PDA

View Full Version : One GM Says Angels Should Take CoCo



RedLegSuperStar
08-16-2009, 12:17 AM
Gammons/MLBTradeRumors.com -


One GM says the Angels "should take Francisco Cordero. The Reds will move him."

Put that in your '09 pipe and.. well you know..

corkedbat
08-16-2009, 02:26 AM
Jose Arredondo, Macier Izturas and a prospect fo Coco?

dougdirt
08-16-2009, 02:30 AM
Brandon Wood and Will Smith. Make it happen Jocketty.

11larkin11
08-16-2009, 02:31 AM
Brandon Wood or bust

Brutus
08-16-2009, 02:38 AM
Brandon Wood or bust

x2

fearofpopvol1
08-16-2009, 02:41 AM
i think the angels would want more than coco for wood. that and/or they would want some of coco's salary paid.

Tom Servo
08-16-2009, 03:02 AM
Brandon Wood and Will Smith. Make it happen Jocketty.
http://i125.photobucket.com/albums/p77/corypage7/FreshPrince.gif

11larkin11
08-16-2009, 03:48 AM
Ok, I take that back. Brandon Wood and the rights to Fresh Prince of Bel-Air to show on FSN-OH instead of Reds Live pregame and postgame

LoganBuck
08-16-2009, 08:24 AM
i think the angels would want more than coco for wood. that and/or they would want some of coco's salary paid.

Nope, Cordero is worth more than Wood. Especially in the world of old school GMs. In Jocketty's world Cordero is worth more than Scott Rolen.

Highlifeman21
08-16-2009, 08:48 AM
We've got about the same chance of getting Ed Wood from the Angels as we do Brandon Wood.

blumj
08-16-2009, 09:26 AM
How many closers do the Angels need?

thatcoolguy_22
08-16-2009, 09:30 AM
How many closers do the Angels need?

7. they need 7.

Cordero for Izturis straight up. I jump on it. I enjoy finger painting though, so these opinions might not be valid.

Will M
08-16-2009, 09:54 AM
I have said before that the Angels could use Coco. Fuentes has been very average (ERA+ ~105) and their pen is very thin. Not a good sign for the playoffs.

I suspect Wood is their third baseman once Figgins leaves this winter.

They would still have two major league caliber starting shortstops (Aybar and Izturis) even if they keep Wood.

So...one of their shortstops plus a prospect for Coco. Seems like a win win type of trade.

mbgrayson
08-16-2009, 10:41 AM
The problem is that Cordero's large contract greatly reduces his value in a trade. I am afraid the Reds will get far less for him than many of you hope, since the main point of trading him would be to unload what's left of his $46 million contract.

PuffyPig
08-16-2009, 10:56 AM
Brandon Wood or bust

I think it's "Brandon Wood is a bust".

65/9 is his K/W rate in 220 PA in the majors. And it's said he can't play SS in the majors.

cincrazy
08-16-2009, 11:16 AM
If the Reds are moving CoCo, and hoping to pay very little to none of his salary, then Brandon Wood is not the caliber of prospect they should be expecting in return.

jojo
08-16-2009, 11:31 AM
Brandon Wood and Will Smith. Make it happen Jocketty.


the Angels "should take Francisco Cordero

One has to wonder what CoCo's trade value is given his contract. The most likely value in terms of prospects might be a guy like Sal Aryrelief.

Kc61
08-16-2009, 12:19 PM
If the Reds dump Coco's contract for little return, I can change my viewing habits.

Instead of watching the Reds fall behind early in games -- and then shutting it off -- I can tune in late and see them blow it in the late innings with cut rate relievers.

I guess it's just a matter of timing and rearranging my schedule a bit.

LoganBuck
08-16-2009, 12:57 PM
One has to wonder what CoCo's trade value is given his contract. The most likely value in terms of prospects might be a guy like Sal Aryrelief.

He is actually pitching to his contract. The difference between him and Arroyo/Harang is that he is actually earning his money. Big budget clubs can afford him given his price and performance.

Cordero should not be given away. All the Brian Reiths and Ed Yarnalls in the world aren't worth one Cordero.

jojo
08-16-2009, 01:06 PM
He is actually pitching to his contract. The difference between him and Arroyo/Harang is that he is actually earning his money. Big budget clubs can afford him given his price and performance.

Cordero should not be given away. All the Brian Reiths and Ed Yarnalls in the world aren't worth one Cordero.

Harang is actually pitching to his contract. Cordero is actually pitching to his projections while being paid a contract that values his production roughly two times greater than market rates.

RedsManRick
08-16-2009, 03:11 PM
He is actually pitching to his contract. The difference between him and Arroyo/Harang is that he is actually earning his money. Big budget clubs can afford him given his price and performance.

Cordero should not be given away. All the Brian Reiths and Ed Yarnalls in the world aren't worth one Cordero.

Here's how Harang, Arroyo, and Cordero have performed relative to their salaries since 2006. 2009 WAR figures based on current performance projected over the rest of the season. The average cost of buying a win over replacement ($/WAR) in free agency is ~$4M.




WAR SALARY $/WAR
Harang Arroyo Cordero Harang Arroyo Cordero Harang Arroyo Cordero
2006 5.4 4.2 1.6 $2.4 $2.7 $4.0 $0.44 $0.64 $2.50
2007 5.1 2.6 2.4 $4.3 $3.8 $5.0 $0.83 $1.46 $2.08
2008 1.7 2.2 0.8 $6.8 $4.0 $8.5 $3.97 $1.80 $10.63
2009* 3.1 0.6 1.3 $11.0 $9.5 $12.0 $3.55 $15.83 $9.23


Harang: A massive bargain in 2006 & 2007 and is currently a slight bargain.
Arroyo: A massive bargain in 2006-2008 and currently being significantly overpaid.
Cordero: A solid bargain in 2006 & 2007 (in Texas & Milwaukee), he's been paid more than twice what's he worth as a Red the past two seasons.

Cordero is being paid like a 3 win player. The very best closers in baseball: Rivera, Nathan, etc. barely clear 3 wins in their best seasons, and produce around 2.5 on average. Since 2005, Cordero has produced more than 2 wins once, in 2007 before he hit free agency. Make no mistake, the Reds either completely misprojected his production, completely mispriced the value of production in the free agent market, or knew they were offering him way more money than he was worth.

Now, at the end of the day, production wins ballgames and Cordero has been productive. But Cordero is a $6-8M 2nd tier closer being paid like he's among the elite by a team that cannot afford waste money.

lollipopcurve
08-17-2009, 09:48 AM
Brandon Wood has been at SS the last couple games for Salt Lake. I would not be surprised if he's being showcased there (because he rarely has played there this season), and I would not be surprised if the Reds are a very interested party. (I'm skeptical that Wood is a decent defender at short, but I'd certainly be interested to see how he'd do, were the Reds to acquire him).

princeton
08-17-2009, 10:20 AM
Make no mistake, the Reds either completely misprojected his production, completely mispriced the value of production in the free agent market, or knew they were offering him way more money than he was worth.


you get lost in the forest a lot. you need to begin to look at the big picture.

when CoCo arrived, the Reds bullpen ERA dropped like a stone for the first time in several years, and has stayed low since. therefore, it appears that CoCo has impacted not just his own 75 innings (your numbers) but the entire, what, 500 innings of bullpen activity (the numbers that you're mistakenly disregarding).

this is exactly what you WANT when you make a key signing. the Reds patched up the weak spot and made everyone else around him better. it was a terrific signing, which gave the Reds a chance to compete is they could have gotten better health and figured out the offense. perhaps a cheaper player could have done the same thing, but that cheaper player did not turn out to have been on the roster.

my understanding is similar philosophy, that one key missing player can impact everyone around him, is precisely why we also gave up Stewart to obtain Rolen. whether Rolen can be half as successful as CoCo is questionable

what is beyond question is that CoCo has made a highly valuable contribution. well beyond the price of his contract IMO.

jojo
08-17-2009, 10:26 AM
what is beyond question is that CoCo has made a highly valuable contribution. well beyond the price of his contract IMO.

That of course is the very point that is highly debatable.

One thing that can not be debated however is that having Coco these last two seasons has done nothing to improve the Reds record.

The Reds spent way too much money on the wrong end of the positional spectrum when they inked Coco.

princeton
08-17-2009, 10:38 AM
The Reds spent way too much money on the wrong end of the positional spectrum when they inked Coco.


no, the CoCo signing worked out correctly, and the Edinson trade impacted the rotation in a similar way, although the Reds were counting on more from Arroyo and Harang.

couldn't get the offense/defense figured out. margin for error was very slim, and it would have taken a perfect series of moves. instead, Reds changed the front office, and the new front office quit moving.

traderumor
08-17-2009, 10:40 AM
That of course is the very point that is highly debatable.

One thing that can not be debated however is that having Coco these last two seasons has done nothing to improve the Reds record.

The Reds spent way too much money on the wrong end of the positional spectrum when they inked Coco.Huh, I could have sworn when that logic was used to justify not wanting Dunn around anymore that it would be pointed out that "Dunn was not the problem with this team." Getting Coco was a step in the right direction, but the Reds lost their nerve and went back to their own self-destructive tendencies. They bought one Armani suit, then went back to shopping at Odd Lots.

I can't see saying that he did nothing to improve the team when his department is the only one performing like a major league unit.

edabbs44
08-17-2009, 10:56 AM
Huh, I could have sworn when that logic was used to justify not wanting Dunn around anymore that it would be pointed out that "Dunn was not the problem with this team." Getting Coco was a step in the right direction, but the Reds lost their nerve and went back to their own self-destructive tendencies. They bought one Armani suit, then went back to shopping at Odd Lots.

I can't see saying that he did nothing to improve the team when his department is the only one performing like a major league unit.

No one is saying that he hasn't improved the team. The team's record hasn't improved after his acquisition, therefore giving him a record breaking contract doesn't look like a wise move now.

Like you say, his department is functioning well but when the other depts are lacking like they are does it make sense to sink so much into the relief corps? It doesn't.

jojo
08-17-2009, 11:13 AM
Huh, I could have sworn when that logic was used to justify not wanting Dunn around anymore that it would be pointed out that "Dunn was not the problem with this team." Getting Coco was a step in the right direction, but the Reds lost their nerve and went back to their own self-destructive tendencies. They bought one Armani suit, then went back to shopping at Odd Lots.

I can't see saying that he did nothing to improve the team when his department is the only one performing like a major league unit.

I'm not sure I understand what your saying.

Here's the impact of Cordero:


So in his first year, his presence had a marginal effect on save percentage and in the second, things look peachy? Here's some more numbers:



Year Win% Div Rank
2007 0.444 5th
2008 0.457 5th
2009 0.438 5th


BTW, the Reds have devoted 16% of their payroll to the 9th inning but are tied for last in the major leagues for save opportunities.

The point is that they paid massively to fix a problem that has the least impact regarding playing time and the greatest pool of potential solutions out of any position on the field.

My argument against Dunn was pretty straightforward-his defense significantly detracts from his value if he has to play the field, his bat is likely to age poorly making a long term contract at market rates a poor investment for the Reds, it looked like it would take a long term, expensive contract to sign him as FA, and a talented front office ought to be able to find a solution that approximately Dunn's total value while being able to reallocate resources toward a more premium need.

traderumor
08-17-2009, 11:21 AM
No one is saying that he hasn't improved the team. The team's record hasn't improved after his acquisition, therefore giving him a record breaking contract doesn't look like a wise move now.

Like you say, his department is functioning well but when the other depts are lacking like they are does it make sense to sink so much into the relief corps? It doesn't.Hmmm, you aren't saying it hasn't improved the team, but that the team's record hasn't improved with him? :confused: The Coco move accomplished the intended goal. The problem was the series of moves that should have happened in addition to signing Coco but have not. And I do not think his contract has hamstrung the org., but that continuing to throw good money away on replacement level players has frittered away money that could have improved each area of the team. It is similar to blaming the Griffey contract year after year, when really it was the junk they were buying with $2M here, $4M there, $3M over there. The Reds have been busy buying cheap appliances that they have to keep on replacing and end up spending more than if they'd just bought the high-end refrigerator in the first place.

traderumor
08-17-2009, 11:25 AM
I'm not sure I understand what your saying.

Here's the impact of Cordero:



The point is that they paid massively to fix a problem that has the least impact regarding playing time and the greatest pool of potential solutions out of any position on the field.

My argument against Dunn was pretty straightforward-his defense significantly detracts from his value if he has to play the field, his bat is likely to age poorly making a long term contract at market rates a poor investment for the Reds, it looked like it would take a long term, expensive contract to sign him as FA, and a talented front office ought to be able to find a solution that approximately Dunn's total value while being able to reallocate resources toward a more premium need.First, I wasn't specifically referring to any comments you made about Dunn. If you had made some recently it is news to me. As to your point, reread Princeton's post as he explains the flaw in looking at evaluating the impact of Coco in isolation vs. the impact he has had on improving the entire department. That is the point I agree with, while it seems you are making the same flawed argument as RMR.

M2
08-17-2009, 11:36 AM
Perceptually speaking, bad teams are always overpaying for the stuff that works and underpaying for the stuff that doesn't. It was a cliche fan rant long before anyone ever threw stats behind it.

A few years back the Reds spent too much money on position players and not enough on pitching. Now apparently they spend too much on pitching.

It just goes to show that a team can't win ... unless it wins.

traderumor
08-17-2009, 11:38 AM
Perceptually speaking, bad teams are always overpaying for the stuff that works and underpaying for the stuff that doesn't. It was a cliche fan rant long before anyone ever threw stats behind it.

A few years back the Reds spent too much money on position players and not enough on pitching. Now apparently they spend too much on pitching.

It just goes to show that a team can't win ... unless it wins.My new montra is "can't win with 'em, can't win without 'em." The RZ creed.

jojo
08-17-2009, 11:45 AM
First, I wasn't specifically referring to any comments you made about Dunn. If you had made some recently it is news to me. As to your point, reread Princeton's post as he explains the flaw in looking at evaluating the impact of Coco in isolation vs. the impact he has had on improving the entire department. That is the point I agree with, while it seems you are making the same flawed argument as RMR.

The point being missed was that even if one accepts that Coco made everyone better (which is a debatable argument to begin with), the improved bullpen has done nothing to improve the Reds place in the standings.

The Reds spent roughly 28% of their payroll on their pen this year and basically maintained their place in the standings -1 BC (BC=before coco, i.e. 2007).

Meanwhile premium positions have been left to wither on the vine (shortstop, centerfield, catcher) with half-solutions and their position players in general struggle to just provide league average value.

That's just not an approach that is going to be successful very often.

