PDA

View Full Version : Worst OPS+ so far in 2009



nate
07-28-2009, 11:56 AM
Another (http://www.baseball-reference.com/blog/archives/2028) Reds-related "BR-Stat of the day"

Opening graph:


With his second straight season having a qualifying OPS+ under 60, it’s time for Willy Taveras’ playing career to be over. It doesn’t matter how fast the guy is–with an OBP of .289, he’s not getting on base enough and no team should be wasting plate appearances on the guy. Defensively he’s an average centerfielder (not above average with that speed) and there’s no reason to use him in a game except as a pinch-runner.Willy's seemed to hit better lately but I've been more underwhelmed with his defense than bat. The bat is what I expected, the glove is much less than I thought it would be.

Is it time to see Stubbs or Heisy yet?

BRM
07-28-2009, 11:58 AM
Is it time to see Stubbs or Heisy yet?

Dusty said they were considered for Dickerson's spot but he'd rather they played regularly at Louisville. You know, there is certainly no room for them to get some PT in Cincinnati.

Homer Bailey
07-28-2009, 12:01 PM
:angry:

nate
07-28-2009, 12:03 PM
I thought it was interesting that Jimmy Rollins was on that list too.

flyer85
07-28-2009, 12:04 PM
I looked at the list.

OPS+ of 54. Next closest is 63, Willy T is wining by a wide margin.

The Reds ought to be negotiating that extension.

RED VAN HOT
07-28-2009, 12:23 PM
Since a 9 for 15 three game streak that raised his average to .322 in May, his performance has been dismal. On the Padre broadcast last night they noted that he had experienced a 41 day span without a walk earlier this year. Apparently, that hitting burst in May caused him to forget what his game really is. There ought to be a baseball term for this, a player who allows limited, unusual success to change his game for the worse. I would say that he munson'd, named after the loser that Woody Harrelson played in Kingpin, but Munson is a respected baseball name. Any suggestions?

Homer Bailey
07-28-2009, 12:35 PM
Since a 9 for 15 three game streak that raised his average to .322 in May, his performance has been dismal. On the Padre broadcast last night they noted that he had experienced a 41 day span without a walk earlier this year. Apparently, that hitting burst in May caused him to forget what his game really is. There ought to be a baseball term for this, a player who allows limited, unusual success to change his game for the worse. I would say that he munson'd, named after the loser that Woody Harrelson played in Kingpin, but Munson is a respected baseball name. Any suggestions?

My buddy got upset with me when I mentioned that WT's hot hitting just meant he was going to fall on his face even harder whenever he eventually did. He told me that I could find a bad thing about every good thing on this team, but it appears I was right. I have to root for WT to fail in hopes that he finds his way off the team, because that is the only way DB will take him out of the lineup. I know that any success he encounters is what DB is going to remember, and any failures will be offset by DB's memory of how awesome he was for a particular 3 game stretch.

BuckeyeRedleg
07-28-2009, 12:39 PM
Since a 9 for 15 three game streak that raised his average to .322 in May, his performance has been dismal. On the Padre broadcast last night they noted that he had experienced a 41 day span without a walk earlier this year. Apparently, that hitting burst in May caused him to forget what his game really is. There ought to be a baseball term for this, a player who allows limited, unusual success to change his game for the worse. I would say that he munson'd, named after the loser that Woody Harrelson played in Kingpin, but Munson is a respected baseball name. Any suggestions?

How about Pokey'd?

Brutus
07-28-2009, 12:48 PM
Dusty said they were considered for Dickerson's spot but he'd rather they played regularly at Louisville. You know, there is certainly no room for them to get some PT in Cincinnati.

Because of the arbitration clock, I imagine the outfielders could all check into a mental institution the rest of the season and the Reds would still be reluctant to call up either one.

redsmetz
07-28-2009, 12:58 PM
It's interesting to me looking at this because it helps me understand OPS more fully. Over the last 30 days (not counting last night), Taveras was hitting .301, but his other lines were not very good (which is what everyone here has been saying) - .301/.323/.333 with an OPS of .656. For all his speed, he only stole six bases during that time and was thrown out three. He walked three times and had one double and one triple. He scored nine runs and knocked in three. That's just not productive at all.

Interestingly, being at last night's game, I saw the best and worst of Taveras in the field. The ball that ended up being a double, looked to have been very playable. I didn't think Taveras got back as quickly he should have and been there waiting for that ball. And yet he threw out two runners, one at home and the other at third.

Very maddening player. I don't believe the club's experiment with Taveras has worked as they had hoped. Even batting with a decent average over the last month, his production has not been sufficient. I'm hoping they're eating his contract or finding a buyer for anything (and I almost never say that). Seems like a nice guy, but he has no place with us, IMO.

Ltlabner
07-28-2009, 01:03 PM
Poor Wee-Willy has been thrashed to death. Most of us knew he sucked and he has, in fact sucked.

On a bigger picture level, what exaxctly did Walt and is crew see in WT in the first place? The numbers were all there plain as day for anybody with a brain to see.

IIRC somebody in the organization said they saw something they could fix to improve WT. What the heck did they think they could change? Why didn't they change it? Did they try but it made no difference? Did they forget to make the changes?

Moving forward, what flaws exist in the talent identification department need to be addressed to prevent such a preventable disaster from occuring again?

pahster
07-28-2009, 01:08 PM
On a bigger picture level, what exaxctly did Walt and is crew see in WT in the first place? The numbers were all there plain as day for anybody with a brain to see.

IIRC somebody in the organization said they saw something they could fix to improve WT. What the heck did they think they could change? Why didn't they change it? Did they try but it made no difference? Did they forget to make the changes?


Jamie Quirk claimed he could fix Taveras.

Raisor
07-28-2009, 01:10 PM
Jamie Quirk claimed he could fix Taveras.

Jamie Quirk should be "relieved of his duties".

Someone needs to be the fall guy.

flyer85
07-28-2009, 01:11 PM
Jamie Quirk claimed he could fix Taveras.he is just having a bad year, the fix should hit in 2011 ... lock him up now :eek:

Highlifeman21
07-28-2009, 01:12 PM
I thought it was interesting that Jimmy Rollins was on that list too.

He's been pretty bad this season.

Not Virus bad, but bad for J-Roll.

RED VAN HOT
07-28-2009, 04:26 PM
How about Pokey'd?

I like it. Another example that comes to mind is Bret Boone. Several clubs tried to cure him of the belief that he was a power hitter. He did put up power numbers later in his career, but those were somewhat suspicious.

In the case of Taveras, one must wonder if that is the reason two other teams have given up on him, his unwillingness to take coaching. I pose this question. If the Reds DFA'd him and he signed with another team, wouldn't the Reds be better off paying him to play for a competitor, as opposed to keeping him and preventing Stubbs or Heisey from getting a shot?

At the time, I thought Taveras was a good signing. Sometimes, you just need to grab a napkin, wipe the egg off your face, and get on with things.

