Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 8 FirstFirst 12345678 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 119

Thread: Zach Vincej lost

  1. #46
    Sprinkles are for winners dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    So for the first 25 pitches or so, the league hit about like Hanley Ramirez against Adelman and then he gets worse. Why is that an argument for keeping him again?
    Because Hanley Ramirez isn't exactly a good hitter these days? Why wouldn't you keep a guy who held hitters to a below-average slash line?

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    21,314

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    Quote Originally Posted by Griffey012 View Post
    Vincej is the bud select 55 version of Zack Cozart before Zack Cozart became a solid hitter at the major league level. Vincej is as fungible as fungible could be. For all the struggles Cozart had at the MLB level offensively, he was quite a bit better in the minors than Vincej. Glad to see we are beyond the days of making sure Juan Castro 2.0 is holding down a roster spot.
    Now, if they were only beyond the days of making sure Todd Van Poppel 2.0 is holding down a roster spot.
    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.

  4. #48
    Someday Never Comes mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    21,297

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Because Hanley Ramirez isn't exactly a good hitter these days? Why wouldn't you keep a guy who held hitters to a below-average slash line?
    Because that isn't what he did. He held them for some subset of his actual appearances which amounts to maybe an inning and I'm told that several of the Reds players would be perfectly fine if they could OPS .750. I just don't think if he was a 25 pitch per appearance guy, he'd hold guys to a below average slash line. That's squinting real hard to see something that isn't there. He'd end up about like he was. He'll be 30 next week and has never established himself as anything. Everybody passed on him, he ended up in independent ball, the Reds gave him a chance only because they were tanking and those days should be over and guys like Adleman should be off the roster. If the Reds want to sign him to a minor league deal out of some sentimental attachment I could get it, but it would purely for AAA/AA filler. I wouldn't even give him an invite to Spring Training and I'd be shocked if any other team did. IMO, the Reds are trying to prove how smart they are here. They signed the guy from independent ball and he became a major leaguer. IMO, that's the only reason he's still around.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

  5. #49
    Member Bourgeois Zee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    4,071

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    n/m

  6. #50
    Member klw's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    New England
    Posts
    12,081

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    I guess the Reds decided that the J was not the only thing that was superfluous.

  7. Likes:

    757690 (11-04-2017),Chip R (11-06-2017),Donder (11-04-2017),mth123 (11-04-2017),Roy Tucker (11-05-2017)

  8. #51
    Someday Never Comes mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    21,297

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    Quote Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee View Post
    It's this kind of... questionable analysis that makes you so hard to agree with.

    Williams isn't even the guy who signed him. Why in God's name would he try and "prove how smart they" were?

    It's fine to question their acumen for developing (or keeping) pitching. It's reasonable to question whether keeping Adleman for any length of time is the right course of action. I get both of those arguments. But insisting they're keeping him because of some misguided attempt to make someone else look good?

    Williams family has always been in charge. I just don't see this clear dividing line when the guard changed like everybody else seems to. Walt was part of it then and Walt is still part of it now as well. Dick Williams became the out front mouthpiece and talks a great game like anybody who reads fangraphs or baseball prospectus probably could. Heck, that's why most people on here like him because he says stuff that we've read on these stats oriented websites. I just don't think that's enough to actually see a real change in how the team operates. They still go cheap, they still fixate on guys like Peraza (maybe the anti-stats guy poster child) and the pitching still crashes and burns. What has actually changed? They signed Alfredo Rodriguez to a budget busting deal that makes it look like they are spending big for talent in Cuba? He's not exactly the type a stats guy would target. Other than dealing Straily for Castillo, which was a no brainer but took some credibility to hold out for IMO, I haven't really seen anything. They got some high draft picks who give hope because they lost a lot. OK. Not really an achievement IMO. Probably anyone could have lost a ton of games and took a guy who projects to be a star with the number 2 pick a couple years in a row.

