PDA

View Full Version : Paul Wilson signs a 2 yr contract with the Reds



Team Tuck
01-12-2003, 07:00 PM
....Paul Wilson signs a 2 yr contract with the Reds. No $ given.

Brian Reith designated for assignment.

Johnny Vander m
01-12-2003, 07:03 PM
Who dat, Paul Wilson feller?:)

Raisor
01-12-2003, 07:04 PM
Reds sign RHP Paul Wilson to two-year deal
January 12, 2003

CINCINNATI (Ticker) - Paul Wilson, the former No. 1 pick who never has lived up to lofty expectations, on Sunday signed a two-year contract with the Cincinnati reds.

Financial terms of the righthander's deal were not disclosed. Wilson earned $1.2 million in 2002.

Arbitration eligible, Wilson was not offered a contract by the Tampa Bay Devil Rays for 2003.

The 29-year-old Wilson, who was the top overall pick in the 1994 draft by the New York Mets, was 6-12 with a 4.83 ERA in 30 starts for the Devil Rays in 2002. He lasted at least six innings in 23 starts and joins a rotation headed by Ryan Dempster and former closer Danny Graves.

"Paul has the ability to pitch 180 to 200 innings a year," Reds general manager Jim Bowden said. "We felt it was important to add another proven starter to join Ryan Dempster, Jimmy Haynes and Danny Graves in the rotation."

Wilson has a career record of 20-37 with a 4.86 ERA in 104 games, including 87 starts.

After a stellar career at Florida State, Wilson was part of a much-publicized youth movement with the Mets but went just 5-12 with New York and suffered a host of arm injuries. He was traded to Tampa Bay in July 2000.

To make room on the 40-man roster, the Reds designated righthander Brian Reith for assignment.

Raisor
01-12-2003, 07:07 PM
I'm not too hip on this.

His arm could fall off at any time. He's been consistently bad the last two years, and he's a former Met.
What's not to hate?

PSR

indy_dave00
01-12-2003, 07:14 PM
If totally healthy Paul Wilson could be a very good pickup.

Wilson, is a player who has yet to live up to his potential, mainly due to arm trouble.

Going at least 6 innings in 23 of 30 starts is not bad Elmer Dessens area. But with DH in the A.L. thats a slightly misleading stat.

Never know we could see the 29 year old Wilson , finally start to show some of the potential of his youth. Its been a couple years since his last injury.

backbencher
01-12-2003, 07:17 PM
What's not to hate?

Well, he's a Baseball Prospectus darling, if you are into that kind of thing.

Team Tuck
01-12-2003, 07:18 PM
I'm not happy either, look at his last 5 starts from last season. He was terrible in several of those starts, which may tell you that he just wore down. I hope the $ are very small.

Raisor
01-12-2003, 07:18 PM
Originally posted by indy_dave00
Never know we could see the 29 year old Wilson , finally start to show some of the potential of his youth. Its been a couple years since his last injury.


The problem is, he's coming off a 193.2 IP season, something he's never come close to before, and his arm is held onto his body with bailing wire and spit.

Wilson is the type of player that you give a 2nd year option to, not a guarenteed second year.

PSR

letsgojunior
01-12-2003, 07:24 PM
Originally posted by Raisor
The problem is, he's coming off a 193.2 IP season, something he's never come close to before, and his arm is held onto his body with bailing wire and spit.

Wilson is the type of player that you give a 2nd year option to, not a guarenteed second year.

PSR

I agree. It is now ten years and running and still no pitching. A minimum of 3/5 of the rotation next year posted WHIP's of around 1.5 and ERA's over 4.5 last year. And why a two year contract??:thumbdn:

Team Tuck
01-12-2003, 07:28 PM
The Reds need to make a splash by adding a top end starter with the payroll room they have remaining (after they trade White). I personally could have lived with Acevado as a 5th starter or better yet, Willy moving to the rotation. DEPENDING ON THE $ INVOLVED, this could be a good or bad move. As long as we didn't take up too much payroll room - payroll room can become very valuable in a trade, especially this offseason. I'll withhold final judgement until I see the $.

Will Reith clear waivers?

Reds4Life
01-12-2003, 07:28 PM
UGH. We go from talking about Brad Penny and Bartolo Colon to signing Wilson. Next seasons rotation is not looking too hot. :thumbdn:

MWM
01-12-2003, 07:32 PM
the only way this is a good signing is if it's for less than $1MM and I highly doubt it. I bet it's in the range of $1.5-$1.75.

creek14
01-12-2003, 07:33 PM
Originally posted by Raisor
"We felt it was important to add another proven starter to join Ryan Dempster, Jimmy Haynes and Danny Graves in the rotation."


Wonder when they are going to get around to doing that?

Team Tuck
01-12-2003, 07:36 PM
I'm hoping it's no more than $1mil/season. I fear it is.

PuffyPig
01-12-2003, 07:43 PM
He may be better than we think. he averaged more innings per start than anyone else we have, almost 6.5 per start. He did falter in his last 5 starts, which hopefully was just because he had pitched more than he ever had before. He'll hopefully be stronger this year. Before those 5 starts, be was averaging almost 7 innings per start, with a 3.80 ERA. Pretty good. And in the 7 starts preceeding those last 5, he pitcher 7+ innings in every one of them.

RANDY IN INDY
01-12-2003, 07:46 PM
That was not a real good team he was pitching for. I hope it works out.

red-in-la
01-12-2003, 07:46 PM
Well, I guess it's time to put more faith in us bunch of armchair GM's than in the people who do this for a living. I know I can be as bad as anybody else in this respect, but come on. They just signed the guy.

He is a talented pitcher who is under 30 and seems to be past his injuries....give him and Gullett a chance.

Me, for one, love this move over the idea of letting Pete Harnisch (Mark Portugal II) make this team.

malcontent
01-12-2003, 07:48 PM
One more "serviceable" starter is OK by me.

And I may have to revise my 2003 predictions. Wilson may just put the Reds over the top (of Milwaukee) and into 5th place.

Dang, red-in-la, are we the same guy?

savafan
01-12-2003, 07:52 PM
Put me down as the second person who loves this move. Wilson showed occasional flashes of his former #1 draft pick potential last year, and perhaps if healthy and working with Don Gullett, he can finally reach that potential fully.

Welcome to Cincinnati Paul!

Team Tuck
01-12-2003, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by PuffyPig
Before those 5 starts, be was averaging almost 7 innings per start, with a 3.80 ERA. Pretty good. And in the 7 starts preceeding those last 5, he pitcher 7+ innings in every one of them.

Wow, those last 5 starts added a FULL run to his ERA? I'd be thrilled with 5 months of a 3.80 ERA, especially National League adjusted. I just fear those last 5 starts are injury-related, especially with his history?? I hoped they checked the medical records ;)

Dan
01-12-2003, 07:58 PM
Originally posted by Raisor
I'm not too hip on this.

His arm could fall off at any time. He's been consistently bad the last two years, and he's a former Met.
What's not to hate?

PSR

That he's an FSU Seminole, of course, like yours truly. :-)

Reds1
01-12-2003, 08:00 PM
Well, I can't say I"m fired up about this, but after reading some comments at least we've added another arm to this team. I still don't understand the Dessens trade without getting another nice starter, but maybe this guy is a diamond in the rough. If he pitches 7 inn. per start with a 3.8 ERA I will be estatic.

bthomasiscool
01-12-2003, 08:07 PM
many good points made....those last 5 runs added a whole run to his era!!!!plus pitching in the a.l adds approx......5-1.0 runs.....seems like a solid pickup to me.....2003 prediction....4.26 era.....206 innings pitched......solid numbers for back of the rotation type of guy....i saw good job jimbo

Team Tuck
01-12-2003, 08:17 PM
I'm just happy that I beat guernsey (and everybody else) with this news. Beating guernsey with scoop ought to be worth something.

Thank you Paula Faris (sp?) from channel 9 - she is quite attractive by the way. Cute or hot, I can't decide.

Marty and Joe
01-12-2003, 08:17 PM
I like this signing also.

That was a terrible team he was pitching for last year and he pitched extremely well for most of the year. Wilson has some definite potential.

This move reminds me of another signing the Reds made last year that not a lot of people were extremely happy with....but it cost one of us 'Zoners a kid! :D

Team Tuck
01-12-2003, 08:22 PM
Still missing one big piece - we have to move White or Sullivan or both and add that stud to the rotation. Oh Javier??

I am making 4 season tickets contingent upon the addition of a stud starting pitcher.

cincinnati chili
01-12-2003, 08:29 PM
:thumbup: (provided it's not an outrageous contract)

Having lived in the Tampa area last summer and having watched him pitch a lot, I assure you that he's better than his numbers indicate. I was not fond of the way that Hal McRae used him (or the way that he used Joe Kennedy, for that matter), and I think that too many high pitch count days made his stuff flat by the end of the season. His pitch counts were way too high for a guy with an injury history, pitching for a last place team. But I think he's a prime candidate for some Gullet TLC.

Bob Boone, for all of his critics, did a much better job with the pitching staff last year. I think he probably knew he had developed a bad rap over the abuse of Jose Rosado in KC.

Here's another angle that nobody's discussed. I've always thought that Wilson would be a good short man in the bullpen, late in his career. He's very tough on righty batters. Let's assume that everything goes right in 2003, and there's TOO MUCH starting pitching. While his career bullpen numbers are not good, I think he could perform this role well.

But forget about that. Let's just hope he pans out in the rotation.

My prediction: 180 innings, an ERA under 4.00 (being in a league with no DH). Candidate for opening day starter with a good spring.

Good job Jimbo. But I wish you would have picked him up WHEN I SUGGESTED prior to last season. We could have used him instead of wasting time with the Esteses and the Moehlerses of the world.

p.s. I usually try to avoid posting about the "personal" traits of players, becuase usually I don't know what the hell I'm talking about. But everything I hear about Wilson makes me think that Red fans will love him.. Remember, this guy was once the best amateur pitcher IN THE WORLD, who got his career nearly destroyed by the Mets brass. He then fought his way back to an outstanding second half of 2001 and a serviceable 2002. He's a battler, with a good combination of toughness and humility. As you can probably tell, I'm ON the bandwagon

Team Tuck
01-12-2003, 08:39 PM
Vasquez
Graves
Wilson
Dempster
Haynes

with Williamson waiting for his opportunity in case someone falters?? Plenty of question marks, but enough potential to be in the same league as the Cubs, Stros, and Cards??

Falls City Beer
01-12-2003, 08:42 PM
As the winner of the Henny Youngman Award for Pessimism, I'd like to say, "Good move." This was an excellent pickup, if the price is right.

MattyHo4Life
01-12-2003, 08:51 PM
Doesn't sound like a bad pick-up if the $$$ is right. I know the Cards had interest in Wilson, but probably only for a 1 year contract. Should be interesting to see what Gullet does with him.

cincinnati chili
01-12-2003, 08:52 PM
Here's another way to look at this. Even though I think that last year was disappointing for Wilson, I think he was comparable to Jimmy Haynes.

Starts: Haynes 34, Wilson 30
Innings: Haynes 196.2, Wilson 193.2
Quality Start Percentage: Haynes 50%, Wilson 46.7
Hits/9 inning: Haynes 9.61, Wilson 10.18
Walk/9 inning: Haynes 3.71, Wilson 3.11
Strikeouts/9 inning: Haynes 5.77, Wilson 5.16

Haynes had a little more run support, a lot better defense behind him, and some good luck. Otherwise, their records would have been closer.

I'm going to go out on a limb and say that Wilson was signed for quite a bit less than Haynes.

OldXOhio
01-12-2003, 08:54 PM
Don't worry fellas, Wilson's a Seminole. How can we go wrong?:cool:

TeamSelig
01-12-2003, 08:58 PM
Originally posted by Team Tuck
Vasquez
Graves
Wilson
Dempster
Haynes

with Williamson waiting for his opportunity in case someone falters?? Plenty of question marks, but enough potential to be in the same league as the Cubs, Stros, and Cards??

we dont have Vasquez, and we aren't going to either

Dempster
Graves
Haynes
Wilson
?????

Kc61
01-12-2003, 08:58 PM
Can't believe the negativity about this. Of the free agent pitchers remaining, Wilson was clearly the best bet. Still young, had a good year, former top prospect, obviously signed for a reasonable price, for two years. I'm surprised the Reds sprung the dough for Wilson.

Don't see why getting Wilson for nothing is worse idea than trading prospects for Penny, whose health is suspect and whose performance declined last year.

Maybe Reds will still trade for another starter, but even now the starting pitching is much better than last year's opening rotation.

red-in-la
01-12-2003, 08:59 PM
I love the 2 year contract. Let's face it....if the Reds do what we all hope, and have a great year, in 2004, Graves and Haynes are probably gone. It will be nice to have SOME veteran pitching come back in 2004.

savafan
01-12-2003, 09:05 PM
Here's how the contract breaks down. 2 year deal for $4 million.

Wilson will make $500,000 in 2003 and $3.5 million in 2004. Talks between Cincinnati and Montreal have broken off completely. And Florida's new ownership is committed to winning, and are apparently not done improving their ballclub.

This is all according to an e-mail I just received from Hal McCoy.

