum and I would have drafted him too, but it's unfair to say he didn't have his flaws.

Chip R
04-25-2008, 01:25 PM
I'm guessing you're playing devil's advocate here. I don't know. But this is pretty much inflammatory nonsense, IMO.


That's for me to know and you to figure out.

It's not at all nonsense. Wouldn't you agree that you have a better opportunity to put together a winning ball club drawing ~4M rather than ~2M?

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 01:26 PM
As I said before, I'm a fan of Lincecum and I would have drafted him too, but it's unfair to say he didn't have his flaws.

It's also fair to say "who cares?" The best is still the best.

BRM
04-25-2008, 01:29 PM
As I said before, I'm a fan of Lincecum and I would have drafted him too, but it's unfair to say he didn't have his flaws.

I'd like to have Lincecum's "flaws" in Cincinnati right now.

OnBaseMachine
04-25-2008, 01:30 PM
I'd like to have Lincecum's "flaws" in Cincinnati right now.

As would I.

princeton
04-25-2008, 01:31 PM
I'm pretty sure that we're on the Baltimore plan, not the Minnesota or St Louis or whatever.

Magowan Rules.

BRM
04-25-2008, 01:31 PM
The Baltimore plan? Egad!

M2
04-25-2008, 01:33 PM
A few random thoughts:

Never try to execute a plan that exceeds the length of your contract.

I'll take Jocketty's old school over Neal Huntington's new school eight days a week.

Castellini's at least up front and consistent about wanting to win now, though he clearly doesn't have much grasp of how to achieve it.

What I'd like to hear from Jocketty is what do the Reds need to add to take the next step.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 01:34 PM
The Baltimore plan? Egad!

Right--lots of evidence for *that* conclusion. But honestly, it's not as if Baltimore, were they in the NL Central, couldn't have captured a few NL Central crowns.

M2
04-25-2008, 01:35 PM
I'm pretty sure that we're on the Baltimore plan, not the Minnesota or St Louis or whatever.

At least there will be lots of crab cakes.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 01:37 PM
What I'd like to hear from Jocketty is what do the Reds need to add to take the next step.

A smart guy like Jocketty will discover that this team, despite all the panegyrics, encomia, and love-letters for Wayne from Redszone on his skillful refashioning of the team, has a big ole bunch of work to do to get contention-ready.

M2
04-25-2008, 01:47 PM
Oh, and here's a few random facts about Jocketty and the Cardinals.

So for this decade (2000-2007), the Cardinals have won the most games in the NL.

They are tied with the Yankees for most playoff series wins in all of baseball (8).

They have won twice as many playoff series as the next-best NL franchise (the DBacks, which won 3 of its 4 in 2001).

They are tied with the Braves for most NL playoff appearances this decade (6).

They and the Braves are the only two NL franchises not to lose 90+ games this decade. They are also tied for the most 95+ win seasons (4) and 100+ seasons (2). The 2003 Giants are the only other NL team to hit the century mark for wins.

I don't know that Jocketty can repeat that success, but it's one hell of resume.

M2
04-25-2008, 01:48 PM
A smart guy like Jocketty will discover that this team, despite all the panegyrics, encomia, and love-letters for Wayne from Redszone on his skillful refashioning of the team, has a big ole bunch of work to do to get contention-ready.

He should already know what those things are. I'd like to hear his take on it.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 01:50 PM
He should already know what those things are. I'd like to hear his take on it.

I'm sure he does. He's an incredibly sober scrutinizer of his franchise.

And he will tell you; he's very open. I got to listen to his Sunday morning show in St. Louis when I lived there in 99-00, and it was a true pleasure to hear him weigh and measure his team's shortcomings. No mincing words, no "I know more than you, stupid press person" attitude--just forthrightness.

westofyou
04-25-2008, 01:51 PM
At least there will be lots of crab cakes.

Humidity is right for the scene too.

edabbs44
04-25-2008, 01:52 PM
Now, the problem with the "90 games were lost" argument is that most great GMs have lost big during the first 3 years of a rebuilding job. And you need a great GM in Cincy. So you really need a better argument. being a nice guy, I'll try to point you in the right direction here ;) Ideally, what you'd like to be able to do is to look at what those great GMs accomplished during their first three years, as opposed to what poor GMs accomplished over their first three years. What are those differences, and did Krivsky's rebuilding job look more like that of a great GM or like that of a poor one? I'm confident that it's the former, because man, I've SEEN some bad GMs.

Have a look at the first three years of guys like Branch Rickey, Billy Beane, Mark Shapiro, etc. Compare them to the Dan O'Briens and others. stop all other arguments. Focus your efforts into something productive and interesting. Maybe you'll teach us something.

The problem with this point, while somewhat valid, is that this wasn't a true "rebuilding" job. Mark Shapiro came in and got rid of his better players to build for the future. Wayne added to his best players. Shapiro dropped payroll by a lot. Wayne broke the record for most money spent on a FA reliever. Shapiro has a valid reason for struggling in his first few years. Wayne has much less validity.

