PDA

View Full Version : Bob Castellini serious about keeping his promises



Ron Madden
01-23-2011, 08:29 PM
From John Fay.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110123/SPT04/301230067/1062/SPT/Reds-Castellini-serious-about-promise

.

Unassisted
01-23-2011, 09:34 PM
Article's a bit bit fawning IMHO. The $151 million in new contracts is spread over multiple seasons. so it's not as if Bob doubled the Reds payroll. Reading the headline, I fully expected Fay to make reference to "The losing stops now."

As I was reading it and pondering the time it took Bob to "keep his promises," I was thinking that Bob might have opened his wallet sooner if he had trusted his early GMs more. I wonder if Krivsky and O'Brien would argue that they could have delivered more winning if they'd been given the latitude and $$$ that have been given to Walt.

reds44
01-23-2011, 09:37 PM
It's still $151,000,000 that he has to pay people.

edabbs44
01-23-2011, 09:37 PM
As I was reading it and pondering the time it took Bob to "keep his promises," I was thinking that Bob might have opened his wallet sooner if he had trusted his early GMs more. I wonder if Krivsky and O'Brien would argue that they could have delivered more winning if they'd been given the latitude and $$$ that have been given to Walt.

Krivsky was given much more money early on than Walt has been given. Money has had nothing to do with Walt's tenure.

Unassisted
01-23-2011, 10:04 PM
Money has had nothing to do with Walt's tenure.I agree. I just wonder if Walt's predecessors do. All of the millions in the deals cited by Fay in this article make it sound like Bob opened the wallet wide to bring in the players Walt wanted.

Brutus
01-23-2011, 10:19 PM
It's still $151,000,000 that he has to pay people.

Yeah I was thinking that too. $150 mil in debt is still a hefty obligation.

LoganBuck
01-23-2011, 10:35 PM
Go sign Vlad Guerrero

mth123
01-23-2011, 10:58 PM
It's still $151,000,000 that he has to pay people.

I get that, but the payroll was going to be around $80 Million per year over the next several years and Votto, Bruce and Cueto would have gotten a whole lot of it anyway. But hey, he spent $3 Million to bring in Edgar Renteria and Fred Lewis.

mdccclxix
01-23-2011, 11:05 PM
When Fay talks money, I just tune out.

camisadelgolf
01-24-2011, 02:20 AM
Krivsky was given much more money early on than Walt has been given. Money has had nothing to do with Walt's tenure.
Uhhhhhhhh what?!?! Do you have anything to back that up? The only way I could agree with you on that is if you concede that Krivsky inherited much less talent, causing the team to be much less expensive. But really, the team wasn't all that much less expensive. How dramatically do you think the payroll has decreased since 2008 relative to the market (since the numbers show that Jocketty's payrolls have been higher than Krivsky's).

redsfandan
01-24-2011, 06:56 AM
Am I the only one that noticed this:

The Reds began by signing Bronson Arroyo to a three-year, $35 million extension. They followed that by signing Jay Bruce to a six-year, $51 million deal. Next was Joey Votto’s three-year, $38 million deal. Johnny Cueto’s three-year, $27 million deal should become official this week.
Just a few days ago it was reported that it would be $27M for 4 years. But, only one source reported that and the most anyone else would say was that they were still working on a deal. Now this. I hope Fay has his info wrong.

Roy Tucker
01-24-2011, 08:19 AM
I hope Fay has his info wrong.

John Fay have his info incorrect? Never!!!

;)

edabbs44
01-24-2011, 08:39 AM
Uhhhhhhhh what?!?! Do you have anything to back that up? The only way I could agree with you on that is if you concede that Krivsky inherited much less talent, causing the team to be much less expensive. But really, the team wasn't all that much less expensive. How dramatically do you think the payroll has decreased since 2008 relative to the market (since the numbers show that Jocketty's payrolls have been higher than Krivsky's).

Fact: Krivsky inherited less major league ready talent than Jocketty.

Fact: Krivsky was allowed to spend more money than Jocketty in his first 2 years.

Mario-Rijo
01-24-2011, 08:47 AM
Fact: Krivsky inherited less major league ready talent than Jocketty.

Fact: Krivsky was allowed to spend more money than Jocketty in his first 2 years.

There is no way you can say that is a fact, you have no idea what Walt or Krivsky for that matter was allowed. You just know what they spent.

But I am not gonna get into a Krivsky vs. Walt debate again.

Mario-Rijo
01-24-2011, 08:51 AM
Am I the only one that noticed this:

Just a few days ago it was reported that it would be $27M for 4 years. But, only one source reported that and the most anyone else would say was that they were still working on a deal. Now this. I hope Fay has his info wrong.

No your not the only one. We will have to wait and see what it ends up being, Fay probably doesn't know for sure himself either, probably just a guesstimate on his part.

edabbs44
01-24-2011, 09:01 AM
There is no way you can say that is a fact, you have no idea what Walt or Krivsky for that matter was allowed. You just know what they spent.

But I am not gonna get into a Krivsky vs. Walt debate again.

OK, I'll give you that. There is a possibility, however slight it is, that Walt was allowed to commit over $100MM to a few players in his first 2 years while raising payroll 25%. And chose not to. I wouldn't bet on it, but I guess it is possible.

Fact: Krivsky spent a hell of a lot more than Walt did in his first 2 years.

mth123
01-24-2011, 09:15 AM
Am I the only one that noticed this:

Just a few days ago it was reported that it would be $27M for 4 years. But, only one source reported that and the most anyone else would say was that they were still working on a deal. Now this. I hope Fay has his info wrong.

If its three years for $27 Million, its the worst deal of the off-season for any team. No way he'd cost that much just going to arb for three years.

edabbs44
01-24-2011, 09:36 AM
I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say that the 3 year thing is a typo/error and that no one should think that there is any chance that it is for 3 years.

They exchanged numbers for this year and it was in the $3-3.5MM range. No way his contract is structured $3MM, $9MM and $15MM, or something like that.

Just a hunch.

GADawg
01-24-2011, 09:37 AM
If its three years for $27 Million, its the worst deal of the off-season for any team. No way he'd cost that much just going to arb for three years.

Yep that'd be a bad one. I listen to mlb on XM alot and the talking heads on there were pretty much split(depending on which segment you listen to)on the Cueto deal at 4 years so I'm guessing you'd be hardpressed to find anyone(outside of the Cueto family)to sign on for that deal at only 3 years.

kaldaniels
01-24-2011, 09:38 AM
I'm going to take a shot in the dark and say that the 3 year thing is a typo/error.

Just a hunch.

The math on a 3 yr deal adds up horrendously. Gotta be a typo. Or Cueto will make 12-13 MM in 2013.

Yeah, typo.

Ghosts of 1990
01-24-2011, 09:56 AM
Go sign Vlad Guerrero

He's still out there isn't he. If he could play the outfield.....

mth123
01-24-2011, 09:56 AM
The math on a 3 yr deal adds up horrendously. Gotta be a typo. Or Cueto will make 12-13 MM in 2013.

Yeah, typo.

I think its a typo too. Worst case this year was $3.9 Million. That would mean that the last two years would have to average $11.5 Million. No way. Either its 4 years or the money is wrong. Its possible Cueto backed-off a 4 year commitment (or maybe the Reds did). If so, I'd have a hard time seeing any more than $18 Million.

camisadelgolf
01-24-2011, 11:17 AM
Fact: Krivsky inherited less major league ready talent than Jocketty.

Fact: Krivsky was allowed to spend more money than Jocketty in his first 2 years.
In what way was Krivsky allowed to spend more money than Jocketty? It certainly wasn't payroll.

2006 payroll: $60,909,519
2007 payroll: $68,904,980
2008 payroll: $74,117,695
2009 payroll: $73,558,500
2010 payroll: $76,151,500

Maybe you mean free agents (not that it makes a difference--but I'm trying to understand your side)? Sure, Krivsky spent about $20MM more than Jocketty has, but what do you expect? There wasn't enough talent on the team to fill up the entire payroll, so he had to go out and obtain overpriced talent. Otherwise, the money would've been spent in areas that wouldn't have given immediate results, and we know how Bob Castellini feels about, "Let's hope things are better next year."

edabbs44
01-24-2011, 11:40 AM
In what way was Krivsky allowed to spend more money than Jocketty? It certainly wasn't payroll.

2006 payroll: $60,909,519
2007 payroll: $68,904,980
2008 payroll: $74,117,695
2009 payroll: $73,558,500
2010 payroll: $76,151,500

Maybe you mean free agents (not that it makes a difference--but I'm trying to understand your side)? Sure, Krivsky spent about $20MM more than Jocketty has, but what do you expect? There wasn't enough talent on the team to fill up the entire payroll, so he had to go out and obtain overpriced talent. Otherwise, the money would've been spent in areas that wouldn't have given immediate results, and we know how Bob Castellini feels about, "Let's hope things are better next year."

Jocketty inherited the bulk of the payroll, which was primarily Krivksky's doing. Walt didn't "spend" it, he inherited it.

camisadelgolf
01-24-2011, 11:57 AM
Jocketty inherited the bulk of the payroll, which was primarily Krivksky's doing. Walt didn't "spend" it, he inherited it.
Like Krivsky didn't inherit anything? Jocketty inherited Cordero. Who else is costing the team major coin? And if it weren't for the players Krivsky obtained, the Reds wouldn't have won the division, so I don't think it's fair to put blame on Krivsky unless you're going to give him proper credit for helping build a team that won the NL Central.

edabbs44
01-24-2011, 12:14 PM
Like Krivsky didn't inherit anything? Jocketty inherited Cordero. Who else is costing the team major coin? And if it weren't for the players Krivsky obtained, the Reds wouldn't have won the division, so I don't think it's fair to put blame on Krivsky unless you're going to give him proper credit for helping build a team that won the NL Central.

Don't turn this into something it isn't.

camisadelgolf
01-24-2011, 12:43 PM
Don't turn this into something it isn't.
I'd say the same thing to you unless you want to stop calling it a 'fact' that Krivsky was given more to spend than Jocketty.

Let me ask you this: how much was Krivsky given to spend, and how much was Jocketty given to spend? If you can put numbers to it, maybe it'll seem factual.

westofyou
01-24-2011, 12:44 PM
Ooooo a Wayne vs Walt throwdown.

Original idea!!

edabbs44
01-24-2011, 12:56 PM
I'd say the same thing to you unless you want to stop calling it a 'fact' that Krivsky was given more to spend than Jocketty.

Let me ask you this: how much was Krivsky given to spend, and how much was Jocketty given to spend? If you can put numbers to it, maybe it'll seem factual.

Let me know where I go wrong here:

1) The Reds increased payroll roughly 25% from 2006-2008.
2) Payroll has roughly been static from 2008-2010.
3) The current GM has pretty much stated every year in his tenure that the Reds do not have much room to add payroll.

But you are right...I don't have the exact numbers. It is just like how we are unable to prove that Jocketty has less money to spend than Brian Cashman. I have the same level of confidence of that "fact", by the way.

TRF
01-24-2011, 01:09 PM
Fact: Krivsky had less talent at the major league level.

Fact: Krivsky had less major league ready talent at the minor league level.

Anyone disputing that is blind. period.

edabbs44
01-24-2011, 01:11 PM
Fact: Krivsky had less talent at the major league level.

Fact: Krivsky had less major league ready talent at the minor league level.

Anyone disputing that is blind. period.

I'd be curious if you could find any posters who have disputed that, either in this thread or one where it is relevant.

camisadelgolf
01-24-2011, 01:26 PM
Ooooo a Wayne vs Walt throwdown.

Original idea!!
Were you attempting to improve the discussion, or were you just looking for an excuse to be sarcastic?

westofyou
01-24-2011, 01:44 PM
Were you attempting to improve the discussion, or were you just looking for an excuse to be sarcastic?

Oh, it was the later for sure.

TRF
01-24-2011, 01:46 PM
I'd be curious if you could find any posters who have disputed that, either in this thread or one where it is relevant.

^

for one. You've pretty much disputed the fact that Jocketty had far more to work with. Your stance on that has been pretty clear. Krivsky spent too much, but you have never once offered a reasonable explanation as to how to infuse the team with talent without spending that money while waiting for the team's prospects to mature. And don't even try the trade the high priced guys route. Jr, and Dunn netted.. Nick Masset and that's it. The baseball economy was tanking or trending towards it.

I think its great that BCast is "keeping his promise" whatever that means. as for 151 M of debt towards payroll, well, I haven't heard so I am asking. Did the Reds lose money last year? Are they expected to lose money this year?

I don't see the big deal here. He's an owner. He wants two things: to win and to make money, not necessarily in that order. He believes winning will make him money. Gotta spend it to make it so long as your FO people can identify what it needs to win.

camisadelgolf
01-24-2011, 01:52 PM
Let me know where I go wrong here:

1) The Reds increased payroll roughly 25% from 2006-2008.
2) Payroll has roughly been static from 2008-2010.
3) The current GM has pretty much stated every year in his tenure that the Reds do not have much room to add payroll.