Kc61
01-12-2003, 09:12 PM
$3.5 million in 2004? That means Wilson is here for one year. Someone else will pay him in 2004 (unless he has a big year and $3.5 proves to be a bargain).

savafan
01-12-2003, 09:14 PM
or if the payroll increases based on the revenue from GAB???

15fan
01-12-2003, 09:36 PM
sava -

did McCoy mention in his email when Delino Deshields would be signing to play 2b with the Reds?

letsgojunior
01-12-2003, 09:57 PM
This is just ridiculous money-wise. If he puts up his normal 4.8 ERA there is no way he is going to be traded when he is making $3.5 M in year two.

Wilson was 6-12 last year with Devil Rays

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Associated Press


CINCINNATI -- Right-hander Paul Wilson agreed to a $4 million, two-year contract with Cincinnati on Sunday, a move that general manager Jim Bowden said will give the Reds a proven fourth starter.


"Paul has the ability to pitch 180 to 200 innings a year,'' Bowden said. "We felt it was important to add another proven starter to join Ryan Dempster, Jimmy Haynes and Danny Graves in the rotation.''


Wilson, 29, who was not offered a contract by Tampa Bay by the Dec.20 deadline, was 6-12 with a 4.83 ERA last season for the Devil Rays. He pitched a career-high 193 2/3 innings, including at least six innings in 23 of his 30 starts.


Wilson, the first overall pick in the 1994 draft, sat out the 1999 season because of "Tommy John'' reconstructive surgery on his elbow.


To help the Reds with cash flow, Wilson gets $500,000 this year and $3.5 million in 2004.


The deal is contingent on Wilson passing a team physical. He was examined Sunday by the Reds' medical director, Dr. Timothy Kremchek.


To make room for Wilson on the 40-man roster, the Reds designated for assignment right-hander Brian Reith, who split last season between the Reds' and the Phillies' Triple-A affiliates.

savafan
01-12-2003, 09:58 PM
LOL@15fan,

No, he didn't mention that part.

Candy Cummings
01-12-2003, 10:07 PM
Well, its like a lot of Reds deals. He isn't any Cy Young winner, but he's probably better at #4 than anyone else we had. He has pitched well from time to time, and really badly from time to time. Whoever observed that we'll never see that second year is right, unless he stinks.

Big concern about him and Graves is that they don't strike people out at near the rate that almost all successful ML pitchers do.

guernsey
01-12-2003, 10:15 PM
If signing Wilson means the Reds won't break camp with a starting pitcher who was in A ball last year, then it's a good move.

Team Tuck
01-12-2003, 10:42 PM
I don't like that the Reds maybe overpaid a little and agreed to a 2 yr guaranteed contract just to keep his 2003 salary at $500k. It could indicate that the '03 payroll is already much closer to the budget limit than some of us thought? The budget is supposedly $60 million, or is it? I'm projecting payroll with arbitration increases to now be in the $55-$56 million range? Are we strapped for cash, or are we trying to save payroll room for another starting pitcher, assuming either White or Sully can be traded? That's the question. I guess time will tell.

PW was having a VERY GOOD season last year until September. A 3.80 ERA going into Sept in the AL is nothing to sneeze at. And the National League should take .30 or .40 off his ERA. So there is some upside here.

KYRedsFan
01-12-2003, 10:43 PM
$4 mill, kind of :eek:. Christmas vacation is over Mr. Gullett, get to work.

Candy Cummings
01-12-2003, 10:52 PM
To be fair, others years in his career he's been over 7 k/9. Really only pitched two strong months last year--April and July. September was positively abysmal...ERA over 12.

CarFor21Bucks
01-12-2003, 10:56 PM
If he has a good first half and the Reds don't he will be gone for a low level prospect or two to a team like Boston. I like the signing though.

Team Tuck
01-12-2003, 10:56 PM
I didn't check every month, but his August looked pretty solid as well. He was pitching 7-8 innings every start in August.

He paid for it in September though.

Scrap Irony
01-12-2003, 11:08 PM
Wilson is not only a fine pitcher, he might become the Reds ace this season. Doubt that? Let's look at the possibilities:

1. Wilson had the worst defense in the game behind him the past two years yet put up modest numbers overall. How many fly balls became doubles because Ben Grieve couldn't get to them fast enough? How many sinking liners were stopped in front of by LF Greg Vaughn? How about that range of SS Chris Gomez? Close play at the plate with weak-armed Randy Winn throwing is sure to score a run.

2. Wilson had the worst bullpen in major league baseball behind him the past two years. How many wins became losses or no-decisions after he left the game? How many blown saves? How many times did Hal MacRae leave him in an inning or two too long because of that pen? How many runs resulted?

3. Wilson's Second Half ERA in 2001 was the best in the American League at 2.13. How many Reds pitchers have done that for a 1/2 season? How many could? He was one of the best pitchers in the game at that time. Just because he pitched for a horrible team meant he got little respect.

4. Wilson is a gamer. Fighting back through all those arm woes has made him a tough guy. Gullett has always done very well with tough guys willing to learn. Add a couple mph to his fastball and he's a legitimate ace.

5. He's only making $500,000! Guys, next year is just that. Next year. If he stinks, so be it. But if he's good, he's a bargain. An extreme bargain. And Cincinnati should have some cash to play with, as Larkin, Sullivan, White, and Stinnett will be off the books, not to mention possible free agent departure in starters Dempster and Graves.

Am I saying he's as good as Colon or Penny or Vasquez? Hardly. Wilson is merely a serviceable major league pitcher with an upside. He's had success in the past. He's on the right side of 30. He battles for everything he's got. And he's cheap.

By the All Star game, Wilson will be among the better acquisitions in the game for 2003 and all of the posters here (well, most of the posters, as some seem impossible to please) will be pleased with his production.

better red
01-12-2003, 11:23 PM
Graves and four #4 pitchers.

Yea I know, Dempster has potential and I like him on the staff, but not as a #2 as he pitched like a 5 last year. I would have liked that they signed Wilson and let Haynes go and taken the 2 draft picks in return (assuming they could pay to sign them.)

cincinnati chili
01-12-2003, 11:40 PM
Great points Biittner pill. I can testify to the truth of points 1 and 2.

letsgojunior
01-12-2003, 11:41 PM
Whoever observed that we'll never see that second year is right, unless he stinks.


Can someone please explain this to me, because I am working on minimal sleep with no caffeine. This contract is guaranteed, not an option. Given that Gabe White just had the best season of his career, makes less than what Wilson will make in year 2, and we have no decent offers at all on the table (except for a straight up trade for Rey Ordonez), why would we not be on the hook for Paul Wilson?? Gabe White is perhaps a bad example because he is a reliever, but other teams are finding it to be absolutely impossible to move any sort of mediocre salary in this new market. I just don't understand this. I see no means for him to become tradeable unless he posts an ERA substantially under 4. Given Wilson's arm troubles in the past, I don't know why we made this a 2 year deal rather than 1. That is my major beef with it.

The thing is, it does nothing to address our glaring weakness, which is a top of the rotation starter. We are a rotation full of 4s and 5s along with a converted closer (I agree Dempster is better than this and I was very much behind this acquisition). We are aceless in a division full of aces, and that just doesn't bode well. I am sure Wilson has heart and has pitched well for stretches, and wasn't exactly on a superstar team. But he is not filling the hole that has gone untouched for the past 10 years, and that disturbs me.

cincinnati chili
01-12-2003, 11:49 PM
I see what you mean lgj. The guaranteed money doesn't bother me though because I believe Wilson has top-of-the-rotation stuff if the Reds know how to cultivate it. It's also possible that the market will open up next year. If Wilson has a so-so year, the Reds may be able to trade him next year (a la todd walker). If he has a great year they'll keep him. If he stinks, you're right that they're on the hook for $3.5 mil. But frankly, I'm more worried about other guaranteed players not pulling their weight than I am Wilson (e.g. Haynes, Dempster, Sullivan).

There's risk in any guaranteed contract, but I think you and most of the other critics on this thread are underestimating the malaise in Tampa's Hal McRae regime. It was just an impossible place for pitchers to succeed last year. I swear, sometimes the guy would pout and leave his guys in to take a beating. The upside outweighs the risk IMO.

Barbarossa
01-13-2003, 12:04 AM
Copied this from Tampa Bay's board on Fan Home.

From: DRays Fan in Va

Re: Paul Wilson gets 2-year deal with the Reds.

Of all the guys we have let go this off-season, he's the guy I am going to miss most. Wish him the best of luck. He should do well there. BTW, have you all seen pics of the new ballpark there in Cincy. Looks like a great park."


Who knows, '03 just might turn out to be a good year afterall!:beerme:

M2
01-13-2003, 12:21 AM
It's not a bad signing. It does show off JimBo's chief strength - bottom fishing.

Nothing to get overly thrilled about either. I think Jimmy Haynes is a fair comparison for him.

Still doesn't make this better than a third place club.

Two quick thoughts: The Reds have a lot of similar pitchers in their starting rotation (righty location guys). They could really use some different looks (e.g. righty power pitcher or southpaw of any stripe).

Also, the preponderence of RHPs puts a lot of pressure on Bruce Chen as a middle man. IMO, Lance Davis should get a long, hard look this spring as another lefty long man.

cincinnati chili
01-13-2003, 12:29 AM
Originally posted by Barbarossa
From: DRays Fan in Va

I find this disturbing. How does someone not from metro Tampa decide to be a Tampa Bay Devil Rays fan? Are these the same sort of people who engage in love letter/pen pal relationships with death row inmates?

And, hypothetically, if this person once lived in Tampa and then moved to Virginia, WHY would he/she remain a Devil Rays fan? What have they ever done to warrant loyalty of any kind?

Old Red Guard
01-13-2003, 01:47 AM
I like this deal, too. I hope the dollars aren't too high but I don't think they will turn out to be. He's a pitcher and his last name isn't Castro so I doubt that we overpaid him much.

Wilson could turn out very nicely. No, I know he isn't the ace we want but he's not the black hole of moundsville, either as some posters suggested here. He probably wore down in those last 5 starts and I'm betting he's BELOW a 3.80 era when season ends.

I do agree with M2 that a lot of pressure is going to be on Chen and Davis to pitch effectively and balance all the righthanders, whether they start or relieve.

Krusty
01-13-2003, 07:26 AM
Pretty much we replaced Elmer Dessens and his production last year with Paul Wilson.

If Wilson has a season that Elmer had last year especially in the ERA department, the signing is a steal.

guernsey
01-13-2003, 08:34 AM
Two final thoughts on this transaction.

1. Brian Reith will be claimed by some team. If he slips all the way to the Red Sox, I expect them to take him. They have a lot of open slots on their 40 man roster, and they have a dearth of upper level pitching prospects. I'd much rather have the Reds hang onto Brian than two of the Rule 5 guys they drafted. (The two other than Prokopec.) Those guys will likely be offered back to their original teams, and the Reds will have lost Reith for nothing.

2. Wilson's '03 salary of $500,000 will serve as a benchmark for second-year arbitration-eligible pitchers. I think Willy is the only Reds pitcher that fits in that category, but this is an example of how the non-tendering process can help to bring down arbitration awards.

GAC
01-13-2003, 08:49 AM
This trade doesn't bother me one bit. With nothing appearing to be happening on the Expo or Marlin front with any of their pitchers, it was possibly a wise move. What was this FO suppose to do...wait around see?

Is there a gamble involved? Heck yes. But no more than what we took when we signed Haynes going into last season for the same yearly amount of $500,000.

I agree with alot of the points that Biitner lists. I don't know about the "ace" part; but with this team, it doesn't take much to earn that label. I mean c'mon.... some listed Dessens as our "ace". What does that say? :lol:

That 3.5 Mil could prove to be a bargain in 2004.

buckeyenut
01-13-2003, 09:27 AM
Let me just say this. When I heard that the Reds signed Paul Wilson, I was very happy. When I heard it was a 2 yr 4M deal, I wasn't thrilled, but could live with it. Haynes is the guy he has been frequently compared to and that is 500K less than Haynes will make. When I heard it will be 500K this year and 3.5M next year, I absolutely love this pickup.

Time value of money alone knocks 100K off this deal (which BTW pays for at least part of those Rule 5 pickups) which is a big deal to us. But more importantly, ML minimum is 300K. This guy will make only 200K more than a Jose Acevedo would have. That is a wise use of money.

And top it off, the 3.5M is paid out in a year when, a) we lose the 7.5M/yr we pay Larkin, b) likely lose the Stinnett (1.15M option - 250K buyout) contract and the White (3.5M option - 250k buyout) contract, and c) have been in GAB a year and have full revenues calculated into our budget. Of course, we will have arb guys as always, but I also have to think that all the nontenders this year will continue to correct the market, even through arbitration. So, I think we may be in fairly good shape budget wise next year even if Wilson flops. If he puts up ace numbers or maybe even middling Haynesesque numbers, we will have a relative bargain and definitely wouldn't have any problem dealing him at that point if we needed to.

Bottom line, great signing IMO. A little risky, but also shouldn't prevent us from making any other moves this year.

