PDA

View Full Version : Doc on Juan Rivera



osuceltic
12-18-2008, 02:38 PM
Hadn't seen this posted yet. It's from Paul Daugherty's blog.


Juan Rivera is the guy who best fits the Reds philosophy and budget. If he wants to play here, he'll open the season in Cincinnati's outfield.

Say what you want about Doc, but he does have some sources with the Reds. Sounds like Rivera may be Plan A.

hippie07
12-18-2008, 02:43 PM
I had much higher hopes than Juan Rivera for our offseason, but a juan rivera pickup is a very Reds thing to do...

As optimist, maybe he'll return to glory and be just what we need, but I would prefer a less riskier option...

If Juan Rivera becomes our RHed LFer, then I hope this comes paired w/ a Baldelli signing to make it a bit easier to swallow.

Raisor
12-18-2008, 02:50 PM
Juan Rivera getting 650 PA's in LF in 09 puts the Reds another -25 offensive runs (based on his career numbers) in the hole from 08.

That means they need to make up something like 200 runs to sniff the playoffs in 09.

BRM
12-18-2008, 02:51 PM
Juan Rivera getting 650 PA's in LF in 09 puts the Reds another -25 offensive runs (based on his career numbers) in the hole from 08.

That means they need to make up something like 200 runs to sniff the playoffs in 09.

How many defensive runs does he gain you over last season? I'm guessing it's not 25.

RedEye
12-18-2008, 02:53 PM
Two weeks ago, I would have loved this news. Then I read RedsZone. FWIW, here (http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/free-agent-bargain-juan-rivera/) is Dave Cameron's view on Rivera. It lifts my spirits a bit; I usually really respect Cameron's opinion.

Edit: I think this is basically similar to dougdirt's side of the argument he's been having with Cyclone et al on the Baldelli/Rivera/Burrell thread, so sorry to everyone if it is redundant here.


Two years ago, Rivera hit .310/.362/.525 for the Angels, racking up a 2.45 WPA/LI mark that made him a very solid contributor to Anaheim’s offense. Then, injuries struck, and the last two years have been something of a wash. He managed just 324 plate appearances between the two seasons, and the missed time cost him his shot at a regular gig in LA. Now 30 and hitting free agency, it’s unlikely that a team is going to be giving him a multi-year contract without proving he can play everyday again, but if we look at his skills, he’s still a pretty solid hitter.

Rivera’s signature skill has always been his power, and that hasn’t disappeared. Even with the health problems and limited playing time, he posted a .191 ISO last year. When you look a little deeper, there’s even more reasons for optimism. During the first three months of the season, Rivera managed all of 66 plate appearances in 30 games. He barely made it on the field from April through June, and he wasn’t giving the Angels any reason to put him in the line-up more often, struggling to a .177/.227/.226 line. He had three extra base hits, all doubles, and simply wasn’t hitting. However, Gary Matthews Jr’s struggles created an opportunity for him to play a bit more often, from July on, he showed that the old Juan Rivera still existed.

In the final three months of the season, Rivera hit .268/.299/.505, and while the OBP isn’t exactly impressive, the 22 extra base hits (12 of which were home runs) show that Rivera’s still got some juice in his swing. His overly aggressive approach at the plate will always make him a low on base guy, but that kind of power is still valuable. Even with the .299 OBP, Rivera’s WPA/LI over the final three months was -.07, making him essentially a league average hitter.

Now, if that was Rivera’s ceiling, he’d be a nifty platoon corner OF/DH type, and that would be the end of it. But Rivera was a league average hitter while hitting .270. As a guy with both good contact and power, Rivera’s got the kind of skills that could allow him to hit .290 to .310. If you don’t strike out, and you hit the ball over the wall with some frequency, it’s pretty hard to post a low batting average, thanks to the sheer quantity of chances you have for hits. Rivera managed to hit .269 over the final three months despite a .242 batting average on balls in play. That’s extraordinarily low, even for a guy hitting a ton of flyballs.

If we assume that Rivera’s true talent BABIP is more in the .280 range (it’s .292 for his career, but we’ll knock it down a bit for age and injuries), and the rest of his skills remain in tact, he’s a .290 to .300 hitter. Even with his aggressive approach, .300/.340/.500 isn’t out of the question.

Rivera may never get back to his 2006 prime, but he’s certainly better than he’s shown the last two years, and there’s no reason to think he’s washed up at age 30. For a team looking for a right-handed power bat who makes good contact and offers some upside without requiring a long term, big money deal, Rivera’s a good bet. He’ll never be a star, but he could be the kind of useful role player that is picked up cheaply that championship teams need.

edabbs44
12-18-2008, 02:54 PM
Juan Rivera getting 650 PA's in LF in 09 puts the Reds another -25 offensive runs (based on his career numbers) in the hole from 08.

That means they need to make up something like 200 runs to sniff the playoffs in 09.

As it has been discussed ad nauseum, it might be a little unfair to project Rivera on his career numbers. It took a while for him to get a regular gig and, when he finally did, he had a good year. Then he broke his leg and worked his way back last year.

Risk/reward type guy. Sure I'd rather have other guys than him (i.e. Burrell), but if Cincy is looking at a bargain type player, they can do a lot worse. At least he has a decent ceiling.

flyer85
12-18-2008, 02:55 PM
if the Reds want to give him a 1 year deal I have no problem with that. He can be a bridge to the future and he will just be another hacker in a lineup full of them.

Caveat Emperor
12-18-2008, 03:03 PM
At least he has a decent ceiling.

And an awful, awful basement, if his contact rate dips and he starts striking out more.

Quite simply, his ceiling isn't high enough to warrant the financial risk of a multi-year deal.

Ltlabner
12-18-2008, 03:05 PM
Humm.....a guy dependent on his batting average and contact to have any value being managed by a guy who preaches aggressiveness and abhors clogging the bases.

No way that can go wrong.

Jpup
12-18-2008, 03:06 PM
Doc? How does that guy have a job?

BRM
12-18-2008, 03:06 PM
Humm.....a guy dependent on his batting average and contact to have any value being managed by a guy who preaches aggressiveness and abhors clogging the bases.

No way that can go wrong.

You're full of snark today. I love it.

Cyclone792
12-18-2008, 03:08 PM
You know, the more I think about it it, I hope the Reds sign Rivera. It then makes my decision easy whether to renew or cancel my season tickets for next season.

Raisor
12-18-2008, 03:09 PM
Rivera and WT in the OF together?

That looks like were we are headed.

BRM
12-18-2008, 03:10 PM
You know, the more I think about it it, I hope the Reds sign Rivera. It then makes my decision easy whether to renew or cancel my season tickets for next season.

Taveras and Rivera in CF and LF. That should make you run to the ticket office, pronto.

Ltlabner
12-18-2008, 03:10 PM
Taveras and Rivera in CF and LF. That should make you run to the ticket office, pronto.

Don't forget Kepp at short.

BRM
12-18-2008, 03:11 PM
Don't forget Kepp at short.

Defense is a priority you know.

Ltlabner
12-18-2008, 03:18 PM
What did PDoc mean when he said Rivera best fits the Reds "philosophy"?

