PDA

View Full Version : Pathetic



Pages : [1] 2

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 08:11 PM
Even Tim Kurkjian -- who rarely rips anyone -- just ripped the Reds as the "loser" of the trading deadline.

Lovely.

Seriously, finding a deal for a decent middle reliever like Farnsworth was that difficult? Every team in the race was able to improve themselves, yet the Reds found this to be an exercise in futility?

toledodan
07-31-2010, 08:16 PM
i agree 100%. while you shouldn't make a move just to make one, there had to be something they could have done. they can still make one in august but it will be harder to pull off.

PuffyPig
07-31-2010, 08:17 PM
The Reds greatest strength this year is depth. Pretty much everywhere.

Another middle reliever, with Burton, Izzy, Springer and Chapman at AAA wasn't really needed.

Unless the player involved was very good, they likely wouldn't have helped Cincy very much.

toledodan
07-31-2010, 08:19 PM
The Reds greatest strength this year is depth. Pretty much everywhere.

Another middle reliever, with Burton, Izzy, Springer and Chapman at AAA wasn't really needed.

Unless the player involved was very good, they likely wouldn't have helped Cincy very much.



if burton and chapman were ready to help they would already be here. i still have my doubts on izzy and springer being viable.

Falls City Beer
07-31-2010, 08:22 PM
Yeah, not exactly WJ's finest hour. Even if you can't pick up someone for this year, the deadline should be a time for taking advantage of teams' willingness to move talent.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 08:22 PM
And just to get out in front of it ... I would never endorse "making a move just to make a move." But if you are the GM of the Reds and you just let the trading deadline pass without improving the club, I would have to say "epic fail."

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 08:23 PM
As I have said earlier today.... I feel the Reds felt the true upgrades weren't available. No need to trade for a very minimal upgrade.

edabbs44
07-31-2010, 08:24 PM
And just to get out in front of it ... I would never endorse "making a move just to make a move." But if you are the GM of the Reds and you just let the trading deadline pass without improving the club, I would have to say "epic fail."

Those same words were said by a few at the start of the season when some felt that enough wasn't done in the offseason to put out a winning team.

Falls City Beer
07-31-2010, 08:25 PM
As I have said earlier today.... I feel the Reds felt the true upgrades weren't available. No need to trade for a very minimal upgrade.

I have no doubt that's what the Reds think. But talent was moving--be it for now or later.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 08:27 PM
Sorry, every other team in the race was able to improve their club via trades, but the Reds just have such an abundance of depth that we didn't need to participate? I'm not buying it. I like Walt, but he didn't do his job well enough in this situation. It was his job to find a way to improve the team at/before the trading deadline and he failed.

RedLegSuperStar
07-31-2010, 08:29 PM
The thing is they waited til Volquez got back.. That's fared well.. Bailey and Harang are on the DL. Leake is pitching every eigth day or so. That's just the rotation. Has anyone seen Drew Stubbs and Jonny Gomes get a hit in the past week or so.. How bout Jay Bruce. The quick fix would be to bring Dickerson up to relieve the duties of Stubbs. But with the lack of production from half the lineup that doesn't even match up to the consistancy of one Francisco Cordero. How many hairs have been lost this year alone by the guy? All this while Russ Springer is in Louisville putting zeros on the board night in and night out. I am about as livid as the rest of you except for those who still think they should play for the following season every year. When every possible playoff team makes a move and you do nothing and say that their just wasn't an upgrade out there. Really? I'm pretty sure I've heard about 15 players mentioned this past month that would have been huge upgrades.

Falls City Beer
07-31-2010, 08:29 PM
It was his job to find a way to improve the team at/before the trading deadline and he failed.

It doesn't mean he's a monster. But yeah, it's pretty undeniable that he didn't improve a team that he needed to improve in order to make the postseason.

alloverjr
07-31-2010, 08:29 PM
Those same words were said by a few at the start of the season when some felt that enough wasn't done in the offseason to put out a winning team.

And some would still feel that way.

reds44
07-31-2010, 08:30 PM
The thing is they waited til Volquez got back.. That's fared well.. Bailey and Harang are on the DL. Leake is pitching every eigth day or so. That's just the rotation. Has anyone seen Drew Stubbs and Jonny Gomes get a hit in the past week or so.. How bout Jay Bruce. The quick fix would be to bring Dickerson up to relieve the duties of Stubbs. But with the lack of production from half the lineup that doesn't even match up to the consistancy of one Francisco Cordero. How many hairs have been lost this year alone by the guy? All this while Russ Springer is in Louisville putting zeros on the board night in and night out. I am about as livid as the rest of you except for those who still think they should play for the following season every year. When every possible playoff team makes a move and you do nothing and say that their just wasn't an upgrade out there. Really? I'm pretty sure I've heard about 15 players mentioned this past month that would have been huge upgrades.
And this team is a half game out of first place.

The sky is not falling. Everybody relax.

edabbs44
07-31-2010, 08:34 PM
And some would still feel that way.

That's sad.

Falls City Beer
07-31-2010, 08:34 PM
That's sad.

.500 is kissing your sister. 97 wins is Christy Turlington.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 08:35 PM
Did anyone else bring in a lefty reliever who can throw 102 MPH? The Reds have one they can call on at any point they want to. If the Reds traded for a lefty who throws up to 102 MPH at the deadline would we not be acting like the sky is falling? The Reds have parts they can add to make their team better tomorrow if they want to. Aroldis Chapman, Chris Dickerson and Homer Bailey could probably help this team out tomorrow (well, not Bailey since he threw 6.2 shutout innings for Louisville tonight on 83 pitches, but yeah, in 5 days for him).

I just don't see the sky falling in my front yard.

RedLegSuperStar
07-31-2010, 08:38 PM
And this team is a half game out of first place.

The sky is not falling. Everybody relax.

My fault.. I've seen two playoff apperances since 1988 when I went to my first Reds game. Sorry for pointing out areas of concern that could of been addressed today or earlier this week. I've never known a "trade to make a trade" move.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 08:38 PM
Did anyone else bring in a lefty reliever who can throw 102 MPH? The Reds have one they can call on at any point they want to. If the Reds traded for a lefty who throws up to 102 MPH at the deadline would we not be acting like the sky is falling? The Reds have parts they can add to make their team better tomorrow if they want to. Aroldis Chapman, Chris Dickerson and Homer Bailey could probably help this team out tomorrow (well, not Bailey since he threw 6.2 shutout innings for Louisville tonight on 83 pitches, but yeah, in 5 days for him).

I just don't see the sky falling in my front yard.

The sky certainly is not falling. But I would have preferred if the Reds were not the only team in the race (NL Central or wildcard) that didn't do something to improve themselves at the trading deadline. And if Chapman is ready, what the hell are they waiting for? Every game is crucial at this point. Bring him up ASAFP.

edabbs44
07-31-2010, 08:39 PM
.500 is kissing your sister. 97 wins is Christy Turlington.

They aren't .500. And this isn't the last year of this franchise.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 08:40 PM
The sky certainly is not falling. But I would have preferred if the Reds were not the only team in the race (NL Central or wildcard) that didn't do something to improve themselves. And if Chapman is ready, what the hell are they waiting for? Every game is crucial at this point. Bring him up ASAFP.
That is the point though, the Reds didn't need to make trades to address the issues other teams do. They believe they have those guys in Louisville today and I don't doubt its another week before we see at least one of the relievers come up and less than that before we see Dickerson up here who has been killing it in AAA on rehab.

osuceltic
07-31-2010, 08:41 PM
I hope I'm wrong, but I think we'll look back on this as a tipping point. We have so many guys who have maxed out to get us to this point, and we can't expect them to continue/repeat those kinds of performances. We needed a boost for the stretch run. Instead, we clutched tight to prospects, most of whom I'd classify as nothing more than marginal. Right now I see us fading in September, losing the division to the Cards, then finding ourselves treading water at .500 at this time next season, looking back wistfully at the opportunity we let slip away.

But like I said ... I hope I'm wrong.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 08:41 PM
As for Dickerson, I don't see him helping much down the stretch. I would have liked to see the Reds trade for a veteran OF who could have helped. A guy that could come off the bench, or get spots starts for our trio of outfielders that struggle from time to time (Gomes, Stubbs, Bruce). Does anyone really think we have the qualify of OF's to really make a run at this thing? I don't think Dickerson will be the answer. He's not that good to begin with and he's going to be extremely rusty.

reds44
07-31-2010, 08:41 PM
My fault.. I've seen two playoff apperances since 1988 when I went to my first Reds game. Sorry for pointing out areas of concern that could of been addressed today or earlier this week. I've never known a "trade to make a trade" move.
So you wanted to the Reds to trade for a LF, CF, SP, and RP?

I've never seen the Reds in the playoffs. I'm somebody who became a fan during the lost decade for some crazy reason, so I feel your pain.

The last time we were in a pennant race we peed ourself and made a trade to make a trade. We didn't this time.

Falls City Beer
07-31-2010, 08:41 PM
They aren't .500. And this isn't the last year of this franchise.

You're right. But all teams in the Reds financial situation are one major injury away from vanishing back into the weeds for a decade.

"Future seasons" are, in short, pretty nebulous for a team like the Reds.

edabbs44
07-31-2010, 08:42 PM
My fault.. I've seen two playoff apperances since 1988 when I went to my first Reds game. Sorry for pointing out areas of concern that could of been addressed today or earlier this week. I've never known a "trade to make a trade" move.

I said this in another thread a week or two ago, but I think Walt cares more about the overall health and future of this franchise than playing for the playoffs this year because some fans haven't seen the playoffs, ever.

reds44
07-31-2010, 08:42 PM
You're right. But all teams in the Reds financial situation are one major injury away from vanishing back into the weeds for a decade
True. If Joey Votto's leg falls off and he can never play baseball again, I'll be worried.

mth123
07-31-2010, 08:42 PM
I hope I'm wrong, but I think we'll look back on this as a tipping point. We have so many guys who have maxed out to get us to this point, and we can't expect them to continue/repeat those kinds of performances. We needed a boost for the stretch run. Instead, we clutched tight to prospects, most of whom I'd classify as nothing more than marginal. Right now I see us fading in September, losing the division to the Cards, then finding ourselves treading water at .500 at this time next season, looking back wistfully at the opportunity we let slip away.

But like I said ... I hope I'm wrong.

Agreed.

Falls City Beer
07-31-2010, 08:45 PM
True. If Joey Votto's leg falls off and he can never play baseball again, I'll be worried.

Teams like the Cards, the Yankees, the Rays, Red Sox don't have these kinds of concerns. The Reds will never have both the depth at the MLB AND minor league levels to win year in and year out. They'll win sometimes, they won't other seasons. It's just not linear growth for a team like the Reds. They could be flat awful next season. You have to go for it; you have to go for it intelligently--but you have to go for it.

reds44
07-31-2010, 08:47 PM
Teams like the Cards, the Yankees, the Rays, Red Sox don't have these kinds of concerns. The Reds will never have both the depth at the MLB AND minor league levels to win year in and year out. They'll win sometimes, they won't other seasons. It's just not linear growth for a team like the Reds. They could be flat awful next season. You have to go for it; you have to go for it intelligently--but you have to go for it.
Oh so if Albert Pujols got seriously hurt they'd be fine?

Please.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 08:47 PM
You're right. But all teams in the Reds financial situation are one major injury away from vanishing back into the weeds for a decade.

"Future seasons" are, in short, pretty nebulous for a team like the Reds.

Unless that injury is Joey Votto losing a leg, I don't really see that happening.

Falls City Beer
07-31-2010, 08:47 PM
Oh so if Albert Pujols got seriously hurt they'd be fine?

Please.

They have the cash to shore up the loss.

TheNext44
07-31-2010, 08:48 PM
I believe it was Branch Rickey who said, "The best trades are the one never made."

Fans scream for their teams to make deadline deals to improve their team, and yet, the overwhelming number of those trades do not end up making a difference in the standings at the end of the year.

If the Cardinals had gotten Haren or Oswalt, or even Westbrook without having to give up Ludwick, than I would be upset. But looking at the trades that did go down at this deadline, I am very glad that the Reds did not make one

reds44
07-31-2010, 08:48 PM
They have the cash to shore up the loss.
You wanna bet?

Same thing with the Rays. Watch what happens to the Rays next season.

edabbs44
07-31-2010, 08:49 PM
You're right. But all teams in the Reds financial situation are one major injury away from vanishing back into the weeds for a decade.

"Future seasons" are, in short, pretty nebulous for a team like the Reds.

It would have been nice to see them nail a deal today to upgrade the franchise, but I'm not even sure that there were many players moving that Cincy really could have used.

TheNext44
07-31-2010, 08:50 PM
Teams like the Cards, the Yankees, the Rays, Red Sox don't have these kinds of concerns. The Reds will never have both the depth at the MLB AND minor league levels to win year in and year out. They'll win sometimes, they won't other seasons. It's just not linear growth for a team like the Reds. They could be flat awful next season. You have to go for it; you have to go for it intelligently--but you have to go for it.

People were saying that about the Cardinals and the Rays at some point, and the Twins too, but they were smart have become one of the powerhouses without the unlimited budget the Yanks and Sawks have.

OnBaseMachine
07-31-2010, 08:51 PM
So you guys are fine with entering the final two months of the season with Jonny Gomes and his line of .269/.322/.452 - .774 OPS as the starting LFer? That includes a 1.056 OPS in May and the .704 OPS or under in the other three months. Not to mention his well below average defense. Left field is/was a position of need and Jocketty failed to address it. Luke Scott would have been a great target, IMO.

Slyder
07-31-2010, 08:52 PM
Who's left that hasnt been traded? I'll look.

Cause unless you want to bring Dunn back to play LF there arent any really big names left.

TheNext44
07-31-2010, 08:52 PM
They have the cash to shore up the loss.

If they don't have the cash to keep Ryan Ludwick and add Jake Westbrook at the same time, they don't have the cash to replace Pujols.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 08:52 PM
So you guys are fine with entering the final two months of the season with Jonny Gomes and his line of .269/.322/.452 - .774 OPS? That includes a 1.056 OPS in May and the .704 OPS or under in the other three months. Not to mention his well below average defense. Left field is/was a position of need and Jocketty failed to address it. Luke Scott would have been a great target, IMO.

Dude, you mention Gomes without mentioning Stubbs who has been far worse? C'mon now. Either way, we could have used some OF help. And our RF isn't exactly tearing it up either (although I like him).

reds44
07-31-2010, 08:52 PM
So you guys are fine with entering the final two months of the season with Jonny Gomes and his line of .269/.322/.452 - .774 OPS as the starting LFer? That includes a 1.056 OPS in May and the .704 OPS or under in the other three months. Not to mention his well below average defense. Left field is/was a position of need and Jocketty failed to address it. Luke Scott would have been a great target, IMO.
Which LFer got traded that you would have liked?

