PDA

View Full Version : Alonso starting at 3B on Monday



Pages : 1 [2]

dougdirt
09-02-2011, 11:25 AM
That assumes he can hit .290. It also assumes he can BB 45 times. Since he has never really done that (42 across 3 levels last year, but just 6 at AAA in 2010 and 30 this year) I don't think he can.

He had 30 walks in less than 400 PA's. Put him at 600 PA's and you are going to come out over 45 walks. Sure, it assumes he can transfer that rate to the Majors. I am assuming he can. You are assuming he can't.



Last year, a MUCH better year for Stubbs saw him hit 19 doubles. But you have a guy with maybe a third of Stubbs power, a guy not as fast hitting 30+? Now if he can hit .290, yeah, he might have a .420 SLG, but the HR's are more likely to be 5-7. I don't see him hitting more doubles than the fastest player on the team. I see a guy playing half his games in a park that generally suppresses doubles. I think you see his ceiling, where I am looking for the mean.
You are forgetting that Sappelt doesn't strike out at nearly the same rate as Stubbs. He doesn't need the same raw type of power to post more power numbers, because he is going to have more chances to do so because he is going to put the ball in play a lot more. As for his HR's, we are just going to have to really disagree there. I just get a feeling it is much like Stubbs, where you haven't seen him play enough to have a true feel of his power. Sappelt has some pop in his bat. He hasn't shown it over the last month, but its in there.

RedsManRick
09-02-2011, 12:13 PM
I meant to post this yesterday, but forgot.



Name Age PA 2B% 3B% HR% Slash stats
Michael Bourn 23 174 2.9% 4.0% 0.6% .283/.368/.428
Dave Sappelt 23-24 451 5.3% 1.3% 1.8% .316/.374/.464
Nyjer Morgan 26-27 542 3.1% 1.1% 0.2% .302/.361/.367
Norris Hopper 27-31 1407 2.8% 0.4% 0.0% .303/.348/.343

One of these things is not like the others.

Sappelt has displayed more power than all three guys -- only Bourn is close. He's much younger than they were too. Obviously SSS issues here and there's no doubt that Dave Sappelt is not a power hitter. But he's not a slap-hitting singles either.

The reason GABP suppresses doubles is because it turns deep fly balls that would be doubles to HRs. It's hard to hit a fly ball double in GABP. B tu Sappelt generally isn't hitting deep pop flys, he's hitting liners that scoot past people. And on those hits, the depth of the fence doesn't really matter, he'll get to 2B.

When people look at SLG, they often discount the portion of that which comes from AVG. Sappelt could have an ISO that's 50 points less than Stubbs and still "out-slug" him. I don't think it's hard to imagine Sappelt putting up a .125-.150 ISO.

Dan
09-02-2011, 12:36 PM
REDREAD, this is not aimed toward you specifically, but towards the thread: the the Reds are 2nd in the NL in runs scored, 4th in OPS, 7th in BA, and tied for 2nd in fielding percentage.

The hitting and fielding are well above league average.

Pitching is the problem.

Fix the pitching, and we have a winner.

I disagree. Pitching isn't the problem when you're losing 3-2, then 4-2, then winning 10-1. The problem has been an inconsistent (at best) lower half of the order. Fix the holes in LF and SS and we have a winner.

_Sir_Charles_
09-02-2011, 12:59 PM
Not bad. One ball went over his head, but there wasn't a chance on that. He hit the cutoff man on a run scoring single....etc.

Looked Ok.

Good to know. Despite the conversations/debates here...I do hope he works out in left. It DOES solve all our problems in this regard. I'm just not that optimistic about it considering what I witnessed.

_Sir_Charles_
09-02-2011, 01:04 PM
Well, for some reason, the Reds last winter talked themselves into believing that Janish was ready for the SS job, despite mountains of evidence to the contrary (minor league stats and poor MLB performance outside of about 200 ABs last season). They gave Janish the big chance and it bit them.

Yes it did. But be honest, it's not like they had many other options. There simply weren't any decent SS's on the market IMO. I was/am a Janish supporter but I don't think anybody can argue that he had anything other than a horrific year. Heck, even defensively he was down.

marcshoe
09-02-2011, 01:07 PM
I disagree. Pitching isn't the problem when you're losing 3-2, then 4-2, then winning 10-1. The problem has been an inconsistent (at best) lower half of the order. Fix the holes in LF and SS and we have a winner.

