PDA

View Full Version : Taveras and his wrist



klw
08-03-2009, 11:39 AM
If Taveras' wrist is so sore that he was unavailable to even go up and bunt yesterday, shouldn't he be on the DL. Move Volquez to the 60 day and bring up an OF from AAA- even if it is McDonald again.

BRM
08-03-2009, 11:42 AM
On the broadcast yesterday, the Rockies announcers claimed Dusty told them Willy was only available to pinch-run and maybe play defense late in the game. He couldn't swing a bat.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 11:43 AM
On the broadcast yesterday, the Rockies announcers claimed Dusty told them Willy was only available to pinch-run and maybe play defense late in the game. He couldn't swing a bat.

Let the jokes begin..

TRF
08-03-2009, 11:44 AM
Let the jokes begin..

I'll start.

nah too easy.

BRM
08-03-2009, 11:45 AM
Let the jokes begin..

:laugh:

I was thinking right after I posted that I left that wide-open for some snarky comments.

mbgrayson
08-03-2009, 11:51 AM
I'll pass on the easy joke, but i really do wonder if Taveras has been playing hurt for a while now. I remember how EE found out he had been playing with a fratured wrist, and several other guys try to 'tough it out' only to find out their injuries are more serious.

This has turned out to be a very bad year for injuries. Meanwhile, over in Seattle, Ken Griffey Jr. is still healthy(and hitting .220/.326/.396 for an OPS of .722) , and has played in 80 games so far...lol. Of course he has DH'd a lot of games.....

Degenerate39
08-03-2009, 11:57 AM
Has his wrist bothered him the whole season?

BRM
08-03-2009, 11:58 AM
Has his wrist bothered him the whole season?

Maybe it's bothered him since 2005.

wheels
08-03-2009, 12:15 PM
Just put him on the 60 day DL.

Chip R
08-03-2009, 12:24 PM
Just put him on the 600 day DL.


I fixed that for you.

RANDY IN INDY
08-03-2009, 12:36 PM
Just put him on the 60 day DL.

I like that idea.

Edd Roush
08-03-2009, 12:39 PM
I like that idea.

I like Chip's better. :cool:

I(heart)Freel
08-03-2009, 02:16 PM
Yesterday bugged me A LOT. Why, in the course of this season, it still bugs me is up for debate.

But CMON... if Willy can't go up there to bunt at 3 pitches, he should be on the DL.

Strikes Out Looking
08-03-2009, 02:17 PM
Let Dr. Kremcheck take him in for surgery and look at the wrist and the rest of the body its attached to.

BRM
08-03-2009, 02:17 PM
Maybe his wrist is just day-to-day. That could be why they haven't DL'ed him yet. he could be back in the lineup tonight for all we know.

pahster
08-03-2009, 02:53 PM
Maybe his wrist is just day-to-day. That could be why they haven't DL'ed him yet. he could be back in the lineup tonight for all we know.

Is that supposed to make us feel better? :p:

Ltlabner
08-03-2009, 03:02 PM
His wrist is day-to-day.

His special brand of suck lasts all year long.

BRM
08-03-2009, 04:36 PM
Willy is back in the lineup tonight. Thank goodness. I was so worried the injury might take him out for an extended period of time.

Cyclone792
08-03-2009, 04:38 PM
Willy is back in the lineup tonight. Thank goodness. I was so worried the injury might take him out for an extended period of time.

Glad to see it. I'm on the historical significance bandwagon now, which means I want to see Willy T rack up as many plate appearances as possible so we can take a glance at the historical comparisons of Willy T's 2009 prowess.

BRM
08-03-2009, 04:40 PM
Glad to see it. I'm on the historical significance bandwagon now, which means I want to see Willy T rack up as many plate appearances as possible so we can take a glance at the historical comparisons of Willy T's 2009 prowess.

That shouldn't be a problem. If Dusty hasn't benched him by now, he's simply not going to.

Homer Bailey
08-03-2009, 04:43 PM
After the season, Redszone should compile a 150 page thesis with every piece of statistical analysis known to man to hand in to Walt and Dusty and have them explain why they keep running this man out there.

VR
08-03-2009, 04:47 PM
If WJ had any senses, he'd put WT in the "cash for clunkers" program. Has to be a prime candidate?

dfs
08-03-2009, 04:59 PM
On the broadcast yesterday, the Rockies announcers claimed Dusty told them Willy was only available to pinch-run and maybe play defense late in the game. He couldn't swing a bat.

Leaving the low hanging fruit for others.....

Why is teh Dusty telling the other teams media crew this?

Edd Roush
08-03-2009, 05:11 PM
After the season, Redszone should compile a 150 page thesis with every piece of statistical analysis known to man to hand in to Walt and Dusty and have them explain why they keep running this man out there.

I honestly would if I knew Dusty and WJ would read it. Willy Taveras is sucking all of the fun out of this season.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-03-2009, 05:15 PM
Glad to see it. I'm on the historical significance bandwagon now, which means I want to see Willy T rack up as many plate appearances as possible so we can take a glance at the historical comparisons of Willy T's 2009 prowess.


He needs 503 PA's to qualify, right?

What's he in the running for? All-time low OBP? SLG? OPS? Worst offensive player of all time? That'd be quite a feat.

WMR
08-03-2009, 05:20 PM
I try to convince myself that maybe, just maybe, the Rolen deal wasn't as as stupid as I initially believed... then I look at who Walt signed to a 2 yr. contract to be our CFer and feel very, very queasy.

RichRed
08-03-2009, 05:20 PM
He needs 503 PA's to qualify, right?

What's he in the running for? All-time low OBP? SLG? OPS? Worst offensive player of all time? That'd be quite a feat.

Not speaking for Cyclone, but I know I'm pretty excited about that 49 OPS+.

nate
08-03-2009, 05:27 PM
Is there another Patterson/Taveras we could sign for 2010? It would be pretty cool* to have three different historically bad players roam CF and bat leadoff for the Reds.

*By "cool," I mean the kind of cool where you're simultaneously laughing and crying.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-03-2009, 05:27 PM
Not speaking for Cyclone, but I know I'm pretty excited about that 49 OPS+.

And ranked #887 (one ahead of Alex Gonzalez at #888) out of 890 in VORP is pretty impressive as well.

Chip R
08-03-2009, 05:28 PM
Is there another Patterson/Taveras we could sign for 2010? It would be pretty cool* to have three different historically bad players roam CF and bat leadoff for the Reds.


Juan Pierre will probably be available.

blumj
08-03-2009, 05:29 PM
Leaving the low hanging fruit for others.....

Why is teh Dusty telling the other teams media crew this?

You think it matters if they know whether or not he'd be available to pinch hit?

SirFelixCat
08-03-2009, 05:29 PM
And ranked #887 (one ahead of Alex Gonzalez at #888) out of 890 in VORP is pretty impressive as well.

I knew it was bad, but, hell, I'm speechless on that one. Just ....

nate
08-03-2009, 05:30 PM
Juan Pierre will probably be available.

Yeah, but I don't think he'd be historically bad. He's kind of like what I imagine Walt wanted Willy to be.

BRM
08-03-2009, 05:30 PM
Juan Pierre will probably be available.

He'd be a pretty big upgrade over the last two regular centerfielders the Reds have run out there. Especially the numbers he's put up in '09.

BRM
08-03-2009, 05:32 PM
I knew it was bad, but, hell, I'm speechless on that one. Just ....

No kidding. That's disgustingly bad.

Chip R
08-03-2009, 05:33 PM
He'd be a pretty big upgrade over the last two regular centerfielders the Reds have run out there. Especially the numbers he's put up in '09.


Well, even the people that hated the Taveras signing thought he'd be a big upgrade over Patterson. That hasn't really turned out to be the case.

