PDA

View Full Version : Jocketty and The Media



Jpup
06-19-2009, 01:56 PM
Why are the beat writers not asking Jocketty why Taveras is still playing everyday? Why are they not asking him what his is going to do to improve the club? Votto is a very good hitter, but I think his season is still in question from this point forward. Edwin's is the same way. The hands are the most important part of a hitter's body.

The media in Cincinnati is too much of a good old boys' club. I actually listened to Thom and Brantley yesterday on the radio (which I never do) and they continually harped on Tavares and wondered if Dickerson was still on the team. Why aren't these questions answered by not only Dusty, but Jocketty as well?

I have came around on Dusty Baker, somewhat, due to his handling of the pitching staff. I think he has improved this year considering everything involved. The Reds have one of the best staffs in baseball IMO. His lineup construction is baffling, but Jocketty gives him the pieces and we all know if Dusty has a fast centerfielder then he's going to play him. That's just Dusty. We all know it and Jocketty does as well, presumably.

The players make the team and the Manager. Walt Jocketty has given Baker some bad players.

Why is Walt Jocketty given a free pass from the Cincinnati media? He seems to be withdrawn from the spotlight more than any GM (other than O'brien) that I can remember. He gives his 3 word answers and that's it. Next day, it's forgotten.

It's almost July and the Reds need some help. Jocketty, it's time to get motivated. I keep hearing about all these great moves he made in St. Louis, but I haven't witnessed any such dealing with the Reds. He's very boring and slow to act. People on this board start calling for a move weeks ahead of Jocketty doing it.

Fay, McCoy, Marty, Thom, Sheldon, Welsh, George (I'll forgive you), and Cowboy, where are the questions? More importantly, where are the answers?

I(heart)Freel
06-19-2009, 02:11 PM
Legit question, but should entirely be directed at Fay, McCoy and Sheldon. Unless Walt wanders into the booth during the game, those other guys aren't really interviewers.

Homer Bailey
06-19-2009, 02:20 PM
I've tweeted at all of our possible outlets to start to question some of the decisions made by our front office. I was mocked by one person in particular for doing so, but I think if Reds fans begin to voice their opinions it will eventually be heard.

jojo
06-19-2009, 02:29 PM
Why are the beat writers not asking Jocketty why Taveras is still playing everyday?

My guess is because Dusty makes those decisions. Jocketty's answer, whatever it might be, would be second source.

edabbs44
06-19-2009, 02:33 PM
My guess is because Dusty makes those decisions. Jocketty's answer, whatever it might be, would be second source.

This is where my issues lie actually. I am sure Walt would take issue if he hit Votto 8th. The same should be happening here.

Jpup
06-19-2009, 02:36 PM
My guess is because Dusty makes those decisions. Jocketty's answer, whatever it might be, would be second source.

Jocketty could have made the decision to send him to the DL while he was hurt. He could ask him to go to Louisville to get his stroke "back".

Jpup
06-19-2009, 02:37 PM
This is where my issues lie actually. I am sure Walt would take issue if he hit Votto 8th. The same should be happeninf here.

He would also take issue if Cordero was a starter and Harang made a reliever. Same thing, as you said.

Falls City Beer
06-19-2009, 02:40 PM
Another Taveras thread? Who could have guessed?

Jpup
06-19-2009, 02:41 PM
Another Taveras thread? Who could have guessed?

think, bigger picture. It really has 99% to do with the media and very little to do with individuals.

Falls City Beer
06-19-2009, 02:44 PM
think, bigger picture. It really has 99% to do with the media and very little to do with individuals.

If Dusty were playing Dickerson every game instead of Taveras, this thread wouldn't exist.

That's the only legitimate beef anyone could possibly have with this team right now.

The absence of Votto, Volquez, and Encarnacion's SLG is absolutely torpedoing this team right now--but that's not anybody's fault so it's not an itch that can be scratched.

Scratch away.

Strikes Out Looking
06-19-2009, 02:46 PM
I don't think the media has day to day access with the GM like they do the manager. Additionally, even if they ask him these questions, I don't think he's going to say things like "I told Dusty to sit him down" or "I agree, Willy shouldn't be playing so much right now" as it would cause huge issues between the GM and the manager.

Scrap Irony
06-19-2009, 02:49 PM
If Dusty were playing Dickerson every game instead of Taveras, this thread wouldn't exist.

That's the only legitimate beef anyone could possibly have with this team right now.

The absence of Votto, Volquez, and Encarnacion's SLG is absolutely torpedoing this team right now--but that's not anybody's fault so it's not an itch that can be scratched.

Scratch away.

+1

Jpup
06-19-2009, 02:51 PM
If Dusty were playing Dickerson every game instead of Taveras, this thread wouldn't exist.

That's the only legitimate beef anyone could possibly have with this team right now.

The absence of Votto, Volquez, and Encarnacion's SLG is absolutely torpedoing this team right now--but that's not anybody's fault so it's not an itch that can be scratched.

Scratch away.

I have beef with several areas of the team and many of them larger than Chris Dickerson or Willy Taveras. Again, the problem addressed in this thread is the media and why it does not question the GM about anything. That's my main beef. Others have different views than those of you. Just because that could be your only beef, doesn't mean it's mine.

Why should I go to the ballpark and watch a club that's playing poorly and the GM is not apparently doing much to correct it. He could do a lot of things that would cost the Reds very little money. I am not a wordsmith, but I think the first post was pretty clear, hence, the last sentence and point.

GMs are not given a free pass in New York, LA, Chicago, etc. Why should they here? Heck, a lot of GMs and Managers have pressers on a regular basis. When is the last time that happened in Cincinnati?

Scrap Irony
06-19-2009, 02:54 PM
The Reds are over .500. The last time that lasted until the end of the season was 2000. I'll give him a year to prove himself, too. After that, I don't mind asking the tough questions.

Until he proves he can't hack it, he gets away with it.

So far, he's proving exactly what he said he would-- a competitive team with god pitching and good gloves that will work to get over .500.

Falls City Beer
06-19-2009, 02:57 PM
I think Jocketty has gotten the same treatment and given the same access as every other general manager has since I've been around. In fact, his immediate predecessor was way more tight-lipped.

Jpup
06-19-2009, 03:08 PM
I think Jocketty has gotten the same treatment and given the same access as every other general manager has since I've been around. In fact, his immediate predecessor was way more tight-lipped.

You are still not getting my actual point. It's probably me, but I want to know why he is not pressed on these issues. That's my point.

traderumor
06-19-2009, 03:09 PM
Why are they not asking him what his is going to do to improve the club? Votto is a very good hitter, but I think his season is still in question from this point forward. Edwin's is the same way. The hands are the most important part of a hitter's body.Maybe they understand that this is not really a question.

Jpup
06-19-2009, 03:11 PM
wow, I'll not start anymore threads. :confused:

cincrazy
06-19-2009, 03:37 PM
wow, I'll not start anymore threads. :confused:

There's nothing wrong with this thread, IMO. Kudos to you for starting it.

It's a legitimate question to ask. This team could be on the verge of a special season, and this front office and this management has decided to sit on their hands for the majority of the season and do nothing. Not only in regards to the black hole that is Taveras, but in general. It's incredibly frustrating. I don't think it's fair to say, "Well, they lost Votto and Edwin, once they get them back, everything will be fine."

I don't buy that. Votto's missed significant time, and the guy wasn't going to hit .370 all season anyways. We don't know what we're getting with Edwin when he comes back. This team needs to do SOMETHING.

They have a fan base, and they should be held accountable to them. I've long defended Jocketty and Castellini and all the rest, but it's long past time they get off of their bums and do something. I won't be satisfied with .500 baseball. Not this year.

As I've mentioned in a previous thread, I'm currently in New York. The fan base, and the media, accepts nothing but the best. Same with Cards fans. Same with Dodger fans. I don't want to nod my head in agreement and say "Yes, we have a plan. Just be patient," any longer. I want to WIN.

This team, this year, in this moment of time, is capable of that. The starting staff is good. The bullpen is good. The defense is much improved.

No more excuses. No more patience. Just get the job done.

Maybe the media has a problem saying it for fear of losing their access to the team,but seeing as I have no access, I can pop off as I see fit :cool:.

If they want to continue to run Taveras out there to be an automatic out, and run Mike Lincoln out there to get shelled, and not make any trades, then that's fine. This is my time. I love them. I will never "abandon" them. But don't expect me at the ballpark ready and willing to shell out money to watch a team whose management isn't interested in seizing a good opportunity.

RedlegJake
06-19-2009, 03:51 PM
They aren't sitting on their hands "for the majority of the season". We just passed the 1/3 mark. As for excuses and patience - if it means selling out the future to gain a momentary advantage, then yeah, I'm for patience. I don't see not overpaying as an excuse but a legitimate philosophy.

Why isn't Dusty being asked tough questions about Taveras, and to some extent his Taveras-AGon 1-2 penchant, when their OBPs are incredibly low is a valid question. I don't really have any beef with this team other than that. They are playing - and somehow staying close - with very valuable members of the team sidelined and other than why Dickerson isn't getting more time than Taveras, I'm not seeing any major issues. However I would like to hear Dusty defend playing Taveras leadoff through a slump like this one and JPup is correct in that it's a question that isn't being pressed.

As for Mike Lincoln, he's been shelved on the DL and it's on Mike - not management - for not coming forward about his neck. He can say it was all about trying to help the team but that's hogwash, imo. Mike Lincoln was likely suffering this problem in August and September last year when his numbers began going south. He kept his mouth shut to help Mike Lincoln - not the team - because who was going to offer him a contract if he was injured again? Not enough heat is being put on Lincoln for this.

membengal
06-19-2009, 03:57 PM
wow, I'll not start anymore threads. :confused:

They are legit questions to ask of a GM, and I wish they were asked of this GM.

cincrazy
06-19-2009, 04:03 PM
They aren't sitting on their hands "for the majority of the season". We just passed the 1/3 mark. As for excuses and patience - if it means selling out the future to gain a momentary advantage, then yeah, I'm for patience. I don't see not overpaying as an excuse but a legitimate philosophy.

Why isn't Dusty being asked tough questions about Taveras, and to some extent his Taveras-AGon 1-2 penchant, when their OBPs are incredibly low is a valid question. I don't really have any beef with this team other than that. They are playing - and somehow staying close - with very valuable members of the team sidelined and other than why Dickerson isn't getting more time than Taveras, I'm not seeing any major issues. However I would like to hear Dusty defend playing Taveras leadoff through a slump like this one and JPup is correct in that it's a question that isn't being pressed.

As for Mike Lincoln, he's been shelved on the DL and it's on Mike - not management - for not coming forward about his neck. He can say it was all about trying to help the team but that's hogwash, imo. Mike Lincoln was likely suffering this problem in August and September last year when his numbers began going south. He kept his mouth shut to help Mike Lincoln - not the team - because who was going to offer him a contract if he was injured again? Not enough heat is being put on Lincoln for this.

1/3rd of the season is a ridiculously large portion of the season. It's not so much that they haven't made a MAJOR move yet, it's that they've done relatively nothing to fix simple problems. Do you think the Sox, the Yanks, the Cards, or any other number of smart organizations would continue to run Taveras out there to leadoff games? No chance. That's why they win. That's why we don't.

This team can make improvements without mortgaging the future. This team can make trades to better the club without derailing anything we've already built.

And as far as Lincoln is concerned, he certainly shares some blame. But he wasn't the one who offered himself a two year contract, it was management. Now they're tied into a horrible deal, and when the guy proves to be one of the worst pitchers in major league baseball, they can do nothing about it.

SMcGavin
06-19-2009, 04:04 PM
That's the only legitimate beef anyone could possibly have with this team right now.


Yeah nobody could possibly question continuing to play a aging shortstop with a .256 OBP. And the continuing to play him isnt even the worst part, that .256 OBP has earned a move up the batting order. Nobody could possibly have a legitimate beef with that.

redsmetz
06-19-2009, 04:04 PM
As for Mike Lincoln, he's been shelved on the DL and it's on Mike - not management - for not coming forward about his neck. He can say it was all about trying to help the team but that's hogwash, imo. Mike Lincoln was likely suffering this problem in August and September last year when his numbers began going south. He kept his mouth shut to help Mike Lincoln - not the team - because who was going to offer him a contract if he was injured again? Not enough heat is being put on Lincoln for this.

I would be surprised that this injury was there last summer. I can't find any news stories saying so, but I would guess that the contract was not signed without a physical being performed.

Kc61
06-19-2009, 04:06 PM
Jocketty said in the off-season that fans may have to accept a different kind of ballclub. He has focused on pitching and defense and has paid little mind to offensive players this year. Baker has done the same. The result is several players who aren't good hitters but, I think, are pretty good defensively. The Reds have very good defensive numbers this year, somehow the defense is working.

I don't think Jocketty has to apologize for this. Rome wasn't built in a day. As a RedsZone poster wisely said recently, it's like a ship, it doesn't turn around instantly.

And while fans may say Walt overpaid for some of these guys, he operated with a limited budget and decided to emphasize speed and defense rather than pay for hitters.

The Reds have a lot of assets now, many good ones in the minor leagues. 2009 isn't the test, the record is better, the team is changing. The test is 2010 and 2011 when the twenty or so major league prospects in AAA and AA will either be Reds or traded for veterans and the team will really take shape.

Guys like Gonzalez, Taveras, Hairston, Hernandez, Nix, Gomes are stop gaps for this team. To get them through a year or two while the younger players get ready. Let's evaluate Walt when that period ends, not right now.

Falls City Beer
06-19-2009, 04:07 PM
Considering the starting staff is a MASSIVE work in progress, I agree with Redleg Jake, don't pawn a lot of the future for what's likely to be, even in the sunniest of outlooks, a long shot at a wild card this year.

I love the bullpen as much as the next guy (as far the pitching goes, they've been by far the unheralded heroes), but even they can't weather all these 4-5 inning outings that we're going to see more and more of.

So sure, this team has a ways to go, and yes, it's on Jocketty to make it happen. But this team is almost certainly more than one or two good deadline moves away from anything like contention.

Falls City Beer
06-19-2009, 04:08 PM
Yeah nobody could possibly question continuing to play a aging shortstop with a .256 OBP. And the continuing to play him isnt even the worst part, that .256 OBP has earned a move up the batting order. Nobody could possibly have a legitimate beef with that.

But that's a Dusty issue, where he hits in the lineup. But if you're saying Wayne should never have acquired him, right-o.

cincrazy
06-19-2009, 04:10 PM
Considering the starting staff is a MASSIVE work in progress, I agree with Redleg Jake, don't pawn a lot of the future for what's likely to be, even in the sunniest of outlooks, a long shot at a wild card this year.

I love the bullpen as much as the next guy (as far the pitching goes, they've been by far the unheralded heroes), but even they can't weather all these 4-5 inning outings that we're going to see more and more of.

So sure, this team has a ways to go, and yes, it's on Jocketty to make it happen. But this team is almost certainly more than one or two good deadline moves away from anything like contention.

For the life of me, I can't understand your continued obsession with the rotation underperforming. I respect you and your opinion on this board, but IMO, it's so blatantly obvious why this team can't get over the hump. The offense is beyond dreadful. The starting rotation has been one of the best in the league, all things considered. The Mets would kill for our rotation. I'd bet the Brewers would take our rotation. Among other teams.

Falls City Beer
06-19-2009, 04:21 PM
For the life of me, I can't understand your continued obsession with the rotation underperforming. I respect you and your opinion on this board, but IMO, it's so blatantly obvious why this team can't get over the hump. The offense is beyond dreadful. The starting rotation has been one of the best in the league, all things considered. The Mets would kill for our rotation. I'd bet the Brewers would take our rotation. Among other teams.

I like what they could be, not what they've been. Arroyo has been indescribably bad, Owings has been just this side of mediocre, Harang has been okay, but not especially interesting, Cueto has been fantastic. Volquez has been absent but has certainly been a step down from last year's production. The call-ups have been, as usual, a joke (Ramirez, Maloney, Bailey).

If Owings can stabilize and Volquez can return to last year's performance level, then they'll be on to something. But as is, it's pretty uninspiring. Yes, better than some Reds' rotations of the last ten years, obviously, but really, what is that saying?

RedlegJake
06-19-2009, 04:25 PM
cincrazy - the first third of the season is almost always barren of any major deals. We're just now entering the time of year when teams start shopping in earnest. Jocketty has never been a sit-on-his-hands GM in his entire career but you just don't hear rumors with Walt. Period. I for one don't believe for a second he isn't talking and sounding out teams.

I agree wholeheartedly about Taveras vs. Dickerson but that's Dusty. And you simply cannot trade or buy your way out of the offensive problems the Reds have in mid season without wrecking your farm, your strength (pitching) or both. If it was ONLY Taveras you could do it but it's right through the whole lineup. Bruce is struggling, Hanigan is a fine OBP guy but has no power at all, Hernandez is a solid catcher team with Ryan because he has decent power for a catcher but he's far from a good bat as a 1B-man, Phillips presses too much when you put the onus on him, and AGon, Willie T, Rosales, JHJ, Nix and Gomes are all part timers or worse. Losing EE and Votto created holes that can't be closed. Even when they return, imo, this team is still not there yet.

I get the frustration, especially after all these years of torture we finally get a team with some real hope - but its still hope for 2010 and beyond, imo and still depends on Walt making the right decisions personnel wise. Which prospects are keepers, which to trade, who to move on the ML roster, who to re-sign. Right now the only mistake he's made is Taveras. Lincoln, I just disagree with you - he's a solid pitcher IF healthy. Whether he knew it last year or not, keeping it from management instead of taking time on the DL earlier was on him.

