PDA

View Full Version : Who paid the higher price?



mth123
10-08-2011, 06:49 AM
When 2010 ended, the Reds were generally viewed as the up and coming team on the rise that was to be the force in the NL Central for the next several years.

Since then, The Cardinals took a chance and signed Lance Berkman even though they were facing the prospect of both their Hall of Fame hitter and star pitcher becoming free agents after 2011. At the deadline, they weren't afraid to deal former top prospect Colby Rasmus to acquire a starter and fortify the pen.

The Brewers were facing a similar fate with their star hitter, but dealt some valued kids anyway to address the rotation and then made a move at the deadline to get K-Rod to fortify the pen. In the meantime, the Reds made the bold moves of adding Edgar Renteria and Fred Lewis.

The Cardinals and the Brewers are now playing for the chance to go the World Series. The Reds haven't played a meaningful game since the first week of August. While its true that the Cardinals won't have the use of the disappointing Colby Rasmus the next couple of seasons and the Brewers no longer have the rights to the immortal Lorenzo Cain, they sized up the situation and paid the price to make the necessary moves. The Reds saved some resources but punted the season and the apathy in the GM's chair seemed to spread through the roster and the fanbase.

Is it any wonder that these three similar markets have the Cardinals and the Brewers 3rd and 4th in NL in attendance with each team drawing over 3 Million fans. while the Reds are 10th in attendace in the NL barely over 2.2 Million? The Cardinals and the Brewers expended some resources to get what they need. The Reds passed, punted the season and relinquished the momentum they had built in 2010. Who paid the higher price?

The Reds are now facing their star leaving town in a couple of years and many advocate playing it safe by dealing him and getting what they can rather than taking advantage of his presence and worrying about letting him walk when the time comes. IMO, the Reds need to capitalize on the presence of thier star, fortify the roster and make a run at a championship while he's still here. Neither the Cardinals nor the Brewers ever seriously considered dealing their centerpiece players to minimize their risk. Instead, they chose to add the needed help to win with them. Its paid off with success on the field and at the gate. I hope the Reds wake-up and pay attention to the examples in their own division.

mbgrayson
10-08-2011, 07:19 AM
I think you are right.

The moral of the story is that when you have a team on the verge of winning, you should push to win now, and let the future take care of itself. It looks like a mistake to be always waiting to make your move 'tomorrow'.

Of course, next year we may think differently, but today it sure looks like Walt was wrong to be so conservative.

RANDY IN INDY
10-08-2011, 08:16 AM
When 2010 ended, the Reds were generally viewed as the up and coming team on the rise that was to be the force in the NL Central for the next several years.

Since then, The Cardinals took a chance and signed Lance Berkman even though they were facing the prospect of both their Hall of Fame hitter and star pitcher becoming free agents after 2011. At the deadline, they weren't afraid to deal former top prospect Colby Rasmus to acquire a starter and fortify the pen.

The Brewers were facing a similar fate with their star hitter, but dealt some valued kids anyway to address the rotation and then made a move at the deadline to get K-Rod to fortify the pen. In the meantime, the Reds made the bold moves of adding Edgar Renteria and Fred Lewis.

The Cardinals and the Brewers are now playing for the chance to go the World Series. The Reds haven't played a meaningful game since the first week of August. While its true that the Cardinals won't have the use of the disappointing Colby Rasmus the next couple of seasons and the Brewers no longer have the rights to the immortal Lorenzo Cain, they sized up the situation and paid the price to make the necessary moves. The Reds saved some resources but punted the season and the apathy in the GM's chair seemed to spread through the roster and the fanbase.

Is it any wonder that these three similar markets have the Cardinals and the Brewers 3rd and 4th in NL in attendance with each team drawing over 3 Million fans. while the Reds are 10th in attendace in the NL barely over 2.2 Million? The Cardinals and the Brewers expended some resources to get what they need. The Reds passed, punted the season and relinquished the momentum they had built in 2010. Who paid the higher price?

The Reds are now facing their star leaving town in a couple of years and many advocate playing it safe by dealing him and getting what they can rather than taking advantage of his presence and worrying about letting him walk when the time comes. IMO, the Reds need to capitalize on the presence of thier star, fortify the roster and make a run at a championship while he's still here. Neither the Cardinals nor the Brewers ever seriously considered dealing their centerpiece players to minimize their risk. Instead, they chose to add the needed help to win with them. Its paid off with success on the field and at the gate. I hope the Reds wake-up and pay attention to the examples in their own division.

:thumbup:

traderumor
10-08-2011, 09:28 AM
Why does everyone think that looking back in hindsight at what other teams did after success is always a good idea for the Reds to emulate? The Florida "model" now seems to be broken, that is usually thrown out there as a good Reds model, yet what was that, 2003?

I know there are a lot of unfair cherry picking accusations, so how about picking some low hanging fruit and saying "that's what the Reds should do because these teams are now in the NLCS playing each other." If only winning in MLB were that simple.

My take is that the Brewers have had the stars align similar to the Reds in 2010 and they are a good candidate to be the next Houston or Chicago in the division. I'm thinking most Reds fans are not wanting that to be the life cycle of their team?

IslandRed
10-08-2011, 09:29 AM
Two things:

1. I completely disagree with the notion that the Reds consciously punted the season. Young teams that win division titles and return everyone worth mentioning generally continue to be good. It's not like 2010 was some magical season where nothing went wrong.

2. I completely agree with your last paragraph.

If those two positions seem contradictory, all I can say is that teams have to manage short-term and long-term considerations simultaneously, and they don't always get it right. Fair enough to say the 2011 results weren't up to par.

edabbs44
10-08-2011, 10:06 AM
Milwaukee gave up a lot more for Greinke than just Cain, and don't forget that they dealt Lawrie also to get marcum.

Sea Ray
10-08-2011, 10:11 AM
It all gets down to money. We couldn't afford to add payroll. I know, it sucks to be a Reds fan. We're behind the 8 Ball every year financially.

Benihana
10-08-2011, 10:17 AM
Milwaukee gave up a lot more for Greinke than just Cain, and don't forget that they dealt Lawrie also to get marcum.

So? They're playing in the NLCS right now and should compete next year as well.

Mth is exactly right here, which is why I am so frustrated with this regime.

Greinke and Marcum would have been nice. So would Berkman and Holliday. They are all playing for NL Central mid market clubs trying to make the World Series now, but at least the Reds still have their redundant prospects!

hebroncougar
10-08-2011, 10:28 AM
So? They're playing in the NLCS right now and should compete next year as well.

Mth is exactly right here, which is why I am so frustrated with this regime.

Greinke and Marcum would have been nice. So would Berkman and Holliday. They are all playing for NL Central mid market clubs trying to make the World Series now, but at least the Reds still have their redundant prospects!

If the reds would have signed Berkman redszone would have absolutely exploded, saying his defense would have been sabremetically terrible and Walt should be fired immediately. Hindsight is 20/20 boys. I agree though, the time to win is the next two years.

Sent from my Desire HD using Tapatalk

traderumor
10-08-2011, 10:32 AM
So? They're playing in the NLCS right now and should compete next year as well.

Mth is exactly right here, which is why I am so frustrated with this regime.

Greinke and Marcum would have been nice. So would Berkman and Holliday. They are all playing for NL Central mid market clubs trying to make the World Series now, but at least the Reds still have their redundant prospects!

Do something, daggone it! Then watch me filet you when doing something doesn't work out. Like "I can't believe we gave up that much for Ubaldo and he hasn't pitched like an ace since we got him." I think you could find that over on the Indians board.

A lot of teams did a lot of things to try to make the playoffs. Those didn't pan out either. Where are those examples?

Heck, this game is so hard to build a winner that even teams with house money can't deliver what their fans demand. Boston, NYY, and Philly are making as many moves as they possibly can with 2 to 3 times as much money as the Reds have, and one doesn't even make the playoffs, the other two get bumped in the NLDS.

Evaluating our leaders on the terms of two teams that happen to still be in the playoffs is just really not a good measuring stick of the state of our franchise.

RANDY IN INDY
10-08-2011, 11:35 AM
Do you think the Reds can basically stand pat and realistically win the division next year, traderumor? They might, but I think there probably needs to be a couple of shrewd moves to put them over the top. I agree that some of the best moves are the ones that aren't made, but the good GM's make moves that help their teams when the window is open. In my opinion, the Reds have a window right now. Make the team better.

mth123
10-08-2011, 12:16 PM
Why does everyone think that looking back in hindsight at what other teams did after success is always a good idea for the Reds to emulate? The Florida "model" now seems to be broken, that is usually thrown out there as a good Reds model, yet what was that, 2003?

I know there are a lot of unfair cherry picking accusations, so how about picking some low hanging fruit and saying "that's what the Reds should do because these teams are now in the NLCS playing each other." If only winning in MLB were that simple.

My take is that the Brewers have had the stars align similar to the Reds in 2010 and they are a good candidate to be the next Houston or Chicago in the division. I'm thinking most Reds fans are not wanting that to be the life cycle of their team?

First. Its not hindsight. Search the archives. I wasn't impressed with the Berkman signing at the time, but I applauded the Brewers when the deals were made and said they'd be a power and questioned the Reds building their foundation on unproven starters and a clean-up hitter who has been injured and generally nothing more than a bottom of the order bat since 2006. Its also pretty clear that the Reds window is/was 2011 through 2013. After that the guys who make contending capable Will either be gone or so expensive that there is little hope of putting enough of a team around them to contend. They wasted one season by maintaining status quo and I said so last year at this time. Many people on this board saw that coming. The GM of the team should have seen it as well. The Brewers made their stars align by making a couple of bold moves to address its needs. The Reds need to do the same.

As far as the money goes, wasting one of three seasons where the primary pieces to win were in place seems to cost a lot more IMO. This year they have an even better opportunity. Some big money is coming off the books with Lewis and Gomes already gone and Cordero, Hernandez and Renteria leaving. The team has about $15 Million to play with and don't really need to go out and replace any of these guys with the possible exception of getting a cheap bullpen arm (less than $2 Milion). They could deal some mid-level salaries (Masset for instance) and make even more money available to add what they need. If they stand pat in favor of keeping that one extra prospect who breaks the deal, its not worth it IMO. Worse would be squandering that money by bringing back Cordero and signing this season's version of Renteria. As a fan, I want to see this team go for it. It may not work out. But it was pretty obvious that standing wasn't going to work and won't work in 2012. After that Phillips will be gone, Votto will be in his last year, the rest will be pricey and the window for this group will be closing. Its possible that they could find a new core that will re-open that window, but I'd rather see them take a shot now. Teams like the Reds seem to always be waiting for tomorrow. Tomorrow is here for a while. It won't be here for long. Better take advantage while it can be done because the day after tomorrow we'll probably be right back in that old rut.

Roy Tucker
10-08-2011, 12:17 PM
Two things:

1. I completely disagree with the notion that the Reds consciously punted the season. Young teams that win division titles and return everyone worth mentioning generally continue to be good. It's not like 2010 was some magical season where nothing went wrong.

2. I completely agree with your last paragraph.

If those two positions seem contradictory, all I can say is that teams have to manage short-term and long-term considerations simultaneously, and they don't always get it right. Fair enough to say the 2011 results weren't up to par.

I agree that they didn't consciously punt. I think they hoped that the young guys would give them a boost. Dusty talked about a push to passs the Cards for second place. But those moves were far too late.

For whatever reason, the Reds just never got it together this years past the first couple weeks of the season. They never seemed "hot". They sputtered all season and I do think they took their foot off the gas pedal from August on.

And I agree wholeheartedly with the base note. MLB is becoming more like the NFL. Rebuilding plans can't take more than a year.

edabbs44
10-08-2011, 12:32 PM
So? They're playing in the NLCS right now and should compete next year as well.

Mth is exactly right here, which is why I am so frustrated with this regime.