RANDY IN INDY
01-13-2003, 09:29 AM
I think it is a good gamble. Wilson has shown some signs of becoming a real good pitcher and I like it that Bowden went out and signed someone with a lot of upside. I think it will reap some rewards. Far from a "bad" gamble.

buckeyenut
01-13-2003, 09:45 AM
OK, someone mentioned this but I didn't put it together until now.

For what we would have had to pay Elmer Dessens in 2003, we will now have Jimmy Haynes, Felipe Lopez and Paul Wilson. In fact, over the next two years, we will be able to pay all three for 2M more than the Dessens contract over the two years.

As much as I like Elmer Dessens, I love that tradeoff.

And, BTW, on a completely unrelated note, for those folks who have been putting Felipe Lopez in trade talks for Vasquez or Colon etc, my guess is that Lopez is now close to as untouchable as Dunn or Kearns. He is about the same age, plays a key position where we have little to nothing in the system and has a high upside. These are guys who could be your 2-3-4 for the next 10-15 years if we didn't have Jr to work in there for the next 5 yr or so. They are young kids and we have to give them time and patience, but there are few teams with that kind of core.

cincinnati chili
01-13-2003, 09:52 AM
buckeyenut: I was with you until your comparison of Lopez to Dunn/Kearns. Lopez is definitely not untouchable and won't be until he has more than one good half season in the minors. He's very promising, considering he's still so young. But the fact that the Jays unloaded him for a pitching prospect that wasn't even one of the A's top prospects shows that he'll have to cut down on his errors and hit much more consistently to be 'untouchable.'

haassolo
01-13-2003, 09:52 AM
I like the pick-up, I just wonder what Suppan, Person or Helling wanted price wise. It will be interesting to see what, if any, budget increase we see this year, if we are in it, then we can hopefully get a stud half way through the year to help us push towards the playoffs

MattyHo4Life
01-13-2003, 09:53 AM
Originally posted by buckeyenut
Bottom line, great signing IMO. A little risky, but also shouldn't prevent us from making any other moves this year.

It's difficult to evaluate the economics of this deal without knowing the reason for the structure of this contract.

a) If the reason is that the Reds are almost out of money this year, and $500,000 is all that could fit in the budget... this isn't the greatest signing. Since the Reds refuse to increase the payroll... the $3.5 mil for 2004 will eat away at the money that will be freed up from Larkin's contract which could be used for a better pitcher.

b) If the reason is that the Reds are trying to free up payroll room in 2003 in order to obtain a higher quality pitcher... then this would be a better deal. Wilson certainly could help the Reds, but I just don't think he is the answer. It seems like there are better pitchers available for the same type of money. After all... isn't 3.5 mil around Dessens money? Dessens is more of a guarantee than Wilson, and the Reds couldn't afford him in 2003. Unlike Dessens... Wilson may not be tradable in 2004...it's a big risk.

RANDY IN INDY
01-13-2003, 09:58 AM
Point "b" is interesting. Are the Reds setting up the chance of a bigger trade or deal?

cincinnati chili
01-13-2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by MattyMo4Life
isn't 3.5 mil around Dessens money?

Dessens gets $7.3 million over 2 years with a $300,000 buyout for the third year.

So basically, Dessens is making almost twice as much ($7.6 mil guaranteed v. $4 mil guaranteed).

I don't think he'll be twice as good. In fact, I think Wilson has about a 40/60 shot to outpitch Dessens this year.

MattyHo4Life
01-13-2003, 10:08 AM
Originally posted by RANDY IN CHAR NC
Point "b" is interesting. Are the Reds setting up the chance of a bigger trade or deal?

If there is a bigger deal in the works...then this deal would make sense. Wilson isn't the answer, but he can be part of it.

NCRed
01-13-2003, 10:17 AM
Interesting point. Would anyone think that Willy is a trade target and could be packaged with someone for Colon/Vasquez type and then move Danny back to closer ?

letsgojunior
01-13-2003, 10:50 AM
Originally posted by RANDY IN CHAR NC
Point "b" is interesting. Are the Reds setting up the chance of a bigger trade or deal?

The fact that Wilson's contract is heavily backloaded and that he is only making $500,000 in 2003 indicates to me that the Reds are out of cash this year. The only way we make another deal IMO, is to move both Sully and White. That however, has proven extremely difficult thus far as they are both high priced relievers.

Some points I got while reading the rest of the responses to this thread:

1. The notion that we got Lopez, Haynes, and Wilson all for the price of Dessens is incorrect in my mind. Dessens' contract calls for $3 M this year, and it cost $333,333 alone to make that deal work. So Haynes ($2.5 M) plus that cost leaves only $166,666, below the major league minimum. So essentially this year, and it was a tradeoff between Haynes and Dessens with about half of Lopez paid for.

2. Based on what I have read from various newspapers, Chili is correct in that Wilson had an absolutely deplorable defense around him, and thus experienced a potentially substantial dip in his numbers because of that. Thus, he may see improvement from that standpoint. However, I have looked at his stats, and numbers such as K/9 inning and BB/9 inning, both of which are not affected by defense, are lower and higher than the American League average.


YEAR TEAM AGE W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA RSAA
1996 Mets 23 5 12 .294 26 26 1 0 0 149 157 102 89 71 109 5.38 -25
2000 Devil Rays 27 1 4 .200 11 7 0 0 0 51 38 20 19 16 40 3.35 9
2001 Devil Rays 28 8 9 .471 37 24 0 0 6 151.1 165 94 82 52 119 4.88 -7
2002 Devil Rays 29 6 12 .333 30 30 1 0 0 193.2 219 113 104 67 111 4.83 -8
TOTALS 20 37 .351 104 87 2 0 6 545 579 329 294 206 379 4.86 -31
LG AVERAGE 31 31 .501 4 2 545 558 295 269 201 391 4.45 0

YEAR TEAM HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB SHO WP IBB HBP BFP BK NW NL
1996 Mets 15 9.48 14.38 6.58 4.29 1.54 0 3 11 10 677 3 6 11
2000 Devil Rays 1 6.71 10.24 7.06 2.82 2.50 0 1 2 4 206 0 3 2
2001 Devil Rays 21 9.81 13.68 7.08 3.09 2.29 0 7 2 13 674 0 8 9
2002 Devil Rays 29 10.18 13.90 5.16 3.11 1.66 0 4 2 13 851 1 8 10
TOTALS 66 9.56 13.62 6.26 3.40 1.84 0 15 17 40 2408 4 25 32
LG AVERAGE 65 9.22 12.90 6.45 3.32 1.95 1 20 15 22 2361 2


I guess what I am getting at is that people who I respect think this a nice pick-up, so I will most definitely keep an open-mind. I guess my problems with it were more of the ilk that 1) I don't like the second $3.5 M year - a lot of risk associated with it and 2) I was really expecting, and maybe I was naive, the addition of an impact pitcher such as a Penny, who is 24 years old, had a very, very good season in 2001, and throws 98 mph. Or Vazquez, who was an absolute beast post All-Star break 2001. What I am getting at is a young impact pitcher with good stuff who we would have control over for a few years and who would still be relatively cheap by today's standards. I guess I am just tired of seeing this organization continue to add to positions of extreme depth, i.e. 5 tool outfielders, catchers, third basemen, number 4 and 5 starters, and hardly ever address the glaring needs, such as middle infielders and top of the rotation starters.

Throughout the abominable 2001 season I kept thinking that, come 2003, we will add a big pitcher, like a Colon, like a Vazquez, and then we will build from there. But based on this signing and Jimbo's quotes about how Prokopec will be joining the rotation, I can't help but think this is it for 2003. Our glaring weaknesses haven't been addressed, three years and counting. I guess my negative reaction towards this acquisition can be somewhat summed up by my annoyance that it really did nothing to address our weaknesses, and it added $3.5 M to a payroll (2004) that I have a suspicion will be smaller than we think it is, largely because we will lose our revenue sharing paycheck and because if we struggle in 2003 the attendance will go down.

buckeyenut
01-13-2003, 10:53 AM
Originally posted by NCRed
Interesting point. Would anyone think that Willy is a trade target and could be packaged with someone for Colon/Vasquez type and then move Danny back to closer ?

I hope not. Danny is a SP this year, period, end of story, if you ask me.

If willy were moved, which I hope he isn't, I think Reidling becomes your closer.

buckeyenut
01-13-2003, 11:14 AM
Originally posted by cincinnati chili
buckeyenut: I was with you until your comparison of Lopez to Dunn/Kearns. Lopez is definitely not untouchable and won't be until he has more than one good half season in the minors. He's very promising, considering he's still so young. But the fact that the Jays unloaded him for a pitching prospect that wasn't even one of the A's top prospects shows that he'll have to cut down on his errors and hit much more consistently to be 'untouchable.'

Jays have a lot of depth in the MI prospect area. And they had some attittude problems with him and have chosen to go with someone else as their future shortstop. So the fact they gave him up cheap is no surprise.

But to the Reds, Lopez is golden. We have no MI depth in the minors and a superstar SS ready to retire. Lopez is the same age as Dunn/Kearns and is said to have Tejada - like upside. And we gave up the "ace" of our staff to get him. So, IMO, he is close to untouchable.

The difference between Dunn/Kearns untouchable and Lopez untouchable is Dunn/Kearns are untouchable because they are so incredibly talented. Lopez is close to untouchable because he is talented at a difficult to acquire position of extreme organizational scarcity.

That said, he is still a tier or two below Dunn/Kearns on the untouchable list, IMO

My near untouchable list, in order would be Dunn, Kearns, Jr, Williamson, Lopez, Basham, Gruler, Reidling, Moseley. After that, anyone could be dealt without too much problem IMO. And I would be willing to deal anyone on that list in the right deal. (Dunn would take one of OAK big three, Prior or Beckett plus)

buckeyenut
01-13-2003, 11:26 AM
lgj, maybe I am naive, but I am not convinced we are done yet. 500K is structured precisely so that we could possibly continue to do something else this year.

Why wouldn't Bowden go to Wilson and say, "we want to give you a 2 yr 4M contract, but we want to backload it because we have a tight budget and still want to pick up another pitcher of the Colon variety to make this team competitive going into our new stadium. But the budget opens up in year 2 because we will have the gab revenues coming in and a couple of big contracts ending". If a player wants to join a contender (and coming from TB, who wouldn't), why wouldn't you do something like that to help out the team you were going to a little, esp if the money is guaranteed and the market is slow.

We may be done, but I'm not convinced this move guarantees it. Like I said, maybe I am naive. :)

Chip R
01-13-2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by letsgojunior
I guess what I am getting at is that people who I respect think this a nice pick-up, so I will most definitely keep an open-mind. I guess my problems with it were more of the ilk that 1) I don't like the second $3.5 M year - a lot of risk associated with it
I wouldn't worry to much about that $3.5M for 2004 till 2004. If he's any good, he'll be gone.

MattyHo4Life
01-13-2003, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by Chip R
If he's any good, he'll be gone.

That's a big IF though. It's a gamble for sure.

cincinnati chili
01-13-2003, 11:53 AM
Originally posted by letsgojunior
I have looked at his stats, and numbers such as K/9 inning and BB/9 inning, both of which are not affected by defense, are lower and higher than the American League average.

Good point, and his HR/9 innings are also not good and also not affected by defense. But they ARE affected by manager misuse.

Check out his pitch counts from July 3 through August 3 (in chronological order):

119, 113, 124, 112, 123, 123

I guess that since the D'Rays were deeply entrenched in the pennant race, McRae felt the need to push a guy with a recent history of arm trouble.

As long as he didn't do any permanent damage, and as long as Boone doesn't revert to his KC ways, I expect Wilson's ratio's to improve to better than the league average.

M2
01-13-2003, 12:11 PM
I wouldn't worry to much about that $3.5M for 2004 till 2004. If he's any good, he'll be gone.

That may take the award for the most cynical, yet accurate comment I've read on this forum.

buckeyenut
01-13-2003, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by cincinnati chili
Check out his pitch counts from July 3 through August 3 (in chronological order):

119, 113, 124, 112, 123, 123



And we are wondering why the guy collapsed and added 1 run onto his ERA over the last month or so? Ugh.

Redsfaithful
01-13-2003, 12:31 PM
I don't think that's very accurate. 3.5 million for a decent starting pitcher is a bargain, and Bowden realizes that, whether anyone wants to give him that credit or not.

I understand the cynicism, but the Reds have quite a lot of payroll coming off the books in 2004. To say that they would trade Paul Wilson if he turns out to be good, simply because he's going to make 3.5 million dollars is wrong.

LvJ
01-13-2003, 01:49 PM
Good deal, IMO. As others said, alittle risky, but hey - it's a bargin. I like Paul Wilson. He can pitch, and with Gullett, lets just say, the next Jimmy Haynes. ;)

EmtyRedsFan
01-13-2003, 02:09 PM
As usual i got here later and there is no way im going to read all these pages.... But im going to add my opinion to the mix (sorry if i repeat what any1 says)

I personally think it was a pretty good pick-up. For the money in the second year No. But I think he has a WAY WAY BETTER chance to become a winning pitcher here than he does with TB.