IslandRed
06-19-2009, 04:38 PM
I don't have a problem with the media being critical. Or asking tough questions. What you have to decide is, when you as a writer realize that the GM won't answer your tough questions in the manner you prefer, then what? You can either not write the story you didn't get, or write the story about how the mean old GM is dodging your tough questions, lather rinse repeat. The second is the big-city way but I'm not sure it's any more productive.

_Sir_Charles_
06-19-2009, 04:39 PM
I don't want to nod my head in agreement and say "Yes, we have a plan. Just be patient," any longer. I want to WIN.

This team, this year, in this moment of time, is capable of that. The starting staff is good. The bullpen is good. The defense is much improved.

No more excuses. No more patience. Just get the job done.

I fully understand this feeling and sentiment, the problem is MUCH more complex than just going out and "get the job done" though. This team is aligned in such a way that we have an opportunity to have a winning team for MANY years. We've got a solid pipeline of players in the minors, we've got a solid young nucleus of position players, and a solid young nucleus of starting pitchers/relievers.

In order to go for the "win now" strategy, wouldn't you think that we'd have to sacrifice some of those players in that young core to do it? Where do we add? Who do we add? What positions do we address first? What players are expendable? How much additional payroll are we willing to take on? How much are we going to have to over-pay to get players to come to a small-market club? How many years are we going to have to suffer for those big "win now" contracts?

I certainly don't envy Jocketty's position. I'm not going to cut him any slack because he's new or because of his track record. But I am going to look at his job in a realistic sense that at this point in time, there simply isn't much that he CAN do. There really aren't any teams out there that have reached that point of buy/sell yet, and it's too early in the season for most teams to realistically say they've got a legitimate "shot" this year or not. And most importantly, I've yet to see a player mentioned as being available who really suits our needs. As in being able to both hit AND defend, not wanting a club-crippling contract in terms of dollars or years, having a team-first attitude, and being a significant upgrade on what we've already got in-house or on the farm.

Standing pat right now seems like the right move IMO. Dealing with the batting order and who plays & who sits...That's all on Dusty...but it's certainly getting to the point where Jocketty should at least address the situation with Dusty.

RedlegJake
06-19-2009, 04:42 PM
For the life of me, I can't understand your continued obsession with the rotation underperforming. I respect you and your opinion on this board, but IMO, it's so blatantly obvious why this team can't get over the hump. The offense is beyond dreadful. The starting rotation has been one of the best in the league, all things considered. The Mets would kill for our rotation. I'd bet the Brewers would take our rotation. Among other teams.

FCB is simply stating the truth but with the offense being so glaringly bad, the starting pitching has been over glorified. I happen to agree with his take. The starting rotation has been okay but has a chance to be great. This year it hasn't been. The bullpen is what has been brilliant so far except for Burton and Lincoln.

Harang has been on and off but overall solid. Good innings eater but not TOR.
Cueto has been great, especially for a youngster but his future is what really stands out.
Volquie is hurt, and struggled with command. Again - looking forward looks good but right now he's not.
Arroyo gets more undeserved props than any pitcher on this staff. The guy has been terrible this year and yet, he's the luckiest son-of-a-gun I've seen in a while. When Harang gives up 2 runs the Reds score one. When Arroyo gives up 5 the Reds score 6. Go figure. But no one can seriously say Bronson has been good this season.
Owings - I'm higher than FCB on Micah, but he's less than a year from his injury and most pitching problems take a full year to recover from. Also he seems to be moving in an upward direction and he's a lot better than the 5s we've had before this year.
Maloney is pitching for the wrong team in the wrong park. If ever a pitcher had a chance to be successful/failure based on the environs he usually pitched in it's this kid. Trade him to the Nats, the Mariners or the Padres and watch him stack up wins and eat innings for them. At GAB, though, he's a fingernail eater rather an innings eater.

Put this whole bunch together and you've got exactly what FCB has been saying - a decent rotation with a chance to be very, very good but far from a great rotation. That's not a bad thing. I don;t understand why all the venom when FCB states his case.

_Sir_Charles_
06-19-2009, 04:50 PM
FCB is simply stating the truth but with the offense being so glaringly bad, the starting pitching has been over glorified. I happen to agree with his take. The starting rotation has been okay but has a chance to be great. This year it hasn't been. The bullpen is what has been brilliant so far except for Burton and Lincoln.

Harang has been on and off but overall solid. Good innings eater but not TOR.
Cueto has been great, especially for a youngster but his future is what really stands out.
Volquie is hurt, and struggled with command. Again - looking forward looks good but right now he's not.
Arroyo gets more undeserved props than any pitcher on this staff. The guy has been terrible this year and yet, he's the luckiest son-of-a-gun I've seen in a while. When Harang gives up 2 runs the Reds score one. When Arroyo gives up 5 the Reds score 6. Go figure. But no one can seriously say Bronson has been good this season.
Owings - I'm higher than FCB on Micah, but he's less than a year from his injury and most pitching problems take a full year to recover from. Also he seems to be moving in an upward direction and he's a lot better than the 5s we've had before this year.
Maloney is pitching for the wrong team in the wrong park. If ever a pitcher had a chance to be successful/failure based on the environs he usually pitched in it's this kid. Trade him to the Nats, the Mariners or the Padres and watch him stack up wins and eat innings for them. At GAB, though, he's a fingernail eater rather an innings eater.

Put this whole bunch together and you've got exactly what FCB has been saying - a decent rotation with a chance to be very, very good but far from a great rotation. That's not a bad thing. I don;t understand why all the venom when FCB states his case.

Excellent post. I also agree with FCB on his take, and don't get all the hatred (probably too harsh a word, but can't think of a more suitable one) towards his posts. Although I'm probably a bit more positive about the pitchers (especially Harang), he's still pretty spot-on in his assessment. Harang's been snakebit this season, almost as much as Bronson's been pampered.

SMcGavin
06-19-2009, 04:50 PM
I like what they could be, not what they've been. Arroyo has been indescribably bad, Owings has been just this side of mediocre, Harang has been okay, but not especially interesting, Cueto has been fantastic. Volquez has been absent but has certainly been a step down from last year's production. The call-ups have been, as usual, a joke (Ramirez, Maloney, Bailey).

If Owings can stabilize and Volquez can return to last year's performance level, then they'll be on to something. But as is, it's pretty uninspiring. Yes, better than some Reds' rotations of the last ten years, obviously, but really, what is that saying?

NL Average Starter ERA: 4.38
Cincinnati Reds Starter ERA: 4.16

Falls City Beer
06-19-2009, 04:55 PM
NL Average Starter ERA: 4.38
Cincinnati Reds Starter ERA: 4.16

Never mind. Misread the stat.

Yeah. They've been decent (certainly they've been a tick above average), but the bullpen has been the star of this show. And with Volquez out, the rotation's pretty much doomed to seeing their numbers balloon (when you consider how terrible the starting depth is in this organization).

fearofpopvol1
06-19-2009, 05:11 PM
I like what they could be, not what they've been. Arroyo has been indescribably bad, Owings has been just this side of mediocre, Harang has been okay, but not especially interesting, Cueto has been fantastic. Volquez has been absent but has certainly been a step down from last year's production. The call-ups have been, as usual, a joke (Ramirez, Maloney, Bailey).

If Owings can stabilize and Volquez can return to last year's performance level, then they'll be on to something. But as is, it's pretty uninspiring. Yes, better than some Reds' rotations of the last ten years, obviously, but really, what is that saying?

Ramirez has not been up here this year. And despite claims, Owings (for a #5 guy) has actually been well above average. Harang has actually looked very good outside of 1 or 2 starts. He's been very good his last few starts. And Volquez really hasn't started enough to form any definitive opinion IMO.

Mario-Rijo
06-19-2009, 05:11 PM
Well let's see. Jocketty probably isn't being asked those questions for a host of reasons. Only the writers can truly say what those are but my guess is they have about as much clue as the Reds do about Willy Taveras' ability. I think they have asked and they are given the impression that Willy is just struggling and it's something he can come out of. So they wait to see if that is the case. We don't have to wait because we already know what the truth is. I'd say the fans are to blame for not equipping their representatives to the team with the tools to not be deceived.

Fay: Dusty, why is Willy in the starting lineup despite the fact he's had one hit in his last 40-50 PA's and no walks?

Dusty: He's struggling up there but we know he's gonna come out of it. He wasn't struggling early in the season so we know he's capable of it. He's making contact he just hasn't had many fall in for him.

Fay: Oh ok makes sense to me, what flavor is your toothpick today? Spearmint?

Team Clark
06-19-2009, 05:17 PM
The media is FLAT OUT afraid of the Reds organization. Period. It's been this way for quite some time. Anyone who has been around the organization and has media ties can tell you about the backlash if you say something that "MIGHT" cause a stir.

_Sir_Charles_
06-19-2009, 05:21 PM
(when you consider how terrible the starting depth is in this organization).

Now THAT I'll disagree about though.

Bailey has been pretty freaking dominant this year at Louisville, especially since adding the splitter.

Maloney could've easily been 2-0 to start with the Reds but for some bad breaks and piss-poor offense. Heck his last game wasn't bad either. Those 2 homeruns would've just been pop-outs in most stadiums. At Louisville, he was EXTREMELY good.

Ramirez was VERY good with the Reds last season and has been pretty darned good this season other than 2 poor starts.

That's 3 AAA starters who could easily fill holes if needed (and do so quite well). Then take a gander down the road a bit.

AA:
Travis Wood, quite possibly the minor league pitcher of the year up to this point.

Jordan Smith, James Avery, Zach Stewart, Dallas Buck could all pitch in AAA and suceed at this point.

Our depth at starting pitcher is quite good IMO, and with the way some of the guys in the lower minors are throwing...I think it'll remain a positive for this system for a while.

SMcGavin
06-19-2009, 05:21 PM
Never mind. Misread the stat.

Yeah. They've been decent (certainly they've been a tick above average), but the bullpen has been the star of this show. And with Volquez out, the rotation's pretty much doomed to seeing their numbers balloon (when you consider how terrible the starting depth is in this organization).

If you want to argue that the Reds starters are due for a regression, I think that's a perfectly reasonable position. Actually I agree with it. What you said earlier in this thread, and what you've been saying for a while, is that the Reds starters haven't been that good this year. That's just not true, they've been clearly above average when compared to the league and are doing it in a hitters' environment.

Mario-Rijo
06-19-2009, 05:34 PM
FCB is simply stating the truth but with the offense being so glaringly bad, the starting pitching has been over glorified. I happen to agree with his take. The starting rotation has been okay but has a chance to be great. This year it hasn't been. The bullpen is what has been brilliant so far except for Burton and Lincoln.

Harang has been on and off but overall solid. Good innings eater but not TOR.
Cueto has been great, especially for a youngster but his future is what really stands out.
Volquie is hurt, and struggled with command. Again - looking forward looks good but right now he's not.
Arroyo gets more undeserved props than any pitcher on this staff. The guy has been terrible this year and yet, he's the luckiest son-of-a-gun I've seen in a while. When Harang gives up 2 runs the Reds score one. When Arroyo gives up 5 the Reds score 6. Go figure. But no one can seriously say Bronson has been good this season.
Owings - I'm higher than FCB on Micah, but he's less than a year from his injury and most pitching problems take a full year to recover from. Also he seems to be moving in an upward direction and he's a lot better than the 5s we've had before this year.
Maloney is pitching for the wrong team in the wrong park. If ever a pitcher had a chance to be successful/failure based on the environs he usually pitched in it's this kid. Trade him to the Nats, the Mariners or the Padres and watch him stack up wins and eat innings for them. At GAB, though, he's a fingernail eater rather an innings eater.

Put this whole bunch together and you've got exactly what FCB has been saying - a decent rotation with a chance to be very, very good but far from a great rotation. That's not a bad thing. I don;t understand why all the venom when FCB states his case.

Problem is FCB has been more or less calling them trash for quite some time, not a decent rotation with a chance to very, very good. But despite what he might think when compared to this leagues counterparts they are top 3rd now, earlier in the season and by the end of it they will still be one of the better starting staffs in the NL. From front to back, 1-5 they just are.

Falls City Beer
06-19-2009, 07:17 PM
If you want to argue that the Reds starters are due for a regression, I think that's a perfectly reasonable position. Actually I agree with it. What you said earlier in this thread, and what you've been saying for a while, is that the Reds starters haven't been that good this year. That's just not true, they've been clearly above average when compared to the league and are doing it in a hitters' environment.

No, I'm saying what I've been saying all along: this rotation is not that good, and it has been lucky thus far. At the end of the season, it will be average (mostly because I think something isn't totally right with Volquez, both performance-wise and physically long-term).

I say the same thing about the Cardinals' rotation; they've been pretty darn lucky, but they're not a very good rotation. A horrible rotation without Carpenter.

jojo
06-19-2009, 10:33 PM
NL Average Starter ERA: 4.38
Cincinnati Reds Starter ERA: 4.16

Rank by FIP (NL):
Overall staff: 11th
Starters: 13th
Bullpen: 7th

TheNext44
06-19-2009, 10:46 PM
Rank by FIP (NL):
Overall staff: 11th
Starters: 13th
Bullpen: 7th

What that says to me is that the Reds have a very good defense.

jojo
06-19-2009, 11:05 PM
What that says to me is that the Reds have a very good defense.

It colors one's view of the staff's ERA and the role their pitching might play in the Reds run prevention doesn't it?

TheNext44
06-19-2009, 11:44 PM
It colors one's view of the staff's ERA and the role their pitching might play in the Reds run prevention doesn't it?

For me, that is the greatest benefit that FIP gives us...an understanding of the relationship between the talent of the pitcher(s) and the defense behind him(them).

I think the Reds pitchers need to buy their defense some steak dinners. :)

BoydsOfSummer
06-20-2009, 12:35 AM
The media is FLAT OUT afraid of the Reds organization. Period. It's been this way for quite some time. Anyone who has been around the organization and has media ties can tell you about the backlash if you say something that "MIGHT" cause a stir.


Care to elaborate on what kind of backlash? And why wouldn't Brantley and Thom suffer the same?

tripleaaaron
06-20-2009, 02:22 AM
I agree, wholeheartedly. Why is Jock sitting on his hands and A) watching Dusty cost us a few wins and B) not making any moves to give him better players? While most will contend that he is not sitting on his hands and is surely active in seeking an upgrade but won't pull the trigger as to not jeopardize the future, but is that really what he is doing?
While I am sure that Jocketty is going through the motions of trying to acquire a "big bat" as we have been searching for nearly a year now. While I myself do not want to pick the farm clean or necessarily even move a single future contributor (as I think 2010 is our season to truly turn the corner), but Jock is sending mixed signals. While Dusty IS the manager and fills out the lineup card but Jock is his boss; the boss usually gets what he wants. If Jock was truly concerned for the future (as opposed to the now) don't you think that he would prefer his younger players (who happen to be better or closely matched with their veteran counterparts) to start over the aging vets (or at least get ample PT)? Tavaras struggles, Dickerson still sits. Gonzo plays solid D with no bat, Janish plays the same game but is much younger and he sits. Early on, I thought Hanigan was also being underused as I thought he should have gotten 2/5 starts that has since become a moot point but may soon raise its head again. How long can Jocketty watch this? As the GM of the team you are in charge of managing the long-term vision of the team and if necessary trickling that message down to the managers of your organization. If Dusty didn't get that message, then Dusty goes. Unfortunately I don't believe that message got sent.

Jocketty and Larussa were quite successful in STL, Jocketty knew how to deal and had solid scouts and Farm Directors to draft for him, Larussa knew how to win ballgames and exactly which players to do it with. Jocketty built up his farm system and then got Larussa the players he wanted. Larussa then won him alot of ballgames and everyone is STL was very happy while Jocketty and Larussa and Duncan were all crowned geniuses. That won't happen here because we have one of the most ignorant managers of all time. A wonderful man, and great person, possibly a motivator but not someone who should be filling out the lineup card or making the tough decisions. Jocketty has built a very good farm system and has nowhere to go. He wants to pull the trigger on a deal like in STL but he doesn't have the same payroll to work with and he doesn't have a great manager. If however this is not the case and Jocketty is in fact in charge, he is not nearly the genius he was touted. I truly believe that Jocketty has a plan, and it would seem that Dusty is the man in the way of that coming into fruition.

mth123
06-20-2009, 06:31 AM
But that's a Dusty issue, where he hits in the lineup. But if you're saying Wayne should never have acquired him, right-o.

Or maybe the issue is why no alternative was pursued in the off-season.

cincrazy
06-20-2009, 07:35 AM
I fully understand this feeling and sentiment, the problem is MUCH more complex than just going out and "get the job done" though. This team is aligned in such a way that we have an opportunity to have a winning team for MANY years. We've got a solid pipeline of players in the minors, we've got a solid young nucleus of position players, and a solid young nucleus of starting pitchers/relievers.

In order to go for the "win now" strategy, wouldn't you think that we'd have to sacrifice some of those players in that young core to do it? Where do we add? Who do we add? What positions do we address first? What players are expendable? How much additional payroll are we willing to take on? How much are we going to have to over-pay to get players to come to a small-market club? How many years are we going to have to suffer for those big "win now" contracts?

