PDA

View Full Version : Looking at the whole picture



edabbs44
12-10-2010, 02:52 PM
As you may or may not know, I am a rather large fan of the Walt regime and, at times, have been called a "front office shill", among other things. I am a buyer of Jocketty and, for the most part, generally believe in his moves whether I love them off the bat or not. This is somewhat different from others, since some posters seem to be on a love/hate pattern on a move by move basis.

- Great job locking up Bruce
- Ridiculous that they gave Cairo 2 years
- Great move signing Chapman
- Can't believe they went 3 years on Arroyo
- Great move getting rid of Taveras
- Awful move signing Taveras

And we could go on. But at what point do some of you just become a believer in what this regime is doing? Moves cannot be looked at in a vacuum. The fact that they traded Dunn for basically nothing 2 years ago made some people crazy but, when you think about it, may have made a lot of these better moves possible. When we see guys like Gomes and Cabrera getting every day playing time, don't we think that maybe there is a legitimate reason for it?

I kind of compare it to today's video game/fantasy sports mentality. Most of us do not have intimate FO knowledge and the closest we have been to running a sports franchise is either on PS3 or a fantasy football team. We move players in and out of the lineup and the performance of both the team and those players really have little to do with anything except their talent. I'm sure that we sometimes assume that they can just remove Cabrera from the lineup, put in Janish and there will be no ramifications except the team will win more. Yet we have no idea what actually will happen, since we aren't there.

So back to my original topic...Walt's moves have been greeted with reactions that are all over the charts. This move is great, this move sucks, Walt is the man, Walt is asleep at the wheel, etc etc etc. But shouldn't we give the FO the benefit of the doubt until we actually see the finished product? Isn't it a waste of energy to be complaining about them not doing anything at the Winter Meetings until we see what actually happens later in the offseason and even during the season?

Some on here were wanting Walt to make a move on JJ Hardy, the guy who will make in the neighborhood of $7MM in arb this year. Again, we have no idea what the ramifications would be on that move. Maybe Walt gets him and makes some posters giddy. But unknown to us, that kills Bruce's extension and other flexibility down the line. Every move has a butterfly effect, which is unknown to us at the time.

I'm all for discussion from move to move...that's why we are all here, right? But when you have a GM who has proven that he knows what he is doing, I think more leeway should be given to him and less criticism should be levied until we see the overall product and performance. If there is a move that can be made that isn't, do we really think that it was Walt asleep at the switch? or shouldn't we believe that it doesn't fit in the overall picture of what they are trying to do?

Mario-Rijo
12-10-2010, 03:43 PM
Here is the whole problem with giving him the benefit of the doubt. 1st you have to believe he has proven himself. I really don't buy it. Now that doesn't mean I think he is a bad GM. I think he excels at certain aspects of the job which is probably a far cry from some we have had the past 20 years. How he handles the media and fans is quite masterful. The fact that he takes intangibles & chemistry into consideration and gives them a fairly high order of importance isn't a bad thing (though I think he may give them a bit too much importance).

In short I think he did do one brilliant thing for his career and that was to sign LaRussa. Give Walt a manager or top notch F.O. executive who is an excellent talent evaluator and I think he would be just fine. But I haven't seen enough yet to convince me that he is one himself, or has one working with him. IMO a good GM makes the most of every asset and I don't feel like he has. So I have to ask myself why and the only thing that encompasses every scenario he has been presented with is a lack of evaluating ability.

So either I have to be proven wrong on my assessments (and I haven't much). Or Walt has to do a series of things in a row that I can see make sense. And he has done a few but then he seems to miss a lot of opportunities in between. I can see the big picture (have looked at it all along) and again he has missed prime opportunities to improve the Reds for the short and long haul.

Jay Bruce was a big one though that he got right and he got it really right. I think alot of it had to do with Jay kind of making it easy for him but at least he took advantage of the opportunity.

gonelong
12-10-2010, 03:43 PM
I'm all for discussion from move to move...that's why we are all here, right? But when you have a GM who has proven that he knows what he is doing, I think more leeway should be given to him and less criticism should be levied until we see the overall product and performance.

Thats generally what I do from my couch. I watch. I enjoy. Besides, I have no choice but to wait and see what happens.

When I am discussing the team with neighbors, family, and Redszone there is no need to take a wait-and-see approach. I want your opinions and the logic behind those opinions right now. Go out on a limb and tell me what you think and why. Over time, I will come to value some opinions more than others and will take them into higher consideration when forming my own opinion.

GL

TRF
12-10-2010, 03:55 PM
And yet you did not look at the bigger picture when it came to Krivsky. Most of your posts regarding Jocketty point to his past success as proof of future results. Deals you praised Jocketty for that were THE EXACT SAME DEAL Krivsky did, you panned. (Arroyo) The simple truth is this: Jocketty in his two years did not bring in as much quality talent that Krivsky did. What he did do was complement that talent and allow it to gel. There is a ton of value in that. Jocketty does understand the psychology of the game.

But it also blinds him at times. It makes him think that Gomes as a starter is a good idea. That Cabrera was the defender he was 10 years ago. That Rolen is somehow 26 instead of 36 and that he's the same offensive force he was as a Cardinal. Not every move is bad, not every move is good, but the overall philosophy of the type of talent to acquire hasn't changed from when WK was GM. The difference is Krivsky has to take pride in what he did here while working somewhere else.

Ghosts of 1990
12-10-2010, 03:56 PM
I agree with you. There is no way that we see the fold as often or as deep as Walt Jocketty and his cohorts, experienced front office executives for years inside this game. However, getting everyone to just sit back and say that they're cool with every move made--that's asking a lot--and probably impossible. And we shouldn't feel that way unless we're winning World Series titles or at least contending for them year in and year out. Of late, they've made more good calls than bad calls. Do I agree with them all? No way. Do I know as well as Jocketty? No way. Has be been right 100% of the time. Not a chance. Even the best in the business who do it for a living are not right always--they're human too. It's a tough business.

But basically you're asking are we reaching the point where we sit back and just let the organization act without criticism. I don't think you get there until you've built a dynasty. I think most of the time, Patriots fans are faithful of the man behind the curtain in New England. For good reason. When Belichick and company pick up an unknown, good chance that he's gonna be a football player. His track record the last decade says so.

westofyou
12-10-2010, 03:58 PM
Everyone sit back.... unless of course you don't like a move, then make your case.

Just like many did when the prior GM's ran the team.

I'd suggest if you want a blanket agreement on the state of the team you visit your nearest mirror.

Ghosts of 1990
12-10-2010, 03:58 PM
At the same time I'd like to add that there are people in this very forum who are knowledgeable enough that they could definitely be in a baseball front office.

I know a guy who is 24, very smart and analytical; but no more baseball knowledge then some of the posters in the ORG. He is the assistant head baseball operations for the Arizona Diamondbacks. The different between him and a lot here is that he knew some people who had some pull, he impressed them a great deal and he works his tail off.

The conception that fans don't know isn't always right. I know there are plenty of fans who are prodigious about baseball and would do some positive things if given the opportunity.

reds44
12-10-2010, 04:25 PM
Am I the only one looking at the Arroyo, Bruce, and (potentially) Cueto extensions as a sign Votto won't be extended?

Captain Hook
12-10-2010, 05:00 PM
Am I the only one looking at the Arroyo, Bruce, and (potentially) Cueto extensions as a sign Votto won't be extended?

I was kind of thinking the opposite.It's good to show your star player that your serious about keeping a winning team together when that player is considering weather or not to make a long term commitment.I suppose it could mean something different though but I'm not reading into it much that way.I think at worst it's just Walt taking care of business.

edabbs44
12-10-2010, 05:20 PM
And yet you did not look at the bigger picture when it came to Krivsky. Most of your posts regarding Jocketty point to his past success as proof of future results. Deals you praised Jocketty for that were THE EXACT SAME DEAL Krivsky did, you panned. (Arroyo) The simple truth is this: Jocketty in his two years did not bring in as much quality talent that Krivsky did. What he did do was complement that talent and allow it to gel. There is a ton of value in that. Jocketty does understand the psychology of the game.

But it also blinds him at times. It makes him think that Gomes as a starter is a good idea. That Cabrera was the defender he was 10 years ago. That Rolen is somehow 26 instead of 36 and that he's the same offensive force he was as a Cardinal. Not every move is bad, not every move is good, but the overall philosophy of the type of talent to acquire hasn't changed from when WK was GM. The difference is Krivsky has to take pride in what he did here while working somewhere else.

Yeah, disagree. The reason is as follows: They were two different teams at two different times.

If Cincy had a need for a closer right now and they went out and got Cordero, that would make sense to me. Not when they were a 90 loss team. And I think it is painfully apparent that this is true. Now when this team is good we have a $12MM struggling closer who is clogging up the books. He was lights out when the team sucked. Awesome.

You bring up Arroyo, I wasn't a fan of his extension at the time since it was unnecessary and the team wasn't very good. I'm not in love with that third year, but that's where my faith in this guy comes in. I'm not going to moan and wail about that 3rd year, because this guy is a proven winner and he knows a hell of a lot more than any of us do. He's proven it. He knows their finances, he knows what their next 5 moves are going to be and he knows what Arroyo is like in the clubhouse, in the bullpen and on the field. None of us know that except for what we pull off of Fangraphs. If Arroyo's extension gives this team more comfort to go and trade one of the other pitchers for a leadoff LF/SS, does it make you feel better about it?

So, to answer your question, my critiques of the moves you mention have to be viewed in the context in which they were made. If you are 21 years old, broke and jobless, have $10k in debt and go out and buy a $5k watch, I'll think you are an idiot. If you are 30 years old, pull down $200k per year and have no debt and buy that same watch, good for you. Especially if you have a very solid historical performance which shows me that you know how to manage your finances.

edabbs44
12-10-2010, 05:22 PM
At the same time I'd like to add that there are people in this very forum who are knowledgeable enough that they could definitely be in a baseball front office.

I know a guy who is 24, very smart and analytical; but no more baseball knowledge then some of the posters in the ORG. He is the assistant head baseball operations for the Arizona Diamondbacks. The different between him and a lot here is that he knew some people who had some pull, he impressed them a great deal and he works his tail off.

