Turn Off Ads?
Results 1 to 12 of 12

Thread: 6 relievers or 7?

  1. #1
    Brett William Moore Will M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Crescent Springs KY
    Posts
    3,572

    6 relievers or 7?

    Right now we have Coffey, Bray, Majik, Cormier, Belisle & Stanton.
    Many posters are calling for another reliever ( ie Baez, Gagne ).

    I would rather have a 6th bench player than a 7th reliever.
    Griffey is frail.
    EE & Dunn & Griffey would be best replaced in the field late in games when we have a lead.
    Freel & Phillips need rest to keep their legs fresh.
    Last year I think one of the reasons the Reds crashed late was lack of depth.

    Arroyo & Harang average 7 innings per start. If we get a #3 starter who can give us 200 innings then I don't see the need for the 7th reliever.

    Thoughts?
    .

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Senor Votto Degenerate39's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    7,907

    Re: 6 relievers or 7?

    I'd rather have a #3 starter than another reliever. If you have guys who can throw 7 to 8 innings a game you don't need that many relievers.

  4. #3
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    580

    Re: 6 relievers or 7?

    Right now they have 8 pitchers who will be on the 25-man no matter what:
    3 SP-Harang, Arroyo, Milton
    5 RP-Coffey, Bray, Majewski, Cormier, Stanton

    There will be 12 pitchers when they break spring training. So our internal options to fill the last 4 spots are: Claussen, Ramirez, Loshe, Belisle, and Shack.

    So I can see them getting another RP (be it closer or long relief) and a SP by FA/trade. That means the number 5 rotation spot will have to be decided in ST. With the losers fighting it out against Belisle for that last bullpen spot.

  5. #4
    Greatness In The Making RedLegSuperStar's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2005
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    4,078

    Re: 6 relievers or 7?

    Why did we get Stanton again? Especially when you have the following:

    Claussen, Majewski, Coffey, Bray, Belisle, Cormier..

    We need some upgrade in the rotation.. Harang and Arroyo are not going to be able to carry this team the way they did last year by over pitching (innings, pitch count, limited rest, etc..). You don't know what your going to get out of Lohse or Milton. Who knows if Claussen is able to return to form. If Bob did any spending this year it should be on pitching especially now when you add Soriano and Lee to an already power friendly division. I think instead of spending boo-koos of money on a closer.. why not go with in house names like Brad Salmon or newly added to the 40 man.. David Shafer? This team needs to focus on needs versus wants. A-Gon was a decent signing and I think may have doubters changing their tune once the season gets under way. But I hope the Stanton signing don't start a trend of signing "hot" names just cause they are out there.. not unless you plan on dealing some of what you have. Purhaps that is the case.. but I also read on here that the Reds have interest in another catcher in Gregg Zaun.. not what we need Krivsky. Spend what money we have on Pitching or a combination of Offense/Defense.. don't stock up on 40 year olds, ex/current Twins, and too much of one position player..
    Last edited by RedLegSuperStar; 11-25-2006 at 10:31 PM.

  6. #5
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,560

    Re: 6 relievers or 7?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedLegSuperStar View Post
    Why did we get Stanton again? Especially when you have the following:

    Claussen, Majewski, Coffey, Bray, Belisle, Cormier..

    We need some upgrade in the rotation.. Harang and Arroyo are not going to be able to carry this team the way they did last year by over pitching (innings, pitch count, limited rest, etc..). You don't know what your going to get out of Lohse or Milton. Who knows if Claussen is able to return to form. If Bob did any spending this year it should be on pitching especially now when you add Soriano and Lee to an already power friendly division. I think instead of spending boo-koos of money on a closer.. why not go with in house names like Brad Salmon or newly added to the 40 man.. David Shafer? This team needs to focus on needs versus wants. A-Gon was a decent signing and I think may have doubters changing their tune wants the season gets under way. But I hope the Stanton signing don't start a trend of signing "hot" names just cause they are out there.. not unless you plan on dealing some of what you have. Purhaps that is the case.. but I also read on here that the Reds have interest in another catcher in Gregg Zaun.. not what we need Krivsky. Spend what money we have on Pitching or a combination of Offense/Defense.. don't stock up on 40 year olds, ex/current Twins, and too much of one position player..
    Good Post. I hope it means a trade of Cormier myself but something tells me Stanton is the answer to the closer question or a backfill for Bray who will be closer by default. I hope not.
    Last edited by mth123; 11-25-2006 at 10:47 PM.

