PDA

View Full Version : Mark Texieria Anyone?



Krusty
08-12-2008, 12:20 AM
Dunn's trade yesterday made me wonder if the Reds could be major players for Mark Texieria this offseason. With the departure of Griffey and Dunn, they free up payroll and could shift Votto to LF.

Opinions?

Sea Ray
08-12-2008, 12:24 AM
My opinion is they couldn't afford Dunn so they sure won't be able to afford Tex. My suggestion to all Reds fans out there: Do not count on the Reds spending money for the most expensive FAs. You're living pie in the sky if you do and you're bound for disappointment bigtime. The Reds don't do well when they spend big money on FAs like Cordero and Milton and I think WJ knows that.

It ain't happenin'

savafan
08-12-2008, 12:27 AM
I'm not so sure that they couldn't afford Dunn as much as they didn't want to pay a player like Dunn who has holes in his game the type of contract he'd command.

Krusty
08-12-2008, 12:32 AM
My opinion is they couldn't afford Dunn so they sure won't be able to afford Tex. My suggestion to all Reds fans out there: Do not count on the Reds spending money for the most expensive FAs. You're living pie in the sky if you do and you're bound for disappointment bigtime. The Reds don't do well when they spend big money on FAs like Cordero and Milton and I think WJ knows that.

It ain't happenin'

Ain't happening? The Reds have an owner that wants to win now. And judging by his comments today,

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080811/SPT04/308110055/1071

I think instead of rebuilding, they are planning to reload.

Sea Ray
08-12-2008, 12:36 AM
Ain't happening? The Reds have an owner that wants to win now. And judging by his comments today,

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080811/SPT04/308110055/1071

I think instead of rebuilding, they are planning to reload.


If he wanted to win now he'd have held onto Dunn. If he wanted to raise the payroll he would have kept Dunn. Listen to his actions. Don't get carried away with the rhetoric. He's not going to come out and say "we're going young and cheap." It'd cost him too much in PR and in season tickets

Krusty
08-12-2008, 12:41 AM
If he wanted to win now he'd have held onto Dunn. If he wanted to raise the payroll he would have kept Dunn. Listen to his actions. Don't get carried away with the rhetoric. He's not going to come out and say "we're going young and cheap." It'd cost him too much in PR and in season tickets

Dunn had very little appeal to contenders at the trading deadline. It was when the Diamondbacks had no other options to improve that they settled for Dunn.

As for holding onto Dunn, I give ownership a pat on the back for not thinking about extending him for 14 or 15 million a season especially with his inability to drive in runners in scoring position.

Caveat Emperor
08-12-2008, 12:46 AM
Word has always followed Tex that he was more concerned about his line in the box score than the number on the scoreboard.

For whatever that's worth.

Krusty
08-12-2008, 12:46 AM
And even if the Reds don't go after Texieria, having 25 million in payroll flexiblity will give Jockerty the ability to retool this team and hopefully make them better balance.

mbgrayson
08-12-2008, 12:51 AM
As for holding onto Dunn, I give ownership a pat on the back for not thinking about extending him for 14 or 15 million a season especially with his inability to drive in runners in scoring position.

His RISP numbers have been up and down. But Dunn's line this year with bases loaded: .455/.538/1.000 for an OPS of 1.538. See his situational stats here (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/splits?playerId=4808).

More importantly, the man had 32 HRs and 74 RBIs this year while batting from the 5th and 6th position. He hasn't got nearly the chances to knock in runs as many other sluggers since the Reds are so anemic in OBP (other than Dunn).

Lets measure our runs per game from now to the end of the year. I will bet you that it drops without Dunn.

RedsManRick
08-12-2008, 12:52 AM
I'd be very happy to get him, but realize that offers will start at around 7/140.

OnBaseMachine
08-12-2008, 12:57 AM
I'd be very happy to get him, but realize that offers will start at around 7/140.

With Votto already at first base and possibly Yonder Alonso, I'd rather spend the money elsewhere. Like maybe CC Sabathia.

KronoRed
08-12-2008, 02:47 AM
No chance at all, the Reds will easily be outbid and honestly why would he want to come play here?

Dunn's production and the glaring holes in this team won't be replaced or fixed in the FA market.

RedLegSuperStar
08-12-2008, 07:17 AM
You'll have to outbid Baltimore and LAA.. which I'd rather go after a C.C. Sabathia.

Ltlabner
08-12-2008, 07:18 AM
Why?

So we can have another star player surrounded by crap?

Wheelhouse
08-12-2008, 07:37 AM
I'm not so sure that they couldn't afford Dunn as much as they didn't want to pay a player like Dunn who has holes in his game the type of contract he'd command.

Bingo.

Johnny Footstool
08-12-2008, 10:30 AM
No chance at all, the Reds will easily be outbid and honestly why would he want to come play here?

Dunn's production and the glaring holes in this team won't be replaced or fixed in the FA market.

Exactly right on both points.

flyer85
08-12-2008, 10:33 AM
no salvation is coming via free agency. Extreme risk is the only thing that awaits in the long term free agent market.

HokieRed
08-12-2008, 10:34 AM
No thanks to Tex. Simply creates more inflexibility in the system again. Limits the other moves WJ can make.

hippie07
08-12-2008, 11:50 AM
I'm in the camp that believes that BCast does want to spend for a winner... if he wasn't interested in spending for a winner why the signing of Cordero? I know that was a different offseason and a different GM, but I feel that the team needed a Dunn purging.

I say this not because I'm a Dunn-hater, you gotta love what he brings to the table, but his SO's, defense, and failure to bring in RBIs really hurts a low-budget team. If the Reds spend top$$ for a slugger.. I would love to see them land a RH, RBI machine w/ power and I think that BCast will pay top money for it. I expect the Reds to be major players for one of Texieria, Burrel, Milton Bradley... heck, maybe even Manny.