Reds Fanatic
08-03-2009, 05:35 PM
Taveras is back in his customary leadoff spot tonight and if that was not good enough news Rolen is apparently still feeling the effects of being hit in the head yesterday so he is out and Rosales is batting 2nd. This season is like one continous punch in the stomach.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-03-2009, 05:37 PM
I knew it was bad, but, hell, I'm speechless on that one. Just ....

Corey Patterson was ranked #1037 out of 1038 in 2008.

The Reds have mastered the art of going out an outbidding themselves for negative VORP.

I don't think it's possible to try and do worse.

TRF
08-03-2009, 05:38 PM
Well, even the people that hated the Taveras signing thought he'd be a big upgrade over Patterson. That hasn't really turned out to be the case.

I hated it, and never really thought he'd be so much better than awful that I could find anything good to say about him. The one area that I really thought he grew as a player was in the art of the SB. It wasn't just 2008, but 2007 where he turned a corner.

It almost blinded me to the over all suck of his game.

Homer Bailey
08-03-2009, 06:02 PM
And ranked #887 (one ahead of Alex Gonzalez at #888) out of 890 in VORP is pretty impressive as well.

And they often hit 1-2. I'm absolutely speechless.

Chip R
08-03-2009, 06:05 PM
And they often hit 1-2. I'm absolutely speechless.


I think I have both of them on my HACKING MASS team. :thumbup:

klw
08-03-2009, 06:13 PM
And ranked #887 (one ahead of Alex Gonzalez at #888) out of 890 in VORP is pretty impressive as well.

Who are #889 and 890 and can the Reds get them?

Homer Bailey
08-03-2009, 06:16 PM
Who are #889 and 890 and can the Reds get them?

I really want to know who they are.

Edit: Ronny Cedeno and Brian Giles.

I(heart)Freel
08-03-2009, 06:27 PM
In all seriousness... this off-season, would some stacked team take him and $2 mill to simply pinch run and occasionally relieve aging outfielders in blowouts?

Ok... maybe $3 mill?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Strikes Out Looking
08-03-2009, 06:35 PM
In all seriousness... this off-season, would some stacked team take him and $2 mill to simply pinch run and occasionally relieve aging outfielders in blowouts?

Ok... maybe $3 mill?

Anyone? Anyone? Bueller?

Maybe H. Ross Perot can take him for a ride in the woods and leave him. (I am now dating myself to a 17 year old SNL skit.)

BRM
08-03-2009, 06:43 PM
I really want to know who they are.

Edit: Ronny Cedeno and Brian Giles.

Willy has quite a few more plate appearances than those two do though. Willy has 372. Cedeno only has 217 and Giles has 253. At least Cedeno has logged nearly all of his in the 8 and 9 slots in the order. Giles has mostly batted 1st and 3rd. The Padres have been as goofy as the Reds in that regard.

Cyclone792
08-03-2009, 06:51 PM
He needs 503 PA's to qualify, right?

What's he in the running for? All-time low OBP? SLG? OPS? Worst offensive player of all time? That'd be quite a feat.

Yep, just over 500 PAs will qualify him for a full season. I haven't checked all of MLB historically, but he's on pace to be top 5ish or so for worst RC/27 (compared to league average) in Reds franchise history ... dating all the way back deep into the 19th century.

I'll have to run all the numbers for Willy T once the season is complete, Reds numbers, MLB numbers, etc. I'm shooting for high-on-the-charts futility here, and I think Willy T's gonna give me what I want.

WMR
08-03-2009, 06:53 PM
Yep, just over 500 PAs will qualify him for a full season. I haven't checked all of MLB historically, but he's on pace to be top 5ish or so for worst RC/27 (compared to league average) in Reds franchise history ... dating all the way back deep into the 19th century.

I'll have to run all the numbers for Willy T once the season is complete, Reds numbers, MLB numbers, etc. I'm shooting for high-on-the-charts futility here, and I think Willy T's gonna give me what I want.

:clap: :clap: :clap:

http://img41.imageshack.us/img41/909/dustyandwillyepicfail.jpg (http://img41.imageshack.us/i/dustyandwillyepicfail.jpg/)

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 06:55 PM
I really want to know who they are.

Edit: Ronny Cedeno and Brian Giles.

Funny how some on here wanted Walt to try and get someone actually worse than Taveras this year.

BRM
08-03-2009, 06:58 PM
Funny how some on here wanted Walt to try and get someone actually worse than Taveras this year.

Giles had been a pretty good player for several years. He was a good bet to continue producing. Didn't turn out that way but I can see why some thought he'd be a good pickup.

Falls City Beer
08-03-2009, 06:58 PM
Giles had been a pretty good player for several years. He was a good bet to continue producing. Didn't turn out that way but I can see why some thought he'd be a good pickup.

Former juicer.

Homer Bailey
08-03-2009, 06:59 PM
Funny how some on here wanted Walt to try and get someone actually worse than Taveras this year.

Funny how Walt got someone that NO ONE wanted.

Oh, and he gave him $6 million.

BRM
08-03-2009, 07:00 PM
Former juicer.

You think he was still juicing through the 2008 season? His post-testing numbers, 2003-2008, were still pretty good.

Brutus
08-03-2009, 07:06 PM
You think he was still juicing through the 2008 season? His post-testing numbers, 2003-2008, were still pretty good.

I've read from doctors that it would probably take a year or two for the body to revert to pre-PED form for many drugs that were used.

Combine that with the subsequent aging for some of the guys like Giles, and you might see a drastic decline.

BRM
08-03-2009, 07:08 PM
I've read from doctors that it would probably take a year or two for the body to revert to pre-PED form for many drugs that were used.

Combine that with the subsequent aging for some of the guys like Giles, and you might see a drastic decline.

I can buy that.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 07:55 PM
Giles had been a pretty good player for several years. He was a good bet to continue producing. Didn't turn out that way but I can see why some thought he'd be a good pickup.

Sure, but he crapped out.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 07:57 PM
Funny how Walt got someone that NO ONE wanted.

Oh, and he gave him $6 million.

Yawn. Our previous GeniusM handed similarly dumb contracts like they were candy. We should be numb to them by now.

nate
08-03-2009, 08:28 PM
Yawn. Our previous GeniusM handed similarly dumb contracts like they were candy. We should be numb to them by now.

That Wayne handed out bad contracts doesn't make it OK for Walt to do so.

In fact, I'd argue that it's worse due to Walt's experience.

Brutus
08-03-2009, 08:45 PM
That Wayne handed out bad contracts doesn't make it OK for Walt to do so.

In fact, I'd argue that it's worse due to Walt's experience.

Agreed. However, there's a large difference in a bad contract for one or two seasons at $3 to $4 mil a year and a bad contract that is a 3-4 year deal at double-digits.

One can provide minor discomfort in payroll flex. The other can completely lock up a middle or small-market team completely.

Nugget
08-03-2009, 09:11 PM
I really want to know who they are.

Edit: Ronny Cedeno and Brian Giles.

Somebody actually traded for Ronny Cedeno.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 09:27 PM
Agreed. However, there's a large difference in a bad contract for one or two seasons at $3 to $4 mil a year and a bad contract that is a 3-4 year deal at double-digits.

One can provide minor discomfort in payroll flex. The other can completely lock up a middle or small-market team completely.

Exactly. The Taveras contract has been rehashed on here so much you would think that he got ARod numbers.

Taveras's contract is but a gnat on the dead, rotting corpse of the 2009 Reds. I can't fathom why it is being harped on like it is. And I can't believe that the amount of threads and nonsense being generated by the topic is being tolerated on the board.

OnBaseMachine
08-03-2009, 10:20 PM
Exactly. The Taveras contract has been rehashed on here so much you would think that he got ARod numbers.