Greinke and Marcum would have been nice. So would Berkman and Holliday. They are all playing for NL Central mid market clubs trying to make the World Series now, but at least the Reds still have their redundant prospects!

The point is that we shouldn't act like their NLCS appearances only cost them Lorenzo Cain. Or that Matt Holliday didn't cost nine figures.

If we are going to say that Holliday would look good, we can also say that about Sabathia as well.

savafan
10-08-2011, 12:41 PM
Why does everyone think that looking back in hindsight at what other teams did after success is always a good idea for the Reds to emulate? The Florida "model" now seems to be broken, that is usually thrown out there as a good Reds model, yet what was that, 2003?



8 years since the last championship for Florida fans vs. 21 years for us? Plus, they've had 2 in that timeframe.

dougdirt
10-08-2011, 12:55 PM
"Going for it" is what those teams did. Where as a team like the Rays didn't "go for it" and have been building for the future for years by keeping "their guys". I feel a lot better about the Rays type of plan with our payroll than the Brewers type of plan with our payroll. I am more concerned about winning in the long run than what I think the Brewers plan is. Now, the Rays type of plan means you have to do things right, where as the Brewers plan is a little easier to make happen when you do have the talent at the big league level. Still, I want a plan that makes us competitive over a long run, not one that makes us really competitive for a season.

mth123
10-08-2011, 01:43 PM
The point is that we shouldn't act like their NLCS appearances only cost them Lorenzo Cain. Or that Matt Holliday didn't cost nine figures.

If we are going to say that Holliday would look good, we can also say that about Sabathia as well.

If we must make an issue of an obvious point, they gave up Alcides Escobar (good major league SS glove light with the bat but a solid player), Jake Odorizzi (a decent pitching prospect but not TOR material and probably replaceable) Jeremy Jeffress (a head case who they are probably glad to be rid of) and Lorenzo Cain (a 4th OF type who is probbaly a tweener in the Heisey mold) for Greinke and a decent prospect in Brett Lawrie (who can't find a position and is far from a sure thing) for Shan Marcum. They get multiple years of both arms and I'd bet their fans don't care what those guys go on to do. The team actually tried to win while they could instead of playing it safe by dealing Fielder to "get what we can get" and finishing 4th for another season while pointing to its untapped resources as hope for a tomorrow that never comes without taking a shot sooner or later.

Benihana
10-08-2011, 01:45 PM
And they traded for Holliday. True, they resigned him for a lot of money, but the point remains. Somehow certain teams including the Cards always find a way to get things done and make it happen, while teams like the Reds only find ways to make excuses.

dougdirt
10-08-2011, 01:51 PM
If we must make an issue of an obvious point, they gave up Alcides Escobar (good major league SS glove light with the bat but a solid player), Jake Odorizzi (a decent pitching prospect but not TOR material and probably replaceable) Jeremy Jeffress (a head case who they are probably glad to be rid of) and Lorenzo Cain (a 4th OF type who is probbaly a tweener in the Heisey mold) for Greinke and a decent prospect in Brett Lawrie (who can't find a position and is far from a sure thing) for Shan Marcum. They get multiple years of both arms and I'd bet their fans don't care what those guys go on to do. The team actually tried to win while they could instead of playing it safe by dealing Fielder to "get what we can get" and finishing 4th for another season while pointing to its untapped resources as hope for a tomorrow that never comes without taking a shot sooner or later.

Jeremy Jeffress is a head case? The guy likes to smoke the green. Aside from that, I have never heard any kind of problems on him in terms of off the field stuff.

As for Brett Lawrie.... he not only has a position, he is pretty much as "sure" as it gets. Scouts have loved the bat forever and they also have been saying for a year now that he can stick at third base just fine.

And I bet that in about 4 years the Brewer fans are going to be thinking "man, what if we had kept Brett Lawrie?".

dougdirt
10-08-2011, 01:52 PM
And they traded for Holliday. True, they resigned him for a lot of money, but the point remains. Somehow certain teams including the Cards always find a way to get things done and make it happen, while teams like the Reds only find ways to make excuses.

Yeah, a lot more money. More money allows you to do more things. You can trade "the future" because you can just buy what you need in the future. Not everyone can do that. Fair or unfair, that is how it goes. The Reds and the Cardinals aren't even close to working on the same scale of things.

mth123
10-08-2011, 02:13 PM
"Going for it" is what those teams did. Where as a team like the Rays didn't "go for it" and have been building for the future for years by keeping "their guys". I feel a lot better about the Rays type of plan with our payroll than the Brewers type of plan with our payroll. I am more concerned about winning in the long run than what I think the Brewers plan is. Now, the Rays type of plan means you have to do things right, where as the Brewers plan is a little easier to make happen when you do have the talent at the big league level. Still, I want a plan that makes us competitive over a long run, not one that makes us really competitive for a season.

The Rays did exactly as I'm advocating. They kept their top star until he walked for the big money in Boston and won 96 Games with him as one of thier primary players in his final season. They didn't deal Crawford to "get what we can get before he walks." Instead they dealt a prospect to Atlanta and took on Rafael Soriano's $7.25 Million Salary to shore up their weakest area. Then they used the money freed by Crawford's departure to sign a smart replacement in Johnny Damon. Prior to that they weren't afraid to deal highly touted young players like Delmon Young, Edwin Jackson and Scott Kazmir to improve their team to win with the core they had assembled.

mth123
10-08-2011, 02:20 PM
Jeremy Jeffress is a head case? The guy likes to smoke the green. Aside from that, I have never heard any kind of problems on him in terms of off the field stuff.

As for Brett Lawrie.... he not only has a position, he is pretty much as "sure" as it gets. Scouts have loved the bat forever and they also have been saying for a year now that he can stick at third base just fine.

And I bet that in about 4 years the Brewer fans are going to be thinking "man, what if we had kept Brett Lawrie?".

Yet it took the Pacific Coast League to get his OPS above .802.

He's been young for his leagues which is why everyone likes him (me too) but he hasn't exactly torn through the minors with his bat and was getting a lot of love for being a catcher and then a middle infielder where those .800ish OPS numbers look a lot more appealing. I'm guessing the bat might still be good, but won't look as good at 3B and with all the switches, I still question the glove. I think its questionable that he goes on to be a star caliber guy.

Don't get me wrong, I like Lawrie, but if the Reds had a similar prospect (say Todd Frazier after 2009) and could deal him for three years of Shawn Marcum, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

757690
10-08-2011, 02:41 PM
Yet it took the Pacific Coast League to get his OPS above .802.

He's been young for his leagues which is why everyone likes him (me too) but he hasn't exactly torn through the minors with his bat and was getting a lot of love for being a catcher and then a middle infielder where those .800ish OPS numbers look a lot more appealing. I'm guessing the bat might still be good, but won't look as good at 3B and with all the switches, I still question the glove. I think its questionable that he goes on to be a star caliber guy.

Don't get me wrong, I like Lawrie, but if the Reds had a similar prospect (say Todd Frazier after 2009) and could deal him for three years of Shawn Marcum, I'd do it in a heartbeat.

First, Lawrie = Alonso or Mesoraco, not Frazier. He's a likely 4+ win player at 3B for years to come. Remember, both Alonso and Mesoraco were late bloomers too. Read the scouting reports on all four players and you will see that Frazier just isn't in the same league as the other three.

Second, I like what the Brewers did, but let's be honest, they didn't have a whole lot of options. They are going to suck next year and for years to come, and they knew it, so they used whatever resources they had to go for it this season. Congratulations are in order to them, but the truth is that they have a below average team going forward after this year, and no resources to improve.

As for the Cardinals, I am never surprised by their success. My general rule is never bet against the Cardinals. But one thing that needs to be realized about them is that they have $110M payroll this season, and will have to increase it if they want to remain competitive next season. They probably will increase it and probably will be competitive, however, the Reds can't use them as a model, since the Reds just aren't in the same financial situation as them, and never will be.

I also don't buy into this notion that the Reds can't compete once Votto is gone. It's a long way away and there are many realistic ways that the Reds can fill that void once between now and then.

Kc61
10-08-2011, 02:44 PM
My take is that the Brewers have had the stars align similar to the Reds in 2010 and they are a good candidate to be the next Houston or Chicago in the division. I'm thinking most Reds fans are not wanting that to be the life cycle of their team?

And how about when the Brewers got Sabbathia and made the playoffs? Did the stars align then too, just a few years ago?

No, let's follow the Reds model. Lose. Lose. Lose. Lose. Lose. Lose. Lose. Make the playoffs and get swept. Lose.

The Brewers and Cardinals have shown the willingness to try and win in the short term. And even if they fall back, they try again.

The Reds have shown the willingness to draft and hope.

You may not like the "life cycle" of the Brewers or the Cardinals. Both organizations are light years ahead of the Reds right now.

mth123
10-08-2011, 03:01 PM
First, Lawrie = Alonso or Mesoraco, not Frazier. He's a likely 4+ win player at 3B for years to come. Remember, both Alonso and Mesoraco were late bloomers too. Read the scouting reports on all four players and you will see that Frazier just isn't in the same league as the other three.

Second, I like what the Brewers did, but let's be honest, they didn't have a whole lot of options. They are going to suck next year and for years to come, and they knew it, so they used whatever resources they had to go for it this season. Congratulations are in order to them, but the truth is that they have a below average team going forward after this year, and no resources to improve.

As for the Cardinals, I am never surprised by their success. My general rule is never bet against the Cardinals. But one thing that needs to be realized about them is that they have $110M payroll this season, and will have to increase it if they want to remain competitive next season. They probably will increase it and probably will be competitive, however, the Reds can't use them as a model, since the Reds just aren't in the same financial situation as them, and never will be.

I also don't buy into this notion that the Reds can't compete once Votto is gone. It's a long way away and there are many realistic ways that the Reds can fill that void once between now and then.

1. After 2009, Frazier was touted as the Reds top prospect on the strength of some .800ish OPS seasons and the expectation that he'd play 2B. That is exaclty what Lawrie was when the Brewers dealt him. He hit real well in 2011, but I take any offensive numbers in the PCL with a huge grain of salt with Las Vegas being the most favorabe of all the hitters situations. I'm not convinced he's a 4 war player.

2. Why would the Brewers suck in 2012. They'll have all 4 of their solid starting pitchers back, they will have the probable reigning NL MVP in Braun. They have a strong closer in Axford, a strong catcher in Lucroy and well above average positoin payers in Corey Hart and Rickie Weeks. If Fielder does leave, they'll have $15 Million coming off the books to replace him with.

I love the Reds system way more than I like the Brewers, but on the strength of the rotation alone, they will be favored over the Reds unless the Reds make moves similar to what the Brewers did this year. The Brewers will use money to add talent. Just like this season when IIRC, you told me there was no way they could add at the deadline and they acquired K-Rod and a very useful Jerry Hairston, they will fill holes with money and they will have a lot to spend with thier success and fielder and others coming off the books.They may not sign another Fielder, but I suspect they'll fill 1B or 3B with a capable middle of the order complement to Braun.

MikeS21
10-08-2011, 03:02 PM
There are three lessons I take away from the Brewers and Cards this year:

1) The NL Central is not the "worst" division in baseball, as some have tried to say. Division rivals just seem to beat up on each other.

2) Coming in to 2011, the Reds were considered the team to beat in the NL Central. Just about every guru thought the 2011 Reds > 2010 Reds simply because the young players every one is wanting to trade, would be better with age. The Cards and Brewers were "proactive" last off season because they FEARED how good the Reds would be.

3) I have no desire to go "all in" for one season. I am more interested in seeing a dynasty built, where the Reds make the post season 8-9 times over the ten years. Walt Jocketty did that in St. Louis, and the Cards are still reaping the benefits long after Walt has been gone. Perhaps we need to take a step back from the ledge and trust that Walt knows what he is doing, and if he thinks what the Reds have in young talent is better than what he can get in a trade, then trust him and stop accusing him of sitting on his hands.