  7. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    580

    Re: 6 relievers or 7?

    Quote Originally Posted by RedLegSuperStar View Post
    Why did we get Stanton again? Especially when you have the following:

    Claussen, Majewski, Coffey, Bray, Belisle, Cormier..

    We need some upgrade in the rotation.. Harang and Arroyo are not going to be able to carry this team the way they did last year by over pitching (innings, pitch count, limited rest, etc..). You don't know what your going to get out of Lohse or Milton. Who knows if Claussen is able to return to form. If Bob did any spending this year it should be on pitching especially now when you add Soriano and Lee to an already power friendly division. I think instead of spending boo-koos of money on a closer.. why not go with in house names like Brad Salmon or newly added to the 40 man.. David Shafer? This team needs to focus on needs versus wants. A-Gon was a decent signing and I think may have doubters changing their tune wants the season gets under way. But I hope the Stanton signing don't start a trend of signing "hot" names just cause they are out there.. not unless you plan on dealing some of what you have. Purhaps that is the case.. but I also read on here that the Reds have interest in another catcher in Gregg Zaun.. not what we need Krivsky. Spend what money we have on Pitching or a combination of Offense/Defense.. don't stock up on 40 year olds, ex/current Twins, and too much of one position player..

    The only problem i have with getting that starting pitcher is that its going to have to come through a trade. And if you want to get a pitcher worth talking about your not getting it without giving up Dunn, Freel, Denorfia, Prospects or a combo of those. I have no problem with trading those players but what i dont like is the people crying for pitching that dont want to give up offense.

    As for Krivsky i have no problem of with a Pitching/Defensive plan but dont go at it half-hearted. And that means you cant run an infield of Hatteberg, Phillips, Encarnacion, and Gonzo out there with an outfield of Dunn, Griffey, and RF and preach Defense. It doesnt work. If our goal is to have a good defense then Griffey has no place in CF and Dunn has no place on this team.

    If your going to preach pitching then you cant have a #3-5 starters of Milton, Loshe, and Claussen/Ramirez/Belisle/whoever and no closer.

    Im a full believer in the Pitching and Defense plan. What im not a believer in is the plan that we got going on right now which is a mixture of a little bit of everything. But im willing to give Krivsky a pass until i see the 25-man roster on April 1st. If it looks like it does now then we are going with the Pot Luck Plan. If were going with Pitching and Defense like Krivsky says then i say lets dive all in.

  8. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2004
    Posts
    1,564

    Re: 6 relievers or 7?

    Right now we have Coffey, Bray, Majik, Cormier, Belisle & Stanton.
    All of whom are healthy right now.
    By the time they come north one of them will be hurt.
    By mid season, three of them will be hurt.

    Maybe Majewski was just overworked last year with the world cup of baseball thingee in the spring, but often "overwork" injuries lead to mechanical problems which become chronic injury type troubles.

    Belisle has been healthy for four weeks in a row exactly...what twice now? You can't count on the guy any more than you can count on Brandon Claussen to rebound. Sure he might give you 80 good innings without control problems, but he might also spend three quarters of the year on the DL. Back problems don't tend to dissappear.

    Likewise with Cormier and Stanton, yup they're older reliable bullpen parts. This time last year that's exactly what the beat writers said about Chris Hammond and Kent Merker. Narron managed to chew those arms up as well. Why would you believe these guys are immune?

    You need depth throughout the organization in order to succeed and these reds don't have that. They need to stop paying guys for what they did in the past and find some ruleV/6 year guys who can fill specific roles.

  9. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    12,777

    Re: 6 relievers or 7?

    Reds will have 7 relievers. Count on it. It has become standard for this team.

    The number of relievers is less important than the quality. There are major issues here.

    Right now, Coffey and Bray are pretty good young middle inning types. Stanton is a good setup man if he is healthy.

    But there is no closer. Belisle has back problems. Cormier was ineffective as a Red last year. Majik is definitely a question mark after last year.

    Frankly, it's hard for me to understand why Schoenweis and Weathers aren't coming back (if true with Stormy). They were the only reliable guys at the end of 2005.

    I see serious bullpen problems unless there are changes/additions made by opening day.

  10. #9
    2009: Fail Ltlabner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    7,441

    Re: 6 relievers or 7?

    Quote Originally Posted by Shaknb8k View Post
    If it looks like it does now then we are going with the Pot Luck Plan. If were going with Pitching and Defense like Krivsky says then i say lets dive all in.
    I don't think it's a "pot luck" plan as much as it is you don't switch from all homeruns to pitching and defense over night (or even in one season). Especially not when you are anchored down by Milton and Jr's contracts (neither of whom define defense or pitching).

    Krivsky has made serrious inroads towards switching over to pitching/defense model but things will really pick up speed once Jr and Milton are "off the books" so to speak.

    As far as the bullpen goes I wouldn't mind seeing Schoweinwitz back if it's for a short, reasonable contract. None of this 4 year deal baloney that was mentioned in one of these threads.
    Last edited by Ltlabner; 11-27-2006 at 11:26 AM.
    a super volcano of ridonkulous suckitude.

    I simply don't have access to a "cares about RBI" place in my psyche. There is a "mildly curious about OBI%" alcove just before the acid filled lake guarded by robot snipers with lasers which leads to the "cares about RBI" antechamber though. - Nate

  11. #10
    Passion for the game Team Clark's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2000
    Posts
    8,104

    Re: 6 relievers or 7?

    I am wondering what the possibilities are of Bray starting the year in AAA as a closer. He should still have options. He has a closer type breaking ball but needs to be exposed to more "pressure" situations.

    BTW, I like 6 releivers to start the season.
    It's absolutely pathetic that people can't have an opinion from actually watching games and supplementing that with stats. If you voice an opinion that doesn't fit into a black/white box you will get completely misrepresented and basically called a tobacco chewing traditionalist...
    Cedric 3/24/08

  12. #11
    Member Spring~Fields's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2001
    Posts
    8,630

    Re: 6 relievers or 7?

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    Reds will have 7 relievers. Count on it. It has become standard for this team.

    The number of relievers is less important than the quality. There are major issues here.

    Right now, Coffey and Bray are pretty good young middle inning types. Stanton is a good setup man if he is healthy.

    But there is no closer. Belisle has back problems. Cormier was ineffective as a Red last year. Majik is definitely a question mark after last year.

    Frankly, it's hard for me to understand why Schoenweis and Weathers aren't coming back (if true with Stormy). They were the only reliable guys at the end of 2005.

    I see serious bullpen problems unless there are changes/additions made by opening day.
    I agree with you.

    With the Reds lacking any solid candidates in the starting positions 3,4,5 are they already setting themselves up for overusing the bullpen which will eventually lead to its demise during the regular season? I think so.
    Last edited by Spring~Fields; 11-27-2006 at 12:07 PM.

  13. #12
    Member Z-Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    436

    Re: 6 relievers or 7?

    I know in the national league it is more important to have good players on the bench. As injury prone as this team can be, bench players have a even greater roll. Injured players can be placed on the DL and your AAA Vets can come and fill in (D. Wise, etc.)

    As much as our bullpen will get used I think it would be almost stupid not to have the extra bullpen guy. I say keep the arms fresh as possible. And if we have 7 capable guys to plug in there. Do it.
    WHEN DOES IT STOP!?!?


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