PDA

View Full Version : Anyone disappointed more trades weren't made?



LouisvilleCARDS
08-01-2008, 09:54 PM
I'm surprised Weathers, Affeldt, Ross, Valentine, heck maybe ever Patterson as a throw in, weren't traded. What do you think the goal of Castellini and Jocketty is by not trading the guys? I understand they wanted to have the appearance of contention in this, so to me it seems like a PR move that the Reds organization isn't doing firesales anymore is the main goal of not trading. But I don't think that PR move helps the Reds any with guys on one year ocntracts you could likely just resign after the year regardless.

I'm kinda disappointed, I wanted to see the Reds make more moves just to shake things up, and the appearance of a salary dump doesn't make a difference to me. I guess the only goal of the management was that: to show that they're not penny pinching and going to ride it out. And as a season goal at this point, just to make it above .500, which looks like a tall task about 8 games under .500 likely tonight. Anyone else think the Reds should have made more moves, or are happy they decided to keep guys around for the year that won't be after?

HalMorrisRules
08-01-2008, 09:54 PM
No.

757690
08-01-2008, 10:34 PM
I think a lot of teams were thinking the same thing.

I was surprised that no other players were traded. But Jocketty said that what was offered in return (for the ones that even had offers) was not worth it. He said that it was valuable to have them on the team so the FO can evaluate whether or not to resign them next year. And if you know that what you will get in return will not help your team, why bother?

Kingspoint
08-01-2008, 10:59 PM
Absolutely.

The organization always needs to be improved, especially pitching.

Krivsky would have made more than the trade of Junior over the last 4 months.

ChatterRed
08-02-2008, 01:49 AM
On TV, they showed that the Reds bullpen, since the All-Star break, has the 5th best e.r.a. in baseball. Why trade anyone? Sign them all up for next season. One less part of the team to worry about.

Root Down
08-02-2008, 11:35 AM
I'll put my faith in Jocketty, the guy has made winners in the past and he will again here. I would have like to see more trade motion, however, just for motion's sake. We may have most of the players we need, and there is always the off season. This team is real young. Some of our vets, EE and BP in particular, are only in their mid 20's! We've got a lot to work with. With that said, I'm sure Jocketty has something up his sleeve.

ChatterRed
08-02-2008, 12:30 PM
Pitcher ages:

Bailey - 22 years old (rookie)
Cueto - 22 years old (rookie)
Volquez - 25 (3 years exp.)
Bray - 25 (2 years exp.)
Masset - 26 (2 years exp.)
Burton - 27 (2 years exp.)
Majewski - 28 (4 years exp.)
Affeldt - 29 (6 years exp.)
Harang - 30 (7 years exp.)
Arroyo - 31 (8 years exp.)
Fogg - 32 (7 years exp.)
Cordero - 33 (9 years exp.)
Lincoln - 33 (9 years exp.)
Weathers - turns 39 late September (17 years exp. - impressive)

Catchers:
Ross - 31 (6 years exp.)
Valentin - 32 (11 years exp.)
Bako - 36 (10 years exp.)

Infielders:
Encarnacion - 25 (3 years exp.)
Votto - 25 (in September) (rookie)
Phillips - 27 (6 years exp.)
Keppinger - 28 (4 years exp.)
Gonzalez - 31 (10 years exp.)
A. Phillips - 31 (4 years exp.)
Hairston Jr. - 32 (10 years exp.)
Cabrera - 35 (10 years exp.)

Outfielders:
Bruce - 21 (rookie)
Dunn - 28 (7 years exp.)
Hopper - 29 (3 years exp.)
Patterson - 29 (8 years exp.)
Freel - 32 (7 years exp.)


Get rid of Cabrera, Bako and Weathers and nobody is older than 33. LOL.

BoldOD
08-02-2008, 01:51 PM
I don't think that Valentin should be on this team either...and didn't Angel Cabrera just get cut for his role in the Dayton Dragons brawl?

ChatterRed
08-02-2008, 02:12 PM
That would be Jolbert (spelling?) Cabrera on the major league team.

FlightRick
08-02-2008, 04:17 PM
I'm kinda disappointed, I wanted to see the Reds make more moves just to shake things up

Can we PLEASE get some kind of official moritorium on this sentiment that somehow doing SOMEthing is inherently better than doing NOthing? Unless you're a sports-talk-radio dipstick, whose job is predicated on there being SOMEthing to talk about, how hard is it to comprehend that sometimes (maybe even most times) the best thing for the team is do stand pat and do nothing.

I complained about this in probably 3-4 threads already, about how if there are no offers on the table that make our team better, then it's just plain stupid to go jumping in with some idiot Videogame Mentality and making any trades we can that make OTHER teams better and which only make us worse... but none of that got through, so let me try one final example:

In so far as I'll care about NASCAR, it's only to see highlights of the crashes. I know, in my brain, that this is awful and it has nothing to do with the (titter) "sport" of it, but I get a visceral thrill out of seeing twisted metal and fire and 2000-pound machines flipping around like Rey Mysterio Jr. Whether or not this makes me a Bad Person can be debated, but I know it makes me a "bad NASCAR fan"; I also rationalize that away by simply admitting that I don't care, because other than the wrecks, I find NASCAR boring and I couldn't care less about who wins or loses or anything like that. I'm a philistine, I'm ill-informed, and I'm a pain in the ass to anybody who takes the time to really understand NASCAR and how you build a winning program.

If you're going around saying "I wanted to make more trades just to shake things up and see something different," I now officially say: you're the same as the person who watches NASCAR just for the crashes. Welcome to the club?


Rick


PS: While we're sanctioning anybody who subscribes to the hyperactive Videogame Mentality, can we also pass some sort of resolution that allows fists to be introduced to the faces of anybody who uses variations of "He is what he is" or "It is what it is" as if they are deep, probing, insightful analyses and value judgments, rather than the equivalent of saying "2 = 2" and expecting to be rewarded with a Nobel Prize? Thank you, drive through...

Kingspoint
08-02-2008, 04:33 PM
Can we PLEASE get some kind of official moritorium on this sentiment that somehow doing SOMEthing is inherently better than doing NOthing? Unless you're a sports-talk-radio dipstick, whose job is predicated on there being SOMEthing to talk about, how hard is it to comprehend that sometimes (maybe even most times) the best thing for the team is do stand pat and do nothing.

I complained about this in probably 3-4 threads already, about how if there are no offers on the table that make our team better, then it's just plain stupid to go jumping in with some idiot Videogame Mentality and making any trades we can that make OTHER teams better and which only make us worse... but none of that got through, so let me try one final example:

In so far as I'll care about NASCAR, it's only to see highlights of the crashes. I know, in my brain, that this is awful and it has nothing to do with the (titter) "sport" of it, but I get a visceral thrill out of seeing twisted metal and fire and 2000-pound machines flipping around like Rey Mysterio Jr. Whether or not this makes me a Bad Person can be debated, but I know it makes me a "bad NASCAR fan"; I also rationalize that away by simply admitting that I don't care, because other than the wrecks, I find NASCAR boring and I couldn't care less about who wins or loses or anything like that. I'm a philistine, I'm ill-informed, and I'm a pain in the ass to anybody who takes the time to really understand NASCAR and how you build a winning program.

If you're going around saying "I wanted to make more trades just to shake things up and see something different," I now officially say: you're the same as the person who watches NASCAR just for the crashes. Welcome to the club?


Rick


PS: While we're sanctioning anybody who subscribes to the hyperactive Videogame Mentality, can we also pass some sort of resolution that allows fists to be introduced to the faces of anybody who uses variations of "He is what he is" or "It is what it is" as if they are deep, probing, insightful analyses and value judgments, rather than the equivalent of saying "2 = 2" and expecting to be rewarded with a Nobel Prize? Thank you, drive through...