RedLegSuperStar
07-31-2010, 08:52 PM
So you wanted to the Reds to trade for a LF, CF, SP, and RP?

I've never seen the Reds in the playoffs. I'm somebody who became a fan during the lost decade for some crazy reason, so I feel your pain.

The last time we were in a pennant race we peed ourself and made a trade to make a trade. We didn't this time.

I wanted them to use the chips they had to improve this team. They have no room at the big league level for Alonso, Frazier, Valaika, and Francisco. This team has holes that need to be filled if they want to sniff playoff air. If they had a good reason for not proving to this fan base that they are committed to taking this team to the next level then come out and say that. We are starting to see sell out crowds which should give them more of a reason to improve this team. Not making a move for the sake of making a move is fine.. But don't go on record and say that you were in a Cliff Lee and not do anything. That's what gets me.. That's what upsets me.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 08:52 PM
So you guys are fine with entering the final two months of the season with Jonny Gomes and his line of .269/.322/.452 - .774 OPS? That includes a 1.056 OPS in May and the .704 OPS or under in the other three months. Not to mention his well below average defense. Left field is/was a position of need and Jocketty failed to address it. Luke Scott would have been a great target, IMO.
It isn't that WE are fine with Gomes, its that the Reds are. That is why they didn't make a move. They feel that Gomes is their starter. They like his fire and RBI's. Luke Scott is an older, more expensive version of a guy raking in AAA for the Bats right now. A guy that no one wanted for $50,000 in the Rule Five draft.

OnBaseMachine
07-31-2010, 08:52 PM
Which LFer got traded that you would have liked?

Luke Scott was reportedly available.

reds44
07-31-2010, 08:53 PM
Dude, you mention Gomes without mentioning Stubbs who has been far worse? C'mon now. Either way, we could have used some OF help. And our RF isn't exactly tearing it up either (although I like him).
Show me a guy who got traded that would have been an improvement. Imaginary deals are great, but did any OFers even get traded?

reds44
07-31-2010, 08:53 PM
Luke Scott was reportedly available.
There's a reason he didn't get traded. Who knows if he was actually available. Fact of the matter is nobody got traded who would have been worth getting.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 08:53 PM
Show me a guy who got traded that would have been an improvement. Imaginary deals are great, but did any OFers even get traded?

Unless Ryan Ludwick is an imaginary figure, yes. Austin Kearns too (although I didn't want him). Not saying the Cards would have traded us Ludwick, just disproving your post.

reds44
07-31-2010, 08:54 PM
Unless Ryan Ludwick is an imaginary figure, yes. Austin Kearns too (although I didn't want him).
The Cardinals were going to trade Ludwick to the team their battling in the division race for?

Yeah, no.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 08:54 PM
The Cardinals were going to trade Ludwick to the team their battling in the division race for?

Yeah, no.

See above.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 08:54 PM
Unless Ryan Ludwick is an imaginary figure, yes. Austin Kearns too (although I didn't want him). Not saying the Cards would have traded us Ludwick, just disproving your post.

Except it doesn't disprove it because as you noted, he simply wasn't available to us unless we said hey Cardinals, we will give you Mike Leake for him.

reds44
07-31-2010, 08:55 PM
Except it doesn't disprove it because as you noted, he simply wasn't available to us unless we said hey Cardinals, we will give you Mike Leake for him.
Ding.

And I'll take my chances with Heisey over Kearns.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 08:56 PM
Except it doesn't disprove it because as you noted, he simply wasn't available to us unless we said hey Cardinals, we will give you Mike Leake for him.

No, I was disproving the notion that "no OF's were traded." Simply not true.

I was not trying to suggest that the Reds wanted Ludwick or that the Cards would have dealt him to us. If people don't say false things like "no OF's were traded" I won't have to correct them.

Homer Bailey
07-31-2010, 08:57 PM
Honest question for those that are whining about no deals being done.

Do you think Walt wanted to improve this team? If you think the answer is no, please find another team to root for.

His job is to evaluate ways in which the team can improve, and determine whether it is worth it to make certain moves to improve the team. He clearly did not see a move that was worth making, and he has WAY more information than any of us had on any deals. There is no way to know what was offered, who he was after, or whether or not Bob shut him down on certain deals.

The Reds are 8-1-1 in their last ten series. Please relax.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 08:57 PM
Ding.

And I'll take my chances with Heisey over Kearns.

No question I would take Heisey over Kearns. Was that the debate? Must have missed that. BTW, I'll take Heisey over Stubbs. Discuss.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 08:57 PM
No, I was disproving the notion that "no OF's were traded." Simply not true.

I was not trying to suggest that the Reds wanted Ludwick or that the Cards would have dealt him to us. If people don't say false things like "no OF's were traded" I won't have to correct them.

I am pretty sure that the comment was made in terms of outfielders the Reds could have actually landed. Ludwick wasn't a guy the Reds were actually going to land.

reds44
07-31-2010, 08:58 PM
No, I was disproving the notion that "no OF's were traded." Simply not true.

I was not trying to suggest that the Reds wanted Ludwick or that the Cards would have dealt him to us. If people don't say false things like "no OF's were traded" I won't have to correct them.
You didn't correct anything, you twisted words.

How about this: show me an OFer that got traded that the team who traded the player actually would have traded him to the Reds that presents an upgrade.

I'm waiting.

edabbs44
07-31-2010, 08:58 PM
So you guys are fine with entering the final two months of the season with Jonny Gomes and his line of .269/.322/.452 - .774 OPS? That includes a 1.056 OPS in May and the .704 OPS or under in the other three months. Not to mention his well below average defense. Left field is/was a position of need and Jocketty failed to address it. Luke Scott would have been a great target, IMO.

How do you know he wasn't targeted?

He has also played only 39 games in the OF in the last two years. Are we sure that he was even an option for the OF?

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 08:58 PM
I am pretty sure that the comment was made in terms of outfielders the Reds could have actually landed. Ludwick wasn't a guy the Reds were actually going to land.

No, he said flat out "no OF's were traded." We don't know who Jocketty was interested in since he keeps things closer to the vest than any GM I can name.

reds44
07-31-2010, 08:59 PM
No question I would take Heisey over Kearns. Was that the debate? Must have missed that. BTW, I'll take Heisey over Stubbs. Discuss.
What point are you even trying to make anymore? People are upset that we didn't trade for people who didn't even get traded, or in your case a guy we couldn't have acquired unless we grossly overpaid for.

Fact of the matter is nobody knows who was actually available and at for what cost.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:00 PM
No, he said flat out "no OF's were traded." We don't know who Jocketty was interested in since he keeps things closer to the vest than any GM I can name.
You know exactly what I meant. Stop twisting words.

And if you didn't know what I meant, I'm telling you what I meant now.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:01 PM
You didn't correct anything, you twisted words.

How about this: show me an OFer that got traded that the team who traded the player actually would have traded him to the Reds that presents an upgrade.

I'm waiting.

OK, let me check with Jocketty and every other GM in MLB and I'll be able to answer this question. You don't know who was available and who wasn't. You don't know who Jocketty wanted and who he didn't. All we know is that the Reds did nothing to improve themselves at the deadline, while every other team in the race did. I put that on the GM. We don't know exactly what deals should have/could have been done, but we certainly know nothing was done to improve the club.

Slyder
07-31-2010, 09:03 PM
We can still make a trade after tonight. I figure everyone on Monday is going to be on the waiver wire just be patient. We traded Dunn on what August 10 a couple years back?

I perfectly honest wouldnt have minded Kerry Wood if PTBN was all it would take. My first priority would have been a middle of the rotation starter. Why? I do not trust Volquez, Bailey, Harang, Leake (innings), Wood as we get to the heat of the race. Each one of them have ? about how healthy they are, about how much they'll be able to be expected to carry and just what physical shape we would be in. And I do not believe that Chapman will be in a position to be anything other than a 25th man. I feel we need one more solid vet who come playoff time could start in a high pressure game or be used in the pen.

I do not trust our rotation when we stop playing teams like the Astros and get a steady dose of Albert, LA, Atlanta, Philadelphia type teams which is all that October is about. SS and LF would have been nice to add but name someone that was legitimately available this team could really added and not sacrificed elsewhere. SS is quickly reverting to a glove position of Ramirez and a bunch of mid 700 ops guys.

edabbs44
07-31-2010, 09:04 PM
OK, let me check with Jocketty and every other GM in MLB and I'll be able to answer this question. You don't know who was available and who wasn't. You don't know who Jocketty wanted and who he didn't. All we know is that the Reds did nothing to improve themselves at the deadline, while every other team in the race did. I put that on the GM. We don't know exactly what deals should have/could have been done, but we certainly know nothing was done to improve the club.

Knowing his track record both in Cincy and with other clubs, I think it is fair to assume that he really didn't screw up today.

hebroncougar
07-31-2010, 09:04 PM
Yeah, not exactly WJ's finest hour. Even if you can't pick up someone for this year, the deadline should be a time for taking advantage of teams' willingness to move talent.

The other deadline Walt has been here, he did pretty darn well. So I would have to assume that there were no deals to be made that he felt could help the club. Geeze, people are negative. I think the Cards are nuts for trading Ludwick for what they got back.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:04 PM
Honest question for those that are whining about no deals being done.

Do you think Walt wanted to improve this team? If you think the answer is no, please find another team to root for.

His job is to evaluate ways in which the team can improve, and determine whether it is worth it to make certain moves to improve the team. He clearly did not see a move that was worth making, and he has WAY more information than any of us had on any deals. There is no way to know what was offered, who he was after, or whether or not Bob shut him down on certain deals.

The Reds are 8-1-1 in their last ten series. Please relax.

Meh. "Wanting" something is not enough. I'm sure he "wanted" to improve the club, but the bottom line is that he didn't. I want to be rich. If I don't work hard enough to get there, I won't be. It doesn't matter what you want, it matters what you do. Walt didn't "do" enough in this situation IMO. I would love to be wrong, but I'm sure we'll look back on this as a huge opportunity missed.

hebroncougar
07-31-2010, 09:05 PM
OK, let me check with Jocketty and every other GM in MLB and I'll be able to answer this question. You don't know who was available and who wasn't. You don't know who Jocketty wanted and who he didn't. All we know is that the Reds did nothing to improve themselves at the deadline, while every other team in the race did. I put that on the GM. We don't know exactly what deals should have/could have been done, but we certainly know nothing was done to improve the club.

And neither do you.

Falls City Beer
07-31-2010, 09:05 PM
The other deadline Walt has been here, he did pretty darn well. So I would have to assume that there were no deals to be made that he felt could help the club. Geeze, people are negative. I think the Cards are nuts for trading Ludwick for what they got back.

I agree Walt did great last year.

OnBaseMachine
07-31-2010, 09:06 PM
No, I'm not 100% sure Jocketty wanted to make a trade. He has stated over and over that he didn't want to mess with the "team chemistry" and would be fine standing pat.

edabbs44
07-31-2010, 09:06 PM
We can still make a trade after tonight. I figure everyone on Monday is going to be on the waiver wire just be patient. We traded Dunn on what August 10 a couple years back?

I perfectly honest wouldnt have minded Kerry Wood if PTBN was all it would take. My first priority would have been a middle of the rotation starter. Why? I do not trust Volquez, Bailey, Harang, Leake (innings), Wood as we get to the heat of the race. Each one of them have ? about how healthy they are, about how much they'll be able to be expected to carry and just what physical shape we would be in. And I do not believe that Chapman will be in a position to be anything other than a 25th man. I feel we need one more solid vet who come playoff time could start in a high pressure game or be used in the pen.

I do not trust our rotation when we stop playing teams like the Astros and get a steady dose of Albert, LA, Atlanta, Philadelphia type teams which is all that October is about. SS and LF would have been nice to add but name someone that was legitimately available this team could really added and not sacrificed elsewhere. SS is quickly reverting to a glove position of Ramirez and a bunch of mid 700 ops guys.

Wood is costing NY btw $1.5 and $2MM. I'm not sure that it would be money well spent for the Reds.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:06 PM
All we know is that the Reds did nothing to improve themselves at the deadline, while every other team in the race did. I put that on the GM. We don't know exactly what deals should have/could have been done, but we certainly know nothing was done to improve the club.

Simply because we didn't make a trade doesn't mean we aren't going to make moves to improve our club. Again.... Dickerson, Bailey, Chapman, Isringhausen and Springer are all options to help the Reds tomorrow if the Reds want it to be that way. You are acting as if we have none of those guys as options and still made no moves at all. If that were the case, then you would have a major thing to be griping about. For now, you are griping about not improving the team through trades while completely ignoring the fact that the Reds have guys who just took off Louisville Bats jerseys that multiple teams wish they could have added today.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:06 PM
And neither do you.

Exactly. And thankfully that is not even close to my point. The point is that Walt did not improve the team, while every other GM in the race did.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:06 PM
Meh. "Wanting" something is not enough. I'm sure he "wanted" to improve the club, but the bottom line is that he didn't. I want to be rich. If I don't work hard enough to get there, I won't be. It doesn't matter what you want, it matters what you do. Walt didn't "do" enough in this situation IMO. I would love to be wrong, but I'm sure we'll look back on this as a huge opportunity missed.
And what if there were no deals out there that woudl have improved the club? Clearly the market was OF heavy this year, and that's the Reds major need.

It easy to sit here and make imaginary trades. I have enough faith in Jocketty that he decided he couldn't do anything to improve the club.

edabbs44
07-31-2010, 09:07 PM
No, I'm not 100% sure Jocketty wanted to make a trade. He has stated over and over that he didn't want to mess with the "team chemistry" and would be fine standing pat.

But yet we heard him involved with a number of names like Hart, Downs, Lee and Lilly?

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:07 PM
And what if there were no deals out there that woudl have improved the club? Clearly the market was OF heavy this year, and that's the Reds major need.

It easy to sit here and make imaginary trades. I have enough faith in Jocketty that he decided he couldn't do anything to improve the club.

I just find it hard to believe that the Reds were the only team that was so stacked with depth that we didn't need to make a trade to improve ourselves. There had to be a deal out there, Walt just didn't find it.

Slyder
07-31-2010, 09:07 PM
Wood is costing NY btw $1.5 and $2MM. I'm not sure that it would be money well spent for the Reds.

You have more faith in Cordero than I do.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:08 PM
But yet we heard him involved with a number of names like Hart, Downs, Lee and Lilly?
And he told the media he was close on a couple things before they fell apart at the end.

Liar.

Homer Bailey
07-31-2010, 09:08 PM
Meh. "Wanting" something is not enough. I'm sure he "wanted" to improve the club, but the bottom line is that he didn't. I want to be rich. If I don't work hard enough to get there, I won't be. It doesn't matter what you want, it matters what you do. Walt didn't "do" enough in this situation IMO. I would love to be wrong, but I'm sure we'll look back on this as a huge opportunity missed.