Ron Madden
07-28-2009, 04:34 PM
This comes as no surprise.

edabbs44
07-28-2009, 04:35 PM
How about Pokey'd?

How about having the Willys?

nate
07-28-2009, 06:15 PM
How about having the Willys?

Or getting a "Wet Willy."

Ltlabner
07-28-2009, 06:19 PM
I'm hoping they're eating his contract or finding a buyer for anything (and I almost never say that). Seems like a nice guy, but he has no place with us, IMO.

Wowzies.

If Redsmetz gives up on you, you are one crappy player.

GAC
07-28-2009, 06:28 PM
On a bigger picture level, what exaxctly did Walt and Dusty see in WT in the first place?

Fixed that for ya. ;)

Speed and a "crossed-fingers, cross-eyed" blind optimism, devoid of factual reality, that he'd return to his 2007 form... and not any of the other years.

I call it the "Alice has her head up the Mad Hatter's butt" syndrome. ;)

mth123
07-28-2009, 09:02 PM
It's interesting to me looking at this because it helps me understand OPS more fully. Over the last 30 days (not counting last night), Taveras was hitting .301, but his other lines were not very good (which is what everyone here has been saying) - .301/.323/.333 with an OPS of .656. For all his speed, he only stole six bases during that time and was thrown out three. He walked three times and had one double and one triple. He scored nine runs and knocked in three. That's just not productive at all.

Interestingly, being at last night's game, I saw the best and worst of Taveras in the field. The ball that ended up being a double, looked to have been very playable. I didn't think Taveras got back as quickly he should have and been there waiting for that ball. And yet he threw out two runners, one at home and the other at third.

Very maddening player. I don't believe the club's experiment with Taveras has worked as they had hoped. Even batting with a decent average over the last month, his production has not been sufficient. I'm hoping they're eating his contract or finding a buyer for anything (and I almost never say that). Seems like a nice guy, but he has no place with us, IMO.

Ladies and Gents, this is about the stongest argument against a guy you'll ever hear. Guys like me whine all the time, but redsmetz isn't critical unless its a definitive reality.

Welcome to the dark side Redsmetz;)

edabbs44
07-28-2009, 11:59 PM
Poor Wee-Willy has been thrashed to death. Most of us knew he sucked and he has, in fact sucked.
On a bigger picture level, what exaxctly did Walt and is crew see in WT in the first place? The numbers were all there plain as day for anybody with a brain to see.

IIRC somebody in the organization said they saw something they could fix to improve WT. What the heck did they think they could change? Why didn't they change it? Did they try but it made no difference? Did they forget to make the changes?

Moving forward, what flaws exist in the talent identification department need to be addressed to prevent such a preventable disaster from occuring again?

Sorry to interrupt while the horse is being finished off, but I wanted to ask a simple question of those who continue to rail on Walt and Taveras regarding his signing.

What exactly did you know?

I have seen a few guys continue to talk about how obvious it was that Taveras sucked and how poor of a decision it was to sign him. About how the entire board knew that this wouldn't work out and how the stats were there for the taking.

I just went back and read a few old threads from this past offseason and found a bit of a pattern. Some of those same individuals who "knew" about Taveras also "knew" that Milton Bradley was an offensive juggernaut, that Brian Giles would have been a good addition if available, that Burrell would have been a wise signing and that Juan Rivera would suck this year. Big time. Some of those Rivera posts were doozies.

Many of these assessments prior to this season were labeled as obvious and even had the fancy stats to back them up. Further, some people congratulated those posters on their related analyses and even went so far as to give said posters over 50 billion imaginary rep points.

You heard me. In excess of 50 billion fake rep points. That's big time.

So I was wondering what some of your takes on this would be. If most of the board was so right on Taveras and yet so wrong on a number of other guys, isn't it kind of garbage that there is continued harping on Walt for the signing of Taveras? Especially when you consider that, with full support of the board and using the same analysis that made us all know about the dangers of Willy T, Jocketty could have made much more fatal mistakes?

I'd be interested to hear some other opinions.

Stormy
07-29-2009, 12:22 AM
So I was wondering what some of your takes on this would be. If most of the board was so right on Taveras and yet so wrong on a number of other guys, isn't it kind of garbage that there is continued harping on Walt for the signing of Taveras? Especially when you consider that, with full support of the board and using the same analysis that made us all know about the dangers of Willy T, Jocketty could have made much more fatal mistakes?

I'd be interested to hear some other opinions.

Who cares about board opinions or consensus? Walt is the high profile GM of a MLB team, and his primary off season acquisition has made a strong case to be considered the least productive player in the league. Regardless of which poster thought who would be a good/bad fit on this team, the GM went against a ton of statistical precedent in betting on Taveras. It was an eminently foreseeable mistake, regardless of whether fans also misjudge prospective acquisitions at times.

He compounded this mistake by re-signing JHJ, knowing full well that in both cases Dusty would use them as our #1/2 punch. The results? The Reds have the worst combined OBP for #1/2 tandems in the game, which is a major factor in our current status as one of the worst offenses in baseball.

So, of course we should hold him accountable for this. What's a GM answer for if not effectiveness of acquisitions, roster design, and unit productivity? So far Walt gets low grades across the board on those fronts.

Homer Bailey
07-29-2009, 02:09 AM
Sorry to interrupt while the horse is being finished off, but I wanted to ask a simple question of those who continue to rail on Walt and Taveras regarding his signing.

What exactly did you know?

I have seen a few guys continue to talk about how obvious it was that Taveras sucked and how poor of a decision it was to sign him. About how the entire board knew that this wouldn't work out and how the stats were there for the taking.

I just went back and read a few old threads from this past offseason and found a bit of a pattern. Some of those same individuals who "knew" about Taveras also "knew" that Milton Bradley was an offensive juggernaut, that Brian Giles would have been a good addition if available, that Burrell would have been a wise signing and that Juan Rivera would suck this year. Big time. Some of those Rivera posts were doozies.

Many of these assessments prior to this season were labeled as obvious and even had the fancy stats to back them up. Further, some people congratulated those posters on their related analyses and even went so far as to give said posters over 50 billion imaginary rep points.

You heard me. In excess of 50 billion fake rep points. That's big time.

So I was wondering what some of your takes on this would be. If most of the board was so right on Taveras and yet so wrong on a number of other guys, isn't it kind of garbage that there is continued harping on Walt for the signing of Taveras? Especially when you consider that, with full support of the board and using the same analysis that made us all know about the dangers of Willy T, Jocketty could have made much more fatal mistakes?

I'd be interested to hear some other opinions.


There is nothing that says those guys would still all be doing terrible in Cincinnati. There's nothing saying they would be better, but it doesn't mean they wouldn't succeed. I think Bradley would do much better in a smaller market. Burrell I was never fond of, but he would have looked great as a RH'er between the two lefties.

At least those guys had a history of success. WT has had no history of success.

