PDA

View Full Version : If You Could



Mario-Rijo
01-25-2011, 12:00 PM
Go back in time and make just one adjustment to any Reds team(s), what would it be? Make a trade for a certain player at a certain time, sign a certain FA at a specific time, use veto power on any deal made or not made, draft someone that the Reds really screwed up on, protect a guy that got stole away etc.

Mine is I would have found a way to trade for Roberto Alomar (and signed him long term) before he became a Blue Jay on 12/5/90. Maybe Mariano Duncan and Hal Morris for him, they both were coming off great seasons. Watching Larkin and Alomar up the middle for the next 10 years would have been awesome.

dfs
01-25-2011, 12:52 PM
Letting Davey Johnson go and hiring Ray Knight.

Without Knight and Boone, you have a voice of reason in the manager's seat. The long slide to oblivion might never have happened.

HokieRed
01-25-2011, 12:54 PM
Probably too far back in time to be of interest to a lot of RZers but there's one answer that so screams out it can't be ignored: keep Frank Robinson.

Dan
01-25-2011, 01:37 PM
Trade for Steve Carlton after the '71 season, instead of him going to the Cardinals.

Actually, in the last 20 years I agree with this one the most:


Letting Davey Johnson go and hiring Ray Knight.

Without Knight and Boone, you have a voice of reason in the manager's seat. The long slide to oblivion might never have happened.

George Anderson
01-25-2011, 01:44 PM
Instead of drafting Gary Polycynski in 1970, draft either Rich Gossage or Dave Parker instead. That would have been one hell of a BRM.

In 1983 instead of drafting Kurt Stillwell draft Roger Clemens. We would have seen another WS or two.

GoReds
01-25-2011, 01:45 PM
Find a way to sign Greg Maddux as a free agent in 1992. I think he would have changed the way the Reds approached pitching from that point forward.

Second choice would be landing Randy Johnson from the Expos before he exploded.

MikeS21
01-25-2011, 02:12 PM
As much as I loved Sean Casey, I sometimes wonder what would have happened if we had kept Paul Konerko, and traded Casey instead.

dfs
01-25-2011, 02:19 PM
Probably too far back in time to be of interest to a lot of RZers but there's one answer that so screams out it can't be ignored: keep Frank Robinson.

....The idea behind the trade....let's trade our surplus hitting for pitching....is solid, but the execution was not there.

How about if we turn that trade from Robinson for Pappas and change
to
Robinson for the 20 year old Jim Palmer and change ?

It looks better then doesn't it?

TRF
01-25-2011, 02:19 PM
I'd have caned John Allen before he vetoed the trade for Scott Rolen.

I also wouldn't have gotten rid of McKeon

PuffyPig
01-25-2011, 02:19 PM
Have George Steinbrenner buy the Reds.

Nothing else matters.

Dan
01-25-2011, 02:21 PM
I'd have caned John Allen before he vetoed the trade for Scott Rolen.

I also wouldn't have gotten rid of McKeon

I would have caned John Allen just to punish him for punishing us as Reds fans.

Oh, wait, you meant canned? Either one fits, I guess. :thumbup:

westofyou
01-25-2011, 02:27 PM
Would have kept Johnny Mize for the 50K he cost in 1935, and payed for the knee operation they were worried about.

Would have moved Home Plate up in 1921 not 1926

Would have ignored Ban Johnson and refused to let Babe Ruth pass through waivers in 1914

Would have ignored Andrew Freeman's tantalizing offer to own a team in NYC and instead of passing Mathewson back to the Giants I would have kept him.

Would have sent Bernie Carbo to rehab in 1971

camisadelgolf
01-25-2011, 02:35 PM
Would have moved Home Plate up in 1921 not 1926
I'm not nearly as well-versed in baseball history as you. What would this have done? Sent the Reds to the Series somehow?

westofyou
01-25-2011, 02:51 PM
I'm not nearly as well-versed in baseball history as you. What would this have done? Sent the Reds to the Series somehow?

It could have, the Reds had great pitching in the 20's no power at all, give them the chance to get some at home (32 team HRs at Redland from 21-25 - 27 allowed) might have enabled them to have some on the road as well.

The Reds were still playing deadball style in the 20's they were at a strict disadvantage when they left their home field.

Plus a few HR's might have enlivened the joint some more than the bevy of triples they produced.

Griffey012
01-25-2011, 03:04 PM
Drafted Albert Pujols in the 13th round in 1999 instead of Travis Wong.

Unassisted
01-25-2011, 03:10 PM
Have George Steinbrenner buy the Reds.George might have moved them to Columbus. ;)

I would have blocked the sale of the team to Carl Lindner.

My first impulse was to block the sale to Marge Schott, but that might have undone the success of 1990.

GoReds
01-25-2011, 03:17 PM
Drafted Albert Pujols in the 13th round in 1999 instead of Travis Wong.

I wonder what the ramifications of this move would have been over the last few years?

- Would the Reds have been able to keep Pujols when he started to get expensive?

- What would this have done to Joey's career path?

Certainly some interesting what ifs around this scenario.

TRF
01-25-2011, 03:27 PM
I would have caned John Allen just to punish him for punishing us as Reds fans.

Oh, wait, you meant canned? Either one fits, I guess. :thumbup:

no. i meant caned. :)

REDREAD
01-25-2011, 03:45 PM
I would have blocked the sale of the team to Carl Lindner.

.

That's my pick too. Carl was one of the worst owners in ML baseball history (for the fans). What a con man. The Reds still have not fully recovered from him raping the franchise.

It sure would've been nice to have an owner like Cast when the Reds had picked up Jr and were opening up a new stadium. An owner that would've spent some of that massive new revenue on making the team competitive.

My second choice would've been to stop John Allen from getting a job as a hot dog wrapper. Who would've thought something so innocous would've resulted in such great evil.

Griffey012
01-25-2011, 03:47 PM
I wonder what the ramifications of this move would have been over the last few years?

- Would the Reds have been able to keep Pujols when he started to get expensive?

- What would this have done to Joey's career path?

Certainly some interesting what ifs around this scenario.

We probably would have made the playoffs in 2006. Votto would probably be in LF if we still had Pujols. And if Pujols was too expensive he would have gotten us one heaping haul of top prospects, so who knows how those may have turned out. At least the Cardinals would not have been nearly as good the past decade.

REDREAD
01-25-2011, 03:47 PM
It could have, the Reds had great pitching in the 20's no power at all, give them the chance to get some at home (32 team HRs at Redland from 21-25 - 27 allowed) might have enabled them to have some on the road as well.

The Reds were still playing deadball style in the 20's they were at a strict disadvantage when they left their home field.

Plus a few HR's might have enlivened the joint some more than the bevy of triples they produced.


Would you have been alive to enjoy this though? :lol: I don't think you are that old.

Homer Bailey
01-25-2011, 03:52 PM
Drafted Albert Pujols in the 13th round in 1999 instead of Travis Wong.

This is what I was getting ready to post.

Sea Ray
01-25-2011, 03:53 PM
Trade for Steve Carlton after the '71 season, instead of him going to the Cardinals.

Actually, in the last 20 years I agree with this one the most:

Wasn't he traded to the Phillies after the '71 season?

westofyou
01-25-2011, 03:54 PM
Would you have been alive to enjoy this though? :lol: I don't think you are that old.

No, but it might have changed the course of the franchise, it could have been a butterfly effect

Always Red
01-25-2011, 04:00 PM
1. Not traded Tony Perez to the Expos in December of 1976.

With Perez, that team might have had one, or even two, more WS appearances in them.