Here's a Coco rant posted just after the Reds announced the big signing:


I've agreed that Cordero improves the Reds. I also consider Cordero to be a high leverage arm (though last year probably shouldn't be the norm we should expect). I haven't even argued opportunity costs (so I really don't feel the burden to cite any). Here's the crux of my soapbox speil:

My comments have been philosophical. The bullpen is populated by the biggest pool of potential players known to man (it's the run prevention version of the DH). Basically it's the easiest job in baseball-all a pitcher has to do is command at most two pitches, he gets to throw them at maximum velocity, is required to do this for ususally at most 20-25 pitches and most often it's against the most favoable matchup for his skillset. On top of this, the contrived construction known as the closer has cemented the notion that the 9th inning must be locked down thus artificially causing the overvaluation of arms that are percieved to fit the role (i.e. a huge inefficiency has been created that can be exploited). The bullpen is where smart teams show their mettle and overpays should really only occur because, well, some teams just have the luxury to leverage payroll (i.e. NYN, NYA, etc) and they can afford to not give a damn.

How hard is it to get that guy to lock down your ninth inning (i.e. a guy with the peripherals that are associated with closers)? I think it mostly just takes a little bit of brains-money doesn't seem to be a prerequisite. For instance, JJ Putz was basically a non-prospect coming up (think flamed out starter that hopefully could be a useful bullpen guy). Nathan was basically reclaimed from the failed starter heap (and we all know the deal that brought him to Minnesota). Rafael Soriano was acquired for a replacement level player (Soriano's peripherals are better than Cordero's). Jarod Burrton cost $50,000. Lidge cost the Phillies a handshake. Bobby Jenks was a waiver wire pickup. Saito was signed by the Dodgers as a free agent and I think he's making $1M (though he might get a raise). Joe Borowski was signed to a bank-breaking $4M by the Indians (and really few would've penciled him in as their "lock down guy"). Valverde and F. Rodriguez were drafted by their teams. Also drafted by his current team, Papelbon was a 4th round pick that the Redsox converted from a starter because he lacks a true starter's arsenal. Kevin Gregg was basically a minor league free agent pickup for the Angels who later flipped him to the Marlins for Chris Resop. As sucky as I think Weathers is, he converted the same percentage of saves as Cordero did last season (and it was a career year for Cordero based upon his peripherals). Heck, Todd Jones, the reclamation project with the peripherals of a middle reliever, has converted a higher percentage of saves over the last three seasons than Cordero (and that's with ignoring Cordero's 2006 season).

The inability of the Reds to put together a workable bullpen has tweaked me to no end the last few seasons (I think every Reds fan feels that pain). Stuff happens as we all know but it's a symptom of incompetence to chronically fail here IMHO. That the Reds could only address this issue via the route they finally took with Cordero is the culminating step in their futility. It irks me to no end. So once again, my foaming at the mouth rant has nothing really to do with Cordero per se or his chances of pitching well. It's all about the Reds FO and what I percieve to be their chances of ever building something good that lasts. On the surface it looks like the Reds are turning a corner in their commitment to winning (new big name manager, increasing payroll) but really where it matters most-their ability to compete with the smart FOs and thus increase their chances of being competitive every season- they've got a troubling trackrecord that doesn't seem to really be turning a corner....

After almost 2 seasons of Coco, I think the points still largely stand.

edabbs44
08-17-2009, 11:51 AM
Hmmm, you aren't saying it hasn't improved the team, but that the team's record hasn't improved with him? :confused: The Coco move accomplished the intended goal. The problem was the series of moves that should have happened in addition to signing Coco but have not. And I do not think his contract has hamstrung the org., but that continuing to throw good money away on replacement level players has frittered away money that could have improved each area of the team. It is similar to blaming the Griffey contract year after year, when really it was the junk they were buying with $2M here, $4M there, $3M over there. The Reds have been busy buying cheap appliances that they have to keep on replacing and end up spending more than if they'd just bought the high-end refrigerator in the first place.

The Cordero contract has to be viewed along with the entire set of moves that failed to be made.

Take the fact that he received the biggest contract ever for a reliever at the time he was signed and that he wasn't close to the best closer in the game and that he lost his closer job only a couple of years earlier in Texas out of the mix. Let's assume that he deserved to be the highest paid reliever in baseball history.

Cincy knew what their situation was when they signed Cordero. They knew at the time if they had more money to make this signing worth it. This was my position at the time of the signing...make the additional moves and I care less about the money. Do nothing and it is dumb.

This is why I used to get into it so much with people back then...develop a plan and stick to it. To me, that regime made moves without thinking about tomorrow. Need a closer? Go break records in getting one. Maybe we fix the rest of the team later this off-season, maybe next year, maybe in 2 years. But at least we got a closer.

Made no sense.

M2
08-17-2009, 12:14 PM
The point being missed was that even if one accepts that Coco made everyone better (which is a debatable argument to begin with), the improved bullpen has done nothing to improve the Reds place in the standings.

The Reds spent roughly 28% of their payroll on their pen this year and basically maintained their place in the standings -1 BC (BC=before coco, i.e. 2007).

Meanwhile premium positions have been left to wither on the vine (shortstop, centerfield, catcher) with half-solutions and their position players in general fail struggle to just provide league average value.

That's just not an approach that is going to be successful very often.

The Reds are always going to have find payroll efficiencies. Your argument is based on the premise that the bullpen is just about the easiest place to find said efficiencies. My take is that any discount solution comes with a significant chance of failure. You pay for stability.

Mind you, even successful bullpens experience a lot of turnover. The modern model for a stable bullpen is to get a quality closer and then shuffle the arms in front of him.

When the Reds paid Cordero, Harang and Arroyo it was clear they'd need to be aggressively creative about other facets of the team. They weren't. To that extent, it really doesn't matter what you pay for if you can't figure out how wring performance out of the low-cost areas of your ballclub.

And the reality might be that you're stuck in an endless cycle unless you hit the talent lottery or you start spending an extra $20M.

traderumor
08-17-2009, 12:24 PM
The Cordero contract has to be viewed along with the entire set of moves that failed to be made.

Take the fact that he received the biggest contract ever for a reliever at the time he was signed and that he wasn't close to the best closer in the game and that he lost his closer job only a couple of years earlier in Texas out of the mix. Let's assume that he deserved to be the highest paid reliever in baseball history.

Cincy knew what their situation was when they signed Cordero. They knew at the time if they had more money to make this signing worth it. This was my position at the time of the signing...make the additional moves and I care less about the money. Do nothing and it is dumb.

This is why I used to get into it so much with people back then...develop a plan and stick to it. To me, that regime made moves without thinking about tomorrow. Need a closer? Go break records in getting one. Maybe we fix the rest of the team later this off-season, maybe next year, maybe in 2 years. But at least we got a closer.

Made no sense.I think the failure in the logic is to presuppose that other good moves became not possible because of too much money tied up in Cordero. I do not think this is the case, just like it wasn't with Griffey. Its the bad extensions/DFAs of Wayne's World. Its the Jimmy Haynes-like extensions. Its giving $6M over two to WT. Its giving $3M to Corey Patterson. Its hotly pursuing JHJ this offseason and giving him more than league minimum. Its resigning Mike Lincoln. Its deciding that McDonald was better than Gomes at the same price. Those are the problems, as one person put it recently, pecking away at the periphery and masking it as activity. A gutsy move like Cordero was a positive and still is. The only problem was, it was apparently a blind squirrel finding a nut, which is evidenced by the same old same old in all the other activity since then.

mbgrayson
08-17-2009, 12:33 PM
Hmmm, you aren't saying it hasn't improved the team, but that the team's record hasn't improved with him? :confused: The Coco move accomplished the intended goal. The problem was the series of moves that should have happened in addition to signing Coco but have not. And I do not think his contract has hamstrung the org., but that continuing to throw good money away on replacement level players has frittered away money that could have improved each area of the team. It is similar to blaming the Griffey contract year after year, when really it was the junk they were buying with $2M here, $4M there, $3M over there. The Reds have been busy buying cheap appliances that they have to keep on replacing and end up spending more than if they'd just bought the high-end refrigerator in the first place.

The problem is that we have to figure out how to win as a small market/low payroll team. We need to find efficiencies in the market and exploit them to patch together a team that can win. For example, we need to find young relievers in their pre-free agent years, and get them to close games for us.

I know we have gone through this before, but 'Moneyball' documents quite well how Oakland has managed to build up a closers until their value peaked, then trade them or let them go as type A free agents, and take the comp picks.

This year, despite their low place in the standings, Oakland again has 'made' a strong closer out of one Andrew Bailey. When the season started, it was very unclear who would close games in Oakland. Joey Devine got hurt, and other potential young players failed in the role.

Then Andrew Bailey got his chance. He currently has a 2.05 ERA, .95 WHIP, 10.09 K/9 rate, and has saved 17 out of 21 games, for an 81% save rate.

Cordero, who has been good this year, has a 1.75 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 7.19 K/9 rate, and has saved 25 out of 26 games, for a 96% save rate.

Cordero has a higher save rate, but he will cost the Reds $12,125,000 (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=4139) this year. Andrew Bailey works for MLB minimum, which is $400,000 this year.

The A's are not alone in taking this approach. The Mariners built up and then traded JJ Putz after his $4.4 million dollar season to the Mets (Putz is making $6 million this year), and this year they are using David Aardsma to close games.

David Aardsma has a 2.29 ERA, a 1.204 WHIP, a 10.5 K/9 rate, and has saved 27 out of 30 games, for a 90% save rate. Aardsma makes $419,000 this season.

This is the kind of smart and efficient baseball Cincinnati needs. The New York teams, Boston, or Los Angeles can afford to spend north of $10 million a year on a closer. The Reds simply cannot do this and have any hope of winning at their payroll level.

traderumor
08-17-2009, 12:35 PM
The problem is that we have to figure out how to win as a small market/low payroll team. We need to find efficiencies in the market and exploit them to patch together a team that can win. For example, we need to find young relievers in their pre-free agent years, and get them to close games for us.

I know we have gone through this before, but 'Moneyball' documents quite well how Oakland has managed to build up a closers until their value peaked, then trade them or let them go as type A free agents, and take the comp picks.

This year, despite their low place in the standings, Oakland again has 'made' a strong closer out of one Andrew Bailey. When the season started, it was very unclear who would close games in Oakland. Joey Devine got hurt, and other potential young players failed in the role.

Then Andrew Bailey got his chance. He currently has a 2.05 ERA, .95 WHIP, 10.09 K/9 rate, and has saved 17 out of 21 games, for an 81% save rate.

Cordero, who has been good this year, has a 1.75 ERA, 1.14 WHIP, 7.19 K/9 rate, and has saved 25 out of 26 games, for a 96% save rate.

Cordero has a higher save rate, but he will cost the Reds $12,125,000 (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?playerId=4139) this year. Andrew Bailey works for MLB minimum, which is $400,000 this year.

The A's are not alone in taking this approach. The Mariners built up and then traded JJ Putz after his $4.4 million dollar season to the Mets (Putz is making $6 million this year), and this year they are using David Aardsma to close games.

David Aardsma has a 2.29 ERA, a 1.204 WHIP, a 10.5 K/9 rate, and has saved 27 out of 30 games, for a 90% save rate. Aardsma makes $419,000 this season.

This is the kind of smart and efficient baseball Cincinnati needs. The New York teams, Boston, or Los Angeles can afford to spend north of $10 million a year on a closer. The Reds simply cannot do this and have any hope of winning at their payroll level.The Reds are a middle of the road payroll team.

edabbs44
08-17-2009, 12:36 PM
I think the failure in the logic is to presuppose that other good moves became not possible because of too much money tied up in Cordero. I do not think this is the case, just like it wasn't with Griffey. Its the bad extensions/DFAs of Wayne's World. Its the Jimmy Haynes-like extensions. Its giving $6M over two to WT. Its giving $3M to Corey Patterson. Its hotly pursuing JHJ this offseason and giving him more than league minimum. Its resigning Mike Lincoln. Its deciding that McDonald was better than Gomes at the same price. Those are the problems, as one person put it recently, pecking away at the periphery and masking it as activity. A gutsy move like Cordero was a positive and still is. The only problem was, it was apparently a blind squirrel finding a nut, which is evidenced by the same old same old in all the other activity since then.

We are looking at it from 2 different directions. In a vacuum it is a decent signing. He is producing, which is half the battle. He shouldn't have been given 4 years or the most money ever for a reliever but at least he is pitching well.

But we can't look at the move in a vacuum. You have to look at it in relation to the rest of the team.

If you want to say that the Reds got some of their money's worth out of Cordero so far, then great. But the team hasn't won and giving record breaking contracts to relievers should hopefully be followed by victories. If not, then what's the point?

traderumor
08-17-2009, 12:45 PM
We are looking at it from 2 different directions. In a vacuum it is a decent signing. He is producing, which is half the battle. He shouldn't have been given 4 years or the most money ever for a reliever but at least he is pitching well.

But we can't look at the move in a vacuum. You have to look at it in relation to the rest of the team.

If you want to say that the Reds got some of their money's worth out of Cordero so far, then great. But the team hasn't won and giving record breaking contracts to relievers should hopefully be followed by victories. If not, then what's the point?It is not a "vacuum" to point out one thing doesn't have to mean another can't happen. Your argument is that they addressed one area of weakness with too much resources, leaving nothing to spend, and my argument is that the resources that still were available to take care of other areas were frittered away. That the team's record is not improving is a function of frittering away money on bad players is my argument. Therefore, your "vacuum" dismissal is a non-response.

M2
08-17-2009, 12:47 PM
The problem is that we have to figure out how to win as a small market/low payroll team. We need to find efficiencies in the market and exploit them to patch together a team that can win. For example, we need to find young relievers in their pre-free agent years, and get them to close games for us.

I agree about finding the efficiencies. I disagree about the slavish insistence on where the efficiencies must be found.

In fact, in the current market, it would seem highly productive corner OFs might be the new blindspot.

edabbs44
08-17-2009, 12:58 PM
It is not a "vacuum" to point out one thing doesn't have to mean another can't happen. Your argument is that they addressed one area of weakness with too much resources, leaving nothing to spend, and my argument is that the resources that still were available to take care of other areas were frittered away. That the team's record is not improving is a function of frittering away money on bad players is my argument. Therefore, your "vacuum" dismissal is a non-response.

I haven't said that in this thread.

But even if you took the "wasted" money that you mentioned and let the team use hindsight to acquire someone who was available and produced (for example, stay away from Bradley/Burrell and acquire Abreu), it wouldn't push this team over the line last year or this year. Those numbers you threw out won't do anything for the Cincy team now. Pump it into the farm system, and now you are talking my language.

The timing of the contract is what makes the least sense. If the GM was so hot and bothered to get a closer, then so be it. But at least do it when the team is ready to compete and not when the roster was a joke and no plan to ensure that it is improved in the very short term.

traderumor
08-17-2009, 01:00 PM
I agree about finding the efficiencies. I disagree about the slavish insistence on where the efficiencies must be found.

In fact, in the current market, it would seem highly productive corner OFs might be the new blindspot.It would seem to me that a team needs to identify its organizational strength in identifying and developing talent, then exploring if there is any inefficiency in that area, then exploiting it. That seems to be what mbgrayson is describing with Oakland and back-end relievers, which leads to your point.

