PDA

View Full Version : Willy Taveras - should he be a Red?



Raisor
12-16-2008, 07:47 PM
Very simple poll.

Yes or no, should the Reds sign Willy Tavaras?

You can assume anything you'd like about his contract. Should he be a Red in 2009?

NC Reds
12-16-2008, 07:50 PM
An emphatic NO. He doesn't get on base enough and Dusty won't be able to resist his speed at the top of the order.

WMR
12-16-2008, 07:50 PM
good thread for tags

RedEye
12-16-2008, 07:59 PM
Willy Taveras. Sorry to be the spelling nazi around here.

RedEye

edabbs44
12-16-2008, 08:17 PM
I think the Taveras controversy is starting to get a little played out.

KronoRed
12-16-2008, 08:24 PM
Hell no.

He's a bad baseball player, we have enough of those.

RedLegSuperStar
12-16-2008, 08:26 PM
I'll admit to the YES. Deion Sanders was the last speedster I remember running the bases. I feel it could produce more runs for the ballclub and I think he could cover a lot of ground in CF. Walt has been rumored to have almost traded for him and was also mentioned to be one of the first to contact him once the Rockies non-tendered him (per Fay). If he can revert back to his 07 OBPs I am sold. I remember him covering all that ground in Houston with that huge CF.. I think he could be an average defender and that is exceptable.

Ltlabner
12-16-2008, 08:27 PM
Still somewhat amazed that strong opposition to a player who can't get on base, in a game built around getting on base, isn't universally embraced.

Raisor
12-16-2008, 08:29 PM
I'll admit to the YES. I q

Troublemaker

:thumbup:


This list makes me sick...

You have got to substatue Wiggington with Gomes. Tavares should be an option only if Dickerson, Hopper, and Stubbs can't play for an extended period of time. I'd rather go Joey Gathright for a platoon CFer. Danny Cabrera has to be at least on your plate and Charlie Haeger would be a good option for Louisvilles rotation and a possible pen candidate. Heck no mention of Clay Hansley who was on the Reds radar a year ago. I hope Walt has a change of heart...

nate
12-16-2008, 08:30 PM
Still somewhat amazed that strong opposition to a player who can't get on base, in a game built around getting on base, isn't universally embraced.

So you voted "yes"?

RedLegSuperStar
12-16-2008, 08:36 PM
Troublemaker

:thumbup:

I know I know.. but all this talk about him not being a good fit and this almost hatred for the guy makes me sympathize for him. I think this team needs to score more runs then runs against to be successful and they need someone who can motor around the bases. It would help for Willy to be able to get on base I understand but I think you see where I am going with this..

Ltlabner
12-16-2008, 08:37 PM
So you voted "yes"?

Definitely.

The loyal opposition made me realize that while he creates a lot of outs, he makes it up in volume.

Tom Servo
12-16-2008, 08:38 PM
I don't think Taveras is any worse than Hopper as far as a last roster space goes, but you just can't risk putting him on the team. He's not great defensively and Dusty would put him and his low OBP at the top of the lineup. The negatives far, far outweigh the positives.

Raisor
12-16-2008, 08:39 PM
. It would help for Willy to be able to get on base I understand but I think you see where I am going with this..

I actually don't, but ok.

Raisor
12-16-2008, 08:40 PM
Definitely.

The loyal opposition made me realize that while he creates a lot of outs, he makes it up in volume.

My computer is lucky I wasn't drinking milk when I read this.

alexad
12-16-2008, 08:43 PM
68 steals last year. 68 steals. 68 steals. We need someone to get on base and steal bases. Your lead off hitter is suppose to get on base and steal bases. His on base percentage may not be awesome, but come on, we have cried about not having a player with speed to play center field and lead off. Who else is there to get this job done that is still out there? THe days of an Eric Davis being out in centerfield to hit homeruns, steal bases and run like the wind are over.

This man can steal bases and that is what I like in a lead off hitter. He is better in the field than Patterson.

RedEye
12-16-2008, 08:43 PM
I know I know.. but all this talk about him not being a good fit and this almost hatred for the guy makes me sympathize for him. I think this team needs to score more runs then runs against to be successful and they need someone who can motor around the bases. It would help for Willy to be able to get on base I understand but I think you see where I am going with this..

You're missing the point, I think. Everyone thinks that this team needs to score more runs. What we're worried about is that Taveras lacks the essential skill required to help the team do that: OBP.

RedEye
12-16-2008, 08:45 PM
68 steals last year. 68 steals. 68 steals. We need someone to get on base and steal bases. Your lead off hitter is suppose to get on base and steal bases. His on base percentage may not be awesome, but come on, we have cried about not having a player with speed to play center field and lead off. Who else is there to get this job done that is still out there? THe days of an Eric Davis being out in centerfield to hit homeruns, steal bases and run like the wind are over.

This man can steal bases and that is what I like in a lead off hitter. He is better in the field than Patton.

Stolen bases are overrated. Many times, these "speedy" players actually run their team out of an inning when trying to "make something happen." See Coleman, Vince.

The good teams get players on base, and they get A LOT of them on base. I am amazed that this is not more widely understood at this point.

Who the heck is Patton?

RedLegSuperStar
12-16-2008, 08:47 PM
I actually don't, but ok.

When he gets on base his ability to get into scoring position seems to be automatic. If this team can net a Jermaine Dye and mix that with Joey Votto and Jay Bruce and this could actually be a potent team.

RedEye
12-16-2008, 08:47 PM
When he gets on base his ability to get into scoring position seems to be automatic. If this team can net a Jermaine Dye and mix that with Joey Votto and Jay Bruce and this could actually be a potent team.

He DOESN'T get on base.

alexad
12-16-2008, 08:48 PM
Meant Patterson, and I have made the change. Anyway stolen bases are a lost art and when Freel got on in the past and attempted to steal, it played head games with the pitcher.

Taveras is not fast, he is really fast with blazing speed. NOt sure how 68 stolen bases is considered overrated. That could produce 68 runs for a team that is going to need them with the slap stick style of play we are going to see next year. The days of hitting them out of the park are over for Reds fans.

WMR
12-16-2008, 08:48 PM
68 steals last year. 68 steals. 68 steals. We need someone to get on base and steal bases. Your lead off hitter is suppose to get on base and steal bases. His on base percentage may not be awesome, but come on, we have cried about not having a player with speed to play center field and lead off. Who else is there to get this job done that is still out there? THe days of an Eric Davis being out in centerfield to hit homeruns, steal bases and run like the wind are over.

This man can steal bases and that is what I like in a lead off hitter. He is better in the field than Patterson.

He's nowhere remotely CLOSE to being as good defensively as Corey.

alexad
12-16-2008, 08:51 PM
He's nowhere remotely CLOSE to being as good defensively as Corey.


I have to agree to disagree with you on that one. :thumbdown

Cyclone792
12-16-2008, 08:52 PM
68 steals last year. 68 steals. 68 steals. We need someone to get on base and steal bases. Your lead off hitter is suppose to get on base and steal bases. His on base percentage may not be awesome ...

You're confusing yourself here. You're right in one regard when stating that we need a leadoff hitter who can get on base, but then you contradict yourself in the following sentence when stating that Taveras' on base percentage isn't awesome.

Taveras' ability to get on base is somewhere between lousy and disgraceful.

FYI, I love stolen bases at a high percentage clip and Taveras can offer that. But his walk rate is about two dozen walks per year too lousy for him to be a successful leadoff hitter.



When he gets on base his ability to get into scoring position seems to be automatic. If this team can net a Jermaine Dye and mix that with Joey Votto and Jay Bruce and this could actually be a potent team.

"When he gets on base ... " is precisely the problem. Taveras won't get on base anywhere close to enough times for this offense to sniff potent.

WMR
12-16-2008, 08:52 PM
I have to agree to disagree with you on that one. :thumbdown

Every single defensive metric known to man mirrors my opinion, but whatever.

RedEye
12-16-2008, 08:55 PM
Meant Patterson, and I have made the change. Anyway stolen bases are a lost art and when Freel got on in the past and attempted to steal, it played head games with the pitcher.

Taveras is not fast, he is really fast with blazing speed. NOt sure how 68 stolen bases is considered overrated. That could produce 68 runs for a team that is going to need them with the slap stick style of play we are going to see next year. The days of hitting them out of the park are over for Reds fans.

Stolen bases are a lost art because a lot of teams realize they are too risky to attempt. Yes, they play mind games with the pitcher--but they also risk the most valuable asset in the game: base runners.

Sure, in isolated situations a SB can be a good thing. In retrospect, we can say that stealing a base played mind games or this and that game or sitation. But all of the information I've read that tries to quantitatively measure the value of stolen bases over a season arrives at a similar conclusion: they are, at best, a non-factor in success--and can often be an impediment. If anything, the better statistic is stolen base success rate, not total stolen bases. That way, at least you are measuring the wisdom of a player's base running.

No, I don't think that we are entering an era of "slap stick" hitting. Small ball teams like the Cardinals were a thing of the 70s and 80s. The problem is the Reds FO still thinks we're back there.

Raisor
12-16-2008, 08:55 PM
I think Earl Weaver has something to say, Earl when are the Reds going to get some team speed?


Team speed for [beeb] sakes?!?! You get [beep] [beep] little fleas on the [beep] bases, getting picked off, trying to steal, getting thrown out and taking runs away from you. Get them big [beep] that can hit the [beep] ball out of the ballpark, and then you can't make any [beep] mistakes.

RedEye
12-16-2008, 08:56 PM
I have to agree to disagree with you on that one. :thumbdown

Based on... ?

alexad
12-16-2008, 08:57 PM
So are we saying Patterson is better than Taveras????? I would hope not. When I said his OBP is not the greatest, I did not say it was so bad he would not help this club. You have to get on base to steal bases. The man played in Colorado and his defense was leaps and bounds better than Patterson. This man can run from one side of the field to the other. SUPER FAST!!!!

What else can we put in Centerfield??? Bruce is a rightfielder, not centerfielder. Dickerson can play there, but is he really ready? Last year was a make or break year for Dickerson and he showed great promise, but I am not sure I can hand him the CF job. We have to have a lead off hitter with the lineup we are going to put out on the field.

Tom Servo
12-16-2008, 08:58 PM
So are we saying Patterson is better than Taveras????? I would hope not. When I said his OBP is not the greatest, I did not say it was so bad he would not help this club. You have to get on base to steal bases. The man played in Colorado and his defense was leaps and bounds better than Patterson. This man can run from one side of the field to the other. SUPER FAST!!!!

What else can we put in Centerfield??? Bruce is a rightfielder, not centerfielder. Dickerson can play there, but is he really ready? Last year was a make or break year for Dickerson and he showed great promise, but I am not sure I can hand him the CF job. We have to have a lead off hitter with the lineup we are going to put out on the field.
Fast does not equal great defense.

Cyclone792
12-16-2008, 09:00 PM
When I said his OBP is not the greatest, I did not say it was so bad he would not help this club.

The disconnect here is this: Taveras' OBP is bad enough that he wouldn't help the club. It's so bad that he'll actually hurt the club.