So you're just claiming Walt didn't work hard enough? You think he should have made a deal that he really didn't want to do?

Homer Bailey
07-31-2010, 09:08 PM
OK, let me check with Jocketty and every other GM in MLB and I'll be able to answer this question. You don't know who was available and who wasn't. You don't know who Jocketty wanted and who he didn't. All we know is that the Reds did nothing to improve themselves at the deadline, while every other team in the race did. I put that on the GM. We don't know exactly what deals should have/could have been done, but we certainly know nothing was done to improve the club.

Right back at you.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:08 PM
I just find it hard to believe that the Reds were the only team that was so stacked with depth that we didn't need to make a trade to improve ourselves. There had to be a deal out there, Walt just didn't find it.
It has nothing to do with depth and everything to do with what was on the market and what the asking price was.

edabbs44
07-31-2010, 09:09 PM
You have more faith in Cordero than I do.

Not a fan of Cordero, but is Kerry Wood really an upgrade?

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:09 PM
One thing I think we can all agree on: Kerry Wood is terrible. Didn't want that bum.

dman
07-31-2010, 09:10 PM
If this were Wayne Krivsky, Dan O'Brien, or even Jim Bowden we were angry at for not making moves then I would be inclined to be upset as well. I'm not upset over Walt Jocketty not making any trades, because as others have stated, there just wasn't anything out there that we don't already have that could've made the team any better.

How many Cardinal teams under Jocketty's helm were either in post-season appearances or very competitive while he was there? I guess for me, I trust that the guys is savvy enough to know what he's doing when it comes down to these things, especially when compared to out 3 previous GM's.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:10 PM
Again, how many teams would have liked to add a Homer Bailey, Chris Dickerson, Aroldis Chapman or Jason Isringhausen today? The Reds can do that. Without making a trade at all.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:11 PM
Right back at you.

Again, that is not my point. Of course you and I don't know what deals were on the table. But I'm a bottom line guy and the bottom line is that the Reds didn't improve themselves. If they still make the playoffs, I will be elated to eat some crow. Hear it's not all that bad deep fried.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:12 PM
Again, that is not my point. Of course you and I don't know what deals were on the table. But I'm a bottom line guy and the bottom line is that the Reds didn't improve themselves. If they still make the playoffs, I will be elated to eat some crow. Hear it's not all that bad deep fried.

Just keep ignoring what is at AAA that other teams would have liked to have added today as if the Reds don't have moves they can make without trades.

MikeS21
07-31-2010, 09:12 PM
Not a fan of Cordero, but is Kerry Wood really an upgrade?
No, he is not. And for the life of me, other than Cliff Lee, or Roy Oswalt, there is not another player who got traded in the last two weeks that impresses me as much of an upgrade over what we already have in this organization.

Unless it was a huge upgrade - say Hanleigh Ramirez - I'm thinking Walt is looking like a genius by standing pat.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:13 PM
Again, how many teams would have liked to add a Homer Bailey, Chris Dickerson, Aroldis Chapman or Jason Isringhausen today? The Reds can do that. Without making a trade at all.

Dickerson is a 28-year-old outfielder with very little value (average career minor league numbers and obviously no spring chicken) and anyone in baseball could have signed Jason Isringhausen.

I am excited about Chapman though. Just wondering what the hell they are waiting for.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:13 PM
The best thing Walt can do is get as much talent up here as possible for the stretch run and have them playing everyday. I honestly feel getting Dickerson, Chapman, Homer, and Isringhausen is better than having to give up something to make a trade.

If the Reds make an imaginary trade for an OFer, most likely Heisey is gone. Sometimes making a trade just isn't worth it.

mth123
07-31-2010, 09:13 PM
I still think this is about budget. The Reds have the excess players to deal. So much so that some will be DFAd, non-tendered or lost in rule 5 after the season. Others will languish in AAA too long and lose their value. The Reds were in on Lee because he was the type of name that the owner would have bumped the budget for. I think guys like Lilly, Downs, Westbrook, or others could have been had by what the Reds now have as spare parts, but they were only willing to bump the budget for top guys. JMO.

Its not the Reds were concerned about overpaying talentwise IMO, it was that they didn't want to pay in dollars.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:14 PM
Dickerson is a 28-year-old outfielder with very little value (average career minor league numbers and obviously no spring chicken) and anyone in baseball could have signed Jason Isringhausen.

I am excited about Chapman though. Just wondering what the hell they are waiting for.
Rick Ankiel got traded today, would you rather have him then what the Reds currently have?

There's a target for ya.

mbgrayson
07-31-2010, 09:14 PM
I saw nobody that I really wanted the Reds to pick up that was actually traded.

The Reds have some depth in the wings with Harang, Bailey, Chapman, and others. They will be fine. I gotta go with Walt J on this one: the best trade today was no trade at all.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:15 PM
I watch every game. Can someone explain why we're supposed to be high on Chris Dickerson? What am I missing here? I know he was impressive when he was called up at the end of the '08 season. Other than that, I see a guy with average minor league numbers who is approaching the age of 30. Are we really counting on a guy like this to get us over the hump and into the playoffs? Or is this a classic example of fans overvaluing their own players?

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:15 PM
Look at some of the names that were thrown around with RP. David Aardsma? Chad Qualls? Kerry Wood?

Which RHP coming out of our pen are they better than? Carlos Fisher? Certainly haven't pitched better than Smith or Ondrusek and Masset has pitched like 09 Masset other than his April.

There just weren't any upgrades out there.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:15 PM
Dickerson is a 28-year-old outfielder with very little value (average career minor league numbers and obviously no spring chicken) and anyone in baseball could have signed Jason Isringhausen.

I am excited about Chapman though. Just wondering what the hell they are waiting for.

Dickerson is at the very least a solid bench player that I am sure multiple teams would like to add. He might even be an upgrade to the Reds starting outfield. And while everyone could have signed Isringhausen, they didn't. Everyone could have signed Chapman too. They didn't. We did.

traderumor
07-31-2010, 09:17 PM
Let's see. The Cards made themselves worse by picking up Westbrook, on paper, and trading Ludwick. I do not see how those moves improved that team at all, and possibly made it worst. The Padres move was Tejeda, who has been fading fast in the post steroid era. Ludwick might help them. The Dodgers spared us getting Lilly. Only Philly made a splash with Oswalt. I join the Reds with wanting no part of Matt Capps or Kerry Wood. What might be pathetic is the drama of the trading deadline. Much ado about nothing yet again.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:17 PM
Rick Ankiel got traded today, would you rather have him then what the Reds currently have?

There's a target for ya.

Are you happy with our current roster and are you confident that it's enough to get us in the playoffs even with every other team in the race improving themselves at the deadline? I'm happy with our roster, I just would have liked to see a boost like EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THE RACE got.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:17 PM
I watch every game. Can someone explain why we're supposed to be high on Chris Dickerson? What am I missing here? I know he was impressive when he was called up at the end of the '08 season. Other than that, I see a guy with average minor league numbers who is approaching the age of 30. Are we really counting on a guy like this to get us over the hump and into the playoffs? Or is this a classic example of fans overvaluing their own players?

It is a classic case of you wanting the moon instead of just an additional part that makes the team better. No one got the moon (of position players). We are getting a guy that upgrades our team. You still think we should have gotten the moon.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:17 PM
I watch every game. Can someone explain why we're supposed to be high on Chris Dickerson? What am I missing here? I know he was impressive when he was called up at the end of the '08 season. Other than that, I still a guy with average minor league numbers who is approaching the age of 30. Are we really counting on a guy like this to get us over the hump and into the playoffs? Or is this a classic example of fans overvaluing their own players?
A career OPS+ of 107 and while he's not Stubbs, a pretty good defender.

He hit .275 with a .370 OBP last year. I'm not sure what's not to like. With the exception of 40 ABs this April, he's been an OB machine.

Homer Bailey
07-31-2010, 09:18 PM
It's not going to be pretty when Dickersons BABIP normalizes.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:18 PM
Are you happy with our current roster and are you confident that it's enough to get us in the playoffs even with every other team in the race improving themselves at the deadline? I'm happy with our roster, I just would have liked to see a boost like EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THE RACE got.
Heading into today I thought the Reds had a better team the Cardinals.

Nothing that happend today changes that.

OnBaseMachine
07-31-2010, 09:18 PM
You guys do realize that Jason Isringhausen is 37 years old and hasn't pitched well in the majors since 2007? I realize that he had Tommy John surgery and his arm is healthier now, but again, he's 37 years old and is far from a guarantee.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:19 PM
It is a classic case of you wanting the moon instead of just an additional part that makes the team better. No one got the moon (of position players). We are getting a guy that upgrades our team. You still think we should have gotten the moon.

Incorrect. Nice of you to assume that I want Willie Mays when I just want a guy who didn't put up average minor league numbers. Maybe you think Dickerson will magically improve his numbers in the Majors? Illogical.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:19 PM
Are you happy with our current roster and are you confident that it's enough to get us in the playoffs even with every other team in the race improving themselves at the deadline? I'm happy with our roster, I just would have liked to see a boost like EVERY OTHER TEAM IN THE RACE got.

For crying out loud, stop with that. The Reds have upgrades coming. Just like every other team. They just didn't have to trade for them. So stop acting like they don't have them. They do.

Slyder
07-31-2010, 09:19 PM
Again, how many teams would have liked to add a Homer Bailey, Chris Dickerson, Aroldis Chapman or Jason Isringhausen today? The Reds can do that. Without making a trade at all.

Will Chris Dickerson go a week without getting hurt? I like the guy but he is bordering on Austin Kearns lite when it comes to injuries.

Chapman has not pitched a single inning in the pros... Yes he throws really really really really fast and hard but what good is it if he's got the adrenline and doesnt know how to control it?

We are relying on Jason Isringhausen to come in and rescue us? That be great if this were 5 years ago. Isringhausen is coming off reconstructive elbow surgery. And hasnt thrown a pro pitch since what April 09? Ya im not expecting ANYTHING of him. I honestly like Ondrusek and Smith at this point in their careers better than 37 yr old Isringhausen.

Homer Bailey is the only one of those names I actually expect to be given a chance to significantly contribute to this team. Only issue with him is he's been on the dl since May. When it went from d2d, skipped a start, then dl if I remember correctly. He'll have rust to knock off. I fully expect Dusty to give Bailey every chance (when he comes back) to show he should be the 3rd starter for this team come playoff time but its going to be slow going I think when he first gets back. And games like the Atlanta flounder isnt giving us any breathing room.

Yes I would have looked at a starter. I think we are playing with fire if we expect Volquez to contribute anything as a starter this year.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:19 PM
You guys do realize that Jason Isringhausen is 37 years old and hasn't pitched well in the majors since 2007? I realize that he had Tommy John surgery and his arm is healthier now, but again, he's 37 years old and is far from a guarantee.
He doesn't have to be a guarantee. The Reds have the luxury right now of having Smith, Ondrusek, and Masset all throwing really well out of the pen.

If Isringhausen can be better than Carlos Fisher, it's an upgrade.

Caveat Emperor
07-31-2010, 09:19 PM
Not a fan of Cordero, but is Kerry Wood really an upgrade?

Kerry Wood redefines "The devil you don't know."

Walt's track record speaks for itself in this regard -- the man knows how to work the deadline and acquire talent. He's proven himself year in and year out in that regard. I'm going to trust that if he wasn't able to make a deal to improve the club that there simply wasn't a good deal out there and available.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:20 PM
You guys do realize that Jason Isringhausen is 37 years old and hasn't pitched well in the majors since 2007? I realize that he had Tommy John surgery and his arm is healthier now, but again, he's 37 years old and is far from a guarantee.

But he used to be good 10 years ago! That has to count for something.

MikeS21
07-31-2010, 09:20 PM
Are you happy with our current roster and are you confident that it's enough to get us in the playoffs even with every other team in the race improving themselves at the deadline?
I think the argument is that very few of them actually did improve themselves with the moves they made. I don't see it. Texas and Philly did with Lee and Oswalt, but I think every one else just shuffled supporting characters.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:20 PM
Incorrect. Nice of you to assume that I want Willie Mays when I just want a guy who didn't put up average minor league numbers. Maybe you think Dickerson will magically improve his numbers in the Majors? Illogical.

Dickerson doesn't need to magically improve his numbers. He can be the same guy he has been and its an improvement and makes the team better.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:21 PM
But he used to be good 10 years ago! That has to count for something.

Have you watched him pitch this year?

Slyder
07-31-2010, 09:21 PM
Dickerson doesn't need to magically improve his numbers. He can be the same guy he has been and its an improvement and makes the team better.

Unless the FO decides to demote Heisey and keep Nix when Dickerson is ready.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:21 PM
Incorrect. Nice of you to assume that I want Willie Mays when I just want a guy who didn't put up average minor league numbers. Maybe you think Dickerson will magically improve his numbers in the Majors? Illogical.
Dickerson has a career .783 minor league OPS.
Dickerson has a career .789 major league OPS.

His numbers aren't shocking. He was a high OBP guy in the minors, he's been a high OBP guy in the majors.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:21 PM
Dickerson doesn't need to magically improve his numbers. He can be the same guy he has been and its an improvement and makes the team better.

He's had a decent small sample size at the MLB level. You're not trying to suggest that his career minor league numbers are good though, are you?

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:22 PM
Unless the FO decides to demote Heisey and keep Nix when Dickerson is ready.

Well that is true, but the same thing could have happened if the Reds acquired someone via a trade.

dman
07-31-2010, 09:22 PM
I think the argument is that very few of them actually did improve themselves with the moves they made. I don't see it. Texas and Philly did with Lee and Oswalt, but I think every one else just shuffled supporting characters.

It remains to be seen with Philly getting Oswalt. The way that he's been getting man-handled lately, it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

Cliff Lee will end up a Yankee next year.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:22 PM
Unless the FO decides to demote Heisey and keep Nix when Dickerson is ready.
And what does this do with not making a trade?

If the FO demotes Heisey in favor of Nix, then I'll have a problem with it. I have no reason to believe that's going to happen though.

This is just more imaginary fodder that hasn't happend and probably won't happen.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:23 PM
He's had a decent small sample size at the MLB level. You're not trying to suggest that his career minor league numbers are good though, are you?

I don't care about his minor league numbers. I care about what he is expected to produce. He is probably a .260/.330/.400 hitter with plus defense. That is better than Nix and Gomes. Upgrade.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:23 PM
Have you watched him pitch this year?

Yes, I caught some of the video on Reds Live last week. ;-)

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:24 PM
I don't care about his minor league numbers. I care about what he is expected to produce. He is probably a .260/.330/.400 hitter with plus defense. That is better than Nix and Gomes. Upgrade.