2. Not traded Frank Robby to the O's in December 1965.

The BRM might have reached prominence much sooner than it did with Robinson in the middle of that lineup (1968, or 1969- though pitching was the major problem back then)

mth123
01-25-2011, 04:27 PM
I would have found a way to keep Marge Schott from owning the team. Lindner gets a lot of blame, but the ineptitude of this team's farm and its 15 years of futility fall squarely on her shoulders. She won early with the kids she inherited, but after she laid waste to the scouting organization, the talent base wasn't in place and there really wasn't much those that followed could do. You simply can't afford quality free agents at every position on the roster to compensate for producing no quality players from within.

Lindner is much maligned, and he may even deserve some of it, but he was the guy that allowed Dan O to start rebuilding for the future, even if it was only at the lowest levels. The 2010 Division Championship never happens without those first baby steps.

HokieRed
01-25-2011, 08:42 PM
....The idea behind the trade....let's trade our surplus hitting for pitching....is solid, but the execution was not there.

How about if we turn that trade from Robinson for Pappas and change
to
Robinson for the 20 year old Jim Palmer and change ?

It looks better then doesn't it?

No.

GADawg
01-25-2011, 08:55 PM
Drafted Albert Pujols in the 13th round in 1999 instead of Travis Wong.

sshhhh....Travis Wong might be a current RedZoner:D

Blitz Dorsey
01-25-2011, 08:56 PM
Trading Hamilton for Volquez. Would love to have that one back.

PuffyPig
01-25-2011, 09:06 PM
No.

You must be joking?

Getting Jim Palmer for Robinson would have been a huge steal for the Reds.

With Palamer leading the Reds pitching staff, they might have won the WS from about 1969 until about 1978.

Griffey012
01-25-2011, 09:08 PM
sshhhh....Travis Wong might be a current RedZoner:D

:D well it can easily be changed to any of the first 13 rounds.

klw
01-25-2011, 09:22 PM
Would not have drafted that Chad Mottola guy and focused on a ss

MikeS21
01-25-2011, 09:25 PM
I would have found a way to keep Marge Schott from owning the team. Lindner gets a lot of blame, but the ineptitude of this team's farm and its 15 years of futility fall squarely on her shoulders. She won early with the kids she inherited, but after she laid waste to the scouting organization, the talent base wasn't in place and there really wasn't much those that followed could do. You simply can't afford quality free agents at every position on the roster to compensate for producing no quality players from within.

Lindner is much maligned, and he may even deserve some of it, but he was the guy that allowed Dan O to start rebuilding for the future, even if it was only at the lowest levels. The 2010 Division Championship never happens without those first baby steps.I agree. I think Marge was the real problem. Lindner coughed up a LOT of money including large contracts for Junior, Larkin, Casey, Graves, and Milton.

Lindner's main problem was that he trusted his GM's a little too much, whereas Marge was too hands-on.

HokieRed
01-25-2011, 09:26 PM
You must be joking?

Getting Jim Palmer for Robinson would have been a huge steal for the Reds.

With Palamer leading the Reds pitching staff, they might have won the WS from about 1969 until about 1978.

I meant no. I think there is a certain caliber of position player that you do not trade for anyone. Robinson was in that category.

Hap
01-25-2011, 09:27 PM
Explain to reds fans and management and media back in the mid 70s that if the National League would adopt the designated hitter rule, then Johnny Bench could rest his body two or three days a week while keeping his bat in the lineup, therefore enabling him to minimize the nagging injuries that would cripple his production and shorten his career.

Furthermore, Sparky also could have rotated Perez, Foster and Rose at DH and therefore awarding more playing time to slick-fielding Driessen and Flynn.

Spitball
01-25-2011, 10:27 PM
You must be joking?

Getting Jim Palmer for Robinson would have been a huge steal for the Reds.

With Palamer leading the Reds pitching staff, they might have won the WS from about 1969 until about 1978.

I'd have wanted George Bamberger thrown in on that deal.

PuffyPig
01-25-2011, 10:43 PM
I meant no. I think there is a certain caliber of position player that you do not trade for anyone. Robinson was in that category.

Everyone is tradeable in the right deal.

Robinson was traded one year too late.

But Palmer averaged about a 5.4WAR in the next 10 years.

HokieRed
01-25-2011, 10:55 PM
Everyone is tradeable in the right deal.

Robinson was traded one year too late.

But Palmer averaged about a 5.4WAR in the next 10 years.

Disagree. There is no right deal for Mays, Clemente, Aaron, Robinson, Mantle and a few others of that level.

PuffyPig
01-25-2011, 11:18 PM
Disagree. There is no right deal for Mays, Clemente, Aaron, Robinson, Mantle and a few others of that level.


So you wouldn't trade a middle aged Frank Robinson for a young Willie Mays?

TheNext44
01-26-2011, 12:06 AM
I would have Marge Schott take diversity sensitivity training as soon as she bought the Reds.

Marge wanted to win, and was willing to do anything to dot it. She didn't understand how important scouting and development was to winning, but she actual produced more talent through the draft than people realize. Here are the players that were drafted from 1985-1998, when she was in charge:

Larkin
Scudder
Taubensee
Armstrong
B. Ayala
R. Sanders
Branson
T. Hoffman
D. Wilson
Tomko
La Rue
Nitkowski
A. Boone
P Reece
S. Williamson
B.J. Ryan
Kearns
Dunn

So she started with Larkin and ended with Dunn, and drafted 18 other major league starters in-between.

The truly terrible development period for the Reds was during Linder's first 5 years, when Votto was the only regular player developed by the Reds from 1999-2003. Linder refused to spend money on development to such a degree that the Reds had to use money from the MLB payroll to sign Espinosa and Sardina, and then purposefully drafted Sowers, knowing that he would not sign, because as Bowden said, the team did not have the funds to sign a first round draft pick.

I think that if Marge had stayed in charge until she died in 2004, she probably would have hand picked Cast (or someone who wanted to win) to be her successor (probably a few years before her death), and the whole "Lost Decade" would have been shortened if not avoided.

HokieRed
01-26-2011, 12:22 AM
So you wouldn't trade a middle aged Frank Robinson for a young Willie Mays?

The Giants aren't offering that.

dfs
01-26-2011, 12:24 AM
Disagree. There is no right deal for Mays, Clemente, Aaron, Robinson, Mantle and a few others of that level.

Can you explain your thinking to me?

Where do you draw the line? Would you trade Clemente for Mantle?

Would you trade Robinson for Palmer and Bunker? Palmer, Bunker and McNally?

The reds HAD to trade some of their offense. Look at the 65 roster and count the number of 1b/OF types on that team...Gordy Coleman, Deron Johnson, Robinson, Harper, Pinson, May, Perez, Rose.......8 players for 4 slots in the lineup. They thought Robinson would give them their biggest return. They just....misidentified WHO they wanted in return.

top6
01-26-2011, 12:49 AM
Trading Hamilton for Volquez. Would love to have that one back.

Not sure why everyone isn't answering this. Put Hamilton on last year's team, and take off Volquez, and it's hard for me to see how the Reds aren't the best team in the NL. They certainly aren't opening the playoffs with 2 games on the road against Philly.

I'm not saying it wasn't the right thing to do at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight it was obviously a catastrophic trade. We traded the MVP. It doesn't get much worse than that.

So weird to me that so many Reds fans just don't accept how bad that trade was, but I imagine 30 years from now it will be talked about the same way the Frank Robinson trade is talked about now.

mth123
01-26-2011, 12:52 AM
I would have Marge Schott take diversity sensitivity training as soon as she bought the Reds.

Marge wanted to win, and was willing to do anything to dot it. She didn't understand how important scouting and development was to winning, but she actual produced more talent through the draft than people realize. Here are the players that were drafted from 1985-1998, when she was in charge:

Larkin
Scudder
Taubensee
Armstrong
B. Ayala
R. Sanders
Branson
T. Hoffman
D. Wilson
Tomko
La Rue
Nitkowski
A. Boone
P Reece
S. Williamson
B.J. Ryan
Kearns
Dunn

So she started with Larkin and ended with Dunn, and drafted 18 other major league starters in-between.

