PDA

View Full Version : Krivsky Interview on 1530 HOMER



Sea Ray
04-25-2008, 12:53 PM
Alan Cutler interviewed Wayne Krivsky this morning and I haven't heard such a love-in since the 60s. What a wimpy, softball interview.

WK says that the only bad contract he's responsible for is Mike Stanton. Cutler proceeds to let that comment ride. How 'bout challenging it, Alan! How 'bout making him defend the Juan Castro contract, or Corey Patterson or David Ross or Alex Gonzalez or Josh Fogg or Ryan Freel or Bronson Arroyo? I'd love to hear him justify those decisions.

WK also said he tried to run this team like the Minn Twins. I'd have asked him why the Twins don't have the big contracts that the Reds are now saddled with.

WK said that he's a wonderful communicator! I think most sportswriters in the area would disagree as they've been complaining about his communication skills ever since he took the job.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 12:56 PM
WK also said he tried to run this team like the Minn Twins.

When you've beaten the obvious to death, what else more is there to say?

Sea Ray
04-25-2008, 01:00 PM
When you've beaten the obvious to death, what else more is there to say?

I haven't heard Wayne defend it yet. Sure, we've beaten it to death on this site but I'd sure like to hear his side of it. My guess is he tried to defend it for an hour with BC and he didn't buy into it either

dougdirt
04-25-2008, 01:09 PM
WK also said he tried to run this team like the Minn Twins. I'd have asked him why the Twins don't have the big contracts that the Reds are now saddled with.

You mean like paying Mike Lamb 3.5 million to hit .177/.212/.258?
Or like paying Adam Everett 2.8 million to hit .185/.214/.222?
Maybe like Michael Cuddyer 6 million to hit .278/.278/.278 and come off of the bench as a defensive replacement since the first week of April?
Maybe Nick Punto making 2.4 million for his last two craptastic seasons?

Lets not pretend like the Reds are the only team with bad players making some money to suck. It goes on with every team in baseball, it just gets magnified here because we follow the Reds.

As for running the team like the Twins.... he was. He just didn't have the time to get it into full Twins mode. He was going young, but he had to keep/sign some guys in order to give his guys the chance to get to the Reds. He didn't get the time to do that. Rome wasn't built in a day.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 01:10 PM
You mean like paying Mike Lamb 3.5 million to hit .177/.212/.258?
Or like paying Adam Everett 2.8 million to hit .185/.214/.222?
Maybe like Michael Cuddyer 6 million to hit .278/.278/.278 and come off of the bench as a defensive replacement since the first week of April?
Maybe Nick Punto making 2.4 million for his last two craptastic seasons?

Lets not pretend like the Reds are the only team with bad players making some money to suck. It goes on with every team in baseball, it just gets magnified here because we follow the Reds.

Yeah--you're right; the Twins method sucks.

dougdirt
04-25-2008, 01:11 PM
Yeah--you're right; the Twins method sucks.

Its not bad..... it just takes time to get there.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 01:12 PM
Its not bad..... it just takes time to get there.

And when you get there, you hoard your prospects like Silas Stingy and fall short again and again.

paulrichjr
04-25-2008, 01:13 PM
You mean like paying Mike Lamb 3.5 million to hit .177/.212/.258?
Or like paying Adam Everett 2.8 million to hit .185/.214/.222?
Maybe like Michael Cuddyer 6 million to hit .278/.278/.278 and come off of the bench as a defensive replacement since the first week of April?
Maybe Nick Punto making 2.4 million for his last two craptastic seasons?

Lets not pretend like the Reds are the only team with bad players making some money to suck. It goes on with every team in baseball, it just gets magnified here because we follow the Reds.

That is absolutely 100% correct. Every team has these contracts and some are even worse than Krivs. In fact payroll flexibility going forward after this year is a big reason I am so high on the future of the Reds. I am not so sure that Arroyo's contract is going to look bad in 3 months but I agree right now it looks horrible. Otherwise I think Krivs deserves a lot of credit for building an organization that appears on paper to be 1-2 years away from being really really good.

dougdirt
04-25-2008, 01:15 PM
And when you get there, you hoard your prospects like Silas Stingy and fall short again and again.

Fall short of a WS? Sure, but they have also gone 698-612 since 2000 while going to the playoffs 4 times in 8 years.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 01:15 PM
That is absolutely 100% correct. Every team has these contracts and some are even worse than Krivs. In fact payroll flexibility going forward after this year is a big reason I am so high on the future of the Reds. I am not so sure that Arroyo's contract is going to look bad in 3 months but I agree right now it looks horrible. Otherwise I think Krivs deserves a lot of credit for building an organization that appears on paper to be 1-2 years away from being really really good.

I think the argument would be stronger if he pointed to a *good* midmarket team with 5 or 6 millstones on their 25-man.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 01:16 PM
Fall short of a WS? Sure, but they have also gone 698-612 since 2000 while going to the playoffs 4 times in 8 years.

Fall short of *any* postseason relevance.

dougdirt
04-25-2008, 01:19 PM
Fall short of *any* postseason relevance.

Postseason is almost all luck. Seriously, 2005 Cardinals?

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 01:21 PM
Postseason is almost all luck.

The excuse of the incapable.

fearofpopvol1
04-25-2008, 01:30 PM
The Twins had a great method. Where they fell short is they would never make that big move at the deadline to put them over the hump.

MartyFan
04-25-2008, 01:31 PM
The excuse of the incapable.

So tee it up for us...tell us what team has ever won the WS without luck?

If all it takes is someone capable then the Yankees should have won the series every year since the reign of terror began back in the 90's...they often had teams that were considered much more capable than their competition and still haven't won a WS in a while.

dougdirt
04-25-2008, 01:34 PM
The excuse of the incapable.

Right, because the 2005 Cardinals who finished 4 games over .500 were truly the best team in baseball. Or the losing WS team each of the last 3 years was a team that couldn't win its own division. Or that the three years before that both World Series winners couldn't win their own division.

westofyou
04-25-2008, 01:35 PM
So tee it up for us...tell us what team has ever won the WS without luck?


1976 Reds - Most dominate team I've ever seen.

Jpup
04-25-2008, 01:40 PM
1976 Reds - Most dominate team I've ever seen.

There have been several in the Bronx as well.

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 02:08 PM
Right, because the 2005 Cardinals who finished 4 games over .500 were truly the best team in baseball. Or the losing WS team each of the last 3 years was a team that couldn't win its own division. Or that the three years before that both World Series winners couldn't win their own division.

It was 2006. And it turns out the best team was the Cardinals. It didn't help that Detroit kind of sucked, too, but the Cardinals destroyed the Tigers, and everyone they faced before them.

BRM
04-25-2008, 02:14 PM
Were the Cards lucky or was everyone else unlucky? I just have a hard time calling any team that wins a WS "lucky". Luck may have helped them some but they don't win the Series without talented players playing good baseball.

coachw513
04-25-2008, 02:16 PM
The excuse of the incapable.

Crud, I agree totally :cool:...

Great teams make their own luck...

Good teams that get on a roll at the right time are no more lucky than that...they simply make their own luck too...

To have it said better than I: "I am a great believer in luck...and I find the harder I work, the more of it I have!"- Thomas Jefferson

Over 162 games, many things will have an impact...but a cumulative effect of luck is not one of them...

Sea Ray
04-25-2008, 02:51 PM
You mean like paying Mike Lamb 3.5 million to hit .177/.212/.258?
Or like paying Adam Everett 2.8 million to hit .185/.214/.222?
Maybe like Michael Cuddyer 6 million to hit .278/.278/.278 and come off of the bench as a defensive replacement since the first week of April?
Maybe Nick Punto making 2.4 million for his last two craptastic seasons?

Lets not pretend like the Reds are the only team with bad players making some money to suck. It goes on with every team in baseball, it just gets magnified here because we follow the Reds.

As for running the team like the Twins.... he was. He just didn't have the time to get it into full Twins mode. He was going young, but he had to keep/sign some guys in order to give his guys the chance to get to the Reds. He didn't get the time to do that. Rome wasn't built in a day.

The Twins don't allow themselves the luxury of simultaneously paying the likes of contracts such as Dunn, Griffey, Harang, Cordero and Arroyo.

Matt700wlw
04-25-2008, 02:59 PM
If you missed it, there's a good chance he'll replay it while on 700 WLW this weekend...like maybe during the Inside Pitch tomorrow, or after the Bengals draft....

Spring~Fields
04-25-2008, 03:30 PM
If you missed it, there's a good chance he'll replay it while on 700 WLW this weekend...like maybe during the Inside Pitch tomorrow, or after the Bengals draft....

Ipod of the interview: At Homer under Cutler

Stormy
04-25-2008, 03:39 PM
When you've beaten the obvious to death, what else more is there to say?

That Wayne had great success following the blueprint for small franchise success in Minnesota, the likes of which the Reds haven't tasted consistently in 30+ years???

Stormy
04-25-2008, 03:43 PM
The excuse of the incapable.

Yea, like Billy Beane and his "incapable" 90+ win per season average this millenium. I wonder if Bob Castellini, and his 72+ win franchise (over the same timespan) would take that type of insufficiency?

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 03:49 PM
So tee it up for us...tell us what team has ever won the WS without luck?

If all it takes is someone capable then the Yankees should have won the series every year since the reign of terror began back in the 90's...they often had teams that were considered much more capable than their competition and still haven't won a WS in a while.


There's an expression that luck is the residue of good design.

The interesting thing about the playoffs is that the same roster that can win a division title and get you to the playoff is not necessarily the best designed roster for the postseason. I think that explains a lot of the luck factor.

Stormy
04-25-2008, 03:53 PM
There's an expression that luck is the residue of good design.

The interesting thing about the playoffs is that the same roster that can win a division title and get you to the playoff is not necessarily the best designed roster for the postseason. I think that explains a lot of the luck factor.

Meaning what, exactly? Care to explain the disparity between the franchises who purchase a run at the title in recent year (Yankees, Red Sox), and those who have done so by superior pitching design (Marlins)? Looks like Wayne was trying to follow a mixture of the Marlins and Twins model, but that's a hard thing to pull off within 2 freaking seasons.

Stormy
04-25-2008, 03:56 PM
P.S. The Marlins started the first twenty games of their 2003 World Series run at 9-11, so I'm sure you would have approved of scrapping that season 20 games in as well?

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 03:58 PM
Yea, like Billy Beane and his "incapable" 90+ win per season average this millenium. I wonder if Bob Castellini, and his 72+ win franchise (over the same timespan) would take that type of insufficiency?

I'm not an expert on the A's by any means. The A's had the three good starting pitchers that a postseason team wants. I think the teams that had big slow guys with good OBP was not as conducive to scoring runs in the postseason. Those guys are great for pounding average or bad pitching.
In the postseason, the pitching is much better. The ace pitchers are less likely to walk people. Also, I think defense is much more important in the postseason.

I don't pretend to have all the answers on this, but it seems that at least some of Beane's teams were poorly designed for the postseason.

The 1990 Reds sweep of Oakland was a real eye opener. Sure, the Reds were fortunate to have Billy Hatcher hit .750, but it was a great defensive team with an awesome bullpen and good enough starting pitching. It also had a nice smallball offense and speed at just about every lineup position (other than 1b or C). Conventional wisdom picked the Oakland sluggers, but those guys were not facing mediocre pitching that they could mash. Also, their defense was not as good as Cincy... Again, just an example, but I don't think the Reds swept the A's that year based on luck.

Matt700wlw
04-25-2008, 03:59 PM
P.S. The Marlins started the first twenty games of their 2003 World Series run at 9-11, so I'm sure you would have approved of scrapping that season 20 games in as well?

Floridians don't know they have 2 baseball teams...

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 04:00 PM
Yea, like Billy Beane and his "incapable" 90+ win per season average this millenium. I wonder if Bob Castellini, and his 72+ win franchise (over the same timespan) would take that type of insufficiency?

Another example is the Atlanta Braves. Many years they went to the playoffs with a mediocre bullpen (like the Washed up Reardon as closer). Also, key bullpen arm McMichael seemed to be less effective in a playoff series.

Bobby Cox had a famous quote about the playoffs being a pure crapshoot, but I think he overlooked the fact that while the Braves were built great for the regular season, they were not built optimally for the playoffs.

REDREAD
04-25-2008, 04:06 PM
P.S. The Marlins started the first twenty games of their 2003 World Series run at 9-11, so I'm sure you would have approved of scrapping that season 20 games in as well?

To be honest, I didn't follow the Marlins that closely that year, so I don't want to speak from an uninformed point of view. Obviously, that team had a lot of upside, and McKeon was able to bring it out of them. I'm afraid I'm not familiar enough with that Marlins team to do a blow by blow comparison of them vs this years' Reds. But I'd be interested in reading it if someone else does :) There is an interesting parallel though that the manager took the fall for the poor start as opposed to the GM, so Loria did get impatient with that start.

I'm of the opinion that 2007 sunk Wayne more than the first 20 games of this season, and that Wayne was on double probation after 2007 ended.

In any event, Wayne was on thin ice, and a combination of a poor start, percieved bad people skills, contract mistakes, disappointing ticket sales, and the projection of this team's W-L record this year (whether it was accurate or not) caused Cast to lose patience.

I also wonder if Arroyo's poor start had anything to do with Wayne's firing (or at least negatively influenced the projected W-L record)

Falls City Beer
04-25-2008, 05:11 PM
That Wayne had great success following the blueprint for small franchise success in Minnesota, the likes of which the Reds haven't tasted consistently in 30+ years???

I want no part of the Minnesota model. But I could sign on for the much more aggressive method: the A's or Cardinals' model.

Spring~Fields
04-25-2008, 05:18 PM
the A's or Cardinals' model.

I wouldn't mind a combo of the Cards/A's model.

They keep winning while they are reloading it seems.

Matt700wlw
04-25-2008, 05:56 PM
I want no part of the Minnesota model. But I could sign on for the much more aggressive method: the A's or Cardinals' model.

Well, I would think Mr. Jocketty knows a thing or two about those - and in rare FCB agreeance, those are good models.

RedlegJake
04-25-2008, 10:30 PM
The excuse of the incapable.

On this one FCB you're wrong. Getting there consistently, yeah that takes smart management. Winning once you get there...well some really great teams have been bounced from the playoffs, some really suspect teams have won once they got here. There is a ton of luck and timing involved. Much more than the regular season when the sheer length of the season tends to balance out streaks and luck.

I think you're just grumpy because you've been too right about too many problems this season.;)

edited: But Im with you...much rather the Cards or As method.

OnBaseMachine
04-29-2008, 05:01 PM
Is Krivsky saying he would return to the Reds organization as a scout or am I reading that wrong?

Talking to Krivsky

I finally talked to Wayne Krivsky today after playing phone tag for a day or two. He sounded good, obviously still disappointed. He wanted to clear up some things:

--No talks have gone on with Adam Dunn about an extension. No figures have been exchanged. Nothing.

--The Gary Majewski case reached Bud Selig's deck within the last month or so.

--He didn't reveal that A's picked up Rheal Cormier's $2 million salary as part of the trade for Chris Denorfia in order not to make Billy Beans look bad. That is classic Krivsky. He wouldn't throw the other guy under the bus, even though the local media -- me included -- continually mentioned the Cormier deal as one of the Krivsky's failure.

--He's been contacted by two clubs about jobs. My guess is he'll have one soon. "I wouldn't mind scouting the National League out of Great American Ball Ball Park," he said. "I'd be comfortable walking in there."

He's still thinking like a guy with budget to meet. I told him that all the front office people are here in St. Louis. I ran off the list. "Man, that's got to be costing a lot money to have them all there."

Communication was a big factor in him losing the job. He regretted not putting things in writing for CEO Bob Castellini. "I communicate on the phone or in person," Krivsky said. "He likes things in memos."

He talked wistfully of how things may have worked out with him staying as GM and Jocketty as team president.

"The relationship got better," he said. "Walt and I are 180 degrees different as far as style but we're close as far as baseball philosophy. Walt may be able to do a better job of managing Bob."

http://frontier.cincinnati.com/blogs/redsinsider/

Joseph
04-29-2008, 05:07 PM
Could be, but didn't Leyland scout for the Cards out of Pittsburgh, or am I remembering wrong?

So maybe what he's saying is he'd like to be an NL scout and stay in Cincy.

lollipopcurve
04-29-2008, 05:13 PM
--He didn't reveal that A's picked up Rheal Cormier's $2 million salary as part of the trade for Chris Denorfia in order not to make Billy Beans look bad. That is classic Krivsky. He wouldn't throw the other guy under the bus, even though the local media -- me included -- continually mentioned the Cormier deal as one of the Krivsky's failure.

Gotta respect that -- a lot.

Cyclone792
04-29-2008, 05:14 PM
Gotta love John Fay ... boy this was painful to read ...


--The Gary Majewski case reached Bud Selig's deck within the last month or so.

So now the Majewski case is outside on the deck; is it Bud's elaborate back porch? Maybe Bud's going to be sitting on the porch grilling out and having a beer as he reviews the case. Heck, maybe he'll throw the case in the fire as his steaks are simmering.


--He didn't reveal that A's picked up Rheal Cormier's $2 million salary as part of the trade for Chris Denorfia in order not to make Billy Beans look bad. That is classic Krivsky. He wouldn't throw the other guy under the bus, even though the local media -- me included -- continually mentioned the Cormier deal as one of the Krivsky's failure.

Does chili come with those Billy Beans?

Seriously, the number one rule of journalism is do not spell anybody's name wrong.


--He's been contacted by two clubs about jobs. My guess is he'll have one soon. "I wouldn't mind scouting the National League out of Great American Ball Ball Park," he said. "I'd be comfortable walking in there."

Two balls, eh?

RedsManRick
04-29-2008, 05:31 PM
--He didn't reveal that A's picked up Rheal Cormier's $2 million salary as part of the trade for Chris Denorfia in order not to make Billy Beans look bad. That is classic Krivsky. He wouldn't throw the other guy under the bus, even though the local media -- me included -- continually mentioned the Cormier deal as one of the Krivsky's failure.


And yet, now that he's out of the GM seat, he has no problem revealing it. Is it that he didn't want to throw Beane under the bus or that he didn't want to aggravate a potential trading partner?

Looks like self-interest wearing the coat of benevolence to me. Beane's reputation did not stop being an issue just because Krivsky lost his job. Character is about what you do when nobody's looking.

TRF
04-29-2008, 05:33 PM
And yet, now that he's out of the GM seat, he does it less than a week later. Is it that he didn't want to throw Beane under the bus or that he didn't want to aggravate a potential trading partner?

Looks like self-interest wearing the coat of benevolence to me. Character is what you do when nobody's looking.

Or he could have spoken to Beane and asked if he could mention it. Dude is out of a job, and obviously still wants one. My fear is he's the next GM of the Pirates.

fearofpopvol1
04-29-2008, 05:39 PM
I mentioned it in another thread, and I know it's unlikely Krivsky would accept, but I'd love for the Reds to keep him on as a scout. I think the Reds would really benefit from that.

deltachi8
04-29-2008, 05:42 PM
I think what WK meant is he would have no problem sitting in GABP scouting games while working for another team.

MikeS21
04-29-2008, 05:44 PM
It certainly takes both talent AND luck to make it to the WS. It is possible to go 95-67 during the regular season, and still miss the post-season. But with luck, you can make the post season with a record of 85-77.

What kinds of luck are we talking about? Pitching match-ups, injuries (both for the Reds and opponents), hot and cold hitters (both for the Reds and opponents), and other intangibles that don't always show up in a box score. I've seen umpiring crews influence entire series. I've seen Gold Glovers, who commit very few errors, botch a simple play in a crucial situation in a crucial game.

Take the 1999 Reds, for example. The main reason that team won had to do with several pitchers and hitters who had well above career average years all in the same season. Folks like Pete Harnish, Ron Villone, Steve Paris pitched above their career averages. Eddie Taubensee, Sean Casey both had career years that season, and others like Mike Cameron and Jefferey Hammonds had career highs in HR's at that point in their career.

gm
04-29-2008, 07:47 PM
From Fay's blog


Communication was a big factor in him losing the job. He regretted not putting things in writing for CEO Bob Castellini. "I communicate on the phone or in person," Krivsky said. "He likes things in memos."

