Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 7 FirstFirst 1234567 LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 95

Thread: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

  1. #46
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,033

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    Numbers I can't get past:

    Seasons since 2000 that Jeff Conine had a slugging % above .450 - 2003.

    Seasons since 2000 that Jeff Conine had an On Base % above .350 - 2001, 2005

    David Weathers HR/9 in 2006 - 1.47

    David Weathers BB/9 in 2006 - 4.15

    David Weathers BABIP in 2006 - .236

    Rheal Cormier ERA in 2005 - 5.89

    Rheal Cormier HR/9 in 2005 - 1.71

    Rheal Cormier WHIP in 2005 - 1.52

    Rheal Cormier BABIP in 2005 - .322

    Rheal Cormier ERA when he was acquired in 2006 - 1.59

    Rheal Cormier WHIP when he was acquired in 2006 - 1.18

    Rheal Cormier BABIP when he was acquired in 2006 - .238

    Alex Gonzalez OPS per year since 2000 - .548, .680, .621, .756, .689, .687, .696

    Chad Moeller OPS per year since 2000 - .534, .627, .852, .770, .568, .624, .507

    Juan Castro OPS per year since 2000 - ..649, .563, .607, .678, .655, .665, .632

    Kyle Lohse HR/9 as a Twin by year starting in 2001 - 1.59, 1.30, 1.25, 1.30, 1.11, 1.13

    Kyle Lohse WHIP as a Twin by year starting in 2001 - 1.45, 1.39, 1.27, 1.63, 1.43, 1.65

    Kyle Lohse BABIP as a Twin by year starting in 2001 - .308, .283, .291, .327, .316, .350

    Estimated Reds Payroll 2007 - $75 Million

    Estimated 2007 Salary Jeff Conine - $2 Million (2.7% of Total)

    Estimated 2007 Salary David Weathers - $2.5 Million (3.3% of Total)

    Estimated 2007 Salary Rheal Cormier - $2.25 Million (3% of Total)

    Estimated 2007 Salary Alex Gonzalez - $3 Million (4% of Total)

    Estimated 2007 Salary Chad Moeller - $.75 Million (1% of Total)

    Estimated 2007 Salary Juan Castro - $.91 Million (1.2% of Total)

    Estimated 2007 Salary Kyle Lohse - $6 Million (8% of Total)

    Estimated 2007 Salary of these players - $17.41 Million (23.2% of Total)

    Yet some seem to be applauding WK for not going out and tying up a large % of his payroll in questionable talent. This "plan" is worse than doing nothing IMO.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    Brett William Moore Will M's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2006
    Location
    Crescent Springs KY
    Posts
    3,709

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    mth -

    $17M doesn't buy what it used to, especially when the big ( and not so big ) free agents don't want to play for the Reds.

    Do you really want a repeat of 2006 when we couldn't find a 5th starter or a reliever with an ERA under 7?
    Stanton/Weathers/etc aren't great but they sure are better than Mays/White/Hammond.

    If Stanton/Weathers/Cormier can keep their ERAs under 4.5 at GABP then they will be worth their salaries.

    Fans will come out if they feel the Reds are trying to win.
    Conine/Stanton/etal will be worth their salaries in that regard.
    Fans won't get excited about Geoff Geary, Brian Bruney, Mike Wuertz, Frank Francisco, Manny DelCarmen , etc. They would look at guys like this and think ' here we go again - Joe Mays, Brian Reith, etc '

    If Lohse pitches 200 innings with an ERA under 5 he will be worth $6M for 2007. Did you see what free agents got this winter?
    .

  4. #48
    Man Pills
    Join Date
    Dec 2000
    Location
    Philadelphia
    Posts
    25,092

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    Quote Originally Posted by Will M View Post
    mth -

    $17M doesn't buy what it used to, especially when the big ( and not so big ) free agents don't want to play for the Reds.

    Do you really want a repeat of 2006 when we couldn't find a 5th starter or a reliever with an ERA under 7?
    Stanton/Weathers/etc aren't great but they sure are better than Mays/White/Hammond.

    If Stanton/Weathers/Cormier can keep their ERAs under 4.5 at GABP then they will be worth their salaries.

    Fans will come out if they feel the Reds are trying to win.
    Conine/Stanton/etal will be worth their salaries in that regard.
    Fans won't get excited about Geoff Geary, Brian Bruney, Mike Wuertz, Frank Francisco, Manny DelCarmen , etc. They would look at guys like this and think ' here we go again - Joe Mays, Brian Reith, etc '

    If Lohse pitches 200 innings with an ERA under 5 he will be worth $6M for 2007. Did you see what free agents got this winter?

