Turn Off Ads?
Page 23 of 26 FirstFirst ... 131920212223242526 LastLast
Results 331 to 345 of 390

Thread: Randa signed

  1. #331
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,805

    Re: Randa signed

    Major FA pitchers will demand a 3 year contract at the least, from my POV currently the Reds have no plan on taking on contracts more than 2 years or contracts that are big ticket costs, they might if it was Dunn about to walk but I don't see anothert multi year contract of significant length and value until the Griffey millstone is the only one weighing down the corpse of this franchise.

    They're going the Connie Mack route. Trying to keep it competive while they reload the system, or their pockets from what some around here report.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #332
    Member CougarQuest's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Bright, Indiana USA
    Posts
    5,573

    Re: Randa signed

    The Reds aren't done.
    Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.

  4. #333
    Member Cedric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Monroe
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Randa signed

    You don't build a team for the future through free agency in Cincinnati, small market. These signings are exactly what you are calling them, stopgaps.

    Edit- WOY said that up above, I just didn't read.

  5. #334
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,364

    Re: Randa signed

    Quote Originally Posted by johngalt
    I'm scratching my head wondering how O'Brien has proven futile in improving the bullpen.

    -Signed Weathers, Weber and Mercker, all of whom are very capable relievers. He also attempted to sign Jones and Christiansen, also very capable relievers.

    -Released and/or nontendered Van Poppel, Padilla, Norton and Riedling, all of whom were wildly inconsistent and proved horrible.

    -Protected Coffey and Shackelford and taken flyers on Robertson and Stone as possible cheap fallback options.
    Ok. How many additional Runs are the acquisitions worth versus the Innings pitched by those the Reds let go?

    That's all I ask, just give me a number backed by reasonable research.

    I still don't see how you can say he hasn't helped the Reds this week.

    1. The starting rotation needed improvement. He re-signed Paul Wilson and added Ramon Ortiz. Each are upgrades to what we had last year, and the club is still looking at adding another starter through free agency.
    That is not an "improvment". That is a status quo. There's nothing added by the signing or Ramon Ortiz that the Reds didn't add by the signing of Cory Lidle before the 2004 season. Paul Wilson will not repeat his 2004 numbers so now we're at a net loss.

    2. The bullpen needed an overhaul. O'Brien jettisoned most of the dead weight and added veterans who have a history of success at quality prices.
    Please note anyone that Dan O'Brien has inked to a pen slot who pitched over 60 Innings in 2004 with an ERA under 4.00.

    Name them.

    3. Third base was a blackhole last year. Seeing the Kearns Experiment failing, O'Brien grabbed an inexpensive veteran to keep the seat warm for Encarnacion. Randa's here on a one-year deal people. It's NOT a big deal.
    It IS a big deal when you spend over two million dollars on a player who projects to be a Run Value bust at the position versus a player you had in hand. That's a BIG DEAL.

    4. The bench needed improvement. By re-signing Jimenez, Freel moves back to the bench and really bumps that up a level. With the talk that Mohr or Eckstein could be added soon as well and the Big 4 in the OF, the bench is looking much better.
    Freel doesn't move back to the bench because of the Jimenez signing. He moves back to the bench because of an overpaid and underproductive Joe Randa signing. I could care less about Mohr or Eckstein.

    Seriously, why does everyone think Odalis Perez or Matt Clement would have such a tremendous effect on this club? I would rather fill holes in the bullpen, bench, rotation and third base spots than blow it all on a starter just so everyone could scream and yell that we have an "ace." I just don't see the logic in that.
    Because having a Matt Clement (I am not a proponent of Odalis Perez) means that you have a great chance of beating any team every fifth day out. Because having a sub-.700 OPS in a Starter slot actually means something- because there were only 25 Starting Pitchers in MLB who posted sub-.700 OPS Against numbers in 2004 and those pitchers are geometrically more valuable than the below-league-average puds the Reds now own lock, stock, and barrel.

    Very simply, there was no hole at 3B that couldn't have been filled for less. There was no bullpen deficiency that couldn't have been fixed for less. There was no hole on the Reds ballclub that couldn't have been fixed for less.

    Instead, what we got as Reds fans was the perception that things were fixed "for less". That's a perception and not the reality.

    The reality is that the Reds have on LH reliever who we can reasonably expect to get hitters out over 50 IP. His name is Kent Mercker.

    Other than that, it's a high-priced crap shoot and I want nothing of it.

    But activity sure looks good to folks, doesn't it?
    "The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer

    "The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
    --Ted Williams

  6. #335
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Posts
    3,072

    Re: Randa signed

    The worst part of this Randa deal is that we're gonna lose an amazing young player out of this. Bye Austin.

  7. #336
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2004
    Posts
    985

    Re: Randa signed

    Quote Originally Posted by MWM
    How is Paul Wilson an upgrade over Paul Wilson?

