PDA

View Full Version : Good Arroyo vs Bad Arroyo



TRF
04-09-2010, 05:35 PM
We know the story. His second half is always better than his 1st. He's a party guy. He'd rather play guitar and sing than play ball. At least that's how he is portrayed.

I see something different. I see a guy that knows this is his last year as a Red. I see a guy that has been durable, coming off his best half season ever and doing his best to follow it up. I see a guy playing for his next contract.

This can only be a good thing for the Reds.

If the Reds are out of it, and Bronson is Good Arroyo for the first half, he's worth a small mint. If the Reds are in it, he's a horse that can protect the bullpen, and likely a big reason why they are in it. I truly think this will be his career best season. No rose colored glasses. I see a man playing for his next payday, and he wants it to be a big one. The Arroyo I saw on the mound yesterday was an ace. plain and simple. He willed everything into that game, even at the plate. He was, in a word, a stopper.

For all the talk of Leake, Chapman and Wood, this season hinges on Arroyo and Harang. BA has shown up. Aaron usually does well against the Cubs, hopefully it will jumpstart his season.

reds44
04-09-2010, 05:37 PM
If the Reds ever play in a big game, my first choice to take the ball would be Arroyo.

Cyclone792
04-09-2010, 05:41 PM
I certainly know what you mean. I didn't say it Wednesday night, but when the Reds lost that game in disappointing fashion, I thought to myself that they'll escape the series without a sweep because Arroyo was going to shut the Cardinals down on Thursday afternoon.

Bronson answered, and now it's time for the other 24 guys to respond with a fire this weekend against the Flubs.

Brutus
04-09-2010, 07:09 PM
Bronson isn't necessarily a first or second half guy, but he's for the last five years running been a "one half" guy. It's pretty predictable. He does have value because of his durability and slightly above-average (and high number) innings.

I love what he's brought to this franchise. I wish it didn't take over $10 mil to do it, but that doesn't mean I appreciate him any less.

Mario-Rijo
04-09-2010, 07:35 PM
He's not a "half guy" at all. He pitches well almost the entire year with the exception of about a month sometime in may-june, or about the time bats heat up real well. It's like clockwork sometime in mid may or later he just is brutal for about 5-6 starts.

Brutus
04-09-2010, 08:28 PM
He's not a "half guy" at all. He pitches well almost the entire year with the exception of about a month sometime in may-june, or about the time bats heat up real well. It's like clockwork sometime in mid may or later he just is brutal for about 5-6 starts.

Absolutely not true.

EDIT:

Here are the numbers (for quick reference, I did pre and post-all star ERA)

2009

Pre AS - 5.38
Post AS - 2.24

2008

Pre AS - 5.97
Post AS - 3.47

2007

Pre AS - 4.84
Post AS - 3.55

2006

Pre AS - 3.12
Post AS - 3.50

2005

Pre AS - 4.02
Post AS - 5.08


Those are some fairly drastic splits.

Spitball
04-09-2010, 08:33 PM
I'd like to see the Reds try to extend Arroyo's contract right now. I truly believe he would sign below market value because loyalty and appreciation seem to have greater motivational lure than money to him.

fearofpopvol1
04-09-2010, 09:47 PM
I've always felt like Arroyo has been underappreciated at RZ.

edabbs44
04-09-2010, 09:55 PM
If Arroyo throws together a solid season, would it make sense to exercise the option, cut Harang loose, and shop one of the youngsters for a veteran bat to fill one of the holes?

fearofpopvol1
04-09-2010, 09:58 PM
If Arroyo throws together a solid season, would it make sense to exercise the option, cut Harang loose, and shop one of the youngsters for a veteran bat to fill one of the holes?