BTW, I only point out Shapiro in this discussion because I've been through his case before on this board. I never picked apart the Branch Rickey situation so I don't know if it is similar.

This is why I harped on this situation for so long. IMO, this team wasn't good enough to win right now (i.e. 2006-present). Most (outside of the FO) knew this. But they forged ahead anyway. Raising payroll, breaking FA records, picking up anyone who's had success along the way while not thinking about the future. The team could have gotten rid of some of their better players a year or two ago, such as Arroyo, Griffey and possibly Dunn. If they got solid return on those guys, could you imagine what 2010 would look like right now? Come on...it would be sick. But they needed to win then and now, which was a longshot. All that was accomplished by trying to win immediately was wasted money, bad residual contracts and two losing seasons.

Blame goes to all parties involved, including Bob.

princeton
04-25-2008, 01:58 PM
Ok, I will look at Shapiro. Did he sign as many bad FAs as Wayne did? Did he eat as many contracts as he did? Did Shapiro have a fetish for picking up injuried players and hoping for the best? Did Shapiro largely ignore defense and offense? Did Wayne make any trades like Shaperio did? When did Wayne make a trade like Diaz for Hafner? When did Wayne make pick up a Sizemore?
When did Wayne make a trade like Edwardo Perez for Carbera? When did Wayne trade a guy with warts like Milton Bradley for a guy like Gutierez.

The only clear Shapero-like trade that Wayne did was taking Phillips from Shaperio :) Arroyo started off looking good, but now he's questionable.
Sure, we didn't give up much to get him. The talent exchange is good. But, it looks like Wayne made a mistake extending him.. another example of a bad idea negating a good one. At the time, I supported the Arroyo extension, despite many people on this board objecting to it.. but guess what? I was wrong on that one, just as Wayne was.

What's laughable is comparing Wayne to Shapero. Totally laughable.

I dunno. I like Shapiro a lot (fellow princeton alum). But I look over the first two years, and I see similarities:

major adds: 1. Sizemore acquisition, Hamilton acquisition. About the same, but Shapiro had to give up a lot and WK got JH for $50K. 2. Hafner acquisition, Philips acquisition.

if anything, I figure that WK is up a Keppinger, an Arroyo, a Burton. The other thing is that deals of vets for youth SHOULD make you look good in time, and WK would have done more of those but Cast didn't want that. Shapiro had an easier time of it as he had free reign.

losses about same: 89 for Shapiro's year 2, and overall a worse record. Overall: Krivsky's probably way ahead.

if I'm Castellini, I'm firing this Shapiro bum

jmcclain19
04-25-2008, 02:01 PM
I find it most fascinating that people automatically blame Jocketty being fired in St. Louis because he couldn't stand the new school stat guys.

Lets not forget the guy worked for Sandy Alderson for a decade as the As Farm Director.

Everything I've heard and read about the St. Louis situation talked about it being 100% personallity based - Jocketty wanted credit and security for bringing a world series title to town, and instead he was continually marginallized & had his power reduced by ownership. I don't blame him for leaving.

I've actually heard Jocketty's name mentioned numerous times as being one of the more forward thinking GMs when it comes to analysis.

princeton
04-25-2008, 02:04 PM
Oh, and here's a few random facts about Jocketty and the Cardinals.

So for this decade (2000-2007), the Cardinals have won the most games in the NL.

They are tied with the Yankees for most playoff series wins in all of baseball (8).

They have won twice as many playoff series as the next-best NL franchise (the DBacks, which won 3 of its 4 in 2001).

They are tied with the Braves for most NL playoff appearances this decade (6).

They and the Braves are the only two NL franchises not to lose 90+ games this decade. They are also tied for the most 95+ win seasons (4) and 100+ seasons (2). The 2003 Giants are the only other NL team to hit the century mark for wins.

I don't know that Jocketty can repeat that success, but it's one hell of resume.


yep, and he should be given immense power as a result of that resume, and as a result of the fact that he's the last talented GM that's going to work for Cast for a long time.

but once an owner meddles, he can't always stop himself.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 02:05 PM
I've actually heard Jocketty's name mentioned numerous times as being one of the more forward thinking GMs when it comes to analysis.

He is. This narrative that's been cooked up about the victory of "new school" vs. "Walt school" in St. Louis is absolute goatfeces.

It was a money issue.

jojo
04-25-2008, 02:15 PM
While Jocketty can boast a strong resume, his hire suggests several questions:

1. Why then was he forced out of St Louis?

2. If presumably he wasn't the answer in St Louis any longer, why is he the obvious answer in Cincy?

It seems to me the same forces driving the restructuring in St Louis (mostly payroll/revenue driven) are present in Ohio in spades as well.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 02:17 PM
While Jocketty can boast a strong resume, his hire suggests several questions:

1. Why then was he forced out of St Louis?

2. If presumably he wasn't the answer in St Louis any longer, why is he the obvious answer in Cincy?

It seems to me the same forces driving the restructuring in St Louis (mostly payroll/revenue driven) are present in Ohio in spades as well.