Walks are constants much more than hits. You get season to season variation in hits whereas you won't see as much variation in walks. The ideal leadoff hitter needs to be walking once every 10 PAs. Taveras only walks once every 19 PAs. That's a massive discrepancy.

WMR
12-16-2008, 09:00 PM
You could make an argument that Corey Patterson is the best defensive centerfielder in baseball. Willy Taveras isn't in the same universe.

alexad
12-16-2008, 09:00 PM
No, I don't think that we are entering an era of "slap stick" hitting. Small ball teams like the Cardinals were a thing of the 70s and 80s. The problem is the Reds FO still thinks we're back there.


WE have tried the hit'em out of the park hitters and it got us NO WHERE FAST. We have a GM who likes small ball and that is what he is doing to the Reds. He has one power stroke in the lineup when he was in St. Louis and Big Mac could hit the ball a long way. He was surrounded by small ball players.

I see the Reds being a small ball team, with a no player hitting over 30 homeruns next year.

Cyclone792
12-16-2008, 09:01 PM
Here's another angle to look at walks from the perspective of a fast leadoff hitter (or any leadoff hitter really) ...

How aggravated do you get when Reds pitchers walk an opposing team's leadoff hitter?

RedEye
12-16-2008, 09:05 PM
[QUOTE]So are we saying Patterson is better than Taveras????? I would hope not.

The argument was about defense. And I think Corey actually is better than Taveras on that side of the ball. Both are abysmal offensive players.


When I said his OBP is not the greatest, I did not say it was so bad he would not help this club. You have to get on base to steal bases.

You're right. And Taveras gets on base about 32% of the time. That's not good. At all. Especially not for a leadoff batter. To make matters worse, the amount of times he tries to steal actually probably detracts from that number. He makes outs at the plate and then risks making outs when he gets on. Again, not good.


The man played in Colorado and his defense was leaps and bounds better than Patterson. This man can run from one side of the field to the other. SUPER FAST!!!!

I have no idea what playing in Colorado has to do with proving that he is a better defender than Patterson. We should know by now that it isn't about mere speed. Otherwise, Deion Sanders would have been a HOF.


What else can we put in Centerfield??? Bruce is a rightfielder, not centerfielder. Dickerson can play there, but is he really ready? Last year was a make or break year for Dickerson and he showed great promise, but I am not sure I can hand him the CF job. We have to have a lead off hitter with the lineup we are going to put out on the field.

I actually don't think running Bruce out there for a year or two would be a bad idea. If not, I think Dickerson can handle both leadoff and CF, but I may be in the minority there. At any rate, I think Dickerson has a chance to be better than Taveras would be--and then we wouldn't be putting poison (a speedy, low OBP CF) in Dusty's hands.

RedEye
12-16-2008, 09:07 PM
WE have tried the hit'em out of the park hitters and it got us NO WHERE FAST. We have a GM who likes small ball and that is what he is doing to the Reds. He has one power stroke in the lineup when he was in St. Louis and Big Mac could hit the ball a long way. He was surrounded by small ball players.

I see the Reds being a small ball team, with a no player hitting over 30 homeruns next year.

Our offense wasn't the problem over those years. You forget that while we were hitting 'em out, we had no one keeping them in. Add some decent pitching to those Dunn-Griffey teams, and you've really got something.

pahster
12-16-2008, 09:07 PM
WE have tried the hit'em out of the park hitters and it got us NO WHERE FAST.

Are you sure? Could the lack of winning be related, perhaps, to the lack of quality pitching? Maybe?

WMR
12-16-2008, 09:09 PM
I'm with pahster and RedEye... leading the NL in runs scored is a GOOD thing.

Add in merely average to good pitching and you're headed to the playoffs.

Raisor
12-16-2008, 09:40 PM
In 2008, 19 NL leadoff hitters had 200+ PA's (in the leadoff spot).

Here is their story.

They created a combined 1,093.4 runs in 7370 PA's (RC includes SB's btw).

That's 89 RC per 600 PA's.

In Willy's career, he's put up the following RC numbers (which gives credit to SB's once again).

05 66.06 per 600 pa
06 66.66 per 600 pa
07 84.54 per 600 pa
08 63.24 per 600 PA

Even in his best year (07) he was still 5 runs short of AVERAGE. In his three other seasons he's an average of -24 runs created per 600 PA's. For the four years, he's about 20 runs short of being average.

This is not a guy you want even for "depth", let alone starting for you.

paintmered
12-16-2008, 09:42 PM
WE have tried the hit'em out of the park hitters and it got us NO WHERE FAST.

A little history lesson is needed here. Your beef with the offense shouldn't be with home run hitting, instead it should be with OBP.

The Reds vs. MLB in runs scored, HRs and OBP:


Season Runs Rank HR Rank OBP Rank
2000: 14 11 15
2001: 21 16 20
2002: 20 11 18
2003: 26 11 26
2004: 20 11 18
2005: 4 3 6
2006: 22 3 16
2007: 14 3 16
2008: 23 7 25

And just for fun, how the Reds' team ERA compared to the rest of MLB over those same years.


Season ERA Rank
2000: 6
2001: 24
2002: 17
2003: 27
2004: 29
2005: 28
2006: 14
2007: 27
2008: 23

In short, it's the pitching, stupid. Don't blame the home runs when it's the pitching and lack of OBP bringing this team down.

flyer85
12-16-2008, 09:45 PM
I have to agree to disagree with you on that one. on what basis?

flyer85
12-16-2008, 09:48 PM
Even in his best year (07) he was still 5 runs short of AVERAGE. In his three other seasons he's an average of -24 runs created per 600 PA's. For the four years, he's about 20 runs short of being average.
... but the SBs triple his runs created. :D

flyer85
12-16-2008, 09:49 PM
Are you sure? Could the lack of winning be related, perhaps, to the lack of quality pitching? Maybe?the Reds were 13th in runs scored in the NL in 2008 while playing in an offensive park. I would say offense is likely to be a big problem.

RedsManRick
12-16-2008, 09:51 PM
Anybody who wants to make the baserunning argument should consider how much Taveras is really adding on the bases.

We can get there pretty quickly with rough math. Run expectancy tables and linear weights tell us that the break-even point around 75% and that the average SB is worth ~.2 runs

So the formula is just

.2*(SB-3CS)=SB Runs

For Tavares in 2008, it comes out to 9.4 runs.

The more sophisticated version, BP's Equivilent SB Runs (EQSBR), puts it at 8.95 runs for 2008. It puts his total contribution on the bases at 11.9 runs, #2 in MLB and a pretty hefty total.

What's scary is that given the rest of his game, that baserunning production basically represents the sum total of his production above replacement. If he puts together another 2008 on the bases, he's worth about a win. If he produces another 2007, where he produced 1.4 runs on the bases, he's worth basically his major league minimum salary.

When you already have a guy who is quite likely to be at least a 1 win player for the minimum at that position in Chris Dickerson and has reasonable upside, it simply makes no sense to go out and spend a few million bucks on a guy who has a ceiling that projects no better and who has a very, very low floor.

After the Patterson debacle last year, frankly it would be laughable to spend a few million on Taveras this year. Albert Einstein would call it insane (http://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/a/alberteins133991.html).

dougdirt
12-16-2008, 09:54 PM
We have a GM who likes small ball and that is what he is doing to the Reds. He has one power stroke in the lineup when he was in St. Louis and Big Mac could hit the ball a long way. He was surrounded by small ball players.

1998 The Cardinals had Ron Gant who hit 26 HR in less than 400 at bats and slugged .493, Ray Lankford who hit 31 HR and slugged .540, Brian Jordan who hit 25 HR and slugged .534 to go along with McGwire who hit 70.

1999 The Cardinals had Fernando Tatis hit 34 HR and slug .553 and Ray Lankford slug .493. They also had a losing season that year.

2000 The Cardinals had Tatis slug .491, Lankford slug .508, Jim Edmonds slug .583 and JD Drew slug .479 along with McGwire.

2001 had Pujols, Drew, Edmonds and Lankford all slug .490 or higher as well as MCGwire.

The main thing there is to note that the only time they had a losing year with McGwire was when they didn't have other big boppers in the lineup.

wheels
12-16-2008, 09:57 PM
Walt also traded for Will Clark and Larry Walker in late season swindles.

Those two guys put up monster numbers that carried them far into the playoffs and world series.

Walt loves big hitters, and loves to bring them in as ringers when the season hangs in the balance.

He LOVES great hitters......At least he USED to.:bang:

RedsManRick
12-16-2008, 10:05 PM
Are you sure? Could the lack of winning be related, perhaps, to the lack of quality pitching? Maybe?

Last year, the Reds had an OPS+ of 93 and an ERA+ of 99. In other words, we had a crappy offense and league average pitching. We've lost 2 of our top 3 run producers from the 2008 offense (Dunn and Hairston). Our biggest loss on the pitching side was a middle reliever (Affeldt).

Certainly your point is true if generically applied to the last decade. But given the current roster as of today, our pitching is stronger than our offense and frankly it's not really close.

Redhook
12-16-2008, 10:15 PM
Ok, seriously. I've read many posts now about Taveras and have seen comps to CPatt. A few have actually said (*out loud*) that they would prefer CPatt over Taveras. Is it really possible there's someone worse than Corey? I didn't think there was. If there is, and that seems to be up for debate, then why in the world would the Reds even consider this guy? That's frustrating.

Why don't they just sign Hairston to platoon with Dickerson against lefties? It's not ideal, but it doesn't suck either. Spend the resources, money and talent, for a LF or SS, not a CF that brings the level of suckitude up a few notches in Cincy.

pahster
12-16-2008, 10:16 PM
Last year, the Reds had an OPS+ of 93 and an ERA+ of 99. In other words, we had a crappy offense and league average pitching. We've lost 2 of our top 3 run producers from the 2008 offense (Dunn and Hairston). Our biggest loss on the pitching side was a middle reliever (Affeldt).

Certainly your point is true if generically applied to the last decade. But given the current roster as of today, our pitching is stronger than our offense and frankly it's not really close.

Alexad's post seemed to be referencing Reds teams over the last several years. The idea that the losing was due to "hit 'em out of the park hitters" is what I was responding to. Last years hitters definitely did not perform well enough *cough*Patterson and Bako*cough*. I'm much more comfortable with the Reds' pitching right now than I am with their hitting.

Also, now that I've reread his post, I think perhaps he should examine Jocketty's Cardinals teams again. They had a lot more than one power hitter on them.

Raisor
12-16-2008, 10:19 PM
Ok, seriously. I've read many posts now about Taveras and have seen comps to CPatt. A few have actually said (*out loud*) that they would prefer CPatt over Taveras. Is it really possible there's someone worse than Corey? I didn't think there was.

Career OPS+

Patterson 79
WT 72

LoganBuck
12-16-2008, 10:31 PM
Ok, seriously. I've read many posts now about Taveras and have seen comps to CPatt. A few have actually said (*out loud*) that they would prefer CPatt over Taveras. Is it really possible there's someone worse than Corey? I didn't think there was. If there is, and that seems to be up for debate, then why in the world would the Reds even consider this guy? That's frustrating.