But you are right...I don't have the exact numbers. It is just like how we are unable to prove that Jocketty has less money to spend than Brian Cashman. I have the same level of confidence of that "fact", by the way.
Part of your argument is that Wayne Krivsky started out with a lower payroll to work with? Doesn't that contradict the 'fact' that Krivsky was given more to spend than Jocketty?

Yes, payroll has been roughly static. And although it hasn't increased much since Jocketty took over, it's still more than Krivsky had.

Maybe Jocketty would have more to spend if he didn't offer so many expensive extensions. I'm not criticizing the extensions because I love what Jocketty has done, but you're acting like it's Krivsky's fault that there's no more cash flex, and you're also implying that Jocketty hasn't had money to spend when in fact, he has spent more than Krivsky did. Arroyo, Phillips, Rolen, Bruce, Cueto, Votto, Chapman, Hernandez, Renteria, Gomes, Masset, Cairo, Taveras, Cabrera, Encarnacion, Rhodes, Lincoln, et al would probably agree with me on that.

Sure, Krivsky spent a lot of money on Cordero, Gonzalez, Hatteberg, Ross, Patterson, Conine, Castro, Arroyo, Harang, Stanton, Lohse, Affeldt, Cormier, Saarloos, and Guardado, but it's less than what Jocketty has spent so far.

camisadelgolf
01-24-2011, 02:01 PM
Oh, it was the later for sure.
As much as we've beaten the Jocketty vs. Krivsky horse to death (and that's somewhat debatable if you ask me), it hasn't been beaten to death nearly as much as snide sarcasm and unproductive criticism.

The last thing I'll say about this publicly is that I came to a Reds discussion forum to have a Reds discussion. If you have a problem with that and/or just came here to be snide, maybe you should look into joining a different forum, contacting moderators, and going through a period of self reflection because I'm not letting you bring me down with your negative, unproductive comments that many would consider to be flaming/baiting/trolling.

MartyFan
01-24-2011, 02:04 PM
Fact: Krivsky inherited less major league ready talent than Jocketty.

Fact: Krivsky was allowed to spend more money than Jocketty in his first 2 years.

I agree, and I am a HUGE Special K fan...HUGE! But here is the thing. I believe that Special K was told how to spend that money. for the life of me I cannot see a GM with the savvy of what Krivsky had shown on a few deals making a deal with CoCo unless he was told...get it done...also, to lock up Harang and Arroyo at the time on the deals they got was something I didn't get...that said he had more money to play with but I am not sure he got to say where he was spending it.

westofyou
01-24-2011, 02:09 PM
As much as we've beaten the Jocketty vs. Krivsky horse to death (and that's somewhat debatable if you ask me), it hasn't been beaten to death nearly as much as snide sarcasm and unproductive criticism.

The last thing I'll say about this publicly is that I came to a Reds discussion forum to have a Reds discussion. If you have a problem with that and/or just came here to be snide, maybe you should look into joining a different forum, contacting moderators, and going through a period of self reflection because I'm not letting you bring me down with your negative, unproductive comments that many would consider to be flaming/baiting/trolling.

I'll bow gracefully to your wishes. But considering some of the meanderings I've read from you now and again I find your righteousness humorous.

MartyFan
01-24-2011, 02:12 PM
I'll bow gracefully to your wishes. But considering some of the meanderings I've read from you now and again I find your righteousness humorous.

Do not confuse self righteousness with righteousness...so long as everyone rmembers that my opinion is supreme we'll be able to play nice in the sandbox...if not, look out!

edabbs44
01-24-2011, 02:19 PM
Really, really untrue.



You've pretty much disputed the fact that Jocketty had far more to work with. Your stance on that has been pretty clear.

False. Never disputed that.



Krivsky spent too much,

Never said that Krivsky spent too much. He just spent at the wrong time and on the wrong players.


but you have never once offered a reasonable explanation as to how to infuse the team with talent without spending that money while waiting for the team's prospects to mature.

This one is too easy. How to infuse the team with talent while waiting for the prospects to mature? Here's not how to do it: signing guys like Cordero in 2008. Is that reasonable? Spend on the draft and in the intl mkts while dealing your hot commodities for future talent. That's pretty reasonable.


And don't even try the trade the high priced guys route. Jr, and Dunn netted.. Nick Masset and that's it. The baseball economy was tanking or trending towards it.

Forget about the high priced guys, they weren't going anywhere. But the baseball economy didn't tank until 2008, along with the rest of the country.

REDREAD
01-24-2011, 02:25 PM
Like Krivsky didn't inherit anything? Jocketty inherited Cordero. Who else is costing the team major coin? And if it weren't for the players Krivsky obtained, the Reds wouldn't have won the division, so I don't think it's fair to put blame on Krivsky unless you're going to give him proper credit for helping build a team that won the NL Central.

He also inherited Harang, who didn't really contribute much to Walt's Reds.
Walt inherited Castro and Hat's contracts. Stanton was still being paid in 2008, etc.

I think Ed's point was that Wayne had more payflex to play with.

Walt spent some big money on Rolen, but other than that, he's only been able to acquire smaller FAs, like Lewis, OCab, etc.

Now the point is taken that Wayne had a smaller payroll to begin with. Also some of the money Wayne spent was spent wisely (Phillips, Arroyo).

Also, a lot of payroll in the future is being used to lock up young players that Walt was fortunate enough to have in the system (like Votto and hopefully Cueto).

But I think Ed's point was that Walt came in without having a whole lot of money to remake the team. Other than Rolen, he hasn't had the luxury of being able to offer a FA or new acquision a deal like AGon or Cordero got.

Not bashing Wayne (at least not in this post :) ), but I think that is the point
Ed is trying to make.

edabbs44
01-24-2011, 02:30 PM
Part of your argument is that Wayne Krivsky started out with a lower payroll to work with? Doesn't that contradict the 'fact' that Krivsky was given more to spend than Jocketty?

Really? Most of the payroll has been inherited by Jocketty. Just because they money is on the books doesn't mean it was spent by the current GM.


Yes, payroll has been roughly static. And although it hasn't increased much since Jocketty took over, it's still more than Krivsky had.

Right, but what does that have to do with what Jocketty has spent? Maybe 2010 was more than what Krivsky had b/c of the increasing contracts given to Harang and Cordero.


Maybe Jocketty would have more to spend if he didn't offer so many expensive extensions. I'm not criticizing the extensions because I love what Jocketty has done, but you're acting like it's Krivsky's fault that there's no more cash flex, and you're also implying that Jocketty hasn't had money to spend when in fact, he has spent more than Krivsky did. Arroyo, Phillips, Rolen, Bruce, Cueto, Votto, Chapman, Hernandez, Renteria, Gomes, Masset, Cairo, Taveras, Cabrera, Encarnacion, Rhodes, Lincoln, et al would probably agree with me on that.

Sure, Krivsky spent a lot of money on Cordero, Gonzalez, Hatteberg, Ross, Patterson, Conine, Castro, Arroyo, Harang, Stanton, Lohse, Affeldt, Cormier, Saarloos, and Guardado, but it's less than what Jocketty has spent so far.

FYI, Phillips received nothing from Walt. And you forgot Phillips and Dunn in the Wayne list.

And the above is really, really flawed:

1) The vast majority of the names in the Walt list receiving any kind of material money do not kick in until this upcoming year and this discussion was really about up until 2010.

2) The vast majority of the names in the Walt list with material amts of money are the buying out of arb years of homegrown guys. Which can be viewed as pretty much mandatory, especially for guys like Votto and Bruce.

3) Look at the difference in names in the 2 lists. Honestly.

edabbs44
01-24-2011, 02:33 PM
He also inherited Harang, who didn't really contribute much to Walt's Reds.
Walt inherited Castro and Hat's contracts. Stanton was still being paid in 2008, etc.

I think Ed's point was that Wayne had more payflex to play with.

Walt spent some big money on Rolen, but other than that, he's only been able to acquire smaller FAs, like Lewis, OCab, etc.

Now the point is taken that Wayne had a smaller payroll to begin with. Also some of the money Wayne spent was spent wisely (Phillips, Arroyo).

Also, a lot of payroll in the future is being used to lock up young players that Walt was fortunate enough to have in the system (like Votto and hopefully Cueto).

But I think Ed's point was that Walt came in without having a whole lot of money to remake the team. Other than Rolen, he hasn't had the luxury of being able to offer a FA or new acquision a deal like AGon or Cordero got.

Not bashing Wayne (at least not in this post :) ), but I think that is the point
Ed is trying to make.

This is the original point I was responding to.


I was thinking that Bob might have opened his wallet sooner if he had trusted his early GMs more. I wonder if Krivsky and O'Brien would argue that they could have delivered more winning if they'd been given the latitude and $$$ that have been given to Walt.

Walt was given money to play with heading into his 4th year as GM and only after the team won the division. Wayne was given money to play with in his 2nd and 3rd years as GM without the team winning.

camisadelgolf
01-24-2011, 03:14 PM
Really? Most of the payroll has been inherited by Jocketty. Just because they money is on the books doesn't mean it was spent by the current GM.
When you say 'most of the payroll', I hope you also mean 'most of the talent', too. Here's something I posted in a different thread:

Here are the non-free-agents-to-be that Jocketty inherited: Joey Votto, Brandon Phillips, Jeff Keppinger, Edwin Encarnacion, Jay Bruce, Dave Ross, Chris Dickerson, Ryan Hanigan, Paul Janish, Adam Rosales, Bronson Arroyo, Edinson Volquez, Aaron Harang, Johnny Cueto, Francisco Cordero, Bill Bray, Jared Burton, Homer Bailey.
Now let's compare that to Krivsky: Joey Votto, Jason LaRue, Felipe Lopez, Adam Dunn, Ken Griffey, Austin Kearns, Ryan Freel, Wily Mo Pena, Javier Valentin, Edwin Encarnacion, Chris Denorfia, Aaron Harang, Eric Milton, Brandon Claussen, Matt Belisle, Kent Mercker, Todd Coffey, Ryan Wagner, and Elizardo Ramirez.


Right, but what does that have to do with what Jocketty has spent? Maybe 2010 was more than what Krivsky had b/c of the increasing contracts given to Harang and Cordero.
Yeah, Harang and Cordero were big factors. So were Ramon Hernandez, Scott Rolen, Orlando Cabrera, Jonny Gomes, Mike Lincoln, Nick Masset, Willy Taveras, and Arthur Rhodes. I won't deny that Harang and Cordero limited Jocketty's options, but let's not act like Krivsky didn't inherit Ken Griffey, Adam Dunn, Jason LaRue, Eric Milton, Dave Williams, etc.


FYI, Phillips received nothing from Walt. And you forgot Phillips and Dunn in the Wayne list.
You're right. I was mistaken.


And the above is really, really flawed:

1) The vast majority of the names in the Walt list receiving any kind of material money do not kick in until this upcoming year and this discussion was really about up until 2010.
Okay, fair enough.

2) The vast majority of the names in the Walt list with material amts of money are the buying out of arb years of homegrown guys. Which can be viewed as pretty much mandatory, especially for guys like Votto and Bruce.
For the argument's sake, what difference does it make how the money is spent?

3) Look at the difference in names in the 2 lists. Honestly.
What does that have to do with the 'fact' that Krivsy had more to spend than Jocketty? You're still insisting that Jocketty had less to spend, and I'm just not seeing it.

edabbs44
01-24-2011, 04:52 PM
When you say 'most of the payroll', I hope you also mean 'most of the talent', too. Here's something I posted in a different thread:

Unsure why inherited talent is being brought up in this discussion.




What does that have to do with the 'fact' that Krivsy had more to spend than Jocketty? You're still insisting that Jocketty had less to spend, and I'm just not seeing it.

Usure how you don't see it. Krivsky gave Cordero $46MM. Jocketty inherited that contract. Both of them had Cordero on their payroll. But do you see this difference?

camisadelgolf
01-24-2011, 05:14 PM
Unsure why inherited talent is being brought up in this discussion.
In-house talent is cheaper than talent obtained through free agency. The Reds had pretty much no viable options for the bullpen, so they splurged on Cordero. Because Jocketty had fewer holes to fill, he didn't need to overspend like Krivsky did. He didn't buy a Francisco Cordero (the closest comparison is Aroldis Chapman). Instead, Jocketty spread the spending money over several different players. It turns out that that's the smarter way to spend money in this instance, but it doesn't change the reality that Krivsky didn't have more money to work with than Jocketty did.


Usure how you don't see it. Krivsky gave Cordero $46MM. Jocketty inherited that contract. Both of them had Cordero on their payroll. But do you see this difference?
Yes, Cordero affects how much Jocketty can spend. But Eric Milton, Ken Griffey, etc. affected how much Krivsky had to spend. You talk about the bad contracts that Jocketty inherited, but what about the bad contracts Krivsky had to wade through?

Ron Madden
01-25-2011, 05:16 AM
From Mark Sheldon, Reds.com.

http://reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110124&content_id=16494086&vkey=news_cin&c_id=cin

edabbs44
01-25-2011, 07:05 AM
In-house talent is cheaper than talent obtained through free agency. The Reds had pretty much no viable options for the bullpen, so they splurged on Cordero. Because Jocketty had fewer holes to fill, he didn't need to overspend like Krivsky did. He didn't buy a Francisco Cordero (the closest comparison is Aroldis Chapman). Instead, Jocketty spread the spending money over several different players. It turns out that that's the smarter way to spend money in this instance, but it doesn't change the reality that Krivsky didn't have more money to work with than Jocketty did.