You don't care about his minor league numbers? Hmm, one would think that would be a pretty good indicator of how he would perform at the MLB level.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:24 PM
Yes, I caught some of the video on Reds Live last week. ;-)

And what did you think? The Reds were very impressed.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:24 PM
You don't care about his minor league numbers? Hmm, one would think that would be a pretty good indicator of how he would perform at the MLB level.
And he's preforming pretty much right in line with his minor league numbers.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:25 PM
And what did you think? The Reds were very impressed.

I was actually encouraged. I still would have liked to see the team trade for someone like Farnsworth though. If Izzy is that good, why did no one else come after him?

MikeS21
07-31-2010, 09:25 PM
It remains to be seen with Philly getting Oswalt. The way that he's been getting man-handled lately, it's going to be interesting to see how this plays out.

Cliff Lee will end up a Yankee next year.
Point taken, but I wonder how well he will do with a better team behind him and better run support? And that stadium in Houston can't be good on a pitcher.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:25 PM
You don't care about his minor league numbers? Hmm, one would think that would be a pretty good indicator of how he would perform at the MLB level.

Anything he did prior to say 2008 is pretty meaningless in terms of indicating what he will do in August and September 2010.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:27 PM
I was actually encouraged. I still would have liked to see the team trade for someone like Farnsworth though. If Izzy is that good, why did no one else come after him?

No one else thought about it? He only wanted to throw for certain teams? How do you know that no other teams came after him?

Here is what I know.... the guy is throwing in the low 90's right now. If teams knew he was doing that, there would have been more than just the Reds inquiring about him.

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:27 PM
Point taken, but I wonder how well he will do with a better team behind him and better run support? And that stadium in Houston can't be good on a pitcher.

Philly is one of the most hitter friendly parks in baseball.....

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:28 PM
For the record, Dickerson's career line in AAA is .278/.377/.468/.843 and he hasn't been in AA since 2006.

His numbers in the low minors were pedestrian, but is a player improving surprising?

guttle11
07-31-2010, 09:29 PM
Yes I would have looked at a starter. I think we are playing with fire if we expect Volquez to contribute anything as a starter this year.

But they aren't counting on Volquez for the rest of the year, just until Harang and Bailey are ready. If he does string together some good starts in the next couple of weeks, he may stay in the rotation. If not, he'll go to the pen.

I also wonder why people are penciling in Izzy, but for a different reason. Harang and Bailey coming back means the Reds have too many arms in the rotation. Arroyo and Cueto are solid in their spot, but the other 3 spots will be decided between Leake, Wood, Volquez, Bailey and Harang. Two of those guys will be in the pen. Given the success of Ondrusek, Smith, Masset and Rhodes, along with CoCo who's going nowhere and Bray filling the early lefty role...that's 8 bullpen spots.

I don't think you'll see Izzy (or Chapman) until September 1st barring an injury, if at all. I don't think they'll send Wood or Leake down, and they certainly can't remove Smith or Ondrusek the way those guys are throwing. The bullpen is far more likely to be bolstered by guys currently on the 25 man/DL than it is through Louisville. Best guess is either Volquez or Bailey to the pen and Leake /Wood being moved around to keep them both fresh, with Cueto, Arroyo and Harang getting the ball every 5th day.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:29 PM
No one else thought about it? He only wanted to throw for certain teams? How do you know that no other teams came after him?

Here is what I know.... the guy is throwing in the low 90's right now. If teams knew he was doing that, there would have been more than just the Reds inquiring about him.

I will say I like the Izzy pick-up. But throwing 90 MPH in a bullpen session is great and all, but we have no clue how the guy will do against live batters after so much time off. I certainly wouldn't want to count on him down the stretch. He's an insurance policy (and a pretty damn good one ... I liked the Izzy signing, I just wanted more).

MikeS21
07-31-2010, 09:29 PM
No one else thought about it? He only wanted to throw for certain teams? How do you know that no other teams came after him?

Here is what I know.... the guy is throwing in the low 90's right now. If teams knew he was doing that, there would have been more than just the Reds inquiring about him.
I think with Izzy, if I am reading things right, he called Walt first - because of their personal connection (He gave Walt first crack). Walt himself later said they were trying to be low-key to keep other teams from stepping in.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:31 PM
For the record, Dickerson's career line in AAA is .278/.377/.468/.843 and he hasn't been in AA since 2006.

His numbers in the low minors were pedestrian, but is a player improving surprising?

Very true. But I must point out that Dickerson was quite "old" (for lack of a better word) for his level his last few years in the minors. We're not talking about a young guy here. He's approaching 30. People talk about him like he's some 21-year-old prospect.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:32 PM
Very true. But I must point out that Dickerson was quite "old" (for lack of a better word) for his level his last few years in the minors. We're not talking about a young guy here. He's approaching 30. People talk about him like he's some 21-year-old prospect.
Nobody talks about him like that. Some people think he can come up here and have a high OBP and play good defense, which he has done every chance he's gotten.

Slyder
07-31-2010, 09:33 PM
Well that is true, but the same thing could have happened if the Reds acquired someone via a trade.

Heisey's been one of the absolute golden bats coming off the bench. Demoting him would weaken the bench not improve it in favor of a veteran. Come August and September you shouldn't need to give guys as many days off in the heat of the pennant race and even then you have Dickerson would could start at any of the 3 positions. Nix adds nothing that Heisey could/would. Likewise if we made a trade for an upgrade at ss or backup infielder and demoted Janish in favor of Cairo. Who admittedly has performed spectacularly in spot duty at times as a starter. Those opportunities will not show themselves come playoff time and Janish adds a much better glove to a position(s) that could mean the difference of playing deeper in to October.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:36 PM
Nobody talks about him like that. Some people think he can come up here and have a high OBP and play good defense, which he has done every chance he's gotten.

I sure hope he has a high OPS. Assuming that someone is going to have a better OPS in the Majors than they did during their minor league career is one hell of a stretch though.

I like Dickerson as a reserve OF. He can play some good D and isn't a bad hitter by any means. I just don't see an upgrade over our current situation. (Scratch that from the record, he's better than Laynce Nix.)

dougdirt
07-31-2010, 09:37 PM
I like Dickerson as a reserve OF. He can play some good D and isn't a bad hitter by any means. I just don't see an upgrade over our current situation. (Scratch that from the record, he's better than Laynce Nix.)

He is better than Gomes too. He might even be better than Stubbs is right now as well.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:39 PM
He is better than Gomes too. He might even be better than Stubbs is right now as well.

He's not better than Gomes. Dickerson is better defensively, Gomes is much-better offensively. Gomes is the everyday LF on this team and people still want to rip him despite the numbers he is putting up. Again, I am a bottom line guy. Gomes' MLB numbers are better than Dickerson's minor league numbers. But Dickerson is better than Gomes? LOL.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:40 PM
And he's preforming pretty much right in line with his minor league numbers.

Very small sample size. We haven't seen Dickerson more than a couple months at a time with the big club. Barely at all this year.

OnBaseMachine
07-31-2010, 09:43 PM
He's not better than Gomes. Dickerson is better defensively, Gomes is much-better offensively. Gomes is the everyday LF on this team and people still want to rip him despite the numbers he is putting up. Again, I am a bottom line guy. Gomes' MLB numbers are better than Dickerson's minor league numbers. But Dickerson is better than Gomes? LOL.

What numbers is he putting up?

Gomes' OPS by month:

April - .621
May - 1.056
June - .704
July - .681

One excellent month and three awful ones. Factor in his well below average defense and Gomes has been a liability this season. He's fine as a bench player but he's clearly not an everyday player.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 09:47 PM
What numbers is he putting up?

Gomes' OPS by month:

April - .621
May - 1.056
June - .704
July - .681

One excellent month and three awful ones. Factor in his well below average defense and Gomes has been a liability this season. He's fine as a bench player but he's clearly not an everyday player.

He's been very disappointing lately. I think he'll turn it around. And overall, he's giving the Reds want they need out of the LF spot this year. It was supposed to be a platoon with Gomes/Nix or Gomes/Dickerson, but Gomes is the only guy who is good enough for the job or can stay healthy. Just not into ripping that guy. We all thought LF was going to be a huge weakness this year, Gomes has helped quell that a bit. He does need to pick it up though -- he is tailing off big-time offensively. I'm optimistic he will go on another hot streak for us though.

OnBaseMachine
07-31-2010, 09:51 PM
He's been very disappointing lately. I think he'll turn it around. And overall, he's giving the Reds want they need out of the LF spot this year. It was supposed to be a platoon with Gomes/Nix or Gomes/Dickerson, but Gomes is the only guy who is good enough for the job or can stay healthy. Just not into ripping that guy. We all thought LF was going to be a huge weakness this year, Gomes has helped quell that a bit. He does need to pick it up though -- he is tailing off big-time offensively. I'm optimistic he will go on another hot streak for us though.

The thing is, left field has been a weakness for the Reds this season. Production from left field has been non-existant for three out of four months.

edabbs44
07-31-2010, 09:53 PM
What numbers is he putting up?

Gomes' OPS by month:

April - .621
May - 1.056
June - .704
July - .681

One excellent month and three awful ones. Factor in his well below average defense and Gomes has been a liability this season. He's fine as a bench player but he's clearly not an everyday player.

This kind of conflicts with some of your thoughts around Arroyo's 1st half/2nd half splits in the past. Have you changed your position on looking at the whole season?

edabbs44
07-31-2010, 09:54 PM
He's been very disappointing lately. I think he'll turn it around. And overall, he's giving the Reds want they need out of the LF spot this year. It was supposed to be a platoon with Gomes/Nix or Gomes/Dickerson, but Gomes is the only guy who is good enough for the job or can stay healthy. Just not into ripping that guy. We all thought LF was going to be a huge weakness this year, Gomes has helped quell that a bit. He does need to pick it up though -- he is tailing off big-time offensively. I'm optimistic he will go on another hot streak for us though.

Yeah, I think we can expect improvement from what we have seen out of Gomes lately. Which is all that matters at this point.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:54 PM
Here's the thing, I think the Reds can make themselves better by playing Heisey in LF and platooning Stubbs/Dickerson in CF.

And they don't have to give up anything to do that.

OnBaseMachine
07-31-2010, 09:56 PM
Here's the thing, I think the Reds can make themselves better by playing Heisey in LF and platooning Stubbs/Dickerson in CF.

And they don't have to give up anything to do that.

I'm fine with that, but I just don't see Dusty taking Gomes out of the lineup. I think this team would be better off with Janish at SS and Heisey in LF.

reds44
07-31-2010, 09:57 PM
I'm fine with that, but I just don't see Dusty taking Gomes out of the lineup. I think this team would be better off with Janish at SS and Heisey in LF.
OC is fine if his old behind gets days off. Janish should spell him more, though.

Reds Fanatic
07-31-2010, 10:00 PM
While I would have liked to see them add a bat I am not horribly disappointed in no moves. As far as starting pitching they are deep in starters and really did not have to make a move. In relievers I believe you will see both Chapman and Isringhausen up here in the next 2 weeks and that pretty much did away with the need to make a move plus for some relievers like Downs the price that was being asked for was way too high.

As far as hitters it is possible they still end up making a trade for a player that will pass through waivers due to their contract.

dman
07-31-2010, 10:10 PM
A friend of mine was saying that Doc Rogers would like to see the Reds go after Manny Ramirez, saying that he could pass through waivers and what not. I'm not sure that I'd want to see Manny here in Cincinnati, even if the front office did open up their pocket books.

corkedbat
07-31-2010, 10:14 PM
Teams like the Cards, the Yankees, the Rays, Red Sox don't have these kinds of concerns. The Reds will never have both the depth at the MLB AND minor league levels to win year in and year out. They'll win sometimes, they won't other seasons. It's just not linear growth for a team like the Reds. They could be flat awful next season. You have to go for it; you have to go for it intelligently--but you have to go for it.

I certainly agree that contending year in and year out is not a sure thing for any team - esepecially a team like the Reds, but I don't think you can say that you can't project success for the team in the future.

While any team can be taken down in a given year by some combination of injury, sub-par performance and bad luck (even big markets franchises like the Yanks), the Reds are pottentially talented (and young) enough to put together more than a single year as a contender.

I believe if the Reds had landed Lee AND either Oswalt and Haren you would have said it was a step in the right direction, but they still need a third reliable starter. I know this team doesn't have the Yankees or Red Sox rotation and never will, but then again, they are not in the AL East either.

I don't see anyone in the division with a future projectable stable of starters near that of the Reds - including the Cardinals. Yes, Wainwright is an Ace, but given Carpenter's injury history I think he becomes a ? every year going forward and Garcia is no more of a sure thing than our young arms.

Chances are (short of finding a way to move Cordero) there will probably be little movement in the pitching staff between now and next year other than possibly declining Bronson's option and signing Brandon Webb. Arrondondo may be a boots and they'll sign the yearly bullpen option of two, but that's probably about it. That's OK by me though, becasue I don't see a division rival I would switch places with.

fearofpopvol1
07-31-2010, 10:18 PM
I think moves definitely could have been made to improve this team and the fact they weren't, is disappointing. I will say, on the plus side, I did not feel like the Cards did all that much to improve their team. Westbrook for Ludwick seems like a wash at best. Ludwick is probably going to be a 3.5 WAR this year, maybe closer to 4. Westbrook is probably 1.5 WAR.

I think for me, the biggest issue isn't necessarily that the Reds didn't make a trade, it's that the Reds don't use their best players and put themselves in the best position to succeed. So many have touted about the amazing depth, but the reality is that when you're putting OCab and Gomes and Cordero (into save situations) and Layne Nix in PH situations out there everyday, you're not giving the team the best chance to win every day and succeed.

corkedbat
07-31-2010, 10:19 PM
I'm fine with that, but I just don't see Dusty taking Gomes out of the lineup. I think this team would be better off with Janish at SS and Heisey in LF.

Heisey and Dickerson need to be given opportunities across the OF over the next month.

Slyder
07-31-2010, 10:21 PM
A friend of mine was saying that Doc Rogers would like to see the Reds go after Manny Ramirez, saying that he could pass through waivers and what not. I'm not sure that I'd want to see Manny here in Cincinnati, even if the front office did open up their pocket books.

They want to add a Reds tent to the Bengals 5 ring Circus? Manny hasnt been the same hitter since getting busted. I dunno how much more than Gomes you could expect, he's been on the dl a couple 3 times this eyar I think.

dman
07-31-2010, 10:25 PM
They want to add a Reds tent to the Bengals 5 ring Circus? Manny hasnt been the same hitter since getting busted. I dunno how much more than Gomes you could expect, he's been on the dl a couple 3 times this eyar I think.

I didn't say that I wanted him, I said that Doc. Rogers was talking about wanting him tonight at about 8:10P.M. on the show.
Personally, I say stay as far away from Manny as we can.

Slyder
07-31-2010, 10:28 PM
I didn't say that I wanted him, I said that Doc. Rogers was talking about wanting him tonight at about 8:10P.M. on the show.
Personally, I say stay as far away from Manny as we can.