He talked wistfully of how things may have worked out with him staying as GM and Jocketty as team president.

"The relationship got better," he said. "Walt and I are 180 degrees different as far as style but we're close as far as baseball philosophy. Walt may be able to do a better job of managing Bob."

TPC reports?

Cooper
04-29-2008, 09:36 PM
Not making Billy Beane look bad? My guess is Billy Beane can take care of himself. This comes off as kinda weird on Wayne's part. What the heck?

He learned all his lessons AFTER he got fired. Where was his insight? Where were his assessment skills as they relate to interperonal skills?

To me-he comes off as one of those guys that each company has --they are really good at the technical part of the job, but the company usually makes the guy work in a back room cause he's kinda odd and just can't relate to folks. But, if you need a project done -this kind of guy is awesome cause he'll keep it under wraps and knock out this huge project that required a ton of technical expertise.

Somebody else (Jocketty) has to do the presentation cause this guy has no skill in talking to the public.

REDREAD
04-29-2008, 10:43 PM
--He didn't reveal that A's picked up Rheal Cormier's $2 million salary as part of the trade for Chris Denorfia in order not to make Billy Beans look bad. That is classic Krivsky. He wouldn't throw the other guy under the bus, even though the local media -- me included -- continually mentioned the Cormier deal as one of the Krivsky's failure.


But Wayne has no problem "throwing Beane under the bus" now? :lol:

Beane looks pretty good in this trade. Sure, the Reds got 2 million, but the A's have a major league player. I'm not in the cult of Deno, but he's better than McBeth.

cincyinco
04-29-2008, 10:48 PM
Calling Deno a major league player might be a reach...

I dont get the fuss over him..

Nor the fuss over 2 million dollars and Cormier.

Big

Freaking

Deal.

SteelSD
04-29-2008, 11:58 PM
Not making Billy Beane look bad? My guess is Billy Beane can take care of himself. This comes off as kinda weird on Wayne's part. What the heck?

Yeah. That's just as weird as the concept that the money acquired somehow "makes up" for wasting resources to acquire something that held no value. The guy swapped Justin Germano, who produced a 4.40 DIPS ERA and a 4.48 FIP in 130+ Innings last year, for Cormier in the first place.

The kind of thought process being used to defend Krivsky's throwing good money away after good money is just plain silly.

As of today, Krivsky's machinizations have produced Pythags of 76-86, 75-87, and a 2008 projection of 73-89 based on what the team is doing right now. That's wheel-spinning of the highest order at minimum and it's possibly regression at worst. At most, Krivsky is a "caretaker" type who found a couple of diamonds in the rough, but who also has done a lot of damage while wasting a lot of resources on quite a big mound of pricey junk.

Guys like Wayne Krivsky should never hold GM positions. They're potentially valuable to an organization from a "task manager" perspective (as you noted), but they're tied to what they know, have little ability to innovate, and lack both vision and communication skills.

The irony is that executives (like Castellini) often hire and/or promote people like that because they're seen as "dependable". And I think Krivsky is just that. He can keep secrets, seems to give a lot of effort, and likely brings his "A" game every day. The problem is that when given a position that requires innovation, vision, and communication, most of those folks wash out- especially when there's a ready alternative (Jocketty) already well known and trusted by the executive in charge.

WVRedsFan
04-30-2008, 12:42 AM
Guys like Wayne Krivsky should never hold GM positions. They're potentially valuable to an organization from a "task manager" perspective (as you noted), but they're tied to what they know, have little ability to innovate, and lack both vision and communication skills.

The irony is that executives (like Castellini) often hire and/or promote people like that because they're seen as "dependable". And I think Krivsky is just that. He can keep secrets, seems to give a lot of effort, and likely brings his "A" game every day. The problem is that when given a position that requires innovation, vision, and communication, most of those folks wash out- especially when there's a ready alternative (Jocketty) already well known and trusted by the executive in charge.

Wow. Well said.

It is no secret that I didn't like the Krivky hiring from the start and caught the devil for it. Krivsky reminded me of so many in my industry. They are the guys who years ago used to wear slide rules on their belts. Intelligent as they can be and good at following a systematic plan, but no warmth. Upper management loves them so much they promote them to the top and when they get there, they lack that one thing that makes a big difference. Sad.

We saw it early on. He helped the farm system and he made some good deals, but when the real deal comes along--the guy who has the ability to not only make the right moves, or has hte reputation of doing so, these guys lose.

I hope someday we get over talking about Wayne Krivsky. Wayne is gone, never to return again. And if we're truly Reds fans, we'll look at who is now in charge and either love or hate them on thier own merits. I fear another seven years where people constantly compare Walt to Wayne and speculate on what Wayne would have done. No thanks.

cincinnati chili
04-30-2008, 02:35 AM
Call it sour grapes or being overly-cerebral if you want, but the better team loses in about 40% of the games, it really is mostly luck to make it all the way through and win a World Championship.

In an 8-team postseason, the better team is usually not going to survive.

Most people can grasp this in the NCAA basketball, best-of-64 tournament. But for some reason, people can't grasp it in a sport where there's MUCH less differentiation between the best and worst teams.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-30-2008, 09:46 AM
Yeah. That's just as weird as the concept that the money acquired somehow "makes up" for wasting resources to acquire something that held no value. The guy swapped Justin Germano, who produced a 4.40 DIPS ERA and a 4.48 FIP in 130+ Innings last year, for Cormier in the first place.

The kind of thought process being used to defend Krivsky's throwing good money away after good money is just plain silly.

As of today, Krivsky's machinizations have produced Pythags of 76-86, 75-87, and a 2008 projection of 73-89 based on what the team is doing right now. That's wheel-spinning of the highest order at minimum and it's possibly regression at worst. At most, Krivsky is a "caretaker" type who found a couple of diamonds in the rough, but who also has done a lot of damage while wasting a lot of resources on quite a big mound of pricey junk.

Guys like Wayne Krivsky should never hold GM positions. They're potentially valuable to an organization from a "task manager" perspective (as you noted), but they're tied to what they know, have little ability to innovate, and lack both vision and communication skills.

The irony is that executives (like Castellini) often hire and/or promote people like that because they're seen as "dependable". And I think Krivsky is just that. He can keep secrets, seems to give a lot of effort, and likely brings his "A" game every day. The problem is that when given a position that requires innovation, vision, and communication, most of those folks wash out- especially when there's a ready alternative (Jocketty) already well known and trusted by the executive in charge.

I love it. I was waiting for someone to post something that expressed my thoughts but in better words.

Well done, as always!

TRF
04-30-2008, 11:10 AM
Yeah. That's just as weird as the concept that the money acquired somehow "makes up" for wasting resources to acquire something that held no value. The guy swapped Justin Germano, who produced a 4.40 DIPS ERA and a 4.48 FIP in 130+ Innings last year, for Cormier in the first place.

The kind of thought process being used to defend Krivsky's throwing good money away after good money is just plain silly.

As of today, Krivsky's machinizations have produced Pythags of 76-86, 75-87, and a 2008 projection of 73-89 based on what the team is doing right now. That's wheel-spinning of the highest order at minimum and it's possibly regression at worst. At most, Krivsky is a "caretaker" type who found a couple of diamonds in the rough, but who also has done a lot of damage while wasting a lot of resources on quite a big mound of pricey junk.

Guys like Wayne Krivsky should never hold GM positions. They're potentially valuable to an organization from a "task manager" perspective (as you noted), but they're tied to what they know, have little ability to innovate, and lack both vision and communication skills.

The irony is that executives (like Castellini) often hire and/or promote people like that because they're seen as "dependable". And I think Krivsky is just that. He can keep secrets, seems to give a lot of effort, and likely brings his "A" game every day. The problem is that when given a position that requires innovation, vision, and communication, most of those folks wash out- especially when there's a ready alternative (Jocketty) already well known and trusted by the executive in charge.

I couldn't disagree more. And I was a harsh opponent of a number of Krivsky moves, especially in 2006. After a tremendous splash it seemed everything he touched turned to mud. Losing Germano and Medlock were IMO mistakes. Making trades for the sake of making trades was a mistake. There was never a reason to get Cantu. No reason to get Cormier. And don't get me started on Joe freaking Mays. A lot of his first year can be attributed to rookie mistakes.

But his job isn't just about the 25 man roster. He had to change a culture of losing throughout the system. He solidified the organization from top to bottom. Getting the minor leagues under control, having a more structured pitching program will reap rewards for YEARS.

But since most fans complain about the 25 man roster, lets take a look. Everyone points to his acqusition of BP, and half will say well it wasn't really a risk taking a chance on a former top prospect. Except 25 teams passed on BP.

Getting Hamilton in the first place was brilliant. Flipping him even more so. This is Krivsky's defining trade, not the one I and so many others have complained about. And yet long term, even that trade looks to be reaping a HUGE benefit: Daryl Thompson.

Krivsky came into a situation unlike any other GM in quite some time. He followed a guy so uniquely unsuited for the position that it took two years just to get his bad contracts off the books. The only fortunate thing was said GM was in charge during talent rich drafts. He almost couldn't screw it up. (though I'd prefer Weaver over Bailey).

Just looking at the Reds system, there are blue chip talents at Dayton, Sarasota, Chattanooga and Louisville. And Krivsky is responsible for all of them except Bailey and Bruce. And he had opportunities to trade both. But trading Bruce for Bedard doesn't make the Reds contenders. Krivsky knew that. Trading Cueto AND others for Haren doesn't make the Reds contenders. Krivsky knew that. 2008 was for deciding what to do about the OF. KGJ was likely coming off the books. Dunn may be given a LTC, but he had time for that. Bruce at some point this year will be in Cincinnati. Krivsky knew that. All he really had to assess was where was he getting his 3rd OF from, and he had time for that.

The Reds could compete in 2008. Krivsky knew that. He also knew that they could dominate the division for the next 4-5 years starting in 2009 with a young IF, power OF, and young high ceiling arms in the rotation with a shut down closer and power arms in the pen.

The man go jobbed. plain and simple.

Cooper
04-30-2008, 12:21 PM
You can't change a culture if your MO is to keep secrets and information. People in the culture begin to take on those same traits (paranoid) especially when it comes to their own jobs.

Expecting everyone in the culture to rise above their leaders dysfunction is kind of a silly thing to do. Especially when you can remove 1 man and replace him with someone who has the ego strength to lead and not get wrapped up in secrets that have no value.

There are currently about 6-8 different people who have gone on record to report that Wayne changed -that he was acting odd.

1 more little thing--and i know i am reaching here--but i always find it odd when an administrator is unwilling to put things down on paper (i.e. memo). It's as if they don't want any of their opinions on paper...that way they don't have to be held to anything. They can change the truth of what happened by stating "well, i talked to employee number 1 and that's not what i recall". IMO, it's gutless and has a sort of machiavellian feel to it.

SteelSD
04-30-2008, 12:24 PM
The Reds could compete in 2008. Krivsky knew that. He also knew that they could dominate the division for the next 4-5 years starting in 2009 with a young IF, power OF, and young high ceiling arms in the rotation with a shut down closer and power arms in the pen.

Well, there's the crux of the disagreement. Krivsky's machinizations simply didn't set up the Reds as a division contender for 2008. This season always projected to be a transition year because the future is so reliant on the maturization of the higher-level prospects (Votto, Cueto, Bailey, Bruce) Krivsky didn't draft. Any "plan" for 2008 that didn't include an immediate infusion of high-level already-actualized MLB talent (especially in the rotation) was iffy at best and most likely prone to failure.

While hanging on to prospects like Cueto may bode well for a couple years down the road, the Reds have been in a bad place for a while now. I talked about it during the offseason. And while Krivsky made his share of good moves, some bad moves come back to haunt; particularly receiving nothing of immediate value in "The Trade" and passing on Tim Lincecum. The ripple effects of those decisions were more severe than folks may realize. The former has produced no positive value for the MLB club almost two years after the move and it caused the Reds to throw away more resources to acquire bad pitchers in an attempt to stabilize a bullpen that didn't project to actually be fixed with the move. The result? Miss after miss after miss, and finally a huge outlay of cash to a Closer after all Krivsky could find in over two years of looking was Jared Burton. Passing on Lincecum was a huge gaffe which required the trade of an offensive piece (Josh Hamilton) to potentially help the rotation while the team projects to potentially lose it's most productive hitter (Dunn).

I'm simply not seeing the progression here. Instead, I see a lot of hole digging, then backfilling, then hole digging, then backfilling again.

We know that Krivsky was under a "win now" mandate going into the offseason. Yet he's now hanging his hat on the idea that he helped out the farm system (and at the lowest levels).

Five year plan. Three year contract. Krivsky jobbed himself.

dougdirt
04-30-2008, 12:48 PM
Five year plan. Three year contract. Krivsky jobbed himself.

Yes and no.
He had his plan and at the start, Castellini seemed on board with his plan. Then sometime in the middle he decided to change his mind and wanted Wayne to change his plan in the middle of it. Thats not jobbing yourself, thats getting jobbed.

TRF
04-30-2008, 12:58 PM
Yes and no.
He had his plan and at the start, Castellini seemed on board with his plan. Then sometime in the middle he decided to change his mind and wanted Wayne to change his plan in the middle of it. Thats not jobbing yourself, thats getting jobbed.

100% agree.

I loathed passing on Lincecum. That was a difference maker pick right there, but turning $100,000 into Edinson Volquez is beyond brilliant. The trade did set the Reds back, I estimate 3 years minimum. But again, Daryl Thompson puts the Reds in a very nice position. He's looking like a top 10 pitching prospect right now. There is a ton of value in having a guy like that and no place for him on your 25 man roster.

Krivsky may have added a lot of talent to the lower levels, talent, BTW that has risen steadily. But he also changed how the minor leaguers were taught, promoted and evaluated. Promotions were earned, but no one was rushed. One weakness when WK arrived was middle infielders. Doesn't seem to be a problem now. SP was a weakness system wide. Not a problem now.

The man did far more good than harm, but EVERY GM does some harm. comes with the title.

redsmetz
04-30-2008, 01:04 PM
Well, there's the crux of the disagreement. Krivsky's machinizations simply didn't set up the Reds as a division contender for 2008. This season always projected to be a transition year because the future is so reliant on the maturization of the higher-level prospects (Votto, Cueto, Bailey, Bruce) Krivsky didn't draft. Any "plan" for 2008 that didn't include an immediate infusion of high-level already-actualized MLB talent (especially in the rotation) was iffy at best and most likely prone to failure.

While hanging on to prospects like Cueto may bode well for a couple years down the road, the Reds have been in a bad place for a while now. I talked about it during the offseason. And while Krivsky made his share of good moves, some bad moves come back to haunt; particularly receiving nothing of immediate value in "The Trade" and passing on Tim Lincecum. The ripple effects of those decisions were more severe than folks may realize. The former has produced no positive value for the MLB club almost two years after the move and it caused the Reds to throw away more resources to acquire bad pitchers in an attempt to stabilize a bullpen that didn't project to actually be fixed with the move. The result? Miss after miss after miss, and finally a huge outlay of cash to a Closer after all Krivsky could find in over two years of looking was Jared Burton. Passing on Lincecum was a huge gaffe which required the trade of an offensive piece (Josh Hamilton) to potentially help the rotation while the team projects to potentially lose it's most productive hitter (Dunn).

I'm simply not seeing the progression here. Instead, I see a lot of hole digging, then backfilling, then hole digging, then backfilling again.

We know that Krivsky was under a "win now" mandate going into the offseason. Yet he's now hanging his hat on the idea that he helped out the farm system (and at the lowest levels).

Five year plan. Three year contract. Krivsky jobbed himself.

Frankly, "win now", unless you could do as George Steinbrenner always did, was never a realistic goal and the precise "five year plan" with a three year contract was always going to be a fatal mix. I was surprised when I looked up Howsam's record as GM as saw that the BRM really didn't start rolling until his fourth year and really didn't blossom in full until after Morgan, Geronimo, Billingham and parts arrived from Houston in 1972 (and Foster during that same time period). I think Wayne was likely to have had us on a similar path.

What's done is done - there's no way to turn back the clock and I will hope that we haven't set ourselves back. I know I felt that way shortly after the firing, but I'd like to think that much of Wayne's success will not be undone, while moving the club (and the whole organization) forward.

REDREAD
04-30-2008, 01:24 PM
Yes and no.
He had his plan and at the start, Castellini seemed on board with his plan. Then sometime in the middle he decided to change his mind and wanted Wayne to change his plan in the middle of it. Thats not jobbing yourself, thats getting jobbed.

Doesn't seem that way. Cast has always publicly said that he wants the team to win and he wants it now. It never appeared to me that Cast was going to have the patience for another 5-7 rebuilding program that might never produce a division title. Didn't Cast say that if the team's W-L didn't improve, heads were going to roll? I think he said that in 2007.

I find it hard to believe Wayne misunderstood Cast's marching orders.
In fact, on his way out, Wayne said he was proud of himself for not trading any prospects to improve the immediate future of the team. Seems like Wayne had his own vision of the Reds which he knew was different from Cast's.

However, if you have any basis for your claim that Cast decided to change his mind in the middle of Wayne's plan, I'd like to hear it.

TRF
04-30-2008, 01:30 PM
However, if you have any basis for your claim that Cast decided to change his mind in the middle of Wayne's plan, I'd like to hear it.

How about the man isn't stupid? No big name FA's were within the Reds grasp, the farm was wreck, and they didn't have enough chips to get anyone better than what they had.

I think Cast is smart enough to realize all of that. He wanted to give his friend the job. He should have enough sack to say so.

REDREAD
04-30-2008, 01:38 PM
How about the man isn't stupid? No big name FA's were within the Reds grasp, the farm was wreck, and they didn't have enough chips to get anyone better than what they had.

I think Cast is smart enough to realize all of that. He wanted to give his friend the job. He should have enough sack to say so.


Whether it was a realistic goal to expect Wayne to turn the club around that quickly is another debate.. But I think the regression in the W-L record played a big part of it. I don't know what it would've taken to make Cast happy. There were 80 wins in 2006.. I don't know if Cast would've been happy with 82-84 wins in 2007 or not. Or perhaps if Wayne made some win now moves last offseason, that would've saved him.

Clearly, something broke the camel's back 20 games into the season, whether it was the team's performance, personal communication issues, or another request to eat salary to make room for Ross... But IMO, this did not come out of nowhere. As others said, Jocketty coming onboard was a clear warning that Wayne was on thin ice, along with Cast's win now talk.

Anyhow, my premise is that Cast never agreed to go along with a 5-7 year rebuliding plan like Wayne wanted to.

redsmetz
04-30-2008, 02:04 PM
Anyhow, my premise is that Cast never agreed to go along with a 5-7 year rebuliding plan like Wayne wanted to.

I'm not sure where you're getting the "5-7 year rebuilding plan" notion from. I don't think I ever heard WK ever say a time frame like that. If Wayne was a victim of anything, it was trying to make the club competitive as he quickly could while not tearing it down completely. Ultimately, I think his legacy will be the players he didn't sacrifice to a "win now" philosophy - something you have seemed to interpret as ignoring Castellini's orders to win quickly. I think the club will be the better for still having our best young prospects.

Added caveat: In all fairness, I believed the team was aiming to be competitive this season, which starting out they have not been, but I still thought they were looking to be in it this year. They may still be, but the first month has belied that.

dougdirt
04-30-2008, 02:22 PM
Doesn't seem that way. Cast has always publicly said that he wants the team to win and he wants it now. It never appeared to me that Cast was going to have the patience for another 5-7 rebuilding program that might never produce a division title. Didn't Cast say that if the team's W-L didn't improve, heads were going to roll? I think he said that in 2007.

I find it hard to believe Wayne misunderstood Cast's marching orders.
In fact, on his way out, Wayne said he was proud of himself for not trading any prospects to improve the immediate future of the team. Seems like Wayne had his own vision of the Reds which he knew was different from Cast's.

However, if you have any basis for your claim that Cast decided to change his mind in the middle of Wayne's plan, I'd like to hear it.

This is from an article by Scott Miller of CBSsportsline.com


Castellini spoke of the importance of patience in rebuilding the Reds. He pointed to the Minnesota Twins -- where he found Krivsky -- as a model organization.