I think the biggest issue would be one of cost. The option is not cheap and even with trading Harang and getting a veteran bat, the financials would be similar. I think the Reds want to shave salary more than they want to spend.

edabbs44
04-09-2010, 10:10 PM
I think the biggest issue would be one of cost. The option is not cheap and even with trading Harang and getting a veteran bat, the financials would be similar. I think the Reds want to shave salary more than they want to spend.

If the team is headed in the right direction (solid progress being seen throughout the season), it might be difficult going into a season with a rotation of Homer, Chapman, Volquez, Cueto and Leake. If this team were to, for example, contend for a WC into late August with Arroyo pitching well, I'm not sure that they could take the risk of losing that momentum by going into 2011 with Homer and Cueto as the veterans of the pitching staff.

hebroncougar
04-09-2010, 10:11 PM
I was thinking to myself today.....I wonder if Arroyo would waive the option, and extend for something like 3 years at $7.5-9 million per.

fearofpopvol1
04-09-2010, 10:26 PM
If the team is headed in the right direction (solid progress being seen throughout the season), it might be difficult going into a season with a rotation of Homer, Chapman, Volquez, Cueto and Leake. If this team were to, for example, contend for a WC into late August with Arroyo pitching well, I'm not sure that they could take the risk of losing that momentum by going into 2011 with Homer and Cueto as the veterans of the pitching staff.

Hard to say. Financial resources are limited. What if Cueto and Bailey have knockout years? I can't see them ponying up big bucks if those guys make drastic improvements.

TeamBoone
04-09-2010, 11:09 PM
We know the story. His second half is always better than his 1st. He's a party guy. He'd rather play guitar and sing than play ball. At least that's how he is portrayed.

Except by a few on this board, I don't think he's portrayed that way at all. Besides, he's stated publicly over and over and over that baseball is his career and comes first, and that singing is merely his hobby.

Mario-Rijo
04-09-2010, 11:18 PM
Absolutely not true.

EDIT:

Here are the numbers (for quick reference, I did pre and post-all star ERA)

2009

Pre AS - 5.38
Post AS - 2.24

2008

Pre AS - 5.97
Post AS - 3.47

2007

Pre AS - 4.84
Post AS - 3.55

2006

Pre AS - 3.12
Post AS - 3.50

2005

Pre AS - 4.02
Post AS - 5.08


Those are some fairly drastic splits.

It absolutely is true. Go back and look at what he done prior to mid may in all those seasons and watch how his era blows up in that month, month and a half. Yes it appears his whole 1st half stunk but in reality he was fine until he ran into hot bats.

Brutus
04-09-2010, 11:55 PM
It absolutely is true. Go back and look at what he done prior to mid may in all those seasons and watch how his era blows up in that month, month and a half. Yes it appears his whole 1st half stunk but in reality he was fine until he ran into hot bats.

This is a fact: in each of the past six seasons as a starter, Arroyo's worst two months of that particular season came in one half or the other. His best month came in the opposite half in each of those six years and his best two were in the opposite half in four of the six years.

To say he has been a "half guy" takes not only no imagination to say whatsoever, but is absolutely supported by the numbers.

SMcGavin
04-10-2010, 12:01 AM
This is solvable easily enough. Arroyo career ERA by month:

Mar/Apr 4.39
May 4.39
June 5.86
July 3.89
August 4.00
Sept/Oct 3.22

Matt700wlw
04-10-2010, 02:51 AM
From Lance's blog:

In yesterday's 2-1 win vs the Cardinals, RHP Bronson Arroyo threw 8.0 innings and allowed just 1 run....since the beginning of last season Arroyo has made 8 starts of at least 8.0 innings without allowing more than 1 run, tying him with Zack Greinke and Tim Lincecum for second-most in the Major Leagues behind Cliff Lee, who has made 10 such starts...courtesy Elias Sports Bureau.