In case you didn't notice, Wayne left Walt with a team *this* close to the pennant. ;)

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 02:17 PM
So we should just take it on blind faith that because Walt won a world championship in StL he can do the same here?

There needs to be some middle ground. I don't know if Jocketty will be the savior or not.

On the other hand, the organization will survive without Wayne. Cast didn't alieanate every team in baseball, the farm system won't evaporate overnight without Wayne's processes, etc.

I can understand that people that liked Wayne are dealing with grief over Wayne's surprised firing, but they are exaggerating his contributions and relevance. I don't recall anyone claiming that we can print up World Series tickets now that Walt is here.

In fact, I see most of Wayne's critics clearly acknowledging the good he did. The problem is that some of Wayne's supporters ignore the damage he also did to this franchise. They forget that some of Wayne's "wins" have ended up being Fool's Gold. They also forget all the blatantly bad moves and money he wasted. IMO, they way overestimate Wayne's contribution to developing prospects he inherited. I'm still waiting to hear what great changes Wayne instituted in the farm system beyond undoing DaO's stupid "one size fits all" rules (which any incoming GM would've immediately fixed)

Jpup
04-25-2008, 02:18 PM
Here's what a survey of the PBP-based defensive metrics thought of second base in '07:



UZR Dewan PMR Justin
Ellis Hill BP Utley
Utley Utley Utley BP
Hudson Hudson Hudson Ellis
Cano Ellis Cano Hill
Hill Cano Kinsler Kinsler
Giles Matsui Ellis Polanco
? BP Hill Hudson


When considering how best to compare systems (they aren't all created equal), I'd weight them something like this: UZR=45%; Dewan's +/-: 25%; PMR: 20%; Justin's translations: 10%.

Brandon is a plus defender. I'd stop short of labeling him an elite one relative to his peers at second.

defensive metrics have little to no value IMO. I believe you can tell a defenders ability with your own eyes. Cano is not anything, but about average at second base. He will be an outfielder or at 1st before his day is done.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-25-2008, 02:19 PM
I didn't realize we had this many Krivsky fans until he was let go.

Wheelhouse
04-25-2008, 02:19 PM
I would add that the Red's farm system of the mid-late 80's was a strength (Davis, Larkin, O'Neill, etc) that led to the 1990 WSC. Marge put an end to that, and Cast/Kriv has only recently revived it. Now (potentially) Jocketty will use those assets to rebuild the big league club.

Stark's comments are troubling, it will be difficult for WJ to attract quality "baseball people" when it's known that the owner is a loose cannon. But hey, that's why Walt gets the big bucks. If Cast has to overpay scouts and coaches to join the Red's system, that won't hurt my feelin's, none

Unfair to call Castellini a loose cannon. His patience was virtually endless with Jerry Narron. He is seeing a trend re-emerge with this year's team that has been there for a while. They find ways to lose ballgames. If the pitching is good, they will find a way to not produce runs. The losing has been constant and everything has been tried. He has no option but to try using fear.

15fan
04-25-2008, 02:22 PM
He has no option but to try using fear.

And that's the worst "motivator" that you can ever try to use. Especially with grown adults.

Fear is usually the manifestation of insecurity and/or desperation.

Or both.

gm
04-25-2008, 02:23 PM
What I'd like to hear from Jocketty is what do the Reds need to add to take the next step.

A couple of things I gleaned from the press conference, you probably heard them too, but...

Walt said he wasn't going to subtract (Wayne's) personnel from the farm system, but that he would try to add personnel to the system

(as long as they're the "right" people, I can go for that)

He would emphasize pitching and defense

(not sure what that bodes for Dunn and Encarnacion, we'll just have to wait and see)

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 02:24 PM
And that's the worst "motivator" that you can ever try to use. Especially with grown adults.

Fear is usually the manifestation of insecurity and/or desperation.

Or both.

It isn't the right method, no. But it's not the method Cast is using. He wanted his man; he got his man. One occurrence is not a pattern.

westofyou
04-25-2008, 02:25 PM
And that's the worst "motivator" that you can ever try to use. Especially with grown adults.

Fear is usually the manifestation of insecurity and/or desperation.

Or both.

Yep, the last resort of a desperate man.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 02:26 PM
That's for me to know and you to figure out.

It's not at all nonsense. Wouldn't you agree that you have a better opportunity to put together a winning ball club drawing ~4M rather than ~2M?

The first step to drawing 4 million is to put a product on the field that people want to see.

That was a critical mistake of John Allen. He had revenue surges when Jr arrived and when the GAB opened. Rather than reinvest in the team, he let the product rot on the vine.