Just consider the offense he had in TB to what he now has backing him up to put runs on the board. I think he's going to be the next Haynes... Come in with every1 saying "what the heck" and end the year saying "what a steal"

Our worst offensive player will be the catcher of course. But I think our offensive is whats going to have to carry the Reds.
Its not a good thing considering pitching wins, but the Reds have decent pitching with Great hitting... That could equal out to be pretty nice. As long as every1 stays healthy this team could be pretty dang good. But i think we should add one more pitcher.
Maybe Suppan ,Finley, or Valdes.

A.
Graves
Dempster
Haynes
Wilson
Finley

B.
Graves
Dempster
Haynes
Wilson
Suppan

C.
Graves
Dempster
Haynes
Wilson
Valdes

D.
Graves
Dempster
Haynes
Wilson
Reistma

I didnt put the pitchers in any order but tell me what you think.

Raisor
01-13-2003, 02:22 PM
Originally posted by EmtyRedsFan


Just consider the offense he had in TB to what he now has backing him up to put runs on the board.

Tampa Bay 2002 Runs Scored/Game per Wilson start:
4.37

Reds total Runs/Game 2002: 4.37


PSR

EmtyRedsFan
01-13-2003, 02:29 PM
Cant forget what a healty Griffey, Kearns, and what Larson will bring to the table....

EmtyRedsFan
01-13-2003, 02:30 PM
Healthy....... only if i could spell

TRF
01-13-2003, 02:50 PM
I love stats... :rolleyes:

What was TB Runs scored per game overall?

Raisor
01-13-2003, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by TRF
I love stats... :rolleyes:

What was TB Runs scored per game overall?


4.18 Runs/Game

SirFelixCat
01-13-2003, 03:03 PM
ERF...personally, I like Acevedo in the #5 hole...gives us a solid starting 5. Granted no overwhelming #1 or #2 for that matter, but solid top to bottom...either way, our rotation looks a ton better than it did last year going into ST...and didn't we hold onto first for a few days with that? Not to mention, could we have hit ANY worse with RISP??? I really (call it Red colored glasses or not, but...) I like our team as is. Sure I'd love to see Colon or Vasquez or even Penny for the right price, but we sure could be worse off heading into ST, no? :beerme:


Go REDS!!!

M2
01-13-2003, 03:05 PM
I love stats... :rolleyes:

Talk about shooting the messenger. All Raisor did was point out that last year Wilson got pretty much the same run support in Tampa that he would have in Cincinnati.

In other words, if he pitches the same, there's no reason to believe he'll blossom into a 20-game winner.

Raisor
01-13-2003, 03:07 PM
Fair warning,
The following may make those of you that don't like stats heads explode:

Here's Wilson's SNW/SNL numbers:
(Also included is a little primer on what the hell SNW/SNL numbers are)

he Support-Neutral statistics evaluate starting pitchers by measuring the probability that each outing will lead to the starter getting a win (SNW), the starter getting a loss (SNL), and the starter's team winning (SNVA), given league average support from the offense and the bullpen.

About SNWLby Michael Wolverton Please feel free to email Michael with questions or comments at mjw@erg.sri.com.

The Support-Neutral pitching stats are designed to measure the value of a start in terms of how much it adds or subtracts from the team's chance of winning. Using situational scoring tables and some basic laws of probability, I calculate the probabilities that a pitcher's start will lead to a W or an L for him, as well as a win or a loss for his team. When totaled over all of a pitcher's starts, that gives us the three SN measures:
Support-Neutral Wins and Losses (SNW/SNL) -- a starter's expected W/L record, given the way he pitched in each game and assuming that he had league-average support from his offense and his bullpen.

Support-Neutral Value Added (SNVA) -- the number of games the starter is worth to an average team in the standings, over (or under) what a league average starter is worth. Each of the three numbers is calculated separately for each individual start, and then summed to get seasonal totals. Looking at a starter's performance game-by-game like this removes distortions that can be introduced by looking at cumulative run prevention (e.g., ERA or Thorn and Palmer's Adjusted Pitching Runs). In particular, the SN stats recognize that a pitcher can only cost his team a single game in a single start, so it puts a limit on how much a single bad outing (e.g., 2 IP, 11 R) can hurt his season/career value.

This year there was a small but important change to the way the stats are calculated. Previously, the SN stats have been calculated based only on the number of innings pitched and the number of runs charged to a starter for each game. Now, the input will include the state of the bases when he leaves the game. So, for example, if a starter gets yanked with 2 outs in the 7th after 3 runs have scored with runners on first and third, and his reliever allows both runners to score, the SN stats will be calculated based on:

6 full innings, 3 runs in, runners on 1st and 3rd with 2 outs.

rather than the old way:

6 full innings, 2 outs, 5 runs allowed.

This new method provides results which are more "support-neutral", in that a starter's numbers will not be skewed by really good or really bad bullpen support in the inning he leaves the game.

Paul Wilson
GS: 30
IP: 193.7
R: 113
SNW: 10.3
SNL: 12.0
W: 6
L: 12
RA: 5.25
APW: -1.0
SNVA: -0.9
SNWAR: 0.8

EmtyRedsFan
01-13-2003, 03:07 PM
ERF...personally, I like Acevedo in the #5 hole...gives us a solid starting 5. Granted no overwhelming #1 or #2 for that matter, but solid top to bottom...either way, our rotation looks a ton better than it did last year going into ST...and didn't we hold onto first for a few days with that? Not to mention, could we have hit ANY worse with RISP??? I really (call it Red colored glasses or not, but...) I like our team as is. Sure I'd love to see Colon or Vasquez or even Penny for the right price, but we sure could be worse off heading into ST, no?


I agree, we could be worse.

But I dont think Acevedo would be #5... Personally i'd go with Reitsma.... But with an addition of one of the ppl i mentioned i think our team could do a lot better. But we looked better than we did last year thats for sure.

princeton
01-13-2003, 03:08 PM
Originally posted by EmtyRedsFan
As usual i got here later and there is no way im going to read all these pages.... But im going to add my opinion to the mix...tell me what you think.

I just love this-- "I don't have time to read yours, but you have to read mine"

didn't I work with you in my last job?

EmtyRedsFan
01-13-2003, 03:18 PM
princeton,

You dont have to be a jerk...

There are were 3 pages of replies and opinions, most are the same. I didnt tell any1 they had to read my posts, its a choice.
So cut the crap. Dont be a jerk all your life nobody was bothering you.

cincinnati chili
01-13-2003, 03:26 PM
Raisor: I agree that it's a bit much to peg this guy as a 20 game winner. Support Neutral win/loss is IMO one of the more relevant and useful of all the geeky stats out there. But a support record of 10-12 isn't awful for a guy who was abused by his manager. Catch my pitch count post on page 3 for what I mean by abuse. I'm not asking for a 20-2 record, but I'd be fine with a 14-10 for his salary. And I think that's attainable.

If Boone can keep the pitch counts down, he'll make 33 starts instead of 30. He'll also be less fatigued and will have better stuff.

He's always going to be vulnerable to good lefty hitters but he's a very solid middle of the rotation guy, if used properly. Who knows, maybe Gullett can work his magic and make him significantly better than that.

PuffyPig
01-13-2003, 03:31 PM
Originally posted by EmtyRedsFan
princeton,


There are were 3 pages of replies and opinions, most are the same.

If you didn't read them, how would you know this???????

M2
01-13-2003, 03:36 PM
And how would you know you weren't repeating others?

EmtyRedsFan
01-13-2003, 03:49 PM
If you didn't read them, how would you know this???????

I meant to say............. there were 3 pages of replies and opinions, most probably the same.




And who honeslty cares what i say?

MikeS21
01-13-2003, 03:51 PM
I've been thinking about this all day and considering how this affects the team. If you ask me if the Reds are better off this year going into spring training over last year, I'd say, "Yes. We are better off." Am I bowled over? No.

Wilson is a SLIGHT - VERY SLIGHT - upgrade over Dessens. I felt Elmer had a career year last year and probably will never come close to that kind of ERA again. (Although I'm convinced that he'll pitch like Cy Young against the Reds). If you put these guys side by side, I would probably pick Wilson over Dessens.

That said, I am very concerned about Wilson's velocity - or lack thereof. As CandyCummings pointed out earlier in the thread, the Reds still do not have a SO artist (Adam Dunn and Wily Mo Pena don't count! :D) A legitimate ace needs to be able to strike out people. Dempster, if he ever finds that slider from 2-3 years ago, could be that guy.

Wilson is a good pickup IF the Reds have a couple more moves waiting to happen.

EmtyRedsFan
01-13-2003, 03:52 PM
And how would you know you weren't repeating others?

This is what i said in my first post.


(sorry if i repeat what any1 says)



Does that answer your question M2?.......

bthomasiscool
01-13-2003, 03:57 PM
hey emtyredsfan.....loooks to me like ur a bearcats fan...so i got ur back man....i see ur point by not reading what everybody else wrote.....(3 pages) worth.....seems to me like couple of guys got a little pissed off about it.....i dunno if anybody else notice this but people seem a little edgy past few days....check out the end of my last thread( dropping like flies) from a few days ago....must just be we are all anxious about the season coming up and hoping we get a #1......?????

EmtyRedsFan
01-13-2003, 04:02 PM
well atleast some1 understands... Excuse me if i dont have enough time to read all of it. I do have a life outside of the redszone guys...

Ga_Red
01-13-2003, 04:04 PM
2/09/07

PuffyPig
01-13-2003, 04:05 PM
Originally posted by bthomasiscool
hey emtyredsfan........i see ur point by not reading what everybody else wrote.....(3 pages) worth.....seems to me like couple of guys got a little pissed off about it....check out the end of my last thread( dropping like flies) from a few days ago

He can't check it out...he doesn't have the time.

RFS62
01-13-2003, 04:08 PM
In general, I think it's a good signing. The biggest potential drawback I've seen mentioned is next year's salary if he bombs.

It does bring to mind an angle for all the conspiracy theorists, though. I've thought for some time that Jimbo's back is against the wall this year. Unless the team overachieves and/or contends THIS YEAR, I believe that Bowden is on very shaky ground to be offered a new contract.

With this in mind, might he be more likely to mortgage the future with a contract like Wilson's and put all his assets into winning this year?

I'm not suggesting that he is doing this, but I'm also not discounting the possibility that it plays into his thinking.

EmtyRedsFan
01-13-2003, 04:08 PM
He can't check it out...he doesn't have the time.

I guess its that time of month for you guys huh?

I say one simple thing and i got a bunch of jerks jumping down my throat.....

westofyou
01-13-2003, 04:09 PM
well atleast some1 understands...

What I understand is you aren't willing to devote the time to others opinions but in turn expect just the opposite from others here?

That's cool... but I would expect an attitude like that to met with the same courtesy from many here whom you are endearing yourself to today.

westofyou
01-13-2003, 04:09 PM
I guess its that time of month for you guys huh?


Classy reply... haven't taken that core course on feminism yet have ya?

bthomasiscool
01-13-2003, 04:10 PM
hahahahahahaha:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:

EmtyRedsFan
01-13-2003, 04:12 PM
What I understand is you aren't willing to devote the time to others opinions but in turn expect just the opposite from others here?


I didnt tell any1 they had to read my post..... I just dont have time to read 3 pages worth of replies.... most people here think the same..... i read page 1 but most replies are about the same.

If people have a problem with me PM me and talk, dont be a jerk when your not called to be (not westofyou but others that are)

EmtyRedsFan
01-13-2003, 04:14 PM
Classy reply... haven't taken that core course on feminism yet have ya?


you know "guys" is a general term for ppl......


Just screwed it i dont know why im even arguing with you ppl over stupid sh!t.


Just end it now..... say what you want i dont care.

westofyou
01-13-2003, 04:18 PM
you know "guys" is a general term for ppl......

Sorry... but you hung it out there and I had to kick it long and hard.

My wife wouldn't accept anything less.

bthomasiscool
01-13-2003, 04:20 PM
guys guys guys......LETS TALK BASEBALL!!!!!! NOT GET PISSED OFF OVER IF OTHER PEOPLE HAVE TIME TO READ THIS OR THAT OR IF THEY WILL READ UR SINCE U DONT READ THERES.....SEEMS A LITTLE CHILDISH MAYBE....this is a message board for hardcore reds fans to talk with other fans about the game and personnal....not to get all pissed off over crap....lets talk baseball guys????!!!!!!!!!

letsgojunior
01-13-2003, 04:20 PM
I am of the sentiment that we are out of cash right now. I know a few people disagree with me, but I have read in several newspapers that we were very interested in Chris Stynes as a veteran bench presence (good pickup I think), but Bowden mentioned that his asking price (he eventually received $400K) was too high. Now if we don't have the price for a 400K bench player, how could we afford a $5 M pitcher such as Vazquez?

Just to throw this out there, would you guys have preferred John Thomson (who signed 1 yr/$1.3 M) or Wilson (2 yr/ $4M)?

Chip R
01-13-2003, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by EmtyRedsFan
If people have a problem with me PM me and talk, dont be a jerk when your not called to be (not westofyou but others that are)

Good idea. Let's all follow this policy and discuss the Wilson signing instead of yammering at each other like a bunch of 3rd graders. Or we could just close the thread if no one wants to act like grown ups. :mad:

bthomasiscool
01-13-2003, 04:25 PM
amen to that (chipr)

Raisor
01-13-2003, 04:30 PM
Originally posted by Ga_Red
Raisor, thanks for the stat intro and the results.
Can you compute the required Red's run production per game
in order for for Paul Wilson to win 12 through 20 games, after having factored into the equation the beneficial results of no DH in the NL and also a better defense with the Reds?

