PDA

View Full Version : did Walt screw up?



Pages : 1 [2]

TRF
04-20-2010, 03:52 PM
So Jocketty is only successful at this because of the hard work and smart moves of OBrien and Krivsky, but he has separated himself from them, in his ability to develop a long term plan and convince Cast to stick with it.

I find I am unable to disagree with this.

M2
04-20-2010, 03:53 PM
Impact players added by ... DanO:

Cueto
Bailey
Bruce
Janish (yeah, yeah)
Zach Ward who became Kyle Lohse

How on earth do any of those guys count as impact players? Not a one of them has had an above average season in the majors. Seriously, that list is closer to negative impact than positive impact.

The first three have played in the majors with inconsistent to poor results. Trading Ward belongs in the Krivsky column (where you had it in the first place). And when Paul Janish and his career OPS+ of 58 appears on a GM's list of accomplishments, that's a glaring sign of resolute failure.

edabbs44
04-20-2010, 03:54 PM
Continue to ignore just how BAD the Reds were from 2001-2005. WK remade a rotation in shambles.

This is the problem with the WK era. Everyone wants to point to moves in a vacuum (He got Arroyo! Phillips too!). Bottom line is that the vast majority of WK's moves were made to enhance the major league roster. FA signings, trades and money spent was mostly at that level. And performance decreased. If he was spending his time truly concentrating on the farm and younger players then I would have tolerated his tenure. But when you saw $100MMish being given to three pitchers in their 30ish years, you kind of expect that to translate to wins on the field.

We didn't see that.

TRF
04-20-2010, 04:07 PM
How on earth do any of those guys count as impact players? Not a one of them has had an above average season in the majors. Seriously, that list is closer to negative impact than positive impact.

The first three have played in the majors with inconsistent to poor results. Trading Ward belongs in the Krivsky column (where you had it in the first place). And when Paul Janish and his career OPS+ of 58 appears on a GM's list of accomplishments, that's a glaring sign of resolute failure.

Compared to Jimmy Haynes, Ramon Ortiz and Eric Milton, Lohse was a nice find. I guess my point is the same as one made in another thread. It takes a while to halt a sinking ship. The pitching was ATROCIOUS before Krivsky arrived. He added both Arroyo (value) and Volquez, who was immediate value.

Cueto and Bailey have been inconsistent. Cueto was on his way to a fantastic season before he wore out from winterball and the WBC. Bailey looked to have turned a corner last year, but maybe not. Wood, Maloney and even LeCure look ready to contribute.

And none of the three GM's mentioned have figured out the SS problem. Of all the "solutions" tried since DanO arrived POST Larkin, I'd take Janish over all the rest. Though I did love me some FeLo in 2005. Too bad he was never a plus defender.

TRF
04-20-2010, 04:11 PM
This is the problem with the WK era. Everyone wants to point to moves in a vacuum (He got Arroyo! Phillips too!). Bottom line is that the vast majority of WK's moves were made to enhance the major league roster. FA signings, trades and money spent was mostly at that level. And performance decreased. If he was spending his time truly concentrating on the farm and younger players then I would have tolerated his tenure. But when you saw $100MMish being given to three pitchers in their 30ish years, you kind of expect that to translate to wins on the field.

We didn't see that.

Well, he did sign Juan Duran. And the kid from Taiwan. pitcher, can't remember his name... Tzu Kai Chu I think. He did get the Reds away from Rijo's academy of corruption. He did a lot to get Soto working with Reds pitchers again. He did get Hamilton and Burton via Rule V. He did flip Hamilton for a young pitcher that won 17 games for the Reds. He did get a catcher that for one season had his career year.

Yeah, it was JUST Arroyo, who has earned every penny of his contract and Phillips.

M2
04-20-2010, 04:13 PM
Compared to Jimmy Haynes, Ramon Ortiz and Eric Milton, Lohse was a nice find.

I agree, but Krivsky found him, not DanO. That he used some neverwas DanO drafted to make the deal doesn't transfer credit to DanO for finding an impact player.

Spring~Fields
04-20-2010, 04:27 PM
It's all well and good not to be a superstar by age 23, but it's another to continue to regress as Bruce has since coming up.

I recall you telling me in a game thread when I was so high on Bruce when he first came up, that he was a strikeout machine, or an out machine, and at the time I believe that you said by his stats, which would have been mostly minor league, you even said, ďdudeĒ, like Dusty does. The next year I gave you credit for what appeared to be, you being right and myself wrong.

I always wanted to ask you, what exactly was it that you saw way back then, that obviously I missed on him. You saw something back then, what was it?

Yeah we know he is young and still can be. But I am talking about what you saw and interpreted in him as you did, and it appears to be right to this stage of his development at such a young age.

TheNext44
04-20-2010, 04:41 PM
It's all well and good not to be a superstar by age 23, but it's another to continue to regress as Bruce has since coming up.

Only he hasn't regressed. Not at all.

Let's compare his first two seasons.

08

.254 .314 .453 .767

09

.223 .303 .470 .773


First off, his OPS is higher by just a tad. Not a strong sign that he regressed when he is at the least performing the same as the year before.

But let's look deeper.

In 09 he increased his walks, one every 10 PA's as opposed to 1 every 16 PA's in 08. And decreased his K's, 1 in every 5 PA's as opposed to 1 in every 4 PA's in 08.

And if you take away his hot streak when he first came up, which was probably due to pitchers not knowing him yet, the rest of his 08 numbers look like this.

.237 .292 .442 .733

I think anyway you look at it, the worst you can say is that Bruce hasn't improved, no where do the stats show that he has regressed. In fact, the seem to show that he is improving.

Spring~Fields
04-20-2010, 04:41 PM
I wonder if Mr. Jocketty would have taken the offer from Mr. Castellini, if he had looked and did not see where OíBrien and Krivsky had done some nice ground work before he came. I am not so sure Mr. Jocketty would have been interested in getting involved in Castelliniís fiasco and Lindnerís toxic residual mess of an organization if he could not have found evidence that intrigued his interest in coming to Cincinnati.

I think that he would have passed. He certainly isnít stupid or ignorant, to have positioned himself into anotherís quagmire that would take many years and super fund from the government to clean up.

Spring~Fields
04-20-2010, 04:47 PM
Only he hasn't regressed. Not at all.

Let's compare his first two seasons.

08

.254 .314 .453 .767

09

.223 .303 .470 .773


First off, his OPS is higher by just a tad. Not a strong sign that he regressed when he is at the least performing the same as the year before.

But let's look deeper.

In 09 he increased his walks, one every 10 PA's as opposed to 1 every 16 PA's in 08. And decreased his K's, 1 in every 5 PA's as opposed to 1 in every 4 PA's in 08.

And if you take away his hot streak when he first came up, which was probably due to pitchers not knowing him yet, the rest of his 08 numbers look like this.

.237 .292 .442 .733

I think anyway you look at it, the worst you can say is that Bruce hasn't improved, no where do the stats show that he has regressed. In fact, the seem to show that he is improving.

That's good, that is scratcing deeper below the surface.

Good points, good job. I hadn't looked at him that closely in that way.

Thanks :thumbup:

edabbs44
04-20-2010, 04:50 PM
Well, he did sign Juan Duran. And the kid from Taiwan. pitcher, can't remember his name... Tzu Kai Chu I think. He did get the Reds away from Rijo's academy of corruption. He did a lot to get Soto working with Reds pitchers again. He did get Hamilton and Burton via Rule V. He did flip Hamilton for a young pitcher that won 17 games for the Reds. He did get a catcher that for one season had his career year.

Yeah, it was JUST Arroyo, who has earned every penny of his contract and Phillips.

If you handled the finances in your family and, while filing for bankruptcy, you told your wife that you did a good job since you made a few good investments in the past 5 years, would she laugh at you or kick you in the teeth or both?

TRF
04-20-2010, 05:00 PM
I agree, but Krivsky found him, not DanO. That he used some neverwas DanO drafted to make the deal doesn't transfer credit to DanO for finding an impact player.

DanO's impact was turning the farm around. He started the process. His abysmal 25 man rosters notwithstanding, compared to what was there before he arrived, he left the farm in much better shape. He started the rebuilding process.

Krivsky continued it, clean sweeping the remains of JimBo's administration. The Reds lost some good people, but they needed to go. Almarez springs to mind. Here is where WK doesn't get enough credit, and I failed to give it at the time. He remade the 25 man roster WHILE adding talent to the far via the draft AND his forrays into the int'l FA market.

So, what has Walt done in going on three years? He's added a slow, old SS. An old chronically injured 3B. The worst position player I have ever seen in my life (Taveras). Leake as a major league starter with no minor league experience to me is a scary proposition. Especially when his BB/9 is alhigher than any other starter K/9. He's got an F for SS, D, at best, for LF, a D for 3B, (3 years for Rolen at his age, post PED's?) and the bench looks pretty weak too.

So please, someone tell me what he's actually done in his tenure as Reds GM. Tell me how he has made them better.

westofyou
04-20-2010, 05:18 PM
Trying to buff up Dan O's resume as Red general manager is gerrymandering of the most extreme.

pedro
04-20-2010, 05:21 PM
Dan O drafted a couple of nice players but also almost ran the entire system into the ground with his hair-brained ideas like "take the first pitch" and "pitch to contact"

Horrible, horrible GM. No other way to put it.

M2
04-20-2010, 05:22 PM
DanO's impact was turning the farm around.

Turned around how? The Reds still haven't gotten a plus player from DanO's drafts. Obviously people are hoping guys like Cueto and Bruce find their better angels (and the franchise is fairly well doomed for the next few years if they don't). Yet that's hope, not reality.

And it has to be noted that Votto, Cueto and Bailey were struggling mightily under DanO. Revisionists try to give DanO credit for improving the scouting (though that's still a theoretical and small group of kids -- frankly, too small to call it anything like a turnaround). Yet the farm system was a shambles with most of the team's supposed top prospects struggling or flaming out. The Reds didn't get any kind of momentum from their prospects until after Krivsky took over and overhauled the farm system.

pedro
04-20-2010, 05:28 PM
I actually think there a chance, albeit small, that Krivsky gets another job as a GM. O'Brien will have no such luck.

TheNext44
04-20-2010, 05:38 PM
I actually think there a chance, albeit small, that Krivsky gets another job as a GM. O'Brien will have no such luck.

I don't know about that. I hear UDF is hiring. :cool:

pedro
04-20-2010, 05:40 PM
I don't know about that. I hear UDF is hiring. :cool:

I think that's entirely unfair but if you say so. There are several guys with jobs as GM's right now that are far worse than Krivsky. Omar Minaya and Dayton Moore jump right to mind.

TheNext44
04-20-2010, 05:44 PM
I think that's entirely unfair but if you say so. There are several guys with jobs as GM's right now that are far worse than Krivsky. Omar Minaya and Dayton Moore jump right to mind.

Was referring to OBrien. I'm actually surprised Krivsky hasn't gotten another GM job.

pedro
04-20-2010, 05:46 PM
Was referring to OBrien. I'm actually surprised Krivsky hasn't gotten another GM job.

gotcha.

TRF
04-20-2010, 05:52 PM
Turned around how? The Reds still haven't gotten a plus player from DanO's drafts. Obviously people are hoping guys like Cueto and Bruce find their better angels (and the franchise is fairly well doomed for the next few years if they don't). Yet that's hope, not reality.

And it has to be noted that Votto, Cueto and Bailey were struggling mightily under DanO. Revisionists try to give DanO credit for improving the scouting (though that's still a theoretical and small group of kids -- frankly, too small to call it anything like a turnaround). Yet the farm system was a shambles with most of the team's supposed top prospects struggling or flaming out. The Reds didn't get any kind of momentum from their prospects until after Krivsky took over and overhauled the farm system.

I'm really not trying to play up DanO. The fact is, his drafts helped after year's of Howingtons and Grulers.


I actually think there a chance, albeit small, that Krivsky gets another job as a GM. O'Brien will have no such luck.

But the question remains. What has Walt done?

westofyou
04-20-2010, 06:03 PM
But the question remains. What has Walt done?

Delivered a starter to the team in Leake and Chapman, but hey nothing on that take the 1st pitch stuff.

pedro
04-20-2010, 06:04 PM
nm

jojo
04-20-2010, 06:13 PM
I'm not going to take the time to rehash old arguments. I'm getting ready to leave for the airport. I'll just say that he undid a lot of bad organizational policies that were instituted under O'Brien and he also acquired Phillips and Hamilton (who he then turned into Volquez) for nothing so he obviously had some skills.

I'm confused-Walt or Wayne?

pedro
04-20-2010, 06:25 PM
I'm confused-Walt or Wayne?

my bad. he said Walt.

M2
04-20-2010, 06:49 PM
I'm really not trying to play up DanO. The fact is, his drafts helped after year's of Howingtons and Grulers.

And Vottos. Not enough to change a franchise, but still the best player the Reds have come up with since the slide began.

The 2004 and 2005 drafts haven't helped. Literally. Haven't helped. And it's down to relatively high #1 picks to make good on those two drafts.

In truth, the Reds are still waiting to have a draft that delivers multiple quality major league players. Last time it happened was 1998.

Anyway, the larger point I'm driving at is that I don't think anyone can state with a large enough degree of surety that the scouting/farm has turned around. It might just be a different kind of frustrating.

Spring~Fields
04-20-2010, 07:13 PM
So please, someone tell me what he's actually done in his tenure as Reds GM. Tell me how he has made them better.

That's a good question. I don't have an answer if you mean what has he done to win more games than his team loses.

As far as prospects we will have to wait for time to pass to see how Leake or a Chapman does.

TheNext44
04-20-2010, 07:29 PM
That's a good question. I don't have an answer if you mean what has he done to win more games than his team loses.

As far as prospects we will have to wait for time to pass to see how Leake or a Chapman does.

Considering the mess he inherited, I think winning more games than the team did the year before is an sign that he did something to make the team better.
Which is even more impressive considering Votto, Bruce, Volquez, Hernandez, Harang and EE were out for long stretches during 09.

Spring~Fields
04-20-2010, 07:43 PM
Considering the mess he inherited, I think winning more games than the team did the year before is an sign that he did something to make the team better.
Which is even more impressive considering Votto, Bruce, Volquez, Hernandez, Harang and EE were out for long stretches during 09.

I don't agree. Teams below .500 are considered failure in professional sports.

The Reds have failed to put a quality product on the field, that the fans and sponsors pay for. They should not pay for failure.

Those games were won against Pittsburgh, Houston and Arizona, that did not escape my awareness. Three of the worst in baseball at the time.

They can't all be as lucky as Dusty Baker was when he inherited fine and very good teams to build his reputation on in San Fran and Chicago.

TheNext44
04-20-2010, 07:48 PM
And Vottos. Not enough to change a franchise, but still the best player the Reds have come up with since the slide began.

The 2004 and 2005 drafts haven't helped. Literally. Haven't helped. And it's down to relatively high #1 picks to make good on those two drafts.

In truth, the Reds are still waiting to have a draft that delivers multiple quality major league players. Last time it happened was 1998.

Anyway, the larger point I'm driving at is that I don't think anyone can state with a large enough degree of surety that the scouting/farm has turned around. It might just be a different kind of frustrating.

First, the 2004 and 2005 drafts produced Bailey and Bruce, who last year were a solid #4-5 starter and a league average RF. Plus they got Rosales and Fisher and Ondrusek. That's not literally no help. And they have Wood, LeCure (kinda Maloney) at AAA. In fact, I would bet 2/3 thirds of the teams haven't done better in terms of production so far in the 2004 and 2005 drafts.

Second, I agree with you about the need for a draft to produce multiple players. That's how you build a championship. Most teams can at least bat 50-50 when it comes to the first round. A drafting director makes his money in the middle rounds. Picking up middle relieves, #4-5 starters, #4 outfielders, utility guys, and maybe every now and then a decent starter. Until the Reds do that, they will not have a contending team year in and year out.

And third, it you want to understand how the Reds have turned around their scouting and drafting departments, all you have to do is look at the Reds drafts from the 90's and early 2000's. Or look at the 40 man rosters of those teams. They were struggling to find players good enough to protect on the 40 man roster. Now, there is no chaff on the 40 man roster, if anything, there are some players who aren't on it who should be.

Are the Reds there yet? No, resounding no. But are they miles ahead of where they were just 5 years ago? An even more resounding yes.

Spring~Fields
04-20-2010, 07:48 PM
What if we said that - 85 RA of that -77 RA improvement came against 4 teams?
Could -28, -32, -13, -12, +11, +12 and +13 etc be considered outliers?

What if we said that a + 70 runs of RS came against 3 of the weaker teams in baseball?
In addition to the reduced runs scored of -31 in 2009.
Could +14, +25, +31 or -31, -24, -22, -15, and -16 be outliers in the 09 RS?

Could it be that their offense was even worse than the 09 and 08 RS indicates? What about that supposed improvement in the defense based upon RA?

I am not so sure how much we should lean on those numbers that have large increases or decreases??


2009 78 - 84 RS 673 RA 723 Diff - 50 2008 74 - 88 RS 704 RA 800 Diff - 96
under 08 -31 -77 under 07 -79 -17

2007 72 - 90 RS 783 RA 853 Diff- 70 2006 80 - 82 RS 749 RA 801 Diff - 52
over 06 +34 +52
2009 Opponent 2008 Opponent 2009 2009 2007 Opponent 2008
RS RA RS RA RS RA RS RA RS RA
ARI 32 17 ARI 18 17 +14 -- ARI 26 18 -11 +1
HOU 73 56 HOU 48 84 +25 -28 HOU 68 80 -20 +4
PIT 94 64 PIT 63 68 +31 -4 PIT 98 79 -35 -11
ATL 34 32 ATL 25 36 +9 -- ATL 46 42 -21 -6
CLE 30 24 CLE 28 20 +2 +4 CLE 28 30 ---- -10
MIL 70 84 MIL 82 73 -12 +11 MIL 84 79 -2 -6
SFG 24 21 SFG 48 29 -24 -8 SFG 35 32 -13 -3
STL 69 77 STL 58 84 +11 -7 STL 70 71 -12 -13
FLA 25 13 FLA 56 45 -31 -32 FLA 38 48 -18 -3
WSN 26 24 WSN 27 29 -1 -5 WSN 30 51 -3 -22
CHC 52 63 CHC 74 76 -22 -13 CHC 66 89 +8 -13
NYM 26 30 NYM 41 42 -15 -12 NYM 31 35 +10 +7
PHI 26 54 PHI 27 31 -1 +13 PHI 26 39 +1 -8
LAD 20 41 LAD 25 41 -5 -- LAD 17 24 +8 +17
SDP 22 35 SDP 38 38 -16 -3 SDP 24 36 +14 +2
COL 17 33 COL 20 39 -3 -6 COL 35 34 -15 +5
KCR 6 18 NYY 11 6 -5 +12 LAA 15 18 -4 -12
CHW 13 17 BOS 7 16 +6 -1 OAK 9 13 -2 +3
TOR 14 20 TOR 8 26 -6 -6 SEA 19 13 -11 +13
TEX 18 22

May 144 124 May 132 139 +12 -15
Sept 138 85 Sept 118 117 +20 -32

April 78 92 April 122 135 -44 -43
June 97 118 June 101 136 -4 -18
July 89 157 July 119 128 -30 +29
August 112 127 August 110 141 +2 -14
October 15 20 March 2 4

Spring~Fields
04-20-2010, 07:51 PM
Perhaps I am wrong. I am not sure that you are being completely fair.

Wouldnít it be correct to give Mr. Jocketty credit for these 22 contributions to the offense and pitching down below in his remaking of the team or not?

2008 Cincinnati Reds Special Advisor to President/CEO (Named GM 4/23/2008)
2009 Cincinnati Reds President, Baseball Operations/GM General Manager


2008, 2009, 2010
Arthur Rhodes 39
David Weathers 39
Miguel Cairo 36
Orlando Cabrera 35
Mike Lincoln 35
Scott Rolen 34
Ramon Hernandez 33
Jerry Hairston 33
Corky Miller 33
Kip Wells 32
Justin Lehr 31
Darnell McDonald 30
Jonny Gomes 28
Laynce Nix 28
Nick Masset 27
Willy Taveras 27
Drew Sutton 26
Danny Richar 26
Micah Owings 26
Wilkin Castillo 25
Wladimir Balentien 24
Mike Leake 22
669/22 avíg age 30.4

One more question, 669/22 avíg age 30.4, a move toward youth and the Cincinnati Reds mantra of young? And the quality?


Where's the improvements that will make this year's team a winning team?

TheNext44
04-20-2010, 07:58 PM
I don't agree. Teams below .500 are considered failure in professional sports.

The Reds have failed to put a quality product on the field, that the fans and sponsors pay for. They should not pay for failure.

Those games were won against Pittsburgh, Houston and Arizona, that did not escape my awareness. Three of the worst in baseball at the time.

They can't all be as lucky as Dusty Baker was when he inherited fine and very good teams to build his reputation on in San Fran and Chicago.

Actually, teams that don't win the World Series are considered failures in professional sports. No one remembers who finishes second.

The Reds have been failures every year since 1990, but that does not mean that everyone who was involved with these teams was a failure.

Let's say I buy a Skyline franchise. (Sorry for the constant Skyline analogies, I'm always hungry :)) It was losing $500K every year before I bought it. I make changes and it now is losing $100K every year. It would be impossible for one to argue that I did not make the franchise better. Now, until I am able to have it turn a profit, I can't call it a success, but I can definitely say I made it better.

Spring~Fields
04-20-2010, 08:11 PM
Actually, teams that don't win the World Series are considered failures in professional sports. No one remembers who finishes second.

The Reds have been failures every year since 1990, but that does not mean that everyone who was involved with these teams was a failure.

Let's say I buy a Skyline franchise. (Sorry for the constant Skyline analogies, I'm always hungry :)) It was losing $500K every year before I bought it. I make changes and it now is losing $100K every year. It would be impossible for one to argue that I did not make the franchise better. Now, until I am able to have it turn a profit, I can't call it a success, but I can definitely say I made it better.

