PDA

View Full Version : Will Walt make a trade by the (7/31) trade deadline?



Pages : [1] 2

redsfandan
07-26-2009, 09:23 AM
Yes or no. Take the question anyway you want.

hebroncougar
07-26-2009, 09:24 AM
Yes, I think Arroyo will finally be moved.

Az Red
07-26-2009, 09:43 AM
Rhodes, Arroyo & Cordero: all to different teams.

klw
07-26-2009, 09:52 AM
Yes. Gomes and Rhodes, maybe Weathers.

NC Reds
07-26-2009, 10:00 AM
I think we have a veteran or two that contending clubs may want. A trade makes sense. Need to prepare for 2010.

Highlifeman21
07-26-2009, 10:11 AM
Walt will make some fluff deal that has no major impact on either the 2009 or 2010 roster.

I predict we'll remain frustrated as fans.

Scrap Irony
07-26-2009, 10:48 AM
I predict we'll remain frustrated as fans.

That would happen if Jocketty traded for Hanley Ramirez (doesn't play enough D for a SS), David Wright (too expensive and hustles too much), Roy Halladay (too old and too expensive), and the next coming of Babe Ruth.

We find ways to complain.

wheels
07-26-2009, 11:16 AM
I'm going against the grain here, and saying no.

The only thing I've come to expect from the Reds is lame inaction.

They're a feckless, unimaginative organization.

RedsManRick
07-26-2009, 11:17 AM
I voted yes, but only because I think he'll move a reliever for some relatively inconsequential return. My guess is that Rhodes goes.

Homer Bailey
07-26-2009, 11:36 AM
That would happen if Jocketty traded for Hanley Ramirez (doesn't play enough D for a SS), David Wright (too expensive and hustles too much), Roy Halladay (too old and too expensive), and the next coming of Babe Ruth.

We find ways to complain.

Right. We have to find ways to complain. This front office/team doesn't give us any reasons to complain.

Mario-Rijo
07-26-2009, 11:36 AM
I do think they make a couple of moves (that amount to a hill of beans) but I think it might be in August so I voted no.

HokieRed
07-26-2009, 11:44 AM
It's going to be very tough to trade any of the suspects favored for trading by RZers. Most have a lot less value than RZers believe, IMHO, or are monumentally overpaid--e.g. Harang, Arroyo, Gonzalez, possibly even Cordero. But I believe Walt will find a way to make some kind of minor but impact-making deal along the lines of the acquisitions of Owings and Masset. Gomes and Rhodes are probably the best candidates. If he can unload any of Harang, Arroyo, or Cordero, I'll be surprised and greatly pleased to have the salary relief, which equals future flexibility of course, something lost on previous management.

wheels
07-26-2009, 11:48 AM
I do think they make a couple of moves (that amount to a hill of beans) but I think it might be in August so I voted no.

Ahhh yes. Our GM isn't called Wait for nothing.

Wait as long as you can to make a less than essential deal.

HokieRed
07-26-2009, 11:56 AM
An "essential deal" will require Votto, Phillips, Cueto, Volquez, or Alonso. Those are what you have that other teams would regard "essential." Which one should Walt trade? and for what?

Mario-Rijo
07-26-2009, 12:10 PM
An "essential deal" will require Votto, Phillips, Cueto, Volquez, or Alonso. Those are what you have that other teams would regard "essential." Which one should Walt trade? and for what?

I'd have to disagree. You can easily make an "essential deal" without any of those guys. You can win with a good team, teams are not merely a collection of all star caliber talented individuals, but a well put together puzzle. But if they were just a collection of ultra talented individuals you could still make an essential trade without those guys. Just look at what the A's gave up for Holliday to begin with, not one player of those guys calibers IMO. Good players/prospects but not core guys.

Strikes Out Looking
07-26-2009, 12:18 PM
I say no. I believe he is now paralyzed by fear and inaction. The time to do something has passed.

membengal
07-26-2009, 12:58 PM
That would happen if Jocketty traded for Hanley Ramirez (doesn't play enough D for a SS), David Wright (too expensive and hustles too much), Roy Halladay (too old and too expensive), and the next coming of Babe Ruth.

We find ways to complain.

Scrap, I like you, but that's complete bunk.

This particular vein of criticizing those who have issues with how this team has conducted business for far too long seems rooted in us gathering around to give praise to the all knowing baseball geniuses for giving us a series of Willy T's, Corey P's, L Nix's, Joey Hamilton's, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Going back a decade.

So so so so so sorry, that some of us have gotten tired of eating manure and being told it is chocolate cake.

Sea Ray
07-26-2009, 01:15 PM
I voted yes, but only because I think he'll move a reliever for some relatively inconsequential return. My guess is that Rhodes goes.

I agree. He'll make a trade but it will be fairly minor

Scrap Irony
07-26-2009, 01:18 PM
I disagree, obviously, mem. I think many diagree with any move made because it's a move made in Cincinnati. No matter what Walt does, he can't win. Don't make a move because he believes he's close to winning (re: 2010) and he's Wait Jocketty who's paralyzed by fear and inaction. Try to make a move to improve the club (like the MLBTR assertion that he's offered for Halladay) and he's lying. Try to make a deal for now (EdE and a prospect for Rolen) and he's too little too late.

And, FWIW, I like you, too. Seriously. (Not seriously like, but, no joke, I like you and your reasoned posts.) I respectfully disagree.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 01:22 PM
Scrap, I think it's probably hyperbole to say that people would complain about acquiring Halladay, but I agree with you insofar as if Jocketty makes a somewhat controversial move, he'll not get even a hint of the benefit of the doubt, and whatever he's acquired will be Taveras and whatever he's sent out will be Rickey Henderson.

TheNext44
07-26-2009, 01:49 PM
I voted yes, but I will go out on a limb and say that Jocketty will trade either someone or for someone not aforementioned on this post or in national rumors.

Red in Chicago
07-26-2009, 01:55 PM
I disagree, obviously, mem. I think many diagree with any move made because it's a move made in Cincinnati. No matter what Walt does, he can't win. Don't make a move because he believes he's close to winning (re: 2010) and he's Wait Jocketty who's paralyzed by fear and inaction. Try to make a move to improve the club (like the MLBTR assertion that he's offered for Halladay) and he's lying. Try to make a deal for now (EdE and a prospect for Rolen) and he's too little too late.

And, FWIW, I like you, too. Seriously. (Not seriously like, but, no joke, I like you and your reasoned posts.) I respectfully disagree.

Anyone who thinks this team is close to winning, is seriously delusional. Unless of course, by "winning", you mean 82 games.

membengal
07-26-2009, 01:59 PM
Hey, I was hoping for 82. I didn't agree with the "speed and defense" canard, but I signed up emotionally to support it back in March, per usual, and financially with EI, and two trips to Cincy to go to games. Because that's what this fan does.

82 I thought. Why not us? Why not reach for the .501 stars?

Stupid dreams.

membengal
07-26-2009, 02:07 PM
By the way, what are the most noteworthy (in terms of generating fan excitement and expectations) FA signings all-time for the Reds?

Dave Parker
Greg Swindell (was he a free agent acquisition?)
Cordero

Anyone else really fit here? I don't think Greg Vaughn was all that exciting in terms of firing up a fanbase. Eric Milton? Who else? Ron Gant? He was coming off injury, I don't think he upped fan excitement on his signing...


What are the most noteworthy trade acquisitions (again in terms of generating fan excitement and expectations) since 1976?

Tom Seaver
re-acquisition of Pete Rose
Griffey Jr.
Jose Guzman?

Point is, this franchise has not really, over the last 34 or so years, done things like get a Halladay, Holliday, etc. etc. etc. We don't really have a good frame of reference for getting thrilled over an in-season acquisition or a huge franchise altering trade. This team, through a succession of ownership groups and GMs just has not really conducted business that way.

It's a really good way to beat down a fanbase. And a REAL good way to ensure a cynical reponse from fans to moves that are made.

Scrap Irony
07-26-2009, 02:16 PM
Anyone who thinks this team is close to winning, is seriously delusional. Unless of course, by "winning", you mean 82 games.

See, I disagree with that. The core of the team (Votto, Bruce, Cueto, Volquez) is outstanding and, for the moment, extremely cheap, making it easier to afford free agents and expensive extras. Not only that, you've got a really cheap bullpen/ middle relief nearly ready to pitch well and effectively in the majors (and it's cheap as well). You've also got some solid depth in the minors at a key position (CF-- Heisey and Stubbs) and a couple interesting starters in AAA (Stewart and Wood).

With a good trading deadline and an off-season to add some offensive pop, this team is close to winning. If you assume good health for key players (none of the four had an injury history before this year), the Reds could compete in the NL Central.

(It's not like the division is without question, too. The Cubs are long in the tooth and may not be willing to spend is crazy. The Cardinals may not be able to sign Holliday, Lugo, Derosa, or other free agents. The Astros are old and have no help in the minor league system. The Brewers have little pitching and expense issues. In short, everyone has something it needs to hammer out for 2010.)

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 02:20 PM
By the way, what are the most noteworthy (in terms of generating fan excitement and expectations) FA signings all-time for the Reds?

Dave Parker
Greg Swindell (was he a free agent acquisition?)

Anyone else really fit here? I don't think Greg Vaughn was all that exciting in terms of firing up a fanbase. Eric Milton? Who else? Ron Gant? He was coming off injury, I don't think he upped fan excitement on his signing...


What are the most noteworthy trade acquisitions (again in terms of generating fan excitement and expectations) since 1976?

Tom Seaver
re-acquisition of Pete Rose
Griffey Jr.
Jose Guzman?

Point is, this franchise has not really, over the last 34 or so years, done things like get a Halladay, Holliday, etc. etc. etc. We don't really have a good frame of reference for getting thrilled over an in-season acquisition or a huge franchise altering trade. This team, through a succession of ownership groups and GMs just has not really conducted business that way.

It's a really good way to beat down a fanbase. And a REAL good way to ensure a cynical reponse from fans to moves that are made.

Very true. I would only add a mortifying allergy to picking the right arms in drafts as well: Porcello and Lincecum have vaulted to the tops of their rotations, and both could have been Reds' drafts. Instead we have Mesorasco and Stubbs. This organization is full of drafting and developing schlemiels; sometimes I honestly believe that like George Constanza, they should simply do the opposite of what their gut is telling them, they're that bad.

Ltlabner
07-26-2009, 02:20 PM
Yes. It will be some around the edges moves that will be trumpeted as "real progress" and a good foundational move. Proof of a shrewd plan in motion.

Whoever we get in return will likely be a so-so player who has no real impact on RA/RS.

Many people will see what the moves really are (i.e. window dressing), some people will defend them to the death, the Reds will continue to stagger along, the season will end with folks clinging to the hope that 2010 will be different and Redszone will continue to argue about all of it.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 02:21 PM
Yes. It will be some around the edges moves that will be trumpeted as "real progress" and a good foundational move. Proof of a shrewd plan in motion.

Whoever we get in return will likely be a so-so player who has no real impact on RA/RS.

Many people will see what the moves really are (i.e. window dressing), some people will defend them to the death, the Reds will continue to stagger along, the season will end with folks clinging to the hope that 2010 will be different and Redszone will continue to argue about all of it.

What would be a good move to you?

Ltlabner
07-26-2009, 02:27 PM
What would be a good move to you?

Any move that brings us more speed and defense. I heard about all that havoc stuff in the off-season and I think Walt Van Winkle was on to something.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 02:29 PM
Any move that brings us more speed and defense. I heard about all that havoc stuff in the off-season and I think Walt Van Winkle was on to something.

I'm serious. What is foundational move to you?

Ltlabner
07-26-2009, 02:30 PM
I'm serious. What is foundational move to you?

I've made it pretty clear over a couple thousand posts.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 02:30 PM
I've made it pretty clear over a couple thousand posts.

Okay. A SS. Who?

Ltlabner
07-26-2009, 02:35 PM
Okay. A SS. Who?

Martin Bormann seemed like a real happy-go-lucky guy.

TheNext44
07-26-2009, 02:41 PM
By the way, what are the most noteworthy (in terms of generating fan excitement and expectations) FA signings all-time for the Reds?

Dave Parker
Greg Swindell (was he a free agent acquisition?)

Anyone else really fit here? I don't think Greg Vaughn was all that exciting in terms of firing up a fanbase. Eric Milton? Who else? Ron Gant? He was coming off injury, I don't think he upped fan excitement on his signing...


What are the most noteworthy trade acquisitions (again in terms of generating fan excitement and expectations) since 1976?

Tom Seaver
re-acquisition of Pete Rose
Griffey Jr.
Jose Guzman?

Point is, this franchise has not really, over the last 34 or so years, done things like get a Halladay, Holliday, etc. etc. etc. We don't really have a good frame of reference for getting thrilled over an in-season acquisition or a huge franchise altering trade. This team, through a succession of ownership groups and GMs just has not really conducted business that way.

It's a really good way to beat down a fanbase. And a REAL good way to ensure a cynical reponse from fans to moves that are made.

Just off the top of my head, big Free Agent signings to add to your list, John Smiley, Pete Schourek, Rick Mahler, Kent Merker, and Jeff Brantley. But lots of trades that you are missing.

Bill Gullickson
John Denny
John Franco
Bo Diaz
Greg Swindell (he was traded for Scott Scudder)
Norm Charlton
Kevin Mitchell
Deion Sanders
Tim Belcher
Jose Rijo
Randy Myers
Bib Roberts
Billy Hatcher
Hal Morris
Eddie Taubensee
Bret Boone
Mariano Duncan
Billy Doran
David Wells
Dave Burba
Sean Casey
Denny Neagle
Dmitri Young
Dante Bichette

I am sure there are more, but those are off the top of my head. Remember, Bowden was a trading fool for over a decade.

Patrick Bateman
07-26-2009, 02:44 PM
I'm serious. What is foundational move to you?

To me, we currently have 3 pretty gaping holes in the line-up:

1. SS
2. CF
3. LF

LF is not as pressing since there are reasonable platoon options available, but I think a 'foundation' move would be to fill one of these holes with at a minimum league average ability. In CF, I think it's just a matter of finding a platoon parter for Dickerson, at SS, it's a matter of getting a new body altogether, and in LF, it's mostly just finding a guy who can play competently against righties. Laynce Nix is basically a joke in that role.

Those to me, with the exception of the SS part, are not terribly difficult assignments, and could go a long way to improving the everyday line-up. I mean, they need another starting pitcher too, but most of the remaining problems have solutions that can fix themselves in the next few years. So my expectations would be to ensure that there are no important spots on the team that are basically filled by joke players. That can't happen on a contending team, and the Reds have a lot of them.

membengal
07-26-2009, 02:45 PM
I wasn't trying to list ALL trades. I qualified it to deals that brought in guys who got the fan base pumping. No one on your list of trades really qualifies with the possible exception of Deion Sanders. That was a decent jolt of excitement at the time. M a y b e Kevin Mitchell, although I don't remotely think people were queue'ing up for tix based on that acquisition.

I am talking about WE ARE GOING FOR IT kind of trades. This franchise has not had a lot of those. At. all.

The most noteworthy acquisition in terms of changing franchise's mindset in my view? When Dave Parker became a Red. After 1982 and 1983's debacles, his coming to the team signified a WE DON'T WANT TO BE BAD anymore kind of mindset. Coupled with Rose's "coming home" later that year, it helped lead to '85 and '86 seasons with Parker that were a breath of fresh air.

As for free agents, I will give you Smiley. The others don't remotely qualify as BIG.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 02:47 PM
I would add EdE to the list of joke players at 3rd.

I'd rank them:

1. TOR guy (not TOR impostors like Harang)
2. 3rd base
3. SS (I'd be okay with a true healthy glove-wizard; offense is gravy).
4. Power-hitting OF (don't care if it's left or right--if he's better than Bruce, then Bruce moves; it's not like he's earned rightfield).

Patrick Bateman
07-26-2009, 02:51 PM
I would add EdE to the list of joke players at 3rd.

I'd rank them:

1. TOR guy (not TOR impostors like Harang)
2. 3rd base
3. SS (I'd be okay with a true healthy glove-wizard; offense is gravy).
4. Power-hitting OF (don't care if it's left or right--if he's better than Bruce, then Bruce moves; it's not like he's earned rightfield).

At least EdE has a bat to pick up some of his weight. No doubt he's continuing to look like a below average guy, but that probably still ranks him as the 4th biggest problem in the line-up right now (which says a lot about this line-up)

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 02:53 PM
At least EdE has a bat to pick up some of his weight. No doubt he's continuing to look like a below average guy, but that probably still ranks him as the 4th biggest problem in the line-up right now (which says a lot about this line-up)

I don't know. This season EdE has been beyond useless. He has been decent in other seasons; I wouldn't mind seeing him in LF, but I wouldn't string that experiment along for too long.

Patrick Bateman
07-26-2009, 02:56 PM
I don't know. This season EdE has been beyond useless. He has been decent in other seasons; I wouldn't mind seeing him in LF, but I wouldn't string that experiment along for too long.

Well, that wrist injury at the beginning of the year likely was a partial reason for his uselessness. Since he's come back he looks like the normal .800+ OPS bat with pathetic defense.

AtomicDumpling
07-26-2009, 02:57 PM
Walt will make some fluff deal that has no major impact on either the 2009 or 2010 roster.

I predict we'll remain frustrated as fans.

I agree.

Whatever trades that are made will improve the bottom line rather than the team.

wheels
07-26-2009, 03:00 PM
An "essential deal" will require Votto, Phillips, Cueto, Volquez, or Alonso. Those are what you have that other teams would regard "essential." Which one should Walt trade? and for what?

So the Reds can only get better if they trade away their best players.

What a ridiculous assertion.

wheels
07-26-2009, 03:03 PM
By the way, what are the most noteworthy (in terms of generating fan excitement and expectations) FA signings all-time for the Reds?

Dave Parker
Greg Swindell (was he a free agent acquisition?)
Cordero

Anyone else really fit here? I don't think Greg Vaughn was all that exciting in terms of firing up a fanbase. Eric Milton? Who else? Ron Gant? He was coming off injury, I don't think he upped fan excitement on his signing...


What are the most noteworthy trade acquisitions (again in terms of generating fan excitement and expectations) since 1976?

Tom Seaver
re-acquisition of Pete Rose
Griffey Jr.
Jose Guzman?

Point is, this franchise has not really, over the last 34 or so years, done things like get a Halladay, Holliday, etc. etc. etc. We don't really have a good frame of reference for getting thrilled over an in-season acquisition or a huge franchise altering trade. This team, through a succession of ownership groups and GMs just has not really conducted business that way.

It's a really good way to beat down a fanbase. And a REAL good way to ensure a cynical reponse from fans to moves that are made.

I liked the John Smiley acquisition in 1993. He had bad year, but turned it around susequently.

Scrap Irony
07-26-2009, 03:04 PM
LtlAbner,

I'd like to know what you'd do, too. What would constitute a good move, a progressive move, wherein you'd agree the Reds are on the right track? Be as specific as possible, if you can. Name names, if possible.

