PDA

View Full Version : What did Walt Jocketty do differently?



Pages : [1] 2

BCubb2003
03-18-2010, 10:38 AM
Perhaps we should wait until we have actual results, like a winning season, but maybe it's good to track this as we go. Walt Jocketty has had about the same amount of time or less than Wayne Krivsky and Dan O'Brien had, yet seems to have the organization in much better shape. What did he do differently? If you wanted to replicate a GM who's successful in a short amount of time for a struggling small-market team, what could you take from Jocketty's strategy so far?

westofyou
03-18-2010, 10:42 AM
What he's done the best is gather and collect the jewels from his predecessors and hide under his desk when Cast was looking to stop the losing.

RANDY IN INDY
03-18-2010, 10:49 AM
There is a lot to be said for having a good collection of work, confidence in your abilities, and putting yourself at the right place at the right time. Jocketty just may have put himself in a nice position with the Reds and I think, with that said, he has the knowledge, experience and ability to turn this franchise into a winner.

osuceltic
03-18-2010, 10:49 AM
What he's done the best is gather and collect the jewels from his predecessors and hide under his desk when Cast was looking to stop the losing.

That's pretty much it. Most of the heavy lifting was done. Jocketty avoided panic trades. I'd also add he avoided the temptation to dump guys with big salaries just because they have big salaries. While I think he might have traded Harang, Arroyo or Cordero if the package had been right, he did the right thing and held them when he didn't get a good offer. He also understood the value of strong veterans and the need for that kind of presence on this team, hence the Rolen acquisition.

If the team is in the mix this summer, I expect guys like Alonso, Francisco, Frazier, Heisey and Wood will be on the table to add the right piece. Jocketty knows how to make those kinds of deals.

BCubb2003
03-18-2010, 10:59 AM
So are we saying that Dan O'Brien didn't have good enough pieces from his predecessor? Or had them and didn't use them well? And the same with Krivsky? Were they each able to find a few good pieces (plus a lot of holes) that eventually added up to something Jocketty could work with? If O'Brien or Krivsky had stayed, would the organization be where Jocketty has them?

LincolnparkRed
03-18-2010, 11:24 AM
I think DanO inherited a sinkhole that he tried to fill from the bottom up, Krivsky inherited less of a problem but i think the first two months of 2006 did him in. He had success with Arroyo, Phillips but knew he needed more pitching so he made some crazy trades for guys that never should have pitched in the majors. Since none of those other trades turned into an Arroyo or Phillips he was stuck with what he had for the most part and turned that team over to Walt. So Walt is standing on the shoulders of Dan and Wayne

Chip R
03-18-2010, 11:24 AM
I think, as Randy alluded to, that Walt has a track record that DanO and Wayne didn't. he apparently has Bob's ear since Bob was the one who brought him over from StL. Say what you want about last year but the record did improve. Perhaps Walt has convinced Bob that a little more patience is needed and with the young players he and his predecessors brought in a winner may be right around the corner.

IslandRed
03-18-2010, 11:29 AM
If O'Brien or Krivsky had stayed, would the organization be where Jocketty has them?

O'Brien, I doubt. We drafted some nice players while he was here but the experience was otherwise totally forgettable.

Krivsky did better and raised the talent level in the organization. But he still seemed to do better as a bargain hunter than anything else. Of course, we really don't know what the club would look like today if he was still in charge of it.

Jocketty did a fine job for many years in St. Louis of assembling teams, and while I can pick at some of the individual moves and he doesn't deserve credit for everyone who's here, the Reds are starting to resemble a cohesive team instead of a random collection of ballplayers.

In short, I think Krivsky was probably a better choice than Jocketty for the task of raising the organizational talent level from the depths to a point where contention wasn't a pipe dream, and Jocketty is probably the better choice to take that talent and turn it into a winner. Different courses, different horses.

bucksfan2
03-18-2010, 11:31 AM
Walt is a competent GM who knows how to GM. Don't get me wrong the previous two GM's had their strengths, but they didn't see the big overall picture that Jocketty does. Obie was a very good drafter but failed at the major league level. Wayne was a very good talent adviser, but he misappropriate funds and was unable to build a competitive team.

In the last year or so Walt has shown why he has been a successful GM. He lets his draft people draft and lets his LA people concentrate on the LA market. But he knows how to close, how to get things done. The creativity in the Chapman contract is something that I don't think the previous GM's could have done. The much maligned Rolen trade looks better now that he is extended and much of his money is deferred. The why he handled Gomes was impressive and his signing of Cabrera was a nice move as well.

Jocketty will really prove what kind of GM he is over the course of this season. Does he build? Does he rid himself of some bad contracts? Does he move some prospects for good big leaugers? Jocketty has pretty much quietly build/maintained a nice baseball team and now he has the resources, as well as funds coming off the books to build a competitive team.

edabbs44
03-18-2010, 11:50 AM
I think the biggest difference I see is that Walt is seeing the big picture. He has played the market well and hasn't overextended himself b/c he was chasing a dream. His experience has shown through and knows how to GM, something his predecessors lacked.

REDREAD
03-18-2010, 12:21 PM
Perhaps we should wait until we have actual results, like a winning season, but maybe it's good to track this as we go. Walt Jocketty has had about the same amount of time or less than Wayne Krivsky and Dan O'Brien had, yet seems to have the organization in much better shape. What did he do differently? If you wanted to replicate a GM who's successful in a short amount of time for a struggling small-market team, what could you take from Jocketty's strategy so far?

Here's the differences, IMO. The amount of impact is debatable.

Jocketty stresses defense. Wayne and DanO pretty much ignored it.

Walt fills in holes with better quality veterans. Ramon Hernandez is better than Paul Bako. Sure, WilyT was a whiff, but other than that, his veteran acquisions have been much more solid.

Wayne would've never traded for Rolen. Whether you agree or disagree with that trade, that is a key difference. I love that move, but we will have to wait and see the impact on the season.

IMO, Walt has a better eye for bullpen arms, although Wayne finally got it right in his last year after spending lots of resources and wasting a lot of time on experiments.

Walt seems more concerned overall with the quality of position players and balance of the team. Wayne really bought into "90% of the game is pitching".
Again, that doesn't necessarily mean Walt is right or better, but its' a key difference.

Walt has had one horrible FA signing (WilyT, but he was able to do damage control by unloading him on the A's).. In contrast, Wayne had several disaster moves, and was not able to perform damage control. Rumor was that Dusty really pushed for Stanton to get released.

Walt is spending more money and resources on the farm than either Wayne or DanO. Maybe that's not fair that Cast trusts Walt with more money, but the reality is that he's getting premier Latin prospects that we have never had a chance with before. He's getting it done. The future looks much brighter.

So while Walt has not pulled off the specacular "WOW" trade yet, he's really only made one mistake (Wily).. A lot of solid moves which incrementally improved the team. These moves resulted in a 5 game improvement in the W-L record last year (despite more injuries). The run differential backs up the fact that it was a legit improvement on the team.

I think it's reasonable (with good health) to expect another 5 game improvement this year.

RedEye
03-18-2010, 12:35 PM
I think the biggest difference I see is that Walt is seeing the big picture. He has played the market well and hasn't overextended himself b/c he was chasing a dream. His experience has shown through and knows how to GM, something his predecessors lacked.

Except for Willy Taveras. That's the one glaring exception to the rule for me. The team signed him WAY above market, WAY too early. I've come around a bit to the Rolen deal, but I still can't come to terms with Taveras.

Anyway, I think we're getting a bit ahead of ourselves here. If the Reds post a winning record this year, then we can resurrect this conversation in earnest IMO.

BCubb2003
03-18-2010, 12:42 PM
Thanks all. I'm just trying to figure out if there's a practical way to say "I want a Walt Jocketty approach" in a given organization or if the only answer is "Be Walt Jocketty at the right time," which sounds like that old-school
mysticism rather than sabremetrics.

RedsManRick
03-18-2010, 12:56 PM
The short answer: no big, stupid mistakes. Acquire assets at every opportunity and don't lock yourself in to mediocrity. The end.

Spring~Fields
03-18-2010, 01:46 PM
What he's done the best is gather and collect the jewels from his predecessors and hide under his desk when Cast was looking to stop the losing.

Yes



Arms: Head and shoulders better (article from Fay)

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

Arms: Head and shoulders better
Reds insider: How crucial is good stuff? Just look at the 2005 staff

February 27, 2010

GOODYEAR, Ariz. - The Reds ended the 2005 season with the worst pitching in the National League.

The club was last in the NL in ERA, runs allowed, complete games, shutouts and saves.

Of the 19 pitchers who ended the season on the roster, 15 are out of baseball.

The starting rotation was Aaron Harang, Brandon Claussen, Eric Milton, Ramon Ortiz and Randy Keisler. Allan Simpson, Chris Booker and Jason Standridge were in the bullpen.

Five years later, pitching, and pitching depth in particular, are no longer a weakness. It's quite the contrary in fact.

"That's what going to be key for us," general manager Walt Jocketty said. "That's a strength we have that some other teams don't have."

The Reds saw signs of the improvement last year. The team ERA was 4.18 - the lowest since it was 3.98 in 1999.

And compared to 2005? The Reds finished last year seventh in the NL in ERA, eighth in runs allowed, fourth in complete games, second in shutouts and eighth in saves.

The Reds did that with a staff dotted with young arms.

Reds manager Dusty Baker has noticed the increase in live, young arms since he took over three years ago.

"Big time," Baker said. "They've had a good draft and good development of those drafts. That's where you learn you're trade and serve your apprenticeship in the minor leagues."

But the transformation goes back further than Baker's three years. And four general managers share in the credit of turning it around after years of patching things together under GM Jim Bowden.
Dan O'Brien had very good drafts in his two years at the helm and re-opened Latin America to the organization. Homer Bailey was drafted on his watch. Johnny Cueto was signed under O'Brien. O'Brien also drafted Travis Wood and Jordan Smith, two young pitchers who probably will make it to the big leagues.

Wayne Krivsky, who followed O'Brien, traded for Bronson Arroyo and Edinson Volquez and signed Francisco Cordero. Arroyo stabilized the rotation. Cordero stabilized the bullpen, and Volquez was the club's best pitcher before being derailed by elbow surgery. Krivsky also brought in Daniel Ray Herrera through a trade and got Jared Burton in the Rule 5 draft.

Brad Kullman, who served briefly as interim GM between Jim Bowden and O'Brien, made the trade for Aaron Harang.

Jocketty, the current GM, has continued to build. He added Nick Masset through trade and signed Arthur Rhodes.

His biggest move was to sign Aroldis Chapman, a 21-year-old Cuban left-hander.

Chapman has wowed people during camp.

The Reds have made a conscious effort to stock arms.

Pitchers like Mike Leake, the Reds' top draft choice last year, and Wood, last year's minor league pitcher of the year, will probably start the year in the minors but they're close to being big-league ready.

"We've got several guys," Jocketty said. "Leake, (Matt) Maloney, (Justin) Lehr, Wood on the verge of being able to pitch up here.

"We've got a lot of quality arms in the system."

You couldn't really say that in 2005.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/2...oulders+better


http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=80573


His experience has shown through and knows how to GM, something his predecessors lacked.

I don't think that is what Walt Jocketty and Dusty Baker have said about their predecessors in the article above.

wolfboy
03-18-2010, 02:40 PM
As others have stated, Walt has been able to concentrate more on the big picture. I think his close relationship with Bob, coupled with a relatively strong sense of job security has allowed him to do so. That is a luxury that his two predecessors likely did not have.

edabbs44
03-18-2010, 02:40 PM
I don't think that is what Walt Jocketty and Dusty Baker have said about their predecessors in the article above.

I think they are saying that they acquired some good arms. They aren't saying that they did a good job as GM overall.

There is a difference.

medford
03-18-2010, 02:51 PM
Not to rehash the rolen trade and if it was a good move or not, but redread sparked a thought. Lets say the Rolen trade didn't happen last year, and we're sitting here in spring training w/ Edwin still at 3rd, sill shakey on defense and streaky on offense. We've also have as strong a collection of young pitchers in or near the majors as anyone in baseball, but could use a solid veteran at the plate w/ a history of proven defense (as well as injury question marks). I suspect the exact same trade would be viewed more positively here on redszone. Sure Stewart was having a great season, but he was still only a year into professional baseball (or a year and a half now) and was a converted college reliever. But w/ Chapman, Bailey, wood, Cueto, Maloney, Leake, Volquez all right there or above the prospect level as Stewart, he seems much more expendable than he did at the time of the trade last season.

Sure Jockettey couldn't have known about Chapman at that point, but perhaps he felt pretty strong in his collection of Homer, Wood, Cueto, Leake (was he drafted yet? I think so) & Volquez to feel pretty confident in trading Stewart for an upgrade at 3rd.

Other than that, Walt inherited a much better organization than Dan O' did. I'm not sure if the commitment to LA started under Wayne or under Walt, but he's definently paid more attention there and has been a strong player in that market.

TheNext44
03-18-2010, 02:54 PM
Biggest and most important difference:

Jocketty, just coming off 14 successful years with the Cards, never felt he had to prove himself, which enabled him to stay to a long term course. This also enabled him to convince his owner to stay to a long term course.

O'Brien went "all in" with the signing of Milton and trying to sign Matt Morris. This was after he was brought in rebuild from within. Don't know if it was his call, or at the orders of Linder, but either he didn't have the confidence to convince Linder to stay with rebuilding, or thought that he needed to "win now" to keep his job.

Krivsky went "all in" with the Kearns trade and then again with the Hamilton trade. But the biggest problem that Krivsky had was that he forced out many of the Reds top talent evaluators and front office staff, in order to prove that he was in charge. He did not play well with others, as I used to mark on kids charts when I taught elementary school. It seemed that Krivsky never felt secure in his job, and always felt like he had something to prove.

Jocketty never has seemed to care whether he keeps this job or not, and definitely has never seemed to have something to prove.

Spring~Fields
03-18-2010, 03:30 PM
I think they are saying that they acquired some good arms. They aren't saying that they did a good job as GM overall.

There is a difference.

And what is the tangible and marked "differnce" without those arms and the ground work and foundation that those before them laid? Even though a winning season remains to be seen.

edabbs44
03-18-2010, 04:13 PM
And what is the tangible and marked "differnce" without those arms and the ground work and foundation that those before them laid? Even though a winning season remains to be seen.

You could also ask what the difference would be w/o some of those wonderful contracts that were signed.

Spring~Fields
03-18-2010, 06:10 PM
You could also ask what the difference would be w/o some of those wonderful contracts that were signed.

Are you referring to the contracts of Griffey, Larkin, Casey and Milton?

Or some other pitchers who if not signed, that might have been with another team, and would have had to be replaced, even their contributions to the team, with other’s, at what cost? It is not hard to imagine how bad a bad team would have been without them. Are those some of the same pitchers that Mr. Jocketty, and Mr. Baker are counting on this season too and apparently wanted to keep?

kpresidente
03-18-2010, 06:22 PM
The short answer: no big, stupid mistakes. Acquire assets at every opportunity and don't lock yourself in to mediocrity. The end.

Well, the Rolen trade was a mistake but the Chapman signing made up for it.

kpresidente
03-18-2010, 06:25 PM
Perhaps we should wait until we have actual results, like a winning season, but maybe it's good to track this as we go. Walt Jocketty has had about the same amount of time or less than Wayne Krivsky and Dan O'Brien had, yet seems to have the organization in much better shape. What did he do differently? If you wanted to replicate a GM who's successful in a short amount of time for a struggling small-market team, what could you take from Jocketty's strategy so far?

Huh? Let's try this exercise...

What if Jocketty had done nothing? Absolutely nothing. As far as I'm concerned, the team would be in just as good shape as it is now. So what are we giving him credit for?

edabbs44
03-18-2010, 06:28 PM
Are you referring to the contracts of Griffey, Larkin, Casey and Milton?

Or some other pitchers who if not signed, that might have been with another team, and would have had to be replaced, even their contributions to the team, with other’s, at what cost? It is not hard to imagine how bad a bad team would have been without them. Are those some of the same pitchers that Mr. Jocketty, and Mr. Baker are counting on this season too and apparently wanted to keep?

I'm referring to all the money wasted over the past number of years on players that didn't get this team to a winning season.

edabbs44
03-18-2010, 06:30 PM
Huh? Let's try this exercise...

What if Jocketty had done nothing? Absolutely nothing. As far as I'm concerned, the team would be in just as good shape as it is now. So what are we giving him credit for?

One of the things I think he deserves credit for is his patience. If others were in charge, do you think there would have been a shot of us having an anchor like Bradley or Burrell on this team?

dougdirt
03-18-2010, 06:34 PM
One of the things I think he deserves credit for is his patience. If others were in charge, do you think there would have been a shot of us having an anchor like Bradley or Burrell on this team?

Others were pressured into moves by an impatient owner who didn't trust them to do their job. Walt has not seemed to have had that pressure and there have been no word leaking out about it either.

wolfboy
03-18-2010, 06:41 PM
Others were pressured into moves by an impatient owner who didn't trust them to do their job. Walt has not seemed to have had that pressure and there have been no word leaking out about it either.

I think this sums up the most important distinction quite nicely. It would be interesting to see what the others could have done given the same degree of patience and leeway. I don't think we'd be any better off, but it would be interesting to see how it might have changed things.

RedsManRick
03-18-2010, 07:23 PM
I do wonder how much credit we're giving Walt for the situation he inherited. In reality, Bowden left the system pretty much barren and the major league team with an offense but no pitching and poor defense.

I don't know if O'Brien and/or Krivsky would have us where we are today had then been in place for longer, but I do know that Walt had much more to work with than either of them. That doesn't take away from what he done, but when you look at the biggest improvements we've had, aside from Chapman, it's been the maturation of players who were already here when Jocketty took over.

TheNext44
03-18-2010, 07:45 PM
Huh? Let's try this exercise...

What if Jocketty had done nothing? Absolutely nothing. As far as I'm concerned, the team would be in just as good shape as it is now. So what are we giving him credit for?

The vast majority of the work that Jocketty has done has been pointed toward the future. Sure, the major league team looks pretty much the same as if nothing had been done, but the organization is completely different, both in talent, and in philosophy since he took over.

As Edabbs44 pointed out, a large part of it was not doing dumb things, not wasting resources on declining, or overvalued talent, which allows the Reds to keep everyone they have and sign Chapman.

But most importantly, Jocketty has shifted the overall philosophy of the minor leagues to one based on stockpiling depth and a balance between "tools' players and "ballplayers."

This difference will be seen in the future and for years to come. The Reds should have the depth in the organization to fill those 8-12 spots on the pitching staff, the 10-13 men on the bench, and holes created by injuries with cheap, young players that can provide around league average production. That is essential for a mid market team to win.

Now he did have more to work with, but he is the first Reds GM in decades that had this philosophy and stuck to it.

wolfboy
03-18-2010, 08:09 PM
I do wonder how much credit we're giving Walt for the situation he inherited. In reality, Bowden left the system pretty much barren and the major league team with an offense but no pitching and poor defense.

We've seen three GMs since Bowden - a total of four over the last eight years. The organization is in great shape with so much turnover and the state it was in when Bowden was fired.

Degenerate39
03-18-2010, 08:10 PM
If the Reds didn't have Rolen and still had Edwin do you think Frazier would now be the starting 3rd baseman?

Spring~Fields
03-18-2010, 08:10 PM
That doesn't take away from what he done, but when you look at the biggest improvements we've had, aside from Chapman, it's been the maturation of players who were already here when Jocketty took over.

:)

Falls City Beer
03-18-2010, 08:10 PM
I still think we're getting way ahead of ourselves: this team hasn't won a thing yet.

Spring~Fields
03-18-2010, 08:11 PM
I still think we're getting way ahead of ourselves: this team hasn't won a thing yet.

Good point, true also.

Plus spring training stats are meaningless, additionally projections are commonly in error and the Reds have not displaced St. Louis, Chicago, or Milwuakee yet.

westofyou
03-18-2010, 08:19 PM
I still think we're getting way ahead of ourselves: this team hasn't won a thing yet.

Yep, the praise being handed out is akin to the back slaps the other caveman gave the first caveman to kill something that might be good enough to eat, but only to be stymied by the fact no one had figured out how to start a fire yet.

mth123
03-18-2010, 09:02 PM
What he's done the best is gather and collect the jewels from his predecessors and hide under his desk when Cast was looking to stop the losing.

:thumbup:

edabbs44
03-18-2010, 09:19 PM
I do wonder how much credit we're giving Walt for the situation he inherited. In reality, Bowden left the system pretty much barren and the major league team with an offense but no pitching and poor defense.

I don't know if O'Brien and/or Krivsky would have us where we are today had then been in place for longer, but I do know that Walt had much more to work with than either of them. That doesn't take away from what he done, but when you look at the biggest improvements we've had, aside from Chapman, it's been the maturation of players who were already here when Jocketty took over.

Walt has done what should've been done for a while. Let the kids mature, don't spend ridiculous money on a dream and let the payroll open up for guys who will help when the kids are getting there. The spending of money in 2007-2009 was a huge negative for me, if you couldn't tell. There wasn't any reason why some of those contracts had to happen and the team would be better positioned for the future if some of them didn't.

Walt had a lot of the future situated nicely when he took over and he will most likely end up benefitting because of that. But he is also positioning the roster to coincide with the maturation of the future, which is smart GMing.

RedsManRick
03-18-2010, 09:19 PM
We've seen three GMs since Bowden - a total of four over the last eight years. The organization is in great shape with so much turnover and the state it was in when Bowden was fired.

I agree. And the current state of the franchise is the result of the combined efforts of the GM's we've had since Bowden. Comparing the state of the org under Jocketty to where it was under O'Brien or Krvisky largely ignores the impact of talent accumulated by predecessors.

To use the phrase liberally, there's a bit of a "standing on the shoulders of geniuses" going on here. That's not deny Jocketty has done well since he's gotten here. He's not made any large, irresponsible investments and has overseen the maturation of Votto, Bruce, Bailey, Dickerson, Hanigan, etc. But we should give credit where's it due to those people who brought much of this great young talent in to the organization.

