PDA

View Full Version : Are the '09 Reds a star-crossed team?



RedEye
07-12-2009, 01:32 PM
Yes, Jay Bruce's fractured wrist last night now has me writing something I've thought about writing here for awhile.

I know you could make the argument that this team is actually playing right up (or down) to its potential. A lot of people predicted a .500 season from these guys, and that's pretty much what they're giving us, right? If you are convinced of this, you should probably avoid reading the rest of this post.

Thing is, I can't help having the gnawing feeling that there is something rotten at GABP this year. The team started the season with so much untapped potential, even got off on the right foot for awhile there, but then just about everyone got leveled by injury after injury: Edwin has a chipped wrist; Votto suffers a killer flu and a mysterious psychological condition; Volquez throws out his back and then his arm; Phillips plays through a fractured finger (one that I still expect to bark at some point in the second half); Bruce dives his otherwise stout body into oblivion; even Cueto shows alarming signs of wear and tear. Sure, injuries are part of the game... but doesn't it just seem like this team--and particularly its promising young core--have suffered more than their share already?

Please excuse such a wildly unscientific post. I just feel like there is something, well, wildly unscientific (call it fate or destiny or whatever) about the 2009 Reds. It's sort of the opposite of the feeling I had about the 1990 Reds when I was 14. And I'm wondering if anyone else feels the same.

westofyou
07-12-2009, 01:36 PM
Please excuse such a wildly unscientific post. I just feel like there is something, well, wildly unscientific (call it fate or destiny or whatever) about the 2009 Reds. It's sort of the opposite of the feeling I had about the 1990 Reds when I was 14. And I'm wondering if anyone else feels the same.

The 1989 Reds were a mess, you expected to open the p[aper that season and get nothing but bad news, and that was grating because they were so close to getting to the top in the prior seasons.

redsmetz
07-12-2009, 01:48 PM
This is akin to what I was writing elsewhere this morning. Despite some poor crafting of this roster (wishing to buy a year of further development throughout the organization), it would have been interesting to see what this club could have done without all the time out for key players. Maybe we need someone to go get some good karma or something for this team. It's been one thing after another.

Falls City Beer
07-12-2009, 01:53 PM
Lots of teams deal with lots of injuries. The Reds at full strength were at best a .500 team, now they're dipping to the low end of their expected range. They'll probably win about 75 games. They need a boatload of talent before they contend.

Roy Halladay would go a long way to mending their ills.

westofyou
07-12-2009, 01:55 PM
Lots of teams deal with lots of injuries. The Reds at full strength were at best a .500 team, now they're dipping to the low end of their expected range. They'll probably win about 75 games. They need a boatload of talent before they contend.

Roy Halladay would go a long way to mending their ills.

Yeah, it was a tightrope walk at the start, but injuries equal fatigue and wind to the walker in this case.

Hap
07-12-2009, 02:01 PM
The 1989 Reds were a mess, you expected to open the paper that season and get nothing but bad news, and that was grating because they were so close to getting to the top in the prior seasons.

ditto for 1991 and 1993....

Kc61
07-12-2009, 02:06 PM
Roy Halladay would go a long way to mending their ills.

Halladay on the Reds? Wouldn't that require an expenditure of funds?

Falls City Beer
07-12-2009, 02:09 PM
Halladay on the Reds? Wouldn't that require an expenditure of funds?

I know and you know it ain't gonna happen.

But what's so unbelievably galling is that a stiff like Arroyo is making $12 million next year, which is not far off from what Halladay's making. Who on earth thought it was a good idea to give ace money to a 3/4 pitcher? Griffey, Milton, Arroyo--one miscalculation after another.

RedEye
07-12-2009, 02:15 PM
The 1989 Reds were a mess, you expected to open the p[aper that season and get nothing but bad news, and that was grating because they were so close to getting to the top in the prior seasons.

Ah yes, I do remember that team. I was in my third year of serious Red fandom at the time (Eric Davis and Barry Larkin basically ushered me onto the bandwagon that I've been on ever since). '89 was, if I remember correctly, one of Davis's greatest--34 HR and 101 RBI in the middle of a lineup of Whitey Richardsons and Scottie Madisons. Am I on track with that?

RedEye
07-12-2009, 02:19 PM
Lots of teams deal with lots of injuries. The Reds at full strength were at best a .500 team, now they're dipping to the low end of their expected range. They'll probably win about 75 games. They need a boatload of talent before they contend.


I know lots of teams deal with injuries. I was expecting health problems for some of the team's key players this year. I guess I just wasn't expecting injuries to all of their key players. At this point, only Cueto, Harang and the bullpen (save Bray) have managed to make it through unscathed (knock on wood).