I'd need a bigger calculator, and probably a slide rule to do that.

:)

REDREAD
01-13-2003, 04:34 PM
If signing Wilson means the Reds won't break camp with a starting pitcher who was in A ball last year, then it's a good move.

Bingo.. my thoughts exactly. I don't expect Wilson to dominate, but he's got a decent shot of cracking .500.. he is a huge ungrade to our #4 slot which was previously "an unknown A ball player".

I know the Reds want to keep Reitsma in the pen, but in a pinch they can start him and avoid throwing kids to the wolves. Hopefully another arm will be signed before spring training.

I don't see the difference in paying him 2 million/year for 2 years and 500k this year and 3.5 million in 2004. I praise Bowden for his creativity. Allen probably has a hard limit that only lets him bring in guys making 500k.. way to work the loophole Jimbo.

I prefer this deal to Haynes.. where Haynes has a player's option on the second year.. in other words, if Haynes is good in 2003 we lose him, if he sucks we keep him. At least with Wilson, he can't walk away if he's good.

VR
01-13-2003, 04:40 PM
As CandyCummings pointed out earlier in the thread, the Reds still do not have a SO artist (Adam Dunn and Wily Mo Pena don't count! ) A legitimate ace needs to be able to strike out people. Dempster, if he ever finds that slider from 2-3 years ago, could be that guy.


The Reds do have a legit strikeout artist, his name is Scott Williamson. I do not know recovered the Reds consider Willy, but if it is close to 100%, he needs to be in the rotation, at the top.

TRF
01-13-2003, 04:58 PM
ok... my head is about to explode, but i think it's just a migraine. M2 lighten up. It was no slam on Raisor... I just thought an important stat was left out. What was Tampa Bay's overall runs per game? I know he loves stats more than i do. In fact without him this forum is diminished.

so thpppt.

I just don't think a couple of things are taken into account.

1. McRae is a butcher and should never manage again.

2. for just over a season and a third Paul Wilson was a very goo pitcher.

3 my tylenol are not kicking yet and i need to lie down.

M2
01-13-2003, 05:01 PM
Make Williamson a starter and now you lack a lights-out reliever (John Riedling and Chris Reitsma are too easy to hit and strike out too few batters to qualify).

I think Williamson will net you more wins in his current role.

And let me state again, while there's nothing wrong with the Wilson signing, it's becoming clearer that the Reds have put in action a third-place plan.

westofyou
01-13-2003, 05:04 PM
A few tidbits about Pauls season last year.

A. More than 1/2 his innings were against AL east teams.

B. He OWNED the O's 4-0, 2.72 era The O's BTW had the 13th ranked OPS in the AL

C. The TOP 8 OPS teams in turned owned Paul

Vs #1 NY - era 7.00 15 innings

Vs #2 Bos - era 7.00 27 innings

VS #3 CWS - era 4.20 15 innings

VS #4 - zero

Vs #5 TR - era 8.71 10 innings

Vs #6 SM - era 1.29 6 innings

Vs #7 TBJ - era 6.61 16.1 innings

Vs #8 A's - era 5.54 13 innings

-------------------------------------------
102 innings
-------------------------------------------

The good news is that the A's team OPS would be #2 in the NL, so maybe if he gets pounded it will to a lessor extent.

I'd also say that having to play against the Red Sox and Yankees would increase ones Road ERA.

Red Leader
01-13-2003, 05:18 PM
Thanks for the stats, woy. Very interesting stuff. Looks like Paul will help the Reds keep the distinction of being able to dominate the lesser teams, and struggle against teams over .500. I think Dempster has the talent to beat top notch teams, but he would have to greatly improve over what I saw last season to do it. Graves may also have the stuff to matchup with winning teams, but other than those two, everyone that is an option for the Reds rotation in 2003 does not matchup well with winning teams, or teams over .500. That's what I think Reds fans are looking for....a pitcher that you can throw against a team like St Louis, Atlanta, Arizona, San Francisco, etc that you are pretty confident will go at least 6 IP and allow less than 2 or 3 runs, and that IMO is something we still lack.

westofyou
01-13-2003, 05:21 PM
That's what I think Reds fans are looking for....

That and a way to keep their BP from imploding late in the season. This team needs some inning eaters after 3 years of the BP hoisting the team on their back for longer than reccomended.

VR
01-13-2003, 05:28 PM
Originally posted by M2
Make Williamson a starter and now you lack a lights-out reliever (John Riedling and Chris Reitsma are too easy to hit and strike out too few batters to qualify).

I think Williamson will net you more wins in his current role.

And let me state again, while there's nothing wrong with the Wilson signing, it's becoming clearer that the Reds have put in action a third-place plan.

If I have a choice of a good closer or a
gooo.0.32263.0000326..69<<<<<<--------(that's the opinion of my 1 year old who just took over the keyboard - maybe it's an in-depth stats analysis he's been doing, I don't know
:cool: )

Anyway, I'll take the good (who I think could be great) starter. His bb rate scares the heck out of me in the pen. A lot of candidates to suffice as closers or be part of a committee, not too many candidates to be SOLID starters.

princeton
01-13-2003, 05:49 PM
ah, we're kindred spirits, MTRF. As anyone here will tell you, I'm as guilty of posting without reading as anyone. I just don't preface my posts by admitting it. My apologies.

We'd serve badly on a jury, eh?

REDREAD
01-13-2003, 05:56 PM
And let me state again, while there's nothing wrong with the Wilson signing, it's becoming clearer that the Reds have put in action a third-place plan.

I agree M2, but I'm glad we are on a third place plan as opposed to a 4th/5th place plan.. which is where we were without a semi-respectable body for the #4 slot in the rotation.

I can't shed any tears over losing Reith either. I think the damage is done. He's ruined here. Maybe he'll bloom in another organization. I wish him the best.

Falls City Beer
01-13-2003, 07:31 PM
Is it my imagination or has it been "pounce on the new guy" week here at Redszone?

Team Tuck
01-13-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by letsgojunior
I am of the sentiment that we are out of cash right now. I know a few people disagree with me, but I have read in several newspapers that we were very interested in Chris Stynes as a veteran bench presence (good pickup I think), but Bowden mentioned that his asking price (he eventually received $400K) was too high. Now if we don't have the price for a 400K bench player, how could we afford a $5 M pitcher such as Vazquez?



I'm not sure where we stand right now? $5 million under budget, or right at budget? I don't think any of us know.

But, of course we can afford $400k. I think what Bowden may be implying is that we don't want to put any more money in a backup infielder or a reliever, when every last $ may be necessary for a starting pitcher. He knows as well as anybody how rigid Lindner and Allen are. Same reasoning applies to Joey Hamilton - a cheaper alt was available (Reitsma) so don't sign him. I like the fact that Bowden has only signed backups and relievers that would agree to non-guaranteed or minor league contracts. Hopefully with a White or Sully trade, we have payroll room for a top end starter.

Chip R
01-13-2003, 07:49 PM
Originally posted by Falls City Beer
Is it my imagination or has it been "pounce on the new guy" week here at Redszone?

I think a lot of folks are kind of grumpy and seem to be taking it out on whomever crosses their path. I hope by the time pitchers and catchers report folks will turn their frowns upside down.

Team Tuck
01-13-2003, 07:51 PM
Originally posted by M2


And let me state again, while there's nothing wrong with the Wilson signing, it's becoming clearer that the Reds have put in action a third-place plan.

I don't know, M2, let's see the finished plan before we judge pre-maturely. If we make no further moves, then I agree. But we're still a month before ST, and none of us know for sure where we stand relative to the budget.

red-in-la
01-13-2003, 08:10 PM
You guys set on a 3rd or worse finish really need to look BACK ONE YEAR.

To me, the Cards and Astros are MUCH weaker than a year ago. The Cubs are probably better although I cannot see how a team that fields Karros and the Gruz can be a winner (check the Dodgers out).

Nixnix the Brew-ha-has and Bucs.

The Reds a re milleniums ahead of this point last season.

So, how does that come out badly?

M2
01-13-2003, 08:12 PM
I don't know, M2, let's see the finished plan before we judge pre-maturely. If we make no further moves, then I agree. But we're still a month before ST, and none of us know for sure where we stand relative to the budget.

Ahh, the blinders approach. Never worked for me personally. What's right in front of you doesn't go away just because you don't want to see it.

You believe a team that's made a habit of dumping salary and bottom feeding (the sum total of its activity this offseason) has the desire and ability to change its stripes.

I don't.

Maybe they add a guy like Marlon Anderson as a hedge against Brandon Larson failing or they pounce on Jamey Wright if his price hits rock bottom.

Unless Jr., Larkin or Casey go off the books, you're not going to see a big addition (golly was I prescient when I said that back in October).

This team is looking to fill holes on the cheap and it might spend money should everything fall into place and it finds itself in a pennant race come midsummer.

westofyou
01-13-2003, 08:15 PM
You guys set on a 3rd or worse finish really need to look BACK ONE YEAR.

Ya mean the one year when you picked them to lose 102 games? ;)

M2
01-13-2003, 08:19 PM
r-i-l, correct me if I'm wrong, but did the Cardinals have Scott Rolen at the start of the 2002 season?

Did the Astros have Jeff Kent?

They sure look like good teams to me.

red-in-la
01-13-2003, 08:38 PM
You made my point WOY. Last year, Elmer Dessens is your ONE pitcher in the rotation...Williamson and Riedling are coming off of major surgery....the "plan is to count on career AAAA pitcher Jared Fernadez? Yeah, they looked like a 102 loss team back then...and they still finished 3rd.

Austin Kearsn was NOT on the team, and Larson was a career #1 pick BUST.....need I go on?

I could see looking at that team and predicting doom and gloom.

But now the Reds have 4, count them, 4 MAJOR league starting pitchers a month before P/C report.

Williamson and Rielding are healthy and so are (supposed to be) Casey and JR.

Kearns is on the team and we all expect great things and maybe Larson can even hit 30 HR's (Bowden says 40).

I can understand nobody maybe quoting a WS ring right now, but how can you see this team finishing the same or worse than last year's team?

westofyou
01-13-2003, 08:49 PM
Austin Kearsn was NOT on the team, and Larson was a career #1 pick BUST.....need I go on?

Kearns and Larson have a total of 450 ab's in MLB,

I'll wait before I hand them the keys to the excutive washroom (especially Brandon)

What I like best about your predictions from last year.

6. Haynes will be the same awful pitcher he has always been.

And now you're his biggest booster.

It's a wonder what a 4 plus ERA can do for ya, if anyone has a Pedro like season I'll expect adulation that would rival Romeos feelings for the fair Juliette.

Personally I hold my predictions until they've streached.... but that's just me.

So shoot away.

Team Tuck
01-13-2003, 09:10 PM
Ahhh, the M2 approach. Never worked for me personally. You know, the one where you have no idea what the budget is, what current payroll is, or what trades the Reds are currently discussing, but you act as if you know everything nevertheless. It's not even possible that the Reds are trying to improve. Jim Bowden has no desire to win, none whatsoever. And God forbid, if the Reds do improve themselves over the next month, then golly, you play it cool as if you knew it was coming all along.

Those damn Reds - they'll NEVER EVER be good again. No hope.

Boss-Hog
01-13-2003, 09:19 PM
That line of thinking may have worked at the beginning of the winter but now we do know what the budget is.

Team Tuck
01-13-2003, 09:31 PM
Do we know the budget precisely? Between $55m and $60m we know for sure, but that $5m is a big difference.

Boss-Hog
01-13-2003, 09:32 PM
Even if it's $60 million, they're still talking about cutting payroll (Sullivan and/or White). But hey, the moment we trade some payroll and acquire someone the team really needs (read: Bartolo Colon, Javier Vasquez, etc.) I'll be the first to admit you were right and I was wrong. I just feel like I've been down this road before...

Griffey30
01-13-2003, 09:35 PM
The Reds, for the first time in a long while, sign a Free agent to a multi year contract, and people still complain.

Is Wilson the ace this team needs???

NO

Will he help the Reds??

Yes

I have no idea why some people here are Reds fans. I think some should be Yankee fans, and stop bringing all this doom and gloom to this board.

Krusty
01-13-2003, 09:51 PM
Amen.

red-in-la
01-13-2003, 10:38 PM
What I love about you WOY is that you love YOUR stats. You invent the term "small sample size" but then you post Wilson's numbers against teams based on 7 to 16 innings.

Yes, I thought Haynes would be awful...and I even said Hamilton would do well. Haynes proved me wrong.....and now that he has, what do you want? You want me to say, hey forget 15 wins on a team UNDER .500, he is still awful?

If I did, you would run a bunch of your stats out to try to prove me wrong on that.

As for predictions, since you went all the way back to that page to get number 6, why didn't you bring back the ones I got right?

M2
01-13-2003, 10:39 PM
Sorry if I don't go running around predicting a pennant because the team signed a 29-year-old pitcher with a career 4.86 ERA.

