Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 20 FirstFirst 1234567814 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 290

Thread: Raisel Iglesias

  1. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    35,398

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    Quote Originally Posted by Tom Servo View Post
    Yeah it's been kind of funny that it feels like one hears about the Padres regularly and how loaded they are and how they're in on all these guys...yet they're 5 below .500 and not even any closer to a wild card spot than the Giants and D'Backs.

    Yes, teams get enormous credit for doing a good job in Step 1 - accumulation of young talent.

    But equally as important is Step 2 - converting assets into winning players, some of whom will be veterans.

    Until Step 2 is well underway, it’s hard to reach final decisions on a rebuild.

    The Pads had a great Step 1, but the jury is out on Step 2. The Reds had a so-so Step 1, but Step 2 just began last off-season and is still not very far along.

  2. Likes:

    757690 (07-23-2019),Chip R (07-23-2019),Griffey012 (07-23-2019)


  3. Turn Off Ads?
  4. #47
    Haunted by walks
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    9,934

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    I think it’s time for teams to reinvent the rebuild. The math just doesn’t work.

    And I think KC61 is onto something up there.

  5. Likes:

    Old school 1983 (07-23-2019)

  6. #48
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    8,136

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    Quote Originally Posted by CRDB40 View Post
    Time will tell, you're exactly right.

    But if you were going to give me a choice of the Padres or the Reds in their current states, I'll take SD 11 times out of 10.

    I'd much rather lose while looking forward to having Gore, Paddack, Lucchesi, Allen, Morejon, Patino, Baez, Weathers, Cantillo, etc. fill a rotation in the next 2-4 years, with Quantrill, Munoz, Perdomo, Lamet, Strahm, Lauer, Margevicius, Wingenter, etc. fill some bullpen spots. And then having Tatis Jr., Urias, Naylor, Campusano, X. Edwards, C.J. Abrams, Potts, Ornelas, Mead, etc. in the position player pipeline.

    A team like the Reds HAS to build from the farm to be successful and consistently successful. So yes, I'd rather be in the Padres' position, because it gives them a heck of a better chance to be legit contenders in the next few seasons than our current situation does. That's just my opinion, obviously, and I'm a keyboard GM.
    Would you trade off the Reds 2010-2013 seasons in exchange for more 90+ loss seasons to help get there?

    I would swap rosters with the Padres in a heartbeat. I would have done the rebuild entirely different than BobC/Jocketty started it. But part of the reason the Padres are so loaded on the farm is because they have stunk for quite a while and have spent a many seasons now solely focusing on accumulating minor league assets. They also went on an international spending bonanza that the Reds have never came close to doing. It is really too bad the Reds missed out on Luis Robert, he would really boost the farm.

    The Reds have done a surprisingly good job of plucking real major league talent for not much in trades (Suarez, Castillo, Gray). Those guys are arguably worth more than any prospect in the 5-20 range. If the Reds had 10 more losses, yet carried 3 extra top 20 prospects, there would be a lot more "hope".

    The reality is, a lot of those Padres prospects listed will amount to nothing more than fringe MLB players or role players. They have a boatload of quantity, but don't have a ton of quality after Paddack, Gore, Tatis, and probably Patino. The jury is out on Urias.
    Last edited by Griffey012; 07-23-2019 at 11:26 AM.
    "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.

  7. #49
    Member CRDB40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    915

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    Quote Originally Posted by BCubb2003 View Post
    I think it’s time for teams to reinvent the rebuild. The math just doesn’t work.

    And I think KC61 is onto something up there.
    What about the math "doesn't work"? The fact that the Reds have such a small payroll compared to the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs, Giants, Nationals? Heck, even the Cardinals?

    The fact that the Reds, even when they do "spend" (by their own standards), can't seem to spend well? Since about half of the 15 teams that have spent less than the Reds this season are in legit playoff contention?

    The fact that the Reds have historically spent so little on international players (and then when they do spend, again spend poorly)?

    The math doesn't work out if you compare every team evenly. But in reality, the math just doesn't work out in the Reds favor, period.