Taveras's contract is but a gnat on the dead, rotting corpse of the 2009 Reds. I can't fathom why it is being harped on like it is. And I can't believe that the amount of threads and nonsense being generated by the topic is being tolerated on the board.

How is harping on the Taveras contract any different than you harping on the Arroyo/Cordero/Harang contracts?

cincrazy
08-03-2009, 10:35 PM
It's not so much the dollars for me, it's the years. Two years. Why? And why two for Mike Lincoln? And so on. It makes me want to punch my computer screen. I've never felt this level of frustration towards a franchise, even when the Bengals were at their worst.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 10:42 PM
How is harping on the Taveras contract any different than you harping on the Arroyo/Cordero/Harang contracts?

For one, the magnitude of those three contracts dwarfs the true effect of WT's 2 year deal.

Secondly, I don't open multiple threads on the same topic over and over again.

LvJ
08-03-2009, 11:00 PM
.238/.276./287

Little league numbers, right there.

OnBaseMachine
08-03-2009, 11:05 PM
For one, the magnitude of those three contracts dwarfs the true effect of WT's 2 year deal.


Not hardly. I'd easily takes those three contracts over Taveras's.

cincrazy
08-03-2009, 11:06 PM
.238/.276./287

Little league numbers, right there.

I resent that statement. My 8 year old little brother could dwarf that line.

At the major league level, mind you.

flyer85
08-03-2009, 11:06 PM
wrist must have been a little limp tonight

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 11:07 PM
Not hardly. I'd easily takes those three contracts over Taveras's.

Wow.

nate
08-03-2009, 11:10 PM
Agreed. However, there's a large difference in a bad contract for one or two seasons at $3 to $4 mil a year and a bad contract that is a 3-4 year deal at double-digits.

One can provide minor discomfort in payroll flex. The other can completely lock up a middle or small-market team completely.

I think my point is, it's shouldn't be OK for any GM to pay for negative performance like Stanton, Cormier, Taveras, etc.

nate
08-03-2009, 11:15 PM
For one, the magnitude of those three contracts dwarfs the true effect of WT's 2 year deal.

Secondly, I don't open multiple threads on the same topic over and over again.

No, but you droned on endlessly about how bad the contracts for Cormier, Stanton, etc were. How bad deals like that "add up" and how a team like the Reds couldn't afford to make those sort of bad decisions. Well, Willy T is as bad, if not worse because he plays every day and the manager has cemented him in the leadoff spot. At least Cormier and Stanton were relief pitchers you only saw for a few dozen innings a year as opposed to over a thousand. No, it's not "better," just maybe "less bad."

So, it's perfectly fair to discuss what a historically bad player and waste of money Willy T is. Quite honestly, I don't think there's any room for disagreement there. Harang, Arroyo, Cordero, Gonzales, yeah...there's a lot not to like about those contract. However, with the exception of Gonzales, at least those guys have performed well, if not better, during some part of their contracts.

That's something Willy T will never achieve.

Stormy
08-03-2009, 11:26 PM
No, but you droned on endlessly about how bad the contracts for Cormier, Stanton, etc were. How bad deals like that "add up" and how a team like the Reds couldn't afford to make those sort of bad decisions. Well, Willy T is as bad, if not worse because he plays every day and the manager has cemented him in the leadoff spot. At least Cormier and Stanton were relief pitchers you only saw for a few dozen innings a year as opposed to over a thousand. No, it's not "better," just maybe "less bad."

So, it's perfectly fair to discuss what a historically bad player and waste of money Willy T is. Quite honestly, I don't think there's any room for disagreement there. Harang, Arroyo, Cordero, Gonzales, yeah...there's a lot not to like about those contract. However, with the exception of Gonzales, at least those guys have performed well, if not better, during some part of their contracts.

That's something Willy T will never achieve.

Agreed, on all fronts.

edabbs44
08-03-2009, 11:42 PM
No, but you droned on endlessly about how bad the contracts for Cormier, Stanton, etc were. How bad deals like that "add up" and how a team like the Reds couldn't afford to make those sort of bad decisions. Well, Willy T is as bad, if not worse because he plays every day and the manager has cemented him in the leadoff spot. At least Cormier and Stanton were relief pitchers you only saw for a few dozen innings a year as opposed to over a thousand. No, it's not "better," just maybe "less bad."

I think there are a few differences:

There were a lot more contracts for a lot more dollars. The combined wasted money by Walt this year is probably doubled by Gonzo's contract, then throw in the rest and it is no contest. You only mention those two but there were Conine, Hatteberg's option, Gonzo, Fogg and some others.

We also witnessed Wayne driving the payroll up in his tenure. So he had money to spend and he spent it poorly. Walt hasn't been afforded the opportunity to spend some real money like the other guy was. So if he wanted to take a shot on someone for $6MM, then so be it.

When we saw Wayne dropping a few mil here and there, we also saw some DPs that may or may not have been made due to signability. When we saw Walt signing Taveras, we also saw him drafting a few tough signs. Maybe there is a correlation, maybe not. But I doubt WK would have drafted Alonso and give him $5MM, or whatever he got.


So, it's perfectly fair to discuss what a historically bad player and waste of money Willy T is. Quite honestly, I don't think there's any room for disagreement there. Harang, Arroyo, Cordero, Gonzales, yeah...there's a lot not to like about those contract. However, with the exception of Gonzales, at least those guys have performed well, if not better, during some part of their contracts.

Discuss, surely. Taveras sucks. Bludgeon the subject months after it died? No need.

I think the VORB (Value Over Replacement Board) has taken a severe hit because of the topic. You can't go into a thread without having Taveras talk overtake whatever the thread is about. Or, threads sprout up like weeds basically all about the same topic with a slight tweak. If it isn't about Taveras, it's about his wrist or the team's OBP fiascos or a quote from a fantasy site about WT.

It's old.


That's something Willy T will never achieve.

Yep.

dsmith421
08-04-2009, 12:16 AM
For one, the magnitude of those three contracts dwarfs the true effect of WT's 2 year deal.

Ludicrous. Cordero is one of the best relief pitchers in baseball. Is he overpaid, maybe, but at least he provides production. Taveras actually hurts the Reds every time he steps on the field.

mbgrayson
08-04-2009, 01:01 AM
You can't go into a thread without having Taveras talk overtake whatever the thread is about. Or, threads sprout up like weeds basically all about the same topic with a slight tweak. If it isn't about Taveras, it's about his wrist or the team's OBP fiascos or a quote from a fantasy site about WT.

It's old.

And I couldn't disagree more. As long as Willy Taveras is taking the field, and even worse, leading off, the subject deserves to be heard, and will be heard.

I haven't hesitated in criticizing Cordero's contract since we signed him. Too much money for a closer, period, let alone in a small market town. But Cordero has certainly produced at the level he was expected to....

I have not criticized Harang or Arroyo's deals. Good starters are going to make a lot of money, and particularly with Harang, all signs looked good when they signed him.

Besides my usual Dusty bashing, I really wonder about Dick Pole. We have greatly underperfomed this year, and I can't help but wonder if the one St. Louis pickup we really need isn't Dave Duncan.

Brutus
08-04-2009, 01:07 AM
Another point to consider, folks, is that it's contracts like Harang, Arroyo and Cordero that cause general managers to have to make bad contracts for bad players like Wily Taveras. You can't get quality players for $2-4 mil. Not very often, anyhow. So when you get stuck with 2-3 bad contracts like that, you start searching for things you wouldn't ordinarily seek out. The result is contracts like Mike Lincoln or Wily Taveras.

If the Reds weren't hamstrung by those bigger contracts, I don't think you'd see as many lesser contracts to worse players.

BRM
08-04-2009, 01:16 AM
Sure, but he crapped out.