Most G.M.'s end up doing nothing because most of them are poor at their job. There's usually just a handful of them in each sport that are continually improving their organization. The A's and Twins come closest to the perfect examples, and Krivsky is also a great example. Most deals that I'm talking about are deals that effect the minor leagues. There are only about 5 untouchables in the organization. Jockety has always been a poor example. Jockety never improved the organization in St. Louis. His success came from being able to spend more money every year than this division foes. When that ceased happening after the sale of the Cubs and the Cubs' new ways of doing business, Jockety was gone because he had depleted his minor leagues over the years, and he no longer had the money to outspend his opponents.

If you aren't constantly upgrading players at each level, you aren't trying hard enough, or are incapable of doing so. Jockety fits under both categories. Fortunately for him, O'Brien and Krivsky gave him a goldmine to pluck from. Anything that happens in the next three-four years is all because of them, not Jockety. Jockety's ability to manage the resources he inherited will go a long way's towards any success. In this department, he'd done well so far.

Can we please have a moratorium on the lemming thinking that our leaders know what they're doing and that since nothing was done, then logic dictates that either nothing needed to be done or nothing could have been done?

kpresidente
08-02-2008, 04:45 PM
Most G.M.'s end up doing nothing because most of them are poor at their job.

Possibly the most ludicrous statement I've seen, even for the Sun Deck.

LouisvilleCARDS
08-02-2008, 05:10 PM
Can we please have a moratorium on the lemming thinking that our leaders know what they're doing and that since nothing was done, then logic dictates that either nothing needed to be done or nothing could have been done?

Great quote. The guy can bash me for my opinion all he wants, but lets face it: keeping Weathers, Affeldt, and other end fo contract guys - what does it do for us?

There's a couple scenarios in this:

A) We keep the players and then either resign them or don't at the end of the year. Keeping them doesn't raise our chances of making the postseason, doesn't increase our chances of resigning them for next year, we pay their salary for the rest of the year (which albeit, isn't a ton, but its something), and we get no possible prospects out of it.

B) We trade the guys, save salary which cumulatively would have likely been enough total to resign one of them to a one year deal next year for free out of it. We get maybe a couple of sleeper prospects, who may or may not do something, but at least we get something out of it.

Remember, Hanley Ramirez was *just* a .260 batting Double A guy at one point too, and Darryl Thompson was an injured throw in insult from Jim Bowden in that 2006 trade. Sometimes those throw ins turn out to be promising. That Lincoln guy who was a reject seems to be doing well, along with that Rule 5 reject Burton.

But yeah, actually TRYING to find that sleeper is just useless videogame mentality right? No player we get could ever get could possibly be better than an injured bullpen catcher in low Single A right? Yeah, wouldn't even wanna make the effort. Lets just keep Weathers around for the year, when he may or may not come back next year, or even be effective after this year.

FlightRick
08-02-2008, 05:11 PM
Possibly the most ludicrous statement I've seen, even for the Sun Deck.

What are you talking about? It makes perfect sense.

Major league GMs: there are only 30 of them in the whole world, it's an impossible job to get, and if you do get it, your every move is under a microscope, and your life expectancy will be very short unless you deliver a winning team, but if you succeed you'll become one of very few executives who turn the job into a long-term career.

Guy posting on the Intarwebs: there are millions of them (thousands, probably, in our little corner here at RedsZone), there are no qualifications to sign up, there are no standards to maintain, and the medium has no mechanism to monitor quality as it inherently marginalizes and democratizes intelligence.

Clearly, if Some Guy says that all GMs are incompetent buffoons, he knows what of he speaks, and is just as clearly one of the millions of people qualified for the job of major league GM. Or possibly selling hot dogs. One or the other. I'm not sure which.


Rick


PS: Just so as to add SOME actual non-snippy commentary, let me be clear that this is not an issue of "faith" in the front office or a blind belief that they know best. It's simple pragmatism based on anecdotal evidence. Like the anecdote that the Rockies came asking about Josh Fogg because they thought he'd help them out as a #4 or #5 starter, and we asked for a guy who projects as little more than a #4 OF in return. The Rockies said "No way." We said "Fine, enjoy finishing fourth in your division. We'll do the same. At least in part because we'll still have Josh Fogg." This isn't blind faith, this is an actual account of the type of deal the Reds FO was seeking, and the type of counter-proposals they were receiving.

FlightRick
08-02-2008, 05:23 PM
Remember, Hanley Ramirez was *just* a .260 batting Double A guy at one point too, and Darryl Thompson was an injured throw in insult from Jim Bowden in that 2006 trade. Sometimes those throw ins turn out to be promising. That Lincoln guy who was a reject seems to be doing well, along with that Rule 5 reject Burton.

But yeah, actually TRYING to find that sleeper is just useless videogame mentality right?

Ummm, you can't have it both ways: those players developing (to various degrees; let's not all get ahead of ourselves with Thompson or anything) is not an accident. They are the result of careful analysis and effort by the Front Office.

The same Front Office that -- two posts above -- was said to be "very bad at their jobs" because they are standing around doing nothing when they could be flinging our poo at other teams and seeing what they fling back.

So which is it?

Do baseball execs sometimes get it right when assessing the promise of A-ballers and "throw-ins" because they are well-trained experts, and thus, we should essentially trust that if we did nothing at this trading deadline, it's because there wasn't anything -- not even as "good" as Daryl Thompson, whose goodness is still a matter to be determined -- out there worth obtaining? Or is it all a crapshoot, and Hanley Ramirez and Burton and all that are just accidents, front offices are retards, and teams should be run by intarwebbers and sports-talk callers who are willing to roll the dice?

One or the other; no agreeing with the original guy's point, and then saying something the exact opposite of what he posited, as if that all makes perfect sense.


Rick

LouisvilleCARDS
08-02-2008, 07:57 PM
Ummm, you can't have it both ways: those players developing (to various degrees; let's not all get ahead of ourselves with Thompson or anything) is not an accident. They are the result of careful analysis and effort by the Front Office.

The same Front Office that -- two posts above -- was said to be "very bad at their jobs" because they are standing around doing nothing when they could be flinging our poo at other teams and seeing what they fling back.

So which is it?

Do baseball execs sometimes get it right when assessing the promise of A-ballers and "throw-ins" because they are well-trained experts, and thus, we should essentially trust that if we did nothing at this trading deadline, it's because there wasn't anything -- not even as "good" as Daryl Thompson, whose goodness is still a matter to be determined -- out there worth obtaining? Or is it all a crapshoot, and Hanley Ramirez and Burton and all that are just accidents, front offices are retards, and teams should be run by intarwebbers and sports-talk callers who are willing to roll the dice?

One or the other; no agreeing with the original guy's point, and then saying something the exact opposite of what he posited, as if that all makes perfect sense.


Rick


I didn't say very bad at their jobs, stop putting words in my mouth. I don't see any of me saying the exact opposite like you said. I wanted deals to be done, and no where in my post did I say throw a dart and make a random guess. An educated guess on a possible trade though wouldn't be bad would it? I mean, the same Rule 5 draft we got Josh Hamilton and Burton out of, we also got that Valenzuela guy for last year, that we cut Jorge Cantu, a possible bat off the bench, for. Then after looking at the guy ,we went and sold him back to the Braves or LESS than what we paid for the pick in the first place!

Was it taking a chance that didn't come through? Sure. But if we're going to play penny wise, pound foolish - then on paper we should have never took an ex-multi year drug addict who hadn't played in the game for years either. Or we should have never signed a certain "prima donna" from the Indians either and moved him to second.

You act like its a shot in the dark to make traded. This is a multimillion dollar organization with scouts everywhere, like everywhere else. If there were offers for Weathers, not "blow your socks off" worthy like Baker says, but an outside shot at being a real contributor in the futre - why not take it? Hell, we got this Mallett guy who looked pretty decent yesterday for an aging over the hill outfielder who was deemed untradable. We've made pitching trades in the past, why is it any different now?