Kc61
10-08-2011, 03:03 PM
"Going for it" is what those teams did. Where as a team like the Rays didn't "go for it" and have been building for the future for years by keeping "their guys". I feel a lot better about the Rays type of plan with our payroll than the Brewers type of plan with our payroll. I am more concerned about winning in the long run than what I think the Brewers plan is. Now, the Rays type of plan means you have to do things right, where as the Brewers plan is a little easier to make happen when you do have the talent at the big league level. Still, I want a plan that makes us competitive over a long run, not one that makes us really competitive for a season.

The Reds' problem is not their plan. Not in the least.

Since Dan O'Brien the Reds have had a good plan. Put money in the draft, build with young players. And supplement them, to the extent possible, with key veteran pickups.

This is a fine plan. It has continued with Krivsky and with Jocketty. Everyone is on board.

There is only one problem. The execution of the plan has been poor.

The team has emphasized youth, but the kids they have don't seem to add up to a good club. They could have used the young players in trades to improve, but they are passive.

The team has supplemented with veterans, a good idea, but the decisions haven't always been good. And every Arroyo contract you sign is a huge setback for a smaller market team.

There's nothing wrong with the plan. A good one has been in place for some time.

But the execution has been lacking.

mth123
10-08-2011, 03:05 PM
There are three lessons I take away from the Brewers and Cards this year:

1) The NL Central is not the "worst" division in baseball, as some have tried to say. Division rivals just seem to beat up on each other.

2) Coming in to 2011, the Reds were considered the team to beat in the NL Central. Just about every guru thought the 2011 Reds > 2010 Reds simply because the young players every one is wanting to trade, would be better with age. The Cards and Brewers were "proactive" last off season because they FEARED how good the Reds would be.

3) I have no desire to go "all in" for one season. I am more interested in seeing a dynasty built, where the Reds make the post season 8-9 times over the ten years. Walt Jocketty did that in St. Louis, and the Cards are still reaping the benefits long after Walt has been gone. Perhaps we need to take a step back from the ledge and trust that Walt knows what he is doing, and if he thinks what the Reds have in young talent is better than what he can get in a trade, then trust him and stop accusing him of sitting on his hands.

There won't be a dynasty if you never win in the first place. The Reds won't win unless some pitchers are brought in. Who of these minor leaguers would you call the guy they couldn't part with in order to get the ball rolling? Hold them all and the Dynasty will be over before it starts.

MikeThierry
10-08-2011, 03:15 PM
Yeah, a lot more money. More money allows you to do more things. You can trade "the future" because you can just buy what you need in the future. Not everyone can do that. Fair or unfair, that is how it goes. The Reds and the Cardinals aren't even close to working on the same scale of things.

The only thing I'll add about the Matt Holliday trade is that the Cardinals traded a prospect that really didn't have a position and weren't clear on what kind of power he would create. I don't know if the Reds have a player in their system that is sort of that kind of player where essentially there was no future in the Reds organization on a major league level. It is easier to trade an unknown rather than a player that the organization has high hopes for in the big leagues. I can understand Walt's timidness in trading some of the Reds prospects, though he certainly does deserve some questioning on the process as well.

wlf WV
10-08-2011, 03:18 PM
Is the market larger in St. Louis? Why do they outdraw the Reds?These are the questions,not who has the biggest budget,but why.

757690
10-08-2011, 03:28 PM
1. After 2009, Frazier was touted as the Reds top prospect on the strength of some .800ish OPS seasons and the expectation that he'd play 2B. That is exaclty what Lawrie was when the Brewers dealt him. He hit real well in 2011, but I take any offensive numbers in the PCL with a huge grain of salt with Las Vegas being the most favorabe of all the hitters situations. I'm not convinced he's a 4 war player.

2. Why would the Brewers suck in 2012. They'll have all 4 of their solid starting pitchers back, they will have the probable reigning NL MVP in Braun. They have a strong closer in Axford, a strong catcher in Lucroy and well above average positoin payers in Corey Hart and Rickie Weeks. If Fielder does leave, they'll have $15 Million coming off the books to replace him with.

I love the Reds system way more than I like the Brewers, but on the strength of the rotation alone, they will be favored over the Reds unless the Reds make moves similar to what the Brewers did this year. The Brewers will use money to add talent. Just like this season when IIRC, you told me there was no way they could add at the deadline and they acquired K-Rod and a very useful Jerry Hairston, they will fill holes with money and they will have a lot to spend with thier success and fielder and others coming off the books.They may not sign another Fielder, but I suspect they'll fill 1B or 3B with a capable middle of the order complement to Braun.

1. Regardless of who Lawrie matches up with, he's a top prospect that the Brewers will miss. His production after his call up speaks the loudest. Obviously, he won't OPS .950 the rest of his career, but he should be a cheap, above average 3B for many years. He was a very high price to pay for Marcum.

2. The Brewers will be at around $85M next year, before they fill 1B, SS, 3B, a 5th starter and most of their bullpen. No way they come close to replacing Fielder. They were a 90 win team this season. Imagine them with Lyle Overbay at first. Ugly.

Kc61
10-08-2011, 03:31 PM
And they traded for Holliday. True, they resigned him for a lot of money, but the point remains. Somehow certain teams including the Cards always find a way to get things done and make it happen, while teams like the Reds only find ways to make excuses.

I really do agree with this. The Cards think big. The Reds think medium.

IMO the Cards have made their team into a "bigger market club" by the way they have managed the franchise.

IMO the Reds have managed their club like a small market and the results are there to see.

Kc61
10-08-2011, 03:33 PM
1. Regardless of who Lawrie matches up with, he's a top prospect that the Brewers will miss. His production after his call up speaks the loudest. Obviously, he won't OPS .950 the rest of his career, but he should be a cheap, above average 3B for many years. He was a very high price to pay for Marcum.

2. The Brewers will be at around $85M next year, before they fill 1B, SS, 3B, a 5th starter and most of their bullpen. No way they come close to replacing Fielder. They were a 90 win team this season. Imagine them with Lyle Overbay at first. Ugly.

Yeah, the Brewers may have to worry about this problem while their team is in the World Series.

757690
10-08-2011, 03:35 PM
Is the market larger in St. Louis? Why do they outdraw the Reds?These are the questions,not who has the biggest budget,but why.

The Cardinals have a long history of being the "midwest" team. Nearly everyone not near a major league team in the midwest, roots for the Cardinals because of KMOX. They are the most storied team in the NL, the NL's Yankees. They will always have a bigger market than Cincinnati. It has very little to do with how they are run.

kbrake
10-08-2011, 03:38 PM
I really do agree with this. The Cards think big. The Reds think medium.

IMO the Cards have made their team into a "bigger market club" by the way they have managed the franchise.

IMO the Reds have managed their club like a small market and the results are there to see.

Money is not an excuse, it is a fact. And we'll see how great St. Louis did with the aggressive Holliday move when it cost them the best player in the history of their franchise this offseason. Think the A's are glad that they were aggressive and went after it with Holliday? I understand the frustration but this franchise is heading in the right direction.

dougdirt
10-08-2011, 03:43 PM
The Rays did exactly as I'm advocating. They kept their top star until he walked for the big money in Boston and won 96 Games with him as one of thier primary players in his final season. They didn't deal Crawford to "get what we can get before he walks." Instead they dealt a prospect to Atlanta and took on Rafael Soriano's $7.25 Million Salary to shore up their weakest area. Then they used the money freed by Crawford's departure to sign a smart replacement in Johnny Damon. Prior to that they weren't afraid to deal highly touted young players like Delmon Young, Edwin Jackson and Scott Kazmir to improve their team to win with the core they had assembled.

What the Rays did and what the Brewers/Cardinals did are two different things. The Rays didn't deal Crawford because they were in position as one of the better teams in the league and they also got two premium draft picks for him when he walked. The Rays weren't going to be in a position to go out and sign a Matt Holiday or Lance Berkman. They weren't in position to go out and trade for a Zack Greinke. Not because they didn't have the parts, but because they didn't have the money. Just like the Reds.

dougdirt
10-08-2011, 03:44 PM
And how about when the Brewers got Sabbathia and made the playoffs? Did the stars align then too, just a few years ago?

No, let's follow the Reds model. Lose. Lose. Lose. Lose. Lose. Lose. Lose. Make the playoffs and get swept. Lose.

The Brewers and Cardinals have shown the willingness to try and win in the short term. And even if they fall back, they try again.

The Reds have shown the willingness to draft and hope.

You may not like the "life cycle" of the Brewers or the Cardinals. Both organizations are light years ahead of the Reds right now.

You know, the Rays used to draft/develop and lose. lose. lose. lose. lose. lose. Then all of that drafting and developing started to pay off. Now they win. Win. Win. Win. If you don't have the money, that winning takes time to build.

Kc61
10-08-2011, 03:59 PM
You know, the Rays used to draft/develop and lose. lose. lose. lose. lose. lose. Then all of that drafting and developing started to pay off. Now they win. Win. Win. Win. If you don't have the money, that winning takes time to build.

The Rays had a number of very high draft picks. First, second, third picks in the entire draft. The Rays lost, lost, lost, lost. They drafted super prospects. Then they won, won, won, won.

The Reds have never had those very high picks. (When they had one, they drafted Gruler.) The Reds, like most teams, get reasonably good picks. And they have drafted reasonably good players. Not good enough to win divisions and leagues, mind you, but reasonably good.

The Rays have therefore been in an unusual position. Yes, they had lots of acumen and skill and used that position well.

The Rays have players like Price and Longoria because of their draft position. Players like that elevate teams.

So unless the Reds intend to lose 100 games for the next few years, I think the Rays will be hard to emulate.

Kc61
10-08-2011, 04:06 PM
Money is not an excuse, it is a fact. And we'll see how great St. Louis did with the aggressive Holliday move when it cost them the best player in the history of their franchise this offseason. Think the A's are glad that they were aggressive and went after it with Holliday? I understand the frustration but this franchise is heading in the right direction.

The Cards seem to know how to fill holes. Everyone on here laughed at the Berkman acquisition. The Cards got Furcal, he helped get them into the NLCS last night.

It's using money wisely. It's generally being pro-active. It's recognizing that "draft and hold" isn't a winning philosophy if you don't constantly manage your roster by making necessary changes.

Your prognostication about the Cards next year is interesting, but years and years of that franchise's history suggests that they will find a way. Because they have some money, but they also have the will.

757690
10-08-2011, 04:15 PM
The Rays had a number of very high draft picks. First, second, third picks in the entire draft. The Rays lost, lost, lost, lost. They drafted super prospects. Then they won, won, won, won.

The Reds have never had those very high picks. (When they had one, they drafted Gruler.) The Reds, like most teams, get reasonably good picks. And they have drafted reasonably good players. Not good enough to win divisions and leagues, mind you, but reasonably good.

The Rays have therefore been in an unusual position. Yes, they had lots of acumen and skill and used that position well.

The Rays have players like Price and Longoria because of their draft position. Players like that elevate teams.

So unless the Reds intend to lose 100 games for the next few years, I think the Rays will be hard to emulate.

First, those high first round picks yielded the Rays:

Josh Hamilton - lost in the rule 5 draft
Rocco Baldelli - career ended by injury
Dewon Brazelton - never really made it
B.J. Upton - in the majors, but not really living up to his expectations
Delmon Young - Traded for Matt Garza, who was traded for prospects
Jeff Neimann - Decent 3-4 starter
Wade Townsend - Flop
Evan Longoria - All-Star 3B
David Price - TOR starter

So they did get their middle of the lineup bat, and #1 starter out of the draft, but they hardly built their team around these high draft picks.

The Reds draft picks in those years have produced just as much talent. And their talent on the field at this moment is not that different. The Rays are a better team, no doubt, but it's not like they are miles away ahead of the Reds.

757690
10-08-2011, 04:17 PM
The Cards seem to know how to fill holes. Everyone on here laughed at the Berkman acquisition. The Cards got Furcal, he helped get them into the NLCS last night.