The truly terrible development period for the Reds was during Linder's first 5 years, when Votto was the only regular player developed by the Reds from 1999-2003. Linder refused to spend money on development to such a degree that the Reds had to use money from the MLB payroll to sign Espinosa and Sardina, and then purposefully drafted Sowers, knowing that he would not sign, because as Bowden said, the team did not have the funds to sign a first round draft pick.

I think that if Marge had stayed in charge until she died in 2004, she probably would have hand picked Cast (or someone who wanted to win) to be her successor (probably a few years before her death), and the whole "Lost Decade" would have been shortened if not avoided.

Couldn't disagree more. Taubensee wasn't signed by the Reds and was drafted and signed elsewhere. Most of the better guys (Larkin, Armstrong and Sanders) were drafted by guys from the previous regime before she chased them away. Hoffman was picked as an IF and was a failure who converted in a long shot toward getting a major league career. The other good ones Boone, Dunn and Kearns were good picks that didn't require a ton of scouting. One was a 3rd generation guy that even crummy baseball guys knew about. One was a local guy from UK. The other was a well known football player that the team made a winning gamble on. The rest of this list represents the type of secondary talent that passed for draft successes that exactly represent the problem.

Fact is Marge chased the scouts away and dismantled the minor league development process. She is the reason the team went into the dumper and left no infrastructure in place to turn it around. Meanwhile, she became a major source of embarassment with her lunatic ways. Some one with less money would have probably been thrown in an institution.

Big Klu
01-26-2011, 01:11 AM
Couldn't disagree more. Taubensee wasn't signed by the Reds and was drafted and signed elsewhere. Most of the better guys (Larkin, Armstrong and Sanders) were drafted by guys from the previous regime before she chased them away. Hoffman was picked as an IF and was a failure who converted in a long shot toward getting a major league career. The other good ones Boone, Dunn and Kearns were good picks that didn't require a ton of scouting. One was a 3rd generation guy that even crummy baseball guys knew about. One was a local guy from UK. The other was a well known football player that the team made a winning gamble on. The rest of this list represents the type of secondary talent that passed for draft successes that exactly represent the problem.

Fact is Marge chased the scouts away and dismantled the minor league development process. She is the reason the team went into the dumper and left no infrastructure in place to turn it around. Meanwhile, she became a major source of embarassment with her lunatic ways. Some one with less money would have probably been thrown in an institution.

Eddie Taubensee was drafted and signed by the Reds in the sixth round of the 1986 draft. He was later taken by the Athletics in the Rule 5 draft in 1990. The Indians then claimed him on waivers from the A's in 1991, and traded him to the Astros after the 1991 season. The Reds then reacquired him from the Astros in 1994.

mth123
01-26-2011, 01:25 AM
Eddie Taubensee was drafted and signed by the Reds in the sixth round of the 1986 draft. He was later taken by the Athletics in the Rule 5 draft in 1990. The Indians then claimed him on waivers from the A's in 1991, and traded him to the Astros after the 1991 season. The Reds then reacquired him from the Astros in 1994.

You're correct, I mis-stated that one. But he wasn't really a top player. The Reds chose not to protect him and he really wasn't much of a catcher. He was a mediocre bat that really could only play positions that big bats normally man (like DH). He was forced to try his hand at catching to keep his bat in the line-up and during the catchig shortage of the 90s got by with it, but he was absolutely awful back there.

Ron Madden
01-26-2011, 05:05 AM
Probably too far back in time to be of interest to a lot of RZers but there's one answer that so screams out it can't be ignored: keep Frank Robinson.


:beerme:

mth123
01-26-2011, 07:19 AM
NM

Mario-Rijo
01-26-2011, 08:16 AM
Probably too far back in time to be of interest to a lot of RZers but there's one answer that so screams out it can't be ignored: keep Frank Robinson.

Not at all though I wasn't around for that deal I certainly know about it and how bad it was, just knew there would be plenty to give it attention so I went another route. My route (Alomar) was just for selfish reason but in reality if this was strictly about 1 move to change the fortunes of the team there is no bigger a transaction than Robinson to Baltimore. I just left it open a bit so one could simply choose to benefit the organization or perhaps just themselves.

Vida Blue, Trevor Hoffman, Derek Jeter, Frank Robinson, Josh Hamilton all entered my mind as I was writing the original post. Ask me tomorrow and I might change my mind. But I just would loved to have seen Alomar and Larkin hitting 2-3 and manning the MIF for 5+ years together in their prime, could have been the best 2B-SS combo ever. A Larkin/Jeter MIF wouldn't have been all bad either though and was actually doable. :eek:

PuffyPig
01-26-2011, 08:39 AM
The Giants aren't offering that.

That's not the point.

You said you NEVER trade a Robinson.

I"m saying you can trade anyone under the right circumstances.

bucksfan2
01-26-2011, 08:40 AM
I would not have blocked the trade for Rolen and acquired him about a decade earlier.

I too would have loved to have a mulligan on the Hamilton trade.

And as mentioned above I would have loved to see the Reds keep Konerko instead of Casey.

Strikes Out Looking
01-26-2011, 09:15 AM
I would not have promoted Dick Wagner to GM, thereby allowing Sparky to stay as manager for as long as he wanted and also preventing the debacle known as the '82 Reds led by Cesar Cedeno.

Edd Roush
01-26-2011, 02:37 PM
Didn't the Reds scout DiMaggio before the Yankees, but backed away because of his asking price? Talk about a butterfly effect. He could have created a dynasty for the Reds in the late '30s and early '40s. I guess the war might have torn up that dynasty, any ways though.

Out of selfishness, my move would be to draft Jeter instead of Motolla. I really like Jeter as a human being and as a ball player. If he were a Red instead of a Yankee, the '90s and 2000s would have been a lot more fun for the Reds and my childhood would have included a few more playoff appearances and maybe even a World Series championship.

camisadelgolf
01-26-2011, 02:39 PM
I thought about saying Jeter > Mottola, but two things stop me:
1.) If he were as successful as he has been, he probably would've priced himself out of town.
2.) It would've meant pushing out Larkin sooner than I would've liked. It's still a lot of fun thinking about the two of them in the same diamond, though.

Edd Roush
01-26-2011, 02:49 PM
I thought about saying Jeter > Mottola, but two things stop me:
1.) If he were as successful as he has been, he probably would've priced himself out of town.
2.) It would've meant pushing out Larkin sooner than I would've liked. It's still a lot of fun thinking about the two of them in the same diamond, though.

Would Jeter be as expensive as a free agent as a 2b, though? Would Jeter ever become a SS with Larkin there in his prime? Larkin won the Gold Glove the year before Jeter's first full year in the bigs and won it in 1996 which was Jeter's first year. Would they ever move Jeter to short after Larkin started losing range? They never have done so with BP. I really feel like while Jeter is not an all time great like Frank Robinson, he is still a franchise changer who would have added a lot of value to those late 1990s-2000s teams and would have helped bring even more fans to the ballpark and take a little heat of Griffey. Certainly 1999 would have turned out differently.

REDREAD
01-26-2011, 03:08 PM
The truly terrible development period for the Reds was during Linder's first 5 years, when Votto was the only regular player developed by the Reds from 1999-2003. Linder refused to spend money on development to such a degree that the Reds had to use money from the MLB payroll to sign Espinosa and Sardina, and then purposefully drafted Sowers, knowing that he would not sign, because as Bowden said, the team did not have the funds to sign a first round draft pick.
.

I agree completely. Marge was no saint, but Lindner and Allen were the devils.

I remember, when Howington washed out, how Allen publicly said what a big waste of money the draft is.. the money pretty much dried up after that.
The Reds started to draft whoever would sign the cheapest.