VR
04-10-2010, 11:26 AM
From Lance's blog:

In yesterday's 2-1 win vs the Cardinals, RHP Bronson Arroyo threw 8.0 innings and allowed just 1 run....since the beginning of last season Arroyo has made 8 starts of at least 8.0 innings without allowing more than 1 run, tying him with Zack Greinke and Tim Lincecum for second-most in the Major Leagues behind Cliff Lee, who has made 10 such starts...courtesy Elias Sports Bureau.

Don't try to change our perspective with silly stats. He's horrible.

:)

jojo
04-10-2010, 12:44 PM
Walt tried to give Arroyo away.

MLB said no.

Who is right?

RedsManRick
04-10-2010, 12:52 PM
Walt tried to give Arroyo away.

MLB said no.

Who is right?

He did?

Mario-Rijo
04-10-2010, 01:13 PM
This is a fact: in each of the past six seasons as a starter, Arroyo's worst two months of that particular season came in one half or the other. His best month came in the opposite half in each of those six years and his best two were in the opposite half in four of the six years.

To say he has been a "half guy" takes not only no imagination to say whatsoever, but is absolutely supported by the numbers.

6 seasons? I thought we were discussing the Arroyo of Cincinnati? But at any rate looking at his monthly splits it's pretty telling, he's mediocre early on, terrible in june (I say sometimes that leaks into may as well) and good the rest of the season. Now if you want to suggest that when you aren't good your bad well then go right ahead and i'll disagree with ya. Yeah you can argue he has been a half guy and when you compare era's from one half to the other it backs up that claim but it doesn't tell the whole story. And the whole story for Bronson is that he doesn't pitch a whole half a season poorly and then the other half great and no one does. The whole story is Bronson generally keeps his team in the game in most starts and will have a streak of starts usually all around the same time where he is pretty poor.

RedsManRick
04-10-2010, 01:32 PM
Don't read to much in the monthly splits guys. Random variation is going look like a pattern when you break it in to months. There's basically no predictive value in monthly splits. Even with a few years of data, the sample sizes are just to small.

Arroyo may very well be less consistent from start to start than the average pitcher. And if that's the case, random variation will occasionally group those good and bad starts together. If you want to establish his inconsistency, take a look at the distribution of the quality of his starts.

For example, look at the game scores he's put up over his last 60 starts and calculate the standard deviation -- and then compare that to league average, Harang, or whomever.

Brutus
04-10-2010, 01:45 PM
Don't read to much in the monthly splits guys. Random variation is going look like a pattern when you break it in to months. There's basically no predictive value in monthly splits. Even with a few years of data, the sample sizes are just to small.

Arroyo may very well be less consistent from start to start than the average pitcher. And if that's the case, random variation will occasionally group those good and bad starts together. If you want to establish his inconsistency, take a look at the distribution of the quality of his starts.

For example, look at the game scores he's put up over his last 60 starts and calculate the standard deviation -- and then compare that to league average, Harang, or whomever.

No one is trying to make it a predictive measure but after six years, for whatever reason, it's clear he's been generally mediocre the first half of hte year and pretty good the second half of the year. There's really no explaining why, nor am I arguing there's predictive sense in the numbers, but it's clear that's what's happened almost his entire career.

I personally feel a lot of it is simply the FIP balancing out with the ERA, but he seems to be an exception to normal logic.

mth123
04-10-2010, 02:29 PM
Walt tried to give Arroyo away.

MLB said no.

Who is right?

Based on this, probably not you. What is your source for this nugget?

RedsManRick
04-10-2010, 02:42 PM
So, I decided to do the math myself. Using data from Baseball Reference, here's what I came up with. First the summary stats, then a chart.


Harang Arroyo
Starts 89 101
Min 12 -9
Avg 52.2 50.2
Median 55 53
Max 90 85
StDev 18.8 20.5
http://www.imagechicken.com/uploads/1270928302017973500.jpg (http://www.imagechicken.com)

I wish I could get the GS data for all starts from starters with at least 60 starts from 2007-2009, but I'm not sure where I'd get that. In any event, it does not seem that Arroyo has been significantly more inconsistent than Aaron Harang over the past 3 years on a start to start basis.

