PDA

View Full Version : The yearly Walt Jocketty says Reds won't be players in Free Agency thread



Matt700wlw
11-10-2011, 05:18 PM
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2011/11/10/reds-unlikely-to-do-much-as-far-free-agency/

Joseph
11-10-2011, 05:24 PM
Welcome to last year?

camisadelgolf
11-10-2011, 05:36 PM
I didn't read the article, but did he mention that getting a middle-of-the-order left fielder as the #1 priority again? I believe Jonny Gomes is a free agent, so that could work out.

Kc61
11-10-2011, 05:49 PM
Welcome to last year?

Not only last year. This is a perennial.

I think I can handle the Reds doing nothing until February, when they pick up a couple of free agents nobody else would sign.

I'm not sure I can handle the usual, "we came very close to a trade for [star player] but the other team preferred a different deal".

KronoRed
11-10-2011, 06:18 PM
Stay the course.

dougdirt
11-10-2011, 07:04 PM
Why must the Reds improve via free agency?

That isn't the only way the Reds can improve. In fact, I think its pretty much a given that the Reds will be better at shortstop and left field by default next year. Is Rolen going to be any healthier? If so, another upgraded position. Do Cueto and Bailey miss a combined 12 starts? If not, another upgrade. Is Arroyo done or was he hampered by the mono? If it was the mono, another upgrade.

The odds are pretty good that the Reds should be better in 2012 than in 2011 if they remain the same. I know that isn't good enough for some of you, but what else can they do? The money simply isn't there to work free agency or a lot of trades that people propose the Reds make.

lollipopcurve
11-10-2011, 07:15 PM
Cespedes, please.

dougdirt
11-10-2011, 07:17 PM
Cespedes, please.

Where is that money coming from?

Scrap Irony
11-10-2011, 07:26 PM
Why must the Reds improve via free agency?

That isn't the only way the Reds can improve. In fact, I think its pretty much a given that the Reds will be better at shortstop and left field by default next year. Is Rolen going to be any healthier? If so, another upgraded position. Do Cueto and Bailey miss a combined 12 starts? If not, another upgrade. Is Arroyo done or was he hampered by the mono? If it was the mono, another upgrade.

The odds are pretty good that the Reds should be better in 2012 than in 2011 if they remain the same. I know that isn't good enough for some of you, but what else can they do? The money simply isn't there to work free agency or a lot of trades that people propose the Reds make.

They can also make trades, something Jocketty has already said he plans on attempting.

With a ton of AAA/cheap mlb players that could start, Jocketty has enough chips to make a splash, whether it be through player development, trades, or both.

I'm guessing Jocketty deals for at least one "upgrade" in the starting rotation and starts a couple rookies, perhaps three offensively.

Matt700wlw
11-10-2011, 07:27 PM
They can also make trades, something Jocketty has already said he plans on attempting.

With a ton of AAA/cheap mlb players that could start, Jocketty has enough chips to make a splash, whether it be through player development, trades, or both.

I'm guessing Jocketty deals for at least one "upgrade" in the starting rotation and starts a couple rookies, perhaps three offensively.

He's been "close" for a couple of years getting that trade done...

Vottomatic
11-10-2011, 07:28 PM
Meanwhile, the Cardinals will re-sign Pujols and Berkman, and prepare to defend their title in strong fashion.

dougdirt
11-10-2011, 07:35 PM
They can also make trades, something Jocketty has already said he plans on attempting.

With a ton of AAA/cheap mlb players that could start, Jocketty has enough chips to make a splash, whether it be through player development, trades, or both.

I'm guessing Jocketty deals for at least one "upgrade" in the starting rotation and starts a couple rookies, perhaps three offensively.

Still have to be able to pay the players you trade for and the Reds don't have money to pay players that teams are going to actually trade (because teams don't trade cheap players who are good). So, how do you make those deals work out without taking on a very risky player in a deal or drastically over paying in your talent to get them to take on some salary of a player, who likely has some warts along with him or the other team wouldn't be trading him in the offseason?

Scrap Irony
11-10-2011, 07:39 PM
My personal opinion is that you overpay a little because you're fairly close to being a playoff team. Dealing an extra B prospect for a cheaper player that can help this season-- all the while hoping that your other prospects pan out in the future-- seems to make the most sense here.

lollipopcurve
11-10-2011, 07:52 PM
Where is that money coming from?

Some reports have Cespedes getting Chapman money. Reds can easily do that kind of contract again. And depending what they want to do with Phillips and Votto, they can possibly go well over 30 on a multiyear deal. This is a very high ceiling RH middle of the order bat that they could lock down for several years -- where else you finding one?

Dan
11-10-2011, 07:53 PM
The one FA I'd love to see the Reds sign this winter is Rick Ankiel. I think he'd make a great 4-5th outfielder. Some pop in the bat, and can play all three OF spots. And almost certainly wouldn't cost a lot.

Also, at this point, if they can re-sign Cordero for $5mil, they should do it. And offer Hernandez arbitration.

Kc61
11-10-2011, 07:55 PM
None of us knows how much money the Reds have.

Do any of us know if they are able to add another $10 million to the payroll?

All we know is that the Reds have chosen not to spend. We don't know the numbers.

A different strategy might be to spend more now to attract more fans, more wins, more revenue.

Obviously the Reds are not going down that road.

Plus Plus
11-10-2011, 07:57 PM
The Reds have nearly $50 million in contract obligations for 2012 already — Phillips ($12 million), Votto ($9.5 million), Bronson Arroyo ($7 million), Scott Rolen ($6.5 million), Johnny Cueto ($5.4 million), Jay Bruce ($5 million), Aroldis Chapman ($2 million), Ryan Hanigan ($1.2 million), Miguel Cairo ($1 million) and Alonso ($600,000).

Add the salaries for six arbitration-eligible players — Jose Arredondo, Bailey, Bill Bray, Paul Janish, Nick Masset and Volquez — are the Reds will be very near $85 million

Is the implication here that the arbitration raises for Arredondo, Bailey, Bray, Janish, Masset, and Volquez will amount to $35m? I can't see more than 12-15m for all of them combined, which would leave 20m to fill out the roster...

dougdirt
11-10-2011, 07:59 PM
Some reports have Cespedes getting Chapman money. Reds can easily do that kind of contract again. And depending what they want to do with Phillips and Votto, they can possibly go well over 30 on a multiyear deal. This is a very high ceiling RH middle of the order bat that they could lock down for several years -- where else you finding one?

Why do they need a RH middle of the order bat? Why can't it be a left handed one? I am not looking for much offense to be added. The Reds are going to be one of the best offensive teams in baseball next year. Shortstop is going to hit better. So is left field. Third base likely will too. The rest of the positions should be similar to last year, with upside at catcher depending on how ready Mesoraco really is. This team isn't going to have any kind of offense problem.

dougdirt
11-10-2011, 08:01 PM
None of us knows how much money the Reds have.

Do any of us know if they can add another $10 million to the payroll?


The beat writers seem to have the vibe that the Reds are at 84-86M and that means that they can essentially fill out the bench. I imagine if the Reds had the money to spend an extra $10M, they would do so. Why wouldn't they, it would very likely make them a better team than if they didn't.

mth123
11-10-2011, 08:18 PM
Is the implication here that the arbitration raises for Arredondo, Bailey, Bray, Janish, Masset, and Volquez will amount to $35m? I can't see more than 12-15m for all of them combined, which would leave 20m to fill out the roster...

You're right. I don't get all the no money talk. Most of the roles are filled. They could afford 8 figures for an arm to solidify the rotation. This team just needs to avoid giving $5 Million here and $3 Milllion there to guys who are interchangeable parts.

Kc61
11-10-2011, 08:26 PM
The beat writers seem to have the vibe that the Reds are at 84-86M and that means that they can essentially fill out the bench. I imagine if the Reds had the money to spend an extra $10M, they would do so. Why wouldn't they, it would very likely make them a better team than if they didn't.

I think it is fair to presume that the Reds can't spend like a large market team. We don't need detailed information to reach that conclusion.

But I do not think we can presume that the Reds can't afford a single additional starting caliber player. I have no basis to reach such a conclusion and I doubt anyone else on here does either.

Why wouldn't they? There are many possible reasons why the Reds would choose to use funds in ways other than adding major league players earning a high salary. We just don't know.

It's too easy to let this ball club off the hook by saying the funds aren't there to add a good player. All we really know is they likely won't make that expenditure based on their public comments.

savafan
11-10-2011, 08:30 PM
Question. I've heard it said that the Cardinals may have made enough money off of the post season receipts to be able to afford resigning Pujols. Any idea how that works out (how much post season money goes to the team vs. players), and why more teams like the Reds wouldn't find it to be a worthwhile risk to attempt to go all in and take a loss on a season to hopefully go deep into the postseason and make some extra bank that can be used to add to future payroll? Several seasons of playoff baseball could lead to a significantly larger payroll and legitimate perineal contendership.

Mario-Rijo
11-10-2011, 08:31 PM
None of us knows how much money the Reds have.

Do any of us know if they are able to add another $10 million to the payroll?

All we know is that the Reds have chosen not to spend. We don't know the numbers.

A different strategy might be to spend more now to attract more fans, more wins, more revenue.

Obviously the Reds are not going down that road.

They don't trust the fan base to back their play. Can't say I blame them for that.

I don't blame them for not wanting to spend dollars but I will blame them for not getting better. Problem is I don't believe in the Front Office's ability to get better without spending money. Jocketty says they must be creative to improve. That is some seriously bad news for everyone, gotta hope for the coaching to rise up or we are sitting here the same or worse off next offseason.

savafan
11-10-2011, 08:43 PM
I think I'm already going to feel better about 2013 with a new manager than 2012 with Dusty Baker at the helm. Dusty seems like a nice enough guy and a great players' manager, but he's such a terrible in game manager, that I don't think the Reds stand a chance of winning a championship with him in the dugout.

lollipopcurve
11-10-2011, 08:44 PM
Why do they need a RH middle of the order bat?

To split up Bruce and Votto or Bruce and Alonso. Good teams tend to have lefty relievers who abuse LH hitters from the 7th inning on.

It's been a clear need for the Reds. Rolen was solid there for a half year. After that, bunch a nothin.

dougdirt
11-10-2011, 08:47 PM
To split up Bruce and Votto or Bruce and Alonso. Good teams tend to have lefty relievers who abuse LH hitters from the 7th inning on.

It's been a clear need for the Reds. Rolen was solid there for a half year. After that, bunch a nothin.

Since when does Votto struggle to hit lefties? Why do you need to split them up? Why worry so much about the 7-9th instead of the 1-6th? Especially when both guys hit lefty relievers better than lefty starters.

lollipopcurve
11-10-2011, 08:51 PM
Since when does Votto struggle to hit lefties? Why do you need to split them up? Why worry so much about the 7-9th instead of the 1-6th?

Put it this way, Doug: What would be the problem with picking up a 26 year old power-hitting outfielder who can play CF (or LF) and hit in the middle of the order for several years, under a reasonable contract, without having to sacrifice any talent at all?

You see a more attractive move out there to improve the club? I don't.

dougdirt
11-10-2011, 08:57 PM
Put it this way, Doug: What would be the problem with picking up a 26 year old power-hitting outfielder who can play CF (or LF) and hit in the middle of the order for several years, under a reasonable contract, without having to sacrifice any talent at all?

You see a more attractive move out there to improve the club? I don't.

Well for starters, there is ZERO guarantee that he could do that. He has never seen a MLB pitch. There is also nothing out there suggesting he is taking a reasonable contract, at least in terms of reasonable to the amount of money the Reds seem to have to spend. Maybe I am reading that entirely wrong, but I don't see the money being there for him.

savafan
11-10-2011, 09:58 PM
What has Walt Jocketty done that Wayne Krivsky couldn't have?

camisadelgolf
11-10-2011, 10:01 PM
The Reds can afford a big-time pitcher in 2012. The trick is to be able to afford the same pitcher in 2013. Joey Votto's raise is going to make a significant difference.

paulrichjr
11-10-2011, 10:15 PM
What has Walt Jocketty done that Wayne Krivsky couldn't have?

Avoided releasing multiple players that he signed to 2 year contracts.....1 year into the contract.

edabbs44
11-10-2011, 10:16 PM
Which FAs are legitimate options?

edabbs44
11-10-2011, 10:17 PM
What has Walt Jocketty done that Wayne Krivsky couldn't have?

Won exec of the year.

camisadelgolf
11-10-2011, 10:36 PM
Avoided releasing multiple players that he signed to 2 year contracts.....1 year into the contract.
Mike Lincoln?

mth123
11-10-2011, 11:23 PM
The Reds can afford a big-time pitcher in 2012. The trick is to be able to afford the same pitcher in 2013. Joey Votto's raise is going to make a significant difference.

Rolen and Phillips come off the books. That should pay for all the raises.

camisadelgolf
11-11-2011, 12:35 AM
Rolen and Phillips come off the books. That should pay for all the raises.
They have 10 players who will be arbitration eligible. Joey Votto, Jay Bruce, Johnny Cueto, and Aroldis Chapman are all getting big raises. And if you let BP walk, then you have a huge hole at 2B. Meanwhile, you'd be filling the rest of your roster with guys who are making 6 figures.

757690
11-11-2011, 12:39 AM
According what has been reported concerning Reds salary commitments, the Reds have between $67-70M committed next season when you factor in all the arbitration players and fill out the roster with league minimum players.

That would mean that they have around $15M to get a LF, a closer, and a starting pitcher.

Reds/Flyers Fan
11-11-2011, 01:05 AM
"We're happy with what we have."

Lather. Rinse. Repeat.

Ron Madden
11-11-2011, 03:11 AM
The one FA I'd love to see the Reds sign this winter is Rick Ankiel. I think he'd make a great 4-5th outfielder. Some pop in the bat, and can play all three OF spots. And almost certainly wouldn't cost a lot.

Also, at this point, if they can re-sign Cordero for $5mil, they should do it. And offer Hernandez arbitration.

Dan, No disrespect intended but I disagree with all three of your suggestions.

I believe the Reds have better in house solutions than Rick Ankiel.

I wouldn't offer Cordero over $4mil to resign.

There is no way I'd offer Hernandez arbitration.

But this is just my opinion.

mth123
11-11-2011, 03:47 AM
According what has been reported concerning Reds salary commitments, the Reds have between $67-70M committed next season when you factor in all the arbitration players and fill out the roster with league minimum players.

That would mean that they have around $15M to get a LF, a closer, and a starting pitcher.