I certainly don't envy Jocketty's position. I'm not going to cut him any slack because he's new or because of his track record. But I am going to look at his job in a realistic sense that at this point in time, there simply isn't much that he CAN do. There really aren't any teams out there that have reached that point of buy/sell yet, and it's too early in the season for most teams to realistically say they've got a legitimate "shot" this year or not. And most importantly, I've yet to see a player mentioned as being available who really suits our needs. As in being able to both hit AND defend, not wanting a club-crippling contract in terms of dollars or years, having a team-first attitude, and being a significant upgrade on what we've already got in-house or on the farm.

Standing pat right now seems like the right move IMO. Dealing with the batting order and who plays & who sits...That's all on Dusty...but it's certainly getting to the point where Jocketty should at least address the situation with Dusty.

I see what you, and many others, are saying. I guess its just reached a tipping point with me. I was waiting for them to improve over the offseason... didn't happen. And I realize most big deals, as Jake mentioned, don't happen in the first third of the season. But my problem isn't so much the big deal right now, it's the little deals. The perimeter of this lineup is still filled with muck, and it weighs down the rest of the team.

I'm not asking for them to trade Homer and Alonso for Holliday... but I am asking for them to at least give this season a shot. Because, as a fan that puts good money down on them that I could easily spend on something else, it's frustrating to see. Maybe they'll shut me up, and if so, I'll GLADLY eat crow. I can flip flop faster than anyone on this board :D.

HokieRed
06-20-2009, 10:38 AM
One of the problems with all the focus on Taveras--which I consider to be in most cases proxy for Walt bashing--is that it misses the way the team has improved over the past year. The catching is better, the 5th starter spot and rotation generally are better, the defense is vastly better, particularly, but not exclusively, in the outfield. They are "giving it a shot," if not in the most obvious ways, while, thus far, not compromising the future. And as far as making a big move to improve the offense, the problems remain the same. Most of the focus for such a move is LF, and yet our cheap left-field platoon, put together by WJ, is now delivering close to what we'll be able to acquire without giving away something very substantial, possibly for no more than a rental. To acquire a significantly better bat at one of the other spots--3b, SS--is going to require trading away some part that will possibly hurt as much as it gains us. Given what we've seen from Matt Maloney, Homer's inconsistency, and Owings' inability to K anybody, I think it's altogether premature to be thinking of trading Arroyo. And, IMHO, trading Arroyo and Harang (or even Harang alone) is a formula for non-contention both this year and next.

RedlegJake
06-20-2009, 11:05 AM
One of the problems with all the focus on Taveras--which I consider to be in most cases proxy for Walt bashing--is that it misses the way the team has improved over the past year. The catching is better, the 5th starter spot and rotation generally are better, the defense is vastly better, particularly, but not exclusively, in the outfield. They are "giving it a shot," if not in the most obvious ways, while, thus far, not compromising the future. And as far as making a big move to improve the offense, the problems remain the same. Most of the focus for such a move is LF, and yet our cheap left-field platoon, put together by WJ, is now delivering close to what we'll be able to acquire without giving away something very substantial, possibly for no more than a rental. To acquire a significantly better bat at one of the other spots--3b, SS--is going to require trading away some part that will possibly hurt as much as it gains us. Given what we've seen from Matt Maloney, Homer's inconsistency, and Owings' inability to K anybody, I think it's altogether premature to be thinking of trading Arroyo. And, IMHO, trading Arroyo and Harang (or even Harang alone) is a formula for non-contention both this year and next.

Good post. Walt has done a good job but he made one big mistake. Taveras was a blunder made, I think, by trying to give Dusty a "Dusty type". Walt was trying to give Baker a guy that fits what Dusty has always done. Off season quotes by Dusty made it obvious he didn't trust Dickerson and the small PT Chris gets makes me think he hasn't really changed his viewpoint. All of Walt's other moves have been helpful and in aggregate effective. Linc's 2 year deal aside (and at the time he was signed it looked like the BP was going to be short handed unless you forced a couple kids up - remember at the time Arthur wasn't signed yet, Weathers was being offered arb and might leave, Affeldt had been snatched up by the Giants and who knew from last year that Masset would be a dominator. I think Walt blinked a bit fearing the bullie might be Coco and kids). I agree about trading both Arroyo and Harang but I'd sure look at offerings for Bronson near the deadline. I'd be pushing Maloney hard, too, specifically pitching him to teams in big parks where you could argue he'd be a big asset. Seattle, San Diego, Washington, KC maybe. Maybe there's a deal there, maybe not but I'd be trying.

SMcGavin
06-20-2009, 11:17 AM
Rank by FIP (NL):
Overall staff: 11th
Starters: 13th
Bullpen: 7th

FIP is really a predictive stat, ERA tells us what has happened. I have said multiple times that the Reds pitching is due for a correction, that doesn't mean they haven't been great so far.

_Sir_Charles_
06-20-2009, 12:11 PM
I see what you, and many others, are saying. I guess its just reached a tipping point with me. I was waiting for them to improve over the offseason... didn't happen. And I realize most big deals, as Jake mentioned, don't happen in the first third of the season. But my problem isn't so much the big deal right now, it's the little deals. The perimeter of this lineup is still filled with muck, and it weighs down the rest of the team.

I'm not asking for them to trade Homer and Alonso for Holliday... but I am asking for them to at least give this season a shot. Because, as a fan that puts good money down on them that I could easily spend on something else, it's frustrating to see. Maybe they'll shut me up, and if so, I'll GLADLY eat crow. I can flip flop faster than anyone on this board :D.

Yeah, that feeling is fully understandable. And with the offense slumping like it is right now, those feelings just get pushed more to the forefront. But considering that the Reds are currently only 2.5 games out of first place and only 2 games out of the wild card standings, I'd say that the Reds FO fully feels that they ARE giving this season a shot. Add to the fact that we're getting ready to get back to fairly potent offensive weapons in Joey & Edwin, that type of talent enfusion is just as good as making a deal midseason.

I've got no problem with them making a deal of some fringe players for other fringe players...but will that really change things? I don't think so. But I'd love to be proved wrong.

Raisor
06-20-2009, 12:30 PM
I've got no problem with them making a deal of some fringe players for other fringe players...but will that really change things? I don't think so. But I'd love to be proved wrong.

Hey, how about trading for some non-fringe players? I know the whole "don't want to screw up the future" thing is going on, but what if the future is now?

It's been so long since this team has even sniffed being in it. I'm tired of waiting another season (2 seasons....3 seasons...).

Go for it NOW, the planet might explode the day after the season is over...

Falls City Beer
06-20-2009, 12:33 PM
Hey, how about trading for some non-fringe players? I know the whole "don't want to screw up the future" thing is going on, but what if the future is now?

It's been so long since this team has even sniffed being in it. I'm tired of waiting another season (2 seasons....3 seasons...).

Go for it NOW, the planet might explode the day after the season is over...

The future may be now, but let's just be honest for a second. Name a starter you'd turn to the ball over to in a playoff game other than Cueto.

Considering the trade constipation that has descended upon nearly all of MLB since November (and considering the Reds are at payroll ceiling), I don't like the odds of picking up that second playoff starter we'd need.

nate
06-20-2009, 12:52 PM
The future may be now, but let's just be honest for a second. Name a starter you'd turn to the ball over to in a playoff game other than Cueto.

Considering the trade constipation that has descended upon nearly all of MLB since November (and considering the Reds are at payroll ceiling), I don't like the odds of picking up that second playoff starter we'd need.

Harang.

Since we're being "honest."

Falls City Beer
06-20-2009, 12:56 PM
Harang.

Since we're being "honest."

Harang versus LA, Philly, or the Brewers? Ugh.

Playoff teams need a minimum of two shut-down guys in order to go anywhere in the postseason. You can fudge it with some 3-4-5 guys (and the bullpen) thereafter, but you can't fake it at the top.

tripleaaaron
06-20-2009, 01:14 PM
I agree, wholeheartedly. Why is Jock sitting on his hands and A) watching Dusty cost us a few wins and B) not making any moves to give him better players? While most will contend that he is not sitting on his hands and is surely active in seeking an upgrade but won't pull the trigger as to not jeopardize the future, but is that really what he is doing?
While I am sure that Jocketty is going through the motions of trying to acquire a "big bat" as we have been searching for nearly a year now. While I myself do not want to pick the farm clean or necessarily even move a single future contributor (as I think 2010 is our season to truly turn the corner), but Jock is sending mixed signals. While Dusty IS the manager and fills out the lineup card but Jock is his boss; the boss usually gets what he wants. If Jock was truly concerned for the future (as opposed to the now) don't you think that he would prefer his younger players (who happen to be better or closely matched with their veteran counterparts) to start over the aging vets (or at least get ample PT)? Tavaras struggles, Dickerson still sits. Gonzo plays solid D with no bat, Janish plays the same game but is much younger and he sits. Early on, I thought Hanigan was also being underused as I thought he should have gotten 2/5 starts that has since become a moot point but may soon raise its head again. How long can Jocketty watch this? As the GM of the team you are in charge of managing the long-term vision of the team and if necessary trickling that message down to the managers of your organization. If Dusty didn't get that message, then Dusty goes. Unfortunately I don't believe that message got sent.

Jocketty and Larussa were quite successful in STL, Jocketty knew how to deal and had solid scouts and Farm Directors to draft for him, Larussa knew how to win ballgames and exactly which players to do it with. Jocketty built up his farm system and then got Larussa the players he wanted. Larussa then won him alot of ballgames and everyone is STL was very happy while Jocketty and Larussa and Duncan were all crowned geniuses. That won't happen here because we have one of the most ignorant managers of all time. A wonderful man, and great person, possibly a motivator but not someone who should be filling out the lineup card or making the tough decisions. Jocketty has built a very good farm system and has nowhere to go. He wants to pull the trigger on a deal like in STL but he doesn't have the same payroll to work with and he doesn't have a great manager. If however this is not the case and Jocketty is in fact in charge, he is not nearly the genius he was touted. I truly believe that Jocketty has a plan, and it would seem that Dusty is the man in the way of that coming into fruition.

Wow, pretty decent for a post I don't remember making.

mth123
06-20-2009, 01:25 PM
The future may be now, but let's just be honest for a second. Name a starter you'd turn to the ball over to in a playoff game other than Cueto.

Considering the trade constipation that has descended upon nearly all of MLB since November, I don't like the odds of picking up that second playoff starter we'd need.

I'd take my chances. Walt's Cardinals won the series with 1 starter and a bunch of guys who wouldn't be good enough to crack this rotation. I've seen lots of teams win with total mediocrities in the 3rd and 4th spots. Anyone remember Les Straker?

The team is 2.5 Games back and 2 out in the wild card. Its mid June and while I was skeptical about the pen over the long term, the trio of Herrera, Masset and Fisher appear capable of going multiple innings at a time and may actually allow the others to make it through the season without getting burned up. If the team could send Burton down to get straightened out and possibly turn to a hot kid like Stewart to play the K-Rod/Joba role as late season "shot in the arm" and the pen can hold up IMO. The team needs massive changes on offense but its doable. Votto and EdE come back, Dickerson/Hairston take over in Center and one trade for a bat in LF and half the offense is upgraded massively with the bench also getting the boost that reuniting the catching tandem and having Gomes and Nix out of the line-up would provide. Gomes may even wind up in RF against LHP.

Walt just needs to do something. He's getting credit from many for transforming the team, but the transformation was already on track prior to Walt's arrival. Griffey was on his way out, Dunn's deal was up, Votto, Bruce and Cueto had already arrived. Walt had nothing to do with Dickerson or Hanigan coming up or Volquez or Herrera. Walt did acquire Masset for Griffey (a deal he won't top as Red's GM IMO) and he had the vision to release David Ross last season and let Bako and Javy walk. He correctly jettisoned Keppinger. The defense is improved. But like anything there needs to be some balance. If you driving your car left of center and you jerk the wheel to the right and end up running off the road, that doesn't make you a good driver. Maybe the team needs a bat or two where the gloves aren't quite so important (LF for example) so that the offense is strong enough to carry a Janish or Gonzalez at a spot like SS where it really matters.

This team removed a ton of poor defenders and the only really concious decision was to let Dunn go. But Griifey was going to be replaced by Bruce, Gonzo or Some one was going to replace Keppinger and the three headed catching monster from 2008 were all going to be gone. Votto's improvement was his own and 3B still stinks. The defense in CF is actually worse than it was in 2008. I just don't see this "transformation" as anything magical that Walt did. The team was on track to be a .500 team in 2009 all along. Walt's one big move actually was a step backwards. If he's the guy he's billed as, he should have a big move for a bat up his sleave and it should be enough for this team to contend all year IMO. He has plenty of young players to deal to get what's is needed without leaving the cupboard completely bare.

Falls City Beer
06-20-2009, 01:26 PM
I'd take my chances. Walt's Cardinals won the series with 1 starter and a bunch of guys who wouldn't be good enough to crack this rotation. I've seen lots of teams win with total mediocrities in the 3rd and 4th spots. Anyone remember Les Straker?

The team is 2.5 Games back and 2 out in the wild card. Its mid June and while I was skeptical about the pen over the long term, the trio of Herrera, Masset and Fisher appear capable of going multiple innings at a a time and may actually allow the others to make it through the season without getting burned up. If the team could send Burton down to get straightened out and possibly turn to a hot kid like Stewart to play the K-Rod/Joba role as late season "shot in the arm" and the pen can hold up IMO. The team needs massive changes on offense but its doable. Votto and EdE come back, Dickerson/Hairston take over in Center and one trade for a bat in LF and half the offense is upgraded massively with the bench also getting the boost that reuniting the catching tandem and having Gomes and Nix out of the line-up would provide. Gomes may even wind up in RF against LHP.

Walt just needs to do something. He's getting credit from many for transforming the team, but the transformation was already on track prior to Walt's arrival. Griffey was on his way out, Dunn's deal was up, Votto, Bruce and Cueto had already arrived. Walt had nothing to do with Dickerson or Hanigan coming up or Volquez or Herrera. Walt did acquire Masset for Griffey (a deal he won't top as Red's GM IMO) and he had the vision to release David Ross last season and let Bako and Javy walk. He correcly jettisoned Keppinger. The defense is improved. But like anything there needs to be some balance. If you driving your car left of center and you jerk the wheel to the right and end up running off the road, that doesn't make you a good driver. Maybe the team needs a bat or two where the gloves aren't quite so important (LF for example) so that the offense is strong enough to carry a Janish or Gonzalez at a spot like SS where it really matters.

This team removed a ton of poor defenders and the only really concious decision was to let Dunn go. But Griifey was going to be replaced by Bruce, Gonzo or Some one was going to replace Keppinger and the three headed catching monster from 2008 were all going to be gone. Votto's improvement was his own and 3B still stinks. The defense in CF is actually worse than it was in 2008. I just don't see this "transformation" as anything magical that Walt did. The team was on track to be a .500 team in 2009 all along. Walt's one big move actually was a step backwards. If he's the guy he's billed as, he should have a big move for a bat up his sleave and it should be enough for this team to contend all year IMO. He has plenty of young players to deal to get what's is needed without leaving the cupboard completely bare.

Jeff Suppan 2006 would easily be this team's second-best starter.

You don't have to sell me on the defense: I saw that train coming from a mile away--when essentially no one else did.

As far as the bolded is concerned, he's getting credit from me and who else? The Walt defenders/gloaters club is pretty small and exclusive last I looked.

nate
06-20-2009, 01:30 PM
You don't have to sell me on the defense: I saw that train coming from a mile away--when essentially no one else did.

Lame.

Falls City Beer
06-20-2009, 01:32 PM
Lame.

True. The groupthink here said that I and maybe two or three others were nuts, that the defense looked terrible in September, and that it would be worse without, of all people, Corey Patterson.

nate
06-20-2009, 01:34 PM
Harang versus LA, Philly, or the Brewers? Ugh.

Sure would be great if the staff was good enough that Harang was your fifth starter but it isn't. I'd be fine with him in a playoff start. Against those teams even, yes.

Let's see how Volquez is when he comes back as well.

Now the Reds offense against those teams, that's where you can cue your "ugh."


Playoff teams need a minimum of two shut-down guys in order to go anywhere in the postseason. You can fudge it with some 3-4-5 guys (and the bullpen) thereafter, but you can't fake it at the top.

Maybe. Or maybe teams just need to be extremely well balanced with players who can make a positive impact during both halves of an inning. If that means "two shut-down guys," great. I think it's more than that myself.

Falls City Beer
06-20-2009, 01:37 PM
Sure would be great if the staff was good enough that Harang was your fifth starter but it isn't. I'd be fine with him in a playoff start. Against those teams even, yes.

Let's see how Volquez is when he comes back as well.

Now the Reds offense against those teams, that's where you can cue your "ugh."



Maybe. Or maybe teams just need to be extremely well balanced with players who can make a positive impact during both halves of an inning. If that means "two shut-down guys," great. I think it's more than that myself.

Your point puts a finer point on mine--the Reds need a starter and offense. They're not going to get one much less both.

Trade Arroyo and get his odious salary off the books.

dsmith421
06-20-2009, 01:38 PM
Playoff teams need a minimum of two shut-down guys in order to go anywhere in the postseason.

Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Joe Blanton
Jamie Moyer

That team went nowhere.

mth123
06-20-2009, 01:38 PM
Jeff Suppan 2006 would easily be this team's second-best starter.

You don't have to sell me on the defense: I saw that train coming from a mile away--when essentially no one else did.

As far as the bolded is concerned, he's getting credit from me and who else? The Walt defenders/gloaters club is pretty small and exclusive last I looked.

