PDA

View Full Version : Where I think we are at



David Cubbedge
12-22-2008, 11:23 PM
Castellini has promised a winner. Has he delivered? Well, not exactly. When you are the owner of a sports franchise and you promise to deliver a championship and later rephrase it to producing a contender, you still send the message that you will open the wallet if need be.

Castellini has delivered a winning mechanism in the front office. He dabbled with a few expirements and didn't like the way things were going, so he changed things up bringing in more experienced pieces. Some may consider Jocketty an asset, while others consider him a possibility. But I haven't heard the usual cries of how the Reds GM is simply going through the motions. We have cried about that over many of the past regimes. But Castellini heard our cries and answered. He also looked for experience when hiring Dusty Baker. And some may feel like this is another expirement gone wrong. Perhaps he isn't the right fit. But do we really know right now?

When Dusty was hired, we all feared he would favor veterans over the young up and comers. He proved us wrong last year when giving the young nucleus every opportunity to succeed. With the exception of Corey Patterson, Dusty was pretty fair last year in given opportunity. We also feared that he would make pitcher's arms fall off. And that is still up for debate. Look no further than the Reds ace Aaron Harang last year for confirmation of the possibility.

Today, we should be a little more comfortable with Dusty. For now, Patterson is no longer a part of this team (Hopefully Tavares doesn't replace him). And we will have to wait and see if he learned his lesson with Harang last year.

So what do we have to look forward to? I believe we are exactly where we need to be. I think this team is not a contender as Castellini has promised, but I see that there is a plan in place. Perhaps the plan has taken longer than expected, but as said above, some experiments have gone wrong. Right now, I believe the front office is made up of solid and experienced personnel that will help make the best decision for this club moving forward.

The primary focus is bringing in a right handed outfield bat. Jermaine Dye would be an amazing help, but ask yourself, is it worth the cost? Getting experience over potential would be the answer for a team one move away. But this team is too young to be in that category. Yes, there is a ton of talent on the roster, but are we as talented as a similar team like Tampa Bay? Perhaps, but they had to have everything line up perfectly in order to get where they were last season.

With the addition of Dye and the loss of Bailey, would this team really contend? We would have to see many players improve on their numbers from last year. Sure, we should expect Bruce and Votto and possibily even Encarnacion to improve. But how often does it really work out that way?

I think this team is close, but not one player away close. If the team does make a trade for Dye (which is the absolute best option for an affordable RH bat), then I believe we still would need some more pieces. I think this is exactly where Jocketty's mind is at as well.

If Castellini told Jocketty that this is the year, which would mean he would open his wallet, then I think we would have seen Dye come over already. But Jocketty still has a budget to consider and knows that bringing in Dye or even a FA bat like Burrell would be the final move for the offseason. He also knows that this wouldn't be enough.

Perhaps the best way of looking at this roster is by keeping the young core together and watching them mature. Seeing who does climb toward their potential and who busts. Let's see if Volquez is for real. Let's see if Harang can bounce back. Let's see if Cueto can improve. We are all banking on these things to happen, but how many times have we seen them not happen?

As Reds fans, you should know. Gruler anyone? Howington? Bailey? Kearns? Larson? Wagner? I can go on and on. Maybe lady luck has changed and we might be able to see two out of every three young stud turn out to be something worth while. But we can't bank on all of it panning out. And that is what we would have to do if we traded for Dye and counted our blessings.

I'm trying not to be pessimistic here, but I am really thinking for the better of the team versus the better of 2009 at this point.

Thoughts?

UPRedsFan
12-22-2008, 11:39 PM
For the first time in years the Reds just might have the pitching to do it. Open the wallet and sign Burrell or Abreu to score some runs and go a far as you can in '09. They may not win the division but it will put some excitement back to Sept. and sell tickets. Other teams could falter, injuries could hit them. Bring in that one player and we just might see the Reds make it interesting down the wire.

Things can happen in the other direction too if you wait. God forbid, Cueto or Volquez could be injured in 2010, if Cordero falls off the table and Bray or Burton come up lame again the bullpen could fall apart on us.

There is no guarantee of a winning season in 2010 or 2011. Don't guarantee failure in '09 by being too conservative.