The conception that fans don't know isn't always right. I know there are plenty of fans who are prodigious about baseball and would do some positive things if given the opportunity.

Maybe. But not in this context. The Reds FO gets blasted from time to time on this board without any knowledge about pretty much anything besides what can be found online. No knowledge about what happens in the dugout, no knowledge about finances, just a bunch of stats.

I'm not sure what Jocketty needs to do to get some faith around here.

edabbs44
12-10-2010, 05:24 PM
Everyone sit back.... unless of course you don't like a move, then make your case.

Just like many did when the prior GM's ran the team.

I'd suggest if you want a blanket agreement on the state of the team you visit your nearest mirror.

If this is directed at me, I haven't agreed with every move made by Jocketty. I wasn't in love with Arroyo's 3rd year. I wasn't in love with Taveras. I wasn't throwing a party for Baker's extension.

But I'll take Jocketty's overall product any day of the week. And I think that's what some fail to realize.

OnBaseMachine
12-10-2010, 05:30 PM
And yet you did not look at the bigger picture when it came to Krivsky. Most of your posts regarding Jocketty point to his past success as proof of future results. Deals you praised Jocketty for that were THE EXACT SAME DEAL Krivsky did, you panned. (Arroyo) The simple truth is this: Jocketty in his two years did not bring in as much quality talent that Krivsky did. What he did do was complement that talent and allow it to gel. There is a ton of value in that. Jocketty does understand the psychology of the game.

But it also blinds him at times. It makes him think that Gomes as a starter is a good idea. That Cabrera was the defender he was 10 years ago. That Rolen is somehow 26 instead of 36 and that he's the same offensive force he was as a Cardinal. Not every move is bad, not every move is good, but the overall philosophy of the type of talent to acquire hasn't changed from when WK was GM. The difference is Krivsky has to take pride in what he did here while working somewhere else.

Nice post. :)

westofyou
12-10-2010, 05:34 PM
If this is directed at me, I haven't agreed with every move made by Jocketty. I wasn't in love with Arroyo's 3rd year. I wasn't in love with Taveras. I wasn't throwing a party for Baker's extension.

But I'll take Jocketty's overall product any day of the week. And I think that's what some fail to realize.

No it's directed at the whole, even Branch Rickey and George Weiss had guys who disagreed with their moves, I've never seen one GM who was Teflon, i don't believe one exists.

edabbs44
12-10-2010, 05:54 PM
No it's directed at the whole, even Branch Rickey and George Weiss had guys who disagreed with their moves, I've never seen one GM who was Teflon, i don't believe one exists.

Neither do I, it's one thing to disagree specific moves to a point and it is another to still question the motives and direction they are headed. We had people freaking out when no moves were made at the deadline, when Rolen was traded for, when no major moves were made until the new year last year, even when Walt says that he didn't call anyone on a specific day. It's obvious that these guys know what they are doing and that they have the ship headed in the right direction. Is it necessary to seriously question them at this point?

PuffyPig
12-10-2010, 06:04 PM
Am I the only one looking at the Arroyo, Bruce, and (potentially) Cueto extensions as a sign Votto won't be extended?

I can't see the connection.

corkedbat
12-10-2010, 06:08 PM
Am I the only one looking at the Arroyo, Bruce, and (potentially) Cueto extensions as a sign Votto won't be extended?

Yeah, I think the time to lock up JV was last year. Unfortunately, I think they still had some questions about certain aspects of his makeup, then he blew up. I believe they may have inked JB just before a similar leap forward.

I'd say now that in Joey's mind (and that of his agent) he is deserving of a 9-figure deal (even with any "home team discount"). With a staff of young armscoming along - the best of which will require deals comparable Bruce's. I don't think that's doable.

I'm a huge Votto fan and I believe that he should be a cornerstone of this team, but can't see it. If I'm running the team, I start planting the seeds for a Votto deal now and work on it until I can get the right return.

He is much more valuable if a deal includes a year of two of his arb-eligible years, but your back isn't against the wall. If someone offers you a deal maximum-return deal then you take if, if not you go year-to-year until Free Agency and then deal him.

I'm all for signing Joey to a deal as long as you still have enough flex to keep a competitive team around he and Jay.

If not and you can come up with a deal for a solid young OF, SS & 3B for him (and/or pitching of course), then I believe you have to do it.

TRF
12-10-2010, 06:18 PM
Yeah, disagree. The reason is as follows: They were two different teams at two different times.

If Cincy had a need for a closer right now and they went out and got Cordero, that would make sense to me. Not when they were a 90 loss team. And I think it is painfully apparent that this is true. Now when this team is good we have a $12MM struggling closer who is clogging up the books. He was lights out when the team sucked. Awesome.

You bring up Arroyo, I wasn't a fan of his extension at the time since it was unnecessary and the team wasn't very good. I'm not in love with that third year, but that's where my faith in this guy comes in. I'm not going to moan and wail about that 3rd year, because this guy is a proven winner and he knows a hell of a lot more than any of us do. He's proven it. He knows their finances, he knows what their next 5 moves are going to be and he knows what Arroyo is like in the clubhouse, in the bullpen and on the field. None of us know that except for what we pull off of Fangraphs. If Arroyo's extension gives this team more comfort to go and trade one of the other pitchers for a leadoff LF/SS, does it make you feel better about it?

So, to answer your question, my critiques of the moves you mention have to be viewed in the context in which they were made. If you are 21 years old, broke and jobless, have $10k in debt and go out and buy a $5k watch, I'll think you are an idiot. If you are 30 years old, pull down $200k per year and have no debt and buy that same watch, good for you. Especially if you have a very solid historical performance which shows me that you know how to manage your finances.

I realize this is your opinion, it's just flat wrong.

You cannot change a climate in a day. All Jocketty has done, really done is continue with the same program Krivsky started, and to a lesser extent, Dan O'Brien initiated... get more talent. DanO happened to be the GM that brought in Cueto, Bailey and Bruce. Krivsky brought the Reds Stubbs, BP, Arroyo, Volquez and Wood. That's just off the top of my head. The minor leagues were so completely devoid of talent, that building the Reds for success meant turning that black hole around. And they did. It wasn't pretty nor perfect, but the talent infusion from 2004-2008 was the best the Reds has seen in decades. And in 2 years we might see a 21 year old Yorman Rodriguez or Juan Duran patrolling the OF. Yorman was a Walt sign, Duran a Krivsky sign.

Do you think Rolen would have come to the Reds if it was operating under the same style as 2000-2005? He's a possible future Hall of Famer. He wasn't going to go to the Pirates. Prior to his arrival you could see the Reds were poised to break out. They were the darkhorse pick for 2 years to make the playoffs. Yes, Arroyo and Harang were expensive, but their contracts, while for lots of dollars did not exceed 3 years. That means they were tradeable, based on their individual success. Harang had health problems. It happens. Arroyo didn't and he earned every dime of that contract. In fact, do the Reds even make the post season in 2010 without him? I don't think they do.

The difference between Krivsky and Jocketty is in what they inherited. Jocketty got the team with more talent, the team Krivsky provided him along with contributions from DanO and *gasp* JimBo (Votto and Hanigan)

And yet, Krivsky made mistakes, and when he did, he needed to have them pointed out. Now maybe a messageboard won't garner any notice. Or maybe a beat writer reads it for story ideas and bad moves get some press. Maybe.

I just see no reason whatsoever to take any move on faith. Not in an age where information is literally a few clicks away. Back the move up with numbers AND philosophy.

westofyou
12-10-2010, 08:12 PM
Is it necessary to seriously question them at this point?
From

1991-2009 .488 winning percentage

2001-2009 .457 winning percentage

Yes, at this point it is.

Success is measured in different ways, I want a larger sample size, anyways questioning the approach of a baseball team is as American as apple pie/

edabbs44
12-10-2010, 10:01 PM
From

1991-2009 .488 winning percentage

2001-2009 .457 winning percentage

Yes, at this point it is.

Success is measured in different ways, I want a larger sample size, anyways questioning the approach of a baseball team is as American as apple pie/

Unsure what you are getting at. The difference in the way this team is being run is fairly obvious.

edabbs44
12-10-2010, 10:29 PM
I realize this is your opinion, it's just flat wrong.

You cannot change a climate in a day. All Jocketty has done, really done is continue with the same program Krivsky started, and to a lesser extent, Dan O'Brien initiated... get more talent. DanO happened to be the GM that brought in Cueto, Bailey and Bruce. Krivsky brought the Reds Stubbs, BP, Arroyo, Volquez and Wood. That's just off the top of my head. The minor leagues were so completely devoid of talent, that building the Reds for success meant turning that black hole around. And they did. It wasn't pretty nor perfect, but the talent infusion from 2004-2008 was the best the Reds has seen in decades. And in 2 years we might see a 21 year old Yorman Rodriguez or Juan Duran patrolling the OF. Yorman was a Walt sign, Duran a Krivsky sign.

Do you think Rolen would have come to the Reds if it was operating under the same style as 2000-2005? He's a possible future Hall of Famer. He wasn't going to go to the Pirates. Prior to his arrival you could see the Reds were poised to break out. They were the darkhorse pick for 2 years to make the playoffs. Yes, Arroyo and Harang were expensive, but their contracts, while for lots of dollars did not exceed 3 years. That means they were tradeable, based on their individual success. Harang had health problems. It happens. Arroyo didn't and he earned every dime of that contract. In fact, do the Reds even make the post season in 2010 without him? I don't think they do.

The difference between Krivsky and Jocketty is in what they inherited. Jocketty got the team with more talent, the team Krivsky provided him along with contributions from DanO and *gasp* JimBo (Votto and Hanigan)

And yet, Krivsky made mistakes, and when he did, he needed to have them pointed out. Now maybe a messageboard won't garner any notice. Or maybe a beat writer reads it for story ideas and bad moves get some press. Maybe.

I just see no reason whatsoever to take any move on faith. Not in an age where information is literally a few clicks away. Back the move up with numbers AND philosophy.

