Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 26

Thread: On Paper Are we better than '05?

  1. #1
    BobC, get a legit F.O.! Mario-Rijo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Location
    Springfield, Ohio
    Posts
    9,052

    On Paper Are we better than '05?

    Forget the predictions
    Believe it or not, last year's club looked better on paper than this year's, so who knows how the 2006 club will do?
    You can make a pretty convincing argument that - on paper at least - this year's Cincinnati Reds are not as good as last year's.

    Last year's club started with a rotation that had a combined record of 42-36. Three of the four starters were coming off winning seasons.

    This year's club starts with a rotation that had a combined record of 53-59. Only one of the five starters is coming off a winning season.


    Last year's club had an established closer in Danny Graves, who saved 41 games the year before and had 162 career saves.

    This year's club is going with a closer-by-committee. No one on the staff has been a full-time closer, and no one has more than 29 career saves.

    Last year's club had former All-Stars at first base and third base.

    This year's club has a bargain-basement free agent at first and an unproven 23-year-old at third.

    But last year's club proved pretty quickly that what kind of club you have on paper doesn't mean anything as soon as the first pitch is thrown on Opening Day.

    Last year's rotation quickly crumbled. Paul Wilson was ineffective and injured. Eric Milton was healthy but just as bad.

    Graves was done in by the Fickle Finger of Fate. He was gone before summer officially started.

    The club scored a ton of runs - the most in the National League - but the pitching gave up enough to make all the offense meaningless most nights.

    I predicted - wrongly, of course - that last year's club would win 85 games.

    The other night when the beat writers had dinner with general manager Wayne Krivsky, he asked us to give him our win total for this year.

    We all politely chickened out.

    Which makes it a good bet no one was going to say 85.

    You won't get a number from me here, either.

    I'll say what I've been saying since last season ended: The Reds will be as good or as bad as their pitching.

    Again, on paper, it's not as good as last year's going in.

    But if you want to take the Bob Castellini optimistic look at things, there are reasons for hope:

    Aaron Harang and Brandon Claussen are ready to establish themselves as solid major-league starters. It's not unreasonable to think they can each win 14 or 15 games.

    Milton has to be better, because he can't be any worse. And the pressure is off. He's down to the fourth starter.

    Arroyo won 14 games in each of the last two years in the pressure cooker that is Red Sox Nation. We saw in his last start how good he can be.

    The whole closer thing is overrated. As bad as Graves was - and he was abysmal - he converted 10 of 12 saves before he got the boot. That number was right around his career average.

    The offense will be as good, or nearly as good. Edwin Encarnacion has a chance to put up better numbers than Joe Randa at third. Scott Hatteberg's home run and RBI totals were on par with Sean Casey's.

    It looks like Ken Griffey Jr. is poised to be good from the start. Griffey hit .244 with one home run and nine RBI in April 2005. Over the next four months, he hit .313 with 34 home runs and 83 RBI.

    Now, I could give you the reasons to be pessimistic. But Opening Day's a day away. Why rain on the Findlay Market Parade?

    We reporters told Krivsky if the Reds finished above .500 - 82-80 - people would be doing back flips down Vine Street.

    Is that realistic? Not on paper. But, again, we found out last year that what is on paper doesn't matter so much on the field.


    I would have to say that not necc. on paper we are better but overall we are a better team in terms of defense as a whole unit and he didn't touch on the bench is far better both offensively and defensively and the pen should be a little better.
    Last edited by Mario-Rijo; 04-02-2006 at 08:10 AM.
    "You can't let praise or criticism get to you. It's a weakness to get caught up in either one."

    --Woody Hayes

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    One and a half men Patrick Bateman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    Calgary, AB
    Posts
    5,749

    Re: On Paper Are we better than '05?

    We didn't have a shortstop going into last year. Lopez 2006 is a huge upgrade.

    I'd suggest that EE is looking better today than Randa did going into last year.

  4. #3
    Member ochre's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4,266

    Re: On Paper Are we better than '05?

    1B and 2B look worse on paper. The starting pitching looks to be a wash. I think it will end up better this year, but the "going into the season" look makes it appear very similar to the going into the season look from last year. The bullpen could be ok, or very bad due to the extreme ages involved. On paper looks to be very similar to last year. Position player-wise, other that 1B and 2B look really good, with generally better, or as-good years expected from most positions (I think Lopez will regress a bit this year, but not significantly). The problems with 2B and 1B appear to be more of a management decision than an actual talent gap.
    4009



  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    lake city florida
    Posts
    812

    Re: On Paper Are we better than '05?

    Quote Originally Posted by Austin Kearns
    We didn't have a shortstop going into last year. Lopez 2006 is a huge upgrade.

    I'd suggest that EE is looking better today than Randa did going into last year.
    We also have Narron managing the team to start out. Don't forget that this team played 500 with him at the helm and might of finished above had Griffey and Casey not gone down in Sept.I think the Starting pitching and the pen is in better shape to start out than last year.The bench is looking good too. I guess in Sept. we'll know for sure what we had.But again I'm always an optimist.
    "Show me a good loser, and I'll show you a loser."