One of the keys to the Twins' success, he told me, is their continuity. Smart people were running the baseball operations, and they were allowed to keep doing their jobs even in the lean years. The result was a strong foundation that, more often than not, has thrived.

That to me suggests that Castellini was all about a plan of building from within, which takes some time to get done. Now it seems 2 years in, 'win now' is a must. That, at least to me, suggest a changing the plan in the middle of it.

Chip R
04-30-2008, 02:36 PM
That to me suggests that Castellini was all about a plan of building from within, which takes some time to get done. Now it seems 2 years in, 'win now' is a must. That, at least to me, suggest a changing the plan in the middle of it.


Anyhow, my premise is that Cast never agreed to go along with a 5-7 year rebuliding plan like Wayne wanted to.


I think you're both somewhat right. Bob reminds me of the guy who says, "God, grant me patience - and hurry up about it." ;)

Bob was all about patience, as long as the team showed improvement. If the 06 and 07 records had been reversed, I think he might have stuck with Wayne longer than he did. But it happened the other way and the team started out poorly so Bob used that excuse - and the fact that Walt was uinder contract - to bring the hammer down on Wayne.

REDREAD
04-30-2008, 02:40 PM
This is from an article by Scott Miller of CBSsportsline.com


That to me suggests that Castellini was all about a plan of building from within, which takes some time to get done. Now it seems 2 years in, 'win now' is a must. That, at least to me, suggest a changing the plan in the middle of it.

My interpretation is that Cast ran out of patience. That's what he said at the press conference when Wayne was fired.

Again

2006: 80 wins
2007: 72 wins
2008: not looking good.. I think Steel said we project to 74 wins.

I think Cast wanted to see quicker progress.

In response to RedsMetz.. I have no idea what Wayne's actual timeline was.
He seemed to be very averse to trading any significant prospects. Whether that is good or bad is open for debate, but that certainly delays improving the major league product in the short term.. From that point of view, he was in a sort of rebuilding mode. Some of his trades focused more on getting younger guys (Bray, Volquez), again, not saying that is bad, but it isn't exactly productive to winning immediately. Long term, it might be better.
So at least some of Wayne's moves seemed to indicate that his horizon for winning was not this year, but perhaps 2010 or later.

I do agree that some of Wayne's moves were geared to improving the W-L record immediately. Sadly, these were the transactions that generally came up short. If he had done better on these moves, he might've still been able to keep his job.

REDREAD
04-30-2008, 02:43 PM
I think you're both somewhat right. Bob reminds me of the goy who says, "God, grant me patience - and hurry up about it." ;)

Bob was all about patience, as long as the team showed improvement. If the 06 and 07 records had been reversed, I think he might have stuck with Wayne longer than he did. But it happened the other way and the team started out poorly so Bob used that excuse - and the fact that Walt was uinder contract - to bring the hammer down on Wayne.

I agree completely with this. I still think that Bob didn't really want to fire Wayne. If he did, he would've canned him after the 2007 season.

Instead Cast gave Wayne one more postseason to try and addess the W-L record. Again, I don't know what broke the camels' back (poor start, bad interpersonal skills, or eating contracts this year). Cast had to eat Stanton and Castro this year. Wayne may have asked him to eat another to make room for Ross. The Reds bought some time by DLing Hopper, but there's still another contract that will have to be traded or eaten. I suspect Walt is working the phones hard now, trying to find someone to take Hat, Freel, or Valentine off our hands.

BCubb2003
04-30-2008, 02:45 PM
Yes, some of it was for public consumption, and no doubt some it was Castellini trying to convince himself to be patient just a little longer, but from his first words he was about winning and sooner rather than later.

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20060120&content_id=1298775&vkey=news_cin&fext=.jsp&c_id=cin

Of course, winning sooner isn't the same as spending badly and crashing.

princeton
04-30-2008, 02:59 PM
If the 06 and 07 records had been reversed, I think he might have stuck with Wayne longer than he did. But it happened the other way and the team started out poorly so Bob used that excuse - and the fact that Walt was uinder contract - to bring the hammer down on Wayne.

Bob Howsam's first team won more than expected, second team disappointed by winning fewer than previous year, then third team started season 9-14.

Cast: "Howsam's gone. Losing is no longer acceptable."

Redread: "I'm afraid to say that some Redszoners are more interested in the success of young players like Johnny Bench than they are in seeing winning teams."

TRF
04-30-2008, 03:01 PM
My interpretation is pretty simple. Jocketty became available, Cast hired him and waited for an excuse (no more losing) to make him the GM.

Really, that's all it seems to be.

BuckeyeRedleg
04-30-2008, 03:13 PM
I'm sure Cast was initially committed to patience and then the team hung in here in 2006 (which was a mirage) and this got him all excited, so he scrapped patience for "win now" causing Krivsky to go out and make "win now" moves (see: The Trade, etc.).

Cast got caught up in it and acted more as a fan than as a owner. Many of us here saw the error in playing for "win now" in 2006 and it thus set back the organization a couple years.

In the meantime, nothing disastrous has happened other than the team playing to it's talent level (which upset a clueless owner) and a few eaten contracts in the "win now" period.

BCubb2003
04-30-2008, 03:15 PM
My interpretation is pretty simple. Jocketty became available, Cast hired him and waited for an excuse (no more losing) to make him the GM.

Really, that's all it seems to be.

Yes he envisions big-name management with winning records rather than some other small market's promotable assistant.

Chip R
04-30-2008, 03:20 PM
Bob Howsam's first team won more than expected, second team disappointed by winning fewer than previous year, then third team started season 9-14.

Cast: "Howsam's gone. Losing is no longer acceptable."



Maybe you'd be right if Bob was the owner back then. It was a different era then. Perhaps he'd have been more patient back then. There hadn't been the glory years of the BRM then. There was the pennant winners of 61 and the 56 team which captured the imagination of the city but, really, nothing since 1939 and 1940.

REDREAD
04-30-2008, 05:22 PM
Bob Howsam's first team won more than expected, second team disappointed by winning fewer than previous year, then third team started season 9-14.

Cast: "Howsam's gone. Losing is no longer acceptable."

Redread: "I'm afraid to say that some Redszoners are more interested in the success of young players like Johnny Bench than they are in seeing winning teams."

:lol: I'm sure if Redszone was around, some people would've been thrilled with all the "great prospects" we got for Foster, Perez, etc when the team was dismantled. Dan Drieseen would've been the toast of the board.

Also, I'm sure Bench would've not been treated nicely in his twilight years here. Much like Jr is taken for granted pretty much since he arrived.

BTW, I made that comment about young players because someone said they would not trade Bruce for a guaranteed World Championship in 2008 (hypothetical case).

gm
04-30-2008, 06:53 PM
The trade did set the Reds back, I estimate 3 years minimum...EVERY GM does some harm. comes with the title.

My name's gm, and I'm here to do some harm:p:

"The Trade" set the Reds back 3 years, minimum? Hold on there...you'll have to convince me that A) keeping Lopez/Kearns around would've pushed the franchise forward significantly since July of '06, or B) a different trade return from dealing Felipe/Austin was reasonably available that would've substantially elevated the Red's fortunes

I understand that Maj didn't work out, and that could have led to the need to overpay for Cormier, then Stanton, etc. But your conclusion that "it set the Red's back 3 years, minimum" is a straw man argument built upon conjecture and 20/20 hindsight, IMO.

We'll never know if the Red's would've won 85+ games in '06 if Kriv hadn't pulled that fateful trigger, but as far as "The Trade" starting a chain reaction that unravelled the fabric of the space/time continuum? I'm not going to keep following that rabbit hole

SteelSD
05-01-2008, 12:09 AM
Yes and no.

He had his plan and at the start, Castellini seemed on board with his plan. Then sometime in the middle he decided to change his mind and wanted Wayne to change his plan in the middle of it. Thats not jobbing yourself, thats getting jobbed.

You'd be 100% correct if Krivsky's "plan" was the only one on the table. But alas, it wasn't. Castellini had a plan as well, and I'd suggest that it's highly unlikely (if not impossible) for Krivsky to get hired had he not agreed that "win now" should be a priority as well as growing the system to pepetuate the franchise's future.

Krivsky's own behavior illustrates that he knew he needed to compete from day one. Sign Scott Hatteberg. Trade for Bronson Arroyo. Deal for a risk/reward 2B (Phillips) because you have little alternative at 2B. Trade for Juan-freakin'-Castro. Eddie Guardado. "The Trade". Rheal Cormier. Kyle Lohse. Scott Schoeneweis. The consistent parade of other bad vet pitchers to try to stabilize the pen and rotation. And that's just 2006.

I see a ton of evidence that Krivsky knew what Castellini expected from the get-go 'cause he sure tried to do it. The problem is that his process created a lot of holes that required backfilling and additional expenditure of resources beyond the primary deal. Another issue is that Krivsky consistently misunderstood where his team actually stood at any point in time. Had he actually understood what his team was on July 13th, 2006 and that "The Trade" was likely to cost the Reds @40 Runs he would have never made that deal. Instead, Krivsky- always the linear thinker- made a hasty deal that projected to damage (and did damage) the team's Run Diff at a point when they needed more Wins rather than fewer. And he did so while proclaiming to a dissenting scout that he didn't care about next season. That isn't a guy who somehow sold himself as being completely focused on doing nothing but building the farm.

Moving forward into the next offseason, Krivsky gives millions to a mediocre SS (Gonzalez) with a recent history of missing games. Gave way too much money to Mike Stanton on the same day. Figured that trading a player in order to pay Kirk Saarloos (who can only exist in a massive ballpark) was a good idea. He did virtually nothing else to bolster the club in the offseason from a MLB talent perspective. He did grab Burton and Josh Hamilton on the same day, which ended up being nothing short of a coup. Keppinger was also a decent get. However, that also continued what I see as a problematic issue with Krivsky. While he was excellent at low-risk/high reward moves during the offseason, he was awful at finding projectible MLB pieces at the MLB level.

Given the mandate he signed on for at the MLB level, the amount of players and money he churned through, and the expensive hiring of a "name" manager he recommended, I didn't expect him to survive 2008 if he didn't produce a team capable of producing a division title. But he didn't do that. Walt Jocketty may have been a catalyst for advancing the timeframe for Krivsky's demise, but Krivsky set himself up. The guy didn't get "jobbed". He simply failed to meet expectations.

WVRedsFan
05-01-2008, 01:08 AM
Once again, Steel, an excellent post that will not be well received on RZ. But I agree with your premise.

You'd be 100% correct if Krivsky's "plan" was the only one on the table. But alas, it wasn't. Castellini had a plan as well, and I'd suggest that it's highly unlikely (if not impossible) for Krivsky to get hired had he not agreed that "win now" should be a priority as well as growing the system to pepetuate the franchise's future.
I've known several Castellini-types in my profession and one thing is clear--they know what they want and express it clearly. I think Wayne knew what Bob wanted and then proceeded to doing things the way he was taught to do them in Minnesota. I'm sure Castellini wasn't too happy.


Krivsky's own behavior illustrates that he knew he needed to compete from day one. Sign Scott Hatteberg. Trade for Bronson Arroyo. Deal for a risk/reward 2B (Phillips) because you have little alternative at 2B. Trade for Juan-freakin'-Castro. Eddie Guardado. "The Trade". Rheal Cormier. Kyle Lohse. Scott Schoeneweis. The consistent parade of other bad vet pitchers to try to stabilize the pen and rotation. And that's just 2006.

When the Reds got out of the gate fast in 06, Krivsky looked like a genius. He gave new contracts like they were candy, the worst of which was Jerry Narron, and then the team went south fast. I still say he panicked in the Kearns-Lopez trade--trading two starters (no matter what folks think of them today--we didn't know that then) for a sore-armed reliever who will never contribute anything and another who has great potential (potential is like a lot of things. You have to reach it before it makes it good). He obtained Rheal Cormier, Loshe and the rest in what would appear to be a panic to bolster pitching. It didn't and the bill became bigger and bigger.


I see a ton of evidence that Krivsky knew what Castellini expected from the get-go 'cause he sure tried to do it. The problem is that his process created a lot of holes that required backfilling and additional expenditure of resources beyond the primary deal. Another issue is that Krivsky consistently misunderstood where his team actually stood at any point in time. Had he actually understood what his team was on July 13th, 2006 and that "The Trade" was likely to cost the Reds @40 Runs he would have never made that deal. Instead, Krivsky- always the linear thinker- made a hasty deal that projected to damage (and did damage) the team's Run Diff at a point when they needed more Wins rather than fewer. And he did so while proclaiming to a dissenting scout that he didn't care about next season. That isn't a guy who somehow sold himself as being completely focused on doing nothing but building the farm.

Krivsky built his reputation here and in a lot of places on the surprise deals--Phillips, Arroyo, etc. He looked like a genius sometimes and a fool others. He was such a difference from Bowden and O'Brien. Solid values, Duke man, and close to the vest--things that are valued (except for the Duke thing) in midwestern America. To him it was all pitching and defense combined with throwing stuff on the wall to see if, by chance, it would work out. He was under pressure to produce a winner so he gambled all and it bit him in the end.


Moving forward into the next offseason, Krivsky gives millions to a mediocre SS (Gonzalez) with a recent history of missing games. Gave way too much money to Mike Stanton on the same day. Figured that trading a player in order to pay Kirk Saarloos (who can only exist in a massive ballpark) was a good idea. He did virtually nothing else to bolster the club in the offseason from a MLB talent perspective. He did grab Burton and Josh Hamilton on the same day, which ended up being nothing short of a coup. Keppinger was also a decent get. However, that also continued what I see as a problematic issue with Krivsky. While he was excellent at low-risk/high reward moves during the offseason, he was awful at finding projectible MLB pieces at the MLB level.

Once again, he would be brilliant one minute and daft in another. Saarloos was a shot in the dark as was Hamilton. Gonzalez was a known quantity--mediocre at best. Hamilton worked out, but had injury issues and Gonzalez has barely played since he's been here. High risk players and to be honest little reward.

[quote}Given the mandate he signed on for at the MLB level, the amount of players and money he churned through, and the expensive hiring of a "name" manager he recommended, I didn't expect him to survive 2008 if he didn't produce a team capable of producing a division title. But he didn't do that. Walt Jocketty may have been a catalyst for advancing the timeframe for Krivsky's demise, but Krivsky set himself up. The guy didn't get "jobbed". He simply failed to meet expectations.[/QUOTE]

The hiring of Jocketty was a sign that many saw as the end of Krivsky, but it wasn't that cut and dried. His problems with dealing with people was the icing on the cake. We'll never know what happened in those talks between Castellini and Jocketty, but my guess is that when Walt was taken out of the loop on everything, and club continued to lose, Castellini decided that it wan't going to work out. He had his man and Wayne was no longer needed. Castellini could see the endless moves that Krivsky would make and the money he would waste piling up from here on out. Castellini had made it clear that he wanted a winner , but the record showed that it wasn't going to happen and he cut bait and went with a guy with a proven record.

I'm sure your well thought out argument will fall on deaf ears here. Krivsky is the martyr of the day and Castellini the evil owner. That won't change anyway soon. Baker will be loathed as long as he is here and few will point to the fact that Krivsky has said that he recommended Dusty to Castellini. Easy to do when you're making an argument for the evilness of the administration.

No, I didn't think it was the proper time to dismiss Krivsky. It should have been done last winter and before spring training, but the reality remains. This team was going nowhere (and still isn't, btw).

Topcat
05-01-2008, 04:08 AM
I am not even going to rant on the person who said that the Lopez and kearns trade set us back 3 years. Simply put thats just embarrassing. Simply put Wayne had his way and Cast changed directions and stubbornly Krivsky could or would not adapt.

redsmetz
05-01-2008, 05:37 AM
I've known several Castellini-types in my profession and one thing is clear--they know what they want and express it clearly. I think Wayne knew what Bob wanted and then proceeded to doing ner that things were headed in the right direction.
things the way he was taught to do them in Minnesota. I'm sure Castellini wasn't too happy.

When the Reds got out of the gate fast in 06, Krivsky looked like a genius. He gave new contracts like they were candy, the worst of which was Jerry Narron, and then the team went south fast.

The two points highlighted above, frankly, are rewriting history.

As someone pointed out earlier in this thread, Castellini was quoted as very clearly stating when he hired Krivsky that he understood that he was bringing with him a Minnesota model of building a team; even with his desire to bringing winning back to Cincinnati quickly.

As for extending Narron, that was Castellini's doing. Here's an excerpt from an Associated Press story about that:

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2006-06-28-notebook_x.htm


CINCINNATI — The eight-game winning streak that vaulted the Cincinnati Reds into first place in the NL Central earlier this month convinced their new owner that things were headed in the right direction.

The ensuing slump didn't change Bob Castellini's mind.

Castellini extended the contracts of general manager Wayne Krivsky and manager Jerry Narron on Wednesday, keeping both of them through at least 2008. The move showed Castellini's pleasure with the way the Reds have improved in a short time.

"We're a game and a half out," Castellini said. "That's pretty good for a team that was picked to finish last by everybody. That's darn good."

If anything, re-reading this story gives credence to the implication that Castellini is given to being impetuous.

mth123
05-01-2008, 06:52 AM
Krivsky made some acquisitions that have advanced the franchise ahead of where it was when he joined. I give credit for that. There was also a bit of no where to go but up element at play here. The team was going to improve simply from eradicating garbage like Womack, Williams, etc. OTOH, Krisvsky shot himself in the foot by bringing in some garbage of his own (Stanton Cormier, Castro etc.). He added a couple of foundation pieces in Phillips and Arroyo and took a good limited risk gamble on Josh Hamilton that he was able to parlay into the team's future ace, so yeah, the team is in better shape I'd say.

At the end of the day, I don't really think his performance had a lot to do with the decision. Cast had a mancrush on Jocketty while still engaged in his romance with WK. Jocketty became avaialble. After playing a bit of hard to get and keeping his options open, Walt decided to get serious and commit. That's all it took for the old relationship to end IMO. It happens all the time.

RFS62
05-01-2008, 07:33 AM
The more I read and think about this, the more I'm convinced.

Krivsky didn't get fired because of his record. He didn't get fired because Bob made a slow and steady analysis of his performance and finally reached his tipping point.

He got fired because Castellini wants Jocketty. It's just that simple.

The day Jocketty became available, Wayne was doomed.

We're overcomplicating this thing, as we tend to do.

bucksfan2
05-01-2008, 08:52 AM
Krivsky's own behavior illustrates that he knew he needed to compete from day one. Sign Scott Hatteberg. Trade for Bronson Arroyo. Deal for a risk/reward 2B (Phillips) because you have little alternative at 2B. Trade for Juan-freakin'-Castro. Eddie Guardado. "The Trade". Rheal Cormier. Kyle Lohse. Scott Schoeneweis. The consistent parade of other bad vet pitchers to try to stabilize the pen and rotation. And that's just 2006.

Steel I disagree with this analysis. The signing of Hatteberg was a bridge the gap type signing because they didn't have anyone to play 1b at the present time. He was also a bargain. When the Royals signed Reggie Sanders did that signal a win now move? The trade for Arroyo was more about adding pitching and getting rid of a crowded outfield. Arroyo was also signed to a three year deal so it didn't signal winning right away. Phillips was all about adding talent to this organization. The reds at the time had two second basemen. The moves as the season went along were moves that signaled trying to win a pennant without mortgaging the future.

I just don't buy that WK was given an order to win now as soon as he took over. The worst thing for Krivsky may have been the early success of his first season.

gonelong
05-01-2008, 08:53 AM
He got fired because Castellini wants Jocketty. It's just that simple.

The day Jocketty became available, Wayne was doomed.


The day WJ was put on the payroll the clock started ticking on Wayne. The only way Wayne was going to fend of WJ was to win early and win often.

BCast had the guy he wanted in house and was waiting for an opportunity to use him. I am sure BCast would have left Wayne in the position had things been going well, but the "slow start" presented an opportunity. BCast was looking for an opening, any opening, to get WJ in place.

WJ sounded a little reticent to take the position. I wonder if BCast needed to present the situation as "I need you, don't leave me hangin'" to push WJ into taking the plunge.