I think that you’re drastically underestimating the resources that he had in St. Louis, that he doesn’t have in Cincinnati. I think that you are forgetting that it was Larussa, Duncan and the St. Louis owners money plus PED in McGuire. That brought in the dollars for St. Louis. That they were spending in the tens of millions more than Reds ownership then and now, that did most of the leg work and heavy lifting to accomplish what he accomplished.

He doesn’t have those in Cincy, that is why he brings in those aging vets and other filler and fodder, like Bowden, O’Brien and Krivsky did. Bit of a struggle for Walt, working in the same environment that they did. ;)

I think that all of us are drastically overestimating Walt Jocketty without his St. Louis resources in people and money. Just like people did Mr. Baker away from his inheritance in San Fran and Chicago, assuming they were better than they really are. They are just human, they won with people and other peoples money. Where's the magic now?

TheNext44
04-20-2010, 08:18 PM
I think that you’re drastically underestimating the resources that he had in St. Louis, that he doesn’t have in Cincinnati. I think that you are forgetting that it was Larussa, Duncan and the St. Louis owners money plus PED in McGuire. That brought in the dollars for St. Louis. That they were spending in the tens of millions more than Reds ownership then and now, that did most of the leg work and heavy lifting to accomplish what he accomplished.

He doesn’t have those in Cincy, that is why he brings in those aging vets and other filler and fodder, like Bowden, O’Brien and Krivsky did. Bit of a struggle for Walt, working in the same environment that they did. ;)

I think that all of us are drastically overestimating Walt Jocketty without his St. Louis resources in people and money. Just like people did Mr. Baker away from his inheritance in San Fran and Chicago, assuming they were better than they really are. They are just human, they won with people and other peoples money. Where's the magic now?

Well he did seem to bring over the PED's with him, if today's news is accurate. ;)


All of what you said is true, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that Jocketty has improved the team.

Spring~Fields
04-20-2010, 08:19 PM
Actually, teams that don't win the World Series are considered failures in professional sports. No one remembers who finishes second.



:evil: I can't fault any of you for skipping over huge parts in comments, I do that too, when I don't have an answer, or if think I better not go there, it might under mind my previous remarks. :evil:

Skyline, Yuck, not like grandma made it..........her's was good. :)

Spring~Fields
04-20-2010, 08:24 PM
Well he did seem to bring over the PED's with him, if today's news is accurate. ;)


All of what you said is true, but it still doesn't take away from the fact that Jocketty has improved the team.

I missed that in the slash stats, I came in a bit consevative and lower than the rest on the board for predictions, I like my chances. Of course being negative is not rewarding, kind of stinks to be right, when being negative, but I did not produce the numbers. How's that RS RA DIFF looking :eek:

M2
04-20-2010, 08:56 PM
First, the 2004 and 2005 drafts produced Bailey and Bruce, who last year were a solid #4-5 starter and a league average RF. Plus they got Rosales and Fisher and Ondrusek. That's not literally no help. And they have Wood, LeCure (kinda Maloney) at AAA. In fact, I would bet 2/3 thirds of the teams haven't done better in terms of production so far in the 2004 and 2005 drafts.

Bailey 2009: Bad start, hot finish, didn't pitch a full season in the majors, graded out below average in the final analysis. I don't consider that meaningful help. I consider that filler. If you want to get excited about filler, that's your choice.

In which league was Bruce an average RF? He graded out -2.3 RAP. He had basically the same season as Ryan Church. Again, I call that filler.

Rosales (60+) was dreck. Fisher has serious OB issues last season and he's in the minors to start this season. Ondrusek has been dreck so far.

You are correct that Wood and Lecure are still possibilities and I was wrong to overlook them.


And third, it you want to understand how the Reds have turned around their scouting and drafting departments, all you have to do is look at the Reds drafts from the 90's and early 2000's. Or look at the 40 man rosters of those teams. They were struggling to find players good enough to protect on the 40 man roster. Now, there is no chaff on the 40 man roster, if anything, there are some players who aren't on it who should be.

Believe it or not, I was paying attention back then. First off, the Reds will be fortunate to get as many quality players from the 2004-2009 drafts as they did from 1994-1999. The '90s were hardly overflowing with talent coming up from the minors, but the current kids are going to have to succeed at a fairly high rate to match it.

And I've lost count how many times in the past 10 years I've seen someone type what you expressed in the second part of that paragraph - it was bad then, but that's all changed. Someday that will be right, maybe that's even correct here and now. However I wouldn't suggest going to Vegas and putting money on it.


Are the Reds there yet? No, resounding no. But are they miles ahead of where they were just 5 years ago? An even more resounding yes.

Let's see, five years ago the Reds had three age 25 players as the core of the everyday lineup. They had Harang coming into form. They had Brandon Claussen working his way into the rotation. Ryan Wagner was 22 and supposedly going to be the closer for years to come. Todd Coffey was 24 and supposedly he was going to be the power setup man for Wagner during those years to come.

The minors were going to churn out Edwin Encarnacion, Richie Gardner and Thomas Pauly in the near future. Homer Bailey was going to have a quick rise to success in the majors, though B.J. Szymanski surely was going to be an established star before him. Tyler Pelland, William Bergolla and Elizardo Ramirez would surely be at least decent major leaguers. Joey Votto was coming off his first big season in the minors. Rafael Gonzalez, Miguel Perez, Philippe Valiquette and Terrell Young were all in the pipeline too and at least half of those four were going to have major league impact.

And there were many who insisted Milton, Ortiz and Wilson would fix the pitching problems that had plagued the Reds in recent years, holding down the rotation until the farm was ready to replace them.

With the benefit of hindsight, I understand how ridiculous this all sounds. Yet that was a majority opinion. The bad times were over, the franchise had turned the corner. Those on this board who dared to question that, well the word back then was "pessimists." My point here is that in five years it's possible that someone will be insisting the franchise may not be ready to take over the world quite yet but that it's WAY ahead of where it was in 2010.

Falls City Beer
04-20-2010, 08:57 PM
Bailey: another horrible start tonight.

M2
04-20-2010, 09:12 PM
Actually, teams that don't win the World Series are considered failures in professional sports. No one remembers who finishes second.

Speak for yourself. I fondly remember the 1985-88 Reds. I wanted more, but I enjoyed those seasons. 1999 was a blast, as good a six months as any you'll ever experience as a baseball fan.

Championships are great, but I remember good teams and good seasons perfectly fine. Seems to me the sentiment you've typed is anathema to actually enjoying the sport.

Falls City Beer
04-20-2010, 09:13 PM
What's the difference between Drew Stubbs and Wily Taveras?















Nothing.

westofyou
04-20-2010, 09:17 PM
What's the difference between Drew Stubbs and Wily Taveras?














Nothing.
Quality post

Falls City Beer
04-20-2010, 09:19 PM
Quality post

Dude, come on. Don't take away my last remaining virtue, my mordant sense of humor.

I hope to become the Foster Brooks of Redszone.

mth123
04-20-2010, 09:22 PM
What's the difference between Drew Stubbs and Wily Taveras?

Wily Taveras has actually gotten a hit off of a curve ball and put up good numbers at AAA.

Tony Cloninger
04-20-2010, 09:24 PM
Sadly.....right now.....I agree about Stubbs.

Benihana
04-20-2010, 09:35 PM
What's the difference between Drew Stubbs and Wily Taveras?















Nothing.

I was saying that a year ago.

nate
04-20-2010, 09:44 PM
I can think of nearly 6 million reasons Drew Stubbs is different than Willy Taveras.

OnBaseMachine
04-20-2010, 10:42 PM
What's the difference between Drew Stubbs and Wily Taveras?

One plays elite defense and the other can't read a ball off the bat.

paulrichjr
04-20-2010, 11:25 PM
One plays elite defense and the other can't read a ball off the bat.

Exactly...otherwise though... not much

TheNext44
04-20-2010, 11:40 PM
Bailey 2009: Bad start, hot finish, didn't pitch a full season in the majors, graded out below average in the final analysis. I don't consider that meaningful help. I consider that filler. If you want to get excited about filler, that's your choice.

In which league was Bruce an average RF? He graded out -2.3 RAP. He had basically the same season as Ryan Church. Again, I call that filler.

Rosales (60+) was dreck. Fisher has serious OB issues last season and he's in the minors to start this season. Ondrusek has been dreck so far.

You said they yielded nothing, not nothing meaningful, not nothing to get excited about, "literally" nothing.

As for Bailey, "filler" is something that you can find off of any AAA roster for free. Bailey, with his terrible start, still was a 1 and half win player last year. Nothing to get excited about, but not filler, and not nothing.

As for Bruce, in 2009, the NL average RF put up these numbers:

.264/.339/.442/.781

Bruce these numbers:

.223/.303/.470/.773

Pretty close to league average, and when you factor in defense, probably above league average.

Still even if he was below league average, as long as he was above replacement level, he was not filler, and not nothing.

You are right, the others are filler.




Believe it or not, I was paying attention back then. First off, the Reds will be fortunate to get as many quality players from the 2004-2009 drafts as they did from 1994-1999. The '90s were hardly overflowing with talent coming up from the minors, but the current kids are going to have to succeed at a fairly high rate to match it.

And I've lost count how many times in the past 10 years I've seen someone type what you expressed in the second part of that paragraph - it was bad then, but that's all changed. Someday that will be right, maybe that's even correct here and now. However I wouldn't suggest going to Vegas and putting money on it.



Let's see, five years ago the Reds had three age 25 players as the core of the everyday lineup. They had Harang coming into form. They had Brandon Claussen working his way into the rotation. Ryan Wagner was 22 and supposedly going to be the closer for years to come. Todd Coffey was 24 and supposedly he was going to be the power setup man for Wagner during those years to come.

The minors were going to churn out Edwin Encarnacion, Richie Gardner and Thomas Pauly in the near future. Homer Bailey was going to have a quick rise to success in the majors, though B.J. Szymanski surely was going to be an established star before him. Tyler Pelland, William Bergolla and Elizardo Ramirez would surely be at least decent major leaguers. Joey Votto was coming off his first big season in the minors. Rafael Gonzalez, Miguel Perez, Philippe Valiquette and Terrell Young were all in the pipeline too and at least half of those four were going to have major league impact.

And there were many who insisted Milton, Ortiz and Wilson would fix the pitching problems that had plagued the Reds in recent years, holding down the rotation until the farm was ready to replace them.

With the benefit of hindsight, I understand how ridiculous this all sounds. Yet that was a majority opinion. The bad times were over, the franchise had turned the corner. Those on this board who dared to question that, well the word back then was "pessimists." My point here is that in five years it's possible that someone will be insisting the franchise may not be ready to take over the world quite yet but that it's WAY ahead of where it was in 2010.

Completely understand your skepticism, and share it to a lesser extent.

But every forum and group of fans is saying that next year is the year, no matter the team. That's what us fans do. We are fanatics.

But the difference between now and ten or five years ago, is that other people are saying it too, objective observers are saying and ranking the Reds organization in the middle of the pack, from around 1998 to 2006, it was always in the bottom 5. The Reds now have a few players in the top 100 prospects lists, and some higher than 50. Never happened during the last 10 years.

I wouldn't go to Vegas and put money on it either, but I would given the right odds, which I never would during the last 10 years, no matter the odds.

Spring~Fields
04-20-2010, 11:42 PM
Well he did seem to bring over the PED's with him, if today's news is accurate. ;)



Which oblivous one or "he" are you talking about, Jocketty or Baker, must have been hidden in the chili. Didn't both of them have their career numbers enhanced by player X, Y, and Z? Barry, Sammy and Mark ?

M2
04-21-2010, 12:58 AM
You said they yielded nothing, not nothing meaningful, not nothing to get excited about, "literally" nothing.

As for Bailey, "filler" is something that you can find off of any AAA roster for free. Bailey, with his terrible start, still was a 1 and half win player last year. Nothing to get excited about, but not filler, and not nothing.

As for Bruce, in 2009, the NL average RF put up these numbers:

.264/.339/.442/.781

Bruce these numbers:

.223/.303/.470/.773

Pretty close to league average, and when you factor in defense, probably above league average.

Still even if he was below league average, as long as he was above replacement level, he was not filler, and not nothing.

You are right, the others are filler.

To me that's negligible performance. The sort of thing a semi-competent GM can replace without batting an eye. A Brandon McCarthy here. A Ryan Church there. Filler.

If you think that's laudable performance in any way, shape or form then there's a gulf between us that's not going to be bridged.


But the difference between now and ten or five years ago, is that other people are saying it too, objective observers are saying and ranking the Reds organization in the middle of the pack, from around 1998 to 2006, it was always in the bottom 5. The Reds now have a few players in the top 100 prospects lists, and some higher than 50. Never happened during the last 10 years.

You're simply wrong.

The Reds placed 3rd overall in the BA org rankings in 2001 and 14th in 2002 (identical to 2008 and 2009).

Reds top 100 prospects (according to BA) 1998-2006:

1998

Damian Jackson - 62
(It should be noted the Reds would acquire eight others from this list while they were still fully or somewhat prospecty, not to mention a bunch of others after their stars had fallen. Much of modern Reds history can be understood from this list and the 1998 draft.)

1999

Rob Bell - 35
Austin Kearns - 76
Scott Williamson - 97

2000

Gookie Dawkins - 21
Adam Dunn - 56

2001

Drew Henson - 14
Austin Kearns - 24
Adam Dunn - 33
Dane Sardinha - 74
David Espinosa - 90

2002

Austin Kearns - 11
Ty Howington - 25
Wily Mo Pena - 65

2003

Bobby Basham - 69
Chris Gruler - 77
Wily Mo Pena - 87

2004

Ryan Wagner - 46

2005

Homer Bailey - 48
Edwin Encarnacion - 56

2006

Homer Bailey - 38
Jay Bruce - 76

Guacarock
04-21-2010, 01:32 AM
Time to party again like it's 1999, although whoever rated Rob Bell ahead of Scott Williamson that year was just going through the motions and not really separating the wheat from the chaff. Hindsight, of course, is 20-20.

TheNext44
04-21-2010, 02:34 AM
To me that's negligible performance. The sort of thing a semi-competent GM can replace without batting an eye. A Brandon McCarthy here. A Ryan Church there. Filler.

If you think that's laudable performance in any way, shape or form then there's a gulf between us that's not going to be bridged.

Again, I was just responding to this quote:


The 2004 and 2005 drafts haven't helped. Literally. Haven't helped.

I have very clearly showed how two players have helped and you have responded by saying that this type of production doesn't get you excited or is not laudable. You're probably right, but it is not nothing and that is what you said it was. That those drafts and netted the Reds nothing.

Homer Bailey and Jay Bruce have not lived up to their potential and may never, but the have up to this point, been valuable to the Reds. They have provided just in 2009 3 wins above replacement. You can say that that is nothing over and over again, but no one will believe you.



You're simply wrong.

The Reds placed 3rd overall in the BA org rankings in 2001 and 14th in 2002 (identical to 2008 and 2009).

Reds top 100 prospects (according to BA) 1998-2006:

1998

Damian Jackson - 62
(It should be noted the Reds would acquire eight others from this list while they were still fully or somewhat prospecty, not to mention a bunch of others after their stars had fallen. Much of modern Reds history can be understood from this list and the 1998 draft.)

1999

Rob Bell - 35
Austin Kearns - 76
Scott Williamson - 97

2000

Gookie Dawkins - 21
Adam Dunn - 56

2001

Drew Henson - 14
Austin Kearns - 24
Adam Dunn - 33
Dane Sardinha - 74
David Espinosa - 90

2002

Austin Kearns - 11
Ty Howington - 25
Wily Mo Pena - 65

2003

Bobby Basham - 69
Chris Gruler - 77
Wily Mo Pena - 87

2004

Ryan Wagner - 46

2005

Homer Bailey - 48
Edwin Encarnacion - 56

2006

Homer Bailey - 38
Jay Bruce - 76

I was wrong. Thank you for the research. But lets look at the last five years and compare.

Big difference. About the same number per year, maybe a little more recently, but big difference in rankings. A lot more players ranked higher. A lot more elite prospects.


2007

Homer Bailey - 5
Jay Bruce - 14
Joey Votto - 43
Drew Stubbs - 88

2008

Jay Bruce - 1
Homer Bailey - 9
Johnny Cueto - 34
Joey Votto - 44
Drew Stubbs - 100

2009

Yonder Alonso - 35
Todd Frazier - 60

2010

Chapman - 22
Frazier - 43
Leake - 72

And this last list left of Alonso completely, when nearly every other list had him at around 35.

REDblooded
04-21-2010, 03:07 AM
I love the approach that Bailey and Bruce are now scrubs and will never live up to their potential... If you guys would point me to the ledge you're teetering on, I can send an intervention unit your way.

TRF
04-21-2010, 10:07 AM
Bailey 2009: Bad start, hot finish, didn't pitch a full season in the majors, graded out below average in the final analysis. I don't consider that meaningful help. I consider that filler. If you want to get excited about filler, that's your choice.

In which league was Bruce an average RF? He graded out -2.3 RAP. He had basically the same season as Ryan Church. Again, I call that filler.

Rosales (60+) was dreck. Fisher has serious OB issues last season and he's in the minors to start this season. Ondrusek has been dreck so far.

You are correct that Wood and Lecure are still possibilities and I was wrong to overlook them.



Believe it or not, I was paying attention back then. First off, the Reds will be fortunate to get as many quality players from the 2004-2009 drafts as they did from 1994-1999. The '90s were hardly overflowing with talent coming up from the minors, but the current kids are going to have to succeed at a fairly high rate to match it.

And I've lost count how many times in the past 10 years I've seen someone type what you expressed in the second part of that paragraph - it was bad then, but that's all changed. Someday that will be right, maybe that's even correct here and now. However I wouldn't suggest going to Vegas and putting money on it.



Let's see, five years ago the Reds had three age 25 players as the core of the everyday lineup. They had Harang coming into form. They had Brandon Claussen working his way into the rotation. Ryan Wagner was 22 and supposedly going to be the closer for years to come. Todd Coffey was 24 and supposedly he was going to be the power setup man for Wagner during those years to come.

The minors were going to churn out Edwin Encarnacion, Richie Gardner and Thomas Pauly in the near future. Homer Bailey was going to have a quick rise to success in the majors, though B.J. Szymanski surely was going to be an established star before him. Tyler Pelland, William Bergolla and Elizardo Ramirez would surely be at least decent major leaguers. Joey Votto was coming off his first big season in the minors. Rafael Gonzalez, Miguel Perez, Philippe Valiquette and Terrell Young were all in the pipeline too and at least half of those four were going to have major league impact.

And there were many who insisted Milton, Ortiz and Wilson would fix the pitching problems that had plagued the Reds in recent years, holding down the rotation until the farm was ready to replace them.

With the benefit of hindsight, I understand how ridiculous this all sounds. Yet that was a majority opinion. The bad times were over, the franchise had turned the corner. Those on this board who dared to question that, well the word back then was "pessimists." My point here is that in five years it's possible that someone will be insisting the franchise may not be ready to take over the world quite yet but that it's WAY ahead of where it was in 2010.

My point is Krivsky and to a lesser extent DanO changed the system. After DanO came in arm surguries dropped. Was it happenstance or design? Krivsky continued this trend. The five years prior saw the Reds top pitching prospects, Howington, Gruler, Pauly, Gardner all have major surgeries. How many times has that happened since 2004?


To me that's negligible performance. The sort of thing a semi-competent GM can replace without batting an eye. A Brandon McCarthy here. A Ryan Church there. Filler.

If you think that's laudable performance in any way, shape or form then there's a gulf between us that's not going to be bridged.


You're simply wrong.

The Reds placed 3rd overall in the BA org rankings in 2001 and 14th in 2002 (identical to 2008 and 2009).

Reds top 100 prospects (according to BA) 1998-2006:

1998

Damian Jackson - 62
(It should be noted the Reds would acquire eight others from this list while they were still fully or somewhat prospecty, not to mention a bunch of others after their stars had fallen. Much of modern Reds history can be understood from this list and the 1998 draft.)

1999

Rob Bell - 35
Austin Kearns - 76
Scott Williamson - 97

2000

Gookie Dawkins - 21
Adam Dunn - 56

2001

Drew Henson - 14
Austin Kearns - 24
Adam Dunn - 33
Dane Sardinha - 74
David Espinosa - 90

2002

Austin Kearns - 11
Ty Howington - 25
Wily Mo Pena - 65

2003

Bobby Basham - 69
Chris Gruler - 77
Wily Mo Pena - 87

2004

Ryan Wagner - 46

2005

Homer Bailey - 48
Edwin Encarnacion - 56

2006

Homer Bailey - 38
Jay Bruce - 76

It also seems to me the Reds are acquiring a better breed of athlete. No more Rob Bells, No more Wagners that are uncoachable. No prima donnas like Kearns or Henson. Again, this could be happenstance.

I'll give Walt time on his minor league acquisitions/draft. But to deny what came before him is revisionist history. 1999-2003 may have produced some highly rated prospects, but how many of them set foot on the field as a Red?

Now how many from 2004-2009?

What has he done to help the 25 man roster win?

Benihana
04-21-2010, 10:18 AM
My point is Krivsky and to a lesser extent DanO changed the system. After DanO came in arm surguries dropped. Was it happenstance or design? Krivsky continued this trend. The five years prior saw the Reds top pitching prospects, Howington, Gruler, Pauly, Gardner all have major surgeries. How many times has that happened since 2004?



It also seems to me the Reds are acquiring a better breed of athlete. No more Rob Bells, No more Wagners that are uncoachable. No prima donnas like Kearns or Henson. Again, this could be happenstance.

I'll give Walt time on his minor league acquisitions/draft. But to deny what came before him is revisionist history. 1999-2003 may have produced some highly rated prospects, but how many of them set foot on the field as a Red?

Now how many from 2004-2009?

What has he done to help the 25 man roster win?