Is Holliday the best move?
Can Cincinnati win back your respect with a trade for Brandon Wood? Would Miguel Tejada be an oustanding free agent pickup or does his diminishing range constitute a poor gamble?
Would you prefer, like FCB, a deal for Roy Halladay?
Inquiring minds and all that.

_Sir_Charles_
07-26-2009, 03:07 PM
Seems an appropriate thread for it....

Per Fay:

You hear all sorts of rumors as the trade deadline approaches. Here's one I heard today: Arthur Rhodes to the Dodgers for Juan Pierre.

I don't see it happening. Pierre makes $10 million next year and $8.5 million in 2011. His career on-base is .348. He's a slight upgrade over Willy Taveras. But I'd think the Reds would be looking for outfielders with more pop than Pierre.


*shudders*

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 03:10 PM
Seems an appropriate thread for it....

Per Fay:


*shudders*

I'd take on Pierre if it meant they got Kemp along with him in the deal. A payroll swap kind of thing.

Like Harang/Rhodes or Roenicke for Kemp/Pierre.

Scrap Irony
07-26-2009, 03:26 PM
Any way Cincinnati could slide Taveras in there, too? Way too many punch and judy hitters for one team, at this point. Can't imagine yet another one.

TheNext44
07-26-2009, 03:26 PM
I wasn't trying to list ALL trades. I qualified it to deals that brought in guys who got the fan base pumping. No one on your list of trades really qualifies with the possible exception of Deion Sanders. That was a decent jolt of excitement at the time. M a y b e Kevin Mitchell, although I don't remotely think people were queue'ing up for tix based on that acquisition.

I am talking about WE ARE GOING FOR IT kind of trades. This franchise has not had a lot of those. At. all.

The most noteworthy acquisition in terms of changing franchise's mindset in my view? When Dave Parker became a Red. After 1982 and 1983's debacles, his coming to the team signified a WE DON'T WANT TO BE BAD anymore kind of mindset. Coupled with Rose's "coming home" later that year, it helped lead to '85 and '86 seasons with Parker that were a breath of fresh air.

As for free agents, I will give you Smiley. The others don't remotely qualify as BIG.

Sorry, misinterpreted your post. I thought you meant trades that made a difference in terms of production.

It was a long time ago, but the Reds acquired Gullickson and Denny right around the same time, and they were considered bold moves that would get them out of second and into first. Swindell was the same a little later. And David Wells was a big time trade deadline pick up.

So I would list the following under moves that made fans optimistic about the Reds:

Parker
Rose
Seaver
Gullickson/Denny
Guzman
Wells
Smiley
Swindell
Deion
Mitchell
Vaughn
Griffey jr.


Maybe not all of these trades got the Reds to sell out season tickets, but they all made the fan base believe that the Reds were trying to win.

That's 13 in 23 years (and zero in the last 10), or one every 2 years. I'd say not counting the last 10 years, that's around average for most MLB teams.

It really has been the last 10 years in which the Reds have been sellers and not buyers. You are correct that they have done little to get a great fan base excited lately.

wheels
07-26-2009, 03:29 PM
LtlAbner,

I'd like to know what you'd do, too. What would constitute a good move, a progressive move, wherein you'd agree the Reds are on the right track? Be as specific as possible, if you can. Name names, if possible.

Is Holliday the best move?
Can Cincinnati win back your respect with a trade for Brandon Wood? Would Miguel Tejada be an oustanding free agent pickup or does his diminishing range constitute a poor gamble?
Would you prefer, like FCB, a deal for Roy Halladay?
Inquiring minds and all that.

With all due respect, why does the burden fall upon us as fans for ideas on how to fix the club? Are we the ones being paid millions of dollars to do so, with the advice of a scouting and statistical department? Let alone thirty some odd years of experience and training.

Why can't people be upset about the results we've seen?

For the record (and I've given my ideas repeatedly over the off season), yes Roy Halladay would look mighty nice at the top of the rotation. I'd be happy as long as his salary wouldn't hamstring them in regards to the rest of the roster.

Holliday is a moot point. He's in St. Louis.

I'd really be fine with a sell off, to be honest.

I'd be in favor of anything that resembles a bold course of action. If Walt dealt Harang, Arroyo, Cordero, Weathers, Rhodes, etc, I'd be totally cool with that depending on the return.

I would hope a Shortstop would be in there someplace. I dig Yunel Escobar. Do what it takes to get him here, short of Votto and Cueto and I'd be giddy. Heck, I'd be very happy if they could convince Phillips to move back to what was his original position. That would solve the SS position in house. I'd rather have Escobar, though. I don't like what I hear about Wood's defense, but his bat intrigues me. A deal for him probably wouldn't bother me. Is there a way to get one of the Texas Shortstops?

Be bold, be creative, get results. It's what these people are paid to do.

Ltlabner
07-26-2009, 03:30 PM
I'd like to know what you'd do, too. What would constitute a good move, a progressive move, wherein you'd agree the Reds are on the right track?

I've enumerated my specific wishes for this team a number of times. Search my posts if your inquiring mind must know. (hint: SS, LF, CF, more pitching)

You want names? Guess what...I don't know the rosters of every other MLB team by heart, let alone all of the farm systems. Nor do I spend 40+ hours a week working for the team. You know who does? Walt Van Winkle. He gets paid to know all the details of who's available, who fits his vision, teams that will reasonably deal with you. I'm not the one on trial....Walt is.

He's the one who's name has "GM" behind it on his business card. I can can come up with all sorts of nifty trade ideas but who gives a crap. None of us can possibly know all the details to make any of our wacky trade ideas even remotely feasible. But what I can do as a fan with a waning interest in this joke of a franchise is identify needs. There's around 750 players in MLB right this second and lord know how many in farm systems. Frankly I really don't care how Walt assembles the individual pieces as long as the puzzle looks like the picture on the box.

You want to know what this FO can do to win my respect? Get off your ass and give me a product worth buying. It's really not much more complex than that. Quit trying to package Willy Freaking Taveras as the speed & defense wizard. Quit trying to sell Jerry Hairston Jr as your big off-season signing. Quit selling your top offensive player in a decade for a so-so 5th starter and change. By the way, quit not realizing the offensive force you had in LF and appreciating what he did for your team instead of focusing on damn stupid things like if he looked angry or not. Quit hiring managers who not only ask for the gun, but load the bullets in the magazine for you. Quit saying "the losing stops now" and curl up in a ball and pee on yourself when the economy turns. Quit hiring "advisers" for your FO staff that were abject failures with previous employers. Quit going to war with three injury prone SS's and then try to sell me that its a "focus on defense". Quit trying to package the next I71 savior as "the final piece of the puzzle".

You want my respect, and more importantly dollars back? Quit trying to give me a turd sandwich and saying it's Fillet Mignon.
.

Highlifeman21
07-26-2009, 03:33 PM
Scrap, I like you, but that's complete bunk.

This particular vein of criticizing those who have issues with how this team has conducted business for far too long seems rooted in us gathering around to give praise to the all knowing baseball geniuses for giving us a series of Willy T's, Corey P's, L Nix's, Joey Hamilton's, etc. etc. etc. etc. etc. Going back a decade.

So so so so so sorry, that some of us have gotten tired of eating manure and being told it is chocolate cake.

What did Laynce Nix ever do to you?

Patrick Bateman
07-26-2009, 03:38 PM
With all due respect, why does the burden fall upon us as fans for ideas on how to fix the club?

You seriously need to post more.

The odd times that you have been checking here have been really good reads. :)

Ltlabner
07-26-2009, 03:38 PM
What did Laynce Nix ever do to you?

LaYnce Mix and His DaYnce Nix ?

wheels
07-26-2009, 03:40 PM
You seriously need to post more.

The odd times that you have been checking here have been really good reads. :)

Yeah...Sorry about that. I've always been more of an off season poster for some reason.

Good thing for you the off season usually begins right about now.:p:

Scrap Irony
07-26-2009, 03:45 PM
Why be specific?

I would like to know. Honestly. Nothing more. I'd like to see your version of what a Red SS needs to be. Telling me "good" isn't telling me anything. I want to know your definition of good, so that I may learn what your type of player is. For example, some would insist Miguel Tejada is good; others would insist he's so poor defensively that he gives away most of what he earns you offensively. Is Scutaro a good free agent signing or is this a one-year wonder kind of thing?

As for a LF, would you prefer Roy Holliday, Jason Bay, or Carl Crawford? Which one would be "best", in your estimation? Do you want offense first or is defense something worth considering a great deal?

As to CF, what'a good OPS for a CF? Would Stubbs or Heisey be decent options for 2010 or would it be best to spend serious bank on a more established CF? Who, in that case, is available?

Really, I'm trying to determine your plan of attack and all I can find is attack. I'd like to see that plan.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 03:48 PM
With all due respect, why does the burden fall upon us as fans for ideas on how to fix the club? .

Give me a baseline. So I can hold you to your demands when Walt makes a great move. So folks can't thumb their noses at an obviously smart move because it was Jocketty making the move. :cool:

edabbs44
07-26-2009, 03:52 PM
Seems an appropriate thread for it....

Per Fay:


*shudders*

The Four Horseman would drop him in Cincy on their way to their mission. It would be the end of RZ as we know it.

flyer85
07-26-2009, 03:56 PM
Rhodes for Pierre? Do it ... it would only set the franchise back another 2 years.

Ltlabner
07-26-2009, 03:58 PM
I'd like to see your version of what a Red SS needs to be. Telling me "good" isn't telling me anything.

My opinion as to what qualifies as "good" is irrelevant to the discussion. So is yours. Walt's is the only opinion that matters and based on this past year his definition of "good" is highly suspect.

There's a boatload of different ways to construct a baseball team. The variables are nearly endless. If ultimately Walt builds a team that wins, but flies in the face of my preferences in ballplayers I really won't care.

But since you're suddenly really interested, some key fundamentals I'd like to see in any player that steps on the field: solid OBP, defense that at least doesn't hurt you, someone who isn't "baseball dumb".

Pitchers: High K9 rates, low BB rates, someone who isn't "baseball dumb".

Put those puzzle pieces together in anyway you wish.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 03:59 PM
Rhodes for Pierre? Do it ... it would only set the franchise back another 2 years.

I seriously doubt that's the deal.

wheels
07-26-2009, 03:59 PM
Why be specific?

I would like to know. Honestly. Nothing more. I'd like to see your version of what a Red SS needs to be. Telling me "good" isn't telling me anything. I want to know your definition of good, so that I may learn what your type of player is. For example, some would insist Miguel Tejada is good; others would insist he's so poor defensively that he gives away most of what he earns you offensively. Is Scutaro a good free agent signing or is this a one-year wonder kind of thing?

As for a LF, would you prefer Roy Holliday, Jason Bay, or Carl Crawford? Which one would be "best", in your estimation? Do you want offense first or is defense something worth considering a great deal?

As to CF, what'a good OPS for a CF? Would Stubbs or Heisey be decent options for 2010 or would it be best to spend serious bank on a more established CF? Who, in that case, is available?

Really, I'm trying to determine your plan of attack and all I can find is attack. I'd like to see that plan.


Tejada is an old, lumbering, ex roid head. He can stay right where he is.

I love Yunel Escobar's bat, and to me, he looks smooth defensively, but might lack a little range. He'd look great next Brandon Phillips.

I like Chris Dickerson and would like to see him play every day for the rest of the season. Injuries in other places may preclude him from playing in CF every day, though. Bring up Stubbs. He's old enough to prove wether or not he can hack it.

What's a good OPS for a CF? I dunno....800? .900? 1.000? Any look at the season's statistical leaders could tell you that.

Jason Bay is awesome. Matt Holliday is going to kill in St. Louis, Carl Crawford is ridiculously fast, and can find first base. Who would have a problem with him?

I guess I don't get the line of questioning. Are we supposed to lay out a blueprint for what constitutes a good player at every position?

wheels
07-26-2009, 04:00 PM
Give me a baseline. So I can hold you to your demands when Walt makes a great move. So folks can't thumb their noses at an obviously smart move because it was Jocketty making the move. :cool:


When have I ever done that?

I honestly don't think you know me anymore.:p:

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 04:01 PM
Tejada is an old, lumbering, ex roid head. He can stay right where he is.

I love Yunel Escobar's bat, and to me, he looks smooth defensively, but might lack a little range. He'd look great next Brandon Phillips.

I like Chris Dickerson and would like to see him play every day for the rest of the season. Injuries in other places may preclude him from playing in CF every day, though. Bring up Stubbs. He's old enough to prove wether or not he can hack it.

What's a good OPS for a CF? I dunno....800? .900? 1.000? Any look at the season's statistical leaders could tell you that.

Jason Bay is awesome. Matt Holliday is going to kill in St. Louis, Carl Crawford is ridiculously fast, and can find first base. Who would have a problem with him?

I guess I don't get the line of questioning. Are we supposed to lay out a blueprint for what constitutes a good player at every position?

It's simple. Who would you target?

edabbs44
07-26-2009, 04:01 PM
My opinion as to what qualifies as "good" is irrelevant to the discussion. So is yours. Walt's is the only opinion that matters and based on this past year his definition of "good" is highly suspect.

There's a boatload of different ways to construct a baseball team. The variables are nearly endless. If ultimately Walt builds a team that wins, but flies in the face of my preferences in ballplayers I really won't care.

But your definition of good is relevant to the discussion of whether or not Walt can actually meet your expectations.

For example, everyone (including Walt) knows this team needs a SS. Everyone acts like he can stop at Shortstops R' Us and pick one or two up. Young, talented SSs are one of the rarest commodities around. You aren't getting one cheap, if you can find one that's available at all.

Brutus
07-26-2009, 04:03 PM
Rhodes for Pierre? Do it ... it would only set the franchise back another 2 years.

I don't have an insatiable appetite to acquire Pierre, but why is this? Because the Reds don't have use for a guy getting on base to the tune of .370 this season? Or a .770 OPS for a speedy type? Or that he's actually on pace to create as many runs as Brandon Phillips over the course of 600 plate appearances?

The only way he would set a team back is because of his hefty contract. Granted, I have little desire for that, but he's definitely producing.

I don't want that deal, but I'd hardly categorize that as something that would set the franchise back.

nate
07-26-2009, 04:04 PM
But your definition of good is relevant to the discussion of whether or not Walt can actually meet your expectations.

For example, everyone (including Walt) knows this team needs a SS. Everyone acts like he can stop at Shortstops R' Us and pick one or two up. Young, talented SSs are one of the rarest commodities around. You aren't getting one cheap, if you can find one that's available at all.

Everyone acts like that?

I see.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 04:04 PM
I don't have an insatiable appetite to acquire Pierre, but why is this? Because the Reds don't have use for a guy getting on base to the tune of .370 this season? Or a .770 OPS for a speedy type? Or that he's actually on pace to create as many runs as Brandon Phillips over the course of 600 plate appearances?

The only way he would set a team back is because of his hefty contract. Granted, I have little desire for that, but he's definitely producing.

I don't want that deal, but I'd hardly categorize that as something that would set the franchise back.

Fast = bad.

Stormy
07-26-2009, 04:06 PM
It's simple. Who would you target?

We called for Dye and Escobar, both of whom were ostensibly on the block prior to season. We got neither, and SS and LF have been black holes aside from a few flourishes by Gomes. What type of players would have fit the Reds needs is not the mystery, the mystery is why Walt has mostly done nothing of merit, and when he has bothered to act it's largely been to acquire the exact type of detritus the Reds should be avoiding.

Ltlabner
07-26-2009, 04:06 PM
But your definition of good is relevant to the discussion of whether or not Walt can actually meet your expectations.

I don't know how to break down any more simply: My expectations are a baseball team that wins (preferably a lot) more game than it loses. If he's done that he's met my expectations.

How he gets to that goal is (mostly) irrelevant.

edabbs44
07-26-2009, 04:07 PM
Everyone acts like that?

I see.

Sorry, make that "some". But it is irrelevant to the point of the post.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 04:07 PM
I like Chris Dickerson and would like to see him play every day for the rest of the season. ?

.715 OPS while facing considerably more righties than lefties. Starting him against everyone probably sees that number dwindle.

I agree that CF is a problem, but that the problem hardly ends with Taveras.

nate
07-26-2009, 04:07 PM
I don't have an insatiable appetite to acquire Pierre, but why is this? Because the Reds don't have use for a guy getting on base to the tune of .370 this season? Or a .770 OPS for a speedy type? Or that he's actually on pace to create as many runs as Brandon Phillips over the course of 600 plate appearances?

The only way he would set a team back is because of his hefty contract. Granted, I have little desire for that, but he's definitely producing.

I don't want that deal, but I'd hardly categorize that as something that would set the franchise back.

But when we trade for him, do we get the .370 OBP this season guy or do we get the .348 OBP for his career guy? Plus, what's the cost to the Reds? Are the Dodgers picking salary or is it a straight trade? Straight trade and I say pass. Dodgers picking up some salary or taking Taveras and sending back another player, maybe so.

edabbs44
07-26-2009, 04:08 PM
I don't know how to break down any more simply: My expectations are a baseball team that wins (preferably a lot) more game than it loses. If he's done that he's met my expectations.

How he gets to that goal is (mostly) irrelevant.

It would be safe to assume that Walt has the same goal.

HokieRed
07-26-2009, 04:08 PM
Team needs a lot more than a SS. IMHO, with Bruce out and Hernandez down, this team currently has 2 major leaguers among its position players: Votto and Phillips. The job facing Jocketty is monumental, and I see very little that can be traded on this club. Most of those mentioned by RZers will, IMO, either bring next to nothing--Weathers, Gomes, et. al.--or are too highly priced to attract much attention--Harang, Arroyo, Cordero, Gonzalez.

Ltlabner
07-26-2009, 04:09 PM
It would be safe to assume that Walt has the same goal.

Having the goal and reaching the goal are two different things.

My expectations are that he reaches the goal, not having it or how he achieves it.

nate
07-26-2009, 04:10 PM
I think the team needs an entire left side of the defense infusion and, if Owings is now going to miss time, at least two starting pitchers.

edabbs44
07-26-2009, 04:10 PM
.715 OPS while facing considerably more righties than lefties. Starting him against everyone probably sees that number dwindle.

I agree that CF is a problem, but that the problem hardly ends with Taveras.

Yep, Dickerson isn't really making a case for more playing time as of late.

Kc61
07-26-2009, 04:12 PM
Rhodes for Pierre? Do it ... it would only set the franchise back another 2 years.

This deal has to be Rhodes and Taveras for Pierre. That's the only way it makes sense at all.

Why on earth would the Reds trade Rhodes for Pierre? Salary wise, it hurts the Reds. It means that the Reds would have WT, Dickerson, Pierre, Stubbs, maybe Heisey, all lined up for the same position. It makes no sense.

However, if the Reds are dumping Taveras' salary in the deal, then it starts to make more sense. They get a better player for CF and the salary increase is offset by moving Rhodes and Taveras.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 04:14 PM
Why on earth would the Reds trade Rhodes for Pierre?

Because it fits neatly under the thesis that every move Jocketty makes is idiotic.

edabbs44
07-26-2009, 04:15 PM
Having the goal and reaching the goal are two different things.

My expectations are that he reaches the goal, not having it or how he achieves it.

You were willing to give Wayne a lot more slack than you have been willing to give Walt. Kind of odd, esp given the track histories. Why is that?