*BaseClogger*
07-29-2009, 02:33 AM
Sorry to interrupt while the horse is being finished off, but I wanted to ask a simple question of those who continue to rail on Walt and Taveras regarding his signing.

What exactly did you know?

I have seen a few guys continue to talk about how obvious it was that Taveras sucked and how poor of a decision it was to sign him. About how the entire board knew that this wouldn't work out and how the stats were there for the taking.

I just went back and read a few old threads from this past offseason and found a bit of a pattern. Some of those same individuals who "knew" about Taveras also "knew" that Milton Bradley was an offensive juggernaut, that Brian Giles would have been a good addition if available, that Burrell would have been a wise signing and that Juan Rivera would suck this year. Big time. Some of those Rivera posts were doozies.

Many of these assessments prior to this season were labeled as obvious and even had the fancy stats to back them up. Further, some people congratulated those posters on their related analyses and even went so far as to give said posters over 50 billion imaginary rep points.

You heard me. In excess of 50 billion fake rep points. That's big time.

So I was wondering what some of your takes on this would be. If most of the board was so right on Taveras and yet so wrong on a number of other guys, isn't it kind of garbage that there is continued harping on Walt for the signing of Taveras? Especially when you consider that, with full support of the board and using the same analysis that made us all know about the dangers of Willy T, Jocketty could have made much more fatal mistakes?

I'd be interested to hear some other opinions.

Yes, everybody knew Willy T would suck. Indeed, everybody also said Milton Bradley would hit. Did anybody expect him to struggle this much at the plate? You constantly reminded us how much of an injury risk and distraction he was, but I don't remember you ever saying the guy couldn't hit...

edabbs44
07-29-2009, 04:11 AM
Yes, everybody knew Willy T would suck. Indeed, everybody also said Milton Bradley would hit. Did anybody expect him to struggle this much at the plate? You constantly reminded us how much of an injury risk and distraction he was, but I don't remember you ever saying the guy couldn't hit...

The post wasn't about what I said, it was about how everyone "knew" Bradley would hit and then he didn't. Just like everyone "knew" what Taveras was going to do.

But I think some people did mntion that his numbers were somewhat inflated by his home park and maybe by DHing.

edabbs44
07-29-2009, 04:21 AM
Who cares about board opinions or consensus? Walt is the high profile GM of a MLB team, and his primary off season acquisition has made a strong case to be considered the least productive player in the league. Regardless of which poster thought who would be a good/bad fit on this team, the GM went against a ton of statistical precedent in betting on Taveras. It was an eminently foreseeable mistake, regardless of whether fans also misjudge prospective acquisitions at times.

Sure it was a mistake, but it is probably the mistake with the least amount of problems when talking about some other moves that he "should" have made. Willy for 2 years, $6MM is a dream compared to what Chicago is dealing with.


He compounded this mistake by re-signing JHJ, knowing full well that in both cases Dusty would use them as our #1/2 punch. The results? The Reds have the worst combined OBP for #1/2 tandems in the game, which is a major factor in our current status as one of the worst offenses in baseball.

So, of course we should hold him accountable for this. What's a GM answer for if not effectiveness of acquisitions, roster design, and unit productivity? So far Walt gets low grades across the board on those fronts.

GMs should absolutely be held accountable for the product they put on the field. 100% percent. And Taveras should be on Walt, unless it was part of a behind the scenes chess game that we have no idea about.

And like they should be graded on the roster they put together, they should also get some side grades on reasonable moves they didn't make. Sure Taveras didn't work out, but in the grand scheme did this team really have a shot this year? Did Willy really sink their chances by himself? I'm just glad that there was no bad contracts taken on for once to compound the payroll issues for when it really matters.

edabbs44
07-29-2009, 04:26 AM
There is nothing that says those guys would still all be doing terrible in Cincinnati. There's nothing saying they would be better, but it doesn't mean they wouldn't succeed. I think Bradley would do much better in a smaller market. Burrell I was never fond of, but he would have looked great as a RH'er between the two lefties.

At least those guys had a history of success. WT has had no history of success.

So, knowing what you know now, you'd rather have had Jocketty outbid Chicago for Bradley than be on the hook for $6MM to WT?

By the way, Bradley has had issues in Cleveland and Oakland also. He doesn't discriminate when it comes to types of markets where he raises hell.

Ron Madden
07-29-2009, 04:36 AM
Most of us here at RedsZone didn't want any part of Taveras. I don't remember very many wanting Milton Bradley either.

I don't give a rats butt who the Cubs sign, it did make me sick to see the Reds sign Willy Taveras.

mth123
07-29-2009, 05:19 AM
Who said the only choices were Taveras and Bradley?

The team had an obvious need for some one to provide some run production in the middle part of the order. The fact being ignored here is that he Reds had Dickerson who had the look of a CF who would be better both offensively and defensively than Taveras projected to be. I had no illusions that Dickerson would be a star caliber player, but a high OBP, .750 to .775 OPS with good defense in CF was a reasonable expectation based on his progression through the minors (not his overall minor league career numbers, but his progression). The team didn't need Willy T, Period.

As far as LF goes, I thought Gomes was Walt's best move and said so in the Gomes thread. There were reasonable options out there for not much talent or dollars. Josh Willingham? Nick Swisher? Juan Rivera? Bobby Abreu? Its a valid argument that a guy like Abreu probably would not have considered Cincy, but better fits were out there for the taking. If the Reds had signed say, Geoff Jenkins and he would have showed that he was done and failed miserably, I don't think as many would be complaining. He fit the need that this team had for a mid-order to lower hitter to play LF. Signing Willy did not address a single thing that this team was lacking and while 2 years, 6.5 Million is not franchise busting, its more money than some of these other guys got and could have been spent differently. My personal griping about Willy has more to do with his production than his cost. IMO, the only acceptable way for a team to involve Willy would have been as a non-roster invitee who really had to earn his way on the roster and with no guaranteee that DFA wasn't around the corner had he failed. Even a non-roster deal accompanied by a wink and a nod acknowledging that he'd go north would have been unacceptable for me. I honestly believe that Norris Hopper is and was a better player and I think he has no business on a major league roster.

Forget the money for a minute, the decision to put Willy Taveras on the roster and as the lead-off hitter while announcing and considering that "problem" solved is horribly bad in a baseball sense and it has me questioning all things Walt. It is about the worst display of misdiagnosing the team's needs and mis-evaluating the player chosen to fill that need that I can recall. This was not some marginal move for a role player to fill a platoon or come off the bench. This was a choice for the team as its everyday CF, lead-off hitter and offensive "catlyst." Willy was the centerpiece of the off-season make-over of the roster and the team was touting him and his potential "100 steals" as the guy to usher in a change in this team's losing ways. While I agree that Willy's deal didn't do any long term damage, it represents a total failure on the baseball side of things and evaluating the baseball side of things is still the primary role of a GM.

Ltlabner
07-29-2009, 07:31 AM
You heard me. In excess of 50 billion fake rep points. That's big time.

That's because we got game. People who got game will always receive metric butt-tons of fake rep points.


