PDA

View Full Version : Reds release David Ross



mound_patrol
08-10-2008, 11:36 AM
Per MLB text messaging. Ryan Hannigan has been called up to replace him.

robmadden1
08-10-2008, 11:39 AM
http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/transactions/index.jsp

fadetoblack2880
08-10-2008, 11:41 AM
Good. Cut off the dead weight.

mound_patrol
08-10-2008, 11:44 AM
Atleast we'll have a decent amount of time to evaluate what Hannigan can do for us.

nectarine
08-10-2008, 11:45 AM
Ryan arrived in Cinci this morning after being told last night. If at all possible, can someone pm the best suburbs/residential areas around Cinci? Would be greatly appreciated.

Thanks!

gobucks106
08-10-2008, 11:47 AM
I like that they called up Hanigan. But why release Ross and not Bako. They are going to eat a lot of money in releasing Ross. He was rumorerd to be interested in by the Marlins. Now they picked up Paul LaDuco. Why didn't we trade him and try to get someone instead of eating his salary. I want to say he's making 3.5 million this year. Then they go and send Bailey down to activate Harang from the DL. Why not keep him in the rotation and sending out Fogg. The Rockies were supposedly interested. This team boggles my mind and their decision making. I don't get it. Same with Hariston. Hasn't played in seven days so our bench is short a player while we continue to send Patterson out their. Why not call up and see what Dickerson has. Don't get it!!!

ChatterRed
08-10-2008, 11:49 AM
Actually, I'm shocked.

I like bringing up Hanigan to see what he can do, but shocked that they just release a player like David Ross, who has been a decent player for them. He hasn't been spectacular, but neither has anyone else. I don't like treating players this way.

mound_patrol
08-10-2008, 11:51 AM
I don't know all the rules after the deadline, but don't we still get a 10 day window to trade him if somebody claims him?

birty74
08-10-2008, 11:58 AM
Phew. For a moment there, I thought we'd only have two catchers on the team.

Silly me.

Ghosts of 1990
08-10-2008, 12:10 PM
Wow. Ross cut

Chris Sabowned
08-10-2008, 01:19 PM
How does this happen? Bako is terrible, he does not belong in the Majors, and Javy isn't even a catcher. He doesn't do anything but pinch hit. Ross has decent pop, he's our best at throwing out runners, and hes a good bunter. Bad decision in my opinion.

TheBigLebowski
08-10-2008, 01:22 PM
I don't get this at all. Both Ross and Bako were equally defensively-deficient but at least Ross swings a serviceable bat. Furthermore, Pornstache is less useful than either one, despite Dusty's efforts to make him into Roberto Freel. This makes no sense whatsoever.

Strider
08-10-2008, 01:23 PM
I don't like treating players this way.

It's a business...and he gets paid regardless.
I'd like to get paid without working.
I think David Ross like all MLB players is being treated very well thank you...

bigredbunter
08-10-2008, 01:34 PM
Actually, I'm shocked.

I like bringing up Hanigan to see what he can do, but shocked that they just release a player like David Ross, who has been a decent player for them. He hasn't been spectacular, but neither has anyone else. I don't like treating players this way.

Ross was likely gone after the season anyway. The only purpose he served was to prevent them from getting a better look at Hannigan--Besides weren't the Marlins supposed to be interested in Ross? I think they have 10 days or something to trade him.

Slyder
08-10-2008, 02:07 PM
Why DFA Ross? If he just walks as a FA I miss Krivsky more. Krivsky seemed to have a knack for getting something for nothing just remember 40 yr old Jeff Conine this time of the year last year. I'm disgusted if a trade isnt close and he walks for nothing to someone like the Marlins.

texasdave
08-10-2008, 03:01 PM
If the Reds knew that Harang was starting Sunday, then they probably knew that Bailey was the one going down to make room for him. Why not send Bailey down the day after he pitched and bring up a position player since we are one short with poor handling of Hairston? At this point in a lost season I suppose it so much water under the bridge anyway.

markymark69
08-10-2008, 03:17 PM
Didn't see this coming. Not against it. As far as why not Bako? He's much better defensively than Ross, calls a better game, plus Dusty likes him.

Besides Ross was not going to be here next year and if they bring Bako back next year, he won't cost much.

757690
08-10-2008, 03:25 PM
Hannigan hits right handed, as does Ross. Bako handles Volquez and Cueto better. Ross might actually get a prospect in a trade, or at least be picked up on waivers which would save the Reds a little money. Seems to make sense to me.

LouisvilleCARDS
08-10-2008, 03:33 PM
Ross was likely gone after the season anyway. The only purpose he served was to prevent them from getting a better look at Hannigan--Besides weren't the Marlins supposed to be interested in Ross? I think they have 10 days or something to trade him.