Scrap Irony
07-26-2009, 04:16 PM
If it gets rid of Taveras, I'm for it, though it'd be a hard pill to swallow. I just don't care for Pierre at all.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 04:16 PM
You were willing to give Wayne a lot more slack than you have been willing to give Walt. Kind of odd, esp given the track histories. Why is that?

It is weird. I think there was some kind of impression that Wayne was more stat-based, though in truth, he was every bit as old school as Walt. That impression probably comes from the difference in their ages.

flyer85
07-26-2009, 04:17 PM
but why is this? Because the Reds don't have use for a guy getting on base to the tune of .370 this season?

and do you believe that the real Pierre is the 2009 version? or is it the guy who over his career has proven is a .250 EQA player?

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 04:17 PM
If it gets rid of Taveras, I'm for it, though it'd be a hard pill to swallow. I just don't care for Pierre at all.

I doubt it will happen. Fay will float anything.

Brutus
07-26-2009, 04:18 PM
But when we trade for him, do we get the .370 OBP this season guy or do we get the .348 OBP for his career guy? Plus, what's the cost to the Reds? Are the Dodgers picking salary or is it a straight trade? Straight trade and I say pass. Dodgers picking up some salary or taking Taveras and sending back another player, maybe so.

I don't know which one we'll see, but his career is 25 points higher than Taveras and this year he's got an OBP 80 points higher than Taveras. He gets more doubles and triples than Willy. It's an upgrade, for sure. Maybe it's not worth the money involved, but I'd rather go into 2010 with Pierre at the top of the order than Taveras, if that's what we're looking at. Then again, I still think Drew Stubbs starts 2010 as the Reds' starting CF.

flyer85
07-26-2009, 04:19 PM
This deal has to be Rhodes and Taveras for Pierre. That's the only way it makes sense at all.
acquiring Pierre makes no sense on any level ... just like the Taveras one.

HokieRed
07-26-2009, 04:20 PM
So the Reds can only get better if they trade away their best players.

What a ridiculous assertion.

Not ridiculous at all; I've consistently advocated retaining all the players I listed. No one on any RZ board has more consistently insisted that we not trade Alonso. What's ridiculous is the suggestion--repeated on these boards ad nauseam--that we trade 4 and 5 starters like Harang and Arroyo, paid like a 1 and a 2, for people like Escobar or a combination of Taylor and Happ from Philly. You advocated creative trading; that's going to require a lot more than thinking up what overpaid people we have and then advocating trading them for prospects we'd like to have. And that's what 99% of the trade discussion on these boards amounts to.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 04:22 PM
Not ridiculous at all; I've consistently advocated retaining all the players I listed. No one on any RZ board has more consistently insisted that we not trade Alonso. What's ridiculous is the suggestion--repeated on these boards ad nauseam--that we trade 4 and 5 starters like Harang and Arroyo, paid like a 1 and a 2, for people like Escobar or a combination of Taylor and Happ from Philly. You advocated creative trading; that's going to require a lot more than thinking up what overpaid people we have and then advocating trading them for prospects we'd like to have. And that's what 99% of the trade discussion on these boards amounts to.

Phantom rep. added. Great post.

We've got the Juan Pierre of starters (Arroyo) and we want Hanley Ramirez for him. Good strategy.

Ltlabner
07-26-2009, 04:23 PM
You were willing to give Wayne a lot more slack than you have been willing to give Walt. Kind of odd, esp given the track histories. Why is that?

Partly because my understanding of the game of baseball has grown over time to understand the differences between good and bad moves. Moves that I liked in the past I may/may not like now.

Partly because Wayne had no track record and Walt does. Higher expectations are attached to those who've done it in the past.

Partly is human nature to romanticize the past compared to the misery of the present.

Partly because of your misconceptions related to how much slack I've given to each guy.

Put it all together and it's really not all that odd.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 04:24 PM
Partly because my understanding of the game of baseball has grown over time to understand the differences between good and bad moves. Moves that I liked in the past I may/may not like now.

Partly because Wayne had no track record and Walt does. Higher expectations are attached to those who've done it in the past.

Partly is human nature to romanticize the past compared to the misery of the present.

Partly because of your misconceptions related to how much slack I've given to each guy.

Put it all together and it's really not all that odd.

At least you acknowledge the distortion in your lens.

Ltlabner
07-26-2009, 04:25 PM
At least you acknowledge the distortion in your lens.

You should join me. It's fun.

LoganBuck
07-26-2009, 04:27 PM
Because it fits neatly under the thesis that every move Jocketty makes is idiotic.

He doesn't have to make the thesis a commentary on common knowledge. Yikes, Juan Freakin Pierre? My oldest son said to me this afternoon, while watching the game, "Is this why Grandpa is a Cubs fan?"

nate
07-26-2009, 04:27 PM
You should join me. It's fun.

It's funny what people say sometimes, isn't it?

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 04:30 PM
It's funny what people say sometimes, isn't it?

Certainly doesn't compare to Nazi jokes, eh?

Internet gold, those.

wheels
07-26-2009, 04:32 PM
Not ridiculous at all; I've consistently advocated retaining all the players I listed. No one on any RZ board has more consistently insisted that we not trade Alonso. What's ridiculous is the suggestion--repeated on these boards ad nauseam--that we trade 4 and 5 starters like Harang and Arroyo, paid like a 1 and a 2, for people like Escobar or a combination of Taylor and Happ from Philly. You advocated creative trading; that's going to require a lot more than thinking up what overpaid people we have and then advocating trading them for prospects we'd like to have. And that's what 99% of the trade discussion on these boards amounts to.

I want you and Falls City Beer to point to where I (I meaning me, not some imaginary hive collective) directly stated that the Reds could trade Harang or Arroyo for Escobar.

I also want you to go back and find in my posts over the last seven freaking years and find the names Taylor or J.A. Happ.

I'm sorry you guys are wounded by the critics, but you'll find that I've been demonstrably fair about most moves. If I like it, I'll say it. If I don't, I'll say it.

I don't have a particular rooting interest in regards to who the GM happens to be.

nate
07-26-2009, 04:32 PM
I don't know which one we'll see, but his career is 25 points higher than Taveras and this year he's got an OBP 80 points higher than Taveras. He gets more doubles and triples than Willy. It's an upgrade, for sure. Maybe it's not worth the money involved, but I'd rather go into 2010 with Pierre at the top of the order than Taveras, if that's what we're looking at. Then again, I still think Drew Stubbs starts 2010 as the Reds' starting CF.

So whatever the pro-rated amount of the (I think) $18.5mm left on Pierre's contract vs. Rhodes' pro-rated $4mm and Willy T's pro-rated $6mm.

$8-ish mm for Pierre? I think...err...well...I hope we would use that more wisely.

Hope springing eternal and all.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 04:34 PM
I want you and Falls City Beer to point to where I (I meaning me, not some imaginary hive collective) directly stated that the Reds could trade Harang or Arroyo for Escobar.

I also want you to go back and find in my posts over the last seven freaking years and find the names Taylor or J.A. Happ.

I'm sorry you guys are wounded by the critics, but you'll find that I've been demonstrably fair about most moves. If I like it, I'll say it. If I don't, I'll say it.

I don't have a particular rooting interest in regards to who the GM happens to be.

You're not one of the offenders, IMO.

wheels
07-26-2009, 04:43 PM
You're not one of the offenders, IMO.

See...That's what I mean.

My personal agenda is Wins. That's the thing I believe is being lost in the translation here.

Teams get better all the time, every season. Big picture-wise, why can't the Reds be one of those teams? Do other teams not have obstacles along the way? Look at what the Yanks gave up to get Swisher. Don't you think the Reds could have easily matched that deal, or surpassed it?

I couldn't care less if the GM was still Jim Bowden or Dan O'Brien. They've all produced the same results.

Let's not make it about what poster is right most of the time or wrong most of the time, or who favors one GM's hairstyle, clothing, or manner of speaking over another.

That's all just a bunch of ridiculous nonsense, and I hate it.

Highlifeman21
07-26-2009, 04:44 PM
LaYnce Mix and His DaYnce Nix ?

Y you gotta waste my flava?

Who doesn't love a good Daynce Mix?

corkedbat
07-26-2009, 04:49 PM
Seems an appropriate thread for it....

Per Fay:

You hear all sorts of rumors as the trade deadline approaches. Here's one I heard today: Arthur Rhodes to the Dodgers for Juan Pierre.

I don't see it happening. Pierre makes $10 million next year and $8.5 million in 2011. His career on-base is .348. He's a slight upgrade over Willy Taveras. But I'd think the Reds would be looking for outfielders with more pop than Pierre.

*shudders*

Heck yeah! Just do it Walt! And while you're at it, bring Patterson back. I wanna see an of of Pierre, Taveras and Patterson. Bat thethat way at the top of the order. Morbid curiosity demands it!

HokieRed
07-26-2009, 05:07 PM
I want you and Falls City Beer to point to where I (I meaning me, not some imaginary hive collective) directly stated that the Reds could trade Harang or Arroyo for Escobar.

I also want you to go back and find in my posts over the last seven freaking years and find the names Taylor or J.A. Happ.

I'm sorry you guys are wounded by the critics, but you'll find that I've been demonstrably fair about most moves. If I like it, I'll say it. If I don't, I'll say it.

I don't have a particular rooting interest in regards to who the GM happens to be.


Nothing in my post says that you suggested these trades specifically. I'm not a bit wounded. I do think your comment that my previous post was "ridiculous" was dismissive and disrespectful--particularly since you apparently didn't understand its intent--but I don't particularly care about that. I stick entirely by my assertion that 99% of the trade discussion on these boards amounts to little more than someone's thinking up somebody we'd all obviously like to move and then fantasizing about some prospect who would fill one or more of our needs. And then, if that doesn't get done, it's Walt's fault. If anything bothers me, it's the generally superior tone taken by several posters toward Jocketty and other posters. I think there's often very little serious reckoning here with just exactly how little value Walt has to work with in making the deals people would like to see.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 05:09 PM
See...That's what I mean.

My personal agenda is Wins. That's the thing I believe is being lost in the translation here.

Teams get better all the time, every season. Big picture-wise, why can't the Reds be one of those teams? Do other teams not have obstacles along the way? Look at what the Yanks gave up to get Swisher. Don't you think the Reds could have easily matched that deal, or surpassed it?

I couldn't care less if the GM was still Jim Bowden or Dan O'Brien. They've all produced the same results.

Let's not make it about what poster is right most of the time or wrong most of the time, or who favors one GM's hairstyle, clothing, or manner of speaking over another.

That's all just a bunch of ridiculous nonsense, and I hate it.

No one likes entrenched positions. I particularly hate dumb positions.

membengal
07-26-2009, 05:17 PM
What did Laynce Nix ever do to you?

He's fine. He's good for what he is. But he is incremental (at best). A placeholder, at the least. He's not the kind of bold move that takes franchise from its current doldrums and moves it to a better place.

Will M
07-26-2009, 05:43 PM
He's fine. He's good for what he is. But he is incremental (at best). A placeholder, at the least. He's not the kind of bold move that takes franchise from its current doldrums and moves it to a better place.

signing Nix was fine to bring on for competition for a bench bat.

for 2010 I am fine with offering him the same deal and compete with Dorn for a bench spot.

However, Bob C/Walt decided that Nix would be part of a LF solution for 2009.
Gomes, Nix, Taveras & JHJ were going to play LF & CF. Yikes!

Big Klu
07-26-2009, 05:50 PM
By the way, what are the most noteworthy (in terms of generating fan excitement and expectations) FA signings all-time for the Reds?

Dave Parker
Greg Swindell (was he a free agent acquisition?)
Cordero

Anyone else really fit here? I don't think Greg Vaughn was all that exciting in terms of firing up a fanbase. Eric Milton? Who else? Ron Gant? He was coming off injury, I don't think he upped fan excitement on his signing...


What are the most noteworthy trade acquisitions (again in terms of generating fan excitement and expectations) since 1976?

Tom Seaver
re-acquisition of Pete Rose
Griffey Jr.
Jose Guzman?

Point is, this franchise has not really, over the last 34 or so years, done things like get a Halladay, Holliday, etc. etc. etc. We don't really have a good frame of reference for getting thrilled over an in-season acquisition or a huge franchise altering trade. This team, through a succession of ownership groups and GMs just has not really conducted business that way.

It's a really good way to beat down a fanbase. And a REAL good way to ensure a cynical reponse from fans to moves that are made.


Greg Swindell wasn't a free agent. The Reds got him in a trade with the Indians for Jack Armstrong and Scott Scudder.

Ron Gant was signed while he was injured during the offseason, and didn't play a single game that season.

Greg Vaughn was acquired in a trade with the Padres. If I remember correctly, the original deal was Mark Sweeney for Reggie Sanders, and the Padres said that if the Reds would throw in Damian Jackson, then they would throw in Greg Vaughn (who they wanted to divest themselves of). But I know several fans who were excited about the Reds after they got Vaughn.

wheels
07-26-2009, 05:54 PM
Nothing in my post says that you suggested these trades specifically. I'm not a bit wounded. I do think your comment that my previous post was "ridiculous" was dismissive and disrespectful--particularly since you apparently didn't understand its intent--but I don't particularly care about that. I stick entirely by my assertion that 99% of the trade discussion on these boards amounts to little more than someone's thinking up somebody we'd all obviously like to move and then fantasizing about some prospect who would fill one or more of our needs. And then, if that doesn't get done, it's Walt's fault. If anything bothers me, it's the generally superior tone taken by several posters toward Jocketty and other posters. I think there's often very little serious reckoning here with just exactly how little value Walt has to work with in making the deals people would like to see.

You're right about what I said, and for that I appologize. I'm not out to offend anyone personally. I'm thick skinned about stuff like that, but don't realize other people aren't.

I was attacking your position, not you. I could have been nicer about it, though.

Once again, I can't speak for everyone, but I will re iterrate: A good portion of the population of this board are fed up with the organization, and it's futility as a whole.

It's not about Jocketty, or Krivsky, or O'brien. I used to think it was, but I'm starting to wonder if the infrastructure of the franchise, and it's inertia are the main culprits. There are other owners besides Bob Castellini, so any GM not only deals directly with the figure head in charge, but the other guys that have just as much invested, only silently.

I do think there are GM's out there that can operate under whatever parameters they are setting up, but maybe it's not Jocketty.

It's just that every year it's the same thing. They don't have the money, nobody wants to play in Cincinnati, and they don't have the talent to trade in order to get the players they need.

I get that. I'm past that.

What I want to know is, why?

Why are they in a perennialy untenable situation?

Why does every GM make the same excuses?

Why should we as fans just shut up and accept the fact that nothing will ever get better because there aren't ever gonna be enough good players or money?

It's about the big picture.

Scrap Irony
07-26-2009, 06:04 PM
Who said anything about shutting up? If anything, I want dialogue. Teach me something. I want to know.

wheels
07-26-2009, 06:23 PM
Who said anything about shutting up? If anything, I want dialogue. Teach me something. I want to know.

We've gotten our wires crossed, because I feel I've done quite a bit to articulate my position in this thread, and in thousands of my posts over the years.

If you feel like I'm just blowing off steam without any substance behind it, that's okay with me. Just come out and say it.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-26-2009, 06:28 PM
However, Bob C/Walt decided that Nix would be part of a LF solution for 2009.
Gomes, Nix, Taveras & JHJ were going to play LF & CF. Yikes!

It wasn't even THAT good. Gomes didn't make the OD roster; Darnell McDonald did. :rolleyes:

Scrap Irony
07-26-2009, 07:11 PM
We've gotten our wires crossed, because I feel I've done quite a bit to articulate my position in this thread, and in thousands of my posts over the years.

If you feel like I'm just blowing off steam without any substance behind it, that's okay with me. Just come out and say it.

It's hardly you, wheels. (Though I wouldn't mind the discussion, as that's an interesing conversation between posters that will indeed listen to and read each other's positions. I hope.)

wheels
07-26-2009, 07:35 PM
It's hardly you, wheels. (Though I wouldn't mind the discussion, as that's an interesing conversation between posters that will indeed listen to and read each other's positions. I hope.)

I should think so.:beerme:

So let me ask you something.....

Do you think successful organizations either wait for, or always have the stars aligned in their favor before they make significant moves to upgrade their respective teams?

I'm completely aware of the fact that some teams are afforded an economic advantage, but does that always mean that they're going to be successful?

My reason for asking those questions is because I sort of see it as the asker(of the "Well...What do YOU think they should do?" question) having already waved a white flag. It's sort of an acceptance of the situation, if you will.

I'm terrible when it comes to mulling over every player in all levels of every organization. It's just mind numbing. Add to that needing to know the availability of said players, and the asking price and attitude of the execs that they work for.....Blech.

I am, however very good at predicting wether a certain player already acquired by the Reds is a good fit. Look at my track record. I was publicly castigated, but privately lauded for my position on Eric Milton, for example.

I would like to try it, though. Maybe it would make for a good thread.

Btw...I'm going out to see a Puerto Rican rock n roll band right now, but I do hope you'll answer my questions. It might be 2 a.m. before I get back at you, though.

HokieRed
07-26-2009, 07:55 PM
Wheels, I'm completely about wins too. I've watched this team for 55 years and so I have actually had some experience of seeing good Reds teams. My sense of how we get to wins is by beginning with a realistic assessment of what we have and the best way to do that is to take our key from what other teams will pay for it. That's market discipline. To me, the fact Walt's not made any significant trades points to the fact we have little of value that we're actually able to trade without significantly hurting us. The other way to get to wins is to never be satisfied just to have a "league-average" player at any position (would to God we had some of those!) So, by way of realistic analysis, I'd say that going in to 2010, we have two positions covered with undeniably major league talent--1st and 2nd base. We have some hope in RF; it's possible one of Heisey, Stubbs, or Dickerson will be adequate in CF (my bet's on Heisey); a Gomes-Dorn platoon may suffice briefly in LF. We need, at a very minimum, significant upgrades at 3b, SS, and C. (while keeping a sharp eye out for outifeld upgrades as well, at all 3 spots.) It's past time to continue thinking EE will develop at 3b, none of the in-house shortstop options older than Cozart are adequate (unless Frazier can play 2b and Phillips can go to SS), and Hanigan doesn't have enough power to be a productive offense catcher everyday, IMO. So what I hear that Walt seems to be doing seems about right to me. I'm sure he's calling everybody possible to try to sell the unsellable contracts of Harang and Arroyo and I suspect he is trying to get Rolen without trading Alonso or Frazier and with EE as part of the package--so as to get us out of that financial mistake. I don't think anybody's running up white flags. It's just pretty hard to get anything valuable when you don't have much to trade.

membengal
07-26-2009, 08:10 PM
Hokie, they DO though. Part of my frustration with Wayne was not doing more of what he did with Hamilton, which was dealing value to get value. I wish he had moved Harang back in the off-season before '08 before his rather inevitable gradual decline began. A team like Cincy has to be aggressive in dealing assets too early, because waiting is deadly for a franchise under budget constraints (again, I am taking them at their word on that).

