PDA

View Full Version : Tank it



Brutus
07-17-2009, 02:24 AM
By my count, the Washington Nationals will likely win about 35 percent of their games the rest of the way. I'm going by nothing more than intuition. That would be a 26-48 record.

So since the Reds are 42-46, they cannot win more than 10 more games the rest of the season to be assured of finishing worse than the Nationals' expected 50-55 victories. This, of course, would give them the No. 1-overall pick in the 2010 draft and rights to Bryce Harper.

Give away Arroyo for anyone willing to take his salary. Trade Harang for a MLB ready starter and/or quality SS.

Re-tool in the offseason and let the Harper fantasy begin. I think this team, at full strength, is competitive, but it had a small margin for error and I think that margin is slipping quickly away. Bring on Bryce Harper. If you can manage 10-60 the rest of the way, do it.

Naturally, I'm partially posting this tongue-in-cheek. Clearly, even if I were OK with a team tanking it, the Nationals have a real good chance of not blowing their Strasburg-Harper dreams. In fact, I almost feel sorry for the Reds that they can't be bad enough to trip and stumble into such a franchise-changing situation.

For me though, it's time to be sellers. It's a seller's market. If the Reds can acquire a Yunel Escobar along the way, by all means do it. But get ready for next season.

jojo
07-17-2009, 03:44 AM
By my count, the Washington Nationals will likely win about 35 percent of their games the rest of the way. I'm going by nothing more than intuition. That would be a 26-48 record.

So since the Reds are 42-46, they cannot win more than 10 more games the rest of the season to be assured of finishing worse than the Nationals' expected 50-55 victories. This, of course, would give them the No. 1-overall pick in the 2010 draft and rights to Bryce Harper.

Give away Arroyo for anyone willing to take his salary. Trade Harang for a MLB ready starter and/or quality SS.

Re-tool in the offseason and let the Harper fantasy begin. I think this team, at full strength, is competitive, but it had a small margin for error and I think that margin is slipping quickly away. Bring on Bryce Harper. If you can manage 10-60 the rest of the way, do it.

Naturally, I'm partially posting this tongue-in-cheek. Clearly, even if I were OK with a team tanking it, the Nationals have a real good chance of not blowing their Strasburg-Harper dreams. In fact, I almost feel sorry for the Reds that they can't be bad enough to trip and stumble into such a franchise-changing situation.

For me though, it's time to be sellers. It's a seller's market. If the Reds can acquire a Yunel Escobar along the way, by all means do it. But get ready for next season.

Think this one through carefully. The Nats are tougher than you think. Just ask the Ms about their epic battle with Washington for Strasburg.

Edskin
07-17-2009, 05:59 AM
I have no problem with the "tank it" proposal, but I just don't think it matters either way anymore. We've been "sellers" at this point for the better half of a decade and it hasn't made one bit of difference. Different parts, but the same results. We've totally turned over the roster, turned over the GM spot, turned over the manager, and we're still where we always are come this time of the year.

There isn't a trade we could make that would "excite" me right now. It just doesn't matter.

cumberlandreds
07-17-2009, 09:02 AM
The Nats should just give their 1st round pick to the Reds or someone else. They didn't sign the pick last year and it doesn't look like they are going to this year either. On PTI the other day they said the Nats hadn't even spoken to Strasburg since they picked him. You would think they would at least call him up and say Hi.

flyer85
07-17-2009, 09:08 AM
They didn't sign the pick last year and it doesn't look like they are going to this year either.
they will sign Strasburg.

Boras takes all of his clients to the deadline, the nats would only hurt their position if they started negotiating now. It would expect negotiations to start around August 15th.

Will M
07-17-2009, 10:23 AM
My trade list:
1. Arroyo goes to whoever wants him. If someone claims him on waivers after August 1rst let them have him.
2. Weathers has real value. He is a nice middle reliever but isn't worth the ~$4M option he has for 2010
3. Ramon Hernandez has real value to a team needing catching.
4. As has been pointed out Cordero is an expensive luxury to the Reds but has a no trade clause. if he would waive it then deal him.
5. Hairston has minimal value but i would deal him for some A ball long shot prospect
6. Nix has minimal value but i would deal him for some A ball long shot prospect
7. Taveras has no trade value (unfortunately)

My keeper list:
1. Harang. workhorse starter needed for 2010. the rotation looks a lot better with him than without him
2. Gomes. arbitration eligible but won't break the bank for 2010. long histroy of crushing LHP. having a very nice season in a part time role this year
3. Rhodes. if we deal both Cordero (maybe this offseason) and Weathers it would be nice to have one veteran in the pen. plus he is cheap.
4. Keep the youth - Hanigan, Votto, Phillips, Janish, EE, Rosales, Bruce, Dickerson, Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Owings, Masset, Roenicke, Fisher, Herrara,Burton, etc

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2009, 10:33 AM
Arroyo and Weathers won't get it done. If you want to rebuild in a meaningful way, you've got to be willing to let go of something valuable.

Shop Harang. He can bring real value.