Which is exactly what I said.

cincrazy
08-04-2009, 02:09 AM
Ludicrous. Cordero is one of the best relief pitchers in baseball. Is he overpaid, maybe, but at least he provides production. Taveras actually hurts the Reds every time he steps on the field.

He is one of the best relief pitchers in baseball... but he also gets paid an unbelievable amount of money to do something that isn't needed much on this horrendous team, and that's to save baseball games. We could find someone to do it at a fraction of the cost, nearly as well. If David Weathers can fill the role, and fill in damn well as he did a few years ago, I have a hard time believing we can't find a cheaper alternative to CoCo.

edabbs44
08-04-2009, 03:43 AM
He is one of the best relief pitchers in baseball... but he also gets paid an unbelievable amount of money to do something that isn't needed much on this horrendous team, and that's to save baseball games. We could find someone to do it at a fraction of the cost, nearly as well. If David Weathers can fill the role, and fill in damn well as he did a few years ago, I have a hard time believing we can't find a cheaper alternative to CoCo.

Precisely.

Ron Madden
08-04-2009, 05:05 AM
For one, the magnitude of those three contracts dwarfs the true effect of WT's 2 year deal.

Secondly, I don't open multiple threads on the same topic over and over again.


Taveras plays almost everyday, Taveras bats leadoff almost everyday.

That might be OK with you, most of us hate the thought of it.

SirFelixCat
08-04-2009, 05:09 AM
Taveras plays almost everyday, Taveras bats leadoff almost everyday.

That might be OK with you, most of us hate the thought of it.

Yup

mth123
08-04-2009, 07:24 AM
Funny how some on here wanted Walt to try and get someone actually worse than Taveras this year.

I'd still take Cedeno. His futility as SS isn't as cavernous a gap to the average SS out there as Willy T's was to the OF. The other difference is the Reds had Dickerson in house and Stubbs and Heisey on the way. SS is pretty bare and another candidate would have been a good idea.

mth123
08-04-2009, 07:26 AM
nm

edabbs44
08-04-2009, 07:59 AM
Taveras plays almost everyday, Taveras bats leadoff almost everyday.

That might be OK with you, most of us hate the thought of it.

It's not ok with me.

Ltlabner
08-04-2009, 09:27 AM
Another point to consider, folks, is that it's contracts like Harang, Arroyo and Cordero that cause general managers to have to make bad contracts for bad players like Wily Taveras. You can't get quality players for $2-4 mil. Not very often, anyhow. So when you get stuck with 2-3 bad contracts like that, you start searching for things you wouldn't ordinarily seek out. The result is contracts like Mike Lincoln or Wily Taveras.

If the Reds weren't hamstrung by those bigger contracts, I don't think you'd see as many lesser contracts to worse players.

The excuse making for Walt has grown to epic proportions.

Your post is patently absurd. In no way is it Wayne K's fault that Walt Jockety had target fixation on Willy T and signed him on a 2 year deal when nobody else in baseball wanted him. It is simply asinine to suggest that the Willy T decision was on anybody other than one Mr Walt Jockety. Walt wanted the guy. Walt pursued him. Walt targeted him. Walt ignored other options and Walt signed him.

If money was such a huge issue, he could have run Dickerson/Hopper out there and at least gotten similar results for less cash. There were other options and Walt simply ignored them. It had nothing to do with being forced into it by big, bad meanie Wayne.

edabbs44
08-04-2009, 09:48 AM
The excuse making for Walt has grown to epic proportions.

Your post is patently absurd. In no way is it Wayne K's fault that Walt Jockety had target fixation on Willy T and signed him on a 2 year deal when nobody else in baseball wanted him. It is simply asinine to suggest that the Willy T decision was on anybody other than one Mr Walt Jockety. Walt wanted the guy. Walt pursued him. Walt targeted him. Walt ignored other options and Walt signed him.

If money was such a huge issue, he could have run Dickerson/Hopper out there and at least gotten similar results for less cash. There were other options and Walt simply ignored them. It had nothing to do with being forced into it by big, bad meanie Wayne.

Even if Walt didn't sign Taveras and went with Dickerson/Hopper, what would the difference be for 2009? $2MM more in Bob's pocket this year and maybe a tick better on offense? Yep, Walt is so incompetent.

The signing wasn't a good one by any stretch but it definitely isn't worth the hourly freak out sessions on the board.

Ltlabner
08-04-2009, 09:58 AM
Even if Walt didn't sign Taveras and went with Dickerson/Hopper, what would the difference be for 2009?

You probably missed it, but my post was in response to the idea that Walt HAD to sign Willy because that's all the money he had left to spend.

I was simply stating that he could have gotten the same production for less money in reply, not making the case that it was what he should done to take us to the promised land.

By the way, your total inconsistency on pissing away small amounts of money being important because it adds up is rather amusing.

TRF
08-04-2009, 10:30 AM
The problem with signing Taveras was never his contract, length or amount. It was that it was Willy Taveras. Dickerson was in house. He was right freaking there. Walt needed a catcher, LF and a SS, and not in that order. He knew, KNEW AGon was going to miss significant time this year, and even if he was 100%, he was never an offensive threat. Plus his range is declining, probably in part due to the type of injury that caused him to miss all of last year.

But CF was the big need we were told, that and a RH power bat for LF. Turns out that power bat is Jonny Gomes, a guy I won't be surprised to see inked to a two year deal sometime in the next 3-4 months. So next year I fully expect to see an OF of Gomes/WT/Bruce.

Awe. Some.

Walt seems to be trying to construct a team in a similar fashion to how he did it in St. Louis. The problem is while he might have the prospects to deal, he doesn't have the cash to lock up said vets long term like he did with the Cardinals. That's why the Reds were not in it to get Halladay, Holliday, or any other big name. It's why overpaying for Rolen is so monumentally stupid. The St. Louis model works when you draw 3 million+ a year. The Oakland or Minnesota model is what the Reds need to use.

Some people think EE needed to go to change the culture of losing. I'd say that culture could be changed by not making dumb decisions, and recognizing that when a dumb decision is made, something needs to be done about it.

DFA Willy Taveras. Now.

nate
08-04-2009, 10:45 AM
I think there are a few differences:

There were a lot more contracts for a lot more dollars. The combined wasted money by Walt this year is probably doubled by Gonzo's contract, then throw in the rest and it is no contest. You only mention those two but there were Conine, Hatteberg's option, Gonzo, Fogg and some others.

I guess if you want to continue endlessly rehashing those argument, feel free. I don't think

Walt should know better.

IMO, the real culprit in all this is Bob C.


We also witnessed Wayne driving the payroll up in his tenure. So he had money to spend and he spent it poorly. He made mistakes, he also made good moves. That's not the point I'm making nor do I want to discuss Wayne again and again and again as you're doing while complaining that we're talking about Willy Taveras again and again and again.

Wayne is gone.


Walt hasn't been afforded the opportunity to spend some real money like the other guy was. So if he wanted to take a shot on someone for $6MM, then so be it. As you said about Wayne, "that's his problem." If Walt is such an "experienced" and "winning" GM, he should be able to fix these problems. As is, his performance is just average.

Just like Wayne.


When we saw Wayne dropping a few mil here and there, we also saw some DPs that may or may not have been made due to signability. When we saw Walt signing Taveras, we also saw him drafting a few tough signs. Maybe there is a correlation, maybe not. But I doubt WK would have drafted Alonso and give him $5MM, or whatever he got.Again, Walt is now the GM.


Discuss, surely. Taveras sucks. Bludgeon the subject months after it died? No need.But it's OK for you to go on endlessly about Wayne after Walt has had a year to put his years of experience and winning to work? You didn't really give Wayne that much of a reprieve.


