Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 11 FirstFirst 12345678 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 152

Thread: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

  1. #46
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    13,872

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    The way I see it. O'Brien didn't care about the major league team last year. His main goal was to restructure the organization, bring in his own people, improve the minor league system. I think he did all three. I think the minor league system is improved although not top tier quite yet. The organization seems more professional. He signed lots of draft choices and seems to have drafted some good arms, although very young ones. On these tasks I would give him a B+.

    However, the major league team was not improved. His acquisitions were the usual array of cast-offs and fringe veterans. He didn't trade off salaries (Graves, for example) that need to go. He did nothing to bring the Griffey situation to a head, and now Griffey has 10 and 5 rights. And when the team was competing, he didn't try to bolster it (except for Gabe White). On these tasks I would give him a D.

    If he doesn't turn his attention to the major league team this off-season, I will be disappointed.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    Pre-tty, pre-tty good!! MWM's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    12,324

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    Does anyone really know HOW O'Brien "restructured" the farm system and scouting department; or are people content just to say that he "restructured" the farm system and scouting department. I hear an awful lot of people singing the praises of this restructuring, but I've yet to read a single analysis of why it was such a good thing. Because when people talk about DanO's accomplishments in his first year, that seems to be top on the list.
    Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David

  4. #48
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,123

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    I really don't see how DanO did anything different than Bowden as far as improving the farm system.

    His biggest score this year short term was Hancock, Nelson is the best long term hope.

    He didn't bring in one high ceiling guy. Even Bowden found a way to usually bring in one high ceiling guy occasionally, even if they didn't pan out, such as Bell, Encarcion, Pena, etc.

    All GMs utilize the rule V draft when they have roster spots. DanO picked an injured guy, who we're going to have to carry on the roster in 2005. That's going to make it kind of tough to carry a Rule V guy we're probably going to pick this winter, as 25 man roster spots are going to be tight with a lot of marginal guys out of options this year. Now IIRC, Mattox was a known injured guy, and that's why the Mets let him dangle. Poor decision. It would be better to grab a high ceiling guy like Burnside (as Jimbo did a couple years ago). Someone healthy who could've mopped up this year and been sent back to the minors in 2005.

    DanO's first draft is downright scary. As M2 said, we're not going to see any help from that class in a long, long time. Long after the good position players we have now are gone.

    IMO, grabbing Nelson, Hancock, and some very marginal guys is not making progress on fixing up the farm. A poor rule V pick and a potentially disasterous draft may actually be a step backwards, although it's hard to say.

    Since DanO hasn't shown Bowden's talent for mining retreads, he's going to have to do MUCH better on the minors to give us some hope.
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  5. #49
    Ripsnort wheels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2002
    Location
    Columbus, Ohio
    Posts
    7,595

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    Quote Originally Posted by Krusty
    Maybe O'Brien figured that if he had the opportunity to thoroughly make an analysis of the orgainzation firsthand, it would give him a better idea what he needs to do.

    Think a minute people. If you are in O'Brien's shoes, do you come in and start making changes without seeing firsthand what you actually have? Do you just shoot from the hip or do you study what you have and what you need to work on?
    Or do you maybe go and have a bang up draft that includes some players that can help the organization quickly and effectively a-la Ryan Wagner, Thomas Pauly, and Richie Gardner?

    I guess not.

    I guess DanO felt the need to gamble on Homer Bailey and BJ Syzmanski.

    Not really a good way to lay a solid foundation if you ask me.
    "We know we're better than this, but we can't prove it." - Tony Gwynn

  6. #50
    ODERED
    Guest

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    Quote Originally Posted by lollipopcurve
    O'Brien did fine. We have better young starters than we did before -- remember he acquired Hancock for very little and signed off (I assume) on the promotion and steady use of Hudson. The handling of mega-assets Dunn and Pena (for which everyone seems to want to credit Chambliss, an O'Brien/Miley hire) worked very well. Top prospects Encarnacion, Gardner, Pauly, Moseley, Votto (to name just the top 5) made solid-excellent advances in the minors. In general, the 8-man/75 pitch system, in place for most of the season, helped our lower level pitchers avoid injury. The team, built on a low budget, was competitive and interesting enough (untraded Griffey's chase of 500 helped) to get fans to the park in numbers significantly higher than projected for a small-market team in its 2nd year in a new ballpark. In turn, the payroll is expected to climb in 2005.

    Perhaps most importantly, he appears to have helped stabilize a FO that, from all accounts, was in chaos. We don't see that stuff.

    No grade from me until 3 years from now, when his contract is up. Even then, it'll still be too soon to have a final reckoning on the 2004 draft.

    lollipopcurve, how in the heck did you come up with that name? Is this something the significant other calls you?