Marge never had her GM draft someone with the sole purpose of not signing them. It's not her fault they picked Joe Oliver and Chad Mattola over better talent that was available.

Allen and Linder told the fans to be patient for 2003.. Suffer through 2000-2002 and you will be rewarded. Then after they sold all their preseason tickets to 2003, they couldn't wait to have a firesale.

Bowden was no saint either, but the only reason he was fired was because he refused to have the firesale that Allen ordered. Bowden was ordered to dump White and Sullivan before the season even began, but refused.

At one point, Bowden was offered what was eventually John Allen's job but he turned it down, saying that he prefered to GM. If that was changed, I wonder if the lost decade would've still happened. Bowden was flawed, but at least he had a vision of wanting to win, as opposed to Allen's strategy of sandbagging and collecting revenue sharing. Bowden talked Lindner into Jr and Vaughn.. I wonder if Allen was out of the picture, Bowden was the team controller, and a competent GM was hired.. Not saying the team would've dominated, but it would've probably been a lot more pleasant.

REDREAD
01-26-2011, 03:12 PM
Couldn't disagree more. Taubensee wasn't signed by the Reds and was drafted and signed elsewhere. Most of the better guys (Larkin, Armstrong and Sanders) were drafted by guys from the previous regime before she chased them away. Hoffman was picked as an IF and was a failure who converted in a long shot toward getting a major league career. The other good ones Boone, Dunn and Kearns were good picks that didn't require a ton of scouting. One was a 3rd generation guy that even crummy baseball guys knew about. .

If it is that easy, why couldn't Lindner's regime come even close to matching the production?

Dunn fell to the second round because he wanted to play college football. It took vision and creativity to draft him and talk him into playing baseball full time. No other team took the risk.

You can shrug off other things as luck, no brainers, etc. but most high draft picks seem like a good idea at the time.

REDREAD
01-26-2011, 03:14 PM
Would Jeter be as expensive as a free agent as a 2b, though? Would Jeter ever become a SS with Larkin there in his prime? .

According to Bowden, they talked with Jeter, and he was willing to move to CF if drafted. That's probably where he would've played as a Red.

15fan
01-26-2011, 03:31 PM
Frank Robinson and Trevor Hoffman are the definite mulligans.

John Oliver and Chad Mottola are a couple of specific draft picks that were definitely abysmal.

As were a couple of the Bowden drafts in the early aughts.

And if there was a way to have kept Jose Rijo from shredding his elbow...

Oh, and that Foster guy. No way I would've traded him. Ever.

Edd Roush
01-26-2011, 04:28 PM
According to Bowden, they talked with Jeter, and he was willing to move to CF if drafted. That's probably where he would've played as a Red.

Thanks for the input. I had never heard that. I wonder if the Griffey trade would have even happened if Jeter was in centerfield. Would he be moved to the infield or a corner outfield spot if we traded for Junior? Interesting to think about.

mth123
01-26-2011, 05:01 PM
If it is that easy, why couldn't Lindner's regime come even close to matching the production?

Dunn fell to the second round because he wanted to play college football. It took vision and creativity to draft him and talk him into playing baseball full time. No other team took the risk.

You can shrug off other things as luck, no brainers, etc. but most high draft picks seem like a good idea at the time.

Because Marge burned down the house and it takes awhile to rebuild it. The core of the 2010 Division champs were from the Lindner regime. The fact that they came to the big leagues later is completely missing the point. It was Marge ruining the infrastructure leaving no one on the pipeline or an orgaization to go find 'em that made Lindner's regime so sparse with players graduating to the big leagues.

I'm not a huge Lindner fan, but when it comes to their relative negatives of the Reds, Lindner was the petty thief who made your insurance rates go up while Marge was the genocidal despot who laid waste to everything.

TheNext44
01-26-2011, 06:03 PM
Because Marge burned down the house and it takes awhile to rebuild it. The core of the 2010 Division champs were from the Lindner regime. The fact that they came to the big leagues later is completely missing the point. It was Marge ruining the infrastructure leaving no one on the pipeline or an orgaization to go find 'em that made Lindner's regime so sparse with players graduating to the big leagues.

I'm not a huge Lindner fan, but when it comes to their relative negatives of the Reds, Lindner was the petty thief who made your insurance rates go up while Marge was the genocidal despot who laid waste to everything.

Marge definitely damaged the Reds development department, including the minor league support that was needed to develop the drafted players into major leaguers. No doubt about that. She definitely contributed to the lost decade.

But despite her ignorance concerning the value of player development, the Reds were very successful during her 15 year ownership, up until two years after she was forced out. The Reds didn't start their lost decade until close to 20 years after she took control of the team. It's hard to say that her ways were that distuctive on their own.

The pipeline was not as dry as people make it out to be. She won a World Series, 6 year after taking control. If her ways truly descimated the organization, it would have been evident by then, if not earlier. And the Reds were competative for most of the next decade. She didn't burn down the house, she just built it without any foundation. That's why her teams usually were so inconsistent from year to year.

The reason for the lost decade was that following her, was Linder, who was concerned only with maximizing profit and had no concern for winning. The first five years of his ownership, he continued Marge's disdain for player development, but to an even greater degree. He refused to draft any players that were not easy signs. He actually would draft round #5 prospects in the second round and offer them round #3 money, and did this with every round, even the first round. This created the worst 5 years of the Reds in the draft ever. This had much more to do with the lost decade than the previous 15 years under Marge. That is why from 2002-2008, the cupboards were the barest they had ever been.

Then on top of that, he refused to add talent at the major league level. He vetoed trades for Rolen and C. Finley in 2002 simply because of money. He let McKeon go over money, and then hired the managers who would work for peanuts. He had Jr. defer a big chunk of his salary, and then pocketed that money instead of using it to improve the team, like he promised. He told fans that after the new stadium was built, he would invest the money in improving the team, but instead had a fire sale and went into rebuilding mode. Then he finally started investing in player development, but only to increase the value of the team that he wanted to sell.

Marge may have been dumb, and not understood the value of player development, but at least she wanted to win. Linder was pure evil, never caring about the organization, only caring about lining his own pockets.

HokieRed
01-26-2011, 06:39 PM
That's not the point.

You said you NEVER trade a Robinson.

I"m saying you can trade anyone under the right circumstances.

My point was that I wouldn't trade Mays either so clearly there'd be no trade.

Blitz Dorsey
01-26-2011, 07:48 PM
Not sure why everyone isn't answering this. Put Hamilton on last year's team, and take off Volquez, and it's hard for me to see how the Reds aren't the best team in the NL. They certainly aren't opening the playoffs with 2 games on the road against Philly.

I'm not saying it wasn't the right thing to do at the time, but with the benefit of hindsight it was obviously a catastrophic trade. We traded the MVP. It doesn't get much worse than that.

So weird to me that so many Reds fans just don't accept how bad that trade was, but I imagine 30 years from now it will be talked about the same way the Frank Robinson trade is talked about now.

Yeah, and like I've said many times, it's possible to have not had a problem with the trade at the time (I honestly wasn't sure what to think when I learned of the Hamilton-for-Volquez deal) but now after we have more data can easily see the Rangers got the better end of the deal by far. Hamilton is basically an OF version of Joey Votto. Would anyone on here trade Votto for an Edinson clone? Of course not.

And it's funny: Who had the history of drug abuse when the trade was made? Hamilton. Who has been suspended by MLB for PEDs? Volquez. Who had the reputation of perhaps a non-durable player? Hamilton. Who has spent more time on the DL by far? Volquez.

Any way you cut it, that has been an atrocious deal for the Reds so far. Is there time for Volquez to turn things around? Absolutely. But as we stand here today, it was a bad deal for the Reds.