So, the one guy that has absolute value, and should be moved, this week, if the return is right, is Brandon Phllips. He's a legit plus glove at 2b, in his prime, power and speed, all that stuff, and a manageable contract. He's an asset. But the time to move him is now. When he is as shiny as possible. That's when you get value back.

If the Reds want to improve as an organization and fill needs, Phillips is the kind of player they need to move. Maybe their only such asset.

Don't get me wrong, Phillips is a nice player to have. But this team is NOT winning with him, and he may be a key toward acquiring some of the hard to get pieces that they need to target. And back-filling at 2b is far easier than back-filling, at say, SS...

They need to move Phillips. Walt wants me to sign on as some posters here have with his acumen? He makes that kind of deal this week. It's why, ultimately, I hated to see Krivsky go. The Hamilton for Volquez move was the kind of bold trade that let everyone know that the GM understood what were needs and that he was moving to address them. And that he also understood you have to give to get. In short, the kind of GM that has a chance of shaking this organization out its coma...

wheels
07-26-2009, 08:15 PM
Wheels, I'm completely about wins too. I've watched this team for 55 years and so I have actually had some experience of seeing good Reds teams. My sense of how we get to wins is by beginning with a realistic assessment of what we have and the best way to do that is to take our key from what other teams will pay for it. That's market discipline. To me, the fact Walt's not made any significant trades points to the fact we have little of value that we're actually able to trade without significantly hurting us. The other way to get to wins is to never be satisfied just to have a "league-average" player at any position (would to God we had some of those!) So, by way of realistic analysis, I'd say that going in to 2010, we have two positions covered with undeniably major league talent--1st and 2nd base. We have some hope in RF; it's possible one of Heisey, Stubbs, or Dickerson will be adequate in CF (my bet's on Heisey); a Gomes-Dorn platoon may suffice briefly in LF. We need, at a very minimum, significant upgrades at 3b, SS, and C. (while keeping a sharp eye out for outifeld upgrades as well, at all 3 spots.) It's past time to continue thinking EE will develop at 3b, none of the in-house shortstop options older than Cozart are adequate (unless Frazier can play 2b and Phillips can go to SS), and Hanigan doesn't have enough power to be a productive offense catcher everyday, IMO. So what I hear that Walt seems to be doing seems about right to me. I'm sure he's calling everybody possible to try to sell the unsellable contracts of Harang and Arroyo and I suspect he is trying to get Rolen without trading Alonso or Frazier and with EE as part of the package--so as to get us out of that financial mistake. I don't think anybody's running up white flags. It's just pretty hard to get anything valuable when you don't have much to trade.

I love the Frazier/Phillips idea. LOVE it.

I don't agree that Hanigan isn't an every day guy. His on base skills and arm more than make up for any power deficiancies.

I think that instead of another left field platoon, they need to spend some coin on an every day LF, or move Votto out there.

That's just my quick and dirty take. I'll expound when I get home.

Raisor
07-26-2009, 08:19 PM
So, the one guy that has absolute value, and should be moved, this week, if the return is right, is Brandon Phllips. He's a legit plus glove at 2b, in his prime, power and speed, all that stuff, and a manageable contract. He's an asset. But the time to move him is now. When he is as shiny as possible. That's when you get value back.

.

I said this exact thing in the offseason and got hammered for it.

. Moving him now makes a ton of sense.

GAC
07-26-2009, 08:21 PM
Looking at the overall "condition" of this team, there really is no trade deadline deal that can be made to really help this team this year - that is, to get them back into any type of contention in this weak division. Most contending teams pretty much have a firm foundation in place going into the season and then use the trade deadline to possibly find that player (even a rental) to give them that added ummph in the second half.

That's why I laughed when I heard Walt say he was looking for a RH'd bat. Need much more then that IMO. This team doesn't even possess that ummph to begin with. ;)

The only good this FO can get out of the trade deadline is to possibly get rid of a few players, like a Arroyo and/or Harang, and clear out more payroll.

Coco ain't going anywhere unless he waives his no-trade clause. And he might if it was to a contending team.

membengal
07-26-2009, 08:21 PM
I said this exact thing in the offseason and got hammered for it.

. Moving him now makes a ton of sense.

You were right then. You are right now.

He has to be moved if this team wants to take a step forward. Otherwise, it is wheel spinning of the first order.

GAC: You deal Phillips to improve next year and following years, not this one.

Raisor
07-26-2009, 08:25 PM
You were right then. You are right now.

He has to be moved if this team wants to take a step forward. Otherwise, it is wheel spinning of the first order.

GAC: You deal Phillips to improve next year and following years, not this one.

and you aren't trading Phillips due to his contract either. he's still affordable in 2010. Making 6 large in 2010 means that you can probably get more for him.

HokieRed
07-26-2009, 08:27 PM
Wheels, I'm willing to be convinced on Hanigan, but I've serious doubts he'll be able to keep up his OBP if he plays 125 or 130 games. Then you have a regular catcher with a typical catcher's kind of BA and no power. But sure I like his OBP; question is can he keep it up with the daily grind of catching regularly.
membengal, moving Phillips has a certain appeal. I do think Wheels was wrong in his earlier response to my question (meant ironically)about whether we should trade one of the big five--Votto, Phillips, Cueto, Volquez, Alonso. We have on two occasions in the last six years traded one of our very best players for a major return: Guillen for Harang, Hamilton for Volquez. But Wayne made so many other bad moves, IMO--especially on the contract side--that I think we're a whole lot better off with Walt.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 08:29 PM
I'm fine with moving Phillips. Best case he returns a pitching prospect--maybe a good one. Maybe he brings back a solid already-in-the-majors bat.

Then what? Realistically, that move probably represents a step back or lateral move in the near term (2010). I'm fine with that, but it means more waiting. There's almost no question about that.

membengal
07-26-2009, 08:29 PM
and you aren't trading Phillips due to his contract either. he's still affordable in 2010. Making 6 large in 2010 means that you can probably get more for him.

That's precisely it.

What's the first complaint teams are allegedly voicing about Harang? It's not his decreased velocity or lack of snap on his slider, it's his contract. So, IF the reds deal him, it won't be for a large prospect return, because of the contract.

Phillips? No such issues. He's at maximum value in his prime with a good contract. He's pure gold on the trade market. They want a return? They need to put him out there.

Scrap Irony
07-26-2009, 08:36 PM
So let me ask you something.....

Do you think successful organizations either wait for, or always have the stars aligned in their favor before they make significant moves to upgrade their respective teams?


Not at all. Good teams make their own breaks. And, for the better part of the last decade, the Reds have been a poor team with a poor plan.



I'm completely aware of the fact that some teams are afforded an economic advantage, but does that always mean that they're going to be successful?

My reason for asking those questions is because I sort of see it as the asker(of the "Well...What do YOU think they should do?" question) having already waved a white flag. It's sort of an acceptance of the situation, if you will.


I'm waving nothing. I don't think Cincinnati has a shot this year. Too many key injuries to key personnel. When three of your four best players are out for significant portions of the year, it's just not going to happen for any team.

But I see next season as a real good opportunity for a team seeking to make its own breaks. If Jocketty can find a SS (Brandon Wood for Bronson Arroyo and a reliever?), a 3B (Rolen for EdE and a lesser prospect?), and find a LF and SP on the free agent market (I'd personally go after Holliday and Lackey, but that's probably too much cash to spend), this team is good enough to win next season.

My problem, I guess, is when guys perpetually poo-poo any move made as poor. I was also attempting to nail down the type of player some consider "good" so as to discuss those options as opposed to mine (as discussed above).

I firmly believe it matters little what Jocketty does, he's going to get criticized simply because he's not into sabremetrics, he's too old-fashioned, he's too easy a target, whatever.

Raisor
07-26-2009, 08:36 PM
Wheels, I'm willing to be convinced on Hanigan, but I've serious doubts he'll be able to keep up his OBP if he plays 125 or 130 games. .

Can't fail if they don't try.

Team has serious serious OB issues. Need to get him as many PA's as possible.

357/438
314/410
318/400
333/436.

Hasn't mattered this year if he's gotten spot starts or if he's been the primary guy with Votto/Hernandez hurt. He's just gets on base. He seems to play good defense too. A catcher with his OBP and defense is a guy I want to see if he can be The Guy.

membengal
07-26-2009, 08:37 PM
I think you are overplaying the "saber" thing Scrap. I didn't get the sense that WK cared much for such things, either.

It's about maximizing what value the Reds have to acquire more and address needs. If Walt will do that, the criticisms will stop.

Highlifeman21
07-26-2009, 08:39 PM
He's fine. He's good for what he is. But he is incremental (at best). A placeholder, at the least. He's not the kind of bold move that takes franchise from its current doldrums and moves it to a better place.

For 2010, I'm fine with platooning Gomes and Nix in LF so we can spend money other places to address the offense.

I agree that Nix isn't a franchise changer, but IMO he doesn't hurt us either. IMO, he's a AAAA+ player.

Raisor
07-26-2009, 08:40 PM
I firmly believe it matters little what Jocketty does, he's going to get criticized simply because he's not into sabremetrics, he's too old-fashioned, he's too easy a target, whatever.

I don't care if he's gets info about players from the vodoo priest living over by Abdullah The Butcher's Chinese & BBQ joint down near Ben Hill in Atlanta. Bottom line is the bottom line.

Dude needs to bring in good players, and he needs to start yesterday.

Scrap Irony
07-26-2009, 08:41 PM
I think you are overplaying the "saber" thing Scrap. I didn't get the sense that WK cared much for such things, either.

It's about maximizing what value the Reds have to acquire more and address needs. If Walt will do that, the criticisms will stop.


I'm a sabrehead, mem. And I sincerely believe the criticism will NOT stop, no matter how well he does. But hey, that's my opinion. I could be wrong.

I hope we'll see.

Raisor
07-26-2009, 08:46 PM
I'm a sabrehead, mem. And I sincerely believe the criticism will NOT stop, no matter how well he does. But hey, that's my opinion. I could be wrong.

I hope we'll see.

Personally I'm going to keep complaining until the team makes the playoffs.

15 years is too long.

membengal
07-26-2009, 08:47 PM
I'm all over Walt, and for my part, it will absolutely stop if I get the sense that he's got an idea about how to maneuver in the straits in which this franchise finds itself. Deal value from maximum strength, aggressively address needs, and I will be the first to applaud such.

As it stands, I'm waiting. And no, I am not real patient at this point. I liked what he did in getting something of value for Jr. Well done. I will set aside the *unn thing so as not to lose this thread. I was horrified at what the off-season wrought. The signing which shall not be named had a lot to do with that. It really shook my confidence that he is up to this task.

We shall see. His next moves are crucial. Hope he is up to the task and justifies the trust that many of you have in him.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 08:49 PM
Personally I'm going to keep complaining until the team makes the playoffs.

15 years is too long.

I hear ya. Though--as is evidenced by the pitching's performance--it's going to be a while.

Some have made the case that Wayne gave Walt the riches of Croesus and a brilliant contention and pitching window. I'd say he made that window out of chewing gum and mashed potatoes.

It's back to the drawing board for this franchise. Walt will make moves and they'll be good moves. But contention's certainly not around the corner.

TheNext44
07-26-2009, 08:50 PM
I'm fine with moving Phillips. Best case he returns a pitching prospect--maybe a good one. Maybe he brings back a solid already-in-the-majors bat.

Then what? Realistically, that move probably represents a step back or lateral move in the near term (2010). I'm fine with that, but it means more waiting. There's almost no question about that.

If that's all you get for Phillips, then keep him.

The reason to trade him is that he can bring a return that helps the team now and in the future, more than he would by himself. Obviously.

He now provides gold glove defense, and top 5 offense for his position (#2 in the NL). That's why he can bring a lot.

Trading Phillips must get this team a solid everyday SS, and a league average 2B to replace him...

Or...

A real 900+ OPS cleanup hitter and a league average 3B or SS...

Or...

A solid middle rotation pitcher and a league average 2B to replace him.
A teams top 3 prospects...

Or....

any combination of like that. It might take throwing in fringe talent to get those, but that's what needed to get back if Phillips is traded.

I am all for trading Phillips if he can get a big haul that fills a big hole and significantly upgrades the team at one or more other positions, and I think he can. There is no reason to trade him for anything less.

Ron Madden
07-26-2009, 08:52 PM
I was very disappointed in Walt's off season work.

Until he makes a move I can appreciate I'll remain disappointed. ;)

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 08:52 PM
If that's all you get for Phillips, then keep him. .

Yeah. My take too. The trade market is yielding lateral moves at this time almost exclusively. No one's been getting hosed for a while.

Phillips is affordable, healthy, reasonably productive, but not so cheap that he'll bring a goodly amount in return.

Keep him, IMO.

Scrap Irony
07-26-2009, 08:57 PM
I'd deal Phillips if I could lateral my way into a SS of the same caliber. Or a 3B. Or even a #2 starter. Then, I'd play Frazier at 2B and hope he OPSes 830 or so while playing adequately in the field.

Falls City Beer
07-26-2009, 08:58 PM
I'd deal Phillips if I could lateral my way into a SS of the same caliber. Or a 3B. Or even a #2 starter. Then, I'd play Frazier at 2B and hope he OPSes 830 or so while playing adequately in the field.

That's not a bad idea.

Raisor
07-26-2009, 09:18 PM
I'd deal Phillips if I could lateral my way into a SS of the same caliber. Or a 3B. Or even a #2 starter. Then, I'd play Frazier at 2B and hope he OPSes 830 or so while playing adequately in the field.



That's not a bad idea.

I'm with you fellers.

GAC
07-26-2009, 09:27 PM
See, I disagree with that. The core of the team (Votto, Bruce, Cueto, Volquez) is outstanding and, for the moment, extremely cheap, making it easier to afford free agents and expensive extras. Not only that, you've got a really cheap bullpen/ middle relief nearly ready to pitch well and effectively in the majors (and it's cheap as well).....

With a good trading deadline and an off-season to add some offensive pop, this team is close to winning. If you assume good health for key players (none of the four had an injury history before this year), the Reds could compete in the NL Central.

I have to admit, I applaud your optimism SI.

You mentioned our "core", and list 4 players, though I'd also include Phillips. I'll even throw in EE, even though he disappoints many up to this point in his career, and 3B is not AS PRESSING a problem when I look at this team overall. If this FO would address the other areas SERIOUSLY, then EE could be a "passable" 3Bman for now.

So we have a 1Bman, 2Bman, RFer, 3Bman, and two pitchers listed as our core. And even though Bruce is still young - if he can't figure out LH'd pitching at some point, then his "star" is gonna fade real quick. He's no better, IMO, then a Nix or Gomes (who are a RH/LH platoon) other then he provides better D in the OF.

But that still leaves an awful lot of holes that need addressed.


You've also got some solid depth in the minors at a key position (CF-- Heisey and Stubbs) and a couple interesting starters in AAA (Stewart and Wood)

True. But these kids are still unproven at the ML level. As much as any organization needs to have a sound farm system, IMO, it cannot be their sole support. There has to be some balance there, and IMO, that's where this current FO fails to address.

We have 32.5M of a 74M payroll tied up in three pitchers (Arroyo, Harang, Cordero). And those contracts are not Walt's fault. But they are Walt's problem. I'd find anyway I could to dump these guys, with the main objective being to free up payroll.

I'd also clean out some more dregs at season's end where I could. I'd swallow my pride and eat WT's final year of his contract, like we did with Cormier. Give AGon his .5M buyout and say bye-bye. Hairston can walk too. I have no problem with either Gomes or Nix on the bench as UTILITY players; but that's the problem with this organization IMO....they went into the '09 season trying to fill the weaknesses they either already had, or created themselves, with players that would be lucky to be bench players on most teams.

But the first step is getting rid of those players that ain't making it.

The catching corp of Ramon and Hanigan I'd keep intact. I'd pick up RH's option for 8.5M unless a more capable replacement can be found.

THEN!... Spend the money in the off-season to address your needs. Maybe you don't get them all filled. That's highly possible. But at least you're moving in the right direction.

And finally..... I wouldn't let Dusty Baker manage any team I put on that field in 2010. I'd eat the last year of his contract too. Any guy who constructs a lineup card like what I have witnessed this year wouldn't be managing my team. When I heard the guy, earlier this year, make the statement that in this "post steroid era, speed is the answer", then the guy just don't get it. He's a big part of the problem.


(It's not like the division is without question, too. The Cubs are long in the tooth and may not be willing to spend is crazy. The Cardinals may not be able to sign Holliday, Lugo, Derosa, or other free agents. The Astros are old and have no help in the minor league system. The Brewers have little pitching and expense issues. In short, everyone has something it needs to hammer out for 2010.)

Very true, and that's what makes 2009 so frustrating. This division was winnable, and this FO sat on their hands.

GAC
07-26-2009, 09:34 PM
GAC: You deal Phillips to improve next year and following years, not this one.

Why deal Phillips? You're taking away another asset and creating another hole to fill a hole where? BP stays on my team. This FO has other options it can follow to improve this team in 2010 IMO without having to divest itself of one of the best 2Bman in the league, and maybe the best defensively.

Ltlabner
07-26-2009, 09:38 PM
I firmly believe it matters little what Jocketty does, he's going to get criticized simply because he's not into sabremetrics, he's too old-fashioned, he's too easy a target, whatever.

Completely and utterly untrue. He's getting hammered for a lack of action and some suspect moves when he did make them.

I think he pulled off a coup getting Masset for Griffey Jr. Said so at the time. Not because Masset is the next Cy Young, but because Walt got a useful piece for a useless one and opened up room on the roster for Bruce (whether he becomes what we hope is another story).

I like the Hernandez/Hannigan arrangement. Not that Hernandez is Bench v.2009 but there's been incremental improvement and he's utilizing Hannigan which is what a team like the Reds has to do. They absolutely must have a stream of guys who aren't world beaters, but provide a couple of years of serviceable production before being moved on.

Rhodes was a good pickup also, especially if he replaces Weathers as the "sage old hand" on the bench.

So it's complete bunk to say some of us will dog him no matter what he does. He's made a couple of decent moves. Unfortunately, his bad moves have far offset the good ones and the timidity with which he's operated since November-ish has only made things worse.

membengal
07-26-2009, 09:44 PM
Why deal Phillips? You're taking away another asset and creating another hole to fill a hole where? BP stays on my team. This FO has other options it can follow to improve this team in 2010 IMO without having to divest itself of one of the best 2Bman in the league, and maybe the best defensively.

Because he is the ONE asset that can bring back things that fill needs on this club, and 2b can be back-filled much easier. I happen to think the idea floated above of Frazier to 2b is a good one, IF a Phillips trade has helped fill the gap at SS and maybe with a SP.

GAC, they are NOT winning with him, can he be turned into pieces that address that? Because, and here's the danger, they wait, don't deal him now while he has value, and circa Harang/Arroyo from two years ago, wait too long until Phillips is prohibitively expensive in the market or gets past his prime and the bloom comes off the rose so to speak.

They want to maximize value? They deal Phillips.

They want to spin their wheels? They deal the obvious ones for less than value because of their contracts.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

edabbs44
07-26-2009, 10:18 PM
Completely and utterly untrue. He's getting hammered for a lack of action and some suspect moves when he did make them.

