PDA

View Full Version : Taveras deal worth $6.25MM over two years



Pages : [1] 2

OnBaseMachine
12-31-2008, 02:53 AM
Taveras nets $6.25 million from Reds
by Troy Renck on December 30, 2008

Former Rockies centerfielder Willy Taveras not only landed on his feet with the Reds but received a contract that shows their faith in him.

According to information obtained by The Denver Post, Taveras received $6.25 million on his two-year deal. He will make $2.25 million this season and $4 million in 2010. He can make an additional $250,000 this season if he reaches 600 plate appearances.

Also, Taveras will donate 1 percent of his base salary each year to the Reds’ community fund. Taveras was non-tendered this month by the Rockies, which made him a free agent. He led all of baseball with 68 stolen bases.

http://blogs.denverpost.com/rockies/2008/12/30/taveras-nets-625-million-from-reds/

dougdirt
12-31-2008, 02:54 AM
4 million freakin dollars?!

The headache that is about to come over Reds country....

corkedbat
12-31-2008, 03:02 AM
At least we didn't insult him like we did Corey with that paltry $3M last year. Well, on the btight side, we still have a whole $7.75M to spend on a slugging LFer. Maybe Hairston will settle for that. :bang:

I feel nauseous & sullied., kinda like a Bengals fan.

Tom Servo
12-31-2008, 03:03 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vHRMeRszw4

Ron Madden
12-31-2008, 03:35 AM
GOOD GOD! Have mercy!


:thumbdown

BoydsOfSummer
12-31-2008, 03:43 AM
Great googly-moogly! That's pitiful, just pitiful.

dougdirt
12-31-2008, 03:51 AM
I just can't fathom paying a guy 4 million dollars for a single season a year after he was non tendered. I can't wait to see what other guys that were non tendered make.

Ron Madden
12-31-2008, 04:00 AM
Nothing good can come from this.

Terrible news, just terrible.

KronoRed
12-31-2008, 04:28 AM
Nice work Wayne...I mean Walt.

GAC
12-31-2008, 04:52 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1vHRMeRszw4


That was excellent!

You owe me a keyboard! :lol:

GAC
12-31-2008, 04:57 AM
I did the math. That's $114,000 a walk. Sounds fair.

remdog
12-31-2008, 05:50 AM
JimBo is paying Corey Patterson $650K this year. Is Willy Tavaras 3.5 times better than Patterson?

Rem

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 07:26 AM
Ughhhh

That amount of money, for a guy nobody wanted is bizarre. They must really, really, really like this guy since they made it clear weeks and weeks ago they wanted him. Sorta like when buying a car and your wife starts saying, "but I love it so much" when you try to hardball the sales guy.

But hey, he's fast.

http://www.themadhat.com/images/vader-fail.jpg

Raisor
12-31-2008, 08:12 AM
Anyone still think he's bring brought in JUST to provide "depth"?

Caveat Emperor
12-31-2008, 08:13 AM
The amusing thing is that, apparently, if we'd signed him to a 1 year deal, we still would've retained his rights the next season anyway since he doesn't have enough service time to declare free agency.

Who wants to bet whether, even if we wanted him back for 2010, he'd make over $4m in arbitration with his numbers?

klw
12-31-2008, 08:32 AM
Somehow I think the odds are slim that this thread will still be open by noon today.

mth123
12-31-2008, 08:35 AM
Somehow I think the odds are slim that this thread will still be open by noon today.

I don't know. In a world where Willy Taveras gets $6.25 Million over two years guaranteed, anything is possible.

America. What a country.

RFS62
12-31-2008, 08:39 AM
We need to apply for a bail-out.

Jpup
12-31-2008, 08:40 AM
When the Reds have this money to spend on someone like Taveras, I sure question the GM. BTW, I highly doubt the Reds are in any kind of financial trouble.

mth123
12-31-2008, 08:43 AM
When the Reds have this money to spend on someone like Taveras, I sure question the GM. BTW, I highly doubt the Reds are in any kind of financial trouble.

They will be if this keeps up.

Raisor
12-31-2008, 08:44 AM
http://www.terminally-incoherent.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/05/facepalm.jpg

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 08:51 AM
Walt has a very long track record of success so I am trying to give him every benefit of the doubt here. I'm not going to say he's an idiot because of one incomprehensible move.

However, I am starting to wonder if there is a forcefield around Cincinnati that causes otherwise talented people to lose their minds when they cross into city limits.

I made the argument about the Hernandez signing being good because it got the catching situation stabilized and would allow Walt to focus on other areas (especially since there's not 100 great catching options floating around). This is NOT how I envisioned Walt filling his time.

LoganBuck
12-31-2008, 08:53 AM
This feels like burning.

edabbs44
12-31-2008, 09:04 AM
Now that is brutal.

Heath
12-31-2008, 09:09 AM
I think the pictures Corey Patterson had were given to Willy T.

RedsManRick
12-31-2008, 09:32 AM
I would honestly rather have had CPat back at his cost.

Kc61
12-31-2008, 09:35 AM
The amusing thing is that, apparently, if we'd signed him to a 1 year deal, we still would've retained his rights the next season anyway since he doesn't have enough service time to declare free agency.

Who wants to bet whether, even if we wanted him back for 2010, he'd make over $4m in arbitration with his numbers?

First point is that if a player leads the national league in steals he probably would get a pretty good contract from arbitrators. That's probably why Taveras was non-tendered in the first place, the concern that he would get a high arbitration salary. Taveras reportedly was paid just under two million last year.

Second point is that the Reds back-end loaded the contract. Hopefully this means that the team is keeping more money available for this year, which they will use on one or more further acquisitions.

bucksfan2
12-31-2008, 09:36 AM
What is the average salary in baseball?

Sea Ray
12-31-2008, 09:37 AM
WJ is gambling that he gets the Taveras of 2007, not 2008. If we do get the one of 2008, Walt had better eat his mistake and let him go even though we're on the hook for another $4mill. If not, then Walt has erred twice.

flyer85
12-31-2008, 09:38 AM
what a bargain!! :beerme:

membengal
12-31-2008, 09:40 AM
A joke. And Jock has quickly proven a huge disappointment. That kind of money really is indefensible unless Taveras really does discover OPB skills that put him on-base at a .390+ clip. Course, the Reds being the Reds, they pay him as if he has already done that, rather than, um, pay him for what he is.

I censor myself and merely note that this is "unfortunate".

Raisor
12-31-2008, 09:41 AM
What is the average salary in baseball?

About 3-million/year

Sea Ray
12-31-2008, 09:42 AM
What is the average salary in baseball?

The average including bonuses and all is a little over $3mill

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080401&content_id=2479371&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb

However the median salary on the Reds last year was $1.25mill. Digest that as you may...

flyer85
12-31-2008, 09:50 AM
I doubt the Reds would fork over $6M to someone they don't expect to be an everyday player.

HokieRed
12-31-2008, 09:52 AM
What was Freel going to get this year? $4million, IIRC.

membengal
12-31-2008, 09:54 AM
---I am still trying to process this. For a franchise that counts its pennies, needed some coin to address the hole it gifted itself in LF and perhaps add another SP, with a perfectly decent CF option in-house for major league minimums in Chris Dickerson, they turn around and set fire to 6.25 million dollars. Whatever else Taveras is, he isn't being counted on for "depth", not at least in Jock's eyes. This team isn't the Yankees, and they won't be paying someone $4 million in 2010 to sit on the bench.

---I really don't get this, on any level. It is just such a waste of money, given what this franchise is.

---Frankly, as a fan, I consider it a dare from management. If they are willing to spend that kind of coin on Wily Taveras, then they might as well step up and get a Sheets or Lowe and Burrell. If they don't, now, well, then it means that they think the reason that the Astros and Rockies made their WS appearances was Taveras.

---Can you all imagine the reaction of Taveras' agent to this offer? "Well, Willy, I am going over our offers, and I see we have nothing, nothing, nothing, and, um, $6.25 million. I am going to go ahead and advise we go with the 6.25 million..."

---Bah.

flyer85
12-31-2008, 09:56 AM
---I am still trying to process this. For a franchise that counts its pennies, needed some coin to address the hole it gifted itself in LF and perhaps add another SP, with a perfectly decent CF option in-house for major league minimums in Chris Dickerson, they turn around and set fire to 6.25 million dollars. Whatever else Taveras is, he isn't being counted on for "depth", not at least in Jock's eyes. This team isn't the Yankees, and they won't be paying someone $4 million in 2010 to sit on the bench.

---I really don't get this, on any level. It is just such a waste of money, given what this franchise is.

---Frankly, as a fan, I consider it a dare from management. If they are willing to spend that kind of coin on Wily Taveras, then they might as well step up and get a Sheets or Lowe and Burrell. If they don't, now, well, then it means that they think the reason that the Astros and Rockies made their WS appearances was Taveras.

---Can you all imagine the reaction of Taveras' agent to this offer? "Well, Willy, I am going over our offers, and I see we have nothing, nothing, nothing, and, um, $6.25 million. I am going to go ahead and advise we go with the 6.25 million..."

---Bah.yeah, but he's REALLY fast.

Highlifeman21
12-31-2008, 10:01 AM
This feels like burning.

This is worse then that huge pile of money the Phillies burned on David Bell to play 3B a couple years back.

Raisor
12-31-2008, 10:02 AM
Is there anyone that approved of the signing originally ready to stand up and say that they still approve?

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 10:05 AM
YEAR NAME G PA LEADOFF AB's OUTR VORP
2008 Corey Patterson 123 392 143 0.7398 -19.3
2008 Willy Taveras 133 538 378 0.6765 1.8

http://findfreemusic.org/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/the-song-remains-the-same.jpg

camisadelgolf
12-31-2008, 10:05 AM
The 1% to the community fund thing is probably someone's way of saying, "Please don't blame Taveras for taking the money. He's a good guy and all--it's just that we have some idiots in the front office."

membengal
12-31-2008, 10:08 AM
---This at least explains why the Reds didn't annouce the terms of the deal. Perhaps there is some franchise awareness of how embarrassing the contract is.

---Maybe the Reds have had teams of employees locked in war-rooms the last 96 hours working frantically on explanations for the contract, so they can try and defend it when word inevitably leaked out.

---Jocketty shopping at a flea market:

"How much for that TV?"

"It's broken sir, but might be fixed up. I'm asking $10.00"

"I'll give you $100 for it!"

"Um, ok."

membengal
12-31-2008, 10:10 AM
The 1% to the community fund thing is probably someone's way of saying, "Please don't blame Taveras for taking the money. He's a good guy and all--it's just that we have some idiots in the front office."

To be clear, I sure don't blame Taveras for taking this money. Heck, in a weird way, I may now adopt him as my favorite Red and a personal hero. Maybe he is an unknown Watchman hero, "guy who gets paid ridiculously more than he is humanly worth" guy.

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 10:17 AM
Is there anyone that approved of the signing originally ready to stand up and say that they still approve?

http://www.nyworms.com/images/groupcrickets.jpg

lollipopcurve
12-31-2008, 10:19 AM
Is there anyone that approved of the signing originally ready to stand up and say that they still approve?

Yes.

flyer85
12-31-2008, 10:22 AM
Is there anyone that approved of the signing originally ready to stand up and say that they still approve?I approve, he isn't just fast ... he has "ludicrous speed".

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 10:24 AM
First point is that if a player leads the national league in steals he probably would get a pretty good contract from arbitrators. That's probably why Taveras was non-tendered in the first place, the concern that he would get a high arbitration salary. Taveras reportedly was paid just under two million last year.

Second point is that the Reds back-end loaded the contract. Hopefully this means that the team is keeping more money available for this year, which they will use on one or more further acquisitions.

I agree with you that the arbitrator would probably be pretty generous based on steals.

When you consider Patterson got 3 million for one year last year, it looks like Walt gave him the same amount, but over 2 years.

Now I agree with everyone that this is not a bargain. (As one of the few Tavares supporters).

However, I did look at the list of FA OF in the other thread. Baldelli is of course an attractive option that many people like, but comes with a health risk and has big market teams chasing him. It's going to be difficult to compete with the AL teams that can give him days at the DH position. Personally, if I was him, I'd go to an AL team that had OF/DH ABs to hand out. Other options? Abercrombie seems to have a bigger OBP problem than Tavares.
All the other OF are noticable older. I'm not sure Kapler is a legit CF anymore.

Sure, we could've brought Patterson back. I'm sure that would've gone over really well. :lol: But let's explore that a little bit. If you were Patterson, would you want to come back to the Reds? I probably wouldn't. If I'm Patterson, I know I'm going to get a low salary and a minor league deal, so I might as well try a new organization and hope their coaches can help me better than the Reds' coaches.

so I agree that Walt overpaid a bit for Patteron. By how much? Well, I would've prefered 2 years at 2 or 2.5 million per year. So Walt (IMO) overpaid by about 2 million or so. Or, if you think Tavares is totally useless, Walt just paid a lot of money for a backup OF. Still, it's less than what Freel makes (although I admit that is faint praise :) )

The bottom line is that Walt feels Tavares is a potential starter. In that context, the contract isn't too bad.
I know that's against the prevailing opinion here. We'll have to see how it plays out.

RichRed
12-31-2008, 10:26 AM
Appalling.

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 10:27 AM
This team isn't the Yankees, and they won't be paying someone $4 million in 2010 to sit on the bench.


Actually, Wayne gave Freel a bigger 2 year extension, with the intent of using him as a backup OF. So the Reds have done it. I agree that Tavares is being overpaid, by not by a large amount.

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 10:29 AM
The bottom line is that Walt feels Tavares is a potential starter. In that context, the contract isn't too bad.

The measure of a bad contract is not what the GM thinks/feels will happen. No GM, in his right mind, signs a player he knows will suck.

The measure of a bad contract is the cost relative to the probability that said player will produce.

This is a lot of money for a player nearly guaranteed to fail, with an outside shot at being only just crappy. That means bad contract in most any language.

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 10:30 AM
Is there anyone that approved of the signing originally ready to stand up and say that they still approve?

I do. I'm sure I'll be mocked, but I still think it's an ok move. Not great, but ok.

Walt probably overpaid him by about 2 million total over 2 years. Yes, that's overpaying, but not crippling. Let me ask you this.. would you rather have Abercrombie as a CF candidate? He'd cost less. People say they'd rather have Patterson, but I'm sure the bellyaching would be 10000X louder if the Reds resigned Patterson at any price instead.

mth123
12-31-2008, 10:36 AM
I do. I'm sure I'll be mocked, but I still think it's an ok move. Not great, but ok.

Walt probably overpaid him by about 2 million total over 2 years. Yes, that's overpaying, but not crippling. Let me ask you this.. would you rather have Abercrombie as a CF candidate? He'd cost less. People say they'd rather have Patterson, but I'm sure the bellyaching would be 10000X louder if the Reds resigned Patterson at any price instead.

If Abercrombie comes in on a minor league deal, yes I'd prefer him.

JaxRed
12-31-2008, 10:37 AM
Actually I'm a bit relieved because I'd imagined the Reds bidding against the other teams and really getting it out of hand, like 6 mill per year.

The deal with the last year being bigger is a trick the agents like to pull, so that going into FA or arb the "base" is bigger.

GAC
12-31-2008, 10:40 AM
Well.... at least the game threads will continue to be entertaining this year. :lol:

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 10:43 AM
The measure of a bad contract is not what the GM thinks/feels will happen. No GM, in his right mind, signs a player he knows will suck.

True. We will only know for 100% sure if this is a bad contract in hindsight.
That is true of any move.

However, the GM has to make decisions based on what he thinks is the probable outcome.




The measure of a bad contract is the cost relative to the probability that said player will produce.


Yes, and the probablilty is based on opinion.




This is a lot of money for a player nearly guaranteed to fail, with an outside shot at being only just crappy. That means bad contract in most any language.


People here have a pretty lofty bar set for what an acceptable CF should be. I guess we've been spoiled with Eric Davis, Josh Hamilton, etc. The majority of people here also have unrealistic expectations for Reds' prospects.
Dickerson is not a lock to be an acceptable CF, despite people's opinions.
There really aren't any FA CF that would be considered acceptable by this crowd (I just looked through the list).

In fact, last year, I remember the opinion of Milwaukee signing Cameron was pretty split. I think Cameron got around 10 million in a one year deal. He ended up posting 331 OBP/477 SLG, which is pretty much a normal year for him. But, it cost 10 million on the FA market to get that. Would it be worth sending prospects to Milwaukee and absorbing the extra salary to have Cameron instead of Tavares? (That is assuming that Cameron is even available). That is a complicated question, IMO. Considering that the Reds are not close to contending and Cameron is an older player, I am not sure I'd want to do a move like that. A lot depends on the prospects given up, but I am going to assume it would cost more than Homer and B prospects.

At the risk of sounding repetitive, the Reds have glaring holes in the OF. Trades have been explored, but have been fruitless so far. The FA class is thin. Walt felt that it was probably worthwhile to overpay a little bit in December to get some certainty in the roster. Time will tell if it was a good call or not.

But to suggest that the Reds are embarrassed by the contract they gave to Wily is just absurd. It's is also silly to suggest that the Reds were the only team interested in Tavares.

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 10:52 AM
Yes, and the probability is based on opinion.

Actually no, it isn't.

It's based on cold hard historical data. A.K.A. numbers. A.K.A. stats.

You start with the historical record to get an actual probability. You can adjust that with opinion or "gut instincts" but ignoring history when building probabilities is just plain stupid.

bucksfan2
12-31-2008, 10:53 AM
I do. I'm sure I'll be mocked, but I still think it's an ok move. Not great, but ok.

Walt probably overpaid him by about 2 million total over 2 years. Yes, that's overpaying, but not crippling. Let me ask you this.. would you rather have Abercrombie as a CF candidate? He'd cost less. People say they'd rather have Patterson, but I'm sure the bellyaching would be 10000X louder if the Reds resigned Patterson at any price instead.

I am in agreement. Im not overly thrilled with the deal but its an ok deal.

Who else would come in and play CF for the Reds in 09? They obviously think Dickerson is more suited to play a corner OF or be a 4th OF. Stubbs isn't ready and probably won't be ready until late 09. Hopper isn't the answer neither is Lance Nix. Baldelli is a guy I would have targeted but I think he will make around 5M/year and has too big of a health risk.

If he has an OBP around .340 then the deal works for me. If he has an OBP around .370 that he had in 07 then it is a very good deal. If he plays the way he did last year then he is an expensive bench player.

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 10:56 AM
Who else would come in and play CF for the Reds in 09?

So you are saying there are no CF's available for trade, no major league ready AAA CF's available for trade or no other options whatsoever in the FA market? In all of baseball?

The choice is Willy Taveras or an empty center-field?

bucksfan2
12-31-2008, 10:56 AM
Actually no, it isn't.

It's based on cold hard historical data. A.K.A. numbers. A.K.A. stats.

You start with the historical record to get an actual probability. You can adjust that with opinion or "gut instincts" but ignoring history when building probabilities is just plain stupid.

With an omission of his 2007 stats?

nate
12-31-2008, 10:58 AM
Anyone still think he's bring brought in JUST to provide "depth"?

Yes.

To the standings.

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 10:59 AM
With an omission of his 2007 stats?

Nope, as long as you dig deeper into the numbers and understand why 2007 was better than 2005, 2006 and 2008. And understand that the chances of another 2007 are far lower than the chances of another 2005, 2006 or 2008.