I should rephrase that then. Doc Rodgers wants to add a Reds tent to the Bengal 5 ring circus.
If he hadnt been on the dl more than he's played I'd probably be open to the idea but is he a FA this year or whats the status of option in the contract?

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 10:28 PM
Hell, I'd take Manny in a heartbeat. Are you guys serious? You complain all year about LF production and then wouldn't want a HOF'er in there instead of Gomes (who I actually like)? Of course Manny is no longer in his prime, but he would still be an upgrade. Put me in the camp that enjoys upgrades when you're in a pennant race.

But I think it's a moot point. Dodgers don't want to move him; Reds wouldn't take on the salary. But to pretend like we wouldn't want him or he wouldn't improve the club is foolish.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 10:30 PM
I should rephrase that then. Doc Rodgers wants to add a Reds tent to the Bengal 5 ring circus.
If he hadnt been on the dl more than he's played I'd probably be open to the idea but is he a FA this year or whats the status of option in the contract?

FA at the end of the season. No option that I know of.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 10:32 PM
Make fun of the Bengals all you want, but there is only one professional team in Cincinnati that went out and tried to improve itself this week.

(Wait, did I just compliment Mike Brown? Strike that from the record if so.)

Slyder
07-31-2010, 10:37 PM
Hell, I'd take Manny in a heartbeat. Are you guys serious? You complain all year about LF production and then wouldn't want a HOF'er in there instead of Gomes (who I actually like)? Of course Manny is no longer in his prime, but he would still be an upgrade. Put me in the camp that enjoys upgrades when you're in a pennant race.

But I think it's a moot point. Dodgers don't want to move him; Reds wouldn't take on the salary. But to pretend like we wouldn't want him or he wouldn't improve the club is foolish.

I dunno if he can be much more than Gomes. He'll hit for more average but 8 HRs in 186 at bats. Missed significant time twice this year. I dont know if he would just be the same as Gomes. He'd probably fit in with the light hearted clubhouse and with Dusty though. He might not like being in a smaller market though.

Thats right he signed the deal before the 09 season and it had a 2010 option which LA picked up.

Ron Madden
07-31-2010, 10:39 PM
Here's the thing, I think the Reds can make themselves better by playing Heisey in LF and platooning Stubbs/Dickerson in CF.

And they don't have to give up anything to do that.


I'd love to see this happen but I doubt Dusty will do it.

corkedbat
07-31-2010, 10:42 PM
Make fun of the Bengals all you want, but there is only one professional team in Cincinnati that went out and tried to improve itself this week.

(Wait, did I just compliment Mike Brown? Strike that from the record if so.)

Gotta agree there. Didn't just sign to to add a freakshow. They signed Bryan, but then when they found that AB's knee was reponding much more slowly than anticipated they went out and spent the money to add the next best weapon out there - TO.

Hey, I'm not a big fan of TO either and there is a downside, but the Bengals (yes, including Mikey Boy) realize that they have a rapidly evaporating window with Carson Palmer and made the moves to give him the weapons. There's no salary cap and nothing saying he needs to spend E-amount this year. They took the chance to win though. Whether it succeeds or not, I won't rag on them for it.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 10:59 PM
Gotta agree there. Didn't just sign to to add a freakshow. They signed Bryan, but then when they found that AB's knee was reponding much more slowly than anticipated they went out and spent the money to add the next best weapon out there - TO.

Hey, I'm not a big fan of TO either and there is a downside, but the Bengals (yes, including Mikey Boy) realize that they have a rapidly evaporating window with Carson Palmer and made the moves to give him the weapons. There's no salary cap and nothing saying he needs to spend E-amount this year. They took the chance to win though. Whether it succeeds or not, I won't rag on them for it.

Exactly. It's called "going for it" which seems to not be what the Reds are doing. We didn't need a blockbuster deal, just something to improve the club. No one can convince me there wasn't a deal out there that would have been beneficial for the Reds and wouldn't have hurt the team much if at all long-term. Walt just didn't find it.

pahster
07-31-2010, 11:06 PM
I dunno if he can be much more than Gomes. He'll hit for more average but 8 HRs in 186 at bats. Missed significant time twice this year. I dont know if he would just be the same as Gomes. He'd probably fit in with the light hearted clubhouse and with Dusty though. He might not like being in a smaller market though.

Thats right he signed the deal before the 09 season and it had a 2010 option which LA picked up.

Manny has a 152 OPS+ this year, which is almost as good as his career average (155). He's been elite this year, as usual.

TheNext44
07-31-2010, 11:07 PM
No one can convince me there wasn't a deal out there that would have been beneficial for the Reds and wouldn't have hurt the team much if at all long-term. Walt just didn't find it.

I don't need someone to convince me that there wasn't a deal out there that would have been beneficial for the Reds and wouldn't have hurt the team much if at all long-term. All I have to do is look at the trades that were made to conclude it for myself.

Lee was the only player traded that was a definite upgrade and worth losing prospects over. Everyone else that was either traded or available would have been a risk. The Cardinals were willing to take that risk. I can't blame the Reds for not.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 11:18 PM
People who say the Cardinals didn't improve are kidding themselves. They will be fine with an OF of Holliday, Rasmus and Jay. Meanwhile, they had two scrubs in their pitching rotation (Hawksworth and Suppan) including a mega-scrub in Hawksworth, and Westbrook is a big upgrade over either of them. Ludwick would be a loss for them if they didn't already have three good OF's and didn't have two gaping holes in their pitching staff. My guess is that Hawksworth will go back to the pen and they'll try and live with Suppan (sandwich) as their No. 5. So, while Ludwick-for-Westbrook doesn't seem like much, it was a good deal for the Cards. They had an extra OF that was available and a lack of starting pitchers.

Blitz Dorsey
07-31-2010, 11:22 PM
I don't need someone to convince me that there wasn't a deal out there that would have been beneficial for the Reds and wouldn't have hurt the team much if at all long-term. All I have to do is look at the trades that were made to conclude it for myself.

Lee was the only player traded that was a definite upgrade and worth losing prospects over. Everyone else that was either traded or available would have been a risk. The Cardinals were willing to take that risk. I can't blame the Reds for not.

Lee was the only player who was a definite upgrade? You don't think Kyle Farnsworth (and it wouldn't have taken too much to get him) isn't an upgrade over Carlos Fisher? I could go on and on but that is one example. It didn't need to be a blockbuster deal, just something to improve the club and give them a better chance at making the postseason for the first time in 15 years.

Hey, I love this Reds team and the fact that they've made the summer so interesting/exciting/fun. However, if we think this club is good enough as is to make the playoffs (or do damage if we get there) we're fooling ourselves.

reds44
08-01-2010, 12:09 AM
People who say the Cardinals didn't improve are kidding themselves. They will be fine with an OF of Holliday, Rasmus and Jay. Meanwhile, they had two scrubs in their pitching rotation (Hawksworth and Suppan) including a mega-scrub in Hawksworth, and Westbrook is a big upgrade over either of them. Ludwick would be a loss for them if they didn't already have three good OF's and didn't have two gaping holes in their pitching staff. My guess is that Hawksworth will go back to the pen and they'll try and live with Suppan (sandwich) as their No. 5. So, while Ludwick-for-Westbrook doesn't seem like much, it was a good deal for the Cards. They had an extra OF that was available and a lack of starting pitchers.
Alright Mr. "good luck relying on guys putting up better stats than they did in the minors."

Jon Jay's career minor league line:
.301/.367/.432/.799

Jon Jay's current line for the cardinals:
.396/.447/.604/1.051

Ludwick's line in St. Louis:
.280/.349/.507/.832

Don't go around in circles in your argument now. The Cardinals just took a big time hit in production from their RFer.

guttle11
08-01-2010, 12:12 AM
Really. Imagine if the Reds traded a respectable big league OFer for a marginal pitcher and replaced said OFer with a rookie who had a good first 100 ABs or so...and did it in the middle of a pennant race.

The fake outrage on RZ would be epic.

Blitz Dorsey
08-01-2010, 12:12 AM
Alright Mr. "good luck relying on guys putting up better stats than they did in the minors."

Jon Jay's career minor league line:
.301/.367/.432/.799

Jon Jay's current line for the cardinals:
.396/.447/.604/1.051

Ludwick's line in St. Louis:
.280/.349/.507/.832

Don't go around in circles in your argument now. The Cardinals just took a big time hit in production from their RFer.

Hmmm. I noticed you failed to post Ludwick's minor league numbers. He is a one-year wonder and the Cardinals had a need for a starter. That was a good trade for them. Not a great trade, but it will help them. Jay is not that much of a downgrade from Ludwick. Westbrook is a big upgrade over Hawksworth or Suppan. That's why they did the deal.

reds44
08-01-2010, 12:16 AM
Hmmm. I noticed you failed to post Ludwick's minor league numbers. He is a one-year wonder and the Cardinals had a need for a starter. That was a good trade for them. Not a great trade, but it will help them. Jay is not that much of a downgrade from Ludwick. Westbrook is a big upgrade over Hawksworth or Suppan. That's why they did the deal.
Ryan Ludwick has been in the majors for parts of 8 seasons and has over 1900 major league ABs, quite frankly his minor league numbers don't make jack anymore.

CAREER major league line:
.272/.341/.492/.832
in 1942 ABs

A career OPS+ of 117.

Unless you are going to tell me Jay is going to continue to play better than his minor league numbers, then they just took a hit from their production in RF, and really you can't argue with it.

Just for the record, Ludwick's career minor league OPS was .852, so he's not playing better than his minor league numbers.

Ghosts of 1990
08-01-2010, 12:22 AM
I don't have any stats I dug up to back this up; but how can anyone argue that everyone else who is in contention made some kind of a push (some teams multiple) to help themselves for a stretch run.

The Reds went cheap, and they'll be sitting at home most likely like they always are. Something would have been better then nothing here.

Slyder
08-01-2010, 12:30 AM
I don't have any stats I dug up to back this up; but how can anyone argue that everyone else who is in contention made some kind of a push (some teams multiple) to help themselves for a stretch run.

The Reds went cheap, and they'll be sitting at home most likely like they always are. Something would have been better then nothing here.

to be fair though... last year at the deadline the Reds added Rolen when they were out of it. Like the trade at the time or not. Maybe theyre just that confident in the guys they have now.

Scrap Irony
08-01-2010, 12:30 AM
Lee was the only player who was a definite upgrade? You don't think Kyle Farnsworth (and it wouldn't have taken too much to get him) isn't an upgrade over Carlos Fisher? I could go on and on but that is one example. It didn't need to be a blockbuster deal, just something to improve the club and give them a better chance at making the postseason for the first time in 15 years.

Hey, I love this Reds team and the fact that they've made the summer so interesting/exciting/fun. However, if we think this club is good enough as is to make the playoffs (or do damage if we get there) we're fooling ourselves.

But, Blitz, though Farnsworth may be better than Fisher (and, at this point, that's actually debateable), he's not better than Chapman. He's likely not better than Burton. Or Isringhausen. Or Volquez. Or Bailey. Or Harang.

The Reds have eight pitchers to throw at that last bullpen spot and at least half of them will outpitch Kyle Farnsworth over the course of the rest of the season, given a chance.

The depth of the system (starters, hitters, relievers) allows them the option of standing pat. It's like playing with seven cards in a five card draw poker game.

And St. Louis, at best, drew to an inside straight.

TheNext44
08-01-2010, 12:39 AM
I don't have any stats I dug up to back this up; but how can anyone argue that everyone else who is in contention made some kind of a push (some teams multiple) to help themselves for a stretch run.

The Reds went cheap, and they'll be sitting at home most likely like they always are. Something would have been better then nothing here.

Other teams made moves. Whether they actually made themselves better is debatable.

Plus the Rockies, Tigers and Mets did nothing, while the Rays and Giants did very little. The argument that the Reds were the only team that didn't make a big trade does not match up with the facts.

Ghosts of 1990
08-01-2010, 12:45 AM
Other teams made moves. Whether they actually made themselves better is debatable.

Plus the Rockies, Tigers and Mets did nothing, while the Rays and Giants did very little. The argument that the Reds were the only team that didn't make a big trade does not match up with the facts.

That's using 'in contention' awfully loosely.

Mets, Tigers, and Rockies are all 6 or 7 games out as it stands. They also have to leapfrog multiple teams. They unlike the Reds, aren't deadlocked for 1st in a two-team race with a more experienced and seasoned team of veterans.

Rays did very little, I agree. But the Qualls move I think was a good one. They don't need any help in their lineup or rotation like we do. Giants did make some moves to get help.

11larkin11
08-01-2010, 01:00 AM
Reds were in contention in '06. They made a move. For relievers. Like everyone here wanted.

How'd that work out for them?

Making a move to make a move is a dumb move. I'd love for Walt to show everyone on this board his ring on his finger and say "Question my moves again."

WebScorpion
08-01-2010, 01:32 AM
We won't know who made the right moves until the season is over. I have no problem with the Reds standing pat...I really didn't think anyone was available at a reasonable price who would improve the team. As stated by a few others before me, the key will be how the Reds utilize all the chips they already have. We've got seven starters (eight if you count Maloney who was 2-0, 0.66 ERA this week) and ten (eleven if you count Cordero) viable relievers and our sixth outfielder is just about ready. The key will be how we manage those extra players. Bruce and Stubbs are both young and streaky, (and they don't hurt us on defense,) they'll get hot at some point...it may require some one-on-one time with a coach, but they'll come around. Gomes is a different story...I'd like to see Heisey get a few starts in left to see what he can do. I think Cairo's getting about as much work as he should, but Janish is wasting away again. OCab was really good after the All-Star break, probably because he was rested, I'd like to see him start getting some regular rest, but when Janish plays he should not bat second. The keys will be if Volquez comes around, what happens to Bailey and Harang? Burton? Springer and Isringhausen? Chapman? IMHO, these will be the make or break decisions this season, not whether to trade before the deadline or not. Don't get your panties in a bunch...relax, enjoy the games. :rolleyes:

Blitz Dorsey
08-01-2010, 01:38 AM
Reds were in contention in '06. They made a move. For relievers. Like everyone here wanted.

How'd that work out for them?

Making a move to make a move is a dumb move. I'd love for Walt to show everyone on this board his ring on his finger and say "Question my moves again."

I see what you're saying, but the trade in '06 was a wash. It's not like having Kearns/Lopez would have pushed the Reds over the top and into the postseason. I remember being happy that the Reds were actually making a push for the playoffs instead of standing pat. And as it turned out, that "huge trade" was really a minor trade involving a bunch of borderline MLB talent that didn't affect either team positively or negatively.