As for the clustering of those starts, some analysis of streakiness, there simply isn't enough evidence to make a conclusion that Arroyo has experienced great clutstering of good and bad starts than we might expect somebody to have if the clustering was just due to random variation. That does not mean that we can conclude Arroyo isn't inconsistent, just that we can't conclude that he is.

RedsManRick
04-10-2010, 02:45 PM
No one is trying to make it a predictive measure but after six years, for whatever reason, it's clear he's been generally mediocre the first half of hte year and pretty good the second half of the year. There's really no explaining why, nor am I arguing there's predictive sense in the numbers, but it's clear that's what's happened almost his entire career.

I personally feel a lot of it is simply the FIP balancing out with the ERA, but he seems to be an exception to normal logic.

Thanks for the clarification. We can definitely observe all we want. I certainly can't and won't disagree with what actually happened.

We, all of us, should just be careful about making the inferential leap from observing what happened to concluding that it happened because of some intrinsic characteristic of the player (and is thus likely to happen in the future). Many people make this leap based on some gut feeling of appropriateness and then state their conclusion as fact. That's what gets me frustrated. We should all recognize the limitations of what we can reliably conclude.

jojo
04-10-2010, 03:18 PM
Based on this, probably not you. What is your source for this nugget?

How long was the line of teams that claimed Arroyo from waivers? Or better yet, why didn't a single team risk claiming him?

The Yanks and Dodgers decided to nibble after waivers by saying, "alright, we'll entertain the notion if you take a bad contract...."

Walt couldn't unload Arroyo for the price of his remaining contract- to teams in the league's biggest markets...

RedsManRick
04-10-2010, 03:21 PM
How long was the line of teams that claimed Arroyo from waivers? Or better yet, why didn't a single team risk claiming him?

The Yanks and Dodgers decided to nibble after waivers by saying, "alright, we'll entertain the notion if you take a bad contract...."

Walt couldn't unload Arroyo for the price of his remaining contract.

Just to nitpick, it wasn't that he couldn't unload him. It's that he chose not to given the return he was offered -- and we don't really know what he was offered, do we? Teams haven't exactly been throwing money around mid-season the last 2 years.

jojo
04-10-2010, 03:23 PM
Just to nitpick, it wasn't that he couldn't unload him. It's that he chose not to given the return he was offered -- and we don't really know what he was offered, do we?

It's safe to say there wasn't a single team that would've taken him for his remaining contract-i.e. would've accepted him outright.

RedsManRick
04-10-2010, 03:26 PM
It's safe to say there wasn't a single team that would've taken him for his remaining contract-i.e. would've accepted him outright.

Right, but how many teams have the flexibility in their budgets to just add a few million bucks? Even the Yankees operate within a budget. If you did that in the offseason, I have little doubt somebody would have assumed his contract.

mth123
04-10-2010, 06:48 PM
Just to nitpick, it wasn't that he couldn't unload him. It's that he chose not to given the return he was offered -- and we don't really know what he was offered, do we? Teams haven't exactly been throwing money around mid-season the last 2 years.

Exactly. I think Walt was offering Arroyo (and Harang) for a good retuirn that filled a spot and created enough payflex to get a replacement. Unlike many on here, (since nobody knows and posters are just making stuff up) I'd say WJ knew he was going with a rotation filled with kids and needed a 200+ inning horse or two to anchor the load and keep from burning them up. The team probably would have been able to save 4 or 5 million by dumping Arroyo and going with some one like Jeff Suppan, but Walt knew he'd be less competetive and take a hit of about 50 innings in doing so. Is it worth that little bit in savings to risk blowing out Bailey, Cueto, Chapman, Leake or Volquez? Some times the picture is a lot bigger than what the simplistic math can capture.

mth123
04-10-2010, 06:49 PM
How long was the line of teams that claimed Arroyo from waivers? Or better yet, why didn't a single team risk claiming him?