Like REDREAD said, Wilson improves the rotation depth. It's not a bad move, but I think it's a move made to prevent slippage, not to gain advantage.

TeamTuck, you obviously know the Reds have released a budget figure and anybody capable of basic addition can figure out the payroll (the standard arbitration raise is $900 K if you need to make that adjustment).

And it's not exactly state secret stuff when it comes to some of the deals getting discussed.

And where did I say the team wasn't trying to get better or win? They are trying to fill holes (though Wilson only fills a hole they created by trading away Dessens). It's just that they're doing it for the least possible amount of cash. If they can go into the season without any glaring holes, they've got a chance if enough guys have big seasons. It worked for the Angels last year.

Sorry if you don't want to deal with the obvious. The Reds have a track record on salary dumping/bottom feeding. They continue to behave in the same manner.

While I acknowledge anything COULD happen, I long ago gave up the pretensions that things WILL happen in matters over which I have no control just because it suits my fancy.

If you happen to feel that there should some kind of moratorium on talking about the Reds, the moves they're making or the current state and direction of the club then I whole-heartedly encourage you to impose it on yourself. Really, jam those digits into Chinese finger traps until the day you've unilaterally decided the topic is open for discussion.

Personally I find your opinion that no one should have an opinion to be fifty paces beyond the border of tedious.

red-in-la
01-13-2003, 10:56 PM
M2, while in this one, very isolated case, I don't agree with the outcome of your assessment (I think everything you said was exactly right, I just think the Reds will be good), I always enjoy reading what you write.

Right on M2.:thumbup:

Redsfaithful
01-13-2003, 10:57 PM
I think the closer role is pretty overrated personally, so put me in the camp that thinks Williamson would do better as a starter.

Plus, he's stated publically several times that he would prefer being a starter. I've said this before, people perform better when they are doing what they want to do, not what they are being made to do.

Redsfaithful
01-13-2003, 11:05 PM
Also, although I know the board wasn't around back then, I wonder what some of the more negative types were thinking before the '99 season.

Or even better before the '90 season, when most publications picked the Reds fifth, and they were coming off an awful fifth place season.

Teams play over their heads every year. The Reds have more pieces of the puzzle this year, and they were a near .500 team last year. With health (which is really a huge part of what made '99 special) this team will be special. If people get hurt they'll go 78 and 84 again. That's really what it comes down to, not whether we trade for Colon or Penny, but Griffey and Casey and Boone and Larkin and everyone else staying healthy.

alexad
01-13-2003, 11:07 PM
I am just wondering if he is worth 2 mil a year when we are only paying Haynes 2.5 per year. I see a big difference in them not to mention Haynes is the number one only making 500,000 more than the number 4 on the team.

westofyou
01-13-2003, 11:10 PM
You invent the term "small sample size"

I did?

Wow.... cool accolades to me.

As for what your blog was about concerning Wilson and all that I don't know, I was simply looking at his splits since he played in a pretty tough division in a hitters league. I didn't even make a statement about him vs. Haynes, hell I didn't even say anything about your predictions that was in a "nasty" way (note winky on previous post)

M2
01-13-2003, 11:18 PM
r-i-l, thanks for the props.

I actually find your optimism this offseason quite refreshing (though I have wondered if there isn't some "Invasion of the Body Snatchers" plot at work with you - this is a sea change in outlook for you).

And I agree the rotation at this moment is better than it's been at any point in a year starting with the number 2. I had hoped that relative stability would allow the team to hunt bigger game this offseason instead of going back to chuck more stones at wharf rats, but stability in the rotation is a positive even without that.

The way I see it, the Reds shot to compete lies in two areas: First they need a number of hitters to have big years. Jr, Dunn, Boone and Casey or Kearns, Dunn, Larkin and LaRue (get the idea that I'm relatively sure about the Dunn part of that equation?), it doesn't matter as to the particulars as long as a lot of guys go off big. Second, they need the rotation to remain healthy and wrack up those quality starts.

If they can get both of those things working in combination, then they've got a shot. Obviously I'm counting on the bullpen to do its job, which really is more a case of me not wanting to think about than anything else - not that they shouldn't be able to do their jobs, I just don't want to face the possibility that they might not.

Play rope-a-dope with the pitchers, have the hitters deliver the knockout punch. That's certainly what I'll be hoping for if this crew stays intact.

M2
01-13-2003, 11:24 PM
Also, although I know the board wasn't around back then, I wonder what some of the more negative types were thinking before the '99 season.

A lot of us were on the Fastball and Cincy.Com sites back at that time.

I don't know who qualifies as "the more negative types" in your view, but, if memory serves, princeton, WOY, 15 and myself were pretty high on the '99 team heading into spring training that season. Chip and remdog might have been too.

westofyou
01-13-2003, 11:37 PM
Let's see.... was GM up on the Reds... I seem to think the answer is no... howbout Redread, he was around as was Rojo.

Alot of the optimism then had to do with the fact that we we're up for the WC, the Stros had just won 102 games and everyone knew the Cubs were a mirage they're were only 3 teams in the NL with over 90 wins that year, last year there were that many in the NL West.

Scrap Irony
01-13-2003, 11:39 PM
Wonderfully put, M2. However, how big are your big years? I assume Dunn will rebound from his awful second half and that Kearns will be healthy and not struggle in his second season. That's two pretty big bats right there.

Add in Junior assuming he stays healthy all year. That's the largest ash bat in the game.

IMO, the key resides in the other four guys.

If Boone can hit around .280 and OPS around .775
If Casey rebounds to and average year between 1999 and 2000
If Larkin or Lopez can find the youth/ maturity to OBP .360
If LaRue's second half is a true indicator of his offensive ability

the Reds have a shot at the disision title. If three of the four happen, they can still compete all year. If two of the four happen, they're still in the hunt, though it would take a herculean effort on the parts of Junior, Dunn, and Kearns to do so. If one of them happen, the Reds are a .500 ballclub.

The pitching is not the best in the game, but, with luck, it could be above average. The bullpen looks great and should be among the very best. The starting pitching can be average or a bit above average.


If Haynes can prove 2002 wasn'ta fluke and that he is indeed improving
If Paul Wilson can come in and pitch like he did between the All Star Games of 2001 and 2002
If Ryan Dempster can pitch like he did when he was named an All Star in Florida
If someone-- anyone-- can step into the fifth starter's role and log 170 IP with a league average ERA


the Reds may even win the NL Pennant.

That's certainly a lot better than it was at this time last year.

Redsfaithful
01-13-2003, 11:41 PM
I just thought the '98 to '99 analogy was particularly apt since the '98 club went 77 - 85 (with last year's team winning one more game).

The Reds lost a 2B that offseason as well (Bret Boone), traded a stud prospect in Konerko, and lost Reggie Sanders.

There were probably more positives that offseason (picking up Neagle and Vaughn) but there were questionable moves that offseason as well (Cameron for Konerko being a great example - Cameron was coming off a .210 BA in 141 games).

I guess my point is that it's easier being cynical, quite honestly the cynics are correct more often. Technically if you predicted that no team would win the World Series next year, you'd be right about 29 teams, and only wrong about one. But by being cynical you miss fully enjoying the surprise seasons.

M2
01-14-2003, 01:11 AM
BP, I think at least one hitter is going to have to have an MVP quality if the Reds want to compete.

I know it sounds like I'm asking a lot, but take a look at your playoff teams - Barry Bonds, Albert Pujols, Randy Johnson/Curt Schilling, Garrett Anderson, Miguel Tejada and Jason Giambi all had MVP quality seasons. Chipper and Andruw Jones weren't that far off. Minnesota was the only team that made the playoffs without a particulary huge season from anyone.

Now I think Dunn can do that. What I get more and more impressed by is that Adam slumped like crazy for two months and wound up with a .400 OB. Just let that soak in. Despite a horrid slump, the guy had a .400 OB. Usually you need six months of unwavering production to achieve that. The only guy I can ever remember doing something remotely like that was Mike Schmidt when he was young.

Before his slump (April-July) Adam had a .293 BA, .450 OB and .554 SLG. Those were his numbers at 439 plate appearances. Austin Kearns got 426 plate appearances and put up .315, .407, .500 numbers.

Now Austin may not have slumped in the last third of the season like Adam did, but he went on the shelf for the second year in a row, which is a concern in its own right.

So while I expect Adam to avoid that slump this time around and blossom into full superhuman form, my goal for Austin Kearns is for him to stay healthy.

If he goes .275, .350, .425, but plays 150 games, I'll be happy. The guy really is still adjusting to the majors and, while I expect him to be a very good player, I'm not going to change my assessment of him if he suffers a sophomore slump.

Mind you, he was way better than I expected last season, so it's not like I don't recognize that he could have a big season.

Jr.'s injuries make me gunshy. Larkin's got age and his history of infirmity to overcome. LaRue's a catcher and I always try to temper what I expect from them. 20 HR with a .330 OB would be wonderful.

And Boone and Casey can be fine players, but neither has proven himself capable of having a truly big year.

However, I think you're right that a .310, 30 HR, 110 BI (that would be my idea of big for those two) campaign from either Boone or Casey is the sort of enhancer the team really needs. Though I try to temper the fan in me whenever I consider something like that.

So if Dunn goes big and the Kearns/Boone/Casey/LaRue/whoever plays 3B faction puts together solid years, then, provided the pitching holds together, the Reds could find themselves in a position for the money players (Jr. and Larkin) to put the team over the top with money seasons.

To me, that's the most likely scenario and that's a lot of ifs.

Spring~Fields
01-14-2003, 05:07 AM
I had hoped that relative stability would allow the team to hunt bigger game this offseason instead of going back to chuck more stones at wharf rats,

:lol: :lol: :lol:

:beerme:

MikeS21
01-14-2003, 07:57 AM
The Reds do have a legit strikeout artist, his name is Scott Williamson. I do not know recovered the Reds consider Willy, but if it is close to 100%, he needs to be in the rotation, at the top.
The problem with Williamson as a starter is the number of pitches he throws. His control is such that it takes around 15-16 pitches for him to get through an inning. In 2000, he started 10 games, and averaged just over 93 pitches per start. Did he EVER make it into the 7th inning of ANY game? Best I remember, he was about a 5-6 inning pitcher.

By the same token, this tendency to get a little wild concerns me as far as Williamson as a closer.

If Williamson can ever cut down on his pitch counts per inning, he could be awesome. But his tendency is to throw a lot of pitches, and that cuts down his effectiveness as a starter past the 5th and 6th innings.

princeton
01-14-2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by M2
A lot of us were on the Fastball and Cincy.Com sites back at that time.

I don't know who qualifies as "the more negative types" in your view, but, if memory serves, princeton, WOY, 15 and myself were pretty high on the '99 team heading into spring training that season. Chip and remdog might have been too.

yeah, right after the Greg Vaughn acquisition, I declared the team to be a WS contender if only one more move was made-- the replacement of Jack McKeon with a great manager.

I still think that the '99 team underachieved, not overachieved. They had a lot of talent. Whitey Herzog would have gotten them into the WS

Would a great manager get the '03 team into the playoffs? I'll have to think about that for a while...

guernsey
01-14-2003, 11:55 AM
BP, I think at least one hitter is going to have to have an MVP quality if the Reds want to compete.


The nice thing is that the Reds have more than one or two guys capable of putting up MVP-type numbers, so it's not like the Cubs who have to rely on just Sammy.

Junior has an MVP in his trophy case, and is young enough to get another one (or two).

Dunn and Kearns may be a couple of years away from having monster season, but they could happen early.

Casey has put up great half seasons. Maybe he can do it for a full year sometime.

Boone is a stretch, but who knows.

REDREAD
01-14-2003, 12:10 PM
Let's see.... was GM up on the Reds... I seem to think the answer is no... howbout Redread, he was around as was Rojo.

Actually I was pretty excited about the 99 reds after they picked up Vaughn and Neagle. I admit that I thought they'd both be gone at the trading deadline though for propsects. But I bought tickets before the season started, because I wanted to see a game before the trading deadline.

But in that offseason, the team gave us a reason to get excited.
They added Cameron, Tucker, Neagle, Vaughn, and had Harnish in the fold. None of the trades that offseason were pure salary dumps. The core of the team was very promising.

If the Reds added 4 solid players this offseason (as they did pre-1999) without hurting the major league depth chart and had no salary dump trades, I'd be turning cartwheels now.

buckeyenut
01-14-2003, 12:47 PM
OK so right now just to look at ins and outs, we have Dessens and Walker going out and Wilson and Lopez coming in at the ML level. Not a complete wash because of Lopez being so young and iffy to really contribute this year, but Larson potentially offsets that. And we will pay those guys 800K rather than the almost 7M it would have cost for Dessens/Walker. So a 5-6M savings on moves that really haven't hurt this team at all for 2003.

We had to find a position for Larson and give him a chance after his production last year. We've done that. We still have an OF and MR glut we need to deal with. And we still need an ace and a leadoff hitter. But I cannot find fault with what we have done so far.

Big key is, are we done? I still firmly believe we are not. MON is still holding up the market and we still don't know how much our arb guys will cost. I firmly believe we will make additional moves at some point before spring training. The key is will we stand in place with those moves or get better or get worse to save $$.