It's using money wisely. It's generally being pro-active. It's recognizing that "draft and hold" isn't a winning philosophy if you don't constantly manage your roster by making necessary changes.

Your prognostication about the Cards next year is interesting, but years and years of that franchise's history suggests that they will find a way. Because they have some money, but they also have the will.

Without their money, their will is irrelevant. They got the players that helped them this year only because they were willing to take on big contracts on high risk players. The Reds can never afford to do that.

Benihana
10-08-2011, 04:18 PM
The only thing I'll add about the Matt Holliday trade is that the Cardinals traded a prospect that really didn't have a position and weren't clear on what kind of power he would create. I don't know if the Reds have a player in their system that is sort of that kind of player where essentially there was no future in the Reds organization on a major league level. It is easier to trade an unknown rather than a player that the organization has high hopes for in the big leagues. I can understand Walt's timidness in trading some of the Reds prospects, though he certainly does deserve some questioning on the process as well.

They do, his name is Todd Frazier. If you assume Todd Frazier = Brett Wallace and Yonder Alonso = Brett Lawrie (as was previously assumed on this thread) then I'd happily trade Frazier and Alonso for Holliday and Marcum, which is precisely what the two best franchises in the NL Central did.

dougdirt
10-08-2011, 04:23 PM
The Rays had a number of very high draft picks. First, second, third picks in the entire draft. The Rays lost, lost, lost, lost. They drafted super prospects. Then they won, won, won, won.

The Reds have never had those very high picks. (When they had one, they drafted Gruler.) The Reds, like most teams, get reasonably good picks. And they have drafted reasonably good players. Not good enough to win divisions and leagues, mind you, but reasonably good.

While the Rays did have several very high picks who worked out for them (Longoria/Price) they also made good on not so high value picks like Matt Moore, who is the best pitching prospect in baseball who went in the 8th round, Desmond Jennings who was one of the top prospects in the game who went in the 10th round, James Shields who was a 16th rounder, Wade Davis who was a 3rd rounder, Jeremy Hellickson who was a 4th rounder, Alex Cobb who was a 4th rounder, Jake McGee who was a 5th rounder....

Yes, they took advantage of their top end picks with Longoria and Price, but they also got great value from further down the draft too and that is one of the reasons they are so good. They drafted very well throughout the draft, not just in the first round inside the top 5.

And last I checked, the Reds did win the division last year on the back of mostly drafted and developed players or players that were acquired because of drafted/signed players. Rolen and Arroyo were directly acquired by players the Reds drafted and signed as amateurs.

mth123
10-08-2011, 04:23 PM
What the Rays did and what the Brewers/Cardinals did are two different things. The Rays didn't deal Crawford because they were in position as one of the better teams in the league and they also got two premium draft picks for him when he walked. The Rays weren't going to be in a position to go out and sign a Matt Holiday or Lance Berkman. They weren't in position to go out and trade for a Zack Greinke. Not because they didn't have the parts, but because they didn't have the money. Just like the Reds.

Well, the Rays are in a different class where money is concerned. A $40 Million payroll is tough to maintain while being good. Their window will close soon as well.

The Reds will have $15 to $20 Million to play with this year if they don't do something stupid with Cordero. Plenty to go get some players before the window closes. The Reds have kids, but Mesoraco, Sappelt and Cozart are really the only ones who may be upgrades to the guys already here and in 2012, they'll be here too. Time to deal some stuff to fill holes. Like last season at this time, the Reds don't have enough for the rotation unless a lot question marks are answered yes. I'm still high on Bailey, hopeful for Chapman and Wood and probably think Volquez has a better shot to bounce back than most of the people on this board do, but for the next two years, while Votto is still here, I'd rather take a shot by getting some established guys. They have the money and no one on the way like Price, Hellickson and Moore who are the guys (along with a very team friendly deal signed by Evan Longoria) who made the Rays model possible.

Funny how all of these models go. They work better with good pitching. Moneyball isn't really the success its made out to be now that Hudson, Zito and Mulder are gone now is it?

kbrake
10-08-2011, 04:26 PM
The Cards seem to know how to fill holes. Everyone on here laughed at the Berkman acquisition. The Cards got Furcal, he helped get them into the NLCS last night.

It's using money wisely. It's generally being pro-active. It's recognizing that "draft and hold" isn't a winning philosophy if you don't constantly manage your roster by making necessary changes.

Your prognostication about the Cards next year is interesting, but years and years of that franchise's history suggests that they will find a way. Because they have some money, but they also have the will.

You guys do realize this awesome system the Cardinals have had in place for years and years is a system put in place by the Reds current GM, right?

dougdirt
10-08-2011, 04:27 PM
Funny how all of these models go. They work better with good pitching. Moneyball isn't really the success its made out to be now that Hudson, Zito and Mulder are gone now is it?

Moneyball is a great success. The Rays employ the tactics used in moneyball greatly. Moneyball isn't about OBP. It is about finding talent to inject to your team better than the competition with less money than the competition. The Rays are doing it by drafting and developing players better than anyone in baseball. That is "Moneyball".

mth123
10-08-2011, 04:29 PM
Moneyball is a great success. The Rays employ the tactics used in moneyball greatly. Moneyball isn't about OBP. It is about finding talent to inject to your team better than the competition with less money than the competition. The Rays are doing it by drafting and developing players better than anyone in baseball. That is "Moneyball".

And it works because of the pitching. The Reds don't have that in the pipeline so they need to use a different model or they'll suck again in 2012.

BTW, Arroyo was not acquired for some one the Reds signed. Wily Mo was not a Reds signing.

dougdirt
10-08-2011, 04:34 PM
And it works because of the pitching. The Reds don't have that in the pipeline so they need to use a different model or they'll suck again in 2012.

BTW, Arroyo was not acquired for some one the Reds signed. Wily Mo was not a Reds signing.

He was a guy they developed though. Not entirely the same, but the draft/develop process works hand in hand. The Reds developed him and then traded him off for Arroyo.

The Reds may or may not have pitching in the pipeline. They certainly have the potential. Cueto, Bailey, Volquez and Chapman all have #1/2 potential in their arms. They need to all take a step forward (or two or three in some cases) to reach it.

dougdirt
10-08-2011, 04:36 PM
Also, the Rays had the #6 OPS+ in all of baseball in 2011. So no, it doesn't work because of the pitching. It works because they have a complete team on both sides of the ball.

mth123
10-08-2011, 04:42 PM
Also, the Rays had the #6 OPS+ in all of baseball in 2011. So no, it doesn't work because of the pitching. It works because they have a complete team on both sides of the ball.

And all year I was told how the Reds were leading or second in runs scored and they won 79 games. It works because of the pitching.

redsmetz
10-08-2011, 04:45 PM
The Cardinals have a long history of being the "midwest" team. Nearly everyone not near a major league team in the midwest, roots for the Cardinals because of KMOX. They are the most storied team in the NL, the NL's Yankees. They will always have a bigger market than Cincinnati. It has very little to do with how they are run.

This isn't a completely accurate portrayal, IMO. Prior to the movement of some clubs (A's to KC, Braves to Milwaukee & subsequently Atlanta), the Cards pretty much owned much of the south (particularly the western and southwestern portions) and the upper Midwest and KMOX was a big help. Certainly the Redbirds of the 1920's, 30's and part of the 40's were essentially the NL's version of the Yankees.

But the Reds had WLW and we held sway in a good swath of the south (KY, parts of TN, WV, western VA, NC pockets, even a corner of MS). And we had much of OH, southern IN and even picked up a bit a little bit of SE Illinois). And the Reds of the 1970's were the preeminent team in the National League. Remember Bowie Kuhn nixed the Vida Blue trade because we were stockpiling top talent.

Sadly, not to always keep coming back to Marge Schott's reign here, but much of what she did decimated this organization, particularly the minor league system, the scouting and even ceding some of traditional Reds country. Some of that loss of our "territory" was right as the Indians were at their ascendency and I don't think we've recovered some of that area outside of SW Ohio.

There's no question that the Brewers were going all in expecting to lose Fielder. We'll see how that ultimately plays out. As for the Cardinals, they do always seem to find a way to get to the post-season. I don't know if they lucked out with Berkman or if they had some great info that anticipated his season. As for the Reds, I still wonder what offers were considered on the trade front and were other teams expecting to be allowed to just back their truck up and load on our prospects.

Some of the limitations, I think, may have been a matter of timing. Grandal's hold out made it difficult to trade him prior to the trade deadline. Teams, I think, are always reluctant to trade pitching, but it's something we'll really need to consider this season, and despite the feeling by some around here, the choices will be hard and may be regretted, but I don't see much of a way around that.

But I agree with those who suggest that having basically stood pat, we still were highly favored to win our division. But where things went our way last season, little went our way this year. I continue to agree with those who suggest that this year resembles the 1971 season. We'll see.

dougdirt
10-08-2011, 05:03 PM
And all year I was told how the Reds were leading or second in runs scored and they won 79 games. It works because of the pitching.

Oakland had the 5th best ERA+ in baseball. They won 74 games. They sure had the pitching. It wasn't because of the pitching, it was because of the whole package.

westofyou
10-08-2011, 05:07 PM
The Cardinals have a long history of being the "midwest" team. Nearly everyone not near a major league team in the midwest, roots for the Cardinals because of KMOX. They are the most storied team in the NL, the NL's Yankees. They will always have a bigger market than Cincinnati. It has very little to do with how they are run.

Yep, get in a car in St Louis and drive north south, west or east and run into little professional sports franchises, do it in Cincinnati and get a different result.

Cardinals were also the first team with a payroll that exceeded a million bucks.

They's always had the fans, that's why the Browns failed so badly.

AtomicDumpling
10-08-2011, 05:07 PM
What the Rays did and what the Brewers/Cardinals did are two different things. The Rays didn't deal Crawford because they were in position as one of the better teams in the league and they also got two premium draft picks for him when he walked. The Rays weren't going to be in a position to go out and sign a Matt Holiday or Lance Berkman. They weren't in position to go out and trade for a Zack Greinke. Not because they didn't have the parts, but because they didn't have the money. Just like the Reds.

I agree with you that the Rays are the team the Reds should be emulating.

The Reds and Rays are in two different leagues financially. The Rays are in the smallest market in the league with no historical tradition and a minuscule fanbase in a town that just doesn't care. They are a struggling franchise economically. The Reds are a highly profitable mid-market team with a long history and a widespread, loyal, regional fanbase and a payroll usually 2-4 times higher than the Rays. If the Rays can flourish on the field then how can we justify claiming lack of money as an excuse for the Reds prolonged failure?

The Rays have been successful in recent years because the current front office inherited a farm system loaded with great prospects. They drafted smartly, they developed the prospects wisely, they made smart trades and they made great decisions about when to trade off players at the perfect time. The Rays are innovative. They are cutting edge. They develop and utilize creative new strategies based on the latest technology and sabermetric principles to maximize the potential of their team.

The Reds management and ownership is old-school. They are behind the times. The best we can expect from the elderly braintrust is a perpetual game of catch-up. This Reds crew will never be ahead of the curve.

The Cardinals and Brewers have managed to build a long list of successful player acquisitions while the Reds have built a long list of excuses.

Each time a team has a successful season (makes the playoffs or especially if they win the World Series) it greatly improves your chances of winning in future seasons. Why? Because it bolsters your market.New fans are made. It brings new people into your fanbase. It increases enthusiasm and encourages fans to come to more games, now and in the future. It legitimizes the team as a team worth following. All this translates into increased revenue and a better chance to win in the future. Of course the opposite is also true. Losing begets losing. The fanbase dwindles. Young people never become hooked. They find another team, another sport to support. This is why smart teams realize you have to win now. You have to go for it as often as possible. If you are always waiting to win tomorrow you will likely find that tomorrow never comes.

redsfandan
10-08-2011, 05:28 PM
I agree with you that the Rays are the team the Reds should be emulating.