There's been a host of numbers presented that show that 2005, 2006 and 2008 are the real Taveras and that he stinks. There is exactly nobody basing everything on 2008 and ignoring 2007. But there's a gaggle of people clinging to 2007 (while ignoring the rest of his time) with all their might.

bucksfan2
12-31-2008, 10:59 AM
So you are saying there are no CF's available for trade, no major league ready AAA CF's available for trade or no other options whatsoever in the FA market? In all of baseball?

The choice is Willy Taveras or an empty center-field?

With the type of CF that most on this board want it would take quite a bit to get. A legit CF prospect would be held up there with SS and C prospects. You would have to pay a premium to get. The CF FA market is uninspiring this season. Who do the Reds have in the minors that could step in and play everyday CF? Realistically who would you have targeted to play CF in 09 for the Reds?

nate
12-31-2008, 11:00 AM
Actually, Wayne gave Freel a bigger 2 year extension, with the intent of using him as a backup OF. So the Reds have done it. I agree that Tavares is being overpaid, by not by a large amount.

Actually, Freel was intended to be a guy that played pretty much every day by filling in around the infield and outfield (and DL).

flyer85
12-31-2008, 11:02 AM
Realistically who would you have targeted to play CF in 09 for the Reds?dickerson or bruce

bucksfan2
12-31-2008, 11:03 AM
Nope, as long as you dig deeper into the numbers and understand why 2007 was better than 2005, 2006 and 2008. And understand that the chances of another 2007 are far lower than the chances of another 2005, 2006 or 2008.

There's been a host of numbers presented that show that 2005, 2006 and 2008 are the real Taveras and that he stinks. There is exactly nobody basing everything on 2008 and ignoring 2007. But there's a gaggle of people clinging to 2007 with all their might.

Or you could have realized that 05 was his first season and then in his second season (06) he improved on his numbers and then his third season (07) he improved on his numbers again. Heaven forbid a young player improve as he ages, matures, and gets used to the big leagues. What if 08 was a down year for Taveras?

camisadelgolf
12-31-2008, 11:03 AM
In the Reds' defense, a lot of people are ignoring that the Reds have obtained Taveras for what should theoretically be his prime years. He just turned 27 years old on Christmas, so there's reason to hope that he could improve enough to be average in one or both of his two years.

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 11:04 AM
Realistically who would you have targeted to play CF in 09 for the Reds?

Playing with Bob's money?

Bruce in CF. Either Dye or Nady in RF and Abreau in LF. Dickerson is 4th guy to get him more seasoning.

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 11:06 AM
Or you could have realized that 05 was his first season and then in his second season (06) he improved on his numbers and then his third season (07) he improved on his numbers again. Heaven forbid a young player improve as he ages, matures, and gets used to the big leagues. What if 08 was a down year for Taveras?

2005 and 2006 were non-productive years. Seriously.

Improvement or not, they did very little to help his team win.

flyer85
12-31-2008, 11:08 AM
In the Reds' defense, a lot of people are ignoring that the Reds have obtained Taveras for what should theoretically be his prime years. He just turned 27 years old on Christmas, so there's reason to hope that he could improve enough to be average in one or both of his two years.there is little reason to hope he will improve unless he can acquire skills he has not shown in 4+ seasons, which is his case is basically the ability to slug. He has pretty much shown his upside potential(2007) and his downside(2008). Seeing as his other two season(05 and 06) look more like 2008 we know what the most probable outcome for 2009 looks like and if the Reds have any brains at all when they project his performance they had better go with what is probable ratgher than what is possible. Otherwise you end up with a team that needs a confluence of unlikely events to be a competitive team.

Sea Ray
12-31-2008, 11:09 AM
I recall about ten years ago an arbitrator giving Bip Roberts about $5mill and the Reds were dumbfounded. So yes, an arbitrator is likely to give Taveras more than he's worth but I don't think that's why the Reds gave him a 2nd yr. I think that 2nd yr was a dealbreaker from Taveras' position. He probably told WJ, if you want me you'll have to throw in a 2nd yr and from that WJ made his call.

PuffyPig
12-31-2008, 11:11 AM
A joke. And Jock has quickly proven a huge disappointment. That kind of money really is indefensible unless Taveras really does discover OPB skills that put him on-base at a .390+ clip. Course, the Reds being the Reds, they pay him as if he has already done that, rather than, um, pay him for what he is.



Look, I am no fan of Taveras, but if he OBA's .390+ (as you state) and steals 80 baes (which he would) he'd probbaly get $10M as a FA. Laugh if you want, but remember what Juan Pierre got with less credentials.

Now, Taveras won't OBA .390, but if he did he'd be pretty valuable. Certainly worth quite a bit more than $3.125 per season.

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 11:11 AM
I think that 2nd yr was a dealbreaker from Taveras' position. He probably told WJ, if you want me you'll have to throw in a 2nd yr and from that WJ made his call.

Was there another team rumored to be hot and heavy for Willy T? I'm searching my holiday food dulled mind to recall rumors of other teams being interested in him but I can't remember any.

I don't follow the rumor mills too close so may I'm just forgetting them?

edabbs44
12-31-2008, 11:13 AM
Playing with Bob's money?

Bruce in CF. Either Dye or Nady in RF and Abreau in LF. Dickerson is 4th guy to get him more seasoning.

So you would have spent an additional $10MM and Homer Bailey to get Dye and a three(ish) year contract at $12MM per to get Abreu?

Where do you think this team would finish this year with those additions and do you think you'd be regretting that Abreu contract during the life of it? Add $20MM+ with some elderly guys and you better be looking at a definite playoff push.

And that's assuming that Abreu would come to Cincy, but this is only a hypothetical so we can assume that he would.

nate
12-31-2008, 11:14 AM
With the type of CF that most on this board want it would take quite a bit to get.

What is that "type?"


A legit CF prospect would be held up there with SS and C prospects. You would have to pay a premium to get. The CF FA market is uninspiring this season. Who do the Reds have in the minors that could step in and play everyday CF? Realistically who would you have targeted to play CF in 09 for the Reds?

If you're not going to win anyway, why throw the money away? Let Dickerson, Stubbs and Hopper platoon out there. Sign Baldelli if you want to take a chance on something that might be good even if he does have health issues.

But $6.25 MM for Quick Willy?

It seems like a decision a child or government would make.

Sea Ray
12-31-2008, 11:19 AM
So you are saying there are no CF's available for trade, no major league ready AAA CF's available for trade or no other options whatsoever in the FA market? In all of baseball?

The choice is Willy Taveras or an empty center-field?

2007 is not ancient history...if he puts up numbers for the Reds like he did in 2007, he will solve their leadoff problems, cover a lot of ground in CF, maybe lead the league in steals...he will be a bargain at $3mill per.

WJ is gambling that 2007 was the real Taveras. His detractors are saying that 2008 is what we can expect. Let's all hope WJ is right.

I don't think it's an awful signing. I think it's a good gamble to take considering the dearth of outfielders on this roster. If he turns into CP II, I hope Dusty has the fortitude to play Dickerson or other options and sit Willy as a 4th outfielder regardless of who's drawing the bigger paycheck.

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 11:20 AM
So you would have spent an additional $10MM and Homer Bailey to get Dye and a three(ish) year contract at $12MM per to get Abreu?

Where do you think this team would finish this year with those additions and do you think you'd be regretting that Abreu contract during the life of it? Add $20MM+ with some elderly guys and you better be looking at a definite playoff push.

And that's assuming that Abreu would come to Cincy, but this is only a hypothetical so we can assume that he would.

I'm not saying that's a good plan, and certinaly other moves would need to be made. My only point is that there are other options out there besides Willy T. The idea that it's Willy T or nothing is silly.

Hell, as Nate just posted, if the plan is holding pattern, why do anything at all? Run Dickerson, Hopper, Stubbs and Bruce out there and see what happens. Plug Alonso in at 1B and move Votto to LF. Again, not saying these are optimal moves, but Willy T is NOT the only option available out there.

membengal
12-31-2008, 11:22 AM
Look, I am no fan of Taveras, but if he OBA's .390+ (as you state) and steals 80 baes (which he would) he'd probbaly get $10M as a FA. Laugh if you want, but remember what Juan Pierre got with less credentials.

Now, Taveras won't OBA .390, but if he did he'd be pretty valuable. Certainly worth quite a bit more than $3.125 per season.

He has NO power. None. His only value is if he gets on base at that kind of clip. So, yeah, to justify $4 million in 2010, as one-dimensional as he is, he best be up around .380+ in OBP.

Man, I continue to under-estimate just how much speed beguiles.

Falls City Beer
12-31-2008, 11:23 AM
I'm not saying that's a good plan, and certinaly other moves would need to be made. My only point is that there are other options out there besides Willy T. The idea that it's Willy T or nothing is silly.

Hell, as Nate just posted, if the plan is holding pattern, why do anything at all? Run Dickerson, Hopper, Stubbs and Bruce out there and see what happens. Plug Alonso in at 1B and move Votto to LF. Again, not saying these are optimal moves, but Willy T is NOT the only option available out there.

After Dickerson--who would be my choice for CF--you have Hopper and Stubbs, who are awful choices. I have no problem with bringing in someone as a firewall between Dickerson and the constellation of garbage that is Hopper and Stubbs, but I'm just not sure Taveras was the one.

Sea Ray
12-31-2008, 11:24 AM
there is little reason to hope he will improve unless he can acquire skills he has not shown in 4+ seasons, which is his case is basically the ability to slug.

He does not have to slug. That's not his game, especially since he's shown a league best ability to steal bases once he gets on. What he needs to do is get on base...I don't care which base. I don't care about SLG a bit with this guy.

Falls City Beer
12-31-2008, 11:25 AM
He has NO power. None. His only value is if he gets on base at that kind of clip. So, yeah, to justify $4 million in 2010, as one-dimensional as he is, he best be up around .380+ in OBP.

Man, I continue to under-estimate just how much speed beguiles.

A guy getting on base at a .370 over 600 PA is worth well more than $3 or 4 million a season. I don't care if he has only 5 EBH in those 600 PA.

He's not going to OB at a .370 clip for 600 PA, however.

membengal
12-31-2008, 11:26 AM
While we are here, please, defenders of this move AND the money it took to make it, stop pretending there were no other options in CF. Just stop. There is still an option, in house, making major league minimums, who is extremely likely to OPS at least .725. Worst case. That would be Dickerson. Worst case.

No way do I think Dickerson can replicate what he did in his 100 at-bats over a full season. But he wouldn't have to, in order to be very valuable to this club. And at Dickerson's worst, he is better than Taveras' best.

So, what should the Reds have done? Either find a guy in CF who can beat what is likely Dickerson's worst (they did NOT do that) and upgrade the position, or, if not, then install Dickerson there, and roll money saved and not flushed down the smelliest latrine of all time into a real life bat in LF and a hoss on the mound.

Please stop acting like there was no one to play CF. That's simply not true. On any level.

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 11:27 AM
After Dickerson--who would be my choice for CF--you have Hopper and Stubbs, who are awful choices. I have no problem with bringing in someone as a firewall between Dickerson and the constellation of garbage that is Hopper and Stubbs, but I'm just not sure Taveras was the one.

Same here.

I only threw out there names as part of the "punt on 2009, don't spend any real money" plan.

There's a bunch of options available whether it be for a holding pattern or going for it. I just don't see how Willy T, at a 2 year $6+mil contract is good move in any of those options.

camisadelgolf
12-31-2008, 11:27 AM
A guy getting on base at a .370 over 600 PA is worth well more than $3 or 4 million a season. I don't care if he has only 5 EBH in those 600 PA.

This is true, provided that Taveras is the lead-off hitter. At least one plate appearance per game is guaranteed to be with the bases empty, and if Ramon Hernandez, Alex Gonzalez, and a pitcher are the hitters hitting in front of him, he'll rarely be up to bat with runners on base anyway.

membengal
12-31-2008, 11:28 AM
A guy getting on base at a .370 over 600 PA is worth well more than $3 or 4 million a season. I don't care if he has only 5 EBH in those 600 PA.

He's not going to OB at a .370 clip for 600 PA, however.

Then you are betting on an improved 2007 Taveras (who only did those numbers in 97 games, by the way) showing up. As, apparently, is Walt. And paying him like he has already become that player. Huge mistake. Bad contract. Ridiculous move.

Sign Taveras for two years and two million and see if he becomes that guy? I don't like it, but it would make more sense.

But they are paying him like this because they, like others, find speed Jessica Alba sexy.

camisadelgolf
12-31-2008, 11:33 AM
In 18 games, he has a .751 OPS at GABP. I can't find many good things to say about the signing, but the more I search, the more I find things that make me think, "Well, maybe it's not the worst signing of all-time after all."

Falls City Beer
12-31-2008, 11:34 AM
In 18 games, he has a .751 OPS at GABP. I can't find many good things to say about the signing, but the more I search, the more I find things that make me think, "Well, maybe it's not the worst signing of all-time after all."

18 games?

Raisor
12-31-2008, 11:34 AM
It needs to reposted for this thread I think, since we're already back to people hoping that WT goes back to his 07 numbers.

Please, just LOOK at his 05, 06, and 08 RC numbers. There's a grand total of 2.82 runs difference between the 3, over 600 PA's.

There. Is. No. Difference.


Runs Created per 100 PA's and per 600 PAs

05 11.01 (66.06 per 600 pa)
06 11.11 (66.66 per 600 pa)
07 14.09 (84.54 per 600 pa)
08 10.54 (63.24 per 600 PA)

nate
12-31-2008, 11:35 AM
People here have a pretty lofty bar set for what an acceptable CF should be.

What bar is that?

Some might argue that "people here" have a pretty abyssal bar set for what an acceptable CF should be.


I guess we've been spoiled with Eric Davis, Josh Hamilton, etc. The majority of people here also have unrealistic expectations for Reds' prospects.

So explain what those expectations are and how they're wrong.


Dickerson is not a lock to be an acceptable CF, despite people's opinions.

That's not really the argument _for_ Dickerson. The argument _for_ Dickerson is that he's cheap, the Reds aren't going to win anyhow and the money spent on WT could be better invested elsewhere.


There really aren't any FA CF that would be considered acceptable by this crowd (I just looked through the list).

If you're going to roll the dice, sign Rocco Baldelli. At least he has upside, even if it's for a couple hundred ABs.


In fact, last year, I remember the opinion of Milwaukee signing Cameron was pretty split. I think Cameron got around 10 million in a one year deal. He ended up posting 331 OBP/477 SLG, which is pretty much a normal year for him. But, it cost 10 million on the FA market to get that. Would it be worth sending prospects to Milwaukee and absorbing the extra salary to have Cameron instead of Tavares?

Not to me. I'd rather have David DeJesus or the aforementioned Rocco Baldelli and Ty Wiggington + the kids.


At the risk of sounding repetitive, the Reds have glaring holes in the OF. Trades have been explored, but have been fruitless so far. The FA class is thin. Walt felt that it was probably worthwhile to overpay a little bit in December to get some certainty in the roster. Time will tell if it was a good call or not.

Overpaying for solid production is less unacceptable than overpaying for the kind of "production" Willy T provides.

I mean, two years in a row with different GMs and we manage to overpay for a total lodestone of a player. It's really quite something.

camisadelgolf
12-31-2008, 11:36 AM
18 games?

I want to think the Reds have a chance. Please just let me be. ;)

edabbs44
12-31-2008, 11:39 AM
I'm not saying that's a good plan, and certinaly other moves would need to be made. My only point is that there are other options out there besides Willy T. The idea that it's Willy T or nothing is silly.

Hell, as Nate just posted, if the plan is holding pattern, why do anything at all? Run Dickerson, Hopper, Stubbs and Bruce out there and see what happens. Plug Alonso in at 1B and move Votto to LF. Again, not saying these are optimal moves, but Willy T is NOT the only option available out there.

You know I am all about the bolded part. I hate stupid spending.

I do like Taveras better than I liked Patterson, but I still think it is going to end up badly.

puca
12-31-2008, 11:40 AM
Or you could have realized that 05 was his first season and then in his second season (06) he improved on his numbers and then his third season (07) he improved on his numbers again. Heaven forbid a young player improve as he ages, matures, and gets used to the big leagues. What if 08 was a down year for Taveras?

As Steel pointed out, Willy's improvement in 2007 was based entirely on his success when bunting for a base hit. Which in 2007 he did at a nearly unprecidented rate. His 2005, 2006 and 2008 success rates were good - as you would expect of a player with his kind of speed - but his 2007 rates were off the charts.

If between 2006 and 2007 he became the best bunter in the history of baseball, what happened in 2008? Did he lose that skill?

As Steel also showed us, the sort of success rate that Willy Taveras had bunting in 2007 is an outler and not repeatable. So we are MUCH more likely to get a season like 2008 out of Willy Taveras than a season like 2007. In fact absent a quantum leap in Willy Taveras' baseball skill set we are pretty much guaranteed not to see a season like 2007 from him again.

westofyou
12-31-2008, 11:48 AM
Too much on the backend, about what I expected on the front, In a perfect world Taveras does good for the Reds but a magical player appears to push him, then Beltran then gets injured on the Mets and they take Wily off the Reds hands for the second year.

Yep.. that's the scenario I'm wishing for.

Kc61
12-31-2008, 11:50 AM
While we are here, please, defenders of this move AND the money it took to make it, stop pretending there were no other options in CF. Just stop. There is still an option, in house, making major league minimums, who is extremely likely to OPS at least .725. Worst case. That would be Dickerson. Worst case.

Please stop acting like there was no one to play CF. That's simply not true. On any level.

I like Dickerson. But in his 102 official at bats last year, for the Reds, in which I agree he played well, he struck out 35 times. More than one third of his official at bats. At that pace, in a 600 at bat season, he would fan 210 times.

Now production can compensate for strikeouts, I agree, but there does come a point where strikeouts do get in the way. I'm not sure if any major leaguer has ever fanned 210 times, but if so it would be extremely rare.

In addition, Dickerson has almost no major league track record, modest minor league success, will be 27 around opening day, and has had his share of injuries.

So I don't know how anyone can say that Dickerson would likely OPS this number or that number over a full season. All we've seen is a short stay in which he was productive, continued to strike out, and got injured.

Dickerson should make the Reds this year, which will be a good step for him and hopefully, when he gets opportunities, he will continue to do well. He has ability and it's great that he's made the majors. But I can understand it if the Reds didn't see him as the answer in 2009 for centerfield.

As for Taveras' salary, for 2009 it is modest. And if the Reds are unhappy, they can always trade him -- like they traded Freel. Because some teams out there may take on a one-year $4 million salary (for 2010) for a league leading base stealer. Or, if necessary, the Reds can trade him with some cash. Or they can use him as a reserve in 2010.

puca
12-31-2008, 11:51 AM
Too much on the backend, about what I expected on the front, In a perfect world Taveras does good for the Reds but a magical player appears to push him, then Beltran then gets injured on the Mets and they take Wily off the Reds hands for the second year.

Yep.. that's the scenario I'm wishing for.

Thank you WOY! I needed something to cheer me up. It could happen. He does have that playoff experience!

RANDY IN INDY
12-31-2008, 11:57 AM
I like Dickerson. But in his 102 official at bats last year, for the Reds, in which I agree he played well, he struck out 35 times. More than one third of his official at bats. At that pace, in a 600 at bat season, he would fan 210 times.

Now production can compensate for strikeouts, I agree, but there does come a point where strikeouts do get in the way. I'm not sure if any major leaguer has ever fanned 210 times, but if so it would be extremely rare.

