Turn Off Ads?
Page 43 of 67 FirstFirst ... 3339404142434445464753 ... LastLast
Results 631 to 645 of 996

Thread: The Cozart decision

  1. #631
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    36,466

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by kaldaniels View Post
    But to go from replacement level at SS to Cozart is an upgrade that I will take for 12 M.
    Why not go get a younger, inexpensive SS option who can be better than Cozart's two-win norm over the long haul? Cozart at $12M feels like costly work avoidance. It's time to get on with finding the SS to play with the pitching staff they're trying to rebuild.

    The team literally just cleared a $12M AAV contract to a thirtysomething middle IF that people yowled about like wet cats on this board and now I'm hearing they should immediately dive back into that water even though the Reds don't profile as anything like a contender? I'm a hard no on that.
    Last edited by M2; 11-10-2017 at 12:36 PM.
    Wait until the year after next year.

  2. Likes:

    HokieRed (11-13-2017),Kinsm (11-10-2017),REDREAD (11-16-2017),Ron Madden (11-10-2017),Tony Cloninger (11-10-2017)

  3. Turn Off Ads?
  4. #632
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    24,867

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Griffey012 View Post
    I agree the Reds aren't going to be hunting a wild card anytime soon giving up 5.3 RPG because they won't be scoring that many runs either. But if they start giving up less runs and they suddenly can't score you become the 2017 Phillies instead of the 2017 Reds. Why are we better off being the 2017 Phillies?
    Griff, you're exaggerating on this. There's no real risk that the loss of Cozart destroys the offense. Senzel is coming, Winker just arrived, there's still Votto, Suarez, Schebler, Duvall, Gennett.

    On the other hand, the pitching is a mess, there is just no comparison between the two units, this is not a situation where the Reds suddenly become all pitching and no offense.

    Thanks for the discussion, other fish to fry, good conversation on an important Reds question.

  5. #633
    Viva la Rolen kaldaniels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,084

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    Why not go get a younger, inexpensive SS option who can be better than Cozart's two-win norm over the long haul? Cozart at $12M feels like costly work avoidance. It's time to get on with finding the SS to play with the pitching staff they're trying to rebuild.

    The team literally just cleared a $12M AAV contract to a thirtysomething middle IF that people yowled about like wet cats on this board and now I'm hearing they should immediately dive back into that water even though the Reds don't profile as anything like a contender?
    I’d love that but I don’t have a great idea about how to grab a 3 win+ young shortstop. Baez or Russell? That would take Iglesias+ (Which depending on the + I would do)...help me out here.

    I wouldn’t be buying Swanson myself...so personally I’d cross him off my list. Any other ideas?

  6. Likes:

    Homer's Ghost (11-13-2017)

  7. #634
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,397

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    Griff, you're exaggerating on this. There's no real risk that the loss of Cozart destroys the offense. Senzel is coming, Winker just arrived, there's still Votto, Suarez, Schebler, Duvall, Gennett.

    On the other hand, the pitching is a mess, there is just no comparison between the two units, this is not a situation where the Reds suddenly become all pitching and no offense.

    Thanks for the discussion, other fish to fry, good conversation on an important Reds question.
    I'm not saying the Reds will become the 2017 Phillies, just using it as an example to justify my point, it is a balancing act of both sides; scoring runs and allowing runs. If you are awful at allowing runs you have to be amazing at scoring them and vice versa. Getting equally better at one and equally worse at the other doesn't move the needle. Getting much worse at one and a bit better at the other has a negative impact.

    If you think using the $12M to acquire pitching will have a greater impact than using it on Cozart that is a fair argument to make. But the argument you are coming with is the Reds should automatically use their resources on new pitching over in house options, simply because the pitching is worse than the offense at the moment, even if it doesn't lead to as much of an improvement over the in house option as Cozart does.
    "Today was the byproduct of us thinking we can come back from anything." - Joey Votto after blowing a 10-1 lead and holding on for the 12-11 win on 8/25/2010.