I haven't read the entire Dougdirt/Cyclone tome on Rivera so if it's already been touched on, my apologies.

My guess it's just PDoc twaddle since last I checked the Reds philosophy has been to swing early and often while sporting horrible defense.

RedEye
12-18-2008, 03:20 PM
Rivera and WT in the OF together?

That looks like were we are headed.

Well, they would be speedy...

Jpup
12-18-2008, 03:21 PM
What did PDoc mean when he said Rivera best fits the Reds "philosophy"?

I haven't read the entire Dougdirt/Cyclone tome on Rivera so if it's already been touched on, my apologies.

My guess it's just PDoc twaddle since last I checked the Reds philosophy has been to swing early and often while sporting horrible defense.

being cheap would be my guess.

BRM
12-18-2008, 03:21 PM
My guess it's just PDoc twaddle since last I checked the Reds philosophy has been to swing early and often while sporting horrible defense.

Well, Juan isn't going to take many walks but I don't think his defense is considered horrible. He's close to that philosophy but not quite.

Ltlabner
12-18-2008, 03:23 PM
Well, Juan isn't going to take many walks but I don't think his defense is considered horrible. He's close to that philosophy but not quite.

Oh, I'm not commenting on Rivera's defense. I just didn't realize the Reds had some sort of "philosophy" let alone, Rivera fitting into it.

I thought maybe I missed something along the way, but then I remembered it's PDoc we're talking about.

BRM
12-18-2008, 03:24 PM
Oh, I'm not commenting on Rivera's defense. I just didn't realize the Reds had some sort of "philosophy" let alone, Rivera fitting into it.

I thought maybe I missed something along the way, but then I remembered it's PDoc we're talking about.

Well, I hope they have some sort of philosophy. I should say, I hope Walt has a philosophy on the type of players he wants.

PuffyPig
12-18-2008, 03:34 PM
Humm.....a guy dependent on his batting average and contact to have any value being managed by a guy who preaches aggressiveness and abhors clogging the bases.

No way that can go wrong.

Actually, an agressive hitter like Rivera would likely do well under an agressive manager like Baker.

I seem to remember every one fearing that Baker would screw up Dunn's patient approach.

You can't have it both ways.

corkedbat
12-18-2008, 03:34 PM
Blech. If you're gonna cede fifth place to the Pirates, go with Laynce Nix to start the season, save the money, then start bringing up youngsters for audition as the season goes on.

jojo
12-18-2008, 03:39 PM
Rivera could be a useful player.

dougdirt
12-18-2008, 03:49 PM
What did PDoc mean when he said Rivera best fits the Reds "philosophy"?

I haven't read the entire Dougdirt/Cyclone tome on Rivera so if it's already been touched on, my apologies.

My guess it's just PDoc twaddle since last I checked the Reds philosophy has been to swing early and often while sporting horrible defense.

Basically I echoed what Dave Cameron had to say (even though I wrote it before he did, we basically had the same things to say). While Cyclone thinks he isn't very likely to do that because guys who don't walk aren't very projectable (while I normally would agree, Rivera is in a very different place than most other free swingers because he has both good power and a very high contact rate). Thus he see's Rivera being 'teh suck', I see Rivera as being a guy, if healthy, fairly capable of hitting .290-.300 with a .340 OBP and slugging you .475+.

Caveat Emperor
12-18-2008, 03:56 PM
Thus he see's Rivera being 'teh suck', I see Rivera as being a guy, if healthy, fairly capable of hitting .290-.300 with a .340 OBP and slugging you .475+.

I don't think anyone is disputing that he COULD post a 2009 line of something close to .300 / .340 / .475 and have tremendous value for the Reds.

My only concern is that I see it just as likely that he posts a .270 / .310 / .450 line and turns into a giant out-machine in the middle of the lineup. I think that's the greater point to make about guys who don't walk - they're tough to put on a baseline and it's difficult to say, with certainty, what the worst or best case scenario is. Given that, you're really left trying to play Kreskin when it comes to figuring out if he's worth the money or not.

In Rivera's case, that's even more troubling because he's lost so much time to injury and recovery. If there was a body of work there to look at, you could have scouts break down his swing videos, watch his game film, and trust them a bit to say "Yeah, he's a good bet to be productive" vs. "I see tendencies that will lead to decreased contact-rate with age." With Rivera, it's tough to know exactly what you're looking at over the last two seasons.

That's my big bone of contention with him. He's (like Rocco Baldelli, FWIW) a lottery ticket. I like lottery tickets to be inexpensive and easily discardable when I scratch the silver stuff off and find out I didn't win. Rivera won't come that way, I fear.

red-in-la
12-18-2008, 03:57 PM
What did PDoc mean when he said Rivera best fits the Reds "philosophy"?

I haven't read the entire Dougdirt/Cyclone tome on Rivera so if it's already been touched on, my apologies.

My guess it's just PDoc twaddle since last I checked the Reds philosophy has been to swing early and often while sporting horrible defense.

In all seriousness, I believe Doc meant buying cheap. The forever hope that has infected Cincinnati that they can be the only ones to catch lightning in a bottle.

I tell you, someone should clorox the word POTENTIAL iin huge letters into the GAB centerfield grass.

Jpup
12-18-2008, 03:59 PM
In all seriousness, I believe Doc meant buying cheap. The forever hope that has infected Cincinnati that they can be the only ones to catch lightning in a bottle.

I tell you, someone should clorox the word POTENTIAL iin huge letters into the GAB centerfield grass.

i hear an echo. ;)

remdog
12-18-2008, 04:01 PM
I watched Rivera a fair amount in '06 and he was a solid to good ballplayer---i.e., someone I'd like to have on my team. Good power, puts the bat on the ball, OK defense, decent speed. Pretty much a B or B+ player that year.

Rivera and Baldelli are similar in that you don't know exactly what you are getting because of injuries/medical problems over the last couple of years.

As I said in the Baldelli thread, you're rolling the dice with guys like this---the Reds did it with Josh Hamilton and won big---there are no guarantees about which player is going to show up.

Roll 'em and take your chances or know that you've got another losing season coming your way with what you've got now?

Rem

Jpup
12-18-2008, 04:03 PM
I watched Rivera a fair amount in '06 and he was a solid to good ballplayer---i.e., someone I'd like to have on my team. Good power, puts the bat on the ball, OK defense, decent speed. Pretty much a B or B+ player that year.

Rivera and Balldelli are similar in that you don't know exactly what you are getting because of injuries/medical problems over the last couple of years.

As I said in the Balldelli thread, you're rolling the dice with guys like this---the Reds did it with Josh Hamilton and won big---there are no guarantees about which player is going to show up.

Roll 'em and take your chances or know that you've got another losing season coming your way with what you've got now?

Rem

why spend 6 million on a maybe when you can get someone that is actually good for 10 or 12?

blumj
12-18-2008, 04:04 PM
I don't think anyone is disputing that he COULD post a 2009 line of something close to .300 / .340 / .475 and have tremendous value for the Reds.