I've read lots of posts defending Walt for "transforming" this team to a good defensive club. He's really just sat back and watched things happen. The improvement at 4 positions (RF, SS, C and 1B) had little or nothing to do with Walt. 2 spots are about the same (2B and 3B). One spot is better from Walt's actions (LF) and one is worse (CF).

Falls City Beer
06-20-2009, 01:39 PM
Cole Hamels
Brett Myers
Joe Blanton
Jamie Moyer

That team went nowhere.

Cole Hamels and Joe Blanton were both shut-down guys last year. Plus they had an offense for the ages, and excellent defense.

Falls City Beer
06-20-2009, 01:43 PM
I've read lots of posts defending Walt for "transforming" this team to a good defensive club. He's really just sat back and watched things happen. The improvement at 4 positions (RF, SS, C and 1B) had little or nothing to do with Walt. 2 spots are about the same (2B and 3B). One spot is better from Walt's actions (LF) and one is worse (CF).

Walt improved the catcher position as well. And honestly, if the assumption is that Wayne would have let Dunn and Griffey go, I gotta tell ya. I disagree. Wayne Krivsky was weird.

Walt may not have made a positive, active move to improve each position, but he knew when to let be, and sometimes that's way more than we expect. The need to tinker sometimes isn't.

dsmith421
06-20-2009, 01:51 PM
Cole Hamels and Joe Blanton were both shut-down guys last year. Plus they had an offense for the ages, and excellent defense.

That's the first time anyone has referred to Joe Blanton as a shut-down guy, unless you're talking about Old Country Buffet.

mth123
06-20-2009, 01:55 PM
Walt improved the catcher position as well. And honestly, if the assumption is that Wayne would have let Dunn and Griffey go, I gotta tell ya. I disagree. Wayne Krivsky was weird.

Wayne may not have made a positive, active move to improve each position, but he knew when to let be, and sometimes that's way more than we expect. The need to tinker sometimes isn't.

Any Chimpanzee could have improved catcher from the group they had last year by simply doing nothing. Walt's deal for Hernandez was ok and I think Hernandez has been a solid player despite his poor OPS, but that deal is not the cause for the transformation of the catcher spot. The exit of the others is what drove that upgrade.

Griffey was gone and would have been under any GM.

I don't give Walt credit for dumping Dunn. I'm not all that impressed with the guys acquired (though Owings is actually better than I had expected) and I personally wish Dunn was still in LF. His defense is poor, but a guy who gets on base and hits with power is exactly what this team needs. LF is the least important defensive position on the field and the team made such great strides defensively in RF and at C and SS that a weak LF could be carried for the sake of the offense without killing the DER. If the team is going to contend, they'll likely end up turning to some one whose defense is just as poor for the sake of scoring some runs.

traderumor
06-20-2009, 01:57 PM
Cole Hamels and Joe Blanton were both shut-down guys last year. Plus they had an offense for the ages, and excellent defense.If that is the standard, then certainly Harang and Volquez meet your qualifications, or it is just Hardest-on-your-own-team-fan-bias Syndrome (HOYOTFBS) rearing its ugly head.

Falls City Beer
06-20-2009, 02:00 PM
Any Chimpanzee could have improved catcher from the group they had last year by simply doing nothing. Walt's deal for Hernandez was ok and I think Hernandez has been a solid player despite his poor OPS, but that deal is not the cause for the transformation of the catcher spot. The exit of the others is what drove that upgrade.

Griffey was gone and would have been under any GM.

I don't give Walt credit for dumping Dunn. I'm not all that impressed with the guys acquired (though Owings is actually better than I had expected) and I personally wish Dunn was still in LF. His defense is poor, but a guy who gets on base and hits with power is exactly what this team needs. LF is the least important defensive position on the field and the team made such great strides defensively in RF and at C and SS that a weak LF could be carried for the sake of the offense without killing the DER. If the team is going to contend, they'll likely end up turning to some one whose defense is just as poor for the sake of scoring some runs.

I'd say Nix and Gomes are doing a pretty great job of replacing Dunn offensively and certainly defensively. It's not a permanent solution, but it does squeeze a ton of value out of minuscule pay.

Griffey may have been gone under Wayne, but I can guarantee that Wayne doesn't get an elite reliever for him.

Falls City Beer
06-20-2009, 02:01 PM
If that is the standard, then certainly Harang and Volquez meet your qualifications, or it is just Hardest-on-your-own-team-fan-bias Syndrome (HOYOTFBS) rearing its ugly head.

If Volquez 2008 returns, then I'm in agreement. He fits the bill. I have deep concerns about his pitching motion and health.

traderumor
06-20-2009, 02:02 PM
I've read lots of posts defending Walt for "transforming" this team to a good defensive club.You have? I have missed darn near every one of those apparently. I see lots of folks acknowledging improvement, but I really don't see folks giving Walt the credit for that :confused:

mth123
06-20-2009, 02:06 PM
I'd say Nix and Gomes are doing a pretty great job of replacing Dunn offensively and certainly defensively. It's not a permanent solution, but it does squeeze a ton of value out of minuscule pay.

Griffey may have been gone under Wayne, but I can guarantee that Wayne doesn't get an elite reliever for him.

I like Nix and Gomes, but this team needs more.

Everyone please file that FCB called Nick Masset an "elite reliever." Somebody call Rollie Fingers and have him make room next to his plaque.;)

I think getting Masset was Walt's best deal. But it wasn't necessary for "transforming" the defense. Simply letting Griffey walk would have accomplished the same thing. I don't deny it was a pretty good deal, I'm specifically addressing the myth that Walt some how "transformed" this team. He simply let it happen.

traderumor
06-20-2009, 02:13 PM
Any Chimpanzee could have improved catcher from the group they had last year by simply doing nothing. Walt's deal for Hernandez was ok and I think Hernandez has been a solid player despite his poor OPS, but that deal is not the cause for the transformation of the catcher spot. The exit of the others is what drove that upgrade.Bako and Valentin were both available to re-sign and probably would have. Can I also take the liberty you are and say that some GMs would have re-signed them?


Griffey was gone and would have been under any GM.

But Walt made the deal. I notice you left out the return for that deal. Pretty good, huh?


I don't give Walt credit for dumping Dunn. I'm not all that impressed with the guys acquired (though Owings is actually better than I had expected) and I personally wish Dunn was still in LF. His defense is poor, but a guy who gets on base and hits with power is exactly what this team needs. LF is the least important defensive position on the field and the team made such great strides defensively in RF and at C and SS that a weak LF could be carried for the sake of the offense without killing the DER. If the team is going to contend, they'll likely end up turning to some one whose defense is just as poor for the sake of scoring some runs. I could agree with you if we know that Dunn would have signed for what he signed with Washington. However, we know he was asking for more and then he had the bad timing of turning free agent the year that he did, so Washington got a bargain. I would have been happy with re-signing him, but Owings has provided more stability in the 5 slot than most teams have, not to mention an added weapon. Buck is injured and Castillo is a throw in. But, Owings has been a fair return himself for Arizona getting a whole month plus rental of Dunn.

I say these things not as any great fan of Jocketty, which any record of mine on here would reflect, but in fairness to the analysis you provide, I do not think you provide very good evidence for your position. Jocketty did make the Griffey and Dunn deals and has helped this year's team win games with the sale of depressed assets in the prior year. Considering those assets were certainly ripe for selling by other GM's and they could not get deals done, I'd say it is not fair to discount what someone DOES get done with the reasoning that "well, any GM would have done that." They had chances and didn't. Walt had the chance and did. The analysis can only start at that point.

nate
06-20-2009, 02:14 PM
True. The groupthink here said that I and maybe two or three others were nuts, that the defense looked terrible in September, and that it would be worse without, of all people, Corey Patterson.

Use of the term "groupthink" is lame. Your recollection of the discussions regarding last year's defense is poor.

Falls City Beer
06-20-2009, 02:39 PM
Use of the term "groupthink" is lame. Your recollection of the discussions regarding last year's defense is poor.

I wish I could agree about the groupthink thing. I'd love to believe there's a genuine respect for diverging opinions. And by far the overwhelming opinion was that the defense this year wasn't going to be much improved.

I'll link to couple of threads in a bit.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?p=1780282&highlight=defense#post1780282

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=73321&highlight=small+ball

mth123
06-20-2009, 02:40 PM
Bako and Valentin were both available to re-sign and probably would have. Can I also take the liberty you are and say that some GMs would have re-signed them?

But Walt made the deal. I notice you left out the return for that deal. Pretty good, huh?
I could agree with you if we know that Dunn would have signed for what he signed with Washington. However, we know he was asking for more and then he had the bad timing of turning free agent the year that he did, so Washington got a bargain. I would have been happy with re-signing him, but Owings has provided more stability in the 5 slot than most teams have, not to mention an added weapon. Buck is injured and Castillo is a throw in. But, Owings has been a fair return himself for Arizona getting a whole month plus rental of Dunn.

I say these things not as any great fan of Jocketty, which any record of mine on here would reflect, but in fairness to the analysis you provide, I do not think you provide very good evidence for your position. Jocketty did make the Griffey and Dunn deals and has helped this year's team win games with the sale of depressed assets in the prior year. Considering those assets were certainly ripe for selling by other GM's and they could not get deals done, I'd say it is not fair to discount what someone DOES get done with the reasoning that "well, any GM would have done that." They had chances and didn't. Walt had the chance and did. The analysis can only start at that point.

Again, my posts are referring to this "feather" Walt is getting in his cap for upgrading the defense not necessarily about the returns he got in some of his deals.

As for Bako and Javy, which GM signed them over the off-season? I think its reasonable to conclude leaving them alone was a no brainer when no other team took the chance save for a minor league deal or two after the season started. So my supposition is supported by the events of the past several months where there is really no evidence to support you taking your "liberty" that another GM would have signed them.

Again, Walt made a good deal for Griffey (and I said so at the time) but the specific credit he gets for transforming the defense by dealing away Griifey is not desereved IMO. Bruce was going to take over in RF and provide a massive defensive upgrade no matter what happened with that deal or if Griffey stayed on until the end of 08.

You make a good point about the dollars. Of course the difference in what Dunn signed for and what he likely could have been retained for amounted to basically deals for Willy Taveras and Mike Lincoln. Maybe an investment in Dunn would have been a better value. If Walt specifically set out to upgrade the defense (and I think it was a goal) moving Dunn was the one move in that direction that I can tie directly to him and it most certainly improved the defense. Personally, I think there were plenty of upgrades to be had around the field without gutting the offense to upgrade such an unimportant defensive spot. OK, so let Dunn walk and get another bat out there for the market adjusted rate and it would have been a better team. But, the decision was sign a CF and move the in house CF option to LF and it has most certainly been a huge factor in the offensive woes that this team faces. A team simply can't carry 2 weak hitting CF types in its line-up (and they figured it out and went to retreads who have done fairly well). One defensive minded offensively iffy guy for the sake of defense may be ok if the less important spots that house bats that can make up for it, but two is simply a poor plan IMO.

Falls City Beer
06-20-2009, 02:44 PM
I like Nix and Gomes, but this team needs more.

Everyone please file that FCB called Nick Masset an "elite reliever." Somebody call Rollie Fingers and have him make room next to his plaque.;)

I think getting Masset was Walt's best deal. But it wasn't necessary for "transforming" the defense. Simply letting Griffey walk would have accomplished the same thing. I don't deny it was a pretty good deal, I'm specifically addressing the myth that Walt some how "transformed" this team. He simply let it happen.

Except that most of Walt's moves have been pretty transformative: Owings, Masset, Rhodes, Hernandez, Nix, Gomes have contributed mightily. Seriously, imagine this team without them.

traderumor
06-20-2009, 02:56 PM
Again, my posts are referring to this "feather" Walt is getting in his cap for upgrading the defense not necessarily about the returns he got in some of his deals.

As for Bako and Javy, which GM signed them over the off-season? I think its reasonable to conclude leaving them alone was a no brainer when no other team took the chance save for a minor league deal or two after the season started. So my supposition is supported by the events of the past several months where there is really no evidence to support you taking your "liberty" that another GM would have signed them.

Again, Walt made a good deal for Griffey (and I said so at the time) but the specific credit he gets for transforming the defense by dealing away Griifey is not desereved IMO. Bruce was going to take over in RF and provide a massive defensive upgrade no matter what happened with that deal or if Griffey stayed on until the end of 08.

You make a good point about the dollars. Of course the difference in what Dunn signed for and what he likely could have been retained for amounted to basically deals for Willy Taveras and Mike Lincoln. Maybe an investment in Dunn would have been a better value. If Walt specifically set out to upgrade the defense (and I think it was a goal) moving Dunn was the one move in that direction that I can tie directly to him and it most certainly improved the defense. Personally, I think there were plenty of upgrades to be had around the field without gutting the offense to upgrade such an unimportant defensive spot. OK, so let Dunn walk and get another bat out there for the market adjusted rate and it would have been a better team. But, the decision was sign a CF and move the in house CF option to LF and it has most certainly been a huge factor in the offensive woes that this team faces. A team simply can't carry 2 weak hitting CF types in its line-up (and they figured it out and went to retreads who have done fairly well). One defensive minded offensively iffy guy for the sake of defense may be ok if the less important spots that house bats that can make up for it, but two is simply a poor plan IMO.Whether you give credit or not, the replacements for Dunn and Griffey are getting to balls that those statues fielded on three hops. Walt dealt them and did not replace them with more of the same. Bruce could still be in the minors, Jocketty challenged him and brought him up here. It really means nothing if you don't "give credit," but that doesn't mean that your analysis is handling the subject even handed.

Mario-Rijo
06-20-2009, 03:22 PM
If Volquez 2008 returns, then I'm in agreement. He fits the bill. I have deep concerns about his pitching motion and health.

As you should but probably moreso long term, I doubt the inverted W is going to knock him out anytime this year. It could but I just doubt it.

But on to the subject at hand. So what you are saying is only Cueto is acceptable to pitch in a playoff game because he's having a good year? Because if not then Joe Blanton and Jeff Suppan shouldn't be in the discussion as #4 type pitchers. Essentially they are Bronson Arroyo-esque who everyone concedes is our 4th best pitcher. So in 2 months if Ceuto's ERA has ballooned to 4.00 he couldn't possibly win a playoff game, or Volquez if he doesn't revert to last year can't be responsible enough to win a playoff game? If Arroyo has a 2nd half like he did last year then he will be worthy? Doesn't make sense to me.

Kc61
06-20-2009, 03:34 PM
Last year on June 20 Reds were 34-41 with a .453 win pct.
This year on June 20 Reds are 34-32 with a .515 win pct.

Reds have played fewer games because the season started a week later this year. But they are 4.5 games better than last year in the standings or, otherwise put, have the same number of wins but nine fewer losses. Win pct is 62 points higher than last year. The Reds are ten games better in the Central standings, they are 2.5 games out as opposed to 12.5 last year.

And this has been achieved in a recession in which the Reds have had a very limited payroll and did not make a single big expenditure for a major player in the off-season.

And it has also been achieved with the best player on the team out for weeks. Last year's best pitcher, the club's All Star, out for weeks. And one of the best offensive players, EE, out for months.

And he hasn't traded a single major prospect from the organization. They are all still in house. Prospects are freely being moved up to the major leagues when ready.

Walt has shown more ability to put together a winner than any GM this team has had for years. It's a different formula, but it wins more games. And he isn't exactly done yet, the team is obviously in transition still.

You guys want to rant against him, I'll line up with the rants in favor. And, to directly discuss the title of the thread, Walt is reasonably open with the media, more so than previous GMs.

bucksfan2
06-20-2009, 04:04 PM
Last year on June 20 Reds were 34-41 with a .453 win pct.
This year on June 20 Reds are 34-32 with a .515 win pct.

Reds have played fewer games because the season started a week later this year. But they are 4.5 games better than last year in the standings or, otherwise put, have the same number of wins but nine fewer losses. Win pct is 62 points higher than last year. The Reds are ten games better in the Central standings, they are 2.5 games out as opposed to 12.5 last year.

And this has been achieved in a recession in which the Reds have had a very limited payroll and did not make a single big expenditure for a major player in the off-season.

And it has also been achieved with the best player on the team out for weeks. Last year's best pitcher, the club's All Star, out for weeks. And one of the best offensive players, EE, out for months.

And he hasn't traded a single major prospect from the organization. They are all still in house. Prospects are freely being moved up to the major leagues when ready.

Walt has shown more ability to put together a winner than any GM this team has had for years. It's a different formula, but it wins more games. And he isn't exactly done yet, the team is obviously in transition still.

You guys want to rant against him, I'll line up with the rants in favor. And, to directly discuss the title of the thread, Walt is reasonably open with the media, more so than previous GMs.

I agree with most of this post. I just have a general question. Given the hand that Dusty has been delt, would a better lineup, or better everyday 8 have improved the Reds record?

kaldaniels
06-20-2009, 04:17 PM
Again, my posts are referring to this "feather" Walt is getting in his cap for upgrading the defense not necessarily about the returns he got in some of his deals.

As for Bako and Javy, which GM signed them over the off-season? I think its reasonable to conclude leaving them alone was a no brainer when no other team took the chance save for a minor league deal or two after the season started. So my supposition is supported by the events of the past several months where there is really no evidence to support you taking your "liberty" that another GM would have signed them.

Again, Walt made a good deal for Griffey (and I said so at the time) but the specific credit he gets for transforming the defense by dealing away Griifey is not desereved IMO. Bruce was going to take over in RF and provide a massive defensive upgrade no matter what happened with that deal or if Griffey stayed on until the end of 08.