That's the point I was trying to make using about 234,315 1/2 more words. When you're looking at total numbers or a mode, large swings can fool you..

Always Red
09-02-2011, 01:08 PM
I disagree. Pitching isn't the problem when you're losing 3-2, then 4-2, then winning 10-1. The problem has been an inconsistent (at best) lower half of the order. Fix the holes in LF and SS and we have a winner.

True, but how to quantify that?

http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/batting/league/nl/sort/OPS/order/true

Just for fun, I went to the ESPN site and looked at OPS per position. As you correctly point out, LF and SS have been black holes, but so has 3B.

Rank in NL (out of 16) by OPS:

1B 1st
2B 1st
3B 11th
SS 14th
LF 14th
CF 7th
RF 6th
C 4th
P 3rd

ERA 11th


Now, ERA is certainly not the best way to measure a pitching staff, others here are far better at that than me, but it's easy to compare to other teams, and the best pitching staffs are usually near the top of the ERA lists. Similarly, OPS is not a perfect measure of a players effectiveness as a hitter, but it's pretty good.

How much of the game is pitching? half? a third? Is defense a third? I don't know the true answer to that. If hitting is half the game, then if the black holes at LF and SS are brought to league average that improves the hitting by 25%.

I'm either too lazy or too busy :D but it would be even better to break down the pitching like I did the hitting to see where the problem lies.

My bet might be #4, 5 starters and 7th and 8th inning relief. So, if we improve those areas and LF and SS OPS, then we have an improved team.

Always Red
09-02-2011, 01:15 PM
I disagree. Pitching isn't the problem when you're losing 3-2, then 4-2, then winning 10-1. The problem has been an inconsistent (at best) lower half of the order. Fix the holes in LF and SS and we have a winner.

I know this much- the Reds have (almost) always historically hit the ball well.

When you go back through team history and look at the winning teams, they were ALWAYS the ones who finally pitched well, finishing in the top 5 or so in the league in ERA. That was the secret of the BRM days- yes they had HoF thumpers in the lineup, but during the years they won championships, they also finished in the top 3 of the NL in ERA.

When you're not pitching well (Reds of 2011), then you more easily notice the need for hitting (LF, SS, 3B).

RedsManRick
09-02-2011, 01:36 PM
I disagree. Pitching isn't the problem when you're losing 3-2, then 4-2, then winning 10-1. The problem has been an inconsistent (at best) lower half of the order. Fix the holes in LF and SS and we have a winner.

The good old consistency argument again. So much grass-is-greener goes on with consistency. Does anybody look at their offense and think, "man, we're really consistent".

I don't doubt that we're inconsistent by some gut level feeling. But are we MORE inconsistent than other teams? Than teams with comparable offenses? Is it really reasonable to expect more consistency? We can play the "if only..." game all day, but if the imagined future isn't possible, it's a fruitless exercise.

Here is how the Reds compare to the 2 teams above and below us in terms of R/G. The values in the table are the percent of games in which the team scored at least that many runs.



PHI COL CIN STL TOR AVG
R/G 4.55 4.57 4.62 4.69 4.73 4.64
0+ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1+ 96% 96% 94% 94% 96% 95%
2+ 84% 84% 88% 86% 82% 84%
3+ 70% 72% 72% 78% 69% 72%
4+ 54% 50% 58% 60% 58% 55%
5+ 42% 42% 44% 49% 48% 45%
6+ 30% 35% 36% 35% 37% 34%
7+ 26% 25% 27% 24% 28% 26%
8+ 18% 16% 18% 18% 17% 17%
9+ 15% 12% 11% 11% 12% 13%
10+ 9% 8% 7% 5% 8% 7%

Do the Reds have a disproportionate amount of big explosions compared to other teams that score a similar amount of runs? Are we lagging in those 4 or 5 run games? Not as far as I can tell.

Blitz Dorsey
09-02-2011, 02:03 PM
So, a passing imitation of George Foster, Adam Dunn and Jonny Gomes?