    The Reds are going to need to build from the farm if they want to build a consistent competitor. Even when they do spend, they are going to likely be below league average in payroll, and you can't buy a contender with that type of payroll. To do this, you have to acquire assets - by trading off veterans/free agents-to-be, drafting well, and spending internationally.

    You have to go through the asset acquisition stage - and do that well.

    And then you have to develop them. The Reds, in recent history especially, have been poor at asset acquisition overall, and equally as poor in developing those assets.

    So yes, the math "doesn't work out". But the math isn't going to work out very well for the Reds until they complete the asset acquisition and player development stages. Some teams consistently defy the math to trot out contenders or competitive clubs despite those odds - and if they do, it's because they excel at those first couple stages.

    The Reds have tried to skip or skimp out on those stages in recent years, and it hasn't worked out. So, yes, if you ask me whether I'd rather take the Reds as is, or the Padres as is, I'll take the Padres. At least that situation has a greater chance of long-term success at this point in time than the Reds' situation does.
    "Do we need to have 280 brands of breakfast cereal? No, probably not. But we have them for a reason - because some people like them. It's the same with baseball statistics." ~ Bill James

  8. Likes:

    Alabama (07-23-2019)

  9. #50
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    41,753

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigLebowski View Post
    I dunno. The aforementioned "closer system" they've developed is genius. Their farm and active roster is loaded with young talent. They're a lot further along than we are.
    To be fair, the Reds did a similar thing with Chapman. Now you wouldn't be wrong if you said they traded him away too late and the return was paltry but they replaced a soon to be expensive talent at the same position with someone who was cheaper and just as effective. He's done great for a few years but over the last year and a half, he's been below par. But following the S.D. model and trading Iglesias off a couple of years ago, who would have replaced him from inside the organization? Not anyone I can think of.
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    I was wrong
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    Chip is right

  10. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2019
    Posts
    1,675

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    if the reds had billy beane the results would be different their front office has gotten few things right

  11. #52
    Winning the Human Race TheBigLebowski's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Titletown, FL
    Posts
    8,313

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    Quote Originally Posted by Chip R View Post
    To be fair, the Reds did a similar thing with Chapman. Now you wouldn't be wrong if you said they traded him away too late and the return was paltry but they replaced a soon to be expensive talent at the same position with someone who was cheaper and just as effective. He's done great for a few years but over the last year and a half, he's been below par. But following the S.D. model and trading Iglesias off a couple of years ago, who would have replaced him from inside the organization? Not anyone I can think of.
    I'm not sure the circumstances are similar. SD is doing it with a specific plan in mind. At least, it appears that way. Cincy dealt Chapman when it did mostly because of the bad publicity from his domestic violence issue.
    “The crows seem to be calling my name,” thought Caw.

  12. #53
    Haunted by walks
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Syracuse
    Posts
    9,934

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    Quote Originally Posted by CRDB40 View Post
    What about the math "doesn't work"? The fact that the Reds have such a small payroll compared to the Yankees, Red Sox, Dodgers, Cubs, Giants, Nationals? Heck, even the Cardinals?

    The fact that the Reds, even when they do "spend" (by their own standards), can't seem to spend well? Since about half of the 15 teams that have spent less than the Reds this season are in legit playoff contention?

    The fact that the Reds have historically spent so little on international players (and then when they do spend, again spend poorly)?

    The math doesn't work out if you compare every team evenly. But in reality, the math just doesn't work out in the Reds favor, period.

    The Reds are going to need to build from the farm if they want to build a consistent competitor. Even when they do spend, they are going to likely be below league average in payroll, and you can't buy a contender with that type of payroll. To do this, you have to acquire assets - by trading off veterans/free agents-to-be, drafting well, and spending internationally.

    You have to go through the asset acquisition stage - and do that well.

    And then you have to develop them. The Reds, in recent history especially, have been poor at asset acquisition overall, and equally as poor in developing those assets.

    So yes, the math "doesn't work out". But the math isn't going to work out very well for the Reds until they complete the asset acquisition and player development stages. Some teams consistently defy the math to trot out contenders or competitive clubs despite those odds - and if they do, it's because they excel at those first couple stages.