I think he pulled off a coup getting Masset for Griffey Jr. Said so at the time. Not because Masset is the next Cy Young, but because Walt got a useful piece for a useless one and opened up room on the roster for Bruce (whether he becomes what we hope is another story).

I like the Hernandez/Hannigan arrangement. Not that Hernandez is Bench v.2009 but there's been incremental improvement and he's utilizing Hannigan which is what a team like the Reds has to do. They absolutely must have a stream of guys who aren't world beaters, but provide a couple of years of serviceable production before being moved on.

Rhodes was a good pickup also, especially if he replaces Weathers as the "sage old hand" on the bench.

So it's complete bunk to say some of us will dog him no matter what he does. He's made a couple of decent moves. Unfortunately, his bad moves have far offset the good ones and the timidity with which he's operated since November-ish has only made things worse.

Do you think that he might be restricted due to multiple questionable contracts dished out by his predecessor?

I think Walt has been the polar opposite than Wayne was. Wayne would pick guys up and drop them like he was in a rotisserie league, especially in his first year. He was OCD like with the roster.

Walt, on the other hand, hasn't been a lunatic. Could he have been more aggressive so far? Probably, but only with cheapish, shot in the dark types due to the bad contracts clogging up his Citibank like balance sheet. There is no way he'd easily be able to get someone of true value without either taking on a buttload of cash or giving up one of the younger talented guys, or even both. Just because he isn't acquiring and releasing guys on an almost daily basis doesn't mean he isn't doing his job.

Hopefully he can move some money off the books this week, giving him the freedom and flexibility to do the things he should be able to do as GM. Right now, we don't even know if he has the freedom to do what he needs to do.

Scrap Irony
07-26-2009, 10:18 PM
Completely and utterly untrue. He's getting hammered for a lack of action and some suspect moves when he did make them.

I think he pulled off a coup getting Masset for Griffey Jr. Said so at the time.


No, what you said at the time was,
Holy crap! Who's going to hit third now?



I like the Hernandez/Hannigan arrangement. Not that Hernandez is Bench v.2009 but there's been incremental improvement and he's utilizing Hannigan which is what a team like the Reds has to do. They absolutely must have a stream of guys who aren't world beaters, but provide a couple of years of serviceable production before being moved on.


At the time, you said, "
Not thrilled about the move as hypothisized but if we can take the catching position from the suck that was Bako to mearly average that is significant improvement. Especially considering the curent state of the catching core.

A platoon with him and Hannigan isn't optimal, but it's (on paper) workable.

Not exactly a ringing endorsement.



Rhodes was a good pickup also, especially if he replaces Weathers as the "sage old hand" on the bench.


You actually didn't say that either. The only comment, at the time of the move, was to dog FCB about his alliegence to Jocketty. No mention of Rhodes at all.



So it's complete bunk to say some of us will dog him no matter what he does.


Okay. But maybe I'm right, too?

wheels
07-27-2009, 02:41 AM
I really like the way this thread has turned in the last few hours.

Hokie...I just want to appologize once more.

Scrap....You did a fine job of calling me to the carpet, waking me from my in season slumber. Because of that, this has become one of the greatest threads in Redszone's history (I'm not just saying that because I've been drinking).

I do think you're right that a few of us have been a little tough on Walt, but I don't think that it's because of a bias against him, per se. I ask what do we have to go on?

I still believe in his acumen. I know he's a good judge of talent. His acquistions of Larry Walker and Will Clark are clear evidence of that, but where are the Reds' version of those players?

I feel like we've been cheated, and that's got nothing to do with sabermetrics (and I love me some sabermatrics) or hairstyles, or pants, or binders, etc.

Walt has been around long enough to answer for deals or the lack thereof on his own merits.

From my end (and from what I can tell from the positions of some seriously smart posters), it's not a personal issue. I just want better players. If we get caught up in the politics of it all, nothing productive can come of it.

It's our job as fans to call them out on the b.s. when we see it.

Nobody gets a free ride on Redszone. That's what makes all of us totally awesome.

And, seriously....Kudos to you and HokieRed for keeping us honest. I just don't want anyone to think that I'm not having fun with this stuff.

I'm a dissenter by nature, but when it comes to Baseball, I'd like to think that I'm pretty entertaining. At least, that's my goal, anyway.

wheels
07-27-2009, 02:44 AM
Oh...And by the way.

I get totally offended when anyone uses the phrase "spinning their wheels".

It's a derisive term that I find utterly demeaning.:D

wheels
07-27-2009, 02:54 AM
Because he is the ONE asset that can bring back things that fill needs on this club, and 2b can be back-filled much easier. I happen to think the idea floated above of Frazier to 2b is a good one, IF a Phillips trade has helped fill the gap at SS and maybe with a SP.

GAC, they are NOT winning with him, can he be turned into pieces that address that? Because, and here's the danger, they wait, don't deal him now while he has value, and circa Harang/Arroyo from two years ago, wait too long until Phillips is prohibitively expensive in the market or gets past his prime and the bloom comes off the rose so to speak.

They want to maximize value? They deal Phillips.

They want to spin their wheels? They deal the obvious ones for less than value because of their contracts.

Wash. Rinse. Repeat.

I completely agree that Phillips might be their best trading chip.

I just wonder if he couldn't be just as valuable to the club if he simply switched positions.

What he could bring in trade could possibly be dwarfed by his value as a Shortstop.

My plan would be to ask him one more time to swap positions. If he says no, trade him.

I think we all know that he can field that position. He's got the range and the arm, plus his bat really looks better at short than it does at second.

I would be willing to gamble that Frazier or Valaika could play second if that were to happen.

So, in my bizarro world they've got left field and arguably third base to fill, as well as another big time arm for the rotation. I like a Dickerson/Stubbs platoon in Center, and I believe Jay Bruce will be a star.

If Walt could just fill one or two of those spots with an impact player, were talking playoffs in '10.

I seriously believe that.

Ltlabner
07-27-2009, 05:52 AM
No, what you said at the time was,

1) Check your sarcasm meter

2) Both my comments about the catchers were the same. Not sure where the confusion lies.

3) My opinion of the Rhodes move has changed over time. Sue me. I wasn't thrilled at first, and now I recognize that Walt made the right move. I'd think that would thrill you to no end.

You apparently seem to have (1) been very bored last night (2) have a bug in your butt regarding my dislike for the direction (or lack of direction) Walt's been taking. In various threads/posts you've demanded I provide specific plans, detailed responses and now even my positive comments regarding Walt apparently aren't meeting your approval.

Perhaps you can share with the class why it's such a bad thing to want more from your team? Why it's so "out of bounds" to expect your GM to make solid moves and not try to sell you crap as steak? Why is it not acceptable for a fan to point out that this franchise as a whole is been trapped in suckville this entire century? Perhaps you can detail what's so horrific about pointing out how obvious areas of need were left unaddressed and "solutions" to other areas were lacking?

And I'm not talking about your views on my dissent (i.e. "you're being unreasonable), I'm talking about dissent in general. What exactly has Walt done here that makes him immune from complaint? His track record and history give me more hope that he's going to build something nice, but it doesn't give him a get-out-of-jail card when he screws the pooch.

edabbs44
07-27-2009, 09:35 AM
And I'm not talking about your views on my dissent (i.e. "you're being unreasonable), I'm talking about dissent in general. What exactly has Walt done here that makes him immune from complaint? His track record and history give me more hope that he's going to build something nice, but it doesn't give him a get-out-of-jail card when he screws the pooch.

Has he really screwed the pooch yet? He's been in charge for a little more than a calendar year and the one off-season he has been in charge he had to deal with the financial crisis of '09. No one is trading young players like Cincy needs. He is stuck with a bunch of difficult contracts that extend past this year. He has had crazy injuries to deal with, which now changes his targets from help for this year (i.e. expiring contract veterans) to help for next year and beyond (a lot more difficult to acquire, unless the guy is overpaid).

While he hasn't done much to help the current roster in the long-term, he hasn't done much to hurt it as well. He didn't panic and outbid everyone for Bradley. He didn't freak and take on Lugo's contract. He didn't go out and trade Stubbs for Pierre (at least not yet). He knows what he has and he knows what he has to do. Now he just needs to have the means to do it, which I think is his biggest hurdle.

Az Red
07-27-2009, 09:36 AM
Walt tried and tried and tried to catch lightning in a bottle this year. Didn't happen! He now has 2 months to evalute who he is ging to keep for next year. If he keeps this team 'as is' expect another 'as is' season in 2010.

But, I don't expect Walt to accept 'as is'....(one moment as a say a quick prayer)...

REDREAD
07-27-2009, 09:37 AM
Dave Parker
Greg Swindell (was he a free agent acquisition?)
Cordero

Anyone else really fit here? I don't think Greg Vaughn was all that exciting in terms of firing up a fanbase. Eric Milton? Who else? Ron Gant? He was coming off injury, I don't think he upped fan excitement on his signing...



Swindell was a trade (short rental) John Smiley was the big name FA that replaced Swindell after he left. Neagle got me excited. Apparently Vaughn sold a lot of tickets if you believe the Reds (which you have every reason not to believe :) )

Your point is sound though. Over history, the Reds haven't exactly pursued impact players outside the organization. I was hoping that would change under Cast. Obviously, Allen/Lindner blocked attempts to get Rolen, Penny, etc. With Cast, I am not so sure. He did approve Cordero and several other big contracts (sadly, most were ill advised). We would've never seen Harang and Arroyo get the contracts they did under Lindner. Phillips too. Maybe some of them were signed when Carl was still here, but by then, Carl knew he wasn't going to be around to pay for them.

Maybe it's grasping at straws, but I have to hold on to the hope that if Walt was somehow able to swing a deal for a Halladay, Cast would at least consider it.

Scrap Irony
07-27-2009, 09:45 AM
No sarcasm, abner, just research. Really. I am trying to keep you honest, though. Not that you're trying to purposefully lie to us here on Redszone. You simply mis-remembered. I do that. (Ask my wife.)

And there's nothing wrong with calling crap on the GM. He may even deserve it. But you might want to check those biases, that's all.

And it's not like he's been in the ideal situation. Small market. Big contracts. Economy. Yadda, yadda, yadda.

Could he have done better in the off-season? Sure. Does he deserve the vitriol you give him? IMO, not yet.

Highlifeman21
07-27-2009, 09:47 AM
Has he really screwed the pooch yet? He's been in charge for a little more than a calendar year and the one off-season he has been in charge he had to deal with the financial crisis of '09. No one is trading young players like Cincy needs. He is stuck with a bunch of difficult contracts that extend past this year. He has had crazy injuries to deal with, which now changes his targets from help for this year (i.e. expiring contract veterans) to help for next year and beyond (a lot more difficult to acquire, unless the guy is overpaid).

While he hasn't done much to help the current roster in the long-term, he hasn't done much to hurt it as well. He didn't panic and outbid everyone for Bradley. He didn't freak and take on Lugo's contract. He didn't go out and trade Stubbs for Pierre (at least not yet). He knows what he has and he knows what he has to do. Now he just needs to have the means to do it, which I think is his biggest hurdle.

If Walt's way to deal with the financial crisis of '09 is to sign Willy Taveras to a 2 year deal, then he's definitely screwed the pooch.

If Walt's way to deal with the financial crisis of '09 is to sign Mike Lincoln to a 2 year deal, then he's definitely screwed the pooch.

If Walt doesn't move BOTH Rhodes & Weathers before July 31st, then he's definitely screwed the pooch.

From a 25 man roster standpoint, Walt screwed the pooch on Opening Day when Darnell McDonald was on the team rather than Jonny Gomes.

So, even though people want to give Walt a pass for supposedly having his hands tied thanks to Wayne, Walt's made plenty of bad moves to help shape the Reds.

If Walt wants to un-screw the pooch, then move some of those albatross contracts, rather than just writing them off as deadweight loss and maintaining the status quo.

Ltlabner
07-27-2009, 09:48 AM
Has he really screwed the pooch yet?

While he hasn't done much to help the current roster in the long-term...

I think you answered your own question.

My complaints about his moves for this year are pretty well known so no need rehashing. But your take is interesting. I guess I just don't buy the "he didn't get any big albatross contracts so he's doing ok" argument. That's like saying, "Walt didn't go nuts and punch an intern in the face so he's a good GM". Not making any big blunders is sort of a minimum daily requirement in my book.

Ltlabner
07-27-2009, 09:52 AM
No sarcasm, abner, just research. Really. I am trying to keep you honest, though. Not that you're trying to purposefully lie to us here on Redszone. You simply mis-remembered. I do that. (Ask my wife.)

Could he have done better in the off-season? Sure. Does he deserve the vitriol you give him? IMO, not yet.

That's interesting considering you showed nowhere where I "misremembered anything".

Pointing out my disagreements with the almighty Walt is not "vitriol". It's called discussion which is kinda the point of an internet sports forum.

And all of this is really interesting since Walt is the one on trial, not me.

Ltlabner
07-27-2009, 09:55 AM
So, even though people want to give Walt a pass for supposedly having his hands tied thanks to Wayne, Walt's made plenty of bad moves to help shape the Reds.

Wayne definitely made mistakes.

But this sudden push-back against any criticism of Walt is amusing.

Highlifeman21
07-27-2009, 09:57 AM
That's interesting considering you showed nowhere where I "misremembered anything".

Pointing out my disagreements with the almighty Walt is not "vitriol". It's called discussion which is kinda the point of an internet sports forum.

And all of this is really interesting since Walt is the one on trial, not me.

I guarantee Walt doesn't care about the court of public opinion, and based on the results delivered to the fans by the Reds over The Lost Decade, they don't care about the court of public opinion either.

That means it's time for us to go at each other, b/c it's obvious the Reds' FO doesn't care about the fans. If they cared, they wouldn't have given us a Lost Decade.

So yeah Ltlabner, how dare you for disagreeing with Walt?!?!

edabbs44
07-27-2009, 09:59 AM
I think you answered your own question.

My complaints about his moves for this year are pretty well known. But your take is interesting. I guess I just don't buy the "he didn't get any big albatross contracts so he's doing ok" argument. That's like saying, "Walt didn't go nuts and punch an intern in the face so he's a good GM". Not making any big blunders is sort of a minimum daily requirement in my book.

If punching interns in the face are common place in the industry and happened on more than one occasion with his predecessor, then it would be a positive for him.

But seriously, I do think that not freaking out and signing panic contracts are a positive attribute for a GM. To me, Walt appears to be doing what he should be doing. Not locking up a lot of money, spending in the draft and on foreign amateurs, waiting for this team to mature and looking to acquire guys on his terms. At least this is what I hope he is doing. I'm gald he isn't getting into bidding wars with himself or trying to win right now without really trying too hard.

If he wants to throw a couple of short term contracts to guys that might work out, then that's fine. Don't kill the future but let him play GM a little bit while he is waiting. My belief is that he targeted cheaper guys in free agency who might bring something down the road, whether it is through comp picks or deadline deals. Lincoln didn't work out, but Rhodes has. Taveras hasn't been good, but Gomes has been very solid.

REDREAD
07-27-2009, 10:01 AM
If Walt's way to deal with the financial crisis of '09 is to sign Mike Lincoln to a 2 year deal, then he's definitely screwed the pooch.
.

Taveras is a legitimate complaint. Lincoln is not.
When you sign three veteran FA relievers, and 2 perform well, and the third gets a neck injury, you are doing good.

I can't recall anyone complaining about the Lincoln signing at the time. Maybe there was one or two, but they were not complaining loudly. It's only 2 million/year IIRC. That's a disappointment, but not screwing the pooch. Was it reasonable at the time to expect Lincoln to earn his money? Yes, it was. That's different than signing a high risk guy like Stanton.

Injuries happen. No one is saying that Volquez was a horrible trade, despite the fact that he's spent a lot of time on the DL. Pitchers get hurt sometimes.

Scrap Irony
07-27-2009, 10:01 AM
Wow. Ummm, okay. I guess we'll have to disagree on that as well. I would call a discussion something where sides of an argument can support their viewpoints with evidence in civil, rational tones. But hey, whatever floats your boat, man.

Ltlabner
07-27-2009, 10:01 AM
I guarantee Walt doesn't care about the court of public opinion, and based on the results delivered to the fans by the Reds over The Lost Decade, they don't care about the court of public opinion either.


Interesting point.

The Reds have dug themselves a hole so deep with the fans, can they possibly win with back fans without spending big dollars to get players who win baseball games?

Even when coupled with the worlds best marketing blitz of all time I don't think a long rebuilding process is going to do anything other than alienate more fans.

A 3 year plan doesn't have much hope of doing much either if they are winning 3 or 4 more games each year.

Ultimately, they've dug the hole so deep they may have to go hog wild with the spending to "shock and awe" the fans back into interest in the Reds.

Highlifeman21
07-27-2009, 10:03 AM
Wayne definitely made mistakes.

But this sudden push-back against any criticism of Walt is amusing.

Maybe people bought into the dream that THE LOSING STOPS NOW once we moved Dunn and Griffey, since, after all, we didn't win squat with them in town, so with them gone this had to be our year, right?

Speed, defense, better pitching, 2009 was supposed to be our year!

That's all fine and dandy, except we're not getting on base to use that speed. When we are on base, we still aren't using the speed. I'd only argue that the defense is marginally better, and the pitching is still meh.

So, maybe Walt's the pied piper, and those of us not enchanted by his flute (it was a flute, right?) aren't allowed to grade Walt to this point.

Can't wait to see what kind of Kool Aid the FO tries to sell the fans between now and July 31st.

edabbs44
07-27-2009, 10:11 AM
If Walt's way to deal with the financial crisis of '09 is to sign Willy Taveras to a 2 year deal, then he's definitely screwed the pooch.

If Walt's way to deal with the financial crisis of '09 is to sign Mike Lincoln to a 2 year deal, then he's definitely screwed the pooch.

A little harsh. He had little financial wiggle room and made a few risky acquisitions that didn't work. In the end, it won't hurt this team much. These moves just seem like they are really bad b/c people cannot stop harping on Taveras. But WT cost what, $6MM over 2 years? That's like a rounding error when talking about what is really financially hurting this team.


If Walt doesn't move BOTH Rhodes & Weathers before July 31st, then he's definitely screwed the pooch.

But he didn't screw the pooch when acquiring them, correct?


From a 25 man roster standpoint, Walt screwed the pooch on Opening Day when Darnell McDonald was on the team rather than Jonny Gomes.

Yeah, no excuse there. But I would think that he gave Dusty that decision and finally pulled the plug when he did. I wonder if that were really the case. Just my theory. But bottom line, Walt takes some blame here.


So, even though people want to give Walt a pass for supposedly having his hands tied thanks to Wayne, Walt's made plenty of bad moves to help shape the Reds.

Plenty? Not really. Any bad move that he made can be easily rectified with minimal future impact. That's the difference.


If Walt wants to un-screw the pooch, then move some of those albatross contracts, rather than just writing them off as deadweight loss and maintaining the status quo.

The Wayne albatrosses of 2009 (Harang, Arroyo and Cordero) cannot be moved without stepping up to the dinner plate. Moving any of those will be a difficult task.