I think M2's point is valid if we are talking about production coming from the farm. Of all the WK/DO prospects, only Johnny Cueto has contributed anything mildly interesting. The JimBo crop produced Adam Dunn, Joey Votto, Edwin Encarnacion and Austin Kearns. Two All-Stars and two regulars for several years. Enough said.

Unfortunately so far, Homer Bailey, Jay Bruce, Drew Stubbs, and the like have been undifferentiated from Rob Bell, Wily Mo Pena, Drew Henson etc. in that essentially none of them have proven themselves as impact players at the major league level.

I do think that Jay Bruce can emerge from that group, and hopefully others can too. But so far, the results are quite discouraging. We as fans have to accept that, until they prove the contrary.

The 2004 and 2005 drafts were 5-6 years ago. We should certainly be enjoying at least some of the fruits of those drafts by now, and sadly we are not.

That said, getting back to the original premise of the thread, Walt has brought in Mike Leake and Aroldis Chapman in the last 12 months. It's looking more and more like those two will (hopefully) be the biggest impact arms we've had come through the system in the last 20 years. So as far as prospects go anyway, I'm willing to give Walt's group the benefit of the doubt for at least a little while.

TRF
04-21-2010, 10:37 AM
I stated I'm willing to give Wal't minor leaguers time to develop.

What has he done in going on three years to help the 25 man roster be better?

The offense is much weaker than when he took over. The pitching hasn't been improved at all. Krivsky's rotation heading into 2008 was Volquez, Harang, Arroyo, Cueto with Fogg and a cast of others filling the 5th spot including 9 starts from Bailey. Not too much different from today's rotation except he's added Leake and Volquez is out till August.

So, someone tell me what he's done to make the team better. The offense is significantly weaker. The defense? better in CF, better at 3B, that's about it.

Benihana
04-21-2010, 10:44 AM
I stated I'm willing to give Wal't minor leaguers time to develop.

What has he done in going on three years to help the 25 man roster be better?

The offense is much weaker than when he took over. The pitching hasn't been improved at all. Krivsky's rotation heading into 2008 was Volquez, Harang, Arroyo, Cueto with Fogg and a cast of others filling the 5th spot including 9 starts from Bailey. Not too much different from today's rotation except he's added Leake and Volquez is out till August.

So, someone tell me what he's done to make the team better. The offense is significantly weaker. The defense? better in CF, better at 3B, that's about it.

In terms of the major league team, I can't argue with you at all.

I think at this point, Walt's biggest failure was believing that the prospects he inherited could carry the day, which is ironic for a GM who is famous for trading prospects for proven vets. Whether he didn't make these trades due to payroll constraints or because he really believed in these guys is something we'll never know.

But what we do know, is if these prospects don't start playing up to their potential, Walt will have done nothing to improve the big league team, and the Reds will have to find yet another GM to figure out which of these guys are busts and which will actually contribute something meaningful in the future.

The sad reality is, at least as far as Bailey and Stubbs go, it's not like a lot of people here didn't see this coming.

edabbs44
04-21-2010, 10:46 AM
I stated I'm willing to give Wal't minor leaguers time to develop.

What has he done in going on three years to help the 25 man roster be better?

The offense is much weaker than when he took over. The pitching hasn't been improved at all. Krivsky's rotation heading into 2008 was Volquez, Harang, Arroyo, Cueto with Fogg and a cast of others filling the 5th spot including 9 starts from Bailey. Not too much different from today's rotation except he's added Leake and Volquez is out till August.

So, someone tell me what he's done to make the team better. The offense is significantly weaker. The defense? better in CF, better at 3B, that's about it.

He hasn't loaded the future with balance sheet clogging contracts. When the current crop of younger guys have gotten to the point of projected prime-time status, there should be money being spent on vets to supplement the younger guys.

Benihana
04-21-2010, 10:50 AM
I also wouldn't be surprised if we see a "shocking" move in the next couple weeks, which will serve as a wakeup call to a lot of these younger players.

It could see as drastic as Bailey or Stubbs being traded (for pennies on the dollar,) or at least demotions across the board. But something should be sent as a message to guys like Bruce and Cueto that they better start stepping up their games because Walt is not going to wait around forever. And quite frankly, I'd be fine with that at this point.

TRF
04-21-2010, 11:00 AM
He hasn't loaded the future with balance sheet clogging contracts. When the current crop of younger guys have gotten to the point of projected prime-time status, there should be money being spent on vets to supplement the younger guys.

The Pittsburgh Pirates method.

awe. some.

camisadelgolf
04-21-2010, 11:24 AM
So far, it looks like Jocketty has given up a little bit more production than he has received, but it is heavily weighted by the Adam Dunn trade, which greatly helped the team's defense and gave a bunch of salary relief. Overall, I'd say he's doing okay.

Performance of players obtained by Walt Jocketty while with the Reds:

Name G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO HBP SH BA OBP SLG OPS
Willy Taveras 102 437 404 56 97 11 2 1 15 25 6 18 58 2 11 0.240 0.275 0.285 0.559
Andy Phillips 37 57 52 10 14 2 0 3 6 0 0 4 10 1 0 0.269 0.333 0.481 0.814
Danny Richar 23 46 44 5 10 2 0 0 3 1 0 1 10 0 1 0.227 0.244 0.273 0.517
Wilkin Castillo 22 37 35 6 11 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 5 0 1 0.314 0.333 0.343 0.676
Ramon Hernandez 91 366 317 28 80 15 1 5 39 1 0 38 39 3 4 0.252 0.334 0.353 0.688
Drew Sutton 42 76 66 10 14 4 1 1 9 0 2 7 20 1 2 0.212 0.297 0.348 0.646
Scott Rolen 50 204 173 32 47 8 1 6 28 1 3 25 23 3 0 0.272 0.368 0.434 0.801
WladimirBalentin40 125 110 12 29 7 1 3 11 1 1 15 27 0 0 0.264 0.352 0.427 0.779
DarnellMcDonald 47 111 105 12 28 6 1 2 10 1 0 5 31 1 0 0.267 0.306 0.400 0.706
Laynce Nix 123 348 318 42 76 26 1 15 47 0 1 23 84 2 1 0.239 0.291 0.469 0.760
Jonny Gomes 111 360 321 46 85 18 1 22 61 3 1 28 97 6 0 0.265 0.331 0.533 0.863
Micah Owings 48 66 62 7 16 5 1 3 13 0 0 1 21 1 1 0.258 0.277 0.516 0.793
Corky Miller 21 69 56 4 10 1 0 1 10 0 0 9 14 1 2 0.179 0.299 0.250 0.549
Orlando Cabrera 13 57 53 5 12 3 0 2 9 1 0 1 5 0 0 0.226 0.228 0.396 0.624
Totals 770 2359 2116 275 529 109 10 64 263 34 14 176 444 21 23 0.250 0.309 0.402 0.711

Name W L G GS CG SHO GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP WP ERA WHIP
Nick Masset 8 2 92 0 0 0 20 0 100.3 83 39 35 11 35 93 0 9 3.14 1.18
Micah Owings 9 12 29 19 0 0 4 1 126.7 130 76 72 18 67 76 7 1 5.12 1.56
Justin Lehr 5 3 11 11 1 1 0 0 65.3 72 39 39 14 28 33 3 3 5.37 1.53
Kip Wells 2 3 10 7 0 0 1 0 46.3 37 24 24 5 22 25 5 0 4.66 1.27
Arthur Rhodes 1 2 72 0 0 0 10 0 59.0 39 17 16 4 22 54 1 2 2.44 1.03
Mike Leake 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 13.7 11 4 4 0 12 8 0 1 2.63 1.68
Totals 25 22 216 39 1 1 35 1 411.3 372 199 190 52 186 289 16 16 4.16

Performance of players departed from the Reds since Walt Jocketty became GM:

Name G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO HBP SH BA OBP SLG OPS
Ken Griffey 169 645 556 63 127 30 0 22 78 0 0 83 112 2 0 0.228 0.329 0.401 0.730
Adam Dunn 217 903 733 111 188 40 0 47 133 1 1 172 232 6 0 0.256 0.405 0.503 0.909
Andy Phillips 4 5 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.400
Ryan Freel 41 101 88 11 17 2 0 0 5 1 0 11 23 1 1 0.193 0.290 0.216 0.506
Jeff Keppinger 119 388 343 38 91 17 3 7 34 0 2 32 35 3 8 0.265 0.332 0.394 0.725
Jerry Hairston 58 136 115 17 26 6 0 2 13 2 1 12 15 3 5 0.226 0.313 0.330 0.643
EdwinEncarnacion51 210 186 30 44 8 1 9 28 2 0 16 37 3 0 0.237 0.300 0.435 0.735
Alex Gonzalez 59 215 212 35 60 18 0 9 24 3 0 6 42 2 4 0.283 0.322 0.495 0.818
Juan Castro 118 314 288 35 70 11 0 3 31 0 0 17 54 1 4 0.243 0.284 0.313 0.596
Dave Ross 67 169 144 20 38 9 0 7 22 0 0 22 44 1 2 0.264 0.365 0.472 0.837
Corey Patterson 16 30 29 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 13 0 1 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.207
Paul Bako 44 130 116 12 26 4 0 3 9 0 1 13 32 1 0 0.224 0.308 0.336 0.644
Andy Green 4 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0.250 0.400 0.250 0.650
Justin Turner 15 28 24 2 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 4 0 0 0.125 0.250 0.125 0.375
Craig Tatum 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Willy Taveras 12 23 22 4 4 0 1 0 4 1 1 1 5 0 0 0.182 0.217 0.273 0.490
Totals 996 3306 2869 379 699 145 5 109 384 12 7 390 650 23 25 0.244 0.339 0.412 0.751

Name W L G GS CG SHO GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP WP ERA WHIP
David Patton 3 1 20 0 0 0 5 0 27.7 31 22 21 4 19 23 0 3 6.83 1.81
Josh Roenicke 0 0 13 0 0 0 3 0 17.7 19 15 14 2 12 19 1 1 7.13 1.75
Dave Weathers 1 3 25 0 0 0 4 0 24.0 26 15 13 3 11 10 2 0 4.88 1.54
Todd Coffey 6 4 93 0 0 0 21 2 97.0 87 31 29 8 27 74 3 3 2.69 1.18
Jeremy Affeldt 4 4 79 0 0 0 11 1 68.7 48 17 14 5 33 58 3 5 1.83 1.18
Josh Fogg 0 2 24 1 0 0 9 0 45.7 32 20 19 7 20 27 1 3 3.74 1.14
Matt Belisle 3 1 31 0 0 0 9 0 40.7 46 24 22 7 6 30 1 2 4.87 1.28
Totals 17 15 285 1 0 0 62 3 321.3 289 144 132 36 128 241 11 17 3.70

TRF
04-21-2010, 11:51 AM
The offense is weaker. None of his rotation additions helped. Owings was a pretty bad starter. Leake has a nice ERA in his two professional starts, but that won't last walking 9 per 9 IP.

Relievers are volatile. Massett was brilliant last year and anything but so far this year.

The runs scored in 2007 was 783, in 2009, 673 a drop of 110.
The runs allowed in 2007 was 853, in 2009, 723 a drop of 130.

Thats a decrease in the diff. of 20 runs. I'd be willing to bet most of that is the fact that 2007 had a pretty bad bullpen, and a stellar pen in 2009. The only holdover from the 2007 pen was Burton, who was very good in '07 but not so much in '09. Also Coffey, who was bad in '07, a bit better in '08 (awful with the Reds, lights out with the Brewers) has been very good since. Relievers are volatile.

I don't think the defense is as responsible for the lower RA as the pitching just got better. But how much of that pitching in 2008-09 was the result of WK? the 2008 pen was inked by WK. And it was easily as good as 2009. BTW, WK was fired in 2008 right? Then he signed Lincoln, not Walt.

So again, I ask, What has walt done in his 2 years as GM to make the Reds better? How much of the RA is attributable to HIS moves and not his predecessors? Did trading Dunn make the Reds better in any way? I do believe trading Griffey did. I'll give him that one. But he essentially traded Griffey and replaced him with Taveras. Bruce was going to be the CF if Griffey had stayed the whole year in 2008.

I don't see what he's done that merits the lovefest.

Spring~Fields
04-21-2010, 12:09 PM
I have read and accepted everyone, respectfully, under this topic and upon this thread.

I need help. :help:

I have to be the dumbest rock on the block, at least the dumbest rock in the quarry. :bang:

I can’t tell them apart. The teams, the years, the good guys, bad guys, the white hats, the black hats, from the actual results that they achieved from their decisions, choices etc.

I look and I look, . The win percentages seem to look so much alike, and all run together for me. :confused:

How can that be?



2010 Cincinnati 6 8 .429
2009 Cincinnati 78 84 .481
2008 Cincinnati 74 88 .457
2007 Cincinnati 72 90 .444
2006 Cincinnati 80 82 .494
2005 Cincinnati 73 89 .454
2004 Cincinnati 76 86 .469
2003 Cincinnati 69 93 .426
2002 Cincinnati 78 84 .481
2001 Cincinnati 66 96 .407
2000 Cincinnati 85 77 .525

camisadelgolf
04-21-2010, 12:28 PM
So again, I ask, What has walt done in his 2 years as GM to make the Reds better? How much of the RA is attributable to HIS moves and not his predecessors? Did trading Dunn make the Reds better in any way? I do believe trading Griffey did. I'll give him that one. But he essentially traded Griffey and replaced him with Taveras. Bruce was going to be the CF if Griffey had stayed the whole year in 2008.

I don't see what he's done that merits the lovefest.
This is coming from someone who isn't particularly fond of Jocketty, but I think he has made the 25-man roster better. The Reds are equal or better at every starting position, and the bullpen has improved because of Jocketty, too.

Let me ask you this: other than Taveras, how much has he done wrong compared to other GMs?

Spring~Fields
04-21-2010, 12:37 PM
This is coming from someone who isn't particularly fond of Jocketty, but I think he has made the 25-man roster better. The Reds are equal or better at every starting position, and the bullpen has improved because of Jocketty, too.

Let me ask you this: other than Taveras, how much has he done wrong compared to other GMs?

Well if we are comparing bad Reds teams to bad Reds teams.

What has been accomplished versus the division competition?



2010 Cincinnati 6 8 .429
2009 Cincinnati 78 84 .481
2008 Cincinnati 74 88 .457
2007 Cincinnati 72 90 .444
2006 Cincinnati 80 82 .494
2005 Cincinnati 73 89 .454
2004 Cincinnati 76 86 .469
2003 Cincinnati 69 93 .426
2002 Cincinnati 78 84 .481
2001 Cincinnati 66 96 .407
2000 Cincinnati 85 77 .525

edabbs44
04-21-2010, 12:43 PM
Well if we are comparing bad Reds teams to bad Reds teams.

What has been accomplished versus the division competition?



2010 Cincinnati 6 8 .429
2009 Cincinnati 78 84 .481
2008 Cincinnati 74 88 .457
2007 Cincinnati 72 90 .444
2006 Cincinnati 80 82 .494
2005 Cincinnati 73 89 .454
2004 Cincinnati 76 86 .469
2003 Cincinnati 69 93 .426
2002 Cincinnati 78 84 .481
2001 Cincinnati 66 96 .407
2000 Cincinnati 85 77 .525


What if the #1 goal isn't to win right now?

When you have limited resources due to current obligations, it is difficult to transform the team in the short run. It is pretty obvious that his hands are tied. If he was given resources and chose to dump them into the 2010 roster, then this would make sense. But he hasn't had a lot of money to spend and hasn't dumped a whole hell of a lot of money into this roster.

edabbs44
04-21-2010, 12:44 PM
Let me ask you this: other than Taveras, how much has he done wrong compared to other GMs?

Good question, especially now that Mike Lincoln is temporarily out of the doghouse.

Spring~Fields
04-21-2010, 12:51 PM
What if the #1 goal isn't to win right now?

When you have limited resources due to current obligations, it is difficult to transform the team in the short run. It is pretty obvious that his hands are tied. If he was given resources and chose to dump them into the 2010 roster, then this would make sense. But he hasn't had a lot of money to spend and hasn't dumped a whole hell of a lot of money into this roster.

That is and has been pretty much true for all of the GM's that Cincinnati has or had and most of the other small market teams. The current one seems to have a higher payroll than the rest of them did. Maybe none of them had a goal to win now. They were building for 2003 at one time.

I just can't see one from the other.

Kind of silly to ignore the one thing that it is all about, entertaining their patrons and winning ballgames and making money.




2010 Cincinnati 6 8 .429
2009 Cincinnati 78 84 .481 +/- , 4 games
2008 Cincinnati 74 88 .457 +/- , 2 games
2007 Cincinnati 72 90 .444 +/- , 8 games
2006 Cincinnati 80 82 .494 +/- , 7 games
2005 Cincinnati 73 89 .454 +/- , 3 games
2004 Cincinnati 76 86 .469 +/- , 7 games
2003 Cincinnati 69 93 .426 +/- , 9 games
2002 Cincinnati 78 84 .481 +/- , 12 games
2001 Cincinnati 66 96 .407 +/- , 19 games
2000 Cincinnati 85 77 .525

Spring~Fields
04-21-2010, 01:10 PM
What if the #1 goal isn't to win right now?



Did they disclose that to the media and their season ticket holders in advance?

bucksfan2
04-21-2010, 01:22 PM
Did they disclose that to the media and their season ticket holders in advance?

I would have even less respect for them if they did.

I agree that when Walt took over the idea was to build a competitive team. It takes time and some luck in order to do that. In MLB you cant build a team overnight and usually what ends up happening is you hand out big dollar contracts to either lesser players, or players who are past their prime.

camisadelgolf
04-21-2010, 01:28 PM
Walt has publicly said that the goal was to build a team that would be competitive for the entire decade. With the young players on the roster, I don't think it'd be all that difficult to come up with a team as good as the Cardinals, but it'd be at the cost of giving up a lot of prospects that are expected to keep the team competitive throughout the next several years. To Jocketty's credit, he decided to build for the future instead of cashing in all his chips for a chance to win the division for a year or two.

edabbs44
04-21-2010, 01:33 PM
That is and has been pretty much true for all of the GM's that Cincinnati has or had and most of the other small market teams. The current one seems to have a higher payroll than the rest of them did. Maybe none of them had a goal to win now. They were building for 2003 at one time.

I just can't see one from the other.

Kind of silly to ignore the one thing that it is all about, entertaining their patrons and winning ballgames and making money.




2010 Cincinnati 6 8 .429
2009 Cincinnati 78 84 .481 +/- , 4 games
2008 Cincinnati 74 88 .457 +/- , 2 games
2007 Cincinnati 72 90 .444 +/- , 8 games
2006 Cincinnati 80 82 .494 +/- , 7 games
2005 Cincinnati 73 89 .454 +/- , 3 games
2004 Cincinnati 76 86 .469 +/- , 7 games
2003 Cincinnati 69 93 .426 +/- , 9 games
2002 Cincinnati 78 84 .481 +/- , 12 games
2001 Cincinnati 66 96 .407 +/- , 19 games
2000 Cincinnati 85 77 .525


And the one who had the most input on how that payroll was allocated is no longer with us. For that reason.

Spring~Fields
04-21-2010, 01:34 PM
I would have even less respect for them if they did.

Well with the marketing spin and puffery used to attract paying loyal and faithful season ticket holders, some of them might disagree. Especially with all the hoopla over Volquez, and issues of ethics and credibility running so hot right now.



It takes time and some luck in order to do that. In MLB you cant build a team overnight and usually what ends up happening is you hand out big dollar contracts to either lesser players, or players who are past their prime.

They, the Cincinnati Reds organization and various parts of their ownership have been working on it and selling that idea for over ten years now. Apparently it really does take a long time, something that most of the GM's were not given, other than Bowden who did not receive the funds that a St. Louis GM or a Chicago GM did for a couple examples. edabbs points that out, regarding the current one.

edabbs44
04-21-2010, 01:35 PM
Did they disclose that to the media and their season ticket holders in advance?

Is that required? It's actually quite obvious. When you aren't making major changes to a struggling major league team and instead spending a lot of your time and money in the draft and foreign markets, it's pretty apparent what your motive is.

Spring~Fields
04-21-2010, 01:40 PM
And the one who had the most input on how that payroll was allocated is no longer with us. For that reason.

Mr. Lindner or Mr. Castellini and his powerful investment group, that the majority owner is accountable to?

Each GM had a budget 2000 - 2010, they don't set their own budgets. If that excuse is going to apply to one, then it is probably true for the ones before to. Especially Bowden who was very competitive with his teams vs the other GM's in his division until the money became to great in disparity. That surely had an effect traveling forward. Especially when ones are advocating a time factor, by saying, it takes time. Well then those years, time, that were under funded, had a profound effect on each building year to follow. You're even saying that the money has an impact now, today. It did back then too.

Spring~Fields
04-21-2010, 01:46 PM
Is that required? It's actually quite obvious. When you aren't making major changes to a struggling major league team and instead spending a lot of your time and money in the draft and foreign markets, it's pretty apparent what your motive is.

Do you think the people would like to know before they spend their money?

Why would we not just market the truth to season ticket holders then? Well the Reds are not making winning this year a priority? :) The people demand honesty, integrity, and credibilty from Volquez, why not the rest of the organization?

Spin it how you want, I am coming back to the win pct. I just can't tell them apart, except the year before the well went dry on Bowden. I know, none, no one, can escape with fine arguements or a twist of the perceptions, when it comes to the results of the win/loss column.



2010 Cincinnati 6 8 .429
2009 Cincinnati 78 84 .481 +/- , 4 games
2008 Cincinnati 74 88 .457 +/- , 2 games
2007 Cincinnati 72 90 .444 +/- , 8 games
2006 Cincinnati 80 82 .494 +/- , 7 games
2005 Cincinnati 73 89 .454 +/- , 3 games
2004 Cincinnati 76 86 .469 +/- , 7 games
2003 Cincinnati 69 93 .426 +/- , 9 games
2002 Cincinnati 78 84 .481 +/- , 12 games
2001 Cincinnati 66 96 .407 +/- , 19 games
2000 Cincinnati 85 77 .525

TRF
04-21-2010, 01:47 PM
This is coming from someone who isn't particularly fond of Jocketty, but I think he has made the 25-man roster better. The Reds are equal or better at every starting position, and the bullpen has improved because of Jocketty, too.

