Originally Posted by MWM
Because I couldn't care less about an "improved" team. What good is "improved" if it doesn't lead to a contender. That's just it. I think traderumor touched on this in his Bengals analogy. People have gotten so accustomed to mediocrity that they seem to be satisfied with "improved." If improving the team still means a losing season, and those improvements are older players who won' be around for permanent improvement, it serves no purpose whatsoever if you're looking to get to the playoffs.
Basically, whether they lose 85 games or 95 games means very little to me.
I want a contender too, but I sure don't want to sit through 6 years of 90-100 loss seasons. If I have do that, I might not care when the Reds are contenders in 2010.
I can respect your opinion that a 4th place team isn't much more fun that a 5th place team, but I'm glad we'll have a 3b not named Larson and hopefully a bullpen that doesn't blow every game. Ortiz.. I'm not sure how he'll do, but there's some hope there. He's certainly a step up from Hancock, who I dreaded seeing every 5th day.
I just don't see any real downside to any of these moves DanO made. It would be impossible for him to make us a contender this offseason, so while I'm not completely satisfied with the team, I like the fact that supposedly Carl wants to improve the team. That might end up being another empty promise, but if we can get Carl to jack up the payroll at least in the 60-70 million range, there's hope that sometime in the future we might contend.
I think the Reds are going to be a lot more tolerable to watch. IMO, last year was one of the most frustrating seasons I've ever sat through.
Maybe DanO gets us to .500 this year, and then is able to improve the W-L record by 3-5 games/year.. Of course, there's no guarantee that he will, but you've got to start somewhere, and filling your most glaring holes (bullpen, 1 starter, 3b) is a great start, even if it is only a stopgap.