You make a good point about the dollars. Of course the difference in what Dunn signed for and what he likely could have been retained for amounted to basically deals for Willy Taveras and Mike Lincoln. Maybe an investment in Dunn would have been a better value. If Walt specifically set out to upgrade the defense (and I think it was a goal) moving Dunn was the one move in that direction that I can tie directly to him and it most certainly improved the defense. Personally, I think there were plenty of upgrades to be had around the field without gutting the offense to upgrade such an unimportant defensive spot. OK, so let Dunn walk and get another bat out there for the market adjusted rate and it would have been a better team. But, the decision was sign a CF and move the in house CF option to LF and it has most certainly been a huge factor in the offensive woes that this team faces. A team simply can't carry 2 weak hitting CF types in its line-up (and they figured it out and went to retreads who have done fairly well). One defensive minded offensively iffy guy for the sake of defense may be ok if the less important spots that house bats that can make up for it, but two is simply a poor plan IMO.

I don't follow the thought that the difference that Dunn could have been signed for is basically what Lincoln/Willy did...please explain with numbers.

kaldaniels
06-20-2009, 04:22 PM
Jeff Suppan 2006 would easily be this team's second-best starter.

You don't have to sell me on the defense: I saw that train coming from a mile away--when essentially no one else did.

As far as the bolded is concerned, he's getting credit from me and who else? The Walt defenders/gloaters club is pretty small and exclusive last I looked.

What reasoning are you using to claim that Suppan '06 would "easily" be this team's 2nd best starter. Making a statement like that usually is relatively benign and I wouldn't think twice about it, but you prefaced it with "easily"...how do you suppose?

Falls City Beer
06-20-2009, 04:49 PM
What reasoning are you using to claim that Suppan '06 would "easily" be this team's 2nd best starter. Making a statement like that usually is relatively benign and I wouldn't think twice about it, but you prefaced it with "easily"...how do you suppose?

Oops. I meant to write third best.

Brutus
06-20-2009, 05:13 PM
I don't follow the thought that the difference that Dunn could have been signed for is basically what Lincoln/Willy did...please explain with numbers.

I wonder this too. I think it was Arroyo, if I'm remembering correctly, that said when Dunn was traded everyone knew what kind of asking price Dunn had - making it unlikely the organization was going to be able to sign him.

And even then, in 2009, Taveras & Lincoln combined are earning less than $4 mil. Dunn is earning $8 mil this year ($12 next season). Dunn, even in a depressed market, still signed for double that of what those two make.

Jpup
06-20-2009, 05:56 PM
In no way, shape, or form are Laynce Nix and Johnny Gomes replicating the production of Adam Dunn. That's just nonsense. I'll take Dunn and give you Nix, Gomes, and Owings every day of the week. Dunn is exactly what the team needs. The reason he was traded was the Reds did not want to pay him the money he requested. It's as simple as that. They were being the Reds. Walt traded Jr. for Masset because that is the best he could get. I'll say it was a great trade because he got anything for him. I don't believe that this team would be any different if Krivsky were here except for Dunn would probably have not been traded, but let walk instead. Homer would have been the 5th starter and Maloney probably would have replaced him after April.

Jocketty did not get a shorstop, he got a poor centerfielder, he let Gomes stay in AAA in favor of McDonald, and he actually let Castillo put on a uniform. The best thing that Jocketty has done as GM for the Reds, as far as transactions, is that he signed Arthur Rhodes. Encarnacion has been hurt for months and the best the Reds could do was call up Adam Rosales who can't hit a lick and isn't much with the leather. He has a nice arm and runs everywhere, so I guess he has good traits too.

I don't know the attendance numbers, but they appear to be up and that's good enough. .500, that's all they care about. Playoffs or bust for me.

Falls City Beer
06-20-2009, 06:03 PM
In no way, shape, or form are Laynce Nix and Johnny Gomes replicating the production of Adam Dunn. That's just nonsense. I'll take Dunn and give you Nix, Gomes, and Owings every day of the week. Dunn is exactly what the team needs. The reason he was traded was the Reds did not want to pay him the money he requested. It's as simple as that. They were being the Reds. Walt traded Jr. for Masset because that is the best he could get. I'll say it was a great trade because he got anything for him. I don't believe that this team would be any different if Krivsky were here except for Dunn would probably have not been traded, but let walk instead. Homer would have been the 5th starter and Maloney probably would have replaced him after April.

Jocketty did not get a shorstop, he got a poor centerfielder, he let Gomes stay in AAA in favor of McDonald, and he actually let Castillo put on a uniform. The best thing that Jocketty has done as GM for the Reds, as far as transactions, is that he signed Arthur Rhodes. Encarnacion has been hurt for months and the best the Reds could do was call up Adam Rosales who can't hit a lick and isn't much with the leather. He has a nice arm and runs everywhere, so I guess he has good traits too.

I don't know the attendance numbers, but they appear to be up and that's good enough. .500, that's all they care about. Playoffs or bust for me.

When you're done cherrypicking the facts, there's a .500 + team you can enjoy.

Jpup
06-20-2009, 06:05 PM
When you're done cherrypicking the facts, there's a .500 + team you can enjoy.

Truth hurts.

HokieRed
06-20-2009, 06:29 PM
Jpup, when you take Dunn over Nix, Gomes, and Owings, are you going to take Josh Fogg too? after all, that was last year's answer to the 5th starter spot instead of Owings. [This is not an argument against Dunn, whom I liked and wish we had back; I do think it's likely Dunn was not coming back to Cinti. under any circumstances, at least without trying the free agent market. Why would he? Why would anybody forego that opportunity in a market-driven world?]

bucksfan2
06-20-2009, 07:02 PM
In no way, shape, or form are Laynce Nix and Johnny Gomes replicating the production of Adam Dunn. That's just nonsense. I'll take Dunn and give you Nix, Gomes, and Owings every day of the week. Dunn is exactly what the team needs. The reason he was traded was the Reds did not want to pay him the money he requested. It's as simple as that. They were being the Reds. Walt traded Jr. for Masset because that is the best he could get. I'll say it was a great trade because he got anything for him. I don't believe that this team would be any different if Krivsky were here except for Dunn would probably have not been traded, but let walk instead. Homer would have been the 5th starter and Maloney probably would have replaced him after April.

Jocketty did not get a shorstop, he got a poor centerfielder, he let Gomes stay in AAA in favor of McDonald, and he actually let Castillo put on a uniform. The best thing that Jocketty has done as GM for the Reds, as far as transactions, is that he signed Arthur Rhodes. Encarnacion has been hurt for months and the best the Reds could do was call up Adam Rosales who can't hit a lick and isn't much with the leather. He has a nice arm and runs everywhere, so I guess he has good traits too.

I don't know the attendance numbers, but they appear to be up and that's good enough. .500, that's all they care about. Playoffs or bust for me.

There is no doubt that Dunn is far surperior to any combination fo Nix and Gomes. However there is a big gap defensively between Dunn and the combo. I also wouldn't underestimate the impact that Owings has had on the Reds. He provides a good option as the 5th starter. He also brings flexibility to the Reds bench when he isn't pitching.

Its not Playoffs of bust for me, I just want to watch meaningful baseball when the football season begins to start. In the past 5 or so years I have written off the Reds before we got to September. IMO this team is better without Dunn. The time had come for both the Reds and Dunn to break ties.

I agree that there still are holes that need to be filled. But that has been hashed and rehashed so I don't want to go there again.

mth123
06-20-2009, 08:44 PM
I don't follow the thought that the difference that Dunn could have been signed for is basically what Lincoln/Willy did...please explain with numbers.

Another poster said the Reds couldn't have signed Dunn for the amount that Washington singed him for. I'm saying if your willing to go that high (which we don't know), then the difference between that and what it would have probably taken is the 4 Million or so that The Reds are paying Lincoln and Willy this year. If 4 Million was the sticking point, I'd have kept Dunn and passed on Lincoln and Willy.

jojo
06-20-2009, 10:22 PM
You don't have to sell me on the defense: I saw that train coming from a mile away--when essentially no one else did.

Maybe I'm misunderstanding this comment but my initial reaction is, "Are you kidding?"......

The biggest arguments against Dunn, Jr, and "keppy's" ilk centered upon how their defense significantly detracted from their value.

Falls City Beer
06-20-2009, 11:27 PM
Maybe I'm misunderstanding this comment but my initial reaction is, "Are you kidding?"......

The biggest arguments against Dunn, Jr, and "keppy's" ilk centered upon how their defense significantly detracted from their value.

Sure, but most folks still thought it was bad. Certainly no one thought it would be a clear plus.

*BaseClogger*
06-21-2009, 01:28 AM
I agree with most of this post. I just have a general question. Given the hand that Dusty has been delt, would a better lineup, or better everyday 8 have improved the Reds record?

I think Dusty has been okay in regards to a lot of his responsibilities, but his handling of Taveras has been simply baffling and I think yes, keeping him out of the lineup wins the Reds another couple ball games...

jojo
06-21-2009, 09:32 AM
Sure, but most folks still thought it was bad. Certainly no one thought it would be a clear plus.

I still don't agree with this. I'm not sure what most folks thought but it was pretty clear the defense was improved before the season started. We had a thread in march where it was discussed that just Bruce/Taveras/Dickerson alone conservatively projected to be a 30 run upgrade defensively.

Clearly shortstop was going to be upgraded as well with Gonzo/Janish/Hairston looking to split time.

Of course no one could know that one of the worst defenders on the roster wouldn't make it through April. Gonzo has been closer to neutral than slighly minus but that's really pecking at the periphery.

Of the new additions/different answers that were thought might get significant playing time, only Gomes and Taveras were thought to not be upgrades ignoring catcher and Taveras was still projected to be at least neutral.

Catcher is trickier and frankly I'm not sure we can come anywhere close to the bullseye on that position.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 09:36 AM
I still don't agree with this. I'm not sure what most folks thought but it was pretty clear the defense was improved before the season started. We had a thread in march where it was discussed that just Bruce/Taveras/Dickerson alone conservatively projected to be a 30 run upgrade defensively.

Clearly shortstop was going to be upgraded as well with Gonzo/Janish/Hairston looking to split time.

Of course no one could know that one of the worst defenders on the roster wouldn't make it through April. Gonzo has been closer to neutral than slighly minus but that's really pecking at the periphery.

Of the new additions/different answers that were thought might get significant playing time, only Gomes and Taveras were thought to not be upgrades ignoring catcher and Taveras was still projected to be at least neutral.

Catcher is trickier and frankly I'm not sure we can come anywhere close to the bullseye on that position.

But even in the thread you're referring to (don't remember the poster's name, but I do remember the thread), the best that anyone posited was an average defense. It's really not arguable that no one saw a really good defense; the archives speak for themselves.

jojo
06-21-2009, 09:57 AM
Going into the season the Reds had these options:

1b: votto
2b: phillips
ss: Gonzo/Hairston/Janisch
3b: defensive suckitude
OF: Bruce/Taveras/Dickerson/Nix/Gomes/Hairston

As discussed, it was clear that the OF and SS were going to be improved defensively over last season to complement a right side of the IF that had a history or plus defense.

I still don't get this notion that nobody had a clue that the defense was going to be significantly better....

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 10:11 AM
Going into the season the Reds had these options:

1b: votto
2b: phillips
ss: Gonzo/Hairston/Janisch
3b: defensive suckitude
OF: Bruce/Taveras/Dickerson/Nix/Gomes/Hairston

As discussed, it was clear that the OF and SS were going to be improved defensively over last season to complement a right side of the IF that had a history or plus defense.

I still don't get this notion that nobody had a clue that the defense was going to be significantly better....

Simple question: did anyone see that the defense was going to go from MLB worst to top 3?

Answer: not a soul. No one could have conceived a jump that big. And no one did (including myself and others who were rosy on it). It's not that hard.

jojo
06-21-2009, 10:18 AM
Simple question: did anyone see that the defense was going to go from MLB worst to top 3?

Answer: not a soul. No one could have conceived a jump that big. And no one did (including myself and others who were rosy on it). It's not that hard.

No one makes predictions like that. It's kind of a trivial point.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 10:22 AM
No one makes predictions like that. It's kind of a trivial point.

You're the one saying the improved defense crowd was legion. It wasn't. Check the archives. A very small set of people (maybe three or four) believed it would be about average. Everyone else who commented argued it wouldn't be much improved at all ("needs to get an elite SS, needs to get Beltre, Hernandez is terrible, Bruce is not as good as he's been made out, Hairston will be the LF, blah, blah, blah").

And if no one is predicting something that came to be, then maybe that's a clarion call to improve defensive metrics, not a reason to call it meaningless.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74358&highlight=run+improvement

jojo
06-21-2009, 10:36 AM
And if no one is predicting something that came to be, then maybe that's a clarion call to improve defensive metrics, not a reason to call it meaningless.

And here is the point (once again)....defensive metrics indicated the defense was going to be improved as I've tried to point out in my last 3 to 4 posts in this thread. If the OF and shortstop are considered, defensive metrics such as UZR even put a number on it-conservatively 40 runs. Once again, I don't know what defines "most folks" or what they believed as a collective, but "they" shouldn't be surprised that the defense is improved.

I sense this is supposed to be the rebar to pour a "defensive metrics suks/Jocketty is a whiz" foundation, but it isn't. The fact that the Reds defense is ranked third by a metric instead of 10th at this point in the season is a minor point.

jojo
06-21-2009, 10:41 AM
You're the one saying the improved defense crowd was legion. It wasn't. Check the archives. A very small set of people (maybe three or four) believed it would be about average. Everyone else who commented argued it wouldn't be much improved at all ("needs to get an elite SS, needs to get Beltre, Hernandez is terrible, Bruce is not as good as he's been made out, Hairston will be the LF, blah, blah, blah").

And if no one is predicting something that came to be, then maybe that's a clarion call to improve defensive metrics, not a reason to call it meaningless.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=74358&highlight=run+improvement

I can only speak for myself and in the thread you've referenced, it was clear that the outfield defense was going to be dramatically improved. The question centered upon how much of that improvement would be given back by a weakened offense.

I don't think my voice was unique....

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 10:49 AM
And here is the point (once again)....defensive metrics indicated the defense was going to be improved as I've tried to point out in my last 3 to 4 posts in this thread. If the OF and shortstop are considered, defensive metrics such as UZR even put a number on it-conservatively 40 runs. Once again, I don't know what defines "most folks" or what they believed as a collective, but "they" shouldn't be surprised that the defense is improved.

I sense this is supposed to be the rebar to pour a "defensive metrics suks/Jocketty is a whiz" foundation, but it isn't. The fact that the Reds defense is ranked third by a metric instead of 10th at this point in the season is a minor point.

I don't know if Jocketty is a whiz, but defense follows him around like Pigpen's dustcloud.

And "most folks" = a majority of Redszone ORG posters who were commenting on the issue; that should be self-evident.

I'd say, in general, contemporary defensive metrics are a good start.... Justin in AZ said the outfield alone would be good for 40 run improvement, you said 29. Even including a conservative boost for the SS, you're still looking at a relatively minor incremental improvement overall + 2.5 in your estimate, right?, using that inventory/ledger method of defense calculation. Or perhaps Justin's just using the better of the defensive metrics. Maybe defense isn't something that lends itself well to plus/minus measurements. Maybe it requires some understanding of interdependent actions. Who knows?

mth123
06-21-2009, 11:27 AM
Metrics, smetrics. Anybody who watched knew that even if Bruce still struggled like he did last year (thankfully he's better), even if Gonzalez was much less than his former defensive self (and he is but he was better than I and many others expected) and even if Hernandez had turned out to be the total turd he was in Baltimore (he's been better) , knew that they would still be the guys and that RF, SS and C were going to be much improved. Since Votto, Phillips and EdE were returning and still the plan at 1B, 2B and 3B, it really only leaves CF and LF in question. Even Dunn's biggest supporters (and I count myself as one) knew that he was a poor defender among a position generally manned by poor defenders and the most likely guy (Dickerson/Hairston) or just about any scrap heap replacement were going to be improvements. Willy is OK in CF defensively. His speed makes-up for his poor technique and keeps him from being horrible. His poor technique negates his elite speed and prevents him from being great. He's a big downgrade from last year's Corey Patterson or the plan that the Reds should have gone with in CF. So Jocketty gutted the offense to improve LF and in the process ended up with lesser defense in center. Meanwhile the improvements at SS, RF and behind the plate have raised the overall numbers and I agree with JoJo that most people saw that coming. The rest of the improvement is coming from added playing time for guys like Hanigan and Rosales instead of Hernandez and EdE and Hernandez great play at 1B and none of that was likely in the plan either.

I'll say again, the defensive improvement does not represent any kind of great GMing, its simply changing the guard from guys who were obvious deletions.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 12:53 PM
This reminds me of those discussions where Jocketty doesn't get credit for finding guys like Carpenter and Pujols because, you know, it was so obvious for anyone to see...