David Cubbedge
12-22-2008, 11:45 PM
I definitely don't think you can guarantee contention in 2010 or 2011 either. But you would be one year closer to seeing who makes up the core of his team.

Perhaps Jocketty does trade for Dye or signs a FA bat. If so, it would either be a stop-gap situation, or another experiment that could either work out or fail. But as I said, I just don't think the nucleus of this team has reached it's potential yet and there will be a lot of growing pains this next season.

Adding a bat could do nothing but help, but how far will it get us?

UPRedsFan
12-22-2008, 11:46 PM
As Bleeds said in the other thread get Burrell or Abreu for LF and then get Baldelli to split time with Dickerson in center.

I think this lineup would score enough runs to make things very interesting:

Dickerson/Baldelli
Phillips
Votto
Burrell or Abreu
Bruce
Encarnacion
Hernandez
Gonzo/Janish/Kepp

David Cubbedge
12-24-2008, 08:39 PM
I just don't see Abreu as an option. No way does RCast open up has wallet with what Abreu will demand. And if he did, there is no way we can outbid teams that are looking for a piece like him (Boston or Tampa Bay). And if we did outbid them, there is no way he would want to play in Cincy when there are greater chances at contention if he were to sign with another team.

You could replace Abreu's name with Manny here as well. And is Burrell really enough? Perhaps the Yankees get Manny as well. But thinking Nady or Swisher would be enough is also a road better not traveled.

Now if they were to pick up any of these guys in thought of having them in the future as well, then we are looking at a brighter tomorrow. But the lesser talented guys (Nady, Burrell, Swisher, Baldelli) are not going to put us into contention unless we get really lucky. And guys like Manny and Abreu probably would get us a heck of a lot closer, but would never play for the Reds (for resons stated above).

So to me, Dye is the best option as he is in the middle of it all. But at the same time, he would cost this team the most. So where is Jocketty's mind in all this? I'm thinking he goes after Baldelli hard, tries to sell it to the fans as our solution, but knows he needs more. This is going to be a maturation year if that is all we can get.

Edd Roush
12-24-2008, 10:13 PM
I wish I could be as optomistic as you are in your original post, especially concerning Dusty. I really think I dislike him more than any Reds' manager of the past 20 years. You only make a slight aside to his obliteration of Harang's arm, but that was one of the major happenings of last year. Let's just hope it was only a season-ending injury rather than a career-ending injury.

I agree with your assessment of Castellini. I really like him as an owner.

As for the Reds' next year, I really think we need to add Pat the Bat and Rocco Baldelli to the outfield and try to trade for a SS (Brandon Wood is my favorite target.

I like Pat Burrell for many of the same reasons I love Adam Dunn's game. If we are so set on a right-handed bat, we might as well add the best one out there in Pat Burrell. I also really like the idea of having Rocco Baldelli platooning with Dickerson and helping to spell Bruce and Burrell. This team really does need to make multiple moves to be competitive, but I really do believe that if we were to sign Burrell and Baldelli, we would have the chips in the minor leagues to make a move for a short stop.

Edd Roush
12-24-2008, 10:18 PM
As Bleeds said in the other thread get Burrell or Abreu for LF and then get Baldelli to split time with Dickerson in center.

I think this lineup would score enough runs to make things very interesting:

Dickerson/Baldelli
Phillips
Votto
Burrell or Abreu
Bruce
Encarnacion
Hernandez
Gonzo/Janish/Kepp

Ha, I wish I would have read your post before I would have made my own post. I whole-heartedly agree, except if the Reds do get Burrell and Baldelli, they really really need to get a good young SS (as I stated in my post, I would love Wood from the Angels) because otherwise I would hate that our black hole at SS would be the only reason that we aren't a contender.

Furthermore, I agree with your other assessment that we need to go for it now because tomorrow will never be promised for us. Especially considering our depth in the minor leagues, we need to use the minor leagues for what they are, a bunch of question marks. We need to trade our minor league question marks for a major league shortstop exclamation point.