Don't forget Dmitri Young. I can't believe defense is suddenly a priority for this organization when it comes to finding a left fielder. That would be a nice bonus, but with Bruce in right (one of the best defensive RFs in the game) and Stubbs in center, the Reds can afford to have a bad defensive player in left. Especially if he can rake.

And if any franchise is used to poor defense in LF, it should be the Reds!

REDREAD
09-02-2011, 03:26 PM
Yes it did. But be honest, it's not like they had many other options. There simply weren't any decent SS's on the market IMO. I was/am a Janish supporter but I don't think anybody can argue that he had anything other than a horrific year. Heck, even defensively he was down.


Yea, I agree. Not a whole lot of SS options in our price range.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that most like Sappelt and Frasier are not future every day players. More than likely, they are role players. Thus, I don't understand the anger on the forum that they aren't allowed to play every day regardless of their performance. IMO, Walt and Dusty have a pretty good idea of what they have in those too. Of course, I hope they get better.

thatcoolguy_22
09-02-2011, 03:41 PM
The good old consistency argument again. So much grass-is-greener goes on with consistency. Does anybody look at their offense and think, "man, we're really consistent".

I don't doubt that we're inconsistent by some gut level feeling. But are we MORE inconsistent than other teams? Than teams with comparable offenses? Is it really reasonable to expect more consistency? We can play the "if only..." game all day, but if the imagined future isn't possible, it's a fruitless exercise.

Here is how the Reds compare to the 2 teams above and below us in terms of R/G. The values in the table are the percent of games in which the team scored at least that many runs.



PHI COL CIN STL TOR AVG
R/G 4.55 4.57 4.62 4.69 4.73 4.64
0+ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1+ 96% 96% 94% 94% 96% 95%
2+ 84% 84% 88% 86% 82% 84%
3+ 70% 72% 72% 78% 69% 72%
4+ 54% 50% 58% 60% 58% 55%
5+ 42% 42% 44% 49% 48% 45%
6+ 30% 35% 36% 35% 37% 34%
7+ 26% 25% 27% 24% 28% 26%
8+ 18% 16% 18% 18% 17% 17%
9+ 15% 12% 11% 11% 12% 13%
10+ 9% 8% 7% 5% 8% 7%

Do the Reds have a disproportionate amount of big explosions compared to other teams that score a similar amount of runs? Are we lagging in those 4 or 5 run games? Not as far as I can tell.

One upvote for you, kind sir. This is exactly the type of post that has given the ORG its reputation.


I have not read this entire thread, but how has Alonso looked at 3B? I know his first game he did not have a play in the field, but has he played any since? Anyone seen any quotes from Dusty on his play in practice? I'm not expecting Rolen out of him, just serviceable.

bucksfan2
09-02-2011, 04:32 PM
The good old consistency argument again. So much grass-is-greener goes on with consistency. Does anybody look at their offense and think, "man, we're really consistent".

I don't doubt that we're inconsistent by some gut level feeling. But are we MORE inconsistent than other teams? Than teams with comparable offenses? Is it really reasonable to expect more consistency? We can play the "if only..." game all day, but if the imagined future isn't possible, it's a fruitless exercise.

Here is how the Reds compare to the 2 teams above and below us in terms of R/G. The values in the table are the percent of games in which the team scored at least that many runs.



PHI COL CIN STL TOR AVG
R/G 4.55 4.57 4.62 4.69 4.73 4.64
0+ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1+ 96% 96% 94% 94% 96% 95%
2+ 84% 84% 88% 86% 82% 84%
3+ 70% 72% 72% 78% 69% 72%
4+ 54% 50% 58% 60% 58% 55%
5+ 42% 42% 44% 49% 48% 45%
6+ 30% 35% 36% 35% 37% 34%
7+ 26% 25% 27% 24% 28% 26%
8+ 18% 16% 18% 18% 17% 17%
9+ 15% 12% 11% 11% 12% 13%
10+ 9% 8% 7% 5% 8% 7%

Do the Reds have a disproportionate amount of big explosions compared to other teams that score a similar amount of runs? Are we lagging in those 4 or 5 run games? Not as far as I can tell.