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 01:02 PM
Metrics, smetrics. Anybody who watched knew that even if Bruce still struggled like he did last year (thankfully he's better), even if Gonzalez was much less than his former defensive self (and he is but he was better than I and many others expected) and even if Hernandez had turned out to be the total turd he was in Baltimore (he's been better) , knew that they would still be the guys and that RF, SS and C were going to be much improved. Since Votto, Phillips and EdE were returning and still the plan at 1B, 2B and 3B, it really only leaves CF and LF in question. Even Dunn's biggest supporters (and I count myself as one) knew that he was a poor defender among a position generally manned by poor defenders and the most likely guy (Dickerson/Hairston) or just about any scrap heap replacement were going to be improvements. Willy is OK in CF defensively. His speed makes-up for his poor technique and keeps him from being horrible. His poor technique negates his elite speed and prevents him from being great. He's a big downgrade from last year's Corey Patterson or the plan that the Reds should have gone with in CF. So Jocketty gutted the offense to improve LF and in the process ended up with lesser defense in center. Meanwhile the improvements at SS, RF and behind the plate have raised the overall numbers and I agree with JoJo that most people saw that coming. The rest of the improvement is coming from added playing time for guys like Hanigan and Rosales instead of Hernandez and EdE and Hernandez great play at 1B and none of that was likely in the plan either.

I'll say again, the defensive improvement does not represent any kind of great GMing, its simply changing the guard from guys who were obvious deletions.

How did Jocketty gut the offense if, as you put it, it was a fait accompli that both Griffey and Dunn were gone? You can't have it both ways.

I think it's more reasonable to suggest that the emphasis was going to shift from strictly offense/terrible d/piecemeal-middle-reliever pitching model to a more pitching/defense model under Jocketty, as he indicated. It's a smart model because, to be honest, the last two GMs left bupkus by way of starting pitching but a good bit of offense in the minors.

jojo
06-21-2009, 01:04 PM
This reminds me of those discussions where Jocketty doesn't get credit for finding guys like Carpenter and Pujols because, you know, it was so obvious for anyone to see...

As an alternative to the defensive improvement being impossible to anticipate without Jocketty's spider sense tingling, I think mth123's position is closer to accurate in the sense that it would be very hard not to improve the defense after Keppy, Dunn and Jr were gone.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 01:10 PM
As an alternative to the defensive improvement being impossible to anticipate without Jocketty's spider sense tingling, I think mth123's position is closer to accurate in the sense that it would be very hard not to improve the defense after Keppy, Dunn and Jr were gone.

Well, except that you're (and he) conflating two arguments: that the defense was "improved" and that the defense was "greatly improved." One large group argued that it would be "better." One very small group said it would be "much better."

Simply put, where possible, Jocketty sought to compose a 25-man roster with defense emphasized in a far greater way than his predecessor, so much so that he enraged the fan base here and in Cincinnati with his unwillingness to re-sign Dunn.

There's no question that it was a gamble. And a certainly conscious one, not some shoulder-shrugging embrace of the status quo.

mth123
06-21-2009, 01:14 PM
How did Jocketty gut the offense if, as you put it, it was a fait accompli that both Griffey and Dunn were gone? You can't have it both ways.

I think it's more reasonable to suggest that the emphasis was going to shift from strictly offense/terrible d/piecemeal-middle-reliever pitching model to a more pitching/defense model under Jocketty, as he indicated. It's a smart model because, to be honest, the last two GMs left bupkus by way of starting pitching but a good bit of offense in the minors.

He gutted the offense by planning on having a Judy Hitting OB challenged player in CF without offsetting it with a more offensive-minded player in LF. The plan to have both Taveras and Dickerson/Hairston manning two OF spots (one of which is where teams normally house one of their top offensive mainstays) guts the offense. If Dunn was a "fait accompli" then the alternative should have been an offensive player. And if you read my posts, I've said the one move Walt made was to replace Dunn with the Dickerson/Hairston duo which did improve the defense. Of course, that choice precluded him from using those guys in CF so he settled for lesser defense in CF to use those guys in LF.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 01:17 PM
He gutted the offense by planning on having a Judy Hitting OB challenged player in CF without offsetting it with a more offensive-minded player in LF. The plan to have both Taveras and Dickerson/Hairston manning two OF spots (one of which is where teams normally house one of their top offensive mainstays) guts the offense. If Dunn was a "fait accompli" then the alternative should have been an offensive player. And if you read my posts, I've said the one move Walt made was to replace Dunn with the Dickerson/Hairston duo which did improve the defense. Of course, that choice precluded him from using those guys in CF so he settled for lesser defense in CF to use those guys in LF.

It could be argued that Walt replaced Dunn with Gomes/Nix, as well. It took a while for Gomes to get here, but Walt did acquire him, correct?

mth123
06-21-2009, 01:19 PM
This reminds me of those discussions where Jocketty doesn't get credit for finding guys like Carpenter and Pujols because, you know, it was so obvious for anyone to see...

Sure. It wasn't obvious that Keppinger needed to be replaced, or that Griffey was as good as gone or that the three headed catching moster was going to be gone. These were all obvious and it represents the majority of where the defensive improvement is coming from. So you're right. Walt was able to recognize that the aging guy with no ability to move and little thump left in his swing needed to be replaced by the inherited top prospect in Baseball who plays the same position. Great GMing. Nobody else could have possibly made that move.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 01:21 PM
Sure. It wasn't obvious that Keppinger needed to be replaced, or that Griffey was as good as gone or that the three headed catching moster was going to be gone. These were all obvious and it represents the majority of where the defensive improvement is coming from. So you're right. Walt was able to recognize that the aging guy with no ability to move and little thump left in his swing needed to be replaced by the inherited top prospect in Baseball who plays the same position. Great GMing. Nobody else could have possibly made that move.

Wayne Krivsky obviously believed Keppinger/Bako/Ross was sufficient.

dougdirt
06-21-2009, 01:23 PM
This reminds me of those discussions where Jocketty doesn't get credit for finding guys like Carpenter and Pujols because, you know, it was so obvious for anyone to see...

Jocketty doesn't and shouldn't get credit for finding Pujols. No GM is still around having a say on players taken that late in the draft, if at all. Credit him for Carpenter all you want, but he doesn't deserve much, if any credit at all for 'finding' Pujols.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 01:24 PM
Jocketty doesn't and shouldn't get credit for finding Pujols. No GM is still around having a say on players taken that late in the draft, if at all. Credit him for Carpenter all you want, but he doesn't deserve much, if any credit at all for 'finding' Pujols.

Not finding, no. But having the scouting in place to find him.

dougdirt
06-21-2009, 01:29 PM
Not finding, no. But having the scouting in place to find him.

Come on now. 25 teams probably watched Pujols play and all of them thought he wasn't worth a top 10 round pick. Everyone had the scouting in place and no one saw him being anything close to what he is. To be honest, Pujols was the biggest lottery winning ever. It was a long shot to begin with to get a Major Leaguer out of that draft spot, much less one of the best players ever.

dougdirt
06-21-2009, 01:30 PM
Wayne Krivsky obviously believed Keppinger/Bako/Ross was sufficient.

Yeah, I don't think he believed those guys (outside of Ross) were sufficient starters. He certainly didn't bring in Keppinger or Bako to start. Thats like saying Jocketty thought Paul Janish was sufficient.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 01:31 PM
Come on now. 25 teams probably watched Pujols play and all of them thought he wasn't worth a top 10 round pick. Everyone had the scouting in place and no one saw him being anything close to what he is. To be honest, Pujols was the biggest lottery winning ever. It was a long shot to begin with to get a Major Leaguer out of that draft spot, much less one of the best players ever.

If the bolded is true, this bolsters my argument, doesn't weaken it. Had the scouts stumbled upon him working as a barista, now THAT'S a lotto pick.

mth123
06-21-2009, 01:33 PM
Wayne Krivsky obviously believed Keppinger/Bako/Ross was sufficient.

Valid point in regards to Ross. Keppinger and Bako weren't around to fail in front of WK's eyes over a long season, neither was brought in to be the starter and WK was gone before he had the chance to find a replacement after it became obvious. I wasn't a huge Krivsky fan either, and actually was ok with the move to Walt, but glowing about how Walt has revamped this team's defense is givng credit where it hasn't been earned IMO. That is and continues to be my major point. Walt's defenders point to that and I don't buy it.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 01:33 PM
Yeah, I don't think he believed those guys (outside of Ross) were sufficient starters. He certainly didn't bring in Keppinger or Bako to start. Thats like saying Jocketty thought Paul Janish was sufficient.

Now wait a minute, here. Walt gets slammed for counting on Gonzalez, but Wayne gets a pass?

I think it speaks well of Walt to realize that's better to have a slick glove/no hit backup SS rather than a mediocre stick/atrocious glove backup SS.

dougdirt
06-21-2009, 01:34 PM
If the bolded is true, this bolsters my argument, doesn't weaken it. Had the scouts stumbled upon him working as a barista, now THAT'S a lotto pick.

It doesn't bolster your argument at all. All it says is that a bunch of scouts failed to see the best player of our generation as anything better than the 402nd best player in the 1999 draft.

And no, finding the best player of a generation as the 402nd pick in the draft is a winning powerball lottery ticket.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 01:35 PM
And no, finding the best player of a generation as the 402nd pick in the draft is a winning powerball lottery ticket.

Except as a cute metaphor, how do you figure it's a lotto winning?

dougdirt
06-21-2009, 01:36 PM
Now wait a minute, here. Walt gets slammed for counting on Gonzalez, but Wayne gets a pass?

I think it speaks well of Walt to realize that's better to have a slick glove/no hit backup SS rather than a mediocre stick/atrocious glove backup SS.

I don't slam Walt for Gonzo. That's not his contract. I think Janish should certainly have been playing by May when it was obvious that Gonzo couldn't field or hit any better than Janish, but thats more on Dustball.

dougdirt
06-21-2009, 01:37 PM
Except as a cute metaphor, how do you figure it's a lotto winning?
Because the odds of getting a Major League regular out of a draft pick in the 400's in probably incredibly low. The odds of finding the best player in a generation there is likely a few million to one.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 01:44 PM
Because the odds of getting a Major League regular out of a draft pick in the 400's in probably incredibly low. The odds of finding the best player in a generation there is likely a few million to one.

You're changing the terms of the argument here: I don't think any scout, if he's being honest, will claim that he knew he was turning up the best hitter in 30 years when he found a guy like Pujols, that deep into the draft. But a smart guiding philosophy tends to turn up value at the back of the draft while teams like the Reds are blowing millions on frustrating players like Bailey.

dougdirt
06-21-2009, 01:55 PM
You're changing the terms of the argument here: I don't think any scout, if he's being honest, will claim that he knew he was turning up the best hitter in 30 years when he found a guy like Pujols, that deep into the draft. But a smart guiding philosophy tends to turn up value at the back of the draft while teams like the Reds are blowing millions on frustrating players like Bailey.

Yeah, I think you have two issues here.... one, of course no scout is going to claim anyone is going to be the best player ever. But no scout expected Pujols to be a starter in the Majors when he was drafted or he would have gone in the first 3 rounds. And two, lets see what Bailey does when its all said and done before we talk about 'blowing millions' on him.

jojo
06-21-2009, 02:53 PM
It doesn't bolster your argument at all. All it says is that a bunch of scouts failed to see the best player of our generation as anything better than the 402nd best player in the 1999 draft.

And no, finding the best player of a generation as the 402nd pick in the draft is a winning powerball lottery ticket.

Right. The truth is the Pujols pick was sandwiched between the Abominable Snowman and the Lochness Monster ( I guess credit the Cards for getting Pujols to sign because neither the AS nor Nelly signed).

Pujols' success has much more to do with Pujols I think...

dougdirt
06-21-2009, 02:57 PM
Pujols' success has much more to do with Pujols I think...

It really is. The scouting reports on him in JC was 'Can hit, bad body, can't field'. He really took care of himself as a pro and well, the rest if history.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 03:01 PM
Yeah, I think you have two issues here.... one, of course no scout is going to claim anyone is going to be the best player ever. But no scout expected Pujols to be a starter in the Majors when he was drafted or he would have gone in the first 3 rounds. And two, lets see what Bailey does when its all said and done before we talk about 'blowing millions' on him.

I'll wager the scout who drafted him thought he could.

dougdirt
06-21-2009, 03:04 PM
I'll wager the scout who drafted him thought he could.

Well then I would wager the guys higher than him didn't believe him so much and thats why he fell to the 402nd pick rather than going in the top 100.

cincrazy
06-21-2009, 03:08 PM
I won't get into arguing about Walt's past, because that's what it is, the past. He had a lot of success in St. Louis, and whether it was by luck, design, or a smattering of both, he had success. And that's all fine and well. But I want to see it here in Cincinnati, I could give two cents about what he did in St. Louis.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 03:08 PM
Well then I would wager the guys higher than him didn't believe him so much and thats why he fell to the 402nd pick rather than going in the top 100.

If you're the 400th "best" baseball player in this country at the time of a given draft, you're doing a crapload quite well. It's my take that a scouting department's job is to find value where they turn it up (cf. Johnny Cueto). Ubi sunt, Almaraz?

dougdirt
06-21-2009, 03:10 PM
If you're the 400th "best" baseball player in this country at the time of a given draft, you're doing a crapload quite well. It's my take that a scouting department's job is to find value where they turn it up (cf. Johnny Cueto). Ubi sunt, Almaraz?

Sure, you are doing quite well at that point, but you still aren't close to being viewed as someone who will start in the Major Leagues when you are drafted that low so lets really stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 03:10 PM
I won't get into arguing about Walt's past, because that's what it is, the past. He had a lot of success in St. Louis, and whether it was by luck, design, or a smattering of both, he had success. And that's all fine and well. But I want to see it here in Cincinnati, I could give two cents about what he did in St. Louis.

It informs his likely decision-making process, and for me at least, provides some bona fides.

I've read--literally--that Walt Jocketty's life's work--his NL championships, his WS ring--are strictly a matter of blind luck. I kid you not. I've read that right here. If only we all could be so lucky, or cavalier, I suppose.

Falls City Beer
06-21-2009, 03:12 PM
Sure, you are doing quite well at that point, but you still aren't close to being viewed as someone who will start in the Major Leagues when you are drafted that low so lets really stop trying to pretend otherwise.

Believe what you'd like. I think you're completely wrong, and in no way do I arrogantly dismiss a scouting philosophy.

dougdirt
06-21-2009, 03:19 PM
Believe what you'd like. I think you're completely wrong, and in no way do I arrogantly dismiss a scouting philosophy.

I don't dismiss scouting philosophy, I just look at the draft and guys who are viewed as starters at draft time don't go in the 13th round. They just don't. Those guys go in the top 3 rounds. Guys who go in the 13th round you are hoping turn into something usable.

jojo
06-21-2009, 04:06 PM
It informs his likely decision-making process, and for me at least, provides some bona fides.

I've read--literally--that Walt Jocketty's life's work--his NL championships, his WS ring--are strictly a matter of blind luck. I kid you not. I've read that right here. If only we all could be so lucky, or cavalier, I suppose.

I've read that the world is flat too....but why couch the opinion as if it's a prevailing view?

cincrazy
06-21-2009, 10:58 PM
It informs his likely decision-making process, and for me at least, provides some bona fides.

I've read--literally--that Walt Jocketty's life's work--his NL championships, his WS ring--are strictly a matter of blind luck. I kid you not. I've read that right here. If only we all could be so lucky, or cavalier, I suppose.

I'm not arguing with you at all on that point. I'm not taking anything away from what he did in St. Louis. What I was trying to say was, I won't use his past success as a reason to not criticize him. I'm in no way calling for his head, and in all likelihood he has a master scheme going on that will end up making me look stupid. But so far, I'm not happy with the job he's done.

Whether it's because of a clouded power structure with Dusty, or a lack of finances from Bob, I'm not sure what it is. But so far, I'm not happy.

traderumor
06-22-2009, 09:37 AM
I've read that the world is flat too....but why couch the opinion as if it's a prevailing view?He didn't.

Team Clark
06-22-2009, 09:56 AM
Care to elaborate on what kind of backlash? And why wouldn't Brantley and Thom suffer the same?

Backlash as in not being included in the "circle" of information as it is put out, not being spoken to by the Media Relations Dept for days or longer, "pitting" of writers against other writers just to name the things that I saw first hand. The list is long and the stories go on and on. Not all that uncommon though from team to team. The Media relations team is there to make the team look good. They control the flow of information adn YOUR access to it. They really don't want "bad" stories and rumors floating about no matter how TRUE they are. Joey Votto for example. It's that way in the corporate world any many other factions of life.

Team Clark
06-22-2009, 10:01 AM
Come on now. 25 teams probably watched Pujols play and all of them thought he wasn't worth a top 10 round pick. Everyone had the scouting in place and no one saw him being anything close to what he is. To be honest, Pujols was the biggest lottery winning ever. It was a long shot to begin with to get a Major Leaguer out of that draft spot, much less one of the best players ever.

Half and half on this one. Jocketty didn't make the "choice" on Pujols. No GM has that much input that far down into the draft. I would give credit to the scouting dept for making enough noise about Pujols to make sure he was taken. However, he had to have been seen by at least 15 teams if not ALL of the teams. Believe it or not politics sometimes play a role in the draft. :thumbup: Look at it how you will. Pujols and Piazza might be the biggest surprises in the draft in the last 20 years.

traderumor
06-22-2009, 10:07 AM
Half and half on this one. Jocketty didn't make the "choice" on Pujols. No GM has that much input that far down into the draft. I would give credit to the scouting dept for making enough noise about Pujols to make sure he was taken. However, he had to have been seen by at least 15 teams if not ALL of the teams. Believe it or not politics sometimes play a role in the draft. :thumbup: Look at it how you will. Pujols and Piazza might be the biggest surprises in the draft in the last 20 years.For every Pujols and Piazza low draft pick outlier, there are hundreds of 1st round choice flameouts that merely illustrate that MLB drafting is a big "who knows?"

jojo
06-22-2009, 11:24 AM
He didn't.