I think everyone agrees that making a move just to make a move is foolish. Making a move to improve your team's chances of making the playoffs was Walt's job here (IMO) and he was unable to accomplish that for whatever reason. Maybe he thinks the current roster is such a juggernaut that it doesn't need to be messed with. I would disagree, but who knows what he's thinking.

reds44
08-01-2010, 01:42 AM
If you want to call it a wash because everybody ended up pretty bad, that's fine, but that trade killed the Reds.

06 production from Kearns and Lopez with Reds:
Kearns: .274/.351/.492/.843
Lopez: .268/.355/.394/.749

they traded that, and got
Majewski: 8.40 ERA in 15 innings
Bray: 4.23 ERA in 27 innings

Kearns and Lopez would have been nice when we couldn't score out west.

Blitz Dorsey
08-01-2010, 01:46 AM
If you want to call it a wash because everybody ended up pretty bad, that's fine, but that trade killed the Reds.

06 production from Kearns and Lopez with Reds:
Kearns: .274/.351/.492/.843
Lopez: .268/.355/.394/.749

they traded that, and got
Majewski: 8.40 ERA in 15 innings
Bray: 4.23 ERA in 27 innings

Kearns and Lopez would have been nice when we couldn't score out west.

OMG you had to post Majewski's numbers and ruin my night, didn't you. ;-) That guy was beyond awful and was damaged goods when we got him from Chief Leatherpants.

mth123
08-01-2010, 05:47 AM
But, Blitz, though Farnsworth may be better than Fisher (and, at this point, that's actually debateable), he's not better than Chapman. He's likely not better than Burton. Or Isringhausen. Or Volquez. Or Bailey. Or Harang.

The Reds have eight pitchers to throw at that last bullpen spot and at least half of them will outpitch Kyle Farnsworth over the course of the rest of the season, given a chance.

The depth of the system (starters, hitters, relievers) allows them the option of standing pat. It's like playing with seven cards in a five card draw poker game.

And St. Louis, at best, drew to an inside straight.


The flip side to having 8 or 9 interchangeable parts, most of whom won't even be on your roster, is why not package 4 or 5 guys like that for an upgrade? I don't agree that Farnsworth is an upgrade, but there were some moved. Kerry Wood comes to mind.

traderumor
08-01-2010, 07:48 AM
Reds: Cincinnati was a somewhat surprise contender for both Cliff Lee and Dan Haren, but GM Walt Jocketty ended up sitting on his hands and making no trades before the deadline.from MLB Traderumors. This just makes me laugh. The Reds were contenders for Lee and Haren, but WJ sat on his hands. I think Blitz Dorsey wrote that ;)

redsmetz
08-01-2010, 07:54 AM
to be fair though... last year at the deadline the Reds added Rolen when they were out of it. Like the trade at the time or not. Maybe theyre just that confident in the guys they have now.

I haven't read this whole thread (frankly I'm afraid my head would hurt), but from reading Sheldon's blog last night, this is the crux of the argument. Jocketty said they had a number of things they were trying to do. He said (IIRC) that none of the players they were targeting coming up to the deadline were trade. He suggested some weren't seriously available. Likewise, as some of us have said, he said the asking price was higher than the club intended to pay given the player coming. He quoted the old axiom, sometimes the best trades are the ones you don't make (yes, I'm aware than can be a cop out too) and that he likes the current make up of the club. And he strikes me as knowing it's weaknesses overall.

From RZ's standpoint, some seem to be arguing that we should have made a trade just for the sake of making one. That would be the "lost decade" Reds there.

There is no question this club has weaknesses and whether it has the staying power to compete for the post-season. But this wasn't the Reds being too cheap here, whether with letting prospects go or taking on salary (and it's my personal opinion they probably could have done it, but again, that's merely my guess). And "Pathetic" strikes me as complete overkill. That's giving in to the hopeless and, as many of us have tried to say, this isn't your "lost decade" Reds, kids.

RFS62
08-01-2010, 08:26 AM
We won't know who made the right moves until the season is over. I have no problem with the Reds standing pat...I really didn't think anyone was available at a reasonable price who would improve the team. As stated by a few others before me, the key will be how the Reds utilize all the chips they already have. We've got seven starters (eight if you count Maloney who was 2-0, 0.66 ERA this week) and ten (eleven if you count Cordero) viable relievers and our sixth outfielder is just about ready. The key will be how we manage those extra players. Bruce and Stubbs are both young and streaky, (and they don't hurt us on defense,) they'll get hot at some point...it may require some one-on-one time with a coach, but they'll come around. Gomes is a different story...I'd like to see Heisey get a few starts in left to see what he can do. I think Cairo's getting about as much work as he should, but Janish is wasting away again. OCab was really good after the All-Star break, probably because he was rested, I'd like to see him start getting some regular rest, but when Janish plays he should not bat second. The keys will be if Volquez comes around, what happens to Bailey and Harang? Burton? Springer and Isringhausen? Chapman? IMHO, these will be the make or break decisions this season, not whether to trade before the deadline or not. Don't get your panties in a bunch...relax, enjoy the games. :rolleyes:




Totally agree.

"pathetic" ?????

Yikes

jojo
08-01-2010, 10:11 AM
Here's the thing...the Reds had a winning record in July with their starting outfield and shortstop collectively playing at replacement level while their all-star third baseman was dinged up. All of these guys should play significantly better (or in the case of Rolen,hopefully more) going forward based upon comparing their July to their true talent (for instance this argument isn't suggesting Bruce is a HOFer right now-but rather he is much better than the wOBA=.225 he put up in July). Rolen is being given plenty of time to rest and the Reds have Heisey and Dickerson who are probably at worst league average bats and plus defenders in the wings as 5th outfielders who can push Gomes to the bench. Shortstop is what it is but Cabrera might be able to squeeze more out of his bat.

Volquez is back on the 25 man roster and while he probably shouldn't be considered cavalry, it's reasonable to expect him to get better as he logs more innings. Bailey and Chapman are power arms that can fortify the pen.

This all colors the calculus of the impact of an addition... and as Doug has argued, it's actually kind of tough for the Reds to significantly upgrade. What they needed to do was add a true impact player to have a clear effect IMHO. There weren't many of those traded and the ones that were seemed to have the Reds rumored to be interested...

It's kind of tough to judge Jocketty without more facts and the kinds of facts that we're not likely to learn about (including the white elephant in the closet- budget constraints etc). But by judging him through a prism focusing on what they do have on the 40 man roster, to me, its seems that an appropriate place to start would be by assuming his task of significantly upgrading the roster probably wasn't as easy as saying he should have upgraded the roster implies the task would be...

NC Reds
08-01-2010, 10:55 AM
I'm glad the Reds stood pat. I was underwhelmed by the "improvements" other teams supposedly made the last couple of days.

PuffyPig
08-01-2010, 11:05 AM
Teams like the Cards, the Yankees, the Rays, Red Sox don't have these kinds of concerns. The Reds will never have both the depth at the MLB AND minor league levels to win year in and year out.

The Reds have considerably more depth than the Cards at both the major and minor league level.

Why else did we see the Cards trade their regular RF for a #4-5 starter?

Because (1) their #4-5 starters we worse than our #8-9 starters; and (2) they have little depth in the system to interest Cleveland.

If the Cards get an injury to Carpenter, Wainwright or Pujols, they may well be toast.

Falls City Beer
08-01-2010, 11:10 AM
The Reds have considerably more depth than the Cards at both the major and minor league level.

Why else did we see the Cards trade their regular RF for a #4-5 starter?

Because (1) their #4-5 starters we worse than our #8-9 starters; and (2) they have little depth in the system to interest Cleveland.

If the Cards get an injury to Carpenter, Wainwright or Pujols, they may well be toast.

I realize the Reds have more minors' depth, but the Cards will always hold the trump card of ready cash. Their margin of error is far wider than ours at all times. The Reds must be smartly aggressive if they want to thread the occasional needle against the Cardinals. It's really no different than the Rays's situation in the AL East. Build from within, but aggressively strike when you can. The Rays, no matter how smart they are, aren't going to tick off several AL East titles in a row. They might win one here or there, but they better go for it when they can, or they'll get none.

This isn't the AL Central, where anyone can win it in any season. The Cards have constructed a substantial structural bulwark.

Marc D
08-01-2010, 11:28 AM
This isn't the AL Central, where anyone can win it in any season. The Cards have constructed a substantial structural bulwark.


I disagree with this part.

The Cards payroll is usually in the high 80's to mid 90's. The Reds are now in the mid 70's and if they can continue to consistently be a .500+ team then that will go up. People will come out to watch a winner, it doesn't have to be the '27 Yankees. Getting back to the point, that 15MM or so gap in payroll is about to all go to Pujols if they want to keep him.

Their structural bulwark is by and large built on 2 things Pujols and the bumbling incompetence of the Reds brass for the better part of a decade. The Pujols star has hit its zenith and they are now in the part of the curve that represents more and more money for less and less production. The second part of the Cards formula is not looking good in that where there was once a Clipperesque band of incompetents in Cincy there is now at the very least a viable and competitive franchise.

_Sir_Charles_
08-01-2010, 11:50 AM
The Reds greatest strength this year is depth. Pretty much everywhere.

Another middle reliever, with Burton, Izzy, Springer and Chapman at AAA wasn't really needed.

Unless the player involved was very good, they likely wouldn't have helped Cincy very much.

I agree. I seriously doubt that Izzy or Springer will work out, but the bullpen has been TONS better in this second half. Burton will be a help as will some of the additional starters getting work out of the pen if needed.

I certainly didn't see much move that would've been much of an upgrade for the team.

_Sir_Charles_
08-01-2010, 11:53 AM
We won't know who made the right moves until the season is over. I have no problem with the Reds standing pat...I really didn't think anyone was available at a reasonable price who would improve the team. As stated by a few others before me, the key will be how the Reds utilize all the chips they already have. We've got seven starters (eight if you count Maloney who was 2-0, 0.66 ERA this week) and ten (eleven if you count Cordero) viable relievers and our sixth outfielder is just about ready. The key will be how we manage those extra players. Bruce and Stubbs are both young and streaky, (and they don't hurt us on defense,) they'll get hot at some point...it may require some one-on-one time with a coach, but they'll come around. Gomes is a different story...I'd like to see Heisey get a few starts in left to see what he can do. I think Cairo's getting about as much work as he should, but Janish is wasting away again. OCab was really good after the All-Star break, probably because he was rested, I'd like to see him start getting some regular rest, but when Janish plays he should not bat second. The keys will be if Volquez comes around, what happens to Bailey and Harang? Burton? Springer and Isringhausen? Chapman? IMHO, these will be the make or break decisions this season, not whether to trade before the deadline or not. Don't get your panties in a bunch...relax, enjoy the games. :rolleyes:

exactly what I think...almost verbatim to what I would've said. Excellent post.

PuffyPig
08-01-2010, 11:55 AM
I The Cards have constructed a substantial structural bulwark.

Nothing could be furher from the truth.

Look at the Cards after Pujols, Holliday, Rasmus, Carpenter, Wainwright and Miller.

That's 6 guys in the whole organization that I find very interesting.

The rest are a bunch of "meh". That's no "structual bulwark".

PuffyPig
08-01-2010, 11:58 AM
I gotta tell you, I find this whole thread pathetic.

I for one am going to sit back and enjoy the rest of the year, the most enjoyable year we have had since 1999.

I pity the fools who don't do the same.

_Sir_Charles_
08-01-2010, 12:25 PM
:thumbup::clap::clap::clap::thumbup:

HokieRed
08-01-2010, 12:28 PM
I gotta tell you, I find this whole thread pathetic.

I for one am going to sit back and enjoy the rest of the year, the most enjoyable year we have had since 1999.

I pity the fools who don't do the same.

Agree. You'd think we were floundering along in 5th place. IMO, the progress this organization has made since 2004 is really pretty amazing.

Falls City Beer
08-01-2010, 12:34 PM
I'm not sure I would use the word "pathetic," but I think it's a perfectly defensible position to say it was a missed opportunity, mostly for the reasons mth listed in his thread titled "Where do we go from here?"

Screwball
08-01-2010, 12:41 PM
I gotta tell you, I find this whole thread pathetic.

I for one am going to sit back and enjoy the rest of the year, the most enjoyable year we have had since 1999.

I pity the fools who don't do the same.

Exactly what I was thinking. Walt Jocketty has proven himself to be one of the sharpest and most adept GMs in all of baseball. Labeling him and his moves as "pathetic" is patently absurd.

Falls City Beer
08-01-2010, 12:45 PM
Nothing could be furher from the truth.

Look at the Cards after Pujols, Holliday, Rasmus, Carpenter, Wainwright and Miller.

That's 6 guys in the whole organization that I find very interesting.

The rest are a bunch of "meh". That's no "structual bulwark".

You're not doing your argument much of a service by saying "Ignore their core of 6 All-Stars and future all-stars all locked up for years...."

What I mean, even more than their talent on hand, is that the Cards, having year in and year out, anywhere from 15-20 million more than the Reds gives them massively flexibility. I don't disagree that the Reds have a smarter front office than they did in 2003, and that they have a much better collection of minor leaguers than they did 6 years ago; nevertheless, the Cards' FO isn't peopled by imbeciles either, so all else being equal (yet it's not equal because the Cards draw 3 million or more every season no matter what), but hypothetically, if all else is equal, the Cards still boast the flexibility of 20 million dollars over and above what the Reds have. That's a huge structural advantage--even if you don't consider who their players are.

It's comforting to view baseball in terms of a history book, where one empire fades then falls, only to be replaced by the young upstarts waiting for their day in the sun. But that's not how baseball works. It's not linear, and progress is often an illusion.

pedro
08-01-2010, 12:46 PM
Totally agree.

"pathetic" ?????

Yikes

No kidding.

George Anderson
08-01-2010, 12:55 PM
Exactly what I was thinking. Walt Jocketty has proven himself to be one of the sharpest and most adept GMs in all of baseball. Labeling him and his moves as "pathetic" is patently absurd.

Its is kinda the attitude Indy Colts fans have with GM Bill Polian. His moves may not make sense on the surface but in the end more often than not he is right. Bottom line is sit back and let the people like Jocketty who have proven to know what they are doing do their jobs. History shows he knows what he is doing.

Falls City Beer
08-01-2010, 12:57 PM
Its is kinda the attitude Indy Colts fans have with GM Bill Polian. His moves may not make sense on the surface but in the end more often than not he is right. Bottom line is sit back and let the people like Jocketty who have proven to know what they are doing do their jobs. History shows he knows what he is doing.

History has proven that he knows what he is doing [with a $100 million payroll.]

Marc D
08-01-2010, 12:57 PM
What I mean, even more than their talent on hand, is that the Cards, having year in and year out, anywhere from 15-20 million more than the Reds gives them massively flexibility. I don't disagree that the Reds have a smarter front office than they did in 2003, and that they have a much better collection of minor leaguers than they did 6 years ago; nevertheless, the Cards' FO isn't peopled by imbeciles either, so all else being equal (yet it's not equal because the Cards draw 3 million or more every season no matter what), but hypothetically, if all else is equal, the Cards still boast the flexibility of 20 million dollars over and above what the Reds have. That's a huge structural advantage--even if you don't consider who their players are.