Newman4
08-03-2008, 01:03 AM
So Rick, would you rather keep Weathers, Affledt, Fogg, et al and maybe finish 4th instead of trading them for a bunch of marginal prospects in hopes that one or two may be servicable and maybe finish 5th?

Just because the Rockies decided Spilborghs is too high a price for Fogg (I think it is) doesn't mean the Reds shouldn't have traded him for something less. If other teams want mediocrity and will pay anything of value for it, why not make a trade?

FlightRick
08-03-2008, 01:50 AM
The issue, to me, isn't the difference between a 4th and 5th place finish in the sense of "we won 3 more games; YAY!"... but I do consider where we end this year to have a direct effect on where we start next year in terms of personnel, so you have to consider that bridging aspect.

In that regard, using the specific example of Fogg is not wise on my part, as his value really is limited to the rest of this season (I can't imagine re-signing him to the Reds, and I guess we've seen what even a team that LIKES Fogg is willing to give up for him; so all he gives us is a stop gap to eat some innings and protect our young arms). If we could dump him, trust me, I wouldn't shed a tear; but I'd also be mildly annoyed if we did it just to do it; for better or worse, Fogg *is* a contributing major leaguer, so the return for him should be commensurate with that (either another ready-to-contribute type, such as an aging fourth outfielder; or possibly a slightly more than "marginal" prospect), or we might as well keep the dude for our own purposes rather than upgrading the Rockies and downgrading the Reds.

But with Affeldt? I would seriously consider him a piece of the puzzle going into 2009, so why trade away -- for nothing -- somebody who could have a future adding value to OUR franchise? And if we don't keep him, I believe his numbers will make him a Type B free agent. That means one draft pick coming our way if he leaves.

Weathers? I don't want him here next year, but he's DEFINITELY a Type B, and maybe even a Type A, Free Agent. We could have traded him for nothing of substance, and that'd be the end of it. Or, we could keep him, and instead of taking the known garbage from another franchise, we can try to make our own luck by taking the lottery tickets that are draft picks. Granted, I think playing the lottery is stupid, but if they start charging $1 to dumpster dive, it's only the very stupid man who wouldn't say "Screw that noise" and try his luck on a scratch-off instead.

Given that we have SERIOUS issues to address this off-season in terms of CF and C, we just might dabble in free agency. If we dabble with any halfway-decent options (i.e. other team's Type A's), then we lose our second round draft pick. Is it so wrong to insulate ourselves from that loss by keeping a marginal vet like Weathers (or a guy like Affeldt who we could also reasonably re-sign) in order to get AT LEAST the sandwich pick (and possible an additional 1st or 2nd round pick) to improve ourselves in the future?

This is the crux of the debate: how do we make the most of the assets we currently have? I honestly believe that if anything of value was offered to us, we'd have explored those options. If it wasn't, then that's why we've stood pat (so far), with the idea that we can "control our own destiny" more by taking draft picks rather than other team's garbage (or by possibly even retaining a guy like Affeldt).

The type of "talent" we were/are shopping probably doesn't help, either. With the understanding that most of our younger guys were probably "untouchable" just because we weren't in a pennant race close enough to justify trying to flip one of them for a serious established superstar, that leaves a thin roster of trade-able players. Fogg may yet be moved for the proverbial Bag O' Balls in a waiver wire move, but other than that? You probably nailed it by only mentioning Affeldt and Weathers.

I think maybe if Freel had been healthy, he could have been an option to move (and another guy I'd have been willing to see gone for limited return, since honestly, it's either him or Hairston Jr. on the roster in '09; no way we can have TWO of those on the same team). And I'm not averse to giving up on Project Bailey, either, but only if it'd net an above average return. Sadly, Homer's trade value right now is NOT "above average." Of course, there's Dunn, too, but that's a whole other can of worms and a hot-button topic that I don't want to get into (short version: the more I read about how nobody wants him, the more I believe we should be happy, because we can probably get him to stick around on a 3-year deal, which would be perfect).

So... I keep coming back to this default position of being perfectly fine with doing little, and keeping our future (both on the field at the major league level in the short term, and in terms of populating our minors with prospects in the long term) under our own control, rather than a turning them into a function of a twist of fate resulting from a spastic NEED to make trades to keep things "interesting."


Rick

Newman4
08-03-2008, 02:04 AM
Of the guys you mentioned, you do have to offer them arbitration to get the draft picks. Weathers and Affledt would be pretty expensive if they chose arbitration.

LouisvilleCARDS
08-03-2008, 03:20 AM
The issue, to me, isn't the difference between a 4th and 5th place finish in the sense of "we won 3 more games; YAY!"... but I do consider where we end this year to have a direct effect on where we start next year in terms of personnel, so you have to consider that bridging aspect.

In that regard, using the specific example of Fogg is not wise on my part, as his value really is limited to the rest of this season (I can't imagine re-signing him to the Reds, and I guess we've seen what even a team that LIKES Fogg is willing to give up for him; so all he gives us is a stop gap to eat some innings and protect our young arms). If we could dump him, trust me, I wouldn't shed a tear; but I'd also be mildly annoyed if we did it just to do it; for better or worse, Fogg *is* a contributing major leaguer, so the return for him should be commensurate with that (either another ready-to-contribute type, such as an aging fourth outfielder; or possibly a slightly more than "marginal" prospect), or we might as well keep the dude for our own purposes rather than upgrading the Rockies and downgrading the Reds.

But with Affeldt? I would seriously consider him a piece of the puzzle going into 2009, so why trade away -- for nothing -- somebody who could have a future adding value to OUR franchise? And if we don't keep him, I believe his numbers will make him a Type B free agent. That means one draft pick coming our way if he leaves.

Weathers? I don't want him here next year, but he's DEFINITELY a Type B, and maybe even a Type A, Free Agent. We could have traded him for nothing of substance, and that'd be the end of it. Or, we could keep him, and instead of taking the known garbage from another franchise, we can try to make our own luck by taking the lottery tickets that are draft picks. Granted, I think playing the lottery is stupid, but if they start charging $1 to dumpster dive, it's only the very stupid man who wouldn't say "Screw that noise" and try his luck on a scratch-off instead.

Given that we have SERIOUS issues to address this off-season in terms of CF and C, we just might dabble in free agency. If we dabble with any halfway-decent options (i.e. other team's Type A's), then we lose our second round draft pick. Is it so wrong to insulate ourselves from that loss by keeping a marginal vet like Weathers (or a guy like Affeldt who we could also reasonably re-sign) in order to get AT LEAST the sandwich pick (and possible an additional 1st or 2nd round pick) to improve ourselves in the future?

This is the crux of the debate: how do we make the most of the assets we currently have? I honestly believe that if anything of value was offered to us, we'd have explored those options. If it wasn't, then that's why we've stood pat (so far), with the idea that we can "control our own destiny" more by taking draft picks rather than other team's garbage (or by possibly even retaining a guy like Affeldt).

The type of "talent" we were/are shopping probably doesn't help, either. With the understanding that most of our younger guys were probably "untouchable" just because we weren't in a pennant race close enough to justify trying to flip one of them for a serious established superstar, that leaves a thin roster of trade-able players. Fogg may yet be moved for the proverbial Bag O' Balls in a waiver wire move, but other than that? You probably nailed it by only mentioning Affeldt and Weathers.

I think maybe if Freel had been healthy, he could have been an option to move (and another guy I'd have been willing to see gone for limited return, since honestly, it's either him or Hairston Jr. on the roster in '09; no way we can have TWO of those on the same team). And I'm not averse to giving up on Project Bailey, either, but only if it'd net an above average return. Sadly, Homer's trade value right now is NOT "above average." Of course, there's Dunn, too, but that's a whole other can of worms and a hot-button topic that I don't want to get into (short version: the more I read about how nobody wants him, the more I believe we should be happy, because we can probably get him to stick around on a 3-year deal, which would be perfect).

