Re: Why All The Negativity?
True, but he had an old man's knee a year ago. now it's a year older.
See the list woy posted about recent HS pitchers. now that's scary. And as for the why can't Homer Bailey be that guy question, Ty Howington says hi.
Freel was better than Randa in every category except fielding % last year. So why is Randa an upgrade? Especially when it costs the team 50 points of OB and 35+steals a year.
Re: Why All The Negativity?
Quote:
Why not take that $25M and go to Dunn and say "We recognize what we have in you, and we want you around for some years in the future. Let's talk LTC."
What if Dunn replies, "Why should we? you won't even sign any FA pitchers and you can't develop your own."
Re: Why All The Negativity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan the Reds Fan
has there ever been a great pitcher come straight out of high school?
The only HS pitcher in recent memory who pitched little in the minors before exploding on the majors would have been the 19 year old Dwight Gooden.
Gooden pitched 1 short season and 1 full season in the minors.
There is certainly a lot of evidence in the case of Gooden that the early heavy workload didn't help him. He threw 270+ innings at the age of 20 and was never as good after that and was basically done at 28.
I don't want a high school pitcher given a heavy workload before age 22. Will be interesting to see how many innings KC allows Greincke to throw this year.
Re: Why All The Negativity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan the Reds Fan
has there ever been a great pitcher come straight out of high school?
Gary Nolan, Bob Feller, Larry Dierker and Mike McCormick are the recent ones.
Re: Why All The Negativity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan the Reds Fan
If's, maybe's, hope so's, questions marks and Keeps us in the game's. Tell me one sure thing in baseball, isn't everything a gamble? Is there any guarantee that even the big unit does well next year? Could it not be the year he finally bottoms out at his age? Could Odalis not sink in a new stadium that isn't so pitcher friendly? What else does any team have to hang it's head on but if's, maybes and hope so's?
Sure it's all a gamble. But if you weigh the odds, you're going to win more hands than if you throw the odds out the window altogether.
Re: Why All The Negativity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jpup
It is my belief that the Reds stole Paul Wilson, in this market. I'll be the first to tell you that he is not a #1 pitcher or even a #3 pitcher on most teams, but in this market, he is worth every penny that the Reds signed him for.
Right there in a nutshell is where you and I depart. If you're not good enough to be a #3 pitcher on most (and I'm assuming here you mean good) teams, then I'm not paying you $4M per.
The idea isn't to spend the money for the sake of spending the money. The idea is to spend the money on identifiably good players. IMO, the Reds haven't done that. They've still got what could be one of the worst rotations in baseball (won't surprise me in the least if they're in the bottom quarter in ERA and bottom tenth in IP). To spend $16M and still be in that boat is a sin of the cardinal variety.
Re: Why All The Negativity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelSD
Ok, let's assume that only Eric Milton was truly available and that no other talent could have possibly wanted to come to Cincinnati at any price for the sake of argument.
I'd have put my checkbook back in my pocket and would have kindly thanked Eric Milton for considering the Reds. I would have saved that cash to be used at a later date...maybe when a high-dollar pitcher would have been available in a trade after his team figured out that they were out of the race.
Of course, we're assuming that no one else was possibly available at any price. I disagree with that position but, if true, then doing nothing was preferable to signing Eric Milton- particularly since the Reds gave him four million dollars before he'd thrown a single pitch for the franchise.
Ok, so Perez and Miller say no to the reds, which by the way they did, you put the money back in your pocket? Do you think that the reds are better off without Eric Milton on their team? Why do you think that this will keep us from doing something down the road?
And just one more question steel, what was the last move the reds made that you liked? Any of you that are against this move, I pose that question to.
Re: Why All The Negativity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by westofyou
What if Dunn replies, "Why should we? you won't even sign any FA pitchers and you can't develop your own."
Well, then at least you know where Dunn stands, and in the process you haven't just given Eric Milton $25M.
Re: Why All The Negativity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by SteelSD
Eric Milton- particularly since the Reds gave him four million dollars before he'd thrown a single pitch for the franchise.
I am guessing that the reason of the signing bonus was so the money went on the 2004 books, not the 2005 books. One Milton signed the deal the money is obligated.
Re: Why All The Negativity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by M2
Right there in a nutshell is where you and I depart. If you're not good enough to be a #3 pitcher on most (and I'm assuming here you mean good) teams, then I'm not paying you $4M per.
The idea isn't to spend the money for the sake of spending the money. The idea is to spend the money on identifiably good players. IMO, the Reds haven't done that. They've still got what could be one of the worst rotations in baseball (won't surprise me in the least if they're in the bottom quarter in ERA and bottom tenth in IP). To spend $16M and still be in that boat is a sin of the cardinal variety.
Where are you going to find a pitcher as good as Wilson for less than $4 million per? I'm not seeing any.
Re: Why All The Negativity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan the Reds Fan
And just one more question steel, what was the last move the reds made that you liked? Any of you that are against this move, I pose that question to.
D'Angelo Jiminez and the 2003 draft. There's been other moves that I haven't minded since then, but those are the last two moves I really liked. Actually I really like the Ben Kozlowski pickup too, though that's more a case of a minor move with high upside.
Here's my question to folks who've reflexively liked every move the Reds have made in recent years, at what point do you recognize that not every move is a sure-fire winner?
Re: Why All The Negativity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan the Reds Fan
Ok, so Perez and Miller say no to the reds, which by the way they did, you put the money back in your pocket? Do you think that the reds are better off without Eric Milton on their team? Why do you think that this will keep us from doing something down the road?
And just one more question steel, what was the last move the reds made that you liked? Any of you that are against this move, I pose that question to.
The Reds of today are better with Milton on their team. But signing FAs doesn't happen in a vacuum. The budget of this team has been discussed ad nausem on here. How many times have we heard that this team just can't afford to carry multiple big contracts, such as Griffey, Casey, Graves? And now we have Milton's contract on top of that. Is there going to be even more money available in the future, when Dunn and Kearns and even WMP are going to be making millions?
Everything in recent Reds history indicates that for every salary move, there are consequences. Why should we expect that to all of a sudden be untrue?
The last move(s) I really and truly liked that the Reds made, off the top of my head: trading for Jimenez, and the Reitsma trade. Also, I don't mind the Mercker signing this year, and I thought we were lucky to get what we got for Cory Lidle and Todd Jones last year.
Re: Why All The Negativity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by M2
D'Angelo Jiminez and the 2003 draft. There's been other moves that I haven't minded since then, but those are the last two moves I really liked. Actually I really like the Ben Kozlowski pickup too, though that's more a case of a minor move with high upside.
Here's my question to folks who've reflexively liked every move the Reds have made in recent years, at what point do you recognize that not every move is a sure-fire winner?
I don't think that any move that a team makes is a sure fire winner. You know that. He could have the best stats in the world, but he could break his leg and then it would be a bad move.
I think the fence is being optimistic vs. be pessimistic. C'mon at least give them a chance to fail. :MandJ:
Re: Why All The Negativity?
I'm not calling it a sure fire winner, what I am calling it is a step in the right direction, a breath of fresh air to see some effort being put into this team. I just see some people who aren't happy if moves aren't being made and aren't happy if they are. I hope these people have more optimism in their personal lives than they do with the Reds. ;)
Re: Why All The Negativity?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Ryan the Reds Fan
I'm not calling it a sure fire winner, what I am calling it is a step in the right direction, a breath of fresh air to see some effort being put into this team. I just see some people who aren't happy if moves aren't being made and aren't happy if they are. I hope these people have more optimism in their personal lives than they do with the Reds. ;)
I'm starting to find myself agreeing with you more everyday. :crossfing