The Yanks and Dodgers decided to nibble after waivers by saying, "alright, we'll entertain the notion if you take a bad contract...."

Walt couldn't unload Arroyo for the price of his remaining contract- to teams in the league's biggest markets...

Sez who? You? I ask again, what's the source?

jojo
04-10-2010, 06:51 PM
Sez who? You? I ask again, what's the source?

It's a matter of record that no team claimed Arroyo.

It's also common knowledge that the Dodgers and Yanks were involved in talks about Arroyo.

So please PM the fiction writing comments....

mth123
04-10-2010, 07:00 PM
It's a matter of record that no team claimed Arroyo.

It's also common knowledge that the Dodgers and Yanks were involved in talks about Arroyo.

So please PM the fiction writing comments....

Pretty much evey big contract gets put on waivers in July or August. What isn't known is whether anyone claimed them or not (in fact its a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and MLB rules to release that info) Maybe the Reds weren't "trying to give him away" and pulled him back and couldn't make a deal. No one knows, least of all you or me.

The answer is you have no idea.

jojo
04-10-2010, 07:13 PM
Pretty much evey big contract gets put on waivers in July or August. What isn't known is whether anyone claimed them or not (in fact its a violation of the collective bargaining agreement and MLB rules to release that info) Maybe the Reds weren't "trying to give him away" and pulled him back and couldn't make a deal. No one knows, least of all you or me.

The answer is you have no idea.


http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/08/arroyo-and-harang-clear-waivers.html

But given your position, you really can't have a position on this argument.

Caveat Emperor
04-10-2010, 07:16 PM
If Arroyo throws together a solid season, would it make sense to exercise the option, cut Harang loose, and shop one of the youngsters for a veteran bat to fill one of the holes?

Arroyo is the perfect kind of pitcher for a team with a very young staff: a veteran arm who will always take the ball, is a decent lock to throw 200 IP, and can be a "bullpen saver" on a night he pitches.

Bringing him back is a no-brainer, IMO -- especially when you consider it does free the Reds up to shop a young arm.

mth123
04-10-2010, 07:30 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/08/arroyo-and-harang-clear-waivers.html

But given your position, you really can't have a position on this argument.

Proof of nothing. Could just mean no one bothered to claim them like most other big contracts because they figured the Reds would pull them back and hold out for a big deal.

Its a big leap to go from that to "trying to give him away" IMO.

TeamBoone
04-10-2010, 08:25 PM
Based on this, probably not you. What is your source for this nugget?

I don't have a source, but I remember reading something about it as well during the off season.

redsfandan
04-12-2010, 12:24 AM
Arroyo is the perfect kind of pitcher for a team with a very young staff: a veteran arm who will always take the ball, is a decent lock to throw 200 IP, and can be a "bullpen saver" on a night he pitches.

Bringing him back is a no-brainer, IMO -- especially when you consider it does free the Reds up to shop a young arm.
It's a valid point that an inning eater like Arroyo would help out a young staff like the Reds in 2011. But I think it's far from a lock that he'll be back.

Arroyo being an inning eater is pretty much the only advantage that he has over the young guys. Not only will all of the young guys be alot cheaper than Arroyo but it could be argued that all of them have higher ceilings even in just 2011. I don't think it would be a stretch for both Cueto and Bailey to log 200+ innings in 2011 with Volquez, Leake, and Chapman around 180. And when you have 5 starting pitchers that can log that many innings well...

Alot depends on how those 5 young guys do this season but I think the need to keep Arroyo around might be overstated a little. Especially when you have Wood, Maloney, etc for depth. If you want to shop Wood or Maloney that's fine with me but I wouldn't even think of dealing Cueto, Bailey, Leake, Chapman, or Volquez just yet. Unless another team wants to pay a really good price I don't think it's wise to part with young, cheap arms with as much potential as those 5 have.

reds44
04-12-2010, 03:40 AM
Does anybody really expect to go into next year with a rotation of Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Leake, Chapman/Wood? IMO, that would be playing with fire.