Wood was drafted with O'Brien as GM, not Krivsky.

And you are totally missing the point. But that's ok.

TRF
12-10-2010, 10:59 PM
You are right on Wood, but no i'm not missing the point. Here is the thing about organizations, businesses, nations. we agree with what matches our views, and disagree with what doesn't. We trust but verify. What you fail to recognize is that others in this job started what Jocketty is continuing. The Reds don't even sniff the playoffs without the moves Krivsky made. Not even close. DanO's drafts were superlative. Krivsky's drafts, especially 2006 were fantastic considering it was considered a weak year.

It's ok to like Walt. I like Walt. I liked Krivsky. Hell, for 5 minutes, I liked DanO. I like the idea of bringing young talent in instead of dumpster diving for the Alex Ochoa's of the world.

But if you look at it objectively, Walt has brought in 2, maybe three players to a team with young talent on the rise. Krivsky had the unenviable job of blowing it up and starting from scratch. He had to infuse talent into a rotation that featured Eric Milton as it's highest paid pitcher. He had a perennially injured Ken Griffey Jr. It was a roster with five 2B and yet no 2B. No catcher, and no rotation.

Any objective view can see who did more for the Reds. Jocketty reaped the rewards and had less to do to achieve success.

edabbs44
12-10-2010, 11:19 PM
You are right on Wood, but no i'm not missing the point. Here is the thing about organizations, businesses, nations. we agree with what matches our views, and disagree with what doesn't. We trust but verify. What you fail to recognize is that others in this job started what Jocketty is continuing. The Reds don't even sniff the playoffs without the moves Krivsky made. Not even close. DanO's drafts were superlative. Krivsky's drafts, especially 2006 were fantastic considering it was considered a weak year.

It's ok to like Walt. I like Walt. I liked Krivsky. Hell, for 5 minutes, I liked DanO. I like the idea of bringing young talent in instead of dumpster diving for the Alex Ochoa's of the world.

But if you look at it objectively, Walt has brought in 2, maybe three players to a team with young talent on the rise. Krivsky had the unenviable job of blowing it up and starting from scratch. He had to infuse talent into a rotation that featured Eric Milton as it's highest paid pitcher. He had a perennially injured Ken Griffey Jr. It was a roster with five 2B and yet no 2B. No catcher, and no rotation.

Any objective view can see who did more for the Reds. Jocketty reaped the rewards and had less to do to achieve success.

No one is comparing GM A to GM B to GM C. No one is saying that this GM brought in x impact players and that GM brought in y impact players.

I really don't want to head down the well traveled Walt/Wayne path, but if you really want to be objective, look at the whole picture instead of just naming players acquired. As I have said numerous times, there is more to being a GM than just acquiring players.

westofyou
12-10-2010, 11:49 PM
Unsure what you are getting at. The difference in the way this team is being run is fairly obvious.

Yes, but it doesn't mean that perfection has been attained, you're pretty much assuming that it has been, as you assumed Krivsky was disaster before he got a chance to play his game out.

I find it ironic myself.

edabbs44
12-10-2010, 11:52 PM
Yes, but it doesn't mean that perfection has been attained, you're pretty much assuming that it has been, as you assumed Krivsky was disaster before he got a chance to play his game out.

I find it ironic myself.

Perfection? No...but I like the direction the team is headed in.

And you are right, I didn't need to see any more of him. He was overmatched in the role. He didn't have to play his game out. Sometimes you have to cut bait before it gets too late.

TRF
12-11-2010, 01:09 AM
No one is comparing GM A to GM B to GM C. No one is saying that this GM brought in x impact players and that GM brought in y impact players.

I really don't want to head down the well traveled Walt/Wayne path, but if you really want to be objective, look at the whole picture instead of just naming players acquired. As I have said numerous times, there is more to being a GM than just acquiring players.

clearly you have missed my point. Culture change doesn't happen overnight. ALL Jocketty has done is continue down the path they already were on. He just has more to work with.

I still think your view is hypocritical. You praise Jocketty for handing Arroyo an extension that roughly equaled the one Krivsky gave him, yet you panned that move. Yet Jocketty couldn't have given him that extension had Krivsky not locked him up in the first place.

TRF
12-11-2010, 01:13 AM
And you are right, I didn't need to see any more of him. He was overmatched in the role. He didn't have to play his game out. Sometimes you have to cut bait before it gets too late.

DanO was overmatched. Krivsky had the rug pulled out when the owner hired a friend as special advisor. The losing stops now remember? Jocketty had Griffey coming off the books in 2008. Dunn reached the end of his time too. The Reds were in a better position to promote the talent from the farm. For Jocketty it was a perfect situation to fall in to. For Krivsky, well short of a perfect start in 2008, he knew he was gone.

mth123
12-11-2010, 05:30 AM
DanO was overmatched. Krivsky had the rug pulled out when the owner hired a friend as special advisor. The losing stops now remember? Jocketty had Griffey coming off the books in 2008. Dunn reached the end of his time too. The Reds were in a better position to promote the talent from the farm. For Jocketty it was a perfect situation to fall in to. For Krivsky, well short of a perfect start in 2008, he knew he was gone.

:thumbup:

Jocketty is a legit GM and the looking at the whole is fine, but the whole can still be better by eliminating some bad moves and I don't understand why I'm not allowed, in the minds of some, to discuss it.

I don't get the line of thinking that because Walt won in St. Louis that I have to be happy about signing Willy Tavaras. I love the Bruce deal, loved the trade of Griffey for Masset and I like the Chapman deal. I hated the Tavaras acquisition and I'm not down with bringing back Ramon, extending Arroyo or bringing back Cairo. I still think the Rolen deal was an overpay. IMO this team will regress to the 83 ot 85 win range unless some improvements from outside the organization are made. I'm anxious, but suspect that Walt is waiting out the market and think that's smart so I'm not really upset so far, but the idea that Walt somehow worked a miracle and converted a loser to a winner is wrong IMO. Most of Walt's success was due to time going by, a couple bad deals going off the books and talented kids growing-up. The progress that has been made is pretty much the progress I expected, given the state of the minors from 2007 or so on and the fact that Griffey was nearing the end of his run, prior to Walt entering the picture. I didn't expect the winning to start in 2010 though, so Walt probably had a positive impact. Bringing in Rolen to teach them was a good move and surely helped (but a bunch of above what should be expected production from a lot of guys really helped too). Even if I thought adding Rolen was a good idea, I still don't believe the team needed to pay so much to get him. He just wasn't going to go anywhere else. Not sure why I can't think both things at the same time.

The goal is to win the world series IMO. If I have to judge Walt on the whole, my grade would be incomplete.

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 11:35 AM
I still think your view is hypocritical. You praise Jocketty for handing Arroyo an extension that roughly equaled the one Krivsky gave him, yet you panned that move. Yet Jocketty couldn't have given him that extension had Krivsky not locked him up in the first place.

I'm not sure how you can look at those things as being equal. It's all about the timing.

And I'm not sure that ever praised Jocketty for the Bronson extension.

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 11:42 AM
DanO was overmatched. Krivsky had the rug pulled out when the owner hired a friend as special advisor. The losing stops now remember? Jocketty had Griffey coming off the books in 2008. Dunn reached the end of his time too. The Reds were in a better position to promote the talent from the farm. For Jocketty it was a perfect situation to fall in to. For Krivsky, well short of a perfect start in 2008, he knew he was gone.

Jocketty had one Griffey coming off the books in 2008 and two more on the way in Harang and Cordero.

No one is saying that Jocketty built the franchise from the ground up.

Mario-Rijo
12-11-2010, 02:14 PM
:thumbup:

Jocketty is a legit GM and the looking at the whole is fine, but the whole can still be better by eliminating some bad moves and I don't understand why I'm not allowed, in the minds of some, to discuss it.

I don't get the line of thinking that because Walt won in St. Louis that I have to be happy about signing Willy Tavaras. I love the Bruce deal, loved the trade of Griffey for Masset and I like the Chapman deal. I hated the Tavaras acquisition and I'm not down with bringing back Ramon, extending Arroyo or bringing back Cairo. I still think the Rolen deal was an overpay. IMO this team will regress to the 83 ot 85 win range unless some improvements from outside the organization are made. I'm anxious, but suspect that Walt is waiting out the market and think that's smart so I'm not really upset so far, but the idea that Walt somehow worked a miracle and converted a loser to a winner is wrong IMO. Most of Walt's success was due to time going by, a couple bad deals going off the books and talented kids growing-up. The progress that has been made is pretty much the progress I expected, given the state of the minors from 2007 or so on and the fact that Griffey was nearing the end of his run, prior to Walt entering the picture. I didn't expect the winning to start in 2010 though, so Walt probably had a positive impact. Bringing in Rolen to teach them was a good move and surely helped (but a bunch of above what should be expected production from a lot of guys really helped too). Even if I thought adding Rolen was a good idea, I still don't believe the team needed to pay so much to get him. He just wasn't going to go anywhere else. Not sure why I can't think both things at the same time.

The goal is to win the world series IMO. If I have to judge Walt on the whole, my grade would be incomplete.

:thumbup:

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 03:32 PM
:thumbup:

Jocketty is a legit GM and the looking at the whole is fine, but the whole can still be better by eliminating some bad moves and I don't understand why I'm not allowed, in the minds of some, to discuss it.

I don't get the line of thinking that because Walt won in St. Louis that I have to be happy about signing Willy Tavaras. I love the Bruce deal, loved the trade of Griffey for Masset and I like the Chapman deal. I hated the Tavaras acquisition and I'm not down with bringing back Ramon, extending Arroyo or bringing back Cairo. I still think the Rolen deal was an overpay. IMO this team will regress to the 83 ot 85 win range unless some improvements from outside the organization are made. I'm anxious, but suspect that Walt is waiting out the market and think that's smart so I'm not really upset so far, but the idea that Walt somehow worked a miracle and converted a loser to a winner is wrong IMO. Most of Walt's success was due to time going by, a couple bad deals going off the books and talented kids growing-up. The progress that has been made is pretty much the progress I expected, given the state of the minors from 2007 or so on and the fact that Griffey was nearing the end of his run, prior to Walt entering the picture. I didn't expect the winning to start in 2010 though, so Walt probably had a positive impact. Bringing in Rolen to teach them was a good move and surely helped (but a bunch of above what should be expected production from a lot of guys really helped too). Even if I thought adding Rolen was a good idea, I still don't believe the team needed to pay so much to get him. He just wasn't going to go anywhere else. Not sure why I can't think both things at the same time.