So I was wondering what some of your takes on this would be. If most of the board was so right on Taveras and yet so wrong on a number of other guys, isn't it kind of garbage that there is continued harping on Walt for the signing of Taveras? Especially when you consider that, with full support of the board and using the same analysis that made us all know about the dangers of Willy T, Jocketty could have made much more fatal mistakes?

I'd be interested to hear some other opinions.

Do you really not understand how an internet sports forum works?

Because whether you realize it or not, the road you are heading down is that we should all shut up and offer no criticism or opinions (especially ones those don't align with your views). And that kinda sorta flies in the face of what an internet sports forum is all about.

kpresidente
07-29-2009, 08:04 AM
Sorry to interrupt while the horse is being finished off, but I wanted to ask a simple question of those who continue to rail on Walt and Taveras regarding his signing.

What exactly did you know?

I just went back and read a few old threads from this past offseason and found a bit of a pattern. Some of those same individuals who "knew" about Taveras also "knew" that Milton Bradley was an offensive juggernaut, that Brian Giles would have been a good addition if available, that Burrell would have been a wise signing and that Juan Rivera would suck this year. Big time. Some of those Rivera posts were doozies.

This is what we knew...

Career OPS...

Burrell - .844
Giles - .902
Bradley - .822

Taveras - .655

See the difference? Those other guys are producing vastly different numbers than their career norms. Burrell, Giles and Bradley are good players who are either having random poor seasons or fell off the cliff b/c of age.

Willy T, OTOH, is doing exactly what he's always done. Stink.

And as far as I recall, people were split on Rivera. Good career numbers, but had been injured the previous two seasons. Hardly an unreasonable position for the board to have.

redsmetz
07-29-2009, 08:45 AM
I've hardly come to the dark side, but I wasn't adverse to the Taveras signing. Ever the optimist, I think one of the beauties of baseball is that good stories can occur. Sometimes teams can identify hitches in swings and ascertain some other problem that helps a player suddenly produce at a better level. I had no problem with the team believing they could fix what others haven't. But that clearly hasn't happened and it's my hope that we move on from the Taveras experiment after this season. As many have noted, the money isn't significant, although it looms larger because of the economic situation at hand and it's money that is wasted.

It was an eye opener to examine Taveras' numbers over this last month. I did it because I had the correct perception that he was hitting at a decent level (.301 from June 28th thru July 27th). But it was added numbers that showed me he wasn't being productive at all. Runs scored, of course, are dependent on the folks behind you getting you in, something this team has been extremely adverse at this season. But for all his speed, you'd like to see some doubles and the occasional triple in there to make up for the overall lack of punch. One of each in that month.

So even if Taveras maintains the batting average of the last month, there's no production with it. It's ultimately fools gold and more so at the top of the order.

That said, I didn't disagree, as I said, with the initial signing. Clearly they haven't identified something that would make him a more productive hitter - they were mistaken. I still believe good stories can come up (the proverbial career year - or two), but this has proved to not be one.

Had we picked up one other bat with some punch and not had the plethora of injuries that have decimated a team that could have competed, this would have been a different season and Taveras would have been a non-issue and not the poster child for what's gone wrong with this season.

edabbs44
07-29-2009, 09:22 AM
That's because we got game. People who got game will always receive metric butt-tons of fake rep points.

Who is "we"? I'm prertty sure that it wasn't you who received those fake rep points.



Do you really not understand how an internet sports forum works?

Because whether you realize it or not, the road you are heading down is that we should all shut up and offer no criticism or opinions (especially ones those don't align with your views). And that kinda sorta flies in the face of what an internet sports forum is all about.

I understand how it works. But I don't think that we are on the same page.

My point wasn't about giving opinions or criticising dumb moves. My point was where people were giving opinions based upon their own statistical analysis across an entire offseason. Some were accurate and some were not. Now, those same individuals are taking the biggest one that was accurate and drilling the Reds' FO with how it was so obvious and how the entire board knew exactly what was going to happen. Meanwhile, that same methodology must have been at least somewhat flawed due to the results we saw. But yet, the Taveras call was a mortal lock?

And it's been going on for months. Numerous threads about Taveras. Numerous non-Taveras threads being infected with Taveras discussion. An absolute beating of a dead horse that really isn't bringing much to this board, but yet it is allowed for some reason.

And the common denominator is that some of us "knew" that Taveras was brutal based upon his career performance and feel the need to bring it up on an almost hourly basis. But yet, in reality, no one "knew" anything because the same ones who were so adamantly against Willy were for a few other guys using the same criteria who ended up being awful for the first 2/3s of 2009.

This board is all about analysis, predictions, opinions, praise and criticism. But it shouldn't be about acting like we are smarter than the FO by using cherry-picked evidence to prove our claims. We know about 5% (at the most) of what really goes on.

Taveras is here. He is brutal. Much of the board was on point on this call. But let's not act like we know so much more than a GM like Jocketty. Because we don't.

edabbs44
07-29-2009, 09:40 AM
This is what we knew...

Career OPS...

Burrell - .844
Giles - .902
Bradley - .822

Taveras - .655

See the difference? Those other guys are producing vastly different numbers than their career norms. Burrell, Giles and Bradley are good players who are either having random poor seasons or fell off the cliff b/c of age.

Kind of my point. Maybe there is more to evaluating players for future performance than the method used here. Saying that everyone knew what taveras would do is flawed since similar methodology yielded imperfect results in the same off-season.


Willy T, OTOH, is doing exactly what he's always done. Stink.

Yep.

But look at Michael Bourn. His 2008-2009 change is probably what this FO had in mind. Coaches thought they could get Taveras to improve his game. They were wrong to this point. Everyone knows that.


And as far as I recall, people were split on Rivera. Good career numbers, but had been injured the previous two seasons. Hardly an unreasonable position for the board to have.

Some of the biggest WT bashers were vehemently against Rivera for many of the same reasons. Going to far to say that they would not renew their ticket plans if he was signed and that the board doesn't understand how things work if they want this guy.

There were some who were pro-Rivera, that is accurate. But some who continually rail on about Willy were dead wrong (so far) on Rivera for similar reasoning.

And continually destroying the Reds' FO for the Taveras acquisition because everyone knew what was going to happen is kind of funny since, in actuality, nobody "knew" anything.

Ltlabner
07-29-2009, 09:42 AM
Who is "we"? I'm pretty sure that it wasn't you who received those fake rep points.

Au contair. I checked my fake rep account and it is virtually overflowing with fake rep points. It's so full, in fact, it's sick. Almost embarrassing.


This board is all about analysis, predictions, opinions, praise and criticism. But it shouldn't be about acting like we are smarter than the FO by using cherry-picked evidence to prove our claims. We know about 5% (at the most) of what really goes on.

Taveras is here. He is brutal. Much of the board was on point on this call. But let's not act like we know so much more than a GM like Jocketty. Because we don't.