The Reds and Rays are in two different leagues financially. The Rays are in the smallest market in the league with no historical tradition and a minuscule fanbase in a town that just doesn't care. They are a struggling franchise economically. The Reds are a highly profitable mid-market team with a long history and a widespread, loyal, regional fanbase and a payroll usually 2-4 times higher than the Rays. If the Rays can flourish on the field then how can we justify claiming lack of money as an excuse for the Reds prolonged failure?

The Rays have been successful in recent years because the current front office inherited a farm system loaded with great prospects. They drafted smartly, they developed the prospects wisely, they made smart trades and they made great decisions about when to trade off players at the perfect time. The Rays are innovative. They are cutting edge. They develop and utilize creative new strategies based on the latest technology and sabermetric principles to maximize the potential of their team.

The Reds management and ownership is old-school. They are behind the times. The best we can expect from the elderly braintrust is a perpetual game of catch-up. This Reds crew will never be ahead of the curve.

The Cardinals and Brewers have managed to build a long list of successful player acquisitions while the Reds have built a long list of excuses.

Each time a team has a successful season (makes the playoffs or especially if they win the World Series) it greatly improves your chances of winning in future seasons. Why? Because it bolsters your market.New fans are made. It brings new people into your fanbase. It increases enthusiasm and encourages fans to come to more games, now and in the future. It legitimizes the team as a team worth following. All this translates into increased revenue and a better chance to win in the future. Of course the opposite is also true. Losing begets losing. The fanbase dwindles. Young people never become hooked. They find another team, another sport to support. This is why smart teams realize you have to win now. You have to go for it as often as possible. If you are always waiting to win tomorrow you will likely find that tomorrow never comes.

No, the Rays aren't ahead of the Reds financially. But, the Rays are ahead of the Reds as far as their minor league prospects go while St Louis is ahead of the Reds financially. If you don't have the money you gotta have the prospects. Fortunately, the Reds have improved their minor league system alot and, while their budget won't ever be as much as we'd like, I think it should improve.

Meanwhile, the Cards and Brewers both have financial questions going forward (resigning Pujols, how to replace Fielder, etc) and neither has the minor league system of the Reds. So, I think the Reds should be ok the next 5+ years compared to the Cards and Brewers.

MikeThierry
10-08-2011, 06:04 PM
No, the Rays aren't ahead of the Reds financially. But, the Rays are ahead of the Reds as far as their minor league prospects go while St Louis is ahead of the Reds financially. If you don't have the money you gotta have the prospects. Fortunately, the Reds have improved their minor league system alot and, while their budget won't ever be as much as we'd like, I think it should improve.

Meanwhile, the Cards and Brewers both have financial questions going forward (resigning Pujols, how to replace Fielder, etc) and neither has the minor league system of the Reds. So, I think the Reds should be ok the next 5+ years compared to the Cards and Brewers.

In terms of when we talk about prospects, what is more important: Pitching prospects or every day player prospects? I look at the teams that made the playoffs (Cards might be an exception) and all of them have in common one thing and that is good frontline pitching. Of course teams need offense and can win with just having good offense (example the Cardinals). That seems to be the rarity though. Theoretically, an every day player is more valuable than a pitcher simply because he plays more games. However having front line pitching will always keep teams in contention no matter how bad the offense is. Theoretically you are right that the Reds seem to have it better 5 years down the road than the Cardinals or Brewers but if you look at what the Cards are building in their farm system, they are going heavy on starting pitching. They have two top ten prospects within their system, both of them are projected to be aces down the road. While the Cards might not have the offensive players in their farm system that the Reds do, their pitching prospects will probably continue to make them competitive with the Reds 5 years from now. I guess I'm asking the question, is it more important to focus on pitching within a minor league system or offensive players in the minor league system?

MikeThierry
10-08-2011, 06:07 PM
There's no question that the Brewers were going all in expecting to lose Fielder. We'll see how that ultimately plays out. As for the Cardinals, they do always seem to find a way to get to the post-season. I don't know if they lucked out with Berkman or if they had some great info that anticipated his season. As for the Reds, I still wonder what offers were considered on the trade front and were other teams expecting to be allowed to just back their truck up and load on our prospects.

Sometimes risks have to be taken. With the Cardinals, they risked with Berkman. Nobody could foresee the kind of year he had. With the Brewers, they risked their whole minor league system it seems to go all in this year. Both risks worked. If a club isn't willing to take risks, a lot of times they are going to be left in the dust come playoff time.

mth123
10-08-2011, 06:29 PM
Oakland had the 5th best ERA+ in baseball. They won 74 games. They sure had the pitching. It wasn't because of the pitching, it was because of the whole package.

I'm all for using the Rays model when you have the prospects in place. The Reds have a decent system. I want them to do exactly what the Rays do in the bullpen. Go with Boxberger and a cheap vet, forget about Cordero and make it clear to Masset that they aren't going to arb and he either signs for less than $2 Million or they'll non-tender him and sign some vet for cheap. I want that at SS and C as well. I think CF needs an upgrade from within and even 3B could go that route...

...but the Reds rotation is filled with question marks and the Reds haven't had a Price, Hellickson or Moore coming since Homer Bailey was still a prospect. It hasn't worked out and its past time to stop gambling with so many question marks. If Chapman is the next great hope, then stick him in the 5th spot and deal off Bailey and Volquez while giving Wood a shot in the pen. The model I don't want is the model where Chapman is the plan for upgrading. If the Reds were in full rebuild mode, I'd be all for it. In contend mode, I want a proven guy with a track record of success and if some prospects need to be dealt to get it, so be it. I probably wouldn't deal Mesoraco, Bruce, Cueto or Votto, but if others need to go, then do it. If a reasonable deal for say Stubbs and Alonso is presented that upgrades the rotation, I wouldn't nix it if they ask for some one like Frazier as well. It may seem an overpay, but the cost of letting these Votto/Phillips years go by without trying to win is higher in my book.

I really would like to see Bailey get one more shot, but not at the expense of acquiring help. I'd simply leave Chapman in the pen.

757690
10-08-2011, 06:37 PM
I'm all for using the Rays model when you have the prospects in place. The Reds have a decent system. I want them to do exactly what the Rays do in the bullpen. Go with Boxberger and a cheap vet, forget about Cordero and make it clear to Masset that they aren't going to arb and he either signs for less than $2 Million or they'll non-tender him and sign some vet for cheap. I want that at SS and C as well. I think CF needs an upgrade from within and even 3B could go that route...

...but the Reds rotation is filled with question marks and the Reds haven't had a Price, Hellickson or Moore coming since Homer Bailey was still a prospect. It hasn't worked out and its past time to stop gambling with so many question marks. If Chapman is the next great hope, then stick him in the 5th spot and deal off Bailey and Volquez while giving Wood a shot in the pen. The model I don't want is the model where Chapman is the plan for upgrading. If the Reds were in full rebuild mode, I'd be all for it. In contend mode, I want a proven guy with a track record of success and if some prospects need to be dealt to get it, so be it. I probably wouldn't deal Mesoraco, Bruce, Cueto or Votto, but if others need to go, then do it. If a reasonable deal for say Stubbs and Alonso is presented that upgrades the rotation, I wouldn't nix it if they ask for some one like Frazier as well. It may seem an overpay, but the cost of letting these Votto/Phillips years go by without trying to win is higher in my book.

I really would like to see Bailey get one more shot, but not at the expense of acquiring help. I'd simply leave Chapman in the pen.

I agree with you on this point. The Reds can't sit on their prospects any longer. They have a good idea of who they have and who can help where. Time to make some moves.

traderumor
10-08-2011, 07:13 PM
Do you think the Reds can basically stand pat and realistically win the division next year, traderumor? They might, but I think there probably needs to be a couple of shrewd moves to put them over the top. I agree that some of the best moves are the ones that aren't made, but the good GM's make moves that help their teams when the window is open. In my opinion, the Reds have a window right now. Make the team better.No, it should be very clear what the Reds need to do. Things played themselves out on the pitching staff this year and it wasn't pretty. If they want to be relevant next year, they clearly need to bring in some new MLB level arms both in the rotation and for the bullpen. That's going to take some moving of prospects and young guys, some....rrrrrrrisk.

But don't forget that there was optimism in the RZ camp going into the season with the pitching staff from people who know some baseball. Of course, those who made the bolder prediction that Volquez would suck, Arroyo would give up over 40 homers, Bailey would remain a disappointment, and they would wear out the bullpen by June seem to want to remind everyone of their soothsaying abilities every day, often, in many threads with many posts.

MikeS21
10-08-2011, 10:27 PM
There won't be a dynasty if you never win in the first place. The Reds won't win unless some pitchers are brought in. Who of these minor leaguers would you call the guy they couldn't part with in order to get the ball rolling? Hold them all and the Dynasty will be over before it starts.
If you want a major upgrade in the rotation from outside the organization, then say good-bye to Votto, Bruce, and Cueto - because it probably would take all three to land a bonafide TOR starter. We need to stop pretending that some combination of Alonso, Frazier, Sapelt, Wood, or any other minor leaguer would land that ace if only Walt would give them up.

It does not matter who the Brewers had to give up to the Royals to land
Zack Greinke. Evidently the Royals wanted the Brewers deal more than all the other offers from every GM in baseball. And had Walt given up Votto, Bruce, Cueto, and thrown in Mesoraco, the Reds may have landed Greinke.

Me ... I'd rather keep Votto, Bruce and Cueto. That means the rest of the staff is from in-house. I'd try my hand with Chapman, Bailey, Leake, and Volquez. Chapman has the stuff to be the ace the Reds need. If your staff is Chapman-Cueto-Volquez-Bailey-Leake, you have the potential to have the best rotation in the NL Central - better than the Brewers or Cardinals.

Pencil Alonso in LF, Cozart at SS, and Mesoraco at C. Let Fraizer fill in for Rolen at 3B twice a week. Let Heisey and Sapelt be your 4th and 5th OF's. Re-sign BP for 2B. Let Valaika be your reserve IF. Bring back Cairo as a bench guy.

If Cordero is extended, the bullpen is pretty much set, although another reliever might be needed. But sliding Wood into the bullpen may fill that spot.

Assuming Hernandez becomes a FA, now your only excess parts are Arroyo and Francisco.

This proposed roster is better than 2011, and I think it is better than the 2010 team. And if Walt does this, he will be accused of "doing nothing." Too bad because this team can win.

dougdirt
10-09-2011, 12:06 AM
Pencil Alonso in LF, Cozart at SS, and Mesoraco at C. Let Fraizer fill in for Rolen at 3B twice a week. Let Heisey and Sapelt be your 4th and 5th OF's. Re-sign BP for 2B. Let Valaika be your reserve IF. Bring back Cairo as a bench guy.

If Cordero is extended, the bullpen is pretty much set, although another reliever might be needed. But sliding Wood into the bullpen may fill that spot.

Assuming Hernandez becomes a FA, now your only excess parts are Arroyo and Francisco.

This proposed roster is better than 2011, and I think it is better than the 2010 team. And if Walt does this, he will be accused of "doing nothing." Too bad because this team can win.

I like you Mike.

mth123
10-09-2011, 01:07 AM
If you want a major upgrade in the rotation from outside the organization, then say good-bye to Votto, Bruce, and Cueto - because it probably would take all three to land a bonafide TOR starter. We need to stop pretending that some combination of Alonso, Frazier, Sapelt, Wood, or any other minor leaguer would land that ace if only Walt would give them up.

It does not matter who the Brewers had to give up to the Royals to land
Zack Greinke. Evidently the Royals wanted the Brewers deal more than all the other offers from every GM in baseball. And had Walt given up Votto, Bruce, Cueto, and thrown in Mesoraco, the Reds may have landed Greinke.