In addition, Dickerson has almost no major league track record, modest minor league success, will be 27 around opening day, and has had his share of injuries.

So I don't know how anyone can say that Dickerson would likely OPS this number or that number over a full season. All we've seen is a short stay in which he was productive, continued to strike out, and got injured.

Dickerson should make the Reds this year, which will be a good step for him and hopefully, when he gets opportunities, he will continue to do well. He has ability and it's great that he's made the majors. But I can understand it if the Reds didn't see him as the answer in 2009 for centerfield.

As for Taveras' salary, for 2009 it is modest. And if the Reds are unhappy, they can always trade him -- like they traded Freel. Because some teams out there may take on a one-year $4 million salary (for 2010) for a league leading base stealer. Or, if necessary, the Reds can trade him with some cash. Or they can use him as a reserve in 2010.

:thumbup:

membengal
12-31-2008, 12:00 PM
I like Dickerson. But in his 102 official at bats last year, for the Reds, in which I agree he played well, he struck out 35 times. More than one third of his official at bats. At that pace, in a 600 at bat season, he would fan 210 times.

Now production can compensate for strikeouts, I agree, but there does come a point where strikeouts do get in the way. I'm not sure if any major leaguer has ever fanned 210 times, but if so it would be extremely rare.

In addition, Dickerson has almost no major league track record, modest minor league success, will be 27 around opening day, and has had his share of injuries.

So I don't know how anyone can say that Dickerson would likely OPS this number or that number over a full season. All we've seen is a short stay in which he was productive, continued to strike out, and got injured.

Dickerson should make the Reds this year, which will be a good step for him and hopefully, when he gets opportunities, he will continue to do well. He has ability and it's great that he's made the majors. But I can understand it if the Reds didn't see him as the answer in 2009 for centerfield.

As for Taveras' salary, for 2009 it is modest. And if the Reds are unhappy, they can always trade him -- like they traded Freel. Because some teams out there may take on a one-year $4 million salary (for 2010) for a league leading base stealer. Or, if necessary, the Reds can trade him with some cash. Or they can use him as a reserve in 2010.

The thing that amazes me about this is...I am NOT a "Dickerson guy". I was as stunned as anyone with his production last year in his initial run. Stunned. Which is why I don't think it is sustainable.

But that misses the point. There is enough data with Dickerson coupled with the anecdotal "scout stuff" (he changed his approach early last year, when the changes clicked in he was improved, etc.---see the other threads for the news item) that a reasonable worst case for him is .725. Likely far better. Like around .775. And, as you know, .775 is a real drop-off from his 100 at-bat debut. So I am NOT saying I expect him to continue to be what he showed. But what he is likely to be is way better than Willy T. And WAY cheaper.

Part of what bothers me about this is it seems like the K thing rearing its head again. I keep hoping we can move beyond that as a fan-base. Apparently not.

I do know this, I don't want to hear from the Reds at any point in the next few years that "money is an issue" with regard to a contract if they are going to set fire to $6 million dollars over two seasons when they had a guy in-house who is a better option for league minimums. I just don't.

Scrap Irony
12-31-2008, 12:06 PM
From FanGraphs:

"...By signing Taveras, Jocketty and the Reds are likely paying him somewhere in the vicinity of the +0.8 wins while holding out plenty of hope that his actual value inches closer to the +2.4 win mark. A few aspects of his performance will need to revert to prior instances of success for this to take place, but it still seems more sound than throwing Patterson out there for another season. Well, more sound assuming that they are not paying Taveras an exorbitant fee.

As long as the deal stays much lower than the $12 mil fair market value based on his “extremely optimistic” projection, it isn’t an awful signing.

The deal does, however, depend a lot on the hope that the Taveras from 2008 is not truly Willy. Two-year deals based on a hope are awfully risky, so this will be considered a win for the Reds if and only if his production improves. It might not be considered a loss if the average annual value is even lower than the $4 mil fair market value based on his actual projection if the production fails to improve. Still, for an organization with some nice young pieces in place, a two-year deal based on a hope seems like an odd move."

So, FanGraphs seems to like it-- a little. Or at least has a solid defense of the signing. Which is good. I guess.

Other numbers to point out and make Raisor once again post the same numbers over and over and over, because, you know, no one really reads those number charts:

From a poster at FanGraphs:
..."While his OBP was less than stellar last year, there is reason to hope it will improve, that being that despite his career high 20.1 LD rate, he posted a career low .298 BABIP. A rebound in batting average alone would give his OBP a solid boost and give him even more oppurtunities to steal bases, but he also showed improved plate patience, posting a relatively good 7% walk rate. Combine the improved plate patience, the expected rebound in BA and his very old-school manager and you now have a potential 80 SB player."

A 283/346/350-ish line, with 80 SB is a pretty big bargain at $2 million in 2009 and one imminently moveable if a couple minor league guys begin to play out of their minds. (I'm assuming Taveras' BABIP evens out to his career rate [330-ish], which should account for his ability to bunt well and often, but not too often. I'm also assuming last season's walk rate of 7% is about right, another large assumption, I know.)

But that's pretty damn optimistic. I think Jocketty's hoping more than anything else here and that bothers me. I don't like the signing personally, as I think Bruce would be more than adequate in the field in center, with Dorn in LF, and a free agent signing in right.

But Jocketty is going another way.

Okay. Call me cautiously doubting. I'll not villify the move. I'll wait and see.

mth123
12-31-2008, 12:12 PM
With the type of CF that most on this board want it would take quite a bit to get. A legit CF prospect would be held up there with SS and C prospects. You would have to pay a premium to get. The CF FA market is uninspiring this season. Who do the Reds have in the minors that could step in and play everyday CF? Realistically who would you have targeted to play CF in 09 for the Reds?

No. I think most understand that the best the team could get would be a mediocrity. The issues are:

1. Taveras is going to have to have a year better than any in his career to be Mediocre.

2. Guys of his ilk are available everywhere for little or no cost or commitment and can be brought in "for depth" with no strings attached.

3. A two year commitment locks in a guy who's history says he's likely to suck but because of the commitment, the team is stuck with him.

4. Two in house options are on the major league roster (Dickerson and Bruce), a 3rd guy who can play there if necessary is as well (Hopper), a top prospect in AAA (Stubbs) and 3 other guys who can play CF are in the high minors (Heisey, Cumberland, Henry).

5. The team absolutely needed to fill an OF spot by adding a guy who can help the offense. The guy acquired could have easily been a corner guy with more offensive potential or even a 3B/1B with EdE or Votto making the switch.

Limiting his choices to CF gave him a shallow pool to choose from and he gave guaranteed money to the perceived best of a group where no one was worth more than a minor league deal. I don't think anyone expected WK to get a star CF. I think most looked at what was available and what was in house and thought it better to ignore acquiring a CF at all.

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 12:14 PM
If Abercrombie comes in on a minor league deal, yes I'd prefer him.

Interesting.

I am just curious (not attacking), but is it because you feel Abercrombie will outperform Tavares or is it because Abercrombie would come cheaper?

As a followup question, I am wondering if Tavares is acceptable at any price point to those that oppose this acquistion.. If Tavares was only paid 1 million/year, would more people like this move?

Kc61
12-31-2008, 12:14 PM
But that misses the point. There is enough data with Dickerson coupled with the anecdotal "scout stuff" (he changed his approach early last year, when the changes clicked in he was improved, etc.---see the other threads for the news item) that a reasonable worst case for him is .725. Likely far better. Like around .775. And, as you know, .775 is a real drop-off from his 100 at-bat debut. So I am NOT saying I expect him to continue to be what he showed. But what he is likely to be is way better than Willy T. And WAY cheaper.

I do know this, I don't want to hear from the Reds at any point in the next few years that "money is an issue" with regard to a contract if they are going to set fire to $6 million dollars over two seasons when they had a guy in-house who is a better option for league minimums. I just don't.


Well Dickerson didn't change his approach enough to stop the strikeouts, when you include his stint in the NL. And I don't think the Reds should have sat back and said "Gee, our outfield is now fine, Chris changed his approach last season!"

Also, your post makes it sound like an "either or" between Taveras and Dickerson. The Reds had only two outfielders likely to make the 25 -- Bruce and Dickerson. They needed to acquire two or three more. In my view, three.

So just repeating the name Dickerson doesn't resolve the issue. There was a need, they didn't pay too much, and the issue is whether WT can get his OBP up.

Highlifeman21
12-31-2008, 12:14 PM
So you are saying there are no CF's available for trade, no major league ready AAA CF's available for trade or no other options whatsoever in the FA market? In all of baseball?

The choice is Willy Taveras or an empty center-field?

IMO, there's not much difference between the two, based on the wad of cash we burned bringing Willy T to the Queen City...

membengal
12-31-2008, 12:18 PM
More Dickerson:

His minor league numbers:

http://minors.baseball-reference.com/players.cgi?pid=3962

Average OPS .775. His OPS at AAA last year post-swing change/approach ("scout stuff") was .863. Interestingly, his career minor league OBP was .360. But, yeah, he Ks a lot.

His major league cup of coffee:

http://www.baseball-reference.com/d/dickech01.shtml

OPS of 1.021. NOT sustainable, but, intruiging.

What would I have preferred? Gambling on Dickerson in CF. Getting a good bat in LF to replace Dunn. Use the money saved by playing Dickerson to get that bat in LF. Get true "Dickerson insurance" by signing a true back-up CF for major league minimum. That would have made sense.

As it is, if they sign a LF bat now, there is no spot for Dickerson, a guy who is intruiging at this point. Which makes no sense to me.

Perhaps the best thing to do at this point would really be to give Dickerson the job in LF, and see if they have caught lightning in a bottle. But I would have preferred they hedge their bets by leaving him in center, getting a bat for LF, and signing a cheap fall-back.

Road not taken.

I will root like heck that Taveras finds his OBP jones and steals 80 bags this year and that this works out. But it is clearly not the safest road for this team to have taken, certainly not one with the highest likelihood of success...

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 12:19 PM
So you are saying there are no CF's available for trade, no major league ready AAA CF's available for trade or no other options whatsoever in the FA market? In all of baseball?

The choice is Willy Taveras or an empty center-field?

There are no better options in the FA market, IMO.

If one thinks Dickerson MIGHT be the answer in CF, it makes little sense to trade resources for another CF.

People clamor for "an average ML CF". Those aren't available in trade very often. Walt has obviously tried, I'm sure you will acknowledge that. It's getting late, so it is good risk management to get an OF that isn't too expensive right now. If a better option comes up before the season starts, that can still be taken advantage of.

At least now, the Reds aren't in a position where in March they be forced to take the best available trade for an OF just to fill up the team (or be forced to give Nix a roster spot).

membengal
12-31-2008, 12:21 PM
Well Dickerson didn't change his approach enough to stop the strikeouts, when you include his stint in the NL. And I don't think the Reds should have sat back and said "Gee, our outfield is now fine, Chris changed his approach last season!"

Also, your post makes it sound like an "either or" between Taveras and Dickerson. The Reds had only two outfielders likely to make the 25 -- Bruce and Dickerson. They needed to acquire two or three more. In my view, three.

So just repeating the name Dickerson doesn't resolve the issue. There was a need, they didn't pay too much, and the issue is whether WT can get his OBP up.


As usual, it's all about the Ks with you KC61. I get it. No need to discuss this further, as you see Dickerson as hugely flawed because of Ks despite his obvious power advantage and having beguiling "speed" himself, because Ks offend. And Taveras is apparently a much better option because the fact that he is an out machine who makes his outs the manly way, with bat on ball grounding weakly to SS, makes him the better player.

I yield.

redsmetz
12-31-2008, 12:22 PM
In the Reds' defense, a lot of people are ignoring that the Reds have obtained Taveras for what should theoretically be his prime years. He just turned 27 years old on Christmas, so there's reason to hope that he could improve enough to be average in one or both of his two years.

I was out of town visiting my inlaws when this all came down, so I've only had a chance to peruse the boards these last several days. I even said to my son when he told me that RZ would probably be in meltdown.

That said, I keep asking myself what Jocketty and his staff know that we don't know. Are they seeing something that they thing can help Tavaras improve or return to earlier success. I don't know the answer to that and I fully understand the statistical background posters are submitting in discussing this. But I'm not a believe that stats are locked in cement and are unmoveable. So again, I have to ask what the Reds are seeing that make this worthwhile. In asking that question, I'm not suggesting they've gone after fool's gold.

I am anxious to see what else the club does between now in Spring Training. Their work is not done. And Taveras is now a Red, so I'm rooting for him to come around.

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 12:24 PM
Actually, Freel was intended to be a guy that played pretty much every day by filling in around the infield and outfield (and DL).

I disagree. If Wayne felt that way, why was Freel never given a starting job, other than a brief stint in 2006? After Freel failed miserably, remember Wayne's quote about it "Being Norris Hopper's time now".

I was under the impression that Wayne felt that Freel was primarily an OF and should only be used as an INF on an emergency basis. I agree with that evaluation. That's how Freel was used. Wayne also spent some energy trying other OF than Freel (Patterson, Hamilton, Harriston, Hopper).

That's why I was pretty surprised when Freel got that contract. He was under the team's control for those 2 years anyway and seemed destined as a backup player. It's unlikely that arbitration would've awarded him more money than Wayne gave him.

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 12:26 PM
dickerson or bruce

But those two guys are already starting. We have to add another OF.

The Reds seem to want to keep Bruce in RF. That seems the optimal place for him. IMO, it's a good idea. Let Bruce focus on hitting while he plays a less demanding defensive position.

I really don't want to see Dickerson and Bruce jerked around into different positions throughout the year, especially Bruce.

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 12:28 PM
Playing with Bob's money?

Bruce in CF. Either Dye or Nady in RF and Abreau in LF. Dickerson is 4th guy to get him more seasoning.

Sure, if you can get BobC to spend another 24 million/year, it gets a lot easier (Dye is 11 million, Abreau will probably be around 13 million or more).

mth123
12-31-2008, 12:29 PM
Interesting.

I am just curious (not attacking), but is it because you feel Abercrombie will outperform Tavares or is it because Abercrombie would come cheaper?

As a followup question, I am wondering if Tavares is acceptable at any price point to those that oppose this acquistion.. If Tavares was only paid 1 million/year, would more people like this move?

Taveras and Abercrombie (and Hopper) are the same guy IMO. Either would be ok on a minor league deal for depth with the accompaning ease of cutting them loose when they perform to expectations. Either of them on a 2 year deal is a horrible horrible plan that will lock the team into likely awfulness. There is not a CF available (including the incredibly questionable from a health standpoint Rocco Baldelli) that I would give a two year deal to unless it was at such a rediculously low price that cutting him would not be an issue. PLayers don't generally lock in for more than a year at low prices, so the minute this was announced as a two year deal, I knew that the second year at least would be for gfairly big bucks ($4 Million is about 5% of the Reds pojected payroll). There are guys for the corner spots that I would give bigger bucks to for a year or two, but none I would conider a CF option (that includes Jim Edmonds who is primarily viewed as a CF).

For the record, if Taveras and Abercrombie were both acquired on a minor league deal, I'd probably be more optimistic about Taveras.

nate
12-31-2008, 12:30 PM
Too much on the backend, about what I expected on the front, In a perfect world Taveras does good for the Reds but a magical player appears to push him, then Beltran then gets injured on the Mets and they take Wily off the Reds hands for the second year.

Yep.. that's the scenario I'm wishing for.

I like it.

It's as likely as Willy playing to his career highs rather than his career norms.

But I like it.

Sea Ray
12-31-2008, 12:31 PM
From what I'm reading, most folks are OK with his 2009 contract ($2mill) but the 2010 doubling to $4mill is the problem. OK, so Walt overpayed about $2mill here. I don't see that as a big problem. The big problem is more like if Dusty continues to start him while he's getting on base at a .290 clip

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 12:32 PM
If you're not going to win anyway, why throw the money away? [cut]

But $6.25 MM for Quick Willy?

It seems like a decision a child or government would make.

An average of 3 million/year is not big money in baseball anymore.

I agree Wily was slightly overpaid, but this contract will not be crippling or stop the Reds from making any other moves.

Screwball
12-31-2008, 12:36 PM
That said, I keep asking myself what Jocketty and his staff know that we don't know. Are they seeing something that they thing can help Tavaras improve or return to earlier success. I don't know the answer to that and I fully understand the statistical background posters are submitting in discussing this. But I'm not a believe that stats are locked in cement and are unmoveable. So again, I have to ask what the Reds are seeing that make this worthwhile. In asking that question, I'm not suggesting they've gone after fool's gold.


Walt Jocketty on Taveras’ terrible 08: “I think last year was the aberration, I base that a lot on Jamie Quirk who was with Willy the last two years. He saw him in ‘07 and he changed his approach. He has to use his speed to get on base and create havoc.”

-From C. Trent

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 12:36 PM
I'm not saying that's a good plan, and certinaly other moves would need to be made. My only point is that there are other options out there besides Willy T. The idea that it's Willy T or nothing is silly.

Hell, as Nate just posted, if the plan is holding pattern, why do anything at all? Run Dickerson, Hopper, Stubbs and Bruce out there and see what happens. Plug Alonso in at 1B and move Votto to LF. Again, not saying these are optimal moves, but Willy T is NOT the only option available out there.


IMO, it's a worse move to bring up Alonso early or move Votto to LF or move Bruce to CF. Those are supposedly the cornerstones for the future, so protect them by not screwing around for some possible short term gain.

Wily T is a gamble. You think he's a powerball ticket, which is fair enough.
Others (including Walt) think he has a better chance of success.

I know you think it's impossible for Tavaras to ever put up an acceptable season, but if he does the "impossible" then the Reds have just added a young 27 year old CF at a reasonable price. It's free talent, just like Hamilton and Phillips were. If he flops, he's a backup OF who is maybe getting an extra 1 million/year. Seems like a low downside to me.

nate
12-31-2008, 12:37 PM
An average of 3 million/year is not big money in baseball anymore.

It is for a bad player.


I agree Wily was slightly overpaid, but this contract will not be crippling or stop the Reds from making any other moves.

I've heard that one before.

mth123
12-31-2008, 12:38 PM
I like Dickerson. But in his 102 official at bats last year, for the Reds, in which I agree he played well, he struck out 35 times. More than one third of his official at bats. At that pace, in a 600 at bat season, he would fan 210 times.

Now production can compensate for strikeouts, I agree, but there does come a point where strikeouts do get in the way. I'm not sure if any major leaguer has ever fanned 210 times, but if so it would be extremely rare.

In addition, Dickerson has almost no major league track record, modest minor league success, will be 27 around opening day, and has had his share of injuries.

So I don't know how anyone can say that Dickerson would likely OPS this number or that number over a full season. All we've seen is a short stay in which he was productive, continued to strike out, and got injured.

Dickerson should make the Reds this year, which will be a good step for him and hopefully, when he gets opportunities, he will continue to do well. He has ability and it's great that he's made the majors. But I can understand it if the Reds didn't see him as the answer in 2009 for centerfield.

As for Taveras' salary, for 2009 it is modest. And if the Reds are unhappy, they can always trade him -- like they traded Freel. Because some teams out there may take on a one-year $4 million salary (for 2010) for a league leading base stealer. Or, if necessary, the Reds can trade him with some cash. Or they can use him as a reserve in 2010.