HokieRed
07-17-2009, 10:35 AM
I fear Harang won't bring much, not with his salary. Whoever takes him off your hands will know they're giving enormous salary relief. Might have to consider trading Phillips, Votto, Volquez, or Bruce to actually make a difference, though obviously it's a bad time to deal either Volquez or Bruce as they're at a probable low point in value right now.

princeton
07-17-2009, 10:38 AM
Shop Harang. He can bring real value.


if Harang pitches well in the next 2 weeks, he'll be gone IMO

flyer85
07-17-2009, 10:42 AM
In this market Cordero likely cannot be moved. I doubt anyone is interested in taking on the last two years of his contract.

princeton
07-17-2009, 10:47 AM
In this market Cordero likely cannot be moved. I doubt anyone is interested in taking on the last two years of his contract.

CoCo's an all-star with only two years remaining on his contract. the closer he gets to end of contract, at top performance, the more interest he generates.

he's interesting and that interest will grow.

RedlegJake
07-17-2009, 10:56 AM
My trade list:
1. Arroyo goes to whoever wants him. If someone claims him on waivers after August 1rst let them have him.

Arroyo has value, if you're willing to take a couple AA prospects the Reds could get a couple pretty fair prospects. What you won't get is major league ready guys. The other way to trade him is to take someone else's veteran with a too-rich-for-production contract, which makes no sense.


2. Weathers has real value. He is a nice middle reliever but isn't worth the ~$4M option he has for 2010

Weathers has been so good this year I really think the Reds could land a very good prospect for him. Given his age you'd probably have to subtract one level - so again, a top quality AA guy but one of an organization's top 5.


3. Ramon Hernandez has real value to a team needing catching.

Hernandez is at a premium position and should be able to land a top prospect at AAA or a young bullpen arm to help replace Weathers and Cordero.


4. As has been pointed out Cordero is an expensive luxury to the Reds but has a no trade clause. if he would waive it then deal him.

If he would waive his no trade (and I think he would if he was heading to a definite contender) then he should net more prospects, and good ones but again, given his $ the prospects are more likely to be A or AA if they are going to be any good.


5. Hairston has minimal value but i would deal him for some A ball long shot prospect

The Reds got Sutton for Kepp. I'd take a Sutton like prospect for Hairston and I think that's reasonable for him. A contender could use him


6. Nix has minimal value but i would deal him for some A ball long shot prospect

Yeah, I agree here. Anything you can get - the Reds have a bevy of future outfielders that match or exceed any expectation I have of Nix. Get what you can for him.


7. Taveras has no trade value (unfortunately)

Nah. Redzoners just hate him with some justification but he does have value. Just Rookie league or A ball prospect value. I think he can be moved but that means Walt admits a big mistake was made and accepts pretty much nothing in return. I think Walt defends his mistake by claiming injuries kept Taveras ineffective this year and the Reds see him back next year.


My keeper list:
1. Harang. workhorse starter needed for 2010. the rotation looks a lot better with him than without him
2. Gomes. arbitration eligible but won't break the bank for 2010. long histroy of crushing LHP. having a very nice season in a part time role this year
3. Rhodes. if we deal both Cordero (maybe this offseason) and Weathers it would be nice to have one veteran in the pen. plus he is cheap.
4. Keep the youth - Hanigan, Votto, Phillips, Janish, EE, Rosales, Bruce, Dickerson, Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Owings, Masset, Roenicke, Fisher, Herrara,Burton, etc

Harang - I'd trade him. I definitely see your point about 2010 but I try to get a max return for him now. If that isn't out there then I keep him without qualms.
Gomes I agree with you simply because I don't think you can get a player that would out produce him in terms of dollars or numbers. He may be a platoon player but he's a darn good one.
Rhodes I'd offer but Arthur should remain effective despite his age because he is used in such a limited way. Like Harang, he'd be offered for a good prospect but if nothing was tempting I'd have no problem keeping him.

The youth. Here's the crux. The Reds keep the right ones and trade the right ones and the future looks bright. Make the wrong decisions and its bleak. Really, imo, all the above doesn't matter much if the Reds screw this part up.

Eric_the_Red
07-17-2009, 11:11 AM
I'm seeing a lot of people calling to trade Harang. I think that is a risky move. Is this team a division winner without Harang in 2010? Cueto, Volquez, Arroyo, Owings, Bailey....lots of question marks there.

bucksfan2
07-17-2009, 11:19 AM
I would trade Rhodes in a heart beat. He has been very good this season, but his shelf life keeps shrinking. I think you could get quite a bit for Rhodes and am willing to roll the dice next season that Masset and a healthy Bray can fill in Rhonds 7th inning.

Jpup
07-17-2009, 11:23 AM
Send Rhodes to Boston. They could use a shutdown lefty.

flyer85
07-17-2009, 11:24 AM
he's interesting and that interest will grow.the way closers shine and fade I would thinks team would look at lower cost options(in terms of $$) first, and there are some that could be had.

Even the Yanks asked the Pirates to pay some of Hinske's salary.

Degenerate39
07-17-2009, 11:28 AM
I'd love to be able to draft Bryce but I think he's one of those signings that can make or break your team.

princeton
07-17-2009, 11:39 AM
for some reason, Bryce Harper makes me think of Todd Marinovich and Tony Mandarich. best of luck to him in Washington, though.