If it's not a significantly held view why give it an audience via forming an argument refuting it?

nate
06-22-2009, 11:27 AM
He didn't.

It sure seemed like that was the implication to me.

Falls City Beer
06-22-2009, 11:49 AM
It sure seemed like that was the implication to me.

It wasn't the implication; it was the most extreme form of criticism of Jocketty, admittedly; however, slightly watered-down versions of that same criticism have become staples here.

jojo
06-22-2009, 12:12 PM
To me every championship is luck. Stuff happens and there is simply no way to build a roster that is immune to stuff.

I tend to give much more credit to seriously contending for the playoffs every year (or very often). Even then a GM is beholden to his circumstances to a significant degree. For instance, I'm pretty confident that given the farm/roster he inherited, Jocketty could have the Reds being prohibitive favorites in their division by his second full year as GM provided he also had the budget he had in St Louis during 2007.

As it stands, I'm not nearly as confident that the Reds will even make the playoffs in the next several years.

traderumor
06-22-2009, 01:31 PM
If it's not a significantly held view why give it an audience via forming an argument refuting it?Because we wouldn't want to be guilty of promoting the majority fallacy in discussions on RZ.

jojo
06-22-2009, 01:32 PM
Because we wouldn't want to be guilty of promoting the majority fallacy in discussions on RZ.

I'm lost now.

traderumor
06-22-2009, 01:39 PM
I'm lost now.You want FCB to avoid what you consider to be a minority view, but it is a view that is held. It isn't your view, or the "right" view, so you want him to avoid it altogether. I agree with FCB, that it may not be a majority view, but it is implied as the mindset of several folks when they discuss Jocketty.

REDREAD
06-22-2009, 01:59 PM
Why is Walt Jocketty given a free pass from the Cincinnati media? He seems to be withdrawn from the spotlight more than any GM (other than O'brien) that I can remember. He gives his 3 word answers and that's it. Next day, it's forgotten.

It's almost July and the Reds need some help. Jocketty, it's time to get motivated. I keep hearing about all these great moves he made in St. Louis, but I haven't witnessed any such dealing with the Reds. He's very boring and slow to act. People on this board start calling for a move weeks ahead of Jocketty doing it.



I guess I disagree a bit. Walt has been more proactive than any GM I remember as far as giving minor leaguers a chance. Who is left to be called up that deserves a shot? Not many people (if anyone).

The board has been screaming to give Maloney a chance for years. Walt finally did it Maloney predictably failed, but it does send the message that if you do well in AAA, you get a shot.

I'd love for Walt to make a move to make the team better. The reality though is that from opening day until the trading deadline period, very few deals are actually made. That's just the way the game works.

Right now, the situation is kind of similiar to 2006. The Reds are hanging in and sort of contending, just because the entire division is weak. I don't want Walt to make an impetuous deal without doing his homework (like taking on another Maj/Bray disaster). I don't want to be saddled with a Cormier contract next year. I really don't want to trade significant prospects to make a run at the division this year, particularly given that the status of Volquez, Votto, and EdE are so up in the air.

If there's a team dangling quality prospects that can help our future, I want Walt to talk to them. Unfortunately, most teams hold on to them extremely tightly.

Lastly, I think Walt has been much more open about what's going on than any GM in recent history. He told us during the offseason that he talked to Burell and the other high profile FAs, and told us that the Reds had interest but not at their asking price. That is much more open than Wayne's "stealth mode" and DanO's "status quo". Bowden would talk a lot but never get that specific.

Walt was open when he explained that the Reds hoped they could fix Wily's OBP. Whether you agree with the decision or not, it was nice to get a peak into what the FO was thinking.

I guess I will end this point by asking what do you want Walt to do? Do you want him to pick up a LF, 3b, another pitcher? What prospects/young players are you willing to give up to get this extra piece to give us a push in the standings? Not directed at you, but so many times we see suggestions that the Reds get a good player and just offer scraps like Maloney, etc. In order to get real talent, we are going to have to feel a little pain and give up a player that is actually worth something, particularly if the Reds can't add a lot of salary.

jojo
06-22-2009, 02:01 PM
You want FCB to avoid what you consider to be a minority view, but it is a view that is held. It isn't your view, or the "right" view, so you want him to avoid it altogether. I agree with FCB, that it may not be a majority view, but it is implied as the mindset of several folks when they discuss Jocketty.

I don't want him to avoid anything based upon any view I hold so no that wasn't a motivation. The point was no one in the current discussion had made the argument that he was trying to refute.

_Sir_Charles_
06-22-2009, 02:47 PM
I guess I disagree a bit. Walt has been more proactive than any GM I remember as far as giving minor leaguers a chance. Who is left to be called up that deserves a shot? Not many people (if anyone).

The board has been screaming to give Maloney a chance for years. Walt finally did it Maloney predictably failed, but it does send the message that if you do well in AAA, you get a shot.

I'd love for Walt to make a move to make the team better. The reality though is that from opening day until the trading deadline period, very few deals are actually made. That's just the way the game works.

Right now, the situation is kind of similiar to 2006. The Reds are hanging in and sort of contending, just because the entire division is weak. I don't want Walt to make an impetuous deal without doing his homework (like taking on another Maj/Bray disaster). I don't want to be saddled with a Cormier contract next year. I really don't want to trade significant prospects to make a run at the division this year, particularly given that the status of Volquez, Votto, and EdE are so up in the air.

If there's a team dangling quality prospects that can help our future, I want Walt to talk to them. Unfortunately, most teams hold on to them extremely tightly.

Lastly, I think Walt has been much more open about what's going on than any GM in recent history. He told us during the offseason that he talked to Burell and the other high profile FAs, and told us that the Reds had interest but not at their asking price. That is much more open than Wayne's "stealth mode" and DanO's "status quo". Bowden would talk a lot but never get that specific.

Walt was open when he explained that the Reds hoped they could fix Wily's OBP. Whether you agree with the decision or not, it was nice to get a peak into what the FO was thinking.

I guess I will end this point by asking what do you want Walt to do? Do you want him to pick up a LF, 3b, another pitcher? What prospects/young players are you willing to give up to get this extra piece to give us a push in the standings? Not directed at you, but so many times we see suggestions that the Reds get a good player and just offer scraps like Maloney, etc. In order to get real talent, we are going to have to feel a little pain and give up a player that is actually worth something, particularly if the Reds can't add a lot of salary.

Great post. I feel EXACTLY the same way. With all the injuries, there's no one (or two) move that will put us over the top. To put us over the top will cost us the majority of our future IMO. With all the injuries we've dealt with, this team is still fighting and producing a .500 record. Getting healthy will do more for this club than any trade will IMO.

REDREAD
06-22-2009, 03:15 PM
Any Chimpanzee could have improved catcher from the group they had last year by simply doing nothing.


Disagree. Wayne had many chances to improve catcher, yet never did.
He brought in Bako last season. He liked Valentine's game.

The best way to guess at what Wayne would do is to look at what he actually did during his tenure.

Several Wayne defenders actually said that Wayne would've probably found a way to bring back Dunn. I don't know for sure. I suspect the decision to let Dunn go was Cast's decision. I think Arroyo said that Dunn was looking for a 100 million dollar contract to come back, and that just wasn't going to happen. I have no reason not to believe Arroyo. The point of this example is to point out that we really have no idea what Wayne would've done. Maybe he would've brought Bako and Valentine back again.

It's pretty fair to say that based on what moved Wayne actually made, that Walt values defense in his position players more than Wayne did.

REDREAD
06-22-2009, 03:26 PM
I'm specifically addressing the myth that Walt
some how "transformed" this team. He simply let it happen.

I'm looking at the opening day roster from 2008. I see only 12 people from that list that are still on the team (not counting 2008 DL). That's quite a bit of turn over.

It's interesting that Masset, Hernandez, Nix, Weathers, Rhodes, and the good moves were simply "letting it happen", but Lincoln and Taveras were "malpractice".

REDREAD
06-22-2009, 03:29 PM
As for Bako and Javy, which GM signed them over the off-season? I think its reasonable to conclude leaving them alone was a no brainer when no other team took the chance save for a minor league deal or two after the season started. .

It was a no brainer last season not to give Bako and Valentin the catching job, yet one GM did it.

It was also a no brainer not to count on Cormier to be a valuable contributor a few years ago, but one GM did it.

It might not last the entire season, but the team's W-L record is finally improving after years of declining.

nate
06-22-2009, 04:32 PM
I'm looking at the opening day roster from 2008. I see only 12 people from that list that are still on the team (not counting 2008 DL). That's quite a bit of turn over.

It's interesting that Masset, Hernandez, Nix, Weathers, Rhodes, and the good moves were simply "letting it happen", but Lincoln and Taveras were "malpractice".

mth said it was "malpractice?"

membengal
06-22-2009, 05:19 PM
mth said it was "malpractice?"

No. But it's an echo from another thread. Or this thread. I can't remember anymore. I am pleased to see the word getting traction.

Re: the laundry list of good moves vs. the Taveras thing, Redread, you can do 100 things right and still commit malpractice.

I am not saying it is that way in this case, but Jock can have made seven hundred good moves and still committed GM malpractice.

traderumor
06-22-2009, 05:29 PM
No. But it's an echo from another thread. Or this thread. I can't remember anymore. I am pleased to see the word getting traction.

Re: the laundry list of good moves vs. the Taveras thing, Redread, you can do 100 things right and still commit malpractice.

I am not saying it is that way in this case, but Jock can have made seven hundred good moves and still committed GM malpractice.The concept sounds even more ludicrous put that way than it did in your prior defense of the idea. No "practicing" GM is evaluated this way, nor should they be. You are trying to apply a legal concept to an abstract discipline such as baseball GMing.

HokieRed
06-22-2009, 08:47 PM
Seems to me you have to have a pretty clear standard of care in order to start talking about malpractice. Surely nothing WJ has done approaches WK's handling of Cormier and Stanton.

Ltlabner
06-22-2009, 08:55 PM
The concept sounds even more ludicrous put that way than it did in your prior defense of the idea. No "practicing" GM is evaluated this way, nor should they be. You are trying to apply a legal concept to an abstract discipline such as baseball GMing.

No, what he's saying is that while Walt's made some nice moves, the Taveras move was a bad one. The move itself was so bad in his opinion so as to constitute malpractice on Walt's part for that decision. Malpractice is just a fancy word for "big screw up".

It's really not all that complicated.

membengal
06-22-2009, 11:01 PM
No, what he's saying is that while Walt's made some nice moves, the Taveras move was a bad one. The move itself was so bad in his opinion so as to constitute malpractice on Walt's part for that decision. Malpractice is just a fancy word for "big screw up".

It's really not all that complicated.

Ding.

Team Clark
06-22-2009, 11:09 PM
For every Pujols and Piazza low draft pick outlier, there are hundreds of 1st round choice flameouts that merely illustrate that MLB drafting is a big "who knows?"

Couldn't agree more. I point out at least once a year that when you are dealing with human beings it's hard to project their future in professional sports. Some people seem to take the human factor out of all equations concerning baseball and it just simply can't be overlooked.

traderumor
06-22-2009, 11:10 PM
No, what he's saying is that while Walt's made some nice moves, the Taveras move was a bad one. The move itself was so bad in his opinion so as to constitute malpractice on Walt's part for that decision. Malpractice is just a fancy word for "big screw up".

It's really not all that complicated.I know what malpractice means. It is a misapplied term for its intended use here. It's really not that complicated.

westofyou
06-22-2009, 11:17 PM
Show me one GM in MLB without a Taveras sized screw up.

Ltlabner
06-23-2009, 06:10 PM
I know what malpractice means. It is a misapplied term for its intended use here. It's really not that complicated.

Not misapplied at all.

Walt, as an executive of the Red company, made a decision, despite of all the available evidence that it would be a poor risk/reward, that has caused the Reds damages and harm.

It's not really a case of a "good move gone bad". Its a case of an easily foreseeable bad move going bad. In fact, none of Walt's peers felt Willy T was worth picking up, and he was let go by two previous recently World Series contenders.

So I disagree, I think malpractice is the exact right term for the situation. Unless, of course, you feel Willy's signing wasn't a mistake and has performed well thus far.

Ltlabner
06-23-2009, 06:12 PM
Show me one GM in MLB without a Taveras sized screw up.

That's not the discussion. They all have blunders in their pasts, just as we all do in our own professional lives. Except for Nate, of course. When he screws up he just calls it "jamming".

Scrap Irony
06-23-2009, 06:21 PM
So who's going to sue Jocketty for malpractice?

Do we have a lawyer on Redszone willing to take the case? A doctor willing to prove Taveras' contract caused major problems to the Reds?

Or is it a GM?

I get so confused when we use such cool words.

Falls City Beer
06-23-2009, 06:24 PM
I get so confused when we use such cool words.

"This ain't rock n roll, this is genocide!"

Ltlabner
06-23-2009, 06:25 PM
"This ain't rock n roll, this is genocide!"

I thought it was noise pollution?

edabbs44
06-23-2009, 06:29 PM
Look at it how you will. Pujols and Piazza might be the biggest surprises in the draft in the last 20 years.

There might be a perfectly good explanation for that as well.

nate
06-23-2009, 06:53 PM
That's not the discussion. They all have blunders in their pasts, just as we all do in our own professional lives. Except for Nate, of course. When he screws up he just calls it "jamming".

Well, that's how Thelonious Monk did it.

westofyou
06-23-2009, 07:03 PM
"This ain't rock n roll, this is genocide!"

As they pulled me out of the oxygen tent....

westofyou
06-23-2009, 07:06 PM
That's not the discussion. They all have blunders in their pasts, just as we all do in our own professional lives.

Then how can a piddly deal like Taveras at 4 million bucks counteract everything else the man does?

So if you bring the wrong chart to a sales meeting with Joes Shoes does that mean the big sale you made last year with Thom McKan is now crap?

I'd hope not.

traderumor
06-23-2009, 07:09 PM
Not misapplied at all.

Walt, as an executive of the Red company, made a decision, despite of all the available evidence that it would be a poor risk/reward, that has caused the Reds damages and harm.

It's not really a case of a "good move gone bad". Its a case of an easily foreseeable bad move going bad. In fact, none of Walt's peers felt Willy T was worth picking up, and he was let go by two previous recently World Series contenders.

So I disagree, I think malpractice is the exact right term for the situation. Unless, of course, you feel Willy's signing wasn't a mistake and has performed well thus far. When you actually define the concept "GM malpractice", I'll gladly enter the discussion. Until then, its just so much wax nosing.

cincrazy
06-23-2009, 07:10 PM
Show me one GM in MLB without a Taveras sized screw up.

Mike Rizzo :cool:;)

Ltlabner
06-23-2009, 07:12 PM
Then how can a piddly deal like Taveras at 4 million bucks counteract everything else the man does?

I don't think anyone is making the case that Walt's suddenly a blithering idiot of a GM because of the Taveras move. At least I'm not, and I'm pretty sure Membengal/TRF isn't either.

All that's being discussed is that the Taveras move was a big time mistake. Certainly more than a "piddly" one.

Scrap Irony
06-23-2009, 07:14 PM
Last year, one of my students was trying to recall Monk's name after listening to one of his songs in my class.

He came up with Gregorian Monk.

So now, everytime I hear Round Midnight or Straight, No Chaser, I think of Ave Maria.

nate
06-23-2009, 07:17 PM
Last year, one of my students was trying to recall Monk's name after listening to one of his songs in my class.

He came up with Gregorian Monk.

So now, everytime I hear Round Midnight or Straight, No Chaser, I think of Ave Maria.

Well you needn't.*

:cool:

*the title of another Monk tune

cincrazy
06-23-2009, 07:20 PM
I don't think anyone is making the case that Walt's suddenly a blithering idiot of a GM because of the Taveras move. At least I'm not, and I'm pretty sure Membengal/TRF isn't either.

All that's being discussed is that the Taveras move was a big time mistake. Certainly more than a "piddly" one.

If the Reds would admit this mistake and relegate him to the bench as a pinch-runner/part-time player, I think it wouldn't be as big of a mistake as it is. Him batting leadoff and continuing to rack up outs like Roseanne racks up buffet points is killing us right now, however.

RedsManRick
06-23-2009, 08:08 PM
I think it's important to be considered that the problem with Taveras isn't the money, though that's annoying. It's that he's taking playing time away from players who would be doing more to help the Reds win baseball games. Given his performance to date, the Reds would be better off if they had literally flushed the money down the toilet and gone with the players they had.

edabbs44
06-23-2009, 08:26 PM
At least this didn't morph into another Taveras thread.

westofyou
06-23-2009, 09:36 PM
I think it's important to be considered that the problem with Taveras isn't the money, though that's annoying.

Is it possible to have a more narcissistic reaction then this? ;)

Probably not, but otherwise I get the drift, .604 OPS last year, 2 year contract.. peanuts IMO and poised to be dumped before it gets to 2 years.

That said, it was a bad card play for Jocketty and he stills has 5/6ths of the contract left. But I think being aGM is like playing he market or cards, math and all that is what you make your jelly off of, but sometimes you have to swing at the Pinata with the blindfold on.

IslandRed
06-24-2009, 12:29 PM
When you actually define the concept "GM malpractice", I'll gladly enter the discussion. Until then, its just so much wax nosing.