Yet the Rockies were unable to trade him. The Reds were able to trade Freel because they took a bucket of suck back that makes alot of money. It looks good to us because as bad as he is he's better than Paul Bako or David Ross and the incremental cost when coupled with moving Freel wasn't much more than signing a crummy catcher off the free agent list so it left some money for use elsewhere. Of course, signing Taveras, who is likely to be less effective as a tablesetter than Freel ever was, negates whatever logic the move had.

Most in Baltimore feel they got a great deal getting Freel and dumping Hernandez and his $8.5 Million. The Reds would need to take a similar bad contract back to trade Taveras. If the best we can hope for is he can be moved for another sucky contract, that should tell you its a bad deal.

nate
12-31-2008, 12:40 PM
I was under the impression that Wayne felt that Freel was primarily an OF and should only be used as an INF on an emergency basis. I agree with that evaluation. That's how Freel was used. Wayne also spent some energy trying other OF than Freel (Patterson, Hamilton, Harriston, Hopper).


"He's here today because of his passion for the game, his energy and the way he plays the game and goes about his business. Being a versatile player able to play multiple positions, there's tremendous value in that.


That's why I was pretty surprised when Freel got that contract. He was under the team's control for those 2 years anyway and seemed destined as a backup player. It's unlikely that arbitration would've awarded him more money than Wayne gave him.

Freel was more worth the money than CP or WT.

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 12:42 PM
Sign Taveras for two years and two million and see if he becomes that guy? I don't like it, but it would make more sense.
.

So in your mind, the issue is Walt spent a little too much. 1 million/year would be ok with you, if I read that correctly.

I don't think you realize what the current FA market is. FAs make more money because teams don't have to give up prospects to add major league talent.

Even if you disagree with that, how is 2 million/year extra for Tavares going to kill the Reds? Really, that's not a significant amount.

IMO, the Reds paid maybe 1 million/year too much, but I can understand paying a slight premium to get the deal done and move on to other issues.
At some point, a GM has to be decisive and get players. I don't want a DanO type GM that spends the entire winter working on just one deal, and then botching it anyhow.

nate
12-31-2008, 12:45 PM
So in your mind, the issue is Walt spent a little too much. 1 million/year would be ok with you, if I read that correctly.

I don't think you realize what the current FA market is. FAs make more money because teams don't have to give up prospects to add major league talent.

Even if you disagree with that, how is 2 million/year extra for Tavares going to kill the Reds? Really, that's not a significant amount.

IMO, the Reds paid maybe 1 million/year too much, but I can understand paying a slight premium to get the deal done and move on to other issues.
At some point, a GM has to be decisive and get players. I don't want a DanO type GM that spends the entire winter working on just one deal, and then botching it anyhow.

It's OK to overpay for good.

It's not OK to overpay for poor just to "get 'er done."

mth123
12-31-2008, 12:45 PM
From what I'm reading, most folks are OK with his 2009 contract ($2mill) but the 2010 doubling to $4mill is the problem. OK, so Walt overpayed about $2mill here. I don't see that as a big problem. The big problem is more like if Dusty continues to start him while he's getting on base at a .290 clip

But the 2010 contract is what guarantees it. I'm far from a Dusty apologist, but if he keeps running him out there, IMO it will be becaus the GM gave the guy a two year deal to make him the CF.

For me, the idea of 2 guaranteed years is as bad or worse than the money. He's not going anywhere no matter how bad he is

osuceltic
12-31-2008, 12:48 PM
From FanGraphs:

"...By signing Taveras, Jocketty and the Reds are likely paying him somewhere in the vicinity of the +0.8 wins while holding out plenty of hope that his actual value inches closer to the +2.4 win mark. A few aspects of his performance will need to revert to prior instances of success for this to take place, but it still seems more sound than throwing Patterson out there for another season. Well, more sound assuming that they are not paying Taveras an exorbitant fee.

As long as the deal stays much lower than the $12 mil fair market value based on his “extremely optimistic” projection, it isn’t an awful signing.

The deal does, however, depend a lot on the hope that the Taveras from 2008 is not truly Willy. Two-year deals based on a hope are awfully risky, so this will be considered a win for the Reds if and only if his production improves. It might not be considered a loss if the average annual value is even lower than the $4 mil fair market value based on his actual projection if the production fails to improve. Still, for an organization with some nice young pieces in place, a two-year deal based on a hope seems like an odd move."

So, FanGraphs seems to like it-- a little. Or at least has a solid defense of the signing. Which is good. I guess.

Other numbers to point out and make Raisor once again post the same numbers over and over and over, because, you know, no one really reads those number charts:

From a poster at FanGraphs:
..."While his OBP was less than stellar last year, there is reason to hope it will improve, that being that despite his career high 20.1 LD rate, he posted a career low .298 BABIP. A rebound in batting average alone would give his OBP a solid boost and give him even more oppurtunities to steal bases, but he also showed improved plate patience, posting a relatively good 7% walk rate. Combine the improved plate patience, the expected rebound in BA and his very old-school manager and you now have a potential 80 SB player."

A 283/346/350-ish line, with 80 SB is a pretty big bargain at $2 million in 2009 and one imminently moveable if a couple minor league guys begin to play out of their minds. (I'm assuming Taveras' BABIP evens out to his career rate [330-ish], which should account for his ability to bunt well and often, but not too often. I'm also assuming last season's walk rate of 7% is about right, another large assumption, I know.)

But that's pretty damn optimistic. I think Jocketty's hoping more than anything else here and that bothers me. I don't like the signing personally, as I think Bruce would be more than adequate in the field in center, with Dorn in LF, and a free agent signing in right.

But Jocketty is going another way.

Okay. Call me cautiously doubting. I'll not villify the move. I'll wait and see.

Thank goodness someone can be rational about this.

This isn't the end of the world.

PuffyPig
12-31-2008, 12:48 PM
No. I think most understand that the best the team could get would be a mediocrity. The issues are:

1. Taveras is going to have to have a year better than any in his career to be Mediocre.



I'm going to stop you right there.

Firstly, I'm no fan of Taveras, but lets not get silly jumping on him.

You're suggesting that even a better year than his (current) best would be mediocre.

Do you really believe that a CF who posted something better than an OBA of .367 and a better OPS than .748 (with a ton of stolen bases) would be considered mediocre? Lets' say a .380 OBA and a .770 OPS (which is just marginally better than his best year). And, again, a ton of stolen bases.

Because CF's who did that would get $10M as a FA.

I"m not saying that he will do that, or that he can do that. I don't believe that he can or will.

But you made up the rules of this game, not me.

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 12:50 PM
What bar is that?

Some might argue that "people here" have a pretty abyssal bar set for what an acceptable CF should be.



Someone on this thread said that if Wily OBP at .390, he'd still be overpaid.
That is absurd.
Other people say that because he has no power, he's useless no matter what he OBP.. That's what trotting out stats like runs created implies.

Yes, Wily has no power. That doesn't mean that he couldn't potentially earn his 3 million.

Some others have said that if the Reds can't get a CF that performs at least at ML average, they should make no moves at all. Again, what CF that perform at that level are available for trade? The only one I've heard of is the rumored Cameron to the Yanks for Melky Carberra, but that's a CF for CF swap.

If a team has a CF that is performing at average or better level, they are going to keep him or demand a king's ransom for him (like Hamilton-Volquez), because a CF like that is just as rare as a stud starting pitcher.











The argument _for_ Dickerson is that he's cheap, the Reds aren't going to win anyhow and the money spent on WT could be better invested elsewhere.



And the counterargument is that you can't make it through a season with only 3 OF on the roster. It doesn't make sense to rush prospects. ML talent costs money, unfortunately. It would be nice if the farm system could crank out more OF talent, but sadly that is not the case.

The Reds knew for some time that Dunn and Jr would be gone after 2008. Yet they did nothing to prepare for this. On the contrary, they traded most of their young OF talent. Some of those trades were good, but it shows lack of foresight. Now it's coming home to bite us in the rear.





If you're going to roll the dice, sign Rocco Baldelli. At least he has upside, even if it's for a couple hundred ABs.


He is also being courted by AL teams, and has health issues. If the Reds gave Baldelli a one year, 6-7 million deal, would you be happy with that?
I don't think I would. That's a lot of money for a part time player. It makes more sense for a contender with a lot of cash and a DH slot (like Boston).





Not to me. I'd rather have David DeJesus or the aforementioned Rocco Baldelli and Ty Wiggington + the kids.



Overpaying for solid production is less unacceptable than overpaying for the kind of "production" Willy T provides.

I mean, two years in a row with different GMs and we manage to overpay for a total lodestone of a player. It's really quite something.[/QUOTE]

membengal
12-31-2008, 12:50 PM
So in your mind, the issue is Walt spent a little too much. 1 million/year would be ok with you, if I read that correctly.

I don't think you realize what the current FA market is. FAs make more money because teams don't have to give up prospects to add major league talent.

Even if you disagree with that, how is 2 million/year extra for Tavares going to kill the Reds? Really, that's not a significant amount.

IMO, the Reds paid maybe 1 million/year too much, but I can understand paying a slight premium to get the deal done and move on to other issues.
At some point, a GM has to be decisive and get players. I don't want a DanO type GM that spends the entire winter working on just one deal, and then botching it anyhow.

I would have preferred they NOT sign him. NOT. So, yeah, one million per would be, if they were going to sign him, as much as I would have liked to have seen him sign for IF they were going to insist on lunacy. And if that wouldn't get it done? FINE. Let him go somewhere else. No loss.

And the current free agent market is outhouse awful. No one is signing. So, why again, did they have to rush through a deal with Taveras?

bucksfan2
12-31-2008, 12:51 PM
No. I think most understand that the best the team could get would be a mediocrity. The issues are:

1. Taveras is going to have to have a year better than any in his career to be Mediocre.


CF's who are league average to above league average are going to cost quite a bit. The contracts of Hunter, Pierre, and Andru Jones have driven that market up. The ability to acquirer cheep, promising CF prospects has also risen considerably. If Taveras can OBP around .350 then he will be fine as a red.



2. Guys of his ilk are available everywhere for little or no cost or commitment and can be brought in "for depth" with no strings attached.

Where? The Reds obviously don't think Dickerson and Bruce are CF. They may be able to player there in a pinch but they probably feel more comfortable at the corner OF position.


4. Two in house options are on the major league roster (Dickerson and Bruce), a 3rd guy who can play there if necessary is as well (Hopper), a top prospect in AAA (Stubbs) and 3 other guys who can play CF are in the high minors (Heisey, Cumberland, Henry).

I would be willing to bet that the Reds feel both Bruce and Dickerson will maximize their production playing at the corners. Hopper is a 5th outfielder at best and I don't want to rush Stubbs to the majors. How much time has he spent in AAA ball? If there is an OF in the high minors that forces his way on to the MLB roster and into the starting lineup then that is a good thing right? To count on them to do so would be a mistake, at least in my opinion.


5. The team absolutely needed to fill an OF spot by adding a guy who can help the offense. The guy acquired could have easily been a corner guy with more offensive potential or even a 3B/1B with EdE or Votto making the switch.

I agree here and I think Jocketty is trying to do so. I just think the price tag to acquire that guy is awfully high right now. But then again we have no idea what is being offered and what is being demanded. I would love to see the Reds make a run at Swisher or even Nady for that matter. The Yanks seem like they want to trade one of the two and a logical place is Cincy. IMO the Reds are better with 5 OF of Bruce, Dickerson, Swisher/Nady, Taveras, and Hopper or a surprise than a OF of Bruce, Dickerson, Swisher/Nady, ?, and Hopper.

Highlifeman21
12-31-2008, 12:54 PM
There are no better options in the FA market, IMO.

If one thinks Dickerson MIGHT be the answer in CF, it makes little sense to trade resources for another CF.

People clamor for "an average ML CF". Those aren't available in trade very often. Walt has obviously tried, I'm sure you will acknowledge that. It's getting late, so it is good risk management to get an OF that isn't too expensive right now. If a better option comes up before the season starts, that can still be taken advantage of.

At least now, the Reds aren't in a position where in March they be forced to take the best available trade for an OF just to fill up the team (or be forced to give Nix a roster spot).

How do we know that Walt's obviously tried to obtain "an average ML CF" via trade?

I would think given some of the lofty opinions of the Reds farm system by some of the baseball publications that we have some trading chips available to get that "average ML CF", or we could shoot for better than that "average ML CF" and use some of that mythical "pitching depth" we have and get a real ML CF (I'm lookin' at you Arroyo).

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 12:57 PM
Get true "Dickerson insurance" by signing a true back-up CF for major league minimum. That would have made sense.
.

Those don't exist. Even Patterson got something like 600 or 800k, and most
would say he's not a true backup CF.

The only way to get a CF at minimum salary is to trade for a 0-2 player.
There is no way to sign a true back up CF at ML minimum.

mth123
12-31-2008, 12:58 PM
I'm going to stop you right there.

Firstly, I'm no fan of Taveras, but lets not get silly jumping on him.

You're suggesting that even a better year than his (current) best would be mediocre.

Do you really believe that a CF who posted something better than an OBA of .367 and a better OPS than .748 (with a ton of stolen bases) would be considered mediocre? Lets' say a .380 OBA and a .770 OPS (which is just marginally better than his best year). And, again, a ton of stolen bases.

Because CF's who did that would get $10M as a FA.

I"m not saying that he will do that, or that he can do that. I don't believe that he can or will.

But you made up the rules of this game, not me.

He was very Mediocre in 2007. His team chose to limit him to 97 games and sat him down frequently as they made their play-off push in August and September. He did not put those numbers up as a full-time player.

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 01:01 PM
Taveras and Abercrombie (and Hopper) are the same guy IMO. /...

For the record, if Taveras and Abercrombie were both acquired on a minor league deal, I'd probably be more optimistic about Taveras.

Ok, thanks for explaining.

I do agree Tavares was a bit overpaid. I was hoping for 4 million for 2 years.
But I'm not going to sweat paying an average of an extra 1 million/year.

I'm also more optimistic about Tavares than Abercrombie, so I'm willing to pay a little more to get the better player. The degree of "betterness" is yet to be determined, but I guess we will find out in 2009.

PuffyPig
12-31-2008, 01:02 PM
He was very Mediocre in 2007. His team chose to limit him to 97 games and sat him down frequently as they made their play-off push in August and September. He did not put those numbers up as a full-time player.


What does that have to do with the premise of your post?

You said that even if he improved on his very best year, he'd still be mediocre.

That's a far cry from saying last year he was mediocre.

_Sir_Charles_
12-31-2008, 01:03 PM
Is there anyone that approved of the signing originally ready to stand up and say that they still approve?

Yep. I agree that it's overpriced...but it's not my money and regardless of what our payroll is...Cast is footing the bill and I'm sure that this signing doesn't stop us from any other signings if the player fits our needs. If the payroll is 80 million or 84 million...who knows.

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 01:05 PM
It's OK to overpay for good.

It's not OK to overpay for poor just to "get 'er done."

It depends on the amount of overpay.

The Reds are going to overpay Weathers in arbitration. That's a given.
They could've cut him loose, but then he'd sign with someone else (in all likelyhood, since he seemed pretty sensitive about how negotiations were going).

The amount of "overpay" obviously depends on how one feels he will perform in 2009, so we'll let it play out. If we get the 2008 version of Tavares, then obviously you are 100% right on this, and I am wrong.

nate
12-31-2008, 01:08 PM
Someone on this thread said that if Wily OBP at .390, he'd still be overpaid.
That is absurd.

I didn't see that written but it is absurd. Both to say it and to think Willy T will do it.


Other people say that because he has no power, he's useless no matter what he OBP.. That's what trotting out stats like runs created implies.

I didn't see anyone say anything of the sort.


Yes, Wily has no power. That doesn't mean that he couldn't potentially earn his 3 million.

Preferably back with the Astros. Alas...


Some others have said that if the Reds can't get a CF that performs at least at ML average, they should make no moves at all.

It's a little deeper than that. The Reds likely have the same production in house and could use the money tied up in Willy T's "game" elsewhere.


Again, what CF that perform at that level are available for trade? The only one I've heard of is the rumored Cameron to the Yanks for Melky Carberra, but that's a CF for CF swap.

At what level? Willy ranks pretty much at the absolute bottom of every offensive list.


If a team has a CF that is performing at average or better level, they are going to keep him or demand a king's ransom for him (like Hamilton-Volquez), because a CF like that is just as rare as a stud starting pitcher.

So let's just go with the kids and get a good hitter for LF. Let's stop wasting money on the Taveras and Pattersons of the world.


And the counterargument is that you can't make it through a season with only 3 OF on the roster. It doesn't make sense to rush prospects. ML talent costs money, unfortunately. It would be nice if the farm system could crank out more OF talent, but sadly that is not the case.

Minor league development takes as long as it takes. I've already laid out where I'd put the money.


The Reds knew for some time that Dunn and Jr would be gone after 2008. Yet they did nothing to prepare for this. On the contrary, they traded most of their young OF talent. Some of those trades were good, but it shows lack of foresight. Now it's coming home to bite us in the rear.

A lack of foresight, mainly from the owner, yes.


He is also being courted by AL teams, and has health issues. If the Reds gave Baldelli a one year, 6-7 million deal, would you be happy with that?
I don't think I would. That's a lot of money for a part time player. It makes more sense for a contender with a lot of cash and a DH slot (like Boston).

Nope. They can have him for that kind of jack. I'd give him a small deal with many, many incentives and do everything in my power to help find out what's wrong with him.

REDREAD
12-31-2008, 01:10 PM
How do we know that Walt's obviously tried to obtain "an average ML CF" via trade?

I would think given some of the lofty opinions of the Reds farm system by some of the baseball publications that we have some trading chips available to get that "average ML CF", or we could shoot for better than that "average ML CF" and use some of that mythical "pitching depth" we have and get a real ML CF (I'm lookin' at you Arroyo).

I am giving Walt the benefit of the doubt that he's been working hard on the OF situation. Obviously, I can't prove it.

People on this board suggest flipping Arroyo and replacing him with Lowe, Lopper, etc. Teams that are in the market are going to be thinking the same thing.

I think the best time to move Arroyo would be at the 2009 deadline. Hopefully he has a good start. Right now, he's not that attractive in a trade.

Look at it from the Reds point of view. Would you trade Votto for a clone of Arroyo? Probably not, due to cost and uncertainty of production. Likewise, it's doubtful a team is going to trade a good young CF for Arroyo at this time. If Arroyo starts 2009 like gangbusters, then maybe you have a better market.

nate
12-31-2008, 01:13 PM
It depends on the amount of overpay.

The Reds are going to overpay Weathers in arbitration. That's a given.
They could've cut him loose, but then he'd sign with someone else (in all likelyhood, since he seemed pretty sensitive about how negotiations were going).

The amount of "overpay" obviously depends on how one feels he will perform in 2009, so we'll let it play out. If we get the 2008 version of Tavares, then obviously you are 100% right on this, and I am wrong.

I'm planning for the 1601 career ABs of Willy Taveras versus hoping for the 372 "bottled lightning" ABs.

That means a trip down to George Dickels' place.

In a U-haul.

camisadelgolf
12-31-2008, 01:18 PM
Another thing that has crossed my mind is that, in free agency, it makes more sense to acquire bench players before you acquire starters because a higher-quality bench player is likely to come to the team if he's the team's #1 option at the time of the signing.

Raisor
12-31-2008, 01:20 PM
Other people say that because he has no power, he's useless no matter what he OBP.. That's what trotting out stats like runs created implies.

.[/QUOTE]

That's not what it implies at all.