Yes, Cordero affects how much Jocketty can spend. But Eric Milton, Ken Griffey, etc. affected how much Krivsky had to spend. You talk about the bad contracts that Jocketty inherited, but what about the bad contracts Krivsky had to wade through?

I think you are having flashbacks to older threads. I am not talking about any of these things.

camisadelgolf
01-25-2011, 08:21 AM
I think you are having flashbacks to older threads. I am not talking about any of these things.
Nah, I just had a problem with what you were calling 'facts' because they weren't facts in my eyes. It's a tired topic, so I'll just agree to disagree if you're cool with it.

edabbs44
01-25-2011, 09:47 AM
Nah, I just had a problem with what you were calling 'facts' because they weren't facts in my eyes. It's a tired topic, so I'll just agree to disagree if you're cool with it.

So, to be clear, you believe that Jocketty may have had access to the same or more money to be spent at his discretion in his first 2 years as Wayne had access to?

camisadelgolf
01-25-2011, 10:12 AM
So, to be clear, you believe that Jocketty may have had access to the same or more money to be spent at his discretion in his first 2 years as Wayne had access to?
In calendar years? No, because Jocketty joined in the middle of the 2008 season, and the roster had been pretty much set to that point. But from the end of 2008 to now, he had just as much to work with, financially, as Krivsky.

Can we agree that Jocketty inherited more talent than Krivsky did? If we can agree on that, we can probably agree to everything else about this.

edabbs44
01-25-2011, 10:33 AM
In calendar years? No, because Jocketty joined in the middle of the 2008 season, and the roster had been pretty much set to that point. But from the end of 2008 to now, he had just as much to work with, financially, as Krivsky.

Can you expand on why you think that Walt had as much money to work with in his first two offseasons as Krivsky did?


Can we agree that Jocketty inherited more talent than Krivsky did? If we can agree on that, we can probably agree to everything else about this.

I don't think that I have ever seen anyone say that Jocketty inherited less talent than Krivsky. I know that I haven't said that.

camisadelgolf
01-25-2011, 10:50 AM
Can you expand on why you think that Walt had as much money to work with in his first two offseasons as Krivsky did?
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2318288&postcount=57


I don't think that I have ever seen anyone say that Jocketty inherited less talent than Krivsky. I know that I haven't said that.
I didn't mean to imply you thought that. I've seen a couple people argue it, but I never considered you to be one of those people.

REDREAD
01-25-2011, 11:28 AM
Walt was given money to play with heading into his 4th year as GM and only after the team won the division. Wayne was given money to play with in his 2nd and 3rd years as GM without the team winning.

I agree completely with what you are saying.. Sorry, I did not mean to speak for you.

Wayne got a lot of money and a lot of freedom to remake his team.
He had some success, but overall the team was not moving in the direction that Bob wanted. I find it kind of silly that some people are now claiming that Wayne was "Forced" to make some of his bad moves.. As if Bob C was running around like a maniac screaming "Sign Patterson and Cordero at all costs! I must have them" :lol: Yes, I am exaggerating.

Wayne was given just as much freedom as Walt was. He just did not get results after 2006.

TRF
01-25-2011, 11:43 AM
Wayne was given just as much freedom as Walt was. He just did not get results after 2006.

Wayne had less talent to work with.

what really should not be disputed is this: Krivsky was never going to be allowed to continue with his plan (a plan that Jocketty has not deviated from much at all) once Jocketty became available. No GM is perfect. Krivsky had his share of bad acquisitions, but the OVERALL PATH he put the Reds on, develop from within, sweep out members of the previous regime (JimBO, DanO wasn't allowed to get rid of Bowden's people) that contributed to the culture of losing, stability in the minor leagues regarding management and development, well how much organizational change has there really been under Jocketty? Very little. Why? Because he didn't need to do much there.

Now here is a thought. Why don't we just move on and start to compare Jocketty to Jocketty? Compare his work now to what he has done in the past. Is his work now consistent with patterns throughout his career? Is he aware of the team's need for a decent LF? Why can't he seem to find one? Is he waiting for the Reds to develop their next SS? Can the Reds wait?

I'm as guilty as any in prolonging the Jocketty/Krivsky debate, and even I have grown tired of it.

REDREAD
01-25-2011, 11:58 AM
Wayne had less talent to work with.

what really should not be disputed is this: Krivsky was never going to be allowed to continue with his plan (a plan that Jocketty has not deviated from much at all) once Jocketty became available.



There's no way to know for sure.

You know what did Wayne in (in my opinion)?

He had a great 2006. Then in 2007, despite finding Hamilton and Burton for free, the team regressed. He was given another chance (and more money) for 2008, and the team started horribly and did not look good on paper at all.
Combine that with several pricey contracts BobC had to eat.. Deals that were universally panned on Redszone.. Spending money on Stanton and Castro, agreeing to pick up Cormier's option, overpaying in years and $ for AGon, etc.. BobC could not have been pleased to see a lot of his FA money wasted.

I am convinced that Bob Cast is a fair person. If the team had not seen regression in both W-L and run differential, but instead stayed level or showed modest improvement, I am pretty confident that Wayne would still be running the team today.

BobC brought Walt in because Wayne was not getting the job done.
Wayne's approach to building a contending team was flawed.. I am sure people will dispute that, but the results speak for themselves.
I am confident that we would not have won the division in 2010 if Wayne was still running the team. We'd still have the same porous defense, we'd have 2-3 position players below replacement level (like Bako and Freel), and the bullpen would be a revolving door, as it pretty much always was.

camisadelgolf
01-25-2011, 12:04 PM
Okay, I'm going to put numbers to this. First things first, I'm going to leave 2008 out of this since that year was split between Krivsky and Jocketty. If that's an issue for some reason, let me know so I can try to come up with something to remedy that. But if you ask me, it works in Jocketty's favor because it gave him time to cut chaff and prepare the roster/payroll for the future.

Secondly, let's also assume that both Krivsky and Jocketty used all of their budget for player salaries since that's the only fair way to approach this given the knowledge we have.

Wayne Krivsky = $129.8MM budget
Walt Jocketty = $149.7MM budget

Now let's look at what would be considered 'dead weight' salaries since those are salaries you are stuck with. This means that Bronson Arroyo and Adam Dunn don't count since teams were willing to give up a decent amount of talent to obtain them. In the end, I think these types of contracts balanced out for Krivsky and Jocketty.

Here are the 2006 & 2007 dead weight salaries for Krivsky:
20.1 Eric Milton
19.0 Ken Griffey
3.9 Jason LaRue
2.0 Tony Womack
1.6 Kent Mercker
1.4 Dave Williams
0.8 Chris Hammond
$48.8MM

And here are the 2009 & 2010 dead weight salaries for Jocketty:
26.5 Aaron Harang
24.0 Francisco Cordero
5.4 Alex Gonzalez
$55.9MM

Looking at their budgets and dead weight salary obligations, we can see that Jocketty has had to deal with more dead weight. You can blame Krivsky for that. But what we can also see is that 37.6% of Krivsky's budget was tied in dead weight, and it was 37.3% for Jocketty. It's pretty much the same. Percentage-wise, they had pretty much the same amount of budget to work with.

Wayne Krivsky:
$129.8MM in salary budget
- 48.8MM in inherited, dead weight salaries
= 81.0MM to spend

Walt Jocketty:
$149.7MM in salary budget
- 55.9MM in inherited, dead weight salaries
= 93.8MM to spend

Percentage-wise, like I said, they had pretty much the same to work with. But in terms of quantifiable salary that they had freedom to spend, I'd say Jocketty had more than $10.0MM than Krivsky did. Therefore, it's far from a 'fact' that Jocketty had less to spend.

edabbs44
01-25-2011, 12:37 PM
That analysis is very, very inaccurate.

bucksfan2
01-25-2011, 12:47 PM
Okay, I'm going to put numbers to this. First things first, I'm going to leave 2008 out of this since that year was split between Krivsky and Jocketty. If that's an issue for some reason, let me know so I can try to come up with something to remedy that. But if you ask me, it works in Jocketty's favor because it gave him time to cut chaff and prepare the roster/payroll for the future.

Secondly, let's also assume that both Krivsky and Jocketty used all of their budget for player salaries since that's the only fair way to approach this given the knowledge we have.

Wayne Krivsky = $129.8MM budget
Walt Jocketty = $149.7MM budget

Now let's look at what would be considered 'dead weight' salaries since those are salaries you are stuck with. This means that Bronson Arroyo and Adam Dunn don't count since teams were willing to give up a decent amount of talent to obtain them. In the end, I think these types of contracts balanced out for Krivsky and Jocketty.

Here are the 2006 & 2007 dead weight salaries for Krivsky:
20.1 Eric Milton
19.0 Ken Griffey
3.9 Jason LaRue
2.0 Tony Womack
1.6 Kent Mercker
1.4 Dave Williams
0.8 Chris Hammond
$48.8MM

And here are the 2009 & 2010 dead weight salaries for Jocketty:
26.5 Aaron Harang
24.0 Francisco Cordero
5.4 Alex Gonzalez
$55.9MM

Looking at their budgets and dead weight salary obligations, we can see that Jocketty has had to deal with more dead weight. You can blame Krivsky for that. But what we can also see is that 37.6% of Krivsky's budget was tied in dead weight, and it was 37.3% for Jocketty. It's pretty much the same. Percentage-wise, they had pretty much the same amount of budget to work with.

Wayne Krivsky:
$129.8MM in salary budget
- 48.8MM in inherited, dead weight salaries
= 81.0MM to spend

Walt Jocketty:
$149.7MM in salary budget
- 55.9MM in inherited, dead weight salaries
= 93.8MM to spend

Percentage-wise, like I said, they had pretty much the same to work with. But in terms of quantifiable salary that they had freedom to spend, I'd say Jocketty had more than $10.0MM than Krivsky did. Therefore, it's far from a 'fact' that Jocketty had less to spend.

I am a little confused here. Where are the $129M and $149M coming from? Is that total amount spent during their tenure as Reds GM? Is that the total payroll for each year they were GM?

This debate has been hashed out over and over again. I didn't have an issue with Wayne as the GM. I think he did some good things but also thought he was in over his head. I think he handed out some bad contracts, some good contracts, and some good contracts that went bad. I also know he had to deal with some bad contracts (Milton and Griffey) but at the same time Walt was somehow able to get something for Griffey that Wayne could not do.

The biggest difference that I see in Walt is he is building the franchise for the next decade or so. Granted there are a lot of players that he inherited, but as I have said that really doesn't impact my opinion what so ever. Every GM who steps into an organization is going to inherit good players. If Hunnington with the Pirates suddenly turns around the team are we going to hold McCutchen against him? What I do see in Walt is that when he acquires a big contract (Rolen) he makes sure that player remains with the club and the contract is spread out over time. He also gives himself options and outs in most of the contracts that he hands out.

There is no doubt that Jimbo, O'Brien, and Krivsky all laid the groundwork for the Reds current success. Without Jimbo at the helm the Reds may not have had Joey Votto. Without O'Brien's eccentric minor league philosophies (taking a strike) Votto may have not developed the way he has. Without Krivsky's abolishment of those philosophies Votto may have not taken that next step. And without Jocketty's focus on the major league club Votto may not have flourished into the league MVP.

Oh and now Jocketty is doing what many people have been clammoring for over the past decade. He is locking up the young stars through their prime. I would have no problem with Krivsky or Obie as a part of an organization, but I think they were overwhelmed and overmatched when it came to running the major league club.

camisadelgolf
01-25-2011, 01:46 PM
tl;dr version is at the very bottom.


I am a little confused here. Where are the $129M and $149M coming from? Is that total amount spent during their tenure as Reds GM? Is that the total payroll for each year they were GM?
From 2006-7, Krivsky's players earned $129MM. From 2009-10, Jocketty's earned $149MM.


This debate has been hashed out over and over again. I didn't have an issue with Wayne as the GM. I think he did some good things but also thought he was in over his head. I think he handed out some bad contracts, some good contracts, and some good contracts that went bad. I also know he had to deal with some bad contracts (Milton and Griffey) but at the same time Walt was somehow able to get something for Griffey that Wayne could not do.
I agree completely. But to be fair, the reason Jocketty pulled off a Griffey trade is because Griffey was finally willing to waive his no-trade clause. If Krivsky were in that situation, I'm not saying he could've gotten someone as good as Masset in return, but as long as Krivsky was willing to chip in some cash--just like Jocketty did--I'm sure he could've found a new team for Griffey as long as Griffey approved the trade.