Let me ask you this: other than Taveras, how much has he done wrong compared to other GMs?

Votto was here when Jocketty arrived. He's gotten better, but not because of Jocketty.

Phillips, see above.

Rotation is a wash

LF is worse. BY FAR.

CF, offensively worse, defensively? Is Stubbs better than Patterson? The eyes say he was better than Taveras, another Jocketty sign, but the numbers say Taveras was a plus defender. Speed makes up for bad routes.

3B is better defensively, and Rolen is mashing. when he's in the lineup. EE has had his own issues staying in the lineup, and considering he had a wrist injury/surgery, I doubt he's fully healed until the ASB. I can't discout the production of Rolen, but he's a huge risk that just got extended. And he isn't young.

C is better, but one half of that tandem is a Bowden draftee, first taste of MLB under Krivsky.

The two best offensive SS' not named Barry Larkin since 2000 have been Felo's 2005 and AGon's 2007. AGon's injury came out of nowhere. Had he been healthy, who knows. He wasn't, but that can't keep you from signing guys to 3 year deals. He was only 30 at the time.

SS is worse.
LF is worse.
CF is worse, at best a wash with Stubbs, better with CD.
RF wash.
1B better due to maturity
2B wash
C better? not better than 2006, but better than 2007.
3B better, but a risk

Rotation wash
Bullpen wash.

So, is Rolen the difference between a winning and losing team?

edabbs44
04-21-2010, 01:49 PM
Mr. Lindner or Mr. Castellini and his powerful investment group, that the majority owner is accountable to?

Each GM had a budget 2000 - 2010, they don't set their own budgets. If that excuse is going to apply to one, then it is probably true for the ones before to. Especially Bowden who was very competitive with his teams vs the other GM's in his division until the money became to great in disparity. That surely had an effect traveling forward. Especially when ones are advocating a time factor, by saying, it takes time. Well then those years, time, that were under funded, had a profound effect on each building year to follow. You're even saying that the money has an impact now, today. It did back then too.

GMs don't set budgets, but they have a significant amt of input in how it gets allocated. And those decisions can and will affect teams long after they are gone due to the fact that contracts are guaranteed in baseball.

It isn't Walt's fault that 16% of his payroll is dedicated to a pitcher who looks to be completely cooked. But it does afffect the product on the field.

Just an example.

bucksfan2
04-21-2010, 01:49 PM
Do you think the people would like to know before they spend their money?

Why would we not just market the truth to season ticket holders then? Well the Reds are not making winning this year a priority? :)

Because you have to see tickets. You have to get people to walk through the turnstiles 81 games a season. If you announce before the season "We are not trying to win this year" you are going to do more harm and ill will to your fan base than anything else. Your going to take away the hope that comes with every spring. Your going to take away any early draw you may have. Your going to upset your fan base. Again it makes no sense what so ever to announce that.

edabbs44
04-21-2010, 01:53 PM
Spin it how you want, I am coming back to the win pct.

I know you are, and that's where your argument falls flat on its face.

Spring~Fields
04-21-2010, 01:57 PM
GMs don't set budgets, but they have a significant amt of input in how it gets allocated. And those decisions can and will affect teams long after they are gone due to the fact that contracts are guaranteed in baseball.

It isn't Walt's fault that 16% of his payroll is dedicated to a pitcher who looks to be completely cooked. But it does afffect the product on the field.

Just an example.

One question. What's wrong with application of that same thinking to the other GMs?

Start in 2001 with that same thinking, move forward, each year, time, what's the concluscion? Did each GM have the competitive advantage with financial resources to build, acquire, etc player resources to improve against the primary competition in St. Louis, Chicago, Houston ?

How did that effect their barriers to accomplishing higher goals? Each year, forward.

You show an extreme bias for one, but when it comes to the other's, you rewrite the thinking.

Are you suggesting, that Walt Jocketty needs St. Louis funding to get Walt Jocketty type results? I think that you are, and it would follow to have been true for the other GM's as well, that held that position for the Reds.

REDblooded
04-21-2010, 01:58 PM
So, is Rolen the difference between a winning and losing team?

Last night he was...

TRF
04-21-2010, 01:59 PM
I know you are, and that's where your argument falls flat on its face.

actually it doesn't. Walt minimally had an improved winning pct. last year, largely with players he inherited and a bullpen that way exceeded expectations.

This year looks like last year. Maybe worse since I think last year's Gomes turns back into a pumpkin.

Spring~Fields
04-21-2010, 02:03 PM
I know you are, and that's where your argument falls flat on its face.

Right..........now that is funny stuff.

Let's just use selective generalizations and maybe they won't see the results column, of wins and losses. Maybe we can even talk them into ignoring it, like the Reds do OBP :oops: Sorry, I already saw it.

It is your extreme bias that makes your argument flawed. ;)


That is and has been pretty much true for all of the GM's that Cincinnati has or had and most of the other small market teams. The current one seems to have a higher payroll than the rest of them did. Maybe none of them had a goal to win now. They were building for 2003 at one time.


Mr. Lindner or Mr. Castellini and his powerful investment group, that the majority owner is accountable to?

If that excuse is going to apply to one, then it is probably true for the ones before to.

Especially Bowden who was very competitive with his teams vs the other GM's in his division until the money became to great in disparity. That surely had an effect traveling forward. Especially when ones are advocating a time factor, by saying, it takes time. Well then those years, time, that were under funded, had a profound effect on each building year to follow. You're even saying that the money has an impact now, today. It did back then too.


One question. What's wrong with application of that same thinking to the other GMs?

Start in 2001 with that same thinking, move forward, each year, time, what's the conclusion? Did each GM have the competitive advantage with financial resources to build, acquire, etc player resources to improve against the primary competition in St. Louis, Chicago, Houston ?

How did that effect their barriers to accomplishing higher goals? Each year, forward.

You show an extreme bias for one, but when it comes to the other's, you rewrite the thinking.

Are you suggesting, that Walt Jocketty needs St. Louis funding to get Walt Jocketty type results? I think that you are, and it would follow to have been true for the other GM's as well, that held that position for the Reds.

Can you speak to some of these instead of selectively ignoring it? In a fair and impartial, objective manner?

Spring~Fields
04-21-2010, 02:14 PM
actually it doesn't. Walt minimally had an improved winning pct. last year, largely with players he inherited and a bullpen that way exceeded expectations.

This year looks like last year. Maybe worse since I think last year's Gomes turns back into a pumpkin.

4 games ? Improved ?

After all the years, I had just hoped for a little more, maybe winning one more game than they lose?

Spring~Fields
04-21-2010, 02:17 PM
Because you have to see tickets. You have to get people to walk through the turnstiles 81 games a season. If you announce before the season "We are not trying to win this year" you are going to do more harm and ill will to your fan base than anything else. Your going to take away the hope that comes with every spring. Your going to take away any early draw you may have. Your going to upset your fan base. Again it makes no sense what so ever to announce that.

I guess it would effect how much money that they make. You're right about that. Maybe they actually should have a good product and put that on the field, before they sell it. Instead of knowing that they are going to make money even if they don't. Accountants and actuaries have that down pat for the ownership groups.

edabbs44
04-21-2010, 02:53 PM
Can you speak to some of these instead of selectively ignoring it? In a fair and impartial, objective manner?



Originally Posted by Spring~Fields
One question. What's wrong with application of that same thinking to the other GMs?

Start in 2001 with that same thinking, move forward, each year, time, what's the conclusion? Did each GM have the competitive advantage with financial resources to build, acquire, etc player resources to improve against the primary competition in St. Louis, Chicago, Houston ?

How did that effect their barriers to accomplishing higher goals? Each year, forward.

You show an extreme bias for one, but when it comes to the other's, you rewrite the thinking.

Are you suggesting, that Walt Jocketty needs St. Louis funding to get Walt Jocketty type results? I think that you are, and it would follow to have been true for the other GM's as well, that held that position for the Reds.

This wil be the last time I go through this b/c for whatever reason you aren't listening to what I am saying. Or you are just busting my chops. One or the other.

If you are looking to build for the long-haul you are obviously not expected to produce results right away. If you are dumping money into the major league club like we saw in 2006-2007, you would expect to see results based on that investment.

Walt Jocketty may find it easier to win with deeper pockets (as would everyone), but the way I see it is that he recognizes that this theory won't work in Cincy. So instead of him giving record breaking contracts to major league relievers and extensions to pitchers teetering on the age of 30, he goes out and signs one of the most highly regarded prospects from Cuba in a long time. Instead of drafting HS catchers who also happen to be easy signs, he drafts college guys who cost a little more. He is involved in LatAm.

Judging him based on his W/L right now is a little unfair. After payroll loosens up and he is actually able to spend a little, that might be a better time to judge the W/L record.

camisadelgolf
04-21-2010, 03:55 PM
Votto was here when Jocketty arrived. He's gotten better, but not because of Jocketty.

Phillips, see above.

Rotation is a wash

LF is worse. BY FAR.

CF, offensively worse, defensively? Is Stubbs better than Patterson? The eyes say he was better than Taveras, another Jocketty sign, but the numbers say Taveras was a plus defender. Speed makes up for bad routes.

3B is better defensively, and Rolen is mashing. when he's in the lineup. EE has had his own issues staying in the lineup, and considering he had a wrist injury/surgery, I doubt he's fully healed until the ASB. I can't discout the production of Rolen, but he's a huge risk that just got extended. And he isn't young.

C is better, but one half of that tandem is a Bowden draftee, first taste of MLB under Krivsky.

The two best offensive SS' not named Barry Larkin since 2000 have been Felo's 2005 and AGon's 2007. AGon's injury came out of nowhere. Had he been healthy, who knows. He wasn't, but that can't keep you from signing guys to 3 year deals. He was only 30 at the time.

SS is worse.
LF is worse.
CF is worse, at best a wash with Stubbs, better with CD.
RF wash.
1B better due to maturity
2B wash
C better? not better than 2006, but better than 2007.
3B better, but a risk

Rotation wash
Bullpen wash.

So, is Rolen the difference between a winning and losing team?
Jocketty took over near the beginning of 2008. Let's look at what he started with and where it stands now.
C - Paul Bako, Ryan Hanigan, Dave Ross, Javier Valentin
1B - Joey Votto, Scott Hatteberg
2B - Brandon Phillips
3B - Edwin Encarnacion
SS - Jeff Keppinger, Alex Gonzalez
LF - Adam Dunn
CF - Corey Patterson
RF - Ken Griffey, Jay Bruce
BENCH - UT Jerry Hairston, UT Ryan Freel, UT Jolbert Cabrera, IF Andy Phillips, IF Adam Rosales, IF Juan Castro, OF Chris Dickerson, OF Norris Hopper

C - Bako, Ross, and Valentin have become Ramon Hernandez UPGRADE
1B - Votto is still around WASH
2B - Brandon Phillips is still around WASH
3B - EE has been replaced by Scott Rolen UPGRADE
SS - Jeff Keppinger and AGon have been replaced by Janish (in-house, so that part's a wash) and OCab UPGRADE
LF - Dunn has been replaced by a platoon of Gomes/Nix/Dickerson WASH (once defense is factored in)
CF - Patterson has been replaced by a platoon of Stubbs/Dickerson UPGRADE
RF - Bruce is still around, and Griffey became an addition by subtraction
BENCH - UT Juan Francisco, IF Miguel Cairo, OF Chris Dickerson, OF Laynce Nix WASH (it's really too early to tell what to call this)

The rotation is pretty much the same except Mike Leake is in the picture (as opposed to Josh Fogg or Matt Belisle), and soon, Aroldis Chapman will be, too.

Francisco Cordero is still here. Going from Jeremy Affeldt to Arthur Rhodes has been a wash. Daniel Ray Herrera, Bill Bray, Mike Lincoln, and Jared Burton are all still around. Instead of Dave Weathers and Gary Majewski, it's Micah Owings and Nick Masset. UPGRADE

The overall talent has increased while the payroll has gone up by about only two million dollars. Letting go of Dunn (13mm), Griffey (8.3mm), AGon (4.6mm), Castro (1.0mm), Hatteberg (1.9mm), Fogg (1.0mm), Belisle (1.3mm), Affeldt (3.0mm), Weathers (3.3mm), and their contracts were necessary in order to keep the important members of the team who were due raises (Aaron Harang, Bronson Arroyo, Brandon Phillips, etc.).

I'm not saying Jocketty has put together a team riddled with all-stars. However, he has put together a plan of making a team that will be competitive for a long time, and he has done a pretty good job of keeping around the talent needed to do so. It would have been very easy to trade guys like Arroyo and Harang for prospects that might never pan out. It would have been easy to have faith that EE would eventually come around. It would have been easy to have taken the money to sign Chapman and instead spend it on stopgap players who have almost no future with the club. Fortunately, Jocketty has addressed the fact that the team needs to be built through the draft and scouting, and that's the route the Reds are currently going. The 25-man roster is improved, and the future is brighter than ever. Jocketty isn't solely responsible for that, but you have to give him credit for not ruining something a lot of other GMs probably would have.

TRF
04-21-2010, 04:07 PM
camis, I won't quote your whole post, but SS an upgrade. I don't see that. LF isn't even CLOSE to a wash. downgrade. C Is an upgrade over 2008, but not because of Razor Ramon, but because of Hanigan, a guy that was in house. The pen was better in 2009 than 2008, but a wash with 2007. Pen's are volatile. 2010 could be another 2008. and right now (sample size alert!) it is.

M2
04-21-2010, 04:21 PM
I have very clearly showed how two players have helped and you have responded by saying that this type of production doesn't get you excited or is not laudable. You're probably right, but it is not nothing and that is what you said it was.

No, you clearly showed how they were below average players (well, you would have had you park-adjusted Bruce). My definition of help, and I thought I was making this crystal clear, is that a player needs to do something laudable to be of any real help. I do not consider it meaningful at all that a guy went out and managed to not completely suck. The Reds need players that can push the club toward being a good baseball team, not players who take up space well enough (which is the best you can say for any of the players on the list in question).

Just to underline this again, I've got no use for your definition of "help." It's absurd to me.

camisadelgolf
04-21-2010, 04:23 PM
camis, I won't quote your whole post, but SS an upgrade. I don't see that. LF isn't even CLOSE to a wash. downgrade. C Is an upgrade over 2008, but not because of Razor Ramon, but because of Hanigan, a guy that was in house. The pen was better in 2009 than 2008, but a wash with 2007. Pen's are volatile. 2010 could be another 2008. and right now (sample size alert!) it is.
So let me get this straight--you think going from Jeff Keppinger to OCab was a downgrade? I'm willing to call it a wash, but there's no way I see it as a downgrade.

And how is LF not even close to a wash? Adam Dunn's defense in left field negated nearly all of his offensive value. His defense was that bad. Meanwhile, Gomes produces better against LHP while providing better defense, and Dickerson produces well against RHP with significantly better defense. All the while, their combined salaries are less than a quarter of Dunn's.

The catching situation is an upgrade because the Reds have Ramon Hernandez instead of guys like Javier Valentin, Paul Bako, etc.--how does the fact that the Reds still have Hanigan count against Jocketty?

The 2009 pen was a wash with 2007? How do you figure that? Did you forget about Mike Stanton, Todd Coffey, Jon Coutlangus, Victor Santos, Kirk Saarloos, Mike Gosling, Gary Majewski, Marcus McBeth, Eddie Guardado, Ricky Stone, Rheal Cormier? Sure, 2009 had to put up with Mike Lincoln and Carlos Fisher (and Pedro Viola for a brief while), but to say the two staffs are a wash is highly laughable.

TRF
04-21-2010, 04:59 PM
So let me get this straight--you think going from Jeff Keppinger to OCab was a downgrade? I'm willing to call it a wash, but there's no way I see it as a downgrade.

And how is LF not even close to a wash? Adam Dunn's defense in left field negated nearly all of his offensive value. His defense was that bad. Meanwhile, Gomes produces better against LHP while providing better defense, and Dickerson produces well against RHP with significantly better defense. All the while, their combined salaries are less than a quarter of Dunn's.

The catching situation is an upgrade because the Reds have Ramon Hernandez instead of guys like Javier Valentin, Paul Bako, etc.--how does the fact that the Reds still have Hanigan count against Jocketty?

The 2009 pen was a wash with 2007? How do you figure that? Did you forget about Mike Stanton, Todd Coffey, Jon Coutlangus, Victor Santos, Kirk Saarloos, Mike Gosling, Gary Majewski, Marcus McBeth, Eddie Guardado, Ricky Stone, Rheal Cormier? Sure, 2009 had to put up with Mike Lincoln and Carlos Fisher (and Pedro Viola for a brief while), but to say the two staffs are a wash is highly laughable.

OCab was awful defensively last year. a-w-f-u-l. He's worse this year. Fall down range is what Kepp had. I'm not sure OCab has that.

No one on this team, except MAYBE Votto was as good as Dunn against RH's. No one on this team comes close to matching his offensive production. Was he a bad defender? yep. But he's a guy that played two years on a bad knee while almost never missing a game. Dunn's 3 year splits vs RH's 2007-09: .266 .406 .577 .983. Dickerson simply cannot match that. ever. And I like Chris Dickerson. His total splits for that timeframe: .256 .390 .532 .922. Sorry, but Gomes/Dickerson wouldn't come within a mile of that line.

TRF
04-21-2010, 05:01 PM
No, you clearly showed how they were below average players (well, you would have had you park-adjusted Bruce). My definition of help, and I thought I was making this crystal clear, is that a player needs to do something laudable to be of any real help. I do not consider it meaningful at all that a guy went out and managed to not completely suck. The Reds need players that can push the club toward being a good baseball team, not players who take up space well enough (which is the best you can say for any of the players on the list in question).

Just to underline this again, I've got no use for your definition of "help." It's absurd to me.

baby steps. how much more value has Bailey provided, from signing to today than Ty Howington? Maybe Walt continues down this path, but he hasn't improved the 25 man roster nearly enough for a guy that has been in the Reds organization since 2007, GM since 2008.

M2
04-21-2010, 06:59 PM
baby steps. how much more value has Bailey provided, from signing to today than Ty Howington?

Zero is zero. Actually, given Bailey's career numbers, he's had negative value. At least Howington did no harm.

Obviously the hope is Bailey gets his act in gear and pitches well. He still has the opportunity to do that in a Reds uniform. Howington doesn't.

Baby steps would involve turning out a single good starting pitcher and building upon that success. The Reds have yet to fully develop one of those. Who knows, maybe it will be Mike Leake, a guy who spent no time whatsoever in the minors. That would certainly bolster the "don't develop, acquire" credo that sometimes gets discussed on this board.

Anyway, baby steps do not involve new ways of being unsuccessful. That's just jogging in place with a different step cadence.

Spring~Fields
04-21-2010, 07:46 PM
Judging him based on his W/L right now is a little unfair. After payroll loosens up and he is actually able to spend a little, that might be a better time to judge the W/L record.

Ultimately that is exactly what you had to judge any prior general manager for the Reds, and nothing more, but somehow you want Walt Jocketty exempted.

Let’s see
You don’t want him judged on having the highest payrolls in the history of the Reds.

You don’t want him judged on win and loss, even though he has never won a thing in Cincinnati.

You don’t want him judged on the old underperforming players that he eats up payroll with and brings in.

You don’t want him judge on having no control over his manager.
You don’t want him judged on the time that he has had.
You don’t want him judged by payroll constraints.

But you do want the other’s judged without exception for the exact same things that you want to exempt Jocketty for, and somehow you just can’t see that. The reason you can't exempt them, is that your demeaning, degrading and discounting of their work under the conditions is all that you have literally to support all your words for two years in favor of Jocketty.

Obviously you must be the one busting the rest of our chops.

I could take any of your paragraphs and where it says Walt Jocketty, and I could plug in any Reds former general managers name in that exact same spot and it would be just as true, if not truer for them, if it is true at all. Frankly, I have already done that on the computer here, by simple copy and paste, and inserting the other three gm’s names.

Almost all that really matters, fits for them, within your words, that you somehow chose to ignore.

Somehow you imagine that he sometime in the vast future, will eventually with the same circumstances, no actually better circumstances than his predecessors, somehow will accomplish greater outcomes.

Has he done it yet? No

You will say he needs more time than the other GM’s did, he needs more money than the other GM’s did, he needs better results from the minor league investments than the other GM’s did have available to them, even though they had nothing, none from the minors when they came and started to rebuild what Bowden opted to neglect or was incompetent to foresee and to accomplish.

Hold onto your dream is all that I can say. Because under the conditions of financial constraints, player resource limitations, it will be a long wait for Walt Jocketty or any general manager to succeed in Cincinnati against the ever changing and ever reworking of the primary competition within the Reds division as it currently stands.

The other’s before him could not in that working environment, he has not been able to, and until something that is difference making occurs within major league baseball, it will not change for Jocketty either.

If your counting on miracles from relief from the contracts of Arroyo, Harang, Cordero, Phillips and Rolen, along with some prospects becoming available as good trading chips, good luck.

Because he is going to have to pay those that he brings back, gone will be the payroll flex, gone will be the prospect, when he rolls the dice, you better hope he comes up seven. The real world barriers are against him or any GM in Cincy as it has been.

REDblooded
04-21-2010, 08:03 PM
OCab was awful defensively last year. a-w-f-u-l. He's worse this year. Fall down range is what Kepp had. I'm not sure OCab has that.

No one on this team, except MAYBE Votto was as good as Dunn against RH's. No one on this team comes close to matching his offensive production. Was he a bad defender? yep. But he's a guy that played two years on a bad knee while almost never missing a game. Dunn's 3 year splits vs RH's 2007-09: .266 .406 .577 .983. Dickerson simply cannot match that. ever. And I like Chris Dickerson. His total splits for that timeframe: .256 .390 .532 .922. Sorry, but Gomes/Dickerson wouldn't come within a mile of that line.