If a player creates 110 runs, I don't care how they did it.

If a player creates 65 runs, I don't care how they did it, just that they did it.

Willy has been a 65 RC/600 PA guy in 3 of 4 years. NL average for CF is about 90 RC.

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 01:21 PM
So in your mind, the issue is Walt spent a little too much.

You keep repeating this "little too much" business. That's not that the issue.

They just spent "way too much" to get a pile of suck. It's not the cost of the contract that is the issue. It's the cost of the contract, the length of the contract and, most importantly, the fact that Taveras is a horrible player unlikely to do anything but hurt our team.

Thats the issue.

mth123
12-31-2008, 01:22 PM
What does that have to do with the premise of your post?

You said that even if he improved on his very best year, he'd still be mediocre.

That's a far cry from saying last year he was mediocre.

OK. Let me clarify. He's terrible and even in his best year he's not better than our in house options (which are mediocre). He would have to exceed his best year to be better than what we have. I wouldn't expend any resources on him.

PuffyPig
12-31-2008, 01:35 PM
OK. Let me clarify. He's terrible and even in his best year he's not better than our in house options (which are mediocre). He would have to exceed his best year to be better than what we have. I wouldn't expend any resources on him.


In his best year, Taveras is better than mediocre. In fact, in his best year, he's an above average CF.

Though I still hate him.

mth123
12-31-2008, 01:44 PM
In his best year, Taveras is better than mediocre. In fact, in his best year, he's an above average CF.

Though I still hate him.

At least we agree on the last part.

In 2007, Taveras projected to 80 to 85 Runs Created over 600 PA. An average CF creates 90 Runs. IMO those projections are inflated because he was limited ot 97 games and that helped him maintain a higher set of "Rate Stats" than I think he would put up if he played full-time.

He has never put up an even Mediocre season as a regular player. His Stolen Bases mean nothing to me other than that in the few times he gets on base he has to risk getting thrown out to justify his existence.

Raisor
12-31-2008, 01:46 PM
In his best year, Taveras is better than mediocre. In fact, in his best year, he's an above average CF.

Though I still hate him.

In 07 the NL Average CF created 84 runs per 600 PA's.

Willy T created 84 run/600.

He was exactly average in 07. At least on offense.

IF he can do that again, then he'll be worth it. I hope and pray that happens. His 05, 06, and 08 say it's not likely at all.

bucksfan2
12-31-2008, 01:47 PM
In 07 the NL Average CF created 84 runs per 600 PA's.

Willy T created 84 run/600.

He was exactly average in 07. At least on offense.

IF he can do that again, then he'll be worth it. I hope and pray that happens. His 05, 06, and 08 say it's not likely at all.

Does that take into account that he missed ~ 60 games that season?

Kc61
12-31-2008, 01:55 PM
Yet the Rockies were unable to trade him. The Reds were able to trade Freel because they took a bucket of suck back that makes alot of money. It looks good to us because as bad as he is he's better than Paul Bako or David Ross and the incremental cost when coupled with moving Freel wasn't much more than signing a crummy catcher off the free agent list so it left some money for use elsewhere. Of course, signing Taveras, who is likely to be less effective as a tablesetter than Freel ever was, negates whatever logic the move had.

Most in Baltimore feel they got a great deal getting Freel and dumping Hernandez and his $8.5 Million. The Reds would need to take a similar bad contract back to trade Taveras. If the best we can hope for is he can be moved for another sucky contract, that should tell you its a bad deal.

In all likelihood,the Rockies were unable to trade Taveras because he was arbitration eligible. When a player who leads the league in a major category (steals) goes to arbitration the team takes on risk. Teams were likely unwilling to do that.

I don't know how much of Hernandez' salary the Reds took on. They got cash in the deal. I believe it was less than the $8.5 million. And most people liked the Hernandez deal, given the catching options out there.

And you don't know, nor do I, what the Reds could get back for Taveras next year. It depends on his performance, the economy, other teams' needs, who else is out there, etc.

By the way, this is the major leagues. This contract is a blip for the Reds. An average of $3 million a year for even a fourth outfielder is minor.

I'm not at all upset by Taveras' contract. I will be upset if the Reds fail to acquire a major bat.

Raisor
12-31-2008, 01:56 PM
Does that take into account that he missed ~ 60 games that season?

It's based on PA's.

In 07 he created

.14 per PA
1.4 per 10 PA
14 per 100 PA

overall
57.5 in 408 PA's.

RedsManRick
12-31-2008, 01:58 PM
Well Dickerson didn't change his approach enough to stop the strikeouts, when you include his stint in the NL. And I don't think the Reds should have sat back and said "Gee, our outfield is now fine, Chris changed his approach last season!"

Also, your post makes it sound like an "either or" between Taveras and Dickerson. The Reds had only two outfielders likely to make the 25 -- Bruce and Dickerson. They needed to acquire two or three more. In my view, three.

So just repeating the name Dickerson doesn't resolve the issue. There was a need, they didn't pay too much, and the issue is whether WT can get his OBP up.

From my perspective, you're right in so far as the status quo wasn't an option. However, the problem I have most with the Taveras signing is with who he isn't, rather than who he is.

If you consider LF and CF as the OF holes to be addressed, it's pretty easy to define the needs. We needed an average or better defender at both positions, for one of them to be a plus bat and for the other to not be a black hole. Leadoff hitter is a role, not a position and not a skill.

Tavares provides average to above average defense in CF and a bat that might be passable if things go right (aka, he starts bunting more). That sounds a lot like Dickerson to me. That sounds like Hopper with a better glove. Fine, an argument can be made that Tavares is a marginally better option; but at what cost? What's the downside?

This move is comparable to adding Jason Marquis or Josh Fogg to the back of the rotation because you think you need a mid-rotation quality arm and you aren't confident in Owings, Ramirez, Thompson, Bailey, or Maloney.

By imagining our problem areas as "team speed" and "leadoff hitter", we've created a problem to which Taveras is the 'ideal' solution. But the defensive side of the coin would have been addressed with Dickerson, so Tavares is no added value there. Meanwhile, there's still a gaping hole in the lineup (a reliable OBP with decent SLG, preferably from the right side). Unfortunately, the addition of Taveras as the de facto CF has led to suggestions of Dickerson as LF or resigning Hairston. We've taken our eye off the ball of real team needs. Instead of finding a real solution for our problems, we've recast our problems to fit the most palatable solutions.

If the best argument in support of Taveras is our (very real) need for a warm body or two, that tells you something. If you realize that said warm body has been named by our GM as the solution to our CF and leadoff hitter problem, that tells you a whole lot more.

mth123
12-31-2008, 02:02 PM
It's based on PA's.

In 07 he created

.14 per PA
1.4 per 10 PA
14 per 100 PA

overall
57.5 in 408 PA's.

But that uses his "rate stats" and projects, correct?

Lots of guys put up good rate stats on a part-time basis and can't replicate them when they play every day. I'd guess if he had a real 600 PA, he wouldn't reach those projections (his BABIP would probably normalize for one thing).

SteelSD
12-31-2008, 02:02 PM
In all likelihood,the Rockies were unable to trade Taveras because he was arbitration eligible. When a player who leads the league in a major category (steals) goes to arbitration the team takes on risk. Teams were likely unwilling to do that.

Point of order. Walt Jocketty has stated that the Reds did attempt to trade for Taveras, but were unable to work out a deal with the Rockies.

puca
12-31-2008, 02:06 PM
In 07 the NL Average CF created 84 runs per 600 PA's.

Willy T created 84 run/600.

He was exactly average in 07. At least on offense.

IF he can do that again, then he'll be worth it. I hope and pray that happens. His 05, 06, and 08 say it's not likely at all.

Willy T's 'success' in 2007 was accomplished in a partial season (97 games).

Willy T's 'success' in 2007 was based entirely on what history suggests is an unrepeatable rate of success when bunting for a base hit. Take away that and Willy T in 2007 WAS Willy T in 2005, 2006 and 2008. Unfortunately that is who will likely be patrolling CF for the next two seasons.


Yep. The BUH% overage was pretty close to being the entire difference between Taveras' 2007 and 2008 RC values. In 2007, his RC/600 PA was 80.48 with those extra 14 singles. Remove them and his RC/600 PA drops to 67.04. Now, knowing that those additional OB events also allowed for more SB attempts, his actual RC/600 PA value was pretty close to his 2008 result (62.36 RC/600 PA).

Here are the players since 2004 (tracking doesn't go back past that) who've produced a BUH% above 50% and with at least 10 Bunt Singles (Min. 400 PA):

2008- Jacoby Ellsbury (11 BUH, 57.9%)
2007- Willy Taveras (38 BUH, 64.4%)
2006- Ryan Zimmerman (10 BUH, 83.3%), Corey Patterson (21 BUH, 51.2%)
2005- No qualifiers
2004- Luis Castillo (10 BUH, 62.5%)

Now, here are the hitters who were able to repeat that feat:

<crickets>

Castillo hasn't produced anything higher than 48.5% since 2004. Zimmerman hit 100% in 2008 (3 measly bunts). Patterson's BUH rate dropped to 35.1% and a respectable 44.4% (in line with his career) in 2008 and look what happened to him anyway. Taveras' BUH dropped to around 40% in 2008 and his performance tanked in large part due to the BABIP hit he saw from it even though he was reaching base at a good BUH rate for anyone.

Overall, 50% BUH appears to be the high water mark for what we could normally expect for a premier speed bunter, with low to mid-40% ranges being far more likely from even the fastest guys. But that's not what we saw, of course, from Taveras in 2007 and it's completely unreasonable to expect him to be able to replicate that 64.4% rate again. In fact, it's most likely about 18 to 20% higher than he'll ever see from him again.

lollipopcurve
12-31-2008, 02:08 PM
But the defensive side of the coin would have been addressed with Dickerson, so Tavares is no added value there.

I'm not so sure of this. If you watched Dickerson closely, you saw a guy who didn't seem to track balls particularly well. Now that may have been partly due to his being in LF, where he's less familiar, but it was still surprising to me. There are also concerns about Dickerson's durability.

I like Dickerson a lot -- especially his bat -- and I hope he gets a legit opportunity to play. But it is premature to say he's as good a CF defender as Taveras, in my opinion.

bucksfan2
12-31-2008, 02:09 PM
Willy T's 'success' in 2007 was accomplished in a partial season (97 games).

Willy T's 'success' in 2007 was based entirely on what history says is an unrepeatable rate of success when bunting for a base hit. Take away that and Willy T in 2007 WAS Willy T in 2005, 2006 and 2008. Unfortunately that is who will likely be patrolling CF for the next two seasons.

Willy T was a rookie in 05 so you don't expect him to improve at all? So I guess we are only looking at marginal improvements for both Votto and Bruce in the upcoming season?

AmarilloRed
12-31-2008, 02:11 PM
I don't know if it was mentioned before, but there is a $500,000 incentive in the contract if Tavarez reaches 600 PA in 2010.

Raisor
12-31-2008, 02:11 PM
But that uses his "rate stats" and projects, correct?

Lots of guys put up good rate stats on a part-time basis and can't replicate them when they play every day. I'd guess if he had a real 600 PA, he wouldn't reach those projections (his BABIP would probably normalize for one thing).

I absolutly agree. Which makes him even scarier.

mth123
12-31-2008, 02:12 PM
In all likelihood,the Rockies were unable to trade Taveras because he was arbitration eligible. When a player who leads the league in a major category (steals) goes to arbitration the team takes on risk. Teams were likely unwilling to do that.

I don't know how much of Hernandez' salary the Reds took on. They got cash in the deal. I believe it was less than the $8.5 million. And most people liked the Hernandez deal, given the catching options out there.

And you don't know, nor do I, what the Reds could get back for Taveras next year. It depends on his performance, the economy, other teams' needs, who else is out there, etc.

By the way, this is the major leagues. This contract is a blip for the Reds. An average of $3 million a year for even a fourth outfielder is minor.

I'm not at all upset by Taveras' contract. I will be upset if the Reds fail to acquire a major bat.

I agree that the money is not huge, but its a two year deal and the team will not just cut him loose until sometime in 2010 at the earliest. So what is the cut-off point. The Reds are hoping to get a bat and say they are too expensive. When the prices fall to where they are not too expensive, the Reds won't be the only buyer. But now they are up against the budget ceiling and don't have that extra couple million to outbid the competition.

BTW, the $4 Million in 2010 is roughly 5% (one twentieth) of the Reds budget. Since there are 25 guys on a roster, that means the Reds will be paying 5% of the budget when if divided equally would only merit 4% to each player. That means Taveras will be making more than his fair share of the dough. $4 Million dollars is the difference between Jason Marquis and Derek Lowe.

Taveras is non-roster invitee fodder. Anything more is too much IMO.

Raisor
12-31-2008, 02:13 PM
Willy T was a rookie in 05 so you don't expect him to improve at all? So I guess we are only looking at marginal improvements for both Votto and Bruce in the upcoming season?

Willy's 06 and 08 were nearly identical to his 05.

Within 2.8 runs created per 600 PA's, or about 0.004 runs per PA.

edabbs44
12-31-2008, 02:14 PM
In 07 the NL Average CF created 84 runs per 600 PA's.

Willy T created 84 run/600.

He was exactly average in 07. At least on offense.

IF he can do that again, then he'll be worth it. I hope and pray that happens. His 05, 06, and 08 say it's not likely at all.

Humor me on this...say he learned a thing or two regarding baserunning and he is now closer to 2008 than 2005-2007 on the bases.

And then he gets his hitting numbers in line with 2005-2006 and not 2007-2008.

What does his RC look like then?

Because I think that is totally feasible.

Blitz Dorsey
12-31-2008, 02:14 PM
Once again, the Reds outbid themselves for a player that probably no one else wanted. Unlike Patterson, Taveras was not still on the street two weeks into spring training, but if the Reds didn't sign him, who knows, maybe he would have been.

I didn't like this signing to begin with, but wasn't as bothered as probably the majority of this board. I thought Taveras probably got a maximum of $5 mil over 2 years and I didn't have a big problem with it. And not that $1.25 is much more, but once again the Reds outbid themselves. If they were set on signing him (and we all know they were) they should have offered 2-years/$5 million and said take it or leave it by New Year's Eve.

I know, I know, they just shouldn't have signed him at all. I'm just saying, since they were intent on signing him, they could have at least did something called negotiating. The Reds are not giving themselves enough credit if they don't think they could have landed Taveras for less. No one out there wanted him other than maybe the Nats. But Bowden likes every OF that was once promising but turned out to be a bust, so that's a given.

puca
12-31-2008, 02:19 PM
Willy T was a rookie in 05 so you don't expect him to improve at all? So I guess we are only looking at marginal improvements for both Votto and Bruce in the upcoming season?

He hasn't been a rookie since 2005. He has been in the league 4 years now and hasn't improved. He is the exact same hitter in 2008 as he was in 2005-2007. His 2007 numbers look respectable based entirely on a fluke - his success rate at bunting for a base hit.

As for Votto and Bruce, check back in 3 years. If they haven't made improvements in their game, then I won't be expecting miracles in year 5.

Reds1
12-31-2008, 02:31 PM
JimBo is paying Corey Patterson $650K this year. Is Willy Tavaras 3.5 times better than Patterson?

Rem

Probably so, but that's just semantics :D

OnBaseMachine
12-31-2008, 02:35 PM
I'm not so sure of this. If you watched Dickerson closely, you saw a guy who didn't seem to track balls particularly well. Now that may have been partly due to his being in LF, where he's less familiar, but it was still surprising to me. There are also concerns about Dickerson's durability.

I like Dickerson a lot -- especially his bat -- and I hope he gets a legit opportunity to play. But it is premature to say he's as good a CF defender as Taveras, in my opinion.

Dickerson didn't look all that great in left field, which was understandable since he doesn't normally play that position. However, I thought he looked very good in center field and the stats seem to back that up.

Caveat Emperor
12-31-2008, 02:38 PM
Point of order. Walt Jocketty has stated that the Reds did attempt to trade for Taveras, but were unable to work out a deal with the Rockies.

Which probably makes them the only organization dumber than the Reds at this point, considering getting anything for Willy Taveras would've been preferrable to just non-tendering him.

Will M
12-31-2008, 03:03 PM
IMO Taveras belongs on a 25 man roster. At best (2007) as a starting centerfielder & at worst (2008) as a 5th outfielder.

Major league players cost money. Last year we had so much junk on the roster it really hurt the Reds. Several guys had no business wearing a big league uniform. Bringing a guy like Nix on a minor league deal hoping to catch lightning in a bottle is fine but you can't expect to build half your team with guys making $400K.

Why is everyone assuming 'we outbid ourselves'? As fans we have pretty much no idea of what going on behind the scenes.

It has been noted but I'll say it again. The Reds are not a top destination for players. We have to pony up more cash to get people to play here.

puca
12-31-2008, 03:03 PM
Which probably makes them the only organization dumber than the Reds at this point, considering getting anything for Willy Taveras would've been preferrable to just non-tendering him.

There are times that nothing is better than something.

The Rockies might have prefered nothing than a player they didn't want with a bad contract (Ryan Freel).

TRF
12-31-2008, 03:10 PM
Humor me on this...say he learned a thing or two regarding baserunning and he is now closer to 2008 than 2005-2007 on the bases.

And then he gets his hitting numbers in line with 2005-2006 and not 2007-2008.

What does his RC look like then?

Because I think that is totally feasible.

I'm going to play your little game.

I think Willy T did learn something about the art of base stealing, and I think he learned it in 2007, not 2008. I also think the smaller park in GABP will help his defense, not hurt it. I think he's a bad defender, but can use his speed to make up for bad jumps and bad routes in a smaller park. A bad read in Coors is fatal regardless of speed.

I do NOT think he has or ever will learn to take a walk, and his game needs it desperately. Here is the thing, if he were getting 70+ BB's a season, this move would likely be lauded, to an extent. It still wasn't needed, but it would be a decent move. 70+ BB's would give him a .380+ OBP. (just an estimation on my part, but I think it's close.)

But he's not going to do that.

So your point is moot.

And this is a colossal waste of cash.

KronoRed
12-31-2008, 03:26 PM
I don't know if it was mentioned before, but there is a $500,000 incentive in the contract if Tavarez reaches 600 PA in 2010.

You know Dusty the players manager will do all he can to get his CF to that mark.

Yahoo.

edabbs44
12-31-2008, 03:48 PM
I'm going to play your little game.

I think Willy T did learn something about the art of base stealing, and I think he learned it in 2007, not 2008. I also think the smaller park in GABP will help his defense, not hurt it. I think he's a bad defender, but can use his speed to make up for bad jumps and bad routes in a smaller park. A bad read in Coors is fatal regardless of speed.

I do NOT think he has or ever will learn to take a walk, and his game needs it desperately. Here is the thing, if he were getting 70+ BB's a season, this move would likely be lauded, to an extent. It still wasn't needed, but it would be a decent move. 70+ BB's would give him a .380+ OBP. (just an estimation on my part, but I think it's close.)

But he's not going to do that.

So your point is moot.

And this is a colossal waste of cash.

Well I did a rudimentary calc of his 2006 stats with 2008's SB totals. It looks like he'd "create" roughly 74-75 runs for 600 PAs. A little below average but also he is being paid as such.

Wouldn't be awful.

Matt700wlw
12-31-2008, 03:50 PM
I wonder who they outbid? :ughmamoru

TRF
12-31-2008, 04:11 PM
Well I did a rudimentary calc of his 2006 stats with 2008's SB totals. It looks like he'd "create" roughly 74-75 runs for 600 PAs. A little below average but also he is being paid as such.