Reds1
07-17-2009, 11:48 AM
My trade list:
1. Arroyo goes to whoever wants him. If someone claims him on waivers after August 1rst let them have him.
2. Weathers has real value. He is a nice middle reliever but isn't worth the ~$4M option he has for 2010
3. Ramon Hernandez has real value to a team needing catching.
4. As has been pointed out Cordero is an expensive luxury to the Reds but has a no trade clause. if he would waive it then deal him.
5. Hairston has minimal value but i would deal him for some A ball long shot prospect
6. Nix has minimal value but i would deal him for some A ball long shot prospect
7. Taveras has no trade value (unfortunately)

My keeper list:
1. Harang. workhorse starter needed for 2010. the rotation looks a lot better with him than without him
2. Gomes. arbitration eligible but won't break the bank for 2010. long histroy of crushing LHP. having a very nice season in a part time role this year
3. Rhodes. if we deal both Cordero (maybe this offseason) and Weathers it would be nice to have one veteran in the pen. plus he is cheap.
4. Keep the youth - Hanigan, Votto, Phillips, Janish, EE, Rosales, Bruce, Dickerson, Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Owings, Masset, Roenicke, Fisher, Herrara,Burton, etc

I'd have to see what Harang would bring in. Salary getting up there and he's not getting any younger. Might be a nice mid level starter with experience that could bring in 2-3 decent prospects. Arroyo probably doesn't have much trade value at this point IMO, but I could be wrong there. It think the next 2 weeks will tell us what the Reds do. If they go 7-2 we are buyers, but if we continue down this slipery slope then forget it and tough thing is our schedule is pretty darn tough with Brewers, LA, and Cubs.

Johnny Footstool
07-17-2009, 12:35 PM
I'm seeing a lot of people calling to trade Harang. I think that is a risky move. Is this team a division winner without Harang in 2010? Cueto, Volquez, Arroyo, Owings, Bailey....lots of question marks there.

The team won't contend in 2010 without filling the black holes at SS and in the OF.

If the Braves would give up Yunel Escobar and Jordan Schafer for Harang, you've got to jump on that deal.

I would also offer him to the Rangers for Elvis Andrus and one of their young catchers.

Kc61
07-17-2009, 12:39 PM
I watched some last night and Harang was discussing his community activities. I really doubt they will trade him. Arroyo is much more likely to be traded IMO.

traderumor
07-17-2009, 12:46 PM
I watched some last night and Harang was discussing his community activities. I really doubt they will trade him. Arroyo is much more likely to be traded IMO.Sean Casey was the mayor and they traded him for Dave Williams.

Kc61
07-17-2009, 12:54 PM
Sean Casey was the mayor and they traded him for Dave Williams.

I don't remember all the specifics, but I think Casey's contract was viewed as a material drag on the club, far exceeding his performance value at the time. I don't think the same is true for Harang.

In any event, I could be wrong, but I doubt the Reds want to part with this guy.

traderumor
07-17-2009, 01:24 PM
I don't remember all the specifics, but I think Casey's contract was viewed as a material drag on the club, far exceeding his performance value at the time. I don't think the same is true for Harang.

In any event, I could be wrong, but I doubt the Reds want to part with this guy.I think the same is true of a declining Harang. Harang is a perfect example of a player that good teams trade while there is potentially still some fruit hanging on the tree to get something of value in return, whereas bad teams like the Reds will squeeze every last drop, at high cost per drop, until he rots on the vine and they have to give him away. Or, give him another contract (see Larkin, Barry)

TheNext44
07-17-2009, 01:26 PM
I think the Reds should be buyers. Not because I think they can make the playoffs this year, but because it is important for them to stay in contention, which they can do even without being buyers, and important for them to have a winning record or close to one.

Selling now and conceding a 75 win season would be devastating to the fan base and to team moral. At some point, a team needs to show that it is committed to winning. That is the only way to turn the corner.

If the Reds had the farm system that the Ray's had going into last season, then it would be okay to let another losing season go by. But the Reds are going to have to pick up some free agents during the offseason if they want to be real contenders. No free agent will come here with this team's history of losing. If they are in contention down to the last week or so, and finish at or around .500, it will be so much easier to get a Juan Rivera to sign here.

Also if teams think that the Reds are a losing franchise, like the Pirates and Royals, they will only try to dump their garbage on them, or steal their best players. It is easier to trade from an appearance of strength than it is from one of weakness.

And while the Reds are not a very good team right now, they definitely have talent to compete in the very average NL Central this year. If they can pick up a Huff or Scott from Baltimore, either of whom would be very cheap in terms of prospects, I think they can stay in the race.

If they are to move a veteran, move Hernandez. He plays a premium position, and he actually would be the best catcher available, if he was made available. He could get a solid prospect or a nice young bullpen arm, and Hanigan could step in and catch the rest of the season.

traderumor
07-17-2009, 01:31 PM
I think the Reds should be buyers. Not because I think they can make the playoffs this year, but because it is important for them to stay in contention, which they can do even without being buyers, and important for them to have a winning record or close to one.