Alonso can play LF. Chapman can close. Spend on a starter. Deal a couple of guys making some of that money (Volquez, for Example) to make more room if necessary.

mth123
11-11-2011, 04:19 AM
They have 10 players who will be arbitration eligible. Joey Votto, Jay Bruce, Johnny Cueto, and Aroldis Chapman are all getting big raises. And if you let BP walk, then you have a huge hole at 2B. Meanwhile, you'd be filling the rest of your roster with guys who are making 6 figures.

Well, they would need to go cheap with one of the kids at 2B and will take a downgrade there. Some of those arb guys are fringe end of the roster guys and probably should be gone and others have some of the Reds better prospects coming to take their place. Guys like Boxberger, Phipps, Soto, Sappelt, Gregorious, Greene, Christiani and maybe Joseph will be coming on the scene and guys like Masset, Janish, Stubbs, Volquez and some of the bullpen guys will be shipped off to help restock the piepline. They won't be going to arb with all 10 of those guys. What the team needs now and doesn't have coming up through the system is a starting pitcher and most of the arb guys are non-essential and can be replaced by the kids coming up. Losing Phillips will hurt, but the Reds have a number of kids on the rise who can play 2B (H-Rod, Greene, Didi with Hamilton and Torreyes not far behind) and somebody should be ready by then. There is no solution to the rotation in 2012 and nobody coming in 2013 or 2014 either. The Reds have room now and enough money coming off the books next year (Rolen, Phillps) and the year after (Arroyo, Hanigan and, gulp, maybe Votto) that now seems like the time to add an arm that costs some money.

Scrap Irony
11-11-2011, 08:50 AM
The one FA I'd love to see the Reds sign this winter is Rick Ankiel. I think he'd make a great 4-5th outfielder. Some pop in the bat, and can play all three OF spots. And almost certainly wouldn't cost a lot.

Also, at this point, if they can re-sign Cordero for $5mil, they should do it. And offer Hernandez arbitration.

Why sign Ankiel to play CF with three CF already on the roster? The Reds have three guys who are fourth OF/ CF types-- one with wheels (Stubbs), one with power (Heisey), and one with a clue at the plate (Sappelt).

And Ankiel's not better than any of the three.

As a LF, he's Heisey from the left side. But Heisey pretty much kills RH and he, Alonso, and Frazier can all provide pop from the bench. Unless they're dealing Alonso and Sappelt/ Heisey/ Stubbs, a deal for another OF makes little sense.

For much of that same reason, I wouldn't re-sign Hernandez. I understand that he's been perhaps the best move of the Jocketty tenure as GM. (You could argue he's provided near All-Star level numbers since coming over from Baltimore for a player three years out of the game. And he's been pretty darn cheap.) However, he's got two guys behind him that are ready, seemingly as productive, and cheaper.

Why re-sign him when you've got a Top 20 prospect in Mesoraco at catcher? He's likely going to hit for power and take a walk fairly well from the 8th spot in the lineup. (The back shoulder dip concerns me, but he's obviously been successful doing it, so I'll wait and see.) Hanigan is a very good back-up catcher who can catch fire for a week and carry the team offensively. (Which is remarkably rare from that spot, IMO.)

At closer, there's more need. And Cordero did pitch well last season in limited closer innings. However, IMO, paying a reliever more than a couple million a year is a foolish option unless said reliever is an elite game-changer. I think we can all agree Cordero is no longer that, if he ever was. Peripherally, Cordero's numbers are lesser, if you can believe it, than Sam LeCure's.

Why not save that $4 million, install LeCure or someone with even better numbers at the closer spot (candidates from Cincinnati include Chapman and Bray, not to mention failed starters from the competition for the fourth and fifth spots)? Or, if you'd prefer to look at the minors, you could always gamble on Brad Boxberger (though that would make me uneasy, to say the least). Free agent relievers that could be transitioned to closer are almost always undervalued-- why not check out some of those?

We know Cordero is meh. The Reds have miles of meh. There's meh pretty much freely available on the market. Why pay $4 million for meh?

REDREAD
11-11-2011, 09:45 AM
What has Walt Jocketty done that Wayne Krivsky couldn't have?

Won a division title.
:)

REDREAD
11-11-2011, 09:48 AM
Mike Lincoln?

Lincoln was effective, and then got hurt. That kind of stuff happens.
And Lincoln was not making big money.
I'll take gambles like that all the time over picking up guys like Stanton and Cormeir who have little hope of being effective, even when healthy.

Walt's mistakes.. Lincoln and Taveras.. Well hashed out.
Wayne's mistake list was considerably larger.. Wayne did not value team defense at all (see Keppinger at SS, Dunn in LF, EdE at 3b, Freel at 2b, etc)

dougdirt
11-11-2011, 10:10 AM
Won a division title.
:)

You seem to be confusing couldn't with didn't.

wlf WV
11-11-2011, 11:23 AM
It's a wonder a team ever originated.They certainly weren't financing themselves before inception.

Someone unravel this mystery.Did investment come before the team or the team before investment?

I've got a guess.

redsmetz
11-11-2011, 11:24 AM
Question. I've heard it said that the Cardinals may have made enough money off of the post season receipts to be able to afford resigning Pujols. Any idea how that works out (how much post season money goes to the team vs. players), and why more teams like the Reds wouldn't find it to be a worthwhile risk to attempt to go all in and take a loss on a season to hopefully go deep into the postseason and make some extra bank that can be used to add to future payroll? Several seasons of playoff baseball could lead to a significantly larger payroll and legitimate perineal contendership.

I would guess this isn't true. I came across an article that examines how post-season revenues are split and back in 2009(?), the Rays and the Angels made about $16M to $17M from the post season games they hosted. The further in a team went, obviously the more they made. The Cards may have brought in another $25-30M extra (and I'm just guessing that), I'm not sure if that gives them the ability to completely cover any increase Pujols will be seeing.

http://bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=4716:inside-the-numbers-how-mlb-postseason-gate-revenues-are-split&catid=26:editorials&Itemid=39

OnBaseMachine
11-11-2011, 12:04 PM
What has Walt Jocketty done that Wayne Krivsky couldn't have?

Nothing.

Roy Tucker
11-11-2011, 12:19 PM
I didn't really expect the Reds to be big players in the free agent market. Maybe pick up some complementary players, but that's about it.

However, I will be disappointed if they aren't players in the trade market.

REDREAD
11-11-2011, 01:38 PM
You seem to be confusing couldn't with didn't.

Wayne's results speak for themselves. He improved the team his first year.
Every year afterwards, the W-L and run differential got worse.
He had plenty of money to spend, but wasted it on useless players for the most part.

He was an exciting GM because he made tons of transactions, but unfortunately, all the roster shuffling moved the team backwards, not forwards. There's no question he made far more bad moves per year than Walt. Wayne will always have Phillips and Hamilton on his resume (although he blew it by trading Josh for Volquez).. he and his people also did a decent job with the farm system.. But if you take away the Phillips/Hamilton lottery hits.. would he even be a memorable GM? Probably not. You can't count on finding a Phillilps/Hamilton in the junk pile/rule V every year. Not a way to build a team.

osuceltic
11-11-2011, 02:24 PM
Why must the Reds improve via free agency?

That isn't the only way the Reds can improve. In fact, I think its pretty much a given that the Reds will be better at shortstop and left field by default next year. Is Rolen going to be any healthier? If so, another upgraded position. Do Cueto and Bailey miss a combined 12 starts? If not, another upgrade. Is Arroyo done or was he hampered by the mono? If it was the mono, another upgrade.

The odds are pretty good that the Reds should be better in 2012 than in 2011 if they remain the same. I know that isn't good enough for some of you, but what else can they do? The money simply isn't there to work free agency or a lot of trades that people propose the Reds make.

The yearly "dougdirt convinces himself the Reds will be better without making any changes" response. I think this one was copied and pasted from last year's thread, although the Travis Wood sentence was deleted.

No offense to doug, just sick and tired of the patience extended to and exercised by this team. I don't expect major free agency investments, but planning your offseason under the assumption that everything that went wrong will go right and nothing that went right will go wrong is a great way to end up in third place.

757690
11-11-2011, 02:44 PM
The yearly "dougdirt convinces himself the Reds will be better without making any changes" response. I think this one was copied and pasted from last year's thread, although the Travis Wood sentence was deleted.

No offense to doug, just sick and tired of the patience extended to and exercised by this team. I don't expect major free agency investments, but planning your offseason under the assumption that everything that went wrong will go right and nothing that went right will go wrong is a great way to end up in third place.

To be fair to Doug, he was right in 2010. Batting .500 the last two years.

TRF
11-11-2011, 03:18 PM
Wayne's results speak for themselves. He improved the team his first year.
Every year afterwards, the W-L and run differential got worse.
He had plenty of money to spend, but wasted it on useless players for the most part.

He was an exciting GM because he made tons of transactions, but unfortunately, all the roster shuffling moved the team backwards, not forwards. There's no question he made far more bad moves per year than Walt. Wayne will always have Phillips and Hamilton on his resume (although he blew it by trading Josh for Volquez).. he and his people also did a decent job with the farm system.. But if you take away the Phillips/Hamilton lottery hits.. would he even be a memorable GM? Probably not. You can't count on finding a Phillilps/Hamilton in the junk pile/rule V every year. Not a way to build a team.

revisionist history. at best.

And take away the big splash the reds made getting chapman, Jocketty hasn't done much. except win a division with the players WK had in the farm.

but we've been down this road.

4 positions were horrible offensively in 2011, 3 of them pretty much Jocketty's fault: LF, SS, 3B. I give him a pass at CF as Stubbs had a very good 2010 one he should have built on.

2011 looks like there will be improvement at all four positions. Rolen healthy, with the possible future in Francisco, Alonso in LF, Cozart at SS and better production in CF whether that is because Stubbs learned something or Heisey gets the job.

I want a SP. nothing else. a stud #1. I want some additional certainty in the rotation. Position player need is a smokescreen.

AtomicDumpling
11-11-2011, 03:48 PM
Won exec of the year.


Won a division title.
:)

With a team built lock, stock and barrel by his predecessors of course.

Marvin Lewis and Dusty Baker both won Coach of the Year Awards despite being terrible at their jobs. Shows what those type of awards are worth.

Walt Jocketty has done almost nothing since coming to Cincinnati. It has been YEARS since he has done anything to improve the team. The team has been running on autopilot for years. Why do we even have a General Manager if he can't or won't do anything?

When was the last time Jocketty made a move that actually improved the Reds?

REDREAD
11-11-2011, 03:58 PM
revisionist history. at best.

And take away the big splash the reds made getting chapman, Jocketty hasn't done much. except win a division with the players WK had in the farm.


Scott Rolen was a big splash.. That helped us win the division, along with Hernandez, Gomes and various other moves.
When Walt took over, he got rid of approximately 11 players from Wayne's regime before the next season. Dead weight or inefficient use of money.
Saying he won with "Wayne's players" isn't really fair.
No one said that Wayne won with DanO's players when he improved the team's W-L record his first year.

If Wayne was so great, why has he fallen off the map?
He was an assistant for the O's and reportedly helped push the O's to make the Freel-Hernandez deal :lol:

Just look at the last opening day lineup that Wayne fielded, and tell me there haven't been changes made?

Patterson cf

Keppinger ss

Griffey rf

Phillips 2b

Dunn lf

Encarnacion 3b

Hatteberg 1b

Valentin c

Harang p





4 positions were horrible offensively in 2011, 3 of them pretty much Jocketty's fault: LF, SS, 3B. I give him a pass at CF as Stubbs had a very good 2010 one he should have built on.


Well, I think 3b can be excused for injuries last year.
Sure Rolen was an injury risk, but the Reds can't exactly afford to have a starting caliber player just in case at 3b.

Ok by the same standards, in 2008, 6-7 position players were mediocre or bad. Phillips was good. Wayne gets a pass on Jr (although Walt had no trouble trading Jr). Keppinger, EdE, Bako, Freel, Patterson, Valentin, Hat, and Dunn were all Wayne's choices.

If nothing else, Walt had the foresight to let Dunn walk and try a new formula for rebuilding the team, which was successful in 2010. In 2009, Dunn only posted a 0.5 WAR? Now granted, it's debatable whether Dunn deserves a -3.3 WAR penalty for defense, but by WAR, we didn't really lose much by playing Gomes instead. But a team like the Reds can not pay someone like Dunn 10+ million (and it would've probably taken a multiyear deal to get him to resign as well).





I want a SP. nothing else. a stud #1. I want some additional certainty in the rotation. Position player need is a smokescreen.

I agree, that would be nice.
However, I think adding a starting pitcher that could give us 200 IP of 4.00 ERA ball and a solid reliever might be enough.

I only brought up position players because that was a key weakness Wayne had. He brought in a lot of guys that could not play defense at all (Patterson was the exception). On top of that, some of them (Bako) were black holes offensively too.

dougdirt
11-11-2011, 04:19 PM
Wayne's results speak for themselves. He improved the team his first year.
Every year afterwards, the W-L and run differential got worse.
He had plenty of money to spend, but wasted it on useless players for the most part.

He was an exciting GM because he made tons of transactions, but unfortunately, all the roster shuffling moved the team backwards, not forwards. There's no question he made far more bad moves per year than Walt. Wayne will always have Phillips and Hamilton on his resume (although he blew it by trading Josh for Volquez).. he and his people also did a decent job with the farm system.. But if you take away the Phillips/Hamilton lottery hits.. would he even be a memorable GM? Probably not. You can't count on finding a Phillilps/Hamilton in the junk pile/rule V every year. Not a way to build a team.

Wayne's plan from the get go was build from the bottom up. He wasn't allowed to stick around long enough to see that plan through. Now that foundation that he helped lay is why the Reds are chock full of young players both in the Majors and ready to get there that everyone wants to trade to help the team get veterans. His handprint is all over this organization and on almost all of their good players. Of the every day guys, Walt is responsible for what, 2 of them (Rolen/Alonso, if Alonso is the left fielder)?

dougdirt
11-11-2011, 04:21 PM
If Wayne was so great, why has he fallen off the map?


Well heck, if we are going to play that game, why was Jocketty run out of a job that he had for years, taken the team to the playoffs often and even won a World Series? Is it because he couldn't adapt to new times? Too old? We can all play that game.

AtomicDumpling
11-11-2011, 04:37 PM
Scott Rolen was a big splash.. That helped us win the division, along with Hernandez, Gomes and various other moves.
When Walt took over, he got rid of approximately 11 players from Wayne's regime before the next season. Dead weight or inefficient use of money.
Saying he won with "Wayne's players" isn't really fair.
No one said that Wayne won with DanO's players when he improved the team's W-L record his first year.

If Wayne was so great, why has he fallen off the map?
He was an assistant for the O's and reportedly helped push the O's to make the Freel-Hernandez deal :lol:

Just look at the last opening day lineup that Wayne fielded, and tell me there haven't been changes made?