Wouldn't be awful.

About 15 runs below the average CF. So regardless, he's below average and all ours for 2 years. yippee.

savafan
12-31-2008, 04:45 PM
If I'm Pokey Reese, I'm coming out of retirement right now.

Sea Ray
12-31-2008, 04:47 PM
But the 2010 contract is what guarantees it. I'm far from a Dusty apologist, but if he keeps running him out there, IMO it will be becaus the GM gave the guy a two year deal to make him the CF.

For me, the idea of 2 guaranteed years is as bad or worse than the money. He's not going anywhere no matter how bad he is

I don't what you base that on. This administration has been known to cut guys in the last year of a multiyear deal if they're not performing. Just look at Cormier, Stanton and Milton. We saw it earlier with Danny Graves.

mth123
12-31-2008, 04:48 PM
I don't what you base that on. This administration has been known to cut guys in the last year of a multiyear deal if they're not performing. Just look at Cormier, Stanton and Milton. We saw it earlier with Danny Graves.

So the second year locks in the first. He's the CF for all of '09.

Sea Ray
12-31-2008, 04:53 PM
So the second year locks in the first. He's the CF for all of '09.

I don't know. That's up to Dusty. Let's hope he performs well enough that he earns that leadoff spot in the Reds lineup night after night.

Ron Madden
12-31-2008, 04:54 PM
I don't what you base that on. This administration has been known to cut guys in the last year of a multiyear deal if they're not performing. Just look at Cormier, Stanton and Milton. We saw it earlier with Danny Graves.

Many of the same foks defending this deal also defended the Cormier, Stanton and Milton deals.

Ironic aint it?

edabbs44
12-31-2008, 05:26 PM
About 15 runs below the average CF. So regardless, he's below average and all ours for 2 years. yippee.
How many teams have all starters producing above average numbers?

corkedbat
12-31-2008, 05:30 PM
How many teams have all starters producing above average numbers?


The really bad ones not only have below average starters in their lineup, they stick them at the top of the order and give them 600 ABs

Raisor
12-31-2008, 05:42 PM
How many teams have all starters producing above average numbers?

The more above average players you have, the better you can absorb carrying a non average player.

camisadelgolf
12-31-2008, 05:46 PM
If I'm Pokey Reese, I'm coming out of retirement right now.

I don't know if you already knew, but JimBo convinced Reese to come out of retirement in the middle of the season. Reese did very, very poorly in AAA.

klw
12-31-2008, 05:50 PM
I am probably one of the few who are on the fence about this. There are others I would prefer to Tavaras and the 2nd year was unnecessary but the money is not at an amount that hamstrings the team from pursuing other options. I just hope they end up with a decent power bat in left to offset this. I would have preferred to see them spend this on Hairston and work in Dickerson. Not a move that I can defend but not enough $ involved for me to give up all hope. I just hope another good rumor comes along soon so we can move on for a while.

Raisor
12-31-2008, 05:53 PM
I really don't care about the money, except for the fact that it makes it much more likely that means he's essentially a lock to get 600 PA's.

If he was making the minimum, I'd be against it.

RedsManRick
12-31-2008, 05:54 PM
How many teams have all starters producing above average numbers?

Well, from the current roster, 2 guys put up all-around above average production in 2008: Phillips and Votto. And we've got two positions which should be league average next year. After that...

The way I see it, this is how we look compared to other starters across baseball, using my patented off-the-cuff overall production projections:

Significantly Above Average (1-6)
None

Above Average (7-12)
1B Votto
2B Phillips

Average (13-18)
RF Bruce
C Hernandez/Hanigan

Below Average (19-24)
3B Encarnacion
CF Taveras

Significantly Below Average (25-30)
SS Gonzalez/Keppinger
LF Dickerson

With 6 of the 8 positions functionally locked in and looking like a league average group (at best) at those 6 positions, we've locked ourselves in to a below average guy at one of the two remaining positions and set ourselves up for below average at the other. Our pitching staff had better be awesome.

Ltlabner
12-31-2008, 06:01 PM
If he was making the minimum, I'd be against it.

Bingo. The money has nothing to do with it (other than making it an even worse move).

We needed production. We got an anchor.

And that isn't good.

Spring~Fields
12-31-2008, 06:50 PM
Bingo. The money has nothing to do with it (other than making it an even worse move).

We needed production. We got an anchor.

And that isn't good.

They are just giving us more filler and fodder. Contrary to what most of us hoped for, but, pretty much what most of us thought would occur.

Even I can catch on after seeing it enough years in a row. :(

Far East
12-31-2008, 07:10 PM
The really bad ones not only have below average starters in their lineup, they stick them at the top of the order and give them 600 ABs

If Tony LaRussa ran the Reds, he might bat the pitcher 8th -- who might get some sac bunt chances, where after Tavaras, hitting 9th, usually would only need a one base hit for the RBI.

Tavaras' hitting 9th also:

(A) would not give him as many AB,
(B) would still allow him to flash some leather in CF, and
(C) would potentially serve as a "table-setter" ahead of the (real) lead-off guy.

Can the Reds trade Baker for LaRussa?

Kc61
12-31-2008, 07:36 PM
Many of the same foks defending this deal also defended the Cormier, Stanton and Milton deals.

Ironic aint it?

And many of those opposing Taveras supported Matt Belisle. How are individuals' past views relevant to this discussion?

Highlifeman21
12-31-2008, 07:58 PM
IMO Taveras belongs on a 25 man roster. At best (2007) as a starting centerfielder & at worst (2008) as a 5th outfielder.

Major league players cost money. Last year we had so much junk on the roster it really hurt the Reds. Several guys had no business wearing a big league uniform. Bringing a guy like Nix on a minor league deal hoping to catch lightning in a bottle is fine but you can't expect to build half your team with guys making $400K.

Why is everyone assuming 'we outbid ourselves'? As fans we have pretty much no idea of what going on behind the scenes.

It has been noted but I'll say it again. The Reds are not a top destination for players. We have to pony up more cash to get people to play here.

Ponying up for Willy Taveras is a bad idea for any team, much less the Reds.

But since you're right that the Reds have to pony up more cash to get people to play here just makes me cringe even more at the fact Willy Taveras is a Red. It basically says to me that we overpaid for garbage.

redsmetz
12-31-2008, 08:24 PM
I'm disinclined to think that Walt Jocketty is a stupid person. Yes, GM's make mistakes, but again, I am wondering what it is that he and his staff is seeing that leads them to think they've found a decent player with this move. Certainly they have access to the data that folks cite here and yet, Jocketty has said from the get go that Taveras was the lead off hitter he was looking for. Again, these aren't stupid people, despite the fact that a great number of posters here believe they are. I'm thinking they believe they can get their money's worth out of Wily Taveras.

Raisor
12-31-2008, 08:26 PM
I'm thinking they believe they can get their money's worth out of Wily Taveras.

I have no doubt that they think this will work.

I think that's a problem.

dougdirt
12-31-2008, 08:30 PM
I have no doubt that they think this will work.

I think that's a problem.

Right. To me, it indicates that they look at numbers like Batting Average, Runs, RBI, HR and Steals to determine the value of a baseball player. As I have seen it said other places, this isn't 1960.

redsmetz
12-31-2008, 08:36 PM
Right. To me, it indicates that they look at numbers like Batting Average, Runs, RBI, HR and Steals to determine the value of a baseball player. As I have seen it said other places, this isn't 1960.

I think that's a little simplistic. Yes there are significant analytical tools available that weren't around then. But even I, a person who doesn't get all the stats, can see Tavaras has some gaps. That's why I wonder whether the club doesn't believe they see something that they can fix. I don't know that for a fact, but I suspect that's where this is coming from. Again, I don't think these are stupid people.

dougdirt
12-31-2008, 08:40 PM
Just heard from a friend who works in baseball. Apparently the Reds were only one of two teams to offer WT a two year deal and only 3 other teams even offered him a MLB deal. Bunch of teams offered him a minor league deal with an invite to ST. The Reds were also the only team that were looking at him as an every day player. This is from a guy who is employeed by a major league team in a personnel position.

RedsManRick
12-31-2008, 08:44 PM
I'm disinclined to think that Walt Jocketty is a stupid person. Yes, GM's make mistakes, but again, I am wondering what it is that he and his staff is seeing that leads them to think they've found a decent player with this move. Certainly they have access to the data that folks cite here and yet, Jocketty has said from the get go that Taveras was the lead off hitter he was looking for. Again, these aren't stupid people, despite the fact that a great number of posters here believe they are. I'm thinking they believe they can get their money's worth out of Wily Taveras.

Call me crazy, but I think they're right. A Willy Taveras who puts up a .330 OBP and average defense in CF is worth $6.5M over 2 years in this market.

The problem is that the Reds simply cannot afford to buy the amount of additional production they need if they are going to compete. The current formula of players, and more specifically the two remaining positions to be filled prior to his signing (CF and LF), simply need way way more production than Taveras can provide. And what's worse is that the upside is extremely limited too. This isn't a Josh Hamilton play.

Prior to signing Taveras, looking just at the best possible roster as it was with who was in the system, the Reds were at least 100 runs (scored or prevented) from being a true competitor. Now, they have a few million less to spend, one less roster spot, and 90 runs. It wasn't so much that the signing was a waste of money. It was a waste of an opportunity.

edabbs44
12-31-2008, 09:26 PM
And many of those opposing Taveras supported Matt Belisle. How are individuals' past views relevant to this discussion?

And the biggest supporter of WT has as World Series ring from this decade.

SteelSD
12-31-2008, 09:32 PM
And the biggest supporter of WT has as World Series ring from this decade.

Which, of course, means that he's incapable of error.

Is that really the path folks are willing to go down to support the acquisition of a bad player?

edabbs44
12-31-2008, 10:07 PM
Which, of course, means that he's incapable of error.

Is that really the path folks are willing to go down to support the acquisition of a bad player?

I'm not the one who said this:


Many of the same foks defending this deal also defended the Cormier, Stanton and Milton deals.

Ironic aint it?

SteelSD
12-31-2008, 10:53 PM
I'm not the one who said this:

Yet, insinuating that Jocketty's WS ring makes him incapable of player evaluation error is at least as negative a debate path.

Frankly, I've always been one to give a guy a longer leash should he have a history of success. Jocketty certainly qualifies, but that history doesn't turn an historically below average player into a likely success.

What I am hoping for is a projectible above-average player acquisition sometime during Jocketty's tenure with the Reds so we can see some of that previous success translate, BTW.

OnBaseMachine
12-31-2008, 11:02 PM
Well, from the current roster, 2 guys put up all-around above average production in 2008: Phillips and Votto. And we've got two positions which should be league average next year. After that...

The way I see it, this is how we look compared to other starters across baseball, using my patented off-the-cuff overall production projections:

Significantly Above Average (1-6)
None

Above Average (7-12)
1B Votto
2B Phillips

Average (13-18)
RF Bruce
C Hernandez/Hanigan

Below Average (19-24)
3B Encarnacion
CF Taveras

Significantly Below Average (25-30)
SS Gonzalez/Keppinger
LF Dickerson

With 6 of the 8 positions functionally locked in and looking like a league average group (at best) at those 6 positions, we've locked ourselves in to a below average guy at one of the two remaining positions and set ourselves up for below average at the other. Our pitching staff had better be awesome.

So you don't think Jay Bruce will improve much next season? Or Encarnacion?

Chip R
12-31-2008, 11:35 PM
We need to apply for a bail-out.

So we can spend it on more suckitude like Corey Tavaras?

SteelSD
12-31-2008, 11:35 PM
So you don't think Jay Bruce will improve much next season? Or Encarnacion?

For Bruce to improve to league average over 600 PA, he'll need a RAP improvement of about 13 Runs versus 2008, assuming the average RF performance stays consistent. I'd say Rick's projecting a pretty significant improvement when positioning him as average.

red-in-la
12-31-2008, 11:44 PM
And yet, the Reds acquired an OBP challenged player who had had ONE good year with Houston....the rest of his career had been a bust. He became an indespensible part of the Reds potent offense the new few years.

I am just hoping Willy Taveras is just the second coming of Billy Hatcher.

edabbs44
12-31-2008, 11:48 PM
Yet, insinuating that Jocketty's WS ring makes him incapable of player evaluation error is at least as negative a debate path.


You're being too literal. He is obviously capable of error and this could definitely end up being an error on his end.

However, my post was in response to the earlier one I quoted.

In addition, it was also a commentary on when people try and discount someone else's opinion just because they may have been wrong on their evaluation of a given player in the past. Most posters on this board do not work in the baseball profession and are probably going to be wrong sometimes on their opinions of personnel moves. It is kind of ridiculous to use that as "proof" that someone's post might not be relevant or valid. I am sure that everyone on here has had a post that they wish they could take back.

Bottom line is that Jocketty wants this guy to play for Cincy. Walt also has a strong track record in the majors of putting a winning ballclub on the field. He won the WS with a catcher who had a .274 OBP, a 2nd baseman with a .324 OBP and a RF with a .317 OBP. Willy Taveras will not be the reason why this team does not win, no matter what some posters might want you to believe. Based upon that monstrosity of a thread, you would think that Walt just dismantled the defending champs and traded Pujols and Johan for Taveras.

I was one of the biggest Krivsky bashers on this board and I would have given him hell for this move. But Walt will get a little more leeway from me based upon his track record. I have faith that he will get the job done as well as possible. The other guy? He didn't give me reason to cut him any slack.

Do I like the move? No. But I also see some potential in Taveras and can see him being an asset. I also think that Walt is smart enough to put the wraps on Baker if he is hitting WT leadoff into June with a .270 OBP.

Walt's obviously on the hook for Taveras. But that's what GMs do, they make gutsy calls and put their names on the line in order to better the team. I'd rather a move look dumb and end up working out than one that looks like a steal and then craps out. I think it is obvious what side of the fence everyone stands at this point...now let's see how it works out.

And if it Taveras ends up playing well, Walt will deserve credit. It won't be because of luck. This isn't a flyer that he took on a DFAed guy. He targeted him and signed him to a legit contract. Walt deserves all the credit or blame for this acquisition. I think he has already taken his fair share of abuse. But the guy hasn't even put a Reds uni on yet. Let's see how it works out.

Tom Servo
01-01-2009, 01:07 AM
So we can spend it on more suckitude like Corey Tavaras?
I really hope Corey Taveras catches on, it's the perfect way to confuse people.

CougarQuest
01-01-2009, 01:15 AM
$6.25 million! That is one schrewd move there!!!

SteelSD
01-01-2009, 01:18 AM
You're being too literal. He is obviously capable of error and this could definitely end up being an error on his end.

However, my post was in response to the earlier one I quoted.

In addition, it was also a commentary on when people try and discount someone else's opinion just because they may have been wrong on their evaluation of a given player in the past. Most posters on this board do not work in the baseball profession and are probably going to be wrong sometimes on their opinions of personnel moves. It is kind of ridiculous to use that as "proof" that someone's post might not be relevant or valid. I am sure that everyone on here has had a post that they wish they could take back.

Of course. That being said, your post was also supporting someone who was doing the same thing you claim to dislike.


Bottom line is that Jocketty wants this guy to play for Cincy.

Obviously.


Walt also has a strong track record in the majors of putting a winning ballclub on the field. He won the WS with a catcher who had a .274 OBP, a 2nd baseman with a .324 OBP and a RF with a .317 OBP.

I guess that's one way to look at it. Yet, he also had Albert Pujols, Scott Rolen, and Jim Edmonds. You can support a LOT with a guy (Pujols) who produces 55.2 RAP. To put that in perspective, that's about 10 more RAP than were produced by combining every above-average season from the 2008 Reds roster. Getting above-average offensive performance from two other skill positions (including the best defensive 3B in the game) also helps quite a bit.

And all that being said, that 2006 WS team eeked out a total of only 83 Wins. That isn't the best example of producing a projectible winner.


Willy Taveras will not be the reason why this team does not win, no matter what some posters might want you to believe. Based upon that monstrosity of a thread, you would think that Walt just dismantled the defending champs and traded Pujols and Johan for Taveras.

Now you're jumping the rails. The 2009 Cincinnati Reds do not have an Albert Pujols. Frankly, they don't have a single player who's likely capable of producing Scott Rolen's value at a single position, especially when we add on Rolen's defensive value. While that doesn't affect Taveras' value, it affects how we must view the acquisition within the context of the current team's construction.

While we know that Jocketty has time left to acquire good players, there isn't a Pujols out there. Heck, there isn't even a Rolen out there. At this point, adding a player who projects below-average positional value makes no sense.


I was one of the biggest Krivsky bashers on this board and I would have given him hell for this move. But Walt will get a little more leeway from me based upon his track record. I have faith that he will get the job done as well as possible. The other guy? He didn't give me reason to cut him any slack.

Bad moves are bad moves no matter who makes them. At this point, you're actually holding onto the idea that Jocketty can do a better job than Krivsky to make up for acquiring a bad player. While I might agree at this point, it doesn't play as a defense of the Taveras acquisition.


Do I like the move? No. But I also see some potential in Taveras and can see him being an asset. I also think that Walt is smart enough to put the wraps on Baker if he is hitting WT leadoff into June with a .270 OBP.

The problem isn't just Taveras hitting leadoff, even though it exacerbates the issue. The problem is that Taveras gets slotted in the Reds' lineup at all on a consistent basis. But honestly, I think Jocketty has visions of David Eckstein running through his head when he looks at Taveras.


Walt's obviously on the hook for Taveras. But that's what GMs do, they make gutsy calls and put their names on the line in order to better the team. I'd rather a move look dumb and end up working out than one that looks like a steal and then craps out. I think it is obvious what side of the fence everyone stands at this point...now let's see how it works out.

I love it when I see the word "gutsy" used to describe the acquisition of an historically bad player; as if it adds some sort of machismo. Walt Jocketty just did something that doesn't project as smart, but look at the chutzpah!


And if it Taveras ends up playing well, Walt will deserve credit. It won't be because of luck. This isn't a flyer that he took on a DFAed guy. He targeted him and signed him to a legit contract. Walt deserves all the credit or blame for this acquisition. I think he has already taken his fair share of abuse. But the guy hasn't even put a Reds uni on yet. Let's see how it works out.

Nah. Taveras' performance doesn't make the Rockies look "smart" in 2007 and then "dumb" in 2008. We can look at the performance and understand why what happened did. And I can guarantee that "wait and see" didn't work out so well for the Rockies.

After well over one thousand posts, I'm still waiting for the one person who can produce a post explaining why we should think that Willy Taveras projects to be a good player for a legitimate objective reason.

No one has.

CougarQuest
01-01-2009, 01:28 AM
Just heard from a friend who works in baseball. Apparently the Reds were only one of two teams to offer WT a two year deal and only 3 other teams even offered him a MLB deal.

Wow WT must really suck, he ONLY had 5 MLB teams offering a major league contract to play baseball

redsmetz
01-01-2009, 02:23 AM
Which, of course, means that he's incapable of error.

Is that really the path folks are willing to go down to support the acquisition of a bad player?

I'm certainly not suggesting he's not capable of error, but I'm willing to give some benefit of the doubt in this case. It may well prove to be a great error, signing Tavaras. All I'm saying is that I continue to wonder if the Reds believe they can improve him. The answer might well be that they can't, but I'm willing to wait to see if they can. The deed is done. Lets see what the next moves are.