I'm tentatively of the opinion that he's dumb like a fox when it comes to the Taveras signing, for example. He knows the only way to build a winner here is to build it from the ground up with a few key vets sprinkled in. But he needed to appease Mr. Losing-Stops-Now in the process.

edabbs44
03-18-2010, 09:21 PM
I still think we're getting way ahead of ourselves: this team hasn't won a thing yet.

The future of the team is improving. I am seeing a team that is positioned well for the next 5 years. That enough is cause for me to be happy.

edabbs44
03-18-2010, 09:28 PM
Others were pressured into moves by an impatient owner who didn't trust them to do their job. Walt has not seemed to have had that pressure and there have been no word leaking out about it either.

He took the job with those expectations laid out for him. I doubt that there was any bait and switch going on.

And maybe it is true about Walt, but also maybe Walt stood up and told him that the team couldn't continue down the path it was going. Maybe Wayne wanted a GM job so bad he just accepted one that was offered no matter what the situation.

If you have inside knowledge about how this all went down, I'd love to hear it. But I'm not going to assume that Wayne was strong-armed into some of those contracts and decisions he made. What I saw was a rookie GM who had some hits but was overmatched in the world of GMing.

HokieRed
03-18-2010, 09:36 PM
I think a plausible narrative would suggest that all four of the administrations after Jim Bowden's release have made seeming progress toward the goal of our becoming competitive--a status we have yet to achieve, as FCB rightly reminds us.

Spring~Fields
03-18-2010, 10:38 PM
I agree. And the current state of the franchise is the result of the combined efforts of the GM's we've had since Bowden. Comparing the state of the org under Jocketty to where it was under O'Brien or Krvisky largely ignores the impact of talent accumulated by predecessors.
To use the phrase liberally, there's a bit of a "standing on the shoulders of geniuses" going on here. That's not deny Jocketty has done well since he's gotten here. He's not made any large, irresponsible investments and has overseen the maturation of Votto, Bruce, Bailey, Dickerson, Hanigan, etc. But we should give credit where's it due to those people who brought much of this great young talent in to the organization.


:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

Spring~Fields
03-18-2010, 10:44 PM
Walt had a lot of the future situated nicely when he took over and he will most likely end up benefitting because of that. But he is also positioning the roster to coincide with the maturation of the future, which is smart GMing.


That reads like you are being more fair now. I can live with that.

M2
03-18-2010, 11:33 PM
General thoughts:

1. The notion that it's all going to come together for the Reds in 2010 strikes me as highly aspirational. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that there's a lot of moving pieces involved in it.

2. Jocketty has had the benefit of following Krivsky. That doesn't mean Krivsky handed him a finished or nearly finished product, just that he has assets to work with. For instance, as much as some have been inclined to grouse about the money spent on Arroyo, Harang and Cordero, the two starters vacuum up an immense number of innings. Cordero has allowed Baker to put together an orderly bullpen and Jocketty to concentrate on fixing other problems.

3. To his credit, Jocketty has strung together a series of good moves. Getting Rolen undeniably helped the major league product. Chapman, though he'll surely have a learning curve, is a top-end arm. Cabrera was a nice opportunistic buy. Balentien could be a factor. He tried to add some reserve player depth to the roster too (though that remains a bit up in the air). Jocketty's on a bit of run since midway through last season. If he keeps stringing moves together, good things will happen. The challenge he faces is that the club constantly faces a veteran talent bleed, which makes it hard to get ahead (and harder to stay ahead if it ever gets ahead).

GAC
03-19-2010, 05:40 AM
What he's done the best is gather and collect the jewels from his predecessors and hide under his desk when Cast was looking to stop the losing.

Yep. For the most part, he is simply trying to complete the build process on an engine with parts accumulated by the previous mechanics while adding his own minor tweaks here and there.

Still not sure what kind of race care we're gonna end up with though. Will the engine hold up for the entire race?

edabbs44
03-19-2010, 07:04 AM
That reads like you are being more fair now. I can live with that.

I think that this is fairly consistent with my previous postings.

bucksfan2
03-19-2010, 10:22 AM
Others were pressured into moves by an impatient owner who didn't trust them to do their job. Walt has not seemed to have had that pressure and there have been no word leaking out about it either.

This is one of the most important aspects of a GM job. You have to have the trust of your owner in order to operate successfully. Walt has earned that trust, not only from working with Bob before, but also for his overall success in building St. Louis into a perennial contender.

While the other two GM's may have laid a nice foundation, Walt has taken over the roll of building upon that foundation. Its like any executive position in America, often it is who build the initial foundation who is successful, it is the person who is able to take that foundation and turn the company into a success. The previous GM's had both their strengths and weaknesses, but they didn't have the track record to come in and run the things exactly the way they wanted.

BearcatShane
03-19-2010, 10:28 AM
On January 9th 85% of this forum thought Walt had really done a sub par job as Reds GM. Amazing what a signing of a lefty that can his 100 MPH will do for a GM. That move really sparked a lot of life into the organization.

Marc D
03-19-2010, 11:21 AM
I still think we're getting way ahead of ourselves: this team hasn't won a thing yet.


Good point but for the first time in over a decade there is reasonable justification to have hope. Not "Eric Milton won 18 games two years ago" kind of hope, but hope based on things that have a decent chance of actually happening.

After the decade we just went through, hope is enough at this point, at least for me.

BTW as to the question originally posed, I think their different levels of success can be, in part, attributed to how far removed they were from inheriting Jimbo's Frankenstein of a ball club.

nate
03-19-2010, 11:54 AM
Good point but for the first time in over a decade there is reasonable justification to have hope. Not "Eric Milton won 18 games two years ago" kind of hope, but hope based on things that have a decent chance of actually happening.

After the decade we just went through, hope is enough at this point, at least for me.

BTW as to the question originally posed, I think their different levels of success can be, in part, attributed to how far removed they were from inheriting Jimbo's Frankenstein of a ball club.

I'll grant that the "talent:rabbit's feet" ratio has squared a bit. However, I think it's perfectly fair as a fan to be cautious going into the season. Ten years is a long time.

lollipopcurve
03-19-2010, 12:01 PM
I think their different levels of success can be, in part, attributed to how far removed they were from inheriting Jimbo's Frankenstein of a ball club.

Absolutely. The entire organization was in shambles at the end of Jimbo's tenure.

Unassisted
03-19-2010, 12:01 PM
On January 9th 85% of this forum thought Walt had really done a sub par job as Reds GM. Amazing what a signing of a lefty that can his 100 MPH will do for a GM. That move really sparked a lot of life into the organization.IMO, at that point people were upset that the payroll seemed to be shrinking and the club appeared to be standing pat. Perception changed dramatically once everyone found out what Walt was having Bob save the money for.

BCubb2003
03-19-2010, 12:22 PM
So we're saying that Walt Jocketty stood on the shoulders of average-sized men?

edabbs44
03-19-2010, 01:11 PM
IMO, at that point people were upset that the payroll seemed to be shrinking and the club appeared to be standing pat. Perception changed dramatically once everyone found out what Walt was having Bob save the money for.

Agreed, I think you are spot on. Many didn't have faith in the guy, almost as if he forgot how to run a winning organization just b/c he changed addresses.

M2
03-19-2010, 02:22 PM
almost as if he forgot how to run a winning organization just b/c he changed addresses.

That part remains to be seen. The Reds could be a really awful offensive team. Combine that with average on the run prevention side of things and you've got a losing team.

I suspect what's got people slightly more jazzed about the current version (other than the fact that it's spring and everyone gets giddy when it's spring) isn't the current version so much as the future version. People have visions of Cueto, Chapman, Volquez, Bailey and Leake dancing in their heads. That won't be meaningfully in place until at least 2011, if it ever fully materializes. And that still doesn't put runs on the board.

Yet, from a relatively short time distance, it looks like a foolproof plan. And it's been a long time since Reds fans had that sort of carrot dangling in front of them.

Expect disillusionment with Walt to grow if the current product doesn't deliver once the season starts. Waiting for a near, but not quite here future can be maddening.

edabbs44
03-19-2010, 02:30 PM
That part remains to be seen. The Reds could be a really awful offensive team. Combine that with average on the run prevention side of things and you've got a losing team.

I suspect what's got people slightly more jazzed about the current version (other than the fact that it's spring and everyone gets giddy when it's spring) isn't the current version so much as the future version. People have visions of Cueto, Chapman, Volquez, Bailey and Leake dancing in their heads. That won't be meaningfully in place until at least 2011, if it ever fully materializes. And that still doesn't put runs on the board.

Yet, from a relatively short time distance, it looks like a foolproof plan. And it's been a long time since Reds fans had that sort of carrot dangling in front of them.

Expect disillusionment with Walt to grow if the current product doesn't deliver once the season starts. Waiting for a near, but not quite here future can be maddening.

Walt can't change the expectations of certain fans. It is obvious that the team's future is what is going right. Anyone expecting to win anything this year will likely be disappointed. I expect them to be much less embarrassing than the past few years and will be looking for the advancement of the young players. if I see improvement and consistency from the key young guys, I'll be happy.

Fans need to be realistic.

vaticanplum
03-19-2010, 02:36 PM
Walt can't change the expectations of certain fans. It is obvious that the team's future is what is going right. Anyone expecting to win anything this year will likely be disappointed. I expect them to be much less embarrassing than the past few years and will be looking for the advancement of the young players. if I see improvement and consistency from the key young guys, I'll be happy.

Fans need to be realistic.

Yes they do, but then it would behoove the Reds to muzzle Castellini when he starts to say things like "the losing stops now!" "I'll eat my ear if the Reds don't make the playoffs!", etc.

As a fan, I'm willing to get behind a strong future 2-3 years down the road if the front office is.

Spring~Fields
03-19-2010, 02:38 PM
Walt can't change the expectations of certain fans. It is obvious that the team's future is what is going right. Anyone expecting to win anything this year will likely be disappointed. I expect them to be much less embarrassing than the past few years and will be looking for the advancement of the young players. if I see improvement and consistency from the key young guys, I'll be happy.

Fans need to be realistic.

Are you saying that the fans should not expect a good product?

Or that Walt should be given more time than you have allotted the other gm's?

On some if-come-maybe like we heard from Bowden back in his day of the cry, “we are building for 2003”

While the fans spend their time, energy and money on that? :yikes:

Why shouldn't we all just come back with our time, energy, interest and money after Walt and the Reds actually have a good product in place? :dunno:

Chip R
03-19-2010, 02:44 PM
Agreed, I think you are spot on. Many didn't have faith in the guy, almost as if he forgot how to run a winning organization just b/c he changed addresses.

I don't know if it was that people didn't have faith in him but more along the lines of he wouldn't have all that attendance revenue he used when he was in StL. If everything else is the same - TV money, etc - when one team is drawing about a million more than the other team, that's quite a bit of revenue to make up. If Brian Cashman or Theo Epstein decided to pull up stakes and take the GM job in PIT or KC, there's no guarantee they would be successful just because they won championships in NY and BOS. Maybe they would but the odds would be against them.


Yes they do, but then it would behoove the Reds to muzzle Castellini when he starts to say things like "the losing stops now!" "I'll eat my ear if the Reds don't make the playoffs!", etc.

I'd pay to see that!

Ltlabner
03-19-2010, 02:50 PM
That part remains to be seen. The Reds could be a really awful offensive team. Combine that with average on the run prevention side of things and you've got a losing team.

No doubt. Lets not count our chickens here. Stubb cratering, Dickerson getting injured, Hernandez continuing to decline, Nix/Gomes falling apart, Bruce repeating his struggles and Rolen being injured are all potential pitfalls to derail the team. That's before we even consider the pitching staff and it's many question marks.


I suspect what's got people slightly more jazzed about the current version (other than the fact that it's spring and everyone gets giddy when it's spring) isn't the current version so much as the future version. People have visions of Cueto, Chapman, Volquez, Bailey and Leake dancing in their heads. That won't be meaningfully in place until at least 2011, if it ever fully materializes. And that still doesn't put runs on the board.

I tend to agree. What's got people slightly more interested is this team *could* contend or at least be relevant. And IF (always a massive IF) the young kids become solid that lead to possibly even more winning in the future.

In the recent past the Reds were never going to contend. The only way they'd be in the hunt is if every single thing fell perfectly in place, a couple of people had better than normal years and the other teams fell apart.

Now, there's a possibility that the team is relevant and it doesn't rest on hopes, dreams and perfection. I still think it's unlikely the Reds are relevant past late July but it isn't going to take every single star in the universe to align for it to possibly happen. The odds are much more in their favor that they *could* do something.

Having your odds go from 1 in a billion to 1 in a couple hundred thousand gives a hope starved fan-base the preliminary tingles of interest.

edabbs44
03-19-2010, 03:24 PM
Are you saying that the fans should not expect a good product?

Or that Walt should be given more time than you have allotted the other gm's?

On some if-come-maybe like we heard from Bowden back in his day of the cry, “we are building for 2003”

While the fans spend their time, energy and money on that? :yikes:

Why shouldn't we all just come back with our time, energy, interest and money after Walt and the Reds actually have a good product in place? :dunno:

The fans should be realistic. Pretty clear. I think they can expect improvement this year, both through full seasons of guys like Rolen and Cabrera along with maturation of young guys.

Personally, I have allotted more time to Walt b/c his plan is to take more time. What you bring up is previously where we saw money being dumped into the major league product while hearing cries of "Win now". I expect to win now when I hear and see that. When I see a GM spend little to no money on the ML product early on and then see a good amt of money being spent on the future of the franchise, I tend to have more patience.

And to answer your last question, I tend to root for the team no matter what. I guess we'll see you in a few years.

RedsManRick
03-19-2010, 03:29 PM
Are you saying that the fans should not expect a good product?

Or that Walt should be given more time than you have allotted the other gm's?

On some if-come-maybe like we heard from Bowden back in his day of the cry, “we are building for 2003”

While the fans spend their time, energy and money on that? :yikes:

Why shouldn't we all just come back with our time, energy, interest and money after Walt and the Reds actually have a good product in place? :dunno:

The Brewers were on the ball back in the mid 2000's when they said they were doing a full rebuild on a 5 year plan. They did it right and in the 4th year they were competitive -- and have been since. It simply takes that long or longer. And the more you try to play for today in the process, the longer it takes to actually get there.

As a fan, I'd much rather have a future to look forward to combined with a clear, reasonable expectation about today than to be fed the owner-cries-win mentality year after year and eventually become so cynical that it just stops being fun.

Fans shouldn't always expect a winner on the field. But a smart GM sets reasonable expectations, stays optimistic and doesn't set fans up for a let-down.

Spring~Fields
03-19-2010, 06:24 PM
The fans should be realistic. Pretty clear. I think they can expect improvement this year, both through full seasons of guys like Rolen and Cabrera along with maturation of young guys.

Personally, I have allotted more time to Walt b/c his plan is to take more time. What you bring up is previously where we saw money being dumped into the major league product while hearing cries of "Win now". I expect to win now when I hear and see that. When I see a GM spend little to no money on the ML product early on and then see a good amt of money being spent on the future of the franchise, I tend to have more patience.

And to answer your last question, I tend to root for the team no matter what. I guess we'll see you in a few years.

"A few more years" ? :)

For that ownership group to put a winning entertainment product on the field for the paying fans? :pray:

Bob Castellini and that ownership group of Robert H. Castellini,W. Joseph Williams Jr., Thomas L. Williams, Carl H. Lindner, Carl H. Lindner III, Mrs. Louis Nippert, William J. Reik and George L. Strike, that includes Lindner to this date. Those guys have had more time than any GM of the Reds in the decade and signed off on every significant contract.

Don’t you think that those owners have filled their pockets enough marketing their product, and have had long enough to put a good entertainment product on the field for the paying fans and sponsors.

How long do the fans have to keep "bailing" them out?

I have high expectations for this season from Mr. Baker with the additions of Rolen, Gomes, Stubbs, Cabrera and the utility infielders. :thumbup:

High expectations = win more than they lose, even if it is only one game above .500

Spring~Fields
03-19-2010, 06:42 PM
Fans shouldn't always expect a winner on the field. But a smart GM sets reasonable expectations, stays optimistic and doesn't set fans up for a let-down.

I think that we agree that fans should not be expected to pay for failure.

So they need more time to produce a quality product, in sports that is always going to be an ongoing process, so of course they receive that time as a natural course of that process.

I expect them to be better this year, thanks to the contributions that O'Brien, and Krivsky made, which of course has taken time and will continue to take some time to come to some maturity and manifestation.

Surely if a fan cries out that Jocketty needs more time, Jocketty needs more money, etc. Then they also should be expected to fully grasp that the work of O'Brien and Krivsky to rebuild a barren waste land stripped by owners preparing to sell as they did to reap a large profit, their work, also was and is going to take time, as it has and will continue to.

It can't be a standard for one, and not for the other. Or it is flawed.

Of course you have pointed out that each has made contributions, and should not be dismissed.

Falls City Beer
03-19-2010, 07:25 PM
Jocketty and his minor league folks have avoided early-round stinkers in the draft.

Really, when you get down to it, it's that the Reds have improved their drafting and developing, starting with O'Brien (part of that is benefitting from favorable draft positions of course) Plus, Krivsky got Volquez for a broken part in Hamilton and Jocketty took the right gamble on TOR talent in Chapman and pays more than lip service to improving defense. In short, it's been the organization's shift away from offense to pitching and defense that's brightened this organization's horizon. It was a long, long time coming, when you consider the park they play 81 games a season in. Too long.

MartyFan
03-19-2010, 09:31 PM
What he's done the best is gather and collect the jewels from his predecessors and hide under his desk when Cast was looking to stop the losing.

DING! DING! DING!

Winner commentary on this one..I do not think he has done anything that Krivsky couldn't an wouldn't have done.

edabbs44
03-19-2010, 10:40 PM
DING! DING! DING!

Winner commentary on this one..I do not think he has done anything that Krivsky couldn't an wouldn't have done.

That's a stretch.

TheNext44
03-19-2010, 10:52 PM
DING! DING! DING!

Winner commentary on this one..I do not think he has done anything that Krivsky couldn't an wouldn't have done.

I'll agree with the couldn't, he was a smart guy, but not so sure about the wouldn't, he really had a different overall philosophy than the one Jocketty currently has.

TRF
03-19-2010, 11:00 PM
He signed WT to a two year deal. I'm still waiting on a single member of the Reds organization to defend that signing.

Getting Chapman, while a risk, was brilliant, can't deny it. The trade for Rolen... Well i still think it was a bad trade. Especially if Frazier tears up AAA to start this year. And since EE is likely on the DL for TOR, Frazier COULD have started for the Reds out of ST. IMO, a missed opportunity.

But Walt gets no credit for the rotation, 1B, 2B, RF, CF, and gets only 50% for C.

So, he hasn't done all that much.

IslandRed
03-20-2010, 12:04 AM
General thoughts:

1. The notion that it's all going to come together for the Reds in 2010 strikes me as highly aspirational. I'm not saying it won't happen, just that there's a lot of moving pieces involved in it.

2. Jocketty has had the benefit of following Krivsky. That doesn't mean Krivsky handed him a finished or nearly finished product, just that he has assets to work with. For instance, as much as some have been inclined to grouse about the money spent on Arroyo, Harang and Cordero, the two starters vacuum up an immense number of innings. Cordero has allowed Baker to put together an orderly bullpen and Jocketty to concentrate on fixing other problems.

3. To his credit, Jocketty has strung together a series of good moves. Getting Rolen undeniably helped the major league product. Chapman, though he'll surely have a learning curve, is a top-end arm. Cabrera was a nice opportunistic buy. Balentien could be a factor. He tried to add some reserve player depth to the roster too (though that remains a bit up in the air). Jocketty's on a bit of run since midway through last season. If he keeps stringing moves together, good things will happen. The challenge he faces is that the club constantly faces a veteran talent bleed, which makes it hard to get ahead (and harder to stay ahead if it ever gets ahead).

I agree with pretty much all of that. Playoff contention will still require us to end up on the plus side of the breaks ledger, but it's no longer a total pipe dream, and the best-case scenario is way better than any season in my recent memory thanks in large part to Chapman. Even before that, I think the Rolen trade was a clear signal that Jocketty thinks we're close and it was time to move from the random talent collection phase to a focus on putting together a cohesive ballclub, reinforced since by other signings like Cabrera and, just as importantly, who wasn't dumped over the offseason. Maybe it doesn't quite get done this year but they're giving it a pretty good go.

cincrazy
03-20-2010, 12:04 AM
I think any team can have this argument... just because the bulk of talent was brought in before Jocketty doesn't mean he deserves no credit.

On the 1990 Reds, I remember reading an article that outlined all of the different GMs that contributed to that team.

I don't care who gets credit for what, as long as this team is a competitive, competent organization again.

GAC
03-20-2010, 05:25 AM
He signed WT to a two year deal. I'm still waiting on a single member of the Reds organization to defend that signing.

No one tries to defend it. But is is fair and realistic to judge the performance of any GM based on one signing good or bad?

Ron Madden
03-20-2010, 05:36 AM
I wish we had some kind of mix between the GM's of the past decade.

I'd take my chances with the offense of 2004/2005 with the pitching of 2009/2010.

HokieRed
03-20-2010, 09:38 AM
As usual, the narrative insufficiently credits the guy who had--by far--the worst set of circumstances to work with and began the move in the right direction--OB.

edabbs44
03-20-2010, 10:27 AM
He signed WT to a two year deal. I'm still waiting on a single member of the Reds organization to defend that signing.

Getting Chapman, while a risk, was brilliant, can't deny it. The trade for Rolen... Well i still think it was a bad trade. Especially if Frazier tears up AAA to start this year. And since EE is likely on the DL for TOR, Frazier COULD have started for the Reds out of ST. IMO, a missed opportunity.

But Walt gets no credit for the rotation, 1B, 2B, RF, CF, and gets only 50% for C.

So, he hasn't done all that much.

Here's the point you are missing...Walt isn't gunning for this season. He didn't give $50MM to 2 pitchers for 2009-2010. He didn't give $46MM to a closer for 2008-2011. He didn't extend Phillips. He is looking to build for the long haul, not for "now".

This team should be competitive this season and that is good for this franchise since it has been a while since we have been able to say that. But the fact that Walt gets no credit for the 2010 rotation doesn't really mean anything to me. I am much happier that he has added Leake and Chapman than the fact that we have Arroyo and Harang to watch this season. I am much more excited for 2012 than 2010.

