Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OnBaseMachine
What has Jocketty done so far?.
For the record, Krivsky had the benefit of being able to offer $50 million contracts to relievers and starters.
Has Jocketty been extended that luxury?
Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OnBaseMachine
2006 draft:
Drew Stubbs - AAA...projects as Gold Glove CFer. Obviously passing on Lincecum was a huge mistake. I was very much in favor of Lincecum.
Valaika is already in AAA.
Justin Turner was used in a trade to acquire Ramon Hernandez.
Josh Roenicke is pitching well in the majors so far.
Chris Heisey is OPSing over 1.000 in AAA right now and is on the verge of reaching the majors.
Despite passing on Lincecum, the 2006 draft is looking good, though it would have been a tremendous draft if they selected Lincecum.
Stubbs? If all we can say about our top 10 pick is that he projects as a GG outfielder, then that says it all. And they didn't just pass on Lincecum. They passed on Scherzer and Joba as well, to name a few. And they also went for Watson over Brett Anderson in the 2nd, which was as much as a debacle as the 1st round was.
Valaika is struggling in AAA.
Heisey looks awesome.
Turner, big deal.
Roenicke is also going to be 27 in a month and just made it up. And the sample size couldn't get any smaller.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OnBaseMachine
2007 draft:
I like the early returns on the 2007 draft despite Mesoraco not doing anything. Frazier, Cozart, and Soto all look like good prospects. Kyle Lotzkar has a big arm too, though he's struggled with injury problems this season.
Very early but, again, nothing to get excited about yet.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OnBaseMachine
It's way too early to judge his drafts.
It isn't too early on 2006. It isn't impossible to get some production out of a draft 3 years ago, especially when you use your top 3 picks on college guys.
Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
This kind of smacks of results-based analysis IMHO.
First, Harang's contract was a good one and Arroyo's was riskier but not a de facto poor one (the two were almost done simultaneously so it's appropriate to discuss them as a pair).
Arroyo's was a poor decision. Why extend a guy who has 2 years left at bargain basement prices? Wayne was in love with his first big acquisition and then took all the value away with the extension.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
Concerning Lincecum, there were legit reasons to pass him over and his selection was by no means an obvious choice that was flubbed at the time teams were on the clock.
They passed on more than Lincecum. I'd love to have Scherzer as well. Joba would be nice.
Quote:
Originally Posted by
jojo
Really all Jocketty has done so far is pass on big name free agents, not trade anyone who could be considered significant, signed turds like Lincoln and Taveras to multi-year deals, outbid the league for Hairston and did some shopping on the Island of Misfit Toys (Nixs and Gomes). This is a dramatic departure from Krivsky?
Somewhat, since he hasn't added big money contracts like Wayne sprinkled in. I think most on here would love to get out from under Cordero and Arroyo's deals.
Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Falls City Beer
For the record, Krivsky had the benefit of being able to offer $50 million contracts to relievers and starters.
Has Jocketty been extended that luxury?
I think it's a fair argument that the economy has influenced decisions.
Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
I am fine with the Cordero deal. He stabalized the back of the pen, and he has lived up to the contract. 2007's bullpen meltdown was a nightmare that we all too easily forget.
Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OnBaseMachine
A real GM? He signed Willy Taveras and Mike Lincoln to multi year contracts. I was much more impressed with Krivsky than I have been with Jocketty.
Stanton/Castro versus Lincoln/Taveras.
Which set of 2 year contracts is worse?
Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
I was personally hoping Jocketty would be smart enough to avoid providing an odds on favorite to win such a lame competition....
Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
Quote:
Originally Posted by
edabbs44
Stanton/Castro versus Lincoln/Taveras.
Which set of 2 year contracts is worse?
I'll take Stanton/Castro over Lincoln/Taveras. Re-signing Hairston was a bad deal too.
Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
Quote:
Originally Posted by
edabbs44
Stanton/Castro versus Lincoln/Taveras.
Which set of 2 year contracts is worse?