So... I keep coming back to this default position of being perfectly fine with doing little, and keeping our future (both on the field at the major league level in the short term, and in terms of populating our minors with prospects in the long term) under our own control, rather than a turning them into a function of a twist of fate resulting from a spastic NEED to make trades to keep things "interesting."


Rick

I guess I'll have to disagree. If "keeping our future" is keeping guys like Fogg, Weathers, Affeldt, Ross, Valetine, Patterson, etc around - then really, I want no part of it. You keep saying you don't want to give up a "contributing" major leaguer for a risky prospect that might not return anything, but really - who cares at this point? Fogg sucks, if they traded him for a longshot contributing prospects, who really cares? At this point, we've lost for eight straight years. If we bring up Adam Pettyjohn or Ramon Ramirez in his spot, who really cares? An L is an L, we may as well take it going down swinging than accepting mediocrity and not taking a chance.

Your problem is you think these, what, 50 games left mean an absolute thing, and we need the current guys for it and shouldn't take a chance on getting a longshot contributor. Sure, I wouldn't expect much more than salary relief and a couple of guys far off from contributing or high risk, but why not at this point?

It's a bit like going to the store and buying some groceries and getting five cents back and the cashier offering you five Powerball tickets for five cents. Is it ridiculously unlikely you win anything? Yeah. But its five cents, who cares if you lose it?

texasdave
08-03-2008, 08:15 AM
Of the guys you mentioned, you do have to offer them arbitration to get the draft picks. Weathers and Affledt would be pretty expensive if they chose arbitration.

And that is why Walt should have dumped long and hard. If you have decided you don't want a player like Weathers back next year you have to dump them. A club must offer arbitration to get picks. Does anyone think David Weathers at his age is going to turn down arbitration? I don't. At his age can he reasonably expect a multi-year deal from another club? Not likely IMO. And with the numbers he has put up to merit being a Type A free agent he would likely command a nice raise in the arbitration process. So, in the end, getting picks for Weathers is a slim possibility. If Weathers was thought to not likely accept arbitration other teams would have been all over him. Trade a couple prospects. Have Weathers help out in the pen for two months. Then get two draft picks. If clubs did not offer much for Weathers it is because they think there are gonna be no draft choices at the end of the David Weathers rainbow.

And now watch me be completely wrong. =)

kpresidente
08-03-2008, 10:58 AM
Remember, Hanley Ramirez was *just* a .260 batting Double A guy at one point too, and Darryl Thompson was an injured throw in insult from Jim Bowden in that 2006 trade. Sometimes those throw ins turn out to be promising. That Lincoln guy who was a reject seems to be doing well, along with that Rule 5 reject Burton.

Yeah, and we could also go on a 10-game winning streak and be right back in the thick of things. Why waste time arguing which 1-in-a-million shot is going to come through?

Here's the thing...and this is going to shock some of you...it IS possible to NOT have an opinion when you don't have much information.

I don't support or oppose WJ for not trading those guys. I have no idea what was offered, so I don't have an opinion. If it came out that he turned down a decent offer, then I'd have an opinion. Until then, what's there to say?

LouisvilleCARDS
08-03-2008, 05:31 PM
Yeah, and we could also go on a 10-game winning streak and be right back in the thick of things. Why waste time arguing which 1-in-a-million shot is going to come through?

Here's the thing...and this is going to shock some of you...it IS possible to NOT have an opinion when you don't have much information.

I don't support or oppose WJ for not trading those guys. I have no idea what was offered, so I don't have an opinion. If it came out that he turned down a decent offer, then I'd have an opinion. Until then, what's there to say?

Because its a no risk proposition to trade the guys? I don't think thats what people get. But yeah, lets stand pat. We're enjoying the cellar too much, lets see how deep the rabbit hole can go with this.

FlightRick
08-03-2008, 09:10 PM
A couple quick things, since I've managed to get myself so vested in this thread....

A "no risk propostion"? That might be debateable, or at least, I might insist on a re-wording... trading away certain guys for non-prospects may entail little "risk," but that's not the same as it being a "no-cost proposition." And maybe as we have this discussion about making the most of our assets, *that* is the important thing.

Going back to a previous example of mine: David Weathers may not have any huge value, and thus, your "risk assessment" of giving him up for nothing is probably accurate enough. But that doesn't mean the COST is zero. It's the case of suddenly being charged one whole American dollar to dumpster dive: Weathers ain't worth a whole lot, but he's still folding money, and I just don't comprehend how you go out and spend that on known-garbage when you can keep it in your pocket. No, our lives wouldn't be substantially changed if we squandered that meager dollar bill, and so no, this isn't a hugely risky proposition.... but let's also not be blind to the fact that $1 is still greater than $0.

And if the Reds have a handful of players of that nominal value, then things start to add up a bit. I don't care if you look at it in terms of maintaining a minimal level of quality on the 2008 roster, or if you look at it in terms of draft picks for the future, it's still money in our pocket. A tiny amount, yes. Our petty case, maybe. A discretionary fund, to be sure. But just because we wouldn't miss it doesn't mean we can't make use of it.

Also:

If Affeldt accepted arbitration from us, I would dance a jig. Dude's been solid (for two years, now), but I hate multi-year deals for relievers. And he'd be a guy who'd probably rate a 3-year contract. You're telling me he'd settle for 1 year? And I'm supposed to feel like he's screwing us? Nuh uh.

Weathers, on the other hand? If he accepted arbitration, that would torpedo some of my little theory, here... but I don't think he would. He's old, but he's not THAT old (38). He's also pitching very well the past few years. He might see the end of the road ahead, but I promise you he doesn't see it coming at the end of 2009, so he's probably going to value the security of one last multi-year deal. If he was a year or two older or a notch or three less-effective, I could see him squeezing a team in arbitration; as it stands, that just wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for him, I don't think. So bring on the draft picks....


Rick

kpresidente
08-03-2008, 09:37 PM
Because its a no risk proposition to trade the guys? I don't think thats what people get. But yeah, lets stand pat. We're enjoying the cellar too much, lets see how deep the rabbit hole can go with this.

Uh, huh.

The return on David Weathers is what's really going to put us over the top.:rolleyes:

Good thing you're not GM. You'd have probably sent Dunn packing for Juan Pierre. After all, what's to lose? We're in last place.

Kingspoint
08-04-2008, 04:52 AM
Ummm, you can't have it both ways: those players developing (to various degrees; let's not all get ahead of ourselves with Thompson or anything) is not an accident. They are the result of careful analysis and effort by the Front Office.

The same Front Office that -- two posts above -- was said to be "very bad at their jobs" because they are standing around doing nothing when they could be flinging our poo at other teams and seeing what they fling back.

So which is it?



I think you're referring to my post a couple above yours and I did try to make it clear to give Jockety credit on how he's handled the talent given him thus far. I think the words I used were "impressed". If not I can find it on another post where I've said "I've been pleased or impressed with how Jockety has handled promotions (and demotions) since he's been here.

Acquiring talent/exchanging talent is a completely different job description from developing the talent that you have, though. One area, Jockety has been very good so far (as good as Krivsky was doing), and with the other (acquiring/replacing talent) he's been poor at.

Though one thing to defend Jockety with is Krivsky and O'Brien left him with a lot less to improve then what they had to deal with when they each arrived. It's more difficult to improve the system for Jockety than it was for Krivsky.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-04-2008, 10:44 AM
Dunn for Juan Pierre.. I would have taken that.. then we could afford another Pitcher as well.. and its a huge upgrade defensively..

redsbuckeye
08-04-2008, 11:46 AM
Dunn for Juan Pierre.. I would have taken that.. then we could afford another Pitcher as well.. and its a huge upgrade defensively..