Phillips as our cleanup hitter is killing us ... but that's a different rant.. imagine a legitimate RH cleanup guy... wow!

I wouldn't be surprised to see BCast pay for the RH slugger as well as a guy like Derek Lowe to bolster the staff... his blood's bound to be boiling after such high expectations for this year...

flyer85
08-12-2008, 11:54 AM
I wouldn't be surprised to see BCast pay for the RH slugger as well as a guy like Derek Lowe to bolster the staff... his blood's bound to be boiling after such high expectations for this year...and it will likely only make the team more expensive and less talented.

Walt is going to have to work some magic in the trade market, meaning he must be willing to deal Arroyo/Harang/Phillips if he wants a talent infusion that will improve the team.

Wheelhouse
08-12-2008, 12:41 PM
Why?

So we can have another star player surrounded by crap?

Like Bruce? Encarnacion? Phillips? Votto? Volquez? Cueto? Lincoln? Roenicke?

wheels
08-12-2008, 04:53 PM
You guys do realize that guys like Texiera, Burrell, etc are pretty much the same type of high salaried slugger that they just gave away, right?

If they're going to get leaner and meaner, they're gonna need to shift the paradigm. If they couldn't afford Dunn, how could they afford Tex, or Burrell (a right handed Adam Dunn)?

It's wipe the slate clean time. Not tread water until you reach 75 wins time.

penantboundreds
08-12-2008, 06:47 PM
Tex would be an ideal fit here because he hits both righty and lefty and can be put in the lineup at 3 or 4 every night, against any pitcher. He in no way is resemblant of the .235 hitting AD

Ltlabner
08-12-2008, 06:50 PM
Like Bruce? Encarnacion? Phillips? Votto? Volquez? Cueto? Lincoln? Roenicke?

Ok, maybe crap is an overstatement.

But some of that is very raw and unproven tallent (Bruce, Ceuto). Some is completley unproven tallent (Roenicke). Some of it seems to be good but can't carry an entire team (Phillips, Votto, Volquez, EE).

And it doesn't do much to cover-up the misery that is Patterson, Bako, Valentine, Freel, Harriston Jr, Majewski, et al.

If the Reds think nabbing one bat on the FA market is going to change everything around they are dumber than I thought.

Raisor
08-12-2008, 07:23 PM
He in no way is resemblant of the .235 hitting AD

380/520/900

374/535/909


These two lines are unsimilar in every way! Please disperse immediately. There is nothing to see here!

Spring~Fields
08-12-2008, 07:41 PM
These two lines are unsimilar in every way! Please disperce immediatly. There is nothing to see here!

:oops: Wrong Door :lol:

buckeyenut
08-12-2008, 07:57 PM
I could live with this
Freel/Hairston/upgrade CF
Keppinger 2B
Bruce RF
Teix 1B
Encarnacion 3B
Votto LF
Phillips SS
Hanigan/upgrade C

GAC
08-12-2008, 09:16 PM
My opinion is they couldn't afford Dunn so they sure won't be able to afford Tex. My suggestion to all Reds fans out there: Do not count on the Reds spending money for the most expensive FAs. You're living pie in the sky if you do and you're bound for disappointment bigtime. The Reds don't do well when they spend big money on FAs like Cordero and Milton and I think WJ knows that.

It ain't happenin'

Then, if true, that is sad because Jocketty's forte is not via developing youth through the farm system, but by playing the market and finding those "under-appreciated" players. And when he found them, then the Cards paid them.

toledodan
08-12-2008, 09:29 PM
Ain't happening? The Reds have an owner that wants to win now. And judging by his comments today,

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20080811/SPT04/308110055/1071

I think instead of rebuilding, they are planning to reload.



reload with what? there is very little that we can reload with in the FA market this winter. trades are possibe but at what cost? i agree in trading griffey and for the most part dunn. i just don't know how we will reload to make this team better than it is now. there just isn't much out there.:(

wheels
08-13-2008, 09:32 PM
reload with what? there is very little that we can reload with in the FA market this winter. trades are possibe but at what cost? i agree in trading griffey and for the most part dunn. i just don't know how we will reload to make this team better than it is now. there just isn't much out there.:(

Exactly. This aint an easy fix.

Now's the time for decisive action. Figure out what you're willing to spend, and if free agency isn't a reasonable option (be it money, or be it availability of players), tear the whole thing up post haste.

Don't go ga-ga over the big names in free agency if you can't spread the wealth to multiple positions.

A Teixiera deal would be antithetical to that.

Krusty
08-13-2008, 10:58 PM
You don't think Jockerty spent the majority of this season soaking up the sun, do you? I'm quite sure he, Jerry Walker, Bob Miller and others in the Reds front office sat down and broke this team down piece by piece.

I think there is a plan in place but we won't see it till the offseason. Trading Griffey and Dunn were the tearing down phase of this club. It should be exciting to see what the Reds do with alittle payroll flexibility. And for those who say we are handcuff with the lack of quality free agents and lack of talent to trade, I think you're seeing the glass as half empty. I like to think the opposite. The Reds weren't going to win with Griffey and Dunn in the lineup. Seven years proved that. It was time to move on and close this chaper.

penantboundreds
08-13-2008, 11:35 PM
Heck of a post Krusty.

KronoRed
08-13-2008, 11:37 PM
No team has ever gone to the playoffs with Mark Teixeira either ;)

SteelSD
08-13-2008, 11:54 PM
The Reds weren't going to win with Griffey and Dunn in the lineup considering the team's poor draft and developmental record and complete inability to produce a viable pitching staff at any point in time during their tenure. Seven years proved that.

Fixed it for you.