The biggest difference that I see in Walt is he is building the franchise for the next decade or so. Granted there are a lot of players that he inherited, but as I have said that really doesn't impact my opinion what so ever. Every GM who steps into an organization is going to inherit good players. If Hunnington with the Pirates suddenly turns around the team are we going to hold McCutchen against him? What I do see in Walt is that when he acquires a big contract (Rolen) he makes sure that player remains with the club and the contract is spread out over time. He also gives himself options and outs in most of the contracts that he hands out.
I can't say I agree that Krivsky wasn't building the franchise for the next decade or so. Sure, he made many transactions that appeared like 'win now' moves, but I don't think that was the only goal of those moves. Were they supposed to improve the team in the short term? Absolutely. Did they actually do it? Not really. But they accomplished the bigger goal, which was protecting the guys who were going to be counted on for the next decade from being forced into roles that they may have overwhelmed them. Extending Hatteberg protected Votto. Extending Juan Castro protected Paul Janish. Trading for Dave Ross protected Ryan Hanigan. Trading for Kyle Lohse protected Homer Bailey. Signing Mike Stanton, Rheal Cormier, etc. protected countless relievers that have spent time on the 40-man roster.
There were a lot of contracts that Krivsky mishandled (well, a lot of contracts that were mishandled during his tenure--supposedly he didn't have his hand in all of them). But that doesn't mean he had more money to spend than Jocketty did, which is what edabbs44 is trying to claim.


There is no doubt that Jimbo, O'Brien, and Krivsky all laid the groundwork for the Reds current success. Without Jimbo at the helm the Reds may not have had Joey Votto. Without O'Brien's eccentric minor league philosophies (taking a strike) Votto may have not developed the way he has. Without Krivsky's abolishment of those philosophies Votto may have not taken that next step. And without Jocketty's focus on the major league club Votto may not have flourished into the league MVP.

Oh and now Jocketty is doing what many people have been clammoring for over the past decade. He is locking up the young stars through their prime. I would have no problem with Krivsky or Obie as a part of an organization, but I think they were overwhelmed and overmatched when it came to running the major league club.
I agree completely. I'm getting the impression that you think this is a Jocketty vs. Krivsky debate that is supposed to end with people thinking one is better than the other. That's not what this is at all. The debate I'm having with edabbs44 is whether it was Jocketty or Krivsky who was given more money to spend on players. He called it a 'fact' that Jocketty had less money to spend even though he can't provide any evidence to prove it. I brought numbers into the conversation to prove that Krivsky had less money to work with, but instead of referencing anything to prove his point, edabbs44 simply said, "That analysis is very, very inaccurate."

In review, this is not a debate about picking the better GM between Krivsky and Jocketty. It's about which GM had more money to work with. edabbs44 believes Jocketty had less money to spend than Krivsky, and he is so confident in his belief that he calls it a 'fact'. I believe the opposite and provided numbers as evidence. He has yet to show anything that suggests I'm incorrect, and it sounds like he and I will just to have to agree to disagree.

edabbs44
01-25-2011, 02:14 PM
In review, this is not a debate about picking the better GM between Krivsky and Jocketty. It's about which GM had more money to work with. edabbs44 believes Jocketty had less money to spend than Krivsky, and he is so confident in his belief that he calls it a 'fact'. I believe the opposite and provided numbers as evidence. He has yet to show anything that suggests I'm incorrect, and it sounds like he and I will just to have to agree to disagree.

This is it in a nutshell and I can't believe that we are having this conversation:

Say I was awarded an expansion team this year, hired you as my GM and you signed $100MM worth of players for 2011. I then fired you in July and hired Joe Schmo. One player came off the books who made $1MM in 2011, leaving us with $99MM in contracts for 2012. GM Schmo signed his replacement for a 1 year, $3MM contract bringing the 2012 payroll to $102MM. Who was given more money to spend on the rosters? You or Schmo?

TRF
01-25-2011, 02:17 PM
This is it in a nutshell and I can't believe that we are having this conversation:

Say I was awarded an expansion team this year, hired you as my GM and you signed $100MM worth of players for 2011. I then fired you in July and hired Joe Schmo. One player came off the books who made $1MM in 2011, leaving us with $99MM in contracts for 2012. GM Schmo signed his replacement for a 1 year, $3MM contract bringing the 2012 payroll to $102MM. Who was given more money to spend on the rosters? You or Schmo?

wow. that might be the single most ridiculous point i have ever seen made.

by that measure, you shouldn't be complaining about WK's handling of the budget (you still fail to acknowledge the fact that he had far more to do OVERALL than Jocketty).

You should be complaining about Bowden and O'Brien.

camisadelgolf
01-25-2011, 02:30 PM
This is it in a nutshell and I can't believe that we are having this conversation:

Say I was awarded an expansion team this year, hired you as my GM and you signed $100MM worth of players for 2011. I then fired you in July and hired Joe Schmo. One player came off the books who made $1MM in 2011, leaving us with $99MM in contracts for 2012. GM Schmo signed his replacement for a 1 year, $3MM contract bringing the 2012 payroll to $102MM. Who was given more money to spend on the rosters? You or Schmo?
Me, obviously.

Let's say there are two teams who have new GMs: Team A and Team B.

Team A has a budget of $65MM. Team B has a budget of $75MM.

Team A has $24MM tied up in contracts from the previous GM. Team B has $27MM tied up in contracts from the previous GM.

That leaves Team A's GM with $41MM to spend. It also leaves Team B with $48MM to spend.

Therefore, Team B had $7MM more to spend, am I right?

edabbs44
01-25-2011, 02:37 PM
wow. that might be the single most ridiculous point i have ever seen made.

by that measure, you shouldn't be complaining about WK's handling of the budget (you still fail to acknowledge the fact that he had far more to do OVERALL than Jocketty).

You should be complaining about Bowden and O'Brien.

I haven't complained about anyone in this thread except for those who are distorting what I have said.

But it's not a ridiculous point. The point is that he is using overall payroll as evidence of "money spent" by GMs when the GM had nothing to do with it.

Here are two other ridiculous measures being used: the years and the calculation itself.

The years - Including 2006 for WK and removing 2008 is Enronesque accounting at its finest, since WK had zero influence on 2006 and way more influence in 2008. If this calculation were to be valid, it should be 2007-08 vs 2009-2010, at a minimum.

The calculation - Using inherited contracts as "money spent" is severly flawed.

camisadelgolf
01-25-2011, 02:50 PM
I haven't complained about anyone in this thread except for those who are distorting what I have said.

But it's not a ridiculous point. The point is that he is using overall payroll as evidence of "money spent" by GMs when the GM had nothing to do with it.

Here are two other ridiculous measures being used: the years and the calculation itself.

The years - Including 2006 for WK and removing 2008 is Enronesque accounting at its finest, since WK had zero influence on 2006 and way more influence in 2008. If this calculation were to be valid, it should be 2007-08 vs 2009-2010, at a minimum.

The calculation - Using inherited contracts as "money spent" is severly flawed.
I'm not opposed to using 2008, but that was Krivsky's third year, and Jocketty doesn't have a third year to compare the two. I wanted to tie in Jocketty's 2011 and beyond, since that's where most of the spending has been done, but you said it wasn't fair. Therefore, I tried to use the first two years of each GM.

To not consider the inherited contracts--a huge portion of the context needed to compare the money available to each GM--is severely flawed.

It looks like we can't agree right now, but following the 2011 season, maybe we can.

edabbs44
01-25-2011, 03:51 PM
I'm not opposed to using 2008, but that was Krivsky's third year, and Jocketty doesn't have a third year to compare the two. I wanted to tie in Jocketty's 2011 and beyond, since that's where most of the spending has been done, but you said it wasn't fair. Therefore, I tried to use the first two years of each GM.

Jocketty's third year is 2010 the same way Krivsky's 3rd year was 2008. Krivsky got the job in Feb 2006, I believe and most of the roster was already intact, just like Jocketty's 2008 was intact when he got the job in April 2008.


To not consider the inherited contracts--a huge portion of the context needed to compare the money available to each GM--is severely flawed.


How are inherited contracts counted as "money available"? Contracts are guaranteed in MLB. If you think that money on your payroll is "available" because in theory you can trade them, I don't agree at all.

mth123
01-25-2011, 04:08 PM
I don't have a horse in this race, but here is how I see it.

Krivsky advanced this team's talent base by leaps and bounds, but I always had the feeling that he would not be able to piece together a roster that could win. I equate him to the running back that made good yardage between the 20's but was consistently stuffed in the Red Zone (no pun intended).

Jocketty, OTOH, seems like the short yardage back who gets the tough yards but doesn't do so well marching you down the field. In St. Louis his big talent gains involved raping the farm system and/or spending a lot of dough, but with a good base to work with, he seems better suited to put it all together.

Too bad these egos couldn't co-exist. I think a tandem of Krivsky as GM and Walt as President would have had a lot of promise, but it wasn't meant to be.

So far, I've seen Walt make some savvy moves to put the finishing touches on the roster that basically had its core in place through the work of his predecessors. IMO those are moves that WK may not have been able to make, but I stop short of giving Walt the credit for turning the Reds into a winner. That process started while Walt was still in St. Louis. I don't think the Reds make the post-season in 2010 without the combined tenures of both WK and WJ. The debate seems crazy because the team is an accumulation of both of their moves (and Dan O's too - maybe most of all if truth be told) and not some either/or proposition.

camisadelgolf
01-25-2011, 04:29 PM
Jocketty's third year is 2010 the same way Krivsky's 3rd year was 2008. Krivsky got the job in Feb 2006, I believe and most of the roster was already intact, just like Jocketty's 2008 was intact when he got the job in April 2008.
I just don't buy that it is the same. Becoming GM mid-season is different from becoming GM in the off-season. Krivsky had three off-seasons, and Jocketty is in the middle of his second. Since Krivsky's biggest mistakes were most apparent in the third season, I think we need to wait another year or so before we can compare the two accurately in terms of how much money was available to them.


How are inherited contracts counted as "money available"? Contracts are guaranteed in MLB. If you think that money on your payroll is "available" because in theory you can trade them, I don't agree at all.
For the record, not all contracts are guaranteed. If Jocketty didn't think Edwin Encarnacion was worth the $7.6MM to keep him for 2009 and 2010, he didn't have to pay up. Ultimately, he paid the price, but it's still money that he spent.

If Walt Jocketty wanted more money to spend, all he had to do was not offer arbitration to EE, Votto, Bruce, Cueto, etc., but you and I both know how stupid that would have been.

Wayne Krivsky was in a similar situation when he had the choice of offering arbitration to Felipe Lopez, Austin Kearns, and others, but instead of being stuck with their high salaries, he traded them away for cheaper players who have a chance to help the team compete later in the decade.

So anyway, here's what I'm saying: Wayne Krivsky faced the same spending decisions that Jocketty did. There were trades that were made, free agents that were signed, and arbitration that was and wasn't offered to many players. Krivsky could've paid to keep around the players he inherited such as Felipe Lopez, Austin Kearns, Rich Aurilia, Jason LaRue, Eric Milton, Ken Griffey, etc., but in retrospect, that would've been money poorly spent.

The difference is that Jocketty is spending his money on players he inherited because they are more talented than what Krivsky inherited. Is Jocketty spending the money more wisely? Yes, it looks like it so far. Is he spending less than Krivsky did? No. If Jocketty wants more spending money, he has it, but it would be incredibly stupid not to offer contracts to the core of the team that won the NL Central just so he could say he had more money to spend.

camisadelgolf
01-25-2011, 04:31 PM
I don't have a horse in this race, but here is how I see it.

Krivsky advanced this team's talent base by leaps and bounds, but I always had the feeling that he would not be able to piece together a roster that could win. I equate him to the running back that made good yardage between the 20's but was consistently stuffed in the Red Zone (no pun intended).

Jocketty, OTOH, seems like the short yardage back who gets the tough yards but doesn't do so well marching you down the field. In St. Louis his big talent gains involved raping the farm system and/or spending a lot of dough, but with a good base to work with, he seems better suited to put it all together.

Too bad these egos couldn't co-exist. I think a tandem of Krivsky as GM and Walt as President would have had a lot of promise, but it wasn't meant to be.

So far, I've seen Walt make some savvy moves to put the finishing touches on the roster that basically had its core in place through the work of his predecessors. IMO those are moves that WK may not have been able to make, but I stop short of giving Walt the credit for turning the Reds into a winner. That process started while Walt was still in St. Louis. I don't think the Reds make the post-season in 2010 without the combined tenures of both WK and WJ. The debate seems crazy because the team is an accumulation of both of their moves (and Dan O's too - maybe most of all if truth be told) and not some either/or proposition.
This isn't really a 'who's better: WK or WJ?' debate. Because of the title of the thread, we're more concerned with finances. Who would you say had more money to spend as GM of the Reds?

mth123
01-25-2011, 04:43 PM
This isn't really a 'who's better: WK or WJ?' debate. Because of the title of the thread, we're more concerned with finances. Who would you say had more money to spend as GM of the Reds?

The Blue Jays just moved an $86 Million obligation in order to create payroll room to have money to spend. They both had as much money to spend as their budgets would allow. Some was locked-up, but the GM of the Jays found a way to move his albatross. I'd say that moving Griffey and Milton , mostly because of the poor health and in Griffey's case, the politics involved, would have been harder to do than any of the contracts that WJ inherited.