I think this is the reason that Cast is not content to putz around for 7-10 years rebuilding. Fans are growing apathetic. Last year, the Reds had one of the worst attendences in baseball. I forget the exact numbers, but it was in the bottom 6, I think.

So, yes I agree. Jocketty has a huge hurdle to clear. It won't be easy. Maybe he'll screw it up. All I know is that Cast thought Wayne wasn't working, and IMO, I agree with him.

I think Wayne was liked by many on this board that enjoy following prospects and watching them come to the majors. Setting aside who gets credit for what, we had some young talent arrive. I think some of these posters would get just as much enjoyment out of seeing one good prospect arrive every year as they would winning a World Series. There's nothing wrong with that, it's a good way to enjoy the team. But this board represents probably the top .0001% of rabid fans. The average Joe doesn't really care if Ceuto is only 22 or what the farm pipeline is. He wants to see a team that wins more often than not. Those are the people that buy the bulk of the tickets, so I can see why Cast is pressing for a winning team.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 02:27 PM
I'm pretty sure that we're on the Baltimore plan, not the Minnesota or St Louis or whatever.

Magowan Rules.

It's a good thing that you are sometimes wrong, despite convincing yourself otherwise.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 02:28 PM
I think some of these posters would get just as much enjoyment out of seeing one good prospect arrive every year as they would winning a World Series.

Eek. I wish this weren't true. But...

princeton
04-25-2008, 02:39 PM
The problem with this point, while somewhat valid, is that this wasn't a true "rebuilding" job. Mark Shapiro came in and got rid of his better players to build for the future. Wayne added to his best players. Shapiro dropped payroll by a lot. Wayne broke the record for most money spent on a FA reliever. Shapiro has a valid reason for struggling in his first few years. Wayne has much less validity.

Wayne didn't have "best" players; he had a pretty bad team. But Cast didn't want to break it apart; he wanted to add marginal relievers instead. That's a tough gig-- tougher than Shapiro's. Still, WK managed to really increase the talent -- moreso that Shapiro, IMO-- while living at the margins.

the Cordero contract is no issue over first two years, since he signed in year 3.

I can't think of anyone in baseball who ever had a better run of working waiver wires, DFA's, and Rule 5. Redread is trying to obfuscate by giving the idea that WK is all about minor leaguers. And you can't say enough about Reds' first home-grown arm in 20 years. But to me, the impressive things are cheap major league talents like BPhillips, JBurton, Keppy, Hamilton/Volquez.

princeton
04-25-2008, 02:41 PM
Walt said he wasn't going to subtract (Wayne's) personnel from the farm system, but that he would try to add personnel to the system


did he sound as unconvinced about that happening ("would try") as your sentence reads? because honestly, I would think that he'd have a hard sell with this ownership.

paulrichjr
04-25-2008, 02:43 PM
I didn't realize we had this many Krivsky fans until he was let go.

I couldn't stand him as a GM the first year. I hated almost every move he made except the Phillips move (no risk so why not was my opinion). The Hancock deal just really irked me and still makes me think that it cost us a chance for the playoffs that year.

After that I became a fan. The reason. Stability and you could see that progress was being made. He appeared to be getting much better at running the team. The moves and non-moves of this past offseason all made sense. I don't regret at all that he didn't trade Homer, Cueto, and Bruce. Yes I miss Hamilton (a whole bunch) but most scouts thought that the Reds won that deal before the season even started and I have to admit I think so also. He is special.

A fan of Krivs??? Yes I was. But after Marge, JimBo, DanO, John Allen, and Carl who wouldn't be a fan of Krivisky? Now it seems the Reds are back to square 1 and other teams are once again going - Huh? I've lived through Huh? for at least 13 years. Cast tricked me into thinking that he was going to be an owner I could trust to make good decisions. Now he has proven to be a little like many other bad owners in baseball.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 02:47 PM
I dunno. I like Shapiro a lot (fellow princeton alum). But I look over the first two years, and I see similarities:

major adds: 1. Sizemore acquisition, Hamilton acquisition. About the same, but Shapiro had to give up a lot and WK got JH for $50K.


And Shapiro also got Phillips and Lee in the deal for a pending FA (Colon)
If Wayne had dealt Dunn or Arroyo for just one prospect of that caliber, it would've been a major win.

IMO, I'm a big fan of Hamilton, but he's not in Sizemore's class. Sizemore might be the best CF in baseball. But this isn't an argument about how good Sizemore is. Hamilton was a great rule V pick. He would've been a good pick even if he ended up only being a 4th OF. Probably Wayne's best move.




2. Hafner acquisition, Philips acquisition.
if anything, I figure that WK is up a Keppinger, an Arroyo, a Burton.


How about saying Phillips = Phillips instead. That's a bit more fair.

Cliff Lee + Hafner > Arroyo, Burton, and Keppinger.

And I don't want to dig back and look at every trade Shapero made in his first two years. You are free to do that if you want, but you can't try to compare only Wayne's good moves against only two of Shapiro's trades.