    Lohse has thrown 200 innings only once in his career: 2003. I'm not saying it can't happen again, I'm just saying be careful making that a hope.

  5. #49
    2009: Fail Ltlabner's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    7,441

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    Quote Originally Posted by Will M View Post
    Fans will come out if they feel the Reds are trying to win.
    Unfortunatley, the fans will not return in significant numbers unless and untill the Reds win and do so consistantly. After so many horrible years since the late 1970's (with the exception of one) the Reds are mearly one of an ocean of entertainment choices in Cincinnati. Mearly "trying" will not get their attention at this point.
    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

  6. #50
    Miami Redhawks Redhook's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    2,257

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    Quote Originally Posted by Will M View Post
    mth -


    Fans will come out if they feel the Reds are trying to win.
    Are you convinced the Reds are doing everything they can to win? I'm sure not. This patchwork assemblage of a team has shown me they have no idea how to win.

    I predict the fans will only come out this year after Homer Bailey arrives, whether they're winning or losing. This team has no hype, the interest in Griffey has waned, and hasn't had a player in atleast a few years that people "talk" about. Homer could/will do that.
    "....the two players I liked watching the most were Barry Larkin and Eric Davis. I was suitably entertained by their effortless skill that I didn't need them crashing into walls like a squirrel on a coke binge." - dsmith421

    www.kylevoska.com - Golfer? Check out my blog for golf tips.

  7. #51
    Matt's Dad RANDY IN INDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Brownsburg, Indiana
    Posts
    15,268

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    If Krivsky, indeed, does have a plan, I would hope the major focus is beyond this season and foolhardy spending.
    Talent is God Given: be humble.
    Fame is man given: be thankful.
    Conceit is self given: be careful.

    John Wooden

  8. #52
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,183

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    Here's my biggest problem. Over the past few years:

    - The FA price for star talent has increased
    - The FA price for mediocre talent has skyrocketed
    - The FA price for replacement level talent skyrocketed
    - The price of players making the major league minimum has gone up by a $100K

    More so than ever, the optimal use of money is giving a ton of money to a select core of players who you simply must have, in terms of talent, in order to compete -- and to get the rest of your production from guys making very little money. Sure, it would be great if we could get star production from underpaid youth. However, if you can get average player production from your underpaid youth, you can afford to pay star players star prices.

    When you start filling out the middle of your roster (talent wise) with market priced players, you no longer have the money to pay market prices to the star talent. This means that your only option is developing that star talent. I'd much rather pay 4 star players star money and focus on developing a decent team around them than pay 15 decent guys their market prices and worry about developing 4 start players myself.

    The "risk" in going this route is that if you misidentify your star players, you're in big trouble. You can't afford to pay a Zito $17 Mil to be your "ace". However, the risk in spending your money on mostly "decent" players is two fold: 1.) you have to develop those stars to compete, and 2.) if you do develop decent players, you have no where to play them.

    If you pay stars and happen to develop more stars, well, good for you - you're now the best team in the league. (see St Louis 2 & 3 years ago) If you pay stars and develop mediocre talent, well, you're still competitive (see St. Louis last year). If you pay for mediocre talent and fail to develop stars, or develop them and can't pay them because you're paying the mediocre talent (see KC), well, then you suck.

    In 1999, the Reds had 4 players making more than 3MM per:

    Greg Vaughn: $ 5,615,428
    Barry Larkin: $ 5,300,000
    Denny Neagle: $ 4,750,000
    Pete Harnisch: $ 3,000,000

    They paid for legit talent and won because they got great production from a lot of "underpaid" young players like Casey, Graves, Williamson, Reese, and Cameron. The problem is that moving in to the 2000s, we decided to replace Vaughn with Junior (good choice, bad luck), Larkin with an older more expensive and less productive Larkin, give Bichette star money (pure folly), and as the next few years progressed, decide that the decidedly mediocre support cast (Casey, Graves, Boone) star money.

    I think WK is on the right path. He has yet to give star money to mediocre talent. The question is how he approaches the supporting cast. If he continues to pay the replaceable Alex Gonzalez's (Phillips at SS, Freel at 2B for the short term) and Mike Stanton's (Salmon) of the world decent dough that, combined, could buy another star, we're going to remain dependent on developing the top end talent -- and god knows we don't exactly have a good track record of being able to do that. I'd much rather count on my minor league system for 8 average players than 2 stars.
    Last edited by RedsManRick; 01-07-2007 at 04:03 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.