I sure wish we had Dunn's .163 avg and .379 OBP carrying this team right now... He's JUST what we're missing...

nate
04-21-2010, 08:47 PM
I sure wish we had Dunn's .163 avg and .379 OBP carrying this team right now... He's JUST what we're missing...

That insane walk rate is JUST what this team is missing.

REDblooded
04-21-2010, 08:49 PM
That insane walk rate is JUST what this team is missing.

Sure... On a 2 hole hitter with enough speed to do something with it...

Falls City Beer
04-21-2010, 08:51 PM
While you can always get better in any area of the game, I think the offense ain't the problem.

nate
04-21-2010, 08:52 PM
Sure... On a 2 hole hitter with enough speed to do something with it...

On any hitter.

The Reds are out machines and hackers. A walk rate like that would do a lot to change the offensive approach.

nate
04-21-2010, 08:55 PM
To follow up, I'm not talking about "Dunn and his insane walk rate," I'm talking about the abstract idea of the Reds improving their walk rate which would lead to fewer outs, more opportunities (one in the same) and making the other team's pitchers throw more pitches.

I'm not sure what's not to like about that unless one believes what they're doing right now is working.

REDblooded
04-21-2010, 08:58 PM
Ahh... thought you were another in the line of the Dunn nostalgia camp... I don't disagree with a more patient approach being needed... Just used to infuriate me with Dunn when it was a critical situation and you needed your power hitter to come up big, but Dunn would get sat down on a 2-2 count watching a fastball paint the black...

nate
04-21-2010, 09:10 PM
Ahh... thought you were another in the line of the Dunn nostalgia camp... I don't disagree with a more patient approach being needed... Just used to infuriate me with Dunn when it was a critical situation and you needed your power hitter to come up big, but Dunn would get sat down on a 2-2 count watching a fastball paint the black...

Thank (deity of choice) the Reds have fixed that problem!

:cool:

edabbs44
04-21-2010, 09:39 PM
Ultimately that is exactly what you had to judge any prior general manager for the Reds, and nothing more, but somehow you want Walt Jocketty exempted.

Letís see
You donít want him judged on having the highest payrolls in the history of the Reds.

You donít want him judged on win and loss, even though he has never won a thing in Cincinnati.

You donít want him judged on the old underperforming players that he eats up payroll with and brings in.

You donít want him judge on having no control over his manager.
You donít want him judged on the time that he has had.
You donít want him judged by payroll constraints.

But you do want the otherís judged without exception for the exact same things that you want to exempt Jocketty for, and somehow you just canít see that. The reason you can't exempt them, is that your demeaning, degrading and discounting of their work under the conditions is all that you have literally to support all your words for two years in favor of Jocketty.

Obviously you must be the one busting the rest of our chops.

I could take any of your paragraphs and where it says Walt Jocketty, and I could plug in any Reds former general managers name in that exact same spot and it would be just as true, if not truer for them, if it is true at all. Frankly, I have already done that on the computer here, by simple copy and paste, and inserting the other three gmís names.

Almost all that really matters, fits for them, within your words, that you somehow chose to ignore.

Somehow you imagine that he sometime in the vast future, will eventually with the same circumstances, no actually better circumstances than his predecessors, somehow will accomplish greater outcomes.

Has he done it yet? No

You will say he needs more time than the other GMís did, he needs more money than the other GMís did, he needs better results from the minor league investments than the other GMís did have available to them, even though they had nothing, none from the minors when they came and started to rebuild what Bowden opted to neglect or was incompetent to foresee and to accomplish.

Hold onto your dream is all that I can say. Because under the conditions of financial constraints, player resource limitations, it will be a long wait for Walt Jocketty or any general manager to succeed in Cincinnati against the ever changing and ever reworking of the primary competition within the Reds division as it currently stands.

The otherís before him could not in that working environment, he has not been able to, and until something that is difference making occurs within major league baseball, it will not change for Jocketty either.

If your counting on miracles from relief from the contracts of Arroyo, Harang, Cordero, Phillips and Rolen, along with some prospects becoming available as good trading chips, good luck.

Because he is going to have to pay those that he brings back, gone will be the payroll flex, gone will be the prospect, when he rolls the dice, you better hope he comes up seven. The real world barriers are against him or any GM in Cincy as it has been.

I can't help you if you don't get it.

REDblooded
04-21-2010, 09:51 PM
Thank (deity of choice) the Reds have fixed that problem!

:cool:

not really... There's ONE guy on the team that does it right now... But everybody wants him on the next flight out.

nate
04-21-2010, 09:59 PM
not really... There's ONE guy on the team that does it right now... But everybody wants him on the next flight out.

My post was tinged with sarcasm.

I have no idea who this "everybody" is.

REDblooded
04-21-2010, 10:21 PM
My post was tinged with sarcasm.

I have no idea who this "everybody" is.

oh I know it was... Stubbs...

Brutus
04-21-2010, 10:41 PM
It could be worse. Houston has 12 walks on the season and is scoring 2.69 runs per game!

Cyclone792
04-21-2010, 11:19 PM
It could be worse. Houston has 12 walks on the season and is scoring 2.69 runs per game!

The Reds pitching staff will break Houston's offense out of its season long slump next week.

westofyou
04-22-2010, 12:31 AM
The Reds pitching staff will break Houston's offense out of its season long slump next week.
They have 12 walks as team, several guys already have that many, David Wright has 17.... They have multiple players with 30 plus ab's and no walks, yesterday the next lowest team has 34 walks, in 400 team ab's their slash line was .215/.240/.285

It's a dome flashback line... even with the Reds pitching coming into their sites they can't go on like that, it's unpossible.

Spring~Fields
04-22-2010, 03:39 AM
I can't help you if you don't get it.

Just out of curiosity.

Are you still so pro Gomes, Stubbs, Cabrera now, as you were? Do you still have a preference for slugging over on base percentage? Are you still a strong advocate for Mr. Baker? Do you still hold as strong opinions on those as you did?

Ltlabner
04-22-2010, 06:49 AM
To follow up, I'm not talking about "Dunn and his insane walk rate," I'm talking about the abstract idea of the Reds improving their walk rate which would lead to fewer outs, more opportunities (one in the same) and making the other team's pitchers throw more pitches.

I'm not sure what's not to like about that unless one believes what they're doing right now is working.

Not sure how anybody could argue with the concept of patience, pitch selection, working the count and getting on base. Especially in a game that is built around getting on base to ultimately score runs.

edabbs44
04-22-2010, 07:50 AM
Just out of curiosity.

Are you still so pro Gomes, Stubbs, Cabrera now, as you were? Do you still have a preference for slugging over on base percentage? Are you still a strong advocate for Mr. Baker? Do you still hold as strong opinions on those as you did?

I still think Gomes was a solid addition at that price. As I said at the time, worst case he is a $1MM bench guy who slaughters lefties and that kind of guy for that kind of money has value. The other thing is that many wanted to hand LF to Mr OBP himself Chris Dickerson. He hasn't gotten off to a rip roaring start either. It is early for both, especially when OBP is supposed to be Chris' strong suit and he is sitting under .300 as we speak with a sterling 11/1 K/BB ratio.

I thought Stubbs deserved a shot this season as the starter. He obviously needs to take a breather and either get moved down in the order or moved down to AAA. Been saying it in the game threads the past couple of games.

I still think Cabrera was a decent signing. No one thought he was going to bring the hardware home but he has had some very timely hits so far. Again, at $3MM for one year not an earthshattering contract and Janish is definitely a step down from him.

My preference for SLG over OBP was on the micro level when discussing Dickerson versus Gomes and yes, that still stands.

I was never a strong advocate for Mr Baker.

TRF
04-22-2010, 09:42 AM
I sure wish we had Dunn's .163 avg and .379 OBP carrying this team right now... He's JUST what we're missing...

I'm sure Cabrera will revert to his .900+ OPS form any day now.

TRF
04-22-2010, 09:46 AM
I still think Cabrera was a decent signing. No one thought he was going to bring the hardware home but he has had some very timely hits so far. Again, at $3MM for one year not an earthshattering contract and Janish is definitely a step down from him.

Not defensively. Offensively OCab might have been better 5 years ago. Is he now?

defensively it isn't even remotely close.

nate
04-22-2010, 10:07 AM
oh I know it was... Stubbs...

Then I'm confused on what "doing it" is.

WRT your post, that is.

:cool:

edabbs44
04-22-2010, 10:12 AM
Not defensively. Offensively OCab might have been better 5 years ago. Is he now?

defensively it isn't even remotely close.

I think he is still better offensively.

Sure defensively it isn't close, but offensively you have no idea what Janish is capable of. Is his floor the .600 OPS we saw last season, or could it be worse? Was everyone overly comfortable going into this season with Janish as the man at SS?

TRF
04-22-2010, 10:15 AM
I think he is still better offensively.

Sure defensively it isn't close, but offensively you have no idea what Janish is capable of. Is his floor the .600 OPS we saw last season, or could it be worse? Was everyone overly comfortable going into this season with Janish as the man at SS?

I was. I though his defense at the key position in the IF could make up for his offensive shortcomings. I also don't think he hit 21 doubles by accident. Janish's offensive troubles are a lack of singles, he's a bit contact challenged.

But bat him 8th and let him save 20 runs. right now I'd be starting him every day over OCab, as he's been abysmal in the field and actually pretty bad at the plate.

Spring~Fields
04-22-2010, 02:02 PM
I still think Gomes was a solid addition at that price. As I said at the time, worst case he is a $1MM bench guy who slaughters lefties and that kind of guy for that kind of money has value. The other thing is that many wanted to hand LF to Mr OBP himself Chris Dickerson. He hasn't gotten off to a rip roaring start either. It is early for both, especially when OBP is supposed to be Chris' strong suit and he is sitting under .300 as we speak with a sterling 11/1 K/BB ratio.

I thought Stubbs deserved a shot this season as the starter. He obviously needs to take a breather and either get moved down in the order or moved down to AAA. Been saying it in the game threads the past couple of games.

I still think Cabrera was a decent signing. No one thought he was going to bring the hardware home but he has had some very timely hits so far. Again, at $3MM for one year not an earthshattering contract and Janish is definitely a step down from him.

My preference for SLG over OBP was on the micro level when discussing Dickerson versus Gomes and yes, that still stands.

I was never a strong advocate for Mr Baker.

I was just checking as I know that many of us can have early opinions that are naturally subject to change.

I think that you have pretty good response above. I have read your comments in game threads, I didn't see anything that I disagreed with. Not that I am looking for something to disagree with.

For myself, I can't say that a player is or is not unless they receive enough regular playing time. Some players do well in that part-time bench roll and some do not. I am not sure of what we are seeing.

I am pretty sure that we would agree that it is somewhat unpleasant at this time on the entertaiment side too. I guess it's up to Walt to fix the fuzzy picture.

oregonred
04-23-2010, 12:13 AM
The odd thing is that the Reds much maligned offense is a surprising 9th in runs scored while the pitching/defense is a putrid 31st in runs allowed.

Certainly this won't be a pitching staff that yields 6 runs a game. Although subtracting your top 2 starters from the beginning of '09 (Volquez and thus far Harang) doesn't bode well.

7-9 is fortunate. A lot has gone wrong so far this season and the pitching staff certainly will improve going forward.

M2
04-23-2010, 07:55 AM
The odd thing is that the Reds much maligned offense is a surprising 9th in runs scored while the pitching/defense is a putrid 31st in runs allowed.

There's only 30 teams in MLB. So, bad as they may be, the Reds aren't 31st in runs allowed.

In terms of runs per game, which is the one that really counts (because not every team has played the same number of games), here's how the Reds rank:

Offense - 7th NL, 10th MLB
Pitching - 14th NL, 28th MLB

Yet it should be noted that the offense is wildly outscoring its OB and SLG. If the Reds continue to play the way they're playing they're going to score a lot less, particularly if they don't start getting more baserunners.

TheNext44
04-23-2010, 01:47 PM
There's only 30 teams in MLB. So, bad as they may be, the Reds aren't 31st in runs allowed.

In terms of runs per game, which is the one that really counts (because not every team has played the same number of games), here's how the Reds rank:

Offense - 7th NL, 10th MLB
Pitching - 14th NL, 28th MLB

Yet it should be noted that the offense is wildly outscoring its OB and SLG. If the Reds continue to play the way they're playing they're going to score a lot less, particularly if they don't start getting more baserunners.

It must be the genius behind Baker's lineups. :D

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 12:46 PM
Pitching
RK TEAM 2009 2008
1 San Diego
2 St. Louis
3 Oakland
4 San Francisco
5 Seattle
6 NY Mets
7 Tampa Bay
8 Minnesota
9 NY Yankees
10 Cleveland
11 Colorado
12 Philadelphia
13 Texas
14 Toronto
15 Atlanta
16 Chicago Cubs
17 Houston
18 Florida
19 Detroit
20 LA Angels
21 Baltimore
22 Boston
23 Chicago Sox
24 Milwaukee
25 Arizona
26 LA Dodgers
27 Kansas City
28 Washington
29 Cincinnati RK 9 RK 23
30 Pittsburgh

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/pitching/type/expanded-2

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 12:48 PM
RK TEAM OBP 2009 2008
1 LA Dodgers .373
2 Detroit .369
3 NY Yankees .369
4 Milwaukee .366
5 Minnesota .361
6 Philadelphia .359
7 Washington .354
8 Arizona .345
9 San Francisco .341
10 Kansas City .337
11 Chicago Cubs .332
12 San Diego .332
13 Colorado .330
14 Tampa Bay .330
15 St. Louis .328
16 Atlanta .327
17 Florida .324
18 LA Angels .323
19 Seattle .323
20 Boston .321
21 NY Mets .321
22 Oakland .320
23 Pittsburgh .312
24 Texas .311
25 Cincinnati .310 RK 28 .318 RK 25 .321
26 Cleveland .306
27 Toronto .306
28 Chicago Sox .302
29 Baltimore .293
30 Houston .259

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/sort/onBasePct/order/true


2010 BA OBP SLG OPS
Rank 21 .243 Rank 25 .310 Rank 20 .398 Rank 20 .708
2009
Rank 29 .247 Rank 28 .318 Rank 27 .394 Rank 27 .712
2008
Rank 29 .247 Rank 25 .321 Rank 21 .408 Rank 23 .729

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 12:51 PM
Overall Major League Baseball
MLB Win PCT 2009 2008
Tampa Bay .706
Minnesota .706
NY Yankees .688
Philadelphia .625
St. Louis .625
San Diego .625
Oakland .611
Toronto .588
Florida .563
San Francisco .563
Washington .529
Detroit. .529
Seattle .529
Milwaukee .500
Colorado .500
LA Angels .500
Atlanta .500
NY Mets .471
LA Dodgers .438
Arizona .438
Texas .438
Pittsburgh .438
Cleveland .438
Cincinnati .412 .481 .457
Chicago Cubs .412
Boston .412
Kansas City .375
Houston .375
Chicago Sox .353
Baltimore .118

http://espn.go.com/mlb/standings/_/group/9

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 12:59 PM
Payroll GM Cincinnati St. Louis GM
2010 Jocketty $ 71,761,542 $ 93,540,751 Mozeliak CIN 7 10 .412 STL 10 6 .625
2009 Jocketty $ 73,558,500 $ 88,528,409 Mozeliak CIN 78 84 .481 STL 91 71 .562
2008 Jocketty $ 74,117,695 $ 99,624,449 Mozeliak CIN 74 88 .457 STL 86 76 .531
2007 Krivsky $ 68,904,980 $ 90,286,823 Jocketty CIN 72 90 .444 STL 78 84 .481
2006 Krivsky $ 60,909,519 $ 88,891,371 Jocketty CIN 80 82 .494 STL 83 78 .516
2005 O'Brien $ 61,892,583 $ 92,106,833 Jocketty CIN 73 89 .451 STL 100 62.617
2004 O'Brien $ 46,615,250 $ 83,228,333 Jocketty CIN 76 86 .469 STL 105 57.648
2003 Bowden $ 59,355,667 $ 83,786,666 Jocketty CIN 69 93 .426 STL 85 77 .525
2002 Bowden $ 45,050,390 $ 74,660,875 Jocketty CIN 78 84 .481 STL 97 65 .599
2001 Bowden $ 48,784,000 $ 78,333,333 Jocketty CIN 66 96 .407 STL 93 69 .574
2000 Bowden $ 44,217,500 $ 63,093,023 Jocketty CIN 85 77 .525 STL 95 67 .586
1999 Bowden $ 42,142,761 $ 46,248,195 Jocketty CIN 96 67 .589 STL 75 86 .466
1998 Bowden $ 21,995,000 $ 52,572,500 Jocketty CIN 77 85 .475 STL 83 79 .512
1997 Bowden $ 46,267,000 $ 44,179,167 Jocketty CIN 76 86 .469 STL 73 89 .451
1996 Bowden $ 40,719,334 $ 38,741,666 Jocketty CIN 81 81 .500 STL 88 74 .543
1995 Bowden $ 37,240,667 $ 30,956,000 Jocketty CIN 85 59 .590 STL 62 81 .434
1994 Bowden $ 39,826,333 $ 28,956,001 Maxvill CIN 66 48 .579 STL 53 61 .465
1993 Bowden $ 42,851,167 $ 22,615,334 Maxvill CIN 73 89 .451 STL 87 75 .537
1992 Bowden $ 35,203,999 $ 26,889,836 Maxvill CIN 90 72 .556 STL 83 79 .512
1991 Quinn $ 25,369,166 $ 21,435,001 Maxvill CIN 74 88 .457 STL 84 78 .519
1990 Quinn $ 14,769,500 $ 20,923,334 Maxvill CIN 91 71 .562 STL 70 92 .432

*Jocketty hired April 23, 2008 - present
*Jocketty hired Special Adviser January 11, 2008
*Krivsky hired February 8, 2006 fired April 23, 2008
*O'Brien hired October 27, 2003 fired January 23, 2006
*Bowden hired 1992 fired 2003
*Jocketty GM St. Louis October 14, 1994 - October 3, 2007

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 01:37 PM
Price of talent, production and players goes up:
Rich with financial advantage - St. Louis general managers become superstars and geniuses
Poor with a financial disadvantage - Reds general managers become magically, mysteriously become incompetent buffoons, year after year, no matter who they were, Bowden, O’Brien, Krivsky, and the once superstar genius, Walt Jocketty, all become losers.

Reduced disparity between Cincinnati and St. Louis general managers or Reds gm’s with payroll edge
Quinn, Bowden competent, competitive, even edging the competition

Jekyll Hyde Walt Jocketty
Rich St. Louis Walt genius/superstar
Poor Cincinnati Walt Jocketty magically, mysteriously incompetent becomes buffoon

Walt Jocketty does have the highest payrolls than any general manager in the entire history of the Cincinnati Reds
Walt Jocketty is being paid more than any general manager in the history of the Reds

Walt Jocketty has set in a general managers position for a large part of 16 years (St.Louis/Cincinnati) with a large disparity in financial resources to his advanatage over previous Reds general managers.

RedsManRick
04-24-2010, 01:41 PM
Interesting too see, SF, if not surprising. Here's the data you posted in a slightly more friendly format.


BA OBP SLG OPS R/G AVG OBP SLG OPS R/G
2010 .243 .310 .398 .708 4.82 12 15 12 12 6
2009 .247 .318 .394 .712 4.15 15 15 13 13 11
2008 .247 .321 .408 .729 4.35 12 13 11 23 12
2007 .267 .335 .437 .772 4.83 T8 8 5 7 7

I hesitate to place offensive production on anybody other than the players, but there is a clear trend...

westofyou
04-24-2010, 01:46 PM
Walt Jocketty is being paid more than any general manager in the history of the Reds
In a vacuum called team history that means something, compared to his peers in today's marketplace it means nothing.

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 01:47 PM
In a vacuum called team history that means something, compared to his peers in today's marketplace it means nothing.

I think there is a whole lot more information there above, than just that one line. Don't you?

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 01:53 PM
Interesting too see, SF, if not surprising. Here's the data you posted in a slightly more friendly format.



BA OBP SLG OPS RKS AVG OBP SLG OPS
2010 .243 .310 .398 .708 21 25 20 20
2009 .247 .318 .394 .712 29 28 27 27
2008 .247 .321 .408 .729 29 25 21 23

Thanks Rick, that is a much neater, clearer, and cleaner way to format it.

I thought it was an interesting comparision throughout the years of the Reds and St. Louis. Knowing that it takes years to build up a professional sports franchise, year upon year, leading to the next. And seeing that St. Louis for a substantial time, regardless of who the general managers are, have had very large financial advantages to build upon year after year.

Though Bowden and Quinn were competitive with St. Louis and whoever their general manager were, when the dollars were closer to being comparable, not exactly the same, but, closer to comparable. But when the price of talent, production and players went up in the decade of 2000, the Cincinnati organization falls behind. No matter who the general manager.

Two former general managers, Bowden and Jocketty who had a reasonably good reputation as winning or competitive general managers in the past, become losers with the Reds in the 2000 decade.

RedsManRick
04-24-2010, 02:18 PM
To be fair, SF, I'm not sure that it makes much sense at all to look at offense in isolation. Clearly the talent changed and it changed in large part due to an emphasis on defense. 2009 bears that out. So far in 2010, not so much.


BA OBP SLG OPS R/G DER AVG OBP SLG OPS R/G DER
2010 .243 .310 .398 .708 4.82 .672 12 15 12 12 6 13
2009 .247 .318 .394 .712 4.15 .705 15 15 13 13 11 3
2008 .247 .321 .408 .729 4.35 .673 12 13 11 12 12 16
2007 .267 .335 .437 .772 4.83 .678 T8 8 5 7 7 13

As you'll see above, I also changed the ranks to NL only, since otherwise it's not apples to apples. I also added 2007 so we'd have a pre-WK/Dusty baseline.