GL

princeton
05-01-2008, 08:58 AM
Krivsky didn't get fired because of his record. He didn't get fired because Bob made a slow and steady analysis of his performance and finally reached his tipping point.

He got fired because Castellini wants Jocketty. It's just that simple.

The day Jocketty became available, Wayne was doomed.

Cast's ex-wives agree with you.

redsmetz
05-01-2008, 09:10 AM
Steel I disagree with this analysis. The signing of Hatteberg was a bridge the gap type signing because they didn't have anyone to play 1b at the present time. He was also a bargain. When the Royals signed Reggie Sanders did that signal a win now move? The trade for Arroyo was more about adding pitching and getting rid of a crowded outfield. Arroyo was also signed to a three year deal so it didn't signal winning right away. Phillips was all about adding talent to this organization. The reds at the time had two second basemen. The moves as the season went along were moves that signaled trying to win a pennant without mortgaging the future.

I just don't buy that WK was given an order to win now as soon as he took over. The worst thing for Krivsky may have been the early success of his first season.

I agree. And frankly, I don't think you can minimize how much MLB set the Reds back by taking their sweet time to approve the ownership change. It should have been the first order of business right after the season ended and the team would have been best served with the new ownership and management in place prior to the Winter Meetings.

It really is a wonder what Krivsky was able to accomplish right out of the chute. As for pitching acquired throughout the 2006 season, I was ready around the time that WK was fired to suggest that frankly he deserved a pass for a number of acquisitions made from the start and through the 2006 season. Why a pass? That might be too strong a word, but the team clearly was desperate for pitching and the major acquisition made over the offseason (by that I mean prior to Spring Training) was Dave Williams straight up for Sean Casey and even Williams himself, as I recall, was shocked that it was a one for one deal. By the time The Trade rolled around, the need for steadier pitching was obvious. We can debate whether the return was sufficient, whether there were better deals available and what the ultimate outcome on the balance sheet will be, but pitching was needed and there was little to be found to help what had become a Cinderella season.

Again, what's done is done; lets hope we can continue the upward movement in the organization that was begun when WK walked through the door. Cast seems to have who he'd wanted all along. I hope he hasn't sacrificed too much to have him.

redsmetz
05-01-2008, 09:23 AM
I missed Bill Peterson's column in City Beat. Very well stated, IMO.

http://citybeat.com/binary/a632/sports-26295.jpeg


Impatience + Low Bankroll = Chaos for the Reds
By Bill Peterson

There comes a point in every club owner's tenure when he makes himself truly responsible for the fate of his franchise. Bob Castellini brought that on himself last week when he fired Wayne Krivsky, as if to say the Reds need to change direction.

Castellini conceded that he's "impatient" and "tired of losing" barely more than two years after buying an operation with no chance of winning for at least three years. It's a bad sign indicating that this ownership utterly lacks a reality principle.

If Castellini expected a serious competitor so soon after buying a ball club, he bought the wrong ball club. In a market where quick fixes are too expensive, the Reds need to take a long view. A small-town franchise doesn't shift from hitting to pitching and defense in short order.

As it turns out, their owner has a short view. If Castellini thought the acquisitions of reliever Francisco Cordero and manager Dusty Baker were going to make the Reds 20 games better this year, he should have given it more than 21 games to find out. Bad news.

Krivsky wasn't perfect and certainly made errors in pursuit of pitching, but he moved the Reds in the right direction. The Reds over whom Castellini fired Krivsky truly were two years better than the organization Krivsky inherited two years earlier. And if Castellini believes Walt Jocketty is going to bail him out, then he's putting demands on himself as an owner that he probably will not meet.

Mature baseball people understand that it is utterly destructive to make metaphysical decisions based on three weeks. At the moment when Castellini pushed Krivsky out of the general manager's office, the Reds were 9-12, which is no cause for alarm. Castellini flat-out over-reacted, and Jocketty's track record indicates that if the owner isn't willing to pay the price for major league talent going forward then he'll pay another kind of price.

This ball club's prospects now are off Krivsky's shoulders and on Castellini's.

Few people have ever gone on the record with anything bad to say about Jocketty, which isn't to clinch that everything good to be said about a baseball man can be said about him. For example, it can't be said about Jocketty that he's a quick fixer. If, indeed, Castellini is so set on winning now, there's little in Jocketty's history to indicate he's the man for the job.

Every four-paragraph biography about Jocketty will tell you he won six playoff berths, five divisions, two pennants and a World Series as the general manager in St. Louis from 2000 through 2006. Unquestionably, the Cardinals were the National League's best franchise, especially during that 2004-06 period.

But a longer biography will tell you that Jocketty took the St. Louis job in 1995 and produced lackluster ball clubs for his first five years, though the 1996 outfit won a weak NL Central with 88 victories. Three of those clubs turned in losing records.

Likewise, Jocketty's association with winning clubs in Oakland soaked up a bit of lead time, which is the nature of his roles there as player development director and director of baseball administration. Jocketty started with Oakland in 1980, and the Athletics didn't produce winning records from 1981 through 1987.

Jocketty's efforts in Oakland helped to produce Mark McGwire, Jose Canseco, Walt Weiss, Terry Steinbach, Mike Gallego and Curt Young, who combined with astute acquisitions at the big league level to win three straight American League pennants from 1988 through 1990. Later, Jocketty's Oakland system generated daily major leaguers Darren Lewis, Kevin Tapani and Jason Giambi.

The Cardinals produced a few stars under Jocketty, but his farm system there didn't draw rave reviews. Unlike many organizations, the Cardinals could draft Rick Ankeil and J.D. Drew because they could meet the contract demands. Matt Morris came through the organization as a reliable starting pitcher. Of course, there's also Albert Pujols, who came from a 13th-round nowhere, almost a fluke.

The true Jocketty genius, as everyone knows, consisted in picking up proven talent from motivated sellers at the trade deadline in exchange for marginal producers with little left. He could always find a bargain if some player in his walk year needed a change of scenery.

That's how Jocketty brought the likes of McGwire, Fernando Vina, Scott Rolen and Jim Edmonds to St. Louis. But those players didn't come as cheaply as the talent-for-talent exchanges would have us believe.

Again, the fiduciary commitment from ownership went a long way toward making those deals work. The Cardinals didn't rent any of those players for a couple months. Instead, they ponied up for expensive, multi-year contract extensions and built those better clubs on that basis.

One doesn't at all blame Jocketty for working within the parameters opened by his St. Louis ownership, but it remains that those parameters were too rich for the Reds' blood, and who knows if Jocketty could have built that kind of club without them? Herewith, we note Castellini's increased responsibility, for if he isn't that owner then Jocketty isn't that general manager.

In retrospect, given accounts that Castellini expected to win immediately on buying the Reds in early 2006, one wonders who made the bigger mistake: Castellini for hiring Krivsky or Krivsky for taking the job.

Krivsky came from the Minnesota Twins organization, which has succeeded in a shaky market with a very sound philosophy of building from within, emphasizing pitching and defense. His arrival in Cincinnati indicated that the Reds were willing to undertake a substantial re-tooling away from the big-hitting approach under former GM Jim Bowden.

When Castellini said he wanted to win right away, well, that's what the fans wanted to hear. If he really thought he could win right away, he should have opened his bank vault and bought pitching. Most of us knew it wasn't going to happen, figuring Castellini had that much sense, and some of us supported Krivsky's approach.

Inevitably, Krivsky ran into conflict with holdovers in the organization, so people went their own way. Inevitably, Krivsky keeps young, highly touted prospects like 20-year-old center fielder Jay Bruce and 21-year-old pitcher Homer Bailey in the minor leagues for seasoning.

It makes perfectly good sense. Just because a kid is good enough to get his brains bashed in at the major league level doesn't mean he's ready to get his brains bashed in at the major league level, and the Reds weren't set to win this year anyway. They might have contended in a slow division, but not otherwise.

Some worry that the Reds are eating about $5 million worth of contracts, which is an utterly myopic complaint. There's dead money laying around all over baseball. No one likes swallowing contracts, but it's part of the business and $5 million is nickels in the big leagues.

Then Corey Patterson runs into an oh-for-19 slump and pundits start complaining that the Reds are wasting his $3 million when they could bring up Bruce so major league pitchers can turn his head into cheese. That's nuts. You can't go Chicken Little in this game and expect to succeed.

On taking over as general manager, Jocketty told reporters that he and Baker each has a "vendetta" and a "chip on our shoulder." No doubt, Jocketty feels wronged by the Cardinals and Baker feels wronged by his last club, the Chicago Cubs.

Trying to understand Castellini, one guesses at his thought process. Maybe Jocketty, as his "special advisor," whispers into his ear about how badly he wants to beat the Cardinals. Maybe Jocketty is especially upset because the Cards are off to such a good start.

Maybe Castellini starts thinking Jocketty and Baker, carrying chips on their shoulders, want to win more than Krivsky. So Castellini ditches his two-year investment in the Krivsky approach for the Jocketty-Baker method, and we don't even know if he can bankroll it.

The Reds already were about a year away from starting to produce a sustainable winner on the major league level. Now they're even further away.

Impatience is not a virtue in baseball, unless you have the money to go with it. Castellini is an impatient man running a ball club in a low-dollar market. We just saw that for the first time, and it's not a promising development.

nate
05-01-2008, 09:40 AM
I missed Bill Peterson's column in City Beat. Very well stated, IMO.

http://citybeat.com/binary/a632/sports-26295.jpeg

Yup.

I've probably said it before but pick two:

Good
Cheap
Fast

You can have two at the expense of the third. Sounds like Wayne was going for "Good and Cheap (relative to the rest of baseball payrolls)," which isn't Fast. Bob seems to want Good and Fast and that's not cheap. Although, he might want Good, Cheap and Fast and that's just not possible.

I wonder what Walt wants?

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 10:18 AM
Once Krivsky built his reputation here and in a lot of places on the surprise deals--Phillips, Arroyo, etc. He looked like a genius sometimes and a fool others.

Wayne was one of those people that just loved to take a risk. I've met people like this in my life. They love the potential thrill and risk.
I've met some people like this that are really bright. Wayne certainly was a bright person. However, the lure of risk taking sometimes clouds their judgement. Rather than take the proven, time tested, safe route, they will opt for the riskier way, even when the risk-reward is not justified.

Sometimes it pays off great, and we masterful things like the Phillips deal.
Outside of baseball, sometimes the risk does pay off in getting the job done quicker or better. But it's been my experience overall, that these guys eventually get themselves into trouble because some of these risks blow up in their faces. Deadlines are missed, quality is affected, etc. Then upper management questions why unnecessary risks were taken (after the fact).

These risk takers can be very productive people to work with, but they generally need someone to restrain them. Someone more grounded that is open minded enough to listen to them, but also has the power to stop them.

That was the problem. There was no one to stop Wayne from taking risks that made little/no sense (Stanton, AGon, extending practically every player on the team, etc) I think Jocketty might've initially been brought in to help Wayne, but based on what we've seen, Wayne ignored him and shut him out.

I think Wayne would make a great assistant GM somewhere. He's not an idiot, but he is not the right person for the job of GM, unless perhaps it's a team that is content with not really going anywhere. Wayne would generate a lot of excitement for a team like that, with the volume of transactions and bringing in a few gems. But in the end, Wayne's bad risks torpedo his good ones that pay off.

This season is pretty good evidence of Wayne's risk taking. He knew he had to win this year. So, he takes a bit of a long shot approach. He signs Affedlt Fogg, Mercker, Lincoln, Cordero (and invites other nonroster pitchers) and trades for Volquez. He signs Patterson to beef up the defense. Now, if all the stars line up correctly, the pitching staff has 5 strong starters and the bullpen is significantly improved. Patterson makes the pitching staff even better. Then you just hope and pray that everyone has a career offensive year and that the offense (and the rest of the defense) just somehow works out on its own.. You cling to guys like Hat and Freel just in case. Obviously, the results so far this year show that this wasn't a very realistic plan to compete (or even be respectable) this year.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 10:22 AM
If anything, re-reading this story gives credence to the implication that Castellini is given to being impetuous.

Here's what jumped out at me when I read that story:



The move showed Castellini's pleasure with the way the Reds have improved in a short time.

"We're a game and a half out," Castellini said. "That's pretty good for a team that was picked to finish last by everybody. That's darn good."

Cast was happy in 2006 because the W-L record improved and they were 1.5 games out. He thought the team was making progress. That's why Wayne and Narron were extended...

When Cast "signed up for the Minnesota model", I don't think he signed up for years and years of bad finishes to get good draft picks. I think he signed up for a pitching and defense team that could be competitive. Again, whether it was a realistic goal is another topic for discussion, but it's clear that's what he wanted.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 10:28 AM
He got fired because Castellini wants Jocketty. It's just that simple.

The day Jocketty became available, Wayne was doomed.

We're overcomplicating this thing, as we tend to do.

We'll never know for sure, but if that's the case, I would've expected Wayne to be fired at the end of last season.

When Jocketty came here, he said he wanted a reduced role, that the GM job was a young man's job, etc.. But did Walt just say that to avoid the press running rampant with rumors that Wayne was on the way out? I mean, if Walt came over here and "I'd like to GM again someday", that kind of cuts Wayne's legs off.

Again, I will never know 100% either, but I think Cast wanted to give Wayne one more offseason after 2007 to turn the team around. I don't know what event caused Wayne's firing, but something broke the camel's back. If Cast wanted Walt all along, why was the switch made 20 games into the season?
That's an odd time to make a change. Something got Cast fed up.
It was either the poor start, something with interpersonal communications, or perhaps Wayne asked Cast to eat a third contract to make room for Ross coming off the DL. Those three things are just my guess, but some event on Day 20 made Cast decide that he had enough.

lollipopcurve
05-01-2008, 10:31 AM
There is no quick fix. That's no, as in no.

princeton
05-01-2008, 10:36 AM
Wayne was one of those people that just loved to take a risk. I've met people like this in my life. They love the potential thrill and risk.
I've met some people like this that are really bright. Wayne certainly was a bright person. However, the lure of risk taking sometimes clouds their judgement. Rather than take the proven, time tested, safe route, they will opt for the riskier way, even when the risk-reward is not justified.

Sometimes it pays off great, and we masterful things like the Phillips deal.
Outside of baseball, sometimes the risk does pay off in getting the job done quicker or better. But it's been my experience overall, that these guys eventually get themselves into trouble because some of these risks blow up in their faces. Deadlines are missed, quality is affected, etc. Then upper management questions why unnecessary risks were taken (after the fact).

These risk takers can be very productive people to work with, but they generally need someone to restrain them. Someone more grounded that is open minded enough to listen to them, but also has the power to stop them.

That was the problem. There was no one to stop Wayne from taking risks that made little/no sense (Stanton, AGon, extending practically every player on the team, etc) I think Jocketty might've initially been brought in to help Wayne, but based on what we've seen, Wayne ignored him and shut him out.

I think Wayne would make a great assistant GM somewhere. He's not an idiot, but he is not the right person for the job of GM, unless perhaps it's a team that is content with not really going anywhere. Wayne would generate a lot of excitement for a team like that, with the volume of transactions and bringing in a few gems. But in the end, Wayne's bad risks torpedo his good ones that pay off.

This season is pretty good evidence of Wayne's risk taking. He knew he had to win this year. So, he takes a bit of a long shot approach. He signs Affedlt Fogg, Mercker, Lincoln, Cordero (and invites other nonroster pitchers) and trades for Volquez. He signs Patterson to beef up the defense. Now, if all the stars line up correctly, the pitching staff has 5 strong starters and the bullpen is significantly improved. Patterson makes the pitching staff even better. Then you just hope and pray that everyone has a career offensive year and that the offense (and the rest of the defense) just somehow works out on its own.. You cling to guys like Hat and Freel just in case. Obviously, the results so far this year show that this wasn't a very realistic plan to compete (or even be respectable) this year.

yup. I can tell that you would prefer more conservative, fiscally-restrained GMs like, oh, Dick Wagner and Dan O'Brien over the Bob Howsams and WayneK's of the baseball world

maybe John Allen should have stayed in power, eh? That's really the kind of thing that you're arguing for.

NEWSFLASH: REDREAD MISSES JOHN ALLEN

RedsManRick
05-01-2008, 11:09 AM
Great article, but I think this sums up the problem:


When Castellini said he wanted to win right away, well, that's what the fans wanted to hear.

No, it's not what I wanted to hear. If Castellini is pandering to what the fans think they want, that's a problem. If he thinks it's possible to take a weak franchise and turn it around quickly on a below average budget, that's just wrong. Fans want a winner, period. Find the best way to make a consistent winner, communicate to the fans your basic approach, and go from there.

I realized that there is no quick-win solution. I wanted somebody who could build a winner the right way, not right away. Now that doesn't mean I wanted Dan O'Brien's 10 year plan, but I'm fine with losing for a few more years while building a sustainable system.

I don't want an owner or GM saying we're going to "win now" any more than I want my financial adviser to tell me that he's going to double my money in 18 months. It stinks of arrogance, ignorance, or both.

lollipopcurve
05-01-2008, 11:10 AM
the results so far this year show that this wasn't a very realistic plan to compete (or even be respectable) this year.

Just because you have "a plan to compete" doesn't mean that competing is realistic. Overall, Krivsky has built the talent base of the organization from ruinous to very solid. It needs to be molded now. Whether Jocketty is a good choice for that job remains to be seen, and we'll never know how Krivsky would have approached it.

princeton
05-01-2008, 11:12 AM
No, it's not what I wanted to hear.

what makes you think that you are "the fans"?

RedsManRick
05-01-2008, 11:21 AM
what makes you think that you are "the fans"?

I guess I should have been more explicit. I have two basic problems:

1.) I don't speak for "the fans". None of us, individually, does. There seems be an assumption about what the fans want -- I've not seen any evidence of anybody actual surveying them before making assertions like the one he made. I wouldn't be surprised to learn than Castellini talked to some people he knew (as in less than 20) and came to the same conclusion about "what the fans want". I'd be happy to hear otherwise.

2.) Since when is listening to when the fans want you to win relevant in determining your business strategy? Of course the fans want you to win now. They wanted you to win yesterday, they want you to win today, and they want you to win tomorrow. That's a given. It should not be an influence on how you go about building that winner. Give the fans a more complete picture of the options (e.g. "win quickly by doing X and struggling thereafter" or "win in a few years and sustain that for a number of years") and perhaps their opinions would be different.

But if Castellini's urgency to "win now" is borne out of pressure from "the fans", that a cause for concern in my mind. He clearly should be trying to build a winner. Fans support winners. But the way in which he does it should be driven by sound baseball business practice.

princeton
05-01-2008, 11:25 AM
1.) There seems be an assumption about what the fans want -- I've not seen any evidence of anybody actual surveying them before making assertions like the one he made. I wouldn't be surprised to learn than Castellini talked to some people he knew (as in less than 20) and came to the same conclusion about "what the fans want". I'd be happy to hear otherwise.

you have the oddest instincts. Perhaps -- none at all?

HAL, is that you?

RedsManRick
05-01-2008, 11:30 AM
you have the oddest instincts. Perhaps -- none at all?

HAL, is that you?

If you, as an owner, would have the inmates the asylum, then by all means I'm happy to not share your instincts. Obvioulsy fans want to win and they want to win now. But that doesn't mean they have any clue about how to build a franchise so it can win now AND win tomorrow. What they really want isn't just to win now, it's to win every now until forever. Building just for the current now does not put you in a very good position for the rest of them. I would hope for an owner with a bit more sophistication than the average fan on the street.

nate
05-01-2008, 11:31 AM
you have the oddest instincts. Perhaps -- none at all?

HAL, is that you?

Rude.

Cyclone792
05-01-2008, 11:34 AM
you have the oddest instincts. Perhaps -- none at all?

HAL, is that you?

Seriously, dude. Stuff like this isn't necessary.

princeton
05-01-2008, 11:35 AM
If you, as an owner, would have the inmates the asylum, then by all means I'm happy to not share your instincts. Obvioulsy fans want to win and they want to win now. But that doesn't mean they have any clue about how to build a franchise so it can win now AND win tomorrow. What they really want isn't just to win now, it's to win every now until forever. Building just for the current now does not put you in a very good position for the rest of them. I would hope for an owner with a bit more sophistication than the average fan on the street.

yes, but I think that it's a very obvious point

your first point is MUCH more interesting, HAL9000. ;)

princeton
05-01-2008, 11:38 AM
Rude.

really? I thought that I was being playful. I'm much ruder to Redread, who like RMR is a very good sport.