  8. #635
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    21,641

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Griffey012 View Post
    I agree the Reds aren't going to be hunting a wild card anytime soon giving up 5.3 RPG because they won't be scoring that many runs either. But if they start giving up less runs and they suddenly can't score you become the 2017 Phillies instead of the 2017 Reds. Why are we better off being the 2017 Phillies?
    The Pythag works generally, but I think it works when teams are performing at a baseline of competency.

    In other words, I think there is a point where a team's pitching is so bad, it is full of so many below replacement level, negative value pitchers, that no matter how many runs the offense scores, the team will not be able to put up a winning record over a full season. Negative value pitchers make it too hard to win individual games. They don't pitch enough innings, which leads to overworking the team's decent pitchers, and leads to too many blowouts, which crushes team moral. I am sure there are other factors as well.

    There was an advanced stat article written awhile back, that said that having negative value players hurt a team more than having all-star players helps the team.

    I think the Reds were at that point last year. I am not sure they will be there next year. But it is something I think needs to be considered. First job, get rid of the suck.
    The team Matheny described several times this weekend as the team he thinks the Cardinals could be, is actually the team the Reds have become.

  9. Likes:

    Kc61 (11-10-2017),Old school 1983 (11-10-2017),REDREAD (11-16-2017)

  10. #636
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    36,466

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by kaldaniels View Post
    I’d love that but I don’t have a great idea about how to grab a 3 win+ young shortstop. Baez or Russell? That would take Iglesias+ (Which depending on the + I would do)...help me out here.

    I wouldn’t be buying Swanson myself...so personally I’d cross him off my list. Any other ideas?
    That's what they've got to figure out. Is it easy? No.

    I happen to like Swanson and think he's a great buy-low candidate. Yet there's a fair number of kid shortstops who are blocked these days. Tyler Wade and Mauricio Dubon leap to mind. If you want to go a little deeper and are willing to wait a year or so for the kid, the Rockies have a prospect named Garrett Hampson that looks very groovy, and he's totally gettable. Obviously you've got to figure out a bridge SS in that scenario, but you can spend a lot less than Cozart will cost.

    I'm not quite sure how I feel about Ketel Marte, but it's conceivable the DBacks might be where Cozart lands. If so, that would put Marte on the block (and I suspect he's far from untouchable even if they don't get Cozart).

    Yet it's their challenge to meet, not mine. There's more shortstops out there than ever. I assume a major league organization with scouting and analyst groups can identify and acquire a reasonable option.
    Last edited by M2; 11-10-2017 at 06:59 PM.
    Wait until the year after next year.

  11. #637
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    5,397

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    The Pythag works generally, but I think it works when teams are performing at a baseline of competency.

    In other words, I think there is a point where a team's pitching is so bad, it is full of so many below replacement level, negative value pitchers, that no matter how many runs the offense scores, the team will not be able to put up a winning record over a full season. Negative value pitchers make it too hard to win individual games. They don't pitch enough innings, which leads to overworking the team's decent pitchers, and leads to too many blowouts, which crushes team moral. I am sure there are other factors as well.

    There was an advanced stat article written awhile back, that said that having negative value players hurt a team more than having all-star players helps the team.

    I think the Reds were at that point last year. I am not sure they will be there next year. But it is something I think needs to be considered. First job, get rid of the suck.
    And for the most part that all makes sense. I am guessing the more extreme you get away from the norm whether it be runs scored or runs allowed you get more deviation away from the pythag record. The main questions being are the Reds currently and were they last year outside of the realm of competency? Can we get rid of suck internally/minor league FA/low FA acquisitions or does it require more spending?

    Although I think a team of Joey Votto's and Mike Trouts would have been a borderline playoff team in spite of last years pitching staff.

    I'd be interested in that article if you have the time to try and find it.
    "Today was the byproduct of us thinking we can come back from anything." - Joey Votto after blowing a 10-1 lead and holding on for the 12-11 win on 8/25/2010.

  12. Likes:

    757690 (11-10-2017)

  13. #638
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    21,641

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Griffey012 View Post
    And for the most part that all makes sense. I am guessing the more extreme you get away from the norm whether it be runs scored or runs allowed you get more deviation away from the pythag record. The main questions being are the Reds currently and were they last year outside of the realm of competency? Can we get rid of suck internally/minor league FA/low FA acquisitions or does it require more spending?