I hope you're kidding. Pierre made $8 mil compared to Dunn's $13. Do you really expect that extra $5 mil to add much marginal value over the pitchers the Reds are already paying, not even considering the dropoff in offensive production?

Put it this way, Pierre's been worth about a win and a half over a scrub player so far this year, whereas Dunn has been worth almost 5 wins. How are you going to spend $5 mil to not only replace those 3.5 wins in pitchers, but actually get better?

By all accounts, Pierre is a well below-average hitter, and really isn't a good fielder to boot (the difference between Dunn and Pierre this year is slight).

Ahhhorsepoo
08-04-2008, 12:39 PM
Pierre wouldn't let all the balls get to the wall saving more than 1 run a week.. and he is a leadoff hitter.. hairston might be better this year.. but pierre can get on base, and truly become a distraction to a pitcher..
5 mil saved on dunn and 5 mil saved on griffey(with replacements like pierre and brian giles), and not signing a few more foggs, stantons and patterson.. and BAM you have 15 mil to spend on a legit pitcher..

Giles and Pierre are upgrades on defense, and save even 4 runs a month are saved by their defense(which is conservative considering dunn has cost the reds at least 6 runs this week....), you then need 20 less offensive runs to get the same total production..
thats how you win..

redsbuckeye
08-04-2008, 01:27 PM
Pierre wouldn't let all the balls get to the wall saving more than 1 run a week.. and he is a leadoff hitter.. hairston might be better this year.. but pierre can get on base, and truly become a distraction to a pitcher..
5 mil saved on dunn and 5 mil saved on griffey(with replacements like pierre and brian giles), and not signing a few more foggs, stantons and patterson.. and BAM you have 15 mil to spend on a legit pitcher..

Giles and Pierre are upgrades on defense, and save even 4 runs a month are saved by their defense(which is conservative considering dunn has cost the reds at least 6 runs this week....), you then need 20 less offensive runs to get the same total production..
thats how you win..

So how are you getting Giles? How much do you think the guy would cost either for trade or through free agency? And where are you getting these numbers? Off the top of your head? Any documentation on those?

This year, Dunn's been about 3 runs better than a replacement player in the field, and 42 runs on offense. Pierre is 6 runs better on defense (so only 3 runs better than Dunn for the entire year) and 6 runs better on offense. Let me think about that. Even looking back at their career defensive numbers, the two are about the same. Not to mention you're talking about the position where defense is least important other than first base.

And Pierre doesn't get on base, not well at least, sporting a .324 OBP compared to Dunn's .384. I won't even get in to the slugging difference.

For a difference of only $5 mil, this makes Dunn look like a steal compared to Pierre, who is awful, bottom line.

Giles is good, but you have to figure out a way to get him.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/dunnad01.php
http://www.baseballprospectus.com/dt/pierrju01.php

gilpdawg
08-04-2008, 01:38 PM
Dunn for Juan Pierre.. I would have taken that.. then we could afford another Pitcher as well.. and its a huge upgrade defensively..

Well, at least I know I didn't accidently hit the Old Red Guard button after seeing that nonsensical post.

You hate Dunn, we get it.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-04-2008, 01:49 PM
QUIT PUTTING WORDS IN MY MOUTH.. I DONT HATE DUNN.. I JUST AM HARD ON THE GUY BECAUSE I THINK THAT MONEY WOULD BE SPENT BETTER ELSEWHERE, SINCE IT IS OBVIOUS HE WONT BE PLAYING UP TO HIS POTENTIAL ANY TIME SOON!!!

HOW about you get that?!

Ahhhorsepoo
08-04-2008, 01:51 PM
Trade or Free Agency.. unfortunately we have been tied into dunn for the last 4 years.. when FA's like Pierre, Giles, Soriano, and a MASSIVE COMPANY have come up.. get rid of Dunn and get a good corner outfielder when he comes available, even if that is waiting until next year..

redsbuckeye
08-04-2008, 02:07 PM
Trade or Free Agency.. unfortunately we have been tied into dunn for the last 4 years.. when FA's like Pierre, Giles, Soriano, and a MASSIVE COMPANY have come up.. get rid of Dunn and get a good corner outfielder when he comes available, even if that is waiting until next year..


Except all those guys aren't as good as Dunn (and Soriano makes more than Dunn). Soriano is comparable at best. We've discovered that Pierre is, actually, awful. And Giles makes 9.6 so you'd only be saving 3.4 million. Giles is also 37, how many more years do you think he has left in the tank?

You aren't putting together your premise of getting a cheaper outfielder to replace Dunn, getting another pitcher with the money you've saved and somehow in the process getting better. Tell me who's replacing Dunn, and tell me what pitcher you're trading for or signing. And tell me how much you expect to pay. You've got this nebulous idea of getting better by letting Dunn go but you haven't explained how.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-04-2008, 02:46 PM
Dunn is TERRIBLE.. have you honestly ever watched his defense from an eye that is not reds colored? he can't field his way out of a bag.. he has cost this team almost as many games as he has won for them.. and as a big contract guy.. that ratio shouldn't even be near the same..

redsbuckeye
08-04-2008, 02:58 PM
Dunn is TERRIBLE.. have you honestly ever watched his defense from an eye that is not reds colored? he can't field his way out of a bag.. he has cost this team almost as many games as he has won for them.. and as a big contract guy.. that ratio shouldn't even be near the same..

Are you making this up? I think you are. I want you to back up that statement with numbers. Show me where Dunn has cost the Reds games in hard statistics. I ask for statistics because they don't lie. You, on the other hand, submit to your confirmation bias. It is your opinion that he's terrible because you've forced an image into your head about what he is, but given no consideration to what he actually does. The combination of your eyes, brain and opinions have in fact colored your view of him. From now on, try using just your brain and the simple numbers associated with how he is really affected the team.

Try reading the basics articles on BaseballProspectus.com

Ahhhorsepoo
08-04-2008, 03:03 PM
redsbuckeye.. you have no idea what you are talking about.. none WHAT SO EVER!!! did you watch the game yesterday? that didnt cost us runs, and potentially the game..

While Dunn gives up many many runs on defense, there is no real proof that A) they cause the team to get down on itself.. B) every time like yesterday where he basically allowed the winning run.. it's not a promise they would have won otherwise.. and C) they should be able to score more than 2 runs anyway..

you can't honestly think that his poor play in the field hasn't cost us more than a few games a year..

Sorry but with Brandon Phillips suddenly having a EE like month, and volquez seemingly having batting practice innings.. you have to think that losing all these games sooooo bad is getting to these guys mentally..

you want me to mail you a tape of yesterdays game? I need an address since I have to spoon feed you the proof that Adam Dunn is no better than you in left field..

jimbo
08-04-2008, 03:10 PM
Dunn for Juan Pierre.. I would have taken that..

Wow, just wow!!!

redsbuckeye
08-04-2008, 03:32 PM
redsbuckeye.. you have no idea what you are talking about.. none WHAT SO EVER!!! did you watch the game yesterday? that didnt cost us runs, and potentially the game..

Well I apparently know more than you do, by using unbiased sources of information and not letting my eyes get the best of me.


While Dunn gives up many many runs on defense, there is no real proof that A) they cause the team to get down on itself.. B) every time like yesterday where he basically allowed the winning run.. it's not a promise they would have won otherwise.. and C) they should be able to score more than 2 runs anyway..

Who's to say every other left fielder hasn't had games like that? Have you watched every game by every left fielder? It happens to all of them. And how can you be sure that the outcome had been any different if he hadn't made the mistake? Coulda, shoulda woulda.


you can't honestly think that his poor play in the field hasn't cost us more than a few games a year..

It's cost some runs, lets be sure. But to say it's cost us a few games is bull. That game was lost 4-2. Why aren't you blaming the offense for not scoring more than 2 runs? Why aren't you blaming pitching for setting up a bad situation or giving up homers? You're so focused on the easily picked out play that you've ingnored all the other plays that happened during the course of the game. That was the first inning for crying out loud!

