PDA

View Full Version : A Dodger perspective as may apply to the Reds



remdog
01-25-2012, 01:43 AM
This was an article in the LA Times about one of the former owners of the Dodgers that that sold the team to Frank McCourt.

While he ripped McCort the one part of the article that I found really intresting was this:

"As quick as he is to point out McCourt's errors, Daly cuts himself no break. He says he will never realize his dream of having champagne poured over his head after winning a Dodgers' championship because he wasn't as aggressive as he should have been.

"We had a pretty good pitching staff in '02 and needed one more hitter. I thought our minor league players were too precious to trade and some of them turned out to not be as good as we thought.

"I put too much energy in the farm system, although I think you have to do it. If I had to do it over, I would have done more to bring a pennant to L.A. right away. The fans here are impatient and they should be. I'm impatient."

I think that's an interesting statement in regards to the moves that the Reds have made in this off season.

http://www.latimes.com/sports/la-sp-0125-simers-20120125,0,5158645.column

Rem

REDREAD
01-25-2012, 08:34 AM
Yep, I agree with your points as well Rem.
That's why I shed no tears for Sappelt, Travis Wood, etc.
It's great to see them be proactively filling holes this winter, as opposed to sending a young team out there with known weaknesses and hoping for the best.

Johnny Footstool
01-25-2012, 09:37 AM
Building the farm system is extremely important, but so is knowing when to go all-in.

redsmetz
01-25-2012, 10:04 AM
Interesting springboard for this topic. I've had a theory about last year's offseason and the lack of moves.

On one hand, we had just come off winning the division and basically, for the most part, had the same cast coming back. No question that nearly everything that could go right in 2010, did go right. While a number of folks here on RZ said we needed to do more, that's not surprising as the general default here is generally pessimistic. Coupled with just as much going wrong in 2011 as went right in the previous year, the club fell way short. Please understand, this isn't a huge part of my theory and as long as the sun rises and sets, the question of the demeanor of Redszone will always be with us.

The larger part of my theory is that the Reds needed to get a better look at what exactly we had as chips. Grandal, as one example, wasn't even eligible to be traded in the offseason and, for that matter, still wasn't eligible at the trade deadline (one plus in the changes in the draft is that these long holdouts will be a thing of the past). But more so, the club needed to see what some who are still here were capable of (good example, Cozart), but also Wood, Alonso, Sappelt, the recovery of Volquez, etc. I, for one, fully expect nearly everyone that we traded in both the Latos and the Marshall trades to be of some value to their new clubs. But where these players were and where ones who are still here are, was not clear in the last offseason.

I understand folks considering this year's moves as "all in," but I suggest it's possible that it's as much a natural progression of additional development. Perhaps one or another will be a player we'll sorely miss, but I'm not certain of that. I really like the moves we've made and we have more players in the pipeline who over the next year or two will step up into the spots these others held last season.

Ultimately 2011 will, I hope, prove to just be an unfortunate season that couldn't have been avoided. I agree that clubs have to pay attention to both their minor league talent and also not be afraid to move some of it to improve the current club. I think waiting the one year, made those chips much more valuable and landed us to integral pieces for this year (and longer in the case of Latos, at the least).

Vottomatic
01-25-2012, 11:47 AM
I view 2011 the same as that Dodger's article and their former owner Daly does. The Reds had just won the division, and gotten swept in the playoffs because the Phillies had the superior pitching. The Reds clearly needed to upgrade their pitching. But they sign Arroyo to a ridiculous extension. Had prospects who clearly were blocked at the major league level. Had obvious holes to fill with no immediate answers in the system.

When you get that close, it's time to wheel and deal. Not time to sit tight.

The 70's Reds made the playoffs early on, but Howsam kept tinkering and that's what made them the BRM and won 2 WS. You can't sit tight when you can clearly see what your shortcomings are. Pitching. Pitching. Pitching.

They wasted 2011 and now they did something about it. I'm not sure it's enough, but it's a very good improvement.