All this tells me is the Reds are awesome when it comes to scoring 0+ runs!

We have had this debate ad nauseum here on RZ. I guess my question to you would be are you content with the offense? Do you not agree that the offense could use an upgrade?

I chalk this season up to Murphy's Law. If it could go wrong, it did go wrong. It seemed like the entire season something was always wrong. If the offense and starting pitching was good the pen blew it late. If the pitching was good the offense was nonexistent. If the offense was good the defense was horrid. It was a season that started with high expectations only to come crashing down right at the all star break.

RedsManRick
09-02-2011, 05:42 PM
All this tells me is the Reds are awesome when it comes to scoring 0+ runs!

We have had this debate ad nauseum here on RZ. I guess my question to you would be are you content with the offense? Do you not agree that the offense could use an upgrade?

I absolutely agree that the offense could use an upgrade. Every part of the team could use an upgrade. But that has nothing to do with the distribution of our run scoring -- just the overall amount. Score more runs and you win more games 4-3 instead of losing them 3-2.

While the distribution of talent probably affects the distribution of runs, it's an issue of signal to noise. It's sort of like BABIP -- fluctuations happen and can affect your results. And to some extent, you can influence it. But at the end of the day, it's not really something you can control all that much. If you want to hit for a better average, make more solid contact -- don't worry about what happens when you do.

At the same, time defense still matters too. If you upgrade LF by 10 runs offensively but you cost yourself 10 runs defensively, the team is no better off. What I am wary of is the idea of filling one hole by digging another. The whole composition of runs scored/allowed thing is a marginal consideration -- just add players who contribute to the team's run differential and don't obsess over any one particular area of their game.

CesarGeronimo
09-02-2011, 07:09 PM
Yea, I agree. Not a whole lot of SS options in our price range.
I guess the point I am trying to make is that most like Sappelt and Frasier are not future every day players. More than likely, they are role players. Thus, I don't understand the anger on the forum that they aren't allowed to play every day regardless of their performance. IMO, Walt and Dusty have a pretty good idea of what they have in those too. Of course, I hope they get better.

When you say that Walt and Dusty have a good idea of what they have in Sappelt and Frazier and they are role players what does that mean? Does it mean that they know Sappellt's ceiling is worse than guys like Gomes, Lewis and Dickerson who have started in left for the Reds in recent years? Are Sappelt and Frazier going to be good role players or bad ones? Are they guys the Reds should plan contributing well at the major league level or not? I don't think those questions have been answered.

Dusty actually thought Corey Patterson and Willy Taveras were going to be good outfielders for the Reds. I don't know how you're confident that he's got the the future of the young guys who recently came up all figured out on their very limited play so far.

nate
09-02-2011, 09:41 PM
I disagree. Pitching isn't the problem when you're losing 3-2, then 4-2, then winning 10-1. The problem has been an inconsistent (at best) lower half of the order. Fix the holes in LF and SS and we have a winner.

I disagree. An average starting pitching staff would likely have the team neck and neck with the Cardinals right now.

That and a new set of dice could have the team neck and neck with the Brewers.

nate
09-02-2011, 09:43 PM
The good old consistency argument again. So much grass-is-greener goes on with consistency. Does anybody look at their offense and think, "man, we're really consistent".

I don't doubt that we're inconsistent by some gut level feeling. But are we MORE inconsistent than other teams? Than teams with comparable offenses? Is it really reasonable to expect more consistency? We can play the "if only..." game all day, but if the imagined future isn't possible, it's a fruitless exercise.

Here is how the Reds compare to the 2 teams above and below us in terms of R/G. The values in the table are the percent of games in which the team scored at least that many runs.



PHI COL CIN STL TOR AVG
R/G 4.55 4.57 4.62 4.69 4.73 4.64
0+ 100% 100% 100% 100% 100% 100%
1+ 96% 96% 94% 94% 96% 95%
2+ 84% 84% 88% 86% 82% 84%
3+ 70% 72% 72% 78% 69% 72%
4+ 54% 50% 58% 60% 58% 55%
5+ 42% 42% 44% 49% 48% 45%
6+ 30% 35% 36% 35% 37% 34%
7+ 26% 25% 27% 24% 28% 26%
8+ 18% 16% 18% 18% 17% 17%
9+ 15% 12% 11% 11% 12% 13%
10+ 9% 8% 7% 5% 8% 7%

Do the Reds have a disproportionate amount of big explosions compared to other teams that score a similar amount of runs? Are we lagging in those 4 or 5 run games? Not as far as I can tell.