If Arroyo posts a typical Arroyo year this year, I agree it's a no brainer to exercise his option and let Harang walk.

Bailey, Leake, Chapman, and Wood are far from being proven major league pitchers. To expect all four of them to pan out just isn't very realistic. Add in Volquez's health and there a lot of if's (obviously) with our young pitchers.

Some of the if's will be answered this year, but I don't see how bringing Arroyo back would be a bad thing.

If Cueto and Bailey can both throw over 200 innings with low 4/high 3 ERAs, Volquez comes back in the last few months of the season and pitches well, Leake has a pretty solid rookie year, and Chapman pitches in the majors the decision could get interesting.

The main point remains having a steady veteran is a good thing with a group of kids.

Chip R
04-12-2010, 09:03 AM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2009/08/arroyo-and-harang-clear-waivers.html

But given your position, you really can't have a position on this argument.


Everybody gets put on waivers then. This is making a mountain out of a crater. But every time someone with a name was found out that they were put on waivers the media reports it like it's news and it gets the fans in a tizzy.

jojo
04-12-2010, 09:53 AM
Everybody gets put on waivers then. This is making a mountain out of a crater. But every time someone with a name was found out that they were put on waivers the media reports it like it's news and it gets the fans in a tizzy.

There is no tizzy. There was no team that risked claiming him either.

Chip R
04-12-2010, 09:57 AM
There is no tizzy. There was no team that risked claiming him either.


Probably because if they did, the Reds would have pulled him back. That's how it works.

Brutus
04-12-2010, 09:59 AM
Probably because if they did, the Reds would have pulled him back. That's how it works.

In this case, I really don't think so. I think the Reds were looking for additional payroll flex and would have sent Harang or Arroyo off to the first one that volunteered to take them at their salaries.

jojo
04-12-2010, 10:09 AM
Probably because if they did, the Reds would have pulled him back. That's how it works.

If that's the case, where is the harm in putting in a claim?

Chip R
04-12-2010, 10:09 AM
In this case, I really don't think so. I think the Reds were looking for additional payroll flex and would have sent Harang or Arroyo off to the first one that volunteered to take them at their salaries.


Yeah, it does work like that. After the trade deadline, any player that is traded has to pass through revocable waivers first. That means that if a player is claimed off those waivers, they can be pulled back. Just because a player goes through waivers unclaimed, doesn't mean the original team wants to get rid of the player. It happened to Dunn, to Jr. It probably happens to Jeter and Pujols too. You really think the Reds would have let Arroyo and/or Harang go without receiving anything back from them in return?

Chip R
04-12-2010, 10:22 AM
If that's the case, where is the harm in putting in a claim?

There is none but some teams operate under a gentleman's agreement to not put in a claim on a player. Claiming a player is also known as "blocking" and some teams get angry when that happens. Let's say the Cubs are trying to move Soriano. The Cards claim him on waivers to block him from going anywhere and from having the Cubs receive anything useful for him. The Cubs pull him back from waivers and now they can't trade him until after the season is over. Then maybe a couple of years down the line the Cards want to trade someone. They put the guy on waivers and then the Cubs put in a claim to block any potential trade. Here are a couple of articles that explains things.

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/unfiltered/?p=1362

http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/bb/6226070.html


“Just about every club runs every player through trade waivers just to secure them,” Wade said. “Sometimes you’ll see a claim put in on a player where the club claiming the player has serious interest in acquiring that player. Often, that’s not the case.”


“It’s complicated, and people set their hair on fire when they hear the Astros asked waivers on Jose Valverde,” Wade said. “It’s in that span of time between Aug. 1 and the end of the season where you’re trying to clear everybody through in the event, however unlikely, that some deal might develop that makes a lot of sense.”