    And some of us, me included, don't think Ortiz is an upgrade over Lidle. So there's a legit reason to think our rotation is no better this year than last.
    I worded that wrong. Re-signing Wilson and adding Ortiz together make the rotation better, because it improves the 1-2 spots in the rotation and pushes one of the young guys either to the bullpen or the minors. I would hope you agree that Ortiz/Wilson/Harang/Hudson/Claussen is better than Wilson/Harang/Hudson/Claussen/Hancock.

    I would say that Ortiz is better than Lidle, because I believe you'll see Ortiz post better numbers in the NL.

    These are minor improvements, I'll give you that. But what good is addressing the bullpen in 2005? they aren't going to win next year, so why use those resources on 35+ year old pitchers who, with the exception of Mercker, weren't all that good last year? Moves like this might allow them to win 72 games instead of 70. And he's paying them entirely too much for bullpen stopgaps.
    What good is addressing the bullpen? Do you remember how many games the bullpen cost this club in May/June/July? Losing leads (especially big leads) are some of the most demoralizing losses you can suffer, and that had to have an effect on these guys when they started to fall off the pace. There's no question an improved bullpen - even with "minor" improvements (which I would disagree with, but that's another story) - could have had a profound impact on this team's fortunes in 2004.

    Stop-gap. Makes the team incrementally better in 2005, but not beyond.
    Isn't that part of getting better? You can't make every free agent signing be a move that improves you for years to come. We have EdE coming up soon, and DanO got someone to improve that position until he arrives.

    how does resigning players they had last year improve the bench? And Eckstein doesn't make ANYONE better. I'd rather have Pokey than Eck.
    It improves the bench, because Freel actually would be a bench player this year instead of a regular like he was much of last year. The Randa signing and the re-signing of Jimenez pretty much guarantee that. If we had not signed Randa or nontendered Jimenez, our bench would have been weakened because Freel would be forced into a regular role. Make better sense?

    Filling holes only keeps the Reds out of the cellar.....maybe. They still have noc chance of sniffing .500 let alone make them a real contender.

    So he's filled some holes, none of which turn the team into a contender, and none of which brings them any closer to building a future contender. Heck, anyone could make these types of moves.
    I just don't see how people can say that after what we witnessed last year. This club was winning and on top in the Central last year early on despite a bullpen with only two or three reliable arms, Freel and Castro playing regularly at third, Pena still struggling mightily and Kearns on the shelf and/or struggling much of the time. Each one of those components has improved assuming Kearns stays healthy (yes, a big if), and I would argue the bullpen has improved a great deal. The rest of the lineup and the rotation remains pretty much the same (though I would argue the rotation has improved slightly). That should equal success in the present, while progress of guys like EdE, Pauly, Gardner, Votto, etc. is boding well for the future.

  8. #337
    Member Cedric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Monroe
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Randa signed

    The best part of the Randa deal is Austin isn't at 3b.

  9. #338
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,163

    Re: Randa signed

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelSD
    I really think he feels he helped the Reds this week.
    It's human nature that we all like our own ideas. Though the Reds' ideas on how to "fix" a pitching staff are maddening.

    That said, let me try to channel why DanO might really think he's done something positive with Randa. I'm assuming he's been getting plenty of reports on Kearns similar to what leaked out in that Gammons blurb. One of the best traits of the Reds system through the years has been defensive snobbishness. I've certainly never seen a good Reds team that didn't take care of the baseball (though there was a time right before I started watching when Lee May, Deron Johnson and Alex Johnson wore the uniform and Tony Perez played 3B).

    Anyway, DanO's probably getting daily feedback that Austin's torturing the hot corner. Plus he's been playing this game of "Jr.'s rehab is going so well that I refuse to put any sort of timeline whatsoever on when he might be healthy enough to stroll within five miles of a baseball diamond." So he gets Randa to make his infield less painful and puts Kearns back into the OF where he may not be as flush as his earlier posturing would indicate.

    I'm sure he also thinks Randa's a good hitter, which isn't true. Yet the Reds still can have a good offense with Joe Randa in tow.

    Though, for the record, I'd have started Freel at 3B and not bothered with Randa. Clearly DanO needed a "proven veteran" to allay his concerns.


    Quote Originally Posted by johngalt
    Seriously, why does everyone think Odalis Perez or Matt Clement would have such a tremendous effect on this club? I would rather fill holes in the bullpen, bench, rotation and third base spots than blow it all on a starter just so everyone could scream and yell that we have an "ace." I just don't see the logic in that.
    Because the Reds literally may be 11 pitchers shy of a good staff. Certainly it's likely they're five starters shy of a good rotation. The absolute lack of quality innings out of the starting rotation croaked the team when the Reds had one of the best bullpens in baseball. The pen is nowhere close to that good anymore and the starting pitching actually has gotten worse. Put concisely, until the Reds stop with the sisters-of-the-poor pitching act they're irrelevant in any discussion of teams that might win something. Get one good pitcher, then start adding more. Simplest of concepts, but it starts with first guy. I've been waiting 53 months for that first guy to show up.