"Great offense/No pitching" will NEVER work for a team. But blaming Dunn and/or Griffey over the past seven years for the Reds' inability to win simply isn't fair to either player- both of whom busted thier humps for a procession of dumb owners and front offices who couldn't for the life of them figure out how to produce a pitching staff that could possibly make good offenses relevant in the eyes of Reds fans. Unfortunately in time that turned into the misguided concept that the best offensive players were actually the "problem" and needed to be "purged" because their presence happend to coincide with a team playing losing baseball for basically every reason OTHER than the offense.

Seven years sure proved something, but it sure as heck didn't prove what you're trying to say it did.

Raisor
08-13-2008, 11:54 PM
The Reds weren't going to win with Griffey and Dunn in the lineup. Seven years proved that. It was time to move on and close this chaper.

The Reds weren't going to win with the Jimmy Haynes, Paul Wilsons, and Eric Miltons in the rotation. Give the 2005 offense even an average pitching staff, and they are in the playoffs.

WVRedsFan
08-14-2008, 01:13 AM
Fixed it for you.

"Great offense/No pitching" will NEVER work for a team. But blaming Dunn and/or Griffey over the past seven years for the Reds' inability to win simply isn't fair to either player- both of whom busted thier humps for a procession of dumb owners and front offices who couldn't for the life of them figure out how to produce a pitching staff that could possibly make good offenses relevant in the eyes of Reds fans. Unfortunately in time that turned into the misguided concept that the best offensive players were actually the "problem" and needed to be "purged" because their presence happend to coincide with a team playing losing baseball for basically every reason OTHER than the offense.

Seven years sure proved something, but it sure as heck didn't prove what you're trying to say it did.

Good post. And the solution was purging the team of offense? And the solution this past season was a rookie, a kid who had great stuff (Volquez) and Josh Fogg? One worked out, the other is a work in progress and the third is a disaster (as predicted time and time again on these pages). The dallying with the bullpen was almost comical. And yet the architect of this is lauded as a genius. Boggles the mind.


The Reds weren't going to win with the Jimmy Haynes, Paul Wilsons, and Eric Miltons in the rotation. Give the 2005 offense even an average pitching staff, and they are in the playoffs.

Exactly. And 2006. And 2007.

cincrazy
08-14-2008, 01:29 AM
Fixed it for you.

"Great offense/No pitching" will NEVER work for a team. But blaming Dunn and/or Griffey over the past seven years for the Reds' inability to win simply isn't fair to either player- both of whom busted thier humps for a procession of dumb owners and front offices who couldn't for the life of them figure out how to produce a pitching staff that could possibly make good offenses relevant in the eyes of Reds fans. Unfortunately in time that turned into the misguided concept that the best offensive players were actually the "problem" and needed to be "purged" because their presence happend to coincide with a team playing losing baseball for basically every reason OTHER than the offense.

Seven years sure proved something, but it sure as heck didn't prove what you're trying to say it did.

Pitching was certainly a problem, but far from the only problem. The offense can take just as much blame as the pitching staff as far as I'm concerned these last eight years. It was the offense that completely tanked down the stretch in 2006. It was, and is, an all or nothing offense. And when that's the case, some nights you'll score 11 runs. And some nights, especially against good pitching, you're not going to get anything.

This franchise has been flawed from top to bottom for quite some time, and I don't think one can specifically point to any one area as the main problem.

SteelSD
08-14-2008, 02:49 AM
Pitching was certainly a problem, but far from the only problem. The offense can take just as much blame as the pitching staff as far as I'm concerned these last eight years. It was the offense that completely tanked down the stretch in 2006. It was, and is, an all or nothing offense. And when that's the case, some nights you'll score 11 runs. And some nights, especially against good pitching, you're not going to get anything.

This franchise has been flawed from top to bottom for quite some time, and I don't think one can specifically point to any one area as the main problem.

First, you'll need to produce some evidence that the team had, at any point, been an "all or nothing" offense resulting in wild RS fluctuations versus your average team over that time period. Secondly, even if you found evidence to support such a wild contention, you'd have to demonstrate that it somehow affected the Reds Pythag from 2001 to 2008 in some crazy way to the negative; causing them to lose more games than they should have. Of course that's impossible to do, considering that the Reds' played 15 games OVER their Pythag during that span.

Third...

2001: 5.25 RA/G (14th)
2002: 4.78 RA/G (11th)
2003: 5.47 RA/G (15th)
2004: 5.60 RA/G (15th)
2005: 5.45 RA/G (16th)
2006: 4.94 RA/G (7th)
2007: 5.27 RA/G (15th)
2008: 5.08 RA/G (14th)

The Reds have had an historic run of putrid pitching staffs. Awful followed by awful. The real issue has been clear for quite some time and is crystal at this very moment. And even if we could tie any of the Reds futility to their offense over that span, what exactly does losing your best offensive player have to do with "fixing" the offense? Absolutely nothing.

Ltlabner
08-14-2008, 06:25 AM
And yet the architect of this is lauded as a genius. Boggles the mind.

In your mind perhaps, but just repeating the same mantra over and over doesn't make it true.


And even if we could tie any of the Reds futility to their offense over that span, what exactly does losing your best offensive player have to do with "fixing" the offense? Absolutely nothing.

Excellent post.

And further, even if the problem could be tied soley to the offense, why is it the fault of two of the more productive guys, when they've been surrounded (especially this year) with below replacement level production from their teammates?

RedsBaron
08-14-2008, 06:55 AM
Fixed it for you.

"Great offense/No pitching" will NEVER work for a team. But blaming Dunn and/or Griffey over the past seven years for the Reds' inability to win simply isn't fair to either player- both of whom busted thier humps for a procession of dumb owners and front offices who couldn't for the life of them figure out how to produce a pitching staff that could possibly make good offenses relevant in the eyes of Reds fans. Unfortunately in time that turned into the misguided concept that the best offensive players were actually the "problem" and needed to be "purged" because their presence happend to coincide with a team playing losing baseball for basically every reason OTHER than the offense.