Patterson cf

Keppinger ss

Griffey rf

Phillips 2b

Dunn lf

Encarnacion 3b

Hatteberg 1b

Valentin c

Harang p





Well, I think 3b can be excused for injuries last year.
Sure Rolen was an injury risk, but the Reds can't exactly afford to have a starting caliber player just in case at 3b.

Ok by the same standards, in 2008, 6-7 position players were mediocre or bad. Phillips was good. Wayne gets a pass on Jr (although Walt had no trouble trading Jr). Keppinger, EdE, Bako, Freel, Patterson, Valentin, Hat, and Dunn were all Wayne's choices.

If nothing else, Walt had the foresight to let Dunn walk and try a new formula for rebuilding the team, which was successful in 2010. In 2009, Dunn only posted a 0.5 WAR? Now granted, it's debatable whether Dunn deserves a -3.3 WAR penalty for defense, but by WAR, we didn't really lose much by playing Gomes instead. But a team like the Reds can not pay someone like Dunn 10+ million (and it would've probably taken a multiyear deal to get him to resign as well).





I agree, that would be nice.
However, I think adding a starting pitcher that could give us 200 IP of 4.00 ERA ball and a solid reliever might be enough.

I only brought up position players because that was a key weakness Wayne had. He brought in a lot of guys that could not play defense at all (Patterson was the exception). On top of that, some of them (Bako) were black holes offensively too.

Jocketty replaced all those players with other players that were already here when he took over or else with inferior players from elsewhere (Jonny Gomes, Orlando Cabrera, Edgar Renteria, Willy Taveras, Fred Lewis etc.). And secondly, position players were actually the strength of Krivsky's teams. He fielded some high scoring teams featuring Adam Dunn -- it was the horrific pitching that doomed the Reds in those days.

Jocketty has made only 2 or 3 decent moves in his entire tenure. Adding Scott Rolen and Ramon Hernandez were good moves but not terrific ones. Spending a huge chunk of cash on Aroldis Chapman might turn out to be a good move eventually but he hasn't come anywhere close to justifying that money yet. Surely a good General Manager could accomplish more than that in 4.5 years?

dougdirt
11-11-2011, 04:46 PM
The yearly "dougdirt convinces himself the Reds will be better without making any changes" response. I think this one was copied and pasted from last year's thread, although the Travis Wood sentence was deleted.

No offense to doug, just sick and tired of the patience extended to and exercised by this team. I don't expect major free agency investments, but planning your offseason under the assumption that everything that went wrong will go right and nothing that went right will go wrong is a great way to end up in third place.
Rome wasn't built overnight. Neither are professional franchises who don't have a boatload of cash, at least not ones that are going to sustain success. There is one way to build a sustainable franchise without a lot of cash, and its player development. You need to be developing players who are ready to graduate to the Majors every single year and every few years push an All Star caliber player through as well. The Reds farm system was TERRIBLE when Dan O'Brien took over. I mean it was absolutely atrocious. There was no depth. There was hardly any top end potential as well. That meant that the Reds were years (likely 4-5 on a normal developmental track) away from even graduating a few guys each year who would even be helpful from more than a bench/bullpen type of role. That means 2009 was an ideal initial target for the "build from the bottom up" to start to show its fruit.

I get being tired of "being patient", but you don't really have much of a choice. The Reds are never going to be a team who can go out and sign free agents that are the caliber who are going to put them over the top. They are in a small city with a metro area that doesn't go as far as it used to. With all of the inidividualized television deals, they are again behind the 8 ball and have no chance of ever being on an even playing field with the rules set up as they are currently.

As for my predictions.... I still feel fine with them. The Reds are a strong organization from the top to bottom right now. They aren't the best, but they are in the Top 10 right now IMO. That is a good starting point. They still need to make the right moves to move into a Top 10 at the MLB level, but they are going about it the right way for them, because they can't work on the same level as teams with a lot more cash.

REDREAD
11-11-2011, 05:06 PM
Of the every day guys, Walt is responsible for what, 2 of them (Rolen/Alonso, if Alonso is the left fielder)?

Far more than 2.. Look at the 2008 roster.. How many of those guys are still left?

Wayne left the team in disarray..
LF and RF: pending FA
CF : none
3b: Ede, mediocre
ss: stunk
2b: Phillips.. this was good
c: stunk
1b: Hat .. Votto (Bowden product) blocked by Hat despite it being a rebuilding year..
Bruce stuck in the minors for whatever reason..
Cordero was effective but overpaid.
Declining Harang..
Arroyo was good, the other starters stunk
The bullpen was pretty good, but built around old guys and retreads.. not exactly building a foundation.

I'm looking at Wayne's 2008 roster
Who's left:
Votto, Volquez :thumbdown: , Bill Bray, Arroyo, maybe Homer ( I can't remember when he was called up), and I guess you can count Cordero for the sake of discussion.

No one is saying Wayne didn't do a good job with the farm.
Did he do a better job than DanO or Walt? That's debatable.. Kind of hard to say with regard to Walt until Walt's draftees get a little bit more time to make it or wash out.

His 2008 roster was a bad team, despite being given a lot of money to work with.. Wasting money on bad players got Wayne fired.

REDREAD
11-11-2011, 05:07 PM
Well heck, if we are going to play that game, why was Jocketty run out of a job that he had for years, taken the team to the playoffs often and even won a World Series? Is it because he couldn't adapt to new times? Too old? We can all play that game.

:lol:
Walt has accomplished a lot in his career.
His record speaks for himself.
Wayne got a chance here because he was willing to work on the cheap.
Wayne had no clue on how to build a team.
"I'm not worried about who plays SS" -- Wayne K after 'the trade'

dougdirt
11-11-2011, 05:16 PM
:lol:
Walt has accomplished a lot in his career.
His record speaks for himself.
Wayne got a chance here because he was willing to work on the cheap.
Wayne had no clue on how to build a team.
"I'm not worried about who plays SS" -- Wayne K after 'the trade'

Everyone's track record speaks for itself, until it doesn't. Walt had entirely different circumstances in other jobs than he has here in Cincinnati. What he did before he got here has nothing to do with what he is doing here. He had more money in St Louis. When he was in Oakland.... the game was entirely different. The money disparity in baseball wasn't nearly the same as it is today. The game is much different.

Wayne and Dan were working under different circumstances than Walt was. They literally had no farm system to work with. They had to sign crappy players just to fill out a roster because the farm system wasn't ready to produce even bench players because of how Marge and Bowden left it. Jocketty, thanks to the work of those two (along with the staffs that they put in place who are mostly still here), doesn't have that issue. He has reaped the benefit of a fantastic farm system who has for the most part kept him from spending a bunch of money on crappy bit players because he didn't have any other choice.

As of today, Walt Jocketty is 313-313 as the Reds GM. That is better than his predecessors. But not by much and he has a lot more to work with than they ever did (more money, better players).

cincrazy
11-11-2011, 06:17 PM
With a team built lock, stock and barrel by his predecessors of course.

Marvin Lewis and Dusty Baker both won Coach of the Year Awards despite being terrible at their jobs. Shows what those type of awards are worth.

Walt Jocketty has done almost nothing since coming to Cincinnati. It has been YEARS since he has done anything to improve the team. The team has been running on autopilot for years. Why do we even have a General Manager if he can't or won't do anything?

When was the last time Jocketty made a move that actually improved the Reds?

Hey now, in fairness to Marvin Lewis, he's acquitting himself quite well this year :)

savafan
11-11-2011, 06:43 PM
If Wayne was so great, why has he fallen off the map?


He's back with Minnesota. It's been said he's the guy who wanted Matt Maloney, and is behind the Twins push to get Cueto from the Reds.

Vottomatic
11-11-2011, 07:18 PM
So far, Walt really hasn't done much.

Willy Taveras & Corey Patterson say hi.

edabbs44
11-11-2011, 10:43 PM
With a team built lock, stock and barrel by his predecessors of course.

Marvin Lewis and Dusty Baker both won Coach of the Year Awards despite being terrible at their jobs. Shows what those type of awards are worth.

Walt Jocketty has done almost nothing since coming to Cincinnati. It has been YEARS since he has done anything to improve the team. The team has been running on autopilot for years. Why do we even have a General Manager if he can't or won't do anything?

When was the last time Jocketty made a move that actually improved the Reds?

Here's the thing I don't get...Jocketty takes over in 2008, "does nothing" for two years and "doesn't have to", since the team is set, wins the division with that "built" team in 2010, a team where most of its key players are in their prime or on their way up, decides to ride that "built lock stock and barrel" team for another year, and gets blamed because he didn't do anything and the team regressed.

Unsure how that is logical.

westofyou
11-11-2011, 10:53 PM
The yearly realization thread about market reality always equals the yearly whine fest.

AtomicDumpling
11-12-2011, 01:26 AM
Here's the thing I don't get...Jocketty takes over in 2008, "does nothing" for two years and "doesn't have to", since the team is set, wins the division with that "built" team in 2010, a team where most of its key players are in their prime or on their way up, decides to ride that "built lock stock and barrel" team for another year, and gets blamed because he didn't do anything and the team regressed.

Unsure how that is logical.

You don't think he could have done anything to improve the team he inherited? He has been here for going on 5 years and has barely changed the core of the team in all that time.

I don't think anyone has said he "doesn't have to" make any changes or that the team was "set" when he took over, I certainly didn't say that. Most people feel he inherited a team with a promising young core of good players -- and he should have found a way to add to that core and improve it. So far he has been a dismal failure in that respect. You have to give a new GM some time to get things done and give him the benefit of the doubt until then, but come on it has been 4+ years! How long is long enough? At what point do you say this guy is just not getting it done? He has been here nearly half a decade and we are still using the same core players that were already in the system when he arrived. Walt needs to upgrade the quality of this team real soon or step aside to make room for someone who can help this team win.

Ron Madden
11-12-2011, 03:05 AM
JMHO.

The Reds had a winning season in 2010.

It was an exiting team to watch but Walt had very little to do with building that Club and has done very little to improve it since.

I do understand however that we can't blame him for budget constraints.

Sometimes I think we give guys credit more for what they have done in the past than we do for what they are actually accomplishing now.

This Offseaon has just begun. We have no idea what may happen between now and Opening Day but I will say this: I hope Walt wins Executive Of The Year for 2012. He'll deserve this one.

REDREAD
11-14-2011, 03:49 PM
So far, Walt really hasn't done much.

Willy Taveras & Corey Patterson say hi.

Corey can say hi to the great Wayne K.. Wayne was the guy that signed him;

wlf WV
11-14-2011, 04:03 PM
Corey can say hi to the great Wayne K.. Wayne was the guy that signed him;
He did ,but I put most of the blame on Dusty.

Strikes Out Looking
11-14-2011, 04:34 PM
He did ,but I put most of the blame on Dusty.

And of course, his daughter;)

Kc61
11-14-2011, 04:48 PM
You don't think he could have done anything to improve the team he inherited? He has been here for going on 5 years and has barely changed the core of the team in all that time.

I don't think anyone has said he "doesn't have to" make any changes or that the team was "set" when he took over, I certainly didn't say that. Most people feel he inherited a team with a promising young core of good players -- and he should have found a way to add to that core and improve it. So far he has been a dismal failure in that respect. You have to give a new GM some time to get things done and give him the benefit of the doubt until then, but come on it has been 4+ years! How long is long enough? At what point do you say this guy is just not getting it done? He has been here nearly half a decade and we are still using the same core players that were already in the system when he arrived. Walt needs to upgrade the quality of this team real soon or step aside to make room for someone who can help this team win.

I wonder how much of this is Walt. There seems to be an organizational philosophy at work here. Ultra conservative management. Continuity. Get players tied to the community. Nothing to rock the boat too much.

It goes beyond money, some smaller market teams make moves.

Maybe it is Jocketty, but you would think that ownership would insist on seeing a team improve and build.

The Reds won a division title, maybe ownership is happy with that for awhile. Maybe they just don't want to take the risks associated with big trades and signings.

Drives me nuts. But I sense that this is just the way the Reds ownership/management wants to run their team. Not sure it's all Walt.

lollipopcurve
11-14-2011, 05:01 PM
I wonder how much of this is Walt. There seems to be an organizational philosophy at work here. Ultra conservative management. Continuity. Get players tied to the community. Nothing to rock the boat too much.

It goes beyond money, some smaller market teams make moves.

Maybe it is Jocketty, but you would think that ownership would insist on seeing a team improve and build.

The Reds won a division title, maybe ownership is happy with that for awhile. Maybe they just don't want to take the risks associated with big trades and signings.

Drives me nuts. But I sense that this is just the way the Reds ownership/management wants to run their team. Not sure it's all Walt.

I agree that the organization has become very conservative in its approach to roster mgmt. Slow to make moves -- from trades to putting guys on the DL.

I think this offseason will be telling. The prospects who have been biding their time in Louisville the last 2 years have nothing left to prove in the minors. Walt's going to have to shed some of the redundancy, I would think.

Griffey012
11-14-2011, 06:00 PM
Does anyone else around here NOT want the Reds to be players in Free Agency? Looking at the available free agents and many of the signings in the past couple of years that would have made us "players" in the FA market, we need to stay far far away.

I am much more content taking flyers on some small tier FA's, or guys who need a change of scenery and being "players" in the trade market. The trade market is where you get the better talent in most cases.

dougdirt
11-14-2011, 06:04 PM
The Reds won a division title, maybe ownership is happy with that for awhile. Maybe they just don't want to take the risks associated with big trades and signings.

Drives me nuts. But I sense that this is just the way the Reds ownership/management wants to run their team. Not sure it's all Walt.

Agree with this thought.... if we recall, after the trade deadline came and went, Ken Rosenthal noted that it was Bob Castellini who didn't want to trade the veterans at the deadline. It suggests that he still thought we were in it, even though short of some miracle (which actually did wind up happening in BOTH leagues this year), we weren't.

Vottomatic
11-14-2011, 06:43 PM
I agree that the organization has become very conservative in its approach to roster mgmt. Slow to make moves -- from trades to putting guys on the DL.

I think this offseason will be telling. The prospects who have been biding their time in Louisville the last 2 years have nothing left to prove in the minors. Walt's going to have to shed some of the redundancy, I would think.

This.

Hopefully management doesn't bore us to tears and bore us about next season being inactive this offseason. There is no reason to be inactive.

This team needs better starting pitching if they actually want to win it all. If the goal is to simply make the playoffs and think the fans will be happy, then management is clueless and doesn't really want to go for it all. Then they will have backpedaled into being Carl Lindner's/Mike Brown's, and simply businessmen more interested in making a few bucks, and appeasing the fans for awhile.

