Randa signed

[MWM]

If Carl is willing to spend the money to improve the team, why not?

Because I couldn't care less about an "improved" team. What good is "improved" if it doesn't lead to a contender. That's just it. I think traderumor touched on this in his Bengals analogy. People have gotten so accustomed to mediocrity that they seem to be satisfied with "improved." If improving the team still means a losing season, and those improvements are older players who won' be around for permanent improvement, it serves no purpose whatsoever if you're looking to get to the playoffs.

Basically, whether they lose 85 games or 95 games means very little to me.

[MWM]

I don't see any indication that they are going to short the draft budget. So far, whether or not you agree with the picks, they funded the picks they made last year.

Of course they funded the picks, but theypicked the guys they knew they could fund. Are you trying to tell me that they would have rather had Homer Bailey than Jered Weaver? No way. They didn't pick Weaver because they couldn't afford him. He was by far the best pitcher in the draft and will probably be ready for the majors by 2006, maybe even late 2005.

If a GM isn't always looking at both the short term and the long term, he is a poor GM.

That's fine. But if they aren't making moves that will actually lead to a CONTENDER in the short term or the long-term, then he's a bad GM. And you even said it. What has he done for the long-term?

[westofyou]

Basically, whether they lose 85 games or 95 games means very little to me.

But it matters to their bottom line and budgeting for the next few years.

Everyone knows what the Reds need to win next year, more starting pitching, more depth in the BP, more bench depth, more minor league depth to deal when they're close in July.

Only problem is they don't plan on being close, this isn't the year they're gonna go for it. They don't think that if they spend the jack like everyone here wants them to that it will be enough, they don't think that they have the horses on the bench or the bodies to flip to make a serious run.

They're running for .500 and hoping they can flip some guys and contracts down the line.

That's the business plan, not trying to win 88 game at the expense of another long term contract. Don't expect to ever see another Red signed for more than 5 years and no pitchers for more than 3.

We all know what the Reds need, they're the ones that have to execute it, live with it and pay for it.

[traderumor]

That's the problem with the long-term. It's hard to gauge if "anything's been done." On the flip side, what has been done to hurt the long-term? The only thing you have come up with thus far is speculation about the draft budget dropping because they signed some modest priced free agents to plug known holes, yet the evidence from last year indicates that DO convinced his bosses to sign his draft picks.

As for Weaver, the Reds weren't the only team that wanted no part of the money he was asking for. You assume it was a signability issue, when I think it was a pick based on their opinion that Homer Bailey was the best option for the money. That opinion has the likelihood of being wrong, as has been firmly established a multitude of times, but I agree with their assessment that Weaver was not worth what he was asking for, either. Certainly you would agree that if they concluded that, as did many other teams, then they shouldn't draft that person. Overpaying is almost always a bad thing, but I would say its insanity in a crapshoot like the draft.

[MWM]

But it matters to their bottom line and budgeting for the next few years.

Well, if that's what's driving these decisions, then just shoot me now. If they're trying to just win enough to not lose money, then they're NEVER going to try for something special. At some point I want them to attempt greatness. Theyr'e trying for mediocrity in the hopes they don't absolutely suck.

I want to see them do ONE THING that tells me they are looking to build somthing great down the road. For example, make an attempt to sign Adam Dunn.

[DoogMinAmo]

Basically, whether they lose 85 games or 95 games means very little to me.

Then you are lying to yourself, plain and simple. It does matter how many games they win/ lose, otherwise you are not a fan. While you might contend the how is just as important, don't say that losing is losing, no matter what.

I personally contend that while these moves are stopgaps, they are not BAD moves. It seems that Dan O is buying time while the kids develop, and trying to fill seats, so that when we are only a few/ couple pieces away from truly being a contender, we have the payroll to support the team.

As far as mediocrity, it is one thing to be a bad team striving for mediocrity, and another to be a mediocre team striving to be better/ above average. These moves push us to the latter, and with continual development, I and all other Reds' fans hope for the better end result. I can not wait til spring training and the season, I am feeling good about this team. Well, atleast a whole lot better than years past... aren't you?

[MWM]

Then you are lying to yourself, plain and simple. It does matter how many games they win/ lose, otherwise you are not a fan.

Spare me the condescending remarks about me not being a fan. Lying to myself? I think I can judge that for myself, thanks.

My point was that 85 losses or 95 losses still means I'm watching someone else in October. What additional satisfaction to you get out of a 3rd place team instead of a 4th place team? i want the playoffs. That's how I measure wins and losses. 5 additional wins that have no impact on the playoffs mean absolutely nothing to me. If that makes me less a fan than Doog, so be it. Watch a .500 team for the rest of your life.

[DoogMinAmo]

Spare me the condescending remarks about me not being a fan. Lying to myself? I think I can judge that for myself, thanks.

My point was that 85 losses or 95 losses still means I'm watching someone else in October. What additional satisfaction to you get out of a 3rd place team instead of a 4th place team? i want the playoffs. That's how I measure wins and losses. 5 additional wins that have no impact on the playoffs mean absolutely nothing to me. If that makes me less a fan than Doog, so be it. Watch a .500 team for the rest of your life.

Not trying to be condescending, if I am, I apologize. I am merely saying that if at any point you want to become a contender, go to A from D, you need to hit C and B along the way. You want to attract free agents, show that you are a team that wins 85 instead of loses them first. Want to have a bigger budget, show the fans you are trying, and the Reds are improving from year to year. Whether or not the merits of long term and short term strategies are being executed properly are for us here to squabble over. The fact that a plan is in place to improve the team slightly year by year is the reality. 85? 95? 105? It matters to me, and probably to a lot of other people, hence the fan comment.

