If the Reds were so interested in fit relievers, why did they sign Rick White?Originally Posted by BrooklynRedz
If the Reds were so interested in fit relievers, why did they sign Rick White?Originally Posted by BrooklynRedz
The front office sent a message by cutting Hancock.....take the game seriously or get the hell out. If you can't come in shape and under the weight outlined by the front office, then they have to question your commitment.
Even Austin Kearns got the message this year. If you want to change the fortunes of this club around, then it starts with the attitude and mindset throughout the entire organization first.
If you think small, you'll go nowhere in life.
According to Hancock, the team never told him that he needed to lose weight.Originally Posted by Krusty
Because not all players are treated equally. Dunn arriving at camp a little over weight will be treated far differently than would Kearns. Granted, White is hardly Dunn, but he has had some success, whereas Hancock has not. Hancock took over half a season to recover from a strained groin last year. And how does he prepare himself for this season? With a donut-of-the-week subscription.Originally Posted by MattyMo4Life
There is no better comparison than Coffey and Hancock. Coffey has fought weight issues all his life and how does he prepare for a shot at a full season on the ML roster? With a disciplined offseason program and arriving at camp a good month before reporting date. If Hancock had shown one iota of desire, I'm willing to bet he'd be in a Reds uni still. As it is, good luck with him.
Rick White is a BAD reliever who has had very little success in his long career. Bottom line, he is a bad reliever.Originally Posted by BrooklynRedz
Nolan Ryan was a HORRIBLE pitcher in 1987.Originally Posted by GoReds2006
Games are won on run differential -- scoring more than your opponent. Runs are runs, scored or prevented they all count the same. Worry about scoring more and allowing fewer, not which positions contribute to which side of the equation or how "consistent" you are at your current level of performance.
As is Josh Hancock.Originally Posted by MattyMo4Life
Yea, you get those kind of denials from ex-employees. Sort of like George Costanza's response when confronted with having sex with the cleaning lady in the office: "Was that wrong?"Originally Posted by MattyMo4Life
Of course the employee is lying, and the employer must be telling the truth.Originally Posted by traderumor
At least he is a younger and cheaper bad reliever.Originally Posted by OnBaseMachine
Rick White has been in the majors since 1994, with an ERA of 4.24. While there's lots to be said (negative) about Rick White, he has been, over that time, an average reliever (at worse).Originally Posted by MattyMo4Life
While I don't, at this time, want him on my team, let's not exaggerate his career.
...I don't understand the need to "make an example" of Josh Hancock.
You've got the worst pitching staff in the major leagues, a historically bad staff and on one of the first official days of spring training you walk over to a 27 year old arm and cut it? to make a point?
I really don't get that. I don't think Hancock was anything special, but he was as likely to give the reds 100 decent innings as a swing man as Gosling or Kozlowski or...well or Milton or Williams or Paul Wilson. That's not even talking about a conversion to relief. I certainly don't think the guy should have been assured a spot in the rotation, but he wasn't even on the 40 man roster. Why release him? To make the cardinals better?
Ok...they didn't have enough space to look at all the pitchers they wanted to, why not just send the dude to the minor league camp? But release him out of the organization? That's silly.
Hancock says nobody talked with him about losing weight at the end of last year. The cardinals don't seem to have a problem with his weight. Last year all spring training we heard about how great Austin Kearns looked. He got out of the gate slow and all of a sudden he was too heavy and needed to go to AAA and get right. huh?
Or convenient memory, or perhaps misunderstanding. I guess both parties made a mistake if nothing was put in writing so it didn't become he said/they said. But then I can think of one party in the dispute that needs to save face, and it isn't the Reds.Originally Posted by MattyMo4Life
Glad you are happy to have Hancock. I always enjoy the Reds having pitchers like him to face.
I just see it differently. I don't think it is Hancock that needs to save face. He has a job with a better team that is a favorite to make the playoffs every year. He could come out and say that he didn't lose the wieght that the Reds asked him to lose, and nobody in St. Louis would care. On the other hand, the Reds need to explain to their fans why they cut loose a young reliever that pitched very well the last month of last season. It's not like the Reds have an excess of good young pitchers. The Reds have every reason to save face. Hancock has a good chance to make the bullpen on a very good team. Why does he need to save face?Originally Posted by traderumor
Last edited by MattyHo4Life; 03-29-2006 at 11:01 AM.
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. |