I think it's fascinating that our R/G is so out of line with our rate stats. Clearly we've driven in more runs than we should expect to long term. If the offense keeps producing an OPS in the low 700s, our R/G will drop back to the low 4s.

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 02:46 PM
To be fair, SF, I'm not sure that it makes much sense at all to look at offense in isolation. Clearly the talent changed and it changed in large part due to an emphasis on defense. 2009 bears that out. So far in 2010, not so much.


BA OBP SLG OPS R/G DER AVG OBP SLG OPS R/G DER
2010 .243 .310 .398 .708 4.82 .672 12 15 12 12 6 13
2009 .247 .318 .394 .712 4.15 .705 15 15 13 13 11 3
2008 .247 .321 .408 .729 4.35 .673 12 13 11 12 12 16
2007 .267 .335 .437 .772 4.83 .678 T8 8 5 7 7 13

As you'll see above, I also changed the ranks to NL only, since otherwise it's not apples to apples. I also added 2007 so we'd have a pre-WK/Dusty baseline.

I think it's fascinating that our R/G is so out of line with our rate stats. Clearly we've driven in more runs than we should expect to long term. If the offense keeps producing an OPS in the low 700s, our R/G will drop back to the low 4s.

See Rick, I know that you know in quite a bit of detail how the Reds are doing in year to year trends, and that tells you whether the organization and a Reds general manager is making real headway in comparison to the other's with similiar resources. Time, Money, player production.

I think it is very interesting, the finer and fuller details that you add, telling the fullest possible story of the big picture, not just now, in 2010. But dating clear back and how they, the Reds vs. the Cards came to 2010.

I wanted to look at the present with small samples, and then work backword and forward, and then look at the money, and blend in the comparisons using the different years, decades, general managers, and of course money to build with year upon year....to get to today.............Though I don't think Mr. Jocketty is or has done significantly better than Reds gm's with less money, less time, and less years experience as a gm. Not in Cincinnati compared to not past bad Reds teams, but to the St. Louis Cardinals.

Because:
Some of us use selective pieces that we can grab here or there in comparing the general managers. To isolate on one or two general managers, as if a team is built in one or two years, calling them either a simplified good or bad, all or nothing, which is not true.

I am not saying that you are doing that, but other’s and I have.

Because of time, and the fact, so many people respectfully, won’t even take a long look and draw their own conclusions, even if one does spend a great deal time, and make a nice effort to provide a comparison, they won’t. They will pick out one line, and dismiss, 50 - 100 other lines, that are good.

So I tried to show the pitching is hurting the Reds in 2010, and compared it to the over simplified rankings in 08, 09 for a quick comparison. With a link to allow each reader to make their own conclusions

Then brought in the batting average, on base percentage, slugging percentage and OPS, and how they compare to 08, 09, which should give some comparison to see if the talent/production is moving forward under the current general manager in pitching and hitting. With a link to allow each reader to make their own conclusions

Then I look at the money, and compare what each general manager did in St. Louis and Cincinnati, with what they had to work with in comparison to each other in win pct. It is laid out so anyone can draw their own conclusions, dating back to 1990 working forward, with different general managers for both St. Louis and Cincinnati.

How did St. Louis become so good, so competent, no matter who the general manager, and Cincinnati, no matter who the general manager was or is, becomes so incompetent, in a such a bad position. I see money, building with the pieces, year upon year, then adjusting the pieces and parts (that is players) with money, and building some more, for years.

I know we select several franchises that have had success with limited financial resources, but, to completely dismiss money and the years with that money, especially that money, that one can build with, year after year, to just throw that out, has hole in it.

Give 15, 25, 30 million more a year, to a general manager with comparable people working with them and competence, for years, well he, is going to blow away the competition with similar people and competency and much less money to work with and to build with year upon year, leading up to 2010.

I have to leave now, but when I get back, I will spend time reading and truly looking at what you have posted, line for line. Because I know it takes a lot of time to make the effort, that you do, and you do a very good work, and it deserves, for people to take some time, to actually look it over and to learn from it.
Thank Rick.

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 03:01 PM
I think it's fascinating that our R/G is so out of line with our rate stats. Clearly we've driven in more runs than we should expect to long term. If the offense keeps producing an OPS in the low 700s, our R/G will drop back to the low 4s.

Yes, I thought that too was very interesting, I wasn't sure how to reconcile that, I see the Reds are scoring a lot more runs, and with the short sample project a large increase, while they are out of sight on the RA. Though their hitting slash stats don't show that they should be scoring more, to that large of an increase projection.

So all of that will become adjusted over the time of the season, right ??? that is a question.

But the pitching is going to adjust and improve too isn't it?

But has the St. Louis GM's, truly been better than previous, current or previous Reds GM's dating back to 1990's, then looking at 2000, Cards gm's look great, hm? Let's say, equally intelligent, hard working, smart working gm's the same time, but different money, by large amounts, who should come out on top? If all else was reasonably equal? We know it wasn't an equal playing field for Reds GM's. Not just one year, but year upon building year.

RedsManRick
04-24-2010, 03:29 PM
In the FWIW department, based on a quick analysis of NL run production to create a R/G estimation formula (used a multivariate linear regression o give me the best weights - including AVG & SB did not increase accuracy at all), the 2010 Reds should be expected to score 647 runs (.399) given their current OBP and SLG. Yikes!

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f222/TheRedsMan/NLRunProduction05-09-1.jpg

mth123
04-24-2010, 04:25 PM
To be fair, SF, I'm not sure that it makes much sense at all to look at offense in isolation. Clearly the talent changed and it changed in large part due to an emphasis on defense. 2009 bears that out. So far in 2010, not so much.


BA OBP SLG OPS R/G DER AVG OBP SLG OPS R/G DER
2010 .243 .310 .398 .708 4.82 .672 12 15 12 12 6 13
2009 .247 .318 .394 .712 4.15 .705 15 15 13 13 11 3
2008 .247 .321 .408 .729 4.35 .673 12 13 11 12 12 16
2007 .267 .335 .437 .772 4.83 .678 T8 8 5 7 7 13

As you'll see above, I also changed the ranks to NL only, since otherwise it's not apples to apples. I also added 2007 so we'd have a pre-WK/Dusty baseline.

I think it's fascinating that our R/G is so out of line with our rate stats. Clearly we've driven in more runs than we should expect to long term. If the offense keeps producing an OPS in the low 700s, our R/G will drop back to the low 4s.

So the DER now is the same as the '08 team that had Dunn, Griffey, EdE, Kepp, Ross/Bako/Javy and a shaky at the beginning Joey Votto? Its why the defensive stats leave me a bit cold. I'm guessing the DER has gone down largely in relation to the number of hard hit balls allowed by the staff. Its not luck and the defense isn't as bad as back then. Balls are simply getting smoked and the defenders really don't have much chance. BABIP and its defensive counterparts only tell a little of the story IMO.

pedro
04-24-2010, 04:26 PM
I think there is a whole lot more information there above, than just that one line. Don't you?

Not really.

The problem I see is that after years of failure and bad management a lot of Reds fans have unrealistic expectations about how quickly things can be turned around or what the bellwethers of organizational improvement actually are.

The question you have have to ask yourself is this.

Are the Cincinnati Reds in better shape as an overall organization than they were 5 years ago?

To me the answer is clearly yes, regardless of the fact that they still aren't anywhere close to a playoff team let alone a world series contender.

Throw around terms like "buffoon" and "incompetent" all you want and demand for someones head on a platter every time they have a bad game. It may make you feel better but it isn't a solution that's going to get the Reds any closer to where they need to be than they are now.

In short, it took years to destroy this franchise and it's going to take years rebuild it. Meanwhile, it's still a business that intends to make a profit so they just aren't going to the slash and burn route. I know that's painful for some to accept but it's a fact.

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 05:42 PM
Not really.

The problem I see is that after years of failure and bad management a lot of Reds fans have unrealistic expectations about how quickly things can be turned around or what the bellwethers of organizational improvement actually are.

Since almost everything outside of the numbers is subjective because it is opinion and all opinions are argumentitive.

That paragraph above, could be said for any Reds general manager dating to Bowdern early years, O'Brien, Krivsky, and right up to Jocketty (and should be) who hasn't produced anything more than they have. He isn't .500. Now Bowden was before the financial disparity against his nearest rivals gained a significant advantage. Without applying that too each GM and the dollars, I can't consider it an accurate interpretation. Your slanting it toward Jocketty and in his favor when it fits the other's better than him.

It's clear in the numbers that are not subjective.



The question you have have to ask yourself is this.

Are the Cincinnati Reds in better shape as an overall organization than they were 5 years ago?


There nothing to substantiate that the Reds are significantly better in the numbers. Not in the players slash stats, team batting, pitching is myth, and showing it.

The win loss record and win pct supports that they are not improved, they actually might or might have regressed to 2002 and the year after that.

Are they showing better results last year or this year than five years ago? Not really.



To me the answer is clearly yes, regardless of the fact that they still aren't anywhere close to a playoff team let alone a world series contender.

Throw around terms like "buffoon" and "incompetent" all you want and demand for someones head on a platter every time they have a bad game. It may make you feel better but it isn't a solution that's going to get the Reds any closer to where they need to be than they are now.

In short, it took years to destroy this franchise and it's going to take years rebuild it. Meanwhile, it's still a business that intends to make a profit so they just aren't going to the slash and burn route. I know that's painful for some to accept but it's a fact.

All that is just subjective, not supported by numbers. Just an opinion from interpretation.

The term competent, and bufffoon were simply input to express a type of exaggeration that is within the thread that argues actually many different type of arguments, not just one thing by any means.

You can't show us improvement in the win pcts. over what a St. Louis is doing.

Win pct is the bottom line of all the other detail and other stats of the increments that make up the sum total in win pct.

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 05:52 PM
In the FWIW department, based on a quick analysis of NL run production to create a R/G estimation formula (used a multivariate linear regression o give me the best weights - including AVG & SB did not increase accuracy at all), the 2010 Reds should be expected to score 647 runs (.399) given their current OBP and SLG. Yikes!

http://i48.photobucket.com/albums/f222/TheRedsMan/NLRunProduction05-09-1.jpg

The runs that are odd in reflection of the other stats.

I think Rick we can find that in the game logs, and against certain pitchers, that threw that out of whack, like some mini outliers.

When certain pitchers, like the Dodgers are bad, or some of the heroic last effort wins that they scored against poor pitching. Padded those runs

Clearly when they face decent or better MLB pitching they show their truer colors, not oustanding pitching but pitching above AAAA or AAA level.

I don't want to go to that detail and effort, as you can see the people want to run with words, and that distracts from numerical facts that takes hours to work up. Just for one to toss out some selective subjective defense mechanism for their favorite that they can't support with anything but loosely used words.

Not saying that you do that, because YOU don't.

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 05:56 PM
Payroll GM Cincinnati St. Louis GM
2010 Jocketty $ 71,761,542 $ 93,540,751 Mozeliak CIN 7 10 .412 STL 10 6 .625
2009 Jocketty $ 73,558,500 $ 88,528,409 Mozeliak CIN 78 84 .481 STL 91 71 .562
2008 Jocketty $ 74,117,695 $ 99,624,449 Mozeliak CIN 74 88 .457 STL 86 76 .531
2007 Krivsky $ 68,904,980 $ 90,286,823 Jocketty CIN 72 90 .444 STL 78 84 .481
2006 Krivsky $ 60,909,519 $ 88,891,371 Jocketty CIN 80 82 .494 STL 83 78 .516
2005 O'Brien $ 61,892,583 $ 92,106,833 Jocketty CIN 73 89 .451 STL 100 62.617
2004 O'Brien $ 46,615,250 $ 83,228,333 Jocketty CIN 76 86 .469 STL 105 57.648
2003 Bowden $ 59,355,667 $ 83,786,666 Jocketty CIN 69 93 .426 STL 85 77 .525
2002 Bowden $ 45,050,390 $ 74,660,875 Jocketty CIN 78 84 .481 STL 97 65 .599
2001 Bowden $ 48,784,000 $ 78,333,333 Jocketty CIN 66 96 .407 STL 93 69 .574
2000 Bowden $ 44,217,500 $ 63,093,023 Jocketty CIN 85 77 .525 STL 95 67 .586
1999 Bowden $ 42,142,761 $ 46,248,195 Jocketty CIN 96 67 .589 STL 75 86 .466
1998 Bowden $ 21,995,000 $ 52,572,500 Jocketty CIN 77 85 .475 STL 83 79 .512
1997 Bowden $ 46,267,000 $ 44,179,167 Jocketty CIN 76 86 .469 STL 73 89 .451
1996 Bowden $ 40,719,334 $ 38,741,666 Jocketty CIN 81 81 .500 STL 88 74 .543
1995 Bowden $ 37,240,667 $ 30,956,000 Jocketty CIN 85 59 .590 STL 62 81 .434
1994 Bowden $ 39,826,333 $ 28,956,001 Maxvill CIN 66 48 .579 STL 53 61 .465
1993 Bowden $ 42,851,167 $ 22,615,334 Maxvill CIN 73 89 .451 STL 87 75 .537
1992 Bowden $ 35,203,999 $ 26,889,836 Maxvill CIN 90 72 .556 STL 83 79 .512
1991 Quinn $ 25,369,166 $ 21,435,001 Maxvill CIN 74 88 .457 STL 84 78 .519
1990 Quinn $ 14,769,500 $ 20,923,334 Maxvill CIN 91 71 .562 STL 70 92 .432

*Jocketty hired April 23, 2008 - present
*Jocketty hired Special Adviser January 11, 2008
*Krivsky hired February 8, 2006 fired April 23, 2008
*O'Brien hired October 27, 2003 fired January 23, 2006
*Bowden hired 1992 fired 2003
*Jocketty GM St. Louis October 14, 1994 - October 3, 2007


It might be said that Jocketty actually has the Reds regressing back to the 2002/2003 seasons under Bowden. The objective is to be equal to or greater than St. Louis or the division leaders in baseball, not to be better than other under funded, bad Reds teams under each of the past and present general managers.

All things being equal

An intelligent, hard working, smart working GM for the Reds should get like or similar results as a GM of the same intelligence, hard working, smart working, GM of St. Louis. Unless there is a large disparity in funding. The two being equal, the one with the most money by 15 million, 20 million, 25 million, and 30 million plus a year,, is suppose to get better results than the under funded general manager of the Reds.

Frankly St. Louis and their general managers have blown away Reds GM’s including, including the Reds GM, Walt Jocketty.

Look at the numbers, see what you see.

nate
04-24-2010, 06:12 PM
Although winning percentage is probably a good goal when you're below .500 for a period of...oh...I don't know...how about...ten years, the next step is games behind at the end of the season.

How far are the Reds from looking down at the rest of the division in October?

pedro
04-24-2010, 07:14 PM
Since almost everything outside of the numbers is subjective because it is opinion and all opinions are argumentitive.

That paragraph above, could be said for any Reds general manager dating to Bowdern early years, O'Brien, Krivsky, and right up to Jocketty (and should be) who hasn't produced anything more than they have. He isn't .500. Now Bowden was before the financial disparity against his nearest rivals gained a significant advantage. Without applying that too each GM and the dollars, I can't consider it an accurate interpretation. Your slanting it toward Jocketty and in his favor when it fits the other's better than him.

It's clear in the numbers that are not subjective.


There nothing to substantiate that the Reds are significantly better in the numbers. Not in the players slash stats, team batting, pitching is myth, and showing it.

The win loss record and win pct supports that they are not improved, they actually might or might have regressed to 2002 and the year after that.

Are they showing better results last year or this year than five years ago? Not really.



All that is just subjective, not supported by numbers. Just an opinion from interpretation.

The term competent, and bufffoon were simply input to express a type of exaggeration that is within the thread that argues actually many different type of arguments, not just one thing by any means.

You can't show us improvement in the win pcts. over what a St. Louis is doing.

Win pct is the bottom line of all the other detail and other stats of the increments that make up the sum total in win pct.

Fine. Bark at the moon and call people buffoons all you want.

I just don't find your argument to be that convincing nor very lucid to be quite honest.

Actually using complete or even understandable sentences would be a grand start IMHO.

edabbs44
04-24-2010, 07:45 PM
Price of talent, production and players goes up:
Rich with financial advantage - St. Louis general managers become superstars and geniuses
Poor with a financial disadvantage - Reds general managers become magically, mysteriously become incompetent buffoons, year after year, no matter who they were, Bowden, OíBrien, Krivsky, and the once superstar genius, Walt Jocketty, all become losers.

Reduced disparity between Cincinnati and St. Louis general managers or Reds gmís with payroll edge
Quinn, Bowden competent, competitive, even edging the competition

Jekyll Hyde Walt Jocketty
Rich St. Louis Walt genius/superstar
Poor Cincinnati Walt Jocketty magically, mysteriously incompetent becomes buffoon

Walt Jocketty does have the highest payrolls than any general manager in the entire history of the Cincinnati Reds
Walt Jocketty is being paid more than any general manager in the history of the Reds

Walt Jocketty has set in a general managers position for a large part of 16 years (St.Louis/Cincinnati) with a large disparity in financial resources to his advanatage over previous Reds general managers.

If you don't understand that this is of zero relevance since he inherited most of the current financial commitments when he took the job, then I have no idea what you are thinking.

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 09:25 PM
Fine. Bark at the moon and call people buffoons all you want.

I just don't find your argument to be that convincing nor very lucid to be quite honest.

Actually using complete or even understandable sentences would be a grand start IMHO.

Right, you don't like what you think you are seeing, so blame me for the numbers. Really? That is adolescent. I did that in junior high, with the word game, and so did you. ;) That is why you are being selective, using only words, with no supporting data, and selectively picking out an exaggeration of loose terms. Plus I knew immediately that you did not read or study what it said, you missed year after year, building year upon year, which clearly indicates the writer was talking about time and resources. So again. What's your real purpose and points? If you had actually read, you would have found that I called no one buffoons, but, I am perceiving something differently now.

Try this. The numbers only, facts, not bluster. Show me what you have to support that the Cincinnati Reds have gained to be equal to or might have better to overtake the better teams in baseball. You can't. So what are your comments really about?



overall win pct
2000 tied 11th .525
2001 tied 25th .407
2002 tied 17th .481
2003 24th .426
2004 19th .469
2005 23rd .454
2006 tied 15th .494
2007 tied 23rd .444
2008 tied 21st .457
2009 19th .481
2010 27th .389


Now here are some words for us to play with down below, but our words when they come to the Reds mean nothing. Some gamesmanships in one-upmanship is about are they are, in a yeah but, this or yeah but that, cycle.

People have been spending their time in this word toss for years, but the Reds are what they are. Many of us knew what the Reds were before spring training and they are not surprising other's or myself.

This, the numbers above represent who the Reds were and who the Reds are.

It doesn't matter who the general manager is or was

It doesn't matter who the manager is or was

It doesn't matter who the pitching or hitting coach is or was

It doesn't matter if they had prospects waiting in line or not, then or now

It doesn't matter what words we tossed out back and forth then or now

The Reds were and are who the numbers say they are in comparisons to the rest of baseball and we can't change those numbers, no matter how many words we toss out there.

Our words, opinions right or wrong, have nothing to do with the Cincinnati Reds organization, they make the plans, choices, decisions, and the outcomes are a direct result of those, not ours. Thank God.

For that above to change in a more positive direction they have to have producers who have variables, data points, stats, production numbers that are equal to or better than the other competitions producers who have variables, data points, stats, and production numbers in the higher levels of accomplishment in major league baseball.

What everyone wants to do is to keep saying a bad Reds team improved or hasn't, but, they habitually leave out one primary factor, the competition in baseball, and how the current Reds team stands up to their production and performance numbers, not some past bad Reds team.

You can’t compare the Reds to the Reds and get a truer read on if they have improved, yes, they might go up in runs scored, and they might even go even farther down in runs allowed, but that does not mean that they will reach or surpass the levels of the other teams, that might just be slightly better this or another year themselves.

So when that happens, the Reds will gain little from improving over past bad Reds teams that were poorly and under funded in comparison to the benchmarks in their entertainment field for an entire decade and still running.

They, people want to lay claim to some minuscule improvement, wording it as if it is a substantive improvement, when in fact the Reds no matter who the general manager or manager have NOT cracked even a look at .500 since 2000

The reason that below at or at .500 occurs in comparison to what are called the better or good teams, is the Reds regardless are what they are.

All the little stats, in the micro go into making the macro, below.500 Reds.

The money that the Reds spend, buys what it buys, though the cost of players went up just past the turn of the century, and the Reds lagged behind, they still are.

Look at the numbers, not some words, from me or others. Those words are just some fun entertaining sports talk, like in a more sophisticated sports bar, but actually mean little. The people matter, but the words, not so much, we have no influence on the Reds outcomes and results, regardless.

Prospects are prospects, the majority never make it to major league baseball, and an even higher percentage are not difference makers. Until a prospect is an established major leaguer, making real contributions to a winning organization, they really can’t for little, if anything at the major league level.

As far as time. Using the terms, year after year to build upon is a reference to it taking time. Though while diligent general managers and their lieutenants are working long, hard, smart, diligently, year after year, the ones that have the greater money to buy or rent human capital (players) of the higher quality in major league baseball as no surprise will out produce the lower revenue teams that have equal output from their think tank.

Love, hope, faith, belief, are great, wonderful, they have nothing to do with the numerical recordation’s.

Equal production numbers produce like/similar outcomes, lesser production numbers produce less, higher of course higher outcomes year after year in production.

To change the Reds results the production numbers must be moved upward by talent that can produce those higher numbers to get greater winning outcomes. Not some hope, optimism, pessimism, love, faith, fan loyalty, Reds marketing spin or puffery, whatever, but real upward significantly improved production numbers.

Those won’t come from what the Reds have to spend, and they haven’t. 2000 - 2010.