Selling now and conceding a 75 win season would be devastating to the fan base and to team moral. At some point, a team needs to show that it is committed to winning. That is the only way to turn the corner.

If the Reds had the farm system that the Ray's had going into last season, then it would be okay to let another losing season go by. But the Reds are going to have to pick up some free agents during the offseason if they want to be real contenders. No free agent will come here with this team's history of losing. If they are in contention down to the last week or so, and finish at or around .500, it will be so much easier to get a Juan Rivera to sign here.

Also if teams think that the Reds are a losing franchise, like the Pirates and Royals, they will only try to dump their garbage on them, or steal their best players. It is easier to trade from an appearance of strength than it is from one of weakness.

And while the Reds are not a very good team right now, they definitely have talent to compete in the very average NL Central this year. If they can pick up a Huff or Scott from Baltimore, either of whom would be very cheap in terms of prospects, I think they can stay in the race.

If they are to move a veteran, move Hernandez. He plays a premium position, and he actually would be the best catcher available, if he was made available. He could get a solid prospect or a nice young bullpen arm, and Hanigan could step in and catch the rest of the season.It all comes down to the Reds properly valuing their prospects. It is certainly easy to doubt their ability to do so, but it is certainly more critical now if they have any hope of reaching the level of legitimate contender in the near term. Right now, they deserve the Royals/Pirates/Reds cellar dwelling trinity tag.

Brutus
07-17-2009, 02:27 PM
The Nats should just give their 1st round pick to the Reds or someone else. They didn't sign the pick last year and it doesn't look like they are going to this year either. On PTI the other day they said the Nats hadn't even spoken to Strasburg since they picked him. You would think they would at least call him up and say Hi.

I'm not sure the PTI guys are correct about this. I've seen at least two reports the last few days saying the Nationals and Boras are far apart so far in the early stages of negotiations (no surprise there). I would find it hard to believe the Nationals have not picked up the phone and at least said hello to Strasburg. And if it's true they have not, I'm not sure it matters as it still does seem they are talking to Boras. I'll be mildly surprised if he does not get signed. It was bound to be around August 15 anyhow, so to hear they're not close is no surprise (at least to me).

cumberlandreds
07-17-2009, 02:30 PM
I'm not sure the PTI guys are correct about this. I've seen at least two reports the last few days saying the Nationals and Boras are far apart so far in the early stages of negotiations (no surprise there). I would find it hard to believe the Nationals have not picked up the phone and at least said hello to Strasburg. And if it's true they have not, I'm not sure it matters as it still does seem they are talking to Boras. I'll be mildly surprised if he does not get signed. It was bound to be around August 15 anyhow, so to hear they're not close is no surprise (at least to me).

The PTI guys wrong. Nah......;)

It just wouldn't surprise me a bit if the Nats bungled this pick. With the way everything else has been handled with this club nothing would be surprising. It probably will go down to August 15th if they do sign him.

Brutus
07-17-2009, 03:08 PM
The PTI guys wrong. Nah......;)

It just wouldn't surprise me a bit if the Nats bungled this pick. With the way everything else has been handled with this club nothing would be surprising. It probably will go down to August 15th if they do sign him.

Well you're right about August 15. They could do everything right but unless they were giving Boras immediately what he wanted, it was likely to not get done until right up against the deadline. As for the Nationals... they are in this situation for a reason, so I guess I can see how they might botch this whole thing. That said, I think even they realize the magnitude of getting this one done.

HokieRed
07-17-2009, 03:18 PM
Sean Casey was the mayor and they traded him for Dave Williams.

And a pile of Casey's salary back. One of the great trades--a complete hosing of the Pirates, in fact--ever pulled by a Reds GM.

M2
07-17-2009, 03:19 PM
Strasburg will sign with the Nats because they'll agree to send him immediately to the majors. He'll want stupid money in this contract, but otherworldly money in his next contract (which he'd push back a year by turning down the Nats). Plus, the Nats are just going to have the same #1 pick next season, so he might as well do the deal now.

Chip R
07-17-2009, 03:26 PM
Strasburg will sign with the Nats because they'll agree to send him immediately to the majors. He'll want stupid money in this contract, but otherworldly money in his next contract (which he'd push back a year by turning down the Nats). Plus, the Nats are just going to have the same #1 pick next season, so he might as well do the deal now.


It'll be interesting to see what happens if that scenario unfolds. We see college and high school athletes jump from college to the NFL and NBA and don't even give it a second thought. But 99.999% of players drafted by MLB have to serve some time in the minors. I'm sure in most cases, players need that time to develop and teams don't want to give a guy MLB service time too soon but physically, I think some could do it. Strasburg could be one of them.

M2
07-17-2009, 03:28 PM
And a pile of Casey's salary back. One of the great trades--a complete hosing of the Pirates, in fact--ever pulled by a Reds GM.

They saved some money. So bloody what? Dave Williams was a steaming pile of refuse.

George Foster for Frank Duffy and Vern Geishert was a hosing. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if the Reds' decade in the weeds has caused people to become unstuck from reality.