  9. #53
    Redsmetz redsmetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Winton Place
    Posts
    11,290

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    Quote Originally Posted by Redhook View Post
    Are you convinced the Reds are doing everything they can to win? I'm sure not. This patchwork assemblage of a team has shown me they have no idea how to win.

    I predict the fans will only come out this year after Homer Bailey arrives, whether they're winning or losing. This team has no hype, the interest in Griffey has waned, and hasn't had a player in atleast a few years that people "talk" about. Homer could/will do that.
    I've said this repeatedly and want to add my voice on this excellent thread (with lots of divergent discussion) that I believe the plan is to put a team which is nominally competitive on the field this year without sacrificing what little talent we have in the minor league system.

    Elsewhere we have three threads going about what will happen if the Reds finishing the same, with a losing record or a winning record. I'm fully expecting them to do about the same as last year, but with the eye to the future. We've heard that before, but we've not had anyone willing to rebuild this organization. That's what I believe is being attempted. Yes, we need to stock more prospects, but that will come, I believe, in time. I don't see what little action there has been as "more of the same".

  10. #54
    GOREDSGO32
    Guest

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    Quote Originally Posted by Ltlabner View Post
    I really don't want to get into "the trade v.765" discussions, but since the cost of starting pitching (and pitching in general) has continued to rise the concept that we could could trade Lopez and Kearns for two "solid" starters if we had only waited is laughable.

    I'm thinking you'd have to give up both of them and perhaps a quality prospect to convience any team right now to trade one true stud starter, let alone two. And what team out there has so many stud starters laying around that they'd be willing to trade one?

    So we could trade them for a less than stud starter who *projects* to be good one day (read: prospect). And if we traded the both of them for a "could be good one day" pitcher (or even two "could be good one day" pitchers) don't see that as any different whatsoever than trading them for 2 middle relievers and misc. component pieces.

    You don't wanna get into it but you argue semantics over a line in my post? By solid starters, I mean an under the radar type player that could come through with a Jimmy Haynes, Pete Harnisch, Jose Acevado type year. Or strike on another Bronson Arroyo - a cheap guy on the odd end out of a rotation that has had solid career numbers. Remember we only traded Wily Mo Pena for him, and he was an early Cy Young candidate.

    By solid I mean a guy that is probably around Eric Milton range, except has had good career numbers and marred by injuries recently and hoping to cash in on a "solid" year. There's no pretending you trade these players for an All Star pitcher, you do that by building up the team like my post was about. And whatever the trade was, chances are the Reds could have gotten more in the offseason, but its over and done with regardless.

  11. #55
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,033

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    Quote Originally Posted by Will M View Post
    mth -

    $17M doesn't buy what it used to, especially when the big ( and not so big ) free agents don't want to play for the Reds.

    Do you really want a repeat of 2006 when we couldn't find a 5th starter or a reliever with an ERA under 7?
    Stanton/Weathers/etc aren't great but they sure are better than Mays/White/Hammond.

    If Stanton/Weathers/Cormier can keep their ERAs under 4.5 at GABP then they will be worth their salaries.

    Fans will come out if they feel the Reds are trying to win.
    Conine/Stanton/etal will be worth their salaries in that regard.
    Fans won't get excited about Geoff Geary, Brian Bruney, Mike Wuertz, Frank Francisco, Manny DelCarmen , etc. They would look at guys like this and think ' here we go again - Joe Mays, Brian Reith, etc '

    If Lohse pitches 200 innings with an ERA under 5 he will be worth $6M for 2007. Did you see what free agents got this winter?
    We just disagree on expectations from these guys I guess.

    - I think Cormier/Weathers will be the 2007 version of Hammond/White with the only difference being that Chris Hammond is a better pitcher than Rheal Cormier.

    - I see nothing in Kyle Lohse history that leads me to believe that he is capable of 200 Innings at below 5 ERA. 160 Innings at 5.50 is more likely IMO. Remember that he was significantly aided by first time around the league numbers in 2006.

    I personally do/did not want to see the Reds go long term on questionable guys. But if 2007 isn't an option then use this money on Harang and Dunn to keep them around and give the Bailey/Votto/Bruce era a chance to have an actual core to build on.

    Spending $17 Million doesn't seem to be about 2007, it seems like it hurts the future as well from where I sit.
    Last edited by mth123; 01-07-2007 at 06:36 PM.

  12. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2002
    Posts
    796

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    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.
    The defense and pitching were light years better in 2006 than they were in 2005. For the first time since Pokey left, the Reds defense had two plus infield defenders. And while the offseason pickup of Gonzalez has considerable risk, it probably adds a third plus defender to the infield--Gonzalez is an average defender, at worst. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Reds end up with the best defensive infield in the NL in 2007. (St. Louis' middle infielders are notably weak, even though they have Gold Glovers on either corner.)