I've heard Reds fans actually say things like: "How can you say that was a bad trade? I bet you didn't have a problem with it at the time ... and when Volquez won 17 games and made the AS team in 2008." True. Many people, myself included, felt that way. But now it's a different story. That was over two years ago and Volquez is going to have to have some near-Cy Young years to catch the kind of production Hammy has given the Rangers.

kaldaniels
01-26-2011, 07:51 PM
I'm in the group that liked the EV/JH trade, and honestly, would probably do it again.

But yeah, catastrophic is an accurate description for the deal so far. I'm hoping Edinson will change that a bit next year.

Sometimes that is just the way the cookie crumbles...

mth123
01-26-2011, 07:53 PM
I'm in the group that liked the EV/JH trade, and honestly, would probably do it again.

But yeah, catastrophic is an accurate description for the deal so far. I'm hoping Edinson will change that a bit next year.

Sometimes that is just the way the cookie crumbles...

Yep. Agree on all points.

Blitz Dorsey
01-26-2011, 07:57 PM
I'm in the group that liked the EV/JH trade, and honestly, would probably do it again.

But yeah, catastrophic is an accurate description for the deal so far. I'm hoping Edinson will change that a bit next year.

Sometimes that is just the way the cookie crumbles...

Yep, when you roll the dice in a big trade, you just never know. And I fully admit I had no problem with the trade when it happened. The Reds clearly needed pitching and had what they thought was enough quality OFs in the system. But that doesn't mean I can't call a spade a spade now. And man wouldn't it be nice for Volquez to prove all his naysayers like me wrong this year (and for the rest of his career) and show that it was the Reds that actually got the better end of the deal. We really won't know for another few years. But it's not looking good right now.

I wouldn't put it up there with the Frank Robinson trade of course, but that was before my time. Since I've followed the Reds in the early 80's, there is no question the deal/decision I would like to have back the most is the Hammy-for-Volquez trade.

After that would probably be signing Griffey. I loved it as much or more than anyone when it happened. Was on Cloud 9 for weeks. But that deal crippled the franchise for a full decade. It was another example of a deal we probably all loved at the time, but there is no debating it worked out poorly for the Reds.

TRF
01-26-2011, 11:31 PM
I'm in the group that liked the EV/JH trade, and honestly, would probably do it again.

But yeah, catastrophic is an accurate description for the deal so far. I'm hoping Edinson will change that a bit next year.

Sometimes that is just the way the cookie crumbles...

I'd do it every time. I don't look back and think what if.

There were clubhouse issues with Hamilton in Cincinnati. It was a dysfunctional clubhouse at best. There was so much attention on Hamilton that he couldn't function properly either. The best thing for JH was to go to another team. being hurt in 2009 probably helped too as he was out of the press's crosshairs for much of the year.

Don't regret that trade one iota.

Now, trading Paul O'Neil for essentially a wheelbarrow... ugh.

Oh, and that whole Stubbs over Lincecum thing. That one KILLS me.

klw
01-27-2011, 06:55 AM
Would Jeter be as expensive as a free agent as a 2b, though? Would Jeter ever become a SS with Larkin there in his prime? Larkin won the Gold Glove the year before Jeter's first full year in the bigs and won it in 1996 which was Jeter's first year. Would they ever move Jeter to short after Larkin started losing range? They never have done so with BP. I really feel like while Jeter is not an all time great like Frank Robinson, he is still a franchise changer who would have added a lot of value to those late 1990s-2000s teams and would have helped bring even more fans to the ballpark and take a little heat of Griffey. Certainly 1999 would have turned out differently.

Jeter would not have been as expensive without his place as an iconic Yankee.

Hoosier Red
01-27-2011, 10:17 AM
I agree completely. Marge was no saint, but Lindner and Allen were the devils.

I remember, when Howington washed out, how Allen publicly said what a big waste of money the draft is.. the money pretty much dried up after that.
The Reds started to draft whoever would sign the cheapest.

Marge never had her GM draft someone with the sole purpose of not signing them. It's not her fault they picked Joe Oliver and Chad Mattola over better talent that was available.

Allen and Linder told the fans to be patient for 2003.. Suffer through 2000-2002 and you will be rewarded. Then after they sold all their preseason tickets to 2003, they couldn't wait to have a firesale.

Bowden was no saint either, but the only reason he was fired was because he refused to have the firesale that Allen ordered. Bowden was ordered to dump White and Sullivan before the season even began, but refused.

At one point, Bowden was offered what was eventually John Allen's job but he turned it down, saying that he prefered to GM. If that was changed, I wonder if the lost decade would've still happened. Bowden was flawed, but at least he had a vision of wanting to win, as opposed to Allen's strategy of sandbagging and collecting revenue sharing. Bowden talked Lindner into Jr and Vaughn.. I wonder if Allen was out of the picture, Bowden was the team controller, and a competent GM was hired.. Not saying the team would've dominated, but it would've probably been a lot more pleasant.

I think you're putting a lot of your own assumptions without a lot of evidence.

You say,"It's not her fault they drafted Chad Mattola and Joe Oliver," but really it is. She had no interest in paying scouts, to whatever effect she had on setting the amateur draft budget, my guess is she probably didn't set it very high.

Hoosier Red
01-27-2011, 10:35 AM
I'd do it every time. I don't look back and think what if.

There were clubhouse issues with Hamilton in Cincinnati. It was a dysfunctional clubhouse at best. There was so much attention on Hamilton that he couldn't function properly either. The best thing for JH was to go to another team. being hurt in 2009 probably helped too as he was out of the press's crosshairs for much of the year.

Don't regret that trade one iota.

Now, trading Paul O'Neil for essentially a wheelbarrow... ugh.

Oh, and that whole Stubbs over Lincecum thing. That one KILLS me.

You know what's really funny. In January 1994, this deal probably still looked like a Reds win, or at least even.

Kelly was an all-star in 1993(though he was hurt just before the game), had a .319 batting average, and played a more important position. O'Neill had batted .311(where did that come from) but we probably thought it was a fluke, and played a good but not gold glove caliber RF. What's more, Kelly was a year younger.
Besides the Reds had Mitchell, Kelly, and Sanders in the outfield. They just needed the young pitchers like Tim Pugh, Milt Hill, and John Roper to come through and all would be fine.

Of course in 1994, Kelly was still decent but was traded to Atlanta for Neon Deion, while Paul O'Neill led the league in batting, and didn't bat below .300 for the next 5 years.

Ghosts of 1990
01-27-2011, 10:39 AM
This one is easy for me. I save Josh Hamilton from being dealt and plug him into the outfield with Bruce and Stubbs. I run him out there in the middle of the lineup with what we currently have for as long as I can keep them all under contract, with an eventual decision needing to be made on whether to keep Hamilton or Votto long-term. I probably trade Votto and let Alonso have his shot a year from now.

Griffey012
01-27-2011, 11:19 AM
I'd do it every time. I don't look back and think what if.

There were clubhouse issues with Hamilton in Cincinnati. It was a dysfunctional clubhouse at best. There was so much attention on Hamilton that he couldn't function properly either. The best thing for JH was to go to another team. being hurt in 2009 probably helped too as he was out of the press's crosshairs for much of the year.

Don't regret that trade one iota.

Now, trading Paul O'Neil for essentially a wheelbarrow... ugh.

Oh, and that whole Stubbs over Lincecum thing. That one KILLS me.

I think when it is all said and done I don't think you will hate that draft nearly as much. It looks like Stubbs is going to turn into a very good player after all. Probably a top 4 guy in the first round of that years draft.

TRF
01-27-2011, 01:13 PM
I think when it is all said and done I don't think you will hate that draft nearly as much. It looks like Stubbs is going to turn into a very good player after all. Probably a top 4 guy in the first round of that years draft.

Lincecum starting 2 games for the Reds in the 2010 playoffs might have meant the 2nd round, possibly the WS.

No one can say for sure, but maybe.