The goal is to win the world series IMO. If I have to judge Walt on the whole, my grade would be incomplete.

I'm not saying to judge Walt on the whole performance, I am saying to judge him on the whole product.

The poster formerly known as JayBruce32 mentioned something that is very relevant and something that I thought about in relation to Jocketty prior to starting this thread. You look at a guy like Belicheck and I am sure that NE Pats fans, even if they don't agree with every move, just accept that the guy is most likely going to put a legit product on the field when it is all said and done.

At this point, I think we can have some level of comfort with what Jocketty is doing with this team (on the whole) and, even if one or two moves might be slightly questionable in your mind, we should understand that they are just part of the larger overall plan. And if that plan is a winning one, then I am game.

Ron Madden
12-11-2010, 03:59 PM
It is possible to criticise Jocketty and still respect and like him as GM and a person.

Some Fans around here think we must agree with every move made by the GM, trust with every move made by the Manager, take everything Marty B says as gospel or we are not a "Real Reds Fans".

mth123
12-11-2010, 05:22 PM
I'm not saying to judge Walt on the whole performance, I am saying to judge him on the whole product.

The poster formerly known as JayBruce32 mentioned something that is very relevant and something that I thought about in relation to Jocketty prior to starting this thread. You look at a guy like Belicheck and I am sure that NE Pats fans, even if they don't agree with every move, just accept that the guy is most likely going to put a legit product on the field when it is all said and done.

At this point, I think we can have some level of comfort with what Jocketty is doing with this team (on the whole) and, even if one or two moves might be slightly questionable in your mind, we should understand that they are just part of the larger overall plan. And if that plan is a winning one, then I am game.

We'll just have to disagree. Bad moves are bad moves and don't help any overall plan. How did signing Willy T help anything? What part of the plan was he?

camisadelgolf
12-11-2010, 06:07 PM
We'll just have to disagree. Bad moves are bad moves and don't help any overall plan. How did signing Willy T help anything? What part of the plan was he?
He was a stopgap so the Reds weren't forced to rush Drew Stubbs' development before he was ready.

TRF
12-11-2010, 08:20 PM
He was a stopgap so the Reds weren't forced to rush Drew Stubbs' development before he was ready.

stopgaps aren't signed to 2 year deals.

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 09:35 PM
We'll just have to disagree. Bad moves are bad moves and don't help any overall plan. How did signing Willy T help anything? What part of the plan was he?

All GMs misfire from time to time. If a GM's biggest wart is a 2 year, $6MM deal every now and again then I'm a happy camper.

kaldaniels
12-11-2010, 09:44 PM
I look at the Reds as a mutual fund. I look at Walt as the fund manager. You are gonna lose/look bad on certain transactions.

If Warren Buffett had a fund that outperformed others, I wouldn't be screaming for him to be fired if he had invested some fund money in GM prior to their bankruptcy.

If Walt consistently builds teams that outperform expectations, I'm not gonna be screaming for him to be fired just because he traded for Scott Rolen (:D)

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 09:46 PM
I look at the Reds as a mutual fund. I look at Walt as the fund manager. You are gonna lose/look bad on certain transactions.

If Warren Buffett had a fund that outperformed others, I wouldn't be screaming for him to be fired if he had invested some fund money in GM prior to their bankruptcy.

If Walt consistently builds teams that outperform expectations, I'm not gonna be screaming for him to be fired just because he traded for Scott Rolen (:D)

I've made similar comparisons before and couldn't agree more.

kaldaniels
12-11-2010, 09:47 PM
It is possible to criticise Jocketty and still respect and like him as GM and a person.

Some Fans around here think we must agree with every move made by the GM, trust with every move made by the Manager, take everything Marty B says as gospel or we are not a "Real Reds Fans".

I would say find me one poster on here who thinks like that or take your strawman elsewhere.

Ron Madden
12-11-2010, 09:48 PM
I don't think anyone is screaming for Walt to be fired.

Talkin about a strawman.

.

kaldaniels
12-11-2010, 09:48 PM
I've made similar comparisons before and couldn't agree more.

Yep. Its ok to be disappointed with moves. Willy was a bad signing. But that doesn't make Walt unfit for the job.

kaldaniels
12-11-2010, 09:49 PM
I don't think anyone is screaming for Walt to be fired.

Go to the Rolen trade thread. It is there.

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 09:49 PM
It is possible to criticise Jocketty and still respect and like him as GM and a person.

Some Fans around here think we must agree with every move made by the GM, trust with every move made by the Manager, take everything Marty B says as gospel or we are not a "Real Reds Fans".

There is a difference between criticizing a move and citicizing Jocketty. No one is saying that we cannot disagree with a move. But when people say that he isn't doing his job, he should be fired for trading for Rolen, he is asleep at the wheel or that it is irresponsible that he said that they didn't speak to anyone one day at the winter meetings...that's where it is kind of ridiculous.

Sure we can disagree from time to time. Hell, I haven't been fully on board with every move he has made since he got here. But as long as the overall product is a winning one, I'm not going to beat the drum over and over that a certain move I disagreed with 6 months ago didn't fully work out for the Reds.

kaldaniels
12-11-2010, 09:51 PM
I don't think anyone is screaming for Walt to be fired.

Talkin about a strawman.

.

It's in writing in the Rolen trade thread.

Allow me to edit: posters (at least one) typed on their computer that Walt should be fired over the Rolen deal

TRF
12-11-2010, 10:02 PM
Yep. Its ok to be disappointed with moves. Willy was a bad signing. But that doesn't make Walt unfit for the job.

And no one said that. But some have slammed Krivsky saying he was unfit, when that clearly wasn't true. He was set up to fail because the owner wanted his friend to be GM.

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 10:02 PM
I don't think anyone is screaming for Walt to be fired.

Talkin about a strawman.

.

Read this thread...fun times.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79724&highlight=jocketty

Keep in mind that this was less than 2 months before ST of a season that Cincy went to the playoffs. Some of those posts make you think that Jocketty cut Votto, Bruce and Rolen while signing Patterson and Fogg to 5 year deals.

And this is the kind of stuff I am talking about. You still see similar posts being made even after the team gets to playoff levels.

TRF
12-11-2010, 10:07 PM
Read this thread...fun times.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=79724&highlight=jocketty

Keep in mind that this was less than 2 months before ST of a season that Cincy went to the playoffs. Some of those posts make you think that Jocketty cut Votto, Bruce and Rolen while signing Patterson and Fogg to 5 year deals.

And this is the kind of stuff I am talking about. You still see similar posts being made even after the team gets to playoff levels.

name one time, quote one thread where you have disagreed with Jocketty. I mean completely opposed a move he's made.

mth123
12-11-2010, 10:20 PM
I look at the Reds as a mutual fund. I look at Walt as the fund manager. You are gonna lose/look bad on certain transactions.

If Warren Buffett had a fund that outperformed others, I wouldn't be screaming for him to be fired if he had invested some fund money in GM prior to their bankruptcy.

If Walt consistently builds teams that outperform expectations, I'm not gonna be screaming for him to be fired just because he traded for Scott Rolen (:D)

Who is screaming for Walt to be fired?

kaldaniels
12-11-2010, 10:24 PM
Who is screaming for Walt to be fired?

Oh dear.

As I stated earlier, go to the Rolen Trade thread.

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 10:26 PM
name one time, quote one thread where you have disagreed with Jocketty. I mean completely opposed a move he's made.

12/31/2008


I do like Taveras better than I liked Patterson, but I still think it is going to end up badly.


http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1788035&postcount=90

mth123
12-11-2010, 10:32 PM
Oh dear.

As I stated earlier, go to the Rolen Trade thread.

What does a thread from 2 years ago have to do with today. You act like there are people on here right now calling fpr WJ to be fired. Its bull.

I repeat, why can't we like the overall body of work but still voice disagreemnt with any individual move? The team didn't win the World Series. Maybe avoiding some of those bad moves would have made a difference.

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 10:34 PM
name one time, quote one thread where you have disagreed with Jocketty. I mean completely opposed a move he's made.

2008 draft


This is why I'm not a subscriber to the BPA theory. It makes sense for some of the time, but sometimes you also have to look at the bigger picture.

If Alonso turns out to be a solid 1st baseman, he replaces one that is already in house. Unless Dunn is definitely gone and they are 100% sure of Votto moving to the OF because they don't believe in his game at first, then I'm not in agreement here.

It would make more sense to me if it was Hosmer. Huge potential, but years away. You should expect a top 10 college bat to be knocking on the Reds' door in the short term.

I would have rather had Crow or Beckham or even Smoak, since he is a switch hitter and gets rave reviews with the mitt.

Best case scenario for the future: a 3-4-5 of L-L-L? Maybe the team just doesn't want a righty bat.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1658207&postcount=49

kaldaniels
12-11-2010, 10:37 PM
What does a thread from 2 years ago have to do with today. You act like there are people on here right now calling fpr WJ to be fired. Its bull.

I repeat, why can't we like the overall body of work but still voice disagreemnt with any individual move? The team didn't win the World Series. Maybe avoiding some of those bad moves would have made a difference.

I am not acting like people are calling for Walt to be fired today. When you show me where I said that I will shut up immediately. In truth I was making light of an example of overreaction to a transaction...man I struck a nerve.

I love the "its bull" remark. First time I've gotten that one on here. :thumbup:

kaldaniels
12-11-2010, 10:40 PM
And no one said that. But some have slammed Krivsky saying he was unfit, when that clearly wasn't true. He was set up to fail because the owner wanted his friend to be GM.