Of course, I am not sure that the Reds are showing any organizational strengths right now :(

traderumor
08-17-2009, 01:04 PM
I haven't said that in this thread.

But even if you took the "wasted" money that you mentioned and let the team use hindsight to acquire someone who was available and produced (for example, stay away from Bradley/Burrell and acquire Abreu), it wouldn't push this team over the line last year or this year. Those numbers you threw out won't do anything for the Cincy team now. Pump it into the farm system, and now you are talking my language.

The timing of the contract is what makes the least sense. If the GM was so hot and bothered to get a closer, then so be it. But at least do it when the team is ready to compete and not when the roster was a joke and no plan to ensure that it is improved in the very short term.I believe WK thought his timing was right according to your qualification. I think he thought that his team was in good shape except for the bullpen when he signed Coco. Of course, folks disagreed then and the benefit of hindsight shows they were not even close, but I think his belief was that the team was ready to compete. I think the accuracy of that belief is water under the bridge at this stage.

Kc61
08-17-2009, 01:05 PM
But we can't look at the move in a vacuum. You have to look at it in relation to the rest of the team.

If you want to say that the Reds got some of their money's worth out of Cordero so far, then great. But the team hasn't won and giving record breaking contracts to relievers should hopefully be followed by victories. If not, then what's the point?

The Cordero signing should have showed the Reds that having an anchor player for an important part of the team re-adjusts everyone's role and results in significant overall improvement.

Cordero helped the pen, not only by virtue of his own numbers, but by putting Weathers and others into roles where they are better suited and could succeed. With Weathers in the 8th, and some arms like Burton in the 7th, the whole pen got better.

This approach can work for the whole team. Getting an anchor player for the offense would be most important. Guys like Votto, Bruce, and -- maybe especially -- Phillips would be so much more valuable in more appropriate roles.

I believe that this is true in all sports and have seen it many times -- bring in a few top notch players in a couple of key areas and everyone else suddenly looks pretty good.

The Yankees rave about Jerry Hairston, Jr. The Brewers seem happy with the performance of Todd Coffey. Two guys who had too much responsibilty as Reds. In a more suitable role, they are very positive players.

And in terms of money, you can have a lot of cheap but talented role players and young players supporting the main guys. But you have to have the main guys.

traderumor
08-17-2009, 01:06 PM
The Cordero signing should have showed the Reds that having an anchor player for an important part of the team re-adjusts everyone's role and results in significant overall improvement.

Cordero helped the pen, not only by virtue of his own numbers, but by putting Weathers and others into roles where they are better suited and could succeed. With Weathers in the 8th, and some arms like Burton in the 7th, the whole pen got better.

This approach can work for the whole team. Getting an anchor player for the offense would be most important. Guys like Votto, Bruce, and -- maybe especially -- Phillips would be so much more valuable in more appropriate roles.

I believe that this is true in all sports and have seen it many times -- bring in a few top notch players in a couple of key areas and everyone else suddenly looks pretty good.

The Yankees rave about Jerry Hairston, Jr. The Brewers rave about Todd Coffey. Two guys who had too much responsibilty as Reds. In a more suitable role, they are very positive players.

And in terms of money, you can have a lot of cheap but talented role players and young players supporing the main guys. But you have to have the main guys.You mean like the Cardinals?

edabbs44
08-17-2009, 01:07 PM
I believe WK thought his timing was right according to your qualification. I think he thought that his team was in good shape except for the bullpen when he signed Coco. Of course, folks disagreed then and the benefit of hindsight shows they were not even close, but I think his belief was that the team was ready to compete. I think the accuracy of that belief is water under the bridge at this stage.

This is why WK was not suited for the GM role and would have been much more effective in a support function.

And, in the end, the signing has done more harm than good for this franchise.

M2
08-17-2009, 01:17 PM
It would seem to me that a team needs to identify its organizational strength in identifying and developing talent, then exploring if there is any inefficiency in that area, then exploiting it. That seems to be what mbgrayson is describing with Oakland and back-end relievers, which leads to your point.

Of course, I am not sure that the Reds are showing any organizational strengths right now :(


I believe that this is true in all sports and have seen it many times -- bring in a few top notch players in a couple of key areas and everyone else suddenly looks pretty good.

The Yankees rave about Jerry Hairston, Jr. The Brewers seem happy with the performance of Todd Coffey. Two guys who had too much responsibilty as Reds. In a more suitable role, they are very positive players.

And in terms of money, you can have a lot of cheap but talented role players and young players supporting the main guys. But you have to have the main guys.

Excellent points.


And, in the end, the signing has done more harm than good for this franchise.

I fail to see the harm done by good pitching. It's one thing to argue it didn't do enough good. I disagree with the methodology that insists nothing is valuable until everything is valuable, but that's at least a legitimate argument. Harm? That's bunk.

traderumor
08-17-2009, 01:29 PM
This is why WK was not suited for the GM role and would have been much more effective in a support function.

And, in the end, the signing has done more harm than good for this franchise.Some good, some bad, but I think he earned a shot at GMing and did an acceptable job. At least he showed a pulse, whereas WJ seems to be sleep walking. Heck, even Dan O'Brien drafted Jay Bruce, and he was exceedingly ill suited for the job. I'm not seeing this kind of hyperbole as extraordinarily helpful.

Kc61
08-17-2009, 01:29 PM
I fail to see the harm done by good pitching. It's one thing to argue it didn't do enough good. I disagree with the methodology that insists nothing is valuable until everything is valuable, but that's at least a legitimate argument. Harm? That's bunk.

I agree.

You know, maybe the Reds should approach it in simple terms. They signed Cordero, Harang and Arroyo. They now have a good bullpen and two durable, although lately disappointing starting pitchers. The result is about a league average pitching staff.

But they have a woeful offense. Before dismantling the team again, maybe they should just try to see how it works with a better offense.

Add two more players. A cleanup hitter. And a shortstop who can get on base. And nothing more. And see.

I think the team would be much more competitive with those two additional players. A veteran good hitter with power and an OBP man plugging the major infield hole.

Otherwise, make no major changes. Sign Hernandez or someone similar cheaply to split catcher with Hanigan. Use Dickerson and maybe Stubbs more and Taveras less in center. Let Massett, Burton, Herrera, Rhodes, and Fisher set up Coco in the pen -- maybe add a veteran middle reliever. Go with Harang, Arroyo, Bailey, Cueto, Owings, Lehr and Wood in spring training as your possible starters and see what happens.

I'd much rather see this than another youth movement, another firesale, the usual endless cycle.

puca
08-17-2009, 02:04 PM
I agree.

You know, maybe the Reds should approach it in simple terms. They signed Cordero, Harang and Arroyo. They now have a good bullpen and two durable, although lately disappointing starting pitchers. The result is about a league average pitching staff.

But they have a woeful offense. Before dismantling the team again, maybe they should just try to see how it works with a better offense.

Add two more players. A cleanup hitter. And a shortstop who can get on base. And nothing more. And see.

I think the team would be much more competitive with those two additional players. A veteran good hitter with power and an OBP man plugging the major infield hole.

Otherwise, make no major changes. Sign Hernandez or someone similar cheaply to split catcher with Hanigan. Use Dickerson and maybe Stubbs more and Taveras less in center. Let Massett, Burton, Herrera, Rhodes, and Fisher set up Coco in the pen -- maybe add a veteran middle reliever. Go with Harang, Arroyo, Bailey, Cueto, Owings, Lehr and Wood in spring training as your possible starters and see what happens.

I'd much rather see this than another youth movement, another firesale, the usual endless cycle.


Is adding a clean up hitter and good offensive shortstop realistic though? Where do these guys come from, how do the Reds acquire them and how do they get paid?

traderumor
08-17-2009, 02:07 PM
Is adding a clean up hitter and good offensive shortstop realistic though? Where do these guys come from, how do the Reds acquire them and how do they get paid?Walmart, and they get paid via direct deposit into bank accounts in the Cayman Islands ;)

puca
08-17-2009, 02:10 PM
Walmart, and they get paid via direct deposit into bank accounts in the Cayman Islands ;)

Well, at least its a plan.

edabbs44
08-17-2009, 02:13 PM
I fail to see the harm done by good pitching. It's one thing to argue it didn't do enough good. I disagree with the methodology that insists nothing is valuable until everything is valuable, but that's at least a legitimate argument. Harm? That's bunk.

Spending $46MM on a closer for a last place quality team makes zero sense. Where some might give a blue ribbon for spending it on a guy who (so far) has pitched well, it is almost double the amount of money spent on Milton and, in the end, the results for the entire team are very, very similar.

Patrick Bateman
08-17-2009, 02:23 PM
Spending $46MM on a closer for a last place quality team makes zero sense. Where some might give a blue ribbon for spending it on a guy who (so far) has pitched well, it is almost double the amount of money spent on Milton and, in the end, the results for the entire team are very, very similar.

On that note, you could basically argue that anyone making decent coin on a last place team is a waste.

But I don't necessarily disagree with the premise that Cordero's money could be spent in better ways.

nate
08-17-2009, 02:24 PM
Spending $46MM on a closer for a last place quality team makes zero sense. Where some might give a blue ribbon for spending it on a guy who (so far) has pitched well, it is almost double the amount of money spent on Milton and, in the end, the results for the entire team are very, very similar.

The Reds weren't a last place team when they signed him.

Milton's salary was signed in a much different era than Cordero's. I know, it's a few years but what ballplayers made in between those years changed dramatically.

The results of the team might've been the same but the performance of the two players mentioned couldn't be any more different.

The Brewers (a SECOND PLACE team the last year Cordero pitched for them) were willing to pay him as much as Wayne did if they'd have had the chance.

In reality, your spleen venting should be directed toward Bob C who didn't open up the wallet enough to get complementary players along with Cordero.

Now, do I think that money is best spent on Cordero? No. But my ire is tempered by the fact that he's good. He's not Mike Stanton. He's not Willy Taveras. He's a good player.

edabbs44
08-17-2009, 02:27 PM
On that note, you could basically argue that anyone making decent coin on a last place team is a waste.

But I don't necessarily disagree with the premise that Cordero's money could be spent in better ways.

Decent coin? Not exactly.

Most money ever for a FA reliever, one who will be post age 35 when contract is complete? Yes, can and should be questioned.

A young up and coming beast of a LFer? Or SS? Or stud pitcher? Not the same situation.

Also, if Cincy went out and spent money on legit guys and then injuries and unlikely flops took place, then at least they went and surrounded the contract with more talent in order to make it worth it. But when you have a last place team and then give Cordero ridiculous money and do nothing after? Totally different situation.

edabbs44
08-17-2009, 02:31 PM
In reality, your spleen venting should be directed toward Bob C who didn't open up the wallet enough to get complementary players along with Cordero.

Bob C spent money. We've seen good money thrown around. It wasn't spent wisely.

3 year deals given to stiff SSs. Extending middle of the road pitchers when they have 2 years left on their contract. The most money ever given to a reliever. 40 year old relievers being collected like they are rare stamps.

Yeah, it's all Bob's fault.

mbgrayson
08-17-2009, 02:33 PM
I agree.

You know, maybe the Reds should approach it in simple terms. They signed Cordero, Harang and Arroyo. They now have a good bullpen and two durable, although lately disappointing starting pitchers. The result is about a league average pitching staff.

But they have a woeful offense. Before dismantling the team again, maybe they should just try to see how it works with a better offense.

Add two more players. A cleanup hitter. And a shortstop who can get on base. And nothing more. And see.

I think the team would be much more competitive with those two additional players. A veteran good hitter with power and an OBP man plugging the major infield hole.

Otherwise, make no major changes. Sign Hernandez or someone similar cheaply to split catcher with Hanigan. Use Dickerson and maybe Stubbs more and Taveras less in center. Let Massett, Burton, Herrera, Rhodes, and Fisher set up Coco in the pen -- maybe add a veteran middle reliever. Go with Harang, Arroyo, Bailey, Cueto, Owings, Lehr and Wood in spring training as your possible starters and see what happens.

I'd much rather see this than another youth movement, another firesale, the usual endless cycle.

I largely agree with your approach, except that clearly the Reds are not willing to spend enough additional money to bring in a true #4 hitter.

The remainder of this year's $12 million allocated to Cordero, and all of the next two year's money for him, would be better spent acquiring a true #4 hitter in left field, moving Dickerson to center, and letting Willy Taveras go. There were several high caliber outfielderrs that all signed for less than $10 million per year last off season.

I would also spend a couple million more each year on high risk/ high reward international signings.

I think there are several potential closers in our system. Burton, Fisher, Massett, or even one of the starters....Bailey, Owings or Cueto. This has met with some success in other systems also.

I also worry about Cordero remaining this productive in the last two years of his contract. I worry about the continuing drop in his year to year K/9 rate. Closers do better when they are dominant and can strike guys out.

Cordero has had a relatively light workload this year(46 appearances so far,and only 26 of them save opportunities), and so he hasn't really been pushed very hard. If the team does manage to improve, we will need him to pitch more often. And pitching often has been a Cordero weakness. I remember last year that many of his blown saves came when pitching for the third game in a row.

Closers are historically a volatile lot. Today's top line closer can easily be injured or ineffective tomorrow. Most fantasy baseball experts recommend not drafting a closer anywhere in the first six or seven rounds, because of this volatility. I realize that 'real' baseball is quite different, but it seems to me the same principal applies. You simply do not commit this high a percentage of your resources to a closer.

I still submit that the Reds are a small market/ small payroll team. This year, the Reds total payroll will be $70,968,500. That is 20th out of 30 teams, and only the Pirates are lower in our division. Our market size is even smaller than 20th(See THIS article (http://www.baseball-almanac.com/articles/baseball_markets.shtml)from Baseball Almanac which lists Cincinnati as a small market team). We are one of the few cities in MLB with a market size of less than 2 million people.

Given that payroll stays about the same, how are we to compete with the Cubs($136 million), the Cards($88 million), the Astros($103 million), the Brewers($80 million), and the Pirates($49 million)? I submit we cannot compete while spending over $12 million of our $70 million payroll on the closing pitcher.

nate
08-17-2009, 02:41 PM
Bob C spent money. We've seen good money thrown around. It wasn't spent wisely.

We were talking about Cordero and how enough wasn't done to put a team around him. That required money. Bob C didn't spend it.


3 year deals given to stiff SSs. Extending middle of the road pitchers when they have 2 years left on their contract. The most money ever given to a reliever. 40 year old relievers being collected like they are rare stamps.

Yeah, it's all Bob's fault.

If he's the owner, then yeah, it most certainly is. And he's too big a doofus to not go out and get "his guy" (the great, experienced Walt Jocketty) in the first place then yeah, it IS his fault.

2 year deal given to one of the historically worst full-time players. Resigning Mike Lincoln and JHJ.

Yeah, it absolutely IS all Bob's fault.

flyer85
08-17-2009, 02:57 PM
2 year deal given to one of the historically worst full-time players. Resigning Mike Lincoln and JHJ.