Brutus
04-12-2010, 10:26 AM
Yeah, it does work like that. After the trade deadline, any player that is traded has to pass through revocable waivers first. That means that if a player is claimed off those waivers, they can be pulled back. Just because a player goes through waivers unclaimed, doesn't mean the original team wants to get rid of the player. It happened to Dunn, to Jr. It probably happens to Jeter and Pujols too. You really think the Reds would have let Arroyo and/or Harang go without receiving anything back from them in return?

I know how it works. That wasn't what I was saying. My point was in this case, I don't think the Reds placed them on waivers in hopes of pulling them back, but rather, wanted to see if anyone would take them off their hands. I know how the process works.

And yes, I do think that. They tried trading those two, reportedly, during the July trading period and had very little interest - even from clubs pretty desperate for pitching. If they wanted to rid of the salaries (not the players but the salaries themselves), it was going to take getting pretty much nothing in return.

Chip R
04-12-2010, 10:38 AM
I know how it works. That wasn't what I was saying. My point was in this case, I don't think the Reds placed them on waivers in hopes of pulling them back, but rather, wanted to see if anyone would take them off their hands. I know how the process works.

And yes, I do think that. They tried trading those two, reportedly, during the July trading period and had very little interest - even from clubs pretty desperate for pitching. If they wanted to rid of the salaries (not the players but the salaries themselves), it was going to take getting pretty much nothing in return.


Yeah. You're dreaming if you really think they would have let them go for nothing.

jojo
04-12-2010, 10:39 AM
Yeah. You're dreaming if you really think they would have let them go for nothing.

That's kinda what people thought about Rios too...

Brutus
04-12-2010, 10:40 AM
Yeah. You're dreaming if you really think they would have let them go for nothing.

How am I dreaming? At the time, it was believed (and reported) the Reds thought they may have to cut salary. Jocketty was on record as saying he was interested in upgrading the bats, if the salary would allow. Why is it so far fetched that the Reds may have been looking to shed $10-12 mil in payroll, even if it meant getting nothing in return? That's not dreaming - that's realistic. Dreaming is thinking this would have been a baseball decision. It would have been a finances decision.

Brutus
04-12-2010, 10:40 AM
double

Chip R
04-12-2010, 10:54 AM
How am I dreaming? At the time, it was believed (and reported) the Reds thought they may have to cut salary. Jocketty was on record as saying he was interested in upgrading the bats, if the salary would allow. Why is it so far fetched that the Reds may have been looking to shed $10-12 mil in payroll, even if it meant getting nothing in return? That's not dreaming - that's realistic. Dreaming is thinking this would have been a baseball decision. It would have been a finances decision.


When have the Reds ever done that before?

Brutus
04-12-2010, 11:09 AM
When have the Reds ever done that before?

When has the club wanted to rid of a contract?

OnBaseMachine
04-12-2010, 11:13 AM
The Mets were reportedly hot after Bronson Arroyo this offseason, so to say no one wanted him isn't really true...

jojo
04-12-2010, 11:34 AM
The Mets were reportedly hot after Bronson Arroyo this offseason, so to say no one wanted him isn't really true...

Clearly teams inquired about him. The central question is what his trade value was (i.e. how badly did teams want him). They didn't want him badly enough to pay his salary.

Chip R
04-12-2010, 11:38 AM
When has the club wanted to rid of a contract?


When have the Reds ever just let a player get claimed through waivers that had value?

TRF
04-12-2010, 12:26 PM
When have the Reds ever just let a player get claimed through waivers that had value?

Randy Myers? I think.

Chip R
04-12-2010, 12:43 PM
Randy Myers? I think.


That was the Padres. TOR put him on waivers in 98 and S.D. claimed him to keep the Braves from getting him. TOR let the Padres have him and they were stuck with his salary.

redsfandan
04-12-2010, 05:24 PM
When have the Reds ever just let a player get claimed through waivers that had value?
Has Jocketty ever done it? That might be more relevant.