Yep. There are clear overtones to using the word "malpractice" that go way beyond "wow, did you ever get that one wrong." But I'd rather talk baseball than be Word Nanny today, so I'll stop there. :cool:

membengal
06-24-2009, 02:16 PM
The Tavares signing was depraved and indifferent. Like second degree homicide.

traderumor
06-24-2009, 02:48 PM
The Tavares signing was depraved and indifferent. Like second degree homicide.Yea, that's a fair analogy. I'm sure victims of crime would see the clear connection :rolleyes:

membengal
06-24-2009, 03:02 PM
You sure do take this seriously, tr.

traderumor
06-24-2009, 03:06 PM
You sure do take this seriously, tr.I take it seriously? That certainly is a bizzaro world view of this terminology you are promoting. Hyperbole has its place, but its overuse just becomes inflammatory language. And if the goal is just to yank folks' chain, I'll let the mods handle that part.

membengal
06-24-2009, 03:07 PM
I am still stunned that you are taking the concept literally, friend. Malpractice connotes a massive mistake. Which is what it was. That's what my opinion was and is. Gracious.

It was also perhaps depraved and indifferent. I will think on that for awhile and let you know...

jojo
06-24-2009, 05:41 PM
I am still stunned that you are taking the concept literally, friend. Malpractice connotes a massive mistake. Which is what it was. That's what my opinion was and is. Gracious.

It was also perhaps depraved and indifferent. I will think on that for awhile and let you know...

Ya, people are just trying to articulate that it was such a bad idea that the decision was borderline gross negligence relative to the Reds playoff chances.

Basically they're saying it was such a bad idea (and the consequences so grievous to this point), its only a reasonable view of Jocketty that keeps one from wondering whether he intentionally dumped the season.

Colorful language? Yes. Meant in a strict legal context, no. Inflammatory? I guess it depends upon the individual.

Scrap Irony
06-24-2009, 05:58 PM
I guess the problem I hav with it is, not only is it purposefully inflammatory, it's also something every GM, if given enough time, has done. Taveras is a poor signing.

Shrug.

Can we get past this and discuss true Red baseball?

Jpup
06-25-2009, 09:07 AM
I just wonder how long it will be before someone presses Walt on an issue. Walt said they are "probably" buyers at this point. What does that mean? They won't even press him for an explanation.

Highlifeman21
06-27-2009, 12:23 PM
Yea, that's a fair analogy. I'm sure victims of crime would see the clear connection :rolleyes:

Since we're picking nits in this thread, how can victims of 2nd degree homicide see the clear connection?

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I would assume that the victim of 2nd degree homicide wouldn't see much of anything, much less a clear connection.

WebScorpion
06-28-2009, 01:34 AM
This thread has really deteriorated....

One person seems to think that Walt should lose his GM job and never be allowed to GM again based solely on the Taveras trade. That's what happens (among other things) if you've committed malpractice, you lose your license.

Another thinks he should go to prison for it. I'm sure that's part of the penalty for 2nd degree homicide.

Then both people fuss when others disagree... seems silly to me. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I think the reason the press doesn't 'press' Jocketty for answers is they've learned that he does not respond well to it. Unlike Bowden and/or O'Brien who will give you more information the more you hassle them, Jocketty will actually clam up and give you LESS info if you're persistent. He controls the relationship, not vice/versa. IMO, you should complain about Walt's secretive ways rather than the local beat writers' interrogation abilities.

Blitz Dorsey
06-28-2009, 09:49 AM
Who is Jocketty? George Grande insists that the Reds' GM is someone named "Jockerty."

membengal
06-28-2009, 10:51 AM
This thread has really deteriorated....

One person seems to think that Walt should lose his GM job and never be allowed to GM again based solely on the Taveras trade. That's what happens (among other things) if you've committed malpractice, you lose your license.

Another thinks he should go to prison for it. I'm sure that's part of the penalty for 2nd degree homicide.

Then both people fuss when others disagree... seems silly to me. :rolleyes:

Anyway, I think the reason the press doesn't 'press' Jocketty for answers is they've learned that he does not respond well to it. Unlike Bowden and/or O'Brien who will give you more information the more you hassle them, Jocketty will actually clam up and give you LESS info if you're persistent. He controls the relationship, not vice/versa. IMO, you should complain about Walt's secretive ways rather than the local beat writers' interrogation abilities.

Didn't say he should lose his job. Malpractice gets committed all the time without people losing their jobs. It's still malpractice.

WebScorpion
06-29-2009, 02:56 AM
Didn't say he should lose his job. Malpractice gets committed all the time without people losing their jobs. It's still malpractice.
No, you implied it by using the word malpractice instead of mistake or error. Malpractice always includes negligence and is considered misconduct and grounds for dismissal.
Jocketty isn't even the guy responsible for evaluating talent, he has a team of scouts who do that for him. His error was in listening to the scout(s) and/or crosschecker(s) who pushed Taveras' case. I'm guessing he'll use more crosscheckers when dealing with that person or team of people in the future. I judge Jocketty based on the performance of the team he has assembled and as far as I can see, he's ouperformed any GM we've seen in Cincinnati since Howsam. Far from negligent, IMHO.
If you still don't understand the intricacies of the English language, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

mth123
06-29-2009, 06:17 AM
No, you implied it by using the word malpractice instead of mistake or error. Malpractice always includes negligence and is considered misconduct and grounds for dismissal.
Jocketty isn't even the guy responsible for evaluating talent, he has a team of scouts who do that for him. His error was in listening to the scout(s) and/or crosschecker(s) who pushed Taveras' case. I'm guessing he'll use more crosscheckers when dealing with that person or team of people in the future. I judge Jocketty based on the performance of the team he has assembled and as far as I can see, he's ouperformed any GM we've seen in Cincinnati since Howsam. Far from negligent, IMHO.
If you still don't understand the intricacies of the English language, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Too much has been made in this thread over semantics IMO.

Fact is signing Taveras was a huge mistake that had a ripple effect on this team's start. He was given CF which pushed CF types Dickerson and Hairston into the LF job. They both pressed and tried to hit with too much power to fill the LF slot. The team had weak bats in two OF slots which are positions where most teams try to make-up for the relatively weak offensive players that they are playing in the MI and at C. The Taveras signing wasn't just bad because of Taveras being such a joke, its the overall plan behind it to field a team that was so weak offensively in the OF. You can get by with two judy hitters in the OF if you have top flight offensive guys at normally defensive spots, but this team doesn't have Johnny Bench and Joe Morgan manning up the middle spots to allow them to field a team with a CF and a corner OF who combine for 10 or so home runs like the big Red Machine did with Griffey and Geronimo. On this team, the catcher and second basemen are decent players, but they are mortals and the OF needs to provide production.

The Taveras signing was so bad because it was the key acquisition in a completely horrible idea from the beginning. A solid LF bat would have made it easier to withstand the loss of Votto and EdE. And while Jocketty can't be blamed for their loss, there is certainly blame to be placed for designing such a shallow offensive team that they became completely inept without them. Add that Jay Bruce tried to carry the team through all this and became so messed-up trying to pull everything that he hits a ton of routine fly balls now instead of the line drives he should be hitting. There is a reason his BABIP is so low and its not all bad luck. I wonder if he doesn't need to go back to AAA for a couple weeks to regain his line drive stroke.

As far as the record goes, this team got and wasted a lot of very good starting pitching in the first half and should have been making hay while the opportunity presented itself. (I do give Walt Credit for maintaining a pretty good pen, but much of that was inherited as well.) Now the pitching has fallen off a bit and the team doesn't have any type of cushion in its record to see them through. This team got enough good pitching in the first half that it should be several games above .500. IMO the Taveras signing was the key to a plan that contributed to all of this missed opportunity. Its why it was such a horrible horrible move.

As for the scouts and who is responsible, my opinion is that Dusty is behind the push for Willy and the style this team tried to move to in the off-season. Dusty was signed first and had no ties to Castellini, so I'm not sure if he had to be given some authority over roster decisions to lure him here, but these types of acquisitions seem pretty similar to ones that have followed Dusty throughout his managerial career. I'm guessing Walt was behind Nix and Gomes getting minor league deals and the move away from the dual CF types to the Nix and Gomes platoon which has improved things significantly IMO. But the plan implemented last winter was implemented by the Reds "front office" and as GM its Walt's job to take the heat for it.

traderumor
06-29-2009, 09:24 AM
Too much has been made in this thread over semantics IMO.Semantics is having a dispute regarding the use of one word over another. Here, the dispute is about the definition of a term or concept, or lack thereof, and its appropriateness in its context. Big difference.

mth123
06-29-2009, 09:26 AM
Semantics is having a dispute regarding the use of one word over another. Here, the dispute is about the definition of a term or concept, or lack thereof, and its appropriateness in its context. Big difference.

More semantics.;)

membengal
06-29-2009, 09:34 AM
No, you implied it by using the word malpractice instead of mistake or error. Malpractice always includes negligence and is considered misconduct and grounds for dismissal.
Jocketty isn't even the guy responsible for evaluating talent, he has a team of scouts who do that for him. His error was in listening to the scout(s) and/or crosschecker(s) who pushed Taveras' case. I'm guessing he'll use more crosscheckers when dealing with that person or team of people in the future. I judge Jocketty based on the performance of the team he has assembled and as far as I can see, he's ouperformed any GM we've seen in Cincinnati since Howsam. Far from negligent, IMHO.
If you still don't understand the intricacies of the English language, then we'll just have to agree to disagree.

Re the first bold: No, it isn't. I defend docs and attys all the time from such charges. Sometimes they have even committed malpractice. But negligence is not to be equated with misconduct. It is a mistake. A massive mistake. Which this was.

Re the second bold: I am quite surprised to see the overt picking of a fight...

I will let this go now. I am comfortable with that word choice for encapsulating how awful that signing was. I don't understand why some of you are taking it so personally.

westofyou
06-29-2009, 09:40 AM
as far as I can see, he's ouperformed any GM we've seen in Cincinnati since Howsam.

In one year he's done nothing that even says he is better than Murray Cook or Bob Quinn in my eyes.

Chip R
06-29-2009, 09:44 AM
http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2196/2525861658_9ef38a02aa.jpg?v=0

Ltlabner
06-29-2009, 09:47 AM
It is a mistake. A massive mistake. Which this was.

Perhaps to move this conversation forward, and off the discussion of the word, folks can explain how that signing wasn't a massive mistake?

Because at this point, I can't see how anybody can argue that it wasn't a mistake.

edabbs44
06-29-2009, 09:58 AM
Perhaps to move this conversation forward, and off the discussion of the word, folks can explain how that signing wasn't a massive mistake?

Because at this point, I can't see how anybody can argue that it wasn't a mistake.

It was a bad signing, but it wasn't as "massive" mistake. A massive mistake would be if they gave him a fat (both in $$$ and length) contract that was impossible to move. The guy isn't making all that much money. The bigger mistake would be if they continued to trot him out there. That is on both Baker and Jocketty. But it seems like they are moving in the right direction on that front.

I think some are making the Taveras signing something that it isn't. It was an ill-advised signing and GMs have those from time to time. That's it...it isn't really worth the amount of time people are spending talking about it on this board. However, Walt needs to realize that Taveras isn't what they thought he was going to be (right now) and that he shouldn't be working things out while hurting the team's performance. Either put him in a different role or send him down in order to get ABs.

RedlegJake
06-29-2009, 10:08 AM
It was a bad signing, but it wasn't as "massive" mistake. A massive mistake would be if they gave him a fat (both in $$$ and length) contract that was impossible to move. The guy isn't making all that much money. The bigger mistake would be if they continued to trot him out there. That is on both Baker and Jocketty. But it seems like they are moving in the right direction on that front.

I think some are making the Taveras signing something that it isn't. It was an ill-advised signing and GMs have those from time to time. That's it...it isn't really worth the amount of time people are spending talking about it on this board. However, Walt needs to realize that Taveras isn't what they thought he was going to be (right now) and that he shouldn't be working things out while hurting the team's performance. Either put him in a different role or send him down in order to get ABs.

Balanced rational reply. Good Post that I agree with. Taveras was a mistake but c'mon - this was not an Eric Milton sized mistake.

And let's keep this thread on whether or not it was a mistake - not the definition of malpractice which is close to starting a brouhaha.

Ltlabner
06-29-2009, 11:07 AM
I think the Taveras signing moves from bad signing to the massive mistake category for several reasons:

1) Singing WT meant that by default we went to war with a LF platoon of JHJ and Chris Dickerson. CDick is a miscast CF (and was unproven) and JHJ would never fill the LF shoes, even in his career year. To think that he would (especially considering the reasonable expectation that he'd crash back to earth) was folly. So not only were we not going to get enough offensive production from CF, but would also be coming up short in LF.

2) WT was signed knowing that he was a deeply flawed player unless he was "fixed". But to assume he could be fixed assumed the problem was mechanical and not talent related. That meant if we signed him, and he couldn't be "fixed' we're stuck with a dud player.

3) WT was signed under the guise of "speed and defense". However, his defense has been unremarkable and speed non-existent. Expecting him to maintain 60 stolen bases, which he only did once, was a mistaken plan. Worse yet, was knowing that his only weapon is his wheels, leaving him no other options if he were, say hypothetically, injured. One dimensional players are usually never a good idea.

4) More importantly, WT being on the roster was giving a loaded AK-47 to a manager with a history of sticking marginal players in key batting roles. That he was a "speedy" player who played CF guaranteed that WT would receive far too many at-bats, at the top of the order, in front of an offense that would struggle to score runs over the long haul.

5) Signing him to a two year deal, while not a massively onerous amount of money, guarentees that other options in CF will not be explored. If Stubbs goes crazy at AAA or CDick explodes they aren't going to get serious consideration because of the reluctance of flushing Willy's money. Even if Stubbs/CDick flop, the Reds aren't likely to be searching for a real CF solution because of the assumption that spot is already filled.

6) Having WT on a roster that already included a JHJ, Alex Gonzolez, a yet unproven Ryan Hannigan, a yet unproven Chris Dickerson, Darnell McDonald and the pseudo-rookie Bruce leaves them with no margin for error if (hypothetically speaking) Votto wasn't available, Bruce and Phillips had slow starts, Chris Dickerson got no playing time and EE was injured (and replaced by the anemic hitting ARO).

So yea, I'd say Willy T was more of a massive mistake and not just an "opps". The effects of his signing are both obvious and subtle and neither help the Reds win baseball games which is supposed to be the object of the exercise.

traderumor
06-29-2009, 11:11 AM
Perhaps to move this conversation forward, and off the discussion of the word, folks can explain how that signing wasn't a massive mistake?

Because at this point, I can't see how anybody can argue that it wasn't a mistake.I think the discussion would be moved forward more by letting the flies and buzzards eat at the WT dead horse.

Nasty_Boy
06-29-2009, 11:40 AM
I think the Taveras signing moves from bad signing to the massive mistake category for several reasons:

1) Singing WT meant that by default we went to war with a LF platoon of JHJ and Chris Dickerson. CDick is a miscast CF (and was unproven) and JHJ would never fill the LF shoes, even in his career year. To think that he would (especially considering the reasonable expectation that he'd crash back to earth) was folly. So not only were we not going to get enough offensive production from CF, but would also be coming up short in LF.

2) WT was signed knowing that he was a deeply flawed player unless he was "fixed". But to assume he could be fixed assumed the problem was mechanical and not talent related. That meant if we signed him, and he couldn't be "fixed' we're stuck with a dud player.

3) WT was signed under the guise of "speed and defense". However, his defense has been unremarkable and speed non-existent. Expecting him to maintain 60 stolen bases, which he only did once, was a mistaken plan. Worse yet, was knowing that his only weapon is his wheels, leaving him no other options if he were, say hypothetically, injured. One dimensional players are usually never a good idea.

4) More importantly, WT being on the roster was giving a loaded AK-47 to a manager with a history of sticking marginal players in key batting roles. That he was a "speedy" player who played CF guaranteed that WT would receive far too many at-bats, at the top of the order, in front of an offense that would struggle to score runs over the long haul.

5) Signing him to a two year deal, while not a massively onerous amount of money, guarentees that other options in CF will not be explored. If Stubbs goes crazy at AAA or CDick explodes they aren't going to get serious consideration because of the reluctance of flushing Willy's money. Even if Stubbs/CDick flop, the Reds aren't likely to be searching for a real CF solution because of the assumption that spot is already filled.

6) Having WT on a roster that already included a JHJ, Alex Gonzolez, a yet unproven Ryan Hannigan, a yet unproven Chris Dickerson, Darnell McDonald and the pseudo-rookie Bruce leaves them with no margin for error if (hypothetically speaking) Votto wasn't available, Bruce and Phillips had slow starts, Chris Dickerson got no playing time and EE was injured (and replaced by the anemic hitting ARO).

So yea, I'd say Willy T was more of a massive mistake and not just an "opps". The effects of his signing are both obvious and subtle and neither help the Reds win baseball games which is supposed to be the object of the exercise.

:beerme::beerme:

http://i98.photobucket.com/albums/l266/Revolos55/Macros/GuinnessBrilliant.jpg

Ron Madden
06-30-2009, 04:16 AM
No, what he's saying is that while Walt's made some nice moves, the Taveras move was a bad one. The move itself was so bad in his opinion so as to constitute malpractice on Walt's part for that decision. Malpractice is just a fancy word for "big screw up".

It's really not all that complicated.

And I would agree with that. :beerme:

Ron Madden
06-30-2009, 04:41 AM
I don't remember anyone ever saying Walt should be fired for signing Taveras to a two year 6 million doallar deal, or that no other GM in the history of the game has ever made such a blunder. Never read one word saying Walt should do hard time in the State Pen for his mistake.

Malpractice was nothing more than clean but colorful language to describe one members opinion of that deal. Nothing more nothing less.


;)