We all realize that the Arroyo trade was a positive one and that Cordero made the bullpen better. But they aren't why the future of this team looks so good.

M2
03-20-2010, 10:38 AM
As usual, the narrative insufficiently credits the guy who had--by far--the worst set of circumstances to work with and began the move in the right direction--OB.

O'Brien was the worst GM ever to walk the earth. Couldn't spot major league talent to save himself and had every kid on the farm moving in the wrong direction.

Roy Tucker
03-20-2010, 11:00 AM
O'Brien was the worst GM ever to walk the earth. Couldn't spot major league talent to save himself and had every kid on the farm moving in the wrong direction.

Pitch to contact, i.e. our guys can't throw a fastball through a wet poopy piece of toilet paper.

westofyou
03-20-2010, 11:12 AM
O'Brien was the worst GM ever to walk the earth. Couldn't spot major league talent to save himself and had every kid on the farm moving in the wrong direction.

Yep, he was scout in a GM's office, a legacy child who should never have been given the keys to the summer house.

Spring~Fields
03-20-2010, 12:46 PM
Here's the point you are missing...Walt isn't gunning for this season. He didn't give $50MM to 2 pitchers for 2009-2010. He didn't give $46MM to a closer for 2008-2011. He didn't extend Phillips. He is looking to build for the long haul, not for "now".

This team should be competitive this season and that is good for this franchise since it has been a while since we have been able to say that.

I kind of wish that the Reds had not signed Harang, Arroyo, or Cordero either. I assume that you are referencing those pitchers.

I don’t know what ownership was thinking, knowing their budgeting plans and financial position for that season and the seasons to come, along with the restrictions and limitations that the ownership group, and the powers that be, knew, knew in advance that they were going to be placing upon their staff.

I can’t recall, I apologize, but I can’t recall having read your suggestion as to how they could have been replaced, those pitchers, with equal to or better than and at what cost and where that would have positioned the Reds organization throughout those past seasons and to date?

Though, I think it would have been interesting to see how the Reds organization would have replaced their innings and results, tangible and intangible on the bullpen and game outcomes. Plus it would have been and be real interesting to have watched Mr. Jocketty and Mr. Baker work 2008, 2009 and this year, 2010 without them, and what the replacements and replacement cost would have been if there even were or was replacements of their previous levels at the time of their signings, if, if they were available to be obtained.

Well, he has been able to pick up Rolen, Hernandez, Cabrera, Gomes, Nix, Miles, Burke, Masset, Rhodes and Kip Wells fairly cheap, we’ll see how they do with those nice acquisitions. Hopefully, injuries won't be a concern or factor with Rolen or Hernandez.

Surely it would have given Mr. Jocketty more payroll flexibility since ownership could not and seemingly can’t support the team beyond a Cincinnati beer income vs the St. Louis champagne income and the Chicago conglomerate incomes, throughout the decade of 2000.

It would have allowed Mr. Jocketty to have signed more aging and declining vets to two and three year contracts, and to have possibly traded off some of the pitching and hitting prospects for some experienced major league pitching. I am not real sure on the quality of those pitchers though, are you? I guess that doesn't matter or wasn't or isn't a factor?

Or that if there were any top quality starters and closers available that for a high enough price and long enough contract, that they would have been amenable to come pitch at the GABP for a team that hasn’t had a winning season in a decade. Would they be today, or would they have been during the past? Are they here?

That might be problematic. I guess it would be fair to say that, he and the small market, cash strapped Reds organization would have to make due with what the market and other teams would provide him with for what he was offering in return, and what the ownership group would budget him to spend or sign off on, since they ultimately control the power of the purse, and are making the final decisions.

Castellini does have to give an account of the investors money, investors like, Lindner, Reich and Strike, but those individuals might support Castellini and his plans, as they did throughout the "time" and entire growth and development of the Reds during the 2000 decade. There's that word "time" again, that went by, that we so often reference, by saying, "it takes time" or "it will take time".

Sometimes I think that those particular powerful investors have a salary cap of their own in place, when it comes to their money. They certainly did, 2000, 2001, 2002, 2003, 2004, 2005 and still have a major influence and impact on what is done with their "time" and "money", now.

Perhaps he can trade off Harang, Arroyo, and Cordero at the half to yet free up some payroll and or to get some higher level experienced, major league average performers, in return or to free up money. Mr. Jocketty and Mr. Baker probably will want to replace them with some experienced major league starters and perhaps closer too. Any good ones available, what will that cost in dollars, prospect trades or combinations? What will the return and outcome be?

Or then go with his developing young pitching in the starting roles. Cueto, Bailey, Volquez, Chapman, Wood or Leake will be very interesting to watch as they grow and develop. Outcome, unknown, but I think we have confidence in them based on media reports and the history of Cueto and Bailey, I don’t think any of us are sure about Volquez yet.

Surely they can edge out the cheese magnates of Milwaukee and the oil barrens of Houston this year, 2010.

We are real confident in what we have seen from Cueto and Bailey to date aren’t we? I think we have to wait and see about the recovery of Volquez though don’t we?

The Reds are moving in the right direction, I should write appear, appear to be moving in the right direction, compared to the Lindner-Bowden-O’Brien days leading up to the teams sale, when they fell 15-20 in millions behind in payroll and competing with their primary competition in the Central and have remained with that deficit or disparity throughout the decade of 2000. Enabling those other teams to do some growing, developing and achieving of their own, with their time and money.

The question as always remains, will they improve enough to catch-up with and overcome, St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Houston vs just the appearance of overcoming past bad Reds teams? No matter how much the appearance of improvement, those are the teams, organizations, and financial management that they have to overcome.

I am all happy about the current Reds appearing to be better than past bad Reds teams. I sure hope that the primary competition (St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee, and Houston) remains stagnate or regresses to lower levels for the next “few years” to allow the Reds to catch-up and to overcome them, because they will have a lot to say about the outcomes as they have throughout the decade. What the Reds have done, and what the Reds will do, will have to be better than St. Louis, Chicago, Milwaukee and Houston, to be difference maker's.

It’s pretty much all speculation isn’t it? One thing for certain, Reds ownerhip and the primary competition in the Central, along with their ownership, will have a say in it, as they have for the entire decade of 2000.

Lots of words, lots of guessing, results, well they remain to be seen, with the exception of what we have already seen, and know.

We shall see in a few years. Until then, we can just enjoy the game.

traderumor
03-20-2010, 01:22 PM
I wish we had some kind of mix between the GM's of the past decade.

I'd take my chances with the offense of 2004/2005 with the pitching of 2009/2010.

Except the offense of 2004/2005 had to go play the field also, so the pitching of 2009/2010 would have only been slightly improved, even though the quality of arms had improved markedly.

Just as an aside, baseball with an O and D platoon would certainly be an interesting game to follow, as well.

TRF
03-20-2010, 03:37 PM
not signing Harang, Arroyo and Cordero is the reds treading water. Someone has to pitch those innings, and more importantly win some games. Under JimBo, the reds likely sign Daniel Cabrera instead.

Who was available at 2B to replace BP? What SP's that can throw 200+ innings? What if Homer and Cueto don't take that step forward? With Volquez hurt, it's 2001 all over again, rushing kids and hoping for the best.

Walt managed to not trade away the farm while dumpster diving for a LF. he got Value for Griffey and potential for Dunn. SS was a move that COULD be good, could be bad, And I firmly believe the Rolen trade was a bad one long term and short term. I think Frazier has a Scott Rolen type makeup, based on everything I've read about him and that he can be a very good 3B.

I'm not missing any points, I just don't agree with your point. In fact, I think you are flat out wrong.

TheNext44
03-20-2010, 04:10 PM
Two quick points about the above debate:

1) Re-signing Phillips was a smart move at the time and has proven to be even smarter. He has provided $27.3M worth of value during his first two years of the contract, which will pay him $27 over four years. So even if he doesn't play another inning for the Reds, he has already supplied surplus value.

2) In terms of replacing Harang and Arroyo, why not just replace them with Harang and Arroyo? If the Reds did not sign them to extensions, they would have been free agents and been able to be signed for around half of what they currently are getting.

M2
03-20-2010, 04:48 PM
2) In terms of replacing Harang and Arroyo, why not just replace them with Harang and Arroyo? If the Reds did not sign them to extensions, they would have been free agents and been able to be signed for around half of what they currently are getting.

By someone else. No one takes a pay cut from their current team.

TheNext44
03-20-2010, 05:45 PM
By someone else. No one takes a pay cut from their current team.

Ramon Hernandez and Jonny Gomes say :wave:

Harang and Bronson were not going to be a free agents until after 2008. Sign them before or in the middle of that year, instead of before the 2007 season and you save ten's of millions of dollars. There was plenty of time to wait on signing these guys and still keeping them Reds.

TRF
03-20-2010, 05:47 PM
Ramon Hernandez and Jonny Gomes say :wave:

Harang and Bronson were not going to be a free agents until after 2008. Sign them before or in the middle of that year, instead of before the 2007 season and you save ten's of millions of dollars. There was plenty of time to wait on signing these guys and still keeping them Reds.

Harang might have stayed. Arroyo wouldn't have.

Gomes is lucky to even have a job. Hernandez too.

TheNext44
03-20-2010, 05:52 PM
Harang might have stayed. Arroyo wouldn't have.

Gomes is lucky to even have a job. Hernandez too.

I agree Gomes and Hernandez are bad comps for Harang and Bronson, but just responding to the notion that no one signs for less with their old team.

And why wouldn't Bronson sign an extension before 2008 if he was willing to sign before the 2007 season?

And just to be clear, this is all on Cast. Krivsky was just following orders with these guy's extensions. Cast was trying to prove that he was the BMOC.

HokieRed
03-20-2010, 06:37 PM
O'Brien incidentally drafted Homer Bailey and Jay Bruce, not to mention a half dozen other major leaguers, and signed Cueto, Francisco., and, I believe, even Miguel Rojas, now starting to get some mention. Seems like relatively good talent recognition to me.

Falls City Beer
03-20-2010, 06:45 PM
O'Brien incidentally drafted Homer Bailey and Jay Bruce, not to mention a half dozen other major leaguers, and signed Cueto, Francisco., and, I believe, even Miguel Rojas, now starting to get some mention. Seems like relatively good talent recognition to me.

My take as well. I don't know whether O'Brien himself recognized the young talent, but he apparently understood having a minor league crew that was more interested in really scouting for skilled players and not looking for strip clubs.

O'Brien was totally outclassed as a GM who assembles a major league team, however.

Falls City Beer
03-20-2010, 06:49 PM
Two quick points about the above debate:

1) Re-signing Phillips was a smart move at the time and has proven to be even smarter. He has provided $27.3M worth of value during his first two years of the contract, which will pay him $27 over four years. So even if he doesn't play another inning for the Reds, he has already supplied surplus value.

2) In terms of replacing Harang and Arroyo, why not just replace them with Harang and Arroyo? If the Reds did not sign them to extensions, they would have been free agents and been able to be signed for around half of what they currently are getting.

Frankly, I wouldn't have extended Phillips had you put a gun to my head. Or Arroyo for that matter.

bucksfan2
03-20-2010, 07:00 PM
Two quick points about the above debate:

1) Re-signing Phillips was a smart move at the time and has proven to be even smarter. He has provided $27.3M worth of value during his first two years of the contract, which will pay him $27 over four years. So even if he doesn't play another inning for the Reds, he has already supplied surplus value.

2) In terms of replacing Harang and Arroyo, why not just replace them with Harang and Arroyo? If the Reds did not sign them to extensions, they would have been free agents and been able to be signed for around half of what they currently are getting.

What I have started to believe, especially lately, is you don't extend players to big time contracts unless they are elite at their position. With all due respect to Phillips, I don't think he is in the same conversation with the best overall 2b. I think he is a very good 2b but don't think if I had to do it all over again I would committ the long term money to BP.

Don't quite know where you have come up with Phillip's value so far, but I think right now the Reds would be much better off with the BP contract money and Frazier or Valakia at 2b instead of BP. They wouldn't be better defensively but I believe they would be better overall offensively. Also it isn't are the Reds better with BP or Frazier, but is are the Reds better with BP or Frazier + $10M/year?

As for the Harang and Arroyo contracts I don't have much of a beef with them. They were signed around the time when middle of the rotation starters were getting around $10M/year. Just look at the Silva, Suppan, Marquis, etc. contracts signed around the same time. There is no way the Reds, or anyone in that matter, could have predicted the scale of the economic collapse which really made the contracts look bad. I think Harang was the better of the two contracts. He was looking like the Reds first bonified ace since Jose Rijo in his prime. No one could have predicted his struggles over the past two seasons. The Arroyo contract I think was done a little too quickly, but has been the better of the two signed.

As for Cordero to me its really a toss up. While the Reds are paying a lot of money to a closer he has lived up to his contract. The argument you can make is that its a misappropriation of funds. Another factor is when the contract was signed and the collapse of the economy and the FA market. If the Reds signed CoCo with the idea of expanding payroll over the course of the next year then it made sense. But when the FA market went south the Reds could have gotten both Abreau and KRod for the amount of money Cordero was making.

When you look at the 4 big deals right now the Reds have a lot of money committed to an above average 2b, two MOR pitchers, and a closer. Not bad players, but players who aren't worth their present day value of their contracts, especially when you take into consideration the recent FA markets.

HokieRed
03-20-2010, 07:08 PM
My take as well. I don't know whether O'Brien himself recognized the young talent, but he apparently understood having a minor league crew that was more interested in really scouting for skilled players and not looking for strip clubs.

O'Brien was totally outclassed as a GM who assembles a major league team, however.


Not sure I agree with your second point--primarily because he got so little chance and had tremendous constraints on what he could do, given what he had been left by Jimbo. He did release Danny Graves, trade the vastly overpaid Sean Casey, work out what seemed to me like a graceful way for Larkin to retire, outright D'Angelo Jimenez. That's pretty good work in my book. If he had to get people like Ramon Ortiz, that was largely because somebody had to throw the innings. There were no ready and available minor leaguers (our top pitching prospects, as I remember it, were Josh Hall and Dustin Moseley, both at AA) and precious little to trade for anything of quality. And, given the contracts of some of those I named above, there wasn't much available to spend on free agents.

Spring~Fields
03-20-2010, 07:19 PM
Frankly, I wouldn't have extended Phillips had you put a gun to my head. Or Arroyo for that matter.

I wouldn't have either, neither of those two. Maybe they will get moved at the halfway point this year. Phillips would not be the only one qualified to be the cleanup batter either or used there. Maybe Gomes resolves that latter issue.

edabbs44
03-20-2010, 08:17 PM
Frankly, I wouldn't have extended Phillips had you put a gun to my head. Or Arroyo for that matter.

Arroyo was a flat out bad move.

edabbs44
03-20-2010, 08:19 PM
Two quick points about the above debate:

1) Re-signing Phillips was a smart move at the time and has proven to be even smarter. He has provided $27.3M worth of value during his first two years of the contract, which will pay him $27 over four years. So even if he doesn't play another inning for the Reds, he has already supplied surplus value.

2) In terms of replacing Harang and Arroyo, why not just replace them with Harang and Arroyo? If the Reds did not sign them to extensions, they would have been free agents and been able to be signed for around half of what they currently are getting.

Regarding Phillips, maybe be provided "surplus value", but we'll see if he helps this team get to where they need to be.

edabbs44
03-20-2010, 08:33 PM
What I have started to believe, especially lately, is you don't extend players to big time contracts unless they are elite at their position. With all due respect to Phillips, I don't think he is in the same conversation with the best overall 2b. I think he is a very good 2b but don't think if I had to do it all over again I would committ the long term money to BP.

Don't quite know where you have come up with Phillip's value so far, but I think right now the Reds would be much better off with the BP contract money and Frazier or Valakia at 2b instead of BP. They wouldn't be better defensively but I believe they would be better overall offensively. Also it isn't are the Reds better with BP or Frazier, but is are the Reds better with BP or Frazier + $10M/year?

As for the Harang and Arroyo contracts I don't have much of a beef with them. They were signed around the time when middle of the rotation starters were getting around $10M/year. Just look at the Silva, Suppan, Marquis, etc. contracts signed around the same time. There is no way the Reds, or anyone in that matter, could have predicted the scale of the economic collapse which really made the contracts look bad. I think Harang was the better of the two contracts. He was looking like the Reds first bonified ace since Jose Rijo in his prime. No one could have predicted his struggles over the past two seasons. The Arroyo contract I think was done a little too quickly, but has been the better of the two signed.

As for Cordero to me its really a toss up. While the Reds are paying a lot of money to a closer he has lived up to his contract. The argument you can make is that its a misappropriation of funds. Another factor is when the contract was signed and the collapse of the economy and the FA market. If the Reds signed CoCo with the idea of expanding payroll over the course of the next year then it made sense. But when the FA market went south the Reds could have gotten both Abreau and KRod for the amount of money Cordero was making.

When you look at the 4 big deals right now the Reds have a lot of money committed to an above average 2b, two MOR pitchers, and a closer. Not bad players, but players who aren't worth their present day value of their contracts, especially when you take into consideration the recent FA markets.

The Arroyo contract had no business being offered at that time with two years left on a well below market deal. It was a case of the GM falling in love with his "big" acquisition and letting his objectivity fall to the wayside.

TRF
03-20-2010, 10:12 PM
The Arroyo contract had no business being offered at that time with two years left on a well below market deal. It was a case of the GM falling in love with his "big" acquisition and letting his objectivity fall to the wayside.

Scott Rolen says hi.

Every GM has his blind spots. However, Arroyo has produced. He's been frustrating at times, but he's an innings eater, and more often than not, give his offense a chance to win.

Falls City Beer
03-20-2010, 10:13 PM
Scott Rolen says hi.

Every GM has his blind spots. However, Arroyo has produced. He's been frustrating at times, but he's an innings eater, and more often than not, give his offense a chance to win.

I'll take the Rolen trade 10 times out of 10. I liked the Arroyo trade, but you've got to know when to sell if you're gonna survive in this business (and that includes Walt).

OnBaseMachine
03-20-2010, 10:27 PM
I liked the decisions to extend Arroyo and Phillips. Harang too. People can call the Arroyo extension a bad move all they want, but the guy has consistenly thrown 200+ innings of league average or better baseball. Those types of pitchers don't grow on trees.

Falls City Beer
03-20-2010, 10:34 PM
I liked the decisions to extend Arroyo and Phillips. Harang too. People can call the Arroyo extension a bad move all they want, but the guy has consistenly thrown 200+ innings of league average or better baseball. Those types of pitchers don't grow on trees.

The Cards turn up average/below average pitchers year after year after year--for very reasonable prices. No need to extend them.

Harang's deal was certainly defensible.

TRF
03-20-2010, 10:39 PM
I'll take the Rolen trade 10 times out of 10. I liked the Arroyo trade, but you've got to know when to sell if you're gonna survive in this business (and that includes Walt).

He's what? 35?

This ain't 1998. The likelihood he'll be on the DL this year is high. He hasn't played over 130 games since 2006, and in the 2 seasons prior to 2009 his highest OPS was .780.

I wouldn't have made that trade 1 times out of 10, not because of EE, but because the Reds system was about to produce Frazier, Francisco and even Alonso.

It was a classic case of buying high.

OnBaseMachine
03-20-2010, 10:40 PM
Arroyo has a 113 ERA+ in 871.2 IP with the Reds. That's not average/below average, it's above average.

jojo
03-20-2010, 10:47 PM
Arroyo has a 113 ERA+ in 871.2 IP with the Reds. That's not average/below average, it's above average.

ERA is a very weak argument.

Scrap Irony
03-20-2010, 10:55 PM
And, once again, jojo, FIP doesn't play well with Arroyo's success throughout his tenure as a Red. He's either a FIP outlier or one of the luckiest pitchers in modern baseball.

ERA, perception, scouting, and almost every counting statistic in baseball pegs Arroyo as an above average starter.

Falls City Beer
03-20-2010, 11:01 PM
And, once again, jojo, FIP doesn't play well with Arroyo's success throughout his tenure as a Red. He's either a FIP outlier or one of the luckiest pitchers in modern baseball.

ERA, perception, scouting, and almost every counting statistic in baseball pegs Arroyo as an above average starter.

The guy would be great in Dodger Stadium.

But pitching in the weakest division in the weaker league, he's pretty much the definition of snoozer. And now he doesn't K anybody anymore. I see no reason to keep him; I'd flip him for a bat in a heartbeat, but then, no one wants his contract.

jojo
03-20-2010, 11:14 PM
And, once again, jojo, FIP doesn't play well with Arroyo's success throughout his tenure as a Red. He's either a FIP outlier or one of the luckiest pitchers in modern baseball.

ERA, perception, scouting, and almost every counting statistic in baseball pegs Arroyo as an above average starter.

Except that isn't accurate. His FIP is a composite of his peripherals....how could they scream he's all that but not lead to a FIP that was?

Perception? His '06 was an outlier and he really, really liked the Reds defense last season.

Scrap Irony
03-20-2010, 11:25 PM
I did say counting statistics, not rate. Arroyo's an above average starter who also pitches a ton of innings. He's also that rare breed of pitcher who pitches better than his peripherals suggest. He has virtually his entire tenure as a Red.

edabbs44
03-20-2010, 11:29 PM
I don't think that anyone can argue against the acquisitions of guys like Arroyo and Phillips. Hamilton/Volquez as well. These were very good trades/moves that were made which benefitted the Cincy organization. But these cannot and should not be used as any sort of "evidence" that the GM who made these moves was taking this team in the right direction or that he was the one that was getting the team to October.

A GM is very much like a portfolio manager. Say for example that you had $500k and gave it to a portfolio manager to invest for you. He makes 10 different investments with your money, 3 pan out beautifully and 7 do poorly. Your portfolio is now worth $400k. Are you going to continually say that this portfolio manager was doing well because he was able to pick 3 winners out? I doubt it. This is what Wayne's tenure was like. He had a few nice hits, but other than that he was unable to improve the major league product on the whole even though he was investing most of his resources at that level.

Now you might say that he wasn't given enough time. That's fair, but he wasn't laying out the blueprint for a medium to long term plan so I don't think that he deserved more time. More time could have led to additional setbacks. He was investing far more in the major league product in the short term so we should have seen significant improvement there, which we did not. If you recall, we saw the major league team actually reach KC-like levels at times.