David Cubbedge
12-24-2008, 10:25 PM
I can agree that I was pretty light on my assessment of Baker for sure. I got to hand it to you, you are correct in your thoughts on the Harang situation. I think I am just tired of getting angry with every new manager coming to this team and making the same exact mistakes the last manager made which got him fired.

Maybe Dusty is another experiment gone wrong? I don't think Castellini has a lot of patience and thankfully is willing to own up to his mistakes. Afterall, Dusty was a Krivsky hire. So perhaps Jocketty has something better in mind?

Either way, I'm afraid we will all be upset about lineup construction and many other things no matter who comes in. It seems every year we get a new manager, and we still are pissed off about the same mismanagement practices.

As far as your thoughts on what we need; I agree with you. But we have to be real here, this team won't go out and fill every hole the way it needs to be fixed. They won't have the budget to do so. I think getting another SS is out of the question and not a part of the FO plan. They likely feel like Keppinger can hit well enough for the position and Gonzo/Janish can glove well enough for the position. Too bad they can't combine those talents.

If we get Burrell and Baldelli, I would be a bit more intrigued, but will they spend that much?

Edd Roush
12-24-2008, 10:43 PM
I can agree that I was pretty light on my assessment of Baker for sure. I got to hand it to you, you are correct in your thoughts on the Harang situation. I think I am just tired of getting angry with every new manager coming to this team and making the same exact mistakes the last manager made which got him fired.

Maybe Dusty is another experiment gone wrong? I don't think Castellini has a lot of patience and thankfully is willing to own up to his mistakes. Afterall, Dusty was a Krivsky hire. So perhaps Jocketty has something better in mind?

Either way, I'm afraid we will all be upset about lineup construction and many other things no matter who comes in. It seems every year we get a new manager, and we still are pissed off about the same mismanagement practices.

As far as your thoughts on what we need; I agree with you. But we have to be real here, this team won't go out and fill every hole the way it needs to be fixed. They won't have the budget to do so. I think getting another SS is out of the question and not a part of the FO plan. They likely feel like Keppinger can hit well enough for the position and Gonzo/Janish can glove well enough for the position. Too bad they can't combine those talents.

If we get Burrell and Baldelli, I would be a bit more intrigued, but will they spend that much?

I really hope Dusty was Krivsky's experiment rather than an order sent down from Castellini.

SS really is the position that needs the most fixing on this team. Keppinger clearly can not play SS adequately defensively, Gonzalez can not be counted on next year and won't be a factor going forward anyways and there is nothing in the pipeline. We have many 1b/3b/corner outfield types in the minor leagues, now is the time to cash these chips in for a shortstop/catcher before some of these chips lose some of their luster.

As for the price of Burrell/Baldelli, it's something I can not comment on with any certainty. I haven't heard the going rate for either, other than the fact that Burrell has not yet gotten the offers he expected.

Baldelli is the wildcard in that he is coming off a string of injuries and he has such an abnormal illness. As stated before, I really like making Baldelli my fourth outfielder because he has starter abilities when healthy, but can not be relied on next season (just like Gonzalez) so when he is healthy he is an asset but this team won't die when he's not on the field.

Getting back to the point, if Castellini were to greenlight these two signings, he would gain a lot of my confidence in him as an owner. He would have really put his money where his mouth is and allow Jocketty to make the team much better in the process.

David Cubbedge
12-24-2008, 10:50 PM
While I agree with you on your reasons for needing a SS, it is still not the most important need this offseason. We have 3 outfielders on the 40 man roster. That's it. We need outfield depth. Hairston would be of use and I like his utility ability. Hopefully we can get him. But that will be at a price as well. And that massive hole in the outfield is also the only reason why I believe Jocketty is considering Tavares.

Back to the SS talk though. Who do you suggest Jocketty go after? A free agent? Make a trade? I don't think there are many SS available that would be better options than we have now. Tejada?

Edd Roush
12-24-2008, 11:09 PM
While I agree with you on your reasons for needing a SS, it is still not the most important need this offseason. We have 3 outfielders on the 40 man roster. That's it. We need outfield depth. Hairston would be of use and I like his utility ability. Hopefully we can get him. But that will be at a price as well. And that massive hole in the outfield is also the only reason why I believe Jocketty is considering Tavares.