RMR, I apologize for any rudeness. It was unintentional.

RedsManRick
05-01-2008, 11:39 AM
yes, but I think that it's a very obvious point

your first point is MUCH more interesting, HAL9000. ;)

I don't even know what you're talking about. Assuming it's a 2001 reference, but ok...

My instincts tell me that the collective opinion of "the fans" -- as in, the 99.5% of them who have never heard of RedsZone -- on how to make the Reds "win now", would result in a horrific mess of a team not capable of winning now or any time in the near future.

That Castellini is letting "the fans" determine his time tables, regardless of how reasonable they may be, should be disconcerting to us all. And if alone is the driver of the unrealistic timetable, I hardly think that's any better.

flyer85
05-01-2008, 11:41 AM
Bob just wants to win ... now. He doesn't really have a plan on how to get there from here. In fact, I don't think he knows where he is starting from.

RedsManRick
05-01-2008, 11:43 AM
Bob just wants to win ... now. He doesn't really have a plan on how to get there from here. In fact, I don't think he knows where he is starting from.

And given that, he has no problem changing generals mid-battle to get one at his side with whom he's more comfortable. Makes sense.

flyer85
05-01-2008, 11:45 AM
And given that, he has no problem changing generals mid-battle to get one at his side with whom he's more comfortable. Makes sense.he is simply hoping that Walt has a better idea and plan than Wayne did.

princeton
05-01-2008, 11:50 AM
And given that, he has no problem changing generals mid-battle to get one at his side with whom he's more comfortable. Makes sense.

Shiloh: Johnston leads rout, falls, and replacement Beauregard then gets just clobbered

RedsManRick
05-01-2008, 11:56 AM
Shiloh: Johnston leads rout, falls, and replacement Beauregard then gets just clobbered

Heh. Except in this case, Lee took out Johnston himself believing that Beauregard was the better man for the job.

princeton
05-01-2008, 11:58 AM
Heh. Except in this case, Lee took out Johnston himself believing that Beauregard was the better man fro the job.


lots of people preferred Beauregard. In fact, Johnston was under intense pressure to win now.

RedsManRick
05-01-2008, 12:03 PM
lots of people preferred Beauregard. In fact, Johnston was under intense pressure to win now.

And Johnston was winning the battle. It was Beauregard who decided to wait until morning, allowing Union reinforcements to arrive.

Chip R
05-01-2008, 12:11 PM
That Castellini is letting "the fans" determine his time tables, regardless of how reasonable they may be, should be disconcerting to us all. And if alone is the driver of the unrealistic timetable, I hardly think that's any better.


The difference between baseball and a regular business is that you have to entice people to come out and spend their money - while giving it to you - to see the product. That figure can fluctuate a great deal from year to year. If there's a poor product, it's almost a given that less people will give you their money to watch your product. OTOH, if the product is good, odds are more people will pay you to watch games.

If Bob goes up there and tells the fans to be patient and wait for the GM and/or manager du jour to turn things around, that's a turnoff to the people paying to see that product. Since you live in CHI, RMR, you are probably not going to come here to watch games very often. There are a large core of fans that will go see the games no matter how bad they are. But the big money is in the casual fan who is going to go out to the park if they feel the team is going to do well. Bob is trying to get fans to make plans to come out to the park during the season. Hopefully they buy these tickets in advance since that's money in the Reds' coffers.

Bob telling people to be patient, while a noble thing to do, isn't going to get people to come out to the park. Saying you want to win now, while possibly being the equivilant of a politician saying he's going to lower your taxes, is manna from heaven to people who thought the new stadium was going to turn things around. If they believe that, they are more likely to go to games.

princeton
05-01-2008, 12:17 PM
And Johnston was winning the battle. It was Beauregard who decided to wait until morning, allowing Union reinforcements to arrive.


exactly. Beauregard is well known to have hated Johnston's plan, even as it seemed to be working. he was the worst imaginable replacement.

if a general has the battle moving in the right direction, don't replace him if you don't have to.


Lincoln: "when crossing a river, I never switch horses at midstream"

TRF
05-01-2008, 12:18 PM
I am not even going to rant on the person who said that the Lopez and kearns trade set us back 3 years. Simply put thats just embarrassing. Simply put Wayne had his way and Cast changed directions and stubbornly Krivsky could or would not adapt.

pheh. It did set the Reds back. It wasn't who was traded, it was the incredibly crappy return. At the time of the trade, Kearns alone was worth what the Reds got back. He had an .843 OPS with 16 HR's. Simply put he was worth far more than 2 middle relievers, a washed up SS, a backup 2B and a throw-in (at the time) SP prospect. FeLo at the time was establishing himself as a VERY good leadoff hitter. He had a decent OBP .356 with 23 SB's.

Where Krivsky failed here is two-fold: 1 he got no impact players to help the Reds, who at the time were in the playoff hunt. 2. He failed to get enough young talent to offset his first failure. Now, Daryl Thompson might make this a win long-term, but at the time, he looks more like a throw-in. Bray MIGHT be an asset, but lets just hope his first outing was nerves.

The Trade was an unmitigated disaster, with the single ray of light being Thompson. but that's more serendipity than planning. And IMO it was still not enough, weighed against his body of work as Reds GM to fire the man.

WVRedsFan
05-01-2008, 12:20 PM
Good analogy, Chip.

Any owner who tells his fans that "we're on a 5-year plan," or whatever number of years it is, is asking for low attendance, poor product sales, and cash flow problems. I think "win now" has been the battle cry from DayOne. We have to remember that a sports franchise is so different from a business where you sell known products (as you already pointed out). In this case, Castellini was also a rookie. I think he brought in Jocketty to help and then realized (or maybe realized early on) that he had made a mistake in hiring Krivsky. Down went Krivsky.

But, we're beating a dead horse here. As I said earlier, Wayne is gone, Castellini will be here a long time and it's time to move on, whatever Castellini's motives were. Some choose to believe that it was a grand scheme to hire Jocketty to replace Krivsky. Some believe Krivsky was fired because of how he did his job (in their opinion poor). Many are in shock and believe the franchise is doomed. I believe it's somewhere in between, but it doesn't matter. We have to hope that the ship is righted and we see winning baseball in Cincinnati again. We have no other choice.

SteelSD
05-01-2008, 12:24 PM
I just don't buy that WK was given an order to win now as soon as he took over.

A GM doesn't go around behaving as Krivsky did in 2006 if there was no expectation to "win now" and he certainly doesn't push back to a dissenter of "The Trade" by stating that he doesn't care about the following season.


The worst thing for Krivsky may have been the early success of his first season.

Conceptually, I agree with you. The worst thing for Krivsky might have been that the Reds hung in as long as they did in 2006. But that's only because it gave him an opportunity to do demonstrate how he'd behave in that very scenario. And when faced with it, he completely botched the job and then spent a lot of time and resources in an effort to clean up the mess.

RedsManRick
05-01-2008, 12:30 PM
The difference between baseball and a regular business is that you have to entice people to come out and spend their money - while giving it to you - to see the product. That figure can fluctuate a great deal from year to year. If there's a poor product, it's almost a given that less people will give you their money to watch your product. OTOH, if the product is good, odds are more people will pay you to watch games.

If Bob goes up there and tells the fans to be patient and wait for the GM and/or manager du jour to turn things around, that's a turnoff to the people paying to see that product. Since you live in CHI, RMR, you are probably not going to come here to watch games very often. There are a large core of fans that will go see the games no matter how bad they are. But the big money is in the casual fan who is going to go out to the park if they feel the team is going to do well. Bob is trying to get fans to make plans to come out to the park during the season. Hopefully they buy these tickets in advance since that's money in the Reds' coffers.

Bob telling people to be patient, while a noble thing to do, isn't going to get people to come out to the park. Saying you want to win now, while possibly being the equivilant of a politician saying he's going to lower your taxes, is manna from heaven to people who thought the new stadium was going to turn things around. If they believe that, they are more likely to go to games.

You only sell snake oil for so long. Bob telling people anything won't change to come to the park. The idea of trying to win now doesn't bring people out to the games -- actually winning does. And if it takes another year of mediocrity to get to a place where we can actually field a winner for years in succession, that's better for him, better for the Reds, and better for the fans. It would be one thing if Castellini talked up winning now and pursued an aggressive, smart-growth strategy. But if, for example, we see Bailey traded for Joe Blanton this summer in the name of winning now, that's a step backwards.

A baseball team is like a publicly traded company. To a certain extent, you always have to be watching this quarterly numbers. You owe it to the stock holders to give them value. A new owner may come in and say that he's going to make the company profitable in the first year. To that end, he cuts staff, limits training, etc. The company turns a profit and the stock price goes up. Woohoo. For "now", things look great.

However, if you start jeopardizing the long term fundamentals of the company for the sake of boosting quarterly or annual revenues, eventually that catches up to you. At some point, you end up getting years of stagnation because of the sacrifices you made to "win now" last year, or a few years back.

I have no problem with the vocalized desire to win -- and soon. However, if that isn't balanced with a recognition (at least privately) that building sustainable success is more important than building immediate success, that's troubling to me.

Just for the sake of example, which scenario is more attractive to you:

A
2008: 84 wins
2009: 90 wins
2010: 85 wins
2011: 80 wins
2012: 78 wins

B
2008: 80 wins
2009: 86 wins
2010: 90 wins
2011: 92 wins
2012: 92 wins

We win sooner with plan A, which is supposedly what Castellini wants. But if you put those scenarios in front of him, I'd be he respond by saying he wants plan C, 95 wins, 95 wins, 95 wins, 95 wins, 95 wins. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. Jocketty has a history of success when enough money is spent, not when the franchise has developed the talent. I hope Castellini has his checkbook ready.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 12:33 PM
yup. I can tell that you would prefer more conservative, fiscally-restrained GMs like, oh, Dick Wagner and Dan O'Brien over the Bob Howsams and WayneK's of the baseball world

maybe John Allen should have stayed in power, eh? That's really the kind of thing that you're arguing for.

NEWSFLASH: REDREAD MISSES JOHN ALLEN

Not what I was saying.

The point was that taking risks just for the sake of taking risks is bad. There is no need to list all the bad risks Wayne took. Suffice it to say that he took many more bad risks than good ones.

If Wayne only chose risks that were low cost and/or had potential good reward, he'd still have a job.

Do you not agree that Wayne made some mistakes? I'm not sure you've acknowledged that. It seems that in your mind Wayne got fired because we have a crazy owner.

redsmetz
05-01-2008, 12:36 PM
Cast was happy in 2006 because the W-L record improved and they were 1.5 games out. He thought the team was making progress. That's why Wayne and Narron were extended...

When Cast "signed up for the Minnesota model", I don't think he signed up for years and years of bad finishes to get good draft picks. I think he signed up for a pitching and defense team that could be competitive. Again, whether it was a realistic goal is another topic for discussion, but it's clear that's what he wanted.

Unfortunately we'll never know if we were looking "years and years of bad finishes" because really Wayne only got "year and year and a tiny party of a year". As many have pointed out (and as Peterson pointed out too with Jockety), it takes at least three years to turn a franchise around. Howsam did it in his fourth year and Jockety, except for the 1996 season, took 5-6 years of not making the playoffs.

I can only fall back on what others have said, it seems Castellini made up his mind he wanted Jockety and found an excuse to ax Wayne. Oh well, same old same old in Cincinnati there. I'd like to have an owner whose astute at this and I'm thinking it just won't happen.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 12:37 PM
Just because you have "a plan to compete" doesn't mean that competing is realistic. Overall, Krivsky has built the talent base of the organization from ruinous to very solid. It needs to be molded now. Whether Jocketty is a good choice for that job remains to be seen, and we'll never know how Krivsky would have approached it.

It's debatable whether he arrived with "ruinous" and changed it to solid.

He left us with Volquez, Burton, and Phillips. That helps.
Maybe Bray and Arroyo help long term. Maybe not.
Hopefully Cordero earns his money long term, but being the highest bidder on a FA isn't exactly a skill.
In addition, he saddled us with a lot of garbage players that drug down the team during his reign and will continue to do so even next year. He also overpaid (both in talent and $$) for the garbage he added.

Wayne extended many of the players from the "ruinious" base he inherited. Some were good, some were bad.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 12:38 PM
you have the oddest instincts. Perhaps -- none at all?

HAL, is that you?

Come on man, I don't want this thread locked. Calm down. You're better than this.

princeton
05-01-2008, 12:38 PM
Do you not agree that Wayne made some mistakes? I'm not sure you've acknowledged that. It seems that in your mind Wayne got fired because we have a crazy owner.

Wayne did get fired because we have a crazy owner.

if a GM doesn't make mistakes then he's not trying to find pitching.

WVRedsFan
05-01-2008, 12:41 PM
The Trade was an unmitigated disaster, with the single ray of light being Thompson. but that's more serendipity than planning. And IMO it was still not enough, weighed against his body of work as Reds GM to fire the man.

It's hard to believe that a year later (almost) we're still debating the trade, isn't it? Yet, some still believe it was a good deal which is totally amazing to me. It was an unmitigated disaster whereby the Reds basically got nothing for the run production of two players. Whether it was well-meaning or looked good at the time means nothing. The result was disastrous. The team nose-dived the rest of the season and followed it up with a horrible 2007.

Was it enough to fire Krivsky? You and I cannot be the judge of that because we obviously don't know all the facts. And never will, I might add.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 12:43 PM
The Trade was an unmitigated disaster, with the single ray of light being Thompson. but that's more serendipity than planning. And IMO it was still not enough, weighed against his body of work as Reds GM to fire the man.

Yep. It's rewriting history to presume that Thompson was a big target of the Reds. If Wayne really wanted Thompson, he should've traded for only Thompson at a much lower cost. Not to mention that despite his good AA numbers, he's no sure thing. Belisle dominated the minors as well.. Not saying Thompson will fail (I've never seen him, so I don't know), but using Thompson to justify the trade is just silly.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 12:46 PM
Conceptually, I agree with you. The worst thing for Krivsky might have been that the Reds hung in as long as they did in 2006. But that's only because it gave him an opportunity to do demonstrate how he'd behave in that very scenario. And when faced with it, he completely botched the job and then spent a lot of time and resources in an effort to clean up the mess.

I'm thankful the Reds psuedo-contended in 2006. It made them interesting and relevant for the first time in a long time. It also allowed us to see how Wayne performs in that situation.. The answer is horrible. I'm glad we found that out early, as opposed to finding it out in 2010 or 2012 (whatever Wayne's timeline was).

Thus, I don't consider 2006 to be a "Bad thing" for the franchise at all.
(Not saying you do, Steel).

OnBaseMachine
05-01-2008, 12:53 PM
Yep. It's rewriting history to presume that Thompson was a big target of the Reds. If Wayne really wanted Thompson, he should've traded for only Thompson at a much lower cost. Not to mention that despite his good AA numbers, he's no sure thing. Belisle dominated the minors as well.. Not saying Thompson will fail (I've never seen him, so I don't know), but using Thompson to justify the trade is just silly.

Matt Belisle hardly dominated the minor leagues. He allowed over a hit per inning (784 hits in 767.2 innings) and posted a 192 BB/600 K ratio and 3.91 ERA. Solid numbers but he didn't dominate the minor leagues. He was never viewed as a top-of-rotation prospect. A solid innings eater at the back of the rotation? Yeah. But nothing more than that.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 12:53 PM
Unfortunately we'll never know if we were looking "years and years of bad finishes" because really Wayne only got "year and year and a tiny party of a year". As many have pointed out (and as Peterson pointed out too with Jockety), it takes at least three years to turn a franchise around. Howsam did it in his fourth year and Jockety, except for the 1996 season, took 5-6 years of not making the playoffs.
.

I agree with this point. However, after 2+ years, it's fair for ownership to evaluate if they are going in the right direction or not. Is Wayne's ability to find gems in the rough a repeatable skill (Maybe, maybe not)? If Wayne's ability to find gems in the rough is a repeatable skiil, is it worth all the other baggage Wayne brings along (bad contracts, poor roster construction, demonstrated failure to help the 2006 team, poor communication)? Cast didn't think so.

Let's say hypothetically that Wayne wasn't fired. Let's say the team finishes with 74 wins (I believe that was the projection someone made here).
I'm not sure that could be considered progress.. Sure, the pitching is improved, but there's a lot of problems on this team. We talk about longterm.. Well, the entire OF is pending FAs this year. The defense for the most part is horrible. There's a lot of bad contracts on this team.

We have to look at the big picture. There's more to progress than putting two young starting pitchers in the rotation. People say that Wayne has us on the verge of greatness, but I don't see it. Perhaps I was a little bit harsh when I said Wayne left us in worse shape than he arrived. But I think, at best, the franchise pretty much just marched in place. It didn't move forward at all.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 12:55 PM
Matt Belisle hardly dominated the minor leagues. He allowed over a hit per inning (784 hits in 767.2 innings) and posted a 192 BB/600 K ratio and 3.91 ERA. Solid numbers but he didn't dominate the minor leagues. He was never viewed as a top-of-rotation prospect. A solid innings eater at the back of the rotation? Yeah.

Sorry, let me clarify. Big things were predicted of Belisle this year.
He dominated the minors this year. Many thought it was a no brainer to put him in the rotation over Fogg. I remember making the point that it's basically a tossup between Belilse and Fogg, and most people disagreed.

In other words, a mature Belilse dominated the minors this year (in limited appearances), but he still struggles to get big league hitters out.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 01:03 PM
Just for the sake of example, which scenario is more attractive to you:

A
2008: 84 wins
2009: 90 wins
2010: 85 wins
2011: 80 wins
2012: 78 wins

B
2008: 80 wins
2009: 86 wins
2010: 90 wins
2011: 92 wins
2012: 92 wins



Either one is more attractive than 80, 72, 74 ....
which is what the Reds are on now.
There's no written rule that says if you quickly turn a team around, that you should expect an immediate downturn (as scenerio A says).

Get this team to 90 wins. That's the hard part, getting the talent to that level. After that, you only need to maintain the talent level. It's arguably easier to maintain a high level of talent than it is to build up to that level.

In scenerio B, it's going to be very difficult to keep the talent that got you 90 wins in 2010 through 2012.. Ceuto, Bruce, Volquez, etc will all be earning big paydays by 2011.

The 2000 Reds are kind of an example of a scenerio A that didn't have to happen. It was a good idea to get Jr to replace Vaughn (just too bad we had to give up Cameron to do it, thanks to John Allen meddling). But the key is that the team would not spend the money to replace Guzman and would not spend to upgrade Parris/Villone. McKeon knew it at the time. Ownership knew that they'd sell a lot of tickets in 2000, regardless of the W-L record, so they deliberately neglected the team. That team didn't have to decline.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 01:05 PM
Wayne did get fired because we have a crazy owner.

if a GM doesn't make mistakes then he's not trying to find pitching.

If a GM thinks Stanton, Comier, Joe Mays, Michalek, Maj, etc is legitimate pitching, then he's the crazy one.

How is AGon, Freel, Castro, Ross, etc trying to find pitching? Many of Wayne's mistakes were in the position player area.

fearofpopvol1
05-01-2008, 01:05 PM
I definitely think BCast should share in more responsibility for the Reds losing and is pretty much getting off the hook easily. If he wanted to win so badly, he should've upped the payroll in 2006/2007. It sounds like his financial resources are better than I originally thought. I think if Krivsky had mroe money to work with, he would've done things differently. Whether that would (or would not have) made a difference is debatable.

Also, I think BCast saying "I'm impatient" and "I'm tired of losing" are really just blanket statements to make the Krivsky firing appear to be more legitimate. Jocketty was clearly the guy he wanted and he got him and was just losing for a good reason to dismiss Wayne. I sense that Jocketty will come up with his own plan and will be given a long leash to complete it.

Jocketty is definitely a good baseball mind, but as I've said before, I would've rather seen Krivsky at least have this year to finish things out.

princeton
05-01-2008, 01:13 PM
If a GM thinks Stanton, Comier, Joe Mays, Michalek, Maj, etc is legitimate pitching, then he's the crazy one.

that's what they said about Arroyo, Schoeneweiss, Volquez, DThompson, JBurton too. if you bat .400 trawling the bottom for pitchers, then you're the Ted Williams of GMs.