For those who site the Cordero deal, I find it hard to believe that his deal is less movable than Vernon Wells deal was. I do think that it would have been harder to move Griffey or Milton though, so I guess WK was more locked in. Its funny we talk about this now, because Dan O'brien made a really good deal to get Casey off the books and was roasted for it. Same kind of deal is what was needed by both WK and WJ to free up room to operate.

edabbs44
01-25-2011, 05:09 PM
The Blue Jays just moved an $86 Million obligation in order to create payroll room to have money to spend. They both had as much money to spend as their budgets would allow. Some was locked-up, but the GM of the Jays found a way to move his albatross. I'd say that moving Griffey and Milton , mostly because of the poor health and in Griffey's case, the politics involved, would have been harder to do than any of the contracts that WJ inherited.

For those who site the Cordero deal, I find it hard to believe that his deal is less movable than Vernon Wells deal was. I do think that it would have been harder to move Griffey or Milton though, so I guess WK was more locked in. Its funny we talk about this now, because Dan O'brien made a really good deal to get Casey off the books and was roasted for it. Same kind of deal is what was needed by both WK and WJ to free up room to operate.

I get your point and I am sure that the Wells deal was quite difficult to move but there are different circumstances to consider, like the economy at the times we are discussing and the needs of teams who could actually afford and want a closer like Cordero.

LAA is/was desperate after losing out on Crawford and Werth. Were there any teams with deep pockets who were giving comparable contracts to 2nd tier closers in 2008-2010?

mth123
01-25-2011, 05:20 PM
I get your point and I am sure that the Wells deal was quite difficult to move but there are different circumstances to consider, like the economy at the times we are discussing and the needs of teams who could actually afford and want a closer like Cordero.

LAA is/was desperate after losing out on Crawford and Werth. Were there any teams with deep pockets who were giving comparable contracts to 2nd tier closers in 2008-2010?

Set-up guys were getting $7 and $8 Million per for three and four year obligations. The Yankees gave Soriano almost as much per season as Cordero makes and did it for 3 years and he won't even close.

Perhaps some team would have taken most of Cordero's deal to avoid obligating themselves for multiple years. Maybe the Reds couldn't move $12 Million, but they may have been able to move $8 or $9 Million and actually addressed its holes with bonafide players (though Lewis for LF and Lead-off wasn't horrible). Or Maybe the Reds could have taken back a pricey player who fit its needs that another team was looking to dump.

edabbs44
01-25-2011, 05:45 PM
Set-up guys were getting $7 and $8 Million per for three and four year obligations. The Yankees gave Soriano almost as much per season as Cordero makes and did it for 3 years and he won't even close.

Perhaps some team would have taken most of Cordero's deal to avoid obligating themselves for multiple years. Maybe the Reds couldn't move $12 Million, but they may have been able to move $8 or $9 Million and actually addressed its holes with bonafide players (though Lewis for LF and Lead-off wasn't horrible). Or Maybe the Reds could have taken back a pricey player who fit its needs that another team was looking to dump.

Again, Soriano is a different time and place

which set up guys were getting those contracts in 2008 and 2009 at those lengths? I don't remember any. And were they also in their mid 30s?

TheNext44
01-25-2011, 07:46 PM
I don't have a horse in this race, but here is how I see it.

Krivsky advanced this team's talent base by leaps and bounds, but I always had the feeling that he would not be able to piece together a roster that could win. I equate him to the running back that made good yardage between the 20's but was consistently stuffed in the Red Zone (no pun intended).

Jocketty, OTOH, seems like the short yardage back who gets the tough yards but doesn't do so well marching you down the field. In St. Louis his big talent gains involved raping the farm system and/or spending a lot of dough, but with a good base to work with, he seems better suited to put it all together.

Too bad these egos couldn't co-exist. I think a tandem of Krivsky as GM and Walt as President would have had a lot of promise, but it wasn't meant to be.

So far, I've seen Walt make some savvy moves to put the finishing touches on the roster that basically had its core in place through the work of his predecessors. IMO those are moves that WK may not have been able to make, but I stop short of giving Walt the credit for turning the Reds into a winner. That process started while Walt was still in St. Louis. I don't think the Reds make the post-season in 2010 without the combined tenures of both WK and WJ. The debate seems crazy because the team is an accumulation of both of their moves (and Dan O's too - maybe most of all if truth be told) and not some either/or proposition.

:thumbup:
:beerme:

Ron Madden
01-26-2011, 04:25 AM
I don't have a horse in this race, but here is how I see it.

Krivsky advanced this team's talent base by leaps and bounds, but I always had the feeling that he would not be able to piece together a roster that could win. I equate him to the running back that made good yardage between the 20's but was consistently stuffed in the Red Zone (no pun intended).

Jocketty, OTOH, seems like the short yardage back who gets the tough yards but doesn't do so well marching you down the field. In St. Louis his big talent gains involved raping the farm system and/or spending a lot of dough, but with a good base to work with, he seems better suited to put it all together.

Too bad these egos couldn't co-exist. I think a tandem of Krivsky as GM and Walt as President would have had a lot of promise, but it wasn't meant to be.

So far, I've seen Walt make some savvy moves to put the finishing touches on the roster that basically had its core in place through the work of his predecessors. IMO those are moves that WK may not have been able to make, but I stop short of giving Walt the credit for turning the Reds into a winner. That process started while Walt was still in St. Louis. I don't think the Reds make the post-season in 2010 without the combined tenures of both WK and WJ. The debate seems crazy because the team is an accumulation of both of their moves (and Dan O's too - maybe most of all if truth be told) and not some either/or proposition.

This is the best analogy I've seen in this worn out argument. :thumbup:

traderumor
01-26-2011, 07:05 AM
I don't have a horse in this race, but here is how I see it.

Krivsky advanced this team's talent base by leaps and bounds, but I always had the feeling that he would not be able to piece together a roster that could win. I equate him to the running back that made good yardage between the 20's but was consistently stuffed in the Red Zone (no pun intended).

Jocketty, OTOH, seems like the short yardage back who gets the tough yards but doesn't do so well marching you down the field. In St. Louis his big talent gains involved raping the farm system and/or spending a lot of dough, but with a good base to work with, he seems better suited to put it all together.

Too bad these egos couldn't co-exist. I think a tandem of Krivsky as GM and Walt as President would have had a lot of promise, but it wasn't meant to be.

So far, I've seen Walt make some savvy moves to put the finishing touches on the roster that basically had its core in place through the work of his predecessors. IMO those are moves that WK may not have been able to make, but I stop short of giving Walt the credit for turning the Reds into a winner. That process started while Walt was still in St. Louis. I don't think the Reds make the post-season in 2010 without the combined tenures of both WK and WJ. The debate seems crazy because the team is an accumulation of both of their moves (and Dan O's too - maybe most of all if truth be told) and not some either/or proposition.
Jocketty could have come in and decided major changes were needed to do things "the Jocketty way." Instead, he seems to be a smart enough baseball man to recognize that the orchestra was ready to play some good music with the current musicians, so he should play the role of maestro and do some fine tuning. I think he deserves credit for that.

edabbs44
01-26-2011, 08:06 AM
Jocketty could have come in and decided major changes were needed to do things "the Jocketty way." Instead, he seems to be a smart enough baseball man to recognize that the orchestra was ready to play some good music with the current musicians, so he should play the role of maestro and do some fine tuning. I think he deserves credit for that.

That's something I have been saying for a while as well. He could have come in, signed Bradley or Burrell in 2009 and dealt Stubbs for additional help somewhere. Some on here are too focused on acquisitions and not enough on management of an organization.

But that aside, we should try and stay away from the "performance of WJ vs the performance of WK" that, as many have said, has been beaten to death. The only related discussion being had here is the money that Castellini made to both, which was relevant to the thread topic.

mth123
01-26-2011, 08:17 AM
Jocketty could have come in and decided major changes were needed to do things "the Jocketty way." Instead, he seems to be a smart enough baseball man to recognize that the orchestra was ready to play some good music with the current musicians, so he should play the role of maestro and do some fine tuning. I think he deserves credit for that.

I buy that and give him credit for it. Its exactly what I mean when I say he put the finishing touches on the roster. I just think this always devolves into a debate of Krivsky Sucks/Walt is awesome vs Krivsky is the man/Walt is meh.

I think both guys did a lot of good things to get this team where it is and both guys made a lot of moves that leave me cold. The blind devotion to one or the other that I get out of some of these posts is where I get off.

edabbs44
01-26-2011, 08:17 AM
I just don't buy that it is the same. Becoming GM mid-season is different from becoming GM in the off-season. Krivsky had three off-seasons, and Jocketty is in the middle of his second. Since Krivsky's biggest mistakes were most apparent in the third season, I think we need to wait another year or so before we can compare the two accurately in terms of how much money was available to them.

Krivsky took over as GM of the Reds in Feb of 2006. I wouldn't actually count that as an "offseason".


For the record, not all contracts are guaranteed. If Jocketty didn't think Edwin Encarnacion was worth the $7.6MM to keep him for 2009 and 2010, he didn't have to pay up. Ultimately, he paid the price, but it's still money that he spent.

If Walt Jocketty wanted more money to spend, all he had to do was not offer arbitration to EE, Votto, Bruce, Cueto, etc., but you and I both know how stupid that would have been.

Sure, Edwin was on his ledger. No one is disputing that. To me, arb and extensions to get rid of arb years are two different animals. Arb is fairly mandatory for guys with talent, extensions aren't.


Wayne Krivsky was in a similar situation when he had the choice of offering arbitration to Felipe Lopez, Austin Kearns, and others, but instead of being stuck with their high salaries, he traded them away for cheaper players who have a chance to help the team compete later in the decade.

That's only part of the reason why he traded those guys. But I understand your point and it is valid. I guess the real question is, who did he sign to better utilize the payroll flexibility he gained?


So anyway, here's what I'm saying: Wayne Krivsky faced the same spending decisions that Jocketty did. There were trades that were made, free agents that were signed, and arbitration that was and wasn't offered to many players. Krivsky could've paid to keep around the players he inherited such as Felipe Lopez, Austin Kearns, Rich Aurilia, Jason LaRue, Eric Milton, Ken Griffey, etc., but in retrospect, that would've been money poorly spent.

Right. But you are missing the absolute hammers that he allocated funds to.


The difference is that Jocketty is spending his money on players he inherited because they are more talented than what Krivsky inherited. Is Jocketty spending the money more wisely? Yes, it looks like it so far. Is he spending less than Krivsky did? No. If Jocketty wants more spending money, he has it, but it would be incredibly stupid not to offer contracts to the core of the team that won the NL Central just so he could say he had more money to spend.

You are focused on the wrong points that I have been making. The vast majority of the money that Walt has spent has been in the last month for games that haven't even been played yet. The discussion started when someone posted about how maybe previous GMs would be here if they were given access to funds like WJ has had access to. But the bulk of Walt's money that he has had access to hasn't even played a game yet. So, where this discussion started, 2011 doesn't even count.

So look at the money that has been directed by Jocketty that has seen the field versus the money that WK directly spent that played on the field and see what the difference is. To me, that means Cordero, Arroyo, Phillips, Harang, AGon, Dunn and crew vs Rolen, Edwin, Rhodes, Gomes, Cabrera and others. Let me know what your calculations show.

It's a tough one to do since contracts change year to year and inherited payroll can hurt future allocations, but to me it is very, very obvious without even doing any calculations.

REDREAD
01-26-2011, 10:02 AM
The years - Including 2006 for WK and removing 2008 is Enronesque accounting at its finest, since WK had zero influence on 2006 and way more influence in 2008.

I have to agree with this.

Decisions made prior to 2008 is a big reason that Wayne got fired.
Any dead weight discussions need to include:
Resigining Hat, when Votto was ready
Alex Gonzales (whom IIRC, Walt was able to dump)
Stanton
Castro
Patterson
Bako
Freel (can't remember if he was on the first list of junk Walt inherited)
And to some extent, Dunn and Jr.

We were very fortunate that a lot of these contracts expired at the end of 2008, but they were very poor decisions.

I say Dunn and Jr to some extent.. both were nice middle of the order bats that were not good defenders. Both had negligible trade value. This was a pretty big problem that Walt had to deal with, replacing that offense. Anyhow, I think a key decision in transforming this team was parting ways with Dunn. I think Dunn is a great person, but the Reds could not compete while giving him 10 million or so. I think Dunn has become a better hitter since he left (as opposed to trying to get a walk in an RBI situation and taking a lot of 3rd strikes), but it just wasn't working here, at the price Dunn would've wanted to stay here.

REDREAD
01-26-2011, 10:12 AM
For those who site the Cordero deal, I find it hard to believe that his deal is less movable than Vernon Wells deal was.

Cordero could easily be moved if the Reds agree to eat all but 3-4 million of his salary. Then he's being paid like an expensive middle reliever to the team that gets him. However, I am not sure there's much point to doing that.

Unless the Reds can find some sucker willing to eat most of Cordero's contract, they might as well keep him and hope he can find the magic again.
At least Cordero is not completely ineffective (like Milton) and only has one year left on his deal.