    As for questionable, what is more questionable exactly, suggesting a guy who turns 30 in a week and has turned in back to back FIPs of 5.30 and 5.87 isn't worth a spot or dissecting some ungodly meaningless subset of those appearances and suggesting he held hitters to below average production? There is some questionable analysis going on here. You all can choose which version is questionable. Personally. I've seen enough of him and think the Reds should aim higher even for the 40th spot on the 40 man roster.
    Last edited by mth123; 11-04-2017 at 07:46 PM.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

  9. #52
    Sprinkles are for winners dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    47,937

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    Going to have to defend the Alfredo Rodriguez thing a little bit here.....

    Andrelton Simmons hit .244/.286/.331 in 2014 and was worth 3.3 BWAR/1.9 FWAR because he's an incredible defensive shortstop. Shortstops with that kind of glove are worth a whole lot more than we tend to give them credit for. I think that he could maybe be that kind of glove. And if he is, or if he's even remotely close to it, he's worth every last penny they paid to sign them and then some. And they didn't bust their budget because of him. They spent another $20M on Gutierrez and Garcia. Yes, it would have been less without signing Rodriguez first, but they were going to "bust the budget" either way. And none of that money was going to kids from the Dominican who had deals in place for the previous 14 months.

  10. Likes:

    REDREAD (11-06-2017)

  11. #53
    Member Bourgeois Zee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    4,071

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    As for questionable, what is more questionable exactly, suggesting a guy who turns 30 in a week and has turned in back to back FIPs of 5.30 and 5.87 isn't worth a spot or dissecting some ungodly meaningless subset of those appearances and suggesting he held hitters to below average production? There is some questionable analysis going on here. You all can choose which version is questionable. Personally. I've seen enough of him and think the Reds should aim higher even for the 40th spot on the 40 man roster.
    Yours, obviously.

    At least the analysis of Adleman's first 25 pitches has some semblance of a root in reality.

    Your "analysis" is nothing more than an opinion draped in the gauze of ignorance because you (as most of us) have absolutely no clue how a professional baseball front office works. None.

  12. Likes:

    JustaFan (11-05-2017)

  13. #54
    Someday Never Comes mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    21,297

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    Quote Originally Posted by Bourgeois Zee View Post
    Yours, obviously.

    At least the analysis of Adleman's first 25 pitches has some semblance of a root in reality.

    Your "analysis" is nothing more than an opinion draped in the gauze of ignorance because you (as most of us) have absolutely no clue how a professional baseball front office works. None.
    You're missing the obvious. 30 years old. Never been anything. His only shot was on a tanking team with a bunch of injuries and he put up FIPs of 5.30 and 5.87. There really isn't any further analysis required. He's been bad, he has little upside and even if there is something to this 25 pitch thing, it may make him a fungible reliever who mops up on a bad team. What exactly is the point in keeping him? Why squint so hard for such a little potential pay-off? It's not like a .750 OPS against is some kind of shut down dominating weapon. I just don't see any reason to keep him. Even if he could do what you hope, he'd be a lesser version of Blake Wood or Logan Ondrusek. No reason at all to fool with a player like that in the Reds situation. Give the innings to somebody younger with more upside or go get somebody better for the spot.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

  14. #55
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    24,382

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    The Reds simply had no need to drop Adleman at this stage. They opened seven spots off the forty to protect their prospects. They didn’t need to drop Adleman to get there.

    If they need to open more spots, he’ll be considered. Meanwhile, he’s experienced pitching depth for a team that uses endless numbers of pitchers between MLB and AAA. No need for angst.
    Last edited by Kc61; 11-05-2017 at 12:41 AM.

  15. Likes:

    Griffey012 (11-05-2017),Mitri (11-05-2017),Old school 1983 (11-05-2017),RedlegJake (11-05-2017),REDREAD (11-06-2017)

  16. #56
    Member Bourgeois Zee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    4,071

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    You're missing the obvious. 30 years old. Never been anything. His only shot was on a tanking team with a bunch of injuries and he put up FIPs of 5.30 and 5.87. There really isn't any further analysis required. He's been bad, he has little upside and even if there is something to this 25 pitch thing, it may make him a fungible reliever who mops up on a bad team. What exactly is the point in keeping him? Why squint so hard for such a little potential pay-off? It's not like a .750 OPS against is some kind of shut down dominating weapon. I just don't see any reason to keep him. Even if he could do what you hope, he'd be a lesser version of Blake Wood or Logan Ondrusek. No reason at all to fool with a player like that in the Reds situation. Give the innings to somebody younger with more upside or go get somebody better for the spot.
    Assuming there's something to the 25-pitch argument:

    A 750 OPS against was major league average in 2017.