Yeah, it absolutely IS all Bob's fault.
It shouyld not be surprising that fishing in the toilet bowl results in catching turds.

nate
08-17-2009, 03:11 PM
It shouyld not be surprising that fishing in the toilet bowl results in catching turds.

That sure paints a picture!

edabbs44
08-17-2009, 03:11 PM
We were talking about Cordero and how enough wasn't done to put a team around him. That required money. Bob C didn't spend it.

Bob C gave enough money to lock up Harang and Arroyo. That was some serius coin. Maybe things would be different if Arroyo wasn't extended, was dealt while his value was high and had a cheap contract and the money was used on another position. Maybe. And that would have needed zero of Bob's money that he isn't spending.


If he's the owner, then yeah, it most certainly is. And he's too big a doofus to not go out and get "his guy" (the great, experienced Walt Jocketty) in the first place then yeah, it IS his fault.

2 year deal given to one of the historically worst full-time players. Resigning Mike Lincoln and JHJ.

Yeah, it absolutely IS all Bob's fault.

To be honest, I am disappointed. The team is in a bad place. Awful. But I really think that the continued harping on the Taveras/Lincoln/JHJ trio is pretty needless. These guys aren't destroying the team. The $6MM or whatever they are making this season really doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme. The team needed to be gutted a few years ago but the Bob/WK duo wanted to win now, so they spent money foolishly. And now they are paying the price. Walt can't give these guys away and, even though some would like to see Bob go all in to try and win without a plan, that's not the best business move if the revenue isn't there. That's how you go under. Ask Arizona.

M2
08-17-2009, 03:20 PM
You can't gut a team by adding or keeping talent. You gut it by giving away talent while receiving none in return. It's nonsensical to say Krivsky "gutted" the team by signing a quality closer. Forget about that statement making no sense in baseball terms, it's bad English.

nate
08-17-2009, 03:28 PM
Bob C gave enough money to lock up Harang and Arroyo. That was some serius coin.Maybe things would be different if Arroyo wasn't extended, was dealt while his value was high and had a cheap contract and the money was used on another position. Maybe. And that would have needed zero of Bob's money that he isn't spending.

Bob didn't have to OK it. Nor did he have to OK Willy Taveras.


To be honest, I am disappointed. The team is in a bad place. Awful. But I really think that the continued harping on the Taveras/Lincoln/JHJ trio is pretty needless. I think your continued one-note samba about Harang/Arroyo/Cordero is pretty needless too. Yet, it continues.

I mean, at least that trio can be considered net average to above average in positions of great need for the Reds. The light from Taveras/Lincoln/JHJ's "production" is so far away, even Carl Sagan couldn't have conecptualized it. Further, they were signed to play positions that didn't really need filling.

So while Arroyo/Harang/Cordero might seem overpaid, they at least have produced in a position of need for the Reds.

Hairston/Taveras/Lincoln, not so much.


These guys aren't destroying the team.Nor are Arroyo/Harang/Cordero. What's destroying the current team is injuries, a lack of acceptable backups and absolutely no offense. And guess who leads off the majority of the time? The historically bad Willy Taveras.


The $6MM or whatever they are making this season really doesn't make a difference in the grand scheme. So on one hand, Bob's hands are tied by this "serious coin" given to the aforementioned players. But $6mm given to one of the worst regulars in baseball's entire history somehow doesn't make a difference?

I disagree.


The team needed to be gutted a few years ago but the Bob/WK duo wanted to win now, so they spent money foolishly. They did and Walt hasn't shown that the foolish money spending is going to magically stop.


And now they are paying the price. Walt can't give these guys away and, even though some would like to see Bob go all in to try and win without a plan,No one has said to "go all in to try and win without a plan."

Silly argument.


that's not the best business move if the revenue isn't there. Keeping a step ahead of the Pirates, if we can, isn't much of a business plan either.

edabbs44
08-17-2009, 04:39 PM
Nor are Arroyo/Harang/Cordero. What's destroying the current team is injuries, a lack of acceptable backups and absolutely no offense. And guess who leads off the majority of the time? The historically bad Willy Taveras.

45ish% of the payroll on a closer and 2 guys with ERAs hovering in the 5 range all year is a bigger problem than the $2MM given to Taveras this year.

Look at it this way..if you could have one of the two situations on your hands for 2009 (and 2009 only), which would you want?

a) Taveras and $33MM to spend on 3 players
b) Harang, Arroyo and Cordero and $2MM to spend on 2 players

I am taking choice "a" and cutting Taveras one second after choosing.


So on one hand, Bob's hands are tied by this "serious coin" given to the aforementioned players. But $6mm given to one of the worst regulars in baseball's entire history somehow doesn't make a difference?



$2MM this year for Taveras isn't handcuffing the team. It is definitely money wasted, but I don't think anyone should view his contract as being a difference maker.

edabbs44
08-17-2009, 04:40 PM
Bob didn't have to OK it. Nor did he have to OK Willy Taveras.

If Bob needs to OK a move like Taveras', then Walt needs to quit asap. Walt should be making those calls on his own.

flyer85
08-17-2009, 04:41 PM
$2MM this year for Taveras isn't handcuffing the team. It is definitely money wasted, but I don't think anyone should view his contract as being a difference maker.it's the fact that giving him the ABs is like paying someone to keep kicking you in the nuts.

traderumor
08-17-2009, 04:49 PM
it's the fact that giving him the ABs is like paying someone to keep kicking you in the nuts......without a cup on ;)

edabbs44
08-17-2009, 04:50 PM
it's the fact that giving him the ABs is like paying someone to keep kicking you in the nuts.

Yep. But this discussion has been around money.

Cut the guy and you would have a better offense, a disgruntled manager and a 90% decrease in Willy noise on RedsZone.

Three wins, if you ask me. :)

nate
08-17-2009, 05:27 PM
45ish% of the payroll on a closer and 2 guys with ERAs hovering in the 5 range all year is a bigger problem than the $2MM given to Taveras this year.

Wayne signed:

2009
Arroyo ERA+: 94
Harang ERA+: 103
Cordero ERA+: 255

In their total tenure with the Reds:

Arroyo ERA+: 110
Harang ERA+: 107
Cordero ERA+: 166

Walt signed:

2009
Taveras OPS+: 47
Hairston OPS+: 81
Lincoln ERA+: 54
Weathers ERA+: 135

And he did sign Gomes, who has been OK. Nix, who hasn't been so good and Hernandez who I'm not even sure is still alive. When he was alive and playing, I think he was a push although for the money, I'd almost rather see Ryan "Banzai" Freel out there for 80 games if it meant no Willy T.

I mean, Chris Dickerson's BA is only .007 LESS than Willy T's OBP. Yet Willy T has nearly 400 ABs while Dickerson has 238. At least Stanton was a relief pitcher that you could go a couple games without seeing. Willy T, God love him-he seems like a real nice guy, is terrible AND persistent.

Wayne may've overpaid for those guys but at least they've produced.


Look at it this way..if you could have one of the two situations on your hands for 2009 (and 2009 only), which would you want?

a) Taveras and $33MM to spend on 3 players
b) Harang, Arroyo and Cordero and $2MM to spend on 2 players

I am taking choice "a" and cutting Taveras one second after choosing.Since I don't have a time machine to go back and erase the contracts that Walt knew he had to deal with when he took over, I'll go for:

c) Walt does something creative in the time he's had to create payroll flexibility for himself by tapping into his "experience" and "history of winning" and making some trades.

And maybe he will.


$2MM this year for Taveras isn't handcuffing the team. It's $6mm for TWO YEARS. And if finances are so tight, it absolutely is.

Further, it's beyond hypocritical for you to have bellowed on endlessly about Stanton, Cormier, et al., and saying things like "it adds up." Sorry to drop this newsflash on you but that knife cuts both ways. Taveras is beyond awful and plays nearly every day and has the second most ABs on the team. We get to watch his tango next year for DOUBLE the bread and now, it's not "handcuffing?"

At least we only had to watch Corey Patterson for one year. At least the pain of Stanton et al. is over.


It is definitely money wasted, but I don't think anyone should view his contract as being a difference maker.It most certainly is and I shall continue to point that out with aplomb.

Your problem is you want to blame Wayne for everything.

I'm blaming Bob C, Wayne, Walt and Dusty.

nate
08-17-2009, 05:29 PM
If Bob needs to OK a move like Taveras', then Walt needs to quit asap. Walt should be making those calls on his own.

The call Walt should make is to Dusty.

"Dusty, it's Walt. Stop playing Willy Taveras unless it's to pinch run and there's absolutely no chance he comes to the plate."

REDREAD
08-17-2009, 07:34 PM
If Bob needs to OK a move like Taveras', then Walt needs to quit asap. Walt should be making those calls on his own.


Yes, I do not want the owner making any player decision moves. That is a recipe for disaster. Sure, Walt whiffed on Taveras. No one will dispute that.
But he did pretty darn good on some of his other moves.

I really don't get the bile for Lincoln.. 2 years/4 million.. he got hurt. Again, I don't recall anyone complaining at the time of the signing. It got similiar reactions to the Rhodes signing (which everyone loves).

Harriston Jr? That was a one year 2 million deal. Walt was able to move him to NYY fairly easy. If you hate Harriston Jr, you might as well start complaining about Nix and the other low dollar players. Harriston was relatively cheap insurance at all OF and INF postions. Rosters need a guy like that, but you hope he isn't forced to play every day.

I am hoping Walt is given some money this year to try to improve the team again. With AGon and Hernandez rolling off (and EdE, Weathers and JHJ traded), hopefully there's some room to manuever.

I agree this team was never a contender to begin with, but this is one of the worst seasons I can remember for injuries. Plus we got the regression of Harang/Arroyo. Not sure any GM could've covered (or foreseen) all the things that went wrong this year.

REDREAD
08-17-2009, 07:41 PM
Wayne signed:

2009
Arroyo ERA+: 94
Harang ERA+: 103
Cordero ERA+: 255



Yep, those are the good guys he signed.






Walt signed:

2009
Taveras OPS+: 47
Hairston OPS+: 81
Lincoln ERA+: 54
Weathers ERA+: 135



And other than Weathers, you picked the bad guys Walt got.
What about Rhodes?

Dickerson has been battling injuries this season, and has not exactly been that great shakes either.




Wayne may've overpaid for those guys but at least they've produced.


But you left out the turds that Wayne signed. Thankfully, most are off the roster now.
If we are going to blame Walt for signing Lincoln, who then got injured, isn't it fair to criticize Wayne for trading for Volquez who is also injured? IMO, no it isn't. Walt signed 3 veteran relievers. 2 worked out great, 1 got hurt. I will take that every year out of a GM. Again, I wonder where all the Lincoln haters were at the time the contract was signed? I think it was nearly unamimous that while a one year deal was perfered, it was not a bad signing..

Tom Servo
08-17-2009, 07:43 PM
I really don't get the bile for Lincoln.. 2 years/4 million.. he got hurt. Again, I don't recall anyone complaining at the time of the signing. It got similiar reactions to the Rhodes signing (which everyone loves).

Not really true. Hell, FCB was the first to reply and he complained (rightfully).

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=72825&highlight=Mike+Lincoln


And here was my take on it

I'm not that happy about this. One year for 2 million would be okay, but even then I could see where Lincoln would struggle and we'd have to DFA him. But two years for a guy who just came out of semi-retirement last year to put up just okay numbers doesn't sit well with me. I'd like for Hot Rod to prove me wrong.

And I stand by that. Because he did struggle and we should have DFA him.

edabbs44
08-17-2009, 07:55 PM
The call Walt should make is to Dusty.

"Dusty, it's Walt. Stop playing Willy Taveras unless it's to pinch run and there's absolutely no chance he comes to the plate."

100% accurate

edabbs44
08-17-2009, 10:57 PM
Wayne signed:

2009
Arroyo ERA+: 94
Harang ERA+: 103
Cordero ERA+: 255

In their total tenure with the Reds:

Arroyo ERA+: 110
Harang ERA+: 107
Cordero ERA+: 166

Walt signed:

2009
Taveras OPS+: 47
Hairston OPS+: 81
Lincoln ERA+: 54
Weathers ERA+: 135

And he did sign Gomes, who has been OK. Nix, who hasn't been so good and Hernandez who I'm not even sure is still alive. When he was alive and playing, I think he was a push although for the money, I'd almost rather see Ryan "Banzai" Freel out there for 80 games if it meant no Willy T.

Hell of a cherry-picking job. What's Arroyo's ERA+ since his extension kicked in? Where's CPatt? Stanton? Gonzo? Here's a hint on Gonzo's OPS+...it's lower than Willy's. And he is making about as much this year as Willy will make in 2 years. The horror!!!!


At least Stanton was a relief pitcher that you could go a couple games without seeing. Willy T, God love him-he seems like a real nice guy, is terrible AND persistent.

Lincoln is a relief pitcher also.


Wayne may've overpaid for those guys but at least they've produced.

Arroyo was produced nada since his extension kicked in. That is the issue. Not his career numbers, not his Cincy numbers, his dumb extension.


Since I don't have a time machine to go back and erase the contracts that Walt knew he had to deal with when he took over, I'll go for:

c) Walt does something creative in the time he's had to create payroll flexibility for himself by tapping into his "experience" and "history of winning" and making some trades.

And maybe he will.

No one clained Harang and Arroyo on waivers. Not even NYY. How is he supposed to clear payroll? How immoveable are/were Wayne's 4 biggest money acquisitions/extensions without ponying up the majority of the money owed?


It's $6mm for TWO YEARS. And if finances are so tight, it absolutely is.

$6MM over two years isn't going to help this team out. Sorry for the newsflash.


Further, it's beyond hypocritical for you to have bellowed on endlessly about Stanton, Cormier, et al., and saying things like "it adds up." Sorry to drop this newsflash on you but that knife cuts both ways. Taveras is beyond awful and plays nearly every day and has the second most ABs on the team. We get to watch his tango next year for DOUBLE the bread and now, it's not "handcuffing?"

Not hypocritical. You (and others) may want to think I am, but it is a different time right now. See the link for my take on what you are saying.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1942105&postcount=95

Sure the money was wasted, but the true time to save was 3 years ago and build for now. That opportunity was washed away, and now the time will be when the new Griffeys and Miltons go away.


At least we only had to watch Corey Patterson for one year. At least the pain of Stanton et al. is over.

Your favorites might not be here next year.


Your problem is you want to blame Wayne for everything.

I'm blaming Bob C, Wayne, Walt and Dusty.

When Wayne started, everyone wanted to blame O'Brien and Bowden and give WK a grace period. He got it but didn't move the team in the direction it needed to go in. Walt should be afforded the same opportunity. If we are still treading water next spring, I'll be on the other side of the fence.

Mario-Rijo
08-18-2009, 03:50 AM
When Wayne started, everyone wanted to blame O'Brien and Bowden and give WK a grace period. He got it but didn't move the team in the direction it needed to go in. Walt should be afforded the same opportunity. If we are still treading water next spring, I'll be on the other side of the fence.