Yes but at least 10MM of that's essentially committed to Pujols or they won't get to keep Pujols. Either way.

He's the keystone and he's at that point superstars get to where the team can't let him go so they give him a massive contract that essentially wipes out all of the cheap production they got from him as a younger player and gives it back as the spread between his production and cost widens with each passing year.

Its a good problem to have and I'm not saying he's completely washed up by any means but he's going to start declining little by little and instead of costing 15MM a year, his price tag is likely to be 25MM or so. Unless they are the Yankees (and they aren't) thats a big chunk of the total payroll and it limits what they can do with the other 24 guys who all want to be paid for their services as well.

I don't know maybe its just the finance guy in me but I see the situation going forward with them and Pujols as a negative for them unless he gives them the mother of all home town discounts.

Falls City Beer
08-01-2010, 01:01 PM
Yes but at least 10MM of that's essentially committed to Pujols or they won't get to keep Pujols. Either way.

He's the keystone and he's at that point superstars get to where the team can't let him go so they give him a massive contract that essentially wipes out all of the cheap production they got from him as a younger player and gives it back as the spread between his production and cost widens with each passing year.

Its a good problem to have and I'm not saying he's completely washed up by any means but he's going to start declining little by little and instead of costing 15MM a year, his price tag is likely to be 25MM or so. Unless they are the Yankees (and they aren't) thats a big chunk of the total payroll and it limits what they can do with the other 24 guys who all want to be paid for their services as well.

I don't know maybe its just the finance guy in me but I see the situation going forward with them and Pujols as a negative for them unless he gives them the mother of all home town discounts.

They can do a whole bunch with the roster and still keep their core, Pujols included. They have an excellent and affordable core, better than any other core in the NL. You're right, Pujols will stop being a "bargain." But you can pay a guy his value and still have plenty of wiggle room if you're smart.

GAC
08-01-2010, 01:02 PM
So you guys are fine with entering the final two months of the season with Jonny Gomes and his line of .269/.322/.452 - .774 OPS as the starting LFer? Left field is/was a position of need and Jocketty failed to address it. Luke Scott would have been a great target, IMO.

And Scott was available? Other then the Rays, no team was aggressively pursuing Scott because the O's weren't really dangling him, a trade was highly unlikely, and the reason being was because they have him locked up to 2012. And the Rays backed off because the O's put a high price tag on him.

That's why the deadline is past, and Scott is still an Oriole. ;)

So whose next on the list of quality OFers that the Reds missed out on?

George Anderson
08-01-2010, 01:06 PM
History has proven that he knows what he is doing [with a $100 million payroll.]

He also has a NFL salary cap to deal with. Plus he didn't have the big funds in Buffalo and was proven quite succesful.

Falls City Beer
08-01-2010, 01:07 PM
He also has a NFL salary cap to deal with. Plus he didn't have the big funds in Buffalo and was proven quite succesful.

I was referring to Jocketty.

PuffyPig
08-01-2010, 01:09 PM
You're not doing your argument much of a service by saying "Ignore their core of 6 All-Stars and future all-stars all locked up for years...."



All locked up for years?

Pujols and Carpenter aren't getting better, and likely are getting worse.

Holliday isn't getting better.

Miller is in A ball, I didn't know he was an all star yet.

Baseball consists of more than a handfull of stars.

I was (obviously) talking about their general depth in the organization.

The Cards aren't a franchise which is getting better. The cracks you see now are starting to widen. The flood may come sooner than you think.

Falls City Beer
08-01-2010, 01:13 PM
I'll say this too: no one knows his former team better than Jocketty himself, and as such, he knows what a formidable organization they are. I guarantee you, if he said what he was truly thinking, he would say that he's disappointed in himself right now. No one knows better than Jocketty what winning can do for a franchise.

Marc D
08-01-2010, 01:23 PM
They can do a whole bunch with the roster and still keep their core, Pujols included. They have an excellent and affordable core, better than any other core in the NL. You're right, Pujols will stop being a "bargain." But you can pay a guy his value and still have plenty of wiggle room if you're smart.


Not to belabor the point but where are you seeing the flexibility? Look at their payroll on Cots.
(http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tt_ecf_34oJx078RQnwrl0w&output=html)
I see a team with a 94MM payroll that has to find a way to keep Pujols, Carpenter, Franklin in the very near term while paying 17MM to Holliday and 12MM to Lohse.

Lets say the number for them is 100MM a year. They could have nearly 70% that committed to Pujols (25MMish), Holliday (17MM), Carpenter (15MMish), Lohse 12MM in 2012.

Its not impossible but I sure don't see a flexible core. Holliday, Pujols and Carpenter are all at the expensive/player friendly contract stage of their careers. Wainwright is due to join that club in the next 2 years and isn't exactly dirt cheap now. Garcia is the only guy of their core, as I would define it, that is still a bargain.

Falls City Beer
08-01-2010, 01:30 PM
Not to belabor the point but where are you seeing the flexibility? Look at their payroll on Cots.
(http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tt_ecf_34oJx078RQnwrl0w&output=html)
I see a team with a 94MM payroll that has to find a way to keep Pujols, Carpenter, Franklin in the very near term while paying 17MM to Holliday and 12MM to Lohse.

Lets say the number for them is 100MM a year. They could have nearly 70% that committed to Pujols (25MMish), Holliday (17MM), Carpenter (15MMish), Lohse 12MM in 2012.

Its not impossible but I sure don't see a flexible core. Holliday, Pujols and Carpenter are all at the expensive/player friendly contract stage of their careers. Wainwright is due to join that club in the next 2 years and isn't exactly dirt cheap now. Garcia is the only guy of their core, as I would define it, that is still a bargain.

So they can't trade Lohse or Franklin? If you're operating under the assumption that a) Pujols will get 25 million (he won't) and b) the rest of their roster MUST remain static, then, yeah, they're in trouble. Be neither a nor b is true, so....

membengal
08-01-2010, 01:37 PM
I live in Baltimore. I have no idea or not if the Orioles shopped Scott, or what their asking price was if they did shop him. I do know this, if the O's failed to see what they could get for Scott, they are an even more godforsaken franchise than I thought. Absolute traveshamockery that they didn't move him.

jojo
08-01-2010, 01:38 PM
Not to belabor the point but where are you seeing the flexibility? Look at their payroll on Cots.
(http://spreadsheets.google.com/pub?key=tt_ecf_34oJx078RQnwrl0w&output=html)
I see a team with a 94MM payroll that has to find a way to keep Pujols, Carpenter, Franklin in the very near term while paying 17MM to Holliday and 12MM to Lohse.

Lets say the number for them is 100MM a year. They could have nearly 70% that committed to Pujols (25MMish), Holliday (17MM), Carpenter (15MMish), Lohse 12MM in 2012.

Its not impossible but I sure don't see a flexible core. Holliday, Pujols and Carpenter are all at the expensive/player friendly contract stage of their careers. Wainwright is due to join that club in the next 2 years and isn't exactly dirt cheap now. Garcia is the only guy of their core, as I would define it, that is still a bargain.

And the need to resign Pujols had to be a factor in trading Ludwick... get pitching for the now and payflex for the negotiations...

mth123
08-01-2010, 01:40 PM
And the need to resign Pujols had to be a factor in trading Ludwick... get pitching for the now and payflex for the negotiations...

Exactly. They wanted to deal Ludwick. They didn't want to go to arb with him and felt the backfills weren't a huge drop.

Marc D
08-01-2010, 01:48 PM
So they can't trade Lohse or Franklin? If you're operating under the assumption that a) Pujols will get 25 million (he won't) and b) the rest of their roster MUST remain static, then, yeah, they're in trouble. Be neither a nor b is true, so....


Ok knock Pujols down to 20MM. Who's taking Lohse off their hands for 12MM a year? As far as Franklin goes that the kind of decent productive player they are going to start to have to skimp on from what I can see.

Their core as I see it with current or most likely salary:

Pujols (15-20MM a year)
Holliday (17MM)
Carpenter (15MM)
Wainwright (10MM+)

So call it 60MM tied up in 4 players for the next few years if they keep them all. Roughly 2/3 of your payroll spoken for like that is going to make it tough to keep the other 21 guys of a consistently high caliber. It can be done but that's assuming each of the "big 4" stay healthy and very productive.

PuffyPig
08-01-2010, 01:50 PM
Exactly. They wanted to deal Ludwick. They didn't want to go to arb with him and felt the backfills weren't a huge drop.

One would think that a player like Ludwick was worth more than 2 months of an expensive #4-5 starter.

HokieRed
08-01-2010, 01:50 PM
Nevetheless those 4 constitute a terrific core. FCB is right in reminding people this is the empire that has to be taken down.

Falls City Beer
08-01-2010, 01:51 PM
Nevetheless those 4 constitute a terrific core. FCB is right in reminding people this is the empire that has to be taken down.

The Cards sure as heck aren't going to tear it down for us. Their future is bright. Ours needs to be brighter.

TheNext44
08-01-2010, 01:59 PM
So they can't trade Lohse or Franklin? If you're operating under the assumption that a) Pujols will get 25 million (he won't) and b) the rest of their roster MUST remain static, then, yeah, they're in trouble. Be neither a nor b is true, so....

A) I agree, Pujols will not get $25M a season. He will get at least $30M a season or walk. Remember Howard just signed a long term $25M a season deal.

B) I agree, the Roster will not remain static. Just like they had to trade Ludwick because they couldn't afford him and Westbrook, they will have to trade Lohse and Franklin at the very least to afford Pujols. Even if that is all that they need to do, they will have to replace those guys with replacement level players, because they do not have the money nor in house talent to replace them with players of equal production. In fact, their roster and payflex is set up that in 2012, they will have to have 17 of their 25 players getting the league minimum, just to keep their payroll at $100M, which is more than they can afford.

Here are the facts.

The Reds have at least $10M of payflex in their payroll, while the Cardinals need to cut around $10M of payroll.

Their rolls have switched. It is the Reds who have the money advantage, and the Cardinals who are unable to add talent who cost any money.

One more thing. I am convinced that by 2012, the Reds payroll will be at least at $90M. Being contenders does that. :)

Falls City Beer
08-01-2010, 02:02 PM
A) I agree, Pujols will not get $25M a season. He will get at least $30M a season or walk. Remember Howard just signed a long term $25M a season deal.

B) I agree, the Roster will not remain static. Just like they had to trade Ludwick because they couldn't afford him and Westbrook, they will have to trade Lohse and Franklin at the very least to afford Pujols. Even if that is all that they need to do, they will have to replace those guys with replacement level players, because they do not have the money nor in house talent to replace them with players of equal production. In fact, their roster and payflex is set up that in 2012, they will have to have 17 of their 25 players getting the league minimum, just to keep their payroll at $100M, which is more than they can afford.

Here are the facts.

The Reds have at least $10M of payflex in their payroll, while the Cardinals need to cut around $10M of payroll.

Their rolls have switched. It is the Reds who have the money advantage, and the Cardinals who are unable to add talent who cost any money.

One more thing. I am convinced that by 2012, the Reds payroll will be at least at $90M. Being contenders does that. :)

Then the Cardinals could let Pujols walk and get 7/8 of his production for about $15 million. It doesn't change the facts on the ground that the Cardinals will have considerably more payroll space. Wanting for that to be not true is admirable, but it doesn't change the facts for a moment.

TheNext44
08-01-2010, 02:12 PM
Then the Cardinals could let Pujols walk and get 7/8 of his production for about $15 million. It doesn't change the facts on the ground that the Cardinals will have considerably more payroll space. Wanting for that to be not true is admirable, but it doesn't change the facts for a moment.

First, the Cardinals without Pujols are the Marlins. Replacing Pujols with a .900 OPS guys loses around 35-40 runs. He has been that good.

Second, I just showed how the facts are the the Cardinals do not have any more payroll space, even if they have a higher payroll. Their team is constructed in such a way that the only way to bring in a guy who make money is to trade away another player who makes the same, as the Ludwick/Westbrook trade illustrates.

You are entitled to your own opinions, and I love your opinions, they make the board much more interesting. However you are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are clear. The Reds have more payroll flexibility than the Cardinals over the next few years.

Falls City Beer
08-01-2010, 02:15 PM
You are entitled to your own opinions, and I love your opinions, they make the board much more interesting. However you are not entitled to your own facts. The facts are clear. The Reds have more payroll flexibility than the Cardinals over the next few years.

This is only true if you believe that they can't trade people or unload salaries.

Otherwise, 90-95 million > 75 million. Last I checked, anyway.

Falls City Beer
08-01-2010, 02:20 PM
Remember: the Reds are going to have to figure out a way to either pay Votto or find his replacement too.

If the Cards without Pujols are the Marlins, then the Reds without Votto are the Pirates.

(Which is reason #1 why Votto should win this year's MVP).

HokieRed
08-01-2010, 02:23 PM
Remember: the Reds are going to have to figure out a way to either pay Votto or find his replacement too.

If the Cards without Pujols are the Marlins, then the Reds without Votto are the Pirates.

(Which is reason #1 why Votto should win this year's MVP).

Which is why they ought not to trade Yonder Alonso. Not that he's a replacement for Votto, but he will provide good production, IMHO, at 1b and help them avoid the mistake of massively overpaying Votto. (This does not mean I'm not in favor of keeping Votto, only that they need to avoid overpaying for him.)

TheNext44
08-01-2010, 02:40 PM
Remember: the Reds are going to have to figure out a way to either pay Votto or find his replacement too.

If the Cards without Pujols are the Marlins, then the Reds without Votto are the Pirates.

(Which is reason #1 why Votto should win this year's MVP).

The Reds don't need to find a way to pay Votto. They can afford him without making any changes to their payroll or roster.

And I'd rather be the Reds without Votto than the Cardinals without Pujols. Not the either are appealing choices.

HokieRed
08-01-2010, 03:04 PM
The Reds don't need to find a way to pay Votto. They can afford him without making any changes to their payroll or roster.

And I'd rather be the Reds without Votto than the Cardinals without Pujols. Not the either are appealing choices.

They're going to have to figure out a way to pay him within the current window of competitive opportunity provided by the current depth of starting pitching--one that looks to be at least 5 years worth.

mth123
08-01-2010, 04:48 PM
Votto will be in the $7 Million range next season in the first year of arb coming off a season where he leads the league in everything it may be more. Another year like this and he'll be over $15 Million in 2012.

Its another reason why the 5 year window may not be 5 years. Finances may shrink that to a couple years.

jojo
08-01-2010, 04:49 PM
Votto will be in the $7 Million range next season in the first year of arb coming off a season where he leads the league in everything it may be more. Another year like this and he'll be over $15 Million in 2012.