Right now, I think this team AS IS will compete for the division. I think we will be in it till the trade deadline if we don't have any major injuries. If no major injuries, we are buyers at the deadline, maybe even getting our ace then for a playoff push. If we have injuries, we are a seller, dealing off potentially valuable pieces like Casey, White, Sullivan, Boone, LaRue, maybe even Haynes or Wilson to contenders.

If we get an ace and/or a leadoff hitter before opening day, I think we can survive one, maybe even two major injuries to key cogs.

Redsfaithful
01-14-2003, 12:49 PM
Calling Cameron or Tucker "solid" acquisitions during that offseason is laughable.

Tucker is .... well Tucker.

And as I mentioned earlier, Cameron had never had a decent season, and had hit .210 the year before in 141 games. While he turned into a solid player for the Reds that year, it would have been a stretch to predict just how good he ended up being in '99. Which kind of proves my point Redread, you say those were good acquisitions now, but many people on this board would have called those pick-ups "dumpster diving".

But yeah Vaughn and Neagle were top notch trades, it would be nice to see the Reds pick up two like them this offseason.

cincinnati chili
01-14-2003, 01:04 PM
Originally posted by Redsfaithful
Calling Cameron or Tucker "solid" acquisitions during that offseason is laughable...

Which kind of proves my point Redread, you say those were good acquisitions now, but many people on this board would have called those pick-ups "dumpster diving"...

But yeah Vaughn and Neagle were top notch trades, it would be nice to see the Reds pick up two like them this offseason.

See I think the opposite way. I don't really care if a player is high profile or recovered from a DUMPSTER. I care about how he performs, AFTER we get him. Bottom feeding got us Pete Shourek, a cy Young candiate. A high profile trade got us Dante Bichette, a flop.

If anything, the Reds should be praised MORE for low cost-high reward pickups.

Redsfaithful
01-14-2003, 01:07 PM
I agree completely chili.

M2
01-14-2003, 01:42 PM
Calling Cameron or Tucker "solid" acquisitions during that offseason is laughable.

I find it laughable that anyone didn't consider Cameron and Tucker acquistions during that offseason.

I was doing cartwheels when the Reds got Cameron. As I remember that was a popular trade with a lot of folks on the Fastball site. There was a contingent that didn't like it, but I don't think many of them around anymore. And I loved the Boone and Remlinger for Neagle, Tucker and Bell trade.

You're right, Michael Tucker is Michael Tucker - a great 4th OF. Just have him avoid lefties and he gives you decent OB and pop to go with good corner OF defense (fair CF defense) and excellent speed. I wouldn't build a team around, but, man, what a great complimentary player to put on a good team.

Both of those guys were pro players who had done something in their careers (Cameron had an impressive rookie campaign in 1997 before struggling in 1998). Both of them were heading into their primes.

I wouldn't make the assumption that not liking the team's recent moves indicates a distaste for what it was doing back in 1998 and 1999. If anything, I think it works in the opposite fashion -- having seen it done right back then only underscores the second-class nature of the current operation.

gm
01-14-2003, 02:27 PM
"was GM up on the Reds... I seem to think the answer is no"

Digging back into the ol' memory banks...heading into '99 I was

"Down" on JimBo for dealing Jeff Shaw and Bret Boone, after promising them (and Larkin) that they were veteran "keepers"

"Up" on the exodus of Reginald Laverne Sanders. I didn't know what kind of season Greg Vaughn would have, but I was sure glad the Padres agreed to take on "the Sandman"

Around about May I posted "it will take a miracle" for the Reds to contend in '99

The Red's W-L record in June was miraculous (BTW, Larkin hasn't been the same, since)

I suspected the Reds would deal Vaughn before the trading deadline (similar to Shaw, in '98) Thankfully, this didn't happen, and Greg had an August-September to remember

Last weekend in Milwaukee...the bubble burst

Will the Reds gel in 2003 like they did in '99? The year picks you. In '99 Bere and Avery pitched pretty well in April-May, then Parris/Villone took over and pitched even better. Guzman was acquired and Neagle regained his health (but then Harnisch went lame) in August-September. The Reds are going to need similar "luck" in the rotation, and health for the position players, and the kids to come of age, and the chemistry to click...then, if the ball consistently bounces the right way they can reach postseason.

All we need is a miracle. Hope springs eternal

princeton
01-14-2003, 02:38 PM
had Bowden kept Shaw, it would have been a VERY interesting season.

Cameron was a key, of course-- and came directly as a result of Konerko, who was acquired for Shaw. But Shaw was dealt because the Reds were so far away from contention-- which turned out to be false. And perhaps we could have scored Cameron, who was really in the doghouse, for another player

Spring~Fields
01-14-2003, 02:43 PM
And the Reds still need "luck" :confused:



The Reds are going to need similar "luck" in the rotation, and health for the position players, and the kids to come of age, and the chemistry to click...then, if the ball consistently bounces the right way they can reach postseason.

Doesn't that actually support M2's and LetsGoJunior's premises? regarding "bottom feeding" "mediocrity" and of going backward?
vs. significant improvements to the team that make substantial gains by the team?

gm
01-14-2003, 04:08 PM
"Doesn't that actually support M2's and LetsGoJunior's premises?"

Probably, though I hadn't read their responses before posting my response to "how gm felt about '99" Basically, all small/mid market teams need some "luck" to reach post-season. But organizations like Oakland and Minnesota are going about their business (i.e. "making their own luck") better than the Cincy FO has, IMO

Money always helps, but a consistent direction/philosophy is even more important. Without it, magical seasons are a result of "dumb luck"

red-in-la
01-14-2003, 04:30 PM
Maybe nobody else would agree, and I am only guessing since I not a ML Scout, but isn't the Oakland "formula" still just dumb luck?

OK, everybody tries to draft a Randy Johnson.....and hundreds of pitchers are drafted each year....but how many really make it? One precent? Less?

The Braves got "lucky" with Glavine and Smoltz, and even with Maddux to a certain extent. Any of them could have caught a line drive off their pitching elbow, or just plain blown out their shoulder or elbow somewhere along the line.

And did Oakland draft MORE pitchers than anybody else? I don't know. But they ended up with Mulder, Zito and Hudson.

I guess you can argue this point, but the Reds drafted Howington, Sowers and Gruler. Weren't all three of these guys the number 1, 2, or 3 pitcher in the nation at the time?

I don't know...just thinking out loud here.

Raisor
01-14-2003, 04:54 PM
From MLB.com>

OAKLAND, Calif. -- If you were at a high school baseball game this spring and saw an Oakland A's scout in the stands, we know now the most appropriate thing you could have said to him:
"Excuse me, sir, but are you lost?"

Then, if you were really nice, you might have given him directions to the nearest four-year college, where the types of players the A's were scouting might be playing that day.

Judging from the way the A's selected players in the 2002 First-Year Player Draft, especially on the first day, it seemed as though you weren't getting much of a look from the A's unless your high school diploma is already in a box somewhere and you've already gone to your fair share of endless university lectures and frat parties, not necessarily in that order.

When the A's made their first 23 picks without straying once into the high school ranks, picking only college players, it made one wonder: Did the A's realize there were high school games going on this spring?

"Yeah, we did go out to high school games, but this was part of our plan," Oakland scouting director Eric Kubota said with a tired chuckle after Day 1. "Our philosophy has always been more college-oriented. We did go out to high school games, but if there was a decision to be made on any given day, we'd probably lean toward the college game."

It's a philosophy that makes sense for the A's -- and who's to argue with their methods anyway?

They didn't get to the postseason the last two years on payrolls half the size of their fellow playoff teams by being high school dropouts. Their college scouting, along with their work in Latin America, built the organization many others look to as the wisest in the game.

The way the A's went about their 2002 draft -- using all seven of their picks in the top 39 overall to take college players, and keeping the trend going from there -- tells you a lot about the their draft philosophy.

For one, it tells you they're generally wary of prep players unless they're outright no-miss prospects. They have a successful history of picking top-flight college pitchers -- if the names Tim Hudson, Mark Mulder and Barry Zito mean anything to you -- and Kubota says it takes a very special hitter to get their attention early in the draft.

"The ones we've taken and really succeeded on have been way at the top part of the draft," Kubota said. "They've all been polished hitters, and we never had any questions as to whether these guys could play."

Examples of A's first-rounders who were no-doubters: Eric Chavez (1996) and Ben Grieve (1994). Both were in the big leagues at the age college draftees would be riding buses in Single-A.

Which brings us to another reason the college approach works for the A's, perhaps more this year than in recent years. They dealt away a few prospects this winter -- third baseman Eric Hinske to Toronto in the Billy Koch deal, and pitcher Mario Ramos and first baseman Jason Hart in the Carlos Peña deal -- to help them at the Major League level. So, the A's felt compelled to strengthen their minor leagues in the quickest way possible.

Perhaps the biggest reason the A's went to back to college again and again this year: signability.

With four first-round picks, the A's knew they'd have to spend first-round money on four players. Clearly, they had to pick with budget in mind, a budget that won't exceed $10 million for the entire draft, the vast majority of which will go to those top seven picks from the first round and supplemental round.

Generally speaking, a college junior with only one year of eligibility left and more of an itch to get a pro career going isn't going to hold out for as much as a high school star who can choose between millions now or millions later.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We think these guys have the ability, but it helped without a doubt that they're very signable."

-- Oakland scouting director Eric Kubota

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

"We think these guys have the ability, but it helped without a doubt that they're very signable," Kubota said.

It sure doesn't sound like they'll have much trouble with their top pick, Ohio State center fielder Nick Swisher.

Said Swisher: "We're not the type of people who want to hold out. We just want to get out on the field. . . . There's no chance I'm going back to school."

Oh, but you can bet the A's will. They'll go back to those college campuses again next year, and they'll hit the college ranks hard when it comes time for the draft.

It's the old college try, and the A's clearly believe in America's system of higher education is the best in the world -- at least when it comes to drafting baseball players.

John Schlegel is a regional writer for MLB.com based in the Bay Area. This story was not subject to the approval of Major League Baseball or its clubs

cincinnati chili
01-14-2003, 04:55 PM
The formula for Oakland pitching is more than just luck. Like the Astros, they aren't afraid of drafting small right handed pitchers. Anybody could have had Tim Hudson, just as anybody could have had Roy Oswalt. Also, they have almost completed stopped drafting high school pitching... certainly not in the early rounds. The odds of a FIRST ROUND high school pitcher becoming a successful major leaguer are less than 10%. With college/jc players, it jumps to over 30%.

Plus, Oakland teaches plate discipline in the minors and promotes based on minor league performance, not just on major league potential.

They understand the idea of replaceable talent, and don't overpay for it. Most organizations don't.

They've purged their system of infectious, stubborn and tired old ideas. Most organizations haven't.

It's more than just luck.

For a good read,
http://espn.go.com/mlb/hotstove2003/athletics.html

Raisor
01-14-2003, 05:01 PM
From the A's Hotstove Heater
3. Drafting college pitchers. Everyone knows the A's lean heavily on their rotation. And over the last several years, the A's have a pretty good script for strengthening it -- draft college pitchers with polish, move them through the minors quickly, and put them in the rotation. The result is arguably the best 1-2-3 group of starters in baseball, with more talent on the way from the minors. While other teams continue to throw their picks and money away on high school pitchers early, the A's increase their return and mitigate their risks by heavily drafting college pitchers instead. Why? To start, they've already pitched at least a couple of extra years out of high school without getting hurt, and they've been in a less taxing social environment during their late teens. There are other good reasons too, but those are a good start

M2
01-14-2003, 05:23 PM
Money always helps, but a consistent direction/philosophy is even more important. Without it, magical seasons are a result of "dumb luck"

Agreed. IMO, that's the difference between '99 and this season. The only luck involved in '99 was generally good health.

red-in-la
01-14-2003, 09:54 PM
As I recall, the 1999 Reds got mostly all the breaks almost all the time. This was especially true when a 2 out hit was needed to score a run or two. Many of those hits were NOT line shots.

Also, I think getting seasons like they got from Villone and Parris was quite a bit of luck. Actually, the Reds got 5-6 career years from players that were not exactly likely sources.

Maybe this isn't what other term luck, but I think of it that way.

Redsfaithful
01-14-2003, 09:57 PM
Exactly R-I-L.

A good example of a career year on a Reds championship team is Mariano Duncan hitting .306 for the 1990 Reds. You have to catch some breaks, no matter who you are. It's a long season.

guernsey
01-14-2003, 09:58 PM
From TSN's Ken Rosenthal's mailbag:



How much of an impact will Paul Wilson have on the Reds? I mean, here's a pitcher who was 6-12 with a 4.83 ERA with the Devil Rays last season. How is he going to help a team with aspirations of contention?

Jay Radcliffe

*** Jay: Don't be misled by Wilson's record with the last-place Devil Rays. Scouts say he has learned how to pitch after missing parts of the 1997 and '98 season and all of '99 with elbow and shoulder surgeries, and his numbers would have been better if the Devil Rays hadn't ridden him so hard.

It's little wonder that Wilson went 0-3 with a 12.91 ERA in September. He threw more than 120 pitches five times, and had a six-start stretch in July and August in which he averaged 119. Those numbers are ridiculous for a pitcher with a history of arm trouble.