There were some nice trade proposals to move Cordero for a decent performing OF that also was overpaid, but I think in reality, that would would be a hard trade to make happen.

camisadelgolf
01-26-2011, 10:26 AM
Krivsky took over as GM of the Reds in Feb of 2006. I wouldn't actually count that as an "offseason".
I get your point, and it's a good one. But taking over in February is very different from taking over mid-season. In February and March, there are still at least free agents available. Had Jocketty been hired in February or March of 2008, I'm sure he would've signed at least a couple more players. That doesn't really help my point, but I'm just saying that it's difficult to compare Jocketty and Krivsky because their tenures weren't over the same kind of timeline.



Sure, Edwin was on his ledger. No one is disputing that. To me, arb and extensions to get rid of arb years are two different animals. Arb is fairly mandatory for guys with talent, extensions aren't.
I agree that they're different animals, but you'd probably be right if you said we didn't view arbitration offers the same.



That's only part of the reason why he traded those guys. But I understand your point and it is valid. I guess the real question is, who did he sign to better utilize the payroll flexibility he gained?
Well, that was the question at the time. Right now, the question is whether it's a 'fact' that Jocketty had less money to spend. lol

I think we both like Jocketty, and I think we both know that Krivsky set up a lot of bad contracts when he was here. I think Krivsky did a good job of freeing up some money, but I don't necessarily think he did a good job with the spending of the money that was saved. So in that sense, I guess you could argue that no money was actually saved.



Right. But you are missing the absolute hammers that he allocated funds to.
I wouldn't say I've been 'missing it'.
http://cache.boston.com/bonzai-fba/Third_Party_Photo/2008/11/06/office_space__1225994848_3424.jpg



You are focused on the wrong points that I have been making. The vast majority of the money that Walt has spent has been in the last month for games that haven't even been played yet. The discussion started when someone posted about how maybe previous GMs would be here if they were given access to funds like WJ has had access to. But the bulk of Walt's money that he has had access to hasn't even played a game yet. So, where this discussion started, 2011 doesn't even count.
Wasn't a lot of the money that Wayne Krivsky spent for games that weren't yet played as well? Look at Brandon Phillips, Bronson Arroyo, Aaron Harang, Francisco Cordero . . . They all got paid several million dollars to pay after Krivsky got fired. It's not fair to say that Jocketty's money was spent for games that haven't been played yet when the same was true for Krivsky, too.


So look at the money that has been directed by Jocketty that has seen the field versus the money that WK directly spent that played on the field and see what the difference is. To me, that means Cordero, Arroyo, Phillips, Harang, AGon, Dunn and crew vs Rolen, Edwin, Rhodes, Gomes, Cabrera and others. Let me know what your calculations show.

It's a tough one to do since contracts change year to year and inherited payroll can hurt future allocations, but to me it is very, very obvious without even doing any calculations.
How convenient to forget about Aroldis Chapman, Ramon Hernandez, Willy Taveras . . .
Of course more of Krivsky's money has 'seen the field'. He was a GM for more than two years prior to Jocketty taking over. It's just common sense. To top it off, Jocketty is choosing to spend more of his money on long term extensions than short term fixes via free agency. Regardless, spending is spending, and Jocketty is doing more of it. And like everyone else, I'm really excited about it, too.

camisadelgolf
01-26-2011, 10:37 AM
I have to agree with this.

Decisions made prior to 2008 is a big reason that Wayne got fired.
Any dead weight discussions need to include:
Resigining Hat, when Votto was ready
Alex Gonzales (whom IIRC, Walt was able to dump)
Stanton
Castro
Patterson
Bako
Freel (can't remember if he was on the first list of junk Walt inherited)
And to some extent, Dunn and Jr.

We were very fortunate that a lot of these contracts expired at the end of 2008, but they were very poor decisions.

I say Dunn and Jr to some extent.. both were nice middle of the order bats that were not good defenders. Both had negligible trade value. This was a pretty big problem that Walt had to deal with, replacing that offense. Anyhow, I think a key decision in transforming this team was parting ways with Dunn. I think Dunn is a great person, but the Reds could not compete while giving him 10 million or so. I think Dunn has become a better hitter since he left (as opposed to trying to get a walk in an RBI situation and taking a lot of 3rd strikes), but it just wasn't working here, at the price Dunn would've wanted to stay here.
Krivsky didn't re-sign Hat when Votto was ready. He picked up the option because it seemed like such a bargain at the time. For the rest of the duration of the contract, Hatteberg was easily one of the biggest bargains on the team. The reason I didn't mention Hatteberg, Castro, Stanton, Freel, etc. is for the same reason I don't keep bringing up Willy Taveras--because I already calculated that spending and determined that Jocketty has spent more. Yes, they were dead weight, but they weren't dead weight that affected Jocketty unless you count Castro's small salary (and Krivsky was supposedly trading Castro to the Dodgers) and Freel (who Jocketty managed to turn into Ramon Hernandez). I also mentioned AGon a couple times (and yes, AGon was traded with cash by Jocketty for Kris Negron, who just joined the 40-man roster). But how is bringing up all the money that was spent 'bad accounting' when you're trying to calculate how much money was spent?

edabbs44
01-26-2011, 10:41 AM
Wasn't a lot of the money that Wayne Krivsky spent for games that weren't yet played as well? Look at Brandon Phillips, Bronson Arroyo, Aaron Harang, Francisco Cordero . . . They all got paid several million dollars to pay after Krivsky got fired. It's not fair to say that Jocketty's money was spent for games that haven't been played yet when the same was true for Krivsky, too.

Yes, but some of the money spent was played while WK was in office. Plus, we saw a lot of that money play in 2008 under Jocketty as Wayne's roster and it wasn't pretty.


How convenient to forget about Aroldis Chapman, Ramon Hernandez, Willy Taveras . . .

Add them to the calc.


Of course more of Krivsky's money has 'seen the field'. He was a GM for more than two years prior to Jocketty taking over. It's just common sense. To top it off, Jocketty is choosing to spend more of his money on long term extensions than short term fixes via free agency. Regardless, spending is spending, and Jocketty is doing more of it. And like everyone else, I'm really excited about it, too.

I understand that Jocketty is spending and I am happy with what he is doing. But please go back to the original post and where this discussion started. It is flawed to say that WK and OBrien's futures may have been different if they were given the payroll flex that WJ has been awarded since Jocketty really had no flex given to him in his first few years, the same time period WK was here.

camisadelgolf
01-26-2011, 10:53 AM
Yes, but some of the money spent was played while WK was in office. Plus, we saw a lot of that money play in 2008 under Jocketty as Wayne's roster and it wasn't pretty.



Add them to the calc.



I understand that Jocketty is spending and I am happy with what he is doing. But please go back to the original post and where this discussion started. It is flawed to say that WK and OBrien's futures may have been different if they were given the payroll flex that WJ has been awarded since Jocketty really had no flex given to him in his first few years, the same time period WK was here.
In essence, we agree. Where this whole debate got started--that it's a shame O'Brien and Krivsky were given much less freedom to spend--is complete farce, and we agree on that. But I disagree with anyone who says Jocketty has received less to spend than Krivsky. That's my only argument. And the reason I'm standing by it is because of the numbers I brought up (which already included the players named above).

mth123
01-26-2011, 11:06 AM
Cordero could easily be moved if the Reds agree to eat all but 3-4 million of his salary. Then he's being paid like an expensive middle reliever to the team that gets him. However, I am not sure there's much point to doing that.

Unless the Reds can find some sucker willing to eat most of Cordero's contract, they might as well keep him and hope he can find the magic again.
At least Cordero is not completely ineffective (like Milton) and only has one year left on his deal.

There were some nice trade proposals to move Cordero for a decent performing OF that also was overpaid, but I think in reality, that would would be a hard trade to make happen.

I don't know. Say they eat $4 Million and resign Rhodes for say $3 Million and let Chapman, Masset and Rhodes share the late inning duties. That remaining $5 Million could do a lot. It is probably is enough to:

1. Put $5 Million toward in impact player (instead of say $2.1 Million to Renteria or $1 Million to Cairo) or

2. Provide a little more money up front in some of these deals to lighten the burden in 2013 or

3. Forget about extending Arroyo to get savings in 2011.

Now the future Walt supposedly protected is saddled with $15 Million in deferred money to Arroyo which probably gets funded in 2013 (along with his $6.5 Million Salary) just when Votto's deal goes to $19 Million, Bruce is up to $7.5 Million, Cueto is probably around $8 Million or so and Stubbs, Wood and some others get big increases in arb. I think funding the supposedly locked-up future is looking at a major subtraction in 2013 along with the need to find passable replacements for Rolen and Phillips (which the Reds don't have in house unless Hamilton is a real fast comer) and the window remains 2011 and 2012.

I really don't see how anything that transpired over this off-season protetcted the future outside of the Bruce deal. I don't see any improvement to the present either, so I just don't see how any grade can be higher than a D at this point.

bucksfan2
01-26-2011, 11:12 AM
1. Put $5 Million toward in impact player (instead of say $2.1 Million to Renteria or $1 Million to Cairo) or

Really? What does 5M buy you on the FA market. An impact player in the ilk of Wearth (you can argue whether or not he is an impact player) or Crawford would take at least triple that. Guys like JJ Hardy make 5.8M a year. I would rather roll the dice with Renteria and save 3M than pay Hardy that kind of money.

mth123
01-26-2011, 11:22 AM
Really? What does 5M buy you on the FA market. An impact player in the ilk of Wearth (you can argue whether or not he is an impact player) or Crawford would take at least triple that. Guys like JJ Hardy make 5.8M a year. I would rather roll the dice with Renteria and save 3M than pay Hardy that kind of money.

First, if you free up $5 Million and pass on Renteria or Cairo, it becomes $6 or $7 Million. It allows the team to deal for a guy like Justin Upton whose modest $4.25 Million in 2011 was probably too rich for the Reds. More realistically, it would allow the acquisition of somebody like David Dejesus or Josh Willingham (making $6 Million each in 2011) to make a real upgrade in LF either at the top of the order or in the middle of it. Both of those guys were obtained for spare parts that the Reds could have easily matched. Maybe it allows a deal for somebody who didn't get moved for money reasons but has become excess baggage where they are and would have filled a hole here (Mike Cameron and Marco Scutaro are a couple of examples). And for the record, I'd much prefer Hardy to the current situation at SS.

bucksfan2
01-26-2011, 01:29 PM
First, if you free up $5 Million and pass on Renteria or Cairo, it becomes $6 or $7 Million. It allows the team to deal for a guy like Justin Upton whose modest $4.25 Million in 2011 was probably too rich for the Reds. More realistically, it would allow the acquisition of somebody like David Dejesus or Josh Willingham (making $6 Million each in 2011) to make a real upgrade in LF either at the top of the order or in the middle of it. Both of those guys were obtained for spare parts that the Reds could have easily matched. Maybe it allows a deal for somebody who didn't get moved for money reasons but has become excess baggage where they are and would have filled a hole here (Mike Cameron and Marco Scutaro are a couple of examples). And for the record, I'd much prefer Hardy to the current situation at SS.

EDIT: I kind of merged two topics.

You said instead of spending money on Cairo and Renteria so that is why I set the number at $5M.

As for the other players thrown out there it is pure speculation. Pure speculation that the other teams would be willing to accept what the Reds were willing to offer. Secondly I think the Upton speculation was more a pipe dream than anything else. In order to obtain you would have had to mortgage the farm. I don't think Walt, Bob, or any of the minority partners would have vetoed a Justin Upton trade if it were just money changing hands.

This isn't Walt's first rodeo. From my perspective he knows what he is doing. If the platoon of Lewis/Gomes/Hermedia can produce on a similar to that of DeJesus or Willingham then why spend the excess money and give up something in return to get them? What if Walt's opinion was he built a competitive team that has the resources and financial flexibility to make a mid season acquisition? Can Janish and Renteria outperform JJ Hardy for half of the price? If the answer is yes or in the ballpark then it would be senseless to trade for Hardy.

IMO there is way to much speculation and trade targets thrown out there to really know which ones are not only logical but practical. There is no doubt that Walt could have improved the team more in this off season, heck he could have signed Worth or Crawford and the team would be better. But IMO he improved each spot that he could, under the financial restrains that he was working under.

mth123
01-26-2011, 03:38 PM
EDIT: I kind of merged two topics.

You said instead of spending money on Cairo and Renteria so that is why I set the number at $5M.

As for the other players thrown out there it is pure speculation. Pure speculation that the other teams would be willing to accept what the Reds were willing to offer. Secondly I think the Upton speculation was more a pipe dream than anything else. In order to obtain you would have had to mortgage the farm. I don't think Walt, Bob, or any of the minority partners would have vetoed a Justin Upton trade if it were just money changing hands.

This isn't Walt's first rodeo. From my perspective he knows what he is doing. If the platoon of Lewis/Gomes/Hermedia can produce on a similar to that of DeJesus or Willingham then why spend the excess money and give up something in return to get them? What if Walt's opinion was he built a competitive team that has the resources and financial flexibility to make a mid season acquisition? Can Janish and Renteria outperform JJ Hardy for half of the price? If the answer is yes or in the ballpark then it would be senseless to trade for Hardy.