Me ... I'd rather keep Votto, Bruce and Cueto. That means the rest of the staff is from in-house. I'd try my hand with Chapman, Bailey, Leake, and Volquez. Chapman has the stuff to be the ace the Reds need. If your staff is Chapman-Cueto-Volquez-Bailey-Leake, you have the potential to have the best rotation in the NL Central - better than the Brewers or Cardinals.

Pencil Alonso in LF, Cozart at SS, and Mesoraco at C. Let Fraizer fill in for Rolen at 3B twice a week. Let Heisey and Sapelt be your 4th and 5th OF's. Re-sign BP for 2B. Let Valaika be your reserve IF. Bring back Cairo as a bench guy.

If Cordero is extended, the bullpen is pretty much set, although another reliever might be needed. But sliding Wood into the bullpen may fill that spot.

Assuming Hernandez becomes a FA, now your only excess parts are Arroyo and Francisco.

This proposed roster is better than 2011, and I think it is better than the 2010 team. And if Walt does this, he will be accused of "doing nothing." Too bad because this team can win.

That rotation is just too iffy. Its the same exact pie in the sky crap everyone was counting on in 2011. I agree with filling the position players with kids, but the rest of the post is ignoring reality. Arroyo is going to be in the rotation so somebody in that rotation goes. IMO, you leave Chapman in the pen and pass on Cordero. If so, you have lots of money to spend. It won't take Votto, Cueto or Briuce to get a starter who is an upgrade. Just last year Greinke, Marcum and Garza were all moved for much less and any would be upgrades to the guys you want to count on. The Reds can afford an addition. They have the prospects and the money to do it. Heck, they could go get a free agent who makes say $12 Million or so in 2012 and still have some room left over.

The Operator
10-09-2011, 01:10 AM
If you want a major upgrade in the rotation from outside the organization, then say good-bye to Votto, Bruce, and Cueto - because it probably would take all three to land a bonafide TOR starter. I get your point, but that is major hyperbole. Never in history has a team given up an MVP, an .800 OPS bat with GG defense, and a #2 starter to land one pitcher. That would never happen, not in a million bajillion flobidy-billion years.


And had Walt given up Votto, Bruce, Cueto, and thrown in Mesoraco, the Reds may have landed Greinke. May have? If The Reds put Votto, Bruce, Cueto and Mesoraco on the table all in one deal they could have their pick of any pitcher in the game, and then some.

Like I said, I get your point. But that example isn't at all realistic.

MikeS21
10-09-2011, 07:30 AM
That rotation is just too iffy. Its the same exact pie in the sky crap everyone was counting on in 2011. I agree with filling the position players with kids, but the rest of the post is ignoring reality. Arroyo is going to be in the rotation so somebody in that rotation goes. IMO, you leave Chapman in the pen and pass on Cordero. If so, you have lots of money to spend. It won't take Votto, Cueto or Briuce to get a starter who is an upgrade. Just last year Greinke, Marcum and Garza were all moved for much less and any would be upgrades to the guys you want to count on. The Reds can afford an addition. They have the prospects and the money to do it. Heck, they could go get a free agent who makes say $12 Million or so in 2012 and still have some room left over.
I saw your post in the other thread concerning your projected payroll figures. We forgot to include deferred money still owed to Junior Griffey. No matter what they say, deferred money affects the current payroll. I also think average arbitration raises are higher than what you projected. I heard the total payroll already spoken for in 2012 is closer to $77 million. If payroll raises to $85 million, you've got $8 million to play with. Can you get a legitimate ace FA for $8 million?


I get your point, but that is major hyperbole. Never in history has a team given up an MVP, an .800 OPS bat with GG defense, and a #2 starter to land one pitcher. That would never happen, not in a million bajillion flobidy-billion years.

May have? If The Reds put Votto, Bruce, Cueto and Mesoraco on the table all in one deal they could have their pick of any pitcher in the game, and then some.

Like I said, I get your point. But that example isn't at all realistic.
You just made my point. I'd bet the house that was the asking price when Walt made his inquiries for a TOR starter. That is why Walt appeared to "do nothing." He, too, thought it was unrealistic.

It is also unrealistic to expect that a handful of spare leftover parts on this team to fetch the caliber of upgrades folks are clamoring for.

traderumor
10-09-2011, 08:07 AM
I saw your post in the other thread concerning your projected payroll figures. We forgot to include deferred money still owed to Junior Griffey. No matter what they say, deferred money affects the current payroll. I also think average arbitration raises are higher than what you projected. I heard the total payroll already spoken for in 2012 is closer to $77 million. If payroll raises to $85 million, you've got $8 million to play with. Can you get a legitimate ace FA for $8 million?


You just made my point. I'd bet the house that was the asking price when Walt made his inquiries for a TOR starter. That is why Walt appeared to "do nothing." He, too, thought it was unrealistic.

It is also unrealistic to expect that a handful of spare leftover parts on this team to fetch the caliber of upgrades folks are clamoring for.
For that kind of money, I imagine funding that liability was a part of the sale from Lindner to Castellini, not to mention Griffey's agent may have had a clause in the contract that an annuity be purchased that would fund the deal when the money was needed. The Reds have been pretty stable financially, so I'd be surprised if they are paying that completely out of current cash flow.

mth123
10-09-2011, 08:59 AM
It is also unrealistic to expect that a handful of spare leftover parts on this team to fetch the caliber of upgrades folks are clamoring for.

So what I glean from your posts in this thread is that you have no desire "to go all in for one season" but you think the Reds of the future who aren't named Votto, Cueto, Bruce or Mesoraco are "spare parts." Then you have an expectation that these "spare parts" are going to lead to "making the post season 8 or 9 times over the ten years." Somehow, you want to infuse the 2012 roster with a number of these "spare parts" and have the expectation that "this roster is better than 2011 and I think it is better than the 2010 team."

So, Votto is gone in two years. Cueto is gone in three. The replacements are all "spare parts." Just how is this ten year run going to occur?

I'd say your evaluation of the team's talent going forward is fairly consistent with my stance that the team's best chance to win is while Votto is still here. We can maintain status quo and finsih third or so for the next couple of years with him and then see the team continue to finsih as an also ran with its "spare parts" that just won't accumulate to a championship caliber team or we can take our best shot now while the best players are still on the team.

Reds/Flyers Fan
10-09-2011, 10:24 AM
The point is that we shouldn't act like their NLCS appearances only cost them Lorenzo Cain. Or that Matt Holliday didn't cost nine figures.

If we are going to say that Holliday would look good, we can also say that about Sabathia as well.

IIRC, few people on here were interested in Matt Holliday despite what his salary would have been. There were more than a few Coors Field conspiracy theorists who thought MH would disappear outside of Denver ala Dante Bichette. That, of course, was ridiculous then and it's laughable now.

People just saw his poor first half of the year in Oakland and wrongly assumed that was the real Matt Holliday.

kbrake
10-09-2011, 10:28 AM
IIRC, few people on here were interested in Matt Holliday despite what his salary would have been. There were more than a few Coors Field conspiracy theorists who thought MH would disappear outside of Denver ala Dante Bichette. That, of course, was ridiculous then and it's laughable now.

People just saw his poor first half of the year in Oakland and wrongly assumed that was the real Matt Holliday.


Completely irrelevant. Reds couldn't afford him. Plain and simple.

Kc61
10-09-2011, 10:47 AM
First, those high first round picks yielded the Rays:

Josh Hamilton - lost in the rule 5 draft
Rocco Baldelli - career ended by injury
Dewon Brazelton - never really made it
B.J. Upton - in the majors, but not really living up to his expectations
Delmon Young - Traded for Matt Garza, who was traded for prospects
Jeff Neimann - Decent 3-4 starter
Wade Townsend - Flop
Evan Longoria - All-Star 3B
David Price - TOR starter

So they did get their middle of the lineup bat, and #1 starter out of the draft, but they hardly built their team around these high draft picks.

The Reds draft picks in those years have produced just as much talent. And their talent on the field at this moment is not that different. The Rays are a better team, no doubt, but it's not like they are miles away ahead of the Reds.



It's a lot easier to follow the Rays model when Longoria and Price fall into your lap.

Doesn't mean the Reds and Rays both haven't scored with some lower picks. Doesn't mean all the Rays high picks have worked out.

But don't underestimate how helpful it is in "building through the draft" when you have Evan Longoria and David Price available because you select at the very top of the first round.

wlf WV
10-09-2011, 12:42 PM
The lack of movements by the Reds speak volumes to me ,no matter what side your on,period.

I know hindsight is 20-20,but foresight is what organizations pay the front office for.Talks cheap after the fact,and that's all I've heard ,cheap talk.

Investment in a good product sells,not the other way around.

dougdirt
10-09-2011, 01:28 PM
The lack of movements by the Reds speak volumes to me ,no matter what side your on,period.

I know hindsight is 20-20,but foresight is what organizations pay the front office for.Talks cheap after the fact,and that's all I've heard ,cheap talk.

Investment in a good product sells,not the other way around.

While this is true.... I don't think anyone could have predicted Arroyo, Volquez or Wood have a combined 5.18 ERA. I don't think you could have predicted starting the season missing 10-11 starts from Homer Bailey and Johnny Cueto.

Between Arroyo, Bailey and Cueto, there was a lot of bad luck in there that probably wasn't all that predictable.

The Operator
10-09-2011, 01:38 PM
You just made my point. I'd bet the house that was the asking price when Walt made his inquiries for a TOR starter. That is why Walt appeared to "do nothing." He, too, thought it was unrealistic.Eh, I dunno about that. If that's what The Reds would have had to give up for Greinke, why didn't The Brewers have to give up Ryan Braun, Yovani Gallardo and Cory Hart? That's essentially the same return you're saying would have been demanded from The Reds.

I do agree that The Reds will pay more than most people realize if/when they acquire a TOR type pitcher. But they won't have to pay through the teeth. None of the other team who've acquired them have.

_Sir_Charles_
10-09-2011, 02:02 PM
So, Votto is gone in two years. Cueto is gone in three.

It's THIS assumption that I see over and over again that drives me absolutely NUTS! Can somebody point out WHY this is a foregone conclusion with some actual FACTS and even some quotes?

757690
10-09-2011, 02:29 PM
So, Votto is gone in two years. Cueto is gone in three. The replacements are all "spare parts." Just how is this ten year run going to occur?

Thinking in terms of "windows" is the wrong way to run an organization. I remember the Reds needed to take advantage of the "Larkin-Casey" window, then the "Griffey-Dunn-Kearns" window, then the "Harang-Arroyo" window, etc.

Good organizations produce good players constantly. If they don't and they have to think in terms of windows, they are a bad organization and don't deserve my patronage.

A ten year run occurs if you don't think in terms of windows and instead think in terms of constantly producing talent every year.

mth123
10-09-2011, 02:46 PM
Thinking in terms of "windows" is the wrong way to run an organization. I remember the Reds needed to take advantage of the "Larkin-Casey" window, then the "Griffey-Dunn-Kearns" window, then the "Harang-Arroyo" window, etc.

Good organizations produce good players constantly. If they don't and they have to think in terms of windows, they are a bad organization and don't deserve my patronage.

A ten year run occurs if you don't think in terms of windows and instead think in terms of constantly producing talent every year.

Maybe you get 10 years of third place if you don't pick your best spot to go for it. When will the run start? It won't be this year if a pitcher isn't brought in.

dougdirt
10-09-2011, 02:57 PM
Maybe you get 10 years of third place if you don't pick your best spot to go for it. When will the run start? It won't be this year if a pitcher isn't brought in.

Pure assumption. The pitchers were enough in 2010. This is the same group sans Harang and his 5.32 ERA. The pitching has to get better than it was in 2011, but to say that its impossible for that to happen because its the same guys is a stretch in the least.

fearofpopvol1
10-09-2011, 03:02 PM
Pure assumption. The pitchers were enough in 2010. This is the same group sans Harang and his 5.32 ERA. The pitching has to get better than it was in 2011, but to say that its impossible for that to happen because its the same guys is a stretch in the least.