Why don't they just sign Hairston to platoon with Dickerson against lefties? It's not ideal, but it doesn't suck either. Spend the resources, money and talent, for a LF or SS, not a CF that brings the level of suckitude up a few notches in Cincy.

If you could share your epiphany with every person you know, and every member of the Cincinnati media that would be ideal.

Raisor
12-16-2008, 10:32 PM
The poll is alot closer then I thought it would be.

dougdirt
12-16-2008, 10:33 PM
Last years hitters definitely did not perform well enough *cough*Patterson and Bako*cough*. I'm much more comfortable with the Reds' pitching right now than I am with their hitting.


Exactly. The non pitchers on the team hit a combined .254/.328/.422 with Bako and Patterson in 5179 AB's.

Take Bako and Patterson out of that equation and the non pitchers hit .261/.337/.434 in 4514 AB's. Those two were so terrible that they caused a 21 point drop in the teams non pitcher OPS.

Redhook
12-16-2008, 10:42 PM
Career OPS+

Patterson 79
WT 72

I've seen the stats and they are mind-boggling. Until I see it with my own eyes (I haven't see Taveras play enough) I won't believe there's a worse player than CPatt. If that unfortunate day comes true when Taveras dons a Reds uniform and I see first hand that he is worse than CPatt, I will probably have denounce my loyalty to the Redlegs.

Redhook
12-16-2008, 10:44 PM
If you could share your epiphany with every person you know, and every member of the Cincinnati media that would be ideal.

Done. But I have to warn you that common sense doesn't go over to well in this city.

Raisor
12-16-2008, 10:59 PM
At 11pm, we're at 54-9 against. I'm waiting to hear from some of the unaccounted for polling precincts before deciding a winner.

Vote early and vote often.

RedsManRick
12-16-2008, 11:01 PM
Alexad's post seemed to be referencing Reds teams over the last several years. The idea that the losing was due to "hit 'em out of the park hitters" is what I was responding to. Last years hitters definitely did not perform well enough *cough*Patterson and Bako*cough*. I'm much more comfortable with the Reds' pitching right now than I am with their hitting.

Also, now that I've reread his post, I think perhaps he should examine Jocketty's Cardinals teams again. They had a lot more than one power hitter on them.

Sorry if I took your quote out of context.

For a thorough look at the Jocketty's Cards...

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=62580&highlight=Cardinals

Enjoy.

Highlifeman21
12-16-2008, 11:14 PM
I think the Taveras controversy is starting to get a little played out.

So, you have to choose between Taveras or Bradley.

Is it WT, or MB?

Highlifeman21
12-16-2008, 11:15 PM
I'll admit to the YES. Deion Sanders was the last speedster I remember running the bases. I feel it could produce more runs for the ballclub and I think he could cover a lot of ground in CF. Walt has been rumored to have almost traded for him and was also mentioned to be one of the first to contact him once the Rockies non-tendered him (per Fay). If he can revert back to his 07 OBPs I am sold. I remember him covering all that ground in Houston with that huge CF.. I think he could be an average defender and that is exceptable.

Deion couldn't steal 1B either, or find it with a map...

Highlifeman21
12-16-2008, 11:17 PM
68 steals last year. 68 steals. 68 steals. We need someone to get on base and steal bases. Your lead off hitter is suppose to get on base and steal bases. His on base percentage may not be awesome, but come on, we have cried about not having a player with speed to play center field and lead off. Who else is there to get this job done that is still out there? THe days of an Eric Davis being out in centerfield to hit homeruns, steal bases and run like the wind are over.

This man can steal bases and that is what I like in a lead off hitter. He is better in the field than Patterson.

Just imagine how many bases Taveras could have swiped had he gotten on-base at an acceptable clip...

Will M
12-16-2008, 11:19 PM
His 2007 was good & his 2008 was very bad. If 2009 is somewhere in the middle he should not be a starter. He is useful as a backup outfielder.
Plays good defense in CF. Great speed. Even if he never picks up a bat he could help the Reds as the 25th guy who comes in for defense (with Dickeron going to LF) or pinch runs. Since we have an extra bat (Owings) we can afford to carry a guy like this on the team.

RedEye
12-16-2008, 11:20 PM
So, you have to choose between Taveras or Bradley.

Is it WT, or MB?

Bradley. Does anyone else here really have to hesitate with that decision?

Highlifeman21
12-16-2008, 11:23 PM
So are we saying Patterson is better than Taveras????? I would hope not. When I said his OBP is not the greatest, I did not say it was so bad he would not help this club. You have to get on base to steal bases. The man played in Colorado and his defense was leaps and bounds better than Patterson. This man can run from one side of the field to the other. SUPER FAST!!!!

What else can we put in Centerfield??? Bruce is a rightfielder, not centerfielder. Dickerson can play there, but is he really ready? Last year was a make or break year for Dickerson and he showed great promise, but I am not sure I can hand him the CF job. We have to have a lead off hitter with the lineup we are going to put out on the field.

Defensively, Patterson is waaaaaaaaaaaaaay better than Taveras.

However, they are both offensively challenged, particularly in the on-base department.

Thankfully, for Taveras' sake, he can at least put bat on ball, and ball in play, unlike Patterson.

But again, however, when your OBP is so largely AVG driven like Taveras, you need to have an AVG well North of .300 to be worth anything as a leadoff hitter.

And since you brought Dickerson into the comparison discussion, he's also waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay better defensively than Taveras.

Speed's a great thing and all, but you need to have good instincts, read the ball off the bat well, and then take the proper routes to catch the ball. Speed only makes up for deficiencies in those departments, which is exactly what Taveras' speed does.

Unassisted
12-16-2008, 11:24 PM
Willy Taveras. Sorry to be the spelling nazi around here.

RedEyeYou got drummed out of the spelling nazis when you spelled the first name wrong... it's Wily. ;)

Raisor
12-16-2008, 11:26 PM
His 2007 was good & his 2008 was very bad. .

Actually his 08 wasn't "very bad" at least it wasn't "very bad" for him. It was actually pretty normal for him. It was the 07 that was abnormal.

Runs Created
05 66.06 per 600 pa
06 66.66 per 600 pa
07 84.54 per 600 pa
08 63.24 per 600 PA

Highlifeman21
12-16-2008, 11:27 PM
Bradley. Does anyone else here really have to hesitate with that decision?

While I can't speak for edabbs, his disdain for Bradley's character issues lead me to believe he might choose Taveras over Bradley.

RedEye
12-16-2008, 11:31 PM
You got drummed out of the spelling nazis when you spelled the first name wrong... it's Wily. ;)

Hmm...

Yahoo! has it as Willy (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7269) and so does mlb (http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=430838).

Or perhaps you were referring to this Wily?

http://blog.masslive.com/redsoxmonster/medium_wilymocandid.jpg

WMR
12-16-2008, 11:35 PM
Hmm...

Yahoo! has it as Willy (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7269) and so does mlb (http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=430838).

Or perhaps you were referring to this Wily?

http://blog.masslive.com/redsoxmonster/medium_wilymocandid.jpg

lol awesome wmp photo

edabbs44
12-17-2008, 03:49 AM
While I can't speak for edabbs, his disdain for Bradley's character issues lead me to believe he might choose Taveras over Bradley.

For me it would be a neither.

Ron Madden
12-17-2008, 06:19 AM
WE have tried the hit'em out of the park hitters and it got us NO WHERE FAST. We have a GM who likes small ball and that is what he is doing to the Reds. He has one power stroke in the lineup when he was in St. Louis and Big Mac could hit the ball a long way. He was surrounded by small ball players.

I see the Reds being a small ball team, with a no player hitting over 30 homeruns next year.

The days of Maury Wills bunting for a BH, stealing second, moving over to third on a ground out to the right side then scoring on a SF while Sandy Koufax throws nine shut out innings to win 1-0 are over.

As much as I hate to admit it the Game has changed.

There are more teams now, all with bigger, stronger and faster players who hit he ball harder than the average player of the 1960's. It is very rare now days for team to win a game 1-0.

Having said all that ;) You have to score more runs than you allow in order to win one game or to win in the long haul. Willy Taveras does not increase a teams chances of winning in any way.

:)

Ltlabner
12-17-2008, 06:36 AM
68 steals last year. 68 steals. 68 steals. We need someone to get on base and steal bases. Your lead off hitter is suppose to get on base and steal bases. His on base percentage may not be awesome, but come on, we have cried about not having a player with speed to play center field and lead off.

I'm just going to keep posting this until it sinks in.


NAME YEAR PA OBP SLG OUTR SB% VORP EqA RAR RAP
Willy Taveras 2008 538 .308 .296 .67658 90.7% 2.0 .238 4.2 -19.2
Willy Taveras 2007 408 .367 .382 .62745 78.6% 16.4 .261 12.5 -1.8
Willy Taveras 2006 587 .333 .338 .66099 78.6% 5.1 .242 6.9 -12.4
Willy Taveras 2005 635 .325 .341 .65984 75.6% 4.9 .242 7.3 -15.7

Please note that while in 2008, the year he had 68 stolen bases, he scored 19 less runs than the average CF (RAP). He barely outscored a replacement level player (RAR). Most telling is his EqA which is sort of like batting average combined with base-running. All those stolen bases boosted his EqA all the way up to .238. Keeping in mind that .260 is considered average his number is not all that impressive. All those stolen bases did absolutely nothing to boost his ability to score runs.

Please further note that he stole 33 bases the previous three years. So I wouldn't count on him cranking out 68 SB's every year.

Even more critical is the success rate off all those stolen bases. In the three previous years his success rate barely hovered above 75%, the minimum level for stolen bases to be considered effective.

Please also further note that he's never once scored more runs than an average CF (RAP). He's only had an out rate below 65% once in four years. He's only scored significantly more runs than a replacement level player once in four years.

I think most people here would love to have a speed-demon who is a wrecking crew on the base-paths. I would. But you have to have a guy who can actually get to first base to be able to steal. And you have to have a guy who consistently steals at a 80 to 90% success rate to amount to anything.

Willy T does neither of those things.

Ltlabner
12-17-2008, 06:38 AM
...his 2008 was very bad.

As was his 2006 and 2005.

The hope isn't a season that falls "somewhere between 2007 and 2008". It's "can he replicate his one year of pseudo-success in 2007 despite three years of failure in 2005, 2006 and 2008".

OUReds
12-17-2008, 08:39 AM
Here (http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=1876&position=OF&page=7&type=full) is Tavarez's BABIP chart from fangraphs.

His almost acceptable 2007 season was driven by a .371 BABIP, a season so lucky that it will almost certainly never be duplicated again.

What can we expect from Tavarez with average luck? Well it just so happens that last year his BABIP was almost exactly league average, .298. Last year Tavarez was almost as much an offensive black hole as Patterson, but while Patterson was extremely BABIP unlucky last year (.217 (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=300&position=OF), yikes), Tavarez's 2008 is about what we can expect from him on average.

One season, Tavarez is going to be BABIP unlucky, something he has avoided up to this point. In that year, his offensive sucktitude will almost certainly result in some kind of rift in the space-time continuum.

flyer85
12-17-2008, 09:23 AM
One season, Tavarez is going to be BABIP unlucky, something he has avoided up to this point. In that year, his offensive sucktitude will almost certainly result in some kind of rift in the space-time continuum.... and yet even though he should be viewed similarly to radioactive waste we have a GM who is seemingly handling him when he should be anywhere near him.