Now back to the earlier question, do you feel better about this team than any other in the past 5 years? I take Joe Randa's word for it, he was a prospective free agent that saw this team as one on the rise. Another year of improvement, and more are hopefully sure to follow.

[Redsfaithful]

So why try? Why not just admit the team's going to be bad for a few years and not waste money on 35+ years old players, just so you can "climb the ladder of respectability."

Because completely tanking in 2005 would probably cause attendance to drop, and it would also cause you to lose goodwill with all of the players currently employed by the Reds. Both of those results would hurt the Reds ability to try for something great in coming years.

It's not completely out of the possibility that the Reds stay in the playoff hunt through September, or even sneak in. They only need to improve by 15 wins or so, which is a lot, granted, but with some breaks it's doable.

A playoff run is great PR. It's great PR for the fan base, and it's even better PR for attracting free agents.

O'Brien is giving 2005 a little bit of a shot. If it works out, awesome. If the Reds suck anyway, then I'm sure he'll flip some people in July, and the organization will be stronger for it. Either way, none of this has hurt the Reds future.

As far as the draft, it was fully funded last season. Until O'Brien runs a draft that isn't, I think we have to assume that he'll be signing his draft picks.

It could be that John Allen doesn't mind lobbying for more money now that O'Brien is the GM. I'm sure he'll try harder if he likes Dan'O, since he didn't have the greatest relationship with Bowden.

[MWM]

Now back to the earlier question, do you feel better about this team than any other in the past 5 years? I take Joe Randa's word for it, he was a prospective free agent that saw this team as one on the rise. Another year of improvement, and more are hopefully sure to follow.

Not really. I don't think they're going to lose 100 games, but I also don't think they're going to be that close to .500. I'm thinking about 72-75 wins.

If moves like Randa and Weber and Weathers are getting us from D to , they aren't going to "KEEP" as C. I'm all for incremental improvements if those improvements will be more than a one year improvement and part of a plan that will eventually lead to a winner. I just don't see anything that leads me to believe they are working towards a winner.

[MWM]

As far as the draft, it was fully funded last season. Until O'Brien runs a draft that isn't, I think we have to assume that he'll be signing his draft picks.

I'm not sure I buy that logic, RF. Was it fully funded because they drafted players that fit within their limited budget or did they draft the players based on who was the best at the time? Jered Weaver was available at the time, but he wanted big bucks.

Heck, with the exception of Jeremy Sowers, JimBo pretty much signed most of his first rounders. But there's no doubt that the draft was underfunded during many of those years.

[Redsfaithful]

I'm not sure I buy that logic, RF. Was it fully funded because they drafted players that fit within their limited budget or did they draft the players based on who was the best at the time? Jered Weaver was available at the time, but he wanted big bucks.

Heck, with the exception of Jeremy Sowers, JimBo pretty much signed most of his first rounders. But there's no doubt that the draft was underfunded during many of those years.

Honestly? I think O'Brien really, really liked Bailey.

It scares me too, but I think he thought he got the best player available.

[johngalt]

I'm not sure I buy that logic, RF. Was it fully funded because they drafted players that fit within their limited budget or did they draft the players based on who was the best at the time? Jered Weaver was available at the time, but he wanted big bucks.

In this case, I think the Reds (like a lot of teams) just didn't feel it was worth it to spend that much on a draft pick. Even teams that have money to spend just don't see these guys as valuable enough to throw that kind of money their way before they've even put on a GCL Reds uniform. I'm not saying I necessarily agree, but I can understand the logic.

[Aronchis]

Honestly? I think O'Brien really, really liked Bailey.

It scares me too, but I think he thought he got the best player available.

I definitely think so to. Pressure's on DanO's Bailey to rip through Aball next year like Kerry Wood did in the mid-90's.

DanO drafted him like he was as good as a College pitcher.

[REDREAD]

Because I couldn't care less about an "improved" team. What good is "improved" if it doesn't lead to a contender. That's just it. I think traderumor touched on this in his Bengals analogy. People have gotten so accustomed to mediocrity that they seem to be satisfied with "improved." If improving the team still means a losing season, and those improvements are older players who won' be around for permanent improvement, it serves no purpose whatsoever if you're looking to get to the playoffs.

Basically, whether they lose 85 games or 95 games means very little to me.

I want a contender too, but I sure don't want to sit through 6 years of 90-100 loss seasons. If I have do that, I might not care when the Reds are contenders in 2010.

I can respect your opinion that a 4th place team isn't much more fun that a 5th place team, but I'm glad we'll have a 3b not named Larson and hopefully a bullpen that doesn't blow every game. Ortiz.. I'm not sure how he'll do, but there's some hope there. He's certainly a step up from Hancock, who I dreaded seeing every 5th day.

I just don't see any real downside to any of these moves DanO made. It would be impossible for him to make us a contender this offseason, so while I'm not completely satisfied with the team, I like the fact that supposedly Carl wants to improve the team. That might end up being another empty promise, but if we can get Carl to jack up the payroll at least in the 60-70 million range, there's hope that sometime in the future we might contend.

I think the Reds are going to be a lot more tolerable to watch. IMO, last year was one of the most frustrating seasons I've ever sat through.
Maybe DanO gets us to .500 this year, and then is able to improve the W-L record by 3-5 games/year.. Of course, there's no guarantee that he will, but you've got to start somewhere, and filling your most glaring holes (bullpen, 1 starter, 3b) is a great start, even if it is only a stopgap.