No one said what? Cause there are no doubt some humorous posts involving the acquistion of Wily. I'm wondering if I have to get my crack-research team (aka Eddabbs) involved on this one.

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 10:48 PM
No one said what? Cause there are no doubt some humorous posts involving the acquistion of Wily. I'm wondering if I have to get my crack-research team (aka Eddabbs) involved on this one.

Would calling Walt a complete failure less than a year ago be equivalent to calling him unfit for the job? We have a few of those on record.

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 10:49 PM
name one time, quote one thread where you have disagreed with Jocketty. I mean completely opposed a move he's made.

Arthur Rhodes thread, I was obviously off on this one


Not a huge fan. Feels Rheally similar to another recent acquisition.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1777040&postcount=6

TRF
12-11-2010, 11:23 PM
edabbs44, thank you.

You just proved my point. It is actually ok to disagree with a move the GM makes, because even you his staunchest supporter have disagreed with some of his moves.

kaldaniels
12-11-2010, 11:25 PM
edabbs44, thank you.

You just proved my point. It is actually ok to disagree with a move the GM makes, because even you his staunchest supporter have disagreed with some of his moves.

Of course. In all seriousness, has anyone said otherwise?

mth123
12-11-2010, 11:27 PM
Of course. In all seriousness, has anyone said otherwise?

Read Post number 1.

TRF
12-11-2010, 11:44 PM
Of course. In all seriousness, has anyone said otherwise?

I would give no GM on this planet leeway that gives Wily Taveras a 2 year deal. If Johnny Gomes is the starting LF in 2011, then Jocketty would continue to not get any leeway. If another 38 year old infielder is signed to do the job a younger, possibly better player in house could do, then, again, I'll question the move and the reason.

ed thinks signing Arroyo in 2007 was a bad idea, but in 2010 it's a good idea. never mind that signing Arroyo, Harang and Cordero likely led to the 2010 Central Division title. Never mind that because Cincinnati had shown the willingness to spend money it helps make the Reds an enticing destination to players and their agents.

And it isn't like Walt wasn't there. He came on board in 2007 right? Krivsky's decisions as GM were run by Jocketty before they reached Castellini, who also isn't a baseball novice.

kaldaniels
12-12-2010, 01:07 AM
Read Post number 1.

I suggest you do the same, he never says you are not allowed to disagree with a move the GM makes.

edabbs44
12-12-2010, 12:46 PM
I would give no GM on this planet leeway that gives Wily Taveras a 2 year deal. If Johnny Gomes is the starting LF in 2011, then Jocketty would continue to not get any leeway. If another 38 year old infielder is signed to do the job a younger, possibly better player in house could do, then, again, I'll question the move and the reason.

ed thinks signing Arroyo in 2007 was a bad idea, but in 2010 it's a good idea. never mind that signing Arroyo, Harang and Cordero likely led to the 2010 Central Division title. Never mind that because Cincinnati had shown the willingness to spend money it helps make the Reds an enticing destination to players and their agents.

And it isn't like Walt wasn't there. He came on board in 2007 right? Krivsky's decisions as GM were run by Jocketty before they reached Castellini, who also isn't a baseball novice.

Explain how Harang and Cordero led to the Central title.

MattyHo4Life
12-12-2010, 03:05 PM
Yeah, I think the time to lock up JV was last year. Unfortunately, I think they still had some questions about certain aspects of his makeup

If that is true, then the question is "how good of a evaluation of talent is Jocketty?".

TheNext44
12-12-2010, 03:37 PM
If that is true, then the question is "how good of a evaluation of talent is Jocketty?".

He was smart enough to draft Pujols when no one else did. ;)

But seriously, Votto missed over a month of 2009 due to his "makeup."

Can't blame Jocketty for wanting to wait to see if that was going to be an issue going forward.

wheels
12-12-2010, 05:39 PM
This whole discussion is hilarious.

We talk about Reds Baseball here. Just because a few posters would like to silence any kind of dissent about Jocketty's moves as they occur doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

Who cares if Edabbs doesn't like reading critical posts of single moves? If he was somehow made King of Redszone, the quashing of dissent would quickly make the site obsolete.

Power to the people.

edabbs44
12-12-2010, 09:12 PM
This whole discussion is hilarious.

We talk about Reds Baseball here. Just because a few posters would like to silence any kind of dissent about Jocketty's moves as they occur doesn't mean it's gonna happen.

Who cares if Edabbs doesn't like reading critical posts of single moves? If he was somehow made King of Redszone, the quashing of dissent would quickly make the site obsolete.

Power to the people.

There is a difference between providing critical commentary on a singular move and seeing the same posters continue to describe certain events (winter meetings, trade deadlines, other team's transactions) as being disappointing.

My point is that, at some point, we have to have faith in this regime. We were reading the same posts last offseason and yet this team ended up in the playoffs. Everyone wanted to talk about how this team HAD TO do ____ or NEEDED TO do _____ in order to make the playoffs. And somehow the Reds kept all their chips, didn't add any serious commitments to payroll and still made it to the playoffs. These guys know what they are doing. It is more than fair to provide commentary on a particular move, but the line is crossed into "complaining for the sake of complaining" when we act as if these guys aren't a plus for the franchise.

TRF
12-12-2010, 09:25 PM
And why didn't we HAVE to have faith in the previous regime? One that had far less to work with, but infused so much talent in such a short amount of time.

Ron Madden
12-12-2010, 09:41 PM
There is a difference between providing critical commentary on a singular move and seeing the same posters continue to describe certain events (winter meetings, trade deadlines, other team's transactions) as being disappointing.

My point is that, at some point, we have to have faith in this regime. We were reading the same posts last offseason and yet this team ended up in the playoffs. Everyone wanted to talk about how this team HAD TO do ____ or NEEDED TO do _____ in order to make the playoffs. And somehow the Reds kept all their chips, didn't add any serious commitments to payroll and still made it to the playoffs. These guys know what they are doing. It is more than fair to provide commentary on a particular move, but the line is crossed into "complaining for the sake of complaining" when we act as if these guys aren't a plus for the franchise.

Sometimes there are going to be Fans with a different opinion than yours, discuss those opinions, lighten up and don't take it personally.

edabbs44
12-12-2010, 09:56 PM
Sometimes there are going to be Fans with a different opinion than yours, discuss those opinions, lighten up and don't take it personally.

I'm light. :)

Then again, I'm not really getting heated up here. Same as any other discussion...just a discussion.

Ron Madden
12-12-2010, 10:00 PM
I'm light. :)

Then again, I'm not really getting heated up here. Same as any other discussion...just a discussion.



:beerme:

edabbs44
12-12-2010, 10:30 PM
And why didn't we HAVE to have faith in the previous regime? One that had far less to work with, but infused so much talent in such a short amount of time.

My personal opinion:

1) Krivsky didn't have a track record like Jocketty's. That would be my first thought.

2) Secondly, Krivsky's "plan" was all banged up. It was obvious then and even more obvious now. He was going for the now and was not executing. We can say the names Hamilton, Arroyo and Phillips until we are blue in the face, but after watching that 2008 team embarrass the franchise after the money that was spent in the preceeding year or two, there really wasn't any doubt that a change was necessary. Especially with a guy like Jocketty available.

That's my reasoning, in a nutshell. I've gone into depth on it before and don't need to lay out the specifics again.

TRF
12-12-2010, 11:18 PM
My personal opinion:

1) Krivsky didn't have a track record like Jocketty's. That would be my first thought.

2) Secondly, Krivsky's "plan" was all banged up. It was obvious then and even more obvious now. He was going for the now and was not executing. We can say the names Hamilton, Arroyo and Phillips until we are blue in the face, but after watching that 2008 team embarrass the franchise after the money that was spent in the preceeding year or two, there really wasn't any doubt that a change was necessary. Especially with a guy like Jocketty available.

That's my reasoning, in a nutshell. I've gone into depth on it before and don't need to lay out the specifics again.


At one point in time Jocketty didn't have a track record either.

Krivsky's plan was obviously 2-fold to anyone with even a cursory glance. Improve the major league product in the short term with an emphasis on the minor leagues for long term success. 2004-05 drafts provided him a lot of talent. Krivsky never traded the farm for any of his incoming talent.


What keeps getting ignored, by you specifically is that Jocketty was brought in as a "Special Advisor" to the owner. Which is front office speak for "Wayne, I want to hire my friend... sorry about that."

The 2008 team lost it's best SP from the year before just a few months in. He probably shouldn't have made a single start. 2008 was the season where Harang lost all that weight in the offseason prior. It threw off his mechanics. That was clear to anyone watching as well. Bailey, Belisle, Fogg, Ramirez, Thompson were the 5th starters. Cueto was in his second year and clearly was still learning the game.

Krivsky didn't have the foundation Jocketty had. He was still building it. One thing Krivsky doesn't get enough credit for is wholesale replacement of Bowden's FO personnel. I cannot stress this enough. Culture change takes time.

How fast after Krivsky took over did you expect a winner considering the state of the team at the major and minor league levels?

edabbs44
12-12-2010, 11:53 PM
At one point in time Jocketty didn't have a track record either.

Krivsky's plan was obviously 2-fold to anyone with even a cursory glance. Improve the major league product in the short term with an emphasis on the minor leagues for long term success. 2004-05 drafts provided him a lot of talent. Krivsky never traded the farm for any of his incoming talent.


What keeps getting ignored, by you specifically is that Jocketty was brought in as a "Special Advisor" to the owner. Which is front office speak for "Wayne, I want to hire my friend... sorry about that."

The 2008 team lost it's best SP from the year before just a few months in. He probably shouldn't have made a single start. 2008 was the season where Harang lost all that weight in the offseason prior. It threw off his mechanics. That was clear to anyone watching as well. Bailey, Belisle, Fogg, Ramirez, Thompson were the 5th starters. Cueto was in his second year and clearly was still learning the game.

Krivsky didn't have the foundation Jocketty had. He was still building it. One thing Krivsky doesn't get enough credit for is wholesale replacement of Bowden's FO personnel. I cannot stress this enough. Culture change takes time.

How fast after Krivsky took over did you expect a winner considering the state of the team at the major and minor league levels?