HokieRed
07-17-2009, 03:40 PM
I remember Frank Duffy for George Foster very well. It was a great trade for the Reds, probably more of a hosing than O'Brien did to Pittsburgh. My overemphasis on O'Brien's trade was probably based on my sense he never gets credit for anything while there is still plenty of man-love for his successor. I believe we got about 7 million bucks back on Casey, one of the worst contracts in Reds' history--one extended by Bowden, who had the same tendencies as many GM's to overpay and overextend contracts. When O'Brien came on the scene, we were still paying 9 million to Larkin (who, God knows, was, five years prior, a marvelous player, no longer in 2003 and 2004), we were paying about 8 + to Casey, God only knows how much to Danny Graves, D'Angelo Jimenez et. al. O'Brien got us over and out of that, adding Cueto, Bailey, and Bruce in the meantime. I would contend the sole purpose of the Casey for Williams trade was to get money back. It also should be an object lesson for RZers who continue to think that the stuff we want to unloac will somehow magically be what other teams want--Arroyo, Weathers, Hernandez etc. Getting salary relief for these guys is probably about what you are going to get. I'd also contend, by the way, that O'Brien's dealing Casey made it easier to get a better return for Pena, as we were no longer in the position of needing to trade him (b/c it eliminated the problem we had of 5 players for 4 spots--Griffey, Dunn, Kearns, Pena, Casey). We were in a stronger position to keep Pena, Boston knew that, they had to offer more than teams had earlier before the deal. Most of the time, if you are going to get anything that will help you in the long or even short run, you're going to have to trade somebody you don't want to trade. Since we want to trade Arroyo, Weathers, Hernandez, Gonzalez, Taveras, Gomes, Nix, Taveras etc., we are--precisely for that reason--unlikely to get much for them. I suggest that if RZers want to really start thinking about how to rebuild the team, they start talking about what a trade involving Votto, Bruce, Volquez, or Phillips might bring.

M2
07-17-2009, 03:46 PM
I remember Frank Duffy for George Foster very well. It was a great trade for the Reds, probably more of a hosing than O'Brien did to Pittsburgh.

Probably? Two World Series rings, an MVP, ranks on all the franchise's career power hitting lists. Probably?

IslandRed
07-17-2009, 04:08 PM
They saved some money. So bloody what? Dave Williams was a steaming pile of refuse.

Well, yeah. Trading Casey, signing Hatteberg and netting $5 million in cash for the same level of performance was a great move by itself. Unfortunately, they didn't do anything meaningful with the cash and they actually let Williams pitch.

bucksfan2
07-17-2009, 04:15 PM
Well, yeah. Trading Casey, signing Hatteberg and netting $5 million in cash for the same level of performance was a great move by itself. Unfortunately, they didn't do anything meaningful with the cash and they actually let Williams pitch.

IIRC the rumor at the time was that the Reds used the Casey money to make an offer to Matt Morris but he chose the Giants. I guess you could argue that it worked out better for the Reds.

IslandRed
07-17-2009, 04:23 PM
IIRC the rumor at the time was that the Reds used the Casey money to make an offer to Matt Morris but he chose the Giants. I guess you could argue that it worked out better for the Reds.

True, and at the time of the deal, signing Hatteberg to play first base wasn't the plan anyway.

Eric_the_Red
07-17-2009, 04:40 PM
The team won't contend in 2010 without filling the black holes at SS and in the OF.

If the Braves would give up Yunel Escobar and Jordan Schafer for Harang, you've got to jump on that deal.

I would also offer him to the Rangers for Elvis Andrus and one of their young catchers.


That's a big assumption that the Braves/Rangers would offer that duo for Harang. If they did, I would also like the deal IF the Reds put the payroll savings back into the rotation.

HokieRed
07-17-2009, 05:10 PM
Probably? Two World Series rings, an MVP, ranks on all the franchise's career power hitting lists. Probably?

Did you bother to read the rest of my post?

Patrick Bateman
07-17-2009, 05:26 PM
Did you bother to read the rest of my post?

I don't know but I do know that I had trouble getting past that first line.

M2
07-17-2009, 05:31 PM
Did you bother to read the rest of my post?

Yep.

Didn't feel like writing a book on it. Main thought was teams don't win salary relief trades, they simply save money. As a fan, I could care less.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-17-2009, 05:32 PM
The worst 10 teams in baseball, record-wise:

1. WAS 22-62
2. CLE 36-54
3. SD 36-52
4. KC 37-51
5. ARI 38-51

Here's where it gets interesting. #6 through #9 (Oakland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Cincinnati) were four of the dominant teams of the 70's. In fact, those four franchises won 8 of the 10 World Series in the decade of the 70's.

6. Oakland 37-49 (1972, 1973, 1974)
7. Pittsburgh 38-50 (1971, 1979)
8. Baltimore 40-48 (1970)
9. Cincinnati 42-46 (1975, 1976)

Tied with the Reds at #9 are the New York Mets, who won a WS in 1969. So, there you have a group of 5 teams, right next to each other in the standings (#6 through #10) that won 9 of the 11 WS titles between 1969 and 1979.