And also, you need to compare all the bad moves Wayne made to all the bad moves Shaperio made in his first two years. That is what killed Wayne.
the excessive number of bad moves hurt Wayne more than his lack of good moves That is the point I've said many times, which is ignored.
I acknowledge Wayne did some good moves. The problem is that he did many more bad than good. That's why this franchise is a mess.

Wayne can't just hang his hat on Hamilton and Phillips and then get a free pass on all the mistakes he's made.

As I said before, trading for Arroyo was a great move. But Wayne negated it by the bad decision to extend him. It looks like the hitters have now adjusted to Arroyo, and are hitting him hard. Let's hope Arroyo can readjust, but if he doesn't then Wayne has saddled us with another Milton. I wonder if at this time next year, Arroyo will still be touted as overall "good". If Arroyo doesn't turn things around, he'll be the new RedsZone whipping boy. He's already has age and salary going against him. If he doesn't "earn his money", the masses will turn on him quickly.




.



The other thing is that deals of vets for youth SHOULD make you look good in time, and WK would have done more of those but Cast didn't want that. Shapiro had an easier time of it as he had free reign.


Shapiro did not have free reign. Didn't he walk into a fire sale scenerio?
Much like Wayne he did not have a choice. Their marching orders were different, but they were both under orders to pursue a particular path.





losses about same: 89 for Shapiro's year 2, and overall a worse record. Overall: Krivsky's probably way ahead.



Again, Shaperio was ordered to a fire sale. If Wayne was hired and ordered to dump Harang, Dunn, and Jr for prospects, then I wouldn't be evaluating him on W-L.



if I'm Castellini, I'm firing this Shapiro bum

This proves your bias. Shapiro has succeeded in both a rebuild and tuning a team to be a perennial contender. You cherry pick Shaperios' first two years which were rebuild years and compare them to Wayne who spent a ton of money and orders to improve the team now. Guess what? When Shaperio was given money, he spent it wisely for the most part, unlike Wayne. Shaperio generally extended the right players. Wayne extended the wrong ones -- or to be more specific, Wayne extended everyone, regardless of whether they were good or not.

I think Shaperio would've been able to do what Wayne couldn't do.. He could've improved the team's W-L record within 2.3 years..

pedro
04-25-2008, 02:49 PM
I thought Krivsky deserved the chance to work out his contract and be evaluated at that point and I'm worried about Castellini's management style but I do think Jocketty is a good GM with an excellent track record so that, at least, is encouraging.

OldXOhio
04-25-2008, 02:49 PM
yep, and he should be given immense power as a result of that resume, and as a result of the fact that he's the last talented GM that's going to work for Cast for a long time.

but once an owner meddles, he can't always stop himself.


I think you'll find a new, improved version of Cast going forward. He knows Jocketty, respects the man and is very aware of his successful track record. After the events of this week, you can't help but think the "I'll fire myself" and other related comments of the past were merely cover ups for feelings of uncertainty he held towards his former GM. Now that he's out of the way, I don't think you'll see as much of "meddling Bob".

Team Clark
04-25-2008, 02:49 PM
Maybe this is something Walt can change. I assume the front office staff was well paid in StL, as they had many good people. Maybe instead of investing in Stanton type guys, Walt will actually invest in infrastructure. It's interesting that the Reds are still underpaying their guys though. I didn't realize that. I guess Marge/Lindner's legacy lives on.

Eventually someone will change the "culture". Winning changes a lot too. Which one will happen first is anybody's guess.


Let me ask you this (if you know).. to what extent, if any, did Wayne actually overhaul the minor league system. Was he the one that got rid of Naehring, or was that DanO.. I'm just wondering if Wayne shook things up in the minors or pretty much kept the same system in place (other than removing DanO's wacky ideas).

Wayne did make a good run, IMO, at making changes to the Minor League system. It's not an overnight overhaul but by evaluation standards the Reds did improve prospect wise in his 2 years. That's where Player Development and Scouting separate. Scouts have a long standing joke with PD personnel. "He wasn't broke when I handed him to you".... PD personnel usually reply something to the effect of "I didn't know you evaluated with both eyes closed" etc... Having said that, you can have all the prospects in the world but if you do not have the people in place to help them along... well what's the point right?

BUDGET is the main concern in Cincinnati's Player Development plan. I am sure Wayne and Terry Reynolds have a long lis tof people they would love to bring in (if they accepted) but you can't hire GOOD people for literally 1/3 of what other teams are paying. There are coaches in other organizations who are paying A ball hitting coaches more than Rick Sweet makes as Manager at Louisville.

Wayne did fire Naehring. Period. Pretty well publicized last year. Naehring was pretty PO'd and said so in the paper. I found that odd since he had to know that Wayne was looking to replace him since the day he took the job. Naehring and Griesser had been signed to ungodly extensions by Bowden and were hard to just dump. A lot of what is wrong with the Reds minor league system is a result of those two.