IMO there is way to much speculation and trade targets thrown out there to really know which ones are not only logical but practical. There is no doubt that Walt could have improved the team more in this off season, heck he could have signed Worth or Crawford and the team would be better. But IMO he improved each spot that he could, under the financial restrains that he was working under.

FWIW, I don't think the Reds need to mortagage the farm to get anybody. A package of Leake, Alonso and Heisey would interest most teams and could be rounded out with secondary guys like Valaika and Valiquette. Its a lot of talent, but the Reds wouldn't miss them IMO. Chapman or Mesoraco might be mortgaging the farm. Everyone else is replaceable.

I also think that the trio of Lewis/Gomes/Hermida would have a hard time matching Dejesus or Willingham. This is a year to win not gamble on finding a reclamation project. Get some known production to fill the hole.

TRF
01-26-2011, 05:08 PM
Decisions made prior to 2008 is a big reason that Wayne got fired.

Wayne Krivsky got fired because Walt Jocketty was available.

Period.

kaldaniels
01-26-2011, 09:33 PM
Wayne Krivsky got fired because Walt Jocketty was available.

Period.

Part of the equation, not all of it.

camisadelgolf
01-27-2011, 12:03 AM
Part of the equation, not all of it.
Definitely true. I really doubt that Krivsky would've been fired if he had been coming off a playoff season. Fair or not, Krivsky was mostly fired for not getting the team to the playoffs.

Patrick Bateman
01-27-2011, 01:07 AM
My god this board is going downhill.

Even when camisa is trying to agree with people, like on his knees begging to be agreed with, trying to rationalize the other side of the argument, you guys still argue about a situation that has turned out well in the end.

The pieces ended up being there mainly because of O'Brien's prospects, Krivsky's shrewd moves to collect cheap talent from the bottom of the barrell without locking up much bad talent long term, with Jocketty not misplaying a bad situation.

They all have their flaws, but it worked out because of the contributions of many people. We don't know how it would have played out had Kriv not been fired. He never was in Jock's position and vice versa. Jocketty inherited a better situation and didn't mess it up. Kriv didn't get that chance, but he allowed the opportunity to succeed. Anything else really cannot be debated in a definitive manner. If it could, somebody would have been embarrased by now.

Well I guess that has happened but for different reasons.

GAC
01-27-2011, 05:25 AM
Krivsky was given much more money early on than Walt has been given. Money has had nothing to do with Walt's tenure.


Uhhhhhhhh what?!?! Do you have anything to back that up? The only way I could agree with you on that is if you concede that Krivsky inherited much less talent, causing the team to be much less expensive.

Krivsky also inherited some bad guaranteed contracts thanks to his predecessor(s), that hindered him to a large degree. Sure, he also gave out some too, but nothing to the large degree (years/money-wise) that "tied" his successor hands.

Under whose tenure were these current player's drafted and developed? And that not only includes guys on the current roster, but also still in our system? Walt's predecessors.

I give Walt credit for being patient, not using any of them as trade bait, and allowing them to develop. And now, making that commitment to players like Votto, Bruce, Cueto, etc.

But I want to see what he is doing to continue to scout, draft, and amass that young talent in our system, because at some point in the future some of these players are going to price themselves out of Cincy. Are we going to have the players behind them?

TRF
01-27-2011, 10:22 AM
Definitely true. I really doubt that Krivsky would've been fired if he had been coming off a playoff season. Fair or not, Krivsky was mostly fired for not getting the team to the playoffs.

horsehockey.

No way was that 2007 team in a position to make a playoff run. No reasonable owner should have expected one either. And while 2007 was a rare healthy year for Griffey, overall the offense was just a tick above average, mostly because of a weak bench. I certainly blame the bench on Krivsky. Freel stunk. The bench had zero power. and no one on that bench could be described as a defensive specialist except Castr, and then only by Marty B.

But the pitching.... my god that pitching. The only reliever from that 2007 team still with the Reds is Burton. The only starters, Bailey and Arroyo. Now can this be blamed on Krivsky? No more than the Reds rotation of 2010 can be credited to Jocketty.

Arroyo had an odd year. He certainly could have been 15-9 instead of 9-15. No one in the minors was really ready to step up. Not one AAA pitcher was as good as Maloney or LeCure was last year. That's the system Wayne Krivsky was saddled with. Now compare that to the 2010 rotation

2010
Arroyo - acquired by Krivsky for WMP
Cueto - Homegrown
Wood - Homegrown
Leake - Homegrownish. Drafted the year before
Volquez - Acquired by Krivsky
Harang - Acquired by Mattox(sp?)
Bailey - Homegrown
Maloney - Acquired by Krivsky for Lohse, practically home grown.

To be fair, we have to compare the 2010 rotation to the 2008 rotation.

Harang
Arroyo
Volquez
Cueto
Fogg
Bailey
Belisle
Ramirez

Harang got hurt. Arroyo and Volquez pitched well. Cueto was young but showing signs of what was to come in 2010. Bailey still wasn't ready. The 2008 team, pitching talent wise was FAR superior to the 2007 team even if the results were not there. The bullpen was a HUGE improvement. Cordero, Affeldt, Lincoln and Burton, all acquired by Krivsky, solidified the bullpen.

But the starting pitching just wasn't there. yet. It wouldn't arrive for 2 more years.

No. Wayne Krivsky wasn't fired because he didn't lead the Reds to the playoffs in his SECOND year as GM. He was fired because BCast wanted his friend in the position. NO SANE OWNER with a modicum of baseball knowledge could have expected a playoff team in 2007.

camisadelgolf
01-27-2011, 10:36 AM
horsehockey.

No way was that 2007 team in a position to make a playoff run. No reasonable owner should have expected one either. And while 2007 was a rare healthy year for Griffey, overall the offense was just a tick above average, mostly because of a weak bench. I certainly blame the bench on Krivsky. Freel stunk. The bench had zero power. and no one on that bench could be described as a defensive specialist except Castr, and then only by Marty B.

But the pitching.... my god that pitching. The only reliever from that 2007 team still with the Reds is Burton. The only starters, Bailey and Arroyo. Now can this be blamed on Krivsky? No more than the Reds rotation of 2010 can be credited to Jocketty.

Arroyo had an odd year. He certainly could have been 15-9 instead of 9-15. No one in the minors was really ready to step up. Not one AAA pitcher was as good as Maloney or LeCure was last year. That's the system Wayne Krivsky was saddled with. Now compare that to the 2010 rotation

2010
Arroyo - acquired by Krivsky for WMP
Cueto - Homegrown
Wood - Homegrown
Leake - Homegrownish. Drafted the year before
Volquez - Acquired by Krivsky
Harang - Acquired by Mattox(sp?)
Bailey - Homegrown
Maloney - Acquired by Krivsky for Lohse, practically home grown.

To be fair, we have to compare the 2010 rotation to the 2008 rotation.

Harang
Arroyo
Volquez
Cueto
Fogg
Bailey
Belisle
Ramirez

Harang got hurt. Arroyo and Volquez pitched well. Cueto was young but showing signs of what was to come in 2010. Bailey still wasn't ready. The 2008 team, pitching talent wise was FAR superior to the 2007 team even if the results were not there. The bullpen was a HUGE improvement. Cordero, Affeldt, Lincoln and Burton, all acquired by Krivsky, solidified the bullpen.

But the starting pitching just wasn't there. yet. It wouldn't arrive for 2 more years.

No. Wayne Krivsky wasn't fired because he didn't lead the Reds to the playoffs in his SECOND year as GM. He was fired because BCast wanted his friend in the position. NO SANE OWNER with a modicum of baseball knowledge could have expected a playoff team in 2007.
No one said the Reds were in a position to compete for the playoffs during that time. I think BCast was unfair in that he expected the Reds to win too soon, but if Krivsky had somehow found a way to get the Reds into the playoffs--which is laughable to think about--he would've kept his job, even if Jocketty were Castellini's son.

edabbs44
01-27-2011, 10:58 AM
No. Wayne Krivsky wasn't fired because he didn't lead the Reds to the playoffs in his SECOND year as GM. He was fired because BCast wanted his friend in the position. NO SANE OWNER with a modicum of baseball knowledge could have expected a playoff team in 2007.

Maybe things would have been different if the team wasn't a complete circus in 2007-2008.

On August 1st, 2007, the Reds had the 3rd worst record in baseball ahead of only TB and Pitt (by .5 games) and a run differential of -66.

On August 1st, 2008, the Reds were in last place in the Central with a run differential of -69.

For comparison, run differential at the same time in 2005 was -57 and 2006 was -19.

Things may have been different if the team showed legitimate improvement on the field. Asking for the playoffs is obviously ridiculous, but asking to see improvement over 2005 isn't.

TRF
01-27-2011, 01:01 PM
Maybe things would have been different if the team wasn't a complete circus in 2007-2008.

On August 1st, 2007, the Reds had the 3rd worst record in baseball ahead of only TB and Pitt (by .5 games) and a run differential of -66.

On August 1st, 2008, the Reds were in last place in the Central with a run differential of -69.

For comparison, run differential at the same time in 2005 was -57 and 2006 was -19.

Things may have been different if the team showed legitimate improvement on the field. Asking for the playoffs is obviously ridiculous, but asking to see improvement over 2005 isn't.

not necessarily.

WK was changing the team dynamic. Where it was once so offense top heavy, with zero pitching and a defense that was suspect, he added defense and acquired pitching. young pitching. That takes time to develop. He likely new one of Cueto/Bailey would at least turn into a middle rotation guy, and he had Harang, Arroyo and Volquez.

But 2008's offense took another hit when KGJ could not repeat 2007's successful campaign. Patterson was a huge dropoff from Hamilton, and there certainly is anecdotal evidence to suggest that Patterson was a Baker choice, not Krivsky. Though to be fair, the CF defense was elite when Patterson played. Simply put, 2010's pitching talent with 2007's offense would have meant the playoffs. With 2006's offense it might have meant the WS. Prior to 2010, the Reds pitching pool was shallow at best, with a bright spot here and there.

Wayne Krivsky was not given a credible amount of time to implement his long term strategies. He had an antsy owner (The Losing Stops Now!) and a baseball legacy standing right behind him.

REDREAD
01-27-2011, 01:37 PM
not necessarily.

WK was changing the team dynamic. Where it was once so offense top heavy, with zero pitching and a defense that was suspect, he added defense and acquired pitching. young pitching. That takes time to develop. He likely new one of Cueto/Bailey would at least turn into a middle rotation guy, and he had Harang, Arroyo and Volquez.

But 2008's offense took another hit when KGJ could not repeat 2007's successful campaign. Patterson was a huge dropoff from Hamilton, and there certainly is anecdotal evidence to suggest that Patterson was a Baker choice, not Krivsky. Though to be fair, the CF defense was elite when Patterson played. Simply put, 2010's pitching talent with 2007's offense would have meant the playoffs. With 2006's offense it might have meant the WS. Prior to 2010, the Reds pitching pool was shallow at best, with a bright spot here and there.

Wayne Krivsky was not given a credible amount of time to implement his long term strategies. He had an antsy owner (The Losing Stops Now!) and a baseball legacy standing right behind him.


The bottom line is that Krivisky was showing regression, not progress.
He made several moves that had nothing to do with building for the longterm which backfired or were questionable (Stanton, Cormier?)
If you blame Baker for Patterson, then the scout that saw Phillips in spring training and recommended that Wayne pick him up should get all the credit for Phillips. Narron and whoever else was involved with Hamilton should get all the credit for that pickup.

The point is that every decision a GM makes is derived from the input of others. A true leader accepts all the blame along with all the praise. I remember how people were complaining that Wayne was "forced" to get Dusty. Well, I think last year proves that Dusty knows how to manage.

Eddabs makes a solid point. I don't think Cast was expecting miracles, but he was expecting positive progress. Wayne was able to add Hamilton and Burton for free to the 2007 roster, yet the team still regressed significantly on the field.
That's pretty amazing, and shows how his blueprint failed. No one is saying that Austin Kearns is a superstar, but he was essentially replaced with Freel, who was a serious downgrade. Felipe was a poor defender, but his offense was never replaced (and it's not as if trading him upgraded anything).
Joe Mays and Josh Fogg aren't exactly moves that were rebuilding the pitching staff for the long term either.

Wayne gave AGon a huge contract that was not warranted at all, and brought unnecessary risk. Contrast that to how Walt picked up OCab and Renturia on less expensive, 1 year deals. Walt backfilled LF with Gomes as opposed to Freel. Walt filled in Catcher with Hernandez instead of Bako.
Walt cut bait on EdE.. If Wayne was still in charge, I kind of doubt he would've made these moves. I also question if Wayne would've let Rhodes walk (if he signed him initially) , based on his past history of thinking that some old relievers will never decline.

Again, Wayne made some nice moves, but didn't address the big picture.

edabbs44
01-27-2011, 01:46 PM
not necessarily.

WK was changing the team dynamic. Where it was once so offense top heavy, with zero pitching and a defense that was suspect, he added defense and acquired pitching. young pitching. That takes time to develop. He likely new one of Cueto/Bailey would at least turn into a middle rotation guy, and he had Harang, Arroyo and Volquez.