I think the VORB (Value Over Replacement Board) has taken a severe hit because of the topic. You can't go into a thread without having Taveras talk overtake whatever the thread is about. Or, threads sprout up like weeds basically all about the same topic with a slight tweak. If it isn't about Taveras, it's about his wrist or the team's OBP fiascos or a quote from a fantasy site about WT.As I've suggested many times:


START

A

NEW

THREAD

ALREADY


Or, "SANTA."



Make it about whatever you want. I've posted many new threads that have nothing to do with Willy T. I've found tons of fascinating, non-Willy T related articles and reposted them here for everyone's enjoyment. I'm more than happy to have an exchange on all manner of baseball related topics. Why don't you post something new that will elicit an interesting conversation instead of poo-pooing what everyone else is talking about?

The Reds are a bad team, folks want to vent. Welcome to nearly a decade's worth of futility. Sorry you don't like that the current figurehead is a historically horrible player signed to a two-year deal being managed with a guy who's doing his damnedest to get the guy 600 ABs.


It's old.Yes, constantly bashing Wayne is old.

edabbs44
08-04-2009, 10:54 AM
By the way, your total inconsistency on pissing away small amounts of money being important because it adds up is rather amusing.

There are differences.

blumj
08-04-2009, 11:02 AM
All teams overpay for average players sometimes. All teams wind up overpaying for bad players sometimes, because average players can turn into bad players without much warning. But when a team goes out of it's way to overpay for an obviously bad player, that team is sending a clear signal that they cannot tell the difference between bad players and average players, because bad players are always available for nothing, and every team already has some lying around.

Ltlabner
08-04-2009, 11:21 AM
Or, "SANTA."




Is SANTA anything like WMTS ?

nate
08-04-2009, 12:00 PM
Is SANTA anything like WMTS ?

Heh.

We just need more SANTA here!

OnBaseMachine
08-04-2009, 12:22 PM
I guess if you want to continue endlessly rehashing those argument, feel free. I don't think

Walt should know better.

IMO, the real culprit in all this is Bob C.

He made mistakes, he also made good moves. That's not the point I'm making nor do I want to discuss Wayne again and again and again as you're doing while complaining that we're talking about Willy Taveras again and again and again.

Wayne is gone.

As you said about Wayne, "that's his problem." If Walt is such an "experienced" and "winning" GM, he should be able to fix these problems. As is, his performance is just average.

Just like Wayne.

Again, Walt is now the GM.

But it's OK for you to go on endlessly about Wayne after Walt has had a year to put his years of experience and winning to work? You didn't really give Wayne that much of a reprieve.

As I've suggested many times:


START

A

NEW

THREAD

ALREADY


Or, "SANTA."



Make it about whatever you want. I've posted many new threads that have nothing to do with Willy T. I've found tons of fascinating, non-Willy T related articles and reposted them here for everyone's enjoyment. I'm more than happy to have an exchange on all manner of baseball related topics. Why don't you post something new that will elicit an interesting conversation instead of poo-pooing what everyone else is talking about?

The Reds are a bad team, folks want to vent. Welcome to nearly a decade's worth of futility. Sorry you don't like that the current figurehead is a historically horrible player signed to a two-year deal being managed with a guy who's doing his damnedest to get the guy 600 ABs.

Yes, constantly bashing Wayne is old.

Excellent post, Nate. :thumbup:


The excuse making for Walt has grown to epic proportions.

Your post is patently absurd. In no way is it Wayne K's fault that Walt Jockety had target fixation on Willy T and signed him on a 2 year deal when nobody else in baseball wanted him. It is simply asinine to suggest that the Willy T decision was on anybody other than one Mr Walt Jockety. Walt wanted the guy. Walt pursued him. Walt targeted him. Walt ignored other options and Walt signed him.

If money was such a huge issue, he could have run Dickerson/Hopper out there and at least gotten similar results for less cash. There were other options and Walt simply ignored them. It had nothing to do with being forced into it by big, bad meanie Wayne.

Also an excellent post. You nailed it.

edabbs44
08-04-2009, 01:50 PM
By the way, your total inconsistency on pissing away small amounts of money being important because it adds up is rather amusing.

I mentioned that there are differences, and the differences lie where the team currently is. Let me explain:

3 years ago my position was that the team should have been gutted and started over from scratch with the young guys taking over and payroll brought down to the floor. Use that money saved for the farm and young talent. I was fairly adamant and very consistent about that. Many yelled and screamed at me since we've been rebuilding for years and the team needs to improve now. The fans are sick of waiting. Yada yada yada. Feel free to research that, but I don't think that you have to since we got into it multiple times on this subject. Needless to say, this didn't happen. Watching money being thrown at stiffs bothered me to no end since the team was kind of in that perfect storm of opportunity to do this: big money coming off the books, marketable vets without long-term overpriced contracts and young talent getting close to the majors. The time was then.

In spite of this, the previous GM added payroll in a "win now" mode. I argued against it. I didn't think that the team could win now w/o a serious injection of both talent and money. Some wet themselves when Cordero was signed, when Arroyo and Harang were extended, saying that this is the new era, blah blah blah. I questioned Arroyo and Cordero (had no issues with Harang, IIRC) and said that it was a waste of money without additional moves or that the timing wasn't very good. Some thought I was overly negative and that I complained about money too much. Maybe so, but where is this team now?

So here we are...an awful team and sizeable contracts on the books in the wrong areas or with the wrong players. Sound familiar? This situation is exactly where I thought we could have been headed.

And now you want to say that I am inconsistent with pissing away small amounts of money. That's fine, but maybe today's situation is vastly different than where we were 3 years ago?

There are three reasons why Taveras' money doesn't bother me as much as it would have 2-3 years ago.

First, the team is in a much different place now than it was before. The opportunity to break down the roster and horde funds was a few years ago. Now, adding a 2 year $6MM contract to the mix is nothing in the grand scheme due to the transactions of the past couple of years. Also, Walt (for whatever reason) didn't spend all that much money last year. Maybe it's because Bob became cheap all of a sudden. Maybe it's because there wasn't anyone out there worthy of the big bucks they wanted. Or maybe there wasn't much wiggle room in the budget. Whatever the reason, Walt spend a small amount of money last offseason. The three signings that he is getting ripped for are Lincoln, Taveras and Hairston. This year what is that....$6MMish for those three? Not exactly the end of the world and not going to hurt the team next season due to length and/or money. A GM should be allowed to spend a little money when they first get on the job. I didn't think that this team had the goods for this season, so spending a little cash to fill out this year's roster didn't bother me. The money and length of the contracts aren't a worry for next season. I am sure you'll see me get a little pissy if he signs Gonzo for another 3 year deal or breaks the record for most money ever given to a reliever this offseason.

Second (and less importantly, but worth a mention), we have seen Walt's regime draft guys like Leake and Alonso in the first round. Guys in that kind of echelon where they aren't exactly easy signs and might want more than slot money. We saw Walt go after Alonso and give him a lot of money for a first rounder. We saw the previous GM take a HS catcher who shot up the charts due to signability and a college CFer who had questions about his bat and was also hinted to be an easy sign. Did it have to do with each of their spending habits? Not sure, maybe it was a coincidence. Or maybe not.

Lastly, the GM has a track record. He has won. Some like to now give the credit to Pujols or LaRussa or Duncan or whoever else they can give credit to instead of Jocketty, but the guy has had success in the majors under his watch. He knows what he is doing. All GMs have moves that they would like to have back (as Beane if he would redo the Harang trade if he could) and this is probably one of them for Walt. If his worst move involves a $6MM contract, well I think that is a good thing.

Reds Fanatic
08-04-2009, 05:05 PM
Dusty will never learn. Taveras leading off again tonight followed by Rosales. The Reds should just let a random fan fill out the lineup every night. There is no possible way they could come up with a worse lineup.

Brutus
08-04-2009, 05:06 PM
The excuse making for Walt has grown to epic proportions.