I didn't expect a winner right away until he started spending money in quantity for major league players. If Krivsky stayed away from spending legitimate money in the "now" and laid low until the youngsters got into positon, then I would have been very cool with him building. I think I've been fairly consistent about that.

Look at it this way...Krivsky made great acquisitions in Arroyo, Hamilton and Hamilton, went out and acquired Gonzalez, Hatteberg and Stanton, got Burton in the Rule V, traded for Kyle Lohse, extended Arroyo and Harang at significant money, also acquired other names like Guardado, Bray, Majik, etc etc etc, and then the Reds went out and played at 20 games under .500 in the first half of 2007. Narron gets dumped at that point.

So in the following offseason, they give a serious contract to Cordero, trade for Volquez, sign CPatt, sign Affeldt and Lincoln, extend Phillips, see some of the youth get to the show, and the team kicks off the 2009 season at 9-13, looking horrendous, outscored 106-92 and looking up at the rest of the division.

Look at all the names I just mentioned...most of them were acquired with the major league team in mind. When you are making all of those moves at the major league level, you are looking for production on the major league level.

2006 (mostly not Krivsky's roster) - 80-82 (749-801 RS-RA)
2007 - 72-90 (783-853 RS-RA)
2008 - 74-88 (704-788 RS-RA)

The team is trying to win now, they are spennding money to win now, they are making acquisitions to win now, and yet the team is going nowhere. As the pitching gets better, the offense gets worse. Just running in place.

That's been my position for years now. Sure he made some great acquisitions, but he did nothing with them. Even when he had access to, and utilized, decent chunks of money to add to those guys.

TRF
12-13-2010, 12:27 AM
got my years mixed up a bit. 2008 was the year Harang's mechanics went south. 2009 was when they lost their best SP (Volquez)

Had Harang pitched like he did in the season prior, the Reds win 10 more games. But they simply didn't have the depth this 2010 team had. and because of Griffey's contract, not Harang's, Arroyo or Cordero, they were hamstrung. no depth in the rotation and no one ready in the minors to replace Griffey (Bruce).

The Reds 5th starters, Wood, Bailey, Volquez, LeCure and Maloney went 14-16. The 2008 5ht starters combined to go 4-20. Krivsky didn't have the depth in 2008 that Jockett had in 2010, BUT he was laying the foundation.

Krivsky's plan was fine. He just needed an owner that understood that such plans take time.

edabbs44
12-13-2010, 12:32 AM
got my years mixed up a bit. 2008 was the year Harang's mechanics went south. 2009 was when they lost their best SP (Volquez)

Had Harang pitched like he did in the season prior, the Reds win 10 more games. But they simply didn't have the depth this 2010 team had. and because of Griffey's contract, not Harang's, Arroyo or Cordero, they were hamstrung. no depth in the rotation and no one ready in the minors to replace Griffey (Bruce).

The Reds 5th starters, Wood, Bailey, Volquez, LeCure and Maloney went 14-16. The 2008 5ht starters combined to go 4-20. Krivsky didn't have the depth in 2008 that Jockett had in 2010, BUT he was laying the foundation.

Krivsky's plan was fine. He just needed an owner that understood that such plans take time.

If the plan was to lay the foundation, then why sign a 33 year old closer to that kind of contract?

If he was following through on a plan that was designed to take time, he had a funny way of showing it.

TRF
12-13-2010, 12:38 AM
Just keep ignoring how Jocketty was signed to be "Special Advisor" to the owner. And Cordero was signed for the now and the future, likely WITH the approval of Jocketty.

TheNext44
12-13-2010, 02:00 AM
I don't think there is anything contradictory in believing that Krivsky did a solid job building up the talent level of the organization which was intrigal to the Reds current state of success, and believing that he didn't have a well enough developed plan or the ability to carry out a well developed plan, to get the Reds to their current state of success.

Captain Hook
12-13-2010, 02:13 AM
Just keep ignoring how Jocketty was signed to be "Special Advisor" to the owner. And Cordero was signed for the now and the future, likely WITH the approval of Jocketty.

For the record, Cordero was signed by the Reds on Nov. 27, 2007.Jocketty joined the team Jan. 11, 2008.It's not likely Walt had anything to do with the signing, although it's possible he was already unofficially advising.He was fired by the Cardinals on Oct. 3, 2007.

edabbs44
12-13-2010, 09:30 AM
Just keep ignoring how Jocketty was signed to be "Special Advisor" to the owner. And Cordero was signed for the now and the future, likely WITH the approval of Jocketty.

Giving aging closers 4 year contracts for "the future" is bad business. That contract had way more to do with the front half of that contract than the second half.

Either way, this thread wasn't really supposed to be about Krivsky.

Hoosier Red
12-13-2010, 11:28 AM
I think the goals(present and future) are not necessarily 100% iron clad at odds with each other. Sure, some teams treat them as such and one has even won a world series doing it, but I think there's value in trying to protect wins now, while building for the future.

I think it's time to look at the Florida Marlins and Tampa Bay Rays as the exception which proves the rule. They are set free to pursue slightly more out of the box thinking anyway because no one comes to their games whether they win or lose.

When you're the 4th or 5th GM to enter the fray since the last playoff run, you have a tighter window than if the team had gone to the playoffs in the past 5 years. There may be no difference in a baseball aspect of winning 72 games instead of 68, but there is value to attracting fans, which allows you to sell more tickets for the next year, which allows you to perhaps pursue a bigger budget the next year.

So with that in mind, signing Cordero to a four year contract wasn't a terrible deal. He was very good his first two years and probably protected games that lesser pitchers would have lost.(Let's say 2 per season to be conservative.) In his 3rd year he started to show signs of age, but that wasn't expected to be a problem, because if the Reds were "on schedule" they weren't expected to be good until next year anyway. Next year, the Reds were hoping to have built up their bullpen to the point where they wouldn't need Cordero and he could be traded at some point in the season to free up money for the final piece of the puzzle getting them to the playoffs.

TRF
12-13-2010, 11:35 AM
Giving aging closers 4 year contracts for "the future" is bad business. That contract had way more to do with the front half of that contract than the second half.

Either way, this thread wasn't really supposed to be about Krivsky.

We'll have to disagree on the first part. Cordero was only 32 at the time, and established as a closer. The Reds didn't overpay too much as their offer was only 1 mil more than Milwaukee's. He solidified the pen. So signing a closer to a four year deal at age 31 is bad, but signing a 3B at age 35 to a 3 year deal is somehow good. ok....

And you are right in your thread is about Jocketty. How we should all cut him some slack because the Reds won the division in 2010. Never mind that he won because of solid pitching depth. The Reds have always been able to generate offense, 2010 was no exception. But FA pitchers don't want to come here. And when they do, it is at a cost. So that had to be developed from within. With the exception of Arroyo and to a much lesser extent, Volquez, this rotation is homegrown.

So Walt's plan was to not trade away the pitching he inherited. Fine, that is a good plan. Let's see what else he has done.


Acquired and extended an aging 3B with a history of chronic back problems. Rolen may have had a fantastic 1st half, but his second half was... meh.

Acquired for the purpose of starting, an aging SS that through the first two months was a golem at the position. Cabrera was simply awful to start the season. His bat never came around, and he was placed with a manager with very set tendencies. SS bats second IF said SS is a vet.

Acquired the statue that is Johhny Gomes. Now this may have been a "clubhouse" signing, but he's a platoon player, not a starter. in almost 70% of his AB's he posted this line: .257 .301 .408 .709. You better be robbing teams of hits if you are going to do that. Pretty sure that didn't happen.

Offered Mike Lincoln a contract after he came off his career year. Krivsky signed him first, but for cheap. When you get that production from Lincoln, you let him go get paid elsewhere. Jocketty spent 4 mil on him. for an ERA around 7.70. yippee.

Just signed Miguel Cairo to a two year deal. At age 36.


So exactly what is the plan? If it is to sprinkle in vets for a leadership role, then he's done a fair job there. As for actual talent acquired, FA's? nothing. Trade? Rolen and maybe Ramon. the rest of what he's brought in is replacement players that ANY GM can find. Gomes, Cairo, Nix etc. Those guys are looking for jobs every year.

But mostly his plan seems to be, let the team mature. Keep the pieces in place that had projectable talent. Let the 2007 minor league player of the year patrol RF. Let the young pitching acquired by the previous mature and progress. Continue with the Latin American program cleaned up by previous GM.

So, his plan seems to be stay the course, with his own spin on it.

Krivsky stuck with EE hoping his glove would come around, probably because he thought his bat was about to explode. Neither happened. Jocketty had more and less wiggle room in the OF. More once he dealt Dunn and Griffey. Less the day he signed Taveras. All GM's have their blind spots.

But despite a season that saw the Reds in the post season for the first time since 1995, I see no reason to cut Jocketty any slack. Locking up Bruce was brilliant. I think the Arroyo signing was very good. I like deals for big money that don't exceed 4 years. Light at the end of the tunnel should things go bad. Like Krivsky's deal for Harang, who by the way earned the right to be offered that contract. But addressing LF with another year of Gomes is disappointing. The plan for SS seems to be Janish and Cozart, which I am fine with. Another 2 years of Cairo makes me sad. He's not likely to repeat last year, and he'll turn back into the .650ish OPS bat he's always been, with defense that has little range.

And what is the plan if Rolen goes down? Is it Francisco? Frazier? Valaika? gulp... Cairo? And as Rolen ages that if becomes more of a when. This year was the first time he topped 130 games since 2006. He'll be 36 a few days after Opening Day.

So, enlighten me. What is the plan as you see it? And what makes his plan so much better and beyond reproach than the previous GM's?

edabbs44
12-13-2010, 11:48 AM
So with that in mind, signing Cordero to a four year contract wasn't a terrible deal. He was very good his first two years and probably protected games that lesser pitchers would have lost.(Let's say 2 per season to be conservative.) In his 3rd year he started to show signs of age, but that wasn't expected to be a problem, because if the Reds were "on schedule" they weren't expected to be good until next year anyway. Next year, the Reds were hoping to have built up their bullpen to the point where they wouldn't need Cordero and he could be traded at some point in the season to free up money for the final piece of the puzzle getting them to the playoffs.