But 2008's offense took another hit when KGJ could not repeat 2007's successful campaign. Patterson was a huge dropoff from Hamilton, and there certainly is anecdotal evidence to suggest that Patterson was a Baker choice, not Krivsky. Though to be fair, the CF defense was elite when Patterson played. Simply put, 2010's pitching talent with 2007's offense would have meant the playoffs. With 2006's offense it might have meant the WS. Prior to 2010, the Reds pitching pool was shallow at best, with a bright spot here and there.

Wayne Krivsky was not given a credible amount of time to implement his long term strategies. He had an antsy owner (The Losing Stops Now!) and a baseball legacy standing right behind him.

What would 2010's pitching added up with 2008's offense be? Because as WK was beefing up the staff and defense, he was neglecting offense to a fault.

TRF
01-27-2011, 02:42 PM
The bottom line is that Krivisky was showing regression, not progress.
He made several moves that had nothing to do with building for the longterm which backfired or were questionable (Stanton, Cormier?)
If you blame Baker for Patterson, then the scout that saw Phillips in spring training and recommended that Wayne pick him up should get all the credit for Phillips. Narron and whoever else was involved with Hamilton should get all the credit for that pickup.

The point is that every decision a GM makes is derived from the input of others. A true leader accepts all the blame along with all the praise. I remember how people were complaining that Wayne was "forced" to get Dusty. Well, I think last year proves that Dusty knows how to manage.

Eddabs makes a solid point. I don't think Cast was expecting miracles, but he was expecting positive progress. Wayne was able to add Hamilton and Burton for free to the 2007 roster, yet the team still regressed significantly on the field.
That's pretty amazing, and shows how his blueprint failed. No one is saying that Austin Kearns is a superstar, but he was essentially replaced with Freel, who was a serious downgrade. Felipe was a poor defender, but his offense was never replaced (and it's not as if trading him upgraded anything).
Joe Mays and Josh Fogg aren't exactly moves that were rebuilding the pitching staff for the long term either.

Wayne gave AGon a huge contract that was not warranted at all, and brought unnecessary risk. Contrast that to how Walt picked up OCab and Renturia on less expensive, 1 year deals. Walt backfilled LF with Gomes as opposed to Freel. Walt filled in Catcher with Hernandez instead of Bako.
Walt cut bait on EdE.. If Wayne was still in charge, I kind of doubt he would've made these moves. I also question if Wayne would've let Rhodes walk (if he signed him initially) , based on his past history of thinking that some old relievers will never decline.

Again, Wayne made some nice moves, but didn't address the big picture.

wrong. It's rare when a post is 100% wrong, but this one is.

How is completely revamping an organization not looking at the big picture? How is changing your draft policy to garner high impact arms and players that rate high on defense instead of "toolsy" OF types not seeing the big picture? How is implementing safeguards designed to protect minor league pitchers from injuries not seeing the big picture.

Walt cut bait on EE AFTER signing him to a big contract. WK cut bait on Kearns and Lopez. I think he'd have had no problem getting rid of EE if the opportunity presented itself.

And you are comparing the AGon cotract to OCab's? really? the one handed out when FA salaries were reaching an all time high to a time when the bottom fell out of the market? Nevermind that AGon was 5 years younger when he signed. A COMPLETELY disingenuous argument. AGon's 2007 season: .272 .325 .468 .793 with MUCH better defense than Cabrera had last year. He got hurt. It happens. Plus the unfortunate illness of his kid. Cabrera couldn't come within 100 points of that OPS. Simply a ridiculous point to make.

As for Freel, he was actually acquired by Jim Bowden and played a grand total of 75 games for the Reds in LF. He was mostly used in CF, RF, 3B and 2B. He was a supersub. And he was a leadoff hitter. Ryan Freel, healthy, say 2004-2006 is a better player than Johnny Gomes. All Gomes has is power. Freel could defend, get on base and show a teeny bit of pop. Freel earned the modest contract he was given.


The point is that every decision a GM makes is derived from the input of others. A true leader accepts all the blame along with all the praise. I remember how people were complaining that Wayne was "forced" to get Dusty. Well, I think last year proves that Dusty knows how to manage.

1999 proved McKeon knew how to manage. 2000 proved it too. then that whole World Series thing with the Marlins. Just because you "Know" how to manage doesn't mean you don't make a mistake. IF a manager has an owners ear, and IF said manager pushed for a player that turns into what Patterson turned into then how is that the GM's fault IF he was ordered to sign the player?

That is a lot of "IFs". Maybe that is not what happened, but all we have on this is what Krivsky said. BCast isn't talking. But he sure hasn't refuted one word of it.

And even that isn't to say it was the wrong thing to do. Managers want certain players and they aren't perfect. Injuries forced Dusty to play Patterson more than he wanted late in the year. HOWEVER, after sitting through a year of that, you DO NOT replace him with Wily Taveras.


I also question if Wayne would've let Rhodes walk (if he signed him initially) , based on his past history of thinking that some old relievers will never decline.

You mean like DFA'd Esteban Yan? Or Joe Mays? Or Scott Schoeneweis? Or Cormier? Or Guardado? Like he let those guys walk? Please.

I get that people like Walt Jocketty. There is a lot to like. But I loathe revisionist history. I can't stand made up suppositions of how he would have performed based on "facts" that are well... not facts.

edabbs44
01-27-2011, 04:04 PM
How is completely revamping an organization not looking at the big picture? How is changing your draft policy to garner high impact arms and players that rate high on defense instead of "toolsy" OF types not seeing the big picture? How is implementing safeguards designed to protect minor league pitchers from injuries not seeing the big picture.


I have to ask two questions:

1) Which high impact arms did the Reds draft under that policy in 2006 and 2007?

2) Don't you think that Stubbs could have been considered a toosly OFer at the time he was drafted?

If what you say about his draft policy is true, I wonder if the Reds would have drafted one of a few pitchers over Stubbs in Round 1 of 2006.

TRF
01-27-2011, 04:21 PM
I have to ask two questions:

1) Which high impact arms did the Reds draft under that policy in 2006 and 2007?

2) Don't you think that Stubbs could have been considered a toosly OFer at the time he was drafted?

If what you say about his draft policy is true, I wonder if the Reds would have drafted one of a few pitchers over Stubbs in Round 1 of 2006.

I should have said acquire. My bad. Krivsky did go about acquiring pitching. But Ravin, Smith, Lotzkar while not trading away the Bailey's, Cueto's etc AND getting Maloney, Volquez via trades qualifies. But by all means, pick at some nits there.

As for Stubbs, it is generally considered that "toolsy" usually means the tool is there but not the skill. I thought the pick was bad. I still do compared to who the Reds could have gotten. But he acquitted himself in his first full season. I hope he builds on that in 2011.

bucksfan2
01-27-2011, 04:26 PM
I should have said acquire. My bad. Krivsky did go about acquiring pitching. But Ravin, Smith, Lotzkar while not trading away the Bailey's, Cueto's etc AND getting Maloney, Volquez via trades qualifies. But by all means, pick at some nits there.

As for Stubbs, it is generally considered that "toolsy" usually means the tool is there but not the skill. I thought the pick was bad. I still do compared to who the Reds could have gotten. But he acquitted himself in his first full season. I hope he builds on that in 2011.

I wonder if all the teams who picked ahead of the Giants still hold a grudge they didn't get Lincecum.

edabbs44
01-27-2011, 04:49 PM
I should have said acquire. My bad. Krivsky did go about acquiring pitching. But Ravin, Smith, Lotzkar while not trading away the Bailey's, Cueto's etc AND getting Maloney, Volquez via trades qualifies. But by all means, pick at some nits there.

I didn't think that it was nitpicking at all, based on the way it was phrased. To be honest, the way it was phrased I would think that high impact arms was the least of his priorities during those drafts. He passed on more than a few top arms, especially in 2006.

And Ravin and Smith are not high impact arms. Neither is Maloney. I'll give you Volquez and maybe Lotzkar, but he is a stretch. If he drafted guys like Lincecum, Scherzer, Drabek and/or Brett Anderson, then I would agree.

TRF
01-27-2011, 04:52 PM
I wonder if all the teams who picked ahead of the Giants still hold a grudge they didn't get Lincecum.

Like any star player taken after they picked I bet most go. "ugh!"

bucksfan2
01-27-2011, 04:53 PM
Like any star player taken after they picked I bet most go. "ugh!"

There must be a lot of collective "ugh!" for Albert Pujols then. Even more for Mike Piazza.

TRF
01-27-2011, 05:32 PM
There must be a lot of collective "ugh!" for Albert Pujols then. Even more for Mike Piazza.

maybe, but gems found in the later rounds are just that. everyone mised. over and over and over.

1st rounders though... you hate to miss there. Stubbs will be luck to have comparable offensive numbers in 6 years to what Lincecum has done his first 4.

very lucky.

OnBaseMachine
01-27-2011, 09:06 PM
maybe, but gems found in the later rounds are just that. everyone mised. over and over and over.

1st rounders though... you hate to miss there. Stubbs will be luck to have comparable offensive numbers in 6 years to what Lincecum has done his first 4.

very lucky.

Based on what Stubbs has done so far in the major leagues, the Reds didn't miss on that pick. He's been an above average hitter and played great defense at a premium position. If they were to redo the 2006 draft right now, Stubbs would No. 4 overall behind Lincecum, Longoria, and Clayton Kershaw.

TRF
01-27-2011, 09:10 PM
Based on what Stubbs has done so far in the major leagues, the Reds didn't miss on that pick. He's been an above average hitter and played great defense at a premium position. If they were to redo the 2006 draft right now, Stubbs would No. 4 overall behind Lincecum, Longoria, and Clayton Kershaw.

And is Lincecum were available at #4, you take him. over everyone else.

Stubbs may have a Reggie Sanders career. I hope he does. But the difference in talent and production between him and Lincecum is as wide a gulf as there can be for 1st round picks.

OnBaseMachine
01-27-2011, 09:22 PM
If Stubbs has a great career, I could care less what Lincecum does.

edabbs44
01-27-2011, 09:26 PM
Based on what Stubbs has done so far in the major leagues, the Reds didn't miss on that pick. He's been an above average hitter and played great defense at a premium position. If they were to redo the 2006 draft right now, Stubbs would No. 4 overall behind Lincecum, Longoria, and Clayton Kershaw.

Stubbs over Scherzer, Drabek, Bard, Anderson and Cahill?

Joseph
01-27-2011, 10:42 PM
Stubbs over Scherzer, Drabek, Bard, Anderson and Cahill?

Based on their major league production, yes. Potential is an eye of the beholder kind of thing.

edabbs44
01-27-2011, 10:56 PM
Based on their major league production, yes. Potential is an eye of the beholder kind of thing.

If it were only based on major league production, Scherzer, Cahill, Bard and Anderson all would have even stronger cases. But I don't think that major league production is the only way to do a redraft.

camisadelgolf
01-27-2011, 11:19 PM
And is Lincecum were available at #4, you take him. over everyone else.

Stubbs may have a Reggie Sanders career. I hope he does. But the difference in talent and production between him and Lincecum is as wide a gulf as there can be for 1st round picks.
This is completely hypothetical, but what if Stubbs' and Lincecum's careers weren't over yet?

WebScorpion
01-27-2011, 11:43 PM
This is completely hypothetical, but what if Stubbs' and Lincecum's careers weren't over yet? Do I detect a note of sarcasm? http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-whacky099.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

WVRedsFan
01-28-2011, 12:37 AM
As much as some hate this Krivsky-Jocketty debate, this has been 8 pages of interesting discussions or arguments--you be the judge. Regardless, the proof is in the pudding and also regardless who who signed who and who did what, we didn't win under Krivsky and have been successful under Jocketty. As someone once said, it's all about wins and losses and potential and good intentions be damned. Krivsky tried to turn this team into the Minnesota Twins and wasn't successful for various reasons. Jocketty turned this team into division champs for various reasons.

I don't dwell on the past because it is gone and never will come back, so the Krivsky-Jocketty argument is not something I want to be a part of anymore. I guess what I'm saying is that the more you spend, the more talent you have, and the better chance to win. Krivsky tried to do that with picking players off the trash bin and hoping the potential they had would work. Jocketty preferred veterans with a proven record. Sometimes the former works and sometimes the latter works. The latter worked in this case. Hallelujah.

The past is gone. Let's look to 2011.

kaldaniels
01-29-2011, 11:50 AM
TRF, Wayne Krivsky was the GM when Stubbs was selected. Based on your disdain for both the Stubbs pick and Walt's hiring, do you simply give Wayne a pass on this one? Nothing wrong if you do, but I'd just like to hear your thoughts on it.

TRF
01-29-2011, 01:28 PM
TRF, Wayne Krivsky was the GM when Stubbs was selected. Based on your disdain for both the Stubbs pick and Walt's hiring, do you simply give Wayne a pass on this one? Nothing wrong if you do, but I'd just like to hear your thoughts on it.

nope. It was without a doubt his biggest mistake. I railed against the pick for years. could have been worse though as Stubbs is finally being used properly.

But no, I was not very kind in my remarks about Krivsky on this pick and posted as much the day of the draft.