Only the Yankees (1977, 1978) have dominated the 70's AND had a good 2009.

Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh have obviously struggled for a decade or more. Sad stuff from three once very proud and excellent franchises.

Texas and Milwaukee have left the category of perpetual loser, leaving this group (KC, PIT, CIN, SD, BAL, and WAS) a little smaller. And lonelier.

westofyou
07-17-2009, 05:46 PM
The worst 10 teams in baseball, record-wise:

1. WAS 22-62
2. CLE 36-54
3. SD 36-52
4. KC 37-51
5. ARI 38-51

Here's where it gets interesting. #6 through #9 (Oakland, Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and Cincinnati) were four of the dominant teams of the 70's. In fact, those four franchises won 8 of the 10 World Series in the decade of the 70's.

6. Oakland 37-49 (1972, 1973, 1974)
7. Pittsburgh 38-50 (1971, 1979)
8. Baltimore 40-48 (1970)
9. Cincinnati 42-46 (1975, 1976)

Tied with the Reds at #9 are the New York Mets, who won a WS in 1969. So, there you have a group of 5 teams, right next to each other in the standings (#6 through #10) that won 9 of the 11 WS titles between 1969 and 1979.

Only the Yankees (1977, 1978) have dominated the 70's AND had a good 2009.

Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh have obviously struggled for a decade or more. Sad stuff from three once very proud and excellent franchises.

Texas and Milwaukee have left the category of perpetual loser, leaving this group (KC, PIT, CIN, SD, BAL, and WAS) a little smaller. And lonelier.

Cincinnati, Baltimore, and Pittsburgh were all succesful in the 70's because of ground breaking scouting staffs and institualized teaching methods that transcended the need for extreme amounts of cash, in essence they were all Rickey types when it came to developing and managing players from the ML to the bigs. The Yankees jumped back in the game in the 70's when the players won free agency and they could use their money as leverage to acquire talent.

It's also impossible to ignore the fact that the three aformentioned franchises all were all owned for a stretch by non baseball folks who factored into the ensuing failures in major ways.

HokieRed
07-17-2009, 08:39 PM
Yep.

Didn't feel like writing a book on it. Main thought was teams don't win salary relief trades, they simply save money. As a fan, I could care less.

I would think that as a fan you might want to consider trades that would actually produce value, as in trading one or more of Volquez, Bruce, Votto, or Phillips--instead of repeating the same tired RZ lines about how we should deal Weathers or Maloney.

Mario-Rijo
07-17-2009, 09:00 PM
I would think that as a fan you might want to consider trades that would actually produce value, as in trading one or more of Volquez, Bruce, Votto, or Phillips--instead of repeating the same tired RZ lines about how we should deal Weathers or Maloney.

You want one of those? I got a good one for ya!

Reds get Dan Haren & Stephen Drew

D-Backs get Edinson Volquez, Yonder Alonso, Zach Cozart & Josh Roenicke

In the offseason of course when everyone is healthy.

But for the life of me I don't why anyone would offer good players for good players when teams regularly deal off good players for what appears to be such, you just have to find those teams who don't know how to evaluate what they have and what other teams have. One reason is we might be one of those teams, along with Colorado and Texas.

HokieRed
07-17-2009, 09:01 PM
You want one of those? I got a good one for ya!

Reds get Dan Haren & Stephen Drew

D-Backs get Edinson Volquez, Yonder Alonso, Zach Cozart & Josh Roenicke

In the offseason of course when everyone is healthy.


Why would Dbacks give up Haren?

Mario-Rijo
07-17-2009, 09:04 PM
Why would Dbacks give up Haren?

And that my friend is why people don't suggest those kinds of deals you speak of.

HokieRed
07-17-2009, 09:30 PM
And that my friend is why people don't suggest those kinds of deals you speak of.

Yet the most interesting and important trade this team has made did involve huge value for huge value: players any team would have wanted: Hamilton for Volquez.

M2
07-17-2009, 09:32 PM
I would think that as a fan you might want to consider trades that would actually produce value, as in trading one or more of Volquez, Bruce, Votto, or Phillips--instead of repeating the same tired RZ lines about how we should deal Weathers or Maloney.

I don't recall where I've said anything about dealing Weathers or Maloney. I just put less than zero stock giving away players for nothing in the name of saving money. It's not my money and I don't care if they save it. Don't care if they spend it either. Get good players, put together a good team. Dave Williams wasn't worth puking on.

Mario-Rijo
07-17-2009, 09:42 PM
Yet the most interesting and important trade this team has made did involve huge value for huge value: players any team would have wanted: Hamilton for Volquez.

Ok what do you suggest then?

westofyou
07-17-2009, 10:07 PM
They saved some money. So bloody what? Dave Williams was a steaming pile of refuse.

George Foster for Frank Duffy and Vern Geishert was a hosing. Honestly, I sometimes wonder if the Reds' decade in the weeds has caused people to become unstuck from reality.

Yep, Keven Mitchell for Norm Charlton was a hosing, Hal Morris for Tim Leary and Van Snider was a hosing. Dave Williams made 16 starts after he was traded from the Pirates.