Well let's see Bowden (who couldn't find pitching with a Dave Duncan) and O'Brien were not capable of finding legit talent IMO. I'm willing to admit perhaps O'brien may have eventually drafted well he started off ok there. But his philosophy although not a bad plan in theory was one he didn't to seem to have the talent chops to execute and his snails pace wasn't helping an ailing franchise put anyone in the seats. His predecessor Wayne had the same philosophy but also had the eye for talent we needed to get a few somethings out of nothing (which is about what we had throughout the organization). And yes he should have been given a grace period which he didn't get, let's simply forget about his contracts for just long enough to tip our cap to him for acquiring some legit talent on the cheap. The guy did the miraculous he got 2 building blocks for a single A relief arm and 50K amongst other shrewd moves.

Now this team in his time was in no position to compete that's just the bottom line period. So what money he spent during that time to field a team to me really makes no difference. You keep saying sure it does he could have saved that money or put it into the Latin American market and this that and the other but he still had to spend money to field a major league team. I for one don't care how much money is spent by the GM if the owner allows it, as long as the GM is acquiring talent and Krivsky was. Additionally there is no way to tell if Bob was suggesting how much he wanted directed at the major league product so that is a point you keep hammering Wayne with but there is no way to tell. If a guy has a directive to spend so much at the major league level and he does indeed make an effort to do so by acquiring some risky propositions (while having little to choose from either in FA or much to trade with). You point to Gonzo a neccessary upgrade to help the pitching on this team develop, you point at a couple of relief arms (which is meaningless frankly, relief arms are tough to gauge their continued positive production) including a closer who has been outstanding and well worth his price regardless of what it was. He was acquiring talent at a brisk pace so everything else is not only secondary but irrelevant frankly. He absolutely, positively, unequivically moved this team in the right direction and your failure to see that is baffling.

Yet you suggest he had his grace period so if that is true than Walt's time is nearly up as well, actually sometime in spring training next season seems to be the benchmark. Which I noticed you so adeptly added to your post. So you might as well fire him now because we know how long it takes him to address an issue usually he is at least 6 months too long in doing so, so he might have one more foolish deal left in him before his time is up. I don't think the guy has even brought in one legitimate long term answer in his time here yet that he wasn't forced to (the draft, which he isn't even a part of selection wise, thank god).

Keep harping on the one guy who brought in some legitimate answers as if he just got lucky or something and giving the benefit of the doubt to guys who really don't know what they are doing.

HokieRed
08-18-2009, 09:42 AM
John Smoltz 2010 closer? Possible big savings over CoCo, money to be spent on other needs?

nate
08-18-2009, 10:00 AM
What's Arroyo's ERA+ since his extension kicked in?

In this year, 2009 (A.D.), the first year of the extension according to Cot's, as I previously stated, his ERA+ is: 94. Not great but it's not Milton-esque. Worth the money? No, but part of making contracts is based on what the player has done and what they're likely to do. And, sometimes for a player that HAS performed well, you overpay. Like Eric Milton, Jr., Barry Larkin and host of others.

And, sometimes, you take stock of where player salaries are headed. It's entirely possible that if the economy hadn't tanked, Arroyo's salary would seem to be average compared around the league. Arroyo had been pretty good as a Red; I daresay amongst the best pitchers they've had this decade.


Arroyo was produced nada since his extension kicked in. That is the issue. Not his career numbers, not his Cincy numbers, his dumb extension.Golly, gee whiz! See above for his dumb numbers on his dumb extension, Beaver.

Your conclusion is hyperbole. There is a vast delta between your claim of "produced nada" (kicks dirt) and being worth his contract. That's where I am.


No one clained Harang and Arroyo on waivers. So? Many players pass through waivers unclaimed. It's better for the Reds because now, instead of being forced to deal with a single team, they can deal with all of the teams.


Not even NYY. How is he supposed to clear payroll?As you once said when asked what Wayne was supposed to do about some of the "gifts" left him, "that's his problem, not mine."

I mean, he's the "experienced" GM.


$6MM over two years isn't going to help this team out. Sorry for the newsflash. Quoting you: "it adds up."


Sure the money was wasted, but the true time to save was 3 years ago and build for now. Who cares? That time is over, we're in 2009 now. Hindsight can take us back to the days of stumblewickets. I'm talking about what Walt can DO RIGHT NOW. Your mosquitoesque buzzing about three years ago DOESN'T MATTER. We have to go forward from this point in time. We CANNOT go back no matter how Mr. Scott rigs the warp drive.


When Wayne started, everyone wanted to blame O'Brien and Bowden I searched for "everyone's" post where he gave that opinion. I didn't find it.

Nor do I care. I'm speaking for myself to you. What "everyone" thinks matters not.

We cannot go back and unsign contracts made by any prior GM. Walt has to work with what he has RIGHT NOW.


and give WK a grace period. Not you, as I recall.


If we are still treading water next spring, I'll be on the other side of the fence.Bully for you!

edabbs44
08-18-2009, 10:06 AM
Keep harping on the one guy who brought in some legitimate answers as if he just got lucky or something and giving the benefit of the doubt to guys who really don't know what they are doing.

As time goes on, those legitimate answers have lost a good portion of their legitimacy.

Burton, Arroyo, Hamilton/Volquez, Keppinger, Ross all were feathers in Wayne's cap for a period of time. He got mad street cred for those in the short term. Then, for one reason or another, the value of each acquisition has deteriorated. But yet some still claim that he has brought in "some legitimate answers".

It's a myth.

Who, for 2008-2010, can we say is a legitimate answer that we can put Wayne's name on? I'll say Phillips. Maybe Volquez, except he is living off of the first half of 2008 (and has been pretty average since then) and is now coming off of surgery.

Unles I am missing someone, that's it. And, scarily enough, that might include both drafts he oversaw since we haven't gotten much major league production out of the 2006-2007 drafts to this point. Hopefully some of these guys get to the show soon.

princeton
08-18-2009, 10:40 AM
As time goes on, those legitimate answers have lost a good portion of their legitimacy.

Burton, Arroyo, Hamilton/Volquez, Keppinger, Ross all were feathers in Wayne's cap for a period of time. He got mad street cred for those in the short term. Then, for one reason or another, the value of each acquisition has deteriorated. But yet some still claim that he has brought in "some legitimate answers".

It's a myth.

Who, for 2008-2010, can we say is a legitimate answer that we can put Wayne's name on? I'll say Phillips. Maybe Volquez, except he is living off of the first half of 2008 (and has been pretty average since then) and is now coming off of surgery.

Unles I am missing someone, that's it. And, scarily enough, that might include both drafts he oversaw since we haven't gotten much major league production out of the 2006-2007 drafts to this point. Hopefully some of these guys get to the show soon.


actually, it's huge for a GM to come up with cheap All-Stars like Phillips, Arroyo, Hamilton and Volquez, especially when you not only gave up nothing for them, but literally had nothing of value to surrender for them. I know that you've never understood this point, but I think that most do. It's what you want from a GM. honestly, when Walt acquires his first All-Star, you should then feel free to open your mouth again.

Reds were going downhill fast when Krivsky took over-- years of neglect-- but he changed the scouting around so that we now see our draft picks actually rise to AA, AAA and majors, and add really interesting major leaguers for next to nothing. Walt's benefited from that as well. Given Reds' history over past 20 years (see recent minor league post), that's also huge. Reds also built key infrastructure in Latin America under Krivsky, which Jocketty to his credit has mined. but that all started well before.

Jocketty took over at a great time-- MUCH better infrastructure, making him the first Reds gm in years with young talent to trade, finally (which he did, recently), and Jr's contract was finally expiring as was Dunn's.

I was actually looking forward to Jocketty. Yes, Wayne got totally screwed by Reds ownership-- what Wayne did was stunning, IMO-- but Jocketty's smart, too.

yet it completely shocks me that Jocketty's win percentage is worse than DanO's and Krivsky's, even though the man has a lot of support from Cast, and a lot more talent than either previous GM had.

Walt's like a duck struck on the head.

on the positive side, like Walt I've gone from a great environment to a poor one, and after about a year of screwing around and feeling sorry for myself, I got a lot more productive by learning to focus on what I can actually accomplish rather than stewing about what I just cannot. maybe Walt will also adjust.

but for now, that was a dreadful move made by Cast. one of many that are on him. Cast, in particular, needs to make this work out for Reds and Reds fans. find out what Jocketty needs (different manager? owner that will just shut up?) and for god's sake give it to him.

the Reds have blown a decade, and need to realize that every year actually does count.

to me, though, it looks like 2015, baby

edabbs44
08-18-2009, 10:58 AM
actually, it's huge for a GM to come up with cheap All-Stars like Phillips, Arroyo, Hamilton and Volquez, especially when you not only gave up nothing for them, but literally had nothing of value to surrender for them. I know that you've never understood this point, but I think that most do. It's what you want from a GM. honestly, when Walt acquires his first All-Star, you should then feel free to open your mouth again.

The grand total of all those huge acquisitons has been zero winning seasons. Phillips has worked out well. Arroyo worked out well at first but has now turned into a negative. Hamilton was here for 300-400 PAs and was turned into Volquez, who had a tremendous first half of 2008, average since then and now has 12-18 months of rehab in front of him.

I understand that cheap acquisitions are very valuable. But you have to do something with those acquisitions to make them really valuable. I also understand that those cheap acquisitions did nothing for the bottom line. We are basically where we were before Wayne turned water into wine and got these guys.

The funny thing is that Wayne dide his best work at the major league level. All of his big acquisitions played for the big league team. He didn't sell his best players to get minor leageurs. So if he did such a great job acquiring this big league talent and was able to improve payroll 15-20% like he did during his tenure, why did the team still continue to suck?

But we've been through it before so no need to continue. I'll try and refrain from the Wayne posts since he is long gone.

Spring~Fields
08-18-2009, 11:38 AM
As time goes on, those legitimate answers have lost a good portion of their legitimacy.

Burton, Arroyo, Hamilton/Volquez, Keppinger, Ross all were feathers in Wayne's cap for a period of time. He got mad street cred for those in the short term. Then, for one reason or another, the value of each acquisition has deteriorated. But yet some still claim that he has brought in "some legitimate answers".

It's a myth.



That's the past, and at least there are some names there that contributed.
That's the past. Where is Jocketty's claim to improving this team? Where are the names for Jocketty to receive credit? Excuses ? Results ? Myth ?

What do you give Jocketty and Baker credit for that we can see in the win loss column?

nate
08-18-2009, 11:49 AM
why did the team still continue to suck?

The same reason it sucks now: too many below average players.

princeton
08-18-2009, 12:05 PM
He didn't sell his best players to get minor leageurs.

he seemed to have the impression that his job was not secure. how idiotic.

M2
08-18-2009, 12:06 PM
So if he did such a great job acquiring this big league talent and was able to improve payroll 15-20% like he did during his tenure, why did the team still continue to suck?

Because he inherited a franchise that was on the verge of multiple triple-digit loss seasons. The major league product was withering and the farm system was a mess.

Krivsky paved the road out of Hell. That he was only around long enough to make it to Purgatory doesn't diminish the accomplishment.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 12:08 PM
The farm system was and is still a joke. They still have absolutely no idea how to develop starters.

It's terrifying to say this, but no one since Bowden has overseen a decent farm.

edabbs44
08-18-2009, 12:20 PM
That's the past, and at least there are some names there that contributed.
That's the past. Where is Jocketty's claim to improving this team? Where are the names for Jocketty to receive credit? Excuses ? Results ? Myth ?

What do you give Jocketty and Baker credit for that we can see in the win loss column?

I give Walt little credit (or blame) for this current team. He hasn't done much to either trumpet or criticize.

Now, admittedly we don't know much of what goes on behind the scenes. But Walt's first off-season was one in the midst of a severe financial crisis. Did that affect what he did or did not do? Probably, but to what extent we can only guess.

So let's give this some thought...I guess we can bucket a GMs direction into three categories: rebuild, stand pat or add on to the current product. I know these are vague but I don't think we really need to get more specific. Rebuilding would necessitate shedding of payroll and adding young talent. Standing pat would be just that. Adding on would necessitate money and young talent to be used for acquiring ML talent.

Knowing what we know now, do we think that Jocketty had the ability to either rebuild or add on? Think about it...who was in the market for the types of players Cincy had decent money committed to? Who would give up any young talent for what the Reds were offering, including salaries? Was there any young talent given uo for what Cincy has to offer?

On the flip side, were there many middle market teams looking to acquire big money FAs or big money players through trades? Cincy upped payroll 15-20% over the last few years...with this current team, would you have continued that trend this year? How much more did they need to commit to make the 2009 product viable?

Maybe standing pat was the only option.

So here's what I have seen that has given me some hope.

- I have seen the Reds actually draft players in the first round the past couple of seasons who weren't easy signs. Alonso/Leake or Stubbs/Mesoraco - who do you like better? Maybe it has something to do with payroll being used more wisely, maybe not. It might be a coincidence. But Cincy went overslot two years in a row in the first 2 rounds. I like hearing that more than drafting the HS catcher who is shooting up the charts due to signability.

- I haven't seen Cincy continue to add multi-year problematic contracts. Walt's big blemishes have been Hairston/Lincoln/Taveras, who total add up to roughly one year's worth of Arroyo's extension in their 5 years. Not a huge deal. I don't see Walt living a lie and trying to "win now", which would end up hurting the future of the club. This team wasn't winning this year. We can say that they needed a SS/LFer, but they needed more. And SSs don't grow on trees.

The franchise needs an overhaul and has needed one for years. I thought that's where they were headed and then they went and got Rolen. Now they need to do something for 2010. If not, they have little excuse.

edabbs44
08-18-2009, 12:26 PM
Because he inherited a franchise that was on the verge of multiple triple-digit loss seasons. The major league product was withering and the farm system was a mess.

Krivsky paved the road out of Hell. That he was only around long enough to make it to Purgatory doesn't diminish the accomplishment.

What exactly did he do that paved the road out of hell?

M2
08-18-2009, 12:29 PM
The farm system was and is still a joke. They still have absolutely no idea how to develop starters.

They're certainly not a factory, but Cueto has come up through the ranks (even if his arm is dead at the moment - though that's as much winter ball and the WBC as anything else). The Zachs (Stewart and Ward) were quickly shined up and moved for major league players. Travis Wood has progressed nicely. Homer Bailey got promoted way too early, but he may yet deliver for the club on the field or in trade. And Maloney's still a sleeper.

It's not deliverance, but it is progress. AA is no longer a killing field for young pitchers.

The real problem with the system was that Lincecum and Porcello weren't put into it.

lollipopcurve
08-18-2009, 12:31 PM
They're certainly not a factory, but Cueto has come up through the ranks (even if his arm is dead at the moment - though that's as much winter ball and the WBC as anything else). The Zachs (Stewart and Ward) were quickly shined up and moved for major league players. Travis Wood has progressed nicely. Homer Bailey got promoted way too early, but he may yet deliver for the club on the field or in trade. And Maloney's still a sleeper.