Ron Madden
01-01-2009, 02:38 AM
And many of those opposing Taveras supported Matt Belisle. How are individuals' past views relevant to this discussion?

And I still would rather take my chances with Matt Belisle than have to pay Cormier, Stanton and Milton.

;)

Ron Madden
01-01-2009, 02:51 AM
And the biggest supporter of WT has as World Series ring from this decade.

I'm not giving up on Walt yet, but IMHO this is a bad move.

I'm just sayin' some of us defend every move this organization makes, even if they are as bad as the Cormier, Stanton and Milton deals.

:)

wheels
01-01-2009, 03:59 AM
Wow WT must really suck, he ONLY had 5 MLB teams offering a major league contract to play baseball

Are you still a moderator?

Homer Bailey
01-01-2009, 04:56 AM
The only thing I like about this move is that it gives us another reason to bash Dusty Baker (because he will undoubtebly bat him leadoff and give him 600 PA's in centerfield) and hopefully it will lead him to being fired before the 2010 season so we don't have to flush another season down the drain.

This signing is the exact reason why Reds baseball has not changed in the last ten years. I feel sorry for all of you that get excited in the offseason, because this is exactly the kind of move I now expect from Reds management, regardless of who is in charge.

GAC
01-01-2009, 05:22 AM
No GM, in his right mind, signs a player he knows will suck.

And that right there is where the problem lies with Jocketty in this particular situation. He obviously didn't take a good, hard look at his career numbers, but only at a career year (2007).

GAC
01-01-2009, 05:51 AM
I don't know. That's up to Dusty. Let's hope he performs well enough that he earns that leadoff spot in the Reds lineup night after night.

We're doomed I say! :p:

I can't find the article I posted some time last year on here from the '05 season when Dusty was the Cub's manager and piddling around back n forth with Hairston and CPatt at leading off; but he kept trying to force the issue with players who just weren't strong, consistent lead-off types.

And lets remember that Baker gave Patterson his most ABs (143) in the lead off spot last year.

Taveras will get more then that under Baker because Dusty's brain doesn't assimilate data at a fast enough pace due to multiple back-door trojan infections.

Wait till you guys see the money they end up giving Ryan Hairston, who got 177 ABs leading off and put up unreal numbers in compariosn to his overall career numbers.... .362 BA .427 OB% .537 SLG% .964 OPS

And I believe they'l resign him because Baker has very little confidence in Dickerson right now, and needs options.

Ya just can't have enough of dat speed! :thumbup:

GAC
01-01-2009, 06:10 AM
I guess that's one way to look at it. Yet, he also had Albert Pujols, Scott Rolen, and Jim Edmonds. You can support a LOT with a guy (Pujols) who produces 55.2 RAP. To put that in perspective, that's about 10 more RAP than were produced by combining every above-average season from the 2008 Reds roster. Getting above-average offensive performance from two other skill positions (including the best defensive 3B in the game) also helps quite a bit.

You nailed it right there Kori. Sure a team can "offset" a player or two if they have a strong supporting cast behind them. We don't at present.

And Walt's catcher's weren't there for their offense as much as they were for their outstanding defense, calling a game, and handling of pitchers.

The BRM had a few of those players too. Just off the top of my head they had a starting SS named Concepcion who wasn't known for his offensive prowess (.679 career OPS), yet could play some sound defense. But then look at the "cast" behind him.

No one denies Jocketty's past successes. But Bullwinkle can only pull so many rabbits out of that hat. And not only was Walt able to swoop in on trading deadline situations and nab a Edmonds or Rolens - those situations don't always prsent themselves that often - but he also had an ownership that was willing to spend the money to retain those guys.

I don't see that with Bob C right now.

Yet we're all hoping that Walt somehow "recaptures" that magic here in Cincy. I think he is finding out that he has to change his approach somewhat because this is not St Louis.

edabbs44
01-01-2009, 07:48 AM
Of course. That being said, your post was also supporting someone who was doing the same thing you claim to dislike.

Which was only done in response to the first post of that nature.



I guess that's one way to look at it. Yet, he also had Albert Pujols, Scott Rolen, and Jim Edmonds. You can support a LOT with a guy (Pujols) who produces 55.2 RAP. To put that in perspective, that's about 10 more RAP than were produced by combining every above-average season from the 2008 Reds roster. Getting above-average offensive performance from two other skill positions (including the best defensive 3B in the game) also helps quite a bit.

Very true. But, again, for all the bellyaching about this guy it is still somewhat possible to win with a few offensive black holes.


And all that being said, that 2006 WS team eeked out a total of only 83 Wins. That isn't the best example of producing a projectible winner.

True, but better than we have seen for a long time.


Now you're jumping the rails. The 2009 Cincinnati Reds do not have an Albert Pujols. Frankly, they don't have a single player who's likely capable of producing Scott Rolen's value at a single position, especially when we add on Rolen's defensive value. While that doesn't affect Taveras' value, it affects how we must view the acquisition within the context of the current team's construction.

Votto can't match Rolen's offensive numbers? Bruce can't either? Impossible for Edwin to come close?

I know you threw in defense at the end, but you are insinuating offense only in the statement.


While we know that Jocketty has time left to acquire good players, there isn't a Pujols out there. Heck, there isn't even a Rolen out there. At this point, adding a player who projects below-average positional value makes no sense.

I don't disagree.


Bad moves are bad moves no matter who makes them. At this point, you're actually holding onto the idea that Jocketty can do a better job than Krivsky to make up for acquiring a bad player. While I might agree at this point, it doesn't play as a defense of the Taveras acquisition.

But it is a defense of the entire picture. Jocketty is one of the better GMs in the game. To be honest, until he has thrown some Krivsky like debacles on the field for a couple of seasons, I'll defend his acquisitions...to a point. Maybe Taveras isn't going to bring a championship by himself to Cincy. But I bet Krivsky knows that. You aren't the only one who has access to WT's numbers.


The problem isn't just Taveras hitting leadoff, even though it exacerbates the issue. The problem is that Taveras gets slotted in the Reds' lineup at all on a consistent basis. But honestly, I think Jocketty has visions of David Eckstein running through his head when he looks at Taveras.

Again, Jocketty is one of the best GMs in the game. I am sure that he wouldn't let Taveras hit leadoff for an extended period if he were to be sucking in the land of OBP. His quotes have all but hinted at that.


I love it when I see the word "gutsy" used to describe the acquisition of an historically bad player; as if it adds some sort of machismo. Walt Jocketty just did something that doesn't project as smart, but look at the chutzpah!

I love it when internet posters are armed with stats and think that they have figured the entire game of baseball out because they look at a player's given numbers.

I'll take a proven GM's opinion over an internet GM's anyday. It is easy to look transaction by transaction and mock/laud each one. But it is the sum total of those moves which makes a GM successful. WK got standing ovations on a transaction by transaction basis, but his end result sucked.


Nah. Taveras' performance doesn't make the Rockies look "smart" in 2007 and then "dumb" in 2008. We can look at the performance and understand why what happened did. And I can guarantee that "wait and see" didn't work out so well for the Rockies.

After well over one thousand posts, I'm still waiting for the one person who can produce a post explaining why we should think that Willy Taveras projects to be a good player for a legitimate objective reason.

No one has.

You can ring our hands over the Taveras acquisition all you want, but bottom line is that Jocketty is in control of the team. If he wants Taveras...fine. I'm not in love with him, but I think Walt will do more good than harm for this franchise over the long haul.

If he wants to screw up an acquisition once in a while, let it be of the Taveras variety and not the Zito kind. In the end this transaction will probably not make or break this club.

Ltlabner
01-01-2009, 09:16 AM
I'd rather a move look dumb and end up working out than one that looks like a steal and then craps out.

So you are a bigger fan of dumbing into luck than having a well thought out plan that occasionally doesn't work out?

Of corse the result of dumbing into luck is better than a well conceived plan that goes awry. But if you want better results you ought start with better plans. Not sitting around hoping the stars align and dumb luck goes your way.

GAC
01-01-2009, 09:28 AM
Votto and Bruce are good young ballplayers. You should see improvement from Bruce. IMHO, you're not going to get much better out of Votto from what you saw last year. The same with EE IMO.

Will our defense be improved? Yea, I think it will. But I am a skeptic with Hernandez behind the plate in that area; but I am overall OK with this acquisition. I wonder if that means we'll be carrying three catchers again on the roster (Hanigan, Castillo), or will Wilken be the odd man out.

But who are Bruce and Votto going to drive in with this lot of sorry OB% guys being placed at the top of the order?

We're hoping that Dickerson repeats his brief '08 performance, though Dusty and Walt haven't given him any vote of confidence. That's why we have Taveras. We hope players like Keppinger and Phillips "regress" to their '07 performances. We hope that Gonzo is going to be healthy by ST so that we don't have to start Kepp at SS. We hope we get the old Harang back, that Volquez repeats his '08, that Cueto continues to improve, and that the real Arroyo will stand up.

Our pitching should be better (fingers crossed). I like our bullpen. Right now it looks to be our strongpoint. But if Bob n Walt don't pull another rabbit out of their hat by OD, and anything is possible, this offense will be bottom tier as far as run production and in most offensive categories IMO.

I know that Dusty is probably ecstatic, but this team has too many hackers on it. And when that happens I want to see who he is going to blame because the guy makes excuses then D.C has politicians . ;)

Way too many "ifs" to suit me, as far as '09 goes.

mth123
01-01-2009, 10:15 AM
We're hoping that Dickerson repeats his brief '08 performance,


Sorry GAC, this is not directed specifically at you, but I've seen quote after quote about people hoping or expecting Dickerson to repeat is '08 major league numbers and it just is not true.

The posts that I've read from others and posted myself advocating passing on Taveras and playing Dickerson in CF while pursuing a better hitting option for LF are basing that on a projection of around a .750 to .775 OPS. Those are reasonable projections based on Dickerson's minor league numbers for the last three years (which have been trending upward). I don't remember reading anything that assumes that Dickerson will put up an OPS of 1.021 or even .900 over a full season. Most are proposing that he be a platoon player in CF with another player getting the 200 or so RH PA. If Dickerson's supporters actually thought he could OPS .900+, they'd be content with him in LF and maybe even with Taveras in CF. The entire outrage is due to the fact that most of the board already believed we had an in-house option capable of handling CF defensively and putting up numbers that can respectably "get by" at that position and were lacking the bigger bat that LF requires.

The Taveras signing represents a probable downgrade from in-house options in CF and, if Dickerson assumes the LF role, complete inadequacy in LF. The fact that Walt named Taveras the starter in CF is exactly where the outrage is coming from. If the plan was for him to be Dickerson's RH alter ego while a more offense friendly player was brought in for a corner, I'd be a lot less unhappy (though I still think Taveras is non-roster invitee material and should not have gotten a Major League deal -with 2 years at this price absolute absurdity). Mentioning Jerry Hairston Jr as the most likely follow-up move just adds to the absurdity of it all.

lollipopcurve
01-01-2009, 10:52 AM
But if you want better results you ought start with better plans. Not sitting around hoping the stars align and dumb luck goes your way.

Yeah, far better to sit around telling other fans of a baseball team how stupid they are.

A lot of this comes down to taste. Some fans, like me, enjoy players who use speed aggressively. Taveras embodies that as much as anyone these days. As I said weeks before Taveras was acquired, I like watching Taveras try to beat out a ground ball. Much more than seeing a guy strike out. Matter of taste. I've been around long enough to know the team will be an underdog to make the playoffs, so the fact that Taveras is not an all-star does not sink my hopes for a playoff season -- the hopes have long since been calibrated.

The numbers are what they are, but they are an abstraction of the game. They are one remove from the action, so to speak. I love the numbers, like most ardent baseball fans, but I would still love the game without them. For someone like me, it's more enjoyable to see the game as it unfolds, to see how players play -- to see the movie instead of reading the review. That's the lens through which an appreciation for a player like Taveras is most discernable. Easy for some fans to see, not for others. Maybe it's biological, to a degree. I was an athlete, and I still like the adrenalin rush.

It's not blind, it's not dumb. It's forged over decades of playing and of watching thousands of players. It's beyond winning and losing because after a while winning and losing mean less.

We're fans, not GMs. That's a fact. That's objective reality. And until anyone on this board becomes a GM, I will not respect any attempt to convince me that there is a more enlightened way of following the team than I enjoy.

RANDY IN INDY
01-01-2009, 11:18 AM
Yeah, far better to sit around telling other fans of a baseball team how stupid they are.

A lot of this comes down to taste. Some fans, like me, enjoy players who use speed aggressively. Taveras embodies that as much as anyone these days. As I said weeks before Taveras was acquired, I like watching Taveras try to beat out a ground ball. Much more than seeing a guy strike out. Matter of taste. I've been around long enough to know the team will be an underdog to make the playoffs, so the fact that Taveras is not an all-star does not sink my hopes for a playoff season -- the hopes have long since been calibrated.

The numbers are what they are, but they are an abstraction of the game. They are one remove from the action, so to speak. I love the numbers, like most ardent baseball fans, but I would still love the game without them. For someone like me, it's more enjoyable to see the game as it unfolds, to see how players play -- to see the movie instead of reading the review. That's the lens through which an appreciation for a player like Taveras is most discernable. Easy for some fans to see, not for others. Maybe it's biological, to a degree. I was an athlete, and I still like the adrenalin rush.

It's not blind, it's not dumb. It's forged over decades of playing and of watching thousands of players. It's beyond winning and losing because after a while winning and losing mean less.

We're fans, not GMs. That's a fact. That's objective reality. And until anyone on this board becomes a GM, I will not respect any attempt to convince me that there is a more enlightened way of following the team than I enjoy.

:thumbup: I applaud you. Enjoy the game the way you want!:beerme:

Highlifeman21
01-01-2009, 11:25 AM
So we can spend it on more suckitude like Corey Tavaras?

So we can bring back Javy Valentin, naturally.

mth123
01-01-2009, 11:26 AM
Yeah, far better to sit around telling other fans of a baseball team how stupid they are...

We're fans, not GMs. That's a fact. That's objective reality. And until anyone on this board becomes a GM, I will not respect any attempt to convince me that there is a more enlightened way of following the team than I enjoy.

Yet fans have been analyzing moves and arguing the merits of them for a lot longer than the internet has been around. I'm not a GM and I don't profess to be. But as a fan, I have opinions of players and who the team should and shouldn't acquire or give playing time to. Arguing at the bar or water cooler is no different. Why is it that when its on a message board it gets so acrimonious and those who put out their opinion are accused of being "internet GMs" or "telling other people how stupid they are?" I've been analyzing and opining on trades and free agent signings a lot longer than the internet has been around. I enjoy this forum, because I can discuss it with fans who are as zealous and knowledgeable as I am instead of with those who always agree because they aren't as into it or don't even know the names of the team's players. I welcome the discussion and don't have ill will toward those who disagree.

I do wonder why, if discussing this stuff is so offensive for others, certain people even bother to visit here? I guess there are always the threads about uniform colors or autographs.

mth123
01-01-2009, 11:38 AM
:thumbup: I applaud you. Enjoy the game the way you want!:beerme:

I agree that people should enjoy the game the way they want. Unfortunately, many who espouse that philosphy actually want the rest of us to enjoy the game the way that they want as well, though I don't believe Lollipop falls into that category.

RANDY IN INDY
01-01-2009, 11:43 AM
I agree that people should enjoy the game the way they want. Unfortunately, many who espouse that philosphy actually want the rest of us to enjoy the game the way that they want as well, though I don't believe Lollipop falls into that category.

I don't believe lollipop falls into that category either. I do believe "that philosophy" is being espoused from several different camps, don't you?

mth123
01-01-2009, 11:49 AM
I don't believe lollipop falls into that category either. I do believe "that philosophy" is being espoused from several different camps, don't you?

Yes.:thumbup:

Ltlabner
01-01-2009, 11:54 AM
Yeah, far better to sit around telling other fans of a baseball team how stupid they are.

Huh?

The phrase "dumb luck" has nothing to do with being stupid.

My comment to Edabbs had nothing to do with being smart or stupid. It had everything to do with having a solid plan and working it instead of just hoping everything fell into place.

edabbs44
01-01-2009, 11:57 AM
So you are a bigger fan of dumbing into luck than having a well thought out plan that occasionally doesn't work out?

Of corse the result of dumbing into luck is better than a well conceived plan that goes awry. But if you want better results you ought start with better plans. Not sitting around hoping the stars align and dumb luck goes your way.

There is dumbing into luck and there is forming a projection based upon your own analysis that might be against what certain stats say.

Walt thinks the guy will be a player for Cincy. If he is, then good job for Walt.

Falls City Beer
01-01-2009, 12:26 PM
I think folks are getting a taste of what it is to actually wait on a contender to emerge from a farm. Other than two overpaid starters, this team is young, young, young. And likely to get younger. It hurts, these young teams. Largely because the vast majority of them aren't going to be the talented athletes you'd hoped they'd be, so it takes time to sort through them, jettison the ones with a little trade value left before they become ciphers in the dustbin of baseball. It's slow; a lot slower than trading off the kids and snapping up FAs and doing what nearly everyone here complains about: "building and trying to contend at once; which of course never works." (Well, it can work, but that's beside the point). The kids are here, and by the looks of it, they're the hand the Reds are going with. I say behold the rebuild you've asked for and put the Taveras signing in the "operating costs" column because, stupid as it may seem, it's simply a mote that's troubling the mind's eye. It's not a referendum on Jocketty's skills; he's seen the "window of contention" that most of us had hoped to seize (Harang/Arroyo + plus kids), but realized the team was so wanting in other areas that he called off the 2009-2010 dogs. Fair enough, I say.

RANDY IN INDY
01-01-2009, 12:42 PM
I think folks are getting a taste of what it is to actually wait on a contender to emerge from a farm. Other than two overpaid starters, this team is young, young, young. And likely to get younger. It hurts, these young teams. Largely because the vast majority of them aren't going to be the talented athletes you'd hoped they'd be, so it takes time to sort through them, jettison the ones with a little trade value left before they become ciphers in the dustbin of baseball. It's slow; a lot slower than trading off the kids and snapping up FAs and doing what nearly everyone here complains about: "building and trying to contend at once; which of course never works." (Well, it can work, but that's beside the point). The kids are here, and by the looks of it, they're the hand the Reds are going with. I say behold the rebuild you've asked for and put the Taveras signing in the "operating costs" column because, stupid as it may seem, it's simply a mote that's troubling the mind's eye. It's not a referendum on Jocketty's skills; he's seen the "window of contention" that most of us had hoped to seize (Harang/Arroyo + plus kids), but realized the team was so wanting in other areas that he called off the 2009-2010 dogs. Fair enough, I say.

"Can't have it both ways," is kind of what you are saying, FCB? Don't know if it is really the direction that they are going, but this could be the realization of "be careful what you ask for."

Falls City Beer
01-01-2009, 12:46 PM
"Can't have it both ways," is kind of what you are saying, FCB? Don't know if it is really the direction that they are going, but this could be the realization of "be careful what you ask for."

Pretty much. Though the jettisoning of older players didn't come all at once in one firesale, this is basically a "start from scratch" squad that's emerged over a handful of seasons. Here it is. It's not very good, but such is the way with young teams. For every one 2003 Marlins there are a zillion Reds, Pirates, Nats, Expos, and Royals squads. Now the building begins.

membengal
01-01-2009, 12:47 PM
FCB: That makes no sense. I have on occasion recommended going young, and would have no problem if they did that. But bringing in Taveras and paying him more to play over Dickerson makes no sense along those lines.