I know who got hosed in that deal... everyone.

The Reds did a favor to Casey and the Pirates and screwed teh Reds, Casey should have gotten more, Williams was waste and Dunn never moved to first because Krivsky came on board and that was no longer a given.

One can argue that Dunn did not want to go to 1st, but if O'Brien was GM that was what was happening, that said the deal was a favor... and it was crappy deal.

HokieRed
07-17-2009, 10:11 PM
Casey put up a powerhouse .724 in 2006 for the Pirates and Tigers. Is that what we'd have wanted at first base?

westofyou
07-17-2009, 10:32 PM
Casey put up a powerhouse .724 in 2006 for the Pirates and Tigers. Is that what we'd have wanted at first base?

I didn't want Casey as the Reds 1st baseman, I also didn't want Dave Williams on the Reds staff.

I know why it was done, it was a monumental failure though, Casey had been the Reds starting 1st baseman for 7 years, they gave him away to his hometown team for nothing, it was bad trade. Good intentions yes, horrible failure as a trade.

Brutus
07-17-2009, 10:37 PM
I didn't want Casey as the Reds 1st baseman, I also didn't want Dave Williams on the Reds staff.

I know why it was done, it was a monumental failure though, Casey had been the Reds starting 1st baseman for 7 years, they gave him away to his hometown team for nothing, it was bad trade. Good intentions yes, horrible failure as a trade.

That's not entirely untrue, but the other issue is what do you suggest the Reds could have gotten for an immovable, light-hitting first baseman with a fairly large salary and passing his prime?

Dave Williams was a disaster. That's agreed. However, people act as if the Reds could have received anything meaningful for Casey but there's no evidence they would have or could have. I think the Reds seemed convinced they wanted to find someone to take the salary off their hands and take a flier on a fifth pitcher. The Pirates were willing participants so the Reds pulled the trigger.

In terms of talent, it was an awful deal. However, as many trades in MLB, this was not done for talent. If it were, the Reds may not have been able to trade Casey IMHO.

TheNext44
07-17-2009, 11:57 PM
That's not entirely untrue, but the other issue is what do you suggest the Reds could have gotten for an immovable, light-hitting first baseman with a fairly large salary and passing his prime?

Dave Williams was a disaster. That's agreed. However, people act as if the Reds could have received anything meaningful for Casey but there's no evidence they would have or could have. I think the Reds seemed convinced they wanted to find someone to take the salary off their hands and take a flier on a fifth pitcher. The Pirates were willing participants so the Reds pulled the trigger.

In terms of talent, it was an awful deal. However, as many trades in MLB, this was not done for talent. If it were, the Reds may not have been able to trade Casey IMHO.

Not to get off on a Casey/Williams trade tangent, because that never happens in this board, but...

If I remember correctly, the problem most Reds fans had with the trade was that O'Brien was selling it as a trade that addressed the Reds pitching needs, as well as a money move.


"Sean Casey has been an asset to this organization the last eight years, but if we're going to improve and have a chance in our division, it's going to be about pitching," Reds general manager Dan O'Brien said.


"In our minds, he [Williams] has the necessary profile to pitch in our ballpark," O'Brien said. "He's delighted to come to a team like ours that can score a lot of runs. He feels it's an opportunity for him to take a step forward in his career."

When you consider that the Pirates at the time had Zach Duke, Ian Snell, Pat Maholm, Tom Gorzelanny and Oliver Perez, it make no sense for the Reds to settle on Dave Williams. At the time of the trade, Duke was the only one considered a stud, the rest all were rated above Williams, but not by much. Perez was rated higher, but was coming off a terrible year. A perfect time to grab him.

And the Reds added $1M to the deal, so when combined with the $1.5M that Williams was making, the deal only saved around $5.5M. Why not pay that $5.5M and get Perez or Duke, or just some of it and get Snell, Gorzelanny or Maholm.

They key is that if it was a move for money, then the money should have been spent on more or better pitching. Using it to try to get Matt Morris shows how bad of a plan it really was.

GAC
07-18-2009, 09:11 AM
if Harang pitches well in the next 2 weeks, he'll be gone IMO

I tend to agree; but that 14M/year salary limits where he can go. Can (or will) this FO try to get a sound return on the guy, or will they simply just try to dump his salary if they can't?

Scrap Irony
07-18-2009, 09:52 AM
2010 Free Agent Pitchers (from Cot's)

Starting Pitchers
Josh Beckett * BOS
Erik Bedard SEA
Doug Davis ARZ
Rich Harden CHC
Tim Hudson * ATL
Randy Johnson SF
John Lackey LAA
Cliff Lee * CLE
Jason Marquis COL
Kevin Millwood * TEX
John Smoltz BOS
Jarrod Washburn SEA
Brandon Webb * ARZ

Three of the four with options are probably going back to their teams and, of the nine left, only one is clearly better than Harang. His contract is cheap as well, comparatively. In short, he's a pretty good bargain and a better bet than most.

Anyone looking to improve not only this year but next will find Harang attractive. (And that may be the first time Harang and attractive ever came that close.)