It's not deliverance, but it is progress. AA is no longer a killing field for young pitchers.

The real problem with the system was that Lincecum and Porcello weren't put into it.

Fairly noted.

M2
08-18-2009, 12:33 PM
What exactly did he do that paved the road out of hell?

Acquired a pile of players who made an immediate impact and fixed a farm system in which the top prospects were washing out en masse.

Take the 2006 Reds without Krivsky's additions and add in a repeat of the franchise's 2005 minor league season and it would have been the baseball equivalent of a snuff film.

HokieRed
08-18-2009, 12:42 PM
They're certainly not a factory, but Cueto has come up through the ranks (even if his arm is dead at the moment - though that's as much winter ball and the WBC as anything else). The Zachs (Stewart and Ward) were quickly shined up and moved for major league players. Travis Wood has progressed nicely. Homer Bailey got promoted way too early, but he may yet deliver for the club on the field or in trade. And Maloney's still a sleeper.

It's not deliverance, but it is progress. AA is no longer a killing field for young pitchers.

The real problem with the system was that Lincecum and Porcello weren't put into it.

I'm really weary of these GM debates, but Cueto, Ward, Wood, and Bailey were acquired by O'Brien. Of the above, only Maloney can be credited to Krivsky. So why is it that O'Brien never gets an ounce of credit for starting us on whatever Exodus we're on? I know the answer will be that somehow none of these guys would ever even have gotten to where they are without the changes WK made in the system, but frankly the evidence for anything like that is tenuous at best. What is clear is that Cueto, Ward, Wood, and Bailey were only in the system because O'Brien drafted or signed them. Ditto Bruce, Francisco, Fisher, Lecure. Who's Krivsky's best draftee to date? probably Roenicke, with currently a 13.50 ERA at Toronto. I've no desire to knock Wayne. I think he did a pretty good job actually, at least on the talent identification end. But the narrative of chaos before Wayne, now chaos again, just won't wash.

princeton
08-18-2009, 12:54 PM
The real problem with the system was that Lincecum and Porcello weren't put into it.

and Beckham

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 01:06 PM
They're certainly not a factory, but Cueto has come up through the ranks (even if his arm is dead at the moment - though that's as much winter ball and the WBC as anything else). The Zachs (Stewart and Ward) were quickly shined up and moved for major league players. Travis Wood has progressed nicely. Homer Bailey got promoted way too early, but he may yet deliver for the club on the field or in trade. And Maloney's still a sleeper.

It's not deliverance, but it is progress. AA is no longer a killing field for young pitchers.

The real problem with the system was that Lincecum and Porcello weren't put into it.

I'd say those names you listed (outside of Cueto) represent buffed and polished versions of Ty Howington and Chris Gruler. Maybe their press is better, but the product is still pathetic.

The Reds' farm used to crank useful everyday MLB hitters if not pitchers: A. Boone, Dunn, Kearns. Now they produce nothing, far as I can tell.

In terms of using the farm to acquire MLB talent, that's not really anything new either. Bowden did it all the time.

Simply put, they talked about improving the farm. And lip service can draw some attention from the press and other teams for a bit, but until your farm can produce for your MLB franchise (fill the holes that poor teams constantly need to fill at a bargain rate), it's meaningless palaver.

M2
08-18-2009, 01:06 PM
I'm really weary of these GM debates, but Cueto, Ward, Wood, and Bailey were acquired by O'Brien. Of the above, only Maloney can be credited to Krivsky. So why is it that O'Brien never gets an ounce of credit for starting us on whatever Exodus we're on? I know the answer will be that somehow none of these guys would ever even have gotten to where they are without the changes WK made in the system, but frankly the evidence for anything like that is tenuous at best. What is clear is that Cueto, Ward, Wood, and Bailey were only in the system because O'Brien drafted or signed them. Ditto Bruce, Francisco, Fisher, Lecure. Who's Krivsky's best draftee to date? probably Roenicke, with currently a 13.50 ERA at Toronto. I've no desire to knock Wayne. I think he did a pretty good job actually, at least on the talent identification end. But the narrative of chaos before Wayne, now chaos again, just won't wash.

Cueto had a 4.78 ERA and 1.306 WHIP in 2005. Homer Bailey had a 4.43 ERA and 1.457 WHIP. Joey Votto had a .754 OPS. Quite simply, whatever talent the Reds had under DanO was dying on the vine.

I thought the Reds had an excellent 2005 draft. It was clearly the best thing that happened under DanO's watch, but his farm system and major league roster handing were complete chaos and there's no getting around that. Frankly, without Krivsky's farm system, DanO's 2005 draft would have met an untimely demise.

Krivsky's drafts left a lot to be desired. It was the weakest facet of the operation under his watch.

I don't think anyone can argue chaos post-Krivsky. Inaction, sure.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 01:07 PM
But the narrative of chaos before Wayne, now chaos again, just won't wash.

This is so full of truth it kills truth and resurrects it with itself. It's one continuous string of debacles.

Spring~Fields
08-18-2009, 01:07 PM
I give Walt little credit (or blame) for this current team. He hasn't done much to either trumpet or criticize.

Now, admittedly we don't know much of what goes on behind the scenes. But Walt's first off-season was one in the midst of a severe financial crisis. Did that affect what he did or did not do? Probably, but to what extent we can only guess.

So let's give this some thought...I guess we can bucket a GMs direction into three categories: rebuild, stand pat or add on to the current product. I know these are vague but I don't think we really need to get more specific. Rebuilding would necessitate shedding of payroll and adding young talent. Standing pat would be just that. Adding on would necessitate money and young talent to be used for acquiring ML talent.

Knowing what we know now, do we think that Jocketty had the ability to either rebuild or add on? Think about it...who was in the market for the types of players Cincy had decent money committed to? Who would give up any young talent for what the Reds were offering, including salaries? Was there any young talent given uo for what Cincy has to offer?

On the flip side, were there many middle market teams looking to acquire big money FAs or big money players through trades? Cincy upped payroll 15-20% over the last few years...with this current team, would you have continued that trend this year? How much more did they need to commit to make the 2009 product viable?

Maybe standing pat was the only option.

So here's what I have seen that has given me some hope.

- I have seen the Reds actually draft players in the first round the past couple of seasons who weren't easy signs. Alonso/Leake or Stubbs/Mesoraco - who do you like better? Maybe it has something to do with payroll being used more wisely, maybe not. It might be a coincidence. But Cincy went overslot two years in a row in the first 2 rounds. I like hearing that more than drafting the HS catcher who is shooting up the charts due to signability.

- I haven't seen Cincy continue to add multi-year problematic contracts. Walt's big blemishes have been Hairston/Lincoln/Taveras, who total add up to roughly one year's worth of Arroyo's extension in their 5 years. Not a huge deal. I don't see Walt living a lie and trying to "win now", which would end up hurting the future of the club. This team wasn't winning this year. We can say that they needed a SS/LFer, but they needed more. And SSs don't grow on trees.

The franchise needs an overhaul and has needed one for years. I thought that's where they were headed and then they went and got Rolen. Now they need to do something for 2010. If not, they have little excuse.

I can't really disagree with anyone or you. We all have seen what this organization has done. We could say that it is easy to wait and see afterward, and then go about knocking this and that. Well yes, but it has gone on for many years, even years before Bowden’s end was near. Those building years, those planning years. That led to today, the here and now.

I think that you could make those points for each of the previous GM's that had to work for this ownership group and the ownership group before along with the key point, resources that they had to work with when they accepted the job to improve the product for this organization.

I think that if we are disgusted dating back to Bowden, O'Brien, and Krivsky then we should be beyond apathy with this ownership group, Jocketty, Bavasi, the other think tank and the manager with his coaches.

Look at this list. I would like to think that we would agree, these players are not what we anticipated from Jocketty and Castellini.

Last year Jocketty was putting in the press that he thought that the fans wanted to see younger players, and that implied he was going younger, I look at his list of incoming or resigns, I can't tell what his plan is. I can the see the results.

The offense that Jocketty/Baker braintrust brought in.


Ramon Hernandez Age 33
2007 .258 .333 .382 .715
2008 .257 .308 .406 .714
2009 .249 .330 .355 .685

Willy Taveras Age 27
2007 .320 .367 .382 .749
2008 .251 .308 .296 .604
2009 .240 .276 .286 .562

Darnell McDonald Age 30
2004 .156 .206 .188 .394
2007 .100 .182 .100 .282
2009 .175 .250 .225 .475

Jonny Gomes Age 28
2007 .244 .322 .460 .782
2008 .182 .282 .383 .665
2009 .277 .357 .584 .941

Laynce Nix Age 28
2006 .164 .186 .239 .425
2007 .000 .000 .000 .000
2008 .083 .154 .083 .237
2009 .240 .295 .445 .740

Jerry Hairston Jr. Age 33
2005 .261 .336 .368 .704
2006 .205 .286 .261 .547
2006 .207 .253 .244 .497
2006 .206 .270 .253 .523
2007 .189 .249 .289 .538
2008 .326 .384 .487 .871
2009 .300 .364 .467 .831
2009 .254 .305 .397 .702
2009 .258 .311 .404 .715

Scott Rolen Age 34
2007 .265 .331 .398 .729
2008 .262 .349 .431 .780
2009 .320 .370 .476 .846
2009 .143 .250 .429 .679
2009 .313 .365 .474 .839

Wladimir Balentien Age 25
2007 .667 .500 2.000 2.500
2008 .202 .250 .342 .592
2009 .213 .271 .355 .626
2009 .313 .421 .438 .859
2009 .230 .298 .369 .667


Some of the others. That I don't even want to take the time with their stats. The point with them is, where are they going in making this team move forward?

Drew Sutton Age 26
Danny Richar Age 26
Kip Wells Age 32
Micah Owings Age 26
Arthur Rhodes Age 39
Mike Lincoln Age 34
David Weathers Age 39

And some of us are worried about them bringing up young players who can’t perform? Better be worried more about them bringing experienced major league players who can’t perform any better than the inexperienced major league players. Or that have a history of underperformance and injury.

I will leave others to their opinions as to whether Jocketty, Baker and the Jocketty brain trust has produced any magic.

Aside question, not really relevant but, I kept hearing the Reds peddle this as a young team, where did that ever come from ?

M2
08-18-2009, 01:08 PM
and Beckham

I was talking pitching, but absolutely.

Those were certainly the picks that many here backed in those drafts. If we can spot them, why can't the Reds?

M2
08-18-2009, 01:27 PM
I'd say those names you listed (outside of Cueto) represent buffed and polished versions of Ty Howington and Chris Gruler. Maybe their press is better, but the product is still pathetic.

Seeing that Howington bonked in AA and Gruler pitched a grand total of 92.2 IP, I'd say that getting pitchers to the cusp of the majors and to the point where they have some trade value represents a forklift upgrade. Like I said, short of deliverance, but it represents definitive progress.

A systemic problem like that isn't the sort of thing where you hit upon an instant solution, but it began moving in a positive direction in 2006 and there's really no argument to the contrary.


The Reds' farm used to crank useful everyday MLB hitters if not pitchers: A. Boone, Dunn, Kearns. Now they produce nothing, far as I can tell.

Except for Joey Votto. And Jay Bruce is going to be worlds better than Boone or Kearns ever were, bank on it (and I quite liked Boone). Maybe Todd Frazier arrives next year. That would seem to be a case of producing something.


In terms of using the farm to acquire MLB talent, that's not really anything new either. Bowden did it all the time.

Post-Griffey he did it for Dempster, Estes and Mohler I suppose, which brings me to the statement that execution counts.


Simply put, they talked about improving the farm. And lip service can draw some attention from the press and other teams for a bit, but until your farm can produce for your MLB franchise (fill the holes that poor teams constantly need to fill at a bargain rate), it's meaningless palaver.

In the past two years the Reds have added Votto, Bruce, Hanigan, Dickerson, Cueto, Fisher and Herrera from the farm. If anyone was expecting the farm to be a panacea, then shame on them. That's nothing short of magical thinking. Yet the Reds are getting starting and role players from the farm. The spiggot is on and complaining that it's not a deluge is pointless.

Spring~Fields
08-18-2009, 01:27 PM
This is so full of truth it kills truth and resurrects it with itself. It's one continuous string of debacles.

Yes, the worst part is, there are consequences from each of those that will continue to be an errosive effect into the future. Unless Jocketty and his team can work smarter and better than he and his predecessors have before.

How is he going to get quality resources in return from the list of prospects that he has to trade ?

IslandRed
08-18-2009, 01:35 PM
I was talking pitching, but absolutely.

Those were certainly the picks that many here backed in those drafts. If we can spot them, why can't the Reds?

True enough. Although in Porcello's case, at the time, the urge to pay for premium talent was slamming head-first into the bias against drafting a high-school pitcher in the first round, particularly one that wanted to be paid like a historically good college pitcher. I think a lot of people were like me -- liked Porcello, but not at that price.

HokieRed
08-18-2009, 01:41 PM
This is so full of truth it kills truth and resurrects it with itself. It's one continuous string of debacles.


Agree. I think we need to break from all the blaming/justifying of various GM's and look honestly at just what bad shape the whole ship is in. First positive move I've seen in a long time is getting rid of Encarnacion and adding Rolen. That signifies to me that we're not going to fantasize about what might be but focus on what is now. The only way to get better is to start getting better now. The game is played tonight. Not several years from now.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 01:51 PM
Seeing that Howington bonked in AA and Gruler pitched a grand total of 92.2 IP, I'd say that getting pitchers to the cusp of the majors and to the point where they have some trade value represents a forklift upgrade. Like I said, short of deliverance, but it represents definitive progress.

A systemic problem like that isn't the sort of thing where you hit upon an instant solution, but it began moving in a positive direction in 2006 and there's really no argument to the contrary.



Except for Joey Votto. And Jay Bruce is going to be worlds better than Boone or Kearns ever were, bank on it (and I quite liked Boone). Maybe Todd Frazier arrives next year. That would seem to be a case of producing something.



Post-Griffey he did it for Dempster, Estes and Mohler I suppose, which brings me to the statement that execution counts.



In the past two years the Reds have added Votto, Bruce, Hanigan, Dickerson, Cueto, Fisher and Herrera from the farm. If anyone was expecting the farm to be a panacea, then shame on them. That's nothing short of magical thinking. Yet the Reds are getting starting and role players from the farm. The spiggot is on and complaining that it's not a deluge is pointless.


Votto represents the only worthwhile everyday player among the bolded. Cueto and Bruce are looking like massive question marks despite unquestionable skill sets, Herrera is not a Reds' farm product anymore than Volquez was, and Fisher, well, he's a reliever, which is something the Reds' farm used to turn out like trilobites by the highway, particularly when Bowden was GM.

I think the Reds stated an official belief in turning around the farm, they had a couple of high draft positions that they didn't totally choke on, and then folks started to believe it was getting better (and somehow as the narrative goes, they let it go fallow after Krivsky). Nonsense, I say.