I liked Naehring for a long time until I really, really got to know him and dealt with him consistently. I backed him in the beginning but I was wrong. Flat out wrong. Not the guy for the job, IMO. Griesser, don't even get me started. Wayne basically put up a billboard across MLB that said "Now Hiring: NEW Director and Asst. Dir of Player Development". There's no way those two could ever say they were blind sided. Especially when Naehring was "demoted" to Field Coordinator. It may not have seemed like a demotion to the average Joe but let me tell you. It was a demotion.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 02:49 PM
yep, and he should be given immense power as a result of that resume, and as a result of the fact that he's the last talented GM that's going to work for Cast for a long time.
.]

The sky is falling.. Since Wayne was fired, no one good will ever want to work here again. :lol: :lol: :lol:

What I find amusing is that no one worried about the reprucussions of Cast firing DanO almost immediately after he bought the team. That seems a lot more impulsive than Wayne's firing. Note, I'm glad both were fired.

nate
04-25-2008, 02:53 PM
]

The sky is falling.. Since Wayne was fired, no one good will ever want to work here again. :lol: :lol: :lol:

What I find amusing is that no one worried about the reprucussions of Cast firing DanO almost immediately after he bought the team. That seems a lot more impulsive than Wayne's firing. Note, I'm glad both were fired.

I think that was totally expected. New owner, new staff. It would've been more surprising had it not happened.

OldXOhio
04-25-2008, 02:53 PM
What I find amusing is that no one worried about the reprucussions of Cast firing DanO almost immediately after he bought the team. That seems a lot more impulsive than Wayne's firing.

How you figure? He inherited DanO.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 02:53 PM
Redread is trying to obfuscate by giving the idea that WK is all about minor leaguers.

No, that's not what I'm saying, but I'm not falling for any more bait.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 02:57 PM
How you figure? He inherited DanO.

He didn't give DanO a fair chance, just as some are saying Wayne did not get a fair chance. DanO only served 2 years (IIRC) and was not allowed to finish his last year, just like Wayne.

That's my point.. How come it was ok to end DanO's contract early, but when the ax fell early on Wayne it makes Cast look bad and the Reds will have a hard time attracting employees, etc.

pedro
04-25-2008, 03:02 PM
He didn't give DanO a fair chance, just as some are saying Wayne did not get a fair chance. DanO only served 2 years (IIRC) and was not allowed to finish his last year, just like Wayne.

That's my point.. How come it was ok to end DanO's contract early, but when the ax fell early on Wayne it makes Cast look bad and the Reds will have a hard time attracting employees, etc.

If you can't see the difference then you're truly beyond all help.

Benihana
04-25-2008, 03:03 PM
How about saying Phillips = Phillips instead. That's a bit more fair.

Cliff Lee + Hafner > Arroyo, Burton, and Keppinger.

And I don't want to dig back and look at every trade Shapero made in his first two years. You are free to do that if you want, but you can't try to compare only Wayne's good moves against only two of Shapiro's trades.

And also, you need to compare all the bad moves Wayne made to all the bad moves Shaperio made in his first two years. That is what killed Wayne.
the excessive number of bad moves hurt Wayne more than his lack of good moves That is the point I've said many times, which is ignored.
I acknowledge Wayne did some good moves. The problem is that he did many more bad than good. That's why this franchise is a mess.

Wayne can't just hang his hat on Hamilton and Phillips and then get a free pass on all the mistakes he's made.



No, Phillips = Phillips is not "a bit more fair." You can't just say all players are the same, you have to look at what point in their career they were acquired in order to fairly evaluate the move. For instance, the Cardinals acquisition of Larry Walker was nowhere near as good of a move as the Rockies acquisition of Larry Walker, and it had nothing to do with the return. Mark Shapiro gave up on Brandon Phillips WAY too early. And for that he should be penalized, severely.

I'm not saying that Krivsky is/was better than Shapiro. But he was a LOT better than you'll ever give him credit for, and I for one am sad to see him go. But I will also tell you that Krivsky did not get fired for his performance. Take it from someone who knows, Wayne Krivsky was not fired because of his job performance, he was fired because of two simple reasons:

1. His lack of people skills
2. Castellini's love affair with Jocketty

It's that simple.

And for what it's worth, I think that Jocketty is coming in at a surprisingly good time for this club, with the golden prospects having now already arrived (or will be arriving shortly) in the big leagues. That way, he hopefully won't be trading them (at least Bruce, Cueto or Volquez) and I'd be fine if he moved just about anybody else in the minor leagues for the right major league parts, which is what he is best at doing.

Although I'll admit that Frazier and Thompson do intrigue me.

nate
04-25-2008, 03:03 PM
He didn't give DanO a fair chance, just as some are saying Wayne did not get a fair chance. DanO only served 2 years (IIRC) and was not allowed to finish his last year, just like Wayne.

That's my point.. How come it was ok to end DanO's contract early, but when the ax fell early on Wayne it makes Cast look bad and the Reds will have a hard time attracting employees, etc.