If this were true, then giving the richest deal ever to a relief pitcher at that stage would be one of the dumbest GM moves of all time. Especially one that was less than 2 years removed from losing his closer job in Texas.

TRF
12-13-2010, 12:10 PM
If this were true, then giving the richest deal ever to a relief pitcher at that stage would be one of the dumbest GM moves of all time. Especially one that was less than 2 years removed from losing his closer job in Texas.

That season was CLEARLY an aberration based on his career stats. And who replaced him? A guy that was out of MLB the next year. The Rangers weren't exactly known for making great pitching decisions. They had a trio of minor leaguers nicknamed DVD. Diamond was more hype than substance. The other two? Danks and Volquez. The did get a pretty good return for Volquez. Danks, not so much. In fact, the Rangers also sent the White Sox Nick Masset in that trade.

Who exactly was going to close games for the Reds? Weathers? Because Cordero was so good in 2008 he got every save for the Reds and allowed the team to NOT play Majewski as much as they would have in previous years. Being there made the pitching better and allowed young pitchers to hand off games in which they were leading without the pen blowing it. That 2008 bullpen was very good. Not losing can breed confidence in a young pitcher.

Really? dumbest GM move of all time? If you think that then we know how much credibility your opinion on this has. It doesn't even make the top 100 as most don't even think it was a dumb move.

edabbs44
12-13-2010, 12:11 PM
So, enlighten me. What is the plan as you see it? And what makes his plan so much better and beyond reproach than the previous GM's?

You are correct...his plan has been to stay the course and let the youngsters mature. Don't force bad contracts. Wait for the market to play out. Don't panic. Fill in gaps with veterans with high floors.

You mention some of those names that he acquired, like these were bad acquisitions. For $3MM they got Cabrera, For $1.5MM they got Gomes. Two starters, $4.5MM. Two guys who have been given lots of credit by most people "in the know"...it seems like the only people who say anything negative about these guys are the ones who aren't.

Which is an interesting point. It seems like some on here have these pre-conceived notions that they just can't get away from. Like how Cabrera and Gomes are/were bad. Players, scouts, other GMs talk about how good these guys are for the team, yet it doesn't matter. It reminds me how certain posters in the past would lambaste O'Brien for his "take a strike" philosophy in the minors and give Krivsky heaps of credit for getting rid of it. But last year, Votto actually said that the strategy was helpful to him in the long run, or something like that. So was it really bad? Is Votto wrong for thinking that?

Here is a quote from Walt after he won Exec of the Year:


"This year was very significant because you saw a young club that really came together after the addition of some veterans for their influence on and off the field," Jocketty told Sporting News. "We were able to achieve a lot more than people thought we would. In our minds, we thought we were a good club, but I'm not sure we thought we were a playoff club. As the season went on, you could see a club getting better and better. That made this a fun year."


That first sentence says a lot. We don't know what these guys were like. Maybe the youngsters were headed in the wrong direction. Maybe Bruce was kind of meh, maybe Votto was as well. Maybe they were getting wrapped up into the glitz and glamour of it all. You heard a lot about how the vets affected the clubhouse from all sorts of directions. Maybe Votto/Bruce and Co would have matured without some of these guys...but the reality is that they took steps forward with them. I know I'm happy about that. Give me the choice of last year taking place with Cabrera/Gomes/Cairo/Rolen or having a re-do without them, I know what I'm choosing. The team made the playoffs, didn't commit to any ridiculous contracts, kept all of their trading chips in house and saw the youth of the team take some good steps forward. Awesome.

edabbs44
12-13-2010, 12:13 PM
Really? dumbest GM move of all time? If you think that then we know how much credibility your opinion on this has. It doesn't even make the top 100 as most don't even think it was a dumb move.



If this were true, then giving the richest deal ever to a relief pitcher at that stage would be one of the dumbest GM moves of all time. Especially one that was less than 2 years removed from losing his closer job in Texas.

TRF
12-13-2010, 12:33 PM
please. Votto has never been meh in his professional career. Gomes and Cabrera, from a production standpoint are not good players. Gomes is AWFUL in the field, and AWFUL against RH pitchers. Good thing he only got 346 AB's against them.

Cabrera on the other hand was awful against pretty much every pitcher born on earth. But then he's never been known as a hitter. So it must be his defense the Reds needed. Which was awful the first two month, but improved to average. He too AB's away from a guy that got on base at a much better rate, and was the superior defender. thankfully Walt learned from his mistake there. Unfortunatel we'll likely be treated to another 500 AB performance from Johnny Gomes and his misadventures in LF. At least he'll make up for it with his .300 OBP against RH pitching.

Scrap Irony
12-13-2010, 12:35 PM
So, enlighten me. What is the plan as you see it? And what makes his plan so much better and beyond reproach than the previous GM's?

He wins? That's pretty much why he gets the benefit of the doubt. Or at least, it should be. Instead, we get posts like yours that largely ignore what he's done-- win the division.

And he's done it pretty much every other year he's been a GM, which is a phenomenal track record.

Have all his moves worked? Of ourse not. The Taveras signing was horrid. The Lincoln extension turned out bad, too. As to the rest of the deals you mentioned:

* Rolen had an 850+ OPS. Taking parts away from the full just clouds the move. The deal turned out pretty darn good for the Reds, as there was nothing at the hot corner that would have approached that level of production both offensively and defensively. Rolen was instrumental in winning the division. Might the extension turn out bad? Perhaps. But, so far, it's been a great move.

* Orlando Cabrera grades out, according to UZR, as an aove average defensive SS. That he may have struggled early is beside the point (and padding your points yet again). His glove was good; his bat was, positionally, just below average. He ended up being fairly a fairly average player with-- by all accounts-- a positive clubhouse presence.

* Jonny Gomes has a Red line of 266/331/470/801 with a really poor glove. He's the definition of average for a LF. He provides decent production for a cheap price. You say what happened when Chris Heisey became the erstwhile starter for a couple weeks, right?

* Miguel Cairo was perhaps among the five best bench players in all of baseball in 2010. He was also instrumental in winning the division. His signing was a great move. Might the re-signing turn out bad? Again, perhaps. But so far, it's been a great move.

And this, TRF, is likely the point edabbs was trying to make in his initial post. Jocketty won the GM of the Year. He did better than any other GM in baseball. Yet, according to you, his moves are either considered lucky or apparently could have been completed by someone who went more than 20 games below .500 in his tenure.

I'm fine with complaining about a move and making valid points as to why. But the disconnect between success and complaints seems excessive, perhaps?

Scrap Irony
12-13-2010, 12:50 PM
Oh, adding to explain his "plan":

Jocketty seems to focus on depth, offensive adequacy, and a solid starting staff, with good defense pretty much across the diamond (though he may be willing to settle in LF). He doesn't often focus on the bullpen, preferring to find closers from failed starters, veterans on their last legs, and young guys.

His OFers are usually not paid exhorbitantly, as he looks for a lack of holes first, then improves from there as needed. (Cheap, fairly effective OFers-- especially those with plus gloves and okay or average bats-- can be found easily.)

His bench is usually filled with proven vets and unteste rookies. (More of the former than the latter.) He prefers veterans and baseball "rats" with great clubhouse reputations, like Cairo, whom he has acquired three times. He also prefers steadiness to streakiness. He likes to add veterans that have playoff experience.

His starting staffs have been paid quite a bit, though he doesn't seem to spend incredible amounts or make many mistakes with MOR guys. He again prefers older guys who throw innings, though he's not above pitching rookies or young guys in lower pressure spots.

In other words, he focuses first on no black holes, second on good all-around players, then third on baseball guys.

And it's a recipe that's worked, for the most part.

TRF
12-13-2010, 12:54 PM
Nah.

In Jocketty's first 6 years as Cardinal GM, he finished below .500 3 times. He won the division twice. He did go to the NLCS twice during those first 6 years. He had the benefit in 1999 of the HUGE bump in attendance that the roid race, i mean the HR race gave him. And of course, he did draft Pujols. Those two things alone helped set in motion 7 years of winning.

Signing Cairo the first time, in and of itself was not a bad thing. Signing him to a two year deal following a career year is folly.

Gomes is a bad player, his overall numbers skewed by the fact that he crushes LH pitching. The problem is he'll face RH's way too often, in fact almost always. As for Heisey, not every player explodes onto the scene and takes starting jobs immediately. Defensively, he's light years better than Gomes. Offensively, he had some work to do. Is he a starter or a 4th OF? I'm not sure. I am sure that Gomes should NEVER start against a RH pitcher.

And if I point out that Cabrera was bad in the field for two months is skewing my argument, the what is you pointing out Heisey was bad at the plate for a few weeks?

As for Rolen, it is simple. The man got tired, dinged up, and had his back flare up on him. Do you really think he'll do better next year? Or is he MORE likely to spend a significant time on the DL. IMO the latter is the more likely scenario. Now it certainly is possible that he strings together two halves like the pre ASB Rolen of 2010. That means it is also possible that he puts together two halves like the second half too. .277 .352 .420 .772 with 6 HR's for the season. I don't think that will happen, but at this stage in his career, it really could.

Scrap Irony
12-13-2010, 12:59 PM
Nah.

In Jocketty's first 6 years as Cardinal GM, he finished below .500 3 times. He won the division twice. He did go to the NLCS twice during those first 6 years. He had the benefit in 1999 of the HUGE bump in attendance that the roid race, i mean the HR race gave him. And of course, he did draft Pujols. Those two things alone helped set in motion 7 years of winning.

So? Did he win?

That Jocketty must be one lucky, lucky dude.

kaldaniels
12-13-2010, 01:04 PM
I've picked up a detection over the years of some people feeling resentment that Castellini brought Walt in as an advisor with the full intention of giving him the GM job, regardless of how Krivsky did.

Lets assume that is true.

I can certainly see that point of view that it was a less than admirable way to handle the situaton. Fair enough.