The rank incompetence still exists and never left: that Joey Votto made it and represents by far the brightest star from the post-Bowden era is a stark reckoning of its efficacy.

Benihana
08-18-2009, 02:07 PM
I was talking pitching, but absolutely.

Those were certainly the picks that many here backed in those drafts. If we can spot them, why can't the Reds?

Agreed. I'm arguing the same thing on the minor league forum. It's simply incompetence, a lack of proper budgeting (in Porcello's case), or both.

He seems to be good at finding role players, but Chris Buckley has no idea how to draft premium talent.

M2
08-18-2009, 02:30 PM
Agree. I think we need to break from all the blaming/justifying of various GM's and look honestly at just what bad shape the whole ship is in. First positive move I've seen in a long time is getting rid of Encarnacion and adding Rolen. That signifies to me that we're not going to fantasize about what might be but focus on what is now. The only way to get better is to start getting better now. The game is played tonight. Not several years from now.

I think it's important for a franchise to understand how it got to where it is. That said, I agree with that last part. Get good, stay good. It's the only plan that ever works. Whether the Reds will get realistic about the talent they've got and need remains to be seen.

M2
08-18-2009, 02:47 PM
Votto represents the only worthwhile everyday player among the bolded. Cueto and Bruce are looking like massive question marks despite unquestionable skill sets, Herrera is not a Reds' farm product anymore than Volquez was, and Fisher, well, he's a reliever, which is something the Reds' farm used to turn out like trilobites by the highway, particularly when Bowden was GM.

I think the Reds stated an official belief in turning around the farm, they had a couple of high draft positions that they didn't totally choke on, and then folks started to believe it was getting better (and somehow as the narrative goes, they let it go fallow after Krivsky). Nonsense, I say.

The rank incompetence still exists and never left: that Joey Votto made it and represents by far the brightest star from the post-Bowden era is a stark reckoning of its efficacy.

If only you were jawing with someone who thought highly of the Reds farm system. For the record, I'm rarely enamored of any team's farm system. Very few systems spew top quality talent.

Yet the rank incompetence that netted the Reds a half dozen miserable drafts and a farm system under the wing of the buffoonish Tim Naehring has passed. What the Reds now have is a middling farm system, which no sane person should consider capable of rescuing the franchise from its doldrums any time soon. What it can do is produce a few talents worth keeping and some more for trade fodder, and that is an improvement.

As for the specific players, Cueto should be fine next season provided he does no pitching in or for the Dominican Republic. Bruce had a rough sophomore campaign at age 22. Big deal. When he picks his BA up to .270, and he will, he's going to be an offensive force. The Reds got Herrera over the AAA hump and successfully into the majors. I'd say they deserve a little credit for that.

Highlifeman21
08-18-2009, 02:52 PM
If only you were jawing with someone who thought highly of the Reds farm system. For the record, I'm rarely enamored of any team's farm system. Very few systems spew top quality talent.

Yet the rank incompetence that netted the Reds a half dozen miserable drafts and a farm system under the wing of the buffoonish Tim Naehring has passed. What the Reds now have is a middling farm system, which no sane person should consider capable of rescuing the franchise from its doldrums any time soon. What it can do is produce a few talents worth keeping and some more for trade fodder, and that is an improvement.

As for the specific players, Cueto should be fine next season provided he does no pitching in or for the Dominican Republic. Bruce had a rough sophomore campaign at age 22. Big deal. When he picks his BA up to .270, and he will, he's going to be an offensive force. The Reds got Herrera over the AAA hump and successfully into the majors. I'd say they deserve a little credit for that.

But in your opinion, is Herrera a long term solution for the pen? It's one thing to get him over the AAA hump, it's another to see him stick in the majors.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2009, 02:58 PM
Votto represents the only worthwhile everyday player among the bolded. Cueto and Bruce are looking like massive question marks despite unquestionable skill sets, Herrera is not a Reds' farm product anymore than Volquez was, and Fisher, well, he's a reliever, which is something the Reds' farm used to turn out like trilobites by the highway, particularly when Bowden was GM.

I think the Reds stated an official belief in turning around the farm, they had a couple of high draft positions that they didn't totally choke on, and then folks started to believe it was getting better (and somehow as the narrative goes, they let it go fallow after Krivsky). Nonsense, I say.

The rank incompetence still exists and never left: that Joey Votto made it and represents by far the brightest star from the post-Bowden era is a stark reckoning of its efficacy.

i find it ironic that you trumpted Cueto last season and very frequently the first part of this season...then the guy (in his 2nd year) goes through a rough patch and all of a sudden he's a question mark. if everyone had your standards, no player would regularly play baseball.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 03:03 PM
If only you were jawing with someone who thought highly of the Reds farm system. For the record, I'm rarely enamored of any team's farm system. Very few systems spew top quality talent.

Yet the rank incompetence that netted the Reds a half dozen miserable drafts and a farm system under the wing of the buffoonish Tim Naehring has passed. What the Reds now have is a middling farm system, which no sane person should consider capable of rescuing the franchise from its doldrums any time soon. What it can do is produce a few talents worth keeping and some more for trade fodder, and that is an improvement.

As for the specific players, Cueto should be fine next season provided he does no pitching in or for the Dominican Republic. Bruce had a rough sophomore campaign at age 22. Big deal. When he picks his BA up to .270, and he will, he's going to be an offensive force. The Reds got Herrera over the AAA hump and successfully into the majors. I'd say they deserve a little credit for that.

We could go round and round on this, but I'll only add that I think teams like the Brewers, Cardinals, and Mets have middling farm systems; I'd rank the Reds' a solid notch below theirs. Elite outfits include the Cubs', the Rockies', the Tigers', the Twins', the A's' and the Red Sox'. The Reds' system is squarely in the bottom third and showing--now that Bruce and Cueto are in the majors--no future stars on the horizon.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 03:03 PM
i find it ironic that you trumpted Cueto last season and very frequently the first part of this season...then the guy (in his 2nd year) goes through a rough patch and all of a sudden he's a question mark. if everyone had your standards, no player would regularly play baseball.

Produce, don't make excuses.

When he produces he'll be good again. Why is that difficult?

traderumor
08-18-2009, 03:06 PM
We could go round and round on this, but I'll only add that I think teams like the Brewers, Cardinals, and Mets have middling farm systems; I'd rank the Reds' a solid notch below theirs. Elite outfits include the Cubs', the Rockies', the Tigers', the Twins', the A's' and the Red Sox'. The Reds' system is squarely in the bottom third and showing--now that Bruce and Cueto are in the majors--no future stars on the horizon.Yonder is considered a future star in most circles. Not sure if you disagree, but he is probably getting called up sometime next year from the looks of his promotions this year, broken hand or not.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 03:07 PM
Yonder is considered a future star in most circles. Not sure if you disagree, but he is probably getting called up sometime next year from the looks of his promotions this year, broken hand or not.

Yonder's stock sank through the floor with one pitch to the hand. (Hitters: armorize your hands)

traderumor
08-18-2009, 03:08 PM
Yonder's stock sank through the floor with one pitch to the hand. (Hitters: armorize your hands)Eh, it shouldn't. Just needs time to heal properly.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 03:09 PM
Eh, it shouldn't. Just needs time to heal properly.

Most of the time it never really does heal completely properly. But it does depend on how many bones get powderized. Obviously, Kearns has never been the same.

jojo
08-18-2009, 03:10 PM
I wont argue over adjectives other than to say the Reds farm system is healthy. It has depth in the sense that it is very capable of producing role players over the next several years. Any minor league system that can produce players capable of contributing to a 25 man roster is nothing to sneeze at.... Then there is the odd YA.

That said, while there are no plethora of real superstars that can be counted upon, there are some high ceiling guys one might fantasize could become above average major leaguers with luck.

So while the Reds have a healthy player development system (it's a tangible improvement over past years), it's one that at the moment essentially dictates that the addition of above average players-especially at premium positions- to the 25 man roster will be by bringing in guys from outside the organization.

It's a sobering reality for a team reported to have tapped out payroll. The Reds suddenly don't seem well positioned for success over the next several years.

traderumor
08-18-2009, 03:11 PM
Most of the time it never really does heal completely properly. But it does depend on how many bones get powderized. Obviously, Kearns has never been the same.I give greater weight to the shoulder injury from trying to block bowling ball Ray King.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 03:15 PM
I wont argue over adjectives other than to say the Reds farm system is healthy. It has depth in the sense that it is very capable of producing role players over the next several years. .

Respectfully, I've heard this civics class pablum for 25 years: "No, really, they got it fixed NOW."

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2009, 03:17 PM
Produce, don't make excuses.

When he produces he'll be good again. Why is that difficult?

It's quite simple...all players struggle and go through slumps. Maybe that's magnified for you and the Reds since you follow them closely like other teams...but it's easy to criticize when something goes wrong for a moment in time or a few moments rather than look at the big picture.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 03:19 PM
It's quite simple...all players struggle and go through slumps. Maybe that's magnified for you and the Reds since you follow them closely like other teams...but it's easy to criticize when something goes wrong for a moment in time or a few moments rather than look at the big picture.

The big picture says his Ks are nonexistent, and that in every conceivable metric Johnny Cueto is heading for the trash heap, not the top of the rotation.

jojo
08-18-2009, 03:19 PM
Respectfully, I've heard this civics class pablum for 25 years: "No, really, they got it fixed NOW."

I see a system that is capable of producing legit options for a 25 man roster. It might not be pleasing that right now there aren't many exciting guys but producing any guys capable a contributing in the bigs is a noteworthy thing....

It's a sign of system health. Nobody is arguing that the Reds system is an elite one at the moment.

M2
08-18-2009, 03:26 PM
But in your opinion, is Herrera a long term solution for the pen? It's one thing to get him over the AAA hump, it's another to see him stick in the majors.

By definition guys in the pen are only short-term solutions. If you get three good years out of one, that's a windfall.

Basically you need to churn out supporting arms in the pen on a regular basis. I don't know if the Reds will, but a steady stream of Herreras and Fishers would be a boon.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2009, 03:28 PM
The big picture says his Ks are nonexistent, and that in every conceivable metric Johnny Cueto is heading for the trash heap, not the top of the rotation.

based on what...10-12 games? mechanics problems anyone? possible injury? fatigue? his minor league numbers (which are more extensive) indicate he's just fine on the K front.

M2
08-18-2009, 03:28 PM
I see a system that is capable of producing legit options for a 25 man roster. It might not be pleasing that right now there aren't many exciting guys but producing any guys capable a contributing in the bigs is a noteworthy thing....

It's a sign of system health. Nobody is arguing that the Reds system is an elite one at the moment.

Exactly. And the argument that the Reds don't have a stellar farm system does not then mean the franchise runs a totally inept farm system. Those are two largely meaningless extremes and the truth, as you've alluded, is far less exciting.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 03:30 PM
I see a system that is capable of producing legit options for a 25 man roster.

This has never not been the case with the Reds' farm system. Either perceptually or truly. This is so vague as to almost run from meaning.

It could be said of any farm system in professional baseball. I could, with ease, name 20 teams with better farms than the Reds', and could probably be convinced of 2 or 3 more. And when you get down that low, the differences become largely meaningless.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 03:37 PM
based on what...10-12 games? mechanics problems anyone? possible injury? fatigue? his minor league numbers (which are more extensive) indicate he's just fine on the K front.

If he's going to stick in the majors he's going to have to greatly improve on a 6.85 K/9, unless he can somehow drop his BB/9 to 2.00, and he's nowhere near that, and almost certainly shouldn't be expected to.

He could be hurt I don't know.

fearofpopvol1
08-18-2009, 05:46 PM
If he's going to stick in the majors he's going to have to greatly improve on a 6.85 K/9, unless he can somehow drop his BB/9 to 2.00, and he's nowhere near that, and almost certainly shouldn't be expected to.

He could be hurt I don't know.

Greatly improve his K/9? I don't agree. I think it's fine. It would be better if it were higher, but not dismal by any means. His BB/9 does need to decrease though. But I think it will. Kid is young and has traditionally had good command.

RedsManRick
08-18-2009, 10:27 PM
If he's going to stick in the majors he's going to have to greatly improve on a 6.85 K/9, unless he can somehow drop his BB/9 to 2.00, and he's nowhere near that, and almost certainly shouldn't be expected to.

He could be hurt I don't know.

That's a bit extreme. A BB/9 under 2.00 would give him a K/BB rate of 3.42

Of the 102 pitchers with 100+ IP -- basically the top 3 innings guys on each team, only 16 have a K/BB of 3.4 or higher, 21 3.0 or higher. Among those who below 3.4 are Cliff Lee, Johan Santana, Roy Oswalt, Adam Wainwright, Felix Hernandez... I think you get the idea.

For reference, K/BB is one of the best predictors of ERA. A quick regression shows that among those players with 100+ IP, you can explain 30% of a guy's ERA using his K/BB rate. The best model which does that shows the following predicted values:



K/BB ERA
10.0 2.37
9.5 2.41
9.0 2.46
8.5 2.51
8.0 2.56
7.5 2.62
7.0 2.68
6.5 2.75
6.0 2.83
5.5 2.92
5.0 3.01
4.5 3.13
4.0 3.26
3.5 3.41
3.0 3.60
2.5 3.84
2.0 4.15
1.5 4.58
1.0 5.28
0.5 6.72
0.1 11.76

There are 4 obvious cutoffs to me.
- A K/BB north of 5.0 puts you in Cy Young territory.
- A K/BB north of 3.0 puts you in #1 starter territory.
- A K/BB north of 2.0 puts you in solid starter territory.
- A k/BB north of 1.0 keeps you in the major leagues.

Now, obviously that's only a portion of a guy's ERA. Add homers to the equation and you can explain 50%. Adjust for ground ball rate and it goes higher. Cueto's K/BB is 2.22 with average to slightly below average HR and ground ball rates.

The ERA he has right now (4.61) is completely reflective of the way he's pitching (FIP 4.82, xFIP 4.78) and would make him a #4 starter on most teams in baseball.

When you're holding your own at 23 years old, pitching in on a losing team in front of a mediocre defense in a bandbox, and with a minor league history of higher K rates and lower BB walks, that's not even close to heading for the trash heap. Cueto may not improving as quickly as some had hoped, particularly in light of Voqluez's ridiculous season last year, but he's still a bright spot on this roster. Sure, he's got room to improve, but our only concern at this point should be his health.

But that certainly doesn't bode well for Justin Lehr...

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 10:35 PM
Cueto hasn't improved this year over last. He's been hurt once, maybe twice. He shows no sign of plateauing this season, only getting worse. He has value of course, and some of the things that are dogging him (bad mechanics, etc) are undoubtedly the result of horrible mentoring and coaching, but he's certainly not the sure thing we were promised--and frankly, the expectations of him should probably be adjusted in light of the growing body of innings thrown. I just can't see anything that indicates his career trajectory is headed to TOR variety. He is in short a useful starter, nothing more.

HokieRed
08-18-2009, 10:38 PM
As bad as they are in many departments, the most discouraging thing to me is that Cueto, Bailey, and Volquez have made no progress. I thought that was at least the one thing we might be able to take away from this season. In short, things are a lot worse than they've seemed.