Yep. That's a good way to look at it.

Now run the same exercise on the pitching. I'm guessing it would reveal "junk in the trunk."

gilpdawg
09-03-2011, 04:43 AM
I chalk this season up to Murphy's Law. If it could go wrong, it did go wrong. It seemed like the entire season something was always wrong. If the offense and starting pitching was good the pen blew it late. If the pitching was good the offense was nonexistent. If the offense was good the defense was horrid. It was a season that started with high expectations only to come crashing down right at the all star break.
I've been saying that all season. This group of guys wouldn't duplicate this year's crappy results if you replayed this season 50 times. Sometimes teams have a fluky good season, and this is a fluky bad season. This is not an 80 win team, which is probably where they will wind up, roughly. This is realistically an 85-87 win team, with upside, and I'll take that right now after this nightmare of a season. A couple of moves and they could be at 90 wins next year.

gilpdawg
09-03-2011, 04:45 AM
I disagree. An average starting pitching staff would likely have the team neck and neck with the Cardinals right now.

That and a new set of dice could have the team neck and neck with the Brewers.
Yep. I don't get the Brewers. They seem like a team of destiny. Wouldn't surprise me if they won the whole thing. They've got some magic going on there. Their pythag W/L is still only 2 better than the Reds, and 1 ahead of St. Lou. Imagine that division race if everyone played to their pythag? That would be a fun September!

Ron Madden
09-03-2011, 06:37 AM
I disagree. Pitching isn't the problem when you're losing 3-2, then 4-2, then winning 10-1. The problem has been an inconsistent (at best) lower half of the order. Fix the holes in LF and SS and we have a winner.

How many games have have the Reds won 10-1? How many games have they won by 8 runs? 7? 6? 5? 4?

I believe the expectations and lofty goals the front office and much of the fanbase had for the 2011 Reds were set a bit too high.

Now here we are in the final few weeks of the season searching for a place to lay the blame.

Is it on Big Bob and the ownership group? I doubt it.

Is it on Walt? Some say he has been asleep since Opening Day 2010. It's kinda hard to make an honest argument against this accusation.

Is it on Dusty? He does do some pretty goofy stuff.

Is it on the Defense? I don't think so.

Is it on the Offense? BA and BA/RISP often get most of the blame and that's just silly.

Is it on the Pitching? We have had a few very brief stretches where the pitching was Very Good. The sad but true tale is those stretches have been too few and too far between.

If someone put a gun to my head and made me place the blame for this disappointing season on one facet of the team I'd have to lay the blame at the feet of the entire Pitching staff.

shoot me ;)

Scrap Irony
09-03-2011, 11:30 AM
Injuries, bad luck, and worse pitching make for a poor season.

cinreds21
09-03-2011, 03:05 PM
A little late to this party, but how did Yonder look at third?

mth123
09-03-2011, 03:22 PM
Injuries, bad luck, and worse pitching make for a poor season.

Poor planning may be the root cause of it all.

The Rotation was counting on a guy coming off of TJ, a guy who missed 90 days with shoulder problems and two kids with real short resumes. They weren't hoping to fill one spot from that or even two, but needed three of those guys to come through. That's long on hoping and short on planning IMO.

The line-up was counting on an aging, injured player who showed he lost his power in the second half of 2010 (as its clean-up guy), a bunch of guys who've shown to be on the poor side of the platoon split in their careers (Gomes, Phillips and Hanigan to name three) and a SS who looked passable as a part time player but has a history of wearing down and becoming much worse when he plays all the time.

To address the problems they signed an ill advised extension with Bronson Arroyo to save about $5 Million or so and the spent the bulk of it on low impact guys like Freddie Lewis and Edgar Renteria. Not a starter or a consistent bat. Bench players when the team is/was flush with minor leaguers to fill the bench.