    What you're lauding is what the Reds have done the past four seasons. It doesn't work.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  10. #339
    Member Cedric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Monroe
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Randa signed

    I think it's argueable that signing 31 year old pitchers to multiple year contracts isn't smart in this market, not to mention I shudder at the thought of how much we would have to overpay to get him. Like it or not this team's future relies on Gardner, Pauly, Claussen, Hudson, Coffey and the likes. Let's pray that history suddenly turns and we get lucky.

    Bailey also.

  11. #340
    Member SteelSD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Posts
    9,364

    Re: Randa signed

    So he gets Randa to make his infield less painful and puts Kearns back into the OF where he may not be as flush as his earlier posturing would indicate.
    Bud, let me echo Ced's sentiments that the only good part about a Joe Randa signing is that it allows us to know what we already knew.

    Of course, we already knew what O'Brien knows now and that's Austin Kearns can't field the 3B position. That being said, we obviously both know that Joe Randa can't hit the 3B position.

    And, of course, that all just puts a cap on things considering that we knew what Dan'O couldn't figure out about Kearns and that we still know what Dan'O couldn't figure out about Randa.

    The only good part? Neither of the groups we work for is over two million shy because we were smart enough to know what we know.

    The Reds? Yeah. I'm starting to believe that the "dumb people" quotient is about 80%. That means that Dan O'Brien is at the bottom of the food chain. Not good.
    "The problem with strikeouts isn't that they hurt your team, it's that they hurt your feelings..." --Rob Neyer

    "The single most important thing for a hitter is to get a good pitch to hit. A good hitter can hit a pitch that’s over the plate three times better than a great hitter with a ball in a tough spot.”
    --Ted Williams

  12. #341
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,163

    Re: Randa signed

    Quote Originally Posted by Cedric
    I think it's argueable that signing 31 year old pitchers to multiple year contracts isn't smart in this market, not to mention I shudder at the thought of how much we would have to overpay to get him. Like it or not this team's future relies on Gardner, Pauly, Claussen, Hudson, Coffey and the likes. Let's pray that history suddenly turns and we get lucky.

    Bailey also.
    The team's future rests on figuring out how to get the pitching it hasn't grown. I was banging that drum five years ago and I'll be banging it five years from now if the Reds don't make that leap.

    The Reds do not have enough pitching talent in the organization to form anything near a good staff at any point in the foreseeable future. The Reds literally would need to bat 1.000 with the paltry talent they've got.

    For comparison's sake, the Pirates have eight, count 'em eight, prospect arms who'll be starting in AA and AAA this season. If four of those guys turn into reliable major league starters that will be a fantastic return. If only three of them turn out, that still will count as awfully good.

    I certainly hope the Reds' plan isn't to get lucky. That was JimBo's plan. That's why JimBo needed the firing he got.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  13. #342
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,163

    Re: Randa signed

    Quote Originally Posted by SteelSD
    Bud, let me echo Ced's sentiments that the only good part about a Joe Randa signing is that it allows us to know what we already knew.

    Of course, we already knew what O'Brien knows now and that's Austin Kearns can't field the 3B position. That being said, we obviously both know that Joe Randa can't hit the 3B position.

    And, of course, that all just puts a cap on things considering that we knew what Dan'O couldn't figure out about Kearns and that we still know what Dan'O couldn't figure out about Randa.
    Great stuff.

    I guess my silver lining is that DanO figured out he didn't know something and maybe it lays the groundwork for not knowing less 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.

  14. #343
    Member Cedric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Monroe
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Randa signed

    I do agree with you that letting other teams develop the pitching and then trading for it might be the best route. That's pretty simplistic, but true.

  15. #344
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,163

    Re: Randa signed

    Quote Originally Posted by Cedric
    I do agree with you that letting other teams develop the pitching and then trading for it might be the best route. That's pretty simplistic, but true.
    Hey, I'm all for developing it too, but the Reds have to be honest with themselves about where they are (aka, nowhere close to being able to deliver a meaningful pitching staff).

    If DanO successfully builds an assembly line without any setbacks or mistakes getting in the way, it'll start churning out major league pitchers in 2010, maybe 2009 if he starts drafting some college arms. In the meantime you might get a Pauly or a Gardner, maybe both, but, if you want the Reds to have good pitching, the bulk of the Reds pitching staff for the balance of this decade currently resides in other organizations.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  16. #345
    Member Cedric's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Monroe
    Posts
    6,397

    Re: Randa signed

    That's for sure. I agree completely, not much to add.


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