They didn't even really cost us anything-- much was financed by shedding bad contracts like arbitration-eligible undesirables, then replacing those with cheap alternatives like Keppy and JHamilton. That's sound GMing.:thumbup:

by the way: do you know that your posts sound like John Allen could be writing them?

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 01:30 PM
that's what they said about Arroyo, Schoeneweiss, Volquez, DThompson, JBurton too. if you bat .400 trawling the bottom for pitchers, then you're the Ted Williams of GMs.


Trading for Arroyo: excellent
Extending Arroyo: not looking so good.

Volquez was a break even trade right now. It's not as if he was stolen.
He gave up a lot to get him.

Wayne gave up two position players to get Thompson. Not a steal by any means.

In fact, of that list, I only consider Burton to be "trawling the bottom". And Burton hasn't exactly been setting the world on fire this season. He had a nice spell last year, but it's not a given that he's "arrived". EDIT: Schowesis was a nice rental pickup as well.

Pena, Hamilton, Kearns, and Lopez had significant value.

Another thing is that I don't necessarily think "trawling the bottom" is the best way to build a pitching staff. It's funny that people mocked Bowden for inviting the cast of thousands to spring training every year to fill out the pitching staff, yet it's ok for Wayne to do it.

Why in the world would you sign Stanton instead of Bradford, when both are FAs, and the money was close? Especially when your team DESPERATELY needs an effective RH reliever?

Why would a GM make Weathers untouchable last season at the deadline when contenders were inquiring about him? If Wayne wanted the slow patient approach (as some stipulated), it seems a no brainer to trade Weathers for prospects next year. Wayne failed to sell high on Weathers, and now Weathers has crashed to earth.








They didn't even really cost us anything-- much was financed by shedding bad contracts like arbitration-eligible undesirables, then replacing those with cheap alternatives like Keppy and JHamilton. That's sound GMing.:thumbup:


No, he replaced Lopez with Clayton and AGon. Kepp was an afterthought.
The real plan was AGon.. that's called adding bad contracts, not replacing with cheap alternatives.

As for JHamilton, he was a nice pickup, but he was traded. It's debatable whether this team would be better off with Volquez or Hamilton (not a slam dunk either way). What was the replacement in CF? Patterson. Even though most people hate Patterson, I think that was an ok move for the short term.. But after this season.. what was the plan to replace the entire OF? Bruce can only play one position.







by the way: do you know that your posts sound like John Allen could be writing them?

If John Allen were writing these posts, he would say the Reds should've sold Harang to the Red Sox, and traded Dunn for another Thug Life.
He would also complain about the Phillips contract and would not have comprehended why Patterson was actually a good risk to take.
He would insist that the best course is to lower payroll as low as possible and milk revenue sharing.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 01:34 PM
I definitely think BCast should share in more responsibility for the Reds losing and is pretty much getting off the hook easily. If he wanted to win so badly, he should've upped the payroll in 2006/2007. .

He did open up his wallet for Cordero, Weathers, Patterson, AGon, Dunn, Harang, Arroyo, Phillips, Stanton, Castro, Freel, Ross, etc.
It would've been a real struggle to get Lindner to approve any of those deals, other than Castro (maybe). Payroll has gone up, considerably.

During Cast's reign, there's been no salary dumps of quality players to meet the budget. We haven't heard of any trades scuttled for financial reasons.

I expect that spending will continue to increase under Cast. IMO, he's putting his money where his mouth is.

redsmetz
05-01-2008, 01:40 PM
If a GM thinks Stanton, Comier, Joe Mays, Michalek, Maj, etc is legitimate pitching, then he's the crazy one.

How is AGon, Freel, Castro, Ross, etc trying to find pitching? Many of Wayne's mistakes were in the position player area.

Every club throughout all of history carries players like these with varying degrees of success. Go back and look at transactions through the years. Bob Howsam in his first season picked up a handful himself (Bob Lee, Jay Ritchie, George Culver and Bill Kelso) all of whom filled varioius roles on Howsam's early years at the helm. You can start to see the beginnings of putting together the Big Red Machine (a good example, Leo Cardenas to Minnesota for Jim Merritt). But he had some dregs too.

As I said, it happens all the time.

Chip R
05-01-2008, 01:43 PM
You only sell snake oil for so long. Bob telling people anything won't change to come to the park. The idea of trying to win now doesn't bring people out to the games -- actually winning does. And if it takes another year of mediocrity to get to a place where we can actually field a winner for years in succession, that's better for him, better for the Reds, and better for the fans. It would be one thing if Castellini talked up winning now and pursued an aggressive, smart-growth strategy. But if, for example, we see Bailey traded for Joe Blanton this summer in the name of winning now, that's a step backwards.

A baseball team is like a publicly traded company. To a certain extent, you always have to be watching this quarterly numbers. You owe it to the stock holders to give them value. A new owner may come in and say that he's going to make the company profitable in the first year. To that end, he cuts staff, limits training, etc. The company turns a profit and the stock price goes up. Woohoo. For "now", things look great.

However, if you start jeopardizing the long term fundamentals of the company for the sake of boosting quarterly or annual revenues, eventually that catches up to you. At some point, you end up getting years of stagnation because of the sacrifices you made to "win now" last year, or a few years back.

I have no problem with the vocalized desire to win -- and soon. However, if that isn't balanced with a recognition (at least privately) that building sustainable success is more important than building immediate success, that's troubling to me.

Just for the sake of example, which scenario is more attractive to you:

A
2008: 84 wins
2009: 90 wins
2010: 85 wins
2011: 80 wins
2012: 78 wins

B
2008: 80 wins
2009: 86 wins
2010: 90 wins
2011: 92 wins
2012: 92 wins

We win sooner with plan A, which is supposedly what Castellini wants. But if you put those scenarios in front of him, I'd be he respond by saying he wants plan C, 95 wins, 95 wins, 95 wins, 95 wins, 95 wins. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. Jocketty has a history of success when enough money is spent, not when the franchise has developed the talent. I hope Castellini has his checkbook ready.


People are going to believe what they want to believe. Baseball fans here are so hungry for a winning season, the village idiot could buy the Reds, come out with a strongly stated desire to win and people would get all fired up and buy tickets. If the Reds keep losing and there appears to be no hope in sight, then, yeah, people are going to see Bob as the boy who cried wolf.

While it's true that winning brings people out, so does the expectation of winning. Just not as much. I'm all for more years of mediocrity if a winner is assured to be on the horizon. But there are no guarantees in life or in sports. Putting out the message to win now - even if it's a lie - will serve you better in the short run and that seems what Bob is all about.

You keep equating baseball to a regularly run business. In fact it is far from that. In certain ways it's run like a business but if you and I all of a sudden won the lottery and decided to start up a new baseball team in Cincinnati to compete against the Reds, we'd be denied. While it may be prudent to develop a minor league system and either use those players to replace your current ones or use them as trading chips, it's not necessarily guaranteed to work. Baseball and business have different definitions of success. If you win the World Series, even if you lost a ton of money, you are considered a success. In business, if you lose a ton of money, you're in trouble. In baseball if you make a bunch of money and finish in last place, you're a failure. In business, if you make a bunch of money, you're a success.

Fans want a winner and if you polled the average fan whether they would trade the future for a guaranteed World Series championship in the next year or two, they would overwhelmingly vote for that rather than continued mediocrity and maybe a strong team in the future.

I agree that Bob is a win now guy. The problem is that he believes it and may not know how to go about it. His solution was to hire big shots like Dusty and now Walt. Both men have proven track records and a lot of people believe that is all it takes to turn things around. Dusty certainly hasn't had the impact people thought he would. It's too early to tell with Walt, of course, but I'm anxious to see what he is going to do without all that Mark McGwire money in his pockets.

Spring~Fields
05-01-2008, 01:56 PM
If John Allen were writing these posts, he would say the Reds should've sold Harang to the Red Sox, and traded Dunn for another Thug Life.
He would also complain about the Phillips contract and would not have comprehended why Patterson was actually a good risk to take.
He would insist that the best course is to lower payroll as low as possible and milk revenue sharing.

Bean might do that too, trade Harang, Dunn and Phillips bringing back a coup of players ready to keep his A's winning.

fearofpopvol1
05-01-2008, 01:57 PM
He did open up his wallet for Cordero, Weathers, Patterson, AGon, Dunn, Harang, Arroyo, Phillips, Stanton, Castro, Freel, Ross, etc.
It would've been a real struggle to get Lindner to approve any of those deals, other than Castro (maybe). Payroll has gone up, considerably.

During Cast's reign, there's been no salary dumps of quality players to meet the budget. We haven't heard of any trades scuttled for financial reasons.

I expect that spending will continue to increase under Cast. IMO, he's putting his money where his mouth is.

Cordero and Phillips I'll give you, but that wasn't until 2008. Harang and Arroyo were 2007, but didn't impede much on any current/future budgets. The rest of those players listed were pretty inexpensive contracts. I'm talking about ponying up for a big (or a couple bigger) free agent(s).

TRF
05-01-2008, 02:00 PM
Volquez was a break even trade right now. It's not as if he was stolen.
He gave up a lot to get him.

As for JHamilton, he was a nice pickup, but he was traded. It's debatable whether this team would be better off with Volquez or Hamilton (not a slam dunk either way). What was the replacement in CF? Patterson. Even though most people hate Patterson, I think that was an ok move for the short term.. But after this season.. what was the plan to replace the entire OF? Bruce can only play one position.

You have got to be kidding me. Hamilton is having a nice year, very, very nice, but EV has been a hammer in the rotation, and seems to get better with every start. The Rangers GM said WK was ADAMANT that any trade of Hamilton include Volquez. That he got him AND Hererra (now in AAA with a 0.00 ERA, 0.71 WHIP and 6 K's in 5.2 IP) was incredible. Never forget what an incredible risk Josh Hamilton is. Krivsky flipped him for what is looking like a TOR guy.

All or nearly all of WK's "bad risks" outside "The Trade" impacted this club in a very minimal way. Like princeton stated: GM's that don't take risks and don't make mistakes aren't trying.

Spring~Fields
05-01-2008, 02:09 PM
All or nearly all of WK's "bad risks" outside "The Trade" impacted this club in a very minimal way. Like princeton stated: GM's that don't take risks and don't make mistakes aren't trying.

After seeing what Lopez, Kearns and Wagner has done.

I have changed my mind about “the trade”. It looks like Krivsky gave up nothing to me, other than some fan favorites that probably none of those fans would want Kearns, Wagner or Lopez on their fantasy teams let alone the Reds today. Often we read that trades take time to properly evaluate, today it looks like Krivsky at least picked up Bray and Thompson. I don’t think that Bowden got anything in “the trade”.

princeton
05-01-2008, 02:15 PM
I don’t think that Bowden got anything in “the trade”.

on the negative, Bowden got bad monetary commitments, which he won't understand, and a big loss of trust (likewise). On the positive, he will be able to comprehend that he stuck another bum arm on Reds fans, and helped to bring down one of his successors.

if Daryl Thompson does well and somehow becomes the straw that breaks Bowden's back, we'll entitle the past two years Shakespeare in Leather.

princeton
05-01-2008, 02:30 PM
Redread's posts: "Stanton's contract.!..Cormier's contract!... Gonzalez's contract!.... Ross's contract!... Castro's contract!... Freel's contract!...."


face it: you've become John Allen.

TRF
05-01-2008, 02:33 PM
After seeing what Lopez, Kearns and Wagner has done.

I have changed my mind about “the trade”. It looks like Krivsky gave up nothing to me, other than some fan favorites that probably none of those fans would want Kearns, Wagner or Lopez on their fantasy teams let alone the Reds today. Often we read that trades take time to properly evaluate, today it looks like Krivsky at least picked up Bray and Thompson. I don’t think that Bowden got anything in “the trade”.

You don't get it. It doesn't matter what they did after the trade. Their value at the time was so much higher than what they got in return. That was the point of hating the trade.

RedsManRick
05-01-2008, 02:33 PM
Either one is more attractive than 80, 72, 74 ....
which is what the Reds are on now.
There's no written rule that says if you quickly turn a team around, that you should expect an immediate downturn (as scenerio A says).

Get this team to 90 wins. That's the hard part, getting the talent to that level. After that, you only need to maintain the talent level. It's arguably easier to maintain a high level of talent than it is to build up to that level.

I'll take that bait. Any team in baseball, if they were so inclined, could make trades and FA signings such that they could win 90 games in 2009. Every single one. Trade away your all young guys, all your prospects, etc. Sign the top FAs to crazy contracts. It can be done. Heck, the Diamondbacks won a WS with that strategy.

Getting to 90 wins isn't that hard. What's hard is getting to 90 wins without setting yourself up for disaster. I think the case of the Diamondbacks is instructive. Their management decided that they wanted to win right out of the gate. Starting in 1999, Colangelo opened up the checkbook big time (Randy Johnson, Matt Williams) and encouraged the GM to make the necessary trades of prospects (Brad Penny, Travis Lee, Vicente Padilla) to make them a contender. In the process, they built up a ton of debt, but had a very nice run, including winning a ring.

Here's their brief history showing record, payroll, and attendence.


Year Record Payroll Attendence
1998 65-97 $38M 3.6M New Franchise
1999 100-62 $71M 3.0M
2000 85-77 $88M 2.9M
2001 92-70 $77M 2.7M WS Champs
2002 98-64 $105M 3.2M
2003 84-78 $81M 2.8M
2004 51-111 $70M 2.5M
2005 77-85 $67M 2.1M
2006 76-86 $70M 2.1M
2007 90-72 $61M 2.3M

As you can see, the major investments they made, which paid off immediately and were in part supported by attendance figures due to being the new kid in town, set them up for a bust period as well. Yes, there was a dictate to win now, but there was commensurate financial investment (that $80M would be more like $120M today) to make it happen. We don't have that attendance backdrop and, so far, haven't had that sort of financial commitment. Castellini wants the payoff but, so far, isn't willing to invest up front.

After the run, the bills came due. The prospect cupboard was bare and the payroll had to be slashed so debts could be handled. The record dropped as did attendance. People didn't come out to see a team with a winning reputation or when the management wanted to win now. They came out to actually see the team win. Even in 2007, you see they had a hard time drawing fans back in. Fans don't attend games because management says they're committed to winning.

Now, the D'Backs recovered thanks to a series of good drafts (Upton!) and good trades (RJ -> Vazquez -> Chris Young). But it took 5 years. Now imagine that we make sacrifices to get to that 90 win plateau, only it's done halfway, we don't make the World Series, and yet we still have to go through the trough. I desperately want that 90 win season. But I would hope we do it in such a way as to stave off the slump that follows. The, let's get to 90 wins and figure it out from there plan just doesn't sit well with me.

Spring~Fields
05-01-2008, 02:34 PM
on the negative, Bowden got bad monetary commitments, which he won't understand, and a big loss of trust (likewise). On the positive, he will be able to comprehend that he stuck another bum arm on Reds fans, and helped to bring down one of his successors.

if Daryl Thompson does well and somehow becomes the straw that breaks Bowden's back, we'll entitle the past two years Shakespeare in Leather.

Yes,

Number per espn.
Austin Kearns - $5,000,000 - .182 .302 .273 .574 - still a good fielder
Felipe Lopez - $4,900,000 - 263 .337 .325 .662 - 21 errors last year.
Wagner - $450,000 - DL
$10, 350, 000

Plus what is their trade value?

I think that Jocketty could get a little something for Bray and Thompson, maybe a big something.

Even this thorn that you mention "he stuck another bum arm on Reds fans" might get himself looking decent in the minors to an outsider who think that they could help him. Of course we fans don't want him (Majewski) back.

Spring~Fields
05-01-2008, 02:38 PM
You don't get it. It doesn't matter what they did after the trade. Their value at the time was so much higher than what they got in return. That was the point of hating the trade.

If the market really valued them that much, then why weren't they knocking down the doors with fat offers for Kearns, Lopez and Wagner at the time? Surely if the market showed such high demand for those three even a blind hog like Krivsky would have taken the better deal .

I think that "I do get it" that the market and market demand sets the value of assets. Do you actually believe that Krivsky would have turned down better offers?

I think that we Reds fans had them over priced and certainly over valued, and the market was saying that they weren't in high demand, thus making them have a low value.

Spring~Fields
05-01-2008, 02:42 PM
You don't get it. It doesn't matter what they did after the trade. Their value at the time was so much higher than what they got in return. That was the point of hating the trade.

Bowden got the shaft I think now that we are getting a truer read on the outcomes.

TRF
05-01-2008, 02:45 PM
If the market really valued them that much, then why weren't they knocking down the doors with fat offers for Kearns, Lopez and Wagner at the time? Surely if the market showed such high demand for those three even a blind hog like Krivsky would have taken the better deal .

I think that "I do get it" that the market and market demand sets the value of assets. Do you actually believe that Krivsky would have turned down better offers?

I think that we Reds fans had them over priced and certainly over valued, and the market was saying that they weren't in high demand, thus making them have a low value.

I believe his vision was myopic. I think he saw the Reds had an opportunity for post-season play and fixated on relief help (scary because his rotation kinda sucked too after Harang/Arroyo). I think he was looking for a quick fix to what would be a two year problem. I think he put ALL his remaining eggs in 1 basket.

In short, I think he screwed the pooch on that one. He got Arroyo for WMP alone. Kearns had more value than WMP. So did FeLo.

Spring~Fields
05-01-2008, 02:54 PM
In short, I think he screwed the pooch on that one. He got Arroyo for WMP alone. Kearns had more value than WMP. So did FeLo.

Sure of course Krivsky was looking for relief pitching, along with stocking up his minor league system, obvious by his actions and no revelation there. To judge the trade in full then was in error, they do take time to see how they shake out, as of today, Krivsky did alright and Bowden blew it. He also lost his first basemen to injury over it with the Kearns collision. Krivsky is dollars ahead too, looking at how much they cost Bowden for less than desirable performances.


So you are assuming that the Red Sox valued Kearns more than WMP, but Krivsky held out and would not let Kearns go then ? Or that if Pena could get an Arroyo that a Kearns could get more? Doesn't look like the market thought so.

Actually it looks like the Sox GM over paid for a bad player and gave up a servicable pitcher in Arroyo, a player that was later to be found in Bowdens nest. What could Bowden get for all four of them now? What could Jocketty get for Bray and Thompson now? That is the true value.

After thought, what could Jocketty get for Arroyo ? The Reds stand a much better chance of getting something vs. the Red Sox or Washington now from the then present value to the now future value.

Ltlabner
05-01-2008, 03:00 PM
It's debatable whether he arrived with "ruinous" and changed it to solid.

Actually it's not debateable to any reasonable or objective observer that the state of the Reds when Wayne arrived was "ruinous". You can argue about the solidity of the Reds currently, but it takes an ostrich with it's head in the sand, or a person with an unyielding adgenda to make the case that the state of the Reds franchise in 2005 was anything other than horrific.

When your team has names like Williams, Jiminez, Wilson, Milton, Claussen, LaRue, Lopez et al penciled in, and the up-and-coming stars in the system are named Wagner, Hopper and Elizardo Rameriz you'd have to be a complete blithering idiot or a idologe to believe the franchise was anything other than barren.


Any team in baseball, if they were so inclined, could make trades and FA signings such that they could win 90 games in 2009. Every single one. Trade away your all young guys, all your prospects, etc. Sign the top FAs to crazy contracts. It can be done.

Which is the dirty little secret the internet-GM's don't want to admit. Sure, we can go hog wild and be in the hunt next year. But I don't want to go back to misery in 2010 and beyond for the one-night stand of glory. That's a "walk of shame" I'd rather avoid.


But, we're beating a dead horse here...

No kidding.

Spring~Fields
05-01-2008, 03:16 PM
Actually it's not debateable to any reasonable or objective observer that the state of the Reds when Wayne arrived was "ruinous". You can argue about the solidity of the Reds currently, but it takes an ostrich with it's head in the sand, or a person with an unyielding adgenda to make the case that the state of the Reds franchise in 2005 was anything other than horrific.