    The Reds have tried to skip or skimp out on those stages in recent years, and it hasn't worked out. So, yes, if you ask me whether I'd rather take the Reds as is, or the Padres as is, I'll take the Padres. At least that situation has a greater chance of long-term success at this point in time than the Reds' situation does.
    The rebuild math doesn’t work in general, not just for the Reds. Most teams start a rebuild after a couple of disappointing years. How long should the rebuild be? 5 years is a lot to put a fan base through after the 2 down years. 3 years? Can you trade for or draft, then develop, a Cueto or Castillo in 3 years or less? The rebuild might clear the decks and free some money, but it ends up short of a contending major-league team. So you have to spend, in money or the prospects you rebuilt for, to take care of the gap. After that, the prospects you keptbcan kick in and build on the contending team you have.

  13. #54
    Member CRDB40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    915

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    Quote Originally Posted by Griffey012 View Post
    Would you trade off the Reds 2010-2013 seasons in exchange for more 90+ loss seasons to help get there?

    I would swap rosters with the Padres in a heartbeat. I would have done the rebuild entirely different than BobC/Jocketty started it. But part of the reason the Padres are so loaded on the farm is because they have stunk for quite a while and have spent a many seasons now solely focusing on accumulating minor league assets. They also went on an international spending bonanza that the Reds have never came close to doing. It is really too bad the Reds missed out on Luis Robert, he would really boost the farm.

    The Reds have done a surprisingly good job of plucking real major league talent for not much in trades (Suarez, Castillo, Gray). Those guys are arguably worth more than any prospect in the 5-20 range. If the Reds had 10 more losses, yet carried 3 extra top 20 prospects, there would be a lot more "hope".

    The reality is, a lot of those Padres prospects listed will amount to nothing more than fringe MLB players or role players. They have a boatload of quantity, but don't have a ton of quality after Paddack, Gore, Tatis, and probably Patino. The jury is out on Urias.
    I actually liked the Padres comparison because Preller was hired in 2014. And 2014 was the year the Reds should have started to move some of their veterans while their value was high and another year of control was still there for many of them.

    The vast majority of the Padres' prospects that I referenced were acquired (draft, trade, signing) after Preller took over, and even more so, from 2016 forward. So their sucking during the 2010-13 seasons had zero impact on acquiring the vast majority of those players mentioned.

    You reference Suarez, Castillo, Gray as exemplars of major league acquisitions (even though Suarez and Castillo were prospect level when acquired). Would you rather have Suarez/Castillo/Gray or Machado/Paddack/Tatis Jr.? Or even Tatis Jr./Paddack/Lucchesi considering years of control remaining, salaries, etc.?

    We're comparing two teams, that from 2014 to this point, have performed at similar levels. From that point to this point, one has done a much better job of asset acquisition, and has a similar, and arguably better, current MLB core. The reality is both the Reds and Padres will see many of their prospects amount to nothing more than fringe/role players. That goes both ways. But the upside of the Padres is much better than the upside/long-term outlook of the Reds. And the 2010-13 years have nothing to do with that comparison.

    We both agree that the Reds should have done this entire thing differently, and, most likely, agree on 95% of what we're "arguing" about here. I get the argument that asset acquisition is only part of the equation here, but it's a necessary component, and the Padres are doing it better right now. Time will obviously tell which team is ahead in 5 years, but the Padres are no doubt in a better position.
    "Do we need to have 280 brands of breakfast cereal? No, probably not. But we have them for a reason - because some people like them. It's the same with baseball statistics." ~ Bill James

  14. #55
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Venice
    Posts
    33,295

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigLebowski View Post
    I'm not sure the circumstances are similar. SD is doing it with a specific plan in mind. At least, it appears that way. Cincy dealt Chapman when it did mostly because of the bad publicity from his domestic violence issue.
    The Reds traded Chapmen because he was getting paid too much. They decided to have a tear down, and were trading anyone and everyone with a decent salary that they could.