Attendance will stay the same or decline if they stand pat. Count on it.

dougdirt
11-14-2011, 06:45 PM
This.

Hopefully management doesn't bore us to tears and bore us about next season being inactive this offseason. There is no reason to be inactive.

This team needs better starting pitching if they actually want to win it all. If the goal is to simply make the playoffs and think the fans will be happy, then management is clueless and doesn't really want to go for it all. Then they will have backpedaled into being Carl Lindner's/Mike Brown's, and simply businessmen more interested in making a few bucks, and appeasing the fans for awhile.

Attendance will stay the same or decline if they stand pat. Count on it.

If only it were as simple as just wanting to win it all. The Reds simply don't have money to go out and get a #1 type of pitcher, even if they traded for one. Maybe they can land a #2, which does improve the rotation plenty. But to think that the Reds don't want to win is a bit much. They just don't have the same situation to work with as some other teams do.

muddie
11-14-2011, 06:48 PM
If only it were as simple as just wanting to win it all. The Reds simply don't have money to go out and get a #1 type of pitcher, even if they traded for one. Maybe they can land a #2, which does improve the rotation plenty. But to think that the Reds don't want to win is a bit much. They just don't have the same situation to work with as some other teams do.

Unfortunately, that is the truth.

savafan
11-14-2011, 06:50 PM
If only it were as simple as just wanting to win it all. The Reds simply don't have money to go out and get a #1 type of pitcher, even if they traded for one. Maybe they can land a #2, which does improve the rotation plenty. But to think that the Reds don't want to win is a bit much. They just don't have the same situation to work with as some other teams do.

Disagree. They choose to not spend the money. That's their choice, but to believe that the team is cash strapped is a fallacy. The Reds are profitable. Castellini could choose to put more money toward payroll if he wanted to. Of course, he is the owner, and it is his money, so he has that choice.

camisadelgolf
11-14-2011, 06:53 PM
I can give Jocketty a pass for an off-season or two of inactivity, but if he doesn't do anything significant this year, I will be extremely disappointed and clamor for change. The Reds simply have too much ground to make up. He says the Reds aren't players in free agency--which is fine by me--but now I'm expecting a trade that has a lot of impact. You don't get to be a GM by 'sitting on your hands', so I'd never accuse him of that, but at some point, he has to take a risk and pull the trigger on something big. With the exception of Aroldis Chapman, for which he deserves a lot of credit, he has done practically nothing noteworthy aside from trading for Scott Rolen.

dougdirt
11-14-2011, 07:05 PM
Disagree. They choose to not spend the money. That's their choice, but to believe that the team is cash strapped is a fallacy. The Reds are profitable. Castellini could choose to put more money toward payroll if he wanted to. Of course, he is the owner, and it is his money, so he has that choice.

Every team in baseball is profitable. No one is out there taking a loss because they want to win. At least not on a yearly basis.

If all teams could afford to spend $150M, they would. Because the odds are that you will be a better team, win more games, put more butts in the seats, get a bigger tv deal and sell more ads and in turn make more money. But not all teams can do that.

savafan
11-14-2011, 07:18 PM
Every team in baseball is profitable. No one is out there taking a loss because they want to win. At least not on a yearly basis.

If all teams could afford to spend $150M, they would. Because the odds are that you will be a better team, win more games, put more butts in the seats, get a bigger tv deal and sell more ads and in turn make more money. But not all teams can do that.

Perhaps it was just a disgruntled front office employee, but I've been told that the Reds could afford to spend more money to be competitive.

MikeS21
11-14-2011, 07:32 PM
Does anyone else around here NOT want the Reds to be players in Free Agency? Looking at the available free agents and many of the signings in the past couple of years that would have made us "players" in the FA market, we need to stay far far away.

I am much more content taking flyers on some small tier FA's, or guys who need a change of scenery and being "players" in the trade market. The trade market is where you get the better talent in most cases.
This is my take, exactly.

The issue I have is this: regardless of the so-called tiers of FA's, I basically see three tiers.

The first tier are the top players who will actually improve any team they sign with. Usually there are only 4-5 players every year in this tier. Count the Reds out of this tier because contracts are way too high, and will always be too high. No matter how much you crave shopping in Neiman Marcus, you are an idiot to buy anything when you are on a Wal-Mart budget. Besides the Reds need to work on keeping their own Neiman Marcus product (Joey Votto) and forget about anybody else.

The second tier is comprised of players who are not much of an upgrade over existing Reds' roster. They have gotten too expensive for their own teams because most likely they had a career year that allowed them to cash in. Their original team has made the decision that production is not worth the salary. But these players bring little or NO improvement, and and it is a gamble to see if lightening can strike again and repeat the career year. The Reds have tried this route with the likes of Coco, Eric Milton, etc. For the value, I'd rather see some of the younger guys given a shot.

The third tier, which the Reds seem to frequent too much for my tastes, are the players-some of whom may at one time have been very good, but who are about five years past their prime, or are former prospects that never really panned out, and it is hoped a change of scenery might return that player to his former glory. These players are great value, but you get what you pay for.

All in all, I'd rather see FA money be invested in scouting and development and home grown talent, It just makes more sense over the long haul.

RedsManRick
11-14-2011, 09:50 PM
Does anyone else around here NOT want the Reds to be players in Free Agency? Looking at the available free agents and many of the signings in the past couple of years that would have made us "players" in the FA market, we need to stay far far away.

I am much more content taking flyers on some small tier FA's, or guys who need a change of scenery and being "players" in the trade market. The trade market is where you get the better talent in most cases.

I'm with you. If there's one thing you can say about Walt, he doesn't take big risks. He's very measured in what he does. He may make big moves, but they're generally a pretty safe bet to pay off.

dougdirt
11-15-2011, 01:28 AM
Perhaps it was just a disgruntled front office employee, but I've been told that the Reds could afford to spend more money to be competitive.

Sure.... if they didn't want to be profitable. While we don't know what the books say, and I doubt many even in the front office do, I just don't buy into the idea that the Reds can afford to spent much more money and still remain profitable. The market size is very small, so the tv contract can't be all that good and they aren't like Milwaukee and sell 3 million tickets, so they don't have that revenue either. Milwaukee fans should be mad though.... they have outsold the Reds ticket wise by 2,863,298 over the last three seasons. If the average ticket price is just 20 bucks... that is an extra $57.26M over that time period. They have only spent $25M more than the Reds in that period of time. So are the Brewers cheaper than the Reds are? Does that make the Reds cheap either way?

corkedbat
11-15-2011, 03:38 AM
I'm starting to get the sickly feeling that they won't be a major player in the trade market either. I think we'll hear how they really want this starter or that and how we almost landed the perfect answer for our LF question. in the end though - aside from a couple of minor signings (middle reliever, utility infielder)- I see them standing mostly pat.

In September, my head was telling me that they had to do something - make some kind of deal to improve the club - there was no way they could go the offseason without a major deal. Now though, my gut is telling me, "oh yes they can" (and probably will).

MikeS21
11-15-2011, 08:20 AM
I'm starting to get the sickly feeling that they won't be a major player in the trade market either. I think we'll hear how they really want this starter or that and how we almost landed the perfect answer for our LF question. in the end though - aside from a couple of minor signings (middle reliever, utility infielder)- I see them standing mostly pat.

In September, my head was telling me that they had to do something - make some kind of deal to improve the club - there was no way they could go the offseason without a major deal. Now though, my gut is telling me, "oh yes they can" (and probably will).
I don't know that this would be the greatest tragedy in the world.

A good starting pitcher would be nice, but now you gotta worry about paying him. You won't offset a legitimate #1-#2-#3 starter salary by trading a handful of young guys making major league minimum. Plus, you have to outbid every other team with your offer without creating more holes that need to be filled.

Don't get me wrong. I see the logjam of talent as well as the next guy. And I agree that a trade or two needs to be made. But I tend to disagree with prevailing opinions as far as trading away certain players and hanging on to certain players.

vaticanplum
11-15-2011, 09:05 AM
Sure.... if they didn't want to be profitable. While we don't know what the books say, and I doubt many even in the front office do, I just don't buy into the idea that the Reds can afford to spent much more money and still remain profitable.

I don't understand this. Sports franchises are the one near-miss enterprise in terms of profit. Even bad teams make money. Not to mention the obvious: that if the Reds became a winning team, they would be far more profitable.

dougdirt
11-15-2011, 09:26 AM
I don't understand this. Sports franchises are the one near-miss enterprise in terms of profit. Even bad teams make money. Not to mention the obvious: that if the Reds became a winning team, they would be far more profitable.

Yes, but what if you go all out and land Cliff Lee and he blows out his shoulder? Then you start losing money hand over foot, or at least sets them to a point where they can't recover and put a good team on the field because they have $20M tied up in a player who isn't worth $5 anymore. Insurance on contracts isn't being handed out like it used to be.

Of course there is always going to be risk, but some teams can handle such risk much easier than others because they have more ways to make money (fans) than others do. Money isn't the only way to build a good team, but it certainly helps.

Kc61
11-15-2011, 10:34 AM
Disagree. They choose to not spend the money. That's their choice, but to believe that the team is cash strapped is a fallacy. The Reds are profitable. Castellini could choose to put more money toward payroll if he wanted to. Of course, he is the owner, and it is his money, so he has that choice.

I don't know how profitable the Reds are, but I agree that the team's incredibly conservative roster management style is a matter of choice.
Again, I think fans give the Reds too much of a "free pass" by accepting poverty as a justification for the inactivity.

Obviously, the Reds won't be signing Albert Pujols. The Reds aren't big market. But this doesn't justify the passive approach to roster management. There are cheaper free agents. There are trades to be made.

The general philosophy I've heard on this site for years is build through the draft, and when you are ready, then go for it. The Reds have been ready for a couple of years now, but they never go for it.

Ghosts of 1990
11-15-2011, 01:05 PM
Thought they would be all in this year. I guess there is no such thing for the Reds.

TRF
11-15-2011, 02:44 PM
Jocketty took over in 2008. 2008? losing record. 2009? lather rinse repeat. 2010 Division title. 2011 regression, 3rd place, losing record.

He's had a good career. He like most people are loyal to certain people and ideas. He likes Rolen, so he traded for him KNOWING his age and injury history. Why is anyone surprised by the fact that since the ASB in 2010, Rolen has been hurt, worn down and no longer productive? Why do people think now that he's a year OLDER that he's going to improve?

3B is on Walt.

LF is Alonso's to lose, and if all WJ does is look at defense, well it'll be the fime in his tenure as Red's GM that he will have done so. Alonso is ready to hit MLB pitching, better than anyone that Jocketty rolled out there.

LF in 2011 is on Jocketty as much as it will be his to claim success for in 2012.

SS has been a disaster since Larkin retired. I can't blame all of that on Jocketty. DanO and Krivsky failed to adequately fill the position at the MLB level, but Krivsky DID draft Cozart, who looks to be the best bet for the Reds in 2012. All Jocketty's choices? poor at best.

Do not get me started on CF. Do not make me bring up Wily Taveras and his 2 YEAR CONTRACT... My son's cat would have crapped on that contract on sight.

However.... there was no reason to expect that Stubbs 2010 would not be repeated in 2011, unless the organization as a whole were convinced he was a leadoff hitter. He's not. a move back to the 7th spot in the lineup should improve his offense.

And for those that think Leake was a brilliant draft, I agree.... to a point. NO ONE expects to draft a SP with the idea that he makes the OD rotation. NO. ONE. He fell in the Reds lap.

But the Reds going into 2011 had so many question marks. Chapman was handled all wrong. Too much reliance on Volquez (who i believe will bounce back in 2012) Cueto and Bailey injured and Bailey had no history of consistent success. Wood, 2nd year player. Leake, second year player.

the 2011 rotation was not addressed and when it failed, so did the Reds. period. despite four positions with weak offensive stats, this was still a top 5 offense in the NL. So, making noise about fixing it is a smokescreen. The rotation is the problem, and has been for a decade.

dougdirt
11-15-2011, 03:49 PM
the 2011 rotation was not addressed and when it failed, so did the Reds. period.

Here lies the problem though.... Going into 2011, why would the Reds have pushed one of those guys out of the rotation? Cueto and Bailey were both young, had improved each year and have very good stuff. Leake showed that until he reached that innings mark that he could get Major League hitters out and his stuff played at the MLB level. Also very young. Arroyo is what he is (or was to that point and you can't account for someone getting mono). Volquez is the guy who carried your staff in 2008 and was supposed to be the anchor of your staff in the 2010 playoffs. Behind that there was also Travis Wood who just came off of a very good 2010.

I know people wanted more "sureness", but from the Reds perspective, why would they pay to get that when they probably didn't think it was going to give them much of an upgrade unless they acquired a legit #1 type, which Walt at least says he tried to do but wasn't able to?

I do agree with the rest of your post that I omitted from the above quote though. But when it comes to the rotation, I really can't blame the Reds for how they went about it. It didn't work out as they had hoped, but I don't think the process they went about looking at it was all that incorrect.

RedlegJake
11-15-2011, 04:16 PM
Up until now I've been pretty solid behind Jocketty. To me the hollers for him to do something reek of action for action's sake. I started becoming disenamored last summer at the deadline. Ramon should have been traded. There was a contender that really needed him, there was a young player waiting to take his spot, the team was essentially out of it but trading him would not have seriously crippled any chance at a turnaround, and the team wasn't handcuffed in filling any particular positional need - they could have accepted the best possible prospect, regardless of position that he'd bring. I didn't feel any trade was going to miraculously turn around the Reds last summer. Too much dysfunction - not a lack of talent but a disjointed type of play - get good offense, no pitching, get pitching the offense disappears, Arroyo's horrible season, etc. Not trading anyone other than Gomes for a couple uninteresting minor league filler types was a big disappointment. I just felt Hernandez was a perfect trade opportunity. Talented enough to at least acquire a really good prospect (I fully believe you must keep priming the well even if you're going for it now). Would have not hurt the Reds chances in 2012 or 2013 no matter what level the prospect was on either, and it was the only window to acquire anything for Ramon. Deadline comes and goes without even that.

Then Chapman - he is going to be a starter? Then given the length of contract and control he should have been stretched at least somewhat (longer stints etc) last year. Now its start from scratch. Limited innings. Uncertainty over how he'll perform, his control, how to handle him, and instead of knowing he can inked in to the 2nd or 3rd or 4th spot there is just a vague hope he can kind of nail down the 5th spot maybe.