Yeah exactly. Marlins were supposedly interested in Ross AND Weathers. But of course, according to Reds management, there were no deals that were "knocking their socks off." But hey, RELEASING a guy is MUCH better than trading him, right?

texasdave
08-10-2008, 03:46 PM
Hannigan hits right handed, as does Ross. Bako handles Volquez and Cueto better. Ross might actually get a prospect in a trade, or at least be picked up on waivers which would save the Reds a little money. Seems to make sense to me.

Would it then have made a little more sense to do this 10 days ago at the deadline when teams were inquiring about Ross and the Reds may have had a little more leverage? What leverage do they have now? A team that wants him puts in a claim. They can just wait the 10 days and then pick Ross up without giving up a thing. Additionally, if they wait the 10 days they only have to pay the pro-rated minimum salary so the Reds save almost nothing. Yeah, good move, Walt.

LouisvilleCARDS
08-10-2008, 03:56 PM
Would it then have made a little more sense to do this 10 days ago at the deadline when teams were inquiring about Ross and the Reds may have had a little more leverage? What leverage do they have now? A team that wants him puts in a claim. They can just wait the 10 days and then pick Ross up without giving up a thing. Additionally, if they wait the 10 days they only have to pay the pro-rated minimum salary so the Reds save almost nothing. Yeah, good move, Walt.

Yup exactly. But some people would have you believing after the deadline it was a "good" move keeping the guys around, eating the salary, and getting nothing in return. Great job management. No wonder we're on our way to the worst record in baseball. :beerme:

757690
08-10-2008, 04:01 PM
Would it then have made a little more sense to do this 10 days ago at the deadline when teams were inquiring about Ross and the Reds may have had a little more leverage? What leverage do they have now? A team that wants him puts in a claim. They can just wait the 10 days and then pick Ross up without giving up a thing. Additionally, if they wait the 10 days they only have to pay the pro-rated minimum salary so the Reds save almost nothing. Yeah, good move, Walt.

Yeah, looking back, it would have been better to trade him then. But I think that at the trading deadline, the Reds really thought they could finish strong. Now that it is clear that they won't, the cleaning begins.
It was a very small gamble that they made that would have had very little effect on the team either way.
Now if they had great deal for Dunn that was much better than the two draft picks they would have received, that would be reason to be upset.

texasdave
08-10-2008, 04:07 PM
Reds' management should have written 2008 off back at the deadline instead of stating they were trying to win as many games in 2008 as they can. What happened in the last 10 days to change that goal? On July 31st it was important to win games and on August 10th it isn't? And now that they are starting to sell off the pieces does that mean they have officially thrown in the towel as well?

757690
08-10-2008, 04:34 PM
Reds' management should have written 2008 off back at the deadline instead of stating they were trying to win as many games in 2008 as they can. What happened in the last 10 days to change that goal? On July 31st it was important to win games and on August 10th it isn't? And now that they are starting to sell off the pieces does that mean they have officially thrown in the towel as well?

A 1-9 record. if they went just 6-4, they would still have had a good chance at finishing above .500. You can debate whether that was a good goal, but they made it clear that was their goal.

But the main point is that it just didn't matter. They weren't going to get anyone who could help the team at the trading deadline for Ross, and they aren't going to get anyone now.

LouisvilleCARDS
08-10-2008, 05:16 PM
A 1-9 record. if they went just 6-4, they would still have had a good chance at finishing above .500. You can debate whether that was a good goal, but they made it clear that was their goal.

But the main point is that it just didn't matter. They weren't going to get anyone who could help the team at the trading deadline for Ross, and they aren't going to get anyone now.

Maybe, but the team had what - over 100, 110 games or so to get to .500 before the trading deadline, and didn't? doubt we would have gotten much of anything for Ross, if we say, pulled that Weathers and Ross rumored trade to the Marlins. But the point is, at least it's something. I think the fanbase is just completely sick of the stagnancy within the organization.

If you're going to dedicate yourself to rebuilding, then do it 100%. This half assed stuff is making me sick. Get rid of Junior for a new "Era" but keep all the veteran below average waiver guys. Try to be fiscally responsible and get the most bang for your buck, but then go and do irresponsible knee jerk free agent signings like overpaying for a closer what wasn't that special. Wow, to think of it, have we had a real "big name" free agent signing thats turned out good since Greg Vaughn in 1999?

At this point, its just hopeless. We need upgrades at about every position. That doesn't come with burning millions on one player multiyear deal - much less a CLOSER - a guy who will probably only play in what - a fourth or so of your games? It has to be an organization wide dedication to getting younger and being fiscally responsible.

757690
08-10-2008, 05:55 PM
Maybe, but the team had what - over 100, 110 games or so to get to .500 before the trading deadline, and didn't? doubt we would have gotten much of anything for Ross, if we say, pulled that Weathers and Ross rumored trade to the Marlins. But the point is, at least it's something. I think the fanbase is just completely sick of the stagnancy within the organization.