Dude, c'mon...

M2
04-25-2008, 03:04 PM
the excessive number of bad moves hurt Wayne more than his lack of good moves

No, what hurt Krivsky was that Castellini wanted instant gratification not realizing how far the team he bought was from any gratification. He also got hut by the GM of Castellini's dreams coming available this past winter.

As for the rest, there's simply no sane argument that the Reds aren't in a better place now than when Krivsky took over in 2006. The major league roster is better and the minor leagues are producing. That is the very definition of good moves trumping bad ones. Whether Krivsky's the guy you want to build on that foundation, whether he'd be able to make the critical choices necessary to turn the current mix into a winner, is unknown territory. I can see arguments both for and against it.


Wayne did fire Naehring. Period. Pretty well publicized last year. Naehring was pretty PO'd and said so in the paper. I found that odd since he had to know that Wayne was looking to replace him since the day he took the job. Naehring and Griesser had been signed to ungodly extensions by Bowden and were hard to just dump. A lot of what is wrong with the Reds minor league system is a result of those two.

Word. Naehring should have his name forcibly changed to Osama Tim Laden.

princeton
04-25-2008, 03:05 PM
How about saying Phillips = Phillips instead. That's a bit more fair.



Cleveland Philips was a bum. But I did forget Cliff Lee-- forgot that he wasn't always a bum, just became one once he got expensive (like Arroyo?). Again, if the team WK inherited had big arms to off-load, the ledger would be even more one-sided for Krivsky. Instead, they had several guys to trade whose best position was DH. It's harder to get return on that





And I don't want to dig back and look at every trade Shapero made in his first two years. You are free to do that if you want, but you can't try to compare only Wayne's good moves against only two of Shapiro's trades.


I know that you don't like to look up stuff that might counter your argument, but I did dig back and it looks pretty similar to me. Shapiro got the same return while trading away a lot more talent than WK, but that's fine-- the owner wanted that.




This proves your ignorance. Shapiro has succeeded in both a rebuild and tuning a team to be a perennial contender...

not in 2.1 years he didn't. The first 2 years actually look pretty similar. Both added a lot of major league talent and Shapiro lost some while WK, who had very little to trade, spent some. Overall, they increase the talent base about the same amount. Krivsky accomplished his task in spite of ownership wanting to hold onto its big assets. Point to Krivsky.

Team Clark
04-25-2008, 03:06 PM
I'm bringing this up, because I pretty much asked you this same question on O'Brien and on Krvisky, and now I pose this question to you about Walt Jocketty. Based on your knowledge of the FO problems, and based on what you know about Jocketty, do you think Walt Jocketty has the ability to set a positive tone in the FO, and bring in outside advisors who can assist him in areas he is weakest at: ie: scouting and development.

From things that have been said about Krivsky, I get the impression he was not the easiest person to work for. Losing Johnny Almarez was probably the worst mistake Krivsky made - including all the bad contracts. Evidently Krivsky refused to listen to advice, and then treated his advisors as if they were clueless. I'm wondering if Walt Jocketty will listen to advice, or at least show his advisors some respect even if he chooses to go against their advice.

And I'm wondering how the circumstances of him leaving St. Louis - his clash with Jeff Luhnow - how much should we read in to that? Luhnow seems to have actually got the Cardinal's farm system moving in a positive direction. And I think he did it with a philosophy that differed from Jocketty. That tells me Jocketty can't deal well with folks who disagree with him. Every GM needs someone who can give him a sound, opposing point of view. Can Jocketty handle that? Will he bring such a person into the FO?

I can speak to some of this.

First, Walt Jocketty is one of the most personable people I have ever met. Ever. He's right up there with Santa Clause. :D Seriously, if I had to pick a guy to come in and do damage control, pick up the pieces, has credibility and CAN get everyone on the same page I would pick Walt. Maybe not my first choice to start a franchise and all that but in this situation I would choose him.

I think that Walt gets some incorrect blame for SOME of the issues with St. Louis farm system. It all works out in the end and I do agree with most that this area is weak for him. HOWEVER, Terry Reynolds, if he stays, has a firm grip on the Reds system and doesn't need any hand holding from Walt. If Walt lets Terry do his job then I see no problems. Walt needs to get Terry the budget necessary to move forward. Plain and simple.

Castellini forced Browning on Wayne and Terry this year. That crap needs to stop too. Next, Eric Davis will be managing AAA. Let the Baseball people do the Baseball work Mr. C.

Just like everyone else on this board I have heard through many people that Wayne was paranoid, difficult to work with and not forthcoming. Pretty bad combo for a position that is 90% communication. My question is: Why was he so paranoid? Makes you wonder. Maybe next go around Wayne will lighten up. I have run into Wayne MANY times. He'll talk to you but he won't say much. If he really knows you I bet you could get a full sentence. That's just who he is. Right, wrong or indifferent. I never worked for him and never did business with him so I can't validate what everyone was saying but I certainly am not calling them liars either.