Plus, he was gunning for the 2008-2011 window when we all knew that such a plan was foolish. The team had neither the financial power nor the in house talent to target such a time frame. Yet we saw so much invested for these years.

Here's a question for those who think that WK should have been given more time...what do you think he would have done with the past two years? Do you think he would have been able to produce a winner in 2009 (since we all know the 2008 team was an embarrassment no matter if WK was or wasn't fired)? Do you think he would have had this team in the position to win in 2010? Because this would have definitely been the end of the line for WK if he didn't have them at least challenging for the playoffs. He invested so much money (relatively speaking) in the 2007-2010 window and would have had zero excuse if he didn't hit by this year. And this is where the road would have ended since Arroyo and Harang would be coming off the books with guys like Gonzo and Stanton long gone and Cordero on his way out.

The reason why I had zero issue with WK being launched when he did was because I believe he would not have had the team in position to win by now without something drastic taking place, such as Cincy starting to spend like a New York team. The fact is that we will most likely see this season end with over $100MM invested in guys like Harang, Arroyo, Cordero and Gonzo and not much to show for it. That is awful.

And we can discuss the effectiveness of guys like Arroyo and Cordero and that isn't being disputed. They have obviously provided value for this franchise. But no one would be able to get me to believe that the money spent on these guys made any sense. It didn't take a genius to figure out that the team was not going to be winning anything in this time frame. Having these guys on the team over the past few years has basically just made the team less embarrassing. I'm not sure if the price tag for less embarrassing is $100MM or not, but I think, if given the choice, most FOs would have rather had sucked it up over the past couple of years, picked up some vet FA pitchers on one year deals to take their places and saved $100MM if it just meant finishing 55 games under .500 over the past 4 years rather than 40 games.

Bottom line is that we finally have a true GM at the helm. I can't say it enough...being a GM is so much more than picking up a recovered drug addict in the Rule V draft or acquiring some flamed out top prospect for pennies on the dollar. It's about having a vision. It's about playing the market effectively. It's about building an organization, not one aspect of a team. It's about knowing when to sit back and knowing when to move ahead. It's about winning baseball games. It's about so much more than hitting on a trade now and then.

jojo
03-20-2010, 11:45 PM
I did say counting statistics, not rate. Arroyo's an above average starter who also pitches a ton of innings. He's also that rare breed of pitcher who pitches better than his peripherals suggest. He has virtually his entire tenure as a Red.

It's a great narrative. But he's not an above average starter.

OnBaseMachine
03-20-2010, 11:56 PM
A 113 ERA+ in his four seasons suggests Arroyo had been an above average starter during that stretch. He may post a 6.00 ERA this year, who knows, but he's been a very solid pitcher during his first four seasons with the Reds.

TheNext44
03-20-2010, 11:59 PM
Except that isn't accurate. His FIP is a composite of his peripherals....how could they scream he's all that but not lead to a FIP that was?

Perception? His '06 was an outlier and he really, really liked the Reds defense last season.

The funny thing is that while everyone is claiming that Arroyo is a guy who has outpitched his peripherals, he really hasn't by all that much, at least not by enough for it to be meaningful. But that is because his peripherals are better than most people think they are. His peripherals say he's a very good #3 starter, with a career FIP and XFIP of 4.44 and 4.47 respectively.

I believe that the league average #2 starter had an FIP of around 4.10 and a league aveage #3 starter had an FIP of around 4.60 during the years that Arroyo has pitched for the Reds. So his peripherals put him somewhere between a #2 and #3 starting pitcher. I think that is where most people would put him based on his counting stats.

edabbs44
03-21-2010, 12:15 AM
When discussing whether or not Arroyo's extension made sense at that time for this team, his performance is actually not where the discussion needs to happen. The fact is that, at the end of 2006, Cincy had a veteran pitcher coming off a very solid year with an insanely cheap contract over the next 2 years on a team that looked to be headed nowhere over those same two years.

Forget about extending him two years earlier than necessary...he should have been shopping him at his peak.

jojo
03-21-2010, 05:09 AM
A 113 ERA+ in his four seasons suggests Arroyo had been an above average starter during that stretch. He may post a 6.00 ERA this year, who knows, but he's been a very solid pitcher during his first four seasons with the Reds.

ERA+ is about as informative as ERA. It's one of the the bluntest possible ways to look at a pitcher. It really shouldn't be used as the endpoint for this type of discussion.

mth123
03-21-2010, 07:40 AM
And, once again, jojo, FIP doesn't play well with Arroyo's success throughout his tenure as a Red. He's either a FIP outlier or one of the luckiest pitchers in modern baseball.

ERA, perception, scouting, and almost every counting statistic in baseball pegs Arroyo as an above average starter.

Funny how when a guy drops his LD rate and ups the GB% he benefits from his defense.

I think the attempts to separate the performance of the pitcher from the defense overlooks that the type of contact that a pitcher allows has a direct effect on his team's DER. I guess when Arroyo was outperforming his FIP in 2006 and 2007 that such stellar defenders as EdE, Griffey, Keppinger, Ross, Conine, Aurilia, Lopez, Javy and of course Adam Dunn were playing Hall of Fame defense behind him. David Weathers seemed to have the same effect on his defense. Every year we'd hear that he was awful, BABIP, blah, blah, blah and every year his results would still be pretty good. I was right there on the bandwagon for a while with the BABIP and FIP guys, but the stat just doesn't capture all the factors and seems just as flawed as ERA or ERA+ IMO.

I'd agree with the notion xFIP and maybe even FIP are better predictors of the future than an outlying ERA from the previous season. But, IMO, 4 years of ERA+ data tells a better story of how the guy actually performed (since its based on actual results) than some contrived substitute based on theoretical results. All these stats have their place. The trick is knowing which are appropriate at which point. I think that is lost on a lot of people.

M2
03-21-2010, 10:43 AM
I agree Gomes and Hernandez are bad comps for Harang and Bronson, but just responding to the notion that no one signs for less with their old team.

Did I really need to get down to the level to the "no one who matters" level of specificity?

Obviously you recognize there's a massive difference between quality starting pitchers and role players.


And why wouldn't Bronson sign an extension before 2008 if he was willing to sign before the 2007 season?

Because why not just roll the dice on free agency if you aren't going to get a good deal? The economy hadn't taken a nosedive before the 2008 season. Arroyo was coming off a solid season. If the Reds were trying to get him a severe discount, he'd likely have taken the opportunity to shop himself.

And if he'd have done that, then he probably would have been dealt for peanuts in the summer of 2008.

Plus, what's the problem with Arroyo's contract? He earned his money and then some last season.

The reality is that at some point you've got to pay veteran players to keep them around. A team that obsessively wants to low ball its players is going to be a team that doesn't get to keep nice things around.

M2
03-21-2010, 10:53 AM
ERA+ is about as informative as ERA. It's one of the the bluntest possible ways to look at a pitcher. It really shouldn't be used as the endpoint for this type of discussion.

Yeah, I hate those blunt instruments that involve large sample sizes and that tell a clear, unmistakable story.

If you want to have a discussion about the nuance of how Bronson Arroyo has been an above average pitcher for the Reds during the balance of his four years with the club, go ahead. Throw FIP into the fire, L/R and home-road splits, opponent OPS, BABIP, the whole kitchen sink.

Yet there's no arguing that for four years he's been one of the better pitchers in the game at logging innings and limiting runs. Sorry if that's not nuanced or sophisticated enough for you, but there's nothing nuanced or sophisticated about it. The guy took the ball and did the job. That's what teams pay for.

It's the endpoint because in the end that is the point.

osuceltic
03-21-2010, 11:02 AM
Yeah, I hate those blunt instruments that involve large sample sizes and that tell a clear, unmistakable story.

If you want to have a discussion about the nuance of how Bronson Arroyo has been an above average pitcher for the Reds during the balance of his four years with the club, go ahead. Throw FIP into the fire, L/R and home-road splits, opponent OPS, BABIP, the whole kitchen sink.

Yet there's no arguing that for four years he's been one of the better pitchers in the game at logging innings and limiting runs. Sorry if that's not nuanced or sophisticated enough for you, but there's nothing nuanced or sophisticated about it. The guy took the ball and did the job. That's what teams pay for.

It's the endpoint because in the end that is the point.

Thank you. A voice of reason.

In my opinion, Arroyo has earned every penny he's earned as a Red.

IslandRed
03-21-2010, 11:02 AM
It's the endpoint because in the end that is the point.

And because "what did the guy actually accomplish in the past" and "what do his stats predict about his future" aren't the same question.

lollipopcurve
03-21-2010, 11:02 AM
Arroyo's been dogged for the same "peripherals" since the day Krivsky traded for him. It's old now. In my opinion, the stat guys have been looking at the wrong stuff with him. He's about IP, starts and quality start % IMHO.

And beyond that, he's as close to an artist as there is pitching in baseball these days. That's what folks really shouldn't miss.

westofyou
03-21-2010, 11:19 AM
And beyond that, he's as close to an artist as there is pitching in baseball these days. That's what folks really shouldn't miss.
He pitches a lot like the guys in the 80's/70's did in some of those big old parks, he's a throwback pitcher who might not play well in your strat league but he'll start 30 games and throw 200 innings a year and dance on both sides of average.

Durability, consistency and reliability are part of the skill set an employer is looking at when they extend a player a big contract.

mth123
03-21-2010, 11:31 AM
Arroyo's been dogged for the same "peripherals" since the day Krivsky traded for him. It's old now. In my opinion, the stat guys have been looking at the wrong stuff with him. He's about IP, starts and quality start % IMHO.

And beyond that, he's as close to an artist as there is pitching in baseball these days. That's what folks really shouldn't miss.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

RedsManRick
03-21-2010, 12:08 PM
:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

For reference on Arroyo:



IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 ERA FIP BABIP LOB% WAR Dollars
2006 240.7 6.88 2.39 1.16 3.29 4.15 .279 78.0% 4.2 $15.5
2007 210.7 6.66 2.69 1.20 4.23 4.57 .318 74.0% 2.7 $11.2
2008 200.0 7.34 3.06 1.31 4.77 4.50 .321 70.1% 2.4 $10.2
2009 220.3 5.19 2.66 1.27 3.84 4.78 .270 76.5% 1.8 $8.1

Average 218.0 6.51 2.68 1.23 4.00 4.49 .296 74.8% 2.8 $11.4
Career 1459.7 6.15 2.77 1.12 4.24 4.44 .297 70.6% 19.2 $71.3


It turns out that, to paraphrase Denny Green, Arroyo is who we thought he was. Now, I'll admit, I'm surprised by Arroyo's ERA compared to his FIP -- and it's twice the differential we've seen for his career (given that his time with the Reds are more than 50%, that means prior to coming to the Reds, his ERA was higher than his FIP). I'm guessing it doesn't get much more off than that, given his league average BABIP and 800+ IP. The only real aberration I see statistically in that his LOB% is a good deal higher than league average, which floats between 70-72%.

200 IP of a 4.00 ERA is definitely valuable -- to the tune of about $11M a year. Suffice it to say that Arroyo has been a bargain during his time as a Red. And unless his performance falls off a cliff, he'll be paid fairly through the end of his contract. And if you judge a player by the value he provides his team relative to his compensation, Arroyo has been a good deal for the Reds. He seems very much to be a high floor/ low ceiling type guy. He's not going to be worth 5 wins in any season, but you can count on him being worth a few wins per -- and that sort of reliability usually costs a premium.

All that said, I'd be remiss if I didn't observe that his production has dipped each year, as measured by WAR. It's probably not completely fair to use his career season as the starting point for the trend line, but it does suggest that his current skill level is that of a ~2 win player.

mth123
03-21-2010, 12:37 PM
For reference on Arroyo:



IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 ERA FIP BABIP LOB% WAR Dollars
2006 240.7 6.88 2.39 1.16 3.29 4.15 .279 78.0% 4.2 $15.5
2007 210.7 6.66 2.69 1.20 4.23 4.57 .318 74.0% 2.7 $11.2
2008 200.0 7.34 3.06 1.31 4.77 4.50 .321 70.1% 2.4 $10.2
2009 220.3 5.19 2.66 1.27 3.84 4.78 .270 76.5% 1.8 $8.1

Average 218.0 6.51 2.68 1.23 4.00 4.49 .296 74.8% 2.8 $11.4
Career 1459.7 6.15 2.77 1.12 4.24 4.44 .297 70.6% 19.2 $71.3


It turns out that, to paraphrase Denny Green, Arroyo is who we thought he was. Now, I'll admit, I'm surprised by Arroyo's ERA compared to his FIP -- and it's twice the differential we've seen for his career (given that his time with the Reds are more than 50%, that means prior to coming to the Reds, his ERA was higher than his FIP). I'm guessing it doesn't get much more off than that, given his league average BABIP and 800+ IP. The only real aberration I see statistically in that his LOB% is a good deal higher than league average, which floats between 70-72%.

200 IP of a 4.00 ERA is definitely valuable -- to the tune of about $11M a year. Suffice it to say that Arroyo has been a bargain during his time as a Red. And unless his performance falls off a cliff, he'll be paid fairly through the end of his contract. And if you judge a player by the value he provides his team relative to his compensation, Arroyo has been a good deal for the Reds. He seems very much to be a high floor/ low ceiling type guy. He's not going to be worth 5 wins in any season, but you can count on him being worth a few wins per -- and that sort of reliability usually costs a premium.


Agree with your post in general though I'm not sold on all the numbers in the chart. When I'm evaluating a pitcher I look at BB/9, K/9 and HR/9 just like the FIP guys do, along with IP, BABIP and his actual ERAs from the previous years. I think the formulas though, stick to strictly to the theory of pitching being fielding independent. So things like K/9 are a little over valued and while just getting outs is not getting enough credit. BABIP and DER aren't all about luck and the defense. A pitcher giving up ropes all over the place is going to have a higher BABIP and lower DER but the formula will chalk it up as bad luck or poor defense and be a little too forgiving. OTOH, a guy who keeps hitters off balance and induces lots of weak grounders and lazy fly balls gets passed off as being lucky or owing his success to his defense. I think the formula is missing the mark. Its OK for looking at an odd season that sticks out from the others, but ignoring 800+ innings of actual results in favor of the theoretical ones seems way off base to me.

The real value of Arroyo is the large number of competitive innings he throws. It goes beyond his innings and effects the innings of the rest of the staff. There is no way to know, but I'd say guys like Cueto, Bailey and Volquez may have already washed out without guys like Arroyo and Harang to absorb the burden of laying down the inning foundation of the staff. Its one reason that I'm not in favor of throwing all the kids in the rotation at once and dealing off say Harang and Arroyo and turning it over to Chapman and Leake. Let Bailey and Cueto spend the year working up to becoming the inning guys while Harang and Arroyo are still around before introducing the others. I wish there was a vet for the 5th spot in spite of all the young talent.

Hoosier Red
03-21-2010, 12:43 PM
He's what? 35?

This ain't 1998. The likelihood he'll be on the DL this year is high. He hasn't played over 130 games since 2006, and in the 2 seasons prior to 2009 his highest OPS was .780.

I wouldn't have made that trade 1 times out of 10, not because of EE, but because the Reds system was about to produce Frazier, Francisco and even Alonso.

It was a classic case of buying high.

So they had three people at 3b, none at the time above AA, two who shouldn't even bother bringing a mitt with them when they get to the field and you're willing to set your future on that?

Now if Rolen gets hurt, Frazier is a perfectly acceptable replacement. Before you were staking your next 3 years to Frazier being good enough which he may or may not be.

Is there any proof that Stewart is going to be better than Leake, Maloney or Wood? Because if not he wasn't going to make the Reds rotation anyway.

RedsManRick
03-21-2010, 12:49 PM
Agree with your post in general though I'm not sold on all the numbers in the chart. When I'm evaluating a pitcher I look at BB/9, K/9 and HR/9 just like the FIP guys do, along with IP, BABIP and his actual ERAs from the previous years. I think the formulas though, stick to strictly to the theory of pitching being fielding independent. So things like K/9 are a little over valued and while just getting outs is not getting enough credit.

Every analysis that's been done to try to tease out the impact a pitcher can have on runs has shown that they really don't have control over "just getting outs" beyond strikeouts and batted ball types. If they did, it would show up in the stats -- and it just doesn't. And even in so far as pitchers can control LD%, it's a very small ability. Most of their control of batted balls is in GB and FB.


BABIP and DER aren't all about luck and the defense. A pitcher giving up ropes all over the place is going to have a higher BABIP and lower DER but the formula will chalk it up as bad luck or poor defense and be a little too forgiving. OTOH, a guy who keeps hitters off balance and induces lots of weak grounders and lazy fly balls gets passed off as being lucky or owing his success to his defense. I think the formula is missing the mark. Its OK for looking at an odd season that sticks out from the others, but ignoring 800+ innings of actual results in favor of the theoretical ones seems way off base to me.

So let's take a look at Arroyo's batted ball types. Arroyo's LD% as a Red is 21%, slightly above league average. His GB/FB ratio as a Red is 1.10, again very average. Here's something interesting however, let's look at his IFFB% (Infield fly ball %): Among pitchers with 150+ IP:

2006: 11.5% (25th in MLB of 92)
2007: 15.4% (1st of 92)
2008: 17.2% (2nd of 99)
2009: 12.3% (15th of 87)

Hopefully, hit f/x will give us some more insight in to this. Maybe it's true that some pitchers allow weaker hit balls on average (even within the type of hit). I think it's quite likely that his inducing infield fly balls at a very high rate is playing a significant role in his lower than expected ERA. The question then goes to exactly how much control pitchers have over IFFB%. We should be careful in attributing this performance to a skill (and thus repeatable and predictive). I think it's reasonable to suggest pitcher's do have some control over it, probably related to movement which makes it difficult for batters to square up the ball, but we should be cautious in assuming just how much of the variance is due to skill vs. random variation.

(As to your point about value, sure, value goes beyond just what a guy does on the field. But that can be said about any player; it's not something special we should give Arroyo extra credit for.)

I'm going to take a look at BP's new SIERA (skill interactive ERA) stat and see if that sheds any light. For those not familiar, it's basically a super FIP, based on the same principal of only looking at those things which a pitcher can control. However, it includes more information than FIP, including batted ball types (includes pop ups).



IP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 GB% LD% FB% IFFB% LOB% BABIP ERA FIP SIERRA
2006 240.7 6.88 2.39 1.16 38.2% 21.2% 40.6% 11.5% 78.0% .279 3.29 4.15 3.99
2007 210.7 6.66 2.69 1.20 35.3% 20.9% 43.8% 15.4% 74.0% .318 4.23 4.57 4.28
2008 200.0 7.34 3.06 1.31 41.5% 22.9% 35.6% 17.2% 70.1% .321 4.77 4.50 4.06
2009 220.3 5.19 2.66 1.27 44.8% 18.5% 36.7% 12.3% 76.5% .270 3.84 4.78 4.61
Average 218.0 6.51 2.68 1.23 39.9% 20.8% 39.2% 14.0% 74.8% .296 4.00 4.49 4.23


At least for Arroyo, it looks like SIERA has done a better job at predicting ERA than FIP, though he's still been "lucky". Again, hit f/x should be quite illuminating and allow us to better describe batted balls and increase the accuracy of stats like this which attempt to remove the noise of park and defense.

OnBaseMachine
03-21-2010, 01:18 PM
Yeah, I hate those blunt instruments that involve large sample sizes and that tell a clear, unmistakable story.

If you want to have a discussion about the nuance of how Bronson Arroyo has been an above average pitcher for the Reds during the balance of his four years with the club, go ahead. Throw FIP into the fire, L/R and home-road splits, opponent OPS, BABIP, the whole kitchen sink.

Yet there's no arguing that for four years he's been one of the better pitchers in the game at logging innings and limiting runs. Sorry if that's not nuanced or sophisticated enough for you, but there's nothing nuanced or sophisticated about it. The guy took the ball and did the job. That's what teams pay for.

It's the endpoint because in the end that is the point.

Well said.

mth123
03-21-2010, 01:19 PM
Every analysis that's been done to try to tease out the impact a pitcher can have on runs has shown that they really don't have control over "just getting outs" beyond strikeouts and batted ball types. If they did, it would show up in the stats -- and it just doesn't. And even in so far as pitchers can control LD%, it's a very small ability. Most of their control of batted balls is in GB and FB.



So let's take a look at Arroyo's batted ball types. Arroyo's LD% as a Red is 21%, slightly above league average. His GB/FB ratio as a Red is 1.10, again very average. Here's something interesting however, let's look at his IFFB% (Infield fly ball %)

Hopefully, hit f/x will give us some more insight in to this. Maybe it's true that some pitchers allow weaker hit balls on average (even within the type of hit). But until then, I think we're on fairly shaky ground to assert that Arroyo does this -- especially when the FIP-ERA differential we've observed over the past few years never occurred in Pittsburgh or Boston.

As to your point about value, sure, value goes beyond just what a guy does on the field. But that can be said about any player; it's not something special we should give Arroyo extra credit for.

Fly balls are the easiest types of batted balls to convert to outs. If they are induced without giving up square contact most of the time, they are harmless lazy fly balls. Jay Bruce 2009 should be ample evidence of how harmless a bunch of fly balls can be when not hit squarely. Sure there will be HR as a side effect but it gets a lot of outs in the process. Bert Blyleven probably makes the HOF next year with that as one of his main strengths while putting up similar K/9 and BB/9 numbers to Arroyo's 4 years in Cincy. Arroyo gave up more HR but I think parks and eras can probably explain most of that. Arroyo's 4 seasons in Cincy aren't HOF worthy by any means (but if he did it for 22 years and amassed 250+ wins and 3000ish K's you might think twice), but he's not garbage either which seems to be the most common misconception on Redszone.

I do think his contract is a little steep, but its not out of line with a lot of other guys. Fact is the Reds could have probably let Arroyo go and tried to get a similar mid-rotation replacement who can throw all those innings to keep the team from overtaxing the kids, but it would have cost at least as much and its doubtful that the team would have actually been able to lure one here and if they did, it would probably have been more of a 170 inning type than the 220ish that Arroyo provides. Those 50 innings are huge for a team with a lot of kids and question marks filling out the staff. I've never looked at that contract as the massive mistake that so many others on here have.

