Originally Posted by Redsfaithful
Who would you have gotten instead for $4 million?
It was Ortiz for $4 million, or Hancock for the league minimum in the rotation. I'd rather have Ortiz at $4 million.
I'm completely not one of those people who says over and over that you can't criticize the front office because you don't know that better deals were out there ... but this time I am.
I haven't seen any better deals that O'Brien has turned down. Clement wasn't an option. Hudson wasn't an option. Mulder wasn't an option. Not if you really want the Reds to be thinking long term.
Tell me, anyone, what you'd prefer the Reds have done. Who should they have signed, that's already signed somewhere else? Out of the people who've been traded in the past few weeks, who should the Reds have nabbed?
These moves make 2005 a little more interesting.
I haven't seen anyone show how they hurt 2006 or 2007.
I don't know Redsfaithful. Clearly I'm not a GM, and even if I pretend to be one in this minute, I don't have many (any?) answers to your questions off the top of my head. Nor do I know all the trades and signings that have been made off the top of my head.
But I would start with: Could Millwood be had for $4M? Or $5M even? What if, instead of signing Weathers and Weber, we combined their money and signed Steve Kline? What if we hadn't signed Randa, and used his money plus the $4M for Ortiz toward a better staring pitcher? Odalis Perez, maybe? In other words, what if our acquisitions were Perez, Kline and Mercker, instead of Ortiz, Weathers, Weber, Mercker and Randa?
It's not that the moves O'Brien made are inherently bad in and of themselves. Even the Randa signing, when taken alone, has its positives. It's the sum of the moves, and the sum doesn't amount to a whole lot. To me, it equals (the possibility of?) a marginally better team, especially concerning the pitching.
Overall, I would agree the team is improved this year over last year, on paper. I just don't know that it's improved enough to matter.
As for the future: Maybe none of these moves will hurt 2006 or 2007. But do any of them really help 2006 or 2007? At best, we seem to be heading for status quo in those years.