By a show of hands, how many people here think they have access to more information than the front office? Hummm....I see...that's right. Nobody raised their hands.

There's exactly zero people on RZ who have access to more data than Walt and the rest of the FO. But the main, reliable data we do have access to is statistics. And interpreting those statistics we offer opinions which are really just statements of probability. By interpreting the statistics you can make the case that the odds are good that player X will go all crazy and give you a great performance. Or that player Y will be a bust.

Sometimes those statements of probability aren't so clear. You'll get a player where opinion is divided because odds of them doing XYZ are only 50/50 or 60/40. That leads to lots of RZ discussion and mixed results on the playing field. Sometimes the GM wins sometimes the GM loses on those deals. Sometimes you get opinions (again just stating the odds) that are pretty slam dunk. Taveras is a case in point. There was a pretty strong opinion that the guy would stink with only a few people arguing against it.

The reason the FO's and Walt is taking a hammering over it is that they had access to the same statistics as we did IN ADDITION to all of the other information they have at their finger-tips. Scouting reports, fancy computer programs, guys with 25+ years of experience, etc etc.

Yet with all that other information beyond what we little people have...with all those other data points...with all the eyes and years of experience at their fingertips they blew the call. Missed it by a mile. They got owned. Epic Failure. Whatever you want to call it.

Nobody here is saying we're smarter than Walt. But what we are saying is that he should have been smarter than the decision he made especially considering that us rank amateurs nailed it with far less available information.

Ltlabner
07-29-2009, 09:55 AM
There were some who were pro-Rivera, that is accurate. But some who continually rail on about Willy were dead wrong (so far) on Rivera for similar reasoning.

And continually destroying the Reds' FO for the Taveras acquisition because everyone knew what was going to happen is kind of funny since, in actuality, nobody "knew" anything.

Apparently the vortex is forming because you are arguing that only the people who have been 100% in their predictions should be allowed to offer opinions.

And that is patently silly.

edabbs44
07-29-2009, 10:26 AM
Apparently the vortex is forming because you are arguing that only the people who have been 100% in their predictions should be allowed to offer opinions.

And that is patently silly.

That isn't my argument. At all.

nate
07-29-2009, 10:26 AM
I'll admit, I was wrong.

I didn't think Willy T would be as horrible as he has been. Both with the bat and with the glove. I thought he'd be Corey Patterson lite (with Retsin!) in the field and he might get close or slightly exceed his career numbers at the plate. I thought that speed would lead to infield hits, multiple reels of defensive highlights and that he might, just might steal 100 bases.

My bad.

I was also wrong about Walt. I thought he was going to be an excellent GM and he knew what he was doing with Willy T. I thought, if anyone, he'd be able to somehow get the Reds organization to get the most out of Willy. I thought that in the worst case (like the one we're in now,) he'd be able influence Dusty's utilization of Willy whether that's hitting lower in the lineup or coming off the bench as a pinch runner if he went (when he goes) bad. I thought there's no way an "experienced" and "winning" GM like Walt Jocketty would allow a sequel to Corey Patterson on the field. At least Corey was only here for one year.

So, there it is. I was wrong about Willy T.

And Walt.

Two for one!

edabbs44
07-29-2009, 10:37 AM
The reason the FO's and Walt is taking a hammering over it is that they had access to the same statistics as we did IN ADDITION to all of the other information they have at their finger-tips. Scouting reports, fancy computer programs, guys with 25+ years of experience, etc etc.

Yet with all that other information beyond what we little people have...with all those other data points...with all the eyes and years of experience at their fingertips they blew the call. Missed it by a mile. They got owned. Epic Failure. Whatever you want to call it.

Nobody here is saying we're smarter than Walt. But what we are saying is that he should have been smarter than the decision he made especially considering that us rank amateurs nailed it with far less available information.

I think you are missing my point. The methodology used by some to evaluate Taveras seems to be flawed at some level since it missed the marks on others. So is it really fair to say that the Reds FO blew the Taveras signing because the information used in that methodology is generally available to the public? Especially when, if following such methodology, they would probably have failed in an even more epic manner by acquiring the previously named guys?

Highlifeman21
07-29-2009, 10:43 AM
That isn't my argument. At all.

Sure seems like it.

People that were blatantly right about Taveras aren't allowed to enjoy being right with some validation of their opinion/analysis b/c they might not have been 100% right about Bradley, Burrell, Giles or Rivera?

I just don't buy it.

1. Not sure where the Giles stuff came from. He was never going to leave SD, and IIRC the conjecture surrounding Giles was "based on his numbers and what he's done in the past, he's the type of hitter we should target". Not sure we were talking about obtaining Giles specifically, but his type numbers.

2. Rivera wasn't an everyday player until this year, so the arguments against Rivera was that based on his limited playing time to this point in his career, his numbers would regress to a mean below his 162 game projections. We were wrong. Rivera was given a chance to play everyday and has thrived. Kinda like we want some of our guys to thrive if they get everyday playing time.

3. Burrell was He Who Shall Not be Named-lite. Probably had a cheaper price tag for the Reds. We knew we were losing offense and needed to replace some offense, so Burrell made sense, especially given the nonsense that the Reds needed only a RH bat to complete the Queen City chapter of Murderers Row. He hasn't worked down in TB so far, but his history suggested he would or he will.

4. Bradley's hit every place he's gone, while raising all kinda Hell in various markets (as you've pointed out). He's been injured this year, he's been in Lou's doghouse this year. Not making excuses for him at all, just pointing out facts. I'd still rather have Bradley than Taveras.

I'm just amazed that you continue to defend Walt and the Reds of the Reds' organization for bringing Taveras onboard when every piece of information available to us as Joe Fan told us that it would be as bad as we expected it to be. Nothing pointed to Taveras turning it around and having another season like that outlier he had in 2007, IIRC.

Highlifeman21
07-29-2009, 10:44 AM
I think you are missing my point. The methodology used by some to evaluate Taveras seems to be flawed at some level since it missed the marks on others. So is it really fair to say that the Reds FO blew the Taveras signing because the information used in that methodology is generally available to the public? Especially when, if following such methodology, they would probably have failed in an even more epic manner by acquiring the previously named guys?

What methodology did we use that you now criticize?

Define methodology please.

edabbs44
07-29-2009, 11:00 AM
Sure seems like it.

People that were blatantly right about Taveras aren't allowed to enjoy being right with some validation of their opinion/analysis b/c they might not have been 100% right about Bradley, Burrell, Giles or Rivera?

I just don't buy it.

1. Not sure where the Giles stuff came from. He was never going to leave SD, and IIRC the conjecture surrounding Giles was "based on his numbers and what he's done in the past, he's the type of hitter we should target". Not sure we were talking about obtaining Giles specifically, but his type numbers.

2. Rivera wasn't an everyday player until this year, so the arguments against Rivera was that based on his limited playing time to this point in his career, his numbers would regress to a mean below his 162 game projections. We were wrong. Rivera was given a chance to play everyday and has thrived. Kinda like we want some of our guys to thrive if they get everyday playing time.