    Wood has an OPS against at 777 last season. In his last season with the Reds, Ondrusek's OPS against was 802.

    The comp you're looking for (OPS against 755) is Jumbo Diaz, circa 2015.

    2015 Diaz was the very definition of a fungible relief arm (as he's proven in his major league career). Were Adleman to stick to relief, he might well provide that type of production. And while it's certainly not sexy, how many Cincinnati relievers were league average last season?

  17. Likes:

    757690 (11-05-2017)

  18. #57
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    21,314

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    The Reds simply had no need to drop Adleman at this stage. They opened seven spots off the forty to protect their prospects. They didn’t need to drop Adleman to get there.

    If they need to open more spots, he’ll be considered. Meanwhile, he’s experienced pitching depth for a team that uses endless numbers of pitchers between MLB and AAA. No need for angst.
    The bold is incorrect.

    The Reds had a need to drop two players from the roster. They chose Wallace and Vincej over Adleman. One can argue they made the right choice, but there was a need to drop two players, and Adleman certainly was on the short list of who to drop. There was a need to drop him, and they chose not to. They chose to drop two prospects instead.
    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.

  19. #58
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    24,382

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    The bold is incorrect.

    The Reds had a need to drop two players from the roster. They chose Wallace and Vincej over Adleman. One can argue they made the right choice, but there was a need to drop two players, and Adleman certainly was on the short list of who to drop. There was a need to drop him, and they chose not to. They chose to drop two prospects instead.
    Actually, the Reds dropped off roster four players, Wallach, Vincej, McGuire and Kivlehan, and they “dropped” FAs Cozart, Arroyo, Storen, and Feldman, and they added back Finnegan and DeSclafini from the 60-day DL. Altogether, as I said, they have opened seven roster slots.

    But they didn’t need to drop Adleman because they had enough others who were expendable.

    They chose to keep an experienced pitcher on roster for now because that’s where they need quantity of players. They run through many pitchers in a season.

    And while Vincej/Wallach have their talents, your reference to them as “prospects” is pure spin. They are both 26 already, not highly touted, and this whole thing is a non-issue.
    Last edited by Kc61; 11-05-2017 at 12:04 PM.

  20. Likes:

    Kinsm (11-06-2017)

  21. #59
    Member Bourgeois Zee's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2014
    Posts
    4,071

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    ...this whole thing is a non-issue.
    What's funny is that Adleman is probably next in line to get booted off the roster, and the Reds are surely not finished adding players.

    The real question is who comes off after Adleman?

  22. #60
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    21,314

    Re: Zach Vincej lost

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    Actually, the Reds dropped off roster four players, Wallach, Vincej, McGuire and Kivlehan, and they “dropped” FAs Cozart, Arroyo, Storen, and Feldman, and they added back Finnegan and DeSclafini from the 60-day DL. Altogether, as I said, they have opened seven roster slots.

    But they didn’t need to drop Adleman because they had enough others who were expendable.

    They chose to keep an experienced pitcher on roster for now because that’s where they need quantity of players. They run through many pitchers in a season.

    And while Vincej/Wallach have their talents, your reference to them as “prospects” is pure spin. They are both 26 already, not highly touted, and this whole thing is a non-issue.
    The point is there was a need to drop players. The only way your argument makes sense is if Adleman wasn’t on the short list of players to get dropped. Go back to a thread about the roster a few weeks ago, and you’ll see near universal agreement that Adleman should be on that short list. Even some guy you might know agreed

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    Lot of people being “shocked” around here lately, so I’ll join.

    I’d be shocked if Adleman gets protected.

    I would not be shocked on McGuire. Wouldn’t even be surprised. I’d say it’s 50-50, he had a good year, he could be good depth either in long relief or starting.
    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.


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