Show me the improvements over the better teams, and at least equal to them. Equal to or greater than. Where are they. :)

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 09:42 PM
If you don't understand that this is of zero relevance since he inherited most of the current financial commitments when he took the job, then I have no idea what you are thinking.

What do I care about superflous words, with meaningless subjectiveness?
Word toss? I don't think so. :)

I already know where you are going to claim someone is great and another is terrible, i.e. some exaggeration as in buffoon. When none of the Reds general managers have won anything let alone achieved .500, except Bowden.

The rest if we used your past words, are all bad, all or nothing thinking, which is wrong. But, even the Reds general manager Walt Jocketty, hasn't reached .500........wise man would have said, see I was trying to tell you that Walt would do better with more money, and those payroll figures with the standings and results would support you, but, you would have to give an allowance for the other gm's who had the same circumstances, and you can't do that can you? :)

Just give me the numbers that prove that the Reds are equal to or greater than the good or better teams in baseball.

Show me some numbers that are not your's or mine that say, the Reds are now equal to or greater than the competition. Or even a .500 team.

pedro
04-24-2010, 09:46 PM
For someone who says he doesn't like words you sure use a lot of them.

There are no numbers that will tell you that the Reds are equal to or better than their competition right now because they're not. But firing Jocketty right now isn't going to fix that overnight and it very well could make things worse.

jojo
04-24-2010, 09:48 PM
So far, it looks like Jocketty has given up a little bit more production than he has received, but it is heavily weighted by the Adam Dunn trade, which greatly helped the team's defense and gave a bunch of salary relief. Overall, I'd say he's doing okay.

Performance of players obtained by Walt Jocketty while with the Reds:

Name G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO HBP SH BA OBP SLG OPS
Willy Taveras 102 437 404 56 97 11 2 1 15 25 6 18 58 2 11 0.240 0.275 0.285 0.559
Andy Phillips 37 57 52 10 14 2 0 3 6 0 0 4 10 1 0 0.269 0.333 0.481 0.814
Danny Richar 23 46 44 5 10 2 0 0 3 1 0 1 10 0 1 0.227 0.244 0.273 0.517
Wilkin Castillo 22 37 35 6 11 1 0 0 2 0 0 1 5 0 1 0.314 0.333 0.343 0.676
Ramon Hernandez 91 366 317 28 80 15 1 5 39 1 0 38 39 3 4 0.252 0.334 0.353 0.688
Drew Sutton 42 76 66 10 14 4 1 1 9 0 2 7 20 1 2 0.212 0.297 0.348 0.646
Scott Rolen 50 204 173 32 47 8 1 6 28 1 3 25 23 3 0 0.272 0.368 0.434 0.801
WladimirBalentin40 125 110 12 29 7 1 3 11 1 1 15 27 0 0 0.264 0.352 0.427 0.779
DarnellMcDonald 47 111 105 12 28 6 1 2 10 1 0 5 31 1 0 0.267 0.306 0.400 0.706
Laynce Nix 123 348 318 42 76 26 1 15 47 0 1 23 84 2 1 0.239 0.291 0.469 0.760
Jonny Gomes 111 360 321 46 85 18 1 22 61 3 1 28 97 6 0 0.265 0.331 0.533 0.863
Micah Owings 48 66 62 7 16 5 1 3 13 0 0 1 21 1 1 0.258 0.277 0.516 0.793
Corky Miller 21 69 56 4 10 1 0 1 10 0 0 9 14 1 2 0.179 0.299 0.250 0.549
Orlando Cabrera 13 57 53 5 12 3 0 2 9 1 0 1 5 0 0 0.226 0.228 0.396 0.624
Totals 770 2359 2116 275 529 109 10 64 263 34 14 176 444 21 23 0.250 0.309 0.402 0.711

Name W L G GS CG SHO GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP WP ERA WHIP
Nick Masset 8 2 92 0 0 0 20 0 100.3 83 39 35 11 35 93 0 9 3.14 1.18
Micah Owings 9 12 29 19 0 0 4 1 126.7 130 76 72 18 67 76 7 1 5.12 1.56
Justin Lehr 5 3 11 11 1 1 0 0 65.3 72 39 39 14 28 33 3 3 5.37 1.53
Kip Wells 2 3 10 7 0 0 1 0 46.3 37 24 24 5 22 25 5 0 4.66 1.27
Arthur Rhodes 1 2 72 0 0 0 10 0 59.0 39 17 16 4 22 54 1 2 2.44 1.03
Mike Leake 0 0 2 2 0 0 0 0 13.7 11 4 4 0 12 8 0 1 2.63 1.68
Totals 25 22 216 39 1 1 35 1 411.3 372 199 190 52 186 289 16 16 4.16

Performance of players departed from the Reds since Walt Jocketty became GM:

Name G PA AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB SO HBP SH BA OBP SLG OPS
Ken Griffey 169 645 556 63 127 30 0 22 78 0 0 83 112 2 0 0.228 0.329 0.401 0.730
Adam Dunn 217 903 733 111 188 40 0 47 133 1 1 172 232 6 0 0.256 0.405 0.503 0.909
Andy Phillips 4 5 5 1 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0.200 0.200 0.200 0.400
Ryan Freel 41 101 88 11 17 2 0 0 5 1 0 11 23 1 1 0.193 0.290 0.216 0.506
Jeff Keppinger 119 388 343 38 91 17 3 7 34 0 2 32 35 3 8 0.265 0.332 0.394 0.725
Jerry Hairston 58 136 115 17 26 6 0 2 13 2 1 12 15 3 5 0.226 0.313 0.330 0.643
EdwinEncarnacion51 210 186 30 44 8 1 9 28 2 0 16 37 3 0 0.237 0.300 0.435 0.735
Alex Gonzalez 59 215 212 35 60 18 0 9 24 3 0 6 42 2 4 0.283 0.322 0.495 0.818
Juan Castro 118 314 288 35 70 11 0 3 31 0 0 17 54 1 4 0.243 0.284 0.313 0.596
Dave Ross 67 169 144 20 38 9 0 7 22 0 0 22 44 1 2 0.264 0.365 0.472 0.837
Corey Patterson 16 30 29 0 3 0 0 0 0 2 1 0 13 0 1 0.103 0.103 0.103 0.207
Paul Bako 44 130 116 12 26 4 0 3 9 0 1 13 32 1 0 0.224 0.308 0.336 0.644
Andy Green 4 5 4 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 1 0 0 0.250 0.400 0.250 0.650
Justin Turner 15 28 24 2 3 0 0 0 3 0 0 4 4 0 0 0.125 0.250 0.125 0.375
Craig Tatum 2 4 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0.000 0.000 0.000 0.000
Willy Taveras 12 23 22 4 4 0 1 0 4 1 1 1 5 0 0 0.182 0.217 0.273 0.490
Totals 996 3306 2869 379 699 145 5 109 384 12 7 390 650 23 25 0.244 0.339 0.412 0.751

Name W L G GS CG SHO GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP WP ERA WHIP
David Patton 3 1 20 0 0 0 5 0 27.7 31 22 21 4 19 23 0 3 6.83 1.81
Josh Roenicke 0 0 13 0 0 0 3 0 17.7 19 15 14 2 12 19 1 1 7.13 1.75
Dave Weathers 1 3 25 0 0 0 4 0 24.0 26 15 13 3 11 10 2 0 4.88 1.54
Todd Coffey 6 4 93 0 0 0 21 2 97.0 87 31 29 8 27 74 3 3 2.69 1.18
Jeremy Affeldt 4 4 79 0 0 0 11 1 68.7 48 17 14 5 33 58 3 5 1.83 1.18
Josh Fogg 0 2 24 1 0 0 9 0 45.7 32 20 19 7 20 27 1 3 3.74 1.14
Matt Belisle 3 1 31 0 0 0 9 0 40.7 46 24 22 7 6 30 1 2 4.87 1.28
Totals 17 15 285 1 0 0 62 3 321.3 289 144 132 36 128 241 11 17 3.70

Is it just the bad weather putting me in a bad mood or are both of those lists kind of underwhelming?

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 09:51 PM
Although winning percentage is probably a good goal when you're below .500 for a period of...oh...I don't know...how about...ten years, the next step is games behind at the end of the season.

How far are the Reds from looking down at the rest of the division in October?

When you and other's did the work product on their computers, what projections, from the production numbers history did you come up with? Plus intagible factors such as Dusty Baker. That is a factor, because we see many fans writing, on the message boards, and within their comments is something they are suggesting as a work around a manager, that is not going to do what they think. :)

I don't like projections because of variable changes. I prefer to match up the production numbers on a plus minus or significant upgrade, if they are about the same, equal to what they have had or better, we will see equal results or improved results. Predjection don't get it............I am trying to ask you above, what major production improvements did you note in the Reds before the season started to push the Reds upward into the good team area?

I know from reading during the off winter and the different inputs from those that work with stats, already knew that the Reds were short again, and that is why they wanted discernable upgrades, that they could see in the historical data points to support that the Reds would be moving toward being equal to and greater than other good and better teams in baseball.

I don't think we are interested in the Reds being a game to four games better than a bad previous team. I am sure that doesn't answer what we are looking for.

jojo
04-24-2010, 09:54 PM
I think we all can agree that the Reds have sucked for a long time and the Jocketty regime has yet to produce on the field results.

The real issue is whether the process is better. Process generally precedes tangible results (ex. Rays). Can we intelligently speak toward the Jocketty process and logically conclude on the field results are just a matter of time?

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 09:58 PM
Is it just the bad weather putting me in a bad mood or are both of those lists kind of underwhelming?

:lol::lol:

I am not real sure, I know that it took up all of my screen and three fourths of the wall here, and part of the street block. :eek:

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 10:02 PM
For someone who says he doesn't like words you sure use a lot of them.

There are no numbers that will tell you that the Reds are equal to or better than their competition right now because they're not. But firing Jocketty right now isn't going to fix that overnight and it very well could make things worse.

You still upset because the Reds lost today?

They'll be alright, somewhere around .500 or below.

Have some numbers to encourage us?

Where did you IMAGINE anyone advocating firing or terminating Walt Jocketty or Dusty Baker in what I wrote? Show me the quote in writing that supports your perception as fact?

You were just being presumption and did not read but very little of it did you, and then you thought that you would come and be sarcastic and dump on me right? That is called misdirected anger, I am not the one that makes the numbers, your problem, is with them that do.

Have you been drinking?

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 10:15 PM
I think we all can agree that the Reds have sucked for a long time and the Jocketty regime has yet to produce on the field results.

The real issue is whether the process is better. Process generally precedes tangible results (ex. Rays). Can we intelligently speak toward the Jocketty process and logically conclude on the field results are just a matter of time?

Are the Rays production numbers from their talent over the past few years, or now comparable to the Reds? I haven't looked at the Rays, so I don't know how comparable the Reds are in their direction vs. the Rays.

I think we should be even more clear on how the National league and Central division is doing as your speaking of the Reds doing. They have process too, and are working on it, so how are they doing in comparison? We can't exclude the competitions efforts, to make the Reds look good can we?

pedro
04-24-2010, 10:36 PM
You still upset because the Reds lost today?

They'll be alright, somewhere around .500 or below.

Have some numbers to encourage us?

Where did you IMAGINE anyone advocating firing or terminating Walt Jocketty or Dusty Baker in what I wrote? Show me the quote in writing that supports your perception as fact?

You were just being presumption and did not read but very little of it did you, and then you thought that you would come and be sarcastic and dump on me right? That is called misdirected anger, I am not the one that makes the numbers, your problem, is with them that do.

Have you been drinking?

Nope, I haven't been drinking. Nor am I upset.

Sorry for the assumption about Jocketty. You're just not really making your thoughts all that clear IMO, despite your obvious efforts.

RedsManRick
04-24-2010, 11:34 PM
So the DER now is the same as the '08 team that had Dunn, Griffey, EdE, Kepp, Ross/Bako/Javy and a shaky at the beginning Joey Votto? Its why the defensive stats leave me a bit cold. I'm guessing the DER has gone down largely in relation to the number of hard hit balls allowed by the staff. Its not luck and the defense isn't as bad as back then. Balls are simply getting smoked and the defenders really don't have much chance. BABIP and its defensive counterparts only tell a little of the story IMO.

It's early. DER doesn't judge talent; it judges performance. We shouldn't read anything at all in to 2010 stats -- I was just putting it up against some context. When it's all said and done, this team's DER will be up near what it was last year.

RedsManRick
04-24-2010, 11:37 PM
I think we all can agree that the Reds have sucked for a long time and the Jocketty regime has yet to produce on the field results.

The real issue is whether the process is better. Process generally precedes tangible results (ex. Rays). Can we intelligently speak toward the Jocketty process and logically conclude on the field results are just a matter of time?

This is what scares me. I've see few signs that the process has improved.

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 11:39 PM
Nope, I haven't been drinking. Nor am I upset.

Sorry for the assumption about Jocketty. You're just not really making your thoughts all that clear IMO, despite your obvious efforts.

I understand. It is alright. I am kind of presumptious with my own post too, kind of a one track mind that I am bored and burnt out on too. :)

Just go by the complete post with the numbers only and forget the worthless words, and let us know what you see and interpret just from the numbers.

All they do is show disparity and what disparity can enable a competitor to achieve over time as you were alluding to, that it takes time to build. The competitors had that time and the financial resources in addition to that time that the Reds unfortunately don't appear to have had.

I do make an assumption that the Reds GM's Bowdern etc. could have done as well, maybe better than the Cards, if they had, had the same identicle resources, year upon year, building, each year forward. That is not necessarily true.

Oh well, anyway, if you get the chance and have the time, look and see, what the various numbers say to you.

Spring~Fields
04-24-2010, 11:50 PM
This is what scares me. I've see few signs that the process has improved.

Me either.

In the future, I was banking on Mr. Jocketty getting payroll flex, the younger pitchers getting better and taking Arroyo and Harangs place, while some minor league prospects made the financials more conduscive and produced for the Reds in the near future. While Mr. Jocketty worked on some trades of current Reds or a combination of prospects. I don't know that my little pipe dream is going to flow that way anytime soon.

The great part that is encouraging is, that as each of you say, "it is still early" pitching at both levels can improve, and so can other things.

I just can't see the Reds moving foward without something solid to stand on with the young pitching or what Mr. Jocketty can manipulate from the movement of some of the rougher contracts.

GAC
04-25-2010, 07:50 AM
Personally, I think it's unproductive to be drawing comparisons between the Red's "regimes". The only thing they have in common is that one regime has inherited the previous regime's mess. And some aspects of that "mess" ties the hands of the current regime.

The bottom line is that this ownership group is downright cheap... and getting cheaper.

We have a yearly payroll of approximately 75M. And almost half of that is tied up in three players (pitchers) in Harang, Arroyo, and Cordero. The highest paid position player is a 35 yr old 3Bman. After that comes Phillips, Hernandez, and Cabrera.

They simply do not know how to allocate their payroll when it comes to talent. Take a look at this year's spreadsheet..... http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=t-sgpwfY1S1JjwJmdoxf3ZQ&output=html

Now on this current roster, the ownership is taking advantage of some of the "positives", as far as prospects go, in players like Votto, Bruce, Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Stubbs. They hold the rights to these guys, and according to the rules (nothing wrong with this) are paying them squat right now.

You would think that would give them greater payroll flexibility to the degree that when they have a need in a certain area they could go out into the market, make the investment, and bring in an established player or two to complement that.

Do you think Rolen might have really helped this team back in 2002 when he was available, an even wanted to come to Cincy? Naw! We had Aaron Boone, and had acquired a 3B prospect from Texas named Encarnacion.

They even refuse to spend the money to retain an established player in Dunn - while feeding us a line that they really wanted to find a way to keep him because, as Jocketty stated, "A Dunn is hard to replace". What did they go out and acquire to REPLACE Dunn? Did they spend the money to get anything comparable? They instead try to pawn a mix of Dickerson, Nix, and Gomes off on us. Because they are cheap!

We freed up millions, not only in trading Dunn, but also trading away an aging Jr. We also got the Milton contract off the books that year. Who did they get to man CF? Taveras. Because he was available (DFA'd?) and cheap.

They give a 4 yr/46M guaranteed contract TO A CLOSER!

They go out and get a manager because he has "star power" and is a winner, and pay him 3M/year, yet acquire a 35 yr old SS and pay him less.

Symbolism over substance.

The problems with this organization go deeper then Dusty Baker or even Jocketty for that matter. Take a good hard look at the guys standing behind them and who are really running the show.

camisadelgolf
04-25-2010, 09:56 AM
Is it just the bad weather putting me in a bad mood or are both of those lists kind of underwhelming?
What it tells me is that if the Reds end up being successful before 2012, very little of the credit belongs to Walt Jocketty aside from the fact that he had the knowledge to stand pat. At the moment, it looks like the Reds might be a long ways away from being successful, though.

Spring~Fields
04-25-2010, 01:19 PM
What it tells me is that if the Reds end up being successful before 2012, very little of the credit belongs to Walt Jocketty aside from the fact that he had the knowledge to stand pat. At the moment, it looks like the Reds might be a long ways away from being successful, though.

The Reds ownership doesn’t appear to have been on the Minnesota, Oakland or Tampa plan throughout the decade or even the time that Mr. Jocketty or Mr. Baker has been here, coming from organizations that did utilize their financial resources and clout throughout the decade and the changing times each year.

What should Mr. Jocketty do or have done when Reds ownership apparently have their team on the St. Louis and Chicago plan, evidenced by the ownership bringing in Mr. Jocketty and Mr. Baker who utilized those plans in the past. Reds ownerships doesn’t or hasn’t had the money to operate like a St. Louis or Chicago and to work those organizational plans and philosophies. The Reds ownership group might be on the same plan, but, their plan, the budget is substantively less, than a St. Louis or Chicago since 2000.

Knowing that the budget is ownerships plan, what could any general manager do better under the circumstances of a St. Louis, Chicago plan? That has remained substantively under funded, every year. While the two architects of the St. Louis and Chicago Plan, St. Louis and Chicago have funded their plan very well. 20-30-35 millions more than the Reds ownership group has trying to work the St. Louis and Chicago plans or some hybrid version of those plans.

Or even an old Reds plan under the ownership groups of Schott, Carl H. Lindner, Mrs. Louis Nippert, William J. Reik, George L. Strike, then Carl H. Lindner, Mrs. Louis Nippert, William J. Reik, George L. Strike and now Castellini, Carl H. Lindner, Mrs. Louis Nippert, William J. Reik, George L. Strike? The budget is the plan. (Accounting and financial people on the board should be able to make the connection, from, “the budget is the plan”, along with knowledge of five and ten year plans vs. the baseball fans perceptions. Though they frequently remain silent from their field of expertise on this message board, an expertise that could serve to help the “fan” to understand better. )

How many players, general managers, managers, coaches have passed through the organization under that significant portion of the ownership group over the years, that has remained the same, with their plans?

Mr. Jocketty and Mr. Baker use to flourish under their previous ownerships plans, that hasn’t been consistent under the Cincinnati Reds organization with their ownership groups plan, and the budget, which is the plan.

Ownerships plan, not the general managers, not the managers plan, but, ownerships plan.

Ownership groups may love to win ballgames, because winning ballgames is what they market, but, ownerships primary plan is to make money, a profit, and to profit from their plans.
the Reds really don’t appear to have been or be on a Minnesota, Oakland or Tampa plan, that has been in place for many years.

What should Mr. Jocketty and Mr. Baker do or have done differently? When they were brought in to implement theories, philosophies, plan, maybe even core processes of a St. Louis or Chicago, where they had some successful years, with a Cincinnati‘s ownership groups plan, the budget?

As you look at the past payroll budgets, that is just a part of the overall operating budget, you might be able to see a portion of ownerships plan vs. the St. Louis and Chicago plan, that will be in effect for years to come for those organizations.



1990 Cubs 77 85 .475 $ 14,496,000 CIN 91 71 .562 $ 14,769,500
1991 Cubs 77 83 .481 $ 26,923,120 CIN 74 88 .457 $ 25,369,166
1992 Cubs 78 84 .481 $ 29,060,833 CIN 90 72 .556 $ 35,203,999
1993 Cubs 84 78 .519 $ 38,303,166 CIN 73 89 .451 $ 42,851,167
1994 Cubs 49 64 .434 $ 35,717,333 CIN 66 48 .579 $ 39,826,333
1995 Cubs 73 71 .507 $ 32,460,834 CIN 85 59 .590 $ 37,240,667
1996 Cubs 76 86 .469 $ 30,954,000 CIN 81 81 .500 $ 40,719,334
1997 Cubs 68 94 .420 $ 39,829,333 CIN 76 86 .469 $ 46,267,000
1998 Cubs 90 73 .552 $ 49,383,000 CIN 77 85 .475 $ 21,995,000
1999 Cubs 67 95 .414 $ 55,368,500 CIN 96 67 .589 $ 42,142,761
2000 Cubs 65 97 .401 $ 62,129,333 CIN 85 77 .525 $ 44,217,500
2001 Cubs 88 74 .543 $ 64,515,833 CIN 66 96 .407 $ 48,784,000
2002 Cubs 67 95 .414 $ 75,690,833 CIN 78 84 .481 $ 45,050,390
2003 Cubs 88 74 .543 $ 79,868,333 CIN 69 93 .426 $ 59,355,667
2004 Cubs 89 73 .549 $ 90,560,000 CIN 76 86 .469 $ 46,615,250
2005 Cubs 79 83 .488 $ 87,032,933 CIN 73 89 .451 $ 61,892,583
2006 Cubs 66 96 .407 $ 94,424,499 CIN 80 82 .494 $ 60,909,519
2007 Cubs 85 77 .525 $ 99,670,332 CIN 72 90 .444 $ 68,904,980
2008 Cubs 97 64 .602 $ 118,345,833 CIN 74 88 .457 $ 74,117,695
2009 Cubs 83 78 .516 $ 134,809,000 CIN 78 84 .481 $ 73,558,500
2010 Cubs 7 10 .412 $ 146,609,000 CIN 7 10 .412 $ 71,761,542

Cincinnati St. Louis
2010 $ 71,761,542 $ 93,540,751 CIN 7 10 .412 STL 10 6 .625
2009 $ 73,558,500 $ 88,528,409 CIN 78 84 .481 STL 91 71 .562
2008 $ 74,117,695 $ 99,624,449 CIN 74 88 .457 STL 86 76 .531
2007 $ 68,904,980 $ 90,286,823 CIN 72 90 .444 STL 78 84 .481
2006 $ 60,909,519 $ 88,891,371 CIN 80 82 .494 STL 83 78 .516
2005 $ 61,892,583 $ 92,106,833 CIN 73 89 .451 STL 100 62.617
2004 $ 46,615,250 $ 83,228,333 CIN 76 86 .469 STL 105 57.648
2003 $ 59,355,667 $ 83,786,666 CIN 69 93 .426 STL 85 77 .525
2002 $ 45,050,390 $ 74,660,875 CIN 78 84 .481 STL 97 65 .599
2001 $ 48,784,000 $ 78,333,333 CIN 66 96 .407 STL 93 69 .574
2000 $ 44,217,500 $ 63,093,023 CIN 85 77 .525 STL 95 67 .586
1999 $ 42,142,761 $ 46,248,195 CIN 96 67 .589 STL 75 86 .466
1998 $ 21,995,000 $ 52,572,500 CIN 77 85 .475 STL 83 79 .512
1997 $ 46,267,000 $ 44,179,167 CIN 76 86 .469 STL 73 89 .451
1996 $ 40,719,334 $ 38,741,666 CIN 81 81 .500 STL 88 74 .543
1995 $ 37,240,667 $ 30,956,000 CIN 85 59 .590 STL 62 81 .434
1994 $ 39,826,333 $ 28,956,001 CIN 66 48 .579 STL 53 61 .465
1993 $ 42,851,167 $ 22,615,334 CIN 73 89 .451 STL 87 75 .537
1992 $ 35,203,999 $ 26,889,836 CIN 90 72 .556 STL 83 79 .512
1991 $ 25,369,166 $ 21,435,001 CIN 74 88 .457 STL 84 78 .519
1990 $ 14,769,500 $ 20,923,334 CIN 91 71 .562 STL 70 92 .432


If Reds ownership is going to use the St. Louis and Chicago plan, they better be prepared to adequately fund it.