Back to the SS talk though. Who do you suggest Jocketty go after? A free agent? Make a trade? I don't think there are many SS available that would be better options than we have now. Tejada?


I think SS is a bigger need than OF simply because it is so much easier to find a league average outfielder than it is to dig up a league average short stop as the Reds quickly learned last season. Just because we have bad options at shortstop for next year, doesn't make the situation better than having no options for the outfield.

There are simply many more outfielders available who have tools that when used properly can allow them to be league average than there are shortstops. Therefore, it should be easier for Jocketty to fix the OF situation than the SS situation simply based upon options.

As for shortstops, the name I like best is Travis Wood. He has an above-average bat who can field at league average throughout his career and should be above league average while he is young. The Angels have a glut of middle infielders and while he tore up the minor leagues, he struggled in the majors last year. He has lost a little bit of his prospect luster and could be had if the Reds threw together some of their minor league chips.

If the Angels aren't interested in trading Wood, I'd look at Chin-lung Hu of the Dodgers or Robert Andino of the Marlins. Hu is also a top prospect who has struggled in the bigs and is now blocked by Furcal. Andino is now out of options and should start hitting if given regular playing time.

There are no free agents out there worth signing, even considering Furcal. Tejada would be a poor option because he would cost minor league talent and money and would do nothing to rectify the barren pipeline.

There are many options out there in a trade and the Reds do have the pieces. If Jocketty is the GM I think he is, he should spend his money on the outfield and get a big time bat like Burrell and go out and spend his minor league talent on a long-term solution at short.

David Cubbedge
12-24-2008, 11:14 PM
Brandon Wood. He has potential pop. Is a better option for this team right now for sure. But is he available? Would you trade Homer Bailey for him? I am not too sure the Angels would accept much less. Or that they would even consider trading Wood.

Edd Roush
12-24-2008, 11:24 PM
Brandon Wood. He has potential pop. Is a better option for this team right now for sure. But is he available? Would you trade Homer Bailey for him? I am not too sure the Angels would accept much less. Or that they would even consider trading Wood.

I have no idea if Brandon Wood is available, but looking at the glut of middle infielders they have, he should probably be available. I can't go off of much more than that because teams very rarely go public with who is on the block.

Hell yea I would trade Homer Bailey for Brandon Wood. I, like many other 'Zoners, am really down on him. I have no need for a pitcher who only throws straight fastballs whose off-speed stuff sucks.

I would actually give up much more than Bailey for Wood. Every one in our system is up for grabs in my mind outside of Frazier and Alonso. We have so much depth in our system that we can afford to give up some good players without having to worry about the future.

ChatterRed
12-25-2008, 02:40 AM
I think part of the problem for management is assessing what the 4 rookies will do next year - Cueto, Volquez, Votto, and Bruce. And one other problem is assessing whether or not Harang will return to form.

I think '09 will be used to determine if these newcomers plus Harang are going to get it done, and then they will fill in the pieces. Management is probably hoping this team will surprise them. Worst case, same as last year.

Theoretically, everyone should be improved next year with a season under their belts together.

It will also give management another chance to assess what is going on in the minor leagues as some guys move up.

Edd Roush
12-25-2008, 12:17 PM
I think part of the problem for management is assessing what the 4 rookies will do next year - Cueto, Volquez, Votto, and Bruce. And one other problem is assessing whether or not Harang will return to form.

I think '09 will be used to determine if these newcomers plus Harang are going to get it done, and then they will fill in the pieces. Management is probably hoping this team will surprise them. Worst case, same as last year.

Theoretically, everyone should be improved next year with a season under their belts together.

It will also give management another chance to assess what is going on in the minor leagues as some guys move up.

I really hope management isn't just "hoping for a surprise." And I disagree with your assertion that the worst case in 2009 is last year. We have lost our biggest bat in Dunn and we may not have two productive months out of Harang like we did last year.

We really need to add that big bat in left field to split up Votto and Bruce and we need to get that great young shortstop that we can develop along with Bruce, Votto, Volquez and Cueto. We need to cash in those 3b/1b/corner outfield prospects for a shortstop.