  6. #5
    Bleeding Red in the South
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    San Antonio, TX
    Posts
    166

    Re: On Paper Are we better than '05?

    Most definately. Pitching is better. Hitting should be better.

  7. #6
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    24,706

    Re: On Paper Are we better than '05?

    Better pitching. Similar offense: they should score 800 runs again. Yeah, better team.

  8. #7
    You're soaking in it! MartyFan's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    3,344

    Re: On Paper Are we better than '05?

    I know I am crazy and doing nothing but following a feeling...but based on the performance of Milton during ST I think he is going to be a lot better...I can't help but think he had problems with his legs...if that's the case we have the potential of 4 15 game winners...if wilson can return to his performance of 2004 and the bullpen holds...he could be another...sounds like pie in the sky...I agree...but it's the day before the season starts.
    "Sometimes, it's not the sexiest moves that put you over the top," Krivsky said. "It's a series of transactions that help you get there."

  9. #8
    got alil captain in u?
    Join Date
    Jun 2005
    Location
    Bridgeport Ohio
    Posts
    4,839

    Re: On Paper Are we better than '05?

    i'd take womack over d'lo anytime of the day hattebergo or casey isn't really a big deal

  10. #9
    The Lineups stink. KronoRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2003
    Location
    West N. Carolina
    Posts
    55,509

    Re: On Paper Are we better than '05?

    D is worse, Pitching is slightly better, the O will take a hit with certain players getting 600 at bats.
    Go Gators!

  11. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Posts
    356

    Re: On Paper Are we better than '05?

    The biggest difference in ownership and the front office it will take awhile to see the change on paper...we will ultimately be a better team? maybe couldn't be any worse.
    "Playoffs? Don't talk about playoffs. Are you kidding me? Playoffs? I'm just hoping we can win a game, another game. " Jim Mora

  12. #11
    Worst Behavior. reds44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    24,892

    Re: On Paper Are we better than '05?

    Quote Originally Posted by ochre
    1B and 2B look worse on paper. The starting pitching looks to be a wash. I think it will end up better this year, but the "going into the season" look makes it appear very similar to the going into the season look from last year. The bullpen could be ok, or very bad due to the extreme ages involved. On paper looks to be very similar to last year. Position player-wise, other that 1B and 2B look really good, with generally better, or as-good years expected from most positions (I think Lopez will regress a bit this year, but not significantly). The problems with 2B and 1B appear to be more of a management decision than an actual talent gap.
    2B looks worse on paper to start the season, but it is going to be hard for Womack match the suckiness that was Jimenez last year.

    We have a better rotation, same OF, better SS, better 2B (), probably even 3B until EE can prove he is better, same 2B, and worse 1B.

    IMO, we are and will be better then last year.
    "The guy I think could be really good in center is Adam Dunn. If someone asked me if Dunn could be a center fielder for the next 10 years, if he started working on it, no one could explain to me why he couldn’t do it." - Brad Kullman

  13. #12
    Worst Behavior. reds44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    24,892

    Re: On Paper Are we better than '05?

    Quote Originally Posted by captainmorgan07
    i'd take womack over d'lo anytime of the day hattebergo or casey isn't really a big deal
    "The guy I think could be really good in center is Adam Dunn. If someone asked me if Dunn could be a center fielder for the next 10 years, if he started working on it, no one could explain to me why he couldn’t do it." - Brad Kullman

  14. #13
    "Let's Roll" TeamBoone's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    12,840

    Re: On Paper Are we better than '05?

    I think the OF is better and lest we forget, Adam Dunn hit so low in the order last year that he essentially got gyped out of several ABs. This year he's hitting higher, will hopefully lead off fewer innings, and thus make the Offense even better.

    If Milton's leg problem is truly resolved and his ST performance is not an aberration, that alone makes the pitching better. Harang lost 5-6 games that he should have won, so his record is better than it looks on paper. And Arroyo is definitely a step up from whatever is left (less Claussen). That adds up to much better pitching this year, IMHO.

    EE will be at 3B all year as long as he keeps producing, and I see no reason to believe he won't. That's an upgrade as Randa was there for only half a season and appeared to be running out of steam a bit at the time he was traded.

    2B is anybody's guess.

    All in all, I see a team that's quite a bit better; add to that their enthusiasm under the new regime.

    I don't give a rat's tail what the media says, this is a MUCH better team and I hope upon hope that they prove it!
    "Enjoy this Reds fans, you are watching a legend grow up before your very eyes" ... DoogMinAmo on Adam Dunn

  15. #14
    Member ochre's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    4,266

    Re: On Paper Are we better than '05?

    womack is worse than D'Lo. I'm no Aurilia fan, but I'd rather see him out there than Nomack.
    4009



  16. #15
    Member OnBaseMachine's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2004
    Posts
    34,839

    Re: On Paper Are we better than '05?

    Quote Originally Posted by captainmorgan07
    i'd take womack over d'lo anytime of the day hattebergo or casey isn't really a big deal
    2005

    Tony Womack-.249/.276/.280-.556

    D'Angelo Jimenez-.229/.319/.295-.614

    Once again, Jimenez was better than Womack last year. As much as some of you hate to admit it, he is the worst player in baseball.
    I miss Adam Dunn.


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