Reds trade Dustin Moseley for Ramon Ortiz

[Aronchis]

That's the thing, Ortiz didn't do anything to make 2002 happen. He just happened to have stricken ball find fielders at an abnormally high rate. He could pitch another 30 years and never get within 30 points of being that lucky again.

If DanO thinks he sees tools, tools that will make 2002 a repeatable thing, then he's chasing a mirage.

Then he is chasing mirages. Ramon has been called "Baby Pedro" in some scouting reports I have read, maybe DanO's has read them to. But I can't see somebody looking at his stats and wanting him especially after the fits he threw last year. It has to be the tools, what else could it be?

[Stormy]

Don't be fooled by the "his stuff has come back", "he rebounded as a Starter in 2004" nonsense. Instead take a look at the splits.

Last year as a Starter, Ortiz possibly posted the worst numbers of his already erratic career.

2004 as Starter: 5.47ERA, 13HR in only 79IP, huge opponent OPS/BA against and less than 5Ks per 9IP! It was his 49IP of 2.47ERA relief work which made his overall numbers look at least modestly presentable.

So, in effect, you have a starter who posted a horrific 2003 as a Starter (5.20ERA, hittable, high WHIP, high HR rate and low K/9 rates), following up with even worse numbers as a starter in 2004. Until he was yanked and demoted to the bullpen.

He might be an improvement over our potential #5 candidate. He might have a nice anomaly month here or there. He might wind up in he bullpen. However, under any of those scenarios, he's hardly worth the money, the effect he has in shrinking our overall budget flexibility or the price of Dustin Moseley. It would be hard to fathom the rationale behind this deal, and how it adheres to any of DanO's stated philosophies.

[MWM]

scouting reports I have read,

Scouting reports serve little purpose for a guy who's logged 893 IP in the big leagues and who is about to turn 32 years old.

[M2]

Then he is chasing mirages. Ramon has been called "Baby Pedro" in some scouting reports I have read, maybe DanO's has read them to. But I can't see somebody looking at his stats and wanting him especially after the fits he threw last year. It has to be the tools, what else could it be?

I don't think you're wrong that DanO's infatuated with what he perceives to be the guy's tools (though every skinny Dominican with a fastball has been called the next Pedro in recent years). In fact, you've probably done a nice job of approximating his thinking.

Like you, I see plenty of reasons in his stats to stay away like he was spewing out the plague (at least for the price tag the Reds will pay him in 2005).

And so I ask, if you and I can figure this out for free why do they pay DanO?

[MWM]

And BTW, Pedro is only 18 months older than Ortiz, so the term "baby" prbaboly shouldn't apply here.

[Redmachine2003]

and he might win 15 games.

[Matt700wlw]

and he might win 15 games.

Who? Pedro or Ortiz? :

[flyer85]

and he might win 15 games.

So did Jimmy Haynes

[Raisor]

I'm going to say nothing new that hasn't been said by others in this thread. So you can move along if you wish.

In fact, I'm moving along with just one word. Bleh.

[LvJ]

Welp..

[traderumor]

But that wouldn't be because of his ability. It would be the result of luck. Any mediocre pitcher the Reds throw out there is just as likely to experience thesame level of luck, and for a lot less (see Haynes, Jimmy circa 2002).

Just because Jimmy Haynes had a 15 win season that was due primarily to outstanding run support in many of his starts doesn't mean that you can just throw anyone out there and get 15 wins out of them. So we have an example of a lucky pitcher, does he have to become a byword for the remaining history of Redszone?

[Phhhl]

I think Lance is a bit off on his math. In 1976 they drew 2.6M - and they were just counting butts in the seats then, not tickets sold like they do now. So that was probably more along the lines of 3M. In 1990 they drew 2.4M. The economy of baseball was as different to the economy of baseball today as apples is to bricks. Free agency didn't begin until after that season. If people believe that the Reds are drawing just fine and shouldn't have to start non tendering players like D'Lo then they shouldn't say that Lindner should open up his wallet and spend more on the team. If that's the case the Reds should be making tens of millions of dollars and they should be spending as much as the Cubs, Cards and Astros are.

You said, Chip. Not me .

[westofyou]

The Tale of the 2 Ortiz Pitchers ( the 3rd was named "Baby" and pitched 13 innnings for the 44 Senators, gawd they must have stunk that year)

HR   H/9   BR/9  SO/9  BB/9  SO/BB

131  8.20 12.97  6.73  4.57  1.47 - 1300 innings

136  9.11 12.76  5.94  3.27  1.82 -  900 innings

[Chip R]

You said, Chip. Not me .

OK, riddle me this, Batman: What do the Reds draw as opposed to the Cubs, Cards and Astros?

[Aronchis]

The problem with the Limiteds is that they have a very conservative projective rational. For example. The Reds drew 2.3 million last year when say 1.8 million was budgeted.

So what do they project this year? 2.3 million. Instead of taking a "risk" of going for 2.5-6 which will fund a bigger budget budget, they take the easy route incase the GM screws up with a bad team which busts and they have to dump some contracts. DanO doesn't have much backing.