David Cubbedge
12-26-2008, 02:20 AM
So you are saying our worse case is a possibility of having a worse record than last year? Or could we imagine the production of Votto coupled with that of Bruce would be greater than what Dunn and Griffey brought us last year? Thats a good start for a better 2009.

But what I am getting from you is that even if we got a lefthanded bat to replace Dunn, only then could we produce as we did last year? Is that what you are saying here? If so, then we definitely should just use 2009 as a maturation period.

I say we use the Brewers as a great example as to what a team looks like with a lot of young talent. Waiting it out to see how much of it is a success and what doesn't fit. Use the Brewers as a measure for having a lot of young talent, filling in holes, and still not winning it all.

BLEEDS
12-26-2008, 02:05 PM
So you are saying our worse case is a possibility of having a worse record than last year? Or could we imagine the production of Votto coupled with that of Bruce would be greater than what Dunn and Griffey brought us last year? Thats a good start for a better 2009.

But what I am getting from you is that even if we got a lefthanded bat to replace Dunn, only then could we produce as we did last year? Is that what you are saying here?

Yeah, the problem with the "BubblegumDrop Chocolate-River Candy-Land" folks, is that - aside from assuming everyone has a Career Year, and nobody regressing one iota - is that even WITH those contributions, it's all at the value of "replacing XYZ"; unfortunately that's not good enough. All along through the Griffey/Dunn years, they alone haven't been able to get us over the top.

Why can't Votto be an upgrade over Hatteberg - and that be ALL that we use it for, an upgrade of our TEAM overall?!?!

Why can't a Baldelli be an upgrade over Patterson - and again, that be that, an updgrade of ONE position?!?!

If it's all done so that we can "get a League Average Bat" in LF, then we've defeated the purpose.

REPLACE Dunn and Griffey's prior years production, AND upgrade CF, 1B, C, etc, etc.... THEN, we might go from 27th in OPS/Runs Scored, to 15th or so.

If we're going to have to upgrade 6 positions to replace one or two guys, it really is a recipe for disaster.
Replace those guys with 2 or 3 guys, and STILL upgrade those other positions - for the sake of IMPROVING the Entire Team!?!?!

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Edd Roush
12-26-2008, 11:22 PM
So you are saying our worse case is a possibility of having a worse record than last year? Or could we imagine the production of Votto coupled with that of Bruce would be greater than what Dunn and Griffey brought us last year? Thats a good start for a better 2009.

But what I am getting from you is that even if we got a lefthanded bat to replace Dunn, only then could we produce as we did last year? Is that what you are saying here? If so, then we definitely should just use 2009 as a maturation period.

I say we use the Brewers as a great example as to what a team looks like with a lot of young talent. Waiting it out to see how much of it is a success and what doesn't fit. Use the Brewers as a measure for having a lot of young talent, filling in holes, and still not winning it all.


I think it is a very distinct possibility that we have a worse record than last year. Especially if we sport an outfield of Dickerson, Taveres and Bruce opening day. Any excess offensive production you may garner from Patterson to Dickerson is lost and made obsolete from the meteoric drop from Dunn to Taveres.

We can imagine any production you would like from Jay Bruce, but he is far from a given for next year. Hell, I don't think we can just pencil Joey Votto for a 900+ OPS next year either, so I don't feel very confident in saying that right now we have a 900+ OPS bat next season which is a scary endeavor going into next season.

Yes, we need an Adam Dunn level bat (Dye/Burrell) to replace Dunn in left field to expect the same results we received last season. We can't just put young guys out there or sign Willy Taveres and hope for a career season. That's why I really still like the Dye for Bailey deal. We have reasonable certainty that we can reproduce our left field production and we don't have to worry about blocking the pipeline for Todd Frazier.

However, if Burrell is willing to come to Cincinnati for three years, I have no problem paying him 10 million a year and blocking Todd Frazier because I am not too certain that EdE's defensive problems can be fixed.

I don't know if I would like to pin maturation year on next year, yet, especially if Burrell is willing to come to the Reds or we can rekindle the Dye trade. I really think that we would still have enough horses in the minor leagues to bring in some shortstop of the future after a Dye trade.

