Yeah, this is a 'getting the word out' interview, right?Originally Posted by 757690
Yeah, this is a 'getting the word out' interview, right?
^Anyway to get cliffs notes on the interview? Id love to hear it.
It was only two minutes long if you have two minutes to spare. But if you don't:
* Basically they're not shopping Brandon and that was a media created thing, but did note that they'll shop Brandon or anyone else if it's the right thing to do to improve the club
* He advocates for Chapman to go to the rotation and he and Bryan Price will sit down after they finalize the staff and talk about that
* Bronson being a free agent could impact whether they use Chapman in the rotation; slipped and said a spot is now open (implying they would not re-sign him), but quickly corrected himself to say something like 'if he leaves'
* Said they are a small market but Bob wants to win and will stretch it to the limit if they have to do so
* They want to re-sign Choo but they are discussing all sorts of options based on whether he stays or goes
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
Thanks. I clicked the link and couldn't bring up the interview. Not sure if I did something wrong.
By position OPS:
C - 616
SS - 646
LF - 695
2nd - 695
3rd - 702
RF- 812
CF - 862
1B - 904
The DH's are at 597 and the PH's at 691
Fixing C and SS will cost a lot and those are traditional defense-first positions. I hope to get some improvement from catcher with some Mesoraco maturation and a healthy Hannigan. I don't see Cozart improving much.
Left-field is glaring. And the Choo situation makes the OF dicey indeed. I'd crowd-source the OF like the '99 Reds (Vaugh, Cameron, Tucker, Hammonds, Dmitri Young)
On Chapman, I got a different flavor. He said that it was a "great question"; that they are putting together a staff which will discuss this; there have been plusses keeping Chappy in the pen; also plusses in starting and Walt felt he should start all along; have to wait and see about rotation slots (Reds "do have" then corrected to "may have" potential spot (Arroyo) open); and if Chapman is in rotation Reds will have an opening to finish games.
My speculation on this is that the Reds have no idea if Chapman will start or relieve. That it will depend on what the rotation looks like after deals.
If both Arroyo and another starter, say Bailey, leave then Aroldis will start. But if the Reds feel they have a "full" rotation, he will stay in the pen and perhaps just pitch some more innings.
Not saying it's wise to decide this way. But I think the Chapman decision is unclear now and they will make the decision depending on how the rotation looks after trades.
Last edited by Kc61; 10-29-2013 at 04:15 PM.
But he did outright say he prefers Chapman be in the rotation. That doesn't mean he'll end up there, as he pointed out they felt they needed him in the bullpen, but Jocketty said clearly he preferred Chapman as a starter.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
He also said that they were "going to pursue both" Choo and Arroyo.
No idea what that means with respect to Arroyo.
Everything is perfect, but there is a lot of room for improvement. --- Shunryu Suzuki-roshi
Here's the quote, word for word...
"There's a lot of plusses with him in the bullpen as a closer and a shutdown guy who has done a great job for us. I, personally, have been a guy who felt he should have been a starter all along, but the need at the time was for him to be a closer and it made sense, so we went along with it. We'll just have to wait and see what makes sense. You know Bronson's a free agent, so we do, uh, we may have a hole in the rotation but [closer] will also be a very tough position to fill at the end of the game."
REDREAD (10-30-2013)
Thanks for taking the time to transcribe that as I admittedly was too lazy to do it myself. I still maintain that slip of "so we do, uh, we may have a hole in the rotation" might be telling.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
With Chapman, it sounds like it's basically, "Yes, we'd like him to be in the rotation. However, we're not going to make any final decisions until we have a full coaching staff and everybody has a chance to provide input."
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
757690 (10-29-2013),Old school 1983 (10-30-2013)
Here's my issue with platooning Frazier...
If we are going off of 2013 numbers, he wasn't particularly good at hitting lefties either. Better than righties, but...
.236/.311/.471 isn't great. The slugging percentage is pretty good but as a whole it is nothing to write home about.
If we are going off of 2012 numbers, does he need to be platooned at all?
vs. LHP .298/.333/.524
vs. RHP .262/.330/.487
Just a few thoughts
I also think they don't want to give other teams any indication of who they want in the rotation. Making it clear that Chapman will be in the rotation will lower the trade value of any starter they may be interested in trading.
Hoping to change my username to 75769024
2012 was his coming out year. I don't put stock in the first 200 to 300 innings a pitcher pitches or the first 400 PAs a hitter has. Too much unfamiliarity around the league. 2013 is what the numbers look like after the league adjusts to him. The question is whether he can adjust himself. He could, but looking at his splits as a minor leaguer, I'd say it's doubtful. This is a team that should be fighting for a play-off spot, you just can't take the chance that his minor league and 2013 numbers are the real him and be left with poor production in a line-up filled with similarly poor producers. Bringing in a veteran to share the job with him protects against that. If Frazier hits like he did in 2012, then you play him every day and be happy that you have really good depth for a change, if not, you have a guy who can excel at the very times when Frazier struggles most and the position stays productive.
I also wouldn't make it a straight platoon. Frazier would still get 400 PAs which would mean at least 150 to 200 would be against RHP, but if he's struggling, I see no reason to leave the team in a position where he has to have 700 PAs because there are no alternatives. The team isn't going to get good production at 2B or SS. Two thirds of the OF and the catching spot is iffy as well. They need to do something to add productivity. The line-up was three deep in 2013 (and it wasn't really adequate IMO). One of those three is practically out the door. They can't just go with every marginal guy that they have in the line-up. All are good enough to hold down a spot as a hole plugger, but a line-up filled with those guys isn't up to snuff. Take the upgrades where they can. They may not be able to find a guy to tandem with Frazier and if not, they should look to upgrade elsewhere and get by with Frazier while hoping for a repeat of 2012, but if the opportunity to add a guy at 3B presents itself, it shouldn't be dismissed because Todd Frazier had a nice debut season.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
I'm not saying leave Frazier alone. Not at all. I'm saying if you are basing a platoon on a repeat of last season, then should you really be looking for an outright replacement?
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
Reply With Quote