Unassisted
12-17-2008, 09:39 AM
Hmm...

Yahoo! has it as Willy (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/players/7269) and so does mlb (http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=430838).

Or perhaps you were referring to this Wily?


I saw him play against the Reds when he was an Astro in 2005. The spelling of his name on the scoreboard at Minute Maid was "Wily." I remember distinctly that it was the same spelling as WMP. It's possible he has adopted the current spelling since then, but I know what I saw 3 years ago. Unfortunately, I can't find documentation of a spelling change, so I'll have to concede on this one for now.

Scrap Irony
12-17-2008, 09:54 AM
The evil part of me wants to see the Cardinals sign Tavares and he go 340/400/350 with 100 steals and 125 runs scored. Imagine the pandemonium as Wily Willy comes to the Queen City and goes 4-5 with eight stolen bases while the Cardinals win 4-3! Computers across Redszone would explode!

Then, reality slaps me in the face and I realize Taveras, at his best, should be a fifth OF and pinch runner. And that Jocketty has stated he really liked him. And that the Reds are currently not enamored with Dickerson (for whatever reason). And that Cincinnati has holes Tavares could fill (though not well) at CF and leadoff. And that Dusty seems to like him.

Sigh.

REDREAD
12-17-2008, 10:08 AM
Bradley. Does anyone else here really have to hesitate with that decision?

Sure, if $$ is the same, it's an easy call to say Bradley.

What if Bradley is at 4 years, 60 million and Taveras is at one year, 2 million?

Also Bradley is a lock for a starter, Taveras is a body to throw in the mix for depth. I don't think anyone that supports the Taveras acquision is saying he should be handed the job. Obviously, Bradley's contract would dictate that he's handed the job for the length of the contract.

I just can't believe all the angst here over possibly signing a nontendered backup OF. Where is all the hate for the Nix signing? He sucks worse. How come no one called for Walt's head on that one? They would both hopefully be backup players because hopefully Walt adds a starting OF and Dickerson plays well. If Dickerson can't outplay Taveras (which is a possibility) then he deserves to be benched or sent back to AAA.

RedEye
12-17-2008, 10:12 AM
I just can't believe all the angst here over possibly signing a nontendered backup OF.

The angst comes from the fact that we all watched the Dusty start Patterson in CF and leadoff ad nauseum last season. If I had any confidence that he would actually use Willy T as a backup, I wouldn't mind the signing. But I don't have any confidence in that.

In a philosophical sense, I'd rather see the Reds spend a lot of money for something good than to spend a little money for something terrible. Maybe that's just me.

Rounding Third
12-17-2008, 10:14 AM
Sure, if $$ is the same, it's an easy call to say Bradley.

What if Bradley is at 4 years, 60 million and Taveras is at one year, 2 million?

Also Bradley is a lock for a starter, Taveras is a body to throw in the mix for depth. I don't think anyone that supports the Taveras acquision is saying he should be handed the job. Obviously, Bradley's contract would dictate that he's handed the job for the length of the contract.

I just can't believe all the angst here over possibly signing a nontendered backup OF. Where is all the hate for the Nix signing? He sucks worse. How come no one called for Walt's head on that one? They would both hopefully be backup players because hopefully Walt adds a starting OF and Dickerson plays well. If Dickerson can't outplay Taveras (which is a possibility) then he deserves to be benched or sent back to AAA.

Do you remember last year?

pahster
12-17-2008, 10:22 AM
What if Bradley is at 4 years, 60 million and Taveras is at one year, 2 million?


Then the correct decision would be to abstain. Bradley can't be trusted to stay healthy and Taveras isn't worth a roster spot, let alone $2 million.



I just can't believe all the angst here over possibly signing a nontendered backup OF. Where is all the hate for the Nix signing? He sucks worse. How come no one called for Walt's head on that one? They would both hopefully be backup players because hopefully Walt adds a starting OF and Dickerson plays well. If Dickerson can't outplay Taveras (which is a possibility) then he deserves to be benched or sent back to AAA.

Nix signed a minor league contract and has pretty good minor league numbers. Jocketty's quotes lead me to believe that he wants Taveras to start and lead off. The situations the two players appear to be in are starkly different.

And based on minor league performance, I very little doubt that Dickerson will outperform Taveras.

TRF
12-17-2008, 10:23 AM
Also Bradley is a lock for a starter, Taveras is a body to throw in the mix for depth. I don't think anyone that supports the Taveras acquision is saying he should be handed the job. Obviously, Bradley's contract would dictate that he's handed the job for the length of the contract.

Keep saying that. Even though Walt has clearly stated they are looking at him as a leadoff hitter and starting CF.

And if that is the case, welcome to last year.

edabbs44
12-17-2008, 10:36 AM
Here (http://www.fangraphs.com/graphs.aspx?playerid=1876&position=OF&page=7&type=full) is Tavarez's BABIP chart from fangraphs.

His almost acceptable 2007 season was driven by a .371 BABIP, a season so lucky that it will almost certainly never be duplicated again.

What can we expect from Tavarez with average luck? Well it just so happens that last year his BABIP was almost exactly league average, .298. Last year Tavarez was almost as much an offensive black hole as Patterson, but while Patterson was extremely BABIP unlucky last year (.217 (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=300&position=OF), yikes), Tavarez's 2008 is about what we can expect from him on average.

One season, Tavarez is going to be BABIP unlucky, something he has avoided up to this point. In that year, his offensive sucktitude will almost certainly result in some kind of rift in the space-time continuum.

And for those members of the Milton Bradley Fan Club (or its sister organization, I :luvu: Milton Bradley), his BABIP last season was .388.

Funny how no one wants to acknowledge that when they speak of good ol' Milt and handing him a mult-year deal.

REDREAD
12-17-2008, 10:38 AM
The angst comes from the fact that we all watched the Dusty start Patterson in CF and leadoff ad nauseum last season.


In the beginning of the season, Bruce was in the minors.
At the end of the season, injuries and trades decimated the team's OF depth.

What were the alternatives?

1. Bruce and/or Dickerson could've been called up earlier. Well, that's all on Walt and Wayne. Dusty can't play the guy if he's in AAA. Once the kids arrived, he did give them playing time.

2. Harriston could've gotten more time in CF. Harriston was another non roster player that barely made the roster. No one foresaw him having a career year. I can't remember in detail what time periods Harriston was hurt and what time periods he was forced to play SS, but that also played a part in Patterson getting more CF time

3. Hopper? He was hurt much of the season and IMO it's debatable whether he's as good as Patterson.

Does that logic make sense? I am not talking down to you, but it's a myth that Dusty played Patterson out of stupidity. His hand was pretty much forced. With Jr and Dunn on the corners, it made sense to have a good glove in CF and show some patience with Patterson (early in the season).

That is why I want Walt to get some OF depth. Taveras may not be a gold glove CF like Patterson was, but let's look at the alternatives if we get an OF injury. Do you want to be forced to play a corner OF out of position or be forced to call up a minor leaguer that will hit/OBP worse than Janish?

We all get the fact that Taveras' walk rate is below average for a leadoff hitter. We all get the fact that he's an OBP risk, etc. But it's not as if the Reds can pull someone out of their minor leagues that is going to be better to fill his spot. The Reds also have a lot of holes to fill and a limited budget to do it. I don't mind them cutting corners a little bit on backup OF. If that leaves more money to get a quality LF, that is a good thing.

REDREAD
12-17-2008, 10:44 AM
Do you remember last year?

Yes, see my previous response to RedEye, explaining why Patterson ended up with so much playing time.

westofyou
12-17-2008, 10:48 AM
Wait... first it was Bowden, then O'Brien and then Krivsky... now Jocketty is no longer capable of running the Reds?

Speed never slumps, that's the Branch Rickey credo, I think that many still believe in this credo to:

Man may penetrate the outer reaches of the universe, he may solve the very secret of eternity itself but for me, the ultimate human experience is to witness the flawless execution of the hit-and-run.

REDREAD
12-17-2008, 10:50 AM
Nix signed a minor league contract and has pretty good minor league numbers. Jocketty's quotes lead me to believe that he wants Taveras to start and lead off. The situations the two players appear to be in are starkly different.



But the Reds also said during trade discussions that they were turned off by Taveras low OBP. Walt is courting a FA, of course he is going to be upbeat/positive. Just like the Reds promised Affedlt an opportunity to be in the mix for the rotation.



And based on minor league performance, I very little doubt that Dickerson will outperform Taveras.

But that is what makes baseball interesting. Two years ago, I bet most people on this board thought Homer would be at least an adequate #5 by 2009. Now he's in limbo. Minor league stats are a nice tool for predicting future performance, but they are not full proof. 100 ABs at the big league level likewise are encouraging, but not proof. I hope Dickerson does seize the job, but next year if he's the starting CF, the league is going to put him under the microscope and pick apart all his weaknesses. It's not a given that he will perform well.

Also, the Reds need to plan for the contingency if Dickerson gets hurt. They need a cheap back OFs that can cover all positions. I'd rather not have the plan be to shift Bruce to CF in the event of an injury. I'd like to keep him in RF all next year and let him worry about improving there.

OUReds
12-17-2008, 11:01 AM
Also, the Reds need to plan for the contingency if Dickerson gets hurt. They need a cheap back OFs that can cover all positions.

I agree, but why should that contingency plan include Tavarez or a similarly wretched player? There will be cheaper and better players available, even for a lowly fifth outfielder slot.

nate
12-17-2008, 11:02 AM
Sure, if $$ is the same, it's an easy call to say Bradley.

What if Bradley is at 4 years, 60 million and Taveras is at one year, 2 million?

Then neither.


Also Bradley is a lock for a starter, Taveras is a body to throw in the mix for depth. I don't think anyone that supports the Taveras acquision is saying he should be handed the job.

This guy named "Walt Jocketty" disagrees (http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=blog07&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ae57bcc87-152a-4f72-96fb-cc08b1f396efPost%3a501bb9e8-0bfc-4099-83e2-6080d3b55375&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com) with your assessment.


They are most interested in Willy Taveras. In fact, Walt Jocketty called Taveras agent Saturday morning. I was the first call. Hes not going to sign on the first, Jocketty said. I think its going to take some time. I let him know theres interest. We think he could fill that center field/leadoff role. Taveras, non-tendered by Colorado, is only 26. He hit .251 with an .308 on-base percentage last year. He led the majors with 68 steals in the 75 attempts. He was much better at the plate in 2007, hitting .320 with a .367 on-base. He lacks power (career slugging of .337).


I just can't believe all the angst here over possibly signing a nontendered backup OF. Where is all the hate for the Nix signing? He sucks worse. How come no one called for Walt's head on that one?

He signed for $600k on a minor league deal with incentives. The most he'll make is $1.1mm. It's more likely Nix is organizational fodder.


They would both hopefully be backup players because hopefully Walt adds a starting OF and Dickerson plays well. If Dickerson can't outplay Taveras (which is a possibility) then he deserves to be benched or sent back to AAA.

Hope springs eternal.