If you're going to dedicate yourself to rebuilding, then do it 100%. This half assed stuff is making me sick. Get rid of Junior for a new "Era" but keep all the veteran below average waiver guys. Try to be fiscally responsible and get the most bang for your buck, but then go and do irresponsible knee jerk free agent signings like overpaying for a closer what wasn't that special. Wow, to think of it, have we had a real "big name" free agent signing thats turned out good since Greg Vaughn in 1999?

At this point, its just hopeless. We need upgrades at about every position. That doesn't come with burning millions on one player multiyear deal - much less a CLOSER - a guy who will probably only play in what - a fourth or so of your games? It has to be an organization wide dedication to getting younger and being fiscally responsible.


Let's say you own one share of a stock that is worth $3 a share. You think that there is a 1% chance that it could be worth $3.25 a share if you hold it for a month longer, and a 99% chance that it would be worth $2.98 a share in month.
If you hold onto it, you are betting two pennies that you might make a quarter. It is an extreme long shot, but since you are only risking two cents, you probably would hold onto it. But the more important point, is that either way, neither decision is going to change your lifestyle. This stock will not help you buy a new car, or pay for your kids education, or even let you add extra cheese on your skyline coney.
This is David Ross we are talking about. No one wanted him on the Reds in the first place, and now are mad because they think they could have gotten something in return for him in a trade? :rolleyes:

RedsFanIN
08-10-2008, 06:06 PM
I really dont see any harm in this. It is not like we are a winning team so i say start letting the younger players get some playing time. I would have like to see Ross traded but we really dont know just how interested the Marlins were. We still got a slim chance of getting something back and if we dont oh well, Hannigan gets a chance to prove himself.

captainmorgan07
08-10-2008, 06:39 PM
Hannigan played well today hitting a home run and he definitely blocks the plate better than Ross.

texasdave
08-10-2008, 06:53 PM
From John Fay's blog:


Here's what I see as the glaring needs of the team this offseason:
A frontline catcher: All three Reds catchers are free agents. The club has an option on David Ross. Ryan Hanigan had a very good year in Triple-A. He'll probably be the No. 2 guy next year. "Catching is extremely hard to obtain," Jocketty said.

Which makes it all the more puzzling why Walt would DFA Ross. Is Ross an all-star? Of course not. But one could make a strong case that he is the best of the three catchers the Reds have been carrying all year. The Reds had an option on Ross which meant he was under their control. And since catching is extremely hard to obtain it might be wise to hold onto your best catcher until you do obtain someone better. Why risk losing him for nothing if catching is so difficult to obtain?

Yes DFA'ing Ross doesn't matter one iota in 2008. But when your 2008 season has been flushed, you might want to start looking ahead to 2009.

The options seem to be these:

1)Overpay for a catcher. Since Walt feels that catching is extremely hard to obtain that sounds like a team will have to overpay for quality.
2)Pray that Hanigan can be an adequate catcher.
3)Go with Paul Bako again.

None look like real good options to me.

1)A team like the Reds can not go around overpaying for everything they need. They just don't have the resources.
2)I don't have a lot of faith that Hanigan can be a regular major league catcher. I am pulling for him. But I don't like the odds.
3)Do we really want to see a repeat of 2008 in which Bako gets the majority of starts? I know that I don't.

I think it would have been wise to hold onto Ross. Hanigan could have been recalled on September 1st and given a shot. Are three additional weeks in the bigs really going to make that much of a difference?

The best case scenario now is that Walt has a pre-arranged deal with some club for Ross. And he is just waiting to see if that club gets the waiver claim on Ross.

Knock on wood.

GoReds33
08-10-2008, 07:32 PM
I would be very happy if we had a catcher with Ross' defense, and Bako's pitch calling. I think that is a bit of a weakness in Ross, but not one that is impossible to fix. I wish him well wherever he goes.

bigredbunter
08-10-2008, 07:33 PM
From John Fay's blog:

Yes DFA'ing Ross doesn't matter one iota in 2008. But when your 2008 season has been flushed, you might want to start looking ahead to 2009.

Knock on wood.

You're right, Ross won't meaningfully impact the W/L for 2008. The question I have is how you can consider keeping a replacement-level or lower catcher around as "looking ahead to 2009?"

757690
08-10-2008, 07:38 PM
"Catching is extremely hard to obtain," Jocketty said.

What he meant was that good catching was hard to obtain. Having watched Ross for two plus seasons, can you really say that he was a "good" catcher?

redsfanmia
08-11-2008, 05:11 PM
I know Ross was not good but for some reason I liked the guy and am sad to see him go.

schmidty622
08-11-2008, 05:27 PM
It's Hanigan's turn. He's been solid in the minors and deserves a shot over Ross, Bako, Valentine.