Highlifeman21
07-27-2009, 10:30 AM
A little harsh. He had little financial wiggle room and made a few risky acquisitions that didn't work. In the end, it won't hurt this team much. These moves just seem like they are really bad b/c people cannot stop harping on Taveras. But WT cost what, $6MM over 2 years? That's like a rounding error when talking about what is really financially hurting this team.

Little financial wiggle room, and Walt's acting like the kid from Empire Records (Lucas I think was his name) trying to save the record store by going to Atlantic City and doubling up the money and ultimately losing it all. If you have little financial wiggle room, don't make risky acquisitions you can't afford to fail. Make safe, short term moves (aka stop gaps).

Taveras on the hook for $4 Mil next year will hurt the team. Lincoln may not pitch next year but will definitely get paid, so that'll hurt the team. Even in Lincoln gets "healthy", will he help the team?



But he didn't screw the pooch when acquiring them (Weathers & Rhodes), correct?

Weathers was already in-house, but he overpaid him to keep him. Rhodes was a good pick up, but he'll be 40 next year, so flip him now while his arm's still attached. Neither Weathers nor Rhodes should be in the Reds plans post 2009.




Yeah, no excuse there. But I would think that he gave Dusty that decision and finally pulled the plug when he did. I wonder if that were really the case. Just my theory. But bottom line, Walt takes some blame here.

Walt takes more blame if he let The Dusty pick I'm Lovin' It for the final roster spot. Walt's the GM, The Dusty's unfortunately the manager. Walt needs to evaluate talent and make player personnel moves. Sure, he'll get The Dusty's input (and I fully expect that), but at the end of the day Walt's the one making roster moves. Buck stops with him.




Plenty? Not really. Any bad move that he made can be easily rectified with minimal future impact. That's the difference.

Hoping that JHJ would put up 2008 numbers in 2009 was a bad bet. Taveras was a bad move. Walt's handled Bailey horribly as well. So, between Hairston and Taveras, you're looking at giving 2 offensive black holes WAAAAAAAY too many PAs, which hurt the team immensely. When it comes to Bailey, Walt's remained consistent with other Reds GMs of mishandling Bailey, which clearly hasn't helped his horrible development. I'm not convinced his bad moves are easily rectified with minimal future impact. To help undo his bad moves, we're looking at essentially paying guys to NOT play for the Reds in 2010.


The Wayne albatrosses of 2009 (Harang, Arroyo and Cordero) cannot be moved without stepping up to the dinner plate. Moving any of those will be a difficult task.

So step up to the dinner plate. While I know Cordero wants to get paid, can anyone make a valid argument that he doesn't want to get paid by a winning team? Send him to the Dodgers, they could use some bullpen. Send him to the Phillies, since Lidge isn't the most reliable. There are plenty of teams fighting for the playoffs out there that could use Cordero's services. I can't imagine Cordero wouldn't want to pitch for a winner.

Give Arroyo away. The Reds are better with the payflex than by hanging onto that ugly contract. The 2 Live Stews on ESPN First Take just said that the Phillies could go after Arroyo if the Halladay deal falls through. Make THAT happen, Walt.

I'll concede Harang to you. I'm 100% on the fence between trade and keep. I think we need to keep him b/c his trade value is low, but also will he regain some of his prior self? If not, then his contract is even worse in 2010, and he turns into Griffey-lite.

edabbs44
07-27-2009, 10:35 AM
Interesting point.

The Reds have dug themselves a hole so deep with the fans, can they possibly win with back fans without spending big dollars to get players who win baseball games?

Even when coupled with the worlds best marketing blitz of all time I don't think a long rebuilding process is going to do anything other than alienate more fans.

A 3 year plan doesn't have much hope of doing much either if they are winning 3 or 4 more games each year.

Ultimately, they've dug the hole so deep they may have to go hog wild with the spending to "shock and awe" the fans back into interest in the Reds.

The funny thing is that, sooner or later, you will have to either spend a lot of money quickly or dump what you have and pull off the true 3-4 year rebuilding plan. You can't try and do both. I think most people know that this was my #1 beef with what Kriv was doing. He wasn't going 100% either way and we are now stuck with a few large, dumb contracts with a crap team.

Everyone is scared of pissing off the fan base while trying to rebuild. The sad thing is that we've had rebuilding results on the field w/o rebuilding. So maybe we haven't pissed off Joe Fan by announcing that we are going to suck for the next few years while rebuilding, but now we have guys like Cordero eating up payroll while we are still bleeding out on a nightly basis. If they did it right a few years ago, we'd be in a much better spot than we are in now with very similar results.

Highlifeman21
07-27-2009, 10:36 AM
The funny thing is that, sooner or later, you will have to either spend a lot of money quickly or dump what you have and pull off the true 3-4 year rebuilding plan. You can't try and do both. I think most people know that this was my #1 beef with what Kriv was doing. He wasn't going 100% either way and we are now stuck with a few large, dumb contracts with a crap team.

Everyone is scared of pissing off the fan base while trying to rebuild. The sad thing is that we've had rebuilding results on the field w/o rebuilding. So maybe we haven't pissed off Joe Fan by announcing that we are going to suck for the next few years while rebuilding, but now we have guys like Cordero eating up payroll while we are still bleeding out on a nightly basis. If they did it right a few years ago, we'd be in a much better spot than we are in now with very similar results.

I'd rather see 2003 happen again, but this time do it right.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 10:38 AM
I'd rather see 2003 happen again, but this time do it right.

The likelihood of getting a Harang for a Guillen in this market is slim.

edabbs44
07-27-2009, 10:42 AM
Little financial wiggle room, and Walt's acting like the kid from Empire Records (Lucas I think was his name) trying to save the record store by going to Atlantic City and doubling up the money and ultimately losing it all.

Great scene.


So step up to the dinner plate. While I know Cordero wants to get paid, can anyone make a valid argument that he doesn't want to get paid by a winning team? Send him to the Dodgers, they could use some bullpen. Send him to the Phillies, since Lidge isn't the most reliable. There are plenty of teams fighting for the playoffs out there that could use Cordero's services. I can't imagine Cordero wouldn't want to pitch for a winner.

Give Arroyo away. The Reds are better with the payflex than by hanging onto that ugly contract. The 2 Live Stews on ESPN First Take just said that the Phillies could go after Arroyo if the Halladay deal falls through. Make THAT happen, Walt.

I'll concede Harang to you. I'm 100% on the fence between trade and keep. I think we need to keep him b/c his trade value is low, but also will he regain some of his prior self? If not, then his contract is even worse in 2010, and he turns into Griffey-lite.

Regarding Arroyo and Cordero, the problem is that you can't give them away. No one will take Arroyo for free. Cincy will have to pay part of his salary. Same with Cordero. Philly isn't going to take Cordero's contract as is when they have Lidge on the books for what he is getting.

That's the problem.

nate
07-27-2009, 10:50 AM
Has he really screwed the pooch yet? He's been in charge for a little more than a calendar year and the one off-season he has been in charge he had to deal with the financial crisis of '09. No one is trading young players like Cincy needs. He is stuck with a bunch of difficult contracts that extend past this year. He has had crazy injuries to deal with, which now changes his targets from help for this year (i.e. expiring contract veterans) to help for next year and beyond (a lot more difficult to acquire, unless the guy is overpaid).

While he hasn't done much to help the current roster in the long-term, he hasn't done much to hurt it as well. He didn't panic and outbid everyone for Bradley. He didn't freak and take on Lugo's contract. He didn't go out and trade Stubbs for Pierre (at least not yet). He knows what he has and he knows what he has to do. Now he just needs to have the means to do it, which I think is his biggest hurdle.

Which is why he's an average GM.

Just like Wayne.

They've just gone about it differently. Walt is "don't just do something, stand there" and Wayne was "don't just stand there, do something."

Highlifeman21
07-27-2009, 10:51 AM
The likelihood of getting a Harang for a Guillen in this market is slim.

Wasn't Joe Valentine the big name we got for Guillen?

IIRC, Harang was an afterthought

nate
07-27-2009, 10:52 AM
Wasn't Joe Valentine the big name we got for Guillen?

IIRC, Harang was an afterthought

I think that's how it went down, yes.

OnBaseMachine
07-27-2009, 10:53 AM
Aaron Harang and Francisco Cordero's contracts are albatrosses? Yeah, OK. Anything to bash Wayne Krivsky I guess. Guys who throw 200+ IP with an ERA at league average or better don't grow on trees. Cordero may be expensive but I don't care, he's earned his money so far. It's funny, Krivsky gets bashed for everything, even his great moves are chalked up as luck (Hamilton, Phillips), but Walt gets a free pass. I'm tired of reading the excuses for Jocketty. He's been a huge failure with the Reds. There's really no other way to put it.

edabbs44
07-27-2009, 10:55 AM
Which is why he's an average GM.

Just like Wayne.

They've just gone about it differently. Walt is "don't just do something, stand there" and Wayne was "don't just stand there, do something."

Walt has little payorll flexibility in a small to middle market in one of the most uncertain financial periods in decades. It is very difficult to bash him for not making many big moves in year 1.

When you read talk of potential trades with teams like LA and NY where they don't want to take on the salary of an Arroyo or Cordero, you know he is in a tough spot.

edabbs44
07-27-2009, 10:57 AM
Aaron Harang and Francisco Cordero's contracts are albatrosses? Yeah, OK. Anything to bash Wayne Krivsky I guess. Guys who throw 200+ IP with an ERA at league average or better don't grow on trees. Cordero may be expensive but I don't care, he's earned his money so far. It's funny, Krivsky gets bashed for everything, even his great moves are chalked up as luck (Hamilton, Phillips), but Walt gets a free pass. I'm tired of reading the excuses for Jocketty. He's been a huge failure with the Reds. There's really no other way to put it.

The Reds gave Cordero the biggest contract ever for a reliever.

The Reds suck.

That makes no sense.

Scrap Irony
07-27-2009, 11:05 AM
Aaron Harang and Francisco Cordero's contracts are albatrosses? Yeah, OK.

If no other team is willing to take on the contract for the player, isn't that the definition of an albatross contract?

Are both players still effective? Yeah, I think they are. Are they worth the cash they make? Not, IMO, to the Reds.

nate
07-27-2009, 11:06 AM
Walt has little payorll flexibility in a small to middle market in one of the most uncertain financial periods in decades. It is very difficult to bash him for not making many big moves in year 1.

I don't care about BIG MOVES, I care about WINNING MOVES.

Jpup
07-27-2009, 11:07 AM
If no other team is willing to take on the contract for the player, isn't that the definition of an albatross contract?

Are both players still effective? Yeah, I think they are. Are they worth the cash they make? Not, IMO, to the Reds.

At the time, Harang's deal was great.

HokieRed
07-27-2009, 11:16 AM
I think you can argue that the contract with Harang is a reasonable one and that yet--because it is a very large one--it is difficult to move. A couple features of market behavior are involved here. We've entered into the contract and therefore have a very good reason to regard it as a reasonable one. We've got to pay it and therefore have strong incentive to believe it reasonable. Other teams have not only not done that--and therefore do not have the same built-in sense of its reasonableness--but they also are looking at taking it on in the context of all the other things they might do with 14+ million free dollars (including just keeping them free, which is attractive). So WK may have entered into a perfectly reasonable and defensible contract and it may still be next to impossible for WJ to persuade somebody else of that.

Scrap Irony
07-27-2009, 11:29 AM
Yes, it was a decent, though expensive contract when it was signed. But an economy collapse and an off-season of "correcting markets" (re: collusion?) means it's too expensive now. Same with Cordero (though less quality, more expense).

I don't think Krivsky should get blamed for the Harang contract, per se. But neither should Jocketty get blamed if he can't move Harang for quality prospects.

edabbs44
07-27-2009, 11:33 AM
At the time, Harang's deal was great.

There is always risk when you are buying years that you don't have to. Harang was easily the best and most sensible of the 3 and I think most on here wouldn't blame him for this one. The other two? Not so much.

But it doesn't make the contract any better for the Reds at this time.

Mario-Rijo
07-27-2009, 12:31 PM
Aaron Harang and Francisco Cordero's contracts are albatrosses? Yeah, OK. Anything to bash Wayne Krivsky I guess. Guys who throw 200+ IP with an ERA at league average or better don't grow on trees. Cordero may be expensive but I don't care, he's earned his money so far. It's funny, Krivsky gets bashed for everything, even his great moves are chalked up as luck (Hamilton, Phillips), but Walt gets a free pass. I'm tired of reading the excuses for Jocketty. He's been a huge failure with the Reds. There's really no other way to put it.

You took the words right out of my mouth. :thumbup:

Frankly (and again) I don't really care how much money is being paid to players who have done exactly what is asked of them. Especially considering that we will always likely have to overpay for pitching or pay early to keep it in house as long as this ballpark is the way it is.

As far as Walt goes as soon as he puts together a winning team that he actually deserves credit for it winning it will likely be the 1st. He had an outstanding coaching staff that I feel was largely responsible for taking a decent but not great team and getting a W/S win out of it. Maybe he can be given indirect credit for hiring the staff. Sure he's traded for several excellent players of the already established variety, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to trade for Rolen, Walker, Mulder and McGwire. I'll give him credit that he was able to actually get those deals consummated and didn't get hijacked (except once, which is par for the course) in the process. But I have yet to see him in his career find good/great players who were not yet established in trades and on the cheap.

This all leads me to feel he shouldn't get the benefit of the doubt coming in that he has received from many. And without that benefit of the doubt and his relative inactivity since being in the organization he hasn't impressed me. To me he still has to prove he make us a good team without killing our future and I don't believe he possesses the talent to get it done. When you believe Taveras can do something that fans know for a fact he can't do then you have proven you don't have said talent.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 12:47 PM
Cordero's contract was idiotic. It will never not be idiotic.

princeton
07-27-2009, 12:57 PM
It is very difficult to bash him for not making many big moves in year 1.

a strange little thing to say, given evidence to the contrary on multiple threads.

Walt had pitching to trade? what a tough position to be in.

edabbs44
07-27-2009, 01:01 PM
a strange little thing to say, given evidence to the contrary on multiple threads.

Walt had pitching to trade? what a tough position to be in.

Did he really? Who did he have, Cueto and Volquez?

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 01:06 PM
Wayne's pitching legacy: 4.42 team ERA, good for 12th in the NL and 5th in the NL Central, the weakest offensive division in baseball.

I blame Jocketty for believing the good press on this team's pitching; I saw through that crap, but I'm not sure why Walt didn't.

I'll give Walt a mulligan; fool him once....

BuckeyeRedleg
07-27-2009, 01:17 PM
Wayne's pitching legacy: 4.42 team ERA, good for 12th in the NL and 5th in the NL Central, the weakest offensive division in baseball.

I blame Jocketty for believing the good press on this team's pitching; I saw through that crap, but I'm not sure why Walt didn't.

I'll give Walt a mulligan; fool him once....

I think those numbers and the staff in general are much better if Volquez is not injured.

Harang, Cueto, Volquez, Arroyo, and Owings is a solid rotation

A bullpen of Cordero, Rhodes, Massett, Weathers, Herrera, and Burton (or insert top AAA - Roenicke, Fisher, Manuel, Viola) is not bad either.

Kc61
07-27-2009, 01:17 PM
I think Harang, Arroyo and Cordero's contracts were all reasonable under the circumstances. Coco's was high in dollars but there was competition for him. He's a real good closer, has been nearly perfect this year, to get him to Cincy it took money.

As often happens, in the later years of a LTC, Arroyo and Harang have slid. And given the recession Coco's deal looks very high in dollars right now.

So what. Big deal.

Every team trying to win signs some guys for longer term. Every team has situations where the player fades before the deal ends. Or gets hurt. It happens.

Compared to other teams, the Reds payroll is low. The team has three substantial contracts -- not many -- and one guy, the closer, has truly had an all-star season.

The problem is as always -- the team thinks small. It has conditioned its fans and its media to think small. So every time a player fades or doesn't do well, suddenly his contract is a tragedy.

Even with these three deals -- even if none can be traded -- the Reds still have a low payroll compared to the winning teams. So let's stop crying about three contracts, all of which made sense when given IMO, and let's focus on the fact that it is very tough to win when you don't spend nearly as much on players as the real good teams do.

Either the Reds need to spend more or become better drafter/developers of players. That's how they can win. There will always be debatable contracts and the Reds should get over it.

princeton
07-27-2009, 01:22 PM
Did he really? Who did he have, Cueto and Volquez?

nearly all Reds pitchers had great value this time last year, when salaries were a lot easier to move.

it was a bad deadline to walt :D

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 01:23 PM
I think those numbers and the staff in general are much better if Volquez is not injured.

Harang, Cueto, Volquez, Arroyo, and Owings is a solid rotation

A bullpen of Cordero, Rhodes, Massett, Weathers, Herrera, and Burton (or insert top AAA - Roenicke, Fisher, Manuel, Viola) is not bad either.

I think the strength of the bullpen only points up the putridness of the rotation. The rotation ERA, last I checked, was 4.70. Even adjusted for ballpark that is well below average, and certainly out of the range of competitiveness.

Even with Volquez in there with last year's numbers, you're probably looking at a rotation ERA of about 4.55.

Swap in any powerhouse hitting lineup you want, this pitching still isn't good enough to win--even with one of the better defenses in baseball behind them.

If a big-time arm isn't brought in either at the deadline or the offseason, I'll turn on Walt too. I like the guy, but he's got major surgery to do on that rotation, and I certainly don't have infinite patience.

Red in Chicago
07-27-2009, 01:26 PM
I think Harang, Arroyo and Cordero's contracts were all reasonable under the circumstances. Coco's was high in dollars but there was competition for him. He's a real good closer, has been nearly perfect this year, to get him to Cincy it took money.

As often happens, in the later years of a LTC, Arroyo and Harang have slid. And given the recession Coco's deal looks very high in dollars right now.

So what. Big deal.

Every team trying to win signs some guys for longer term. Every team has situations where the player fades before the deal ends. Or gets hurt. It happens.

Compared to other teams, the Reds payroll is low. The team has three substantial contracts -- not many -- and one guy, the closer, has truly had an all-star season.

The problem is as always -- the team thinks small. It has conditioned its fans and its media to think small. So every time a player fades or doesn't do well, suddenly his contract is a tragedy.

Even with these three deals -- even if none can be traded -- the Reds still have a low payroll compared to the winning teams. So let's stop crying about three contracts, all of which made sense when given IMO, and let's focus on the fact that it is very tough to win when you don't spend nearly as much on players as the real good teams do.

Either the Reds need to spend more or become better drafter/developers of players. That's how they can win. There will always be debatable contracts and the Reds should get over it.

A lot of people seem to forget those 8th inning bullpen failures in '07. A reliever like Coco was desperately needed, even if for the illusion of being competitive. Unfortunately, lately the problem has been the 1st inning.

M2
07-27-2009, 01:26 PM
Wayne's pitching legacy: 4.42 team ERA, good for 12th in the NL and 5th in the NL Central, the weakest offensive division in baseball.

I blame Jocketty for believing the good press on this team's pitching; I saw through that crap, but I'm not sure why Walt didn't.

I'll give Walt a mulligan; fool him once....

I'd say Krivsky's legacy is he was the first Reds GM to push the pitching in the right direction. Anyone who thought it was a finished product was kidding themselves, and my guess is Krivsky would have stayed on the pitching like a dog on raw meat.