My only concern is that I see it just as likely that he posts a .270 / .310 / .450 line and turns into a giant out-machine in the middle of the lineup. I think that's the greater point to make about guys who don't walk - they're tough to put on a baseline and it's difficult to say, with certainty, what the worst or best case scenario is. Given that, you're really left trying to play Kreskin when it comes to figuring out if he's worth the money or not.

In Rivera's case, that's even more troubling because he's lost so much time to injury and recovery. If there was a body of work there to look at, you could have scouts break down his swing videos, watch his game film, and trust them a bit to say "Yeah, he's a good bet to be productive" vs. "I see tendencies that will lead to decreased contact-rate with age." With Rivera, it's tough to know exactly what you're looking at over the last two seasons.

That's my big bone of contention with him. He's (like Rocco Baldelli, FWIW) a lottery ticket. I like lottery tickets to be inexpensive and easily discardable when I scratch the silver stuff off and find out I didn't win. Rivera won't come that way, I fear.
I don't see why he'd come any other way. I can't think of a good reason to give a guy who's barely played the last 2 seasons anything much in guaranteed money. If another team is willing to, let them. Same with Baldelli.

remdog
12-18-2008, 04:07 PM
why spend 6 million on a maybe when you can get someone that is actually good for 10 or 12?

No problem with that approach. Who is that guaranteed player? :)

Rem

Kc61
12-18-2008, 04:08 PM
Basically I echoed what Dave Cameron had to say (even though I wrote it before he did, we basically had the same things to say). While Cyclone thinks he isn't very likely to do that because guys who don't walk aren't very projectable (while I normally would agree, Rivera is in a very different place than most other free swingers because he has both good power and a very high contact rate). Thus he see's Rivera being 'teh suck', I see Rivera as being a guy, if healthy, fairly capable of hitting .290-.300 with a .340 OBP and slugging you .475+.

So, if he's healthy -- which he hasn't been lately -- he's "fairly capable" of a good year.

Forgive me, but the Reds just gave up Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey, Jr. Perhaps they could acquire someone who is likely to have a good year -- not just fairly capable if healthy.

I'm sure this guy is a fine ballplayer, but if this is the major offensive acquisition, then I wonder about the commitment to winning.

Jpup
12-18-2008, 04:12 PM
No problem with that approach. Who is that guaranteed player? :)

Rem

Bobby Abreu.

membengal
12-18-2008, 04:14 PM
2 years, 7 million total. I would do it for that. I come down tentatively on the Doug-columnist side of the argument. I think he can be replacement level in LF for this team. If they are not going to get Wigginton and move EE to LF (my first preference assuming no big splash trade/signing), then Rivera is not the worst fall-back ever among the what-now options. As long as the contract is short and reasonable.

pahster
12-18-2008, 04:16 PM
2 years, 7 million total. I would do it for that. I come down tentatively on the Doug-columnist side of the argument. I think he can be replacement level in LF for this team. If they are not going to get Wigginton and move EE to LF (my first preference assuming no big splash trade/signing), then Rivera is not the worst fall-back ever among the what-now options. As long as the contract is short and reasonable.

You want to pay $7 million over two years to a player you believe is replacement level?

membengal
12-18-2008, 04:18 PM
Don't know that I want to do it, but that may be what it takes to get that kind of player in this market.

pahster
12-18-2008, 04:20 PM
Don't know that I want to do it, but that may be what it takes to get that kind of player in this market.

But a replacement level player is by definition one who is freely available, i.e. a player that will cost the league minimum.

Chip R
12-18-2008, 04:21 PM
2 years, 7 million total. I would do it for that. I come down tentatively on the Doug-columnist side of the argument. I think he can be replacement level in LF for this team. If they are not going to get Wigginton and move EE to LF (my first preference assuming no big splash trade/signing), then Rivera is not the worst fall-back ever among the what-now options. As long as the contract is short and reasonable.


I don't want to start anything here but it wasn't too long ago when we had a LFer who was a lock to play over 150 games hit 40 HRs and drive in 100 runs, albiet with sub-par defense and a lot of strikeouts. But we knew what we were getting and right now we could get it at a discount.

Raisor
12-18-2008, 04:22 PM
I don't want to start anything here but it wasn't too long ago when we had a LFer who was a lock to play over 150 games hit 40 HRs and drive in 100 runs, albiet with sub-par defense and a lot of strikeouts. But we knew what we were getting and right now we could get it at a discount.

Troublemaker

Chip R
12-18-2008, 04:23 PM
Troublemaker


I know. But aren't you proud of me? :D

LoganBuck
12-18-2008, 04:23 PM
I listen to Daugherty nightly, I can tell you where he is coming from here. He thinks, (and someone from within the Reds organization told him) that Rivera is going to come here and blossom in the GABP, and be some sort of athletic, "clutch hitting", exciting player, who plays above average defense. He keeps trying to poison the well on players like Pat Burrell, whom he thinks are just more of the same (his disdain for Adam Dunn is well known). He even went so far as to say to Jocketty on Friday night of RedsFest that he hopes that Pat Burrell doesn't come here. He mentioned that he laid out his case against Burrell to Jocketty during a commercial break. He tries to frame his argument based on the economics of baseball. Claiming that the Reds don't need to "overpay" or "get locked into a two or three year deal".

At the same time he doesn't want to trade Homer Bailey for Jermaine Dye. Saying that, "you don't trade a 22 year old pitcher for a 35 year old outfielder." He want to promote a "exciting" brand of baseball. He has no idea what exciting baseball is, and falls back on the tenants of smallball, pitching, and defense. There is nothing wrong with any of those, as long as you have actual talent playing baseball. When you depend on players who lack the ability to play winning baseball, playing "smallball" is slang for not knowing how to define failure.

Raisor
12-18-2008, 04:24 PM
I know. But aren't you proud of me? :D


I start trouble, but Galactus finishes it.

RedLegSuperStar
12-18-2008, 04:24 PM
I don't think Rivera is "plan a." He could be "plan b" though. Per MLBTradeRumors.com... They said the Reds are still interested in Jermaine Dye. Dye is my guess as "plan a" and is the only sign that let's me know this team is interested in winning in 2009.

membengal
12-18-2008, 04:24 PM
Look, it wasn't ME that ran Adam Dunn off. But now we have this hole in LF. If they are not going to fill it with a Mags trade (the first thing I wanted this off-season), a Dye trade (which I could be happy with), or an Abreu signing (no indications), then what? Then they are down to fallback options. And of the fall-back options, my first preference would be Wigginton with EE going to LF. If I can't have that either? THEN I guess I could live with Rivera. Not thrilled with it. But he would be okay as a bridge to whatever is coming from the minors in a year or two.

Mind you, I would not be printing playoff tix, with a Rivera signing, but they could continue their quixotic quest for .500 with him, I would imagine...

BRM
12-18-2008, 04:26 PM
I don't want to start anything here but it wasn't too long ago when we had a LFer who was a lock to play over 150 games hit 40 HRs and drive in 100 runs, albiet with sub-par defense and a lot of strikeouts. But we knew what we were getting and right now we could get it at a discount.