Falls City Beer
07-18-2009, 10:15 AM
This may be the season this decade where the Reds finish last in the Central.

With the way the pitching staff's going and the lack of improvement in the offense, I'd say they're well on their way. They're tanking it whether they want to be or not.

Scrap Irony
07-18-2009, 10:23 AM
Or...

It could also be the season they finish above .500.

With the way Arroyo's been going and the improvement at 3B, I'd say it's certainly possible. They're not going to come near the top pick anyway, and the front office isn't going to send anyone away to try out the young guys.

Falls City Beer
07-18-2009, 10:25 AM
Or...

It could also be the season they finish above .500.

With the way Arroyo's been going and the improvement at 3B, I'd say it's certainly possible. They're not going to come near the top pick anyway, and the front office isn't going to send anyone away to try out the young guys.

Counting on these two is, frankly, asking for trouble.

traderumor
07-18-2009, 11:28 AM
In the 21st century, I was typing that it was "homers or bust" on a nightly basis. Now the team is one dimensional going the other direction--get a great start or bust. The offense is just clearly not capable of winning any games, in the same way that relying on a good start left the team with little chance to win in prior years.

Maybe someday the organization will get more than one dimension of the game figured out in the same season instead of deeming each season "a year of transition."

Mario-Rijo
07-18-2009, 02:52 PM
I tend to agree; but that 14M/year salary limits where he can go. Can (or will) this FO try to get a sound return on the guy, or will they simply just try to dump his salary if they can't?

Both LA teams I think should have real interest and we know that LAA had plenty of money to throw around in the offseason that they didn't get to spend all of so I can see LAA as the prime landing spot for him.

Homer Bailey
07-30-2009, 10:54 AM
Just a quick update. The reds are only 6 games "back" of having the 2nd worst record in the MLB, which would then lead to the number 2 draft picking, meaning we could draft either Harper or Strasburg (if the Nats don't sign him). I'm honestly rooting for the tank.

M2
07-30-2009, 11:03 AM
Just a quick update. The reds are only 6 games "back" of having the 2nd worst record in the MLB, which would then lead to the number 2 draft picking, meaning we could draft either Harper or Strasburg (if the Nats don't sign him). I'm honestly rooting for the tank.

If they really want it bad they'll punt Harang and Arroyo and call up Jukich and Lecure.

RichRed
07-30-2009, 11:07 AM
Just a quick update. The reds are only 6 games "back" of having the 2nd worst record in the MLB, which would then lead to the number 2 draft picking, meaning we could draft either Harper or Strasburg (if the Nats don't sign him). I'm honestly rooting for the tank.

Except they'd most likely find out if Chris Gruler has a younger brother and draft him instead, citing signability factors.

Homer Bailey
07-30-2009, 11:09 AM
If they really want it bad they'll continue to pitch Harang and Arroyo.

Fixed for my little not funny joke.

Cyclone792
07-30-2009, 11:11 AM
Except they'd most likely find out if Chris Gruler has a younger brother and draft him instead, citing signability factors.

It'd be a painful decision between Gruler's brother and Sowers' brother.

klw
07-30-2009, 11:25 AM
Just a quick update. The reds are only 6 games "back" of having the 2nd worst record in the MLB, which would then lead to the number 2 draft picking, meaning we could draft either Harper or Strasburg (if the Nats don't sign him). I'm honestly rooting for the tank.

If the Nats don't sign Strasburg they would get a replacement pick after the first pick. Best pick would then be the third.

Homer Bailey
07-30-2009, 11:26 AM
If the Nats don't sign Strasburg they would get a replacement pick after the first pick. Best pick would then be the third.

They would not be able to draft Strasburg again though without his permission, so we would be able to get one of the 2.

bucksfan2
07-30-2009, 02:14 PM
I think the Reds are trying to tank it. Seriously this is awfully embarrassing.

cumberlandreds
07-30-2009, 02:22 PM
As I posted in the game thread,The Reds are in full tank mode. It will be a race to the end to see who will be last,Reds or Pirates. They have 12 big games left to play each other so it should be exciting!

Brutus
07-30-2009, 02:25 PM
I made the comments in jest, sort of. But now it seems the club is inspired to take my advice to heart.

bucksfan2
07-30-2009, 02:33 PM
They aren't hitting, they are hacking. They aren't playing defense, they are leaving the pitches out to hang. The pitchers aren't pitching, they are throwing batting practice.

I can't really blame Cueto all that much, he got a double play ball that Edwin botched. It would piss me off as well but he needs to learn to concentrate and bear down more.

MasonBuzz3
07-30-2009, 02:46 PM
It'd be a painful decision between Gruler's brother and Sowers' brother.

I've heard that Ty Howington's cousin is the next Tom Seaver

HokieRed
07-30-2009, 02:47 PM
Hard to see why change wouldn't begin with the immediate releaser of Jacoby and Pole.

BRM
07-30-2009, 02:50 PM
I don't have a problem releasing those two but it won't do anything to fix the talent deficit on the roster.

fearofpopvol1
08-02-2009, 08:00 PM
Maybe the Reds really need to become the DBacks and finish last (or near last) for a decade to really compete again.