Not everything went right. It rarely does. But this team was planned poorly IMO and everything had to go right to have a chance. This was an awful job by the GM. If we're looking to place blame, I don't give them an out for things going wrong. Other than Arroyo's mono, most of went wrong was very foreseeable. Isn't that what a GM is paid for? Anybody can just promote the guys he inherited and hope for the best.

Redsfan320
09-03-2011, 03:26 PM
A little late to this party, but how did Yonder look at third?

Nothing was hit there. Closest was a pop-up in short LF that ER called him off on.

320

Scrap Irony
09-03-2011, 03:56 PM
Poor planning may be the root cause of it all.

Maybe.

However, I don't think you can dog Jocketty for a few assumptions on the make-up of the team. You certainly can't hold him responsible for the injuries of Cueto and Bailey at the start of the season, nor with Arroyo's mon problem basically leading to a lost season.

Where you saw a pitching rotation with many, many questions, I saw three guys competing for two spots that had shown marked improvement in 2010 that any team in the game would have counted on. Bailey, Wood, and Leake all had enough promise to be considered "locks" for the staff. Were there questions? Sure. But the number of starting pitchers that seemed to be at least major league average helped allay those concerns.

Then Maloney got hurt, which hurt depth. Then Bailey and Cueto went on the shelf. Then Arroyo was diagnosed with mono.
Suddenly, the rotation went from one with many possibilities to one that had to count on Volquez, who proved he wasn't ready. Willis, a heady signing, proved adequate, but Wood regressed and Bailey didn't take the next step forward.

The bullpen also saw regressions from Masset and Ondrusek and another injury to Burton. You couldn't have seen all of those, IMO.

The offense leads the league in runs. Could it have been better? Sure. LF proved to be a slight problem (though Gomes right now is league average offensively and actually grades out as league average defensively too.)

SS had Janish as starter, who had to be given an opportunity to start after his season in 2010. Who would have been a better backup than Renteria and was available?

Rolen had a great backup in Cairo, so the injury question didn't really affect the team. Rolen's really poor season did, but, again, he had to be given a shot at reproducing his 2010.

In short, Jocketty was hamstrung by the number of players who looked like real possibilities in 2010 and turned out to be poor (but understandable) bets.

mth123
09-03-2011, 04:37 PM
Maybe.

However, I don't think you can dog Jocketty for a few assumptions on the make-up of the team. You certainly can't hold him responsible for the injuries of Cueto and Bailey at the start of the season, nor with Arroyo's mon problem basically leading to a lost season.

Where you saw a pitching rotation with many, many questions, I saw three guys competing for two spots that had shown marked improvement in 2010 that any team in the game would have counted on. Bailey, Wood, and Leake all had enough promise to be considered "locks" for the staff. Were there questions? Sure. But the number of starting pitchers that seemed to be at least major league average helped allay those concerns.

Then Maloney got hurt, which hurt depth. Then Bailey and Cueto went on the shelf. Then Arroyo was diagnosed with mono.
Suddenly, the rotation went from one with many possibilities to one that had to count on Volquez, who proved he wasn't ready. Willis, a heady signing, proved adequate, but Wood regressed and Bailey didn't take the next step forward.

The bullpen also saw regressions from Masset and Ondrusek and another injury to Burton. You couldn't have seen all of those, IMO.

The offense leads the league in runs. Could it have been better? Sure. LF proved to be a slight problem (though Gomes right now is league average offensively and actually grades out as league average defensively too.)

SS had Janish as starter, who had to be given an opportunity to start after his season in 2010. Who would have been a better backup than Renteria and was available?

Rolen had a great backup in Cairo, so the injury question didn't really affect the team. Rolen's really poor season did, but, again, he had to be given a shot at reproducing his 2010.

In short, Jocketty was hamstrung by the number of players who looked like real possibilities in 2010 and turned out to be poor (but understandable) bets.

Bailey missed 90 days with a shoulder injury in 2010. The fact that he missed 2 significant stints in 2011 shouldn't have been a surprise. I hold Jocketty accountable for not adding some certainty to a group full of question marks. He left himself in a position where should something unforeseen happen with his more proven guys (Arroyo and Cueto) he'd be toast and its just what happened. If you want to drive around with no insurance on your car, its not bad luck if you end up walking after totaling it. Poor planning is a better description.