What I am irritated about with the Reds is it appears they are once again going to try to go halfway. Either go young and rebuild, something that I have argued for, or spend some coin and try and do it up right as a larger payroll team.

But the Reds? They are choosing the middle path...again. Spending a little coin (unwisely) and fielding a team that if everything goes right can make a charge at...500 ball. Insane. I thought Jocketty was better than that, and would come with a plan. I am not seeing it at all, but a continuation of more of the same in terms of a few middling moves that make no great impact on this team.

RedsManRick
01-01-2009, 12:47 PM
So you don't think Jay Bruce will improve much next season? Or Encarnacion?

Among RF with 300+ PA, Bruce's VORPr (VORP/game) was 28th. His defense was mediocre at best. He's got a ways to go before he gets to league average among starters. I think he'll take that big stride.

Among 3B with 300+ PA, EE's VORPr was 16th. His defense was among the worst in baseball among regular 3B as he gave back around half of his offensive value above replacement. If you adjusted his VORPr accordingly, he'd drop to the mid 20's. Meanwhile, his bat has shown no progress in 3 years -- the only significant change has been the rate at which he hits infield flys. While I'm hopeful, I'm not optimistic that EE will take the step forward that Aramis Ramirez did, offensively or defensively.

This is part of the problem with this team. We've got a lot of potential at a number of positions; enough to make us feel pretty comfortable about those guys. But outside of Votto, nobody can really be counted on to be a true asset offensively. This team needs all that youth to take a full step up if we're going to compete in this window.

RANDY IN INDY
01-01-2009, 12:48 PM
If that's the way it falls, I say the same. "Fair enough."

RANDY IN INDY
01-01-2009, 12:49 PM
FCB: That makes no sense. I have on occasion recommended going young, and would have no problem if they did that. But bringing in Taveras and paying him more to play over Dickerson makes no sense along those lines.

What I am irritated about with the Reds is it appears they are once again going to try to go halfway. Either go young and rebuild, something that I have argued for, or spend some coin and try and do it up right as a larger payroll team.

But the Reds? They are choosing the middle path...again. Spending a little coin (unwisely) and fielding a team that if everything goes right can make a charge at...500 ball. Insane. I thought Jocketty was better than that, and would come with a plan. I am not seeing it at all, but a continuation of more of the same in terms of a few middling moves that make no great impact on this team.

You may get Dickerson in LF and not center. The Taveras signing is not costing a lot if not much else is going to be done and he isn't exactly in the old folks home, although most would rather he be there.

Falls City Beer
01-01-2009, 12:52 PM
FCB: That makes no sense. I have on occasion recommended going young, and would have no problem if they did that. But bringing in Taveras and paying him more to play over Dickerson makes no sense along those lines.

What I am irritated about with the Reds is it appears they are once again going to try to go halfway. Either go young and rebuild, something that I have argued for, or spend some coin and try and do it up right as a larger payroll team.

But the Reds? They are choosing the middle path...again. Spending a little coin (unwisely) and fielding a team that if everything goes right can make a charge at...500 ball. Insane. I thought Jocketty was better than that, and would come with a plan. I am not seeing it at all, but a continuation of more of the same in terms of a few middling moves that make no great impact on this team.

This is one of the five youngest teams in MLB, based on average age. This is a young team. Adding Taveras doesn't change that. All the principals from the farm are still here. All the major young MLB players are here and aren't going anywhere. Two players on the MLB are 30 and over. That's young; that's a rebuilding squad. There's no halfway about it.

membengal
01-01-2009, 12:54 PM
Randy, I get that. And, per a post from earlier in this thread, if they go that way, let's hope Dickerson really has morphed into an .875 monster, rather than the more likely .775 player he may be.

Dickerson at .775 in CF? At major league minimum? That would have been swell. Dickerson in LF at that same mark? Less swell.

That's why I am so frustrated with this signing, Randy. It creates more question marks/need-to-hope-for-improvements with this team than it fills. If it is Taveras in CF and Dickerson if LF, we will need to hope that Taveras finds his inner-OBP to a level that we have only seen fleetingly once in his career and will need to hope that Dickerson is a masher.

Add in the hope that Bruce fulfills the promise, the hope that EE can take a further step up, the hope that Votto can maintain, and the hope that Ramon H. enjoys a contract drive, and there are two many positions where "hope" is needed on this team. Taveras' signing simply added to that list. I was hoping for an answer from Jock for at least one position, rather than adding more questions needing "hoped for improvement".

Falls City Beer
01-01-2009, 12:56 PM
Randy, I get that. And, per a post from earlier in this thread, if they go that way, let's hope Dickerson really has morphed into an .875 monster, rather than the more likely .775 player he may be.

Dickerson at .775 in CF? At major league minimum? That would have been swell. Dickerson in LF at that same mark? Less swell.

That's why I am so frustrated with this signing, Randy. It creates more question marks/need-to-hope-for-improvements with this team than it fills. If it is Taveras in CF and Dickerson if LF, we will need to hope that Taveras finds his inner-OBP to a level that we have only seen fleetingly once in his career and will need to hope that Dickerson is a masher.

Add in the hope that Bruce fulfills the promise, the hope that EE can take a further step up, the hope that Votto can maintain, and the hope that Ramon H. enjoys a contract drive, and there are two many positions where "hope" is needed on this team. Taveras' signing simply added to that list. I was hoping for an answer from Jock for at least one position, rather than adding more questions needing "hoped for improvement".

All this "hope" presupposes "hope" for this year. I pretty much know for a fact that Jocketty has no illusions about genuinely contending this year, particularly in light of the Cubs continued Hydra-ing of talent.

membengal
01-01-2009, 12:56 PM
This is one of the five youngest teams in MLB, based on average age. This is a young team. Adding Taveras doesn't change that. All the principals from the farm are still here. All the major young MLB players are here and aren't going anywhere. Two players on the MLB are 30 and over. That's young; that's a rebuilding squad. There's no halfway about it.

As long as Arroyo and Harang are on this squad, it's halfway...If they are going to embrace what I will call the "Edabbs approach" (as he has advocated this the longest), you move those two for a SS and a stud young LF prospect, you platoon Dickerson and Taveras if you are not going to give Dickerson CF outright, and you commit to truly rebuilding young. They are still halfway. I still don't see a plan.

Falls City Beer
01-01-2009, 12:57 PM
As long as Arroyo and Harang are on this squad, it's halfway...

Why?

membengal
01-01-2009, 12:58 PM
All this "hope" presupposes "hope" for this year. I pretty much know for a fact that Jocketty has no illusions about genuinely contending this year, particularly in light of the Cubs continued Hydra-ing of talent.

Whether they have a legit shot at the NL Central title or not (and it appears they clearly don't), that same "hope" is in place if we want this team to be watchable. What the Cubs do or don't do doesn't impact that.

Kc61
01-01-2009, 12:58 PM
I think folks are getting a taste of what it is to actually wait on a contender to emerge from a farm. Other than two overpaid starters, this team is young, young, young. And likely to get younger. It hurts, these young teams. Largely because the vast majority of them aren't going to be the talented athletes you'd hoped they'd be, so it takes time to sort through them, jettison the ones with a little trade value left before they become ciphers in the dustbin of baseball. It's slow; a lot slower than trading off the kids and snapping up FAs and doing what nearly everyone here complains about: "building and trying to contend at once; which of course never works." (Well, it can work, but that's beside the point). The kids are here, and by the looks of it, they're the hand the Reds are going with. I say behold the rebuild you've asked for and put the Taveras signing in the "operating costs" column because, stupid as it may seem, it's simply a mote that's troubling the mind's eye. It's not a referendum on Jocketty's skills; he's seen the "window of contention" that most of us had hoped to seize (Harang/Arroyo + plus kids), but realized the team was so wanting in other areas that he called off the 2009-2010 dogs. Fair enough, I say.


Good post. Even Taveras himself should properly be viewed as a young player who can improve and perhaps become a good lead off hitter. He's only a few months older than Dickerson and just entering the years when he may show himself to be a good player.

Your post also points up the fact that the Reds seem to have spent more money on acquiring kids than in the past. They signed Alonso to a major league contract at market cost for a high first draft choice. They invested in signings of top young Latin American prospects.

I still don't think it would destroy the plan to sign one major hitter to a short term contract. But it seems to me that the basic mantra is go young, don't sign anyone to a big long term deal, and see what develops.

On your "it's slow" point. This year is a gap in the Reds top prospect promotions. No Cuetos, Vottos or Bruces ready for the majors. As we get to late 2009 or 2010 Reds will start to promote Valaika, Frazier, Alonso, maybe even Francisco. Bailey, Roenicke and Thompson should play out over the next year. So these unspectacular deals can be viewed as a holding pattern for another wave of prospects which is upcoming.

RANDY IN INDY
01-01-2009, 01:00 PM
Randy, I get that. And, per a post from earlier in this thread, if they go that way, let's hope Dickerson really has morphed into an .875 monster, rather than the more likely .775 player he may be.

Dickerson at .775 in CF? At major league minimum? That would have been swell. Dickerson in LF at that same mark? Less swell.

That's why I am so frustrated with this signing, Randy. It creates more question marks/need-to-hope-for-improvements with this team than it fills. If it is Taveras in CF and Dickerson if LF, we will need to hope that Taveras finds his inner-OBP to a level that we have only seen fleetingly once in his career and will need to hope that Dickerson is a masher.

Add in the hope that Bruce fulfills the promise, the hope that EE can take a further step up, the hope that Votto can maintain, and the hope that Ramon H. enjoys a contract drive, and there are two many positions where "hope" is needed on this team. Taveras' signing simply added to that list. I was hoping for an answer from Jock for at least one position, rather than adding more questions needing "hoped for improvement".

When you decide to go young, that's what you get. There is no certainty. The numbers can be misleading from year to year. There are a lot of variables when you are playing young players. Sometimes you get the good and sometimes you get the bad.

membengal
01-01-2009, 01:00 PM
Why?

Because they don't fit the re-building paradigm, they are expensive, and they have value in a deal to bring back pieces that this club will need to be better in the time-frame you are suggesting. Moving them for, say, a future at SS (Andus for Texas, say, or in LF, Kemp, Young, whomever) and another piece or two would make more sense if they are going to go that mode.

And, if so, it would have my approval. But this halfway stuff does not.

membengal
01-01-2009, 01:02 PM
When you decide to go young, that's what you get. There is no certainty. The numbers can be misleading from year to year. There are a lot of variables when you are playing young players. Sometimes you get the good and sometimes you get the bad.

IF they have decided to go young, then they need to go all the way there. And acquiring Taveras doesn't fit that approach, in my opinion. 27 ain't young, and his skill set doesn't help a young team.

RANDY IN INDY
01-01-2009, 01:03 PM
If they are truly rebuilding, they want to maximize the value they get for trading any veteran player that they may have. You don't jump at the first offer, particularly in this market. A lot of folks who want the rebuild want it to happen on their own terms. It usually doesn't work out that way. That'a a big difference from the fantasy baseball world and the real baseball world. Impatience is usually a way to get "skinned."

edabbs44
01-01-2009, 01:07 PM
As long as Arroyo and Harang are on this squad, it's halfway...If they are going to embrace what I will call the "Edabbs approach" (as he has advocated this the longest), you move those two for a SS and a stud young LF prospect, you platoon Dickerson and Taveras if you are not going to give Dickerson CF outright, and you commit to truly rebuilding young. They are still halfway. I still don't see a plan.

Not surprisingly, I agree wholeheartedly. :thumbup:

Kc61
01-01-2009, 01:09 PM
As long as Arroyo and Harang are on this squad, it's halfway...If they are going to embrace what I will call the "Edabbs approach" (as he has advocated this the longest), you move those two for a SS and a stud young LF prospect, you platoon Dickerson and Taveras if you are not going to give Dickerson CF outright, and you commit to truly rebuilding young. They are still halfway. I still don't see a plan.

Really unrealistic. The Reds have to field a team. They have to make some gesture to the fans that they intend to win games. After all the years of losing they can hardly say -- "Come on out fans, watch us try and develop Chris Dickerson who we project as a platoon or fourth outfielder!"

You can't look back. Jocketty can fairly say that since he's been around the team hasn't awarded any Harang, Arroyo or Cordero contracts. He's not going to just dump these players, he will try and be somewhat competitive, but the major impetus is in scouting and developing young players. Walt can say that, when the opportunity arose, he traded big contracts, Dunn and Griffey.

Taveras is a 27 year old speedster who, by true major league standards, will be earning below average money this year. The Reds' off-season signings this year simply do not add a lot of money in long term commitments.

Thing is, folks following the Reds are so used to the team's cries of poverty that they freak when the team spends anything. The team has showed me this off-season is that they are adding payroll only minimally. The emphasis is still on youth.

And even if they now sign a hitter for a short-term $7 or 8 million contract, it wouldn't be a change in this philosophy. Keep the contracts short and within reason, don't trade away the major prospects, and make room for the best prospects as they come up. The Reds are doing this.

membengal
01-01-2009, 01:09 PM
I have not seen any indications that Jock is thinking about moving in that direction, Randy. None. No rumors about Harang being available. Nothing on Arroyo. And yes, to answer your inevitable point that Jock is the GM and I am not and he won't tell anyone anything, I get that. But, looking at the usual outlets in terms of rumor, etc, there is nothing.

I renew a complaint with Jock that I had with WK, but perhaps it is better aimed at BobC. What, exactly, IS the Reds' approach at this point? If they are "going young", please say so. Give your fans something to hang on, get behind, buy into. Please don't pretend we are in "win now" mode and hand us Taveras as a solution. The disconnect is perhaps between BobC's rhetoric and the franchise's actual actions.

membengal
01-01-2009, 01:12 PM
Really unrealistic. The Reds have to field a team. They have to make some gesture to the fans that they intend to win games. After all the years of losing they can hardly say -- "Come on out fans, watch us try and develop Chris Dickerson who we project as a platoon or fourth outfielder!"

You can't look back. Jocketty can fairly say that since he's been around the team hasn't awarded any Harang, Arroyo or Cordero contracts. He's not going to just dump these guys, he will try and be competitive, but the major impetus is in scouting and developing young players.

Taveras is a 27 year old speedster who, by true major league standards, will be earning below average money this year. The Reds' off-season signings this year simply do not add a lot of money in long term commitments.

Thing is, folks following the Reds are so used to the cries of poverty that they freak every time the Reds spend a dime. What they have showed me this off-season is that they are adding payroll only minimally. The emphasis is still on youth.

And even if they sign a hitter for a short-term $7 or 8 million contract, it wouldn't be a change in this philosophy. Keep the contracts short and within reason, don't trade away the major prospects, and make room for the best prospects as they come up. The Reds are doing this.

The reason that we criticize when they do spend their dimes is BECAUSE they cry poverty, Kc. If they did not, if each dollar wasted on Stanton, Cormier, etc. didn't so immediately impact their ability to bring in players who actually would help this team, then it wouldn't be as big an issue. But since the Reds are NOT the Yankees, the dollars spent and WHO they are spent on matters, a lot. Spend their dollars remotely wisely, and no is going to "freak" (to use your loaded and, frankly, needlessly provoking word)...

As for what the fans will and won't accept, in terms of being treated like adults, I will tell you what the fans don't like. They don't like being told that the Reds are in "win now" mode and then given a team that is lucky to approach 78 wins. Enough years of that breed a deep and abiding distrust among your fans that is hard to bridge. Stop. lying. to. your. fans.

RANDY IN INDY
01-01-2009, 01:20 PM
I have not seen any indications that Jock is thinking about moving in that direction, Randy. None. No rumors about Harang being available. Nothing on Arroyo. And yes, to answer your inevitable point that Jock is the GM and I am not and he won't tell anyone anything, I get that. But, looking at the usual outlets in terms of rumor, etc, there is nothing.

I renew a complaint with Jock that I had with WK, but perhaps it is better aimed at BobC. What, exactly, IS the Reds' approach at this point? If they are "going young", please say so. Give your fans something to hang on, get behind, buy into. Please don't pretend we are in "win now" mode and hand us Taveras as a solution. The disconnect is perhaps between BobC's rhetoric and the franchise's actual actions.

Could it be that you are simply not seeing what you want to see, so therefore, there is no plan? Just because you are not hearing rumors, you feel like there is nothing going on? My guess is that by spring training, we'll all have a pretty good idea of what is going on. The average fan is not interested in running the franchise from behind the GM's desk. As for Walt, if the deal isn't right, don't do it. Seems that most teams are asking for a lot of the Reds young talent in most any deal and I'm not in favor of signing a free agent to a huge long term deal just to give the fan base some sort of false hope for the season. Let Walt do his job and let the chips fall where they may. There is a lot of time between now and the season. If the right deal is there, do it, but don't hamstring the team with a big contract and a lot of years if it isn't the right fit. Go young, every time, before you do that.

And by the way, I don't see Taveras as long term or overly expensive. Not exactly excited about the deal, but I'm not ready to jump off a bridge or anything.

MWM
01-01-2009, 01:27 PM
I think "plans" are overrated. They need to be committed to winning now if they've got a realistic chance of really doing it. If they're not, they need to be committed to using their assets and the different markets to acquire more valauble assets for the near future. But that's about it, IMO. They don't need some mythical "master plan" to do it. They just need to be aware of the value in the marketplace for the assets they have and know how to "trade up" and jump on opportunities that net them a positive return. When a good opportunity presents itself you take it. That's enough of a plan for me.

Kc61
01-01-2009, 01:28 PM
The reason that we criticize when they do spend their dimes is BECAUSE they cry poverty, Kc. If they did not, if each dollar wasted on Stanton, Cormier, etc. didn't so immediately impact their ability to bring in players who actually would help this team, then it wouldn't be as big an issue. But since the Reds are NOT the Yankees, the dollars spent and WHO they are spent on matters, a lot. Spend their dollars remotely wisely, and no is going to "freak" (to use your loaded and, frankly, needlessly provoking word)...

As for what the fans will and won't accept, in terms of being treated like adults, I will tell you what the fans don't like. They don't like being told that the Reds are in "win now" mode and then given a team that is lucky to approach 78 wins. Enough years of that breed a deep and abiding distrust among your fans that is hard to bridge. Stop. lying. to. your. fans.

Show me some team that told it's fans "we are rebuilding this year, we won't win much, but we'll try hard and be young." Doesn't happen. And they aren't only dealing with adults. They are also dealing with kids who want to root for a team thinking it has a chance. And adult fans who look at the Reds as recreation and aren't satisfied that the Reds have some good AA kids.

Walt has a very tough job. The fans are thirsty for a winner, yet the only real way of winning is the promotion of top young talent -- and many of these prospects aren't ready to be successful major leaguers yet. Walt, I believe, is going young but also has to deal with the reality of the fans and the need to have a reasonably decent product on the field now. To his credit though

He hasn't traded major prospects.
He hasn't awarded major long term contracts.
He seems focused on the positions of weakness on the team.
He has been aggressive in acquiring young prospects.
He has obtained a few veterans (Rhodes, Hernandez) to fill niche positions for the short term.

Walt is addressing the major league team without destroying the salary structure and without giving up key prospects. Not easy, but he's done reasonably well so far.

And, by the way, if offered to young talent for Harang, or Arroyo, or Cordero -- I'm not sure Walt would say no. He'd probably say yes. But top young talent isn't easy to get in trades.