I'd like to see a couple of the geezers have Type A free agent seasons so Wayne can let 'em walk for more draft picks.
That's something WaynO seems to understand, and it's a useful long term tactic.
WaynO's not all bad, but his flaws are frustrating, maddening ones.
"Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field?" ~ Jim Bouton
I say this without any value judgement whatsoever about what they're doing....
It may seem like a grand plan obscured by the clouds but after the sun burns off the fog, it'll mostly resemble making do without raising payroll.....
Basically, this isn't going to be a quick fix. It's most likely going to be stop gaps and rabbit's feet until the farm system develops into a pipeline. Or perhaps a better characterization is a long series of many small moves that hopefully collectively payoff until the cavalry comes. Developing prospects is a high risk endeavor, however, so the cavalry may never come via that route...
To me the plan isn't that profound-payroll is going to be X, 30% of it is wasted on turds (Griffey/Larue/Milton) so they'll do what they can to lessen the dead weight (jettison Larue's final year of a bad contract) without committing any of X to blocking cheaper alternatives they are trying to develop---basically its ride out the storm and hope for the best....
Alright now for a value judgement: Having a FO that at least shows signs of looking at the long haul (and thus has a plan) is a good thing even if their decision making hasn't bore the test of time yet.... '07 might be brutal but I don't think there is sufficient reason to jump off the bandwagon.
Last edited by jojo; 01-05-2007 at 07:18 PM. Reason: had to add a value judgement.... :-)
Many times the quality of the prospect is not all that impressive.Originally Posted by Ltlabner
People say we can trade a "weathers/stanton/randa/conine/" etc. for prospects.
The result being the " chick's,machado's" etc of the world.
Personally i would hope for some quality pitching from stanton because i doubt our return on those type of guys including loshe, cormier, and conine would be much other than maybe help for louisville.
Now i am not speaking of our other guys like a Freel or someone like that who may bring you a Harang type as guillen did a few years ago.
I just dont think the older men will get you anything to speak of !
You might be on to something if they were acting on the things they have near total control over: moving Griffey out of center, dumping Milton (paying half his salary), locking Harang up to a decent contract. Unfortunately, I agree with the last sentence of your penultimate paragraph: "basically it's ride out the storm and hope for the best," which, of course, is no plan at all. Seriously, that's just throwing your hands up and hoping for the best. And if there is one truism in baseball, it's that no matter how good you think your prospects are, only a minute percentage will actually contribute--most of the heavy lifting of building a team is done through trades.
“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
Position: Player - How Acquired (proven = established level of performance, prospect = unproven youth)
Oakland A's
C: Kendall - Trade (proven)
1B: Johnson - Drafted by A's
2B: Ellis - Trade (prospect)
SS: Crosby - Drafted by A's
3B: Chavez - Drafted by A's
LF: Swisher - Drafted by A's
CF: Kotsay - Trade (proven)
RF: Bradley - Trade (proven)
DH: Piazza - FA signee
SP: Harden - Drafted by A's
SP: Blanton - Drafted by A's
SP: Loaiza - FA signee
SP: Haren - Trade (prospect)
SP: Kennedy - Trade (proven)
CL: Street - Drafted by A's
Minnesota Twins:
C: Mauer - Drafted by Twins
1B: Morneau - Drafted by Twins
2B: Castillo - Trade (proven)
SS: Bartlett - Trade (prospect)
3B: Punto - Trade (prospect)
LF: Kubel - Drafted by Twins
CF: Hunter - Drafted by Twins
RF: Cuddyer - Drafted by Twins
DH: White - FA signee
SP: Santana - Rule V
SP: Bonser - Trade (prospect)
SP: Silva - Trade (prospect)
SP: Garza - Drafted by Twins
SP: Baker - Drafted by Twins
(SP: Liriano - Trade (prospect))
CL: Nathan - Trade (prospect)
So here are two teams we most often like to use as representatives for this model. A few observations:
- The "heavy lifting" in both clubs is done a by a combination of prospects drafted and developed by the team and players who were traded for before they established themselves as legitimate major leaguers.
- Veteran players on both teams are the guys who round out the roster -- not the "core"
- In order to acquire the prospects who turned in to core guys, those teams had to part with proven veteran talent which still had value at the time of the trade (Mulder, Pierzynski)
- Harang could be our Brad Radke, but we still need a Liriano/Harden and we can't afford to buy that guy
- Adam Dunn can be our Eric Chavez, or Torii Hunter (good talent paid well for his services), but we still need Mauer, Morneau, and Swisher.