You may not want to start anything but I think you just did. ;)

Raisor
12-18-2008, 04:26 PM
they could contineu their quixotic quest for .500 with him, I would imagine...

Yippie?

membengal
12-18-2008, 04:27 PM
Yippie?

No doubt. Get your tickets now!

BRM
12-18-2008, 04:27 PM
Ah, the quest for .500. Seems like we've been on that quest for a long time now.

remdog
12-18-2008, 04:28 PM
Bobby Abreu.

OK. Spend $10-12M/year on Abreu or maybe $3-4M/year on Rivera? Guess we'll see if Castellini wants to go for the big money, older player or roll the dice for a guy that could give you the same as Bobby's numbers last year if you bet correctly. Or, the team could go in a totally different direction. (famous shrug).

Rem

Jpup
12-18-2008, 04:32 PM
that could give you the same as Bobby's numbers last year

I don't see that happening, but it is possible I guess.

BA HR RBI OBP SLG
.296 20 100 .371 .471

Rivera is never going to post a number like that IMO.

Chip R
12-18-2008, 04:34 PM
Look, it wasn't ME that ran Adam Dunn off. But now we have this hole in LF. If they are not going to fill it with a Mags trade (the first thing I wanted this off-season), a Dye trade (which I could be happy with), or an Abreu signing (no indications), then what?


I understand that and I wasn't trying to pick on you by quoting you or anyone else. I was just trying to say that the options that are out there are very unpredictable and we knew - or know - what Dunn brought to the table. The other options either are too old or too broken or too expensive or too sucky. Now maybe we strike gold for one of them but, again, you don't know for sure. I think the Dunn-Reds ship has sailed and it's probably a good thing for both parties but it was nice knowing that we had that kind of production out there.

membengal
12-18-2008, 04:35 PM
Could not agree more. Sure was teh suck having to plug in 40 homers and a .375 OBP into LF on a yearly basis. This team is much better off with that kind of headache off the roster...

Raisor
12-18-2008, 04:39 PM
I think the Dunn-Reds ship has sailed and it's probably a good thing for both parties .

Probably good for one of those parties.

Ltlabner
12-18-2008, 04:39 PM
Could not agree more. Sure was teh suck having to plug in 40 homers and a .375 OBP into LF on a yearly basis. This team is much better off with that kind of headache off the roster...

Just wait till June when we are scoring 1.75 runs a game and folks are scratching their heads wondering why.

Especially with all that speed that's apparently coming to town.

edabbs44
12-18-2008, 04:45 PM
Just wait till June when we are scoring 1.75 runs a game and folks are scratching their heads wondering why.

Especially with all that speed that's apparently coming to town.

Spending $30MM+ on a player to bring that number all the way to 2.5 runs is probably a worse move than not bringing him back.

edabbs44
12-18-2008, 04:46 PM
Probably good for one of those parties.

Hasn't been that great so far.

BRM
12-18-2008, 04:53 PM
Spending $30MM+ on a player to bring that number all the way to 2.5 runs is probably a worse move than not bringing him back.

No kidding. We should instead focus our efforts on acquiring enough pitching to keep the runs allowed to 1.5 per game. Then the winning could commence.

Caveat Emperor
12-18-2008, 04:53 PM
I don't see why he'd come any other way. I can't think of a good reason to give a guy who's barely played the last 2 seasons anything much in guaranteed money. If another team is willing to, let them. Same with Baldelli.

I actually prefer Baldelli -- with him the only thing you stand to lose is money if his health problems keep him penciled in the lineup, batting leadoff on the DL.

With Rivera, you stand to not only lose money but also ballgames, since he's likely to play regardless of how poorly he performs.

BRM
12-18-2008, 04:54 PM
With Rivera, you stand to not only lose money but also ballgames, since he's likely to play regardless of how poorly he performs.

Hmmm, looks eerily similar to the argument against another outfielder that's been discussed a lot lately.

RedEye
12-18-2008, 04:57 PM
Hmmm, looks eerily similar to the argument against another outfielder that's been discussed a lot lately.

Wait a minute... Rivera is better than Taveras. I mean, right?

TRF
12-18-2008, 04:58 PM
Rivera and WT in the OF together?

That looks like were we are headed.

http://www.gamerevolution.com/images/misc/galactus.jpg

I can't believe you invited HIM to this thread.

membengal
12-18-2008, 04:58 PM
Wait a minute... Rivera is better than Taveras. I mean, right?

All joking aside, I think that answer is easily yes, because Rivera has discernable power. The SLG difference makes that an easy call, however walk challenged they may be...

BRM
12-18-2008, 04:59 PM
Wait a minute... Rivera is better than Taveras. I mean, right?

I think so. I believe CE's overall point though is that neither will help the Reds win games.

Johnny Footstool
12-18-2008, 05:02 PM
Rivera is a decent player to take a chance on. He should be relatively cheap, and he has a lot of upside.

Signing him wouldn't be a disaster, nor would it guarantee the Reds a spot in the playoffs.

I'd rather have Bobby Abreu, but that's not likely to happen.

dougdirt
12-18-2008, 05:03 PM
So, if he's healthy -- which he hasn't been lately -- he's "fairly capable" of a good year.

Forgive me, but the Reds just gave up Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey, Jr. Perhaps they could acquire someone who is likely to have a good year -- not just fairly capable if healthy.

I'm sure this guy is a fine ballplayer, but if this is the major offensive acquisition, then I wonder about the commitment to winning.
He was healthy last year, he just didn't play regularly until mid season because others were getting the chances instead of him. Then at that point he was ridiculously unlucky on his balls in play (.242 BABIP).

Now I do want to address your final statement about a major offensive acquisition. Hypothetically speaking players tend to get better until their age 27/28 season. That means the Reds should see improvements from Bruce, Votto, Encarnacion and potentially Phillips. Add in anything thats not Corey Patterson and Paul Bako and we have two more positions that are going to have better offense (unless we do the God awful idea and bring in Taveras). Adding a good but not great bat to a position we have absolutely nothing at right now is just another piece to the puzzle. While I would love to bring in a guy who can OPS .900 to play LF, its unfortunately not very likely. The Reds lost Dunn, which is going to be tough to replace, but losing Dunn while also replacing Bako and Patterson with anything resembling league average (and a league average left fielder) is an improvement of your overall offense. We have a ways to go, but Losing Dunn/Bako/Patterson and adding league average at LF/C/CF is an overall + to the offense. The argument of course comes to whether you believe Rivera can provide league average or better in LF (which for the top 30 PA guys in LF was .279/.354/.464 for an .818 OPS).

dougdirt
12-18-2008, 05:06 PM
Hmmm, looks eerily similar to the argument against another outfielder that's been discussed a lot lately.

Except one guy can't hit the ball out of the infield while the other guy has a little above average power and a career OPS that is 132 points higher. But yeah, they are really similar players. :rolleyes:

BRM
12-18-2008, 05:11 PM
Except one guy can't hit the ball out of the infield while the other guy has a little above average power and a career OPS that is 132 points higher. But yeah, they are really similar players. :rolleyes:

Nowhere in my post did I say they were similar players. Nowhere.

dougdirt
12-18-2008, 05:15 PM
Nowhere in my post did I say they were similar players. Nowhere.