In addition, how many games has his offense won for us? If you took all of his offense out, how well do you think the team would do?


Sorry but with Brandon Phillips suddenly having a EE like month, and volquez seemingly having batting practice innings.. you have to think that losing all these games sooooo bad is getting to these guys mentally..

What of it? Why don't you ask the players if they think Dunn's error has affected them mentally. How about this: the players need to buck up when crap happens and work harder when it does. If they all fall apart at the slightest sign of adversity, well then they're bad players. They need to have the mental fortitude to play through the bad.

Also, if winning breeds more winning, why aren't they still winning? They've gone through a couple of nice stretches this year.


you want me to mail you a tape of yesterdays game? I need an address since I have to spoon feed you the proof that Adam Dunn is no better than you in left field..

Pfft. I have a better idea, mail me a video compilation of every play that every left fielder has made this year. I'll mail you back videos of every player that makes them look bad. Confirmation bias.

Look, Dunn is by no stretch of the imagination a good left fielder. But to pin so much blame on a position that typically has the lowest contribution to win shares is like stubbing your toe and saying the world mugged you.

And you still haven't given me a scenario in which Dunn is let go and is replaced by others and getting better with the money saved.

Jack Burton
08-04-2008, 05:10 PM
I think we can all agree that Dunn's defense in LF is laughable. He's a future 1B or DH.

redsbuckeye
08-04-2008, 05:18 PM
I think we can all agree that Dunn's defense in LF is laughable. He's a future 1B or DH.

I'd disagree. Laughable is a bit extreme, more like noticeably below average. The key is given his stellar offensive production the team can deal with his poor defensive ability as he makes up for it.

Dunn would make sense as a DH but unfortunately that's not a luxury the Reds have. Dunn's also probably even worse at 1st. LF is really the only answer.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-04-2008, 05:48 PM
Well I apparently know more than you do, by using unbiased sources of information and not letting my eyes get the best of me.



Who's to say every other left fielder hasn't had games like that? Have you watched every game by every left fielder? It happens to all of them. And how can you be sure that the outcome had been any different if he hadn't made the mistake? Coulda, shoulda woulda.



It's cost some runs, lets be sure. But to say it's cost us a few games is bull. That game was lost 4-2. Why aren't you blaming the offense for not scoring more than 2 runs? Why aren't you blaming pitching for setting up a bad situation or giving up homers? You're so focused on the easily picked out play that you've ingnored all the other plays that happened during the course of the game. That was the first inning for crying out loud!

In addition, how many games has his offense won for us? If you took all of his offense out, how well do you think the team would do?



What of it? Why don't you ask the players if they think Dunn's error has affected them mentally. How about this: the players need to buck up when crap happens and work harder when it does. If they all fall apart at the slightest sign of adversity, well then they're bad players. They need to have the mental fortitude to play through the bad.

Also, if winning breeds more winning, why aren't they still winning? They've gone through a couple of nice stretches this year.



Pfft. I have a better idea, mail me a video compilation of every play that every left fielder has made this year. I'll mail you back videos of every player that makes them look bad. Confirmation bias.

Look, Dunn is by no stretch of the imagination a good left fielder. But to pin so much blame on a position that typically has the lowest contribution to win shares is like stubbing your toe and saying the world mugged you.

And you still haven't given me a scenario in which Dunn is let go and is replaced by others and getting better with the money saved.

your lack of comprehension amazes me.. I said you can't prove his defense makes everyone mess us.. but by correlation, you would have to assume the TOTAL defensive letdown is because this team isn't winning..

for a guy paid to be a leader, BY OFFENSE he surely dissapears at times when he is needed most..

Heck Kenny Lofton a FA... was an option as a leadoff man and a great glove in the outfield.. then you have cf du jour in LF and Lofton in Center.. not as a long term option, but for this and maybe next year until a big name FA comes up, or you bring up a guy like votto to play LF when alonso comes up..

or Preston Wilson coulda been an option for a few years...

Ahhhorsepoo
08-04-2008, 05:51 PM
and you save 10 mil at least!

LouisvilleCARDS
08-04-2008, 06:20 PM
A couple quick things, since I've managed to get myself so vested in this thread....

A "no risk propostion"? That might be debateable, or at least, I might insist on a re-wording... trading away certain guys for non-prospects may entail little "risk," but that's not the same as it being a "no-cost proposition." And maybe as we have this discussion about making the most of our assets, *that* is the important thing.

Going back to a previous example of mine: David Weathers may not have any huge value, and thus, your "risk assessment" of giving him up for nothing is probably accurate enough. But that doesn't mean the COST is zero. It's the case of suddenly being charged one whole American dollar to dumpster dive: Weathers ain't worth a whole lot, but he's still folding money, and I just don't comprehend how you go out and spend that on known-garbage when you can keep it in your pocket. No, our lives wouldn't be substantially changed if we squandered that meager dollar bill, and so no, this isn't a hugely risky proposition.... but let's also not be blind to the fact that $1 is still greater than $0.

And if the Reds have a handful of players of that nominal value, then things start to add up a bit. I don't care if you look at it in terms of maintaining a minimal level of quality on the 2008 roster, or if you look at it in terms of draft picks for the future, it's still money in our pocket. A tiny amount, yes. Our petty case, maybe. A discretionary fund, to be sure. But just because we wouldn't miss it doesn't mean we can't make use of it.

Also:

If Affeldt accepted arbitration from us, I would dance a jig. Dude's been solid (for two years, now), but I hate multi-year deals for relievers. And he'd be a guy who'd probably rate a 3-year contract. You're telling me he'd settle for 1 year? And I'm supposed to feel like he's screwing us? Nuh uh.

Weathers, on the other hand? If he accepted arbitration, that would torpedo some of my little theory, here... but I don't think he would. He's old, but he's not THAT old (38). He's also pitching very well the past few years. He might see the end of the road ahead, but I promise you he doesn't see it coming at the end of 2009, so he's probably going to value the security of one last multi-year deal. If he was a year or two older or a notch or three less-effective, I could see him squeezing a team in arbitration; as it stands, that just wouldn't make a whole lot of sense for him, I don't think. So bring on the draft picks....


Rick


You act like giving them up would be for nothing. What say you about high risk guys? I mean, why sign some ex druggie who hasn't played the game in three years? Man that was stupid huh? Jeez that Burton guy, don't know what we were thinking there either. Just proves my point, the Reds have scouts for every team. You act like they're pulling a name out of the hat on a trade, which is understandable considering how ridiculously inept this team has been for years. So its not surprising someone would think that basically is what it comes down to when dealing a guy.

Anyway you're missing the point, I don't see any point arguing with you. We're horrible, in last place, and you keep responding that trading them for nominal prospects is a bad move? What is there to SAVE in this year by keeping them around? That's my question, and you can't seem to answer it directly.

They're free agents at the end of the year, so we have just as good a shot of getting them next year, if the Reds are that crazy in a lot of cases. The sole purpose, maybe for Affeldt, is if Cueto gets wore out, he can come and and be a starter and give Cueto the year off to shut it down. That's about the only thing worth a player being around nowadays, to use them in case they decide to shut Cueto or Volquez down.

redsbuckeye
08-04-2008, 07:00 PM
your lack of comprehension amazes me.. I said you can't prove his defense makes everyone mess us.. but by correlation, you would have to assume the TOTAL defensive letdown is because this team isn't winning..

for a guy paid to be a leader, BY OFFENSE he surely dissapears at times when he is needed most..

Heck Kenny Lofton a FA... was an option as a leadoff man and a great glove in the outfield.. then you have cf du jour in LF and Lofton in Center.. not as a long term option, but for this and maybe next year until a big name FA comes up, or you bring up a guy like votto to play LF when alonso comes up..

or Preston Wilson coulda been an option for a few years...