The Line-up was lacking in the middle of the order. Even if Rolen was "healthy" all season (he hasn't been 'healthy" since 2005 BTW so this again should be no surprise), the team was short a middle of the order bat and lacking in guys who could do the job against RHP (which happens to be most days). Injuries aren't the issue here. The fact that even when healthy there are two bats who should be occupying spots above the 6 hole against RHP is poor planning.

Walt seems to have this team on autopilot. I still suspect that he's going to step down after the season. To me its the most likely explanation for GM negligence.

marcshoe
09-03-2011, 08:45 PM
Where do you look if you want to see whether poor planning could sink the team again next year? Personally, I think it would be a big mistake to count on Rolen playing even half the games at third. And in spite of how improved the starting pitching might be, it should be clear that if the team doesn't add another major cog to the rotation, the planning will fall short.

If, otoh, the team spends the winter acquiring a closer and more Lewis-like left field candidates, that goes beyond poor planning and creeps into malpractice.

757690
09-03-2011, 10:32 PM
I don't think this team is any worse than last years.

Last year's team was a 82- 85 win team team that overachieved, and this year's team is an 82-85 win team that has underachieved.

I think that's the plan. Put out an 82-85 win team every year, and hope for a few breaks. If you get them, then go for it at the trading deadline, if not, wait till next year.

It's a frustrating plan for a fan in the off years, but I don't mind it, if they actually do build a true 85 win team every year.

mth123
09-03-2011, 11:01 PM
I don't think this team is any worse than last years.

Last year's team was a 82- 85 win team team that overachieved, and this year's team is an 82-85 win team that has underachieved.

I think that's the plan. Put out an 82-85 win team every year, and hope for a few breaks. If you get them, then go for it at the trading deadline, if not, wait till next year.

It's a frustrating plan for a fan in the off years, but I don't mind it, if they actually do build a true 85 win team every year.

I hope that's not the plan. I hope they are trying to actually win. I understand some years they won't have enough talent and will need to retool, but If the plan is to try to win 85 every year, its fraud against the fanbase. The goal is a championship. If there is a chance, go for it. If not retool so there is a chance next year. This team is good enough to add pieces to win. Do it before the season starts.

WVRedsFan
09-04-2011, 01:23 AM
Where do you look if you want to see whether poor planning could sink the team again next year? Personally, I think it would be a big mistake to count on Rolen playing even half the games at third. And in spite of how improved the starting pitching might be, it should be clear that if the team doesn't add another major cog to the rotation, the planning will fall short.

If, otoh, the team spends the winter acquiring a closer and more Lewis-like left field candidates, that goes beyond poor planning and creeps into malpractice.I doubt the lesson of Rolen will be repeated again. Francisco appears to be ready (though not the caliber of Rolen) if Rolen gets hurt again, but heaven knows, we need Rolen in there at least 120 games next year.

The club desparately needs another starter (forget EV) and to let Alonso muddle his way in left field--we need his bat. If not, a banger should be acquired for that position--Heisey is not your savior.

As far as closer is concerned, I keep having this bad nighmare that Codero gets resigned. God forbid. Masset and Chapman are not ready ( and Nick never will be), but someone can do that and it won't cost multi-millions.

Time will tell, but with a non-flexible budget like the Reds are living under, we might be looking at a future where we always flirt with .500, but never again win a division title. Sad stuff.

mth123
09-04-2011, 06:26 PM
So. Anybody feel better about Alonso in LF next season?

I do, but if it happens, I have no idea who they could deal to get the pitcher they need.

Scrap Irony
09-04-2011, 06:30 PM
Almost any LFer in baseball gets that ball in his hip pocket. He'll have to hit like Dunn (as a Red) to have positive value, IMO.

That said, his bat makes sense in the lineup.

As for who they'll deal, why not free agency? CJ Wilson is available.

mth123
09-04-2011, 06:35 PM
Almost any LFer in baseball gets that ball in his hip pocket. He'll have to hit like Dunn (as a Red) to have positive value, IMO.

That said, his bat makes sense in the lineup.

As for who they'll deal, why not free agency? CJ Wilson is available.