M2
08-18-2009, 10:43 PM
Cueto's 23 and this ought to be his rookie year. In addition, no team should ever let a younger pitcher take part in the WBC and his recent struggles are a reminder of why. The filthy stuff and his ability to make major league hitters look silly with it is something he put on display for the entire first half of the season (encompassing 18 starts and 109.1 IP).

I'm naturally skeptical of young pitchers, but Cueto is one kid who, if he stays healthy I wouldn't worry about. He's got the arm and the head to be a very good pitcher.

Kc61
08-18-2009, 10:46 PM
As bad as they are in many departments, the most discouraging thing to me is that Cueto, Bailey, and Volquez have made no progress. I thought that was at least the one thing we might be able to take away from this season. In short, things are a lot worse than they've seemed.


Homer made much progress. He finally dominated AAA. He is now trying to settle in at the NL level. Cueto was a top notch starter for two months. Then he hit a wall, which is too bad, but his first part of the season showed great ability. Volquez took a step back and then unfortunately got hurt, but he'll be back.

These guys are so, so young. I wouldn't criticize any of them. Many excellent pitchers struggled when very young but ultimately were fine.

It just takes time to go with youth.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 10:48 PM
Cueto's 23 and this ought to be his rookie year. In addition, no team should ever let a younger pitcher take part in the WBC and his recent struggles are a reminder of why. The filthy stuff and his ability to make major league hitters look silly with it is something he put on display for the entire first half of the season (encompassing 18 starts and 109.1 IP).

I'm naturally skeptical of young pitchers, but Cueto is one kid who, if he stays healthy I wouldn't worry about. He's got the arm and the head to be a very good pitcher.

The vanishing Ks are troublesome (a health concern, IMO). And the WBC excuse is dubious at best; lots of major leaguers participate without coming apart in July.

I'm fine with being overcautious with the kid this offseason and saying absolutely No to winter ball, but unless something very different starts to happen in his ability to sustain control and increase endurance, I'd have to say we might looking at what he is. My initial comp was Javier Vazquez; I've adjusted down considerably.

HokieRed
08-18-2009, 10:50 PM
Homer made much progress. He finally dominated AAA. He is now trying to settle in at the NL level. Cueto was a top notch starter for two months. Then he hit a wall, which is too bad, but his first part of the season showed great ability. Volquez took a step back and then unfortunately got hurt, but he'll be back.

These guys are so, so young. I wouldn't criticize any of them. Many excellent pitchers struggled when very young but ultimately were fine.

It just takes time to go with youth.


I'm not being critical of them at all. Homer's made slight progress; Cueto maybe a little. Let's put it this way. They are nowhere near where we need them to be to be even .500 in 2010.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 10:51 PM
Homer made much progress. He finally dominated AAA. He is now trying to settle in at the NL level. Cueto was a top notch starter for two months. Then he hit a wall, which is too bad, but his first part of the season showed great ability. Volquez took a step back and then unfortunately got hurt, but he'll be back.

These guys are so, so young. I wouldn't criticize any of them. Many excellent pitchers struggled when very young but ultimately were fine.

It just takes time to go with youth.

Yeah, your franchise is probably pretty screwed if all three promising starters regress or plateau. Nailing 100% is almost never possible, but coming up snake eyes is an extreme the Reds can't afford.

M2
08-18-2009, 10:59 PM
My initial comp was Javier Vazquez; I've adjusted down considerably.

Take a good look at Vazquez's first two seasons when the Expos called him up way too young. It'll make you feel a lot better about Cueto.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 11:03 PM
Take a good look at Vazquez's first two seasons when the Expos called him up way too young. It'll make you feel a lot better about Cueto.

Physically, Vazquez was and is a hoss. Cueto's pretty slight, and it's taxing the kid.

jojo
08-18-2009, 11:06 PM
Physically, Vazquez was and is a hoss. Cueto's pretty slight, and it's taxing the kid.

Ya, organizations might decide to stay away from starting pitchers with small frames regardless of their stuff....

:cool:

M2
08-18-2009, 11:11 PM
Physically, Vazquez was and is a hoss. Cueto's pretty slight, and it's taxing the kid.

I agree with that. Vazquez was built to endure abuse. Cueto's a kid who needs more careful handling. That said, his stuff is playing better than Vazquez's first two seasons.

HokieRed
08-18-2009, 11:21 PM
Probably should have moved CoCo before tonight. The Reds are awful.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 11:23 PM
Probably should have moved CoCo before tonight. The Reds are awful.

Unmovable (but not because of tonight, obviously).

HokieRed
08-18-2009, 11:27 PM
I realize he's unmovable, along with Harang and Arroyo, which probably turns out to be a good thing in a way, since they're undoubtedly better than replacements who could be talked into coming to Cinti in 2010.

Falls City Beer
08-18-2009, 11:30 PM
I realize he's unmovable, along with Harang and Arroyo, which probably turns out to be a good thing in a way, since they're undoubtedly better than replacements who could be talked into coming to Cinti in 2010.

I agree and disagree. There are better options, but injuries have made the margin for error in a trade incredibly slight. The Reds are a hair's breadth from a bunch of position players pitching next season. So they'll likely stick with the devils they know.

HokieRed
08-18-2009, 11:34 PM
I agree and disagree. There are better options, but injuries have made the margin for error in a trade incredibly slight. The Reds are a hair's breadth from a bunch of position players pitching next season. So they'll likely stick with the devils they know.

Well I agree and disagree too. But if we should move Harang and Arroyo, say, we'd basically have to find 3 or 4 starters either through free agency or trades. We'd go into next year with Cueto, Owings, and Homer (1.5 starters one might say). So even though we'd have some cash, we'd have to have a lot of luck in a competitive market to get to 5 sound starters.

RedsManRick
08-18-2009, 11:45 PM
Cueto hasn't improved this year over last. He's been hurt once, maybe twice. He shows no sign of plateauing this season, only getting worse. He has value of course, and some of the things that are dogging him (bad mechanics, etc) are undoubtedly the result of horrible mentoring and coaching, but he's certainly not the sure thing we were promised--and frankly, the expectations of him should probably be adjusted in light of the growing body of innings thrown. I just can't see anything that indicates his career trajectory is headed to TOR variety. He is in short a useful starter, nothing more.

You keep using the term "trajectory". We have a little more than a year and a half's worth of major league data -- that's not enough to make a trajectory claim at all.

As for what we were promised, I don't know who told that he'd come up and instantly be a front of the rotation starter, but you were misled. Nobody should be surprised that a 23 year old pitcher isn't dominating in the majors regardless of his minor league track record. Phil Hughes was demoted to the bullpen. Supposed best pitching prospect since Mark Prior, David Price (who is the same age as Cueto), has a 5.12 ERA and worse peripherals now that he's starting. It took Edwin Jackson 450 IP and until age 25 to put it all together.

You're right, as of today, Johnny Cueto is a useful starter. But your concept of trajectory is severely skewed. Players simply do not progress on a perfectly smooth trajectory. 23 year old useful starters are hard to come by and tend to end up pretty darn good when its all said and done.

Yes, Cueto's K rate is down. But so are his HR and BB rates. His ERA is lower than it was last year. Sure, he's inconsistent -- just like every other young pitcher and most old ones. Even if this was a big enough sample to talk trajectory, he's trending even or slightly up, not down. If you expected an instant ace, that was your misplaced expectation. If Cueto is still putting up #4 starter numbers in 2 or 3 years, then you can talk about a plateaued or declining trajectory. But for now, you're grossly overreacting to a rough stretch and ignoring the reality of the situation. I guess the facts are no reason to let a good pre-formed narrative go to waste...

Falls City Beer
08-19-2009, 09:13 AM
You keep using the term "trajectory". We have a little more than a year and a half's worth of major league data -- that's not enough to make a trajectory claim at all.

As for what we were promised, I don't know who told that he'd come up and instantly be a front of the rotation starter, but you were misled. Nobody should be surprised that a 23 year old pitcher isn't dominating in the majors regardless of his minor league track record. Phil Hughes was demoted to the bullpen. Supposed best pitching prospect since Mark Prior, David Price (who is the same age as Cueto), has a 5.12 ERA and worse peripherals now that he's starting. It took Edwin Jackson 450 IP and until age 25 to put it all together.

You're right, as of today, Johnny Cueto is a useful starter. But your concept of trajectory is severely skewed. Players simply do not progress on a perfectly smooth trajectory. 23 year old useful starters are hard to come by and tend to end up pretty darn good when its all said and done.

Yes, Cueto's K rate is down. But so are his HR and BB rates. His ERA is lower than it was last year. Sure, he's inconsistent -- just like every other young pitcher and most old ones. Even if this was a big enough sample to talk trajectory, he's trending even or slightly up, not down. If you expected an instant ace, that was your misplaced expectation. If Cueto is still putting up #4 starter numbers in 2 or 3 years, then you can talk about a plateaued or declining trajectory. But for now, you're grossly overreacting to a rough stretch and ignoring the reality of the situation. I guess the facts are no reason to let a good pre-formed narrative go to waste...


It's more than just data, though. His height and slightness work against him. The fact that at 23 he's already suffering back problems is another. Again, there is nothing in his numbers that indicates he's going to turn into anything other than an average starter. That's useful. And that's fine, but let's not be naive and pretend that folks here and in the press/MLB community haven't talked about TOR potential for him.

All I see in your post is a generic walking-back of expectations for him. There's more than enough justification for some agnosticism for Cueto.

edabbs44
08-19-2009, 09:18 AM
Well I agree and disagree too. But if we should move Harang and Arroyo, say, we'd basically have to find 3 or 4 starters either through free agency or trades. We'd go into next year with Cueto, Owings, and Homer (1.5 starters one might say). So even though we'd have some cash, we'd have to have a lot of luck in a competitive market to get to 5 sound starters.

The benefit, however, is that we would have extra cash when we will actually need it, whenever that might be. We have Harang/Arroyo now and are headed for the #1 pick with a bullet.

Is there really a difference? If we are gonna lose big, I'd rather lose cheap.

nate
08-19-2009, 10:01 AM
You keep using the term "trajectory". We have a little more than a year and a half's worth of major league data -- that's not enough to make a trajectory claim at all.

As for what we were promised, I don't know who told that he'd come up and instantly be a front of the rotation starter, but you were misled. Nobody should be surprised that a 23 year old pitcher isn't dominating in the majors regardless of his minor league track record. Phil Hughes was demoted to the bullpen. Supposed best pitching prospect since Mark Prior, David Price (who is the same age as Cueto), has a 5.12 ERA and worse peripherals now that he's starting. It took Edwin Jackson 450 IP and until age 25 to put it all together.

You're right, as of today, Johnny Cueto is a useful starter. But your concept of trajectory is severely skewed. Players simply do not progress on a perfectly smooth trajectory. 23 year old useful starters are hard to come by and tend to end up pretty darn good when its all said and done.

Yes, Cueto's K rate is down. But so are his HR and BB rates. His ERA is lower than it was last year. Sure, he's inconsistent -- just like every other young pitcher and most old ones. Even if this was a big enough sample to talk trajectory, he's trending even or slightly up, not down. If you expected an instant ace, that was your misplaced expectation. If Cueto is still putting up #4 starter numbers in 2 or 3 years, then you can talk about a plateaued or declining trajectory. But for now, you're grossly overreacting to a rough stretch and ignoring the reality of the situation. I guess the facts are no reason to let a good pre-formed narrative go to waste...

I just wanted to add...

...absolutely nothing.

HokieRed
08-19-2009, 10:38 AM
The benefit, however, is that we would have extra cash when we will actually need it, whenever that might be. We have Harang/Arroyo now and are headed for the #1 pick with a bullet.

Is there really a difference? If we are gonna lose big, I'd rather lose cheap.

Don't agree. The bigger and more often you lose the harder it is to come back. This is part of what's happening now. A losing culture is being built up day by day. Of course we're many years into the process now, but the losses this year have got to seem particularly dispiriting I'd think. Have to have a couple competent starters because, as Weaver used to say, momentum is tomorrow's starting pitcher. This team could lose 110 games next year if we lose both Harang and Arroyo and don't find adequate replacements.

Mario-Rijo
08-23-2009, 04:04 AM
This has never not been the case with the Reds' farm system. Either perceptually or truly. This is so vague as to almost run from meaning.

It could be said of any farm system in professional baseball. I could, with ease, name 20 teams with better farms than the Reds', and could probably be convinced of 2 or 3 more. And when you get down that low, the differences become largely meaningless.

You can do no such thing. You have already brought up the Cubs a couple of posts back and anyone who does know anything knows that is laughable. They are nearly as bereft of talent as Houston in the pipeline. In fact I'd probably take Houston's one reasonably good player Jason Castro over the Cubs one reasonably good prospect Josh Vitters even though Vitters may eventually be better Castro has more value if he pans out. After that it's a toss up whose system is better of the 2. I'd definitely put Alonso & Frazier easily ahead of both of them and then our depth is far more palatable. I'd probably add the Cards to that list as well they have virtually nothing left in the pipeline either after dealing Wallace and graduating Rasmus.

BRM
08-24-2009, 03:03 PM
Fay is reporting on his blog that there have been no inquiries on Cordero.

edabbs44
08-24-2009, 03:52 PM
Fay is reporting on his blog that there have been no inquiries on Cordero.

Not shocking.

fargo55
08-24-2009, 08:36 PM
This has never not been the case with the Reds' farm system. Either perceptually or truly. This is so vague as to almost run from meaning.

It could be said of any farm system in professional baseball. I could, with ease, name 20 teams with better farms than the Reds', and could probably be convinced of 2 or 3 more. And when you get down that low, the differences become largely meaningless.

Since my son has been with three "Farm Systems", I can tell you that he felt the Reds was the worst. He wasn't exactly a prize for them either. Players from the other teams tell stories of small performance bonuses, like $10 for a HR, $50 for a shut-out into the 7th, and other small motivational games. One team decides bus seating by performance, the base coaches can get seated at the back for sending a runner into an out. The Manager goes to the back for things like calling for a pitch that is hit for a HR, really tiny things, but it keeps the players engaged. With a little imagination, coaching winning attitudes can actually happen.

Instead of Coco; let's take Seth Smith, the guy can rake!

BRM
08-27-2009, 02:47 PM
Walt confirms the lack of interest.


A couple of things from Walt Jocketty:

--He said the Reds have not gotten any trade inquiries about closer Francisco Cordero.

“We haven’t talked to anyone about him,” he said.

In fact, Jocketty does not expect any more trades to happen before Aug. 31, which is when players must be on roster to be eligible for the postseason.

“I would guess that nothing will happen,” he said.

RichRed
08-27-2009, 02:57 PM
“I would guess that nothing will happen”

The Reds of the Aughts in a nutshell.

BRM
08-27-2009, 02:59 PM
The Reds of the Aughts in a nutshell.

Yep. Not really a stunning revelation there.