Walt said last winter he wanted to give these kids time to grow together. He should have a clear idea of what Stubbs can do and can't, about Heisey, and Sappelt, Alonso, Francisco, Cozart, Wood, LeCure, and Bailey, Mesaraco. He should see that clearly there is no TOR starter burgeoning in the rotation (even the wildest optimist about Chapman can't claim that role for him next year or probably the year after), that Cueto is a fitting #2 and Votto the undoubted heart of the attack. I don't really care how he does it. I don't care if he trades Votto or Cueto or Alonso, or Bailey or Chapman. IF he stands pat again, does it really matter? The Reds won't win if they stand pat whether Votto is in the lineup or not. I do believe they are close. I do believe the wrong trade could wreck the team. But no meaningful trade is the same thing by default. I want to win, and I want the team improved. While I can see more ways to win with Votto and /or Cueto than without them, I really don't care. Just figure out what deal will make the team better in 2012, Walt, and win. I don't care how. But standing pat isn't the answer.

MikeS21
11-15-2011, 04:28 PM
the 2011 rotation was not addressed and when it failed, so did the Reds. period. despite four positions with weak offensive stats, this was still a top 5 offense in the NL. So, making noise about fixing it is a smokescreen. The rotation is the problem, and has been for a decade.
Go back and look at how many games the Reds LOST when the opposing team scored 4 or less runs. Not sure I can blame those on the starting pitching.

Did a quick count: 36 games the Reds lost when the opponent scored only 4 runs or less. If the Reds win HALF of those 36 games, they win the NL Central.

Consider this: Reds shut out 9 times. Plus, in 12 other games, the Reds were limited to one run.

In one six game stretch beginning May 18th, they averaged 2.5 runs scored and lost all six games. Add to that a four game stretch beginning August 29 where they went 0-4 and averaged 1.5 runs per game. A third four game stretch in mid-September where they went 0-4, they averaged 1.75 runs per game.

Can't blame the rotation for the lack of scoring which would have significantly boosted the Reds' W-L record.

Vottomatic
11-15-2011, 04:46 PM
This current ownership is starting to fall into the ways of Mike Brown.

Watch attendance fall as they stand pat and slip to third or fourth place in 2012.

If they don't have the money, then they missed their chance. All this so-called talent in the upper level minors is getting old, and the Reds have probably missed their chance to wheel and deal for their needs, and trade some talented guys who are blocked by current quality major leaguers. Seems typical and similar to the Reds previous management. Sit back and let the competition get better, sit on their hands, count their money, and laugh at the fans.

This is what I've come to expect from Jocketty and Castellini. Castellini pretty much lied to us. We're simply not going to lose anymore, are we Bob?

Bob should sell the team to an owner that is serious about winning. He isn't serious about winning.

dougdirt
11-15-2011, 04:49 PM
This current ownership is starting to fall into the ways of Mike Brown.

Watch attendance fall as they stand pat and slip to third or fourth place in 2012.

If they don't have the money, then they missed their chance. All this so-called talent in the upper level minors is getting old, and the Reds have probably missed their chance to wheel and deal for their needs, and trade some talented guys who are blocked by current quality major leaguers. Seems typical and similar to the Reds previous management. Sit back and let the competition get better, sit on their hands, count their money, and laugh at the fans.

This is what I've come to expect from Jocketty and Castellini. Castellini pretty much lied to us. We're simply not going to lose anymore, are we Bob?

Bob should sell the team to an owner that is serious about winning. He isn't serious about winning.

Turning around a crippled franchise is just easy, isn't it?

As for Mike Brown.... how's his team looking right now? Not that I like him much at all.... but he isn't exactly the guy to use as a poor performer right now.

TRF
11-15-2011, 04:50 PM
Go back and look at how many games the Reds LOST when the opposing team scored 4 or less runs. Not sure I can blame those on the starting pitching.

Did a quick count: 36 games the Reds lost when the opponent scored only 4 runs or less. If the Reds win HALF of those 36 games, they win the NL Central.

Consider this: Reds shut out 9 times. Plus, in 12 other games, the Reds were limited to one run.

In one six game stretch beginning May 18th, they averaged 2.5 runs scored and lost all six games. Add to that a four game stretch beginning August 29 where they went 0-4 and averaged 1.5 runs per game. A third four game stretch in mid-September where they went 0-4, they averaged 1.75 runs per game.

Can't blame the rotation for the lack of scoring which would have significantly boosted the Reds' W-L record.

You mean the team that scored the second most runs in the NL? that team?

really?

Oh, and the Brewers were shut out 12 times. 11 times limited to one run. just sayin'

IT'S THE PITCHING!!!!!

Vottomatic
11-15-2011, 04:51 PM
Turning around a crippled franchise is just easy, isn't it?

They sure make it look hard, that's for sure.

So many moves they should have made by now, but they sit on their hands.

But hey, atleast they got their company man on here defending them all the time. Must pay pretty well. :laugh:

CesarGeronimo
11-15-2011, 04:57 PM
Wait, I thought, "The losing stops now."

Yet, the Reds obviously had a losing season and now it looks like once again the top competing teams within their division will likely do more to improve themselves during the offseason than the Reds will.

The losing stops now? Now, while the pitching still probably won't be good enough because they "can't" afford to upgrade it?

The losing stops now-ish in a year or two when the young players have matured and Dusty is home in his rocker wondering why the new skipper keeps pulling his starting pitcher too soon? You mean after Joey is gone because the Reds "can't" afford him?

The losing stops now?

Vottomatic
11-15-2011, 04:59 PM
Wait, I thought, "The losing stops now."

Yet, the Reds obviously had a losing season and now it looks like once again the top competing teams within their division will likely do more to improve themselves during the offseason than the Reds will.

The losing stops now? Now, while the pitching still probably won't be good enough because they "can't" afford to upgrade it?

The losing stops now-ish in a year or two when the young players have matured and Dusty is home in his rocker wondering why the new skipper keeps pulling his starting pitcher too soon? You mean after Joey is gone because the Reds "can't" afford him?

The losing stops now?

Excellent post. And I agree wholeheartedly.

TRF
11-15-2011, 05:03 PM
Here lies the problem though.... Going into 2011, why would the Reds have pushed one of those guys out of the rotation? Cueto and Bailey were both young, had improved each year and have very good stuff. Leake showed that until he reached that innings mark that he could get Major League hitters out and his stuff played at the MLB level. Also very young. Arroyo is what he is (or was to that point and you can't account for someone getting mono). Volquez is the guy who carried your staff in 2008 and was supposed to be the anchor of your staff in the 2010 playoffs. Behind that there was also Travis Wood who just came off of a very good 2010.

I know people wanted more "sureness", but from the Reds perspective, why would they pay to get that when they probably didn't think it was going to give them much of an upgrade unless they acquired a legit #1 type, which Walt at least says he tried to do but wasn't able to?

I do agree with the rest of your post that I omitted from the above quote though. But when it comes to the rotation, I really can't blame the Reds for how they went about it. It didn't work out as they had hoped, but I don't think the process they went about looking at it was all that incorrect.

Leake hadn't proven a thing going into 2011, neither had Bailey. Volquez was coming off a very nice September, but was largely a question mark. No one expected Arroyo's collapse or Cueto's injury. Wood was a relative unknown for his second go around.

Give Arroyo, Cueto and Bailey 4 addition wins, Arroyo having a normal year, and health for Cueto and Bailey and the team wins 91 games. This team needs stability in the 5th starter's spot and health in the rotation.

So, do the Reds need another starter? Are you comfortable with the front 4 being Cueto, Arroyo, Leake, Bailey? Who is the #5? Chapman, Volquez or Wood?

dougdirt
11-15-2011, 05:03 PM
They sure make it look hard, that's for sure.

So many moves they should have made by now, but they sit on their hands.

But hey, atleast they got their company man on here defending them all the time. Must pay pretty well. :laugh:

Don't get me wrong, I am not exactly a fan of the plan that they have followed. I would have done many things differently than they have, in particular last season, but most of it would have been changes in house on the roster.

I think Bob wanting to win so much has actually hampered winning. Since he came on, there have been talk of him holding up quite a few deals and forcing a few to be done over the head of the GM because he thought it would win more games.

As for calling me a company man.... I wish. The Reds probably pay a whole lot better than what I make selling advertisements and some books.

I just think that when Bob took over the team was much further away than he may have realized when he made the statements. Just because he wanted it to be so doesn't mean it was all that possible. Where the Reds are as an organization today compared to where they were when he took over isn't even comparable. They were a 3 out of 10 then. Now, they are probably a 7.

dougdirt
11-15-2011, 05:12 PM
Leake hadn't proven a thing going into 2011, neither had Bailey. Volquez was coming off a very nice September, but was largely a question mark. No one expected Arroyo's collapse or Cueto's injury. Wood was a relative unknown for his second go around.

Give Arroyo, Cueto and Bailey 4 addition wins, Arroyo having a normal year, and health for Cueto and Bailey and the team wins 91 games. This team needs stability in the 5th starter's spot and health in the rotation.

So, do the Reds need another starter? Are you comfortable with the front 4 being Cueto, Arroyo, Leake, Bailey? Who is the #5? Chapman, Volquez or Wood?

While most of what you said in the first paragraph was true. But none of that addresses the point that the Reds probably weren't going to make a legit upgrade worth paying for over what they had.

I am comfortable with three of those four and I know that Arroyo isn't going anywhere, so I don't have a choice but to be comfortable with him. Between Volquez, Chapman and Wood, I think they can handle the #5 spot better than most teams #5 spot.

Kc61
11-15-2011, 05:46 PM
While most of what you said in the first paragraph was true. But none of that addresses the point that the Reds probably weren't going to make a legit upgrade worth paying for over what they had.

I am comfortable with three of those four and I know that Arroyo isn't going anywhere, so I don't have a choice but to be comfortable with him. Between Volquez, Chapman and Wood, I think they can handle the #5 spot better than most teams #5 spot.

While I don't agree generally with this optimism about the Reds rotation, the comment about the #5 spot needs to be put in context.

In the "no acquisitions" scenario, the notion that Volquez, Chapman and Wood are a good enough #5 is flawed.

That is because Arroyo and Bailey are also #5s.

Bailey has never won more than 9 games in a season and has a lifetime ERA of 4.89. Last year 4.43.

Arroyo had a monumentally bad year in 2011.

The Reds need an addition because they have one likely TOR starter (Cueto), one likely solid #3 (Leake), and five big question marks (Bailey, Arroyo, Volquez, Chapman and Wood).

_Sir_Charles_
11-15-2011, 05:53 PM
Are we really going to rehash this old debate? I thought it was settled a long time ago. Last season's problem wasn't "the pitching" and it wasn't "the offense" and it wasn't Jocketty and it wasn't Baker. It was a combination of EVERYTHING. When the pitching was lights out, the bats fell asleep. When the bats woke up and scored runs in bunches...the pitchers decided to throw batting practice. Jocketty, while seemingly asleep, apparently looked at numerous trades and options but was hampered as usual by his payroll and the fact that many players had better upside than the players that were being discussed as trade possibilities. Even Baker, sure his lineups can drive us all batty from time to time, but the bottom line is that if the players don't perform, no amount of lineup juggling is going to change a L to a W. Last season was just a season of bad karma, snakebit, bad luck, poor timing...pick your cliche.

While I'm not a proponent of standing pat...I'll be flat out honest here. If they DID stand pat this offseason, the odds are VERY good that we'd perform better as a team than we did this season. The chances of so many things breaking the other way again are very slim. I just don't want to see a change made for the sake of change.

As for the rotation, I will agree that the handling of Chapman has put us in this position of uncertainty going into 2012. And for that, I DO blame Jocketty. Pick a route and stick with it. Closer? Fine. Starter? Fine. Setup man? Total and absolute waste of a valuable resource.

dougdirt
11-15-2011, 06:31 PM
While I don't agree generally with this optimism about the Reds rotation, the comment about the #5 spot needs to be put in context.

In the "no acquisitions" scenario, the notion that Volquez, Chapman and Wood are a good enough #5 is flawed.

That is because Arroyo and Bailey are also #5s.

Bailey has never won more than 9 games in a season and has a lifetime ERA of 4.89. Last year 4.43.

Arroyo had a monumentally bad year in 2011.

The Reds need an addition because they have one likely TOR starter (Cueto), one likely solid #3 (Leake), and five big question marks (Bailey, Arroyo, Volquez, Chapman and Wood).

Bailey over his last 354 innings has a 4.47 ERA, 21-15 record, a 2.36 K/BB rate and fewer HR's than Bronson Arroyo gave up last season (41).

That isn't a #5 starter.

Arroyo may be. We don't know. If he repeats last year, yes, absolutely. If he returns to his previous form, he is a #3 type of guy in an unconventional way. I am not a big Arroyo believer, but he somehow has gotten it done before last season.

I went through and looked at all pitchers with 90 innings pitched last year. I then sorted them by ERA, FIP and XFIP and ranked the Reds pitchers as #1's-#5's based on the need for 30 #1's, 30 #2's and so on.



Slot if rated by:
Pitcher ERA FIP XFIP
Cueto 1 2 3
Bailey 4 3 2
Leake 3 4 2
Arroyo 5 5 5
Volquez 5 5 4
Wood 5 3 5


As I said, I feel fine with the first three guys listed here and I don't think we are having Arroyo do anything but start for the team, so we are stuck with him. That leaves Volquez, Chapman and Wood as the #5 guy in the rotation. Here is what the average for each of those categories was for a #5:
ERA - 5.15
FIP - 4.82
XFIP - 4.58

Volquez and Wood have each done much better than all of those numbers at some point.

Vottomatic
11-15-2011, 06:54 PM
Don't get me wrong, I am not exactly a fan of the plan that they have followed. I would have done many things differently than they have, in particular last season, but most of it would have been changes in house on the roster.

I think Bob wanting to win so much has actually hampered winning. Since he came on, there have been talk of him holding up quite a few deals and forcing a few to be done over the head of the GM because he thought it would win more games.

As for calling me a company man.... I wish. The Reds probably pay a whole lot better than what I make selling advertisements and some books.

I just think that when Bob took over the team was much further away than he may have realized when he made the statements. Just because he wanted it to be so doesn't mean it was all that possible. Where the Reds are as an organization today compared to where they were when he took over isn't even comparable. They were a 3 out of 10 then. Now, they are probably a 7.

Fair enough.

If they're going to play the small market, money strapped card........then they need to use the Tampa model. They need to be willing to deal from a point of strength, and get even better. I know it's risky, but Tampa has succeeded at doing that. But you have to have the quality evaluators to do it.

MattyHo4Life
11-15-2011, 08:22 PM
Here is what the average for each of those categories was for a #5:
ERA - 5.15
FIP - 4.82
XFIP - 4.58

Volquez and Wood have each done much better than all of those numbers at some point.