Well, if we're talking Free Agents, I like Mark Buerhle, but I don't think the Reds can win a bidding war for an arm the caliber that they need. A guy like Shields who makes only $7 Million in 2012 might be doable and an Alonso, Grandal package with parts might be the best the Rays can do. I don't think they make that deal for say Francisco or Heisey and Grandal.

Scrap Irony
09-04-2011, 07:07 PM
Well, if we're talking Free Agents, I like Mark Buerhle, but I don't think the Reds can win a bidding war for an arm the caliber that they need. A guy like Shields who makes only $7 Million in 2012 might be doable and an Alonso, Grandal package with parts might be the best the Rays can do. I don't think they make that deal for say Francisco or Heisey and Grandal.

Maybe not. My hope is the combination of Cordero's salary and Castellini's impatience boosts payroll.

I think Heisey and Grandal are fine backfill for a deal, but you're right, there is absolutely no prime guy Tampa would want without Alonso.

Would Stubbs and Bailey do it? Add Grandal and I think it might.

On another note, Juan Francisco's 2011 line after today: 286/343/429/772. In 63 major league games and 110 ABs, his line reads 312/377/505/882. If Baker could spot him correctly, I'd love to see a platoon of Rolen and Francisco, both to keep Rolen healthier and get Francisco's power in the game.

IMO, the kid would be even better if he lost 30 pounds or so. He's a pear.

mth123
09-04-2011, 07:23 PM
Maybe not. My hope is the combination of Cordero's salary and Castellini's impatience boosts payroll.

I think Heisey and Grandal are fine backfill for a deal, but you're right, there is absolutely no prime guy Tampa would want without Alonso.

Would Stubbs and Bailey do it? Add Grandal and I think it might.

On another note, Juan Francisco's 2011 line after today: 286/343/429/772. In 63 major league games and 110 ABs, his line reads 312/377/505/882. If Baker could spot him correctly, I'd love to see a platoon of Rolen and Francisco, both to keep Rolen healthier and get Francisco's power in the game.

IMO, the kid would be even better if he lost 30 pounds or so. He's a pear.

Agree about Francisco. I wanted a modified platoon as you suggest this season.

I don't think the Rays will have much interest in Bailey unless they plan to deal both Niemann and Shileds (maybe). If I was running the Rays, I wouldn't give-up a good pitcher in a deal being headlined by Stubbs or Heisey. I'd want Alonso and Grandal plus.

Reds/Flyers Fan
09-04-2011, 07:29 PM
So. Anybody feel better about Alonso in LF next season?

I do, but if it happens, I have no idea who they could deal to get the pitcher they need.

Grandal? Hamilton?

mth123
09-04-2011, 08:01 PM
Grandal? Hamilton?

That would be a start. I'm guessing teams would want guys ready now though.

REDREAD
09-06-2011, 01:02 PM
When you say that Walt and Dusty have a good idea of what they have in Sappelt and Frazier and they are role players what does that mean? Does it mean that they know Sappellt's ceiling is worse than guys like Gomes, Lewis and Dickerson who have started in left for the Reds in recent years? Are Sappelt and Frazier going to be good role players or bad ones? Are they guys the Reds should plan contributing well at the major league level or not? I don't think those questions have been answered.

Dusty actually thought Corey Patterson and Willy Taveras were going to be good outfielders for the Reds. I don't know how you're confident that he's got the the future of the young guys who recently came up all figured out on their very limited play so far.

Not really sure you can blame Dusty for Patterson and Taveras. The GMs brought them in. I'm not defending either signing, but it was a similiar situation to our SS this year.. No real options in our price range, so they took flyers on some cheap options and crossed their fingers. Dusty actually gave each bad CF a chance, and then benched them until injuries and lack of OF depth forced him to start playing them again.

I am not an expert, but I don't see a whole lot to like about Sappelt. Hopefully he gets better, but the decision to leave him off the opening day roster (against the majority of RZ interest) looks good now. And yes, right now, Gomes seems to be a much better player than Sappelt.

Frazier turns 26 over the offseason and really hasn't done much to impress me yet.
Looks like a future utility player to me (which does have value). Don't see why people are upset that either of these two guys aren't automatically playing every day.