I hate this wait til next year mantra. We have four young guns right now (Votto, Bruce, Cueto and Volquez) who love Cincinnati. Let's keep them happy by giving them enough of a supporting cast to be a good bet to win 82+ games. Sure we can use this year as the maturation period we probably need to beat the Cubs. But that doesn't mean we should just horde our minor league chips and wait for that to come. Let's cash some of them in now and use some more again next year.

Nothing can tell you how disappointed I would be if we sign Willy Taveres next year, especially if it only costs us Bailey plus any prospects not named Alonso or Frazier to land Dye.

TheNext44
12-27-2008, 01:29 AM
Yeah, the problem with the "BubblegumDrop Chocolate-River Candy-Land" folks, is that - aside from assuming everyone has a Career Year, and nobody regressing one iota - is that even WITH those contributions, it's all at the value of "replacing XYZ"; unfortunately that's not good enough. All along through the Griffey/Dunn years, they alone haven't been able to get us over the top.

Why can't Votto be an upgrade over Hatteberg - and that be ALL that we use it for, an upgrade of our TEAM overall?!?!

Why can't a Baldelli be an upgrade over Patterson - and again, that be that, an updgrade of ONE position?!?!

If it's all done so that we can "get a League Average Bat" in LF, then we've defeated the purpose.

REPLACE Dunn and Griffey's prior years production, AND upgrade CF, 1B, C, etc, etc.... THEN, we might go from 27th in OPS/Runs Scored, to 15th or so.

If we're going to have to upgrade 6 positions to replace one or two guys, it really is a recipe for disaster.
Replace those guys with 2 or 3 guys, and STILL upgrade those other positions - for the sake of IMPROVING the Entire Team!?!?!

PEACE

-BLEEDS

We really dont have to upgrade in 6 positions to make up for the loss of Dunn and Griffey. In other posts I have shown how it is very likely that even with a league average LF (which is still pretty good), the Reds should vastly improve their offense from last year.

So lets look at it another, much more simple way. Last year, the Reds received around 257 runs of production from all their outfielders. In 2009, an outfield of:
Bruce adding just .30 points of OPS form .767 to .797
A Dickerson/Baldelli or Hairston platoon (which Walt has said is the plan), in which Dickerson OPS .775 and Baldelli or Hairston OPS .750, and
Norris Hopper OPS his career .738 as a fourth outfielder,

would produce around 208 runs. A league average LF would produce around 80 runs. So even with a league average LF, and very realistic projections for the rest of the outfield, the Reds OF would produce 288 runs, which is 31 runs more than last year.

Again, I am all for the Reds getting a better than league average LF, but even if they don't, even if they get someone as average as Skip Shumaker, they will improve their outfield offense.

David Cubbedge
12-28-2008, 03:53 AM
I think it is a very distinct possibility that we have a worse record than last year. Especially if we sport an outfield of Dickerson, Taveres and Bruce opening day. Any excess offensive production you may garner from Patterson to Dickerson is lost and made obsolete from the meteoric drop from Dunn to Taveres.

We can imagine any production you would like from Jay Bruce, but he is far from a given for next year. Hell, I don't think we can just pencil Joey Votto for a 900+ OPS next year either, so I don't feel very confident in saying that right now we have a 900+ OPS bat next season which is a scary endeavor going into next season.

Yes, we need an Adam Dunn level bat (Dye/Burrell) to replace Dunn in left field to expect the same results we received last season. We can't just put young guys out there or sign Willy Taveres and hope for a career season. That's why I really still like the Dye for Bailey deal. We have reasonable certainty that we can reproduce our left field production and we don't have to worry about blocking the pipeline for Todd Frazier.

However, if Burrell is willing to come to Cincinnati for three years, I have no problem paying him 10 million a year and blocking Todd Frazier because I am not too certain that EdE's defensive problems can be fixed.

I don't know if I would like to pin maturation year on next year, yet, especially if Burrell is willing to come to the Reds or we can rekindle the Dye trade. I really think that we would still have enough horses in the minor leagues to bring in some shortstop of the future after a Dye trade.