Last edited by RedsManRick; 01-05-2007 at 08:02 PM.
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.
We're in agreement. In no way do I think that this team shouldn't trade for young unproven talent. My only objection is to counting on the farm itself to provide the core consistently. It simply can't. There has to be heavy rotation to find the right mix; activity on the trade front should be a near-constant.
“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
True FCB. You cannot count on your own talent to provide the entire base. However, you also have to be willing to turn your current major league "core" in to prospects occasionally. Only a small number of your core guys can cost market value prices and, arguably, with Milton, Griffey, and Dunn, the Reds are at their current quota.
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.
If that weak list of obvious tactics constitutes "the plan," then Wayne isn't bringing anything to the party, because he's simply doing what every other team in baseball is doing.
How is that plan different than the Pirates'? Or the Royals'? Or the Brewers'? Or (shudder) his predecessor's?
"The plan" better be a whole lot more inventive than that.
Makes all the routine posts.
Great post and I agree 100%.
That's kind of like saying, "I'm going to cure cancer by orally administering something that targets the DNA of cancerous cells".... The devil is in the details though....
My concern is that sometimes WK's plan is:
1. Find a target that appears to fill a positional need (All the relievers, Lohse, Conine, etc.)
2. Do whatever it takes to get them, unfortunately including signing longer contracts than conventional wisdom says they need or for more money (Cormier, Stanton), trading prospects when you may not have to (Conine, others as well, my memory fails me) or overpay (Do I have to type it?)
This kind of "win now, screw later" reckless abandon is what troubles me. I like the fact that he makes moves (minus huge FA signings), but I wonder if his competative nature takes over sometimes and he's just "gotta have" player X and opinion and pride starts to outweigh logic and reality.
If you ain't first, you're last! - Ricky Bobby
In fact, I would disagree with your assessment. I saw the Cormier additional signing as doing what was needed to get the player they wanted at that time. I still suspect Cormier may be traded this offseason. As for Stanton, I think the two years was what the market was requiring.My concern is that sometimes WK's plan is:
1. Find a target that appears to fill a positional need (All the relievers, Lohse, Conine, etc.)
2. Do whatever it takes to get them, unfortunately including signing longer contracts than conventional wisdom says they need or for more money (Cormier, Stanton), trading prospects when you may not have to (Conine, others as well, my memory fails me) or overpay (Do I have to type it?
This kind of "win now, screw later" reckless abandon is what troubles me. I like the fact that he makes moves (minus huge FA signings), but I wonder if his competative nature takes over sometimes and he's just "gotta have" player X and opinion and pride starts to outweigh logic and reality.
Most people agree that the players we sent to Philadelphia probably weren't in our long term plans. How do we define "prospect". I'm not sure, at this point, who WK has overpaid, but I'm typing on the rush.
I think what Wayne is doing now (collecting the older guys on short contracts) is meant to further bolster the farm. Think of it this way. Conine / Hatteberg and others like them. The Reds play mediocre ball in 2007, but not in serious contention. They can trade these players if there is a market for younger, cheaper prospects. If they can't be traded, we keep them and at the end of the season they are offered arbitration (most) which are them turned into draft picks. Either way, we're getting younger, cheaper players out of them and since each is signed to a 1 year contract or so, Wayne is hoping he'll catch some of those "playing for a contract years" out of them.
'When I'm not longer rapping, I want to open up an ice cream parlor and call myself Scoop Dogg.'
-Snoop on his retirement
Your Mom is happy.
It's also the same infertile middle ground the Reds have been plowing for the past six years.
If that's his plan, then he's ignoring steps two and three. Dependent on whether Jr. plays CF this year, he might be ignoring a big part of step one as well. Mostly what I see is not trading prospects and filling holes with short-term veterans. If that's all it amounts to, then it's doomed to failure. The parts of any plans you might want to dream up that aren't getting attention are the parts that make the team significantly better or that bring in compelling young players -- aka the meaningful stuff.
RL, I don't really buy into the notion that veterans today = kids tomorrow. We've been hearing that for years and I don't see the kids. If Krivsky wants young talent then he could be trading for it today with the vets he's already got.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
The way things are currently, I get the feeling that the Reds are merely planning to tread water in 2006 capitalizing on a week division to give the average fan the impression that they are competitive; enough to not suffer a huge attendance drop while position themselves to really compete in 2008. Whether this will work or not is anybody's guess but the Reds certainly will have to acquire some significant pieces between now and 2008 if that is to become a reality.
School's out. What did you expect?
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. |