I really disagree. There was a lot of luck involved with the pitching in 2010. They were good, but not great and that was evidenced in the playoffs against the Phillies. I think they need an elite pitcher in the mix...someone of the Carpenter/Halladay/Verlander ilk to win it all. Maybe Chapman can be that guy, but control is always going to be a question mark until he proves otherwise every 5 days.

I don't think the pitching mix they have now is good enough to win a championship. They really need at least 1 if not 2 high leverage bullpen arms as well.

dougdirt
10-09-2011, 03:08 PM
I really disagree. There was a lot of luck involved with the pitching in 2010. They were good, but not great and that was evidenced in the playoffs against the Phillies. I think they need an elite pitcher in the mix...someone of the Carpenter/Halladay/Verlander ilk to win it all. Maybe Chapman can be that guy, but control is always going to be a question mark until he proves otherwise every 5 days.

I don't think the pitching mix they have now is good enough to win a championship. They really need at least 1 if not 2 high leverage bullpen arms as well.

The pitching against the Phillies in the playoffs had a sub 3.00 ERA over that series. It wasn't the pitching that hurt the Reds against the Phillies, it was the offense sans Bruce, Phillips and Bruce who literally did nothing.

While I am with you that I am not sure this pitching staff can win a championship, they are certainly capable of winning the division and well, once you get into the playoffs you never know.

Still, I think that the Reds have 4 pitchers who have #1/2 stuff in Cueto, Bailey, Volquez and Chapman. There is clearly a difference between potential and current ability. That group of guys is largely a question mark still. I get where the people are coming from who want something more "sure". But the same people, by and large, pretend that the Reds starters don't have much potential to be a guy similar to what they want.

mth123
10-09-2011, 03:09 PM
While this is true.... I don't think anyone could have predicted Arroyo, Volquez or Wood have a combined 5.18 ERA. I don't think you could have predicted starting the season missing 10-11 starts from Homer Bailey and Johnny Cueto.

Between Arroyo, Bailey and Cueto, there was a lot of bad luck in there that probably wasn't all that predictable.
I don't know about that. The whole issue was placing so many rotation spots in the hands of guys who were big question marks. Wood was never a top 50 prospect or anything like that and had half a season in the majors. Hardly a track record. Bailey spent 90 days on the DL in 2010. Certainly there was reason to have some doubts about him. Volquez had TJ and looked awful in his return, yet he was named the opening day starter and was designated the ace. Leake had 75 good innings and 60 awful ones in 2010. That was a whole lot of questions coming ito the season. You want to devote a spot for those guys to compete over, fine. Maybe even two in the Reds situation. The Reds were devoting 3 spots to that group of questions. I'll give you Arroyo's mono and Cueto's early injury, but you put so much hope in questions, its not just bad luck when many of those questions are answered negatively. Compound the issue by extending Arroyo and I think the Reds pitching situation is a huge case of mismanagement and not just bad luck. Heck, I still think the Reds caused Bailey's problems with the way they handled him at the end of 2009.

Any suggestion that this is all bad luck and it will be OK with an offseason and simply rolling those same losing dice again is foolish IMO. I think a lot of this "misfortune" was something to be anticipated. I anticipate more of it in 2012. It's certainly possible that the Reds could deal for a guy who logs 200 solid innings every year and he comes here and stinks up the joint or sits out the year with an injury, but I'd feel better about this team's chances if it added a solid, effective workhorse to fill one of those rotation spots than I would hoping that nothing else goes wrong and two or more of the question marks come through in 2012. I don't want the team to waste another year hoping for unprovens to come through in the rotation. I'd prefer planning for a proven guy in one of those spots and they are left with just one iffy spot for their waves of question marks to fill while providing depth should injury strike the others.

dougdirt
10-09-2011, 03:17 PM
There is a difference between "misfortune" and what happened. To expect the rotation to take a step backwards was one thing. For what actually happened was an entirely different thing that no one could have actually have seen. Like I said, there is a difference between expecting a step backwards, which I can believe people could have expected, and expecting what actually happened.

That said, I feel extremely comfortable having Cueto, Leake and Bailey in my rotation next year. I am not comfortable about Arroyo, but he is a lock given his contract. That really leaves one spot open for one of Volquez, Chapman and Wood unless a deal is made (that I don't expect to happen).

mth123
10-09-2011, 04:10 PM
There is a difference between "misfortune" and what happened. To expect the rotation to take a step backwards was one thing. For what actually happened was an entirely different thing that no one could have actually have seen. Like I said, there is a difference between expecting a step backwards, which I can believe people could have expected, and expecting what actually happened.

That said, I feel extremely comfortable having Cueto, Leake and Bailey in my rotation next year. I am not comfortable about Arroyo, but he is a lock given his contract. That really leaves one spot open for one of Volquez, Chapman and Wood unless a deal is made (that I don't expect to happen).

I simply prefer Chapman in the pen so we can dismiss the crazy notion of devoting any of the team's limited resources to Cordero or some other "closer." Make Wood the long man who is first up if the team needs a guy. Go with Bailey but recognize that he's been on the DL 3 times with shoulder issues in 2 seasons and is a strong candidate to break down again. Since Arroyo is more of a back of the rotation guy and Leake is just Arroyo in the making, I'd bring in a proven guy who has been better than those guys rather than hoping Bailey is it. If Bailey stays healthy and steps-up, they'll be strong. If he breaks down, all is not lost. I'd deal Volquez either in the deal for the starter in question or for some salary relief and a prospect who may fill a hole in the system. Only one real question mark in the rotation (Bailey) with some depth behind them and one more proven guy who they can pencil in for 200 innings and an ERA+ in the 120 range or so.

dougdirt
10-09-2011, 04:19 PM
I simply prefer Chapman in the pen so we can dismiss the crazy notion of devoting any of the team's limited resources to Cordero or some other "closer." Make Wood the long man who is first up if the team needs a guy. Go with Bailey but recognize that he's been on the DL 3 times with shoulder issues in 2 seasons and is a strong candidate to break down again. Since Arroyo is more of a back of the rotation guy and Leake is just Arroyo in the making, I'd bring in a proven guy who has been better than those guys rather than hoping Bailey is it. If Bailey stays healthy and steps-up, they'll be strong. If he breaks down, all is not lost. I'd deal Volquez either in the deal for the starter in question or for some salary relief and a prospect who may fill a hole in the system. Only one real question mark in the rotation with some depth behind them and one more proven guy who they can pencil in for 200 innings and an ERA+ in the 120 range or so.
No matter what the Reds do, they are going into 2012 with more than one question in the rotation. You know, unless Castellini wins mega millions. Right now the Reds have about 7-8 options and only one of them is "sure" and that is Cueto.

mth123
10-09-2011, 04:41 PM
No matter what the Reds do, they are going into 2012 with more than one question in the rotation. You know, unless Castellini wins mega millions. Right now the Reds have about 7-8 options and only one of them is "sure" and that is Cueto.

Well, Leake and Arroyo aren't sure things, but they didn't have arm issues like Bailey and Volquez, weren't completely ineffective without some explanation like Wood or completely unprepared to start like Chapman. Arroyo was bad in 2011, but the team is stuck with him and it definitely is a hope that his Mono was a root cause. If he can bounce back to the 200 inning guy with an ERA+ of right around 100, I'll be happy with that, but its why they need somebody else that we should expect more from. This team doesn't have any pitcher outside of Cueto, possibly, who I would expect 200 IP and and ERA+ in the 120 or above range (and I'm not convinced that Cueto would hold up to the levels he showed in 2011 if he went a full season with 200 IP).

As far as money goes, this team can afford it IMO. They just need to avoid giving big money to a reliever and they should simply refuse to go to arb with Janish, Volquez and Masset. They should deal them or non-tender them if need be, but I wouldn't pay those guys $3 Million. They should also pass on Ramon and next year's version of Edgar Renteria. They should save all the resources for a starter. If one can be obtained without dealing Alonso, Votto or Bruce, they should pass on bringing in any position players outside of rolling the dice on a minor league deal or two with minimal bucks if they make the majors. If you keep Chapman in the pen and can sign Masset for about what he made last year, then no major league deals for relievers are needed either. If Masset prices himself out of town, then a vet for $2 Million or less is all I'd be after. If they do that, they could afford 8 figures for a starter to bolster the rotation and have some left to get a bat for LF should Alonso be shipped off in the deal.

dougdirt
10-09-2011, 04:43 PM
Well, Leake and Arroyo aren't sure things, but they didn't have arm issues like Bailey and Volquez, weren't completely ineffective without some explanation like Wood or completely unprepared to start like Chapman. Arroyo was bad in 2011, but the team is stuck with him and it definitely is a hope that his Mono was a root cause. If he can bounce back to the 200 inning guy with an ERA+ of right around 100, I'll be happy with that, but its why they need somebody else that we should expect more from. This team doesn't have any pitcher outside of Cueto, possibly, who I would expect 200 IP and and ERA+ in the 120 or above range (and I'm not convinced that Cueto would hold up to the levels he showed in 2011 if he went a full season with 200 IP).

As far as money goes, this team can afford it IMO. They just need to avoid giving big money to a reliever and they should simply refuse to go to arb with Janish, Volquez and Masset. They should deal them or non-tender them if need be, but I wouldn't pay those guys $3 Million. They should also pass on Ramon and next year's version of Edgar Renteria. They should save all the resources for a starter. If one can be obtained without dealing Alonso, Votto or Bruce, they should pass on bringing in any position players outside of rolling the dice on a minor league deal or two with minimal bucks if they make the majors. If you keep Chapman in the pen and can sign Masset for about what he made last year, then no major league deals for relievers are needed either. If Masset prices himself out of town, then a vet for $2 Million or less is all I'd be after. If they do that, they could afford 8 figures for a starter to bolster the rotation and have some left to get a bat for LF should Alonso be shipped off in the deal.

Here is the question..... do you just want or do you actually think the Reds are going to try and grab a starter? I don't see them even going after a starting pitcher. They simply have too many options right now that they are either stuck with, or have enough in that they aren't going to move them IMO.

MikeS21
10-09-2011, 04:55 PM
So what I glean from your posts in this thread is that you have no desire "to go all in for one season" but you think the Reds of the future who aren't named Votto, Cueto, Bruce or Mesoraco are "spare parts." Then you have an expectation that these "spare parts" are going to lead to "making the post season 8 or 9 times over the ten years." Somehow, you want to infuse the 2012 roster with a number of these "spare parts" and have the expectation that "this roster is better than 2011 and I think it is better than the 2010 team."

So, Votto is gone in two years. Cueto is gone in three. The replacements are all "spare parts." Just how is this ten year run going to occur?

I'd say your evaluation of the team's talent going forward is fairly consistent with my stance that the team's best chance to win is while Votto is still here. We can maintain status quo and finsih third or so for the next couple of years with him and then see the team continue to finsih as an also ran with its "spare parts" that just won't accumulate to a championship caliber team or we can take our best shot now while the best players are still on the team.
Actually, I DON'T consider them "spare parts." I think the Reds can win if they keep most of those youngsters and play them - hence "do nothing." Play them, and watch this team get better.

But if they aren't good enough to play here, then they must by definition be "spare parts," and every other GM will see them as spare parts. They won't fetch upgrades for this team.

As I said in my earlier post, I seriously only see Arroyo and Fransisco as the odd men out. (And I would even hang on to Francisco if I had roster room - let him play a little 3B, LF, and maybe even a little 1B). However, we all know their trade value is next to nil, so I wouldn't expect much in return.

mth123
10-09-2011, 05:06 PM
Here is the question..... do you just want or do you actually think the Reds are going to try and grab a starter? I don't see them even going after a starting pitcher. They simply have too many options right now that they are either stuck with, or have enough in that they aren't going to move them IMO.

I think if the Reds go into the season with Bailey penciled into a rotation spot and Chapman/Volquez/Wood penciled into another that's too much uncertainty. Jocketty was quoted as saying the reds needed to bring a pitcher in from outside the organzation and if he doesn't and just trusts to the guys he's got its malpractice IMO.