If you go by this, then the Brewers and Cardinals don't have any number 5 pitchers. All of the pitchers that started any games for the Brewers and the Cardinals in 2011 finished with an ERA of 4.66 or lower.

mth123
11-15-2011, 08:24 PM
Bailey over his last 354 innings has a 4.47 ERA, 21-15 record, a 2.36 K/BB rate and fewer HR's than Bronson Arroyo gave up last season (41).

That isn't a #5 starter.

Arroyo may be. We don't know. If he repeats last year, yes, absolutely. If he returns to his previous form, he is a #3 type of guy in an unconventional way. I am not a big Arroyo believer, but he somehow has gotten it done before last season.

I went through and looked at all pitchers with 90 innings pitched last year. I then sorted them by ERA, FIP and XFIP and ranked the Reds pitchers as #1's-#5's based on the need for 30 #1's, 30 #2's and so on.



Slot if rated by:
Pitcher ERA FIP XFIP
Cueto 1 2 3
Bailey 4 3 2
Leake 3 4 2
Arroyo 5 5 5
Volquez 5 5 4
Wood 5 3 5


As I said, I feel fine with the first three guys listed here and I don't think we are having Arroyo do anything but start for the team, so we are stuck with him. That leaves Volquez, Chapman and Wood as the #5 guy in the rotation. Here is what the average for each of those categories was for a #5:
ERA - 5.15
FIP - 4.82
XFIP - 4.58

Volquez and Wood have each done much better than all of those numbers at some point.

I think when you throw in 3 DL stints all with problems in his throwing shoulder, Bailey's not a guy you can write into your rotation in any spot other than number 5. If he's your main horse and is backed by guys who perform like numbers 5s, then its a lost season if he goes down agan or simply doesn't step up. Get more certainty, use Bailey as number 5 and if he stays healthy, then you'll have an actual chance to win.

IMO, even the skeptics are giving too much credit to this rotation. IMO Cueto is a strong number 3 and nothing more. Leake is a good number 4. Arroyo is a number 4 who gets extra credit for soaking up a lot of innings. The rest are questions. I don't really believe in labeling guys as a number 5. They're either good enough to be in the top 4 or they aren't. If they aren't, they are guys you try out for a while and see if they advance into one of the other spots. The Reds have too many guys like that and not enough guys who have already proven they belong. It was the problem that they had last year at this time and failed to address and failing to address it is a primary reason (but not the only reason) they fell below .500.

Some like to call it bad luck, but its not. They counted on Bailey and he was injured. Duh. He spent 90 days on the DL in 2010 with a bum shoulder. Counting heavily on him was poor planning and more shoulder problems weren't a huge surprise (and they wouldn't be a surprise in 2012 either). Volquez was a guy coming back from TJ and was barely 18 months removed from it on opening day. He was horrid in 2010 and they named him the opening day starter. Duh. Him falling on his face wasn't exactly a shock. Counting so heavily on him was poor planning. Wood had 100 good innings in 2010. He did look pretty good, but he wasn't exactly proven and the story of a guy who looks good for a partial season only to suck the following year has been played out repeatedly (especially with Starting pitchers). He had promise, but counting on him was poor planning. All these guys were OK in that 5th spot to see what happens. In the Reds situation, maybe even having two in the rotation would have been OK, but filling the rotation with them was poor planning and the result was not bad luck. The only question mark that came through was Leake and he was the one guy they really didn't count on (which was correct IMO) and he was slated to be the long man in the pen before all the injuries popped up. Adding another question to the mix isn't the way to address the problem. Its nice to have some guys with upside like Bailey or Chapman at the back of the rotation, but they should not be the guys in the front until they earn it. The Reds need to trim at least one of these question marks from the roster (my pck is Volquez but I do recognize that another off-season between him and the TJ could see him a different man in 2012) and replace him with somebody with more certainty. IMO, the Reds future number one is probably Bailey or Chapman and not somebody they'll bring in, but adding a tried an true number three to the mix to reduce the downside is exactly what needs to be done IMO. Last season was poor planning. Repeating it would be malpractice IMO.

dougdirt
11-15-2011, 08:29 PM
I think when you throw in 3 DL stints all with problems in his throwing shoulder, Bailey's not a guy you can write into your rotation in any spot other than number 5. If he's your main horse and is backed by guys who perform like numbers 5s, then its a lost season if he goes down agan or simply doesn't step up. Get more certainty, use Bailey as number 5 and if he stays healthy, then you'll have an actual chance to win.

IMO, even the skeptics are giving too much credit to this rotation. IMO Cueto is a strong number 3 and nothing more. Leake is a good number 4. Arroyo is a number 4 who gets extra credit for soaking up a lot of innings. The rest are questions. I don't really believe in labeling guys as a number 5. They're either good enough to be in the top 4 or they aren't. If they aren't, they are guys you try out for a while and see if they advance into one of the other spots. The Reds have too many guys like that and not enough guys who have already proven they belong. It was the problem that they had last year at this time and failed to address and failing to address it is a primary reason (but not the only reason) they fell below .500.

Some like to call it bad luck, but its not. They counted on Bailey and he was injured. Duh. He spent 90 days on the DL in 2010 with a bum shoulder. Counting heavily on him was poor planning and more shoulder problems weren't a huge surprise (and they wouldn't be a surprise in 2012 either). Volquez was a guy coming back from TJ and was barely 18 months removed from it on opening day. He was horrid in 2010 and they named him the opening day starter. Duh. Him falling on his face wasn't exactly a shock. Counting so heavily on him was poor planning. Wood had 100 good innings in 2010. He did look pretty good, but he wasn't exactly proven and the story of a guy who looks good for a partial season only to suck the following year has been played out repeatedly (especially with Starting pitchers). He had promise, but counting on him was poor planning. All these guys were OK in that 5th spot to see what happens. In the Reds situation, maybe even having two in the rotation would have been OK, but filling the rotation with them was poor planning and the result was not bad luck. The only question mark that came through was Leake and he was the one guy they really didn't count on (which was correct IMO) and he was slated to be the long man in the pen before all the injuries popped up. Adding another question to the mix isn't the way to address the problem. Its nice to have some guys with upside like Bailey or Chapman at the back of the rotation, but they should not be the guys in the front until they earn it. The Reds need to trim at least one of these question marks from the roster (my pck is Volquez but I do recognize that another off-season between him and the TJ could see him a different man in 2012) and replace him with somebody with more certainty. IMO, the Reds future number one is probably Bailey or Chapman and not somebody they'll bring in, but adding a tried an true number three to the mix to reduce the downside is exactly what needs to be done IMO. Last season was poor planning. Repeating it would be malpractice IMO.

So where do the Reds acquire another pitcher? What do they do with the guy he replaces? Where does the money come from to pay for that pitcher?

I just don't see the answers being available to actually get someone who is truly any kind of upgrade.

If you are going to acquire a true upgrade in the pitching rotation you are going to be giving elite talent or giving up solid talent and taking on 8+M in payroll.... payroll that isn't said to really be there.

dougdirt
11-15-2011, 08:31 PM
If you go by this, then the Brewers and Cardinals don't have any number 5 pitchers. All of the pitchers that started any games for the Brewers and the Cardinals in 2011 finished with an ERA of 4.66 or lower.

McClellan was a #5 by FIP, but yeah, those two teams had good rotations.

mth123
11-15-2011, 08:49 PM
So where do the Reds acquire another pitcher? What do they do with the guy he replaces? Where does the money come from to pay for that pitcher?

I just don't see the answers being available to actually get someone who is truly any kind of upgrade.

If you are going to acquire a true upgrade in the pitching rotation you are going to be giving elite talent or giving up solid talent and taking on 8+M in payroll.... payroll that isn't said to really be there.

The problem, I think, is that you are looking at the upside of the guys on hand when determining whether a guy is an upgrade. I think the place to look is at the downside. A guy who has strung three of four seasons of being a solid number 3 is an upgrade over a guy with a big arm who might have strung together three or four solid starts. This rotation is more in need of some level of confidence that they'll get a solid outing deep into the game most days rather than having aa couple of guys who are a threat to throw a no hitter. A guy like Wandy Rodriguez would be a huge upgrade over Bailey, Chapman, Volquez or Wood (or Arroyo or Leake IMO). The Reds have the payroll room to add a guy like that and it wouldn't take elite talent to get them IMO. He's not the only guy. but an example of the type I'm talking about. As for how to acquire them, the Reds have lots of pieces to deal.

dougdirt
11-15-2011, 08:54 PM
The problem, I think, is that you are looking at the upside of the guys on hand when determining whether a guy is an upgrade. I think the place to look is at the downside. A guy who has strung three of four seasons of being a solid number 3 is an upgrade over a guy with a big arm who might have strung together three or four solid starts. This rotation is more in need of some level of confidence that they'll get a solid outing deep into the game most days rather than having aa couple of guys who are a threat to throw a no hitter. A guy like Wandy Rodriguez would be a huge upgrade over Bailey, Chapman, Volquez or Wood (or Arroyo or Leake IMO). The Reds have the payroll room to add a guy like that and it wouldn't take elite talent to get them IMO. He's not the only guy. but an example of the type I'm talking about. As for how to acquire them, the Reds have lots of pieces to deal.

The Reds have 10-13M free to spend, plus talent to acquire Wandy Rodriguez? All of the beat writers seem to think the Reds only have money available to fill out the bench/bullpen. What do you know that they don't?

mth123
11-15-2011, 09:05 PM
The Reds have 10-13M free to spend, plus talent to acquire Wandy Rodriguez? All of the beat writers seem to think the Reds only have money available to fill out the bench/bullpen. What do you know that they don't?

Here is the likely opening day roster with the cash they'll take for 2012.




# Pos Name $ B/T
1 P Johnny Cueto 5.40 R
2 P Edinson Volquez 2.00 R
3 P Bronson Arroyo 7.00 R
4 P Homer Bailey 1.80 R
5 P Mike Leake 0.60 R
6 P Travis Wood 0.42 L
7 P Sam Lecure 0.50 R
8 P Jose Arredondo 1.00 R
9 P Logan Ondrusek 0.50 R
10 P Bill Bray 2.00 L
11 P Nick Masset 2.50 R
12 P Aroldis Chapman 3.25 L
13 C Ryan Hanigan 1.20 R
14 C Devin Mesoraco 0.42 R
15 1B Joey Votto 11.00 L
16 2B Br. Phillips 12.00 R
17 SS Zach Cozart 0.42 R
18 3B Scott Rolen 7.80 R
19 IF Juan Francisco 0.42 L
20 IF Miguel Cairo 1.00 R
21 LF Yonder Alonso 1.40 L
22 CF Chris Heisey 0.50 R
23 RF Jay Bruce 5.00 L
24 OF Drew Stubbs 0.60 R
25 U Todd Frazier 0.42 R

Ex $ Injury add ons 1.50
Ex $ Cordero 1.00


Total Payroll 71.65



Deal Volquez for a couple of prospects. It makes more payroll room. Hold the line on some of the arb guys. Make the suplus in CF available. Make Frazier or Francisco available. Grandal is trade bait. Make Hamilton available. Masset (would save money too). If they're going to $85 Million they have plenty of room. I think the beat writers are counting on them spending $7 or $8 Million on some one like Cordero. The team needs to forget about that and get a starter. A good starter who can give 200 innings effectively would do wonders for the bullpen. The bench is fine with in house options.

Slyder
11-15-2011, 09:07 PM
This current ownership is starting to fall into the ways of Mike Brown.

Watch attendance fall as they stand pat and slip to third or fourth place in 2012.

If they don't have the money, then they missed their chance. All this so-called talent in the upper level minors is getting old, and the Reds have probably missed their chance to wheel and deal for their needs, and trade some talented guys who are blocked by current quality major leaguers. Seems typical and similar to the Reds previous management. Sit back and let the competition get better, sit on their hands, count their money, and laugh at the fans.

This is what I've come to expect from Jocketty and Castellini. Castellini pretty much lied to us. We're simply not going to lose anymore, are we Bob?

Bob should sell the team to an owner that is serious about winning. He isn't serious about winning.

May I suggest a call to Dallas and Mark Cuban (assuming he doesn't get the Dodgers)?

Vottomatic
11-15-2011, 09:11 PM
So where do the Reds acquire another pitcher? What do they do with the guy he replaces? Where does the money come from to pay for that pitcher?

I just don't see the answers being available to actually get someone who is truly any kind of upgrade.

If you are going to acquire a true upgrade in the pitching rotation you are going to be giving elite talent or giving up solid talent and taking on 8+M in payroll.... payroll that isn't said to really be there.

You're comments make it seem like the Reds have to get that ace pitcher in free agency. Why can't they upgrade through trades? For example Shields or Pineda, only because they've been mentioned in other trade threads. Other teams in rebuilding stage might be willing to deal a top pitcher if the return is good or overpaid a bit.

The Reds can upgrade their pitching without breaking the bank. They just need to be smart in who they deal. They have plenty of quality prospects that don't necessarily fit into their future plans with some major leaguers blocking them.

757690
11-15-2011, 09:13 PM
The Reds have 10-13M free to spend, plus talent to acquire Wandy Rodriguez? All of the beat writers seem to think the Reds only have money available to fill out the bench/bullpen. What do you know that they don't?

Cots has the payroll next year at around $76M not figuring in any deferred money. Not sure what the beat writers said, but even if you count all the deferred money in the payroll, the Reds would have around $10M to spend. It's probably closer to $15M once you factor out the deferred money.

mth123
11-15-2011, 09:23 PM
Cots has the payroll next year at around $76M not figuring in any deferred money. Not sure what the beat writers said, but even if you count all the deferred money in the payroll, the Reds would have around $10M to spend. It's probably closer to $15M once you factor out the deferred money.

And subtract a few guys who make a couple million here and a couple million there.

MikeS21
11-15-2011, 11:38 PM
You mean the team that scored the second most runs in the NL? that team?

really?

Oh, and the Brewers were shut out 12 times. 11 times limited to one run. just sayin'

IT'S THE PITCHING!!!!!
Your argument doesn't hold water. So what if they score 25 runs a game for three games if they get shut out the next seven games? It doesn't make any difference if the Reds are 2nd in runs scored in the NL. That is immaterial.

Even if you have five Cy Young winners in the rotation, they are going to have to consistently average more than 2-3 runs a game. Name the last team that had a rotation ERA of less than 3.00

Give me this rotation, and a CONSISTENT offense, and you will win the NL Central in 2012.

Slyder
11-15-2011, 11:48 PM
Your argument doesn't hold water. So what if they score 25 runs a game for three games if they get shut out the next seven games? It doesn't make any difference if the Reds are 2nd in runs scored in the NL. That is immaterial.

Even if you have five Cy Young winners in the rotation, they are going to have to consistently average more than 2-3 runs a game. Name the last team that had a rotation ERA of less than 3.00

Give me this rotation, and a CONSISTENT offense, and you will win the NL Central in 2012.