Hap
07-12-2009, 03:18 PM
Ah yes, I do remember that team. I was in my third year of serious Red fandom at the time (Eric Davis and Barry Larkin basically ushered me onto the bandwagon that I've been on ever since). '89 was, if I remember correctly, one of Davis's greatest--34 HR and 101 RBI in the middle of a lineup of Whitey Richardsons and Scottie Madisons. Am I on track with that?

not exactly

The 1989 team was basically the same as the 1990 team, only without Hal Morris and Billy Hatcher.

The bullpen had John Franco instead of Randy Myers but was not as deep and not as consistent.

Every key regular player on that team was on the DL at some point, except for Todd Benzinger, with Larkin and Sabo being the biggest losses.

Danny Jackson and Jose Rijo followed their outstanding years from 1988 with injuries and inconsistency.

RedEye
07-12-2009, 05:22 PM
not exactly

The 1989 team was basically the same as the 1990 team, only without Hal Morris and Billy Hatcher.

The bullpen had John Franco instead of Randy Myers but was not as deep and not as consistent.

Every key regular player on that team was on the DL at some point, except for Todd Benzinger, with Larkin and Sabo being the biggest losses.

Danny Jackson and Jose Rijo followed their outstanding years from 1988 with injuries and inconsistency.

Right, I know... but wasn't that also the year that said players on the DL were replaced by a bunch of AAAA-type retreads (Scottie Madison, Whitey Richardson, Van Snider)? Or am I confusing them with a mid-1990s team?

Big Klu
07-12-2009, 08:45 PM
Right, I know... but wasn't that also the year that said players on the DL were replaced by a bunch of AAAA-type retreads (Scottie Madison, Whitey Richardson, Van Snider)? Or am I confusing them with a mid-1990s team?

You remember it correctly. That was also the year that Luis Quiñones hit 12 homers while filling in at 2B and 3B, and Rolando Roomes was doing his Eric Davis-Lite impression in the OF. Ken Griffey Sr. had a decent season in limited playing time in LF, and Joel Youngblood and Dave Collins also saw action in the OF.

PuffyPig
07-12-2009, 08:58 PM
Lots of teams deal with lots of injuries. The Reds at full strength were at best a .500 team, now they're dipping to the low end of their expected range. They'll probably win about 75 games. They need a boatload of talent before they contend.



It's hard to image that the Reds "at full strength" would be worth only 1.5 more wins to date. Surely full, healthy seasons from Votto, Volquez etc. would be worth more than that. We were a .500 team a short time ago with many injuries.

Falls City Beer
07-12-2009, 09:06 PM
We were a .500 team a short time ago with many injuries.

And that trajectory is heading down a slope.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-12-2009, 09:11 PM
Roy Halladay would go a long way to mending their ills.

Cincinnati isn't allowed to have players of that calibur. If he were traded here, I'd give him 10 days before he lands on the DL for the rest of the season.

PuffyPig
07-12-2009, 09:15 PM
And that trajectory is heading down a slope.


Yeah, because of injuries.

Falls City Beer
07-12-2009, 09:16 PM
Yeah, because of injuries.

Well, I can assure you, the Reds record isn't going to suffer because Bruce is on the DL.

PuffyPig
07-12-2009, 09:37 PM
Well, I can assure you, the Reds record isn't going to suffer because Bruce is on the DL.

When you consider the alternatives that will be used, I can assure you that it will.

Falls City Beer
07-12-2009, 09:58 PM
When you consider the alternatives that will be used, I can assure you that it will.

It just means Dickerson plays full time instead of Bruce, and Dickerson has been the better of the two hitters this season. Though not by much.

reds44
07-12-2009, 10:01 PM
It just means Dickerson plays full time instead of Bruce, and Dickerson has been the better of the two hitters this season. Though not by much.
No, it means Nix, Gomes, and Taveras get even more ABs as well. Bruce was playing everydAy, and Dickerson was probably playing 75% of the time in LF or CF.

And you can't say the Reds were a .500 team at best when they were healthy. How many games this year have Volquez, Votto, Encarnacion, and Bruce all been together? The answer since the 3rd week of the year is 0.

PuffyPig
07-12-2009, 10:38 PM
And you can't say the Reds were a .500 team at best when they were healthy. How many games this year have Volquez, Votto, Encarnacion, and Bruce all been together? The answer since the 3rd week of the year is 0.


Well, to be entirely truthful, anyone who can say that the Mets were "teeing off" on Cueto on Saturday can (and will) say pretty much anything.....

Scrap Irony
07-12-2009, 11:58 PM
This team has certainly been snake-bit all season. From the get-go, really.

Cincinnati has had three likely season-ending injuries to starters or starting pitchers, two starters or starting pitchers with season-long nagging injuries, and three other starters or starting pitchers miss more than a month apiece from injuries. None of this mentions the bullpen hurts (Bray, Lincoln).