Seven years sure proved something, but it sure as heck didn't prove what you're trying to say it did.

Amen. :thumbup:

Sea Ray
08-14-2008, 08:22 AM
Fixed it for you.

"Great offense/No pitching" will NEVER work for a team. But blaming Dunn and/or Griffey over the past seven years for the Reds' inability to win simply isn't fair to either player- both of whom busted thier humps for a procession of dumb owners and front offices who couldn't for the life of them figure out how to produce a pitching staff that could possibly make good offenses relevant in the eyes of Reds fans. Unfortunately in time that turned into the misguided concept that the best offensive players were actually the "problem" and needed to be "purged" because their presence happend to coincide with a team playing losing baseball for basically every reason OTHER than the offense.

Seven years sure proved something, but it sure as heck didn't prove what you're trying to say it did.


Where Dunn/Griffey hurt the team is with the % of payroll they ate up. This team couldn't afford them. They needed to spread that money around. Ownership is to blame for giving them that kind of money w/o raising the team payroll. There were too many gapping holes elsewhere to justify such $$ for two players.

nate
08-14-2008, 08:38 AM
Good post. And the solution was purging the team of offense? And the solution this past season was a rookie, a kid who had great stuff (Volquez) and Josh Fogg? One worked out, the other is a work in progress and the third is a disaster (as predicted time and time again on these pages).

Can you show that Josh Fogg is actually appreciably worse than everyone else's 5th starter?


The dallying with the bullpen was almost comical.

And yet it's one of the "bright" spots this offseason. It probably would be even without Cordero.


And yet the architect of this is lauded as a genius. Boggles the mind.

The engineer wants to stop and find a pad, you're pinning the hyperbole meter:

http://www.gluethemoose.com/neen/hyperbole.png

nate
08-14-2008, 08:40 AM
Where Dunn/Griffey hurt the team is with the % of payroll they ate up. This team couldn't afford them. They needed to spread that money around. Ownership is to blame for giving them that kind of money w/o raising the team payroll. There were too many gapping holes elsewhere to justify such $$ for two players.

Which players were Griffey/Dunn's salary keeping us from signing?

Sea Ray
08-14-2008, 08:49 AM
Which players were Griffey/Dunn's salary keeping us from signing?

The list is endless because it wasn't just FAs. Lack of payroll flexibility kept them from acquiring people in trades too. To begin a such a list would be so hypothetical it would be pointless.

Raisor
08-14-2008, 08:58 AM
The list is endless because it wasn't just FAs. Lack of payroll flexibility kept them from acquiring people in trades too. To begin a such a list would be so hypothetical it would be pointless.

Dunn's money wasn't holding anyone back, especially in 2005 where the team scored more runs then any other NL team.

2002 Cincinnati Reds $250,000
2003 Cincinnati Reds $400,000
2004 Cincinnati Reds $445,000
2005 Cincinnati Reds $4,600,000
2006 Cincinnati Reds $7,500,000
2007 Cincinnati Reds $10,500,000

SteelSD
08-14-2008, 09:02 AM
Where Dunn/Griffey hurt the team is with the % of payroll they ate up. This team couldn't afford them. They needed to spread that money around. Ownership is to blame for giving them that kind of money w/o raising the team payroll. There were too many gapping holes elsewhere to justify such $$ for two players.

In 2001, the Reds payroll was about 48 Million dollars versus a figure about 74 Million dollars in 2008. Over time, that's an increase of 26 million bucks. Go take a look at the tens of millions wasted over that time frame on crap pitching. The Reds tried desperately to "spread money around". The problem is they vast majority of the pitchers they gave it to couldn't pitch a lick.

Griffey's unforseen health issues hurt, but that's not a commentary about the intelligence of paying him. He had to go due to inevitable age decline, and the concept that Adam Dunn was somehow a salary albatross over time is exceptionally misguided as he actually dramatically over-produced his contract value during his tenure with the Reds.

The problem with the Reds hasn't been that they haven't had money to pay to fill holes. The real "money" problem is that they've spent that money stupidly on awful pitchers and bad players.

nate
08-14-2008, 09:12 AM
The list is endless because it wasn't just FAs. Lack of payroll flexibility kept them from acquiring people in trades too.

I don't think the scenario of having the need to acquire someone (or someoneS) whose salary is so high that it would break the bank and having a player or players the other party would want has existed for the Reds for a very long time.

Raisor
08-14-2008, 09:13 AM
Eric Milton and Paul Wilson made a combined 36.84 million bucks for the Reds, but it was Junior and Dunn holding the team back.

Sure.

nate
08-14-2008, 09:16 AM
Eric Milton and Paul Wilson made a combined 36.84 million bucks for the Reds, but it was Junior and Dunn holding the team back.

Sure.

Oddly, that's close to the number Adam Dunn made in 7 season with the Reds.

Raisor
08-14-2008, 09:19 AM
Oddly, that's close to the number Adam Dunn made in 7 season with the Reds.

yep

5.25 million a year for 100 Runs Created/year.

nate
08-14-2008, 09:21 AM
yep

5.25 million a year for 100 Runs Created/year.

What a freaking bum!

RedlegJake
08-14-2008, 09:26 AM
First, "lauding the architect" refers to past GMs - this mess is not Jocketty's fault in any way, but it is his wreck to fix. What boggles my mind is that Walt gets painted with the same brush as his predecessors and he hasn't had a single off season to work. For crying out loud, let the guy do his job for one year before throwing him off the bridge, too. Castellini is as bad, he keeps hawking the win now fluff that even he can't truly believe . Look for Walt to hunt for undervalued possibly under achieving FAs/Trade targets in the winter. Look for lots of kids to man the roster. I can't possibly predict who Walt will target but I do think he'll go after a guy under the radar - someone who has shown the talent but is in a bad situation or has been hurt and underperforming. Those are the kind of guys who he'll try to land first. Once the Reds have a competitive team in place missing one big piece THEN he'll pester Bob to go after a CC or Texeira type. Until the team is in position to win big by adding a primo expensive player I don't think those are the guys he'll chase. Walt recognizes the futility in signing one top name expecting him to carry an otherwise mundane team - that is exactly why Adam is gone. Kids will mature, pieces will be added that raise the bar for the whole team THEN Walt will go after a big gun.

That's why I don't expect the Reds to chase Texeira or Sabathia, although CC would surprise me less. I also expect Jocketty to trade BP. Others have disagreed with me - in fact most have - but BP's reasonable contract makes him primo trade material able to bring back 2 or 3 talented young players, very possibly much better than those received in either the Dunn or Junior trades. Additionally, the rumors and whispers about BPs style of play, ie making other teams mad etc, BPs sulking on occasion for not getting enough attention, plus Arroyo's comments, very unusual for a teammate, put it all together and I have to wonder if Walt won't look to move him. One of Walt's trademarks is a strong team ethic. Those things added to BPs value as trade material and I think he'll be gone. Arroyo is the one I think he'll keep if he doesn't get a really good return, especially if Harang doesn't show signs of improving before season's end.

Finally signing a Texeira does nothing to fix this club's real problem. I think Walt will concentrate on improving the Reds real black hole and that's the CPatt-Bako-Phillips-Valentin-Weathers-Belisle-Coffey-Hairston-Lincoln-Kepp as SS-Cabrera FA to be and underachiever mess that is the backend of the Reds team. Not all of those guys are worhtless, as in Hairston's play - but deciding who is worth retaining and who must be replaced, and who is fool's gold and what role they'll have if they're kept - improving this part of the team will upgrade the Reds immensely and is a full off season's worth of work in itself. Right now there are (I think) 10 FAs to be still on the roster and some of them, like CPatt and Bako, have absolutely been game killers.

Sea Ray
08-14-2008, 10:00 AM
Dunn's money wasn't holding anyone back, especially in 2005 where the team scored more runs then any other NL team.

2002 Cincinnati Reds $250,000
2003 Cincinnati Reds $400,000
2004 Cincinnati Reds $445,000
2005 Cincinnati Reds $4,600,000
2006 Cincinnati Reds $7,500,000
2007 Cincinnati Reds $10,500,000

Yeah Dunn was a pretty good value in 2005. If you look at the years as a whole in this century Dunn was not an expensive player. When Griffey was brought here and signed to that contract, which was very reasonable for a player of his skills at the time, it was ludicrous for the front office not to raise payroll. If they were going to keep payroll in the $40mill range then they should have passed on Griffey.

Sea Ray
08-14-2008, 10:27 AM
Eric Milton and Paul Wilson made a combined 36.84 million bucks for the Reds, but it was Junior and Dunn holding the team back.

Sure.

It's easy to pick on the front office. I think we'll all agree they made many mistakes. We all agree the Wilson and Milton signings were horrible. One of them was to pay Griffey over $100mill. Dunn was traded when his salary no longer fit with the team's payroll and needs.

I was all for the Griffey deal at the time but I was assuming they would raise the payroll. They didn't. They left it in the upper $40mill range for a long time. If I'd known that I would have said "pass" on the deal. We would have been better off with Mike Cameron in CF and use the extra $10mill saved on pitching or whatever

I agree with you Raisor. It was the front office, not Griffey and Dunn holding the team back.

cincrazy
08-14-2008, 10:34 AM
Eric Milton and Paul Wilson made a combined 36.84 million bucks for the Reds, but it was Junior and Dunn holding the team back.

Sure.

No one said that Griffey and Dunn were the sole reason for this team not competing. But lets face it, when a franchise spends an incredible amount of money on an aging, injury prone superstar, and a flawed power hitter who is a defensive liability, that doesn't help matters any.

The Reds tried for years to build their offense around the two, and it just can't be done, and they should have realized it sooner. Griffey could never be on the field enough (no fault of his own, obviously) and Dunn isn't consistent enough.

Adam Dunn is a very good player. But he should not be the centerpiece of an offense. I don't think you can take Griffey and take Dunn and say "Hey, we're going to build an offense around these two."

The Reds mindset was "We're going to build around these two superstars." Only problem is, one was no longer a superstar thanks to age and injuries, and the other never was a superstar.

I like Adam Dunn. I really do. Let me stress that. I think it's just silly to pretend that the guy is indispensable. Getting rid of Dunner isn't going to cripple this franchise by any means. He's in a much better situation now, with a team that can better utilize his strengths and hide his weaknesses, while we get a chance to start fresh. It's a win-win IMO.

Raisor
08-14-2008, 10:47 AM
No one said that Griffey and Dunn were the sole reason for this team not competing. .

actually, a lot of people have been saying exactly that.

cincrazy
08-14-2008, 11:01 AM
actually, a lot of people have been saying exactly that.

Well that would be clearly inaccurate. I'm certainly not throwing any players under the bus. This franchise has been screwed up for a long time. I'm just happy to see Dunn go somewhere where he has a chance.

I think it's absurd to state that he wasn't giving it his all, or was a loafer. I've never believed that to be the case. For the first time in his career, Dunn's surrounded by a good team. Hopefully he shines and leads the D-backs into October.

Johnny Footstool
08-14-2008, 12:45 PM
actually, a lot of people have been saying exactly that.

Yep, or implying it by stating "The Reds never won with Griffey and Dunn on the team."

RedlegJake
08-14-2008, 01:20 PM
Yep, or implying it by stating "The Reds never won with Griffey and Dunn on the team."

I don't think that is necessarily an implication of anything other than the Reds never built a team around them that could win. Now the Reds decided Dunn will cost too much and Junior has aged - the window is past. Dunn's trade isn't necessarily a bad decision at this point in time. The bad decision(s) were not building a proper team around him while he was younger and affordable. Now its Jay Bruce and Joey Votto's turn. They're young and good enough themselves but will the Reds build a team around them that can win?
Or will fans be saying "Well we never won with Bruce" in 7 years after he's traded for a couple of prospects?

Sea Ray
08-14-2008, 02:21 PM
I don't think that is necessarily an implication of anything other than the Reds never built a team around them that could win. Now the Reds decided Dunn will cost too much and Junior has aged - the window is past. Dunn's trade isn't necessarily a bad decision at this point in time. The bad decision(s) were not building a proper team around him while he was younger and affordable. Now its Jay Bruce and Joey Votto's turn. They're young and good enough themselves but will the Reds build a team around them that can win?
Or will fans be saying "Well we never won with Bruce" in 7 years after he's traded for a couple of prospects?

You get it. It is time to move Dunn. If the Reds still are cellar dwellers in 7 years it'll be time to move Jay Bruce.


Yep, or implying it by stating "The Reds never won with Griffey and Dunn on the team."

The above doesn't get it. Forget trying to read implications into anything. The statement you quote can stand as fact on its own.

Ltlabner
08-14-2008, 04:00 PM
Getting rid of Dunner isn't going to cripple this franchise by any means.

No, but claiming he didn't really contribute much (and in fact held the team back), and not replacing his production by using the money to acquire better hitting/pitching sure will.

cincrazy
08-14-2008, 04:02 PM
No, but claiming he didn't really contribute much (and in fact held the team back), and not replacing his production by using the money to acquire better hitting/pitching sure will.

I don't really remember anyone saying as much. I don't remember reading anyone saying he didn't contribute much, nor did I read anything indicating that Dunn himself held this franchise back. The front office did. I think we can all agree on that much.

RedlegJake
08-14-2008, 04:04 PM
No, but claiming he didn't really contribute much (and in fact held the team back), and not replacing his production by using the money to acquire better hitting/pitching sure will.

I think I'll wait and see what Jocketty does before I start condemning him - if the money doesn't go into good players then I'd wholeheartedly agree. I just don't need or expect it to all go to one guy.

Raisor
08-14-2008, 04:05 PM
I don't really remember anyone saying as much. I don't remember reading anyone saying he didn't contribute much, nor did I read anything indicating that Dunn himself held this franchise back. The front office did. I think we can all agree on that much.

You're not reading alot then, because that's what many are in fact saying.

Gainesville Red
08-14-2008, 04:08 PM
You're not reading alot then, because that's what many are in fact saying.

Don't forget Griffey, he helped. What have they ever won? ;)

Ltlabner
08-14-2008, 04:12 PM
I don't remember reading anyone saying he didn't contribute much

Huh? All the strike outs? Lazy? Doesn't run to his position? Likes Play-Station more than Baseball? No passion? Doesn't care about improving?

Ringing any bells?

Dunn has been the source of many debates on ORG, let alone The Sun-Deck, Reds.com, Cincy.com, talk radio and sports bars across the city.



I think I'll wait and see what Jocketty does before I start condemning him - if the money doesn't go into good players then I'd wholeheartedly agree. I just don't need or expect it to all go to one guy.

I'm not condeming The Jock. He hasn't really done anything to condem as yet. Just making the point that giving up the top producing offensive force on your team and not doing anything to replace him woln't help you win more games.

WVRedsFan
08-14-2008, 04:13 PM
Can you show that Josh Fogg is actually appreciably worse than everyone else's 5th starter?

I don't have to do the reasearch, but I would want my team to at least have one who could get through 5 or 6 innings. Fogg has not done that. His ERA has to be higher than other 5th starters, though.




And yet it's one of the "bright" spots this offseason. It probably would be even without Cordero.

Yes, kudos all around for that.




The engineer wants to stop and find a pad, you're pinning the hyperbole meter:

Hardly. I know what I see and what I see I don't like.

http://www.gluethemoose.com/neen/hyperbole.png[/QUOTE]

RedsManRick
08-14-2008, 04:28 PM
I don't have to do the reasearch, but I would want my team to at least have one who could get through 5 or 6 innings. Fogg has not done that. His ERA has to be higher than other 5th starters, though

Setting aside Fogg's ERA for a moment, the reality is that despite the naming convention, very few teams have an established 5th starter. The 5th starter spot, and often the 4th starter spot too, is usually a mish-mash of fringe veterans and young guys.

Consider that ~120 games have been played. If you had 6 full time starters, they'd each have made 20 starts. And yet only 99 pitchers have made 20 starts this year, just over 3 per team. If you have 4 guys who can go every 5th day and pitch well enough to merit the role, you're ahead of the curve. An everyday 5th starter is gravy. The Reds are a perfect example, with 4 guys of 20+ starts and then 28 combined starts from Fogg, Belisle, Bailey, and Thompson.

Of top 5 teams in the NL in ERA, only #4 Arizona and #5 Philly have had regular 5th starters. The Arizona 5th starter is currently in the minors (and soon to be a Red) and the Philly 5th starter is Adam Eaton, aka, Josh Fogg's twin brother.