M2
03-21-2010, 01:19 PM
And because "what did the guy actually accomplish in the past" and "what do his stats predict about his future" aren't the same question.

Exactly.

RedsManRick
03-21-2010, 01:28 PM
he's not garbage either which seems to be the most common misconception on Redszone.

I think this is a bit of a strawman. People here value him, they just see him as a league average guy instead of a TOR type. I think the big misconception is that he's overpaid because he's making $10M as a league average starter. But the reality is that he's being paid what the market would bear for his production. Whether or not the Reds should pay market price for production is another conversation entirely, but the arguments that he's overpaid are not well supported by facts.



I do think his contract is a little steep, but its not out of line with a lot of other guys. Fact is the Reds could have probably let Arroyo go and tried to get a similar mid-rotation replacement who can throw all those innings to keep the team from overtaxing the kids, but it would have cost at least as much and its doubtful that the team would have actually been able to lure one here and if they did, it would probably have been more of a 170 inning type than the 220ish that Arroyo provides. Those 50 innings are huge for a team with a lot of kids and question marks filling out the staff. I've never looked at that contract as the massive mistake that so many others one here have.

I agree. My only complaint about his contract is that it gave up one more year where we had him extremely cheap. However, as you point out, it's hardly guaranteed that the Reds could have replaced his production at his price in FA at the time the contract was given.

nate
03-21-2010, 01:44 PM
I mentioned this in another thread about Arroyo. Here's (http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2010/03/top_pitchfx_pit.php) an article that talks about his breaking ball as being one of the best in baseball last year. Funny quote:


Bronson Arroyo is to pitch classification systems as Bronson Arroyo's name is to Tim McCarver's brain. Nevertheless, his curveball(s?) are good pitches.

DR. H gets an honorable mention for his off-speed offerings.

M2
03-21-2010, 01:57 PM
At least for Arroyo, it looks like SIERA has done a better job at predicting ERA than FIP, though he's still been "lucky".

I think SIERA is a step in the right direction, though I think it's illuminating that we're always comparing new pitching stats to ERA. Note that we don't do that with pitching wins and RBIs. For instance, no one's comparing RC/27 to RBI or looking to predict RBI with RC/27.

I get a bit of kick when people (not you or anybody here, just people out in the baseball stats community) use ERA as a punching bag and then tether everything to it.

Push comes to shove, ERA and ERA+ are pretty decent basic representations of how well a pitcher performed in the past. You're always going to want to dig beneath that to figure out well a guy will do in the future. That would be true of any broad past performance representation. Yet something has to stand in and take the heat for when we want to say a guy did X well.

Also, whenever we talk about how well we expect a pitcher to do in the future, it translates to ERA. If someone thinks Johnny Cueto is going to have a breakout season the expectation is that will be represented by a good ERA at the end of the season. Obviously ERA is not the means to the end (and I don't recall it ever being treated as such), but a good ERA is a desirable end.

Anyway, whenever I look at broad set of numbers concerning Bronson Arroyo (like what you've posted), it reminds me that he's complex, tough to sum up. I think lollipopcurve is right to move beyond that and note that Arroyo's been worthy of appreciation no matter how people may want to dissect him.

edabbs44
03-21-2010, 02:00 PM
Thank you. A voice of reason.

In my opinion, Arroyo has earned every penny he's earned as a Red.

Very much so, especially since he was brought on with such a cheap contract. He's made what, roughly $22MM as a Red in 4 years here?

That still doesn't mean the extension made sense.

Falls City Beer
03-21-2010, 02:37 PM
Arroyo can start being valuable again by keeping his ERA, FIP, xFIP, BABIP, at a level better than a replacement pitcher for the months of April, May, and June.

Yes, those months matter more to a franchise like the Reds; they mean things get added or subtracted on July 31. The Yankees can afford to let a guy work through his guitar-induced carpal tunnel. The Reds can't; they gotta play two seasons, not one.

RedsManRick
03-21-2010, 02:41 PM
I think SIERA is a step in the right direction, though I think it's illuminating that we're always comparing new pitching stats to ERA. Note that we don't do that with pitching wins and RBIs. For instance, no one's comparing RC/27 to RBI or looking to predict RBI with RC/27.

I get a bit of kick when people (not you or anybody here, just people out in the baseball stats community) use ERA as a punching bag and then tether everything to it.

Push comes to shove, ERA and ERA+ are pretty decent basic representations of how well a pitcher performed in the past. You're always going to want to dig beneath that to figure out well a guy will do in the future. That would be true of any broad past performance representation. Yet something has to stand in and take the heat for when we want to say a guy did X well.

Also, whenever we talk about how well we expect a pitcher to do in the future, it translates to ERA. If someone thinks Johnny Cueto is going to have a breakout season the expectation is that will be represented by a good ERA at the end of the season. Obviously ERA is not the means to the end (and I don't recall it ever being treated as such), but a good ERA is a desirable end.

Anyway, whenever I look at broad set of numbers concerning Bronson Arroyo (like what you've posted), it reminds me that he's complex, tough to sum up. I think lollipopcurve is right to move beyond that and note that Arroyo's been worthy of appreciation no matter how people may want to dissect him.

It's a fair critique, M2. Good post. But unfortunately, I think it's one of necessity. People simply will not accept FIP or SIERA or what-have-you as ways to measure performance outside of the context they're already familiar with. They make the argument that it is "not reality" or something along those lines. And to a certain degree, that's true. But by tethering it to ERA, you bypass the math-based argument to give the stat some credibility.

The attraction of ERA, supposedly, is that it only uses real runs. But what's interesting, as you infer, is that ERA itself is uses a process to try to only judge the pitcher based on what he's responsible for. It categorizes all runs scored in earned and unearned runs using an extremely soft, unscientific process. But to most people, it is still valid because those runs were actually scored, regardless of how you categorized them.

So to that extent, FIP and SIERA and the like are simple extension of the same logic of using ERA instead of RA. But the leap that upsets people is going from actual runs scored to the average run values of individual events. So many of the new saber stats use this approach -- and the average fan just doesn't understand and/or isn't willing to accept the validity of this method.

I think a better way to move forward, rather than comparing to ERA, would be to simply reframe the conversation. Forget the ERA comparisons. ERA is a measurement of what happened given actual runs scored. Fine. FIP, SIERA, etc. is about recognizing that a pitcher doesn't have much control over the timing of things, so we need to give him credit for the outcome each plate appearance. Yes, the defense-isolating part of it matters too, but ERA proponents argue that ERA does this too (if only roughly).

The big logical jump is more the use of more granular information. The public clearly has some capacity to do this, as QB rating shows. They recognize that just measuring yards and TDs ignores the nuance of being a QB. So they blindly use a convoluted formula which nobody understands to provide a general assessment of QB performance. It gets used on every broadcast and even in the video games. But FIP, SIERA, etc are much better as they actually use the currency of the game, runs.

I'd be fine using just IP and SIERA to generally discuss how well a guy pitch or can be expected to pitch in the figure, absent the full exhortation I just went through with Arroyo. Of course, that's the beauty of using skill based stats -- because skills don't fluctuate much and tend to follow general aging curves, past performance becomes a darn good predictor of future performance. But I digress, I doubt many others around here or elsewhere would be willing to do the same. They're too hung up on the nuances of what these stats don't measure -- and prefer to stick to things that they're comfortable with and can more easily understand, regardless of how accurately they actually answer the questions being asked.

edabbs44
03-21-2010, 02:44 PM
Arroyo can start being valuable again by keeping his ERA, FIP, xFIP, BABIP, at a level better than a replacement pitcher for the months of April, May, and June.

Yes, those months matter more to a franchise like the Reds; they mean things get added or subtracted on July 31. The Yankees can afford to let a guy work through his guitar-induced carpal tunnel. The Reds can't; they gotta play two seasons, not one.

100% correct. Having him pitch like Cy Young in Sept means absolutely nothing for this franchise if he pitches like Anthony Young in April, May and June.

Falls City Beer
03-21-2010, 02:45 PM
100% correct. Having him pitch like Cy Young in Sept means absolutely nothing for this franchise if he pitches like Anthony Young in April, May and June.

You're not President if you lose the primary.

RedsManRick
03-21-2010, 03:45 PM
You're not President if you lose the primary.

Except for the fact that teams aren't eliminated at the end of June -- there is no forced exit as there is in a primary. Sure, teams choose to quit on the season sometimes, but that's on them. Arroyo wouldn't help the Reds in terms of being a trade asset if he struggled in the first half again, but at the end of 162, all the games count the same.

If what you care about is a guys' contribution towards your final record at the end of the seasons, a repeat of last year from Arroyo should be perfectly acceptable, if admittedly not ideal.

Falls City Beer
03-21-2010, 05:04 PM
Except for the fact that teams aren't eliminated at the end of June -- there is no forced exit as there is in a primary. Sure, teams choose to quit on the season sometimes, but that's on them. Arroyo wouldn't help the Reds in terms of being a trade asset if he struggled in the first half again, but at the end of 162, all the games count the same.

If what you care about is a guys' contribution towards your final record at the end of the seasons, a repeat of last year from Arroyo should be perfectly acceptable, if admittedly not ideal.

Sure, it's "on the team" and FO, but I think you know what I mean. If, in Arroyo's first three months, they win 12 of his 17 starts, then he increases the likelihood of the team being in the race (and thus in the hunt for trades that will bolster the lineup and starting rotation--making Arroyo's contributions--good or bad--less relevant); if, on the other hand, the team loses 12 of his first 17 starts and his RA in those starts warrant those losses, then the likelihood of the Reds being in the hunt greatly diminishes, and the likelihood of adding talent at the deadline does as well.

I think they should have turned his great Augusts and Septembers into something less volatile--like a good bat. His 1.50 ERAs in August & Sept do nothing for a team that's 10 or 12 games out. I would love to see that he has an excellent ERA through the first three months of the season--as it will mean the Reds will likely matter much later into the season (regardless of what Arroyo does post-July 31).

mth123
03-21-2010, 05:24 PM
Sure, it's "on the team" and FO, but I think you know what I mean. If, in Arroyo's first three months, they win 12 of his 17 starts, then he increases the likelihood of the team being in the race (and thus in the hunt for trades that will bolster the lineup and starting rotation--making Arroyo's contributions--good or bad--less relevant); if, on the other hand, the team loses 12 of his first 17 starts and his RA in those starts warrant those losses, then the likelihood of the Reds being in the hunt greatly diminishes, and the likelihood of adding talent at the deadline does as well.

I think they should have turned his great Augusts and Septembers into something less volatile--like a good bat. His 1.50 ERAs in August & Sept do nothing for a team that's 10 or 12 games out. I would love to see that he has an excellent ERA through the first three months of the season--as it will mean the Reds will likely matter much later into the season (regardless of what Arroyo does post-July 31).

I get what your saying, but last year, for example, Arroyo was 3-1 in April, 4-2 in May. He was only 1-4 in June. So while he had a lot of stinkers, his 8-8 through June suggest his performance wasn't the reason the Reds were out of it early. I think he had some awful games that skew the overall stats to a lot worse than how he performed on a game by game basis. He also had a few games where he pitched OK into the mid to late innings and he was run out there for an additional inning (as his role suggests) and gave up a late run or two to adversely impact his numbers. Its why Lollipop has it right. Arroyo is about innings and Quality Starts where he gives his team a chance to win. That's what he's paid for and he generally provides that.

OUReds
03-21-2010, 05:34 PM
You're not President if you lose the primary.

The Reds went exactly .500 in Bronson's April/May/June starts last year.

8-8 (http://www.fangraphs.com/statsd.aspx?playerid=978&position=P&season=)

Falls City Beer
03-21-2010, 06:17 PM
The Reds went exactly .500 in Bronson's April/May/June starts last year.

8-8 (http://www.fangraphs.com/statsd.aspx?playerid=978&position=P&season=)

And ERA of about 7.00. In 4 starts he was an absolutely torch to the teams' bullpen, exiting after 1 inning, 3 2/3, 5, 5 1/3, down by a ridiculous amount of runs. All things are interrelated, and his starts like that taxed the pen.

Obviously, Arroyo wasn't alone in that regard. A lot of Reds' pitchers stunk up the joint, but Arroyo's making the cash and that stuff shouldn't happen. As I said, I think he'd be a great pitcher in Dodger Stadium, but I think he's a bad choice for this park.

OUReds
03-21-2010, 06:22 PM
And ERA of about 7.00. In 4 starts he was an absolutely torch to the teams' bullpen, exiting after 1 inning, 3 2/3, 5, 5 1/3, down by a ridiculous amount of runs. All things are interrelated, and his starts like that taxed the pen.

Obviously, Arroyo wasn't alone in that regard. A lot of Reds' pitchers stunk up the joint, but Arroyo's making the cash and that stuff shouldn't happen. As I said, I think he'd be a great pitcher in Dodger Stadium, but I think he's a bad choice for this park.

Clearly his June was bad, but plenty of good pitchers have bad months. It's just not a particularly damning criticism. It hardly makes him not valuable.

Falls City Beer
03-21-2010, 06:28 PM
Clearly his June was bad, but plenty of good pitchers have bad months. It's just not a particularly damning criticism. It hardly makes him not valuable.

Compare his first 3 months to Cueto's or Harang's (who himself was battling aches and pains). Arroyo has crummy half-seasons.

TRF
03-21-2010, 06:30 PM
And ERA of about 7.00. In 4 starts he was an absolutely torch to the teams' bullpen, exiting after 1 inning, 3 2/3, 5, 5 1/3, down by a ridiculous amount of runs. All things are interrelated, and his starts like that taxed the pen.

Obviously, Arroyo wasn't alone in that regard. A lot of Reds' pitchers stunk up the joint, but Arroyo's making the cash and that stuff shouldn't happen. As I said, I think he'd be a great pitcher in Dodger Stadium, but I think he's a bad choice for this park.

Sabathia in 2009, April:

5 starts, 1-2 record 17 earned runs.

fantastic May and June, but July was pretty bad. August and September were beyond stellar. In May, CC had a start that lasted just over 1 inning.

1 inning starts happen. not all the time, but they happen. Even to aces like CC.

TRF
03-21-2010, 06:31 PM
Here is the thing... If they aren't extended, they likely don't sign. who pitches those innings?

Falls City Beer
03-21-2010, 06:33 PM
Sabathia in 2009, April:

5 starts, 1-2 record 17 earned runs.

fantastic May and June, but July was pretty bad. August and September were beyond stellar. In May, CC had a start that lasted just over 1 inning.

1 inning starts happen. not all the time, but they happen. Even to aces like CC.

I promise you Sabathia's ERA for a three month stretch (pick one) never approached 4.50, much less Arroyo's June 30th ERA of a high 6.

Falls City Beer
03-21-2010, 06:34 PM
Here is the thing... If they aren't extended, they likely don't sign. who pitches those innings?

Kyle Lohse, Jeff Suppan circa two years ago, Doug Davis. Each one for a fraction of what Arroyo has made over the last couple of seasons.

mth123
03-21-2010, 06:36 PM
Here is the thing... If they aren't extended, they likely don't sign. who pitches those innings?

Exactly. Signing guys to lay down the inning foundation is an investment in Bailey, Cueto, Volquez, etc. Now in the last year of that, Leake, Wood and Chapman will also benefit while that innings foundation changes the guard from Arroyo and Harang to Bailey and Cueto. Seems like the right way to transition the staff to me.

OUReds
03-21-2010, 06:40 PM
Compare his first 3 months to Cueto's or Harang's (who himself was battling aches and pains). Arroyo has crummy half-seasons.

Well, here's one of Cueto's half seasons. 5.81 ERA, 62 IP, 3-5 record. The Reds went 6-9 in his July/Aug/Sep starts.

Seems to me in Arroyo's terrible half season the Reds won more and he pitched far more innings.

mth123
03-21-2010, 06:41 PM
Kyle Lohse, Jeff Suppan circa two years ago, Doug Davis. Each one for a fraction of what Arroyo has made over the last couple of seasons.

The Reds may have been able to keep Lohse, but as I recall, you were possibly the only poster who was more wrong about him than I was. We both wanted him gone with a passion.;)

Davis and Suppan maybe, but not sure why they would have come here exactly. They were in places where the team had a shot. Sometimes you gotta take it where you can get it. Arroyo was on board, doing the job and willing to stay. Not sure even at Arroyo's money, that those others were real options.

Falls City Beer
03-21-2010, 06:42 PM
Well, here's one of Cueto's half seasons. 5.81 ERA, 62 IP, 3-5 record. The Red's went 6-9 in his July/Aug/Sep starts.

Cueto makes peanuts and is 23.

OUReds
03-21-2010, 06:45 PM
Cueto makes peanuts and is 23.

Ummm, Of course? And a good thing since he was far inferior to Arroyo.

Edit: Ok, maybe not far inferior, but inferior.

mth123
03-21-2010, 06:49 PM
Another question FCB. Had the Reds let Arroyo walk and signed Suppan who put up ERAs of 4.96 and 5.29 in the two years in question while only throwing 177 and 161 inning respectively, it would have been a huge downgrade all the way around. So Suppan at say $8 Million per as opposed to Arroyo at his money wouldn't have been a good deal.

The grass is always greener. I'm guilty of that a lot myself.

M2
03-21-2010, 07:34 PM
People simply will not accept FIP or SIERA or what-have-you as ways to measure performance outside of the context they're already familiar with.

I think it's more a case of "context they care about most." In the end, it's all about the run prevention. And there's lots of different ways to be a good, run preventing pitcher. It's a bit like the ending to The Beatles' "A Day in the Life" in that regard. You can start playing music in the same place, progress through the same notes, play the same number of notes and end in the same place, and it will sound like cacophony along the way because everybody will choose different routes to get there. In the end everybody wants a pitcher with a good ERA.

That does not mean people don't care about how it's achieved. In fact, I suspect most baseball fans and all baseball executives are extremely interested in how it's achieved and how repeatable a given pitcher's performance is. Yet skunkworks figures don't answer the broad question of "How'd he do?"

For instance, would you rather have a guy, like Arroyo, with a four-year ERA of 4.00 and an FIP of 4.49, or an ERA of 4.49 and an FIP of 4.00? That's a rhetorical question. You'll want the 4.00 ERA. Given the number of innings Arroyo threw it works out to 47.5 fewer runs over the course of four seasons. That's what you care about most, the runs. How the guy got there is the secondary conversation.

edabbs44
03-21-2010, 07:53 PM
Here is the thing... If they aren't extended, they likely don't sign. who pitches those innings?

Let's see...they would have had to replace a crap year from Harang, a crap 1st half from Arroyo and an outstanding 2nd half from BA when the team was far out of the race. All for $25ishMM.

Tough task.

edabbs44
03-21-2010, 07:54 PM
Another question FCB. Had the Reds let Arroyo walk and signed Suppan who put up ERAs of 4.96 and 5.29 in the two years in question while only throwing 177 and 161 inning respectively, it would have been a huge downgrade all the way around. So Suppan at say $8 Million per as opposed to Arroyo at his money wouldn't have been a good deal.

The grass is always greener. I'm guilty of that a lot myself.

Forget Suppan, pick anyone. The team wouldn't have fared all that worse and still had the money.

OnBaseMachine
03-21-2010, 07:56 PM
Harang posted a 102 ERA+ in 2009. Hardly a crap year.

M2
03-21-2010, 08:02 PM
Forget Suppan, pick anyone. The team wouldn't have fared all that worse and still had the money.

Replace Arroyo with a bad pitcher and you could be bleeding 5-10 games (dependent on how bad he is). That's a good bit worse.

And who cares if the Reds HAVE money? I suppose the team could keep it until a perfect player is willing to sign for 50 cents on the dollar. I believe his name will be Lefty Godot.

edabbs44
03-21-2010, 08:08 PM
Replace Arroyo with a bad pitcher and you could be bleeding 5-10 games (dependent on how bad he is). That's a good bit worse.

And who cares if the Reds HAVE money? I suppose the team could keep it until a perfect player is willing to sign for 50 cents on the dollar. I believe his name will be Lefty Godot.

Or Aroldis Chapman, Or Rick Porcello. Or someone like that.

TRF
03-21-2010, 08:14 PM
Hindsight is 20/20. NO ONE saw Harang's dropoff coming. Arroyo has at the very least pitched to his contract, and his 220 IP last year, and his average of 230 IP over his career as a Red say he's EXACTLY the kind of pitcher the Reds need to protect both the bullpen AND the young starters. I haven't always been high on Arroyo, but he's done his job.

Falls City Beer
03-21-2010, 08:18 PM
Arroyo hasn't been a problem; in fact, he's mostly been an asset. But he's got to stop sucking for long stretches. Hell, just go on the DL.

M2
03-21-2010, 08:22 PM
Or Aroldis Chapman, Or Rick Porcello. Or someone like that.

They could have drafted and signed Porcello had they dared to do it. They didn't dare it, so it didn't happen.

They signed Chapman, so apparently giving money to a few mostly productive major leaguers proved no impediment to that.

westofyou
03-21-2010, 08:29 PM
Replace Arroyo with a bad pitcher and you could be bleeding 5-10 games (dependent on how bad he is). That's a good bit worse.

And who cares if the Reds HAVE money? I suppose the team could keep it until a perfect player is willing to sign for 50 cents on the dollar. I believe his name will be Lefty Godot.


Reds fan credo as they count the teams saved dollars...


"Nothing to be done."
- Samuel Beckett, Waiting for Godot

RedsManRick
03-21-2010, 08:36 PM
For instance, would you rather have a guy, like Arroyo, with a four-year ERA of 4.00 and an FIP of 4.49, or an ERA of 4.49 and an FIP of 4.00? That's a rhetorical question. You'll want the 4.00 ERA. Given the number of innings Arroyo threw it works out to 47.5 fewer runs over the course of four seasons. That's what you care about most, the runs. How the guy got there is the secondary conversation.

You say it's a case of context they care about. I agree with that. Let's measure what the pitcher actually did rather than giving him credit for some combination of what he did, his fielders did, the park did, etc.

You supposing an alternative choice that really doesn't exist when you suggest that there are pitchers who routinely and predictably put up ERA's lower than their FIP would suggest. My contention is that Arroyo is an exception to the rule. Pitchers perform based on their skill and we should judge them accordingly. ERA gives pitchers credit for things out of his control -- I'm not sure why that's the context we should care about.