Taveras/Lincoln. Taveras is the only starter in that group, so his sucktitude hurts the team even more.
That said, Krivsky didn't have a full GM's job. He had other people making deciscions over his head on players. I don't know if Jocketty has the same thing going on.
Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
Quote:
Originally Posted by
OnBaseMachine
I'll take Stanton/Castro over Lincoln/Taveras. Re-signing Hairston was a bad deal too.
You'd rather have Stanton and Castro? Then you have a very short memory.
We can go on for a while with Wayne's contract/acquisition mishaps. Hatteberg's option, Cormier, Fogg, Gonzalez, Conine, etc.
Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
Rather than debating who's mistakes were worse, who can find something particularly positive to say about either? Because that's what really matters.
I simply don't see anything constructive that Jocketty has really done since taking the job.
Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
Quote:
Originally Posted by
TheNext44
Never let facts get in the way of a good rant.
1) He has changed GM's twice since he has owned the team. And both times, it was an improvement.
2) I think even Narron and Miley got close to $500K a year, and I know that even A.J. Hinch is around that. But you are right a cheaper manager could had, just not for anywhere near $300K.
3) The Reds are contending now, thanks to Cast commiting too much money to Harang, Arroyo, Phillips, Taveras, Lincoln, Hairston and Cordero. Commitment to winning is not his problem.
4) Mike Brown has no quest to win, his way or any other. He has a quest to make money. If he wins while doing that... gravy.
Cast wants to win. However, he is just starting to figure out how, with Jocketty's guidance. The health of the Reds organization is miles better than the health of the Bengals. Not even close.
First, I agree that one should never EVER let the facts get in the way of a good rant.
On #1, I meant to say that he's had 3 GMs since he took over. And even as I was thinking that (and intending to type it), I did realize it was pretty unfair.
On #2, my only standard was better than Dusty Baker. I include both the gentlemen you mention in that category, as I would include many, many people who would take the job for less than $300K.
My only real point was that spending big on the fricking manager - of all things - is just a sign of an organization that has no idea what it was doing. It would be sort of like having your closer be your second highest paid player ... oh, wait.
On #3, I don't consider under .500 and in 5th place contending, but that's just me.
On #4, I just disagree, but I guess we've both psycoanalyzed both owners enough for one day.
Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Austin Kearns
Rather than debating who's mistakes were worse, who can find something particularly positive to say about either? Because that's what really matters.
I simply don't see anything constructive that Jocketty has really done since taking the job.
I believe that Walt realized that going for it now was a mistake. He didn't fall into the "win now" mentality and, instead, he is willing to build a winner. Which is what we needed for the past 5 years.
Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
Quote:
Originally Posted by
edabbs44
I believe that Walt realized that going for it now was a mistake. He didn't fall into the "win now" mentality and, instead, he is willing to build a winner. Which is what we needed for the past 5 years.
But if this is true, why sign Taveras?!?!?
Re: Baseball America's take on the Jocketty hiring
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Austin Kearns
Rather than debating who's mistakes were worse, who can find something particularly positive to say about either? Because that's what really matters.
I simply don't see anything constructive that Jocketty has really done since taking the job.
Excellent point about looking for positives.
Here is my list of positives for Krivsky:
Phillips (Brandon, not Andy)
Hamilton
Volquez
Herrera
Arroyo
Cordero
Hatteberg
A Gonzalez (yes, even with the injuries, the contract was a good one)
Made no trades that haunt.
Here is my list of positives for Jocketty:
Owings
Massett
R. Hernandez
Nix
Gomes
Rhodes
improved defense
better handling of Bailey
stability/long term plan
better draft plan; picking pitchers that fit the park best, safer picks at top when the money is big, more risk at the back of the draft when the value is greater.
not panicking and not trading for quick fixes during the season.
Summation:
Krivsky brought in great talent at very little cost, Jocketty brought in a long term plan to build a strong organization. Without Krivsky's talent injection, Jocketty's plan would have taken much longer to get the Reds where they are right now.