No, but you were in agreement that Rivera isn't a good baseball player since CE states that either playing leads to the Reds losing ball games.

BRM
12-18-2008, 05:20 PM
No, but you were in agreement that Rivera isn't a good baseball player since CE states that either playing leads to the Reds losing ball games.

Actually, I didn't even do that. Although I can see where it's implied. :)

I just stated that his argument against Rivera (Reds lose if he plays a lot) was the same as the one people made against WT. For the record, I do somewhat agree. I'd take Rivera as a 4th OF, possible platoon guy in LF but not as an everyday leftfielder.

Caveat Emperor
12-18-2008, 05:24 PM
No, but you were in agreement that Rivera isn't a good baseball player since CE states that either playing leads to the Reds losing ball games.

What I said was this:



With Rivera, you stand to not only lose money but also ballgames, since he's likely to play regardless of how poorly he performs.


If Rivera signs, all indications are that Rivera will be signing to be the starting LF for the 2009 Cincinnati Reds. He will be penciled into the starting lineup every night by Dusty and will only be removed from the starting lineup if injuries, the Allmighty, or Jocketty intercede. That's how Dusty rolls; he's a former position player and his natural inclination is to let players play through slumps, even if those slumps are career-long and stem from lack of talent as opposed to a bad week or two.

Given that fact, and my prior point that Rivera lacks a projectable "base" performance level, he becomes a large risk to the Reds lineup should any number of things not go his way this season, including but not limited to:

* Dip in contact rate and increase in strikeout rate
* BABIP levelling out at ~.270-.280 (which is possible, given his low level of pitch selectivity and propensity to put any ball he can reach into play)
* Power numbers leveling off

I'm not saying Rivera isn't a good baseball player (given his injury history and sporadic play over the last two years, I don't think anyone really knows what he is anymore) -- what I'm saying is that he's a RISKY baseball player. I don't like signing risky ballplayers when better, more known, options are on the table. I especially don't like signing risky ballplayers and penciling in optimistic numbers next to their name as you proceed to fill out your lineup card for the season.

Rivera is a question mark. The Reds needs more exclamation points.

Mario-Rijo
12-18-2008, 05:57 PM
What I said was this:



If Rivera signs, all indications are that Rivera will be signing to be the starting LF for the 2009 Cincinnati Reds. He will be penciled into the starting lineup every night by Dusty and will only be removed from the starting lineup if injuries, the Allmighty, or Jocketty intercede. That's how Dusty rolls; he's a former position player and his natural inclination is to let players play through slumps, even if those slumps are career-long and stem from lack of talent as opposed to a bad week or two.

Given that fact, and my prior point that Rivera lacks a projectable "base" performance level, he becomes a large risk to the Reds lineup should any number of things not go his way this season, including but not limited to:

* Dip in contact rate and increase in strikeout rate
* BABIP levelling out at ~.270-.280 (which is possible, given his low level of pitch selectivity and propensity to put any ball he can reach into play)
* Power numbers leveling off

I'm not saying Rivera isn't a good baseball player (given his injury history and sporadic play over the last two years, I don't think anyone really knows what he is anymore) -- what I'm saying is that he's a RISKY baseball player. I don't like signing risky ballplayers when better, more known, options are on the table. I especially don't like signing risky ballplayers and penciling in optimistic numbers next to their name as you proceed to fill out your lineup card for the season.

Rivera is a question mark. The Reds needs more exclamation points.

Everyone knows (I think) where I fall on this argument, I like Rivera and believe he is an exception to the rule. That said this is the best argument I have seen against that argument. I still have to disagree but I can see where this warrants more consideration based on your points. At least where contact rate is concerned anyway. I'm not sure when that typically falls off in a player but if it does it certainly hurts Rivera more than most. I don't see his power leveling off yet and especially not in this park or division, but the contact rate could effect the bottom line there also. His BABIP has always been low for his results, many times lower than what you have listed there but he has still maintained good BA's despite that fact. But again contact rate comes into play here as well, if it dips everything does. Plus his BA would probably we lower in GABP than most places but his OBP% shouldn't take as much of a dive as a result with his Slg% being propped up a bit by the park.

Overall I still see a good bet here I think the guy is a professional line drive type hitter. But after this post it does give me a tad more pause but not enough to not pursue him. I'd much rather have a Matt Holliday but given our options Rivera is closer to the answer than the opposite.

Problem is however that I don't think the middle of the lineup is as a big an issue as the top of the lineup at this point. If we don't score runs it won't likely be because of Rivera or whomever else we get to play LF but because we have no legit options at the top of the lineup who also play everyday positionally. I think Dusty and Walt both know this but for whatever reason are ignoring OBP% if they sign Taveras, but even if he works out (extreme longshot I know) there is still a big hole at the #2 spot. Oh I know what they are thinking Taveras CF & #1 and Kepp SS & #2 (sorry this stinks).

Mario-Rijo
12-18-2008, 06:06 PM
Basically I echoed what Dave Cameron had to say (even though I wrote it before he did, we basically had the same things to say). While Cyclone thinks he isn't very likely to do that because guys who don't walk aren't very projectable (while I normally would agree, Rivera is in a very different place than most other free swingers because he has both good power and a very high contact rate). Thus he see's Rivera being 'teh suck', I see Rivera as being a guy, if healthy, fairly capable of hitting .290-.300 with a .340 OBP and slugging you .475+.

I agree with you post Doug but just wanted to point out that Cameron and OBM beat us all to that argument. I hadn't noticed it at 1st either but OBM actually posted Cameron's thoughts on the other Rivera thread.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/newreply.php?do=newreply&p=1776546

Mario-Rijo
12-18-2008, 06:13 PM
Additionally I would add that a trade for Dye or signing of a Burrell or the like may prohibit us from acquiring anything at the deadline. Whereas Rivera if he can help keep us in the thing to the deadline almost forces the hand of the F.O. to add at the deadline and they don't have the money excuse not to. Of course that could mean bad news for any good prospects we have near the bigs. Frazier, Valaika and the like come to mind, Valaika I could live with parting with but Frazier I really like.

Raisor
12-18-2008, 06:20 PM
Additionally I would add that a trade for Dye or signing of a Burrell or the like may prohibit us from acquiring anything at the deadline. Whereas Rivera if he can help keep us in the thing to the deadline almost forces the hand of the F.O. to add at the deadline and they don't have the money excuse not to. Of course that could mean bad news for any good prospects we have near the bigs. Frazier, Valaika and the like come to mind, Valaika I could live with parting with but Frazier I really like.



That's awfully optimistic, don't you think?

Kc61
12-18-2008, 06:45 PM
Now I do want to address your final statement about a major offensive acquisition. Hypothetically speaking players tend to get better until their age 27/28 season. That means the Reds should see improvements from Bruce, Votto, Encarnacion and potentially Phillips. Add in anything thats not Corey Patterson and Paul Bako and we have two more positions that are going to have better offense (unless we do the God awful idea and bring in Taveras). Adding a good but not great bat to a position we have absolutely nothing at right now is just another piece to the puzzle. While I would love to bring in a guy who can OPS .900 to play LF, its unfortunately not very likely. The Reds lost Dunn, which is going to be tough to replace, but losing Dunn while also replacing Bako and Patterson with anything resembling league average (and a league average left fielder) is an improvement of your overall offense. We have a ways to go, but Losing Dunn/Bako/Patterson and adding league average at LF/C/CF is an overall + to the offense. The argument of course comes to whether you believe Rivera can provide league average or better in LF (which for the top 30 PA guys in LF was .279/.354/.464 for an .818 OPS).

I just have a very different idea of what the Reds should do. The team needs a major righty bat for the middle of the lineup. They have shedded two major contracts -- they should at least make one major addition this year.

When Walt was in St. Louis and needed hitters he picked up Scott Rolen, Larry Walker, Jim Edmonds. Why not for the Reds? He should pick up Jermaine Dye or someone at that level.

The Reds should be unwilling simply to bank on improvement by current players or turnarounds by players. They have obvious needs and if they are in the big leagues they should meet them.

Or they should put out a statement that the economics are impossible this year, that they plan to have an exciting team, but it will be very young and promising. And, if necessary, go that route.

Mario-Rijo
12-18-2008, 06:47 PM
That's awfully optimistic, don't you think?

I think depending on other potential moves it's probably a tad optimistic. For example the top of the lineup has to be addressed and the SS hole should be as well. If they aren't then yes it's awfully optimistic if they are then it's probably a tad optimistic.

dougdirt
12-18-2008, 07:32 PM
When Walt was in St. Louis and needed hitters he picked up Scott Rolen, Larry Walker, Jim Edmonds. Why not for the Reds? He should pick up Jermaine Dye or someone at that level.

Perhaps not for the Reds because right now those types of options either aren't available or aren't really good moves in his mind given what it might cost to acquire said types of talent.

Jim Edmonds was coming off a pretty bad year for him when he came to St Louis and he wasn't acquired until late March.
Scott Rolen was acquired Midseason in his walk year and the Cardinals had a 5 game lead (over the Reds of all teams).
Larry Walker was acquired in August the year he was brought in and the Cardinals had a 10.5 game lead in the division at the time.

Maybe Walt is thinking that the team either A, isn't going to compete and doesn't want to waste talent on a 1 year type guy (Dye) or is going after other guys currently and is going to see how the team is doing later in the year to make a legit play for a 'big guy'.

Caveat Emperor
12-18-2008, 07:34 PM
When Walt was in St. Louis and needed hitters he picked up Scott Rolen, Larry Walker, Jim Edmonds. Why not for the Reds? He should pick up Jermaine Dye or someone at that level.

Edmonds was 29 when Jocketty grabbed him from Anaheim. Scott Rolen was even younger, 27, when he got traded from Philly.

Those are two players who were in their prime when St. Louis acquired them. Nobody on the market currently fits that description, including Dye (who will be 35 on Opening Day).

edabbs44
12-18-2008, 07:42 PM
Maybe Walt is thinking that the team either A, isn't going to compete and doesn't want to waste talent on a 1 year type guy (Dye) or is going after other guys currently and is going to see how the team is doing later in the year to make a legit play for a 'big guy'.

Agreed...maybe Walt knows this team isn't going to compete and isn't going to drop a big contract on someone just to give the appearance that they are going to try and win, a la Cordero.

If they aren't going to dedicate the resources in truly trying to compete this season, then a short term flyer on Rivera isn't such a bad idea.

lollipopcurve
12-18-2008, 07:44 PM
what I'm saying is that he's a RISKY baseball player. I don't like signing risky ballplayers when better, more known, options are on the table.

A large portion of risk is $$$.

Johnny Footstool
12-18-2008, 08:26 PM
Rivera is a question mark. The Reds needs more exclamation points.

Exclamation points tend to require dollar signs.

Teams like the Reds pretty much have to gamble on players and hope they hit the jackpot.

Kc61
12-18-2008, 08:50 PM
Edmonds was 29 when Jocketty grabbed him from Anaheim. Scott Rolen was even younger, 27, when he got traded from Philly.

Those are two players who were in their prime when St. Louis acquired them. Nobody on the market currently fits that description, including Dye (who will be 35 on Opening Day).

You left out Walker who was 37.

The Reds are in a perpetual state of rebuilding. It's never a good time to go for it.

By the time the young players are ready, Harang and Arroyo will be gone. Cordero will be gone or no longer have closer stuff. The pitching staff will have gaping holes. And it will be time to rebuild again.

The die hard fans are too accepting of this pattern. The casual fans just stay away.

I thought Jocketty was going to add a few very good players so the team would have a chance to win. Like he did with the Cards. Maybe Dye. Maybe Beltre. Maybe even Lowe.

Look at the thread with everyone's 5 picks of players who might be added. Most of those picks were proven guys. Maybe the press is all wrong and Walt will surprise. Hope so.

Highlifeman21
12-18-2008, 11:25 PM
Hadn't seen this posted yet. It's from Paul Daugherty's blog.



Say what you want about Doc, but he does have some sources with the Reds. Sounds like Rivera may be Plan A.

If Juan Rivera is the guy that best fits the Reds' philosophy, then the Reds' philosophy must be to continue to suck.

Awesome, I guess losing truly stops now (now being when we sign Juan Rivera)

Highlifeman21
12-18-2008, 11:27 PM
You know, the more I think about it it, I hope the Reds sign Rivera. It then makes my decision easy whether to renew or cancel my season tickets for next season.

You'll be stuck watching him for 2 games in Washington in June regardless...

Just sayin'...

Mario-Rijo
12-18-2008, 11:27 PM
I'm not so sure Walt isn't trying to still get Ken Williams to budge. Show interest in all these guys and if no one else inquires about Dye maybe Williams changes his mind.

Mainspark
12-19-2008, 12:51 AM
Angels close to re-signing Juan Rivera
By Tim Brown, Yahoo! Sports

The Los Angeles Angels on Thursday night were nearing agreement with outfielder Juan Rivera on a three-year contract, according to baseball sources.

And as news spread of a meeting between their No. 1 offseason target – Mark Teixeira – and Boston Red Sox officials in Dallas, Angels management continued to pursue other options to replace the slugging first baseman, operating as though Teixeira indeed would sign with the Red Sox.

Angels general manager Tony Reagins will explore the trade market for more offense, starting perhaps with Chicago White Sox sluggers Jermaine Dye and Paul Konerko. The versatile Chone Figgins has been a sought-after figure in trade talks.

Reagins also has conducted conversations recently with the agents for Bobby Abreu, Pat Burrell and Adam Dunn, but thus far the club has no interest in Milton Bradley.

With some of the money earmarked for Teixeira, L.A. likely will sign a closer, probably Brian Fuentes, who has expressed his desire to play for the Angels. They also have held discussions with the Padres about trading for starter Jake Peavy, but not since the end of the winter meetings.