ERA is already a step towards crediting runs allowed by a team to the pitcher by removing the influence of poor defensive play. Fielding independent stats simply do the same thing, but better.

edabbs44
03-21-2010, 08:50 PM
Hindsight is 20/20. NO ONE saw Harang's dropoff coming. Arroyo has at the very least pitched to his contract, and his 220 IP last year, and his average of 230 IP over his career as a Red say he's EXACTLY the kind of pitcher the Reds need to protect both the bullpen AND the young starters. I haven't always been high on Arroyo, but he's done his job.

maybe not, but it didn't take a genius to see that Cincy would need some things to go their way in order to be able to contend during the extension years of Harang and Arroyo. Cordero also. That is the point.

Jpup
03-21-2010, 08:54 PM
Until the Reds win something, Jocketty has been no more successful than anyone before him. Kind of putting the cart before the horse.

edabbs44
03-21-2010, 08:58 PM
They could have drafted and signed Porcello had they dared to do it. They didn't dare it, so it didn't happen.

They signed Chapman, so apparently giving money to a few mostly productive major leaguers proved no impediment to that.

what Walt has spent since taking over pales in comparison to what the other guy spent. Some, humorously, referred to it as Walt being asleep on the job. Instead, it has enabled money to be allocated to the proper areas.

Regarding Porcello, Cincy that year drafted a reach of a catcher over him. If that were 2008/2009, I wonder if Porcello would have been the selection.

The money spent by Walt since he took the helm has been pennies compared to what we saw spent by his predecessor. Some, humorously, blamed it on Walt being asleep on the job.

You can't tell me that there isn't a correlation to the Chapman signing.

M2
03-21-2010, 09:17 PM
You say it's a case of context they care about. I agree with that. Let's measure what the pitcher actually did rather than giving him credit for some combination of what he did, his fielders did, the park did, etc.

You supposing an alternative choice that really doesn't exist when you suggest that there are pitchers who routinely and predictably put up ERA's lower than their FIP would suggest. My contention is that Arroyo is an exception to the rule. Pitchers perform based on their skill and we should judge them accordingly. ERA gives pitchers credit for things out of his control -- I'm not sure why that's the context we should care about.

ERA is already a step towards crediting runs allowed by a team to the pitcher by removing the influence of poor defensive play. Fielding independent stats simply do the same thing, but better.

I could have sworn that I typed, "In the end everybody wants a pitcher with a good ERA." In case that was too subtle, I'm saying ERA IS the context. In fact, I think the example I typed, and that you quoted, lays that out about as nakedly as it can be laid out. I certainly don't see you making a case for the guy with the 4.49 ERA and 4.00 FIP (largely because there is no case to be made).

All you're doing is repeating that there's more to the story. I agree. Hell, I knew that when I was a kid. I think everybody knows that. Frankly, I don't know exactly who or what it is that you're arguing with if your only point is that we can go a lot deeper into pitcher performance than ERA. I've never seen nor heard anybody argue to the contrary.

FIP, predictably, keeps getting tweaked. We've got xFIP and now SIERA. We'll have half a dozen other improvements/forks/divergences in the next decade. All the while people will be debating over how to use these exotic new numbers and insisting they're the bees knees.

And despite all that, when somebody asks how John Doe pitched during a given slice of time we'll still use ERA or ERA+ as the primary figure to sum it all up. Actually there is a stat out there which more thoughtfully assigns run responsibility, incorporates win performance and works in component ERA. Unfortunately to do it, you have to abandon the dopey .xxx form factor which many supposedly open minded stats-minded fans cling to with religious fervor, so they ignore that much of what they're trying to achieve with each new flavor of pitcher stat chewing gum (a thumbnail representation of contribution) has already been chewed and digested.

TheNext44
03-21-2010, 09:21 PM
Here is the thing... If they aren't extended, they likely don't sign. who pitches those innings?

Completely disagree with the premise. They both were signed, two years before the team lost control of them. If they just waited one year to sign the extensions, both would have signed, and for much less money.

Give me a good reason why they wouldn't, when they gladly did a year earlier. And the Reds clearly would have had the money.

Sign them both to deals worth $2M a year each, which would have been overpaying them enough to stay, and that's $4M a year the Reds could have saved over three years.

No need to wait until they reach free agency. Just do what most teams do, sign good pitchers to extensions the year before they reach free agency, not two.

Spring~Fields
03-21-2010, 09:27 PM
Until the Reds win something, Jocketty has been no more successful than anyone before him. Kind of putting the cart before the horse.

You noticed that too. :)

Well he has added some aging veterans on the downside of their careers, I am sure Kremchek appreciates the business.

They did add a lot of puffery about young minor league prospects, I am sure that Bats fans are thrilled.

I guess none of that actually goes in the books as wins though does it for the Reds.

M2
03-21-2010, 09:35 PM
Porcello, Cincy that year drafted a reach of a catcher over him. If that were 2008/2009, I wonder if Porcello would have been the selection.

I don't require a recap of the 2006 draft. I was the guy arguing the Reds should have been in on Porcello while the team was drafting Mesoraco.

As for 2008, the Reds did spend money on Alonso, once again showing that paying for certain veterans is not an impediment to spending money in the draft. In 2009, the Reds passed by some supposed Porcellos (Zacob Turner, Tyler Matzek, Matt Purke) - I say "supposed" because I view Porcello as a fairly unique talent, one who isn't going to duplicated all that often - in favor of what many viewed as a budget-conscious pick in Mike Leake (and I liked the Leake pick regardless of that criticism).

On Chapman, the Reds traded FOR Scott Rolen's salary during the 2009 season and didn't dump any of the team's biggest contracts during the winter, and STILL signed Chapman. So, once again, your argument just doesn't hold water. The one doesn't preclude the other. If anything, Walt deserves the most credit for not buying into that false dichotomy.

M2
03-21-2010, 09:49 PM
No need to wait until they reach free agency. Just do what most teams do, sign good pitchers to extensions the year before they reach free agency, not two.

Who are these "most teams?" The Phillies plunked down early on Cole Hamels. The Indians plunked down early on C.C. Sabathia. The Giants locked up Matt Cain and would love to do the same with Tim Lincecum. The Royals have signed Zack Greinke early.

I could keep listing examples all day if I wanted to, but I think you get the point. When teams get good pitchers, they try to keep them around. Harang and Arroyo have been two of the better Reds pitchers of the past 40 years. It's not terribly surprising the franchise didn't want to flirt with free agency or an exploding market in those two cases.

jojo
03-21-2010, 09:52 PM
It's really sad that a roughly average pitcher is counted as one of the better pitchers to wear a Reds uniform over 40 decades....

OnBaseMachine
03-21-2010, 09:53 PM
Eh, I'll just bow out of this discussion. We've had this same discussion hundreds of time before and people are going to believe what they want to believe. I don't like obessing over every contract. If a player is making a lot of money and not producing, then I can understand the uproar. I'll probably be right there complaining too. But I really don't care about how much money a player is making as long as he's producing.

edabbs44
03-21-2010, 09:55 PM
I don't require a recap of the 2006 draft. I was the guy arguing the Reds should have been in on Porcello while the team was drafting Mesoraco.

As for 2008, the Reds did spend money on Alonso, once again showing that paying for certain veterans is not an impediment to spending money in the draft. In 2009, the Reds passed by some supposed Porcellos (Zacob Turner, Tyler Matzek, Matt Purke) - I say "supposed" because I view Porcello as a fairly unique talent, one who isn't going to duplicated all that often - in favor of what many viewed as a budget-conscious pick in Mike Leake (and I liked the Leake pick regardless of that criticism.

On Chapman, the Reds traded FOR Scott Rolen's salary during the 2009 season and didn't dump any of the team's biggest contracts during the winter, and STILL signed Chapman. So, once again, your argument just doesn't hold water. The one doesn't preclude the other. If anything, Walt deserves the most credit for not buying into that false dichotomy.

We have no insight on how the money part of the Reds' business works except that they don't have a ton of it. But I believe that the Chapman deal is set up where the money is paid more down the line than right now. Correct me if I am wrong. My guess is that the money coming off the books over the next 2 years gave Cincy the flexibility to go out and get him. If Walt continued the foolish chase that was going on before he got here, we'd probably have been looking to dump Bradley's salary this offseason and have been pissing and moaning that a guy like Chapman was out of our reach yet again.

M2
03-21-2010, 09:56 PM
It's really sad that a roughly average pitcher is counted as one of the better pitchers to wear a Reds uniform over 40 decades....

It is what it is. Even the BRM was lacking in the starting pitching department. Might have won an extra division or two if it had a Bronson Arroyo around.

Ron Madden
03-21-2010, 09:57 PM
I get the impression that some Reds fans care more about how much money a player makes than they do about winning.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with paying for productive players.

TheNext44
03-21-2010, 10:02 PM
Who are these "most teams?" The Phillies plunked down early on Cole Hamels. The Indians plunked down early on C.C. Sabathia. The Giants locked up Matt Cain and would love to do the same with Tim Lincecum. The Royals have signed Zack Greinke early.

I could keep listing examples all day if I wanted to, but I think you get the point. When teams get good pitchers, they try to keep them around. Harang and Arroyo have been two of the better Reds pitchers of the past 40 years. It's not terribly surprising the franchise didn't want to flirt with free agency or an exploding market in those two cases.

You are putting Harang and Arroyo in the same catagory has Hamels, CC, Cain, Greinke and Lincecum?

Really???

Harang is the only one even close and was 29 when the Reds signed him to an extension. That around 5 years older than the guys you mentioned when they signed.

edabbs44
03-21-2010, 10:22 PM
I get the impression that some Reds fans care more about how much money a player makes than they do about winning. If a player produces, I don't really care about how much money he's making.

You are really missing the point.

In 2006, Wayne made a great trade and got Arroyo at cut rate prices for basically nothing. BA goes on to have a very good year. He now has him under control for 2 more years at $7MMish total. Still a great contract.

The team looks to be lacking at the major league level in the short term but has a few top flight prospects on their way up through the ranks.

Wayne has basically three choices: stand pat, trade Arroyo high with the future in mind or extend him. He picked the worst direction.

Your post above, however, is kind of contradictory. You state that you believe that certain fans care about money more than winning, then go on to say that you don't care how much a player makes as long as he is producing. You don't mention winning.

The bottom line is that we can rip off stats on how certain people have performed and whether or not he has earned his contract. But bottom line is that the team has failed to win after we saw a lot of money go out the door on various players. It is unlikely that this team will be a contender this season, which is when Arroyo's and Harang's extensions end.

They can "earn" their contracts all they want, but if the overall investment that was made in 2007-2008 doesn't end up in a significantly improved ballclub, it is a failure no matter how you slice it. It doesn't matter how one of the larger pieces of the investment fares in one season, or in one half of one season, or whatever. It matters how the team does.

M2
03-21-2010, 10:24 PM
You are putting Harang and Arroyo in the same catagory has Hamels, CC, Cain, Greinke and Lincecum?

Really???

Harang is the only one even close and was 29 when the Reds signed him to an extension. That around 5 years older than the guys you mentioned when they signed.

No, I'm saying teams routinely lock up the best they've got. It's all relative. To lead their staff, the Reds found two slightly older guys who were still shy of free agency and they reacted in common fashion. It's the same free agency clock no matter how you slice it.

If Cueto's really good the next two years, expect the Reds to lock him up early and buy a year or two beyond his free agent expiration date.

edabbs44
03-21-2010, 10:25 PM
There is absolutely nothing wrong with paying for productive players.

If the payment is significant, I would argue that it is a problem if it doesn't result in an improved product on the field.

edabbs44
03-21-2010, 10:28 PM
No, I'm saying teams routinely lock up the best they've got. It's all relative. To lead their staff, the Reds found two slightly older guys who were still shy of free agency and they reacted in common fashion. It's the same free agency clock no matter how you slice it.

If Cueto's really good the next two years, expect the Reds to lock him up early and buy a year or two beyond his free agent expiration date.

There is so much of a difference between Arroyo's situation and the situations of these guys named here.

Ron Madden
03-21-2010, 10:28 PM
If the payment is significant, I would argue that it is a problem if it doesn't result in an improved product on the field.

The product on the field has to improve with the signing of productive players.

mth123
03-21-2010, 10:34 PM
Completely disagree with the premise. They both were signed, two years before the team lost control of them. If they just waited one year to sign the extensions, both would have signed, and for much less money.

Give me a good reason why they wouldn't, when they gladly did a year earlier. And the Reds clearly would have had the money.

Sign them both to deals worth $2M a year each, which would have been overpaying them enough to stay, and that's $4M a year the Reds could have saved over three years.

No need to wait until they reach free agency. Just do what most teams do, sign good pitchers to extensions the year before they reach free agency, not two.


Not sure its so clear cut. For the player, the motivation to sign early is all about limiting risk. That is the risk that he'll get injured or tank before he has a chance to hit the market. Cincy is a town that pretty much every decent player wanted to get away from in the last decade. They could get no free agent to come here and had to pay Eric Milton more than double his market value just to get him. Just getting Arroyo and Harang to agree to stay and provide some foundation of a rotation to build around was a fairly major accomplishment. Had the Reds let it get too close, they too would have had little motivation to stay. The rest is revisionist history. Perhaps we long for the days of Paul Wilson and Jimmy Haynes? That's what the Reds were probably looking at had Arroyo and Harang not locked up. While I agree that its true that the reds still had little chance to win with them, the organization got out of the laughingstock group by having them around. Having those vets in the rotation restored some kind of order to allow the team to try to develop the kids who are the real future. Who knows how it would have happend? Cueto could be toast now had they not been here. Bailey may have stayed in the big leagues by default, flamed out and gone on to find it some where else a la Edwin Jackson, Gavin Floyd or dare I say Chris Carpenter. There are a lot of might have beens, they don't all involve the Reds using that money to put a championship team in place. They likely would just be treading water.

edabbs44
03-21-2010, 10:41 PM
The product on the field has to improve with the signing of productive players.

Absolutely, but if the signing of productive players (e.g. Arroyo) doesn't result in an improvement, I think a reasonable person has the right to question whether or not it was the right move. Especially when it is surrounded by multiple other moves of similar or greater financial committments.

TheNext44
03-21-2010, 10:45 PM
No, I'm saying teams routinely lock up the best they've got. It's all relative. To lead their staff, the Reds found two slightly older guys who were still shy of free agency and they reacted in common fashion. It's the same free agency clock no matter how you slice it.

If Cueto's really good the next two years, expect the Reds to lock him up early and buy a year or two beyond his free agent expiration date.

Right, smart teams sign 25 year old pitchers with TOR stuff to extensions early. Smart teams don't sign 29 year old pitchers, no matter how good they are to extensions two years before they become free agents. There is no need, it is smarter to wait at least a year.

If a team waits every time, the majority of the pitchers they wait on will decrease in value, and thus require a smaller contract to resign, than will increase or even stay the same.

M2
03-21-2010, 10:58 PM
Wayne has basically three choices: stand pat, trade Arroyo high with the future in mind or extend him. He picked the worst direction.

If Arroyo has a good first half of 2010, he'll probably be at his trade value apex. If so, extending him will have been the best of both worlds - he'll be earning his contract or the Reds will be able to cash him in for the maximum return.

Potentially, and I say potentially because it's not a settled matter yet, extending Arroyo could be a masterstroke, a win regardless of whether the Reds keep him or move him.

M2
03-21-2010, 11:31 PM
Right, smart teams sign 25 year old pitchers with TOR stuff to extensions early. Smart teams don't sign 29 year old pitchers, no matter how good they are to extensions two years before they become free agents. There is no need, it is smarter to wait at least a year.

If a team waits every time, the majority of the pitchers they wait on will decrease in value, and thus require a smaller contract to resign, than will increase or even stay the same.

Most 29 year-olds don't have two years before they reach free agency for the first time. The Reds had two late bloomers on their hands. They could have quibbled with that or acted to lock up the best pitchers they'd found in a long time. They chose the latter. Ultimately, they'd have had to pay a lot more to get pitchers that good at that age on the free agent market.

And it's not like 25 year-olds are magic. You can lock up a dud like Jeremy Bonderman or coyote arm it get free of a Scott Kazmir. Smart people are running those teams and I'll guarantee you they only wish they had given their money to some 29 year-old late bloomer like the Reds did.

As for the general philosophy of waiting to sign pitchers. While you certainly will pay if you sign a guy after his best season, that same pitcher has the same motivation not to sign after his value dips. The team also loses the offer of security if it waits until that last year.

If I've got two years remaining under team control and I can sign a handsome three- or four-year deal that also saves the club some money, then I'm getting security. I'm set for life if something goes wrong and I can always see if that mammoth free agent pay date is on the table when the deal expires.

Meanwhile if I'm a year away from agency and I'm a good pitcher, then I'm earning a fat paycheck for the next year no matter what and I've probably already got a few million in the bank. In the worst case scenario, I'm a multimillionaire. And if I pitch well, I'm filthy rich in another year. The security the team could have offered me a year ago has pretty much evaporated and it would be kind of foolish of me to sign a hometown discount extension if I'm working purely on business terms. I'm through most of the risk and a substantial reward is a season away. Really, the only reason for me to entertain anything less than what I think I'd get on the open market is if I didn't want to relocate or if I thought my arm was going to fall off. Otherwise, the club missed its window.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 10:58 AM
If Arroyo has a good first half of 2010, he'll probably be at his trade value apex. If so, extending him will have been the best of both worlds - he'll be earning his contract or the Reds will be able to cash him in for the maximum return.

Potentially, and I say potentially because it's not a settled matter yet, extending Arroyo could be a masterstroke, a win regardless of whether the Reds keep him or move him.

Arroyo's trade value apex was the offseason of 2006-2007. He was coming off a very good year and had 2 years left at roughly the same amount of money that he'd be making in only the 2nd half of 2010. And in that offseason, money was flowing a lot more freely than it is now which makes that contract all the more attractive.

Unless they make it extremely deep into the playoffs this season with Arroyo playing an integral part, I wouldn't be able to see how the extension could ever be called a masterstroke.

M2
03-22-2010, 11:28 AM
Arroyo's trade value apex was the offseason of 2006-2007. He was coming off a very good year and had 2 years left at roughly the same amount of money that he'd be making in only the 2nd half of 2010. And in that offseason, money was flowing a lot more freely than it is now which makes that contract all the more attractive.

Unless they make it extremely deep into the playoffs this season with Arroyo playing an integral part, I wouldn't be able to see how the extension could ever be called a masterstroke.

As I remember it, the case against Arroyo in the winter of 2006-7 was that he was a one-hit wonder. True enough, that probably will be his best season, but since then he's established that he's pretty reliable. If he's going well through this summer, Arroyo's going to be one of the most attractive pitchers on the market (if he's on the market). And if he isn't on the market and he's going well, then the Reds are in contention and that extension got the team a major cog to being in contention. Once again, win-win. He's either a good pitcher to have or a good pitcher to trade. Once again, you could wait for a perfect contract with Lefty Godot, but Bronson Arroyo is half a season away from being everything a team could ask for on a two-year extension.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 11:36 AM
As I remember it, the case against Arroyo in the winter of 2006-7 was that he was a one-hit wonder. True enough, that probably will be his best season, but since then he's established that he's pretty reliable. If he's going well through this summer, Arroyo's going to be one of the most attractive pitchers on the market (if he's on the market). And if he isn't on the market and he's going well, then the Reds are in contention and that extension got the team a major cog to being in contention. Once again, win-win. He's either a good pitcher to have or a good pitcher to trade. Once again, you could wait for a perfect contract with Lefty Godot, but Bronson Arroyo is half a season away from being everything a team could ask for on a two-year extension.

If he is going well and the Reds are looking to trade him, will whatever he brings back plus his year and a half of service be worth $20MM to this team? I guess that's the question at hand.

If I am looking at another subpar year from this team, I'll take the $20MM anyday, especially now that we have a GM that knows how to utilize money.

That's the difference now. In the past, we've had bumbling GMs who had no idea how to run a team. Excess money didn't mean as much in the end because they'd probably just piss it away on useless players.

jojo
03-22-2010, 11:44 AM
Arroyo's trade value apex was the offseason of 2006-2007. He was coming off a very good year and had 2 years left at roughly the same amount of money that he'd be making in only the 2nd half of 2010. And in that offseason, money was flowing a lot more freely than it is now which makes that contract all the more attractive.

Unless they make it extremely deep into the playoffs this season with Arroyo playing an integral part, I wouldn't be able to see how the extension could ever be called a masterstroke.

Here was at least one argument/take for the extensions:


Pecota thinks this about Harang in '07: W-L: 12-10; ERA: 4.21; 190 IP with no downside.

A summary of the 5 gold standard projection systems available: W-L: 13-11; ERA: 4.12; 208 IP.

Concerning Harang and Arroyo in '07: Basically all of the projection systems think they could be twins performance-wise this season.

My take on the two and their contracts:

Evaluating Arroyo on his '06 ERA will cause him to be overvalued. It was a fluky ERA driven in large part by a high LOB%. Dismissing his '06 as a fluke overall is not appropriate however ('06 mlb average for starters: FIP: 4.60; ERA: 4.60...Arroyo's '06 FIP: 4.14). He was an above average starting pitcher and will likely be one again this season. He's not a #1 by any stretch but he's pretty valuable and an absolute value relative to his salary. I'm not in love with his extension though. Its risky because by the final two years he's much more likely to simply be average or slightly below so there's a good chance he'll be overpaid. Even so having an average innings eater is a useful thing and there is something to be said for making a guy happy...those final two years are in a way making up for the extreme bargain they're getting right now. So while I'm not giddy about his extension, I'm not bothered that much by it either.

Harang is absolutely what you see is what you get based upon his '06 (ERA: 3.76;FIP: 3.64). He might be one of the more underrated pitchers in the league if you surveyed casual fans or lazy talking heads who don't do their homework. I can guarantee you though there wouldn't be a GM in the league who wouldn't want him given his current contract (except maybe Florida but there are probably car dealerships in Cincinnati that have more inventory than the Marlins have payroll). I really like Harang's contract. While I think he's not going to develop into anything more than he already is (and I think many Reds fans overestimate what he will become), I think there is a great chance that he will justify it with his performance over the course of it. What he is already, is very good. He basically projects to consistently be the guy we saw in '06 for the next several years. Ya, I say. Thats a great thing. A lot of GMs are jealous.