RedEye
12-17-2008, 11:05 AM
In the beginning of the season, Bruce was in the minors.
At the end of the season, injuries and trades decimated the team's OF depth.

What were the alternatives?

1. Bruce and/or Dickerson could've been called up earlier. Well, that's all on Walt and Wayne. Dusty can't play the guy if he's in AAA. Once the kids arrived, he did give them playing time.

2. Harriston could've gotten more time in CF. Harriston was another non roster player that barely made the roster. No one foresaw him having a career year. I can't remember in detail what time periods Harriston was hurt and what time periods he was forced to play SS, but that also played a part in Patterson getting more CF time

3. Hopper? He was hurt much of the season and IMO it's debatable whether he's as good as Patterson.

Does that logic make sense? I am not talking down to you, but it's a myth that Dusty played Patterson out of stupidity. His hand was pretty much forced. With Jr and Dunn on the corners, it made sense to have a good glove in CF and show some patience with Patterson (early in the season).

That is why I want Walt to get some OF depth. Taveras may not be a gold glove CF like Patterson was, but let's look at the alternatives if we get an OF injury. Do you want to be forced to play a corner OF out of position or be forced to call up a minor leaguer that will hit/OBP worse than Janish?

We all get the fact that Taveras' walk rate is below average for a leadoff hitter. We all get the fact that he's an OBP risk, etc. But it's not as if the Reds can pull someone out of their minor leagues that is going to be better to fill his spot. The Reds also have a lot of holes to fill and a limited budget to do it. I don't mind them cutting corners a little bit on backup OF. If that leaves more money to get a quality LF, that is a good thing.

I think the chorus of objections in these parts has more to do with CP playing CF and batting leadoff. He'd likely do the same with WT--which would arguably be worse because, from what I've seen, WT is not nearly the fielder that CP is. WT is fast and that's about it.

Look, I honestly think the Reds would be better off re-signing Hairston and then responding to a possible injury by bringing up Stubbs or Dorn and slotting them low in the lineup with some combo of Dickerson and Keppinger in the leadoff spot. Hopper plays the role that you envision for Taveras as the AAAA OF in case of emergency. The team already has players who are better than WT, so his acquisition would just be sunk cost.

If Walt wants OF depth, I really hope he goes out and signs players who have skills that add to the roster rather than repeat what it already has. That means taking a chance on Baldelli or Bradley or Dye or even Burrell. But please, no Willy Taveras.

nate
12-17-2008, 11:07 AM
And for those members of the Milton Bradley Fan Club (or its sister organization, I :luvu: Milton Bradley), his BABIP last season was .388.

Funny how no one wants to acknowledge that when they speak of good ol' Milt and handing him a mult-year deal.

His career line is .280/.370/.457. Even if last year's stats were inflated by a lucky BABIP, he's still a good hitter.

Whether or not he's a fit for the Reds is another debate.

nate
12-17-2008, 11:10 AM
That is why I want Walt to get some OF depth. Taveras may not be a gold glove CF like Patterson was, but let's look at the alternatives if we get an OF injury. Do you want to be forced to play a corner OF out of position or be forced to call up a minor leaguer that will hit/OBP worse than Janish?

The latter. Really. If we're not going all-in, let a youngster get some seasoning. Let's quit wasting money and resource on one-trick ponies like Wily Taveras.


We all get the fact that Taveras' walk rate is below average for a leadoff hitter. We all get the fact that he's an OBP risk, etc. But it's not as if the Reds can pull someone out of their minor leagues that is going to be better to fill his spot. The Reds also have a lot of holes to fill and a limited budget to do it. I don't mind them cutting corners a little bit on backup OF. If that leaves more money to get a quality LF, that is a good thing.

The bolded part is exactly why you don't waste money on Wily Taveras.

edabbs44
12-17-2008, 11:24 AM
His career line is .280/.370/.457. Even if last year's stats were inflated by a lucky BABIP, he's still a good hitter.

Whether or not he's a fit for the Reds is another debate.

Juan Rivera's career line is .284/.331/.468. And he is treated like an infectious disease while Bradley is a monster.

Go figure.

westofyou
12-17-2008, 11:25 AM
Wily Taveras is a lot like the Reds first (and Baseballs) first Cuban player, Armando Marsans. he was pretty much done by 30 as well, so I think the GM's around the league figure that Taveras has about 3 years until he's in Curtis Goodwin country.



AT BATS AB H EBH BB RC/G PA

Armando Marsans 2109 576 83 -51 -.52 2356
Willy Taveras 1973 558 80 -80 -.78 2170

pahster
12-17-2008, 11:30 AM
But the Reds also said during trade discussions that they were turned off by Taveras low OBP. Walt is courting a FA, of course he is going to be upbeat/positive. Just like the Reds promised Affedlt an opportunity to be in the mix for the rotation.

Yeah. This is why I don't understand why Jocketty is expressing any interest at all in Taveras. He doesn't bring anything to the table as a player and Walt seemingly knows this, yet still appears quite interested in signing him.




But that is what makes baseball interesting. Two years ago, I bet most people on this board thought Homer would be at least an adequate #5 by 2009. Now he's in limbo. Minor league stats are a nice tool for predicting future performance, but they are not full proof. 100 ABs at the big league level likewise are encouraging, but not proof. I hope Dickerson does seize the job, but next year if he's the starting CF, the league is going to put him under the microscope and pick apart all his weaknesses. It's not a given that he will perform well.

Also, the Reds need to plan for the contingency if Dickerson gets hurt. They need a cheap back OFs that can cover all positions. I'd rather not have the plan be to shift Bruce to CF in the event of an injury. I'd like to keep him in RF all next year and let him worry about improving there.

I think the minor league performances of Dickerson and Taveras are different than Homer's of two years ago because of the level of competation. As of two years ago, Bailey had yet to pitch in the upper minors while Dickerson and Taveras have both played there. Performance in AAA is much more suggestive of major league ability than is performance at high-A.

BuckeyeRedleg
12-17-2008, 11:31 AM
I voted against One-Eyed Willy, only if they plan on taking a bunch of AB's from Dickerson and batting him every day.

If Taveras is cheap and nothing more than a PR and 4th or 5th OF, I'm not sure if it's that big a deal. I would take him over Hopper (not that it's saying much...LOL).

Question. Willy is 26. He'll be 27 on Christmas. Is it possible that he develops any further or are players with his skillset pretty much a done deal by 27?

Looking at VORP, I see where Patterson was horrendous in 2008. I think something like 1037th out of 1038 last year (-18 something). Willy was at least positive (+2) and ranked somewhere in the 300's. Of course, I also realize that Patterson was BABIP unlucky and Willy was about average. With that said, is Patterson's glove really THAT much better to warrant the comments I read on here that people would take him over Taveras? If the price were the same, would most really take Patterson over Willy?

As long as he doesn't hit leadoff every day (like Patterson) and take too many AB's from Dickerson, and his signing doesn't prohibit them from signing a big LF bat, I'm not sure if it's that big a deal. If the worry is more about our manager and how he'll use Willy, then we have bigger problems anyway.

As I mentioned, I voted no on Willy, but I'm just curious what people think.

RedEye
12-17-2008, 11:41 AM
Looking at VORP, I see where Patterson was horrendous in 2008. I think something like 1037th out of 1038 last year (-18 something). Willy was at least positive (+2) and ranked somewhere in the 300's. Of course, I also realize that Patterson was BABIP unlucky and Willy was about average. With that said, is Patterson's glove really THAT much better to warrant the comments I read on here that people would take him over Taveras? If the price were the same, would most really take Patterson over Willy?


Both are terrible. In an ideal world, neither would play for the Reds. Plus, Dusty is terrible at knowing how to use their skill sets to help the team. Hence, since both are fast and play CF, they are the de facto leadoff batters when in the lineup. That's a recipe for very bad baseball.

In a "lesser of two evils" scenario, I think you choose CP. At least he brings top notch defense to the equation. If he bats in the eighth slot on an already very strong offensive team that needs CF defense, for instance, I think you could make his case for a roster spot. You'd have to consider the tradeoff in run differential between good OF defense and a black hole hitting before the pitcher. I'm willing to grant that for some teams with specific lineup and payroll dimensions, it might work. We all know that the Reds in 2009 are not that team.

WT, in my opinion, brings neither good defense nor good offense. He has basically one skill--speed--and he doesn't use it very well (doesn't get on base enough on O, doesn't take good routes to the ball on D and uses his feet to make up for it rather than profit from it). To make matters worse, he doesn't have the power to take advantage of GABP's dimensions when he does make contact (CP does have a bit more pop now and again). The only way WT puts up stats worth looking at are when he is EXTREMELY lucky (as he was a few years ago with a .371 BABIP). Any player can put up good stats when luck is on his side--but that's no proof that a team should invest in him. I don't think you want WT on any team if you can avoid it.

nate
12-17-2008, 11:53 AM
Juan Rivera's career line is .284/.331/.468. And he is treated like an infectious disease while Bradley is a monster.

Go figure.

I guess you'd have to take that issue up with whoever has that opinion.

My opinion is that Rivera is probably a better defender than Bradley. Bradley is much better at not making outs. Neither are guys you want to rely on.

BuckeyeRedleg
12-17-2008, 11:56 AM
Both are terrible. In an ideal world, neither would play for the Reds. Plus, Dusty is terrible at knowing how to use their skill sets to help the team. Hence, since both are fast and play CF, they are the de facto leadoff batters when in the lineup. That's a recipe for very bad baseball.

In a "lesser of two evils" scenario, I think you choose CP. At least he brings top notch defense to the equation. If he bats in the eighth slot on an already very strong offensive team that needs CF defense, for instance, I think you could make his case for a roster spot. You'd have to consider the tradeoff in run differential between good OF defense and a black hole hitting before the pitcher. I'm willing to grant that for some teams with specific lineup and payroll dimensions, it might work. We all know that the Reds in 2009 are not that team.

WT, in my opinion, brings neither good defense nor good offense. He has basically one skill--speed--and he doesn't use it very well (doesn't get on base enough on O, doesn't take good routes to the ball on D and uses his feet to make up for it rather than profit from it). To make matters worse, he doesn't have the power to take advantage of GABP's dimensions when he does make contact (CP does have a bit more pop now and again). The only way WT puts up stats worth looking at are when he is EXTREMELY lucky (as he was a few years ago with a .371 BABIP). Any player can put up good stats when luck is on his side--but that's no proof that a team should invest in him. I don't think you want WT on any team if you can avoid it.

Thanks for the response. Good stuff. Question. I know in the past that GABP neutralized their HR tendency by suppressing ground balls. Is this still the case and if so wouldn't that be better suited for a slap hitter that can't get the ball out of the infield like Taveras?

You make good points and I agree we should probably stay away from this guy because we can't trust Dusty, but if we knew Dusty would use him properly (spot start in CF, PR, etc.) then I don't know if he be a horrible signing as long as he's cheap and he's the 25th guy.

flyer85
12-17-2008, 12:03 PM
Colorado threw him overboard, I can't believe the Reds want a wet Willy.:help:

BRM
12-17-2008, 12:09 PM
Colorado threw him overboard, I can't believe the Reds want a wet Willy.:help:

Not to defend Willy but Colorado does have Ryan Spilborghs to play CF. They have no real need to keep Willy.