I like all these guys. Wood showed major fortitude in 2010 and I still think he may have a future. I've been Bailey's biggest supporter and still think he has the best chance to become an actual ace of anyone on the roster. I probably am more optimistic about Volquez rebounding to form now that 24 months have gone by since his surgery than anyone. I think Chapman has major stuff and I have the same visions of him still throwing 98 deep in the game that everyone else does. I even like Leake as the next dependable year-in year-out innings eater who puts up above average results, but...

- Wood was terrible in 2011 and he needs to go to the back of the line and bide his time in the pen before getting a shot.

- Volquez still has his control issues and may never be more than another Daniel Cabrera with a great arm and no control.

- Bailey has been on the DL 3 times and they were all issues with his throwing shoulder that caused him to miss significant time and not just minor issues to be dismissed. Add that he still hasn't really put up a good season as a major league starter.

- Chapman doesn't have the innings base, hasn't worked much on his secondary stuff, has shown a tendancy to give up runs when his velocity is down (which it would be if he's pacing himself as a starter) and probably won't be available for the full season anyway.

- Leake hasn't really ever pitched a full season.

- Arroyo was a batting tee in 2011.

- and even Cueto has never gone 200 innings.

This team is supposed to contend. They need to remove some of this uncertainty from the mix and bring in somebody with more of a track record containing multiple seasons of success in shutting down good line-ups. It doesn't need to be one of the 5 to 10 Cy Young caliber aces, but a strong number 2 or even a reliable and effective number 3 would go a long, long way (and it would be just what the doctor ordered to fix the issues in the pen IMO).

mth123
10-09-2011, 05:45 PM
Actually, I DON'T consider them "spare parts." I think the Reds can win if they keep most of those youngsters and play them - hence "do nothing." Play them, and watch this team get better.

But if they aren't good enough to play here, then they must by definition be "spare parts," and every other GM will see them as spare parts. They won't fetch upgrades for this team.

As I said in my earlier post, I seriously only see Arroyo and Fransisco as the odd men out. (And I would even hang on to Francisco if I had roster room - let him play a little 3B, LF, and maybe even a little 1B). However, we all know their trade value is next to nil, so I wouldn't expect much in return.

I don't consider them spare parts either, but there are excess parts who can be dealt. Just because Mesoraco is going to be the guy at catcher, it doesn't mean that Grandal couldn't be dealt for other needs. The fact that the Reds have three redundant parts for CF doesn't mean some team with a need wouldn't desire Stubbs, Heisey or Sappelt. Sometimes guys who you'd rather keep need to be dealt for stuff you have to have. I consider having two top catching prosepcts a luxury when there are so many qiestions in the rotation. The team doesn't need three centerfielders when 5th OF can be had for cheap (heck Francisco could make the team and Frazier fill that 5th OF role). I think these guys are good players who just happen to be blocked by other good players. It doesn't mean they have no value, but it would be crazy to waste them in a limited role when there are other needs to fill. I find it absurd that pitchers are traded for other team's prospects all the time, but somehow these guys who you consider guys you can win with won't fetch anything. Its kind of crazy to have 3 washing machines but no fridge. That's kind of how trades have been made for well over 100 years. Why is it impossible in the Reds case?

fearofpopvol1
10-09-2011, 06:28 PM
The pitching against the Phillies in the playoffs had a sub 3.00 ERA over that series. It wasn't the pitching that hurt the Reds against the Phillies, it was the offense sans Bruce, Phillips and Bruce who literally did nothing.

While I am with you that I am not sure this pitching staff can win a championship, they are certainly capable of winning the division and well, once you get into the playoffs you never know.

Still, I think that the Reds have 4 pitchers who have #1/2 stuff in Cueto, Bailey, Volquez and Chapman. There is clearly a difference between potential and current ability. That group of guys is largely a question mark still. I get where the people are coming from who want something more "sure". But the same people, by and large, pretend that the Reds starters don't have much potential to be a guy similar to what they want.

Volquez was a disaster against Philly. Arroyo was pretty good, but his ERA against the Phillies was misleading because 3 runs were allowed while he was pitching, even though only 1 was earned. Cueto was the best of the bunch. Still, the pitching certainly wasn't good enough to compete with Halladay/Hamels/Oswalt.

dougdirt
10-09-2011, 06:33 PM
Volquez was a disaster against Philly. Arroyo was pretty good, but his ERA against the Phillies was misleading because 3 runs were allowed while he was pitching, even though only 1 was earned. Cueto was the best of the bunch. Still, the pitching certainly wasn't good enough to compete with Halladay/Hamels/Oswalt.

If the Reds had gotten those three from the 2011 playoffs and got our same 2010 performances, we would have easily have competed with them and maybe even won the series.

Game 1: Hallladay 8ip, 3er. Solid outing, but nothing spectacular.
Game 2: Lee 6ip, 5er. Not good.
Game 3: Hamels 6ip, 0er. STRONG.
Game 4: Oswalt 6ip, 5er. Not good.

And I can't say that a pitchers ERA is misleading because the defense had errors. That isn't on the pitcher.

fearofpopvol1
10-09-2011, 07:04 PM
If the Reds had gotten those three from the 2011 playoffs and got our same 2010 performances, we would have easily have competed with them and maybe even won the series.

Game 1: Hallladay 8ip, 3er. Solid outing, but nothing spectacular.
Game 2: Lee 6ip, 5er. Not good.
Game 3: Hamels 6ip, 0er. STRONG.
Game 4: Oswalt 6ip, 5er. Not good.

And I can't say that a pitchers ERA is misleading because the defense had errors. That isn't on the pitcher.

Of course this assumes the Reds offense would have put up those kinds of crooked numbers against the Phils, which they didn't last year. It's too difficult of a hypothetical to consider as there are way too many factors involved.

Blitz Dorsey
10-09-2011, 11:47 PM
People act like it's nearly impossible to go out and land quality starting pitching in a trade without mortgaging your future. The Brewers went out and got Grienke and Marcum in the offseason ... and they're the best team left standing in the National League. It's no coincidence.

mdccclxix
10-10-2011, 08:41 AM
People act like it's nearly impossible to go out and land quality starting pitching in a trade without mortgaging your future. The Brewers went out and got Grienke and Marcum in the offseason ... and they're the best team left standing in the National League. It's no coincidence.

I agree. I'm interested in seeing what the Reds can bring in. The last trade was for 1.5 years of Rolen and that took Zach Stewart, who was a rising star in the Reds organization but never cracked the top 100 on BA. EE was basically a salary dump, but also provided a 3b/DH to fill in for Rolen.

That was our last "valuation" by the market for Reds prospects. We also know that Alonso wasn't enough for Lee in 2010, but Smoak was. And we also have heard that teams have insisted on asking for players that are off limits, seemingly, like Chapman, Mesoraco and Hamilton.

Overall, I usually get the sense that other teams do not like our players as much as we fans do, or the front office does sometimes. Going back to the Bedard days, teams wanted Votto, Bruce, Cueto, Bailey, etc. I guess they knew what to look for, just as the Reds knew who they wanted to keep.

If that is still the case, then the Reds recent reluctance to trade prospects is a decent sign that there is some good talent coming up. Either way, if the next trade the Reds make is for a solid MLB producer (a #2 pitcher or a clean up hitter for example), I think the first step is for Walt to realize value for value is the only way it will happen. That would involve players from the untouchable category. Hopefully, just one of those players to go with some other high upside players.

mdccclxix
10-10-2011, 10:29 PM
This is sort of what I mean when I say other teams prospects seem to hold more weight:


Jesus Montero may once again be trade bait this winter, writes John Harper of the New York Daily News. A group of scouts tells Harper that such pitchers as James Shields, Gio Gonzalez, Trevor Cahill, Mat Latos or Matt Cain could potentially be obtained in a deal featuring Montero. Harper also says "the early indications are the Yanks won't go to extremes to sign" C.J. Wilson as a free agent.

I realize Montero is a sterling prospect, but he did have a set back year at AAA. I don't think you'd be reading those pitchers in connection with Chapman, another top 10 prospect. Perhaps its just the brazen NY media. They target who they want. It's tough to tell, but if pitchers like Matt Cain are really available for some offensive prospects, I hope Walt is hiking up the phone bill. Mesoraco for Latos could be a starting point. If Montero goes somewhere in exchange for a top flight SP and the Reds get nothing similar I'll be disappointed.

dougdirt
10-10-2011, 10:56 PM
This is sort of what I mean when I say other teams prospects seem to hold more weight:



I realize Montero is a sterling prospect, but he did have a set back year at AAA. I don't think you'd be reading those pitchers in connection with Chapman, another top 10 prospect. Perhaps its just the brazen NY media. They target who they want. It's tough to tell, but if pitchers like Matt Cain are really available for some offensive prospects, I hope Walt is hiking up the phone bill. Mesoraco for Latos could be a starting point. If Montero goes somewhere in exchange for a top flight SP and the Reds get nothing similar I'll be disappointed.

While I love me some Mat Latos.... I simply can't get behind the idea of trading a Devin Mesoraco for him. If Mesoraco becomes what is thought of him, there are maybe 3 or 4 catchers in baseball that he won't completely outclass on an every day basis.

mdccclxix
10-11-2011, 09:51 AM
While I love me some Mat Latos.... I simply can't get behind the idea of trading a Devin Mesoraco for him. If Mesoraco becomes what is thought of him, there are maybe 3 or 4 catchers in baseball that he won't completely outclass on an every day basis.

Overall, my point of observation is that I'd be surprised if other teams believed that in comparison with what prospects from other teams are viewed. Beyond that, my thinking with Mesoraco is that he may have a great year next year, but he's more likely to spend time adjusting and if he struggles (or not) I think Dusty only gives him 300 ab's anyway. So, in a win now and win later kind of move, I think adding a top flight young pitcher who can help the rotation next year and beyond is a good deal, especially since we know we can pay Ramon another year or two until Grandal is ready to split time with Hanny, a very successful platoon.

puca
10-11-2011, 01:52 PM
Sorry if this take has already been provided. I am late to the party and don't feel like reading the whole thread.

Who paid the higher price? Probably the Indians.

MikeThierry
10-11-2011, 06:46 PM
Is there a point where the Reds will give up on some prospects and trade them away while their ceiling is still high?

dougdirt
10-11-2011, 09:14 PM
Is there a point where the Reds will give up on some prospects and trade them away while their ceiling is still high?

I am willing to trade any and all prospects not named Mesoraco. I don't want to give them away or trade some guys for fixes on the cheap simply because we have another option at that spot though (for example, trading Alonso for a league average left fielder because we have Votto and need a left fielder).

REDREAD
10-12-2011, 04:55 PM
Moneyball is a great success. The Rays employ the tactics used in moneyball greatly. Moneyball isn't about OBP. It is about finding talent to inject to your team better than the competition with less money than the competition. The Rays are doing it by drafting and developing players better than anyone in baseball. That is "Moneyball".

Honestly, by that definition, every winning team in baseball has used "Moneyball".

I agree with the other point.. The A's were helped by Mulder, etc. They were also helped by a lineup of steroid aided players. Beane no longer looks like a genius .. in fact some of his moves have been downright puzzling in recent years.

REDREAD
10-12-2011, 05:03 PM
For that kind of money, I imagine funding that liability was a part of the sale from Lindner to Castellini, not to mention Griffey's agent may have had a clause in the contract that an annuity be purchased that would fund the deal when the money was needed. The Reds have been pretty stable financially, so I'd be surprised if they are paying that completely out of current cash flow.

According to John Allen, when Jr was an active player, they were setting aside money to pay for his deferals. IIRC, Jr's salary was 7 or 9 million but counted as more due to deferals (to inflate the Reds' payroll).

I also agree that if the Reds owed Jr 40 million (or whatever), that would've reduced the price that Cast payed for the team.