I hate this wait til next year mantra. We have four young guns right now (Votto, Bruce, Cueto and Volquez) who love Cincinnati. Let's keep them happy by giving them enough of a supporting cast to be a good bet to win 82+ games. Sure we can use this year as the maturation period we probably need to beat the Cubs. But that doesn't mean we should just horde our minor league chips and wait for that to come. Let's cash some of them in now and use some more again next year.

Nothing can tell you how disappointed I would be if we sign Willy Taveres next year, especially if it only costs us Bailey plus any prospects not named Alonso or Frazier to land Dye.

Well, there goes that idea. Maturation year? Absolutely. Put a fork in 2009.

David Cubbedge
12-28-2008, 03:54 AM
We really dont have to upgrade in 6 positions to make up for the loss of Dunn and Griffey. In other posts I have shown how it is very likely that even with a league average LF (which is still pretty good), the Reds should vastly improve their offense from last year.

So lets look at it another, much more simple way. Last year, the Reds received around 257 runs of production from all their outfielders. In 2009, an outfield of:
Bruce adding just .30 points of OPS form .767 to .797
A Dickerson/Baldelli or Hairston platoon (which Walt has said is the plan), in which Dickerson OPS .775 and Baldelli or Hairston OPS .750, and
Norris Hopper OPS his career .738 as a fourth outfielder,

would produce around 208 runs. A league average LF would produce around 80 runs. So even with a league average LF, and very realistic projections for the rest of the outfield, the Reds OF would produce 288 runs, which is 31 runs more than last year.

Again, I am all for the Reds getting a better than league average LF, but even if they don't, even if they get someone as average as Skip Shumaker, they will improve their outfield offense.

This idea was squashed by Walt today as well. Loved the thought though man. Was good to think about for a few moments. Too bad it was spoiled by a bad decision.

Va Red Fan
12-28-2008, 11:23 AM
Signing a guy who is among the league leaders in steals every year is not necessarily a year ender. Tavares has played on winning teams in the past. He is not a "black hole" and the end of 2009. If the 2007 Tavares shows up then we will be singing his praises.

We have a possible, 5-deep pitching staff for the first time in a long time. I'm confident in four and have a hope for Owings to be the fifth.

We have a pretty solid bullpen that has not been the case in the recent past.

We have a catcher who can hit a little. Two potential stars budding in Votto and Bruce while I think Phillips has finally begun to blossom.

I'm not thrilled about SS, 3B or LF, but I think we are moving in a better direction than in the past and there may be answers to those problems. Can AGon play like his old self? Will EdE ever go beyond being erratic both at the plate and in the field? Do we have an outfielder on our roster who could take LF and make it work? (Hopper or Dickerson) Is there a powerful outfield bat sitting out there who would like to give Cincy a try?

More blanks filled at this point in the year than last year at this time. WJ is doing his job to the best of his ability, but he was not handed an easy task.

Edd Roush
12-28-2008, 11:37 AM
Signing a guy who is among the league leaders in steals every year is not necessarily a year ender. Tavares has played on winning teams in the past. He is not a "black hole" and the end of 2009. If the 2007 Tavares shows up then we will be singing his praises.



The unfortunate thing is even if Taveras reverts to his 2007 form, he is simply tolerable. I hate that we just signed a player who's career year is simply an average Ryan Freel year without the injuries.

I was a fan of the Freel for Hernandez trade thinking that it upgraded the catcher position and allowed us to go with a Dickerson/FA plattoon in center. In retrospect, the Freel trade just allowed us to go out and get Taveres.

I hate to rain on the Taveras parade but just look at some of the stats that very reputable posters are putting up. It's just ridiculous to think how much of a black hole Taveras will be next season and yes, some teams can overcome black holes but it is particularly difficult when that black hole is at the top of your line-up and it is nearly impossible when you have lost your biggest bat from a very poor offense the year before.

If Walt goes out and signs Hairston to play left field and doesn't upgrade the short stop position, I think we are very likely looking at a 25th-28th best offense in the bigs that will ruin any success garnered from a 10th-14th best pitching staff.

Bip Roberts
12-28-2008, 12:05 PM
Guys the 2007 form also includes only 97 games. which imo probably will be the best case scenario if he is limited to 97 games.