Ltlabner
12-17-2008, 12:37 PM
but it's a myth that Dusty played Patterson out of stupidity. His hand was pretty much forced.

I'll take rewriting history to suit my agenda for $100 Alex.

* Before the season Dusty bragged that he could lure players to Cincy. Patterson played for Dusty in Chicago. Do you really think Dusty had no input whatsoever in Wayne's efforts to bring him to town? Too much of a coincidence for a reasonable person to ignore.

* Do you really think that at Spring training Dusty didn't make any recommendations on which players started in Louisville and which in Cincinnati? Really? He just meekly sits in the corner and Wayne bossed him around?

* Once the season started who make's out the lineup? Are you wanting us to believe that Dusty doesn't and some other person does? Who? The guy in section 518? What unknown forces inked Patterson into the leadoff spot for the months of April, May and June?

* Later in the season, why did we continue to see Patterson in CF and Dickerson in LF? Was a law passed in Congress that forced poor ole Dusty to play Patterson in CF? He could have just as easily reversed them to give Dickerson more time at a position he was likely to play in 2009. I mean, call me silly, but actually evaluating a player likely to be around in the future seems to make sense. Or something.

* Who sends out the pinch hitters? Doesn't The Dusty have some shred of input in those decisions? Or do you want us to believe he meekly sits at the top of the stairs adjusting his sweatbands while someone else sent Patterson out the second most times of the entire team. Did he not have any other bench options for pinch hitting?

Sorry Redread, thinking that Dusty was forced to use Patterson just doesn't stand the scrutiny of reason and facts.

Caveat Emperor
12-17-2008, 12:47 PM
Juan Rivera's career line is .284/.331/.468. And he is treated like an infectious disease while Bradley is a monster.

Go figure.

Milton Bradley (career): 8.51 PA per BB
Juan Rivera (career): 15.45 PA ber BB

I know which of those two I'd put my money on maintaining an acceptable level of production over the course of a multi-year contract, looking at just numbers alone.

flyer85
12-17-2008, 12:49 PM
Not to defend Willy but Colorado does have Ryan Spilborghs to play CF. They have no real need to keep Willy.Willy was more suited to play CF in Coors(so big you have to have speed) than probably any other home ballpark.

edabbs44
12-17-2008, 12:51 PM
Milton Bradley (career): 8.51 PA per BB
Juan Rivera (career): 15.45 PA ber BB

I know which of those two I'd put my money on maintaining an acceptable level of production over the course of a multi-year contract, looking at just numbers alone.

I guess there is always a stat that will work for any side of an argument.

BRM
12-17-2008, 12:52 PM
Willy was more suited to play CF in Coors(so big you have to have speed) than probably any other home ballpark.

He may have the speed but he really isn't a good defender overall. He's about average out there. Either way, I don't blame the Rockies. I'd take Spilborghs over Taveras every day and twice on Sunday.

Caveat Emperor
12-17-2008, 12:54 PM
I guess there is always a stat that will work for any side of an argument.

Since I know you were curious, Wily Mo Pena's statistic for that particular metric is 16.12 BB per PA.

It's difficult to maintain production from year to year with that kind of walk total unless you are a total genetic freak when it comes to putting the ball in play.

Ltlabner
12-17-2008, 01:03 PM
Wait... first it was Bowden, then O'Brien and then Krivsky... now Jocketty is no longer capable of running the Reds?

I don't think the Jock has suddenly become an incompetent boob. He's just had the luxury of having a manager that could wring the most out of players, even the ones that left fans scratching their heads when first acquired.

Now....not so much.

flyer85
12-17-2008, 01:05 PM
He may have the speed but he really isn't a good defender overall. not the point, you can't be a good CF in Coors without great speed. It is a prerequisite for Coors, which it is not for GABP.

BRM
12-17-2008, 01:07 PM
not the point, you can't be a good CF in Coors without great speed. It is a prerequisite for Coors, which it is not for GABP.

I know what you're saying. My point was that he still wasn't a good defender at Coors, even with his great speed.

Question for you - do you think Spilborghs will be able to handle CF for the Rocks this season? He doesn't have real good speed.

edabbs44
12-17-2008, 01:07 PM
Since I know you were curious, Wily Mo Pena's statistic for that particular metric is 16.12 BB per PA.

It's difficult to maintain production from year to year with that kind of walk total unless you are a total genetic freak when it comes to putting the ball in play.

I'm just commenting on how there's always something.

Willy Taveras' 2007 is a fluke because of his BABIP. However, many posters love the idea of Bradley because he can mash, and they are high off his 2008 career season. However, they fail to see that his BABIP was even higher than the 2007 Taveras metric.

But that's ok because his career line is _____. But when it is shown that Juan Rivera, who many think is a waste of time, is somewhat similar, then that doesn't matter because of his walk rate. Add in the fact that Bradley will probably require a more serious committment, then it might be a wash.

A lot of times there is one stat that can either "prove" or "disprove" a theory. Kind of gets old after a while.

lollipopcurve
12-17-2008, 01:10 PM
Wait... first it was Bowden, then O'Brien and then Krivsky... now Jocketty is no longer capable of running the Reds?

That's right. While a bunch of guys off the street could do it. Amazing!

westofyou
12-17-2008, 01:14 PM
Milton Bradley (career): 8.51 PA per BB
Juan Rivera (career): 15.45 PA ber BB

I know which of those two I'd put my money on maintaining an acceptable level of production over the course of a multi-year contract, looking at just numbers alone.

Dave Parker - 1 bb every 15 PA's

Carl Yastrzemski - 1 bb every 7.5 PA's

Ltlabner
12-17-2008, 01:17 PM
A lot of times there is one stat that can either "prove" or "disprove" a theory. Kind of gets old after a while.

Or it could be that each player has a different skill set and there's a number of variables that go into evaluating a player. One specific stat for player X may tell us a lot, while the same stat for a different player tells us very little. And you still have to evaluate the entire game: hitting, base running, defense, etc meaning you still have to pull back from micro to macro to make a judgement. And that's before you even get to contracts & money.

Kookie stuff, I know.

Highlifeman21
12-17-2008, 04:58 PM
Juan Rivera's career line is .284/.331/.468. And he is treated like an infectious disease while Bradley is a monster.

Go figure.

That's why Juan Rivera is, and should be treated like an infectious disease.

Difference of .47 between AVG and OBP? Awesome. If Juan Rivera could take a walk, then he wouldn't be treated like an infectious disease.

edabbs44
12-17-2008, 07:03 PM
That's why Juan Rivera is, and should be treated like an infectious disease.

Difference of .47 between AVG and OBP? Awesome. If Juan Rivera could take a walk, then he wouldn't be treated like an infectious disease.

Juan Rivera's career numbers would put him on base 199 times for every 600 PAs.

Bradley would get on base 23 more times.

With slugging being technically even, it seems like they are more similar than you'd think.

dougdirt
12-17-2008, 07:14 PM
That's why Juan Rivera is, and should be treated like an infectious disease.

Difference of .47 between AVG and OBP? Awesome. If Juan Rivera could take a walk, then he wouldn't be treated like an infectious disease.

Not exactly, because Rivera's skillset isn't like that of most guys with a similar difference. He doesn't swing and miss as much, while still having power. He isn't Brandon Phillips. He isn't Carlos Lee either. He is somewhere in the middle. There aren't many guys like him, but he gets lumped into a group of guys that aren't really on the same level of him.

Highlifeman21
12-17-2008, 08:05 PM
Juan Rivera and Willy Taveras are 2 guys I want the Reds to stay far far away from.

Milton Bradley, however, I want the Reds to sign sign sign.


Bradley has offensive value to offset his defense.

Taveras arguably (and this might be a stretch) has defensive value to offset his offense.

Rivera is a summation of negative value of both offense and defense.

edabbs44
12-17-2008, 08:22 PM
Juan Rivera and Willy Taveras are 2 guys I want the Reds to stay far far away from.

Milton Bradley, however, I want the Reds to sign sign sign.


Bradley has offensive value to offset his defense.

Taveras arguably (and this might be a stretch) has defensive value to offset his offense.

Rivera is a summation of negative value of both offense and defense.

Why do you think that Bradley has such tremendous offensive value? I think he is becoming somewhat overrated.

Caveat Emperor
12-17-2008, 08:59 PM
Juan Rivera's career numbers would put him on base 199 times for every 600 PAs.

Bradley would get on base 23 more times.

With slugging being technically even, it seems like they are more similar than you'd think.

Milton Bradley has equaled or bested his career OBP in each of the last three seasons -- in the last two seasons, by a substantial margin.

Juan Rivera has failed to equal or best his career OBP in 3 of the previous four seasons (admittedly, his leg injury plays a part with this).

If you're going just on the basis that both guys will play to their career averages, the debate is close. If you look at the recent history of each ballplayer, it's Bradley in a landslide. The question becomes: will Rivera, at age 30, ever replicate his .310 / .362 / .525 season from 2005, or will he settle into the player he was in 2004 and 2008 -- a sub-.320 OBP guy that is a threat to dip below the .300 mark?

Simply put, that's not a gamble I want the Reds taking for the next 2 to 3 years. That's why Rivera is a "stay far, far away" in my book.

edabbs44
12-17-2008, 09:29 PM
Milton Bradley has equaled or bested his career OBP in each of the last three seasons -- in the last two seasons, by a substantial margin.

MB played a combined 157 games in 2005-2006. In 2007, he had a BABIP of .388.

MB was DFA'ed from Oakland in 2007 and was then dealt to SD, where his season ended when he tore his ACL after going after an umpire.

He then went to Texas, where he played in ballpark notorious for pumping up the home team's stats. His numbers were no different. He also played the vast majority of his season as a DH.


Juan Rivera has failed to equal or best his career OBP in 3 of the previous four seasons (admittedly, his leg injury plays a part with this).

Agreed, and agreed.


If you're going just on the basis that both guys will play to their career averages, the debate is close. If you look at the recent history of each ballplayer, it's Bradley in a landslide. The question becomes: will Rivera, at age 30, ever replicate his .310 / .362 / .525 season from 2005, or will he settle into the player he was in 2004 and 2008 -- a sub-.320 OBP guy that is a threat to dip below the .300 mark?

Recent history might project a landslide, if the following were true:


Cincy used a DH
Bradley were to stay healthy all season
Cincy played in Arlington
Bradley were to hit close to .400 on balls in play, again


While Rivera has some questions, so does Bradley. But for both it is difficult to look at only the recent history to project what might happen this year. And it is even more difficult to assess when you factor in likely committment you will need to make to both ballplayers.

MB will likely see a dip in production compared to 2008 where Rivera will likely see production rise over the same time period. The only question is whether the gap will close a little or a lot.


Simply put, that's not a gamble I want the Reds taking for the next 2 to 3 years. That's why Rivera is a "stay far, far away" in my book.

If Bradley is "buy, buy, buy", as some might say, I can't see Rivera being the polar opposite.