RedsManRick
04-25-2010, 02:01 PM
Money helps, but you still have to spend it well. You can succeed without it and fail with it. Give the Reds $30M in payroll and I believe they'd spend it mostly on the more expensive versions of the ineffective players we're already paying for. What's missing is not money; what's missing is a method of decision making that takes advantage of the advances in the game since the 1970s.

Spring~Fields
04-25-2010, 03:42 PM
Money helps, but you still have to spend it well. You can succeed without it and fail with it. Give the Reds $30M in payroll and I believe they'd spend it mostly on the more expensive versions of the ineffective players we're already paying for. What's missing is not money; what's missing is a method of decision making that takes advantage of the advances in the game since the 1970s.

I think that Mr. Jocketty was brought in to address those concerns. With his history and experience. He will still have to have the funding to spend it wisely. Low funding also contributes to bringing in ineffective players.

Effective players have really gone up in cost over the years.

So if he doesn't have the funding, his trades and or other means of acquiring players will have some barriers to overcome. Didn't you do a study on him where he used prospects to trade for more effective players? Even if he can do that in Cincinnati those players he brings back will need funding. Something that Reds ownership has not had in their plans to date. I think that the common funding issues have already hindered him with Cincinnati.

Do you think that he will change what brought him success, in the way he did it at St. Louis?

nate
04-25-2010, 04:22 PM
Money helps, but you still have to spend it well. You can succeed without it and fail with it. Give the Reds $30M in payroll and I believe they'd spend it mostly on the more expensive versions of the ineffective players we're already paying for. What's missing is not money; what's missing is a method of decision making that takes advantage of the advances in the game since the 1970s.

Just sign proven winners!

Job done.

:cool:

Spring~Fields
04-25-2010, 04:26 PM
Just sign proven winners!

Job done.

:cool:

There you go :thumbup:

Now was that past like winners Bench, Morgan, Davis, Baker, they've done that or future? Will I have to be reincarnated to see them play? :)

nate
04-25-2010, 04:29 PM
There you go :thumbup:

Now was that past like winners Bench, Morgan, Davis, Baker, they've done that or future? Will I have to be reincarnated to see them play? :)

No. Simple time travel is all that's necessary.

:cool:

kaldaniels
04-25-2010, 09:37 PM
Just to put things in perspective, that chart shows me that the Cards out spent the Reds by over 300 million over the past decade. I think any comment about the Cards' sucess or Dave Duncan/LaRussa's magic needs to be prefaced by that fact.

Seriously, if the Reds outspent the Cards over the next ten years by 300 million, I have to think we'd all be pleased with the on field results.

kaldaniels
04-25-2010, 09:39 PM
Money helps, but you still have to spend it well. You can succeed without it and fail with it. Give the Reds $30M in payroll and I believe they'd spend it mostly on the more expensive versions of the ineffective players we're already paying for. What's missing is not money; what's missing is a method of decision making that takes advantage of the advances in the game since the 1970s.

Nope, giving the Reds 30 million more a year would allow them to go after the real big fish every now and thing. Period. With this gap in payroll the Reds unfortunately have to hope to catch lightning in a bottle, while the Cards can sign the likes of Holiday.

Spring~Fields
04-26-2010, 12:04 AM
Just to put things in perspective, that chart shows me that the Cards out spent the Reds by over 300 million over the past decade. I think any comment about the Cards' sucess or Dave Duncan/LaRussa's magic needs to be prefaced by that fact.

Seriously, if the Reds outspent the Cards over the next ten years by 300 million, I have to think we'd all be pleased with the on field results.

Yes.

Let's load it up in a different way.

Especially now that the Reds have one of those master craftsmen of the successful years in St. Louis in Mr. Jocketty. If he is not able to duplicate his efforts, skills, and successes in Cincinnati, the funding would be one of the first places that I would be looking at. The experience that the last ten years or more that he gained, should also contribute to making him even better.

If we could put Mr. Jocketty in the same role at all three organizations at the same time. Making each organizations general manager equal. Giving him 3 - 5 yrs. Using what each organization spent for the past three years average, the Cubs Mr. Jocketty should do better than the Cards Mr. Jocketty or the Reds Mr. Jocketty

Let’s give Mr. Jocketty each team, and 3-5 yrs, and his same coaches, Larussa/Duncan and associates.


Equal GM for 3-5 yrs 2008, 2009, 2010 Dollars
Mr. Jocketty Cubs 399,763,833 /3 $ 133,254,611
Mr. Jocketty Cards 281,693,609 /3 $ 93,897,870
Mr. Jocketty Reds 219,437,737 /3 $ 73,145,912

His Chicago Cubs and his St. Louis Cardinals are suppose to be able to do better, with the additional resources.

Keep in mind, each year, Mr. Jocketty's other organizations are outspending the Reds, each year by those amounts, seen in the 3 yr av'g differences.
133,254,611 - 73,145,912 = $ 60,108,699 per season x 3-5 yrs and
93,897,870 - 73,145,912 = $ 20,751,958 per season. x 3-5 yrs

His hypothetical teams with the greater funding is suppose to be able to out build and accumulate greater talent to achieve greater production and results, each year. At the end of his 3-5 yrs, his Reds team is suppose to be and should be far behind his Cubs, and Cardinals teams.

None of the three teams are using an Oakland, Minnesota, Florida or Tampa plan, I mean the Reds and certainly the other two teams don’t appear to be. So it assumes that Mr. Jocketty would be using what was successful for him during his St. Louis years in each organization that he headed as general manager.

If you go back to 2000, 2001, 2002 with Mr. Jocketty designing each organizations team with his same coaches and associates


Equal GM for 3-5 yrs 2000, 2001, 2002 Dollars
Mr. Jocketty Cards 216,087,231 /3 $ 72,029,077
Mr. Jocketty Cubs 202,335,999 /3 $ 67,445,333
Mr. Jocketty Reds 138,021,890 /3 $ 46,007,296

Under that case scenario, Mr. Jocketty and his Cards are suppose to come out better than his hypothetical Cubs or his Reds. Substantially over his Reds team. Plus he has each year of those 3-5 yrs to build upon at each organization. The organizations that he heads with the greater financial resources should accumulate greater talent, simply overwhelm his other hypothetical teams with time and money. Plus for the money in those years he could buy more with his dollars in 2000 - 2003, quality players were cheaper.

2010 Mr. Jocketty forward under the Reds dollars, has it much harder, while the Cards and Cubs adjust and fix, and build upon their dollars moving forward.

Further, Mr. Jocketty and his Cardinals were suppose to have been able to blow away past Reds general managers and their teams, and he did.

Even now, Mr. Jocketty, the same Mr. Jocketty who excelled in St. Louis, working within the similar circumstances in Cincinnati as his predecessors in the Reds general manager role, is finding it more difficult to substantially surpass his predecessors in the general managers role with what Cincinnati Reds ownership provides, as he should be vs what he was able to do in St. Louis or would in the hypothetical’s above.

Time should be on the St. Louis and Chicago organizations side moving forward.

Will M
05-22-2010, 01:39 PM
Cabrera's defense has improved a lot. His UZR rating is close to zero.
He hasn't hit much (275/305/375) but other than the Cub's rookie Castro no other SS in the division has either.

Ramon's OPS+ is 100. Take that you haters!

As of today it seems that Walt did not screw up by signing these veterans. They have been solid contributors.

jojo
05-22-2010, 02:28 PM
Neither signing was a particularly enlightened one....

OnBaseMachine
05-23-2010, 06:07 PM
Cabrera's range is still well below average. I don't need a stat to tell me that. He's still OK on balls hit right at him or in front of him but his range has severely diminished.

HokieRed
05-24-2010, 09:32 AM
Cabrera's range is still well below average. I don't need a stat to tell me that. He's still OK on balls hit right at him or in front of him but his range has severely diminished.


Agree. It's very obvious. I, and everybody else, saw it on opening day on the first ball to his left. Makes the signing a little curious; means to me they really have no faith that Janish can hit at all over an extended period of time.

TheNext44
05-24-2010, 10:03 AM
I've been one of Cabrera's harshest critics, but even before I saw his newest defensive stats, I mentioned that his range has improved greatly from the start of the season. He has gone to his right much better ss of late, and is at least knocking down balls that he was missing completely.

I'm still not completely sold on him as being better than Janish, but i do know feel like he is at least not hurting the team on defense.

edabbs44
05-24-2010, 10:06 AM
Agree. It's very obvious. I, and everybody else, saw it on opening day on the first ball to his left. Makes the signing a little curious; means to me they really have no faith that Janish can hit at all over an extended period of time.

Opening day? Have you seen improvement since then?

Hoosier Red
05-24-2010, 10:34 AM
Cabrera's range is still well below average. I don't need a stat to tell me that. He's still OK on balls hit right at him or in front of him but his range has severely diminished.

I think in terms of range, you DO need a stat to tell you things. Now whether UZR is a stat that is accurate enough to trust is another question, but absolutely if we could find out a stat to quantify specifically how many more balls Janish would get to than Cabrera our minds tend to exagerrate.

In other words, our eyes see what they want to see. "Janish would have had that" has become a running joke because while it's true that Janish has better range, our eyes let that bias us into seeing balls that he would have gotten that Cabrera did not. Obviously there's no way to know these things for sure.

It's just as absurd to say that as to watch Jay Bruce strike out and say "Votto would have hit that pitch."

HokieRed
05-24-2010, 11:43 AM
Agree. It's very obvious. I, and everybody else, saw it on opening day on the first ball to his left. Makes the signing a little curious; means to me they really have no faith that Janish can hit at all over an extended period of time.


Actually I saw him last year in Oakland and it was obvious then. I don't think you really need a stat for range in extreme cases. I'm not opposed to signing him; I've just been trying to figure out exactly why they did it, especially since I do think WJ's record suggests he values defense. The best sense of it to me is that they just don't think Janish will hit much at all if you expose him all the time.

mdccclxix
05-24-2010, 12:13 PM
Actually I saw him last year in Oakland and it was obvious then. I don't think you really need a stat for range in extreme cases. I'm not opposed to signing him; I've just been trying to figure out exactly why they did it, especially since I do think WJ's record suggests he values defense. The best sense of it to me is that they just don't think Janish will hit much at all if you expose him all the time.

I agree with you. As far as his range, it seemed like he and Rolen both needed to "limber up" (rule #18 - Zombieland, anyone?) before their defense kicked in.

As for Janish not being trusted to hit all the time, well, they might not think he'll ever hit enough with the way he's getting NO at bats to learn. Kind of a bummer there.

pedro
05-24-2010, 12:46 PM
I agree with you. As far as his range, it seemed like he and Rolen both needed to "limber up" (rule #18 - Zombieland, anyone?) before their defense kicked in.

As for Janish not being trusted to hit all the time, well, they might not think he'll ever hit enough with the way he's getting NO at bats to learn. Kind of a bummer there.

Some would say that after 2400+ plate appearances in the minors and majors and already 27 the time for learning was most likely over.

westofyou
05-24-2010, 12:49 PM
Some would say that after 2400+ plate appearances in the minors and majors and already 27 the time for learning was most likely over.

Yeah, 27 was the age Sparky, Bristol, Mckeon, LaRussa and Weaver all first managed teams, I believe they had learned that they were not going to make it as a player.

TRF
05-24-2010, 04:48 PM
Yeah, 27 was the age Sparky, Bristol, Mckeon, LaRussa and Weaver all first managed teams, I believe they had learned that they were not going to make it as a player.

Except, even adjusted for inflation, I bet Janish made more than all of them combined as a player last year. And I guarantee you he's on the 25 man roster next year too.

So in roughly 2.5 years as a MLB player (after next year), he'll have made a million dollars. And his defense has been described as near elite for the position. I haven't seen him play but a handful of times, so I have to take the descriptions over my own eyes. But from what I have seen, defensively, he's very good. At minimum, he can have Jaun Castro's career. He's not going anywhere anytime soon. So we can keep looking at the past and hope Cabrera has found a legal fountain of youth, or we can get used to the idea that the Reds have questionmarks at SS. Janish could be a temporary answer. Cozart might be the answer. Or maybe the guy isn't in the organization yet.

Personally I think that Cabrera's body probably gets looser with the warmer weather. I also think his range will diminish as the season drags if Dusty doesn't start resting him more.

_Sir_Charles_
05-24-2010, 06:13 PM
Personally I think that Cabrera's body probably gets looser with the warmer weather. I also think his range will diminish as the season drags if Dusty doesn't start resting him more.

Agree completely here. He has gotten marginally better, but he's not getting ANY time off. That's the part I just don't get.

RedsManRick
05-24-2010, 06:38 PM
Actually I saw him last year in Oakland and it was obvious then. I don't think you really need a stat for range in extreme cases. I'm not opposed to signing him; I've just been trying to figure out exactly why they did it, especially since I do think WJ's record suggests he values defense. The best sense of it to me is that they just don't think Janish will hit much at all if you expose him all the time.

Valuing something and being able to assess it well are very different things. I don't know much about how the Reds do their evaluations, but I know it doesn't include advanced metrics to any significant degree. As for the quality of their major league scouts, I've got absolutely no info other than the decisions they've made, which doesn't leave me terribly inspired.

HokieRed
05-24-2010, 07:28 PM
Valuing something and being able to assess it well are very different things. I don't know much about how the Reds do their evaluations, but I know it doesn't include advanced metrics to any significant degree. As for the quality of their major league scouts, I've got absolutely no info other than the decisions they've made, which doesn't leave me terribly inspired.


I guess I don't know enough about their processes to know. There must be some number OPS for Janish at which he's a better fit all around than Cabrera but apparently they either A. Don't think Janish can hit that number or B. Their decision making process isn't that "advanced." I've just been a bit puzzled about it and particularly about what to infer from it about the team's assumptions about Janish.

RedsManRick
05-24-2010, 08:14 PM
I guess I don't know enough about their processes to know. There must be some number OPS for Janish at which he's a better fit all around than Cabrera but apparently they either A. Don't think Janish can hit that number or B. Their decision making process isn't that "advanced." I've just been a bit puzzled about it and particularly about what to infer from it about the team's assumptions about Janish.

Based on Dusty's refusal to use Janish as a defensive replacement, I'm guessing the Reds have a higher opinion of Cabrera's defensive capabilities than do most people on RZ.

bucksfan2
05-25-2010, 08:55 AM
Valuing something and being able to assess it well are very different things. I don't know much about how the Reds do their evaluations, but I know it doesn't include advanced metrics to any significant degree. As for the quality of their major league scouts, I've got absolutely no info other than the decisions they've made, which doesn't leave me terribly inspired.

I think your wrong here. Its a stigma that Walt has had in the saber community during his tenure as a GM. Its also the same type of stigma that Dusty has in favoring veteran players. To speculate that a FO doesn't do its homework, especially a FO who has done a pretty good job of building a competitive team over the past 2-3 years, is just wrong.

Chip R
05-25-2010, 09:36 AM
Based on Dusty's refusal to use Janish as a defensive replacement, I'm guessing the Reds have a higher opinion of Cabrera's defensive capabilities than do most people on RZ.


It may not necessarily be that Dusty thinks Cabrera's such an outstanding defender or Janish stinks. We all know Dusty is the quintessential players' manager. Dusty would rather die a thousand deaths before he made one of his players uncomfortable. If he replaced Cabrera with Janish defensively, that would be doing just that. Cabrera's a former GG SS and while he may not be Ozzie Smith out there, he's no butcher. Using Janish as a defensive replacement for Cabrera would be telling Cabrera that he's not good enough to use in the late innings when the Reds have a lead. Replacing Gomes is another thing since Gomes' forte has never been defense.

westofyou
05-25-2010, 09:47 AM
It may not necessarily be that Dusty thinks Cabrera's such an outstanding defender or Janish stinks. We all know Dusty is the quintessential players' manager. Dusty would rather die a thousand deaths before he made one of his players uncomfortable. If he replaced Cabrera with Janish defensively, that would be doing just that. Cabrera's a former GG SS and while he may not be Ozzie Smith out there, he's no butcher. Using Janish as a defensive replacement for Cabrera would be telling Cabrera that he's not good enough to use in the late innings when the Reds have a lead. Replacing Gomes is another thing since Gomes' forte has never been defense.

Exactly, you don't see many defensive replacements at defensive positions, mainly because those players are wrapped around that position mentally more than the Gomes and Dunns.

It is a game played by humans and a human approach to it shouldn't surprise anyone, and if you have ever read any player book (Balls, Ball Four, Bronx Zoo) then you'll see all sorts of passages that elude to the human element of the game and the mental aspect certain types of players.

edabbs44
05-25-2010, 10:47 AM
Based on Dusty's refusal to use Janish as a defensive replacement, I'm guessing the Reds have a higher opinion of Cabrera's defensive capabilities than do most people on RZ.

The Reds have a first place team. Redszone is a bulletin board where anyone with a pulse can join.

I'm gonna side with Walt, Dusty and the crew until further notice.

jojo
05-25-2010, 12:15 PM
Replacing Cabrera for defensive reasons would be a huge statement about his ability to be a shortstop. I just don't think its something Dusty would do.

TRF
05-25-2010, 12:33 PM
Yeah, Chip pretty much nailed this one.

Now i await the apocalypse.

edabbs44
07-27-2010, 11:05 PM
FYI...I'm glad Ramon is on this team.

WVRedsFan
07-28-2010, 02:04 AM
FYI...I'm glad Ramon is on this team.

Absolutely. Ramon gives us pop from the bottom of the lineup. The straw man that Hanigan is--and I mean that sincerely-tends to make people believe that he is super human, which he is not. One of the best moves that Walt has made was trading the very popular and yet fallable Freel for Ramon Hernandez. We miss him when he's gone.

GAC
07-28-2010, 05:22 AM
It may not necessarily be that Dusty thinks Cabrera's such an outstanding defender or Janish stinks. We all know Dusty is the quintessential players' manager. Dusty would rather die a thousand deaths before he made one of his players uncomfortable. If he replaced Cabrera with Janish defensively, that would be doing just that. Cabrera's a former GG SS and while he may not be Ozzie Smith out there, he's no butcher. Using Janish as a defensive replacement for Cabrera would be telling Cabrera that he's not good enough to use in the late innings when the Reds have a lead. Replacing Gomes is another thing since Gomes' forte has never been defense.

Sometimes you actually do make sense. Good post. :thumbup:

Dusty's a player's manager for sure. The people of RZ are not. Now the question is....

whose wrong? :p:

edabbs44
09-27-2010, 11:42 PM
I'm gonna say the answer is no.

redsmetz
09-28-2010, 08:02 AM
Ramon 'singles hitter' Hernandez: $2M
Orlando 'no range' Cabrera: $3M

There were certainly not a lot of prime catchers or shortstops available last winter in the free agent market. Walt chose to patch these positions with Hernandez & Cabrera. The money to do so came from selling Mr Enthusiasm to the As for $1.3M and also from restructuring/extending Rolen's deal.

I have a really bad feeling that the Reds flushed $5M down the toilet. There is already a five page (!) post regarding Cabrera's lack of range. Hernandez had a weak year in 2009 & isn't getting any younger.

So you ask: well if the free agent market was weak what should Walt have done? Easy answer. where's Maloney? stuck in AAA. where's Heisey? in AAA and sitting behind Stubbs on the depth chart. Alonso? AA and trying to learn a new position. Francisco? well he is here for now but most expect him to be headed for AAA on Sunday. My point: should Walt have decided last winter who to keep & who to trade from the prospects bunching up in AA/AAA & used a few of these prospects to swing a deal for a shortsop and/or catcher instead of getting Hernanndez & Cabrera. I say he messed up. what say you?

I thought I'd pull forward the original post. Weren't perfect moves, but seemed to have helped a lot this season. Of course, as they said, hindsight is 20/20.