Rivera had been a valuable fourth outfielder for the Angels before breaking his leg in a Venezuelan winter league game after the 2006 season, his most productive in the big leagues. He hit 12 home runs and batted .246 in 256 at-bats last season.

Screwball
12-19-2008, 02:06 AM
I don't see that happening, but it is possible I guess.

BA HR RBI OBP SLG
.296 20 100 .371 .471

Rivera is never going to post a number like that IMO.

Rivera pretty much already did in 2006 (.310/.362/.525 with 23 HR and 85 RBI). Sure, JR may not do it again, but I'm not sure why you say he will never post the above numbers, especially when he's already done it once. Plus, he would be moving into a notorious launching pad in Cincy if the Reds acquired him.

remdog
12-19-2008, 02:27 AM
The Angels are one of the best run franchises in MLB and, in this decade so far, have been in the playoffs five times and won the WS once. They are in hot pursuit of Juan Rivera. The Reds haven't even sniffed the playoffs in that time.

I think it's interesting that a bunch of baseball board junkies vilify him to this degree yet the Angels (you know,the people that are actually going to have to pay him money) want him back :eek:

Rem

*BaseClogger*
12-19-2008, 02:46 AM
The Angels are one of the best run franchises in MLB and, in this decade so far, have been in the playoffs five times and won the WS once. They are in hot pursuit of Juan Rivera. The Reds haven't even sniffed the playoffs in that time.

I think it's interesting that a bunch of baseball board junkies vilify him to this degree yet the Angels (you know,the people that are actually going to have to pay him money) want him back :eek:

Rem

Although I can see where you are coming from, don't the Reds have more at stake than the Angels? The Reds are looking for a "run-producing" LF to bat cleanup. Like you said, the Angels are a good team--they can take the risk that Rivera breaks out. And again, like you said, the Angels and Mike Scioscia are a smart organization--they are much more likely to take Rivera out of the lineup if he's playing poorly. I'm not as confident Dusty can let him go... ;)

remdog
12-19-2008, 03:25 AM
Although I can see where you are coming from, don't the Reds have more at stake than the Angels? The Reds are looking for a "run-producing" LF to bat cleanup. Like you said, the Angels are a good team--they can take the risk that Rivera breaks out. And again, like you said, the Angels and Mike Scioscia are a smart organization--they are much more likely to take Rivera out of the lineup if he's playing poorly. I'm not as confident Dusty can let him go... ;)

The Dusty factor aside, the Angels are, I believe, going to be without Garrett Anderson this year. Vlad has been playing with a bad right elbow and Gary Mathews has been a dissapointment. Even though they offered Tex 8yrs/$160M it looks like he's gone so they need help at firstbase.

#1. Sciosca is a smart manager and rode Rivera in '06 even though many would have considered him the 4th OF. If Mike did that before, I'd say he would do it again.

#2. The Angels saw JR on an everyday basis last year---both inside and outside of the clubhouse. With those everyday observations, if they still want JR they must think he's solid.

#3. And this works against the Reds---the Angels could use JR as a DH----an opportunity the Reds don't share. That may make him a little more valuable to the Angels than the Reds if the Reds have any concern about JR's broken leg effecting his fielding.

Once again, I just find it interesting that an orginization as highly thought of as the Angels, which has a very good kowledge of JR, wants to re-sign him while he gets heavily bashed on a baseball bulletin board concerned with a team in another league and 2300 miles away.

Rem

Caveat Emperor
12-19-2008, 07:04 AM
I think it's interesting that a bunch of baseball board junkies vilify him to this degree yet the Angels (you know,the people that are actually going to have to pay him money) want him back

Yup.

Because the Angels -- contenders, with money to spend, looking to add an additional bat or two to help put them over the top -- and the Reds -- basement-dwellers, on a limited budget, looking to replace a high-production LF and close a ~100 RS/RA gap -- are in the exact same situation and should be targeting the exact same players always.

Definitely how baseball works. Thanks for clarifying that.

jojo
12-19-2008, 07:39 AM
The Angels have also largely ignored Burrell and Dunn while being beaten to the quick for Raul.

Falls City Beer
12-19-2008, 08:29 AM
I've made an about-face vis. J Rivera. I don't like the guy's game very much, but I'll concede that the guy's got decent power, the element IMO that the club is lacking most.

Couple that with the fact that it looks like money is going to be a problem for the club, and I'm starting to think a Jimbo-ish small-payroll experimentation isn't the worst route for the team this offseason. I think the command from the top is to put a contender on the field, but I got to believe that Walt understands that there is absolutely NO way that the Reds can overtake the Cubs in one offseason. I imagine the plan has shifted to (or has remained) hanging in in a WC chase at best. Moves will be modest (few or no prospects leaving), but experimentation with single-skill-sets will likely be the order of the day.

IslandRed
12-19-2008, 09:02 AM
Yup.

Because the Angels -- contenders, with money to spend, looking to add an additional bat or two to help put them over the top -- and the Reds -- basement-dwellers, on a limited budget, looking to replace a high-production LF and close a ~100 RS/RA gap -- are in the exact same situation and should be targeting the exact same players always.

Definitely how baseball works. Thanks for clarifying that.

While conceding your point that players do not fit equally well on all teams, if he's not good enough to help the Reds close that 100-run gap, he's not good enough to help push the Angels over the top in the hard league, either.

Not that I'm against signing a better-known, more-productive player for LF, mind you, but that'll cost more, and that will affect what they can do about the other holes. Bang for the buck is where you find it.

membengal
12-19-2008, 02:24 PM
I've made an about-face vis. J Rivera. I don't like the guy's game very much, but I'll concede that the guy's got decent power, the element IMO that the club is lacking most.

Couple that with the fact that it looks like money is going to be a problem for the club, and I'm starting to think a Jimbo-ish small-payroll experimentation isn't the worst route for the team this offseason. I think the command from the top is to put a contender on the field, but I got to believe that Walt understands that there is absolutely NO way that the Reds can overtake the Cubs in one offseason. I imagine the plan has shifted to (or has remained) hanging in in a WC chase at best. Moves will be modest (few or no prospects leaving), but experimentation with single-skill-sets will likely be the order of the day.

Nods in agreement.

I think that is spot on FCB. So if we are looking at small incremental moves aimed at keeping them in the WC chase, then my preferences would be:

1. Sign Baldelli to platoon with Dickerson
2. See if you can trade for Delmon Young, if not, then
3. Sign Wigginton if can get for three or fewer years at a reasonable number; if not then
4. Sign Rivera.

I would consider each of those moves the kind of moves that fit within the framework you have outlined, a framework that I think defines what this off-season will be about.

What I don't want is for those options to fall off the board, and them to go all Taveras on us. That is not an incremental move, but a step back.

TRF
12-19-2008, 02:37 PM
The Dusty factor aside, the Angels are, I believe, going to be without Garrett Anderson this year. Vlad has been playing with a bad right elbow and Gary Mathews has been a dissapointment. Even though they offered Tex 8yrs/$160M it looks like he's gone so they need help at firstbase.

Gary Matthews has been... Gary Matthews. what an enormous waste of cash on a player that made a fantastic catch but had done little else.