Yes, the balance sheet that O'Brien ended with is the balance sheet that Krivsky started with including assets and liabilities that come with that balance sheet. Player resource and contingent liabilities make the Reds look to have been bankrupt at the time of O'Briens closing statement of assets and liabilities.

I like REDREAD, but in this case I think that REDREAD is trying to cook the books while getting his debits and credits skewed.

TRF
05-01-2008, 03:19 PM
Sure of course Krivsky was looking for relief pitching, along with stocking up his minor league system, obvious by his actions and no revelation there. To judge the trade in full then was in error, they do take time to see how they shake out, as of today, Krivsky did alright and Bowden blew it. He also lost his first basemen to injury over it with the Kearns collision. Krivsky is dollars ahead too, looking at how much they cost Bowden for less than desirable performances.


So you are assuming that the Red Sox valued Kearns more than WMP, but Krivsky held out and would not let Kearns go then ? Or that if Pena could get an Arroyo that a Kearns could get more? Doesn't look like the market thought so.

Actually it looks like the Sox GM over paid for a bad player and gave up a servicable pitcher in Arroyo, a player that was later to be found in Bowdens nest. What could Bowden get for all four of them now? What could Jocketty get for Bray and Thompson now? That is the true value.

After thought, what could Jocketty get for Arroyo ? The Reds stand a much better chance of getting something vs. the Red Sox or Washington now from the then present value to the now future value.

no, no, no. Thompson was more luck than scouting. Harris went to the Rays, Clayton was blech, Majewski was a mirage, and that left Bray. If you are in win now mode, which it seems Krivsky was pressured to be in, then this was a bad trade. It still might be all Thompson. That's a lot of talent to give up for one guy with an injury history having a great year in AA.

Krivsky erred. plain and simple. And yet the body of his work screams that he was a creative, clever GM with a set of philosophies about how an organization should be run that have made such an impact on this franchise that we'll see the ripples for years to come.

More so than the previous regimes combined.

Spring~Fields
05-01-2008, 03:30 PM
no, no, no. Thompson was more luck than scouting. Harris went to the Rays, Clayton was blech, Majewski was a mirage, and that left Bray. If you are in win now mode, which it seems Krivsky was pressured to be in, then this was a bad trade. It still might be all Thompson. That's a lot of talent to give up for one guy with an injury history having a great year in AA.

Krivsky erred. plain and simple. And yet the body of his work screams that he was a creative, clever GM with a set of philosophies about how an organization should be run that have made such an impact on this franchise that we'll see the ripples for years to come.

More so than the previous regimes combined.

I could understand and that line of thinking also, then. That Krivsky was hurried to get some upgrades for his bullpen, and did not do his homework while Majewski and Bray were to be the big catch that turned out to be a bust to then. Yet the resources are still available to the Reds in the person of Bray and Thompson even if it was happenstance.

Surely some of those players especially Clayton were Bowden dumping his junk, and Krivsky would know what he was getting in a Clayton. Bowden was probably dumping the risk then in Thompson, thinking even thought that Thompson, Clayton and Majewski were discards. But now, it is not going to shake out that way if Jocketty can get something of higher value for Thompson and Bray.

TRF
05-01-2008, 04:18 PM
Which is fine except the stated purpose of the trade was win now. Harris became... nothing. Clayton.... nothing. Majewski... less than nothing. Bray... Incomplete. Thompson might be something, but Thompson was never the target. Bray and Maj were.

Just because part of that trade has some POTENTIAL value, doesn't make it a good one. WK should never have included so much of the Reds offense in one deal. He made a mistake.

Spring~Fields
05-01-2008, 04:44 PM
Which is fine except the stated purpose of the trade was win now. Harris became... nothing. Clayton.... nothing. Majewski... less than nothing. Bray... Incomplete. Thompson might be something, but Thompson was never the target. Bray and Maj were.

Just because part of that trade has some POTENTIAL value, doesn't make it a good one. WK should never have included so much of the Reds offense in one deal. He made a mistake.

I don't think that Krivsky valued outfielders evidenced by his willingness to move a Kearns, Pena and Hamilton. I think that he would have moved Griffey and Dunn if he could have. We know he doesn't value poor fielding short stops, so I don't think that Krivsky thought that he was making a mistake if I am right that he doesn't value outfielders. Of course that would help support that the pitching was the main thing he was after. So I guess he errored in getting poor product in return for poor product. Then.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 04:45 PM
Bean might do that too, trade Harang, Dunn and Phillips bringing back a coup of players ready to keep his A's winning.

Beane would attempt to get value for those guys. Allen would try to get $$$ or just dump the salaries. That's the difference and the point I was making.

Spring~Fields
05-01-2008, 04:47 PM
Beane would attempt to get value for those guys. Allen would try to get $$$ or just dump the salaries. That's the difference and the point I was making.

Won't surprise me if Jocketty does a little of both.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 04:49 PM
Cordero and Phillips I'll give you, but that wasn't until 2008. Harang and Arroyo were 2007, but didn't impede much on any current/future budgets. The rest of those players listed were pretty inexpensive contracts. I'm talking about ponying up for a big (or a couple bigger) free agent(s).


What free agents did the Reds pass on that would've helped significantly and would've wanted to come here and would've been wanted by Wayne?

I can think of a few that would've helped.. Marquis was one of them. Lily was another one (even though he's probably hurt now, but at the time, it seemed good).

There's probably some other ones that could've helped, but it doesn't seem as if the Reds attempted to pursue them. Is that because Cast wouldn't let them, or because Wayne didn't want to? We'll never know.

fearofpopvol1
05-01-2008, 04:54 PM
What free agents did the Reds pass on that would've helped significantly and would've wanted to come here and would've been wanted by Wayne?

I can think of a few that would've helped.. Marquis was one of them. Lily was another one (even though he's probably hurt now, but at the time, it seemed good).

There's probably some other ones that could've helped, but it doesn't seem as if the Reds attempted to pursue them. Is that because Cast wouldn't let them, or because Wayne didn't want to? We'll never know.

There were numerous free agents during that time that the Reds passed on that could've helped. I can say with about 99% certainty that Wayne would've gone after 1/some of them if he had the financial resources to do so. It's pretty obvious he didn't have the green light at that time.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 04:54 PM
You have got to be kidding me. Hamilton is having a nice year, very, very nice, but EV has been a hammer in the rotation, and seems to get better with every start. The Rangers GM said WK was ADAMANT that any trade of Hamilton include Volquez. That he got him AND Hererra (now in AAA with a 0.00 ERA, 0.71 WHIP and 6 K's in 5.2 IP) was incredible. Never forget what an incredible risk Josh Hamilton is. Krivsky flipped him for what is looking like a TOR guy.

All or nearly all of WK's "bad risks" outside "The Trade" impacted this club in a very minimal way. Like princeton stated: GM's that don't take risks and don't make mistakes aren't trying.

It's almost impossible to look at an impact bat and an impact hitter and see which one is better. They are both excellent players and contributing.. that's why I think at this point, if one is objective, we'd have to say that the trade is a push..

Wayne's bad risks were mostly FA signings and poor extensions.
Stanton, Maj, and Cormier all impacted the club negatively. So did Mays.
So did AGon when he was paid for his glove and delivered poor defense.
Do you dispute this? Weathers is going to bite us this year too. That's 4 million that could've been spent more efficiently. plus we could've gotten a prospect for him last year.

Wayne's risk of trading off position players and backfilling with junk generally has worked out poorly. That's why this offense really struggles. The defense is a mess as well. The bench is horrible.

Sure, I like having Volquez in the rotation, but losing Hamilton hurt this club a lot too.

TRF
05-01-2008, 05:01 PM
I don't think that Krivsky valued outfielders evidenced by his willingness to move a Kearns, Pena and Hamilton. I think that he would have moved Griffey and Dunn if he could have. We know he doesn't value poor fielding short stops, so I don't think that Krivsky thought that he was making a mistake if I am right that he doesn't value outfielders. Of course that would help support that the pitching was the main thing he was after. So I guess he errored in getting poor product in return for poor product. Then.

It doesn't matter if he valued them. The market set a standard. WK set one with the WMP trade. You do not trade two starters, one coming off an All-Star season for middle relievers with little to no value.

WK missed big. Again set against the toal of his work, it's not something you fire the guy over. But had he realized their value, sent them packing in different deals, even if the return was all minor league talent, he would have won the day.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 05:13 PM
I'll take that bait. Any team in baseball, if they were so inclined, could make trades and FA signings such that they could win 90 games in 2009. Every single one. Trade away your all young guys, all your prospects, etc. Sign the top FAs to crazy contracts. It can be done. Heck, the Diamondbacks won a WS with that strategy.

Getting to 90 wins isn't that hard. What's hard is getting to 90 wins without setting yourself up for disaster.


I disagree. Many teams try that same strategy. Few hit 90 wins.
Only six made it last year (two with exactly 90 wins).
Don't you think the Dodgers and Cubs went all out for 90 wins last year? How come they didn't make it?





I think the case of the Diamondbacks is instructive. Their management decided that they wanted to win right out of the gate. Starting in 1999, Colangelo opened up the checkbook big time (Randy Johnson, Matt Williams) and encouraged the GM to make the necessary trades of prospects (Brad Penny, Travis Lee, Vicente Padilla) to make them a contender. In the process, they built up a ton of debt, but had a very nice run, including winning a ring.


I disagree with this. It doesn't seem to have hurt their franchise long term at all. They are still a lot healthier than the Reds. Baseball revenue has increased tremendously, which helps wipe out the debt they picked up. They had no problem attracting additional investors as needed.

They seemed to have survived trading Penny, Lee, and Padilla just fine.
I would gladly trade similiar prospects for a World Series. Really, Penny was the only impact player in that group, and they got a closer for him. Now granted, that closer ended up getting hurt, but it wasn't bad thinking on their part to cash in a prospect pitcher for a closer. They just picked the wrong guy to pick up and had the bad luck the guy got injured.

Just as if Cordero got hurt tommorrow, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was a bad idea to sign him if the injury could not be foreseen. (Now I don't remember if the closer the DBax traded for had an injury history or even remember his name right now).




Here's their brief history showing record, payroll, and attendence.


Year Record Payroll Attendence
1998 65-97 $38M 3.6M New Franchise
1999 100-62 $71M 3.0M
2000 85-77 $88M 2.9M
2001 92-70 $77M 2.7M WS Champs
2002 98-64 $105M 3.2M
2003 84-78 $81M 2.8M
2004 51-111 $70M 2.5M
2005 77-85 $67M 2.1M
2006 76-86 $70M 2.1M
2007 90-72 $61M 2.3M

As you can see, the major investments they made, which paid off immediately and were in part supported by attendance figures due to being the new kid in town, set them up for a bust period as well.
[/quote]


But the Reds have been in a bust period since 2001, without the good years in between. I can take an 111 loss season three years after a world series win The Reds only had one exciting year in the timespan you mentioned (1999). The Dbacks had four 90+ win seasons, one horrible season (2004), and the rest were Reds-like seasons.. So the only downside I see is that the Diamondbacks had to suffer through 2004. Seems worth it to me.







Yes, there was a dictate to win now, but there was commensurate financial investment (that $80M would be more like $120M today) to make it happen. We don't have that attendance backdrop and, so far, haven't had that sort of financial commitment. Castellini wants the payoff but, so far, isn't willing to invest up front.


I don't care if the Diamondbacks owner could've better invested that 80 million. The truth is that he correctly predicted that future revenue streams would make the debt seem a lot smaller. The clubs now get 30 million/year from internet media contracts (IIRC). The TV contracts are bigger.
Defering all that money is not a drain on them.






After the run, the bills came due. The prospect cupboard was bare and the payroll had to be slashed so debts could be handled. The record dropped as did attendance.

And then they rebuilt the farm and are doing great now. The Diamondbacks seem to have had two great runs with a relatively quick rebuild in between.
During the same time, the Reds pretty much spun their wheels (other than 1999). Give me the Diamondback model. And I think their dire straights financially was greatly exaggerated. If they were in such poor shape, how were they able to throw all that money at Gluas and other FAs?






People didn't come out to see a team with a winning reputation or when the management wanted to win now. They came out to actually see the team win. Even in 2007, you see they had a hard time drawing fans back in. Fans don't attend games because management says they're committed to winning.


I don't know why the Diamondback attendence is what it is. But I see they've got a great thing going, because they compete for multiple years and then rebuild and then contend again. What's so bad about that?





Now, the D'Backs recovered thanks to a series of good drafts (Upton!) and good trades (RJ -> Vazquez -> Chris Young). But it took 5 years.


And meanwhile, the Reds have taken 8 years to spin their wheels.




Now imagine that we make sacrifices to get to that 90 win plateau, only it's done halfway, we don't make the World Series, and yet we still have to go through the trough. I desperately want that 90 win season. But I would hope we do it in such a way as to stave off the slump that follows. The, let's get to 90 wins and figure it out from there plan just doesn't sit well with me.

The Diamondbacks aren't a good example that famine has to follow feast. From 1999-2003, they were either contending or at least over .500.
I'll gladly take a run like that from the Reds, no matter how it gets done.

TRF
05-01-2008, 05:15 PM
It's almost impossible to look at an impact bat and an impact hitter and see which one is better. They are both excellent players and contributing.. that's why I think at this point, if one is objective, we'd have to say that the trade is a push..

Wayne's bad risks were mostly FA signings and poor extensions.
Stanton, Maj, and Cormier all impacted the club negatively. So did Mays.
So did AGon when he was paid for his glove and delivered poor defense.
Do you dispute this? Weathers is going to bite us this year too. That's 4 million that could've been spent more efficiently. plus we could've gotten a prospect for him last year.

Wayne's risk of trading off position players and backfilling with junk generally has worked out poorly. That's why this offense really struggles. The defense is a mess as well. The bench is horrible.

Sure, I like having Volquez in the rotation, but losing Hamilton hurt this club a lot too.

You are so unbelievably off base here.

The Reds have had impact bats for the last 8 years. It's got them squat. The Reds are an interesting team right now because their rotation is interesting. How is Hamilton's bat helping the Rangers? Dead last in the AL in pitching and it ain't close. They have the WORST record in baseball. With Volquez, they potentially have 4-5 more wins, an above .500 record, and a foundation on which to build a good rotation. The Reds on the other hand aren't lacking an impact bat without Hamilton. Their impact BATS merely slumped the first month. Hamilton offensively is a wash with EE. Having him doesn't ensure wins in any way, especially when 3/5 of the Reds rotation would be Fogg, Belisle (who I still like) and Cueto (still learning). yikes.

Hamilton has the potential to be a star. He has the potential to be suspended for life too. Volquez is a risk in that he's a pitcher, and all pitchers are risks. He also has the potential to be a dominant TOR pitcher, and he's meeting those expectations.

Put it this way, Jason Bay is an impact bat. Think the Pirates are going anywhere this year?

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 05:17 PM
If the market really valued them that much, then why weren't they knocking down the doors with fat offers for Kearns, Lopez and Wagner at the time? .

Well, the reaction of other club executives at the time of the trade was pure disbelief and a general consensus that Wayne got ripped off.
My guess is that Wayne didn't shop Kearns, etc to every club.

He wanted Maj and Bray really bad, and was willing to do whatever it took to get them, in a desperate attempt to fix the bullpen.

I mean, if I go to a used car lot and pay $3000 over fair market value, would you say that the car must be worth that, otherwise I wouldn't have paid that much?

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 05:20 PM
Bowden got the shaft I think now that we are getting a truer read on the outcomes.


Then I guess Wayne got the shaft on Arroyo, because now the Red Sox owe Wily Mo nothing, and the Reds are stuck with a big contract for the next 3 years.

Likewise, by that logic, if Phillips doesn't produce at 2007 levels, the Reds got the shaft in the Philips trade.

Of course, that is wrong... but IMO, it's silly to add up the salaries Wash is paying Kearns and Lopez to justify the trade was good.

nate
05-01-2008, 05:25 PM
There's probably some other ones that could've helped, but it doesn't seem as if the Reds attempted to pursue them. Is that because Cast wouldn't let them, or because Wayne didn't want to? We'll never know.

Or maybe they were pursued and the player didn't like the contract and the owner and / or GM didn't want to pay what other clubs were offering.

Ltlabner
05-01-2008, 05:28 PM
My guess is that Wayne didn't shop Kearns, etc to every club.

My guess is he wanted Maj and Bray really bad, and was willing to do whatever it took to get them, in a desperate attempt to fix the bullpen. But I really have no idea

Fixed that for you.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 05:30 PM
Actually it's not debateable to any reasonable or objective observer that the state of the Reds when Wayne arrived was "ruinous".


If the archives go back to the beginning of 2006 or end of 2005, I doubt you will find even 10% of this board calling the Reds ruinous at that time. Optimism was very high, especially in early 2006. Do you deny that?

I typed out a long response to M2, explaining that, which I will not repeat here.




When your team has names like Williams, Jiminez, Wilson, Milton, Claussen, LaRue, Lopez et al penciled in, and the up-and-coming stars in the system are named Wagner, Hopper and Elizardo Rameriz you'd have to be a complete blithering idiot or a idologe to believe the franchise was anything other than barren.


Jimmeniz was a bench player
Williams = Fogg
Milton = Arroyo maybe, hopefully not.
Claussen just came off a 4.21 ERA 166 IP season. Find me one person that predicted at the time that he was headed to the junk pile.
Lopez just came off an allstar season. At the time, people were just as high on him as they are on Phillips.
Ryan was a rookie rushed to the bigs. He wasn't viewed as a washout yet

The problem is, you are looking at the team in HINDSIGHT. In 3 years, we will look back on this team and it will be easy to pick out all the holes as well.






Which is the dirty little secret the internet-GM's don't want to admit. Sure, we can go hog wild and be in the hunt next year. But I don't want to go back to misery in 2010 and beyond for the one-night stand of glory. That's a "walk of shame" I'd rather avoid.
No kidding.

We've been in a walk of shame since Neagle was traded in 2000.
Why not have an occasional party year? Are you saying you wouldn't trade 2 or 3 prospects to contend next year? You'd rather win 74-80 wins forever, hoping that someday the farm will carry us through?
Plus, it's not a given that winning the division means a hangover the next year. Jocketty did a pretty good job of keeping the Cards fun every year. They haven't had their "Walk of shame" year yet. Heck, even in this year, the Cards have a funner team than the Reds so far because they are playing a lot better. Even though their rotation is full of retreads, they are getting it to work and playing good ball. Maybe they will fade, but right now, they are a better product than the Reds.

Ltlabner
05-01-2008, 05:37 PM
If the archives go back to the beginning of 2006 or end of 2005, I doubt you will find even 10% of this board calling the Reds ruinous at that time. Optimism was very high, especially in early 2006. Do you deny that?

Again, if you want to dress using fan optimisim up as a vaild measuring stick of what tallent we have on the field as *logic*, be my guest. Frankly I'm not sure what one has to do with the other. I'm really really really really optimisitic that I'll win the super-lotto without buying a ticket. When should I expect my big check and ballon-bergaide on my front porch?

Your attempt to re-write history to suit your adgenda dejour is clear for all to see. We get it, you hate Allen and now Krivsky.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 05:38 PM
IWe know he doesn't value poor fielding short stops, .


Not so sure I agree with that.

At the time of the Trade, Wayne said he wasn't worried about who played SS.

Wayne picked up Clayton & AGon to play SS. They are poor defenders.

Kepp was a nice waiver wire pickup, but he's not exactly a great defender either.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 05:39 PM
Won't surprise me if Jocketty does a little of both.

Well, Walt does inherit some bad contracts that he's got to get rid of.
But I think he will try to get talent in trades.

Allen was in a league of his own, prefering to get cash instead of talent.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 05:40 PM
There were numerous free agents during that time that the Reds passed on that could've helped. I can say with about 99% certainty that Wayne would've gone after 1/some of them if he had the financial resources to do so. It's pretty obvious he didn't have the green light at that time.

I don't know about this.
Wayne was more active in the FA market than any GM we've ever had.

I never recall hearing that Wayne wanted to after Player X, but Cast shot it down for money reasons.

The Cordero signing is pretty strong evidence that Cast can be convinced to pay big money to the right guy. Not to mention, I doubt Cast ever denied Wayne the ability to extend any player.