    Remember, they had Chapmen traded for Peraza and Schebler before the domestic abuse case became public. They were not going to get much for him regardless of his personal affairs becoming public.
    Hoping to change my username to 75769024

  15. #56
    Member CRDB40's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2015
    Location
    Ohio
    Posts
    915

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    Quote Originally Posted by BCubb2003 View Post
    The rebuild math doesn’t work in general, not just for the Reds. Most teams start a rebuild after a couple of disappointing years. How long should the rebuild be? 5 years is a lot to put a fan base through after the 2 down years. 3 years? Can you trade for or draft, then develop, a Cueto or Castillo in 3 years or less? The rebuild might clear the decks and free some money, but it ends up short of a contending major-league team. So you have to spend, in money or the prospects you rebuilt for, to take care of the gap. After that, the prospects you keptbcan kick in and build on the contending team you have.
    The rebuild/asset acquisition stage isn't an end. It's a means. Yes, you're going to have to use $$ on free agents and established major leaguers in trades to fill in the needs during the highest contending seasons. But that's possible to do if you've sufficiently stocked your minor leagues with prospects (and didn't trade it dry), and have controllable young players for 6-years before they hit FA. You take those players and use them until they near FA and then you deal them to restock the system. You extend if it's economical, but if not, you trade with 1-2 years of control remaining.

    If this type of cycle didn't work, then the Rays, the Pirates, the Athletics, the Indians, etc. would never have contending years. And if done well, the rebuilds aren't constant with only 1-2 years of a contending window. The math definitely can "work out" if done well.

    But with the way the Reds have done it? Which is generally just a throw crap against the way and see what sticks, and then try to fill in the holes with band-aid veterans and low-cost retreads, that math doesn't work out either.

    The Reds can either spend big on FA/trade all top prospects to try to build a contender, which is a foolish endeavor because they won't outbid the big dogs and they will bleed themselves dry in the minors, or they can build with prospects first and then fill in later. But the idea that they can just sit on their haunches and try to fill in a little here and a little there, and hope that every single top prospect in a mediocre system "hits" is equally as foolish. The math isn't going to work for them either way there.
    "Do we need to have 280 brands of breakfast cereal? No, probably not. But we have them for a reason - because some people like them. It's the same with baseball statistics." ~ Bill James

  16. Likes:

    Revering4Blue (07-23-2019)

  17. #57
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2018
    Posts
    56

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    Trade him for whatever you can get.

  18. #58
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    41,753

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    Quote Originally Posted by TheBigLebowski View Post
    I'm not sure the circumstances are similar. SD is doing it with a specific plan in mind. At least, it appears that way. Cincy dealt Chapman when it did mostly because of the bad publicity from his domestic violence issue.
    Sure. But the point was that they had Iglesias to step in after Chapman got traded. And while it may have done due to bad publicity (which is not a bad reason to trade him) they more than likely would have traded him anyway. But if they had traded Iglesias a couple of years ago there wasn't really a replacement on the horizon. If you are going to do that, you have to be able to get in-house replacements. The Reds haven't been able to do that which has been a problem that I hope will be corrected.
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    I was wrong
    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    Chip is right

  19. #59
    Eight bosses? Bob Sheed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2012
    Location
    Eight, Bob.
    Posts
    3,349

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    The calmer part of me says there is only one option:

    Only use him in clean save situations in the 9th inning.

    If he blows those too, then the Reds are exactly where they are now with RI. But if he succeeds, let him continue to do so, all while building trade value.

    Then trade him. Post haste. Ballplayers dictating when and how they should be used, are absolute team poison.

    The less level headed side of me says relegate him to mop up duty, preferably in 5+ inning doses.
    "Lemonade requires a significant amount of sugar. Otherwise, you've just made lemon juice."

  20. #60
    Member Old school 1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    8,256

    Re: Raisel Iglesias

    Quote Originally Posted by WrongVerb View Post
    The All-Star game debacle is a great one. They could have traded off Bruce, Frazier, Cueto, Leake, Chapman, Phillips, and Bailey during the 2014-15 winter, and obtained significant young players in return. That would have given the fans something to be excited about going into the next season. But they didn't want to risk...something something fans something something All-Star Game.
    Maybe I’m completely wrong and missed something. If I am, please correct me. But I don’t recall a single source other than RZ speculation that said thecReds didn’t make moves because of the all star game.


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 | Gallen5862 | Plus Plus | Powel Crosley | RedlegJake | The Operator