Lincecum instead of Stubbs might have meant Hamilton is NOT traded for Volquez.

butterfly effect here too, pretty much in any scenario.

I'll pretty much always hate that draft choice. I am finding it easier to live with it as Stubbs showed some power last year.

Unassisted
01-27-2011, 01:18 PM
Lincecum starting 2 games for the Reds in the 2010 playoffs might have meant the 2nd round, possibly the WS.

No one can say for sure, but maybe.

Lincecum instead of Stubbs might have meant Hamilton is NOT traded for Volquez.

butterfly effect here too, pretty much in any scenario.

I'll pretty much always hate that draft choice. I am finding it easier to live with it as Stubbs showed some power last year.Lincecum might not have continued to be a Red in 2010 after getting busted for possession in 2009 (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4627319). Cincinnatians mostly wouldn't have liked it and I doubt the ownership would have considered it acceptable. In SF, hardly anyone cares.

westofyou
01-27-2011, 01:21 PM
Lincecum might not have continued to be a Red in 2010 after getting busted for possession in 2009 (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4627319). Cincinnatians mostly wouldn't have liked it and I doubt the ownership would have considered it acceptable. In SF, hardly anyone cares.

For weed?

Methinks you're making much out of nothing.

They accepted Dave Parker in the wake of a Studio 54 lifestyle

Griffey012
01-27-2011, 01:46 PM
Lincecum starting 2 games for the Reds in the 2010 playoffs might have meant the 2nd round, possibly the WS.

No one can say for sure, but maybe.

Lincecum instead of Stubbs might have meant Hamilton is NOT traded for Volquez.

butterfly effect here too, pretty much in any scenario.

I'll pretty much always hate that draft choice. I am finding it easier to live with it as Stubbs showed some power last year.

Now you have me drooling on my keyboard, that sure would have been something.

TRF
01-27-2011, 02:10 PM
Lincecum might not have continued to be a Red in 2010 after getting busted for possession in 2009 (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=4627319). Cincinnatians mostly wouldn't have liked it and I doubt the ownership would have considered it acceptable. In SF, hardly anyone cares.

Freel's DUI says hi.

westofyou
01-27-2011, 02:13 PM
Freel's DUI says hi.

Josh Hamilton's theft of his Grammys property to buy drugs says 'ello

Patrick Bateman
01-27-2011, 02:28 PM
His 2 Cy Young's also might factor in.
Just a thought.

Griffey012
01-27-2011, 02:33 PM
Freel's DUI says hi.

Are you implying it had nothing to do with his performance falling off and his injuries piling up. The DUI happened in April 2005, he was traded after the 2008 season.

TRF
01-27-2011, 02:46 PM
Are you implying it had nothing to do with his performance falling off and his injuries piling up. The DUI happened in April 2005, he was traded after the 2008 season.

His 2005 season was just as good as his 2004. 2006 was much better.

I think the injuries piling up had more to do with him running face first into walls.

Blitz Dorsey
01-27-2011, 02:59 PM
For weed?

Methinks you're making much out of nothing.

They accepted Dave Parker in the wake of a Studio 54 lifestyle

Exactly. Like the Reds would have suddenly traded a two-time Cy Young winner for getting what's basically a traffic citation for pot possession? That's one of the more absurd things I've ever heard. Unassisted is right in that San Fran is much-more lenient about marijuana than pretty much anywhere in the country. But even in Ohio it's been decriminalized for the most part. There is no way Lincecum would have been run out of town for something so minor. DUIs are much-more serious and the Reds have kept several players around after DUI incidents.

Anyway, back to the discussion. I'm ranking mine, in order:

1. Hamilton-for-Volquez trade.
2. Signing Ken Griffey Jr. (Who the Reds are still paying due to all those deferred contracts ... it's the gift that keeps on giving!)
3. Drafting Stubbs instead of Lincecum.

Griffey012
01-27-2011, 04:03 PM
His 2005 season was just as good as his 2004. 2006 was much better.

I think the injuries piling up had more to do with him running face first into walls.

I was referring to him getting shipped out of town. Maybe I misinterpreted your original point, but I thought you were implying he was shipped out partially because of the DUI.

TRF
01-27-2011, 04:54 PM
I was referring to him getting shipped out of town. Maybe I misinterpreted your original point, but I thought you were implying he was shipped out partially because of the DUI.

just the opposite. He got it and it didn't affect his career in regards to staying in Cincinnati at all.

I probably could have made that more clear though.

WebScorpion
01-27-2011, 11:14 PM
If I could only reverse one thing it would be this:
Never hire Pete Rose to manage the Reds. It may cost us the 1990 Wire-to-wire championship, but Pete would never have been caught gambling and he'd have a plaque in Cooperstown along with all the other great players. It would save a lot of my good friends a ton of heartache. :thumbup:

dfs
01-28-2011, 09:12 AM
If I could only reverse one thing it would be this:
Never hire Pete Rose to manage the Reds. It may cost us the 1990 Wire-to-wire championship, but Pete would never have been caught gambling and he'd have a plaque in Cooperstown along with all the other great players. It would save a lot of my good friends a ton of heartache. :thumbup:

That's an interesting idea. Pete certainly would be in the hof.

Would he have caught Cobb? The Expos were done with him. Take the reds out of the equation and....I guess he could have gone to the AL.

Unassisted
01-28-2011, 09:19 AM
If I could only reverse one thing it would be this:
Never hire Pete Rose to manage the Reds. It may cost us the 1990 Wire-to-wire championship, but Pete would never have been caught gambling and he'd have a plaque in Cooperstown along with all the other great players. It would save a lot of my good friends a ton of heartache. :thumbup:That's intriguing. I also wonder if a more experienced manager and a different 1B would have made enough of a difference to push the Reds from 2nd place to 1st during those years.

Cooper
01-28-2011, 09:28 AM
1. Kill Hitler.

2. Have ownership have the guts to sign the 10 best african-american ballplayers in the 40's.

REDREAD
01-28-2011, 09:44 AM
Because Marge burned down the house and it takes awhile to rebuild it. The core of the 2010 Division champs were from the Lindner regime. .

Linder's "core"
Cueto was signed in 1999.
Votto was also under Lindner.
Bruce was drafted in 2005.
Travis Wood and Homer

That's 5 players that contributed significantly last year. Maybe I am overlooking someone, but that's hardly the "core" of the team.
It's a significant part, but it's comparable to what Marge produced.

Stubbs was drafted under BobC.
Leake was a BobC

REDREAD
01-28-2011, 09:50 AM
After that would probably be signing Griffey. I loved it as much or more than anyone when it happened. Was on Cloud 9 for weeks. But that deal crippled the franchise for a full decade. It was another example of a deal we probably all loved at the time, but there is no debating it worked out poorly for the Reds.

The way I see it, Lindner crippled the Reds during that time.
If we had never traded for Jr, Cameron would've played a couple more years until he reached FA and then left. (Maybe dumped earlier?)
Nothing else would've changed. Bowden was only able to sell Lindner on getting Jr because Jr paid for himself (and he probably did over his contract).

If we had no Jr, we would've just sucked even worse during that time period. Tightwad Lindner and Allen would certainly have not used that money and invested it in pitching. They would've just pocketed it.

Jr did not live up to our lofty expectations, but I'm glad I had a chance to see him with the Reds, even with all the injuries.

REDREAD
01-28-2011, 09:56 AM
I think you're putting a lot of your own assumptions without a lot of evidence.

You say,"It's not her fault they drafted Chad Mattola and Joe Oliver," but really it is. She had no interest in paying scouts, to whatever effect she had on setting the amateur draft budget, my guess is she probably didn't set it very high.

But Bowden himself said that the draft decision came down to Jeter and some crappy OF (was it Mattola, I don't remember).

Bowden had plenty of money for special assistants and advisors. They had access to scout Jeter, but just made the wrong decision. Sure, they look like idiots now for passing on Jeter, but that just shows how hard it is on draft day.