Caveat Emperor
12-17-2008, 09:58 PM
At the outset, I feel compelled to make this point: I am not advocating the Reds sign Milton Bradley. I don't think the Reds want him, and I don't think he wants to play for a team like Cincinnati. Frankly, I think the Reds have a better chance of getting Milton Berle to come back from the dead and play CF.

Having said that, the mere fact that Milton Bradley isn't the best fit for this team doesn't mean that Juan Rivera is. Quite the opposite, in fact.


MB played a combined 157 games in 2005-2006. In 2007, he had a BABIP of .388.

MB was DFA'ed from Oakland in 2007 and was then dealt to SD, where his season ended when he tore his ACL after going after an umpire.

He then went to Texas, where he played in ballpark notorious for pumping up the home team's stats. His numbers were no different. He also played the vast majority of his season as a DH.

Just to make sure we're operating with full facts here, these were Bradley's H/R splits from '08 --

HOME: .358 / .466 / .679
ROAD: .290 / .410 / .462

Home in Arlington was very, very good to Milton Bradley -- but he wasn't a total slouch on the Road either. His OBP remained over .400, it was his SLG that took a nose dive. He was still a .870+ OPS player on the road.

By comparison, Juan Rivera has had exactly 1 seasons where he has posted an OPS that high for the season.


While Rivera has some questions, so does Bradley. But for both it is difficult to look at only the recent history to project what might happen this year. And it is even more difficult to assess when you factor in likely committment you will need to make to both ballplayers.

MB will likely see a dip in production compared to 2008 where Rivera will likely see production rise over the same time period. The only question is whether the gap will close a little or a lot.

They both have questions, but here is what they boil down to:

Bradley: Can he keep doing it?
Rivera: Can he do it?

I know which of those two questions I like a lot better.

I also don't see where you think Rivera will see a major production rise. He had one great year in 2006 after two so-so years. He's 30 years old, going to turn 31 mid-season, with at least one major injury in his past. While he's likely better than his line from '08, you have to wonder whether his improvement will be to his '05 or to his '06, somewhere in between, or someplace else. There's a huge range on Rivera, and that would give me pause before tendering a multi-year commitment to him.

When you add in the fact that he doesn't walk and draws all of his value from power and making contact, I think the risk greatly outweighs the possible reward. I don't want to be left holding the bag and hoping that a 31/32 year old Rivera can keep cranking out enough base hits to avoid being an out-machine on a guaranteed deal.


If Bradley is "buy, buy, buy", as some might say, I can't see Rivera being the polar opposite.

Neither player is "Buy, buy, buy" from me -- but Bradley is probably a normal "buy" and Rivera is a "sell, sell."

I don't see a lot of good things in Rivera's profile, JMO.

Highlifeman21
12-18-2008, 12:29 AM
Why do you think that Bradley has such tremendous offensive value? I think he is becoming somewhat overrated.

Compared to Juan Rivera and Willy Taveras, Milton Bradley has tremendous offensive value.

Career line of .280 / .370 / .457 is certainly better than

.284 / .331 / .468

and there's no argument it's better than

.283 / .331 / .337


... and the reason it's better is b/c of the ability to get on base other than putting bat on ball. Both Rivera and Taveras rely on their AVG to get on base, as their career AVG and OBP numbers are identical. What else is identical about them? Neither of them walks at all. So, if either of them gets cold at the plate, slumps, what have you, they aren't getting on base b/c they don't walk. Even if Bradley isn't putting bat on ball, he's still getting on base via the walk.

Since 2003, Milton Bradley has OPS'd North of .817 in every year except 2004 (which his OBP was still .362, so he was still getting on base, he just wasn't acquiring bases). I like the upward trend of Bradley's OPS, whereas I don't like inconsistent fluctuations of Rivera's OPS.

dougdirt
12-18-2008, 12:36 AM
Compared to Juan Rivera and Willy Taveras, Milton Bradley has tremendous offensive value.

Career line of .280 / .370 / .457 is certainly better than

.284 / .331 / .468

and there's no argument it's better than

.283 / .331 / .337


... and the reason it's better is b/c of the ability to get on base other than putting bat on ball. Both Rivera and Taveras rely on their AVG to get on base, as their career AVG and OBP numbers are identical. What else is identical about them? Neither of them walks at all. So, if either of them gets cold at the plate, slumps, what have you, they aren't getting on base b/c they don't walk. Even if Bradley isn't putting bat on ball, he's still getting on base via the walk.
Except that Juan Rivera can actually hit and Willy Taveras can't. The only thing comparable about them is their walk rate. Nothing else they do at the plate is really comparable.

Krusty
12-18-2008, 02:03 AM
When I think of Willy Taveras, I see former Pirates' centerfielder Omar Moreno. Moreno was never the greatest leadoff hitter but he was patroling centerfield when the Bucs won the World Series back in 1979.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/m/morenom01.shtml

People have to realize that Taveras would be a one or two year bridge till Drew Stubbs is ready to take over in center. He has his flaws but it isn't like you're paying 5 million + for his services.

Mario-Rijo
12-18-2008, 02:27 AM
Milton Bradley has equaled or bested his career OBP in each of the last three seasons -- in the last two seasons, by a substantial margin.

Juan Rivera has failed to equal or best his career OBP in 3 of the previous four seasons (admittedly, his leg injury plays a part with this).

If you're going just on the basis that both guys will play to their career averages, the debate is close. If you look at the recent history of each ballplayer, it's Bradley in a landslide. The question becomes: will Rivera, at age 30, ever replicate his .310 / .362 / .525 season from 2005, or will he settle into the player he was in 2004 and 2008 -- a sub-.320 OBP guy that is a threat to dip below the .300 mark?

Simply put, that's not a gamble I want the Reds taking for the next 2 to 3 years. That's why Rivera is a "stay far, far away" in my book.

I get your point but you have the years mixed up there. And since I am gonna put his stats up I might as well put up his whole line.

'01 - Age 22 - 4 PA's ---
'02 - Age 23 - 091 PA's - .265/.311/.361/.672 - OPS+ 79 - .288 BABIP
'03 - Age 24 - 185 PA's - .266/.304/.468/.772 - OPS+ 102 - .279 BABIP
'04 - Age 25 - 426 PA's - .307/.364/.465/.829 - OPS+ 109 - .323 BABIP
'05 - Age 26 - 376 PA's - .271/.316/.454/.770 - OPS+ 104 - .274 BABIP
'06 - Age 27 - 494 PA's - .310/.362/.525/.887 - OPS+ 126 - .312 BABIP
'07 - Age 28 - 044 PA's - .279/.295/.442/.737 - OPS+ 91 - .270 BABIP
'08 - Age 29 - 280 PA's - .246/.282/.438/.720 - OPS+ 86 - .233 BABIP

I think if we look at the BABIP we can see that when he done well he didn't have a whole lot of luck in fact his '04 season is the only season in which his BABIP got over nuetral luck, '06 his luck was basically nuetral and the rest of those years are all well below nuetral. Yet he still managed pretty respectable BA's despite his bad luck. I can only gather from those #'s that he has a pretty good line drive swing otherwise he wouldn't have hit for those averages. Granted one might argue small sample size for his good seasons and they may have a point. But I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that he just can flat out hit. Is it a gamble worth taking with other more established bats on the market? Probably not but to say he is definitely not worth the gamble at some point is probably not wise either. He simply put looks like a special case that I think demands more careful consideration at the very least.

Ltlabner
12-18-2008, 05:45 AM
He has his flaws but it isn't like you're paying 5 million + for his services.

So it's ok if he's an offensively challenged black hole of sucktastic crappyness at the plate, as long as he doesn't cost too much money?

Sounds like something Schott/Linder would say.

By the way, who is this Stubbs fellow you mention? Never heard of him.

edabbs44
12-18-2008, 06:10 AM
Since 2003, Milton Bradley has OPS'd North of .817 in every year except 2004 (which his OBP was still .362, so he was still getting on base, he just wasn't acquiring bases). I like the upward trend of Bradley's OPS, whereas I don't like inconsistent fluctuations of Rivera's OPS.

So (if he were to come to Cincy) you would project him to trend upwards or maintain his current level of production, even though there would be a number of variables in play, such as the fact that he is leaving Arlington, wouldn't be able to DH and is due for a large drop in "luck"?

And that isn't even considering the injury/insanity factor.

Ltlabner
12-18-2008, 06:12 AM
If Juan Rivera could take a walk...

Come on dude, ballplayers aren't paid to walk. That's a girlie way of playing the game, and we all know walks are icky.

Highlifeman21
12-18-2008, 06:20 AM
Except that Juan Rivera can actually hit and Willy Taveras can't. The only thing comparable about them is their walk rate. Nothing else they do at the plate is really comparable.

Their career AVG and OBP tell me that Rivera hits for more power than Taveras, and that's it.

Aside from that, neither of them walk, and they both get on base thanks to their AVG.

I'm curious as to why you say that Juan Rivera can hit and Willy Taveras cannot when they have the same career AVG and OBP.

Highlifeman21
12-18-2008, 06:22 AM
So (if he were to come to Cincy) you would project him to trend upwards or maintain his current level of production, even though there would be a number of variables in play, such as the fact that he is leaving Arlington, wouldn't be able to DH and is due for a large drop in "luck"?

And that isn't even considering the injury/insanity factor.

I would easily project Bradley to OPS between .825 and .875 should get come to Cincinnati.

Replacing Arlington with GABP is a lateral move, IMO.

edabbs44
12-18-2008, 08:04 AM
I would easily project Bradley to OPS between .825 and .875 should get come to Cincinnati.

Replacing Arlington with GABP is a lateral move, IMO.

So you would pay up to $10MM per year for a guy who will most likely:


Project to have an OPS falling in the 40-75 overall rankings
Miss around one-third of the season with a plethora of ailments, suspensions or the like
Cause the team to carry a material amount of reputational risk, based on his well documented history
Be required to play the field every day, when he spent most of his time last season at DH


IMO, too much risk.

OnBaseMachine
12-18-2008, 11:41 AM
I would easily project Bradley to OPS between .825 and .875 should get come to Cincinnati.

Replacing Arlington with GABP is a lateral move, IMO.

Juan Rivera - Career OPS+ of 106

Willy Taveras - Career OPS+ of 72

Juan Rivera has been a slightly above average hitter throughout his career.

REDREAD
12-18-2008, 02:30 PM
The latter. Really. If we're not going all-in, let a youngster get some seasoning. Let's quit wasting money and resource on one-trick ponies like Wily Taveras.



I can respect that opinion. I just have a different view. IMO, wasting resources is giving guys like Olmedo, Janish, etc playing time on the hope that somehow a light bulb goes off and they become ok players. Most prospects wash out. Smart organizations don't waste a lot of ML playing time on marginal prospects. Brandon Larson is a good example. The Reds wasted a lot of playing time on him, and even moved Aaron Boone to accomodate him (which hurt Boone's production).

Think in pure isolation. Who is likely to produce more in 2009, Taveraz or the next best option? It's a hard question to answer because the roster is in flux.
Some people are convinced Stubbs would outproduce Taveras, but I don't think so. Remember Bill James lofty predictions for Jay Bruce last year? The guy didn't even OPS 800. That's because young players will struggle.