I have zero doubt that Walt will listen to his staff. I don't recall that ever being an issue. I am still pretty tight with Mike Jorgensen and John Vuch of the Cardinals. Never a bad word from those two about Walt and they were both with him a LONG time.

The issue between Jeff Lunhow and Walt I think has more moving parts than any of us know about. I'm not entirely sure that they didn't get along or anything like that. From where I sit, I do not think that Walt appreciated having Jeff jammed down his throat and promoted ahead of other people without his consent. That would really tick me off too. I interviewed with Jeff Lunhow this winter and I have to tell you I was mightily impressed by him. The guy is flat out smart!

OnBaseMachine
04-25-2008, 03:11 PM
Setting aside who gets credit for what, we had some young talent arrive. I think some of these posters would get just as much enjoyment out of seeing one good prospect arrive every year as they would winning a World Series.

I think that's an ignorant statement.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 03:15 PM
This thread is marbled with delusion. I've honestly never seen a thread so full of re-fashioned and re-wired history in my life. And that's truly saying something for Redszone.

OldXOhio
04-25-2008, 03:15 PM
He didn't give DanO a fair chance, just as some are saying Wayne did not get a fair chance. DanO only served 2 years (IIRC) and was not allowed to finish his last year, just like Wayne.

That's my point.. How come it was ok to end DanO's contract early, but when the ax fell early on Wayne it makes Cast look bad and the Reds will have a hard time attracting employees, etc.


DanO was a casualty of a regime change...happens all the time in business, not just sports. He had some supporters on here at the time of his firing, but even they recognized this was a reality. Wayne was Bob C's guy, the one passed over previously who was now being given the chance some thought he deserved a few years earlier. He was executing on a plan that clearly had changed in BC's mind somewhere along the way. No one will argue that mistakes were made, bad contracts were offered, etc, etc, but as pointed out in the previous 66 pages of this thread, good things were done as well. In the end, while I'm not sure I believe WK should've been extended beyond this year, I don't think immediate termination was warranted either.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 03:19 PM
In the end, while I'm not sure I believe WK should've been extended beyond this year, I don't think immediate termination was warranted either.

This is my position too. The 2008 season is already over; might as well save the turbulence for the offseason.

TRF
04-25-2008, 03:20 PM
Hey, this is just an opinion, but the tone of this thread really needs to come down a bit. I'm pointing fingers at princeton and REDREAD.

just sayin'.

Spring~Fields
04-25-2008, 03:20 PM
Much has been discussed about Krivsky, moving forward to the present.

REDREAD,

Lets move away from hindsight to foresight.

How do you suppose and anticipate that Jocketty "will improve the club"?

What changes ?
What moves ?
Where will his focus for improvement be ?
How will he accomplish them ?
What upgrade ?
Where will he start first?
What kind fo W/L do you anticipate he will finish this year and next with?
What kind of time frame will he need to accomplish what you expect him to?
How much will it cost the investors, how much in budget terms?
Where will he be much improved over previous GM's?

REDREAD

Can't believe that you ignored this and are still living in the past with Wayne.
I want to know why I should believe we are moving forward now. I know nothing about Jocketty other than he had large budgets to work with and huge attendance vs Reds GMs, why will his policy work here and what will he do? He has had what six months or more to evaluate, when does he start?

15fan
04-25-2008, 03:21 PM
Just like everyone else on this board I have heard through many people that Wayne was paranoid, difficult to work with and not forthcoming. Pretty bad combo for a position that is 90% communication. My question is: Why was he so paranoid? Makes you wonder.

One of the things I've noticed in my career is that for most folks in the organization, going to work is all about the day-to-day. Sure, there are some politics, but generally it's about completing tasks, scratching things off the "to do" list, meeting deadlines, and chugging right along.

At the top, though, it's an entirely different animal. When you're at the top of an organization (or a major function in the organization), it's not so much about the day to day as it is the politics. That's where the real battles are fought.

That's probably a large portion of what stoked any paranoia, be it real or perceived.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 03:23 PM
One of the things I've noticed in my career is that for most folks in the organization, going to work is all about the day-to-day. Sure, there are some politics, but generally it's about completing tasks, scratching things off the "to do" list, meeting deadlines, and chugging right along.

At the top, though, it's an entirely different animal. When you're at the top of an organization (or a major function in the organization), it's not so much about the day to day as it is the politics. That's where the real battles are fought.

That's probably a large portion of what stoked any paranoia, be it real or perceived.


I don't know if the "paranoia" stuff is real or not (I'm leaning towards "not"), but most paranoid higher-ups are that way because they're in over their head.

TRF
04-25-2008, 03:24 PM
I don't know if the "paranoia" stuff is real or not (I'm leaning towards "not"), but most paranoid higher-ups are that way because they're in over their head.

I work at a college. Office politics is EVERYTHING.