Your post is patently absurd. In no way is it Wayne K's fault that Walt Jockety had target fixation on Willy T and signed him on a 2 year deal when nobody else in baseball wanted him. It is simply asinine to suggest that the Willy T decision was on anybody other than one Mr Walt Jockety. Walt wanted the guy. Walt pursued him. Walt targeted him. Walt ignored other options and Walt signed him.

If money was such a huge issue, he could have run Dickerson/Hopper out there and at least gotten similar results for less cash. There were other options and Walt simply ignored them. It had nothing to do with being forced into it by big, bad meanie Wayne.

I'm not making this about Wayne or Walt. Where in my post did I say anything specifically about them.

I'm not dealing in present or past General Managers. I'm merely dealing in reality.

The reality is, no matter how much it inconveniences you or anyone's unhappiness with Jocketty, is that when you have no payroll flexibility, you're caused to sign people to contracts you would not ordinarily sign. That's simply the truth. He may have liked Willy Taveras, but he also may have liked that deal relative to what options he had because of payroll.

That's not "absurd" that's reality. I don't have a dog in the fight regarding Krivsky or Jocketty, I'm just dealing with the facts. I think Krivsky didn't get enough of a chance, personally. But I also think these big contracts are a big detriment and were a mistake. Jocketty has made some mistakes but he's been on the job as GM no more than about 14 months. So it's not time to hang him in effigy.

TRF
08-04-2009, 05:19 PM
The reality is, no matter how much it inconveniences you or anyone's unhappiness with Jocketty, is that when you have no payroll flexibility, you're caused to sign people to contracts you would not ordinarily sign. That's simply the truth. He may have liked Willy Taveras, but he also may have liked that deal relative to what options he had because of payroll.

Horse Hockey. He had an in house option. nobody forced him to sign WT at any price. The man wanted him and signed him period.

It isn't the terms of the contract, it is the target.

Ltlabner
08-04-2009, 05:21 PM
I'm not making this about Wayne or Walt. Where in my post did I say anything specifically about them.

I'm not dealing in present or past General Managers. I'm merely dealing in reality.

You referenced the contracts of AH, BA and FC. Who made those contracts? Why golly, it was one Wayne K. So yea, you did bring him into the discussion by dealing with a past GM and trying to use his decisions to absolve Walt from having made a horrendous choice.


That's not "absurd" that's reality. I don't have a dog in the fight regarding Krivsky or Jocketty, I'm just dealing with the facts.

Yes. And the fact is Walt was not forced into signing Willy T because he had no money. He signed him of his own volition. There were other options available to him but he fixated on Willy.

membengal
08-04-2009, 05:24 PM
Horse Hockey. He had an in house option. nobody forced him to sign WT at any price. The man wanted him and signed him period.

It isn't the terms of the contract, it is the target.

Word.


Walt: Willy, ordinarily I wouldn't want you, but reality is forcing me to hand you $6 million dollars even though no other team is remotely interested in you. I wish it were any other way frankly, but there it is. I am under constraints.

Willy: Thanks Walt!

Brutus
08-04-2009, 06:06 PM
Horse Hockey. He had an in house option. nobody forced him to sign WT at any price. The man wanted him and signed him period.

It isn't the terms of the contract, it is the target.

That in-house option has an OPS of .715 this year. It's not exactly endearing to say he made a mistake by not going with the guy already in the system. Perhaps they didn't feel any more strongly about the in-house guy? Clearly they erred in judgment on Taveras, but the guy already here has not done the job this year either - and he's been given a fair opportunity. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have the in-house guy over the other option, but neither is real enticing from an offensive standpoint.

Brutus
08-04-2009, 06:09 PM
You referenced the contracts of AH, BA and FC. Who made those contracts? Why golly, it was one Wayne K. So yea, you did bring him into the discussion by dealing with a past GM and trying to use his decisions to absolve Walt from having made a horrendous choice.



Yes. And the fact is Walt was not forced into signing Willy T because he had no money. He signed him of his own volition. There were other options available to him but he fixated on Willy.

Except, when I referenced it, that is reality. The reality is... those contracts do exist and the current GM does have to work within the parameters of those existing contracts.

How can you speak of the situation without referencing reality? Simply pointing that out is neither an endorsement of Jocketty or a censuring of Krivsky. It's simply the truth of the situation. I'm not supporting or going against either one. But like it or not, these facts do exist. Cannot a person bring it up without having to actually endorse a stance? Those contracts were inherited. To say that is not blaming one guy and letting another off the hook.

TRF
08-04-2009, 06:10 PM
That in-house option has an OPS of .715 this year. It's not exactly endearing to say he made a mistake by not going with the guy already in the system. Perhaps they didn't feel any more strongly about the in-house guy? Clearly they erred in judgment on Taveras, but the guy already here has not done the job this year either - and he's been given a fair opportunity. Don't get me wrong, I'd rather have the in-house guy over the other option, but neither is real enticing from an offensive standpoint.

What in Taveras entire line of work suggested he'd be better than Dickerson to Walt? Not to you, not to me, to Walt Jocketty?

Brutus
08-04-2009, 06:16 PM
What in Taveras entire line of work suggested he'd be better than Dickerson to Walt? Not to you, not to me, to Walt Jocketty?

Well, that's the problem. I'm not Walt Jocketty so I can't speak for what was going through his mind. But I do know that Taveras did have at least a couple of pretty good seasons as a leadoff hitter, and on more than one occasion the Reds have mentioned their scouting staff and defensive metrics they use say Taveras was a very good defensive player. So I guess that's partly what they were considering at the time.

Dickerson has at least had a decent OBP and has been (in my opinion) lights out defensively in center. So I'd still take him over Taveras, especially given the salary. But overall as an offensive player, Dickerson has done nothing to suggest it was a mistake to overlook him in the offseason. So I can fault the Reds for signing Taveras but not for not going with the in-house option.

TRF
08-04-2009, 06:19 PM
Well, that's the problem. I'm not Walt Jocketty so I can't speak for what was going through his mind. But I do know that Taveras did have at least a couple of pretty good seasons as a leadoff hitter, and on more than one occasion the Reds have mentioned their scouting staff and defensive metrics they use say Taveras was a very good defensive player. So I guess that's partly what they were considering at the time.

Dickerson has at least had a decent OBP and has been (in my opinion) lights out defensively in center. So I'd still take him over Taveras, especially given the salary. But overall as an offensive player, Dickerson has done nothing to suggest it was a mistake to overlook him in the offseason. So I can fault the Reds for signing Taveras but not for not going with the in-house option.

1.

1 good season. and it wasn't even a full season.

TRF
08-04-2009, 06:21 PM
Well, that's the problem. I'm not Walt Jocketty so I can't speak for what was going through his mind. But I do know that Taveras did have at least a couple of pretty good seasons as a leadoff hitter, and on more than one occasion the Reds have mentioned their scouting staff and defensive metrics they use say Taveras was a very good defensive player. So I guess that's partly what they were considering at the time.

Dickerson has at least had a decent OBP and has been (in my opinion) lights out defensively in center. So I'd still take him over Taveras, especially given the salary. But overall as an offensive player, Dickerson has done nothing to suggest it was a mistake to overlook him in the offseason. So I can fault the Reds for signing Taveras but not for not going with the in-house option.

You made my point. Choosing the known quantity and imagining it was something other than what it is, just because you are unsure of the bird in hand, is the worst kind of stupid.

Willy Taveras is Willy Taveras. No amount of spin or imaginary projections will make him anything more than Willy Taveras.