    Although I think a team of Joey Votto's and Mike Trouts would have been a borderline playoff team in spite of last years pitching staff.

    I'd be interested in that article if you have the time to try and find it.
    The Reds should be able to upgrade their pitching staff to at least all replacement to league average pitchers for little or no money, as that is what replacement level means. But they haven't been able to do that for a few years. Hopefully, they can do it this year, if for no other reasons than to make the games more watchable.
    The team Matheny described several times this weekend as the team he thinks the Cardinals could be, is actually the team the Reds have become.

  14. #639
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    21,138

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    The Reds should be able to upgrade their pitching staff to at least all replacement to league average pitchers for little or no money, as that is what replacement level means. But they haven't been able to do that for a few years. Hopefully, they can do it this year, if for no other reasons than to make the games more watchable.
    Just curious as to what definition of replacement level that youre using (i.e. what level of production is replacement level).....
    "This isnít stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  15. #640
    RaisorZone Raisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    On Assignment
    Posts
    24,436

    Re: The Cozart decision

    http://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/...111-story.html

    Shortstop remains a different kind of beast. Fernando Tatis Jr. could arrive at Petco Park by September, but he is weeks away from his 19th birthday and the Padres will proceed cautiously with their most prized prospect. Luis Urias, 20 and nearing his own debut, can play either middle-infield position but is more suited for second base. In an interview last week on The Mighty 1090, Executive Chairman Ron Fowler indicated fatigue from a string of failed attempts at plugging the hole at short.

    Zack Cozart, the top name available in free agency, is coming off a career season but will be seeking a multi-year deal at age 32.

    “I think the positive thing for us is we have a lot of infielders in the minor leagues who are starting to get closer to the big leagues,” Preller said. “That will be part of our discussion over the course of the next month, is weighing out the internal options that are starting to make themselves real options in the middle of the diamond for us versus what else is out there on the trade or free-agent market.”

  16. #641
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,382

    Re: The Cozart decision

    It sounds like length of contract is the issue for the Padres as well.

  17. #642
    RaisorZone Raisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    On Assignment
    Posts
    24,436

    Re: The Cozart decision

    I honestly can't think of any team that would need Cozart on a LTC. He might be looking at a one year deal and praying the shortstop market is better next offseason

  18. #643
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    36,466

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    I honestly can't think of any team that would need Cozart on a LTC. He might be looking at a one year deal and praying the shortstop market is better next offseason
    He may get a 2B or 3B gig rather than a SS gig, but Arizona could use a better SS. KC and San Diego have a severe need, though it's unclear if they'll spend the loot. Philly and Detroit might be looking to get out of their respective basements. Sleeper candidate: Pittsburgh.
    Wait until the year after next year.

  19. Likes:

    REDREAD (11-16-2017)

  20. #644
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Posts
    3,382

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    He may get a 2B or 3B gig rather than a SS gig, but Arizona could use a better SS. KC and San Diego have a severe need, though it's unclear if they'll spend the loot. Philly and Detroit might be looking to get out of their respective basements. Sleeper candidate: Pittsburgh.
    Or, the signing team could move their current SS to second or third. Zack has played a total of 11 games at 2B, and none since 2009. I'm thinking 3B would be an easier transition even though he has never played it professionally. The problem there is that 3B has a different offensive profile. Would a team project his offense to hold up sufficiently for a LTC there?

    The Reds may still have the best offer on the table. Perhaps the compromise could be a two year contract followed by a series of option years with a substantial buyout at each point.

  21. Likes:

    757690 (11-13-2017),REDREAD (11-16-2017),Revering4Blue (11-15-2017)

  22. #645
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    36,466

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by RED VAN HOT View Post
    Or, the signing team could move their current SS to second or third.
    Good point
    Wait until the year after next year.


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 | cumberlandreds | Gallen5862 | JaxRed | Plus Plus | Powel Crosley | RedlegJake | RedsfaninMT | The Operator