Another point is that the Reds made a strategic decision to use the scouts that they did have to scout other teams minor leagues and to scout reclamation projects instead of the draft. It really wasn't that bad of a strategy until about 1999.. Until 1999, the Reds could and did spend as an upper level payroll team (upper 1/3).. One can make the argument that spending about a million on Ron Gant for one year is more productive than drafting some high school kid in the first round, giving him a big bonus, and hoping he's productive in 6 years. Bowden drafted CJ Nitcowski solely because he thought he was the LH pitcher closest to the majors, and was able to convert him to David Wells.. It was just a different philosphy. The Reds were able to win without a farm system then (as were other teams).
That's why back then, you could trade a mediocre vet and get 3 really nice prospects.. Times have changed now.

kaldaniels
01-28-2011, 10:06 AM
I missed the part a page or so back where Marge was villified and Lindner was said to be a "petty thief" compared to her shortcomings.

I just have to say, I'd take Marge over Carl every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Homer Bailey
01-28-2011, 10:24 AM
Linder's "core"
Cueto was signed in 1999.
Votto was also under Lindner.
Bruce was drafted in 2005.
Travis Wood and Homer

That's 5 players that contributed significantly last year. Maybe I am overlooking someone, but that's hardly the "core" of the team.
It's a significant part, but it's comparable to what Marge produced.

Stubbs was drafted under BobC.
Leake was a BobC

Cueto was signed in 2004. Not in 1999 when he was 13 :p:

George Anderson
01-28-2011, 11:03 AM
I missed the part a page or so back where Marge was villified and Lindner was said to be a "petty thief" compared to her shortcomings.

I just have to say, I'd take Marge over Carl every day of the week, and twice on Sundays.

Agree 100% :beerme:

Hap
01-28-2011, 12:11 PM
Pete would never have been caught gambling and he'd have a plaque in Cooperstown along with all the other great players.

Pete Rose is/was an addict. He was gambling on baseball for many years while he was still playing. He would have been caught/ratted out eventually for the same reason that his "buddies" ratted him out in 1988/1989. He was deeply in debt and unwilling/unable to pay.

TRF
01-28-2011, 01:02 PM
How much better an owner would Lindner have been without Allen? Lindner it seems really wants the people to like him. He's known for charitable contributions to the Zoo among other things. I see him as a businessman but one that relies on the expertise of others.

Sadly Allen was that "expert".

Blitz Dorsey
01-28-2011, 05:31 PM
Yeah, with the good times lately, it's almost easy to forget John Allen and what a trainwreck of an individual he was. Thank goodness we have the men in place right now who are running things. Castellini is willing to spend money ... and Jocketty and staff know how to spend it. John Allen had as much business running a baseball team as I would have running Apple.

mth123
01-28-2011, 07:00 PM
Linder's "core"
Cueto was signed in 1999.
Votto was also under Lindner.
Bruce was drafted in 2005.
Travis Wood and Homer

That's 5 players that contributed significantly last year. Maybe I am overlooking someone, but that's hardly the "core" of the team.
It's a significant part, but it's comparable to what Marge produced.

Stubbs was drafted under BobC.
Leake was a BobC

Bruce, Cueto, and Votto are the core. Homer and Wood will be.

TheNext44
01-28-2011, 08:54 PM
Bruce, Cueto, and Votto are the core. Homer and Wood will be.

That definitely is the core. You have to give Linder credit for this current team.

However, my point was that all this started in 2004, over 5 years after Linder took over. Ignoring that he only took these steps so that he could get a better price for the team when he sold it, if he had just appllied the same development philosophy when he first owned the team, the lost decade could have been avoided.

Marge died in 2004, and was sick for a few years before that. So my wish for her to get racial sensitivity training so she could have kept the team until she was willing to sell, would have resulted in no John Allen ever, and probably would have resulted in her selling it to Cast or another owner just as dedicated to winning as she was, somewhere around 2002-3. I believe that would have kept the Reds competitive throughout the 2000's.

Ron Madden
01-29-2011, 05:39 AM
Yeah, with the good times lately, it's almost easy to forget John Allen and what a trainwreck of an individual he was. Thank goodness we have the men in place right now who are running things. Castellini is willing to spend money ... and Jocketty and staff know how to spend it. John Allen had as much business running a baseball team as I would have running Apple.


Never cared for John Allen as "A Baseball Man". With that said, I don't know him personally but I met him once and he seemed to be very polite and friendly, He also happens to be a war hero..

A trainwreck of an individual seems awful harsh to me.

kaldaniels
01-29-2011, 09:42 AM
That definitely is the core. You have to give Linder credit for this current team.

To what extent does an owner get "credit" for draft picks during his regime? It's one step removed from giving Bob Cast credit for say, Joey Votto's outstanding AB against Broxton last year.

I get that Lindner was the owner while those guys were picked, and of course every thing that happens to the franchise during his ownership is somewhat traced back to him...so that is acknowleged. But credit for individual players? Unless he had an active role in the selection of said players, I will pass on handing out credit. Credit for signing Barry Larking to his final contract? Absolutely. Credit for the draft pick of Cueto...no.

WebScorpion
01-29-2011, 01:48 PM
Never cared for John Allen as "A Baseball Man". With that said, I don't know him personally but I met him once and he seemed to be very polite and friendly, He also happens to be a war hero..

A trainwreck of an individual seems awful harsh to me.
I think John genuinely cared for Cincinnati and the Reds organization, but he was exactly what you would expect to get if you let an accountant run your sports franchise. It wasn't pretty. :thumbdown

Blitz Dorsey
01-29-2011, 03:12 PM
Never cared for John Allen as "A Baseball Man". With that said, I don't know him personally but I met him once and he seemed to be very polite and friendly, He also happens to be a war hero..

A trainwreck of an individual seems awful harsh to me.

Obviously I meant in terms of running a baseball franchise. I don't care if he was also his high school valedictorian, that's irrelevant to the discussion. We're obviously talking about his baseball acumen here. In that respect, he was a trainwreck of an individual.

bucksfan2
01-31-2011, 08:58 AM
Obviously I meant in terms of running a baseball franchise. I don't care if he was also his high school valedictorian, that's irrelevant to the discussion. We're obviously talking about his baseball acumen here. In that respect, he was a trainwreck of an individual.

Every organization needs someone with Jon Allen's abilities. You need a dollars and cents type of guy who is able to run through calculations and form a budget. That said you want that man no where near player personal decisions. You don't want him judging talents and making decisions on who to pay and who to pass. That was the biggest mistake the Reds front office made. They allowed the bean counter to make decisions on player personal.

Sea Ray
01-31-2011, 10:22 AM
If I could only reverse one thing it would be this:
Never hire Pete Rose to manage the Reds. It may cost us the 1990 Wire-to-wire championship, but Pete would never have been caught gambling and he'd have a plaque in Cooperstown along with all the other great players. It would save a lot of my good friends a ton of heartache. :thumbup:

You make an interesting point and I agree, he likely wouldn't have been caught but why does it bother you that he's not in the Hall? I can see how it's a drag for Pete and his family but to me "Joe Reds Fan", it doesn't have anything to do with me.

Sea Ray
01-31-2011, 10:25 AM
Lincecum starting 2 games for the Reds in the 2010 playoffs might have meant the 2nd round, possibly the WS.

No one can say for sure, but maybe.

Lincecum instead of Stubbs might have meant Hamilton is NOT traded for Volquez.

butterfly effect here too, pretty much in any scenario.

I'll pretty much always hate that draft choice. I am finding it easier to live with it as Stubbs showed some power last year.

I understand where you're coming from but at least we have Stubbs to show for passing on Lincecum. I think the worst deals are the ones where we lose a star player for nothing like Trevor Hoffman

RedsBaron
01-31-2011, 10:44 AM
If I could only reverse one thing it would be this:
Never hire Pete Rose to manage the Reds. It may cost us the 1990 Wire-to-wire championship, but Pete would never have been caught gambling and he'd have a plaque in Cooperstown along with all the other great players. It would save a lot of my good friends a ton of heartache. :thumbup:

If the Reds hadn't hired Rose as manager someone would have hired Rose as a manager or as a coach, and it is unlikely that Rose would have ceased gambling.
It would have been interesting if Rose's gambling on baseball had only come out after, say, 1992. Once Rose had been inducted into the Hall of Fame, would baseball have moved to kick him out?

OnBaseMachine
01-31-2011, 01:23 PM
How about going back to the 2007 draft and drafting Mike Stanton with the #53 overall pick instead of Kyle Lotzkar? And I like Lotzkar, he has a great arm and has a chance to be a very good pitcher if he can remain healthy. Just imagine having Stanton's huge RH bat in LF to go along with Stubbs and Bruce. Stanton has a chance to be a 40 HR, 900+ OPS type of bat who can also play solid defense.

bucksfan2
01-31-2011, 02:36 PM
How about going back to the 2007 draft and drafting Mike Stanton with the #53 overall pick instead of Kyle Lotzkar? And I like Lotzkar, he has a great arm and has a chance to be a very good pitcher if he can remain healthy. Just imagine having Stanton's huge RH bat in LF to go along with Stubbs and Bruce. Stanton has a chance to be a 40 HR, 900+ OPS type of bat who can also play solid defense.

You will drive yourself nuts going back to drafts and seeing players you missed on. But at the same time you need to realized that other players you hit on.

camisadelgolf
01-31-2011, 03:14 PM
My 2004 draft would've looked like this:

Pick # Pos Player
7 SP Jered Weaver
48 2B Dustin Pedroia
78 LF Adam Lind
108 SS Paul Janish
138 UT Ben Zobrist
168 OF Justin Maxwell
198 OF Michael Saunders
228 RP Mark Worrell
258 SP Chad Reineke
288 OF Dexter Fowler
318 3B Mark Reynolds
348 OF Lorenzo Cain
378 1B Chris Carter
408 RP Jerry Blevins
438 1B Mark Trumbo
468 C Chris Gimenez
498 RP Robert Coello
528 C J.R. Towles
558 SP Jesse Litsch
588 SP Dallas Braden
618 OF Justin Ruggiano
648 SP Jonathan Sanchez
678 RP Kanekoa Texeira
708 RP Connor Robertson
738 RP Jeff Gray
768 RP Michael Dunn
798 RP Brett Campbell
828 RP Bobby Cassevah
858 RP Brandon Kintzler
888 1B Kyle Blanks
918 RP Tony Sipp

Homer Bailey
01-31-2011, 03:42 PM
My 2004 draft would've looked like this:

Pick # Pos Player
7 SP Jered Weaver
48 2B Dustin Pedroia
78 LF Adam Lind
108 SS Paul Janish
138 UT Ben Zobrist
168 OF Justin Maxwell
198 OF Michael Saunders
228 RP Mark Worrell
258 SP Chad Reineke
288 OF Dexter Fowler
318 3B Mark Reynolds
348 OF Lorenzo Cain
378 1B Chris Carter
408 RP Jerry Blevins
438 1B Mark Trumbo
468 C Chris Gimenez
498 RP Robert Coello
528 C J.R. Towles
558 SP Jesse Litsch
588 SP Dallas Braden
618 OF Justin Ruggiano
648 SP Jonathan Sanchez
678 RP Kanekoa Texeira
708 RP Connor Robertson
738 RP Jeff Gray
768 RP Michael Dunn
798 RP Brett Campbell
828 RP Bobby Cassevah
858 RP Brandon Kintzler
888 1B Kyle Blanks
918 RP Tony Sipp

Captain Hindsight to the rescue ;)

http://images.memegenerator.net/File/230820/LargeThumbnail.jpg

bucksfan2
01-31-2011, 04:14 PM
Joe Poz wrote an article few years ago about how one draft class could change an organization. It was an interesting article and he went through who the Royals drafted as opposed who they could have drafted in that round. Oh yea the kicker of the article was Pujols who was drafted late from the Royals back yard.

WebScorpion
02-02-2011, 02:46 AM
You make an interesting point and I agree, he likely wouldn't have been caught but why does it bother you that he's not in the Hall? I can see how it's a drag for Pete and his family but to me "Joe Reds Fan", it doesn't have anything to do with me.
I actually think Pete would be caught eventually anyway...he's an addict. But I thought I'd give it a shot. Pete was a huge, huge hero for many of my close friends...I was a big Joe Morgan fan, but my brother and my best friend lived and died with Peter Edward. He was the embodiment of everything they believed in and they both emulated him in their own lives...always hustling and giving it 110%. When the news broke, they were the last to say maybe he was guilty and as the years wore on and we learned more you could see how crushed they were that their boyhood hero had turned out to be such a fraud. One of them won't speak about him now and the other has nothing but bitter things to say about Pete. I just wanted to spare them and the thousands of Cincinnatians like them that experience...or at least give it a shot.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-gen137.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

reds44
02-02-2011, 02:48 AM
Josh Hamilton's theft of his Grammys property to buy drugs says 'ello
LOL. My God. I'm a horrible person for laughing at that.

Topcat
02-02-2011, 04:45 AM
Letting Davey Johnson go and hiring Ray Knight.

Without Knight and Boone, you have a voice of reason in the manager's seat. The long slide to oblivion might never have happened.


I would want Josh Hamilton back, i truly never wanted him gone. But Volquez was a truly great acquisition. that being said add Josh to this lineup and minus Volquez I would go to war with our present roster!:thumbup:

RedsBaron
02-02-2011, 10:56 AM
Have ownership have the guts to sign the 10 best african-american ballplayers in the 40's.

There was an article in The Hardball Times last week speculating on "what-could-have-been" had the 1938 Pirates signed such Negro League stars as Josh Gibson, Satchel Paige, Buck Leonard, Cool Papa Bell, Ray Brownet al.
Imagine if the Reds had broken the "color line" in the late 1930s and had added those players to their core of Walters, Derringer, Lombardi (although Lombardi certainly would not have pushed Josh Gibson to the bench), et al. The Reds of that era would have been a true dynasty and, as the team breaking the color line, could have an advantage for decades (until the baseball draft in 1965) in attracting minority players.

George Anderson
02-02-2011, 10:56 AM
I actually think Pete would be caught eventually anyway...he's an addict. But I thought I'd give it a shot. Pete was a huge, huge hero for many of my close friends...I was a big Joe Morgan fan, but my brother and my best friend lived and died with Peter Edward. He was the embodiment of everything they believed in and they both emulated him in their own lives...always hustling and giving it 110%. When the news broke, they were the last to say maybe he was guilty and as the years wore on and we learned more you could see how crushed they were that their boyhood hero had turned out to be such a fraud. One of them won't speak about him now and the other has nothing but bitter things to say about Pete. ]them that experience...or at least give it a shot.
http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-gen137.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

I would say that feeling about Pete is more the norm now by evidence the celebration this past year of 4192 was hardly a hot ticket.

Hap
02-03-2011, 12:52 PM
celebration this past year of 4192 was hardly a hot ticket.

It wasn't so much as televised. FSN had no pregame program that evening. The broadcast began slightly before first pitch.

BACK ON TOPIC

If I could, I would mandate live television coverage for any on-field ceremony. The video and audio would be available for free online.

George Anderson
02-03-2011, 12:53 PM
It wasn't so much as televised. FSN had no pregame program that evening. The broadcast began slightly before first pitch.

I meant the ticket was not a hard ticket to get. I checked out stubhub the day before the game and the tickets were barely going for over face value.