IslandRed
05-01-2008, 05:43 PM
I disagree. Many teams try that same strategy. Few hit 90 wins.
Only six made it last year (two with exactly 90 wins).
Don't you think the Dodgers and Cubs went all out for 90 wins last year? How come they didn't make it?


They only did half of what RMR was talking about. They went big on the payroll, but they didn't empty their respective farm systems or even particularly dent them. The Dodgers, especially, could have pulled off some blockbuster deals if they'd put everything on the table.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 05:53 PM
You are so unbelievably off base here.

The Reds have had impact bats for the last 8 years. It's got them squat.


And having all this young pitching this year has gotten the Reds squat as well.

One year in the 80's the Pirates had the best team ERA in the league (at least late into the season they did). They finished last, because they had guys like Johnny LeMaster, washed up Bill Madlock, etc in their lineup and could not score runs.

This team has struggled to score runs. A good team needs offense, defense, and pitching. That's why an impact bat is valuable too.








The Reds are an interesting team right now because their rotation is interesting. How is Hamilton's bat helping the Rangers? Dead last in the AL in pitching and it ain't close.


And if they had Volquez, they'd still suck. They are a bad team. It's not Hamilton's fault. Just like it's not Volquez's fault that the Reds stink this year.





They have the WORST record in baseball. With Volquez, they potentially have 4-5 more wins, an above .500 record, and a foundation on which to build a good rotation.


Surely, you don't mean 4-5 wins right now. That's not true.

The Rangers decided Josh Hamilton would be a good foundation to build upon, and it's hard to argue that. The guy might've been the only potential MVP available for trade this past offseason. Both Volquez and Hamilton are great players. That's why the trade is a push.

If the Reds still had Hamilton, maybe their W-L record is better. They've been having trouble scoring runs. Hamilton helps them score runs every day. Volquez helps them win every fifth day (but obviously has a bigger impact that day than a position player)..









The Reds on the other hand aren't lacking an impact bat without Hamilton. Their impact BATS merely slumped the first month. Hamilton offensively is a wash with EE. Having him doesn't ensure wins in any way, especially when 3/5 of the Reds rotation would be Fogg, Belisle (who I still like) and Cueto (still learning). yikes.


Now if you want to make the argument that the Reds are better off with Volquez instead of Hamilton due to their needs, that's a different argument.
I'm saying on the basis of pure value, the trade is a push.
I don't know if the Reds would be better off with Hamilton or Volquez.
There's too many permutations.. If the Reds didn't trade Hamilton, would they have picked up another starter? Would Affedlt be in the rotation (if so, how would he do).. it's hard to say.






Hamilton has the potential to be a star. He has the potential to be suspended for life too. Volquez is a risk in that he's a pitcher, and all pitchers are risks. He also has the potential to be a dominant TOR pitcher, and he's meeting those expectations.


Both players are meeting or exceeding their expectations. They are both good.





Put it this way, Jason Bay is an impact bat. Think the Pirates are going anywhere this year?

Put it this way. If the Pirates somehow traded Bay to the Indians for Carmona, they'd still be going nowhere, because they stink. Same argument as with the Rangers. One good player (pitcher or otherwise) can't lift an entire team by himself.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 05:57 PM
Fixed that for you.

What would I do without you :lol:

BTW, isn't it implied that we are all guessing? That post was a response to "Kearns and Lopez must've had no value, because if they did Wayne would've sent them elsewhere".. Despite the fact that the entire league was surprised by that trade. Despite the fact that one GM said he wished the Reds had told him that they were shopping Kearns.

There's evidence Wayne didn't shop Kearns and Lopez to EVERY club, unless those executives lied to the press to make Wayne look bad.. but whoever believes that is more paranoid than Wayne himself. :)

RedsManRick
05-01-2008, 05:59 PM
I disagree. Many teams try that same strategy. Few hit 90 wins.
Only six made it last year (two with exactly 90 wins).
Don't you think the Dodgers and Cubs went all out for 90 wins last year? How come they didn't make it?

No, they didn't even come remotely close to going all out. That's really my whole point. The Cubs could've traded away a bunch of young guys like Murton, Marshall, Patterson, Pie, Soto, etc., stocked up with more present day value, and won 90 games for sure. Likewise, the Dodgers could have traded Kershaw, Loney, LaRoche, etc. They both could've signed guys to FA contracts who they chose to pass on, like Carlos Lee or Daisuke Matsuzaka. They chose not to because they also value their future well being and they didn't choose the right investments in some places. My point is that it is a balancing act. No team is ever going 100% towards this year.

Hit the gas too hard and you might get to your destination but you won't be able to stop and you'll go off the cliff. Hit the gas too soft and you never make it up the hill.

O'Brien tried to move at 5 mph; That clearly wasn't going to get it done. Krivksy was going 35 mph; that clearly was not fast enough for Castellini's taste. In the summer of 2006, Krivksy tried to floor it and hit a light pole.

Castellini seemingly wants us to floor it some more. I'm thrilled that he's trying to get us there quickly. I'm worried about crashing along the way or running out of gas. The "win now" mantra is what leads to decisions like "the trade," in which you take less value or make decisions that are bad long term and of dubious short term value.

Heck, the Cubs are going the short term route (to an extent) with the FA signings of Soriano, Lilly, Fukudome, etc. They have an $118M payroll and are dominating the NL Central. They can afford to do that. The Dodgers could if they wanted to, and have given the Andruw Jones signing. Those teams can afford to floor it and bounce off a few objects along the way. They have the resources to keep going and to rebuild quickly if they total it.

Do you want the Reds to take that route? Could the Reds sustain that? If Castellini was willing to spend $40M more, I bet we could have a really, really good shot at 90 wins in 2009. But where would we be in 2010, 2011?

But even then, you can't be in "win now" mode for very long. The Yankees are realizing that while you can buy a really good shot at the playoffs for a year or even a few years, but there's no way to sustain it without building through the system as well.

Jocketty has one success cycle in him. Now, I'm going to complain if he gives us the sort of run the Cards had. However, I'd much rather build a sustainable system of success, like that of Cleveland, Oakland, Atlanta, or Boston.

I'm very curious at what Jocketty is going to do differently, which will lead to different results than what Krivksy was positioned us for. Because unless Castellini starts writing checks, I just don't see how it's going to be any different.

fearofpopvol1
05-01-2008, 06:00 PM
I don't know about this.
Wayne was more active in the FA market than any GM we've ever had.

I never recall hearing that Wayne wanted to after Player X, but Cast shot it down for money reasons.

The Cordero signing is pretty strong evidence that Cast can be convinced to pay big money to the right guy. Not to mention, I doubt Cast ever denied Wayne the ability to extend any player.

Well of course not. That stuff doesn't often come to light (if ever). There were a lot of guys the Reds passed on that could've helped the Reds improve and I think that a lot of that had to do with cost.

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 06:00 PM
Again, if you want to dress using fan optimisim up as a vaild measuring stick of what tallent we have on the field as *logic*, be my guest.

Your attempt to re-write history to suit your adgenda dejour is clear for all to see. We get it, you hate Allen and now Krivsky.


Fan optimism is being used to say that the Reds are better off now than they when Wayne arrived. My point is that most of the people that are calling the Reds "ruinous" when Wayne arrived were singing a different tune in early 2006/late 2005.

I'm not the one trying to rewrite history.

BTW, I don't hate Wayne. I was his biggest fan until the Trade. I even said that if he finished .500 this year, I wouldn't mind if the Reds extended him.
I have no agenda, other than to try to point out that his firing wasn't a random act of insanity by Cast, which some here seem to believe.

Although I admit, I do hate Allen :)

REDREAD
05-01-2008, 06:02 PM
They only did half of what RMR was talking about. They went big on the payroll, but they didn't empty their respective farm systems or even particularly dent them. The Dodgers, especially, could have pulled off some blockbuster deals if they'd put everything on the table.


True, but on the flip side, even if the Reds decided to trade all their prospects this past winter and buy any free agent on the market, they still wouldn't have gotten to 90 wins. Even if they somehow tricked Beane into giving us Haren for prospects that would not help this year (ie no Ceuto, etc), we still don't win 90 games this year. There's far too many holes on this roster.

TRF
05-01-2008, 06:03 PM
Surely, you don't mean 4-5 wins right now. That's not true.

The Rangers decided Josh Hamilton would be a good foundation to build upon, and it's hard to argue that. The guy might've been the only potential MVP available for trade this past offseason. Both Volquez and Hamilton are great players. That's why the trade is a push.

If the Reds still had Hamilton, maybe their W-L record is better. They've been having trouble scoring runs. Hamilton helps them score runs every day. Volquez helps them win every fifth day (but obviously has a bigger impact that day than a position player)..


Yup. trickle down effect. The lop off a bad starter. Maybe they score a few less runs, but the overall impact is 4+ W's maybe more. Right now they are 6th in the AL in runs, but dead last in pitching. If the scoring goes down to 10th, but the pitching goes up to 10th, that's an improvement, and likely an improvement in wins.


Put it this way. If the Pirates somehow traded Bay to the Indians for Carmona, they'd still be going nowhere, because they stink. Same argument as with the Rangers. One good player (pitcher or otherwise) can't lift an entire team by himself.

true, but it can give them the right foundation to build on.

RedsManRick
05-01-2008, 06:13 PM
True, but on the flip side, even if the Reds decided to trade all their prospects this past winter and buy any free agent on the market, they still wouldn't have gotten to 90 wins. Even if they somehow tricked Beane into giving us Haren for prospects that would not help this year (ie no Ceuto, etc), we still don't win 90 games this year. There's far too many holes on this roster.

Exactly. You have to be very careful that your "win now" strategy doesn't take a good future ceiling, lower it, and bring it closer. That's not progress. I'd much rather go 74-88 again if it means 92 wins in 2009. I certainly don't want to win 84 in 2008 and peak at 88 wins in 2009.

Unfortunately, it's easier to hit 86 wins and claim some victory than try to explain another 74 win season by promising a future that few have faith will ever come.

Hence, my claim that it is wise for rebuilding organizations to be open in communicating the plan for getting to 90 wins. I wouldn't want my team's management choosing an ultimately worse plan because they were afraid I wouldn't understand, let alone accept, the better one. The Brewers announced a 5 year plan a few years back. The Indians did the same. The Pirates have done similar things this year. Fans will accept that building a winner takes time. They won't accept a plan clouded in secrecy with an outcome that never seems to materialize. That's when fans lose faith and come to the conclusion that either you don't have a plan or are incapable of executing the one you've got.

redsmetz
05-01-2008, 06:16 PM
Fan optimism is being used to say that the Reds are better off now than they when Wayne arrived. My point is that most of the people that are calling the Reds "ruinous" when Wayne arrived were singing a different tune in early 2006/late 2005.

I'm not the one trying to rewrite history.

You mean after the December 8th trades for Dave Williams and Tony Womack? As I've said before, even Williams was shocked that he was traded straight up for Sean Casey. And Krivsky dispatched Womack almost immediately. I hadn't come across the word "ruinous" at that point, but it would have been apt as to the direction of this moribund franchise.

Spring~Fields
05-01-2008, 06:24 PM
Well, the reaction of other club executives at the time of the trade was pure disbelief and a general consensus that Wayne got ripped off.
My guess is that Wayne didn't shop Kearns, etc to every club.

He wanted Maj and Bray really bad, and was willing to do whatever it took to get them, in a desperate attempt to fix the bullpen.



Arroyo was headed to the bullpen, Bray and Majewski was in the bullpen, Krivsky traded common outfielders Pena, Kearns and bad fielding Lopez for bullpen pitchers, he traded Hamilton for a pitcher a risky pitcher that still could end up in the bullpen. Those outfielders are a dime a dozen in baseball.

The Reds can't or haven't even been able to get anything for Griffey or Dunn, who are far superior to those common outfielders that Bowden is stuck with now. So why would they get more for a Pena, Kearns or Hamilton? Don't give me Hamilton this and that when you know he started out well last year and fizzled, and could this year. The jury is still out on the trades, and you know it.

paintmered
05-01-2008, 10:02 PM
You mean after the December 8th trades for Dave Williams and Tony Womack? As I've said before, even Williams was shocked that he was traded straight up for Sean Casey. And Krivsky dispatched Womack almost immediately. I hadn't come across the word "ruinous" at that point, but it would have been apt as to the direction of this moribund franchise.

The Sean Casey trade was nothing more than a salary dump.

redsmetz
05-01-2008, 10:28 PM
The Sean Casey trade was nothing more than a salary dump.

Even for a salary dump, Dave Williams was a putrid return, Paint.

Joseph
05-01-2008, 10:42 PM
Even for a salary dump, Dave Williams was a putrid return, Paint.

No, it was the definition of salary dump. You get virtually nothing in exchange for the salary relief. If the nothing is the one in a million and works, great, but no one expects it to, DanO was foolish enough to expect it and even tout it.

REDREAD
05-02-2008, 12:53 AM
You mean after the December 8th trades for Dave Williams and Tony Womack? As I've said before, even Williams was shocked that he was traded straight up for Sean Casey. And Krivsky dispatched Womack almost immediately. I hadn't come across the word "ruinous" at that point, but it would have been apt as to the direction of this moribund franchise.


IIRC, most people didn't mind Dave Williams so much, because the consensus was that Casey had to go. It was a move comparable to signing Fogg this year.

Likewise, people got upset about Womack due to his low OBP, but many people assumed that Freel or someone else would beat him out of a roster spot.. In other words, Womack was comparable to castro..


I still contend that the mood in 2005/2006 was at least as upbeat as it was before Wayne was fired this year. Especially during 2006 .. I mean, come on, a lot of skeptics about Arroyo initially, but people on this board loved the fact that the 2006 team was starting to be be sort of competitive. There was very little complaining about Kearns and Lopez until they were traded.
In fact, the board was in an uproar when Aurillia got playing time over Lopez.. It was as if Bruce was here and Patterson played over him.. The rage was that intense.

I can't recall anyone saying during 2006 (pre Trade) that the team was in horrible shape. Not even the biggest pessemists on the board. Some said we weren't a true contender, but no one claimed the team was rotten to the core, as they are claiming the 2005/2006 team is now.

REDREAD
05-02-2008, 01:08 AM
NoDo you want the Reds to take that route? Could the Reds sustain that? If Castellini was willing to spend $40M more, I bet we could have a really, really good shot at 90 wins in 2009. But where would we be in 2010, 2011?

Sure, if Cast was willing to spend 40 million more, and wise choices were made, that would be awesome. Why wouldn't anyone want that.
If it let us contend in 2009 and 2010, but then we had to shed salary afterwards, why would I mind?

Let me ask you this: Was 1995 a mistake? Was it wrong to pick up Wells and Burba to make the playoffs? The Reds had to pay the price. They gave up some decent young players (not a king's ransom, but some talent) and then had to dump Wells. They also got stuck with Portugal. Then they were forced to rebuild in 1997, but recovered in 1999..

Surely, you're not saying that the Reds shouldn't have gone for it in 1995 in order to pick up a few more wins in 1996 and to avoid the rebuild in 1997..








But even then, you can't be in "win now" mode for very long.


And I'm willing to accept that. It's extremely difficult as a middle market to make the playoffs in back to back years, no matter what method you do.
So why not go for it when you can, even if that means trading some prospects? The fact that it's difficult means that you should go for it when the chance is there. The Reds weren't aggressive enough in 1999 and barely missed the playoffs. I would've traded Dunn to have a respectable run in the playoffs that year, because while Dunn is a good player, the Reds have spun their wheels the entire time with him.. They would've been worse without him, but the whole object of the game is to win the World Series.






Jocketty has one success cycle in him. Now, I'm going to complain if he gives us the sort of run the Cards had. However, I'd much rather build a sustainable system of success, like that of Cleveland, Oakland, Atlanta, or Boston.


We'll never be able to do the Boston model. It's pretty much the same as the Yankee model. Grab high priced players when other teams can't afford them.
Sign high priced free agents.

While I admire Beane, I wonder if he can build a winner without the aid of steroids. I think back to his comment about how Dykstra made him realize that he "didnt' have what it takes to make it" as a player. Dykstra was a steroid user. I always wonder if he meant that. In any event, I am skeptical if Beane can build a consistent winner without steroid players. Even if he can't, he's still a brilliant GM, don't get me wrong. But he had a huge boost from players that cheated.

I'd love to have an Atlanta or Cleveland model too, but let's remember that Altanta didn't start winning until they started signing FAs.. Bream, Pendleton, Maddux, and most importantly Belliard :) Homegrown talent played a key part, but so did great trades and FA signings. Part of their plan was to incrementally improve each year.




I'm very curious at what Jocketty is going to do differently, which will lead to different results than what Krivksy was positioned us for. Because unless Castellini starts writing checks, I just don't see how it's going to be any different.

Well, let's give him a chance and see .. not saying that you won't give Walt a fair shot, but why assume that no one can be a better GM than Wayne? One of Wayne's biggest faults was poor allocation of money. So Walt has the potential for more cash by just not repeating Wayne's mistakes, even if payroll is not increased.

REDREAD
05-02-2008, 01:14 AM
Arroyo was headed to the bullpen, Bray and Majewski was in the bullpen, Krivsky traded common outfielders Pena, Kearns and bad fielding Lopez for bullpen pitchers, he traded Hamilton for a pitcher a risky pitcher that still could end up in the bullpen. Those outfielders are a dime a dozen in baseball.

If they are a dime a dozen, then how come we have Patterson and Freel playing CF? Sure guys like 2008 Pena are a dime a dozen, but not Hamilton and 2006 Kearns. 2006 Pena actually had pretty good value. I remember many posters were bemoaning his trade. Even though Arroyo overachieved when he arrived, he was still viewed as a solid #3/#4 starter.. guys like that have value in an era where teams are forced to trot out guys like Milton and Fogg.





The Reds can't or haven't even been able to get anything for Griffey or Dunn, who are far superior to those common outfielders that Bowden is stuck with now. So why would they get more for a Pena, Kearns or Hamilton? Don't give me Hamilton this and that when you know he started out well last year and fizzled, and could this year. The jury is still out on the trades, and you know it.

Jr is old and has a no trade clause, yet they were reportedly able to get Chris Young from the White Sox for him recently (was it 2005 or 2006)

Dunn is a pending FA .. The nationals couldn't get much for Soriano in his walk year either. If Dunn was a third year player, the Reds could get a lot for him.. You mention Hamilton being a dime a dozen, but obviously he had a lot of trade value because he fetched Volquez..

bucksfan2
05-02-2008, 09:03 AM
Let me ask you this: Was 1995 a mistake? Was it wrong to pick up Wells and Burba to make the playoffs? The Reds had to pay the price. They gave up some decent young players (not a king's ransom, but some talent) and then had to dump Wells. They also got stuck with Portugal. Then they were forced to rebuild in 1997, but recovered in 1999..


Are you comparing 1995 to now? Really? In 95 the Reds and Marge were among the top spenders in the league. Marge wanted to win and had a core to do so. Lets also remember that in 95 the Reds had a HOF SS playing at the peak of his career. The dynamics of baseball contracts and the amount of money handed out was completely different then than it is now.

As for RMR's assertion that the any team with a huge payroll can be competitive right away I agree. The reds in back to back years could have signed Beltran and Lee. They could have traded for Santana or Bedard this offseason. They would have had to mortage the farm and played out about $40M a season to do so but a team that would look like this.
1B Dunn
2B Phillips
SS Keppy
3B Encarnacion
LF Lee
CF Beltran
RF Jr
C Bako
Your telling me that this lineup wouldn't be one of the better ones in the NL?

Finally Castellini wants to bring winning baseball back to Cincinnati. The problem is that you can't win over night. Two teams have been able to build championship teams by spending big bucks and one of those has been spending record amounts yet hasn't seen a championship since the 90's in the Yankees. IMO it would be better off financially for the club to experince a rebuilding process for a long run of dominance compared to a short window of dominance and years of medocrity. Look at StL's attendance figures this season. They should be in a down year and the attendance should be dropping but because the fans are used to good baseball on the field they keep coming. Cincy fans are so jaded from the Allen/Linder era in which they were constantly lied to that they won't pack the stands until a winner is here.