Good article. Good post. Good thread. A lesson for all of us.

traderumor
01-25-2012, 12:35 PM
I view 2011 the same as that Dodger's article and their former owner Daly does. The Reds had just won the division, and gotten swept in the playoffs because the Phillies had the superior pitching. The Reds clearly needed to upgrade their pitching. But they sign Arroyo to a ridiculous extension. Had prospects who clearly were blocked at the major league level. Had obvious holes to fill with no immediate answers in the system.

When you get that close, it's time to wheel and deal. Not time to sit tight.

The 70's Reds made the playoffs early on, but Howsam kept tinkering and that's what made them the BRM and won 2 WS. You can't sit tight when you can clearly see what your shortcomings are. Pitching. Pitching. Pitching.

They wasted 2011 and now they did something about it. I'm not sure it's enough, but it's a very good improvement.

Good article. Good post. Good thread. A lesson for all of us.In fairness, the fly in the ointment for 2011 was the rotation underperforming for a myriad of reasons. This was a variable that did not even come close to expectations, which alot of knowledgeable folks thought would be strong enough to at least perform as well as 2010. So, I would say 2011 was a disappointment, but was by no means "wasted," since it did trigger a move toward cashing in some "prospect" chips for some certainty on the pitching staff.

Vottomatic
01-25-2012, 12:53 PM
In fairness, the fly in the ointment for 2011 was the rotation underperforming for a myriad of reasons. This was a variable that did not even come close to expectations, which alot of knowledgeable folks thought would be strong enough to at least perform as well as 2010. So, I would say 2011 was a disappointment, but was by no means "wasted," since it did trigger a move toward cashing in some "prospect" chips for some certainty on the pitching staff.

Yes. I can respect that.

But I did pick the Reds to finish 3rd in the division after no moves last offseason. So, for me, it was wasted because I saw the moves that needed to be made and weren't, and saw the moves that the Cardinals and Brewers did make. We all know how that worked out.

Obviously, I'm not Kreskin the magnificent but unfortunately I was right, but I wish I had been wrong.

redsmetz
01-25-2012, 02:43 PM
I view 2011 the same as that Dodger's article and their former owner Daly does. The Reds had just won the division, and gotten swept in the playoffs because the Phillies had the superior pitching. The Reds clearly needed to upgrade their pitching. But they sign Arroyo to a ridiculous extension. Had prospects who clearly were blocked at the major league level. Had obvious holes to fill with no immediate answers in the system.

When you get that close, it's time to wheel and deal. Not time to sit tight.

The 70's Reds made the playoffs early on, but Howsam kept tinkering and that's what made them the BRM and won 2 WS. You can't sit tight when you can clearly see what your shortcomings are. Pitching. Pitching. Pitching.

They wasted 2011 and now they did something about it. I'm not sure it's enough, but it's a very good improvement.

Good article. Good post. Good thread. A lesson for all of us.

Traderumor hits it on the head that the "fly in the ointment" for last season was the underperforming of the pitching staff. Likewise, Arroyo's extension gave the club some payroll flexibility.

Regarding Howsam's moves, keep in mind that getting to the World Series in 1970 was followed by the 1971, as snakebit a year as we saw last year. The big moves that bumped the BRM into legen...(wait for it)...dary was the trades made in that offseason: the blockbuster with Houston (trading off significant pieces) for what turned out to be the final keys to their success. Even then, they fell short in '73, missed in '74 and 1975 didn't start off on the surest footing.

mdccclxix
01-25-2012, 02:54 PM
Traderumor hits it on the head that the "fly in the ointment" for last season was the underperforming of the pitching staff. Likewise, Arroyo's extension gave the club some payroll flexibility.

Regarding Howsam's moves, keep in mind that getting to the World Series in 1970 was followed by the 1971, as snakebit a year as we saw last year. The big moves that bumped the BRM into legen...(wait for it)...dary was the trades made in that offseason: the blockbuster with Houston (trading off significant pieces) for what turned out to be the final keys to their success. Even then, they fell short in '73, missed in '74 and 1975 didn't start off on the surest footing.

Looking at Morgan's 1972 season...wth...115 walks and 44 K's? Does. not. compute.