Chip R
12-19-2008, 03:18 PM
Gary Matthews has been... Gary Matthews. what an enormous waste of cash on a player that made a fantastic catch but had done little else.


The Private should be court-martialed.

mbgrayson
12-19-2008, 03:52 PM
Rivera signs with the Halos:

Rivera agrees to three-year, $12.75M contract to remain with Angels
Dec. 19, 2008
CBSSports.com wire reports

ANAHEIM, Calif. -- Outfielder Juan Rivera decided to stay with the Los Angeles Angels, agreeing Friday to a $12.75 million, three-year contract.

The 30-year-old outfielder hit .246 with 12 homers and 45 RBI in 89 games for the Angels last season, his fourth with the team. All 12 of his homers came in a span of 58 games after July 2. He also was the Angels' top pinch hitter with five hits in 14 at-bats and five RBI, including two game-winners.

Rivera figures to play the outfield and serve as a designated hitter. The Angels are in negotiations to re-sign free-agent first baseman Mark Teixeira, and they might pursue free-agent outfielder Manny Ramirez should Teixeira sign elsewhere.

Rivera has a .282 batting average with 52 homers and 197 RBI in 333 games in his four years with the Angels. In his career, Rivera is hitting .284 with 72 homers and 278 RBI in 555 games.

He gets $3.25 million next season, $4.25 million in 2010 and $5.25 million in 2011.

Originally signed by the Yankees on April 5, 1996, Rivera played with New York from 2001-03 and the Montreal Expos in 2004, then was traded to the Angels with infielder Maicer Izturis for outfielder Jose Guillen on Nov. 10, 2004.

Mainspark
12-19-2008, 03:52 PM
PER ROTOWORLD: Angels signed outfielder Juan Rivera to a three-year, $12.75 million contract.

A reasonable salary, but a three-year commitment is somewhat surprising for a player who's totaled just 299 at-bats over the past two seasons and has never topped 450 at-bats. With Garret Anderson departing Rivera figures to play every day between the outfield and designated hitter, and the 30-year-old career .284/.331/.468 hitter is capable of smacking 20-plus homers if he can stay healthy.

dougdirt
12-19-2008, 03:56 PM
Good signing by the Angels.

remdog
12-19-2008, 04:03 PM
Good signing by the Angels.

Agreed. And, since I watch the Angels when the Reds aren't on, it's good for me too.

I can't help thinking that the Reds missed a solid pickup at a reasonable price though.

Rem

Highlifeman21
12-19-2008, 04:28 PM
Agreed. And, since I watch the Angels when the Reds aren't on, it's good for me too.

I can't help thinking that the Reds missed a solid pickup at a reasonable price though.

Rem

I can't imagine Juan Rivera would have signed with the Reds for that same contract.

Double the money, and then maybe.

dougdirt
12-19-2008, 04:35 PM
I can't imagine Juan Rivera would have signed with the Reds for that same contract.

Double the money, and then maybe.

You think Rivera would have asked the Reds to pay him 25 million over 3 seasons? Based on what?

Highlifeman21
12-19-2008, 04:39 PM
You think Rivera would have asked the Reds to pay him 25 million over 3 seasons? Based on what?

The fact the Reds are a crappy team.

Sure, he would have played everyday for a crappy team, but he's still playing everyday for a crappy team.

Now, he's returning to a good team, where he's a 4th OF. But, since it's a good team, there's a chance he might make the playoffs with that good team, and possibly even get some postseason jewelry with that good team.

So, if postseason jewelry is more important to Rivera, it makes perfect sense he re-ups with the Angels.

But, if $ was more important to Rivera, then he probably would have asked for the moon from a crappy team, such as the Reds.

membengal
12-19-2008, 05:05 PM
Ah well. Fairly reasonable deal. Good work by the Angels...

edabbs44
12-19-2008, 05:21 PM
Would have been a pretty good signing by Cincy, I must say. Especially when you look at some of the dumb contracts they signed over the last few years.

dougdirt
12-19-2008, 05:27 PM
The fact the Reds are a crappy team.

Sure, he would have played everyday for a crappy team, but he's still playing everyday for a crappy team.

Now, he's returning to a good team, where he's a 4th OF. But, since it's a good team, there's a chance he might make the playoffs with that good team, and possibly even get some postseason jewelry with that good team.

So, if postseason jewelry is more important to Rivera, it makes perfect sense he re-ups with the Angels.

But, if $ was more important to Rivera, then he probably would have asked for the moon from a crappy team, such as the Reds.

I know guys give home town discounts, but there is no way Rivera gave them a 50% discount to be, if you are correct, a backup.

Scrap Irony
12-19-2008, 05:40 PM
The fact the Reds are a crappy team.

Sure, he would have played everyday for a crappy team, but he's still playing everyday for a crappy team.

Now, he's returning to a good team, where he's a 4th OF. But, since it's a good team, there's a chance he might make the playoffs with that good team, and possibly even get some postseason jewelry with that good team.

So, if postseason jewelry is more important to Rivera, it makes perfect sense he re-ups with the Angels.

But, if $ was more important to Rivera, then he probably would have asked for the moon from a crappy team, such as the Reds.

Hyperbole is fine. I use it myself on occasion, but you really can't believe this, can you? Double the salary?

remdog
12-19-2008, 05:46 PM
First of all, let me say that I don't think Rivera would have needed double the money to play in Cincinnati.

Secondly, as it sits right now, he won't be the 4th OF. He'll be either the starter in LF or the DH for the Angels.

Thirdly, while I would have liked to have seen the Reds sign JR, I (we, maybe) don't know if there was any real interest in him on the Reds part so, all in all, I can't get too upset by the outcome nor Highlifers' vitrol over a ballplayer that's not named Willie Tavaras. ;)

Rem

edabbs44
12-19-2008, 06:14 PM
I know guys give home town discounts, but there is no way Rivera gave them a 50% discount to be, if you are correct, a backup.

Anything is possible if the guy's walk rate isn't up to snuff.

remdog
12-19-2008, 06:21 PM
Anything is possible if the guy's walk rate isn't up to snuff.


:nono: Sarcasum does not play well on the internet. :nono:














But I still think it's funny. :roll:

Rem

Highlifeman21
12-19-2008, 07:18 PM
I know guys give home town discounts, but there is no way Rivera gave them a 50% discount to be, if you are correct, a backup.

4.25 a year to remain an Angel.

While maybe not double, it wouldn't have surprised me if Juan Rivera wanted at least 7 from Cincy.

But we'll never know. Rivera's staying an Angel. He's not a Red (which is a good thing).

But I know that if I'm Juan Rivera and my options are 4.25 from LAA or CIN, I'm sure as Hell not picking CIN.

Highlifeman21
12-19-2008, 07:20 PM
Hyperbole is fine. I use it myself on occasion, but you really can't believe this, can you? Double the salary?

Like I just responded to doug, if I'm Rivera, I would have wanted at least 7 per year to be a Red. He signed for 4.25 to stay an Angel.

If the money is 4.25 and the choices are LAA and CIN and I'm Rivera, I'm sure as Hell not picking CIN.