Walt Jocketty, of all people, should have known this.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-04-2009, 06:22 PM
Chris Dickerson: 380 PA's (2008/2009)

.812 OPS

Willy Taveras: 377 PA's (2009)

.561 OPS

Willy Taveras: 2547 PA's (career)

.652 OPS

Homer Bailey
08-04-2009, 06:25 PM
Well, that's the problem. I'm not Walt Jocketty so I can't speak for what was going through his mind. But I do know that Taveras did have at least a couple of pretty good seasons as a leadoff hitter, and on more than one occasion the Reds have mentioned their scouting staff and defensive metrics they use say Taveras was a very good defensive player. So I guess that's partly what they were considering at the time.

Dickerson has at least had a decent OBP and has been (in my opinion) lights out defensively in center. So I'd still take him over Taveras, especially given the salary. But overall as an offensive player, Dickerson has done nothing to suggest it was a mistake to overlook him in the offseason. So I can fault the Reds for signing Taveras but not for not going with the in-house option.

Yes you can fault them for not going with the in-house option, because it was very obvious that the in house option was going to give you more than the out of house option at less than 1/10th of the cost. You can't seperate the two. It was a flat out mistake not to go with the in house option vs the option he chose. If he didn't sign a little leaguer to play center, then it could be argued that it was a good choice not to go with the in house option. But we know what happened.

Brutus
08-04-2009, 06:29 PM
Yes you can fault them for not going with the in-house option, because it was very obvious that the in house option was going to give you more than the out of house option at less than 1/10th of the cost. You can't seperate the two. It was a flat out mistake not to go with the in house option vs the option he chose. If he didn't sign a little leaguer to play center, then it could be argued that it was a good choice not to go with the in house option. But we know what happened.

How was that so obvious? The cost is one thing, but I don't see how it was so obvious a 27-year old rookie with a career .777 minor league OPS was going to give more than Taveras. All because of some meaningless September at-bats with a limited sample size? It's perhaps clear what Taveras may have given the Reds, but it was not clear what they would get out of Dickerson or that it would be any better than Taveras.

edabbs44
08-04-2009, 06:30 PM
Yes. And the fact is Walt was not forced into signing Willy T because he had no money. He signed him of his own volition. There were other options available to him but he fixated on Willy.

And he signed Taveras. He didn't give him a Dreifort or Kevin Brown fiasco of a contract that actually hurts this team. Hell, it isn't even as bad as Gonzalez's.

That's the part that is weird to me...the GM was handed a roster that had a few bad contracts jamming up the payroll, has had a slew of injuries to deal with this season and was provided a dumb manager and yet all some can harp on is how bad he is because he gave $6MM to Taveras.

The "other options available" to Walt included a guy who more than a few wanted to hand over the keys to CF to after some success during his cup of coffee last year. He crapped out this year. I would wager that Walt would have been slammed if he didn't get anyone and Dickerson provided pre-Cincy Taveras like numbers, like he did this year.

He also could have also signed some of the lemons that were available in the FA market this season. An OF of Bradley/Burrell, Dickerson and Bruce would have been quite the juggernaut in 2009. And we would have had the added bonus of a few more years of Milton B at Cordero like prices.

Bottom line is that the Taveras signing, while awful, only made a bad 2009 team even worse and cost Bob $2MM this year. Not the end of the world.

The true problem is the continued playing of the guy. Bench him, make him a pinch runner/defensive replacement/day game after a night game sub and don't look back.

edabbs44
08-04-2009, 06:32 PM
Chris Dickerson: 380 PA's (2008/2009)

.812 OPS

Willy Taveras: 377 PA's (2009)

.561 OPS

Willy Taveras: 2547 PA's (career)

.652 OPS

Dickerson = regression to the mean. If you still can't see that then you are as blind as you claim Walt is.

TRF
08-04-2009, 06:38 PM
How was that so obvious? The cost is one thing, but I don't see how it was so obvious a 27-year old rookie with a career .777 minor league OPS was going to give more than Taveras. All because of some meaningless September at-bats with a limited sample size? It's perhaps clear what Taveras may have given the Reds, but it was not clear what they would get out of Dickerson or that it would be any better than Taveras.

Because Dickerson was Reds property. Because their talent evaluators noted his change in approach which led to better numbers at AAA, which he followed up with even better numbers at the end of 2008. And those weren't meaningless AB's either, unless you consider playing against division leaders with the chance to act as spoiler meaningless.

And in reality, none of that means anything. He signed Taveras, to a two year deal. TWO YEARS! Had it been for the league minimum, WT would still be robbing the Reds, and starting 72% of every game he plays with one out.

nate
08-04-2009, 06:41 PM
That's the part that is weird to me...the GM was handed a roster that had a few bad contracts jamming up the payroll, has had a slew of injuries to deal with this season and was provided a dumb manager and yet all some can harp on is how bad he is because he gave $6MM to Taveras.

It's debatable that all the "bad contracts" you refer to are bad.

It's not debatable that giving a contract to Willy Taveras is bad.


The "other options available" to Walt included a guy who more than a few wanted to hand over the keys to CF to after some success during his cup of coffee last year. He crapped out this year. Dickerson has outperformed Willy in every way, shape and form. Both offensively and defensively.

He hasn't "crapped out."


I would wager that Walt would have been slammed if he didn't get anyone and Dickerson provided pre-Cincy Taveras like numbers, like he did this year.YWilly T has outperformed (by a small margin) the season Chris Dickerson had exactly ONCE. And in that season, Willy played less than 100 games.


He also could have also signed some of the lemons that were available in the FA market this season. An OF of Bradley/Burrell, Dickerson and Bruce would have been quite the juggernaut in 2009. And we would have had the added bonus of a few more years of Milton B at Cordero like prices.And you can keep raising that very poor argument all you want but there were MANY other suggestions that involved none of those names.


Bottom line is that the Taveras signing, while awful, only made a bad 2009 team even worse and cost Bob $2MM this year. Not the end of the world.And next year, how much does it cost?

And how much does it cost to give 500 ABs to one of baseball's worst players?


The true problem is the continued playing of the guy. Bench him, make him a pinch runner/defensive replacement/day game after a night game sub and don't look back.DFA him and don't look back lest you turn into a pillar of salt.

nate
08-04-2009, 06:42 PM
Dickerson = regression to the mean. If you still can't see that then you are as blind as you claim Walt is.

Dickerson's mean >>>>>>> Willy's mean

If you can't see that, you are as blind as you claim Wayne to be.

BuckeyeRedleg
08-04-2009, 06:43 PM
Dickerson's mean >>>>>>> Willy's mean

If you can't see that, you are as blind as you claim Wayne to be.

Beat me to it.

Homer Bailey
08-04-2009, 06:44 PM
How was that so obvious? The cost is one thing, but I don't see how it was so obvious a 27-year old rookie with a career .777 minor league OPS was going to give more than Taveras. All because of some meaningless September at-bats with a limited sample size? It's perhaps clear what Taveras may have given the Reds, but it was not clear what they would get out of Dickerson or that it would be any better than Taveras.

It's so obvious because Willy is the worst player in major league baseball.

edabbs44
08-04-2009, 06:48 PM
Dickerson's mean >>>>>>> Willy's mean

If you can't see that, you are as blind as you claim Wayne to be.

That's sad.

Just because Dickerson sucks less than Taveras doesn't mean he would have been a good choice in the lineup.

They both sucked this year. Maybe Cincy would have won one more game this year if Taveras wasn't signed and Dickerson got the job.

Yippee.

And, if Dickerson's last month in the lineup was any indication, he may have ended up with 2009 Taveras like numbers. But we can only dream since he got injured and ruined that sub .600 OPS he was working on.

edabbs44
08-04-2009, 06:51 PM
And you can keep raising that very poor argument all you want but there were MANY other suggestions that involved none of those names.

MANY? Really? Who makes up the many?

And which did Cincy have a legit shot at signing, especially for the terms that they did sign for?