Anyway, like Jojo mentioned, Rios showed that it's not unheard of for a team to cut ties with a player without receiving anything more than payroll room.

edabbs44
04-12-2010, 05:26 PM
The Mets were reportedly hot after Bronson Arroyo this offseason, so to say no one wanted him isn't really true...

They probably wanted him at half his cost. The Mets aren't exactly flush with cash right now.

TRF
04-12-2010, 05:45 PM
That was the Padres. TOR put him on waivers in 98 and S.D. claimed him to keep the Braves from getting him. TOR let the Padres have him and they were stuck with his salary.

That's right. I couldn't remember who waived him. The Padres didn't want someone else to claim him and TOR let him go.

Chip R
04-12-2010, 08:19 PM
Has Jocketty ever done it? That might be more relevant.

Anyway, like Jojo mentioned, Rios showed that it's not unheard of for a team to cut ties with a player without receiving anything more than payroll room.

Of course it's not unheard of. Jocketty certainly didn't have to do it in StL since they were flush with money.

People love to come on here and complain about the Reds being cheap and having fire sales but they have absolutely not let productive guys go for nothing. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who they have let go on a waiver claim in August for a salary dump. All I hear was, "Well, they intended to do this and they intended to do that" but that's just speculation since "this" and "that" never happened.

redsfandan
04-13-2010, 05:35 AM
People love to come on here and complain about the Reds being cheap and having fire sales but they have absolutely not let productive guys go for nothing. I'm still waiting for someone to tell me who they have let go on a waiver claim in August for a salary dump. All I hear was, "Well, they intended to do this and they intended to do that" but that's just speculation since "this" and "that" never happened.
I bet there's some on here that think that a certain former Reds leftfielder was let go for nothing. ;)

blumj
04-13-2010, 08:37 AM
Still, the fact that he wasn't claimed doesn't mean no one would have taken his contract at the right price. No one claimed Kazmir, either, and we know at least one team was willing to trade for him at what they considered the right price.

Falls City Beer
04-13-2010, 08:58 PM
Bad Arroyo is always--always--just around the corner. Lurking.

OnBaseMachine
04-13-2010, 09:01 PM
Bad Arroyo is always--always--just around the corner. Lurking.

Though to be fair, if Drew Stubbs catches that flyball then Arroyo allows only three runs in 6 IP.

I agree though. A 6-1 lead in the 5th inning should be safe. It seems like everytime the offense shows up the pitching goes south. This team is frustrating to watch.

WebScorpion
04-14-2010, 12:46 AM
I just can't believe how much fussing people do about our 5-3 team...1/2 game out of first. The BRMs trademark was coming from behind late in the game...it's not frustrating if you have faith. These kids can play ball! ;) Arroyo's second start wasn't as spectacular as his first...then again, it didn't need to be. :D meh.

paulrichjr
04-14-2010, 01:03 AM
Though to be fair, if Drew Stubbs catches that flyball then Arroyo allows only three runs in 6 IP.

This team is frustrating to watch.

uhhh....have you been watching for the last ten years or so? We are winning close games instead of losing them...the mark of a good team. This summer could be fun!

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20100413/SPT04/304130041/1071/Reds+outlast+Marlins+10-8
The Reds (5-3) have won five of their past six games. All five wins came on runs scored on the club’s final at-bat.

“That hasn’t happened a lot since I’ve been on this team,” Arroyo said. “It’s refreshing. ... When you look back in five months, these are the kind of huge wins that can change the standings.”

OnBaseMachine
04-14-2010, 01:04 AM
uhhh....have you been watching for the last ten years or so? We are winning close games instead of losing them...the mark of a good team. This summer could be fun!

Winning close games is nice but I prefer they not turn five run leads into close games. ;)