3. Burrell was He Who Shall Not be Named-lite. Probably had a cheaper price tag for the Reds. We knew we were losing offense and needed to replace some offense, so Burrell made sense, especially given the nonsense that the Reds needed only a RH bat to complete the Queen City chapter of Murderers Row. He hasn't worked down in TB so far, but his history suggested he would or he will.

4. Bradley's hit every place he's gone, while raising all kinda Hell in various markets (as you've pointed out). He's been injured this year, he's been in Lou's doghouse this year. Not making excuses for him at all, just pointing out facts. I'd still rather have Bradley than Taveras.

I'm just amazed that you continue to defend Walt and the Reds of the Reds' organization for bringing Taveras onboard when every piece of information available to us as Joe Fan told us that it would be as bad as we expected it to be. Nothing pointed to Taveras turning it around and having another season like that outlier he had in 2007, IIRC.

No defense of Walt for bringing on Taveras. I just believe that the constant mauling of Walt for the Taveras signing is a little unfair due to what I have been saying. Sure it ended up being a bad one, but is it really then end of the world?

And where you say that "every piece of information available" told us that Taveras would be awful, that is flawed since the same info said to buy into Bradley, Burrell and stay away from Juan Rivera. So if Walt were to use that methodology to evaluate FAs next season, maybe he'll stay way from the next $6MM disaster and instead go after the $30MM fiasco. Awesome.

Bottom line is that no methodology is perfect. So even if everyone wants to act like we all "knew" that Taveras was going to bottom out, no one knew for sure.

Michael Bourn was 2009 Taveras in 2008 and now he is on pace for .287/.362/.390 with 108 runs and 59 SBs. How on Earth did that happen?

Looking at previous stats is one part of the evaluation process. But there is more to evaluation than that.

edabbs44
07-29-2009, 11:03 AM
What methodology did we use that you now criticize?

Define methodology please.

I don't know what each person's methodology was but if you are to make an evaluation of someone, obviously you went through some process to make that determination.

Many look at stats such as OBP, OPS, IsoD, IsoP, WAR, RC, RC/27, etc etc etc. I don't know what each person used to evaluate Taveras on their own, but I would guess that the same kind of process was used to decide that Bradley would have been a good signing and Rivera would have been an awful one.

Ltlabner
07-29-2009, 11:10 AM
I don't know what each person used to evaluate Taveras on their own, but I would guess that the same kind of process was used to decide that Bradley would have been a good signing and Rivera would have been an awful one.

Either you don't understand or refuse to grasp that evaluations for some players are cut and dried while others aren't as clear. Thus some predictions have a high probability of being correct while others have a lower probability of being right.

By the way, there is no one magic way to evaluate players. So stop pretending that we all just drop players into one big formula and chunk out our opinions.

M2
07-29-2009, 11:24 AM
I don't know what each person's methodology was but if you are to make an evaluation of someone, obviously you went through some process to make that determination.

Many look at stats such as OBP, OPS, IsoD, IsoP, WAR, RC, RC/27, etc etc etc. I don't know what each person used to evaluate Taveras on their own, but I would guess that the same kind of process was used to decide that Bradley would have been a good signing and Rivera would have been an awful one.

Anybody using any methodology would have figured out pretty quick that Taveras, Bradley and Rivera were such vastly different players that you couldn't begin to paint them with a single brush.

As for Taveras and Bourn, Bourn's posted superior BB rates his whole life. If he hits .270, he'll have a respectable OB. If Taveras hits .270, he'll still be a relative out machine. Bourn's got more power too, though that's more a testament to Taveras' spaghetti bat than Bourn's might.

membengal
07-29-2009, 11:53 AM
Sure it was a mistake, but it is probably the mistake with the least amount of problems when talking about some other moves that he "should" have made. Willy for 2 years, $6MM is a dream compared to what Chicago is dealing with.



GMs should absolutely be held accountable for the product they put on the field. 100% percent. And Taveras should be on Walt, unless it was part of a behind the scenes chess game that we have no idea about.

And like they should be graded on the roster they put together, they should also get some side grades on reasonable moves they didn't make. Sure Taveras didn't work out, but in the grand scheme did this team really have a shot this year? Did Willy really sink their chances by himself? I'm just glad that there was no bad contracts taken on for once to compound the payroll issues for when it really matters.

Man oh man do I find this argument offensive. Because they were not going to win, they should field a horrible product? Because that's what Walt did. By giving Dusty Willy T, and keeping Alex G as the SS, and re-signing JHJ, he handed the gun to a horrible offensive product to Dusty Baker and even loaded the chamber while he was at it.

EVERY YEAR they should be given maximum opportunity to succeed. EVERY YEAR.

At a bare minimum, I would like a GM who does not gut the patient because, "in the grand scheme", they did not have a shot in that particular campaign. Getting Willy Taveras, handing him to Dusty, and doing nothing while Willy proceeds to turn in one of the worst offensive years in history was a horrible awful move that affirmitively contriubted to this train wreck of a season. It is indefensible.

And, I'm sorry, but Taveras WAS and IS a bad contract. They are paying six million dollars for abject awfulness, and they are saddled with him next year. Absolutely atrocious.

You can moon and complain about other "bad contracts" all you want, but harang, arroyo, and cordero have provided inifinity plus one more value to this team, even with their contracts, than that chasm of despair that is willy taveras and his contract.

And it's not just Taveras' signing mind you, it is Walt's refusal to address and fix his mistake that is so disconcerting. To blithely sit by while at-bat after at-bat in the leadoff spot is handed to Taveras makes me question everything about him as a GM. Everything. Add in the rest of it, as Stormy has pointed out over a number of threads, see, for example, http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77554&page=5 , and it has been a shambolic run for Walt since November of 2008. Or, as we were told by many, the exact time frame we could begin to expect magic from Walt, once he had "evaluated" the roster.

Abject failure, from every possible angle.

kpresidente
07-29-2009, 12:13 PM
Kind of my point. Maybe there is more to evaluating players for future performance than the method used here. Saying that everyone knew what taveras would do is flawed since similar methodology yielded imperfect results in the same off-season.


Imperfect? Of course it's imperfect. But you're making the exception the norm. Most players perform at or near their career (or recent career) trends. Predicting that Willie T was going to stink and Burrell would be top hitter were both the reasonable positions.

gonelong
07-29-2009, 12:58 PM
Bottom line is that no methodology is perfect. So even if everyone wants to act like we all "knew" that Taveras was going to bottom out, no one knew for sure.


When the probability is that high, then "knew" is pretty much just short-hand.

If your buddy hits on 20 at at the blackjack table, you "know" he is going to bust, even if in reality he has a 6%ish chance (depends on how many cards seen, etc.) to pull the Ace he needs to get 21.

That is Taveras in a nutshell, he was a hit on 20 with the dealer showing a 6.