BuckeyeRedleg
08-04-2009, 06:53 PM
That's sad.

Just because Dickerson sucks less than Taveras doesn't mean he would have been a good choice in the lineup.

They both sucked this year. Maybe Cincy would have won one more game this year if Taveras wasn't signed and Dickerson got the job.

Yippee.

And, if Dickerson's last month in the lineup was any indication, he may have ended up with 2009 Taveras like numbers. But we can only dream since he got injured and ruined that sub .600 OPS he was working on.

Hyperbole much?

Dickerson
+3.6 VORP for league minimum ($400K)

Taveras
-14.5 VORP for nearly 6 times as much ($2.25M, with $4M for 2010)

Let's see........

positive VORP for league minimum vs. worst offensive player in baseball for $2.25M? Hmm.....

Brutus
08-04-2009, 06:57 PM
Hyperbole much?

Dickerson
+3.6 VORP for league minimum ($400K)

Taveras
-14.5 VORP for nearly 6 times as much ($2.25M, with $4M for 2010)

Let's see........

positive VORP for league minimum vs. worst offensive player in baseball for $2.25M? Hmm.....

That's a difference in $1.8 mil for about 1.8 wins. Upgrade? Sure. But considering the shape the club is in both in overall talent and payroll flexibility, that's hardly a dent in an already totaled automobile.

edabbs44
08-04-2009, 06:59 PM
Hyperbole much?

Dickerson
+3.6 VORP for league minimum ($400K)

Taveras
-14.5 VORP for nearly 6 times as much ($2.25M, with $4M for 2010)

Let's see........

positive VORP for league minimum vs. worst offensive player in baseball for $2.25M? Hmm.....

Dickerson was having a putrid month prior to getting hurt. Maybe he was going Keppinger on us. If so, he would have been joining Willy in Negativeville in no time.

SMcGavin
08-04-2009, 07:01 PM
That's a difference in $1.8 mil for about 1.8 wins. Upgrade? Sure. But considering the shape the club is in both in overall talent and payroll flexibility, that's hardly a dent in an already totaled automobile.

1.8 wins by making just one player move, and we're only about 2/3 of the way through the season? That's a huge upgrade.

Brutus
08-04-2009, 07:03 PM
1.8 wins by making just one player move, and we're only about 2/3 of the way through the season? That's a huge upgrade.

Forgive me, at this point, if I don't celebrate anything that moves the Reds further away from my Strasburg aspirations.

:thumbup:

BuckeyeRedleg
08-04-2009, 07:06 PM
Dickerson was having a putrid month prior to getting hurt. Maybe he was going Keppinger on us. If so, he would have been joining Willy in Negativeville in no time.

C'mon. If you can't see the difference than there is no hope.

By the way, on the long list of things to complain about this year, Dickerson is pretty low on the list.

It might not be saying much, but he's been the 6th most productive player on the team, offensively. And if he was in CF (for the league minimum), that would be okay. The problem is that because WT was their big splash into free agency, they weakened an already weak offense by taking Dickerson out of CF and not going out to get the big bat for LF.

Homer Bailey
08-04-2009, 07:07 PM
That's a difference in $1.8 mil for about 1.8 wins. Upgrade? Sure. But considering the shape the club is in both in overall talent and payroll flexibility, that's hardly a dent in an already totaled automobile.

It's not a dent in a totaled automobile, but it is a hole in the gas tank of a team that needs to take a loooong road trip (come back) to get back in contention in 2010. And sure enough, we will be paying WT $4M next year to suck, basically eliminating any chance this team has to be successful (based on the fact that the players around him are far from excellent). If the Reds had a lineup like the Yankees or Red Sox or even Rays, they could afford an all speed no stick CF. However, they do not.

SMcGavin
08-04-2009, 07:10 PM
Forgive me, at this point, if I don't celebrate anything that moves the Reds further away from my Strasburg aspirations.

:thumbup:

Haha, that would be something. Maybe Walt is a mad genius who shares your aspirations.

You're right though - with Dickerson instead of Willy the Reds wouldn't be a playoff team. Not even close. I'm just saying, with Johan Santana instead of Micah Owings the Reds wouldn't be a playoff team either. Doesn't mean either move is inconsequential.

nate
08-04-2009, 07:12 PM
That's sad.

Just because Dickerson sucks less than Taveras doesn't mean he would have been a good choice in the lineup.

They both sucked this year. Maybe Cincy would have won one more game this year if Taveras wasn't signed and Dickerson got the job.

The delta between Dickerson's brand of suck and Taveras is so vast that it takes light several million years to cross it.


Yippee.

Yes, yippee indeed.


And, if Dickerson's last month in the lineup was any indication, he may have ended up with 2009 Taveras like numbers.

Why is Dickerson's last month an OK measure to determine suck but not Willy T's infinitely worse numbers + $6mm?


But we can only dream since he got injured and ruined that sub .600 OPS he was working on.

See above. And note that for Willy T to even finish the season with Dickerson's current numbers, he'd have to have two months of epic production.

Brutus
08-04-2009, 07:42 PM
Haha, that would be something. Maybe Walt is a mad genius who shares your aspirations.

You're right though - with Dickerson instead of Willy the Reds wouldn't be a playoff team. Not even close. I'm just saying, with Johan Santana instead of Micah Owings the Reds wouldn't be a playoff team either. Doesn't mean either move is inconsequential.

You are right. I've been preaching upgrade the club at every position, and the sum of the parts will outweigh the individual portions in isolation.

Dickerson instead of Taveras does improve the club. If hypothetically the Reds could gain 1.8 more wins at half of the offensive positions and 2 or 3 pitching spots, that's significant as a whole.

I am not really debating that Dickerson is a step up, or that Taveras was a bad signing, just that I did not really think it was fair to have many expectations for Dickerson, nor did I think it was completely fair to dismiss the payroll flexibility as one factor in the decision-process.

Ideally, I think Stubbs or Heisey step in next year and perform above the level of either current option. Rolen provides something of an upgrade. So tackle SS, a couple starter positions, and if there's room left over, a LF. Then we're in at least better shape than before.

Patrick Bateman
08-04-2009, 08:00 PM
MANY? Really? Who makes up the many?

And which did Cincy have a legit shot at signing, especially for the terms that they did sign for?

You can't have it both ways. On one hand, you rack on Krivsky for locking up players to huge contracts, saying that it's strapping the team, but then your other constant argument is that the Reds have to overpay for decent players.

Their damned if you do, damned if you don't.

edabbs44
08-04-2009, 08:25 PM
You can't have it both ways. On one hand, you rack on Krivsky for locking up players to huge contracts, saying that it's strapping the team, but then your other constant argument is that the Reds have to overpay for decent players.

Their damned if you do, damned if you don't.

Nope. If the overpayment is for the correct guy, then I can live. I was fine with Harang, hated the timing of Arroyo and was ok with Cordero in a vacuum, not ok when nothing else was done.

If you are going to do it, do it right.

Patrick Bateman
08-04-2009, 09:48 PM
Nope. If the overpayment is for the correct guy, then I can live. I was fine with Harang, hated the timing of Arroyo and was ok with Cordero in a vacuum, not ok when nothing else was done.

If you are going to do it, do it right.

Well I think those are certainly reasonable thoughts... but how much is Cordero really strapping us? If we had his salary to play with in free agency, what could we get for him? People say good players don't want to play in Cincy, so you have to overpay. Free agency has been pretty limited with decent players as is, and is already the market to overpay in.

I'm just saying if we did dump his contract, the odds are fairly good that the money would just be overspent on a player with similar contributions. In the end, we all pray they can move these contracts, but in the end, I'm skeptical as to how much value they could really get.

Ron Madden
08-05-2009, 04:28 AM
It isn't the terms of the contract, it is the target.

There it is. :beerme: