How can the Marlins build from scratch and win a World Series, dismantle and rebuild to win the World Series again, dismantle and rebuild to be more of a contender for the forseeable future than the Reds? The Marlins have done a good job of getting quality when they traded off their big name players through the years.
Not just the Reds......a good 50% of the league could ask that same question.Originally Posted by NPCoach
they make the hard decisions(the ones the Reds have refused to make) of who to build around and who is expandable and combine it with solid scouting.
Agree, but the solid scouting part is the key. The hard decisions are a little less hard when there are solid young players ready to step in. The Reds haven't had that since the "crown jewel" years.
The problems weren't created by WK, but by his predecessors. Although it looks like DanO did draft two studs in his two years.
The issue I have with WK is his draft this year. The Reds might have had a lights out closer next year if they had drafted Lincecum.
It's also a little less hard when you've conceded the fact that you are building for the future and have no illusions of contending short-term. The fact that the Marlins are in the hunt this season is something nobody expected, even Marlins management. If Castellini came in this past off-season and decided to clean house and build for the future, Reds fans would have gone ballistic.
that's right but it was a nice bonus. The Reds were just glad to be in it but didn't do a good job of assessing how they got there and if it was likely to continue. The Marlins thus having no expectation had no temptation to mortgage tomorrow for today. The Reds did that and now have nothing to show for it and are in worse shape for the future.
If you are basing that on the fact that the Reds may have given up some bargaining power for the upcoming off-season, I could agree with that. If you are basing it on talent alone, I don't think the Reds are any worse shape than they were before.
Um, the Marlins are a .500 team. While I suppose that is an accomplishment, is it any moreso than the Reds (who were also picked to be awful) in a weak NL? Would they be .500 if it were not for a weak NL? Would their .500 record be noteworthy were it not for a weak NL?
I somehow think that the Reds wouldn't get anything if they offered Majewski and Bray around.
and have a boatload of young talent, unlike the Reds.
I'm not so sure I agree. They are both young, have good stuff, and have had success......that's a good amount of upside.
I dont think there would be a market for Majeski because of injury concerns. I think there would be a lot of takers for Bray being young, talented, and lefty.
they are middle relievers, nothing special in that. Teams(not named the Reds) simply view relievers that aren't setup or closers as interchangeable parts. If they lose one they find another. The Reds problems was that they stupidly cast their lot with Burns, White and Hammond to start the season and had no real setup man or closer. Most of their relievers were fringe roster types at best.
Poor middle relievers at that.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