Houston with Clemens, Oswalt, and Pettitte maybe?

camisadelgolf
11-16-2011, 12:18 AM
You can criticize Jocketty all you want, but pretty much no one (in the world?) deserves to be compared to the futility of Mike Brown.

dougdirt
11-16-2011, 12:53 AM
Your argument doesn't hold water. So what if they score 25 runs a game for three games if they get shut out the next seven games? It doesn't make any difference if the Reds are 2nd in runs scored in the NL. That is immaterial.

Even if you have five Cy Young winners in the rotation, they are going to have to consistently average more than 2-3 runs a game. Name the last team that had a rotation ERA of less than 3.00

Give me this rotation, and a CONSISTENT offense, and you will win the NL Central in 2012.

I believe it was WOY, but I could be wrong, who essentially put an end to the myth that the Reds had some sort of scoring disparities compared to other teams where they had so few games above 3 runs but a bunch over 7. The Reds stacked up just like the rest of the league did in the number of low output games, medium output games and high ones. I don't have time to search for it right now, but hopefully someone can remember what thread it was in and link you to it, because what you are suggesting happened, simply didn't, at least in comparison to how other teams also had it.

RedlegJake
11-16-2011, 02:18 AM
I believe it was WOY, but I could be wrong, who essentially put an end to the myth that the Reds had some sort of scoring disparities compared to other teams where they had so few games above 3 runs but a bunch over 7. The Reds stacked up just like the rest of the league did in the number of low output games, medium output games and high ones. I don't have time to search for it right now, but hopefully someone can remember what thread it was in and link you to it, because what you are suggesting happened, simply didn't, at least in comparison to how other teams also had it.

I remember that thread, too. I'd like to see a study to see if there is truth to my perception that the Reds seemed to be involved in a disproportionately large number of games where they lost 11-9 or 2-1 - you know what I mean? The offense was explosive but the pitching tanked, or the pitching was spot on but the offense disappeared because that imbalance was what I saw happening all year. The pitching was definitely worse than the offense but it seemed whenever they did get good pitching was exactly the nights the offense took off. Mybe that's just the way a losing season always seems.

camisadelgolf
11-16-2011, 04:54 AM
I remember that thread, too. I'd like to see a study to see if there is truth to my perception that the Reds seemed to be involved in a disproportionately large number of games where they lost 11-9 or 2-1 - you know what I mean? The offense was explosive but the pitching tanked, or the pitching was spot on but the offense disappeared because that imbalance was what I saw happening all year. The pitching was definitely worse than the offense but it seemed whenever they did get good pitching was exactly the nights the offense took off. Mybe that's just the way a losing season always seems.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Confirmation_bias

klw
11-16-2011, 11:04 AM
Name the last team that had a rotation ERA of less than 3.00
.

2011 Phillies
http://www.examiner.com/philadelphia-phillies-in-philadelphia/phillies-rotation-era-is-the-best-mlb-since-1985

Their starter's era ended up at 2.86.
http://espn.go.com/mlb/stats/team/_/stat/pitching/split/127/league/nl

The Reds were at 4.47 for its starters this year. In 2010 it was 4.06. Otherwise the Reds have not had a starters' era under 4.50 since they were at 4.49 in 2000.

RedsManRick
11-16-2011, 12:15 PM
Your argument doesn't hold water. So what if they score 25 runs a game for three games if they get shut out the next seven games? It doesn't make any difference if the Reds are 2nd in runs scored in the NL. That is immaterial.

Even if you have five Cy Young winners in the rotation, they are going to have to consistently average more than 2-3 runs a game. Name the last team that had a rotation ERA of less than 3.00

Give me this rotation, and a CONSISTENT offense, and you will win the NL Central in 2012.

Last year the Reds outscored their opponents by 15 runs. In what world does 15 run edge plus "consistent" offense = division championship?

To look at it another way, we averaged 4.5 R/G. If we took all our games and changed our runs scored to 5 runs per game, we would have won 99 games. If we had scored 4 runs per game, just 71 wins. So if you take the mid point of those, you have 85 wins.

This whole consistency argument:
1.) Assumes that the Reds were abnormally inconsistent. They weren't. No team is as consistent as the imagined scenario people have.
2.) Even if they could be much more consistent, it wouldn't really add many, if any wins. At most you're looking at 2 or 3.

While their argument would hold if there really were extreme cases such as 25 runs one day and shut out the next 7, reality simply isn't nearly that extreme. And when you get away from that extreme, inconsistency on the scale actually observed in baseball simply doesn't have a big effect on the total W/L record.

REDREAD
11-16-2011, 03:32 PM
Jocketty took over in 2008. 2008? losing record. 2009? lather rinse repeat. 2010And for those that think Leake was a brilliant draft, I agree.... to a point. NO ONE expects to draft a SP with the idea that he makes the OD rotation. NO. ONE. He fell in the Reds lap.
.

I strongly disagree with this.
Leake was obviously a great choice.
Many teams ahead of the Reds in the draft passed on him.
For whatever reason, the Reds liked him and chose him.
It doesn't matter if Leake immediately made the team or if it took 2-3 years in the minors.. It was a good pick.. In hindsight, a much better pick than Homer Bailey to this point.. Not bashing the decision to draft Homer, but Leake has produced more to this point, and doesn't have the health issues.

I guess I don't see how you could say that "fell in their lap".. It was good scouting.. by that logic, Josh Hamilton, Joey Votto, Bruce, etc all fell into our lap.. because no one expected them to be that good when drafted.. When smart teams draft, it's always a balance between projectablity and upside.

IMO, any draft pick that makes to the team as a contributor is a big success.
That includes previous GM successes too.

REDREAD
11-16-2011, 03:36 PM
Here lies the problem though.... Going into 2011, why would the Reds have pushed one of those guys out of the rotation? Cueto and Bailey were both young, had improved each year and have very good stuff. Leake showed that until he reached that innings mark that he could get Major League hitters out and his stuff played at the MLB level. Also very young. Arroyo is what he is (or was to that point and you can't account for someone getting mono). Volquez is the guy who carried your staff in 2008 and was supposed to be the anchor of your staff in the 2010 playoffs. Behind that there was also Travis Wood who just came off of a very good 2010.


That's an excellent point..
If Walt had traded Volquez, Homer or Wood over the offseason for an outfielder, I think he would've been tarred and feathered on this board.
It's ironic that most people last offseason were lobbying for the Reds to dump Leake "while he still had value", and Leake ended up being the keeper of all the youngsters. (I'm not counting Arroyo and Cueto as youngsters).

Same with Stubbs.. What GM, after just winning a division title, is going to trade away a 4 Win CF making minimum salary? Not very many.
In fact, most mid-market teams make few changes after winning a division title.

TRF
11-16-2011, 03:56 PM
I strongly disagree with this.
Leake was obviously a great choice.
Many teams ahead of the Reds in the draft passed on him.
For whatever reason, the Reds liked him and chose him.
It doesn't matter if Leake immediately made the team or if it took 2-3 years in the minors.. It was a good pick.. In hindsight, a much better pick than Homer Bailey to this point.. Not bashing the decision to draft Homer, but Leake has produced more to this point, and doesn't have the health issues.

I guess I don't see how you could say that "fell in their lap".. It was good scouting.. by that logic, Josh Hamilton, Joey Votto, Bruce, etc all fell into our lap.. because no one expected them to be that good when drafted.. When smart teams draft, it's always a balance between projectablity and upside.

IMO, any draft pick that makes to the team as a contributor is a big success.
That includes previous GM successes too.

How many pitchers in MLB history selected in the first round make the OD rotation the year after they are drafted?

luck. plain and simple.

It was scouting that selected him, great. it was luck that he contributed as quickly as he did, and frankly, outside a spectacular May in 2010, he clearly wasn't ready.

lollipopcurve
11-16-2011, 04:30 PM
How many pitchers in MLB history selected in the first round make the OD rotation the year after they are drafted?

luck. plain and simple.

It was scouting that selected him, great. it was luck that he contributed as quickly as he did, and frankly, outside a spectacular May in 2010, he clearly wasn't ready.

Nonsense. He was one of the best 5 starters in the organization and deserved to be in the rotation. He held up just fine, and his experience in 2010 was something he was able to build on in 2011. Your argument seems absurd to me.

Vottomatic
11-16-2011, 06:26 PM
That's an excellent point..
If Walt had traded Volquez, Homer or Wood over the offseason for an outfielder, I think he would've been tarred and feathered on this board.
It's ironic that most people last offseason were lobbying for the Reds to dump Leake "while he still had value", and Leake ended up being the keeper of all the youngsters. (I'm not counting Arroyo and Cueto as youngsters).

Same with Stubbs.. What GM, after just winning a division title, is going to trade away a 4 Win CF making minimum salary? Not very many.
In fact, most mid-market teams make few changes after winning a division title.

As I watched the Brewers and Cardinals make moves last offseason, it was easy for me to predict the Reds would come in third in the Central, which I did and they did.

At the time, I felt the Reds had everything go right in 2010 in winning the worst division in mlb, the NL Central. But that they really weren't THAT GOOD, and I could see Central GM's seeing that too and making some moves, which they did.

I strongly felt some moves needed to be made by the Reds, but other than signing some young players, they didn't add, fix, or bolster any area of the team while the Brewers and Cards got better. Management should always be tweaking this team. They finally go and win it, and they had the stupidity to think they were good enough "as is".

Funny how I could see they weren't good enough. Makes me question Walt and Bob all the time.

Edit: And I might add, the Phillies showed exactly what the team needed. Better starting pitching.

dougdirt
11-16-2011, 06:42 PM
As I watched the Brewers and Cardinals make moves last offseason, it was easy for me to predict the Reds would come in third in the Central, which I did and they did.

At the time, I felt the Reds had everything go right in 2010 in winning the worst division in mlb, the NL Central. But that they really weren't THAT GOOD, and I could see Central GM's seeing that too and making some moves, which they did.

I strongly felt some moves needed to be made by the Reds, but other than signing some young players, they didn't add, fix, or bolster any area of the team while the Brewers and Cards got better. Management should always be tweaking this team. They finally go and win it, and they had the stupidity to think they were good enough "as is".

Funny how I could see they weren't good enough. Makes me question Walt and Bob all the time.

Edit: And I might add, the Phillies showed exactly what the team needed. Better starting pitching.

I bet you are right all the time aren't you?

_Sir_Charles_
11-16-2011, 07:53 PM
As I watched the Brewers and Cardinals make moves last offseason, it was easy for me to predict the Reds would come in third in the Central, which I did and they did.

Really?

Go back and look again at the moves the Cardinals made.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/columns/round-two/article_27306a58-0a13-11e0-8670-0017a4a78c22.html

Added
Theriot, Laird, Berkman

Subtracted
Brendan Ryan, Adam Wainwright

I'm really not aware of ANYONE who thought adding Berkman was going to be the earth shattering move that it was. Most people thought he was done. I thought he could still contribute but that he would be a liability in the field.

Those don't scream "massive improvement" to me.

thatcoolguy_22
11-16-2011, 11:21 PM
How about the Cubs as a trading partner (http://tracking.si.com/2011/11/16/report-chicago-cubs-will-listen-to-trade-offers-for-anyone/?sct=mlb_t2_a10)?



Contract Obligations (http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/chicago-cubs_112114177768677294.html)


Assuming a massive rebuild is in their future, who would Theo/Hoyer be interested in? The Reds match up well just because we have so many prospects with varying levels of distance from the majors. If the Reds are going to try and make a push for the WS while they still have Votto, the Cubs have stars that will be off the books soon that can have legitimate impact on 2012.


Matt Garza (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=3340&position=P) is a stud and entering his last year of Arbitration. Last year was by far his best season and he is in the heart of his prime years. Assuming WJ is willing to sign him to a LTC, he is worth emptying out the coffers for.


Carlos Marmol (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=2790&position=P)- Last year was an off year for him and he still toted over a 12 k/9. His hr/fb spike of 2011 could be enough to get him for a a little more than a song. Also this would fill the closer roll. I'm not a fan of the idea of the closer myself, but thats for another debate. Regardless, Marmol is a high quality (and wild) arm for the bullpen.


Ryan Dempster (http://www.fangraphs.com/statss.aspx?playerid=517&position=P) has a player option for 2012 and held his standard for FIP and xFIP while soaking up innings. He was BABIP unlucky last year, and getting older. IMO he is a healthier bet than our in house innings eater.


I don't know enough our or their minor league system to even guess at actual trades, but all 3 of these guys could improve the 2012 Reds. I would offer some serious prospects if Garza comes our way. All 3 of these will be off the books after next year so there is no real commitment needed. I'm really just tired of hearing about Shields and would like someone to post some different trade ideas :D

Patrick Bateman
11-16-2011, 11:50 PM
As I watched the Brewers and Cardinals make moves last offseason, it was easy for me to predict the Reds would come in third in the Central, which I did and they did.

At the time, I felt the Reds had everything go right in 2010 in winning the worst division in mlb, the NL Central. But that they really weren't THAT GOOD, and I could see Central GM's seeing that too and making some moves, which they did.

I strongly felt some moves needed to be made by the Reds, but other than signing some young players, they didn't add, fix, or bolster any area of the team while the Brewers and Cards got better. Management should always be tweaking this team. They finally go and win it, and they had the stupidity to think they were good enough "as is".

Funny how I could see they weren't good enough. Makes me question Walt and Bob all the time.

Edit: And I might add, the Phillies showed exactly what the team needed. Better starting pitching.

Right, you could tell the Reds would fall on the bottom of the pythag game.

Why are you even posting here if you know it all?

MattyHo4Life
11-17-2011, 12:36 AM
As I watched the Brewers and Cardinals make moves last offseason, it was easy for me to predict the Reds would come in third in the Central, which I did and they did.

Then you were the only one. Most people predicted the Cards would finish 3rd or even 4th with the Cubs being 3rd. Most of the so called national experts picked the Reds to win the division due to their pitching depth. The ones that didnt pick the Reds to win, picked the Brewers.

MattyHo4Life
11-17-2011, 12:38 AM
I'm really just tired of hearing about Shields and would like someone to post some different trade ideas :D

Ok...how about this...Brandon Phillips for Yadier Molina?

j/k, but wouldn't that trade completely anger two entire fanbases? :lol:

Vottomatic
11-17-2011, 07:39 AM
Right, you could tell the Reds would fall on the bottom of the pythag game.

Why are you even posting here if you know it all?

That surprises me. Most of my Reds friends felt the same way as me last offseason. We watched the Brewers strengthen their pitching, and watched the Cardinals sign Berkman.

Nearly everyone I know felt that 2010 was a fluke.

Me and my friends all felt the Reds would slide. You didn't?

