Choo

[*BaseClogger*]

The Red Sox and Cards won 97 games and won several playoff rounds, culminating in a World Series.

The Red Sox had eleven players who hit for an OPS over .750 with more than 200 at bats. The Cards had six starting players (including Adams) with an OPS over .830.

The Reds had three players above .750 OPS and two players above .830.

This is the primary difference in the ballclubs.

Reds have good pitching too. Reds probably have better defense. But you cannot win in today's baseball with three hitters.

I don't think it's fair to compare individual players when one team is in the AL and can utilize the DH, and the other had injuries that gave quality backups more playing time. You're double-counting Craig and Adams, for instance.

I think looking position-by-position is the way to do it. The Reds had a small edge over the Cardinals at 1B and SS, but the Cardinals had massive advantages at C and 2B.

Acquiring a C or 2B better than what the Reds already have in-house just seems unrealistic to me. Way too expensive, and both positions have bounce-back candidates. The position to upgrade is the ~.680 OPS and generally mediocre defense/baserunning the Reds had in LF.

Don't forget, the Reds had better pitching staffs than both teams as well...

[kpresidente]

I'm willing to give Mes a real chance this year. His plate approach seems decent except when he dives after pitches on the outter half if the zone and dips his shoulder. I think hanigans low babip is due to weak contact more than bad luck. He was dealing with injury, but his bat has never been great despite decent in base skills. I think it may be time to move on from hanigan especially if arroyo isn't with the team.

I would absolutely non-tender Hanigan, but at the same time, if he'd never played for the Reds and I was looking at FAs, I would look at him and say "here's a good buy-low candidate with veteran leadership and a solid glove" and be interested.

[Kc61]

No one is arguing your point about the Reds needing more offense. I am arguing moving Frazier in order to improve the offense should not be the priority. There are bigger holes in the lineup than Frazier, you cannot realistically expect the Reds to completely overhaul the lineup.

The priority is upgrading positions and adding OPS points where you can.

Only Votto, Bruce, and Choo (if he stays) have an argument to be off the table.

Otherwise you upgrade where you can.

Teams aren't calling the Reds with top guys for sale at every position. The Reds will have limited options for upgrades.

If the Reds can add, say, 40 OPS points at a given position they should listen. 50 or more OPS points? Listen harder. Other than Votto, Bruce, and Choo, there should be no priorities or non-priorities.

Some say keep Frazier, Cozart and Mes, they are cheaper. Others would say keep Phillips and Ludwick based on track record of several good seasons.

I say -- take the upgrades where you can get them. Almost no position is off limits. Depends on what deals are available. Simple.

[Kc61]

I don't think it's fair to compare individual players when one team is in the AL and can utilize the DH, and the other had injuries that gave quality backups more playing time. You're double-counting Craig and Adams, for instance.

I think looking position-by-position is the way to do it. The Reds had a small edge over the Cardinals at 1B and SS, but the Cardinals had massive advantages at C and 2B.

Acquiring a C or 2B better than what the Reds already have in-house just seems unrealistic to me. Way too expensive, and both positions have bounce-back candidates. The position to upgrade is the ~.680 OPS and generally mediocre defense/baserunning the Reds had in LF.

Don't forget, the Reds had better pitching staffs than both teams as well...

The Red Sox turned their team around with (what I consider) a brilliant GM job. They recognized that getting solid depth, mid-level free agents, would dramatically boost their team. They had a wealth of solid hitters this year and to ignore them because of the A.L. is incorrect IMO.

The Cards let Pujols go and instead developed or acquired very good hitters instead of one great NL hitter. Their hitting depth is the team's obvious strength.

And you say Craig/Adams is double counting. I say, replacements count too. The Reds replaced Ludwick with Paul and Heisey. The Cards replaced Craig with Adams.

Respectfully to those with an opposing view, I think it's incorrect to say that the Reds are essentially stuck with most of their current players. A good GM is creative and comes up with solutions.

The current Reds front office hasn't acquired a single major league player in about ten months, unless you include Zach Duke. They have been too stuck on the same players for too long.

[kpresidente]

There's a difference between listening and shopping. I'd listen on anybody but Votto and Bruce, but like I said elsewhere, the team that's shopping is at a disadvantage leverage-wise, so assume from the outset you're going to give up more talent than you get, and ask yourself which players/positions you want to be buying/selling. I'm wouldn't be willing to take that loss on Frazier, Cozart, or Mes so I'm wouldn't be actively "shopping" them. I would be willing to take that loss on a starting pitcher, though, because Chapman can step in and not lose production.

[Mitri]

IMO this is incorrect. Deep in the playoffs of any sport offensive numbers suffer because the defense (or pitching) faced is top notch. It's not the test.

The Reds Sox are proof positive that a deep lineup of hitters will be successful. You don't need 50 home run hitters. But you can't be satisfied with .234 hitters.

The Cards had six starting players above .830 OPS. The Reds had two.

If pitching and defense alone were the keys, the Reds wouldn't have been the fifth best team in the NL, they would have been better. They lacked offensive depth, plain and simple.

Another day, another jab at your displeasure with Frazier. At least you're getting creative about it.

[Old school 1983]

Another day, another jab at your displeasure with Frazier. At least you're getting creative about it.

If the best things we can say about the guy are he has a nice ops versus lefties and plays good D, then he sounds like a platoon option to me.

[TRF]

If the best things we can say about the guy are he has a nice ops versus lefties and plays good D, then he sounds like a platoon option to me.

How about that he's 1 year removed from an .829 OPS and that he finished very strong? How about that he likely threw some added pressure on himself as he was replacing a guy that will probably end up in the HOF?

Seems to me you don't give up on a guy after one bad season.

[Kc61]

Another day, another jab at your displeasure with Frazier. At least you're getting creative about it.

It's really best to post about the issues, rather than taking shots at other posters.

And, of course, this post misstates my position entirely.

My point -- as should be obvious -- is that, with very limited exception, no position should be immune to an upgrade.

Doesn't have to be third base. Can be other places. But it has to be somewhere.

[Old school 1983]

How about that he's 1 year removed from an .829 OPS and that he finished very strong? How about that he likely threw some added pressure on himself as he was replacing a guy that will probably end up in the HOF?

Seems to me you don't give up on a guy after one bad season.

If he were like 23 and not 28 I'd agree with you. I think he'd be a decent guy to keep around but given his age and plate approach I think he'd be better suited in a platoon or super sub role. Like KC has said repeatedly on here, and which I agree, an upgrade needs to be made if third is the place to do it, then go for it. If it's somewhere else by all means go for it there.

[*BaseClogger*]

I keep seeing the phrase "super-sub" thrown around in relation to Frazier, but where else on the field should he really start? Occasionally in the corner OF and 1B? His bat doesn't really play in those positions. The only place where you are really getting your money's worth out of Frazier is 3B with his strong defense...

[RedTeamGo!]

I do not want it to happen, but I am confident Frazier can play 2B.

[MoneyInTheBank]

In regards to Mesoraco...

Thus far in his career he has MASHED lefties to a .312/.365/.472 line in 137 PAs. Righties has been BAD .199/.257/.324 in 457 PAs. 2013 was right along those lines in terms of his splits. Hanigan has been split similarly through his career but not quite so extreme.

I'd love to get a guy like Dioner Navarro back to get the starts against RHP. I love Hanigan but There needs to be an upgrade somewhere.

[mth123]

In regards to Mesoraco...

Thus far in his career he has MASHED lefties to a .312/.365/.472 line in 137 PAs. Righties has been BAD .199/.257/.324 in 457 PAs. 2013 was right along those lines in terms of his splits. Hanigan has been split similarly through his career but not quite so extreme.

I'd love to get a guy like Dioner Navarro back to get the starts against RHP. I love Hanigan but There needs to be an upgrade somewhere.

Agreed. I like Pierzynski better, but Navarro instead of Hanigan is a move in the right direction.

[Old school 1983]

I keep seeing the phrase "super-sub" thrown around in relation to Frazier, but where else on the field should he really start? Occasionally in the corner OF and 1B? His bat doesn't really play in those positions. The only place where you are really getting your money's worth out of Frazier is 3B with his strong defense...

He shouldn't start. Hence super sub, if a better option at 3b is found. He can cover a variety of positions without a loss of power at the plate. I'll commend Frazier for his strong defensive season, but it takes a better plate to be a full time player in the majors. Given his age, I don't think there is a chance for a big improvement. I think replacing him with a better bat improves the offense and the bench in one move.