PDA

View Full Version : Quick question-who really built the Reds?



jojo
05-29-2011, 08:19 AM
Below is a recent post from Lance's blog where he attempts to break down the roster based upon the GM that was steering the ship when the player entered the organization.

He seems to give the GM credit for picks in the draft and the development of the picks as they moved through the system which we all know is begging the question.

The guys running the show in the farm are really unsung heroes in this case and I was hoping one of the gurus in this forum might take Lance's post as a call to fill in the grand canyon-sized gaps in Lance's narrative by giving names/credit to the main players making decisions and the player development philosophies with each regime..... Clearly each GM hired these guys but they aren't zombies doing his bidding....

So what is the real story of the Reds system and the rise of their player development reputation?

Read more: http://www.espn1530.com/pages/lancesBlog.html#ixzz1Nk5Y422l

757690
05-29-2011, 11:30 AM
Bowden, because the Reds don't contend without Votto.

Just kidding, but it shows that there really is no answer to this question.

One anecdote to back up your point on the relationship between GM's and their player development guys. Bob Quinn in the 1990 draft wanted to take Tim Costo, and his Player development guys wanted to take Dan Wilson. The Reds took Dan Wilson. Quinn said what's the point of paying those guys all year if he wasn't going to listen to them on the one day out of the year that they actually worked.

fearofpopvol1
05-30-2011, 04:00 AM
It certainly looks like Jocketty has done the least, as he has the fewest impact players on his list. In fairness, it's too early to judge some of the players on his watch.

I think most would agree that Dan-O had some darn good draft picks on his watch. He made some awful moves while he was GM, but the scouting people he had were good.

I still think Krvisky should get the most credit. He acquired lots of impact players and revamped the scouting and player development system, one that Jocketty kept even after Wayne left. The one thing that I didn't think Krivsky was particularly good at was evaluating pitching talent (Cormier, Majewski, Stanton and most of the other dreck that was the 2006 season). He did get Arroyo though in a great deal, but maybe that was luck.

mth123
05-30-2011, 08:19 AM
It certainly looks like Jocketty has done the least, as he has the fewest impact players on his list. In fairness, it's too early to judge some of the players on his watch.

I think most would agree that Dan-O had some darn good draft picks on his watch. He made some awful moves while he was GM, but the scouting people he had were good.

I still think Krvisky should get the most credit. He acquired lots of impact players and revamped the scouting and player development system, one that Jocketty kept even after Wayne left. The one thing that I didn't think Krivsky was particularly good at was evaluating pitching talent (Cormier, Majewski, Stanton and most of the other dreck that was the 2006 season). He did get Arroyo though in a great deal, but maybe that was luck.

Dano did exactly what most of the people calling for a rebuild wanted. He added impact players in the minors and turned around the failing system's direction while mostly ignoring the major league roster. His major move (Milton) was at the direction of ownership and the rest of his moves were mostly cosmetic. That approach takes time to show results and the reaction that Reds fans had at the time might be evidence that the total tear down and rebuild that many were calling for just wouldn't fly in Cincy.

Krivsky advanced the timeline by bringing in some core talent (Arroyo, Phillips and Hamilton/Volquez) without waiting for the draft to do it. I think history will show that his hiring of Dusty was a pretty good move overall. Dusty drives me nuts and I can easily find things I don't like about him (chief among them was pushing Bailey too far at the end of 2009). But Dusty helped turn the expectations towards winning that I think had been missing before him.

Walt was mostly the beneficiary of the work done ahead of him, but he probably brought the credibility and stability needed to take it to the next level. IMO, I don't think Cast was going to trust anybody who didn't have a winning resume. Adding Rolen was key to becoming a winning team, even if I still think he paid more than he needed to.

HokieRed
05-30-2011, 12:54 PM
Not sure why Jojo gave the number of Krivsky draftees--8 thus far--to get to the majors without giving the numbers for the others. But just for the record, O'Brien's had at least 10 from his two drafts. 7 are listed above: Bailey, Bruce, LeCure, Wood, Fisher, Ondrusek, Janish. To these need to be added Rosales, Tatum, and Jeff Stevens.

fearofpopvol1
05-30-2011, 01:00 PM
Not sure why Jojo gave the number of Krivsky draftees--8 thus far--to get to the majors without giving the numbers for the others. But just for the record, O'Brien's had at least 10 from his two drafts. 7 are listed above: Bailey, Bruce, LeCure, Wood, Fisher, Ondrusek, Janish. To these need to be added Rosales, Tatum, and Jeff Stevens.

I believe he quoted the article and it's talking about where the Reds current 40 man roster came from.

Kingspoint
06-02-2011, 01:43 AM
Give Walt a ton of credit for not jettisoning players and management who were here when he got here and putting "his own people" in as so many G.M.'s do just to have their own yes-men underneath them.

Walt recognized talent that was already here and went with much of it. Doing nothing is doing something in this case.