Having a solid, regular 5th starter would be a real advantage, but it is in no way a requirement to be a playoff caliber team -- especially if it just means giving innings to a barely above replacement level guy who no ceiling instead of giving opportunity to guys who could develop in to something better. That's not to say you want a poor performance every 5th start, just that you shouldn't fall over yourself to get those innings all from the same guy. I think a pretty good argument can be made for having some flexibility in that role, both to accommodate days off, and to give opportunities to up and comers who deserve it. If you want a veteran like Fogg around to fill in the gaps, that's fine, just be flexible with his role and do NOT overpay.

WVRedsFan
08-14-2008, 06:15 PM
I did a little research and found that, yes, Josh Fogg is the worst 5th starter in the Central Division. that's as far as I went, but it probably goes on throughout MLB this way.


Team 5th starter GS IP H ER ERA
Mil Bush 21 132 119 64 4.35
Chc Marquis 22 129 137 67 4.67
Hou Wolf 25 142 149 72 4.56
Pgh Davis 1 13 10 2 1.38
StL Wellemeyer 23 134 130 60 4.01
Cin Fogg 11 63 82 56 7.96

Taking Davis out of th equation would be fair since he's only had one start (even though he is listed as the 5th starter on the Pirates' depth chart), everyone has an ERA below 5 (heck, even our starters--Arroyo, Cueto, and Harang -- can't do that. They either allow less hits than innings pitched or slightly over. Fogg has been uncharacteristically bad, even for Fogg. So yes, he's the worst 5th starter in our division. By far.

And excue me for botching the chart. I still can't figure out how to do it. Old brain.

GAC
08-14-2008, 08:17 PM
"Great offense/No pitching" will NEVER work for a team. But blaming Dunn and/or Griffey over the past seven years for the Reds' inability to win simply isn't fair to either player- both of whom busted thier humps for a procession of dumb owners and front offices who couldn't for the life of them figure out how to produce a pitching staff that could possibly make good offenses relevant in the eyes of Reds fans. Unfortunately in time that turned into the misguided concept that the best offensive players were actually the "problem" and needed to be "purged" because their presence happend to coincide with a team playing losing baseball for basically every reason OTHER than the offense.

Seven years sure proved something, but it sure as heck didn't prove what you're trying to say it did.


And further, even if the problem could be tied soley to the offense, why is it the fault of two of the more productive guys, when they've been surrounded (especially this year) with below replacement level production from their teammates?

Good posts gentlemen. It just simply amazes me how so many fans like to lay the Red's woes these last several years, and why that have been losing, on those players that DID produce. It's like a Dunn was suppose to
produce even more to overcome, or take up the slack, of the poor players.

It's like calling DeNiro a bad actor because the producer fills the supporting cast with hacks. ;)

Currently and through out history, there have been stellar players whose teams never made the post-season. Yet it wasn't due to them not doing their part and putting up the numbers. Yet somehow they are expected to carry the rest of that team.

That's one heavy burden to place on any player's shoulders.

Sea Ray
08-14-2008, 09:17 PM
No, but claiming he didn't really contribute much (and in fact held the team back), and not replacing his production by using the money to acquire better hitting/pitching sure will.


Let's make a little deal here. I'll concede you never said Adam Dunn was Albert Pujols and you concede that none of the rest of us thinks Dunn "sux". Deal?

If anyone here would like to say that Dunn didn't contribute much to this team please chime in now. I'll jump 'em faster than you, Steel or Raisor will...Trust me. We haven't found anyone who'll argue that there has been a better offensive player in this century to play for the Reds.

I'm sure you know that it's too early to say WJ won't use Dunn's money savings to improve the club. So nothing you wrote about is based on fact. Let's keep our arguments level-headed here, please.

Ltlabner
08-14-2008, 09:44 PM
Let's make a little deal here. I'll concede you never said Adam Dunn was Albert Pujols and you concede that none of the rest of us thinks Dunn "sux". Deal?

If anyone here would like to say that Dunn didn't contribute much to this team please chime in now. I'll jump 'em faster than you, Steel or Raisor will...Trust me. We haven't found anyone who'll argue that there has been a better offensive player in this century to play for the Reds.

I'm sure you know that it's too early to say WJ won't use Dunn's money savings to improve the club. So nothing you wrote about is based on fact. Let's keep our arguments level-headed here, please.

Back away from the redmeat and caffene. Why golly, here's a fun little thread with posters downplaying Dunns contributions to the Reds right here on little ole Redszone. http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1722152#post1722152

So if you want to continue to charade that nobodys ever argued over Dunns contrubutions please revel in your fantsy. Arguments over Dunn have consumed as much server-space as the Kennedy assaination and what "really" broke up the Spice Girls combined. Next you'll tell us there was no controversy over the trade with the Nats.

For the context-impared, my comment about not replacing Dunn was in response to the idea that losing Dunn in and of itself woln't sink the franchise. I didn't claim The Jock wouldn't use the money, only the potential harm to the team if he didn't. It's a subtle distincition, I admit.

Krusty
08-15-2008, 12:27 AM
After seven losing seasons, you can only fire so many GMs and managers before you finalize realize that the people who need to be fired are the ones who perform each day on the field.

Raisor
08-15-2008, 12:36 AM
After seven losing seasons, you can only fire so many GMs and managers before you finalize realize that the people who need to be fired are the ones who perform each day on the field.

So you're saying that Dunn deserved to be "fired"?

WVRedsFan
08-15-2008, 12:38 AM
After seven losing seasons, you can only fire so many GMs and managers before you finalize realize that the people who need to be fired are the ones who perform each day on the field.

Yes. It would be interesting to see how many wins Bob Boone, Dave Miley, Jerry Narron, and Dusty have cost the Reds since 2001. I mean acutally made poor decisions. I would guess that there are some cases where this is true, and some of those names have contributed to that moe than others.