Its another reason why the 5 year window may not be 5 years. Finances may shrink that to a couple years.

I doubt Votto makes it to arbitration.

mth123
08-01-2010, 04:50 PM
I doubt Votto makes it to arbitration.

I doubt he'll have to. The threat gets him the cash and he strikes me as a surley type who won't give a discount. Could be wrong about that last part.

Mario-Rijo
08-01-2010, 04:52 PM
Ok knock Pujols down to 20MM. Who's taking Lohse off their hands for 12MM a year? As far as Franklin goes that the kind of decent productive player they are going to start to have to skimp on from what I can see.

Their core as I see it with current or most likely salary:

Pujols (15-20MM a year)
Holliday (17MM)
Carpenter (15MM)
Wainwright (10MM+)

So call it 60MM tied up in 4 players for the next few years if they keep them all. Roughly 2/3 of your payroll spoken for like that is going to make it tough to keep the other 21 guys of a consistently high caliber. It can be done but that's assuming each of the "big 4" stay healthy and very productive.

Especially considering their weak farm at the moment, not many guys they can call on. However the Cards have a knack for making it work. Is LaRussa and Duncan done after this season? Could be tough sledding for St. Lou soon.

Falls City Beer
08-01-2010, 04:52 PM
Its another reason why the 5 year window may not be 5 years. Finances may shrink that to a couple years.

And that's just from a financial standpoint, never mind plain old attrition.

Windows are mostly just illusions. You're just buying time, over and over again.

REDblooded
08-01-2010, 04:54 PM
These threads are great... More just like them please...

mth123
08-01-2010, 04:56 PM
And that's just from a financial standpoint, never mind plain old attrition.

Windows are mostly just illusions. You're just buying time, over and over again.

The best way to lengthen the window is to treat this year as year one.

Falls City Beer
08-01-2010, 04:57 PM
The best way to lengthen the window is to treat this year as year one.

Absolutely. You've got to manage contention aggressively, accounting for time not just money. You play seasons, not continuously.

KronoRed
08-01-2010, 05:03 PM
Which is why they ought not to trade Yonder Alonso. Not that he's a replacement for Votto, but he will provide good production, IMHO, at 1b and help them avoid the mistake of massively overpaying Votto. (This does not mean I'm not in favor of keeping Votto, only that they need to avoid overpaying for him.)

The only way that works is if they dump Votto this year, otherwise you have a guy vegetating in AAA for years on end.

1st basemen with power are not that rare.

WVRedsFan
08-01-2010, 05:09 PM
The only way that works is if they dump Votto this year, otherwise you have a guy vegetating in AAA for years on end.

1st basemen with power are not that rare.Then explain the logic behind Scott Hatteberg? If they're that easy to find, why did the Reds have Scotty?

Homer Bailey
08-01-2010, 05:17 PM
Then explain the logic behind Scott Hatteberg? If they're that easy to find, why did the Reds have Scotty?

He was clearly the placeholder until that power hitting 1B was ready.

OnBaseMachine
08-01-2010, 05:20 PM
Scott Hatteberg was a solid player for the Reds - .291/.384/.440 - .824 OPS and 109 OPS+. And that includes an awful .493 OPS in 61 plate appearances in 2008. He was a productive player in 2006 and 2007. He did his job, which was to hold down first base until Joey Votto was ready.

TheNext44
08-01-2010, 05:30 PM
Good organizations don't worry about windows.

The key is to develop a solid, deep organization that is constantly adding young players via the draft and international signings. This "Votto/Bruce/Cueto window" should be replaced by another one in a few years, just like that one replaced the Dunn/Harang/Arroyo window, which replaced the Dunn/Griffey/Kearns window, which replaced the Larkin/Casey/Reese window and so on.

There will always be windows, just with different players. The key is having the depth to fill out the roster with other good players on a consistent basis.

WVRedsFan
08-01-2010, 05:38 PM
He was clearly the placeholder until that power hitting 1B was ready.Just giving Krono a hard time. Scotty did a good job while he was here, but a power hitter he was not.

HokieRed
08-01-2010, 07:46 PM
The only way that works is if they dump Votto this year, otherwise you have a guy vegetating in AAA for years on end.

1st basemen with power are not that rare.

I don't see Alonso vegetating. I see him making it clear it's foolish to trade him and foolish not to play him. The kid can hit; a good org. would find a way to get him into the lineup and I believe the Reds will.

mth123
08-01-2010, 07:49 PM
Good organizations don't worry about windows.

The key is to develop a solid, deep organization that is constantly adding young players via the draft and international signings. This "Votto/Bruce/Cueto window" should be replaced by another one in a few years, just like that one replaced the Dunn/Harang/Arroyo window, which replaced the Dunn/Griffey/Kearns window, which replaced the Larkin/Casey/Reese window and so on.

There will always be windows, just with different players. The key is having the depth to fill out the roster with other good players on a consistent basis.

You are proving my point. So far this Votto/Bruce/Cueto window is the only window that is actually open. Those others you refer to were on bad teams and everyone knew it. This actually is a window and if history shows it is as poor as those others, then its all the more reason to go all in on 2010.

RedsMan3203
08-01-2010, 07:52 PM
Votto will get paid, and he'll get paid by the Reds. I think he will be the least of our worries coming up in the years to come....

I'm more worried about Volquez, Cueto, Bruce, Phillips and Masset.

I'm going out on a limb and saying, Joey Votto will be the next Barry Larkin. He is going to win MVPs, Batting Titles, Gold Gloves, World Series Rings, Silver Sluggers, etc.

redsmetz
08-01-2010, 07:57 PM
You are proving my point. So far this Votto/Bruce/Cueto window is the only window that is actually open. Those others you refer to were on bad teams and everyone knew it. This actually is a window and if history shows it is as poor as those others, then its all the more reason to go all in on 2010.

mth123, you asked me in another thread about my comment about the next five years, and certainly that can be construed as "a window," but my point was more aimed at some who suggested the Reds should go "all in" this year and not worry about later.

I think we have some window with the present crew, but preferably we're seeing a resurgence of development in our system. Just like the BRM was comprised of some 60's players (Rose, Perez, Bench in the final years; Lee, Helms on the early 70's club), it also saw trades that brought in the likes of Morgan, Foster (then a young player), Griffey developed, some of the pitchers (and this list isn't, I don't think, exhaustive). The fact is they had talent to plug in or move and set up that seven year reign. Some would argue it could have continued if management hadn't balked at free agency for so long, but that's another argument for another day.

I've said as the trade deadline approached that I wasn't interested in sacrificing the future for just winning this year. But as I wrote you privately earlier, we're coming up on a glut of ML ready players, some of whom will have to be moved, whether it's for other younger prospects for further down the line, or to plug the holes we have.

It's for that reason I've found the whole notion of this thread as tremendously shortsighted.

mth123
08-01-2010, 08:11 PM
mth123, you asked me in another thread about my comment about the next five years, and certainly that can be construed as "a window," but my point was more aimed at some who suggested the Reds should go "all in" this year and not worry about later.

I think we have some window with the present crew, but preferably we're seeing a resurgence of development in our system. Just like the BRM was comprised of some 60's players (Rose, Perez, Bench in the final years; Lee, Helms on the early 70's club), it also saw trades that brought in the likes of Morgan, Foster (then a young player), Griffey developed, some of the pitchers (and this list isn't, I don't think, exhaustive). The fact is they had talent to plug in or move and set up that seven year reign. Some would argue it could have continued if management hadn't balked at free agency for so long, but that's another argument for another day.

I've said as the trade deadline approached that I wasn't interested in sacrificing the future for just winning this year. But as I wrote you privately earlier, we're coming up on a glut of ML ready players, some of whom will have to be moved, whether it's for other younger prospects for further down the line, or to plug the holes we have.

It's for that reason I've found the who notion of this thread as tremendously shortsighted.

Well I don't agree with the notion that its pathetic and that makes this thread a little distasteful. I do think this team can win as is if things go right. I just don't agree with the notion that there will be a better time in some imagined future than there is with a team with 2 MVP caliber bats leading the offense to the top of the league, a number of pitchers doing well, no major injuries and they're still cheap enough to stay together. I don't see why its not OK to try to win now. If Phillips drops back to a .750 OPS, Rolen back to a .775 and Arroyo and Rhodes are gone for financial reasons, then this team could be in third place next year at this time even with all the kids developing.

When you're in Paris, go see the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower. Skipping them because you think you'll be back there again might be a decision you'll regret later.

Slyder
08-01-2010, 08:31 PM
Well I don't agree with the notion that its pathetic and that makes this thread a little distasteful. I do think this team can win as is if things go right. I just don't agree with the notion that there will be a better time in some imagined future than there is with a team with 2 MVP caliber bats leading the offense to the top of the league, a number of pitchers doing well, no major injuries and they're still cheap enough to stay together. I don't see why its not OK to try to win now. If Phillips drops back to a .750 OPS, Rolen back to a .775 and Arroyo and Rhodes are gone for financial reasons, then this team could be in third place next year at this time even with all the kids developing.

When you're in Paris, go see the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower. Skipping them because you think you'll be back there again might be a decision you'll regret later.

I like that analogy. Or to bring an all time great sports player into the discussion... Everyone thought for sure Dan Marino would make it to multiple Super Bowls when he went to his only one.

KronoRed
08-01-2010, 08:34 PM
Then explain the logic behind Scott Hatteberg? If they're that easy to find, why did the Reds have Scotty?

He was Cheap ;)

redsmetz
08-01-2010, 08:35 PM
Well I don't agree with the notion that its pathetic and that makes this thread a little distasteful. I do think this team can win as is if things go right. I just don't agree with the notion that there will be a better time in some imagined future than there is with a team with 2 MVP caliber bats leading the offense to the top of the league, a number of pitchers doing well, no major injuries and they're still cheap enough to stay together. I don't see why its not OK to try to win now. If Phillips drops back to a .750 OPS, Rolen back to a .775 and Arroyo and Rhodes are gone for financial reasons, then this team could be in third place next year at this time even with all the kids developing.

When you're in Paris, go see the Louvre and the Eiffel Tower. Skipping them because you think you'll be back there again might be a decision you'll regret later.

Ack, I really have to read what I write before I hit "submit" - I'll correct it, but it should read "whole notion" not "who".

BTW, I don't disagree with what you're saying. Certainly we should be planning to be in it. I just didn't think anything that made us better (particularly without paying too high a price) became available.

TheNext44
08-01-2010, 09:33 PM
You are proving my point. So far this Votto/Bruce/Cueto window is the only window that is actually open. Those others you refer to were on bad teams and everyone knew it. This actually is a window and if history shows it is as poor as those others, then its all the more reason to go all in on 2010.

In a well run organization, there always is a window. There is a trip to Paris every year.

The Reds since Jocketty took over have been a well run organization. He has stockpiled the talent you mentioned so that the team can make a run for it when the time is right.

He reportedly already offered Alonso and Meseraco for Lee, and was in on Haren as well. He (and I) agrees with you that the purpose of having a deep system to trade what you don't need for what you do need. He just believes, as do I, that you have to be wise in the trades you make.

If the Reds really only had a small window, then trade anyone and everyone to get the players you need to win this year. You don't have to be wise, just bold.

But this team is well positioned to win every year for awhile. I agree that Phillips and Rolen won't be as productive next year, and could fall off a cliff, but just as likely as that is to happen, so is Bruce and Stubbs having breakout years, and/or one or two of Cueto, Volquez, Chapman, Leake and Wood becoming true TOR starters, and/or one or two of the minor leaguers having a productive year in the majors. Not to mention any additions made in the offseason with the extra payflex.

And let's say none of that happens and the Reds aren't in contention next year, then odds are good that all this young talent will develop and be good in 2012, plus the Reds will have drafted and signed even more players to take their place as prospects.

So, every year they are poised to go for it, and trade surplus to fill in holes. But if there are no good trades to be made, if the price is too high one year, it's no big deal, since you know you will be in a similar situation next season, and the season after that and so on.

Good organizations, and the Reds clearly are now one, have a perpetual window that keeps staying open, only with different players.

I understand why a Reds fan would feel otherwise, but this team has moved past the poorly run teams of the past.

REDblooded
08-01-2010, 09:40 PM
Definitely agree with 44 here... Making moves just to make them, or miscalculations of your actual window can be incredibly damning...

Want an example?

Go back to the last time the Reds were "in it" at the deadline... The organization got set back because the powers at be decided a big deal for bullpen help was necessary to make a run... We also missed out on what would've been an AMAZING chance to move Harang at what would've been his peak value... Who knows what the Reds would've received in return for Harang at that point... Also, who knows if our OF problems would've been solved by drafting Heyward that season instead of Mesoraco by virtue of finishing one game worse than they did...

HokieRed
08-01-2010, 09:49 PM
I like 44's point that the idea's not to create a window but to win every year, and I think we're on the way to being competitive enough that we will have that chance every year. One of the reasons I'm not at all distressed that the deal for Lee didn't go through. I'd rather have Alonso and Mesoraco and take a chance on winning with what we have. In fact, I'm so old school as to not care whether we win with a rental. Where's the pride in that anyway? It's no more than winning with a checkbook; that's for the Yankees, and I really don't care to win anything that way anyway.

kaldaniels
08-01-2010, 09:54 PM
I like 44's point that the idea's not to create a window but to win every year, and I think we're on the way to being competitive enough that we will have that chance every year. One of the reasons I'm not at all distressed that the deal for Lee didn't go through. I'd rather have Alonso and Mesoraco and take a chance on winning with what we have. In fact, I'm so old school as to not care whether we win with a rental. Where's the pride in that anyway? It's no more than winning with a checkbook; that's for the Yankees, and I really don't care to win anything that way anyway.

Eh, thats some soapbox you are on then. Essentially you want all contributing guys to be homegrown? Cause everyone else, like it or not, is acquired by means of a checkboook.

I do see your point of wanting a team that can compete year in year out...but still, sometimes you need that missing piece.

UKFlounder
08-01-2010, 09:54 PM
So you'd rather "lose with what you've got?"

Wow.

I guess that's a sign of "pride cometh before the fall" but if a GM's ego is so big that he refuses to try to improve the team because he's too proud to admit the team he assembled was flawed, that guy needs to go.

Winning creates pride; losing does not.

(Regarding the young guys, I understand the desire not to give them up, but at some point the current season has to be seen as at least as important as 2012, 2013, or 2014, whenever (if ever) those guys make it to the big leagues. I agree we don't want to mortgage the future and that's what makes such decisions difficult, but if we keep trying to "wait until next year" and not trade this decades version of the "crown jewels" what happens if next year never comes?


I In fact, I'm so old school as to not care whether we win with a rental. Where's the pride in that anyway? It's no more than winning with a checkbook; that's for the Yankees, and I really don't care to win anything that way anyway.