My comprehension is fine, but I can only make so much of incorherent strings of statements that seem to have little relation to each other and are preposterously presented as arguments. Arguments, mind you, that have completely lacked any relevant statistical information. Do you know what statistics are? And you've really failed to address any points I've made on the subject.

Kenny Lofton is essentially retired, what the hell do you expect from a 41 year old? Do you really think a half season, maybe a full, is worth it from him? Do you really think replacing Dunn with Lofton is going to make this team better? Is that even your argument? As for Preston Wilson, a guy who hasn't done anything worth mentioning in 5 years. Is he even playing right now? I can't tell because your ramblings are hard to decipher.

Let me help you out with a format:
Make an argument, such as "Lofton will be better for the Reds"
Back it up with facts, such as "Lofton is better because he saves X amount of dollars, has X statistics which are better than Dunn."

As it is, you've done nothing but assert that Dunn sucks without a shred of statistical evidence. Do you see what I'm saying?

And still, no scenario for improvement, let me help you out with that format too:
Dunn walks away from the Reds, $13 mil freed up for salary, but lost X amount of wins.
$X spent on player X, who provides X amount of wins.
$Y spent on player Y, who provideds Y amount of wins, and so on until you've spent $13 mil and replaced Dunn and somehow gotten better.

Frankly, I don't think you can do it. What you will do is is blast my reading comprehension or call me out on something unrelated to the argument, or make some other assinine attack at me at which point you will have proven that it is in fact your reading comprehension that is lacking. But I've doubt you've read this far.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-04-2008, 08:43 PM
My comprehension is fine, but I can only make so much of incorherent strings of statements that seem to have little relation to each other and are preposterously presented as arguments. Arguments, mind you, that have completely lacked any relevant statistical information. Do you know what statistics are? And you've really failed to address any points I've made on the subject.

Kenny Lofton is essentially retired, what the hell do you expect from a 41 year old? Do you really think a half season, maybe a full, is worth it from him? Do you really think replacing Dunn with Lofton is going to make this team better? Is that even your argument? As for Preston Wilson, a guy who hasn't done anything worth mentioning in 5 years. Is he even playing right now? I can't tell because your ramblings are hard to decipher.

Let me help you out with a format:
Make an argument, such as "Lofton will be better for the Reds"
Back it up with facts, such as "Lofton is better because he saves X amount of dollars, has X statistics which are better than Dunn."

As it is, you've done nothing but assert that Dunn sucks without a shred of statistical evidence. Do you see what I'm saying?

And still, no scenario for improvement, let me help you out with that format too:
Dunn walks away from the Reds, $13 mil freed up for salary, but lost X amount of wins.
$X spent on player X, who provides X amount of wins.
$Y spent on player Y, who provideds Y amount of wins, and so on until you've spent $13 mil and replaced Dunn and somehow gotten better.

Frankly, I don't think you can do it. What you will do is is blast my reading comprehension or call me out on something unrelated to the argument, or make some other assinine attack at me at which point you will have proven that it is in fact your reading comprehension that is lacking. But I've doubt you've read this far.

the problem is.. like i stated before i have shown the statistics that are actually relevant many many times before and I am not your baseball-reference.com so i will not continue to spew facts to people who want to construe them..

To prove your point completely wrong and make you need to find another "flaw" there is no evidence that dunn would win ANY games.. people can say he is worth "45" or "-45" wins.. but no matter what it is speculation.. soo to tell me those are statistics that are backed up..

don;t know what scientific backing that has.. considering it is not accounting for all of the extenuating factors that can't be calculated..

there is no control in this "statistic" because to have a control you must have something that is completely repeatable across all specimens..

sooo scientifically your argument is terrible.. soo again.. where is your statistical data to backup your argument since you say mine isn't statistical..

stats are like.. he has.. 190 strikeouts..

it happened.. there is no argument.. your objective "numbers of wins" are completely stupid to argue with when you tell me my stats are "objective"..

redsbuckeye
08-04-2008, 09:00 PM
the problem is.. like i stated before i have shown the statistics that are actually relevant many many times before and I am not your baseball-reference.com so i will not continue to spew facts to people who want to construe them..

To prove your point completely wrong and make you need to find another "flaw" there is no evidence that dunn would win ANY games.. people can say he is worth "45" or "-45" wins.. but no matter what it is speculation.. soo to tell me those are statistics that are backed up..

don;t know what scientific backing that has.. considering it is not accounting for all of the extenuating factors that can't be calculated..

there is no control in this "statistic" because to have a control you must have something that is completely repeatable across all specimens..

sooo scientifically your argument is terrible.. soo again.. where is your statistical data to backup your argument since you say mine isn't statistical..

stats are like.. he has.. 190 strikeouts..

it happened.. there is no argument.. your objective "numbers of wins" are completely stupid to argue with when you tell me my stats are "objective"..

It's called WARP, wins above replacement player, and it's absolutely backed up by statistical analysis, something I guess you've never studied. It's a hard, actual number. Go to Baseballprospectus.com and read up and tell me what's wrong with the forumula and the analysis associated with it. Otherwise you're engaging in an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack.

It's really a simple idea, players contributions to the team either create or prevent runs. That difference in runs equates to wins or losses. The more runs created and the more prevented means more overall wins. Just figure which stats make the most impact. Simple, right?

Read up on correlation and correlation coefficient. Then I suggest you check a dictionary to see what "objective" and "subjective" mean.

LouisvilleCARDS
08-04-2008, 09:14 PM
I agree that statistical analysis is overblown. It may be an "Actual" number, but its subjective. Meaning, some guy made a formula for its use. What he set the parameters as, is completely SUBJECTIVE. He can set his formula to whatever he wants.

I don't keep up with too many formulas in baseball, but overall in sports, games aren't won by Saragin, RPI, Power Ranks, and so on. They could be used as a tool, but not as the end all be all. I think there's a lot more bigger problems on the team than Adam Dunn for sure, statistical analysis or not.

redsbuckeye
08-04-2008, 09:20 PM
I agree that statistical analysis is overblown. It may be an "Actual" number, but its subjective. Meaning, some guy made a formula for its use. What he set the parameters as, is completely SUBJECTIVE. He can set his formula to whatever he wants.

I don't keep up with too many formulas in baseball, but overall in sports, games aren't won by Saragin, RPI, Power Ranks, and so on. They could be used as a tool, but not as the end all be all. I think there's a lot more bigger problems on the team than Adam Dunn for sure, statistical analysis or not.

They're not perfect, but when put together for an entire team they very accurately predict results. The PECOTA calculations are a prime example.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-05-2008, 01:07 AM
It's called WARP, wins above replacement player, and it's absolutely backed up by statistical analysis, something I guess you've never studied. It's a hard, actual number. Go to Baseballprospectus.com and read up and tell me what's wrong with the forumula and the analysis associated with it. Otherwise you're engaging in an ad hominem (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem) attack.

It's really a simple idea, players contributions to the team either create or prevent runs. That difference in runs equates to wins or losses. The more runs created and the more prevented means more overall wins. Just figure which stats make the most impact. Simple, right?

Read up on correlation and correlation coefficient. Then I suggest you check a dictionary to see what "objective" and "subjective" mean.

i know what r and r squared are for statistics.. thank you.. but no matter what telling me anything about a range factor and such IS up to someones "range and PO" idea of what they "should" get..

redsbuckeye
08-05-2008, 09:22 AM
i know what r and r squared are for statistics.. thank you.. but no matter what telling me anything about a range factor and such IS up to someones "range and PO" idea of what they "should" get..

You say it as if these stats have never been tested and are just "made up" to fulfill some guy's notions about what baseball should look like.

