Originally Posted by lollipopcurve
O'Brien did fine. We have better young starters than we did before -- remember he acquired Hancock for very little and signed off (I assume) on the promotion and steady use of Hudson. The handling of mega-assets Dunn and Pena (for which everyone seems to want to credit Chambliss, an O'Brien/Miley hire) worked very well. Top prospects Encarnacion, Gardner, Pauly, Moseley, Votto (to name just the top 5) made solid-excellent advances in the minors. In general, the 8-man/75 pitch system, in place for most of the season, helped our lower level pitchers avoid injury. The team, built on a low budget, was competitive and interesting enough (untraded Griffey's chase of 500 helped) to get fans to the park in numbers significantly higher than projected for a small-market team in its 2nd year in a new ballpark. In turn, the payroll is expected to climb in 2005.
Perhaps most importantly, he appears to have helped stabilize a FO that, from all accounts, was in chaos. We don't see that stuff.
No grade from me until 3 years from now, when his contract is up. Even then, it'll still be too soon to have a final reckoning on the 2004 draft.
lollipopcurve, how in the heck did you come up with that name? Is this something the significant other calls you?
On one hand, I think your approach of wait-and-see is a level-headed one. On the other hand, the Reds basically used that approach four times since their last visit to the playoffs. If you're basing that conclusion on the period of time since their last playoff appearance. It's ironic that we as fans are tearing DanO to shreds over his "slow, methodical thinking", yet we want to give him years of this before we make a decision on whether he passed or failed as GM. Given the thread is about rating his first year as GM, I'd give him a C. There's no point in reiterating what you and others have taken the time to do. We all know the story about DanO. I think the difference in grades given to him comes down to each fan's "patience rating" :RedinDC: