Turn Off Ads?
Page 7 of 25 FirstFirst ... 3456789101117 ... LastLast
Results 91 to 105 of 368

Thread: The Reds are not a contending team.

  1. #91
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,565

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    I think the point of this thread is spot on and evidently some other knowledgeable baseball people do as well.

    Even if you disagree, post something useful that explains why. The whole, "I guess we don't have to play the games" non-sense is not only stale and been posted about a trillion times already, it seems fairly rude and squashes real discussion. It's not my board, but if it were, any such post would come with a lifetime ban. JMO.

    Thanks for posting junkhead, keep right on doing so.
    The point of the thread is to tell people they're living in a fantasy world if they believe anything other than what a computer projection tells them, and that's not deserving of a little snark? I respectfully disagree. It earned a little bit of sarcasm.
    "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

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #92
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,565

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by junkhead View Post
    Wow, so many complaints.



    This is my point.
    Something to chew on:

    Just because someone is more optimistic than you doesn't mean they aren't being objective.

    I can't believe that actually has to be said.
    "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

  4. Likes:

    dubc47834 (01-28-2014), HeatherC1212 (01-28-2014), Old school 1983 (01-28-2014), Patrick Bateman (01-28-2014), Puffy (01-28-2014), RedTeamGo! (01-28-2014)

  5. #93
    I hate the Cubs LoganBuck's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Posts
    6,144

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by traderumor View Post
    But "improvements" by other teams are based on assumptions of past performance, which may or may not be the actual results for a particular season, which is the other side of the coin to underperformances by status quo Reds that may correct themselves this season.

    Projecting a 162 game baseball season is like trying to pinpoint the number of inches of snow for each major city in the state for any given winter. Too many variables to make conclusions like "The Reds are not contenders." It almost could be considered a baiting post.
    http://www.weather.com/news/weather-...-2014-20131121
    The Sox traded Bullfrog the only player they've got for Shottenhoffen. Four-eyes Shottenhoffen a utility infielder. They've got a whole team of utility infielders.

  6. #94
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    814

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by dubc47834 View Post
    This thread started off bashing those who feel this team is a contender, saying those that do are living in a fantasy world!!! I am not condoning bashing, but when you make a statement like that you are opening yourself up. I would hope that we all could have a good discussion on this and bashing wouldn't occur, but this is the internet where you don't see the person you are bashing!
    Bashing? HA ha ha, I think you are too serious.

  7. #95
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,565

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Me personally: I don't think the Reds needed a lot of fixing because I never thought they were broke.

    Take me into any season with a rotation of Cueto, Latos, Bailey, Leake and Cingrani, a decent pen and an MVP type of hitter in the middle of the lineup and I'm sorry, but objectively, that's a contending team.

    Are there some holes? Absolutely. But no number of simulations by Clay Davenport is going to change my mind that the Reds are built like a contending team.
    "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

  8. Likes:

    Crumbley (01-30-2014), HeatherC1212 (01-28-2014), jimbo (01-28-2014), REDREAD (01-28-2014), redsmetz (01-28-2014)

  9. #96
    Flash the leather! _Sir_Charles_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    8,327

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by Salukifan2 View Post
    Hoping for sophomore slumps from cards players is fine, but it does not support the claim that the cardinals are going to be worse next year.
    I'm not "hoping" for sophomore slumps. I think the reason the cards will be worse next year is all about them playing over their heads last year. That being said, I DO believe in sophomore slumps...and it wouldn't surprise me to see several of the young Cards pitchers get hit with a case of it. I know many think it's bogus...I disagree.

    Everyone on this board over states the value of Beltran to the cardinals during the regular season last year. He was about fifth on the team in OPS and played the worst right field in the MLB last year.
    I wasn't overstating the value of Beltran. He is clearly a declining player and it was a good time to move on from him. But the conversation was regarding team HR totals and I said that replacing his HR's isn't going to be as easy as some think. There's not alot of power in that lineup. Holliday is well past his prime and his numbers should be level or declining in general. Adams has a bunch of power...but will he make enough contact to put up BIG homer totals?

    Peralta may end up being a lame signing, but its still a MASSIVE upgrade over Kozma. Debating this is foolish.
    I wasn't debating if he was an upgrade. At all. He is. But I AM saying that he probably isn't the guy they thought they signed. If Cards fans are looking for him to replicate his numbers from last year I think they'll be disappointed. That doesn't mean he won't surpass Kozma's offense by a mile. And his defense is pretty crappy IMO.

    There is nothing to support your claim that Holliday and Molina will be worse next year.
    Molina career babip .296. Last year... .338 He's also playing the most demanding position in the game and just passed 30 years old. He's never really dealt with injuries that I recall so he's logged a TON of miles on those legs/knees. Expecting him to begin declining offensively around this age is pretty much par for the course. But the BABIP alone will support him being due for some regression.

    Holliday...he's one of the few guys on the Cards who didn't have a BABIP higher than his norm. But I expect to start seeing regression from him simply due to his age alone. But his BA/RISP will also take a dip as most would expect.

    RISP will come down. Yes. A lot.
    Agreed. And this is where they come back to the pack considerably.

    There should be a substantial upswing in HR. Peralta will hit alot more than the 1 that Kozma hit. Carpenter will hit more at third than Freese did. With a full season Adams would have had about 34 HR. Craig's power numbers were way down last season. Bourjous will hit more HRs than Jay.
    Let's say Peralta hits 10-15. Carpenter 10-15. Adams 25. Craig 18. Bourjous 10. Some of those are being generous. Those 5 players boost your totals by around 25 to 30. But you also lost 24 from Beltran. So as I said, the HR's should remain around the same. If you go on the high end for ALL of those guys...yes, a small upswing in HR's.

    What is struggling for Miller and Wacha? And why do you suspect this? What about them as pitchers would lead you to say this, and please don't respond with "I just feel this way."
    I suspect this because the league didn't have a 'book' on them. Hitters learn and adjust. It's the way of baseball.

    Do you seriously expect to see Wacha maintain a sub-3.00 era? I sure don't. I expect to see him around 4.00. Maybe below. But with the defense behind him, I don't expect to see him get as many good breaks as the Reds pitchers will get. As for Miller, I don't really expect much regression from him other than an uptick in his ERA some. They're both promising young pitchers, but it's a rare pitcher who maintains a 3.00 era or below early in his career. So it's not so much "struggling" for them as much as it's not getting "HUGE" production out of them. As I said before, I don't expect BIG seasons from them. Just like I don't expect a big season out of Cingrani like some here do. The league will figure HIM out as well. It's how the pitchers respond to the hitters adjustments that tell us how they'll really do.

    Lynn is a #4 starter and Kelly is a AAAA? I just disagree. Lynn is a head case who can only throw a fastball, and he is losing his velocity on it. Kelly is a phenomenal athlete with three good pitches. He just needs to refine them more. Kelly is younger and has alot more potential than Lynn.
    I'm probably more down on Kelly than most. I'm simply not impressed by the kid. I really don't have a reason for that one. I think everyone has a player that they don't think has "it" and expects to see them fall on their butts sooner or later. For me, it's Kelly. Maybe I'm selling him short, maybe I'm not. But regardless, I certainly don't think he's better than either Cingrani or Leake.

    The other pitcher I've always felt that way about happens to also be a Cards player. Garcia. It seemed like everytime he pitched, he got every single break you could get. His ERA always stayed low I thought because he lucked out of innings, the opponent shot themselves in the foot, etc, etc. I'm sure he's a good pitcher...but it's one of those irrational things. I keep expecting the other shoe to drop with him and see his luck turn.

    Predicting bullpens is stupid imo because they can change so quickly.

    Also, don't underestimate Carlos Martinez. He has the best stuff on the team.
    Agree with bullpens. As for Martinez, he's got a ton of promise, but like the other kids...I expect to see some growing pains.
    2014 predictions:
    99-63 WS champs (Cards take 2nd WC, Mil 3rd, Pit 4th, Chi 5th)
    Bruce/Votto neck and neck MVP race (neither takes it)
    Bailey CYA winner
    Hamilton ROY & GG

  10. Likes:

    RedTeamGo! (01-28-2014)

  11. #97
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    814

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by OGB View Post
    That said, I genuinely am curious to hear what some would've considered prudent off-season moves--signing McCann, Infante, Cruz, or Santana...trading for Trumbo?
    Signing Choo.
    Sometimes you need to take a gamble. Just look at the case of Holliday signing by Cardinals. That gamble has certainly paid off.
    And there is also a fact that Choo is a relatively safe bet compared with other players as he is a high-obp player with good plate discipline who tends to age well.


  12. #98
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    814

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by Brutus View Post
    The point of the thread is to tell people they're living in a fantasy world if they believe anything other than what a computer projection tells them, and that's not deserving of a little snark? I respectfully disagree. It earned a little bit of sarcasm.
    No, you are wrong.

  13. #99
    Et tu, Brutus? Brutus's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    Atlanta, Ga.
    Posts
    10,565

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by junkhead View Post
    No, you are wrong.
    Really?

    Here is your first and only original line before quoting your unsourced snippet:

    They are certainly a contender in the "Redszone fantasy world", but not in the real world.
    If that's not the point of your post, or what you're trying to get across, then you really buried the lede on this one. There's really not many other ways to interpret the point. You made it pretty clear.
    "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

  14. Likes:

    alwaysawarrior (01-28-2014), RedTeamGo! (01-28-2014), texasdave (01-28-2014), villain612 (01-28-2014)

  15. #100
    Pimpin...literally!!! dubc47834's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Terre Haute, In
    Posts
    1,466

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by junkhead View Post
    Signing Choo.
    Sometimes you need to take a gamble. Just look at the case of Holliday signing by Cardinals. That gamble has certainly paid off.
    And there is also a fact that Choo is a relatively safe bet compared with other players as he is a high-obp player with good plate discipline who tends to age well.

    This has been debated on here before. Where do the Reds get the money to sign Choo to that contract, then still be able to extend Bailey, Latos, or both.

  16. Likes:

    villain612 (01-28-2014)

  17. #101
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2013
    Posts
    814

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by westofyou View Post
    No it is a baiting post.

    Words are powerful, use them with caution says I.
    You are simply wrong. It's not a baiting post.

  18. #102
    Member Wonderful Monds's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2011
    Posts
    2,692

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Can someone please steal the print screen key off junkhead's keyboard? There is a table function here, man.
    They don't think it be like it is, but it do.
    Quote Originally Posted by Larry Schuler View Post
    He has also taught me that even when the Reds win it is important to focus on the fact that they could have lost.

  19. Likes:

    Brutus (01-28-2014), Fil3232 (01-28-2014), Larkin Fan (01-31-2014), Red in Chicago (01-28-2014), RedTeamGo! (01-28-2014), westofyou (01-28-2014)

  20. #103
    Member Old school 1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,744

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by junkhead View Post
    Signing Choo.
    Sometimes you need to take a gamble. Just look at the case of Holliday signing by Cardinals. That gamble has certainly paid off.
    And there is also a fact that Choo is a relatively safe bet compared with other players as he is a high-obp player with good plate discipline who tends to age well.

    Hmm. It all coming back to Choo. Didn't see that coming.

  21. #104
    Flash the leather! _Sir_Charles_'s Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Houston, Texas
    Posts
    8,327

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    Quote Originally Posted by junkhead View Post
    Signing Choo.
    Sometimes you need to take a gamble. Just look at the case of Holliday signing by Cardinals. That gamble has certainly paid off.
    And there is also a fact that Choo is a relatively safe bet compared with other players as he is a high-obp player with good plate discipline who tends to age well.
    Holliday was 29 when he signed and the Cards had a MUCH higher payroll to play with then compared to the Reds then as well.

    Choo is 31 this year and his payroll demands were MUCH higher than Holliday's.

    That being said, I was all for the Reds extending Choo. But for the price he went for...that probably would've hamstrung us for 5 years at least.
    2014 predictions:
    99-63 WS champs (Cards take 2nd WC, Mil 3rd, Pit 4th, Chi 5th)
    Bruce/Votto neck and neck MVP race (neither takes it)
    Bailey CYA winner
    Hamilton ROY & GG

  22. Likes:

    Old school 1983 (01-28-2014)

  23. #105
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    395

    Re: The Reds are not a contending team.

    This is the same team as 2012 except swap Hamilton for Stubbs. The rotation looks great. A lot will depend on Cueto, but Latos and bailey are poised for big years.
    The Reds did change managers. We can sit back and wish they had made a big move, but what moves were available. Choo would have been too expensive and coupled with Votto's contract would have really tied their hands for years. I think they did the right thing. Let's see how BH does.

  24. Likes:

    Old school 1983 (01-28-2014)


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

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.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25