Some of the other guys mentioned are more favorable bets. While the book may say the right call is to split them, hit, or stay, none of them are winners every time. Losing a few of these doesn't excuse the Reds FO from taking a hit on 20.

GL

cincrazy
07-29-2009, 01:40 PM
Man oh man do I find this argument offensive. Because they were not going to win, they should field a horrible product? Because that's what Walt did. By giving Dusty Willy T, and keeping Alex G as the SS, and re-signing JHJ, he handed the gun to a horrible offensive product to Dusty Baker and even loaded the chamber while he was at it.

EVERY YEAR they should be given maximum opportunity to succeed. EVERY YEAR.

At a bare minimum, I would like a GM who does not gut the patient because, "in the grand scheme", they did not have a shot in that particular campaign. Getting Willy Taveras, handing him to Dusty, and doing nothing while Willy proceeds to turn in one of the worst offensive years in history was a horrible awful move that affirmitively contriubted to this train wreck of a season. It is indefensible.

And, I'm sorry, but Taveras WAS and IS a bad contract. They are paying six million dollars for abject awfulness, and they are saddled with him next year. Absolutely atrocious.

You can moon and complain about other "bad contracts" all you want, but harang, arroyo, and cordero have provided inifinity plus one more value to this team, even with their contracts, than that chasm of despair that is willy taveras and his contract.

And it's not just Taveras' signing mind you, it is Walt's refusal to address and fix his mistake that is so disconcerting. To blithely sit by while at-bat after at-bat in the leadoff spot is handed to Taveras makes me question everything about him as a GM. Everything. Add in the rest of it, as Stormy has pointed out over a number of threads, see, for example, http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=77554&page=5 , and it has been a shambolic run for Walt since November of 2008. Or, as we were told by many, the exact time frame we could begin to expect magic from Walt, once he had "evaluated" the roster.

Abject failure, from every possible angle.

Good post.

The damndest thing about all of this to me is, the Reds have had two of the worst offensive player of this decade on their roster in the last few years. First Patterson, now Taveras. That isn't coincidence. It's an inept front office.

We got our speedy CF all right. Unfortunately he's the worst hitter in MLB.

RED VAN HOT
07-29-2009, 02:56 PM
I just went back and read a few old threads from this past offseason and found a bit of a pattern. Some of those same individuals who "knew" about Taveras also "knew" that Milton Bradley was an offensive juggernaut, that Brian Giles would have been a good addition if available, that Burrell would have been a wise signing and that Juan Rivera would suck this year. Big time. Some of those Rivera posts were doozies.



To that list you can add Maglio Ordonez and Adrian Beltre. The fact is that Gomes has outhit virtually all of the "name players" that were coveted on this board. GM's make good calls and bad calls. I think WJ has made some good ones, some of the best of which were resisting the impulse to take on contracts of 'name" players past their prime.

We need to acknowledge that other teams are not going to give up good young players (under 30) unless 1) they can't afford to retain their contracts, or 2) they are frustrated with aspects of their character. The Reds can't afford the first type and the second type is not going to turn around the so-called "culture of losing."

My frustration stems from the tendency to hold onto to guys that did not work out. This amounts to throwing good money after bad. The last thing this team needs is to trade minor leaguers for major league players that the seller deems expendable. The team needs a fresh look, with optimistic guys that believe they can win. Let's get on with moving some contracts, cutting players who have not lived up to expectations, and bringing on some youth. I like what the Pirates are doing more than the Reds.

Jpup
07-29-2009, 03:15 PM
To that list you can add Maglio Ordonez and Adrian Beltre. The fact is that Gomes has outhit virtually all of the "name players" that were coveted on this board. GM's make good calls and bad calls. I think WJ has made some good ones, some of the best of which were resisting the impulse to take on contracts of 'name" players past their prime.

We need to acknowledge that other teams are not going to give up good young players (under 30) unless 1) they can't afford to retain their contracts, or 2) they are frustrated with aspects of their character. The Reds can't afford the first type and the second type is not going to turn around the so-called "culture of losing."

My frustration stems from the tendency to hold onto to guys that did not work out. This amounts to throwing good money after bad. The last thing this team needs is to trade minor leaguers for major league players that the seller deems expendable. The team needs a fresh look, with optimistic guys that believe they can win. Let's get on with moving some contracts, cutting players who have not lived up to expectations, and bringing on some youth. I like what the Pirates are doing more than the Reds.

I think most folks want Beltre because of his defense.

RED VAN HOT
07-29-2009, 03:52 PM
I think most folks want Beltre because of his defense.

hard to argue against a defensive upgrade at 3B.

edabbs44
07-29-2009, 04:08 PM
Good post.

The damndest thing about all of this to me is, the Reds have had two of the worst offensive player of this decade on their roster in the last few years. First Patterson, now Taveras. That isn't coincidence. It's an inept front office.
We got our speedy CF all right. Unfortunately he's the worst hitter in MLB.

2 different GMs were at the helm for Patterson and Taveras.

cincrazy
07-29-2009, 04:18 PM
2 different GMs were at the helm for Patterson and Taveras.

Correct. But it's the same exact type of move. The names and faces change, the results stay the same.

kpresidente
07-29-2009, 04:56 PM
To that list you can add Maglio Ordonez and Adrian Beltre. The fact is that Gomes has outhit virtually all of the "name players" that were coveted on this board.

Since we're playing this game, I also wanted Russell Branyon and Raul Ibanez. Being lucky matters, insofar as finding guys on career years vs. down years, but luck isn't the reason why Willie T is terrible.

cincrazy
07-29-2009, 05:00 PM
Since we're playing this game, I also wanted Russell Branyon and Raul Ibanez.

Jermaine Dye would've been nice.

nate
07-29-2009, 05:25 PM
To that list you can add Maglio Ordonez and Adrian Beltre. The fact is that Gomes has outhit virtually all of the "name players" that were coveted on this board.

I don't never saw the list that "this board" posted. Do you have a link to his list?


GM's make good calls and bad calls. I think WJ has made some good ones, some of the best of which were resisting the impulse to take on contracts of 'name" players past their prime. One of his worst ones was to act on the impulse to take a "name" player that is "primeless."


We need to acknowledge that other teams are not going to give up good young players (under 30) unless 1) they can't afford to retain their contracts, or 2) they are frustrated with aspects of their character. The Reds can't afford the first type and the second type is not going to turn around the so-called "culture of losing."I don't think it's that simple. Teams could have good young players block by other good young players. Teams could be close to winning their division or the wild card and have an area of extreme needs. Teams could've overreached on a contract or player advancement on a guy.


My frustration stems from the tendency to hold onto to guys that did not work out. This amounts to throwing good money after bad. The last thing this team needs is to trade minor leaguers for major league players that the seller deems expendable. Why? Sometimes a square peg not fitting in one team's round hole will fit perfectly in another team's square hole.


The team needs a fresh look, with optimistic guys that believe they can win. Fresh look, yes. Optimism and believe, every professional ball player wants to win and be successful. Give me the guy who can play.