I don't think I've seen another team decimated with injuries like this. Perhaps the Mets?

RedEye
07-13-2009, 06:52 PM
This team has certainly been snake-bit all season. From the get-go, really.

Cincinnati has had three likely season-ending injuries to starters or starting pitchers, two starters or starting pitchers with season-long nagging injuries, and three other starters or starting pitchers miss more than a month apiece from injuries. None of this mentions the bullpen hurts (Bray, Lincoln).

I don't think I've seen another team decimated with injuries like this. Perhaps the Mets?

Totally agree. Maybe they didn't have the horses to begin with, but we'll never know since half of them got hurt out of the starting gate and the rest pulled up lame rounding the second bend in the track. Sure is frustrating!

Strikes Out Looking
07-13-2009, 07:20 PM
not exactly

The 1989 team was basically the same as the 1990 team, only without Hal Morris and Billy Hatcher.

The bullpen had John Franco instead of Randy Myers but was not as deep and not as consistent.

Every key regular player on that team was on the DL at some point, except for Todd Benzinger, with Larkin and Sabo being the biggest losses.

Danny Jackson and Jose Rijo followed their outstanding years from 1988 with injuries and inconsistency.

The 1989 had a few off the field issues they were dealing with. I bet I don't have to go into too much detail about them.

bucksfan2
07-14-2009, 09:32 AM
The team took a wrong turn when Votto was forced to miss extended time. If Votto could have played every day, instead of his DL and his time on the active roster but not playing, this team is probably sitting around 4 games over .500. Instead they lost a game changing bat for roughly 20 games. It wasn't just his hits, it was his ability to turn the lineup over one extra time. It was his ability to get on base once or twice a game.

I just don't know the overall impact of the injuries of Encarnacion, Volquez, and now Bruce had on the team. You could say that the injury to Volquez may be a blessing in disguise with the emergence of Homer.

cumberlandreds
07-14-2009, 09:36 AM
The 1989 had a few off the field issues they were dealing with. I bet I don't have to go into too much detail about them.

The Rose situation had a lot to do with that team really flaming out that season. I think Lou was such a breathe of fresh air the next season they over exceeded to the point of being a World Champion. :)

Roy Tucker
07-14-2009, 10:13 AM
I think the '09 Reds have had their normal share of luck, both bad and good.

Like most teams with somewhat limited means, there isn't a lot of depth and if some key injuries happen, the team suffers.

This team also went through an almost unprecedented stretch of great starting pitching and very good bullpen work. At least as well as my dusty memory cells can recollect.

RedEye
07-19-2009, 09:18 PM
Hernandez to the DL with a knee injury. Time to revive this thread?

forfreelin04
07-20-2009, 01:58 AM
I'll admit I haven't watched many games recently. I've been busy with school amongst other things. If the Reds were at or over .500, I would make time to watch them. However, I do frequent Redszone and watch the highlights and one thing that has struck me is the amount of people still in the stands. I don't know how many walkups they've had, but it seems to me there have been pretty decent crowds the past 4 games. Perhaps, people bought tickets earlier when they were still in the heart of contention. Regardless of that, it has struck me that the fans are still coming to the ballpark and this team, by my eye, is still competing as if they are a game out of first place. Maybe I just have a foggy memory but other Reds teams were in the same boat, below .500, but didn't seem to have the same glimmer in their eyes as these 09 Reds.

That being said, if people are still coming out to the ballpark and the team is still fighting it makes WJ's moves alot harder to make. I'm not saying that he can just make a move and wham their playoff bound, but it surely keeps things interesting. Of course, they could also be one poor road trip away from total selling mode.

redsfandan
07-20-2009, 08:33 AM
I think the '09 Reds have had their normal share of luck, both bad and good.

Like most teams with somewhat limited means, there isn't a lot of depth and if alot of key injuries happen, the team suffers.That was easy to fix.


This team also went through an almost unprecedented stretch of great starting pitching and very good bullpen work. At least as well as my dusty memory cells can recollect.
Maybe an unprecedented stretch of great starting pitching for a recent Reds team. I'd agree if the rotation produced results that weren't expected but I wasn't surprised. Maybe I should have listenned to FCB more.

I'll admit I haven't watched many games recently. I've been busy with school amongst other things. If the Reds were at or over .500, I would make time to watch them. However, I do frequent Redszone and watch the highlights and one thing that has struck me is the amount of people still in the stands...
I've been thinking that the Reds could be an interesting, and dangerous, team in September if we have everyone (Volquez, Bruce, etc) back healthy. Like last September but better. With the playoffs becoming less realistic tickets to Sept games should look pretty appealing.