It doesn't work that way, why on earth would someone who wants to understand the game better use untested material or throw a bunch of numbers at each other and call it good? What they do is take past numbers that also have results (like wins, you know, what you play for) and make formulas that take the basics and model the results. And these get tested many many times. If the formula doesn't predict the correct results, then it's reviewed, reformulated and tested again (you know, that thing called the scientific method). Finally, when the formula consitently predicts the results, you've got yourself a useful stat. Which is why people now are looking at batting average and batter strikeouts in new light because they don't predict results that well.

But honestly I can see I'm wasting my time here. No matter how much evidence you put in front of people they stick their fingers in their ears and close their eyes and scream "lalala I can't HEAR you!" That's because people don't want their preconceived notions challenged and they want the comfort in being right, even when they aren't. You sir, are not right. But I guess I can only tell you so many times and show you so many things that prove the earth is round and you will insist, beyond any reason, that the earth is flat. I can't open your eyes for you.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-05-2008, 11:32 AM
the earth is round.. look at the verrazano-narrows bridge for proof.. thanks.. but on another note..

just because a team wins based on a game winning hit doesnt mean that that is the game winning play.. or that the range factor for defenders, is a real thing.. I personally think anything from foul line to left center is the range that the left fielder SHOULD be covering..

I constantly see the ball slowly roll to the wall in left center and hit the stupid jr dunn m&M sign, and dunn is NOWHERE to be found.. sorry but that ball is as much his ball as it is the CF.. and he simply doesn't have range.. but someones "stats" tell you he does soo whatever..

redsbuckeye
08-05-2008, 12:06 PM
the earth is round.. look at the verrazano-narrows bridge for proof.. thanks.. but on another note..

just because a team wins based on a game winning hit doesnt mean that that is the game winning play.. or that the range factor for defenders, is a real thing.. I personally think anything from foul line to left center is the range that the left fielder SHOULD be covering..

I constantly see the ball slowly roll to the wall in left center and hit the stupid jr dunn m&M sign, and dunn is NOWHERE to be found.. sorry but that ball is as much his ball as it is the CF.. and he simply doesn't have range.. but someones "stats" tell you he does soo whatever..

You're completely strawmanning everything I say now. Have it your way. I guess I can take comfort in the fact you're not running the team.

LouisvilleCARDS
08-10-2008, 03:37 PM
You act like giving them up would be for nothing. What say you about high risk guys? I mean, why sign some ex druggie who hasn't played the game in three years? Man that was stupid huh? Jeez that Burton guy, don't know what we were thinking there either. Just proves my point, the Reds have scouts for every team. You act like they're pulling a name out of the hat on a trade, which is understandable considering how ridiculously inept this team has been for years. So its not surprising someone would think that basically is what it comes down to when dealing a guy.

Anyway you're missing the point, I don't see any point arguing with you. We're horrible, in last place, and you keep responding that trading them for nominal prospects is a bad move? What is there to SAVE in this year by keeping them around? That's my question, and you can't seem to answer it directly.

They're free agents at the end of the year, so we have just as good a shot of getting them next year, if the Reds are that crazy in a lot of cases. The sole purpose, maybe for Affeldt, is if Cueto gets wore out, he can come and and be a starter and give Cueto the year off to shut it down. That's about the only thing worth a player being around nowadays, to use them in case they decide to shut Cueto or Volquez down.

Ross got released today, just an FYI. Like to see how some people defend it now. Hmm ... paying a guy's salary for the rest of the year when he's not even on the team versus having a chance to trade him, and at the very least, losing the salary. Not to mention for one of those gosh darn minor leaguers that weren't worth a damn right? But hey, releasing a guy is MUCH better? :rolleyes:

Reds management at its finest.

aerontg
08-10-2008, 06:01 PM
You're completely strawmanning everything I say now. Have it your way. I guess I can take comfort in the fact you're not running the team.

I do not agree. Horsepoo has a valid point. There are some things in life that don't need statistics to prove those 'things' are reality. One example being, as Horsepoo pointed out, that Dunn does not have range. It's only the Dunn defenders that would claim otherwise, IMO.

redsbuckeye
08-11-2008, 01:13 PM
I do not agree. Horsepoo has a valid point. There are some things in life that don't need statistics to prove those 'things' are reality. One example being, as Horsepoo pointed out, that Dunn does not have range. It's only the Dunn defenders that would claim otherwise, IMO.

That's beside the point of the post you quoted.

But anyway, just because there isn't a common in-use stat for everybody to use doesn't mean you can't quantify how much range a fielder has. If you were to analyze every play one makes and maybe assign a distance traveled from starting point to play made and averaged them all, I think you'd probably have a pretty good idea of a fielder's true range.

You could go further by assigning weighted averages to the further distances traveled and score them if the play was made or not. IE, if a guy makes a play that required him to travel 10 feet from his starting point, he's awarded 1 point. If he misses it, he loses 5 points. A 50 foot play may award a guy 5 points if the play is made but only lose 1 point if it's missed because it's a much hard play to make. Maybe add in adjustments for how long the play took. Test the system, tweak it, voila, new stat.

No one's going to do it because it isn't practical to measure the distance of all plays made, it'd take a team for each game that no one will want to pay. But that doesn't mean you can't look at it from an objective standpoint.

The problem with rating guys based on the plays you see, is that you're subject to your own biases and you're also only witnessing a small subset of the stats. Small sample sizes make for bad evaluations, that's basic statistics. Confirmation bias also comes in to play in that one bad play can stick on the mind of an individual despite 10 good plays also being made, or vice-versa. In other words, when you rate a guy based on what you see, you're giving your opinion.

It's the Jeter vs. Arod SS debate. Jeter makes all these spectacular plays and looks great doing them, but looks are deceiving. All those same plays Arod might've made easily, without acrobatics. By all means Arod would be better because of it, but it wasn't pretty or exciting, so it doesn't stick in the brain. In fact, objective stats show that Arod is a pretty good SS while Jeter is one of the worst.

That's why people like to create ideas like "leadership" and "clutch" and say guys are good at them without saying how much offense/defense/wins they're worth. I mean, how many wins was Greg Vaughn's leadership worth to the 1999 Reds? If you can't quantify it, how can you say it even exists? They use these ideas as crutches for their biases since the actual stats don't support the notion of a player being good or bad. So they use the intagible argument to skew the argument.

As for Dunn's fielding, I'm not saying it's good. In fact, it's below average by a fair amount. The point I'm trying to make is left field, other than first base, has the least amount of impact on the outcome of a game in terms of fielding. Dunn's offense is worth well more than his negative defensive ability. The reason why his offense is good is another debate.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-11-2008, 02:01 PM
well if he isnt makin an impact in the field.. and more than half the year he isnt making a positive impact at the plate.. why does he deserve a contract even half as good as a guy like arod..?!

redsbuckeye
08-11-2008, 02:24 PM
well if he isnt makin an impact in the field.. and more than half the year he isnt making a positive impact at the plate.. why does he deserve a contract even half as good as a guy like arod..?!

No no, don't strawman again, that's dishonest.

Dunn doesn't deserve an Arod contract, I never said that or even implied it. Dunn probably should make between 13 and 16 mil, but that's a far cry from Arod's 28 mil.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-11-2008, 03:10 PM
I am literally saying if he doesnt contribute at the plate more than half the year.. and his defense is average AT BEST.. why does he even deserve 14 mil..?!

redsbuckeye
08-11-2008, 03:44 PM
I am literally saying if he doesnt contribute at the plate more than half the year.. and his defense is average AT BEST.. why does he even deserve 14 mil..?!

I guess it doesn't matter much anymore.

But look at other guys who make around that and tell me how great they are.

Ahhhorsepoo
08-11-2008, 05:08 PM
they arent the center pieces.. and if they are they dont have slumps of 10-25 games.. they just are usually pretty consistent with 1 or 2 homers a week with 3-8 rbi's a week..