Let's get on with moving some contracts, cutting players who have not lived up to expectations, and bringing on some youth. I like what the Pirates are doing more than the Reds.I think the Reds have one of the younger rosters in the league.

RED VAN HOT
07-29-2009, 08:10 PM
Originally Posted by RED VAN HOT View Post
To that list you can add Maglio Ordonez and Adrian Beltre. The fact is that Gomes has outhit virtually all of the "name players" that were coveted on this board.


I don't never saw the list that "this board" posted. Do you have a link to his list?

The use of the term 'list' is a figure of speech. It refers to adding names to those mentioned by edabbs44 in the quoted paragraph. Boards don't post. Individuals on the board post. Some of those individuals were advocates of Ordonez and Beltran. As has been pointed out by subsequent posters, some suggested names have fared well this season. I don't keep a score card on who recommended whom. Nor do I claim that I would have known better. No one really knows with certainty how players will work out. That's why teams overpay. I do believe that in the post-steroid era, relying on past performance is especially risky. In any era, big contracts are risky for small market teams.

Quote: GM's make good calls and bad calls. I think WJ has made some good ones, some of the best of which were resisting the impulse to take on contracts of 'name" players past their prime.

One of his worst ones was to act on the impulse to take a "name" player that is "primeless."

I guess this refers to Taveras. I am not sure what the argument is here. I don't believe that WJ would say this one was one of his best. Had Taveras posted his career average numbers, it would have been OK. I doubt that he expected much more.

Quote:
We need to acknowledge that other teams are not going to give up good young players (under 30) unless 1) they can't afford to retain their contracts, or 2) they are frustrated with aspects of their character. The Reds can't afford the first type and the second type is not going to turn around the so-called "culture of losing."

I don't think it's that simple. Teams could have good young players block by other good young players. Teams could be close to winning their division or the wild card and have an area of extreme needs. Teams could've overreached on a contract or player advancement on a guy.

Let me clarify because I was not specific. I was referring to established major league players who are still in their prime years. A young player that is blocked, is a prospect. These players can be obtained in trade. I have a hard time envisioning a team in a pennant race trading a key player in his prime for another player that they need more. I guess it could happen if they were certain that they had a good replacement in the system. I think it is more likely that they would trade minor leaguers and take on salary instead. I am not sure what you mean by overreached on a contract. Wouldn't that fall into category 1?

Quote:
My frustration stems from the tendency to hold onto to guys that did not work out. This amounts to throwing good money after bad. The last thing this team needs is to trade minor leaguers for major league players that the seller deems expendable.

Why? Sometimes a square peg not fitting in one team's round hole will fit perfectly in another team's square hole.

In general I agree with you. The trade of Turner and Waring for Hernandez was fine. The Reds had minor league depth at those positions and needed a catcher. At this point in the season, however, I don't believe the Reds should be looking to move minor league talent for a square peg.

Quote:
The team needs a fresh look, with optimistic guys that believe they can win.

Fresh look, yes. Optimism and believe, every professional ball player wants to win and be successful. Give me the guy who can play.

I grant that they all want to win and believe they can win. I suspect, however, that veteran players can sense when a season is over and become complacent. No, it won't do much good for your .200 hitters to sprint to first base when they draw a walk. It will do some good for your regulars to run hard on bloop hits that might fall in and could result in two bases instead of one.

Quote:
Let's get on with moving some contracts, cutting players who have not lived up to expectations, and bringing on some youth. I like what the Pirates are doing more than the Reds.

I think the Reds have one of the younger rosters in the league.

Substitute the word prospects for the word youth and you will have what I intended.

I am not sure how this post will look. I am not familiar with the mechanics of capturing quotes within quotes

edabbs44
07-29-2009, 11:24 PM
You can moon and complain about other "bad contracts" all you want, but harang, arroyo, and cordero have provided inifinity plus one more value to this team, even with their contracts, than that chasm of despair that is willy taveras and his contract.

Arroyo's Cincy contract didn't start until this season. His contract is much worse than Taveras'. He hasn't provided any value to Cincy during the contract that Wayne gave him.

Cordero was given the most money ever to a reliever. By this team. The team who cannot score runs to save their life. His contract is much worse than Taveras'. But at least we have a closer.

Harang's contract at least made sense at the time since they bought out some arb years. But I know that I'm not excited to pay him $12.5MM next year.

Let me ask you a question...if Bud Selig told you that, as of right now, you could cancel one contract without any repercussions out of Taveras, Arroyo, Cordero or Harang, who would it be? Don't you think that Taveras' $4MM 2010 contract would be last on the chopping block? It would have to be.

M2
07-29-2009, 11:53 PM
Let me ask you a question...if Bud Selig told you that, as of right now, you could cancel one contract without any repercussions out of Taveras, Arroyo, Cordero or Harang, who would it be? Don't you think that Taveras' $4MM 2010 contract would be last on the chopping block? It would have to be.

Maybe in your mind, but plenty of folks don't show up at the park to root for the savings.

edabbs44
07-29-2009, 11:57 PM
Maybe in your mind, but plenty of folks don't show up at the park to root for the savings.

Next year the fans won't have much else to root for if these guys are still clooging up the balance sheet.

M2
07-30-2009, 12:03 AM
Next year the fans won't have much else to root for if these guys are still clooging up the balance sheet.

So what? Which two starters are the Reds going to acquire with that money to replace them?

That doesn't even touch on them probably needing a 3rd starter, more bullpen help, two starting OFs, a SS, a new 3B and another C (Hanigan, for me, is a backup).

Frankly, if the plan is to get some results in 2010, then getting Harang and Arroyo might just be the best option.

You always seem to be advocating for a tear down. If so, then what do you care if these guys are getting paid next year? What you should really want is for them to get right and fetch a maximum return.

edabbs44
07-30-2009, 02:20 AM
You always seem to be advocating for a tear down. If so, then what do you care if these guys are getting paid next year? What you should really want is for them to get right and fetch a maximum return.

I'm not always advocting for a teardown. I was advocating for one a few years ago b/c of where the team was.

Ron Madden
07-30-2009, 03:34 AM
I'm not always advocting for a teardown. I was advocating for one a few years ago b/c of where the team was.

Are we (major league team) really much better today than we were a few years ago?

I'm not advocating a tear down either but the club must spend money and spend it wisely if they want to contend.

The whole problem with the Reds this decade is they've been trying to rebuild and contend at the same time. That's a very difficult task.

(JMHO)

RED VAN HOT
07-30-2009, 11:58 AM
The whole problem with the Reds this decade is they've been trying to rebuild and contend at the same time. That's a very difficult task.

(JMHO)

I think that sums it up. The Reds have attempted to sign low-average major league players to fill multiple positions in hopes of contending while the farm system matures. If a couple of those guys have career years, you can compete. It's not a bad strategy if you have multiple holes and limited budget. My hope is that we are about to enter a new phase in which we fill the holes with prospects and save the money for the one quality player to fill the biggest need.