On a side note, VORP is a poor metric to evaluate pitchers. It's basically a fancy combination of ERA and innings pitched and the flaws in ERA have been long discussed here and other places.

All that said, the way it was used in the above context doesn't bother me since it's basically saying Bronson and Harang are projected to be better than Meche in the future. VORP in and of itself however, has little predictive power and is really a pretty flawed stat for pitchers.

Spring~Fields
03-22-2010, 11:54 AM
That's the difference now. In the past, we've had bumbling GMs who had no idea how to run a team. Excess money didn't mean as much in the end because they'd probably just piss it away on useless players.


If I am looking at another subpar year from this team, I'll take the $20MM anyday, especially now that we have a GM that knows how to utilize money.

I think that should say, now that we have, and have had......a GM. Won't he have had about the same amount of time at the midway point this season as the previous "bumbling GM's" ?

So then you do expect major improvements this season and next with this GM, his manager and the Reds organization, as far as winning games on the playing field goes?

Do you really think that the inconsistent, or aging and declining veterans that this GM has added will make that much of an improvement over the competition in the Central?

Or will he have to wait until those draft picks of pitchers and fielders from the previous "bumbling GM's", who had no idea, wait until those prospects mature and produce for him? :confused:

Do you anticipate that when the Harang, Arroyo and Cordero contracts are off the books that he will make a major splash in acquiring better pitching and offense/defense players? :confused:

TRF
03-22-2010, 12:17 PM
If he is going well and the Reds are looking to trade him, will whatever he brings back plus his year and a half of service be worth $20MM to this team? I guess that's the question at hand.

If I am looking at another subpar year from this team, I'll take the $20MM anyday, especially now that we have a GM that knows how to utilize money.

That's the difference now. In the past, we've had bumbling GMs who had no idea how to run a team. Excess money didn't mean as much in the end because they'd probably just piss it away on useless players.

What proof do you have that Walt knows how to spend the money he's been given? He hasn't been given a dime as GM of the Reds. Chapmans money came from the minor league payroll/signing pool. Rolen? We'll see if extending a 35 year old 3B with a history of back issues in the post (hopefully post) PED era is a good idea. Other than that, what has he spent money on? Organizational raises, WT, and that's about it. So if you think it's a good idea to not spend money, well, then ok.

Personally, i don't care what the payroll is if the team produces. Barring that I don't care what a player makes if he earns his contract. Would it have been better to wait a year? maybe. but then that sends a message too, one that says the Reds are not willing to pay for talent. Sometimes you do have to overspend a little. Arroyo isn't overpaid for his performance. Harang wouldn't have been had it not been for injury and a whole lot of bad luck. And i doubt you can quantify how much value there is to Bailey, Cueto and whoever the 5th starter is in having 2 200+ inning horses in the rotation, easing the burden.

Spring~Fields
03-22-2010, 12:22 PM
What proof do you have that Walt knows how to spend the money he's been given?

That's a good question



Personally, i don't care what the payroll is if the team produces. Barring that I don't care what a player makes if he earns his contract. Would it have been better to wait a year? maybe. but then that sends a message too, one that says the Reds are not willing to pay for talent. Sometimes you do have to overspend a little. Arroyo isn't overpaid for his performance. Harang wouldn't have been had it not been for injury and a whole lot of bad luck. And i doubt you can quantify how much value there is to Bailey, Cueto and whoever the 5th starter is in having 2 200+ inning horses in the rotation, easing the burden.

I wonder if a thought of the Griffey or Dunn contracts coming off played any role in the decisions at the time of the signings of Harang and Arroyo, as the plan might have been looking forward with those changes in consideration.

OnBaseMachine
03-22-2010, 12:27 PM
Other than that, what has he spent money on? Organizational raises, WT, and that's about it. So if you think it's a good idea to not spend money, well, then ok.


Yep, it's amazing how soon people forget the contracts Jocketty gave to Willy Taveras, Mike Lincoln, and EdE. Jocketty's not as great at utilizing money as some might lead you to believe.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 12:32 PM
Yep, it's amazing how soon people forget the contracts Jocketty gave to Willy Taveras, Mike Lincoln, and EdE. Jocketty's not as great at utilizing money as some might lead you to believe.

Jocketty's life as a GM didn't begin when he got to Cincinnati.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 12:41 PM
What proof do you have that Walt knows how to spend the money he's been given?

He has been a very successful GM in his career. I'm going to say that he knows what he is doing.


He hasn't been given a dime as GM of the Reds. Chapmans money came from the minor league payroll/signing pool. Rolen? We'll see if extending a 35 year old 3B with a history of back issues in the post (hopefully post) PED era is a good idea. Other than that, what has he spent money on? Organizational raises, WT, and that's about it. So if you think it's a good idea to not spend money, well, then ok.

Again, Walt ran the Cardinals for a very long time and had more than his share of success there. The organization thrived under his management. Just because he hasn't spent much while here doesn't mean he doesn't know how to spend money. It could also mean that he hasn't seen the right opportunities to spend what he has.


Personally, i don't care what the payroll is if the team produces. Barring that I don't care what a player makes if he earns his contract. Would it have been better to wait a year? maybe. but then that sends a message too, one that says the Reds are not willing to pay for talent. Sometimes you do have to overspend a little. Arroyo isn't overpaid for his performance. Harang wouldn't have been had it not been for injury and a whole lot of bad luck. And i doubt you can quantify how much value there is to Bailey, Cueto and whoever the 5th starter is in having 2 200+ inning horses in the rotation, easing the burden.

Stop looking at the micro. The Reds inked some significant contracts from 2006-2007 and we really saw no improvement on the field. If you are going to spend like they did in those couple of years, I would think the goal is to improve the team. In all seriousness, knowing what you know now, would you have still spent $100MM on Cordero, Harang and Arroyo or would you rather have that money to spend when the team has a better chance to compete, like over the next 3-5 years?

TRF
03-22-2010, 12:46 PM
Jocketty's life as a GM didn't begin when he got to Cincinnati.

True. Ask him if he'd make that Mulder/Haren trade again. Getting McGuire was about as much a sure thing as the Reds getting Griffey. His best move was getting LaRussa, which meant getting Dave Duncan. Had the Reds ownership ponied up the dough, he'd have never gotten Rolen. Pujols was luck, every team passed on him 12 times.

His Cardinal teams were ok even wining a division title in '96, but '98 restored the fanbase to St. Louis. How many times have they been below 3 mil in attendance since 1998? 1 time, and just barely. 1998 saw them draw 3.2 mil for a 3rd place team, 1999 the same for a 4th place team. That can do a lot for rebuilding a team.

TRF
03-22-2010, 12:48 PM
Stop looking at the micro. The Reds inked some significant contracts from 2006-2007 and we really saw no improvement on the field. If you are going to spend like they did in those couple of years, I would think the goal is to improve the team. In all seriousness, knowing what you know now, would you have still spent $100MM on Cordero, Harang and Arroyo or would you rather have that money to spend when the team has a better chance to compete, like over the next 3-5 years?

The Cardinals spent a lot in 1998 and 1999 and yep, in 2000 they won a division title. I wonder if having drawn 6 million fans the previous two years helped with that? Sometimes you pick the season, sometimes the season picks you. Walt had the good sense to hire LaRussa and Duncan. TLR lobbied for Big Mac. McGwire/Sosa revitalize baseball, but St. Louis in particular. Walt makes three trades between 1998 and the start of 2000, acquiring Renteria, Tatis and Edmonds. He had the good fortune of having Drew fall to him in the 1998 draft after he sat out and didn't sign with the Phillies the previous year.

Circumstances worked in his favor. He had to pull it off, but he had a lot working for him (attendance, personnel, the draft). I give him credit for seeing what was in front of him and acting on it. The first truly creative thing I have seen him do is get Chapman.

HokieRed
03-22-2010, 12:50 PM
Jocketty's best move at St.L. may have been getting Wainwright for Drew.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 12:54 PM
I think that should say, now that we have, and have had......a GM. Won't he have had about the same amount of time at the midway point this season as the previous "bumbling GM's" ?

Time is generally used as an excuse. I am sure if you or I got thrown into the GM spot, it wouldn't take long for people to see that we didn't know how to run a baseball franchise even if we were only given 6 months.


So then you do expect major improvements this season and next with this GM, his manager and the Reds organization, as far as winning games on the playing field goes?

Maybe not "major" when you are speaking only about this year, but I expect to see the quality improve. But I would expect to see this team continually improve over the next few years.


Do you really think that the inconsistent, or aging and declining veterans that this GM has added will make that much of an improvement over the competition in the Central?

Not sure what you are getting at here. I think that the improvement that we will see will be caused by both the veterans added and the improvement of the in-house youngsters.


Or will he have to wait until those draft picks of pitchers and fielders from the previous "bumbling GM's", who had no idea, wait until those prospects mature and produce for him? :confused:

The GMs were more bumbling because of the way they ran the overall organization, not because of one or two draft picks. Many like to try and prove the worth of previous GMs by pointing to one or two positive transactions that they pulled off. There is much more than just plucking someone from another franchise or in the draft.


Do you anticipate that when the Harang, Arroyo and Cordero contracts are off the books that he will make a major splash in acquiring better pitching and offense/defense players? :confused:

I anticipate that we will be able to see him do what he does with less restriction. It is difficult to take over a team when a good portion of your balance sheet is clogged up with unattractive positions. I believe that he will improve the team when he has the ability to spend a little more freely.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 12:58 PM
True. Ask him if he'd make that Mulder/Haren trade again. Getting McGuire was about as much a sure thing as the Reds getting Griffey. His best move was getting LaRussa, which meant getting Dave Duncan. Had the Reds ownership ponied up the dough, he'd have never gotten Rolen. Pujols was luck, every team passed on him 12 times.

His Cardinal teams were ok even wining a division title in '96, but '98 restored the fanbase to St. Louis. How many times have they been below 3 mil in attendance since 1998? 1 time, and just barely. 1998 saw them draw 3.2 mil for a 3rd place team, 1999 the same for a 4th place team. That can do a lot for rebuilding a team.

Show me a GM who hasn't made a bad trade.

TRF
03-22-2010, 01:18 PM
The GMs were more bumbling because of the way they ran the overall organization, not because of one or two draft picks. Many like to try and prove the worth of previous GMs by pointing to one or two positive transactions that they pulled off. There is much more than just plucking someone from another franchise or in the draft.

DanO was a disaster as a GM. Nobody is defending him there, BUT he's had by far the best drafts of the decade of any other Reds GM. Part of that was talent available, but everyone acknowledges his scouting background. A lot of the policies he implemented in the minor leagues were probably pretty silly. Take the first pitch springs to mind. But one interesting thing happened under his watch; arm injuries went down.

Krivsky got rid of the whole take the first pitch nonsense and started infusing talent from outside the organization. He cut ties with Rijo. He got the Reds active in Latin America, following the foundation set by DanO. And while he along with 7 other GM's whiffed in that round (The Rays and Dodgers did ok), he did more to remake the 25 man roster from what he had, including an almost complete reworking of the rotation. by 2008 he had Arroyo, Volquez and Cueto (signed by DanO) with Harang as the holdover from the previous GM. Bailey also graduates, sort of. This was the problem Krivsky had. He didn't stand up to the owner, and felt the heat and the hype of the teams #1 pitching prospect. The thought of a young Bailey and Cueto pitching in the same rotation was too tempting, and IMO it led to his being fired.

One thing brought up is WK's forcing out of Almarez. That hasn't had the negative impact suggested. The Reds have been the leader in Latin America since WK swooped in and stole Duran from every other team. Duran may never pan out, but it told the Latin American players and reps that the Reds were serious. Walt followed that signing with Y. Rodriguez and others. But don't doubt that the Reds could have missed out on him had the groundwork not been laid.

Krivsky wasn't a disaster as a GM, he was new to it. He never had the support of an owner that Jocketty did. He never had the payroll. He never had the attendance, and he inherited a piss-poor team system wide.

TRF
03-22-2010, 01:21 PM
Show me a GM who hasn't made a bad trade.

You keep bringing up extending Arroyo, and signing Cordero.

Walt has made a few bad trades and bad signings too. The reason it worked out ok for him was simple: averaging 3+million fans per year.

M2
03-22-2010, 01:28 PM
If he is going well and the Reds are looking to trade him, will whatever he brings back plus his year and a half of service be worth $20MM to this team? I guess that's the question at hand.

That's only the question if you're deadset on asking silly questions. Teams pay players to play for them. Arroyo earned his money last season and will earn it if he pitches well this season. He has been a useful player. So far, no one bumbled in giving him a contract extension.

While the Reds may not have been a winning team last year, players like Arroyo at least put a major league product on the field, allowing the team to charge for tickets and have people buy them. That's how the business works.

And what he brings back should the team trade him is on Jocketty, not Arroyo. Jose Guillen and Wily Mo Pena were far from the two best players the Reds have dealt in the past decade, but, so far, they fetched the best returns.

M2
03-22-2010, 01:29 PM
Jocketty's best move at St.L. may have been getting Wainwright for Drew.

I think that move deserves serious consideration for move of the decade. Jocketty also used the money saved in that deal to sign a number of free agents who were instrumental in the Cardinals' 2004-6 run (including Jeff Suppan and Reggie Sanders).

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 01:29 PM
You keep bringing up extending Arroyo, and signing Cordero.

Walt has made a few bad trades and bad signings too. The reason it worked out ok for him was simple: averaging 3+million fans per year.

Understood, but again it isn't about Cordero being a bad signing or because Arroyo was a bad signing. In a vacuum, they were much better signings than they were in reality due to the position the franchise was in at the time.

Trading Haren for Mulder did not work out for the Cards at all with the exception that they made the NLCS in his first year. That is obvious. But a GM can do more damage to a team by taking the organization in the wrong direction for multiple years than he can by making one bad trade.

Now if he has a pattern of bad trades, give me a call.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 01:34 PM
That's only the question if you're deadset on asking silly questions. Teams pay players to play for them. Arroyo earned his money last season and will earn it if he pitches well this season. He has been a useful player. So far, no one bumbled in giving him a contract extension.

I'm not big on investing big money into a losing situation. The franchise would be in no worse shape for the future if he was not extended and, if played correctly, could be in much better shape.


While the Reds may not have been a winning team last year, players like Arroyo at least put a major league product on the field, allowing the team to charge for tickets and have people buy them. That's how the business works.

Do you know of anyone who came to the park last year specifically to see Arroyo pitch? Attendance sucks in Cincy and I have heard from enough people that they need to win in order to get guys to the stadium. Arroyo on the team for the last 4 years hasn't gotten fans to the park, I don't see how trading him would have negatively impacted the attendance numbers.


And what he brings back should the team trade him is on Jocketty, not Arroyo. Jose Guillen and Wily Mo Pena were far from the two best players the Reds have dealt in the past decade, but, so far, they fetched the best returns.

Depends on the situation at the time.

TRF
03-22-2010, 01:40 PM
I'm not big on investing big money into a losing situation. The franchise would be in no worse shape for the future if he was not extended and, if played correctly, could be in much better shape.

Opinion, not fact.

Say he isn't extended then, and leaves via free agency. Say the same thing happens to Harang. That puts more pressure on two pitchers, Bailey and Cueto that just now MIGHT be coming into their own.

oh, and two transactions I forgot to mention for WK.. getting Hamilton in the Rule V, and dealing him when his value was at an all time high for Volquez. the 2011 rotation of Bailey, Cueto, Volquez and probaly Chapman plus one of Leake, Wood, or whoever looks pretty nice, considering Chapman is Walt's only contribution (assuming Leake isn't the 5th starter next year.) Bailey and Cueto, acquired by DanO, their arms protected by his and WK's minor league policies.

And that shouldn't be overlooked.

flyer85
03-22-2010, 01:43 PM
If the Reds didn't have Rolen and still had Edwin do you think Frazier would now be the starting 3rd baseman?yes ... it is time to see if he can play and with the track record of Rolen from a health standpoint he is likely to get the chance for an extended period this season.

flyer85
03-22-2010, 01:51 PM
TThe Reds could be a really awful offensive team. all three OF spots are question marks. The Reds "new" SS was last a good offensive player in 2003. The oft-injured 35 year old 3B had a bounce back season in 2009 but has a long history of knee and back problems combined with declining performance. The C was last a good offensive player in 2006.

The Reds have a chance to be an abysmal offensive team and whole lot of things have to go right for them to be above average.

Ron Madden
03-22-2010, 01:55 PM
all three OF spots are question marks. The Reds "new" SS was last a good offensive player in 2003. The oft-injured 35 year old 3B had a bounce back season in 2009 but has a long history of knee and back problems combined with declining performance. The C was last a good offensive player in 2006.

The Reds have a chance to be an abysmal offensive team and whole lot of things have to go right for them to be above average.

That's the way I see it too. All we can do now is hope a whole lot of things go right.

TRF
03-22-2010, 01:59 PM
Not a single significant upgrade on offense in 2 years as GM, and the team's best player was drafted by JimBo.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 02:00 PM
Opinion, not fact.

A lot of our discussions are opinion.


Say he isn't extended then, and leaves via free agency. Say the same thing happens to Harang. That puts more pressure on two pitchers, Bailey and Cueto that just now MIGHT be coming into their own.

Opinion, not fact.

But you are right. That could have happened. But Harang and Arroyo would have left pre-2009, which is only last year. Cueto was already up and Bailey as well. I don't see how that would have cnaged the timeline. And Cincy could have just gotten a vet to take their places, no one is saying that they would have had to rush youngsters.


oh, and two transactions I forgot to mention for WK.. getting Hamilton in the Rule V, and dealing him when his value was at an all time high for Volquez. the 2011 rotation of Bailey, Cueto, Volquez and probaly Chapman plus one of Leake, Wood, or whoever looks pretty nice, considering Chapman is Walt's only contribution (assuming Leake isn't the 5th starter next year.) Bailey and Cueto, acquired by DanO, their arms protected by his and WK's minor league policies.

I have repeatedly said that the Hamilton/Volquez series of moves, at this time, has been extremely overrated. Getting them for nothing was obviously a great move and should be done 100 times out of 100 if you have the chance, but there are two things which distort the perception of the situation:


The Hamilton "story"
Edinson's first half of 2008


Volquez was an absolute stud pre ASB 2008 and, since then, has been somewhat middle of the road. Still an asset, but not a TOR starter like he appeared to be when he first arrived. And now, after surgery, who knows? TJ is becoming more routine than it has historically been, but you never know. So, at this point, that tremendous series of moves has netter Cincy 90ish somewhat productive games from Hamilton, one great half from Volquez and 1+ middle of the road half from him as well. At this point, it has been beneficial due to what was given up (nothing) but overall it is highly overrated.


And that shouldn't be overlooked.

Noted.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 02:03 PM
Not a single significant upgrade on offense in 2 years as GM, and the team's best player was drafted by JimBo.

How would you suggest he could have significantly upgraded the offense? In all seriousness. Taking into account the fact that the economy crashed, he had little payroll flexibility and when other GMs were holding on to young talent like grim death.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 02:07 PM
all three OF spots are question marks. The Reds "new" SS was last a good offensive player in 2003. The oft-injured 35 year old 3B had a bounce back season in 2009 but has a long history of knee and back problems combined with declining performance. The C was last a good offensive player in 2006.

The Reds have a chance to be an abysmal offensive team and whole lot of things have to go right for them to be above average.

Could be.

flyer85
03-22-2010, 02:09 PM
I don't require a recap of the 2006 draft. I was the guy arguing the Reds should have been in on Porcello while the team was drafting Mesoraco.and not being in on him looks rather silly since they shelled out $30M for Chapman. Especially since the argument for all the teams that passed on him was simply they couldn't afford to sign him. ANY team could have afforded to sign him.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 02:13 PM
and not being in on him looks rather silly since they shelled out $30M for Chapman. Especially since the argument for all the teams that passed on him was simply they couldn't afford to sign him. ANY team could have afforded to sign him.

Maybe not "afford to sign him", I think it was more that they couldn't afford the risk of signing him.

But I agree with you anyway, watching the team shell out roughly the same amt of money on Stanton and seeing them pass on Porcello killed me.

Ltlabner
03-22-2010, 02:30 PM
When your best argument in favor of a GM is that he didn't do anything crazy while producing yet another losing season it's not exactly inspiring.

Wait...er...uh...Walt's got an impressive track record in total as a GM. His performance whilst at the helm of the Reds. Not so much.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 02:40 PM
When your best argument in favor of a GM is that he didn't do anything crazy while producing yet another losing season it's not exactly inspiring.

Wait...er...uh...Walt's got an impressive track record in total as a GM. His performance whilst at the helm of the Reds. Not so much.

When you hands are temporarily tied due to an economic crisis (both regarding the team and the nation), it is difficult to do anything of substance in the short-term.

Ltlabner
03-22-2010, 03:02 PM
When you hands are temporarily tied due to an economic crisis (both regarding the team and the nation), it is difficult to do anything of substance in the short-term.

So you spend money on bringing back Hernandez, to bring in an SS who best days are likely behind him, some sort of increase for Rolen and money to resign Gomes?

If we were really that strapped, go with the kids as ultra cheep options.

TRF
03-22-2010, 03:24 PM
How would you suggest he could have significantly upgraded the offense? In all seriousness. Taking into account the fact that the economy crashed, he had little payroll flexibility and when other GMs were holding on to young talent like grim death.

The market tanked at the end of 2009, not 2008. He'd been with the Reds in some capacity for over a year, most of that as GM, and the man isn't an idiot. (and no one is making him out to be one.) The free agent list after the 2008 season had some names on it. there were moves to be made, and prospect wise, the Reds had a damn fine system. And the Reds didn't need young talent, they needed a bat or three. They had young talent to deal, something every GM wanted.

Admittedly Walt did this when he acquired Rolen. He traded from strength, but he traded for his GM blind spot. Just as you have said Arroyo was Krivsky's, Rolen certainly is Walt's.

bucksfan2
03-22-2010, 03:39 PM
The market tanked at the end of 2009, not 2008. He'd been with the Reds in some capacity for over a year, most of that as GM, and the man isn't an idiot. (and no one is making him out to be one.) The free agent list after the 2008 season had some names on it. there were moves to be made, and prospect wise, the Reds had a damn fine system. And the Reds didn't need young talent, they needed a bat or three. They had young talent to deal, something every GM wanted.