The Reds, with a healthy Volquez, might have had enough pitching to make some noise if accompanied by a good offense, but that was never in the offing with this club, which had pretty much a 700-run ceiling heading into the season.

The pitching definitely was a work in progress. Yet the Reds haven't seen progress with the pitching in a decade.

The challenge facing Jocketty is to continue that progress and almost completely rehaul the lineup. That's a huge ask.

Strikes Out Looking
07-27-2009, 01:30 PM
Good Offense begats good pitching. It's much easier to pitch with a 4-1 lead than being behind 3-1, 2-1, 2-0, 3-0 which the Reds seem to be every day. That will wear on a pitching staff.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 01:30 PM
I'd say Krivsky's legacy is he was the first Reds GM to push the pitching in the right direction. Anyone who thought it was a finished product was kidding themselves, and my guess is Krivsky would have stayed on the pitching like a dog on raw meat.

The Reds, with a healthy Volquez, might have had enough pitching to make some noise if accompanied by a good offense, but that was never in the offing with this club, which had pretty much a 700-run ceiling heading into the season.

The pitching definitely was a work in progress. Yet the Reds haven't seen progress with the pitching in a decade.

The challenge facing Jocketty is to continue that progress and almost completely rehaul the lineup. That's a huge ask.

Since the rotation was the product of three or four GMs' work, I kind of find it difficult to see anything resembling a pattern set forth by Wayne Krivsky exclusively vis pitching.

This team would need a roid-era Red Sox offense to overcome this rotation.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 01:31 PM
Good Offense begats good pitching. It's much easier to pitch with a 4-1 lead than being behind 3-1, 2-1, 2-0, 3-0 which the Reds seem to be every day. That will wear on a pitching staff.

I'd say you have it backwards: good pitching begets just enough offense. Look at the Giants.

Kc61
07-27-2009, 01:34 PM
If a big-time arm isn't brought in either at the deadline or the offseason, I'll turn on Walt too. I like the guy, but he's got major surgery to do on that rotation, and I certainly don't have infinite patience.

It's real simple.

The Reds need a cleanup hitter - left field is the open position.

The Reds need a very good starter. Harang isn't now a front of rotation guy and the kids are kids.

The Reds need a shortstop.

If they were to get those three players, they would be pretty good.

Would they be a perennial contender? I don't know. It depends on a lot of things. But before I'd worry about ten years of world championships, I would try to have one decent season as a starting point.

One free agent and two trades. Deal some prospects and players. Get a pitcher, a hitter, and a shortstop.

It's simple. And it would work.

But good players don't play for free. That's the difficulty underlying all this talk and angst. They just won't spend to get better.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 01:38 PM
It's real simple.

The Reds need a cleanup hitter - left field is the open position.

The Reds need a very good starter. Harang hasn't held up and the kids are kids.

The Reds need a shortstop.

If they were to get those three players, they would be pretty good.

Would they be a perennial contender? I dont' know. It depends on a lot of things. But before I'd worry about ten years of harvest, I would try to have one decent season as a starting point.

One free agent and two trades. Include some prospects and players. A pitcher, a hitter, and a shortstop.

It's simple. But some money is required.

Good players don't work free. That's the difficulty underlying all this talk and angst. They just won't spend to get better.

I'd say that's the opposite of simple. This team, this organization was a mess when Walt assumed control--and it still looks very much like a mess--which is on Walt, and will be more on Walt as each day passes. There is no way this team will be turned around by next season. But the overhauling has to start now. I have little doubt that, in this market, there will be steps back before steps forward are made.

nate
07-27-2009, 01:42 PM
I think Harang, Arroyo and Cordero's contracts were all reasonable under the circumstances. Coco's was high in dollars but there was competition for him. He's a real good closer, has been nearly perfect this year, to get him to Cincy it took money.

As often happens, in the later years of a LTC, Arroyo and Harang have slid. And given the recession Coco's deal looks very high in dollars right now.

So what. Big deal.

Every team trying to win signs some guys for longer term. Every team has situations where the player fades before the deal ends. Or gets hurt. It happens.

Compared to other teams, the Reds payroll is low. The team has three substantial contracts -- not many -- and one guy, the closer, has truly had an all-star season.

The problem is as always -- the team thinks small. It has conditioned its fans and its media to think small. So every time a player fades or doesn't do well, suddenly his contract is a tragedy.

Even with these three deals -- even if none can be traded -- the Reds still have a low payroll compared to the winning teams. So let's stop crying about three contracts, all of which made sense when given IMO, and let's focus on the fact that it is very tough to win when you don't spend nearly as much on players as the real good teams do.

Either the Reds need to spend more or become better drafter/developers of players. That's how they can win. There will always be debatable contracts and the Reds should get over it.

Yep.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 01:44 PM
It's real simple.

The Reds need a cleanup hitter - left field is the open position.

The Reds need a very good starter. Harang isn't now a front of rotation guy and the kids are kids.

The Reds need a shortstop.

If they were to get those three players, they would be pretty good.

Would they be a perennial contender? I don't know. It depends on a lot of things. But before I'd worry about ten years of world championships, I would try to have one decent season as a starting point.

One free agent and two trades. Deal some prospects and players. Get a pitcher, a hitter, and a shortstop.

It's simple. And it would work.

But good players don't play for free. That's the difficulty underlying all this talk and angst. They just won't spend to get better.


Yep.

So the answer is: spend more?

I'm on board with that solution too.

Kc61
07-27-2009, 01:44 PM
I'd say that's the opposite of simple. This team, this organization was a mess when Walt assumed control--and it still looks very much like a mess--which is on Walt, and will be more on Walt as each day passes. There is no way this team will be turned around by next season. But the overhauling has to start now. I have little doubt that, in this market, there will be steps back before steps forward are made.


The team could be turned around quickly and simply. When I say turned around, I don't mean that they will be the 27 Yankees. But they can be a real competitor in this division and, with some breaks and good secondary moves, a division champ in the next couple of years.

There's talent. There's Votto, Bruce, Stubbs and Heisey coming up, EE, Phillips, Hanigan. A couple good bench players. A ton of good relievers. Some good fourth and fifth starters. Some young starters Cueto, Volquez and possibly Bailey. There's Stewart and Wood knocking on the door.

They need a few key pieces. The direct route - the simple route - would be to acquire those pieces. The team would be dramatically better with a big righty bat, an average or better all around shortstop, and a number two level starter joining the current group.

They could do this in one off-season for money, prospects and maybe a couple of veterans.

It's just not the Reds way. The Reds are never ready.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 01:46 PM
I'd be surprised if Volquez's arm is out of a cast by February.
If this team were smart they'd approach the repair of this team with the mindset that maybe Volquez shouldn't be overly counted on for innings and that Bailey is the answer to a knock knock joke. Those should be the givens. Now build.

Highlifeman21
07-27-2009, 01:47 PM
I'd be surprised if Volquez's arm is out of a cast by February.

Just as long as it's not the arm he uses to hold his piece in future Maceo videos.

HokieRed
07-27-2009, 01:48 PM
Stubbs, Francisco, and Sutton to Bluejays for Rolen. They pay half his money in 2010. What Jays get: 5.5 million salary relief next year, a CF who enables them either to trade Rios with Wells to right or move Wells to left, a fill-in guy at 3b, a longer term possible solution at 3b who can DH if he has to. We get: next year's 3b, EE to left (maybe what he needs to restart a career in Cinti; it's certainly not going anywhere at 3b), Frazier to 2b, Phillips to SS. Gives us a year to work on the SS problem, seeing, in the meantime, if Cozart is the solution or if Valaika can be a regular at 2b [Phillips staying at SS]. Also we get another competitor for the LF spot (I wouldn't hand it to EE) while we see how Alonso and Bruce develop and can sort out how to [hopefully] get those two bats along with Votto's in the lineup nearly every day. Hoped for lineup one year from today:
Heisey CF
Frazier 2b
Votto 1b
Rolen 3b
Bruce RF
Phillips SS
EE (or platoon option) LF
Hanigan
P

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 01:49 PM
Stubbs, Francisco, and Sutton to Bluejays for Rolen. They pay half his money in 2010. What Jays get: 5.5 million salary relief next year, a CF who enables them either to trade Rios with Wells to right or move Wells to left, a fill-in guy at 3b, a longer term possible solution at 3b who can DH if he has to. We get: next year's 3b, EE to left (maybe what he needs to restart a career in Cinti; it's certainly not going anywhere at 3b), Frazier to 2b, Phillips to SS. Gives us a year to work on the SS problem, seeing, in the meantime, if Cozart is the solution or if Valaika can be a regular at 2b [Phillips staying at SS]. Also we get another competitor for the LF spot (I wouldn't hand it to EE) while we see how Alonso and Bruce develop and can sort out how to [hopefully] get those two bats along with Votto's in the lineup nearly every day. Hoped for lineup one year from today:
Heisey CF
Frazier 2b
Votto 1b
Rolen 3b
Bruce RF
Phillips SS
EE (or platoon option) LF
Hanigan
P

Phillips won't move.

Highlifeman21
07-27-2009, 01:52 PM
Stubbs, Francisco, and Sutton to Bluejays for Rolen. They pay half his money in 2010. What Jays get: 5.5 million salary relief next year, a CF who enables them either to trade Rios with Wells to right or move Wells to left, a fill-in guy at 3b, a longer term possible solution at 3b who can DH if he has to. We get: next year's 3b, EE to left (maybe what he needs to restart a career in Cinti; it's certainly not going anywhere at 3b), Frazier to 2b, Phillips to SS. Gives us a year to work on the SS problem, seeing, in the meantime, if Cozart is the solution or if Valaika can be a regular at 2b [Phillips staying at SS]. Also we get another competitor for the LF spot (I wouldn't hand it to EE) while we see how Alonso and Bruce develop and can sort out how to [hopefully] get those two bats along with Votto's in the lineup nearly every day. Hoped for lineup one year from today:
Heisey CF
Frazier 2b
Votto 1b
Rolen 3b
Bruce RF
Phillips SS
EE (or platoon option) LF
Hanigan
P

And you thought the offense was bad this year?

Heisey and Frazier?

Yikes.

Kc61
07-27-2009, 01:52 PM
So the answer is: spend more?

I'm on board with that solution too.

There is no other feasible solution. Waiting for prospects may work if you draft the very top star guys, but the Reds would have to wait many years before prospects alone would give them a contender. Wonder who Votto will be playing for by then.

Sports is short term. Yes, it's good to have a nice foundation, but the good teams aggressively pursue players they need in the marketplace.

We've seen it with the Brewers last year, the Cards this year, the Cubs two off-seasons ago, the Astros when they signed Carlos Lee. There's a reason all these teams have had recent success and the Reds and Pirates haven't.

It doesn't take a genius GM. It takes the willingness to be bold and spend on players you need to win.

Benihana
07-27-2009, 01:54 PM
Stubbs, Francisco, and Sutton to Bluejays for Rolen. They pay half his money in 2010. What Jays get: 5.5 million salary relief next year, a CF who enables them either to trade Rios with Wells to right or move Wells to left, a fill-in guy at 3b, a longer term possible solution at 3b who can DH if he has to. We get: next year's 3b, EE to left (maybe what he needs to restart a career in Cinti; it's certainly not going anywhere at 3b), Frazier to 2b, Phillips to SS. Gives us a year to work on the SS problem, seeing, in the meantime, if Cozart is the solution or if Valaika can be a regular at 2b [Phillips staying at SS]. Also we get another competitor for the LF spot (I wouldn't hand it to EE) while we see how Alonso and Bruce develop and can sort out how to [hopefully] get those two bats along with Votto's in the lineup nearly every day. Hoped for lineup one year from today:
Heisey CF
Frazier 2b
Votto 1b
Rolen 3b
Bruce RF
Phillips SS
EE (or platoon option) LF
Hanigan
P

I like it.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-27-2009, 01:54 PM
The Reds are on pace to give up 777 runs.

The last six years, the Reds have given up:

886
907
889
801
853
800

That's progress. And with Volquez being out. The problem, IMO, is the putrid offense. Not the pitching. The offense is on pace to score 655 runs. That's pathetic.

Now if we could only go back and give the 2005 team that scored 820 runs this year's pitching staff.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 01:55 PM
There is no other feasible solution. Waiting for prospects may work if you draft the very top star guys, but the Reds would have to wait many years before prospects alone would give them a contender. Wonder who Votto will be playing for by then.

Sports is short term. Yes, it's good to have a nice foundation, but the good teams aggressively pursue players they need in the marketplace.

We've seen it with the Brewers last year, the Cards this year, the Cubs two off-seasons ago, the Astros when they signed Carlos Lee. There's a reason all these teams have had recent success and the Reds and Pirates don'haven't.

It doesn't take a genius GM. It takes the willingness to be bold and spend on players you need to win.

I've long since arrived at this conclusion.

Benihana
07-27-2009, 01:56 PM
There is no other feasible solution. Waiting for prospects may work if you draft the very top star guys, but the Reds would have to wait many years before prospects alone would give them a contender. Wonder who Votto will be playing for by then.

Sports is short term. Yes, it's good to have a nice foundation, but the good teams aggressively pursue players they need in the marketplace.

We've seen it with the Brewers last year, the Cards this year, the Cubs two off-seasons ago, the Astros when they signed Carlos Lee. There's a reason all these teams have had recent success and the Reds and Pirates haven't.

It doesn't take a genius GM. It takes the willingness to be bold and spend on players you need to win.

:thumbup:

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 01:56 PM
The Reds are on pace to give up 777 runs.

The last six years, the Reds have given up:

886
907
889
801
853
800

That's progress. And with Volquez being out. The problem, IMO, is the putrid offense. Not the pitching. The offense is on pace to score 655 runs. That's pathetic.

Now if we could only go back and give the 2005 team that scored 820 runs this year's pitching staff.

Team ERAs and runs allowed continue to dwindle in the post-roid era. All that matters is that they're not as good as the other guys.

M2
07-27-2009, 01:58 PM
Since the rotation was the product of three or four GMs' work, I kind of find it difficult to see anything resembling a pattern set forth by Wayne Krivsky exclusively vis pitching.

This team would need a roid-era Red Sox offense to overcome this rotation.

Arroyo and Volquez were Kriv acquistions, Kriv locked up Harang and Cueto hit his stride only after Kriv made developmental changes in the organization, so I'd give him credit/blame for 4/5 of the current crew.

The pattern Krivsky set forth was he went after it obsessively. To his credit, he left a club that could get more innings from the starters (the Reds were annually bottom 5 from 2001-5) and a pitching staff that could whiff somebody. The Reds' K/9 from 2001-5 bounced between 5.8 and 6.2. Krivsky pulled it up to 6.6 immediately and it jumped to 7.7 last season. It's down to 6.7 at the moment.

The quality starts, putrid from 2001-5, jumped up in respectable territory too.

So he definitely was looking to create more of a power pitching staff. What the Reds need in addition to power pitching is the ability to get groundballs.

As for the other part, an 800-run offense could have given the Reds a shot at a winning record, but this unit was never going to come within a country mile of that.

Benihana
07-27-2009, 01:58 PM
And you thought the offense was bad this year?

Heisey and Frazier?

Yikes.

I think they both could OPS at least .750, especially at the top of the order hitting ahead of Votto.

A healthy Rolen replacing Hairston/Nix/Gomes/whatever would provide a nice, RH bat in the middle of the order, as long as he wouldn't cost > $5MM. A healthy, more seasoned Bruce, EE, and Votto would go a long way towards improving the offense as well.

There isn't one bat in that lineup that would OPS below .750 IMO. That would be a huge upgrade from this year.

membengal
07-27-2009, 02:00 PM
In some thread or another, maybe even this one, I went over the list of big FA signings for the Reds in the last 35 or so years.

It's not long.

But the one that REALLY resonated, that grabbed this franchise by its throat, was signing Dave Parker coming off of the 1982 and 1983 abominations. His presence, his signing, signaled that the Reds were not going to be content with business as usual. While 1984 was another down year with him, it was a step in the right direction, and he anchored winning teams in 1985 and 1986.

THAT's the kind of jolt this franchise needs.

I am not at all sure that this ownership has the vision and stones to do what needs to be done.

Kc61
07-27-2009, 02:01 PM
I think they both could OPS at least .750, especially at the top of the order hitting ahead of Votto.

A healthy, more seasoned Bruce, EE, and Votto would go a long way too.

If you add in a Matt Holliday type hitting after Votto, all of these combinations look a lot better.

RANDY IN INDY
07-27-2009, 02:01 PM
Don't see how you can rely totally on pitching/defense when you play in Great American Ballpark. You still have to have a team that can compete, offensively, against the rest of the league that licks its chops when it comes to Cincinnati. The defense has been terrible, again. They make some great plays, but have trouble consistently making the routine plays that win ballgames. The pitching was good early, but has fallen, due to injuries and inconsistency. The bullpen has been OK. The offense is the one constant. It has been worse than awful. The pitching has to be near perfect for this team to win.

M2
07-27-2009, 02:02 PM
In some thread or another, maybe even this one, I went over the list of big FA signings for the Reds in the last 35 or so years.

It's not long.

But the one that REALLY resonated, that grabbed this franchise by its throat, was signing Dave Parker coming off of the 1982 and 1983 abominations. His presence, his signing, signaled that the Reds were not going to be content with business as usual. While 1984 was another down year with him, it was a step in the right direction, and he anchored winning teams in 1985 and 1986.

THAT's the kind of jolt this franchise needs.

I am not at all sure that this ownership has the vision and stones to do what needs to be done.

Quoted for truth.

Kc61
07-27-2009, 02:02 PM
In some thread or another, maybe even this one, I went over the list of big FA signings for the Reds in the last 35 or so years.

It's not long.

But the one that REALLY resonated, that grabbed this franchise by its throat, was signing Dave Parker coming off of the 1982 and 1983 abominations. His presence, his signing, signaled that the Reds were not going to be content with business as usual. While 1984 was another down year with him, it was a step in the right direction, and he anchored winning teams in 1985 and 1986.

THAT's the kind of jolt this franchise needs.

I am not at all sure that this ownership has the vision and stones to do what needs to be done.

They probably have the vision and stones.

But it costs money. In today's market, even a guy like Parker on the downside costs money. It requires a commitment of dollars.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 02:02 PM
Don't see how you can rely totally on pitching/defense when you play in Great American Ballpark. You still have to have a team that can compete, offensively, against the rest of the league that licks its chops when it comes to Cincinnati. The defense has been terrible, again. They make some great plays, but have trouble consistently making the routine plays that win ballgames. The pitching was good early, but has fallen, due to injuries and inconsistency. The bullpen has been OK. The offense is the one constant. It has been worse than awful. The pitching has to be near perfect for this team to win.

The defense has been good. The bullpen has been good. The offense and rotation have been a mess.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 02:03 PM
In some thread or another, maybe even this one, I went over the list of big FA signings for the Reds in the last 35 or so years.

It's not long.

But the one that REALLY resonated, that grabbed this franchise by its throat, was signing Dave Parker coming off of the 1982 and 1983 abominations. His presence, his signing, signaled that the Reds were not going to be content with business as usual. While 1984 was another down year with him, it was a step in the right direction, and he anchored winning teams in 1985 and 1986.

THAT's the kind of jolt this franchise needs.

I am not at all sure that this ownership has the vision and stones to do what needs to be done.

Somebody wrote this in February of 2000 if I recall correctly.

This team needs a jolt and an overhaul.

Jpup
07-27-2009, 02:04 PM
The defense has been good. The bullpen has been good. The offense and rotation have been a mess.

The defense has been putrid. I don't care what the flawed metrics say. Watch the games, they are horrible except at 1st, 2nd, and catcher.

RANDY IN INDY
07-27-2009, 02:05 PM
The ball is in the court of the FO and ownership. I think the team has done the best that it could with the injuries and lack of offense. They have to be near perfect every night to win. Absolutely no margin for error.

RANDY IN INDY
07-27-2009, 02:05 PM
The defense has been good. The bullpen has been good. The offense and rotation have been a mess.

I must not be watching the same team you are watching when it comes to the defense.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 02:06 PM
I must not be watching the same team you are watching when it comes to the defense.

Probably not.

nate
07-27-2009, 02:07 PM
The Reds are on pace to give up 777 runs.

The last six years, the Reds have given up:

886
907
889
801
853
800

That's progress. And with Volquez being out. The problem, IMO, is the putrid offense. Not the pitching. The offense is on pace to score 655 runs. That's pathetic.

Now if we could only go back and give the 2005 team that scored 820 runs this year's pitching staff.

We'd be cooking with gas!

Although the defense has helped the runs against quite a bit.

Highlifeman21
07-27-2009, 02:07 PM
I think they both could OPS at least .750, especially at the top of the order hitting ahead of Votto.

A healthy Rolen replacing Hairston/Nix/Gomes/whatever would provide a nice, RH bat in the middle of the order, as long as he wouldn't cost > $5MM. A healthy, more seasoned Bruce, EE, and Votto would go a long way towards improving the offense as well.

There isn't one bat in that lineup that would OPS below .750 IMO. That would be a huge upgrade from this year.

So assuming Phillips moves to SS (which he won't), we're improving the SS O immensely, but decreasing what Phillips produced @ 2B. So, if you look at the new 2B production as new SS production, you're only seeing marginal improvement.

If Heisey OPS's North of .750, then we're still looking at Dickerson, which doesn't improve us by leaps and bounds (which we need, given this offense).

While I would hope Bruce to improve, I can't magically expect that, and I don't see EE a Red for much longer, and definitely not thru the offseason.

So, we're still left with Gomes/Nix in LF (which is fine, I can stomach that), but we've done nothing to improve the offense by adding Frazier and Heisey.

We need offense, not more more maybes or the status quo.

membengal
07-27-2009, 02:07 PM
They probably have the vision and stones.

But it costs money. In today's market, even a guy like Parker on the downside costs money. It requires a commitment of dollars.


Then they don't have the stones, KC. Money talks, all else walks.

membengal
07-27-2009, 02:16 PM
Here's another vision critique. Many here have pointed out, quite rightly, that Brandon Philliips is infinitely more valuable to this team at SS. I was among several who were begging them to go Phillips to SS this off-season, and sign Orlando Hudson, a move that would have made them actually do more than pay lip service to the idea of defense up the middle.

But, the Reds don't make that kind of move. For whatever reason. They almost never do. Dunn didn't go to 1b, Phillips hasn't gone to SS, EE hasn't gone to LF. In general, of late, the Reds don't move the few pieces they have to try and optimize a line-up.

You know who does? St. Louis. Have a hole at 2b and a ton of OFers? Move Schumacher there, even though he has never played the position. Albert Pujols is the best thing at the plate since sliced bread? Move him around in his career anyway to try and optimize a line-up. Pujols has moved from 3b, to OF, to 1b in his time there, with nary a complaint and nary a worry that I have never heard that he would somehow be messed up as a hitter or that the team would be hurt defensively. Ankiel flames out on the mound? Move him to the OF and see what you've got. Over and over and over again St. Louis does what it takes to maximize their chances of winning, not just in trade acquisitions or free agent signings, but in deployment of personnnel.

This franchise USED to be like that. Tony Perez did not come up as a 1b. The move that famously got the Reds jump started in 1975 involved the established star in Pete Rose moving positions to get George Foster into the line-up.

For too long, this team this decade has been unwilling to ask and/or make its players do what is best for the team. And floundering results.

It adds to the frustration as a fan, and the perception that this team doesn't have the first clue in how to work its way out of the straits it finds itself in.

wheels
07-27-2009, 02:20 PM
Here's another vision critique. Many here have pointed out, quite rightly, that Brandon Philliips is infinitely more valuable to this team at SS. I was among several who were begging them to go Phillips to SS this off-season, and sign Orlando Hudson, a move that would have made them actually do more than pay lip service to the idea of defense up the middle.

But, the Reds don't make that kind of move. For whatever reason. They almost never do. Dunn didn't go to 1b, Phillips hasn't gone to SS, EE hasn't gone to LF. In general, of late, the Reds don't move the few pieces they have to try and optimize a line-up.

You know who does? St. Louis. Have a hole at 2b and a ton of OFers? Move Schumacher there, even though he has never played the position. Albert Pujols is the best thing at the plate since sliced bread? Move him around in his career anyway to try and optimize a line-up. Pujols has moved from 3b, to OF, to 1b in his time there, with nary a complaint and nary a worry that I have never heard that he would somehow be messed up as a hitter or that the team would be hurt defensively. Ankiel flames out on the mound? Move him to the OF and see what you've got. Over and over and over again St. Louis does what it takes to maximize their chances of winning, not just in trade acquisitions or free agent signings, but in deployment of personnnel.

This franchise USED to be like that. Tony Perez did not come up as a 1b. The move that famously got the Reds jump started in 1975 involved the established star in Pete Rose moving positions to get George Foster into the line-up.

For too long, this team this decade has been unwilling to ask and/or make its players do what is best for the team. And floundering results.

It adds to the frustration as a fan, and the perception that this team doesn't have the first clue in how to work its way out of the straits it finds itself in.


Amen.

Nice post, Daddy.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 02:24 PM
Here's another vision critique. Many here have pointed out, quite rightly, that Brandon Philliips is infinitely more valuable to this team at SS. I was among several who were begging them to go Phillips to SS this off-season, and sign Orlando Hudson, a move that would have made them actually do more than pay lip service to the idea of defense up the middle.

But, the Reds don't make that kind of move. For whatever reason. They almost never do. Dunn didn't go to 1b, Phillips hasn't gone to SS, EE hasn't gone to LF. In general, of late, the Reds don't move the few pieces they have to try and optimize a line-up.

You know who does? St. Louis. Have a hole at 2b and a ton of OFers? Move Schumacher there, even though he has never played the position. Albert Pujols is the best thing at the plate since sliced bread? Move him around in his career anyway to try and optimize a line-up. Pujols has moved from 3b, to OF, to 1b in his time there, with nary a complaint and nary a worry that I have never heard that he would somehow be messed up as a hitter or that the team would be hurt defensively. Ankiel flames out on the mound? Move him to the OF and see what you've got. Over and over and over again St. Louis does what it takes to maximize their chances of winning, not just in trade acquisitions or free agent signings, but in deployment of personnnel.

This franchise USED to be like that. Tony Perez did not come up as a 1b. The move that famously got the Reds jump started in 1975 involved the established star in Pete Rose moving positions to get George Foster into the line-up.

For too long, this team this decade has been unwilling to ask and/or make its players do what is best for the team. And floundering results.

It adds to the frustration as a fan, and the perception that this team doesn't have the first clue in how to work its way out of the straits it finds itself in.

Good points. I have no clue why this organization kowtows to player's wishes. Look, you're getting paid millions: do what I tell you to do.

M2
07-27-2009, 02:25 PM
The defense has been good. The bullpen has been good. The offense and rotation have been a mess.

The defense has been sagging a bit due to OF injuries and the return of a certain 3B. The starting pitching has a decent innings workload and grades out a little better in park-neutral and saber measurements, so it can be fairly called a mediocrity.

Meanwhile, this is the worst Reds offense since 1982.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-27-2009, 02:27 PM
Meanwhile, this is the worst Reds offense since 1982-3.

The sad thing is that most of us predicted this prior to the season.

Walt apparently had no idea.

Scary.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 02:29 PM
The sad thing is that most of us predicted this prior to the season.

Walt apparently had no idea.

Scary.

What's scarier is that he thought this rotation was good. I actually think he wanted to add pop to the lineup, as he has repeated the need for a power bat, but I think he truly believed along with most of this board and the press that this pitching was good. Whoops.

Ltlabner
07-27-2009, 02:32 PM
The defense has been sagging a bit due to OF injuries and the return of a certain 3B. The starting pitching has a decent innings workload and grades out a little better in park-neutral and saber measurements, so it can be fairly called a mediocrity.

Meanwhile, this is the worst Reds offense since 1982.

How can this be? We're being told over and over that the starting pitching is an abject failure.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-27-2009, 02:32 PM
What's scarier is that he thought this rotation was good. I actually think he wanted to add pop to the lineup, as he has repeated the need for a power bat, but I think he truly believed along with most of this board and the press that this pitching was good. Whoops.


As M2 mentioned, the rotation has been mediocre. And that's without Volquez. I'm assuming they weren't expecting Volquez to be hurt all year.

I'm as negative about this franchise as anyone and even I thought this was a solid rotation coming into the year.

With a healthy Volquez I still do.

M2
07-27-2009, 02:33 PM
They have to be near perfect every night to win. Absolutely no margin for error.

That's the crux of it. FWIW, I think that magnifies every defensive mistake. A better team would make it easier to concentrate on the plays that get made as opposed to the ones that don't. The Reds could be playing the best defense in all of baseball and it would still be too many mistakes given the offense and pitching.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 02:33 PM
How can this be? We're being told over and over that the starting pitching is an abject failure.

The rotation is at best mediocrity. That's the sweet spin. When you consider how well the defense has played behind them, then you realize they're pretty crummy.

(Not the bullpen mind you).

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 02:35 PM
With a healthy Volquez I still do.

Respectfully, that's pretty delusional. The facts are there, right before your eyes: this is a deeply flawed rotation. This has moved beyond the point of debate.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-27-2009, 02:38 PM
The rotation is at best mediocrity. That's the sweet spin. When you consider how well the defense has played behind them, then you realize they're pretty crummy.

(Not the bullpen mind you).

Other than maybe Arroyo, who has been "crummy" in the rotation?

Owings? I think he's pitched like a #5, which he is.

Harang's a little down, but not crummy.

Cueto has been solid.

Volquez has been hurt and his replacements have been crummy, but like I said, it's not like they were expecting him to be hurt this year.

Kc61
07-27-2009, 02:41 PM
Walt said in the off-season, in effect, that fans would have to get used to a different kind of team. He knew very well that the offense would be the worst part of the ballclub.

But the Reds obviously didn't foresee that the offense would be this monumentally bad.

I do think the pitching is above average and would have held up better if the team scored some runs. How can a Harang go out there for two years and never get support?

Eventually, pitchers will press, try to be too fine, worry about giving up anything. Every game is a pressure game for these pitchers.

Yes, the pitching has faded badly but it's hard to pitch successfully with absolutely no run support.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-27-2009, 02:42 PM
Respectfully, that's pretty delusional. The facts are there, right before your eyes: this is a deeply flawed rotation. This has moved beyond the point of debate.

I disagree. You think if they had the Volquez of 2008 this is a disaster of a rotation?

What? That's delusional.

Regardless, it's not nearly as obvious as the giant black hole in this offense, which we all (except Walt) knew was there.

M2
07-27-2009, 02:43 PM
There is wiggle room between fantastic and awful. Usually a rotation is neither, though with the Reds it's never the former (at least within most of our lifetimes) and only sometimes the latter.

I think perhaps what complicates the issue is that most teams need a better-than-average rotation to make the playoffs, which means an average rotation still needs to improve to make the postseason.

edabbs44
07-27-2009, 02:45 PM
I disagree. You think if they had the Volquez of 2008 this is a disaster of a rotation?

What? That's delusional.

Regardless, it's not nearly as obvious as the giant black hole in this offense, which we all (except Walt) knew was there.

Volquez of 2009 is a lot like Volquez of 2H 2008. 1H 2008 Edinson may have been a slight aberration.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-27-2009, 02:50 PM
Volquez of 2009 is a lot like Volquez of 2H 2008. 1H 2008 Edinson may have been a slight aberration.

I wasn't referring to the 1st half Volquez or the 2nd half Volquez, but the combined Volquez of 2008, which is much better than no Volquez at all.

I actually expected his numbers in 2009 to fall more in line with his 2nd half numbers of 2008, but even so, there is nothing wrong with that.

Falls City Beer
07-27-2009, 02:50 PM
Walt said in the off-season, in effect, that fans would have to get used to a different kind of team. He knew very well that the offense would be the worst part of the ballclub.

But the Reds obviously didn't foresee that the offense would be this monumentally bad.

I do think the pitching is above average and would have held up better if the team scored some runs. How can a Harang go out there for two years and never get support?

Eventually, pitchers will press, try to be too fine, worry about giving up anything. Every game is a pressure game for these pitchers.

Yes, the pitching has faded badly but it's hard to pitch successfully with absolutely no run support.

No.

edabbs44
07-27-2009, 03:04 PM
The sad thing is that most of us predicted this prior to the season.

Walt apparently had no idea.

Scary.

I would be shocked if Walt thought that this offense was going to be very good.

The offense has dealt with a number of unforseen issues (Votto DL visit, Bruce's struggles and DL visit, EdE's struggles and DL visit) that no one could have predicted. I think Walt thought that the offense would have been better than it has been and rightfully so. I don't think anyone would have called the Votto, Bruce and EdE issues. If Votto was here the entire year and Bruce and EdE stayed healthy and played to expectations, the offense wouldn't be nearly as pathetic.

Sure they needed a middle of the order bat and Walt even said that prior to the start of the year. But what we are seeing is patheticness of biblical proportions and that's not what anyone expected, due to the unforeseen injuries and struggles. Even this board.

OldXOhio
07-27-2009, 03:13 PM
Volquez of 2009 is a lot like Volquez of 2H 2008. 1H 2008 Edinson may have been a slight aberration.

He's pitched one full season in the bigs.

edabbs44
07-27-2009, 03:23 PM
He's pitched one full season in the bigs.

And 2/3s of it was much different than the first 1/3.

HokieRed
07-27-2009, 03:45 PM
Stubbs, Francisco, and Sutton to the Jays for Rolen, as I proposed earlier, they to pay half his salary next year. Costs us 5.5
EE to the Bucs even up for Snell, about a wash as to pay, IIRC.
Arroyo to the Yankees, we pay 4, save 7.
Gonzo comes off contract; his money pays Rolen.
Saving of 7 from Arroyo, plus 4 from Weathers, gives us 11 million next year for outfield bat.
Proposed lineup for July 27, 2010:
Heisey, CF
Frazier, 2b
Votto, 1b
11 million dollar outfield bat
Rolen, 3b
Bruce, RF
Phillips, SS
Hanigan, C

One possible change could come from sooner than expected development of Alonso, a nice problem we'd have.

Rotation (first 8): Cueto, Volquez, Harang, Snell, Bailey, Owings, Maloney, Lecure
Bullpen: Owings, Masset, Cordero, Roenicke, Fisher, Herrera, Rhodes.

GAC
07-27-2009, 07:49 PM
Because he is the ONE asset that can bring back things that fill needs on this club, and 2b can be back-filled much easier. I happen to think the idea floated above of Frazier to 2b is a good one, IF a Phillips trade has helped fill the gap at SS and maybe with a SP.

We "back-filled" several other positions on this team too, from LF to CF...and what have we got? I'm tired of this organization dealing away established players who are entering their prime, and either handing the position over to land fill or HOPING this or that player will somehow fill the vacancy.


GAC, they are NOT winning with him, can he be turned into pieces that address that?

But he's not the reason why we aren't winning though. He is a contributor on both sides. Using your logic, would you trade away a Votto, Cueto, or even an EV, because their value is now high, and we should use that to address other areas of need?

The reason we aren't winning is because of those other obvious areas of need that this FO refuses to seriously address. When is this organization going to start to do that, while holding on to those other sound foundational pieces? Instead of using them to laterally fill other needs?

IMO - BP, alone, is not going to bring you much of anything in an SP. Just my take. If I was a GM, and even had an interest in a BP, I still wouldn't divest myself of a quality SP, or even one who holds high prospects, for the likes of a BP. Now if the Reds could "package" a BP with someone else and bring in a Halladay, then I'd say "Go for it!". But I just don't think BP alone is going to do that.

You mention Todd Frazier. Frazier is a very promising prospect. But he just got promoted to AA this year. He played SS his entire collegiate career, and is now playing OF for Carolina. To the best of my knowledge, he's never, consistently played 2B. Wouldn't he better suited to be the Red's SS of the future? Now that doesn't mean he can't play 2B. But it obviously is not in the Reds scheme of things for this kid. If you wanted to insert Frazier at 2B, then he should be playing there and learning the position. Just because a player plays either SS or 2B, does not mean they can easily make the transition to the other position.

I simply believe this FO can address those other areas of need, without divesting ourselves of what talent, and the foundational players, we have. If they really were serious about wanting to win. They "mouth" it well; but their actions say otherwise.

That's why we have guys like Taveras, Hairston, Gomes, and Nix starting on this team. Symbolism over substance IMO.

Add, not subtract. You move contracts like Arroyo and/or Harang, and even Cordero's if you can, that allows you to spend, and address those other areas.

That's IF this FO would spend... and spend wisely. ;)

membengal
07-27-2009, 08:01 PM
Boring, GAC.

IF they are not going to add payroll, what else can they do? Seriously, what?

Because keeping payroll at around $70 million, they are spinning their wheels. Perpetually. So either they move the guys who have value when they have value, or we wait, inevitably, until they have less value and wonder why they can't then be dealt.

GAC
07-27-2009, 08:18 PM
Boring, GAC.

What's boring about actually recognizing those that are assets, and those that ain't, and getting rid of the misfits and SERIOUSLY making efforts to build on those assets and ADD players to complement them?


IF they are not going to add payroll, what else can they do? Seriously, what?

I guess they can then learn to be content on being a team in 4th or 5th place in this division.


Because keeping payroll at around $70 million, they are spinning their wheels. Perpetually. So either they move the guys who have value when they have value, or we wait, inevitably, until they have less value and wonder why they can't then be dealt.

So because they have made the conscious decision to be "cheap", we, the fans, need to buy into this philosophy they're trying to sell us on of constantly operating within this vicious cycle of trading away good players to fill lateral needs, and, more importantly, not really having firm solutions for the hole we're creating; but once again taking a chance on some hopeful/unproven.

Again... if you trade away BP right now, then who plays 2B? Who plays it in 2010? Frazier? Why are you inserting a player into a position he really isn't experienced in playing, and who the Reds obviously see as an OFer?

membengal
07-27-2009, 08:25 PM
I don't know how the Reds view Frazier, and neither do you. Frazier is playing 2b tonite in the minors for what it's worth.