I was very disappointed in Boone, Miley and Narron to the point of being unreasonable. I wanted someone who had won to lead this team. Dusty was not my choice and never will be, but the same players lost under each of those men. Mackanin came along and did eek out a winning record, but was he the answer? It was the same players and it was only marginally better.

I have to believe that Wayne was on borrowed time from the time he took the job. The thing was to win and as much as he tried, he couldn't do that under the circumstances he was given. I don't know it it was the pressure or what, but he made some really bad decisions at times. Jocketty didn't get tht pressure. His relationship with Castellini was trust and Walt can now do the things that he thinks can put this team in a competitive position. Head have rolled and will continue to roll. I don't like that he pretty much gave away Junior and Dunn, but I'm willing to see what he comes up with. Once all the pieces are together with different players and we still do not win, let the manager's head roll. There's been too much instability for anyone to know who is doing a good job and who is not. I do believe that the majority olf the blame is on the players who have not performed. When they perform and we still lose, that's the time to remove current management.

WVRedsFan
08-15-2008, 12:41 AM
So you're saying that Dunn deserved to be "fired"?

No. Never. But you can make a case for many others. Dunn should have been resigned or traded for better players, but we don't know what the plan is. I willing to wait and see. it had better be good.

Raisor
08-15-2008, 12:42 AM
No. Never. But you can make a case for many others. Dunn should have been resigned or traded for better players, but we don't know that the plan is. I willing to wait and see. it had better be good.

Seems like that's what Krusty was saying though, which is why I'm wanting a clarification.

Gainesville Red
08-15-2008, 12:50 AM
So you're saying that Dunn deserved to be "fired"?


Ugh. Here we go again. At this point, I'd say don't bother. How often does this have to happen.

Dunn and Griffey are why the team lost. They were lazy, and didn't know how to win. They didn't know how to play the game the right way. Did you know Adam Dunn doesn't even like playing baseball. Riccardi said so. And Dusty called Hank, he probably said so too.

It has nothing to do with constantly dismal pitching. Someone call Mike Stanton, maybe it's not too late to see if he'll come save the day. Is Cormier's team out of the olympics yet, maybe he's available? And the assortment of awesome managers constantly made tremendous decisions. Remember when Juan Castro pinch-hit for Hamilton? That was awesome.

This team won't be ready to compete until Freel's healthy again. He's scrappy.

WVRedsFan
08-15-2008, 12:53 AM
Ugh. Here we go again. At this point, I'd say don't bother. How often does this have to happen.

Dunn and Griffey are why the team lost. They were lazy, and didn't know how to win. They didn't know how to play the game the right way. Did you know Adam Dunn doesn't even like playing baseball. Riccardi said so. And Dusty called Hank, he probably said so too.

It has nothing to do with constantly dismal pitching. Someone call Mike Stanton, maybe it's not too late to see if he'll come save the day. Is Cormier's team out of the olympics yet, maybe he's available? And the assortment of awesome managers constantly made tremendous decisions. Remember when Juan Castro pinch-hit for Hamilton? That was awesome.

This team won't be ready to compete until Freel's healthy again. He's scrappy.

:)

Pretty much sums it up. You been listening to WLW????:D

Razor Shines
08-15-2008, 01:22 AM
Back away from the redmeat and caffene. Why golly, here's a fun little thread with posters downplaying Dunns contributions to the Reds right here on little ole Redszone. http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1722152#post1722152



Or how about this cute little thread. http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=71046&page=3

Here's my favortie tidbit of brilliance from that thread:

Originally Posted by Ahhhorsepoo
I honestly think that Dunn will be run out of baseball.. i just think too many people think his assets aren't that good for the money his 40 homer power will command.. he will be put in as a DH somewhere and will slowly lose the spot when his power starts to diminish in the next 3-5 years like MOST sluggers.. and we all know that is his only tool....

I think he argued with himself in that post, but I'm not sure.

cincrazy
08-15-2008, 11:10 AM
Seems like that's what Krusty was saying though, which is why I'm wanting a clarification.

What did Krusty even say that could be construed as criticizing Dunn? If Dunn's not compared to Hank Aaron, there's a group of people around here that go around bullying everybody for even daring to believe that this franchise won't collapse without the presence of #44.

I will be the first one to defend Dunn if someone were to call him useless, or that he doesn't belong in the league, or that he doesn't try. I've never uttered that, Krusty said nothing of the sort in his post, and Sea Ray hasn't said anything like that.

All we're simply saying is Dunn is not impossible to replace. Sure the Reds could make this situation 100 times worse by bringing in Jason Ellison to fill Dunn's spot in the outfield. But I don't see that happening, do you?

Ltlabner
08-15-2008, 11:28 AM
All we're simply saying is Dunn is not impossible to replace. Sure the Reds could make this situation 100 times worse by bringing in Jason Ellison to fill Dunn's spot in the outfield. But I don't see that happening, do you ?

This is the Reds we are talking about, remember?

The dreamy goodness of Walt notwithstanding, this orgization is capabile of many horrifying scenarios.

Does Walt still have the magic touch? Will be interesting to see, and definatley willing to give him more rope than normal since he's got a solid track record. But one GM surrounded by a sea of orgizational incompetence doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?

cincrazy
08-15-2008, 12:21 PM
This is the Reds we are talking about, remember?

The dreamy goodness of Walt notwithstanding, this orgization is capabile of many horrifying scenarios.

Does Walt still have the magic touch? Will be interesting to see, and definatley willing to give him more rope than normal since he's got a solid track record. But one GM surrounded by a sea of orgizational incompetence doesn't exactly inspire confidence, does it?

I understand what you're saying. The ineptitude of this franchise has been startling this decade. But I can't see Walt coming on board if Cast didn't give him the nond to go ahead and spend. I'm confident Jocketty will find a way to fill the hole reasonably well. Maybe I'm off base on that thought. But hopefully I'm not.