I was mad all last offseason. The Reds were the weakest playoff team in 2010. Management should have made moves to strengthen it more. And the Brewers and Cards managements knew the division was there for the taking.

redsmetz
11-17-2011, 07:51 AM
That surprises me. Most of my Reds friends felt the same way as me last offseason. We watched the Brewers strengthen their pitching, and watched the Cardinals sign Berkman.

Nearly everyone I know felt that 2010 was a fluke.

Me and my friends all felt the Reds would slide. You didn't?

I was mad all last offseason. The Reds were the weakest playoff team in 2010. Management should have made moves to strengthen it more. And the Brewers and Cards managements knew the division was there for the taking.

The Berkman comment raised my eyebrows and figured it would be interesting to see if you had an opinion about the signing last winter when it happened. You didn't let us down (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2302279&postcount=11)

Waste of money on a guy who is done playing the OF. Glad we have a bunch of lefthanded hitters. We'll keep him running all over the place in RF.

Shocking, stupid move, IMHO. Cards management looks scared and desperate to me.

Virtually no one anticipated the comeback season Berkman had and that signing proved to be a linchpin for the Cardinals success. But it was a roll of the dice and it came up well for St. Louis.

The Brewers are a legitimate question and it would have been great had we made a couple of moves they made to strengthen the team. But clearly they were going for it this year because odds are they have Fielder back. I think they'll still be a formidable opponent, but they were definitely looking to make the best of their final season with Fielder.

klw
11-17-2011, 08:15 AM
The Berkman comment raised my eyebrows and figured it would be interesting to see if you had an opinion about the signing last winter when it happened. You didn't let us down (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2302279&postcount=11)

Waste of money on a guy who is done playing the OF. Glad we have a bunch of lefthanded hitters. We'll keep him running all over the place in RF.

Shocking, stupid move, IMHO. Cards management looks scared and desperate to me.



In fairness to Vottomatic, he started threads in which he stated prior to and early in the season that he had concerns about the makeup of the Reds in 2011.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88245
"
It's a long season, but the beginning of this one doesn't look to be too bright.
I see a rough couple of months to start the season, with alot of complaining and jumping off the bandwagon from Reds fans. Then I look for the pitching to settle down or be answered and the Reds to make their move."

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88707
"The pitching isn't as good as advertised and there are other teams in the division that appear to be better at it.

Votto isn't getting anything to hit. Bruce, for the most part, isn't hitting. Gomes has been pretty good at the plate, surprisingly. How long will Rolen hold up?

Chapman needs to be sent down and turned into a starter since he can't go multiple days in a row, essentially ending his relief pitching career.

Volquez is a problem. He's going to wear out our bullpen fast.

The sky is falling. The sky is falling.

Actually it isn't, but I see some concerns. The first month is always a look and see what you got month, and then they'll have to make some adjustments to fill weaknesses . Hopefully they do."


But that said I'm not here to talk about the past.
Mark McGwire Senate Testimony - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=942HcHKbOno)

redsmetz
11-17-2011, 08:37 AM
In fairness to Vottomatic, he started threads in which he stated prior to and early in the season that he had concerns about the makeup of the Reds in 2011.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88245
"
It's a long season, but the beginning of this one doesn't look to be too bright.
I see a rough couple of months to start the season, with alot of complaining and jumping off the bandwagon from Reds fans. Then I look for the pitching to settle down or be answered and the Reds to make their move."

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=88707
"The pitching isn't as good as advertised and there are other teams in the division that appear to be better at it.

KLW, thanks for the input. I realized after I posted it that it might have seemed like more of an attack, as opposed to just the tweaking I wanted it to be. I have to prepare for a meeting with a client this morning, but I want to add some more in about this direction of the conversation, as well as thoughts I've had throughout this thread but have been too busy to post. But thanks for the balance in Vot's other posts.

REDREAD
11-17-2011, 10:10 AM
How many pitchers in MLB history selected in the first round make the OD rotation the year after they are drafted?

luck. plain and simple.


That's not the point I was trying to make.

When I evaluate a draft pick success. I look at the following:
1. Was the club able to trade the pick for a valuable asset?
2. Did the pick make the team and contribute?

I'm less concerned whether it took Leake 1 year or 4 years to make the roster.

If the Reds had a deeper pitching staff in 2010, Leake probably doesn't make the OD roster. Same with Cueto.. If the Reds had a deeper staff in his first year, he probably spends another year in the minors.

Both arrived at the ML season at a relatively young age because they were the best arm for the job, despite the anticipated growing pains.

Was it luck that Leake was able to make the OD roster and contribute what he did? Not really. IMO, he was rushed, especially when you look at his second half results of his rookie year. It didn't really seem to harm him, but he was rushed due to the Reds' lack of pitching and performed well, considering his lack of experience.

When the Reds drafted Leake, they saw a guy that could throw 4 pitches for strikes, liked his makeup, etc.. I kind of doubt they went into the draft searching for a guy that could make the roster the following spring.
Was it luck that Leake was still available? I guess you could make that argument.. maybe that's what you are trying to say?

REDREAD
11-17-2011, 10:23 AM
At the time, I felt the Reds had everything go right in 2010 in winning the worst division in mlb, the NL Central. But that they really weren't THAT GOOD, and I could see Central GM's seeing that too and making some moves, which they did.
.

It's not that simple.
Sure, everyone on this board noticed that everything went right for the Reds in 2010. Everyone on the board wanted a better SS and LF and adding an ace pitcher. That's obvious.

Who did the board want to trade? Leake, Gomes, Ramon, and the usual minor league suspects (Maloney, etc).. Other than Leake, the board pretty much wanted to trade players of little value to fill holes.. That's not really realistic.

Grienke cost 4 pretty good prospects/young players.
Let's say the Reds pulled the trigger and got him.
Let's also say the Reds got rid of Arroyo and slid Grienke in his place.
What would the impact have been?

This is a quick and dirty:
Bronson gave up 119 runs in 199 IP
Grienke gave up 82 runs in 179 IP
Grienke was hurt part of the year, but to make it simple..
Let's project his runs to 199 IP
Projected Grienke 199 IP, 91 runs.

So Grienke would've saved us 28 runs.. that's a lot.
The rule of thumb is a 10 run differential is worth one win.
So Grienke would've netted us 3 wins.. not near enough to win the division.

A better LF or SS might've netted us another 2 wins.
Still not enough to win.

IMO, everything went right in 2010 and just about everything went wrong in 2011.. We were more than 2 players away from winning the division this year.

MikeS21
11-17-2011, 10:45 AM
It's not that simple.
Sure, everyone on this board noticed that everything went right for the Reds in 2010. Everyone on the board wanted a better SS and LF and adding an ace pitcher. That's obvious.

Who did the board want to trade? Leake, Gomes, Ramon, and the usual minor league suspects (Maloney, etc).. Other than Leake, the board pretty much wanted to trade players of little value to fill holes.. That's not really realistic.

Grienke cost 4 pretty good prospects/young players.
Let's say the Reds pulled the trigger and got him.
Let's also say the Reds got rid of Arroyo and slid Grienke in his place.
What would the impact have been?

This is a quick and dirty:
Bronson gave up 119 runs in 199 IP
Grienke gave up 82 runs in 179 IP
Grienke was hurt part of the year, but to make it simple..
Let's project his runs to 199 IP
Projected Grienke 199 IP, 91 runs.

So Grienke would've saved us 28 runs.. that's a lot.
The rule of thumb is a 10 run differential is worth one win.
So Grienke would've netted us 3 wins.. not near enough to win the division.

A better LF or SS might've netted us another 2 wins.
Still not enough to win.

IMO, everything went right in 2010 and just about everything went wrong in 2011.. We were more than 2 players away from winning the division this year.
That's a GREAT post. It says everything I have been trying to say, except much better.:thumbup:

_Sir_Charles_
11-17-2011, 11:05 AM
It's not that simple.
Sure, everyone on this board noticed that everything went right for the Reds in 2010. Everyone on the board wanted a better SS and LF and adding an ace pitcher. That's obvious.

Who did the board want to trade? Leake, Gomes, Ramon, and the usual minor league suspects (Maloney, etc).. Other than Leake, the board pretty much wanted to trade players of little value to fill holes.. That's not really realistic.

Grienke cost 4 pretty good prospects/young players.
Let's say the Reds pulled the trigger and got him.
Let's also say the Reds got rid of Arroyo and slid Grienke in his place.
What would the impact have been?

This is a quick and dirty:
Bronson gave up 119 runs in 199 IP
Grienke gave up 82 runs in 179 IP
Grienke was hurt part of the year, but to make it simple..
Let's project his runs to 199 IP
Projected Grienke 199 IP, 91 runs.

So Grienke would've saved us 28 runs.. that's a lot.
The rule of thumb is a 10 run differential is worth one win.
So Grienke would've netted us 3 wins.. not near enough to win the division.

A better LF or SS might've netted us another 2 wins.
Still not enough to win.

IMO, everything went right in 2010 and just about everything went wrong in 2011.. We were more than 2 players away from winning the division this year.

:clap:

Exactly. Sitting on our hands wasn't the right move, but it wasn't the devastating move that some here think it was. Things just didn't click in '11. What could go wrong, did go wrong. I said it in another thread, if we made NO CHANGES again this off season...the team should improve. Simply because the odds of us having such poor luck (or whatever you want to call it) again are long indeed. (not that I'm wanting us to do nothing)

TRF
11-17-2011, 11:58 AM
Nonsense. He was one of the best 5 starters in the organization and deserved to be in the rotation. He held up just fine, and his experience in 2010 was something he was able to build on in 2011. Your argument seems absurd to me.

It's absurd to select a player and have him in the rotation the next calendar year. and he was pretty much a disaster in 2010 outside 1 good month.

mdccclxix
11-17-2011, 12:08 PM
http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=19997441&topic_id=&c_id=mlb&tcid=vpp_copy_19997441&v=3

As a candid observer, I find Jocketty's tone in this video to be a little more flirty and direct than year's past. I really do believe a trade will get done, and if it doesn't I'll also believe that it simply wasn't possible. I think he's in gear for an active winter meetings. Perhaps he's been able to come to terms with parting with some prospects. Perhaps with just numbers and scouting reports, he can guide other teams towards players he'd rather trade.

I'm intrigued to find out what Walt comes up with.


EDIT: And this goes out to mth, stumping for that starting pitcher, Jocketty's main concern, big goal, is improving the staff. You can relax there fella. :)

Reds/Flyers Fan
11-17-2011, 12:14 PM
:clap:

Exactly. Sitting on our hands wasn't the right move, but it wasn't the devastating move that some here think it was. Things just didn't click in '11. What could go wrong, did go wrong. I said it in another thread, if we made NO CHANGES again this off season...the team should improve. Simply because the odds of us having such poor luck (or whatever you want to call it) again are long indeed. (not that I'm wanting us to do nothing)

Walt? Is that you?

_Sir_Charles_
11-17-2011, 12:22 PM
Walt? Is that you?

Read that last sentence too. :O)

TRF
11-17-2011, 12:53 PM
It's not that simple.
Sure, everyone on this board noticed that everything went right for the Reds in 2010. Everyone on the board wanted a better SS and LF and adding an ace pitcher. That's obvious.

Who did the board want to trade? Leake, Gomes, Ramon, and the usual minor league suspects (Maloney, etc).. Other than Leake, the board pretty much wanted to trade players of little value to fill holes.. That's not really realistic.

Grienke cost 4 pretty good prospects/young players.
Let's say the Reds pulled the trigger and got him.
Let's also say the Reds got rid of Arroyo and slid Grienke in his place.
What would the impact have been?

This is a quick and dirty:
Bronson gave up 119 runs in 199 IP
Grienke gave up 82 runs in 179 IP
Grienke was hurt part of the year, but to make it simple..
Let's project his runs to 199 IP
Projected Grienke 199 IP, 91 runs.

So Grienke would've saved us 28 runs.. that's a lot.
The rule of thumb is a 10 run differential is worth one win.
So Grienke would've netted us 3 wins.. not near enough to win the division.

A better LF or SS might've netted us another 2 wins.
Still not enough to win.

IMO, everything went right in 2010 and just about everything went wrong in 2011.. We were more than 2 players away from winning the division this year.

Assuming Greinke replaced Arroyo, which was not a realistic scenario. Greinke replaces Volquez and Willis, the actual #5 starters (even though Volquez was the OD starter). they gave up 111 ER in 184.1 IP in 33 GS. The rotation would have been Greinke, Cueto, Arroyo, Bailey, Leake with Cueto, Bailey and Leake missing time due to injury or demotion.

Plus those three wins don't take into account how much less strain you are putting on your bullpen.

And the Brewers didn't just add Greinke. They also traded for Marcum. And while Lawrie is a very good prospect, he's not too much to give up for a #1A like Marcum.

The Reds had the chips to get both pitchers. They chose not to, right or wrong, they CHOSE to be inactive. So here we are, one year later. No clear #1 on this staff. Cueto's peripherals do not suggest he can sustain last year's success. He needs a sharp increase in K's. Bailey needs consistency period. Leake needs a strikeout pitch. Volquez needs one that won't walk everyone. Arroyo needs his luck from the previous season: 2010.

It isnt the offense. With the Reds, it almost NEVER is the offense. It starts and stops with the pitching, specifically the rotation.

Patrick Bateman
11-17-2011, 01:03 PM
That surprises me. Most of my Reds friends felt the same way as me last offseason. We watched the Brewers strengthen their pitching, and watched the Cardinals sign Berkman.

Nearly everyone I know felt that 2010 was a fluke.

Me and my friends all felt the Reds would slide. You didn't?

I was mad all last offseason. The Reds were the weakest playoff team in 2010. Management should have made moves to strengthen it more. And the Brewers and Cards managements knew the division was there for the taking.

Based on metrics far more comprehensive than what your human brain is capable of projected the three teams to be about even. It was clear that it was going to be a tough race for all teams involved.

There are a million of factors that veer away from the initial projections that create what actually happens in a season. The Reds players did not advance to the tune of what was expected, the Reds got somewhat unlucky with run distribution before running into injuries, and handing over the keys to some younger players, while the Cardinals had the most improbale comeback in baseball history.

Bravo if you already knew that, but the season could have unfoled in numerous ways, and if you can't see that, then I completely disagree with you, and the arrogant attitude, because although you ended up being correct, it perhaps was not completely for the right reasons, and in addition, could have easily been wrong had the season played out in one of the other million different ways that it could have.

757690
11-17-2011, 05:46 PM
Jocketty interview on mlb.com

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=19997441&partnerId=aw-5706532106688794990-1025

Highlights:

Veteran starting pitching #1 priority
Back of bullpen arm needed, could be Cordero or someone outside the organization