Wilson threw a career-high 193 2/3 innings, and one scout says that the Reds would get optimal performance from him if they occasionally skipped him in the rotation and limited him to, say, 150 innings. The Reds know that Wilson must be handled with care, and figure that they won't need to push him due to the strength of their bullpen.

If Wilson stays healthy, he could be a terrific signing for the Reds. If not, he could become an albatross. The Reds will pay him $500,000 next season and $3.5 million in 2004.

red-in-la
01-14-2003, 10:29 PM
Duncan actually hit over .400 that year against LH pitchers.

Look back at the years the 1999 Reds got from:

Casey
Boone
Graves
Cameron
Reese

Not to mention:

Scott Williamson
Dimitri Young
Michael Tucker
Jeffery Hammonds

Redsfaithful
01-14-2003, 10:36 PM
Pokey Reese's 1999 season will go down in the record books with Brady Anderson's 50 home run season.

Completely inexplicable.

Team Tuck
01-14-2003, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by M2
Sorry if I don't go running around predicting a pennant because the team signed a 29-year-old pitcher with a career 4.86 ERA.

Like REDREAD said, Wilson improves the rotation depth. It's not a bad move, but I think it's a move made to prevent slippage, not to gain advantage.

TeamTuck, you obviously know the Reds have released a budget figure and anybody capable of basic addition can figure out the payroll (the standard arbitration raise is $900 K if you need to make that adjustment).

If you happen to feel that there should some kind of moratorium on talking about the Reds, the moves they're making or the current state and direction of the club then I whole-heartedly encourage you to impose it on yourself. Really, jam those digits into Chinese finger traps until the day you've unilaterally decided the topic is open for discussion.

Personally I find your opinion that no one should have an opinion to be fifty paces beyond the border of tedious.

1. I predicted a pennant? No. I agree with your assessment of Paul Wilson and agree that right now we're probably no better than a 3rd place team. I even stated that. I simply suggested that we give Bowden the next month. That's when you became a smart-ass, so I responded in the same smart-ass fashion. Fair enough?

2. As for the budget, I've been very specific. I was under the impression the budget was $60m. I've twice listed 2003 payroll estimates by player for the 25 man, and I'll do so again. It totals $55m. I believe you estimated an even lower payroll figure with the current set of players. SO, be specific. Do we have payroll room right now, or no?????? If not, I can only assume the budget is closer to $55m?? Do you know?? I'm looking for answers. I mean, it's basic addition.

Jason LaRue $1.0 ($0.3 last yr - arbitration)
Kelly Stinnett 1.2
Aaron Boone 4.0 (2.1 last yr - arbitration)
Barry Larkin 7.6
Brandon Larson 0.3
Felipe Lopez 0.4
Juan Castro 0.8
Sean Casey 5.6
Ken Griffey 9.7
Adam Dunn 0.6
Austin Kearns 0.5
Reggie Taylor 0.4
Jose Guillen 0.5
Ruben Mateo 0.4
Danny Graves 4.7 (3.5 last year - arbitration)
Ryan Dempster 3.5 (2.5 last year - arbitration)
Jimmy Haynes 2.5
Paul Wilson 0.5
Jose Acevado 0.3
Chris Reitsma 0.4
Bruce Chen 0.8 (0.3 last year - arbitration)
Gabe White 3.1
Scott Sullivan 2.8
Scott Williamson 1.6 (0.6 last year - arbitration)
John Reidling 0.5

DL/Others:
Russ Branyan 0.5
Wily Mo Pena 0.3
Dane Sardinha 0.5
Luke Prokepec 0.3

GRAND TOTAL $55.3

3. Are your comments addressed to me? Was I the first one to be a smart-ass about it? I only suggested that we give Bowden the next month, I didn't realize that was such a horrible thing to suggest. I responded to you the same way you responded to me. Sorry that doesn't work for you.

Griffey30
01-14-2003, 11:36 PM
Wow!!!

Ouch!!!


Holy Cow!!!


Boys Boys Boys!!!


Can't we all just get along????

Team Tuck
01-14-2003, 11:38 PM
Ron Villone's 3 one-hitters are the most amazing thing from 1999. Luck? Just a little, I'd say. Steve Parris was what, 11-4 that year? Luck? A little.

M2
01-15-2003, 12:26 AM
More than offset by Brett Tomko, who had been a good pitcher the previous two years, going kerplooey and Denny Neagle hitting the shelf for half the season.

All I know is that plenty of people (me included) saw that '99 team coming from way around the bend.

Just like this year's team looks like nothing special.

I've given JimBo and this ownership the past three years. They haven't delivered.

guernsey
01-15-2003, 07:03 AM
For the record, the Reds acquired Greg Vaughn on Feb. 2, 1999, so perhaps Team Tuck's suggestion that JimBo is not yet done assembling the '03 Reds is a valid one.



February 2, 1999: The Reds acquire outfielders Greg Vaughn and Mark Sweeney from the Padres for OF Reggie Sanders, IF Damian Jackson and P Josh Harris.

REDREAD
01-15-2003, 12:22 PM
Calling Cameron or Tucker "solid" acquisitions during that offseason is laughable.

Hold on a minute.. It's relative here. I didn't say Tucker was an allstar. But he's a lot more solid than picking up wilton Guerrero this offseason. Tucker was good enough to start for the Atlanta Braves when we traded for him. When Vaughn was hurt, Tucker and Hammonds filled in and we didn't miss a beat. Tucker contributed a lot that season.

Cameron was a CF that had 1 good year and 1 bad year. We desparately needed a CF. We traded a guy that wasn't going to get any playing time anyhow. Again, a solid acquision ,because he had a good chance to fill a glaring need. He ended up exceeding expectations, but even at the time it was a great gamble to fill a need.

REDREAD
01-15-2003, 12:32 PM
red-in-la,

Let me also add Reyes to your list. That guy definitely had his best year ever in 1999.

I'm still having nightmares of screaming at the radio to McKeon "Why didn't you start Neagle in the one game playoff if he was available" Too bad Parris' luck ran out in that game.

PuffyPig
01-15-2003, 12:41 PM
Originally posted by REDREAD
[I'm still having nightmares of screaming at the radio to McKeon "Why didn't you start Neagle in the one game playoff if he was available" Too bad Parris' luck ran out in that game. [/B]

I think that starting Parris (11-3 at the time) on 4 days rest was certainly better than Neagle on 2 days reasr, as Neagle had pitched 6 innings on Friday. We did not score any runs against Leiter. I'm not sure that it mattered who started the game for us.

REDREAD
01-15-2003, 01:00 PM
I'm I think that starting Parris (11-3 at the time) on 4 days rest was certainly better than Neagle on 2 days reasr, as Neagle had pitched 6 innings on Friday..

But Neagle appeared in the game anyhow, after Parris had lost it.

If Neagle was only available for 2-3 innings (which he was), I would've preferred Neagle to start. Then, if necesary, I use up Williamson, Reyes, Graves and the entire pen to finish it. McKeon should've played that game as if there was no tommorrow.

We might've still lost the game, as Leiter was awsome. But if Neagle started, we would've had a better start, instead of being down 4-0 ? when Neagle came in.

I agree, we probably lose the game anyhow. But I was furious that our entire season's fate rested on Steve Parris.

PuffyPig
01-15-2003, 01:06 PM
Originally posted by REDREAD
But Neagle appeared in the game anyhow, after Parris had lost it.

If Neagle was only available for 2-3 innings (which he was), I would've preferred Neagle to start. Then, if necesary, I use up Williamson, Reyes, Graves and the entire pen to finish it. McKeon should've played that game as if there was no tommorrow.

We might've still lost the game, as Leiter was awsome. But if Neagle started, we would've had a better start, instead of being down 4-0 ? when Neagle came in.

I agree, we probably lose the game anyhow. But I was furious that our entire season's fate rested on Steve Parris.

Parris was one of our best pitchers that year. He was 11-3 going into that game. We really blew it on that Friday, when Neagle turned over a 3-1 lead to the bullpen after 6 innings. That same bullpen proceeded to blow the lead and the game. Also, Parris only gave up 3 of the runs. Neagle gave up the forth. The decision to start Parris was obvious and correct. it didn't turn out well, but it made little difference. Neagle wasn't very sharp.

M2
01-15-2003, 01:46 PM
Oh, that Friday game. Is it all right to own a voodoo doll of Kevin Barker?

He must be made to suffer.

REDREAD
01-15-2003, 03:54 PM
I agree with you there Puffy.. Actually, if we had won one lousy game in that last 3 game series with the Brewers, it would've all been moot.

I think Guzman lost one of the Brewer games too.

I disagree about Parris being one of our best pitchers that year though. He got the wins, but the guy always seemed to put a ton of runners on base and get lucky.

If you had to choose one of the Reds 1999 starters to pitch a game, neglecting rest issues (which were certainly relevant in the 1 game playoff of course).. I don't think many folks would pick Parris as the money pitcher in that rotation.

westofyou
01-15-2003, 04:04 PM
Here's what the Reds starters were like in 1999


WALKS/9 IP BB/9 IP IP ERA GS BR/9 IP BB/9 IP
Juan Guzman 2.45 77 3.04 12 10.75 2.45
Pete Harnisch 2.59 198 3.68 33 11.45 2.59
Brett Tomko 3.14 172 4.92 26 12.51 3.14
Denny Neagle 3.23 111.1 4.28 19 11.24 3.23
Steve Parris 3.65 128.1 3.51 21 12.76 3.65
Ron Villone 4.62 142.1 4.24 22 12.14 4.62

Parris had the best ERA on the team, but the least amount of starts and innings.

gm
01-15-2003, 04:17 PM
"I think Guzman lost one of the Brewer games too"

Yup, Saturday day game...not too many hard hit balls off Guzman during that outing, but he made a couple of fielding/throwing errors that led to runs. And the Red's bats were silent

The Met's playoff game shoulda never been necessary...

Steve4192
01-15-2003, 04:22 PM
Originally posted by westofyou
here's what the Reds starters weer likein 1999

You left out the two best pitchers in that rotation: Guzman & Neagle.

After thos two, I'd say Parris & Harnisch were a tossup for the #3 spot, with Harnisch getting the nod because he was the more experienced of the two. Net, IMO, Parris was the 4th best pitcher in that rotation after Neagle's return and the Guzman acquisition.

westofyou
01-15-2003, 04:28 PM
You left out the two best pitchers in that rotation: Guzman & Neagle.

Yeah, I fixed it. Their low innings would account for villone being on the list.

guernsey
01-15-2003, 06:05 PM
I agree with you there Puffy.. Actually, if we had won one lousy game in that last 3 game series with the Brewers, it would've all been moot.


Actually the Reds did win one game; the Sunday night/Monday morning game played in the swamp after 10 hours of rain. If they had won either the Friday night extra inning affair or the Saturday afternoon game, they would have never played the Mets on Monday.

Spring~Fields
01-15-2003, 07:32 PM
Now that Colon is off of the market where will Bowden pull the next rabbit out of his hat from, or will he continue to play the shell game by having open house tryouts every spring for retreads er um going back to chuck more stones at wharf rats?

1999 must have been his best season for hunting rabbits. Here today, gone tomorrow. So is it true that Bowden is a silent partner with Kremchek “Discount Arm Replacements’R Us and Associates”? :lol:

guernsey
01-18-2003, 02:54 PM
From ESPN's Fantasy page:



Arms Race

If Paul Wilson can pitch 200 innings for Cincinnati this season, he has a chance to be one of fantasy's biggest sleepers. Then again, if Wilson could throw 200 innings, the Reds wouldn't have been able to afford him. The oft-injured right-hander managed 30 starts and 193.2 innings last season for Tampa Bay, but the extra work didn't do much for his numbers. Wilson posted a double-digit ERA over his final six appearances, leaving his final numbers in line with his 6-12 record. But for much of the season, he was better than six wins suggests. With Adam Dunn, Austin Kearns and Ken Griffey behind him, Wilson could easily reverse that record and drop his ERA by a run.

guernsey
01-19-2003, 03:53 PM
From TSN's Inside Dish:



Righthanded pitcher Paul Wilson threw a career-high 193 2/3 innings for the Devil Rays last season, and one scout says the Reds would get optimal performance from him if they occasionally skipped him in the rotation and limited him to 150 innings.

The Reds know Wilson must be handled with care because of his history of arm trouble and figure they won't need to push him because of the strength of their bullpen. If Wilson stays healthy, he could be a terrific signing. If not, he could become an albatross. The Reds will pay him $500,000 next season and $3.5 million in 2004 . . .

cincinnati chili
01-19-2003, 04:17 PM
I don't think it needs to be as low as 150 innings. Just watch the pitch counts. If the Reds keep him to only 5 or 6 starts over 100 pitches, and never over 110, he could still match his inning totals of last year. Remember, he missed 3 starts last year, and I've documented the high pitch counts.

REDREAD
01-19-2003, 11:07 PM
Parris had the best ERA on the team, but the least amount of starts and innings.

but Parris also had the most baserunners per 9 IP after Vilone.. if I read that chart right. Parris was the luckiest pitcher I ever saw that year. I remember him giving up tons of hits/walks and then getting bailed out by the defense.