Originally Posted by Edskin
Disagree...this team has MUCH better longterm potential and better overall "talent" but the 1999 team was in a capsule...Ron Villone was not Ron Villone in 1999 if you will....and I didn't say the 1999 team was WS bound..I said if that team made the playoffs, I thought they had a legit shot to make a run. I knew the 2010 was short for the post-season.
Here's the thing about a team like the 1999 Reds...you simply can't pick them apart based on the roster...you have to analyze what each guy was THAT YEAR. Eddie Taubensee was not Eddie Taubensee in 1999...he was an excellent offensive catcher and a serious late-game threat.
The 1999 team was better than the 2010 team...if they played in a series I'd pick the 1999 team 8 times out of 10. Having said that, the 2010 team leaves us a with much better chance for future success than the 1999 team did.
I'd argue that after '99, things were as optimistic as could be. Heck, they built on a 96 win season by adding an all-century player - arguably the best player available. He was lured home, in part, by ownership's assurances of a payroll that would sustain a winner. Granted, there were concerns with that team, but I really doubt anyone would have foreseen the decade that followed.