I completely acknowledge that Tavaraz is likely to be a below average player.
He has some upside which we can debate. But the bottom line is that we need some OF depth to avoid rushing minor leaguers up before they are ready. I'm not really pumped that right now Nix is looking to get significant playing time either.

I'd love to add a premium CF to this roster, I just don't see it realistically happening without trading Volquez or Ceuto.

REDREAD
12-18-2008, 02:34 PM
Question. Willy is 26. He'll be 27 on Christmas. Is it possible that he develops any further or are players with his skillset pretty much a done deal by 27?
.

I certainly hope development doesn't stop at 27. Dickerson turns 26 in April.

For some reason, people consider Dickerson young and up and coming, while Taveras is old and washed up. If Taveras spent as much time in the minors as Dickerson did, he'd probably have pretty guady minor league numbers as well.

REDREAD
12-18-2008, 02:35 PM
Not to defend Willy but Colorado does have Ryan Spilborghs to play CF. They have no real need to keep Willy.

Also, Tavarez was making pretty decent money last year, and due for arbitration. He's going to get a lot less as a FA than he would in arb.

REDREAD
12-18-2008, 02:45 PM
* Before the season Dusty bragged that he could lure players to Cincy. Patterson played for Dusty in Chicago. Do you really think Dusty had no input whatsoever in Wayne's efforts to bring him to town? Too much of a coincidence for a reasonable person to ignore.


How is that relevant? Dusty wanted Wood to come here. Walt said no.
It's the GM's responsible to assemble the roster.



* Once the season started who make's out the lineup? Are you wanting us to believe that Dusty doesn't and some other person does? Who? The guy in section 518? What unknown forces inked Patterson into the leadoff spot for the months of April, May and June?


The Reds had a weak lineup last year. I agree that the lineup was not optimized. I think Dusty felt that putting Patterson in the leadoff spot would make him approach his at bats better (like focus on OBP). Obviously, it did not work well with Patterson. Some of Dusty's lineup tinkering did bring benefits though. He got a good year out of Harriston and EdE. Dusty does not get the credit he deserves for pulling the best year yet out of the egnematic EdE.






* Later in the season, why did we continue to see Patterson in CF and Dickerson in LF? Was a law passed in Congress that forced poor ole Dusty to play Patterson in CF?


Because Patterson has a superior glove to Dickerson.





* Who sends out the pinch hitters?


Nitpicking. The Reds' bench sucked last year. Dusty had to use Patterson a few times to pinch hit (I think that is your point). Without going into it game by game, it is hard to use that as damaging evidence.




Sorry Redread, .

Apology accepted.


hinking that Dusty was forced to use Patterson just doesn't stand the scrutiny of reason and facts.

All I see is you complaining that Patterson was in CF despite the fact that Patterson is a better defender than Dickerson. Then you complain that Patterson was used as pinch hitter a few times. (Wouldn't that make you happy that Patterson was PH instead of starting?) Then you have some conspiracy about Dusty forcing Wayne to put Patterson on the roster while keeping Bruce at AAA. Are you going to blame Dusty for Castro, Valentin, etc too? Wayne was a poor GM. I know it's fashionable to blame Dusty for everything, but that's not reality.

Address my key point. The Reds were forced to recall Patterson from AAA due to injuries and trades. Lack of OF depth forced Dusty to play Patterson.
I agree that Dusty's attempt to motivate Patterson's OBP by batting him leadoff failed, but Dusty didn't do it to sabotage the Reds.

TRF
12-18-2008, 02:49 PM
I certainly hope development doesn't stop at 27. Dickerson turns 26 in April.

For some reason, people consider Dickerson young and up and coming, while Taveras is old and washed up. If Taveras spent as much time in the minors as Dickerson did, he'd probably have pretty guady minor league numbers as well.

Dickerson doesn't have gaudy minor league numbers, which you would know, had you ever looked at them.

What he has is solid numbers that show a progression as a player. Taveras was rushed in the hope that he was something he isn't.

He isn't a good defender.

He isn't a good hitter.

He isn't a good batter. (OBP)

and except for last year, he hasn't been a very good base stealer.

but keep beating the drum that a guy that's been PROVEN to you over and over is BELOW replacement level is a good fit for the Reds.

Ltlabner
12-18-2008, 02:51 PM
Address my key point. The Reds were forced to recall Patterson from AAA due to injuries and trades. Lack of OF depth forced Dusty to play Patterson.

I agree that Dusty's attempt to motivate Patterson's OBP by batting him leadoff failed, but Dusty didn't do it to sabotage the Reds.

I can see facts and logic are not going to trump what you've decided happened. I've clearly detailed how Dusty was not forced to use Patterson in the way he was used yet you will continue to harp that he's just an innocent patsy overtaken by circumstance.

You win.

Willy Taveras generating outs at a rapid pace in the leadoff spot for hundreds of at bats would be great and help the Reds win. Speed is nifty. Having a batter that can't get on-base in a game built around getting on base is a good idea.

While the data clearly shows Taveras is a horrible player it'll be great to have him on our team because that one time he stole some bases.

As Wheels might say: Yippie.

BRM
12-18-2008, 02:53 PM
Willy Taveras generating outs at a rapid pace in the leadoff spot for hundreds of at bats would be great and help the Reds win.


It will certainly keep RedsZone interesting all spring and summer. Meanwhile, the Reds will rocket their way towards another losing season.

Ltlabner
12-18-2008, 02:55 PM
It will certainly keep RedsZone interesting all spring and summer. Meanwhile, the Reds will rocket their way towards another losing season.

And the frustrating part will be those pimping a Taveras move now will never own up to the stupidity of the move should it come to pass and we are treated to the suckness that is Willy T. No, instead there will be another re-writing of history and a thousand reasons why he isn't that bad, despite all the numbers to the contrary.

But he's fast. Oh boy.

BRM
12-18-2008, 02:59 PM
And the frustrating part will be those pimping a Taveras move now will never own up to the stupidity of the move should it come to pass and we are treated to the suckness that is Willy T. No, instead there will be another re-writing of history and a thousand reasons why he isn't that bad, despite all the numbers to the contrary.

Dusty's hand will be forced to play him regularly due to a lack of other options. Does that sound like a familiar excuse?

nate
12-18-2008, 05:40 PM
I can respect that opinion. I just have a different view. IMO, wasting resources is giving guys like Olmedo, Janish, etc playing time on the hope that somehow a light bulb goes off and they become ok players.

I disagree with your example of Janish. I think, given better bats in the lineup, he's a fine 8-spot hitter and excellent defender for cheap.


Most prospects wash out. Smart organizations don't waste a lot of ML playing time on marginal prospects. Brandon Larson is a good example. The Reds wasted a lot of playing time on him, and even moved Aaron Boone to accomodate him (which hurt Boone's production).

Maybe the Reds development system sucks?


Think in pure isolation. Who is likely to produce more in 2009, Taveraz or the next best option?

I have emerged from my sensory deprivation tank with the answer.

The answer is...

:drumroll emoticon:

...the next best option.


It's a hard question to answer because the roster is in flux.

I found it pretty easy to answer. YMMV.


Some people are convinced Stubbs would outproduce Taveras, but I don't think so.

I think that he'll at least equal Taveras and have the redeeming factor of being a cheap, excellent defender.


Remember Bill James lofty predictions for Jay Bruce last year? The guy didn't even OPS 800. That's because young players will struggle.

Oh well.


I completely acknowledge that Tavaraz is likely to be a below average player.

Yes.


He has some upside which we can debate.

I don't think it's debatable, myself. I've read a lot both here and elsewhere and find no argument to convince me that Willy Taveras is worth the Reds' money.


But the bottom line is that we need some OF depth to avoid rushing minor leaguers up before they are ready.

I agree that we need OF depth.



I'm not really pumped that right now Nix is looking to get significant playing time either.

I'm not really pumped that Walt is looking to sign Willy Taveras and insert him into the leadoff/CF spot every day.


I'd love to add a premium CF to this roster, I just don't see it realistically happening without trading Volquez or Ceuto.

I think we could have good CF production by platooning Dickerson and Bruce with Rocco Baldelli. Sign or trade for one of the bats out there and roll the dice. It's not a plan to win the WS next year, but it's a plan that will keep butts in seats, let the Reds hover around .500 and let our younger players mature.

Highlifeman21
12-18-2008, 11:23 PM
Almost 23% right now think Willy Taveras should be a Red in 2009.

Really?



Did all 27 of you really mean to vote yes?

.... and if so, WHY?!

RedEye
12-20-2008, 05:27 PM
Address my key point. The Reds were forced to recall Patterson from AAA due to injuries and trades. Lack of OF depth forced Dusty to play Patterson.
I agree that Dusty's attempt to motivate Patterson's OBP by batting him leadoff failed, but Dusty didn't do it to sabotage the Reds.

No manager (with the possible exception of Pete Rose, who still denies it) wants to deliberately sabotage his team.

Fact remains, Dusty did end up doing so by starting a sub-.300 OBP guy in the leadoff spot, leaving a creaky vet who'd "earned it" in the 3rd spot, mandating that a free-swinging 2B hit cleanup, and pushing the team's best offensive player routinely into the 6th or 7th spot.

Injuries may have played a role in Dusty's decision to play Patterson, but they didn't force his general strategic incompetence. That was his doing and his alone.

Krusty
12-21-2008, 08:32 AM
If you sign Taveras to play CF to a two-year deal and Rocco Baldalli to a two-year deal to play LF, that allows time for Drew Stubbs to develop at Louisville in 2009, and allows Dickerson to break in slowly by sharing time in LF and CF. If Baldalli does a Josh Hamilton resurgence, I will be more than happy with that. Taveras? Just get on base and set the table for Votto, Bruce, Phillips, Encarnacion and Baldalli.

Raisor
12-21-2008, 08:40 AM
If you sign Taveras to play CF to a two-year deal .

Woah there cowboy.

You have GOT to be kidding.

Right?

Please?



Taveras? Just get on base and set the table for Votto, Bruce, Phillips, Encarnacion and Baldalli.

Except dude has a real problem "just" getting on base.

Cyclone792
12-21-2008, 09:14 AM
Signing Willy Taveras is a Bengaldom move. It would literally have Mike Brown written all over it. Then again, maybe the Reds are trying to one-up the Bengals with stupidity and this would be part of the long-term plan.

Ltlabner
12-21-2008, 03:55 PM
Taveras? Just get on base and set the table for Votto, Bruce, Phillips, Encarnacion and Baldalli.

Except the guy has a real history of not getting on base.

And when he's on base he's more likely to run us out of an inning than increase his value.

Caveat Emperor
12-21-2008, 06:24 PM
If you sign Taveras to play CF to a two-year deal and Rocco Baldalli to a two-year deal to play LF, that allows time for Drew Stubbs to develop at Louisville in 2009, and allows Dickerson to break in slowly by sharing time in LF and CF.

Above and beyond the obvious facts about Willy Taveras and his negative overall value to the team -- the fact is Chris Dickerson is already going to be 27 years old at the start of the 2009 season.

He doesn't have time to "break in slowly." He is what he is at this point, and the Reds should either make use of that or move on with other options and relegate him to bench duty.