    On one hand, I think your approach of wait-and-see is a level-headed one. On the other hand, the Reds basically used that approach four times since their last visit to the playoffs. If you're basing that conclusion on the period of time since their last playoff appearance. It's ironic that we as fans are tearing DanO to shreds over his "slow, methodical thinking", yet we want to give him years of this before we make a decision on whether he passed or failed as GM. Given the thread is about rating his first year as GM, I'd give him a C. There's no point in reiterating what you and others have taken the time to do. We all know the story about DanO. I think the difference in grades given to him comes down to each fan's "patience rating" :RedinDC:

  7. #51
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Findlay OH
    Posts
    1,370

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    [QUOTE=Ga_Red]1)
    8) rule 5 draft he gets a B
    QUOTE]

    How can spending 350k to have a player being on the DL for a year with the potential at best to be the next Todd VanPople be anything but an F?

  8. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    Findlay OH
    Posts
    1,370

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    [QUOTE=johngalt]B-

    [B]
    - Finally being the one to step up a tell Larkin "Thanks for everything, but we have to move in a different direction" gets a big plus from me.
    QUOTE]

    Letting your 5th best hitter go that wanted to come back and be willing to play for less than 1 mil be considered a plus move it gives you an idea of how bad of first year was.

    I counted up the Reds had 12 postion players that played for the Reds last year that were much worst than Larkin. So to make the Reds better next year DanO needs to go out and get 12 players better than Larkin and since he hasn't brought in one player (in a year) yet better than Larkin I find it hard that he will bring in 12.

  9. #53
    Score Early, Score Often gonelong's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    4,139

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    Quote Originally Posted by Aronchis
    To give O'brien a "F" after 1 season is typical Redszone chicken little "I know everything" attitude.
    Uh, you might want to consider re-reading the original question that was posed ...

    How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    GL

  10. #54
    Member Phhhl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    3,896

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    You gotta give him an F to balance out the A+ Ebaneezer Lindner and John Allen give him.

  11. #55
    Lover of Trivialities Doc. Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Portland, OR (West Chester, OH)
    Posts
    6,091

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    I think he deserves a C+ or B-:

    -The Reitsma trade didn't look good out of the chute, but both guys are still figuring in organizational plans.

    -The Jones and Lidle trades were quite solid. Jones did a decent job and was cashed for two players who look like they'll make the 25-man for 2005.

    -The Barry Larkin decision: tough, but correct.

    -Organizational depth: increasing.

    -Nabbed a couple of intriguing players off waivers for nothing.

    Marked down for:

    -Thinking that Lidle and Vander Wal would be "enough", whether they worked out or not. That's a big one.

    Incomplete or equivocal on:

    -The eight-man rotation in the minor leagues.

    -The draft. Lots of upside, not many results so far.

    -Austin Kearns to third: I still think it could mess with his bat and it's likely just for one year, but it's a novel alternative to dumping Casey or (heaven forbid) Dunn or Pena.

    It's really quite tough to assign a grade because the biggest decisions are still to come- do you trade Jimenez or LaRue or Casey, which pitchers do you sign, etc. Those two things could swing the grade drastically one way or the other.

    I think many of you are still not used to the slower, more gradual pace at which things are happening in the organization. I think you're also taking your frustration at Lindner/Allen/etc. out on O'Brien. Allen and Rob Butcher need to be fired today and replaced with a more visionary COO and a competent PR team, sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with DanO.

  12. #56
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,271

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc. Scott
    I think many of you are still not used to the slower, more gradual pace at which things are happening in the organization. I think you're also taking your frustration at Lindner/Allen/etc. out on O'Brien. Allen and Rob Butcher need to be fired today and replaced with a more visionary COO and a competent PR team, sure, but that doesn't have anything to do with DanO.
    I can't speak for anyone else, but my frustration with DanO has everything to do with DanO. A year ago I thought DanO had two must-dos at the major league level: move at least one of the big three contracts and pick up arms for the long-term. He did neither. Sad that you'd offer Nelson and Bong as guys "still figuring in organizational plans." That's a sorry state of the union if ever I've heard one. Nelson's become an extremely iffy proposition and Bong's not a good pitcher. BTW, those two must dos still apply.

    Coupled with a poor draft (let me use the name Terry Reynolds here, because he may go down in history as the worst scouting director in the history of the game) and no visible change in the organization's Peter Principle pitching development philosophy and I'm one unhappy camper.

    And the Dunn situation has me verklempt.

    I agree he added some depth in terms of bringing in potential 21st-25th man on the roster types, but I'm hardly impressed by it.