But does anyone (I really don't know maybe no one does...but I've seen this mentioned enough to wonder) let that affect their evaluation of how Walt has done as GM of the Reds.

Anyone want to elaborate on their thoughts on the matter?

TRF
12-13-2010, 01:13 PM
As to Scraps explanation. Jocketty acquired no depth for the rotation for the Reds. Leake was a fluke. Nobody drafts a pitcher with the expectation that he is in the rotation the next year.

Yeah he won. He won exactly 1 more time than the Reds did in that same time period (1994-1999). With Jim Bowden as GM and far less money to work with. Just so we know how much that means. I wonder... If Bowden's trade for Rolen had not been scuttled by Lindner and Allen, would things have been different?

Sometimes things fall into place. And GM's can get more or less credit than they deserve. For a GM that is supposed to place a premium on defense, Gomes is a curious signing. As was Cabrera. For a market that doesn't have a large payroll, extending a 35 year old 3B with a history of back problems seems curious.

I think it's great he won GM of the year. Palmeiro won a GG once for playing all of 39 games there. So, awards are important. But they are perception more than they are reality. That can be a good thing too. I love any good press the Reds get.

But it was Krivsky's team that got them the division, with a few additions from Jocketty. And had Krivsky had the rotation depth the 2010 team did, the depth he provided, the Reds still likely would have won the division.

TRF
12-13-2010, 01:15 PM
I've picked up a detection over the years of some people feeling resentment that Castellini brought Walt in as an advisor with the full intention of giving him the GM job, regardless of how Krivsky did.

Lets assume that is true.

I can certainly see that point of view that it was a less than admirable way to handle the situaton. Fair enough.

But does anyone (I really don't know maybe no one does...but I've seen this mentioned enough to wonder) let that affect their evaluation of how Walt has done as GM of the Reds.

Anyone want to elaborate on their thoughts on the matter?

I have to admit, it does color my view a bit. That Castellini would do that, and that Jocketty allowed it to happen.

But I think Krivsky did far more to build the success for this team than Jocketty did, but Jocketty gets the credit. Hell, the team's best player was drafted by Jim Bowden!

kaldaniels
12-13-2010, 01:21 PM
I have to admit, it does color my view a bit. That Castellini would do that, and that Jocketty allowed it to happen.

But I think Krivsky did far more to build the success for this team than Jocketty did, but Jocketty gets the credit. Hell, the team's best player was drafted by Jim Bowden!

Admirable honesty TRF. For the life of me I can't figure an accurate way of judging a GM myself (especially one vs another). As has been beaten to death, so many guys were already in the pipeline when WJ arrived. They (the GMs) all have their pro and cons, and the W-L during each of their tenures is hugely dependent on what others have done before them.

Scrap Irony
12-13-2010, 01:25 PM
As to Scraps explanation. Jocketty acquired no depth for the rotation for the Reds. Leake was a fluke. Nobody drafts a pitcher with the expectation that he is in the rotation the next year.

Yeah he won. He won exactly 1 more time than the Reds did in that same time period (1994-1999). With Jim Bowden as GM and far less money to work with. Just so we know how much that means. I wonder... If Bowden's trade for Rolen had not been scuttled by Lindner and Allen, would things have been different?

Sometimes things fall into place. And GM's can get more or less credit than they deserve. For a GM that is supposed to place a premium on defense, Gomes is a curious signing. As was Cabrera. For a market that doesn't have a large payroll, extending a 35 year old 3B with a history of back problems seems curious.

I think it's great he won GM of the year. Palmeiro won a GG once for playing all of 39 games there. So, awards are important. But they are perception more than they are reality. That can be a good thing too. I love any good press the Reds get.

But it was Krivsky's team that got them the division, with a few additions from Jocketty. And had Krivsky had the rotation depth the 2010 team did, the depth he provided, the Reds still likely would have won the division.

Things fall into place for Jocketty an awful lot for it to be a fluke, luck, or anything else, TRF. He's won the division eight times since 1996, with two years out of the GM chair. That's 75%.

He's won three Executive of the Year awards in those 12 years.

He's made some mis-steps, that much is certain. But only a select few in the history of the game have been as successful as Jocketty has over his tenure as GM. He deserves praise.

kaldaniels
12-13-2010, 01:27 PM
Admirable honesty TRF. For the life of me I can't figure an accurate way of judging a GM myself (especially one vs another). As has been beaten to death, so many guys were already in the pipeline when WJ arrived. They (the GMs) all have their pro and cons, and the W-L during each of their tenures is hugely dependent on what others have done before them.

Not to mention I've seen threads fought to the death about how it isn't the GM that drafts guys, but the scouting department.

TRF
12-13-2010, 01:43 PM
1999-2007 was a perfect storm of falling into place. The HR chase of 1998 made ticket sales go through the roof. That expanded his payroll. The Reds trade for Rolen never happened, but he was on the outs in Philadelphia. The best thing he did was get LaRussa/Duncan, with the emphasis on Duncan. It didn't hurt that 13th round pick of his morphed into the best player in the game. JD Drew also fell into his lap. But he sure flipped Drew at the right time and for the right players. Brilliant trade. At the time i remember thinking it was a great trade for both teams but that the Cardinals clearly won the trade.

Let's be clear. I don't think Jocketty is a bad GM. I do think he's a bit overrated. I think he's got blind spots and favors vets more than young players. In fact I think Dusty gets a bad rap for favoring Vets. I think he favors what is provided, meaning he plays the hand he's dealt.

I also think the the contract extension for Rolen will bite him in the butt, as soon as next season. I think we could see Cairo at 3B alot. And that is a bad thing. I do like that he let Stubbs go through his growing pains without sending him down, and it's not like I have been a huge supporter of Drew Stubbs.

But I can see the Reds falling to third place in 2011 very easily. I can see black holes in the offense at SS, LF and 3B if Rolen's second half is the player he is now. And I see no plan to upgrade any of those positions.

TRF
12-13-2010, 01:45 PM
Not to mention I've seen threads fought to the death about how it isn't the GM that drafts guys, but the scouting department.

Remember though, in addition to bringing a huge influx of talent, Krivsky also cleaned house of the previous regime, something DanO did not do. Krivsky started the process of getting rid of the guys that fostered the culture of losing.

IMO that was huge.

westofyou
12-13-2010, 01:48 PM
Tastes Great!!

Less Filling!!

Tastes Great!!

Less Filling!!

Tastes Great!!

Less Filling!!

Ron Madden
12-13-2010, 01:50 PM
Sometimes I think that culture of losing had more to do with Bad Pitching than anything else.

TRF
12-13-2010, 01:52 PM
Tastes Great!!

Less Filling!!

Tastes Great!!

Less Filling!!

Tastes Great!!

Less Filling!!

you actually wasted bandwidth on that?

My final word on this is no. No i don't think you cut ANY leader slack on the decisions he or she makes. I do not follow blindly. I prefer not to drink the cool-aid. I question moves I find questionable. I look for patterns in those moves. And if I see them I point them out.

I get to do that because I am a fan of the team. And no one gets to order me not to. so.... thppt!

camisadelgolf
12-13-2010, 02:08 PM
Tastes Great!!

Less Filling!!

Tastes Great!!

Less Filling!!

Tastes Great!!

Less Filling!!
I would argue that this is less of a waste of bandwith than nearly the rest of the conversation happening in this thread. No offense intended.

edabbs44
12-13-2010, 02:29 PM
But I can see the Reds falling to third place in 2011 very easily. I can see black holes in the offense at SS, LF and 3B if Rolen's second half is the player he is now. And I see no plan to upgrade any of those positions.

Gomes isn't a black hole at the plate. A black hole is like Patterson/Taveras type. And you could see impatience with him towards the end of the year so I wouldn't be shocked if his leash is a bit shorter to start the season. Janish could be black holeish, but hopefully he is more 2010 (as some have argued) than 2009. Rolen, people were saying that last year. Everyone knows he is a risk and it seems like they played his situation well last year. Definite potential for injury, but pencil him in for low 800s OPS when he is there. I'll take that.

Don't forget...Cincy wasn't getting career years out of LF and SS last year, so it's not like the offense at those spots will likely get much worse. Add in projected upgrades at CF and RF and maybe the offense stays status quo with upside?

TRF
12-13-2010, 02:35 PM
Gomes isn't a black hole at the plate. A black hole is like Patterson/Taveras type. And you could see impatience with him towards the end of the year so I wouldn't be shocked if his leash is a bit shorter to start the season. Janish could be black holeish, but hopefully he is more 2010 (as some have argued) than 2009. Rolen, people were saying that last year. Everyone knows he is a risk and it seems like they played his situation well last year. Definite potential for injury, but pencil him in for low 800s OPS when he is there. I'll take that.

Don't forget...Cincy wasn't getting career years out of LF and SS last year, so it's not like the offense at those spots will likely get much worse. Add in projected upgrades at CF and RF and maybe the offense stays status quo with upside?

I'd take it too, but definitely put it in pencil, because it could be mid .700's

Against RH's, Gomes is a black hole of suck.

I think Janish will be better in 2011 than he was in 2010, but I expect he'll have stamina issues, and periods where his bat is exposed a bit. I think the IF depth is thin unless Cozart makes the team out of ST. Some think that is crazy that Cozart on the bench won't happen. I disagree with the notion.

I think a lot can go wrong next year. But I think the pitching has a chance to be better. Good thing there is a lot of depth there in the rotation.

edabbs44
12-13-2010, 02:59 PM
Gomes in his career vs RHP - .233/.309/.438 - .746 OPS
MLB in 2010 vs RHP - .258/.325/.404 - .729 OPS

Let's be realistic..."a black hole of suck" is a bit much.

TRF
12-13-2010, 03:08 PM
Gomes in his career vs RHP - .233/.309/.438 - .746 OPS
MLB in 2010 vs RHP - .258/.325/.404 - .729 OPS

Let's be realistic..."a black hole of suck" is a bit much.

LF's in MLB vs RH's. Gomes, 29th out of 40. minimum 175 AB's

19th out of 22 Minimum 300 AB's

18 out of 21 Minimum 325 AB's

Black. Hole. Of. Suck.