The collapse was underway in 2008. The investment bank crisis was happening in Sept of 08. IIRC the FA market collapse happened right around Jan 09. I remember Jeremy Afeldt and his agent getting some criticism for signing with the Giants so early in free agency only to come out on top with what now is an above market contract for a RP.

westofyou
03-22-2010, 03:42 PM
The market tanked at the end of 2009, not 2008.



Abreu begs to differ

TRF
03-22-2010, 03:42 PM
The collapse was underway in 2008. The investment bank crisis was happening in Sept of 08. IIRC the FA market collapse happened right around Jan 09. I remember Jeremy Afeldt and his agent getting some criticism for signing with the Giants so early in free agency only to come out on top with what now is an above market contract for a RP.

The FA market collapse didn't affect the Reds adversely, it was a boon. Walt could have overspent at the end of 2008, or he could have reaped the reward of a soft market.

He did neither.

As for trading from surplus, he did that, as i mentioned. I just think the target was his blind spot, a player he was fond of that is older, a health risk, and had seen his numbers in decline the two years prior. I hope it works out, but If Frazier is tearing up AAA it will look bad IMO.

TRF
03-22-2010, 03:43 PM
Abreu begs to differ

yeah, I had forgotten that. still the market tanking helps the Reds, not hurts them.

TRF
03-22-2010, 03:45 PM
Also, not to be a run on poster here, I think we are seeing a post PED market correction. Nobody wants to hand out millions to 35 year old players anymore. The return isn't what it used to be.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 03:56 PM
So you spend money on bringing back Hernandez, to bring in an SS who best days are likely behind him, some sort of increase for Rolen and money to resign Gomes?

If we were really that strapped, go with the kids as ultra cheep options.

Hernandez, Gomes and Cabrera will make what, roughly $6MM combined this year?

I agree Rolen is real money, these guys are play money.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 03:58 PM
The FA market collapse didn't affect the Reds adversely, it was a boon. Walt could have overspent at the end of 2008, or he could have reaped the reward of a soft market.

He did neither.

Sort through the FA class of 2008-2009 and see how many of the middle to upper class signed with smaller markets or non-contenders.

Walt would have had to seriously overpaid in both dollars and years to get any of those guys.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 04:01 PM
Admittedly Walt did this when he acquired Rolen. He traded from strength, but he traded for his GM blind spot. Just as you have said Arroyo was Krivsky's, Rolen certainly is Walt's.

I agree conceptually with one caveat: Rolen's years here are more in line with the timing of when this team should be expected to move into contending mode, which has been my argument all along. Pay for players like Arroyo and Cordero when the rest of the team is in line, not 3 years before.

TRF
03-22-2010, 04:11 PM
Sort through the FA class of 2008-2009 and see how many of the middle to upper class signed with smaller markets or non-contenders.

Walt would have had to seriously overpaid in both dollars and years to get any of those guys.

Sure. now remove all the FA's 34 and older.

The list is even smaller. Walt has to adjust to the economy. No one is denying that. But then Walt inherited a team markedly better than the one WK walked into. And the infrastructure was light years better, based on the drafting and international signings of his two predecessors.

So if you can't buy the talent, you trade for it. But if you don't want to shell out money for 34+ year old talent, WHY WHY WHY would you ever pay for it with your young talent?

3B was a need. EE wasn't going to get better at the position, and he's likely moving to the OF in the next year or two. But Frazier was on the cusp. Sutton was in house. Francisco, Janish, Rosales. All could have manned 3B for the rest of 2009 in what was a lost season. If you are concerned about money, that was the way to go. It means one more ST with one more position in open competition. Or maybe it means Sutton is the starter. Who knows.

So, not only did Walt give up way too much in the terms of young talent for Rolen, he EXTENDED him, knowing his injury history and his age, and his declining offensive numbers.

If his name were Krivsky and he did that, you'd be vilifying him for it.

Ltlabner
03-22-2010, 04:22 PM
Hernandez, Gomes and Cabrera will make what, roughly $6MM combined this year?

I agree Rolen is real money, these guys are play money.

Cash strapped is cash strapped. You can't have it both ways. If things are that tight, don't nickel and dime yourself to death.

Don't bring in outside options for CF when you have inhouse options. Don't bring in the JHJ's of the world. Don't sign the Mike Lincolns of the world. Don't extend the Rolen.

If you are going to say Walt's hands are tied because of money you can't then turn around and say those contracts don't matter.

Spring~Fields
03-22-2010, 04:30 PM
Sort through the FA class of 2008-2009 and see how many of the middle to upper class signed with smaller markets or non-contenders.

Walt would have had to seriously overpaid in both dollars and years to get any of those guys.

Those are obstacles and barriers to achieving organizational goals and objectives.

But, I guess that might be “my problem”, with some of your points, no matter how well you state them or endure the course with it.

For example you will list what seems to be reasonable obstacles, barriers and hurdles that Mr. Jocketty has to deal with and that really can be hindrances, and basically you ask us or say that we should be reasonable and excuse what has been for him.

Yet, you don’t seem to list and consider that Bowden, O’Brien and Krivsky, had obstacles, barriers and hurdles that hindered them too, many of those same hindrances that you ask us to be reasonable about when discussing Mr. Jocketty could readily or easily be applied to his predecessors too. You seem to want us to discount to a great deal anything that the predecessors did accomplish or do right, also.

Most of all we really don’t know what ownership or that ownership group laid out for those GM’s to function under. We certainly can guess that it wasn’t that great of a environment to succeed in, certainly not compared to the one in St. Louis 2000 forward.

Jim Bowden as much I don’t like him, for years was neck and neck with Walt Jocketty and the St. Louis Cardinals, and they were truly competitive with one another, not this thing we call completive now, fourth or fifth place and a hopless prayer every off-season or spring, then a long endurance of frustration. Those two organizations took turns at being on top and winning. Until the dollars changed in large amounts upward for St. Louis, and stagnated for Bowden and the Reds.

I think that you should at least consider that each of the GM’s have or had some serious obstacles with their time with the Reds.

Not just in favor of supporting your points on Jocketty.

I don’t think that you will be given your points until, you also recognize what the men before Jocketty had to work with, and in the environment that they were asked to succeed in, and correctly give them credit for what they did right, not just what they did wrong.

Then again we have to run some double mindedness when arguing Jocketty vs the others, because we want Jocketty to do very well on one hand, but on the other we are trying to argue against him because of some of the double standards that are not right vs the other guys. It is hard to play it both ways, at the same time.

OnBaseMachine
03-22-2010, 04:32 PM
If you are going to say Walt's hands are tied because of money you can't then turn around and say those contracts don't matter.

Yep. It's okay to blast Krivsky for the smaller contracts he gave Stanton and Cormier but if Walt does something similar, then who cares, it's only roughly $6M.

bucksfan2
03-22-2010, 04:38 PM
Also, not to be a run on poster here, I think we are seeing a post PED market correction. Nobody wants to hand out millions to 35 year old players anymore. The return isn't what it used to be.

I agree wholeheartedly with this. Gone are the days of 38 year old impact players. You will still see some good players play at a high level into their late 30's but I think they will be more outliers than anything. I don't think we will ever see a Barry Bonds type player late into his 30's and even 40's.


So if you can't buy the talent, you trade for it. But if you don't want to shell out money for 34+ year old talent, WHY WHY WHY would you ever pay for it with your young talent?

3B was a need. EE wasn't going to get better at the position, and he's likely moving to the OF in the next year or two. But Frazier was on the cusp. Sutton was in house. Francisco, Janish, Rosales. All could have manned 3B for the rest of 2009 in what was a lost season. If you are concerned about money, that was the way to go. It means one more ST with one more position in open competition. Or maybe it means Sutton is the starter. Who knows.

I don't think Frazier is ready yet. I also am in no way shape or form comfortable handing the job to Sutton. As Rosales proved last season he isn't an every day player and I have heard Francisco is very, very raw at 3b. So year the Reds needed a 3b and didn't exactly have an immediate answer.

I also think Rolen provided veteran stability. He has been on winning teams before and knows how to win. I have also read where people were very impressed with his work ethic. At the time the Reds were in a downward spiral playing very poor baseball. Heck they were probably playing some of the worst baseball over the past decade. Sometimes it isn't just what you bring to the field but also what you add off the field. IMO Rolen's impact will be felt both places.

As for Stewart, he was a nice prospect that the Reds traded away. But you have to consider Walt replaced him with Leake and Chapman. A fair enough trade off for me. At some point the 3b position needed to be addressed and Edwin needed to be jettisoned.

IMO since the date of the trade the Reds are both better on the major league level as well as minor league level.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 04:39 PM
Cash strapped is cash strapped. You can't have it both ways. If things are that tight, don't nickel and dime yourself to death.

Don't bring in outside options for CF when you have inhouse options. Don't bring in the JHJ's of the world. Don't sign the Mike Lincolns of the world. Don't extend the Rolen.

If you are going to say Walt's hands are tied because of money you can't then turn around and say those contracts don't matter.

You do need bodies to play at some point. There is also some worth to lower priced people, as they could turn around and have some trade value in July. I agree that these guys weren't the best signings, but then again add them all up and they total less than one of the big signings we have been discussing.

I can admit that these weren't the best uses of money in the end (that is quite obvious), but please admit that WK had his Lincolns and JHJs (namely Stanton, Cormier, Conine, and Freel) on top of the bigger ones (Gonzo, Harang, Cordero and Arroyo). At least admit that.

TRF
03-22-2010, 04:39 PM
Those are obstacles and barriers to achieving organizational goals and objectives.

But, I guess that might be “my problem”, with some of your points, no matter how well you state them or endure the course with it.

For example you will list what seems to be reasonable obstacles, barriers and hurdles that Mr. Jocketty has to deal with and that really can be hindrances, and basically you ask us or say that we should be reasonable and excuse what has been for him.

Yet, you don’t seem to list and consider that Bowden, O’Brien and Krivsky, had obstacles, barriers and hurdles that hindered them too, many of those same hindrances that you ask us to be reasonable about when discussing Mr. Jocketty could readily or easily be applied to his predecessors too. You seem to want us to discount to a great deal anything that the predecessors did accomplish or do right, also.

Most of all we really don’t know what ownership or that ownership group laid out for those GM’s to function under. We certainly can guess that it wasn’t that great of a environment to succeed in, certainly not compared to the one in St. Louis 2000 forward.

Jim Bowden as much I don’t like him, for years was neck and neck with Walt Jocketty and the St. Louis Cardinals, and they were truly competitive with one another, not this thing we call completive now, fourth or fifth place and a hopless prayer every off-season or spring, then a long endurance of frustration. Those two organizations took turns at being on top and winning. Until the dollars changed in large amounts upward for St. Louis, and stagnated for Bowden and the Reds.

I think that you should at least consider that each of the GM’s have some serious obstacles with their time with the Reds. Not just in favor of supporting your points on Jocketty. I don’t think that you will be given your points until, you also recognize what the men before Jocketty had to work with, and in the environment that they were asked to succeed in, and correctly give them credit for what they did right, not just what they did wrong.

Then again we have to run some double mindedness when arguing Jocketty vs the others, because we want Jocketty to do very well on one hand, but on the other we are trying to argue against him because of some of the double standards that are not right vs the other guys. It is hard to play it both ways, at the same time.

Outstanding post. said better than me in every way.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 04:43 PM
Yep. It's okay to blast Krivsky for the smaller contracts he gave Stanton and Cormier but if Walt does something similar, then who cares, it's only roughly $6M.

If Walt had also mistimed a significant increase in payroll commitments at the same time as the Lincoln and JHJ signings, I'd be less positive about him.

One large issue I had with WK's contracts is that it coincided with less activity in LatAm and safer, less expensive picks in the draft. Can you at least agree with that? I saw Stanton getting $6MM and Porcello getting passed up. Now I am seeing guys lik Yorman getting signed, guys like Alonso getting above slot and guys like Chapman getting competitive bids.

Do you agree that there is a difference now in that regard?

TRF
03-22-2010, 04:46 PM
If Walt had also mistimed a significant increase in payroll commitments at the same time as the Lincoln and JHJ signings, I'd be less positive about him.

One large issue I had with WK's contracts is that it coincided with less activity in LatAm and safer, less expensive picks in the draft. Can you at least agree with that? I saw Stanton getting $6MM and Porcello getting passed up. Now I am seeing guys lik Yorman getting signed, guys like Alonso getting above slot and guys like Chapman getting competitive bids.

Do you agree that there is a difference now in that regard?

Krivsky signed Juan Duran.

just sayin'

And Tzu-Kai Chiu. Not Latin obviously, but an international signing.

OnBaseMachine
03-22-2010, 04:51 PM
Wayne Krivsky helped start the Reds strong presence in Latin America with the hiring of Tony Arias in September of 2006. If not for Krivsky, the Reds may not have signed all these Latin prospects in the last couple years.

From Baseball America:


Since the Reds brought aboard Tony Arias from the Blue Jays in September 2006 after he spent seven seasons as Toronto's director of Latin American operations, the Reds have paid $2 million for Juan Duran and $2.5 million for Yorman Rodriguez in 2008, then followed that up with the Aroldis Chapman signing and another hefty bonus for Venezuelan shortstop Humberto Valor last year.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=7638#more-7638

bucksfan2
03-22-2010, 04:56 PM
Wayne Krivsky helped start the Reds strong presence in Latin America with the hiring of Tony Arias in September of 2006. If not for Krivsky, the Reds may not have signed all these Latin prospects in the last couple years.

WK also got rid of Almaraz which many baseball people were against. Not that one is better than the other, I am just making mention of it.

Ltlabner
03-22-2010, 04:58 PM
I can admit that these weren't the best uses of money in the end (that is quite obvious), but please admit that WK had his Lincolns and JHJs (namely Stanton, Cormier, Conine, and Freel) on top of the bigger ones (Gonzo, Harang, Cordero and Arroyo). At least admit that.

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8WwEsXpv1eU/SxMhYiz4vnI/AAAAAAAAAUc/n-O5vJog-6c/s320/casino.jpg

Admit I was at the dinner....at least grant me that.

I don't recall ever declaring in this conversation that Wayne never wasted money. I defended a lot of those moves at the time until it became clear that Wayne screwed the pooch on many of them.

None the less, you are the one with the consistency issue. You can't say poor ole Walt is so stymied by a complete and utter lack of cash....and then sit by as he makes sub-optimal uses of said cash.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 05:07 PM
Those are obstacles and barriers to achieving organizational goals and objectives.

But, I guess that might be “my problem”, with some of your points, no matter how well you state them or endure the course with it.

For example you will list what seems to be reasonable obstacles, barriers and hurdles that Mr. Jocketty has to deal with and that really can be hindrances, and basically you ask us or say that we should be reasonable and excuse what has been for him.

Yet, you don’t seem to list and consider that Bowden, O’Brien and Krivsky, had obstacles, barriers and hurdles that hindered them too, many of those same hindrances that you ask us to be reasonable about when discussing Mr. Jocketty could readily or easily be applied to his predecessors too. You seem to want us to discount to a great deal anything that the predecessors did accomplish or do right, also.

Most of all we really don’t know what ownership or that ownership group laid out for those GM’s to function under. We certainly can guess that it wasn’t that great of a environment to succeed in, certainly not compared to the one in St. Louis 2000 forward.

Jim Bowden as much I don’t like him, for years was neck and neck with Walt Jocketty and the St. Louis Cardinals, and they were truly competitive with one another, not this thing we call completive now, fourth or fifth place and a hopless prayer every off-season or spring, then a long endurance of frustration. Those two organizations took turns at being on top and winning. Until the dollars changed in large amounts upward for St. Louis, and stagnated for Bowden and the Reds.

I think that you should at least consider that each of the GM’s have or had some serious obstacles with their time with the Reds.

Not just in favor of supporting your points on Jocketty.

I don’t think that you will be given your points until, you also recognize what the men before Jocketty had to work with, and in the environment that they were asked to succeed in, and correctly give them credit for what they did right, not just what they did wrong.

Then again we have to run some double mindedness when arguing Jocketty vs the others, because we want Jocketty to do very well on one hand, but on the other we are trying to argue against him because of some of the double standards that are not right vs the other guys. It is hard to play it both ways, at the same time.

Nice post. A couple of points:

- Regarding WK, my problem with him was less about his performance and more about his philosophy. The philosophy of trying to win now when it was obvious that it was the wrong choice. He was given (in Cincy's respect) an open wallet and failed to deliver. And I really don't have much sympathy for the "Bob is a crazy owner" hurdle, since he had plenty of interviews and time to consider Bob's expectations. I felt that the money was allocated in the wrong way. I think that has been proven now.

- I am pointing out the hurdles that Walt has had to deal with because they are current and out there. Maybe O'Brien had some and maybe Wayne had some. To me, both the economy and 50% of his payroll tied up in three guys is tough to swallow. Plus, I am not "making excuses" for his performance, just his "lack of activity". There is a difference.

- The last thing is that I'm not really making excuses for Jocketty. To me, this is factual. I am really unsure what anyone wanted him to do when he had little payroll flexibility and an economic crisis happening around him. All I have heard is that he is the GM and he needs to figure it out. Sometimes it is out of a GM's hands. And I thought he played the situation beautifully by sucking it up and standing pat for a time, even when the fans were screaming that he was asleep. I really wanted WK to suck it up and save the money for when Votto, Homer and Bruce were maturing. Not when the team had little to no shot.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 05:09 PM
Wayne Krivsky helped start the Reds strong presence in Latin America with the hiring of Tony Arias in September of 2006. If not for Krivsky, the Reds may not have signed all these Latin prospects in the last couple years.

From Baseball America:



http://www.baseballamerica.com/blog/prospects/?p=7638#more-7638

That's a little bit of a leap.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 05:12 PM
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_8WwEsXpv1eU/SxMhYiz4vnI/AAAAAAAAAUc/n-O5vJog-6c/s320/casino.jpg

Admit I was at the dinner....at least grant me that.

I don't recall ever declaring in this conversation that Wayne never wasted money. I defended a lot of those moves at the time until it became clear that Wayne screwed the pooch on many of them.

None the less, you are the one with the consistency issue. You can't say poor ole Walt is so stymied by a complete and utter lack of cash....and then sit by as he makes sub-optimal uses of said cash.

When I say that Walt lacks cash, I am saying he lacks the cash to make the kinds of moves people were crowing for him to make. Not a mil here and a mil there. It will be interesting to see what he will do when he gets a little more flexibility over the next 2 years.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 05:12 PM
Krivsky signed Juan Duran.

just sayin'

And Tzu-Kai Chiu. Not Latin obviously, but an international signing.

I know he did.

Ltlabner
03-22-2010, 05:21 PM
When I say that Walt lacks cash, I am saying he lacks the cash to make the kinds of moves people were crowing for him to make. Not a mil here and a mil there. It will be interesting to see what he will do when he gets a little more flexibility over the next 2 years.

How many times have teams been pushed into the playoffs because a couple of fringe player types have a hot season or couple of months?

If his hands are so horribly tied because of the big names it makes those "smaller" moves that much more important, not less.

TRF
03-22-2010, 05:41 PM
Nice post. A couple of points:

- Regarding WK, my problem with him was less about his performance and more about his philosophy. The philosophy of trying to win now when it was obvious that it was the wrong choice. He was given (in Cincy's respect) an open wallet and failed to deliver. And I really don't have much sympathy for the "Bob is a crazy owner" hurdle, since he had plenty of interviews and time to consider Bob's expectations. I felt that the money was allocated in the wrong way. I think that has been proven now.

No it hasn't. You completely dismissed the fact that the owner was impatient, wanting a win now approach. The owner himself stated this after dismissing WK only to see two more losing seasons. That is an insurrmountable hurdle, as Jocketty himself has proven



- I am pointing out the hurdles that Walt has had to deal with because they are current and out there. Maybe O'Brien had some and maybe Wayne had some. To me, both the economy and 50% of his payroll tied up in three guys is tough to swallow. Plus, I am not "making excuses" for his performance, just his "lack of activity". There is a difference.


Maybe DanO and WK had hurdles? DanO had an owner that didn't want to be an owner. WK had to suffer through the impatience of a new owner, and inheriting Griffey's, Milton's contracts were a weight. Walt's ownership hurdles? zero.

Also, lack of activity? Krivsky? please. The man was trading constantly. He threw anything at the bullpen wall hoping it would stick. To his credit, when he erred, Yan, he knew to drop the dead weight quick.



- The last thing is that I'm not really making excuses for Jocketty. To me, this is factual. I am really unsure what anyone wanted him to do when he had little payroll flexibility and an economic crisis happening around him. All I have heard is that he is the GM and he needs to figure it out. Sometimes it is out of a GM's hands. And I thought he played the situation beautifully by sucking it up and standing pat for a time, even when the fans were screaming that he was asleep. I really wanted WK to suck it up and save the money for when Votto, Homer and Bruce were maturing. Not when the team had little to no shot.

He had payroll flexibility looming. 2008 was the end for Griffey, and even though he turned him into Masset, had he done nothing and kept him, Griffey is off the books at the end of 2008.


That's a little bit of a leap.

No, more of a fact than leap.

edabbs44
03-22-2010, 05:53 PM
Also, lack of activity? Krivsky? please. The man was trading constantly. He threw anything at the bullpen wall hoping it would stick. To his credit, when he erred, Yan, he knew to drop the dead weight quick.

I was speaking about Walt's lack of activity.




He had payroll flexibility looming. 2008 was the end for Griffey, and even though he turned him into Masset, had he done nothing and kept him, Griffey is off the books at the end of 2008.

What was the increase in Harang's and Arroyo's salaries? Kind of offset the Griffey money and probably more.


No, more of a fact than leap.

Not really. The fact that Wayne had one big signing in LatAm at the end of his tenure doesn't really strike me as him making a huge move into the area. Maybe it was the beginning, but where was he from 2006-2008? We have seen a lot more activity since Wayne has left, so I guess it's anyone's guess if that is just Wayne's philosophy moving forward or just a coincidence.