    A year into the DanO regime and absolutely every player on whom I can attach some hope was here before he arrived (I don't put an ounce of faith in draft picks until they start doing something noteworthy in professional baseball). The one thing you don't see on this thread is the list of names of the players DanO acquired who've done real well since arriving in the organization. Simple reason for that. The list doesn't exist. Would that be acceptable next year and the year after? Absolutely not. That's why I grade him low, because it's a show-me job. I don't give speculative brownie points on the hope that maybe his moves, or lack thereof, won't look so bad in the future.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  13. #57
    Lover of Trivialities Doc. Scott's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Portland, OR (West Chester, OH)
    Posts
    6,091

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    The one thing you don't see on this thread is the list of names of the players DanO acquired who've done real well since arriving in the organization. Simple reason for that. The list doesn't exist. Would that be acceptable next year and the year after? Absolutely not. That's why I grade him low, because it's a show-me job. I don't give speculative brownie points on the hope that maybe his moves, or lack thereof, won't look so bad in the future.
    Fair enough on the show-me criteria (I personally like to give players a little more time to perform if they're minor-leaguers), but I think Josh Hancock, Anderson Machado, and Javon Moran have all shown a little bit. Todd Jones was pretty solid, then brought a fair return when cashed.

    Lidle flopped, but the Reds got three guys for him (of which two showed some potential post-trade). Vander Wal was an unmitigated flop, albeit not something that really seemed like DanO's fault.

    DanO did get downgraded from me for not doing more to bring in some halfway decent pitchers in the offseason; that's the biggest knock against him.

    Bong and Nelson had poor seasons, but could conceivably bounce back, so I don't grade that deal worse than "mediocre" just yet.

    My grade could fall precipitously based on what happens over the next few months. But I would also think that if DanO can get rid of Danny Graves, pretty much everyone here would bump him up a letter grade or two without a doubt.

  14. #58
    Member Spring~Fields's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    8,630

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelSD
    We have a GM who, in 12 months, has failed to bring in a single productive MLB player who's still with the club. He allegedly had a bunch of PayFlex to work with and spent none of it on long-term productive MLB talent. His drafting methodology was not sound for the needs and competitive timeline of the club. His development strategy appears to be "Try this...uh...no, now let's do that...crap...what would Grady Fuson do?". He just re-signed a Manager he didn't want in the first place.
    Yes. Plus we saw a sample of his work by the bullpen and bench that he orchestrated last season. Lindners and Allens talking puppet worries me!!

  15. #59
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,123

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    Quote Originally Posted by Doc. Scott
    I think Josh Hancock, Anderson Machado, and Javon Moran have all shown a little bit. .
    Those guys were fair return for what we gave up. But are they even replacement level players. I mean, does anyone expect Hancock to be a sub 5.00 ERA pitcher next year? Does anyone expect Machado to be anything other than a weak hitting utility infielder?

    Guys like Hancock and Machado are a dime a dozen. IIRC, the Phils got Hancock for Jeremy Giambi. Hancock is a fifth starter type on a bad team.
    Sure, it makes more sense to have Hancock on the roster than to have a 3 million dollar Lidle doing the same role, IF the payflex gained can be used.. but it really doesn't move us forward at all. Reith or Acevado could probably be inserted in the rotation and give comparable results.
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  16. #60
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    43,001

    Re: How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD
    Those guys were fair return for what we gave up. But are they even replacement level players.
    Yes they were, well anderson at least but what do you want for nothing?

    You say Machado won't be anything, but the fact is he can field and take a walk, plus he has speed... those are tools and they are good to get cheap


    Code:
    NAME               TEAM LG POS  PA  PA%   AVG   OBP   SLG  SB  CS   MLVr  PMLVr  VORPr    MLV   PMLV   VORP
    
    
    Anderson Machado CIN NL  ss  66  1.1 0.268 0.379 0.393   3   1  0.056  0.141  0.275    0.9    2.2    4.2
    
    NAME                TEAM LG   G  GS    IP  H/9 BB/9 SO/9 HR/9 BABIP   ERA    RA PK_RA RA+     RP   VORP
    
    Todd Jones           CIN NL  51   0  57.0  7.7  3.9  5.8  0.6 0.280  3.63  3.95  3.95 118    4.7   11.1
    Josh Hancock         PHI NL   4   2   9.0 13.0  3.0  5.0  3.0 0.323  9.00  9.00  9.38  50   -4.7   -3.2
    Cory Lidle           PHI NL  10  10  62.3  7.8  2.5  4.8  0.4 0.264  3.90  4.04  4.21 111    3.3   11.9
    Last edited by westofyou; 10-27-2004 at 01:52 PM.


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