    Of course, the OF defense is a problem, but I think Griffey's hand injury should help to bring an easy resolution to this problem in the near term.

    When you look at the win shares for the defense and pitching, it is pretty astounding at the huge strides that were made in Wayne's first season as GM. The 2004-2005 defenders and pitchers were historically pathetic, putrid, woeful, atrocious, etc.

    Code:
    	        2004	2005	2006
    Hitting WS	151.6	149.5	106.1
    Fielding WS	26.6	26.6	42.2
    Pitching WS	50.0	42.6	94.0
    
    Average Age	28.4	28.6	29.6
    Even though the club was slightly older in 2006 than it was in 2005, I think it was somewhat irrelevant. Coming into 2006, the club kept a young core in place, went older at 1B, and went younger at 2B and C.

    In 2007, the return to a peak-age SS is a positive trend. Conine and Moeller are part-time chaff, and I don't anticipate that either of them will get more than platoon-like playing time in 2007. Nearly all of the key players are in their twenties or early thirties.
    Last edited by D-Man; 01-07-2007 at 07:10 PM.

  13. #57
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,452

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    Quote Originally Posted by Will M View Post
    1.

    Pitching staff one year ago ( from memory )-
    Harang
    Milton
    Dave Williams
    Claussen
    Paul Wilson

    Weathers
    Rick White
    Hammond
    Coffey
    Belisle

    Pitching staff now -
    Harang
    Arroyo
    Lohse
    Milton
    EZ / Belisle / Bailey waiting in the wings

    Weathers
    Stanton
    Bray
    Majik
    Coffey
    Cormier

    This 2007 staff is MUCH better than the 2006 version

    2. How many every day major leagurers do you think are hanging around in AAA or pitching long relief? To say Krisky is failing at trying to find value on the cheap is an odd opinion.
    1. So he's added Bronson Arroyo. Praised him for it when he did it. Impact pitchers other than Bronson Arroyo added to the mix? Oh yeah, that would be exactly no one.

    2. I think there's roughly two dozen unproven guys in big league rotations or bullpens or in the high minors who'll have some sort of impact in the majors over the next two years. That's perpetually that case. In fact that figure, if anything, is conservative.

    Krivsky hasn't added a single guy who fits that profile, not one. I find it an odd opinion that there aren't any hard throwers out there who might take off with a bullpen conversion or kids who struggled when they got advanced too rapidly, but who'll do better now that they've got some experience. There most certainly are and the Reds most certainly haven't brought in a single one of them this offseason.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  14. #58
    Charlie Brown All-Star IslandRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2001
    Location
    Melbourne, FL
    Posts
    4,866

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    The question is how he approaches the supporting cast. ... I'd much rather count on my minor league system for 8 average players than 2 stars.
    First of all, kudos for yet another excellent post.

    I think we can all agree that we need to build a productive farm system. We're never going to be able to sustain success without it; like you said, it's not just about producing stars but also the solid contributors and the role players, so we don't have to overpay for non-stars and stars alike.

    The problem is, what to do when there are a lot of holes to fill and the farm system isn't yet producing those guys? A GM can spread a little money around for actual major leaguers, or commit to fishing the fringe talent pool and cross his fingers for luck. (I'm talking about the basic philosophy for filling short-term holes. A GM should never stop trying to upgrade the organization's overall talent base any way he can.)

    I'm OK with churning replacement-level guys when it comes to the end of the bench or bullpen. I'm less comfortable with it for guys who will get significant playing time. Replacement level is an important concept but it's easy to confuse it with the notion that a certain level of performance is instantly obtainable at will, and that's not the case. Teams can, and do, get sub-replacement performances all the time. Especially when it comes to the starting rotation, a team can easily spend all year trying and failing to stop the bleeding.

    Now, I can go for the notion that we're not really going to compete in 2007 so it would have been better to save the money and get an impact player who would still be here in 2008+, and if we take on water from half a dozen roster spots all year, big deal. Good luck selling that to Castellini, though.
    For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible

  15. #59
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,452

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    Quote Originally Posted by D-Man View Post
    The defense and pitching were light years better in 2006 than they were in 2005. For the first time since Pokey left, the Reds defense had two plus infield defenders. And while the offseason pickup of Gonzalez has considerable risk, it probably adds a third plus defender to the infield--Gonzalez is an average defender, at worst. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if the Reds end up with the best defensive infield in the NL in 2007. (St. Louis' middle infielders are notably weak, even though they have Gold Glovers on either corner.)

    Of course, the OF defense is a problem, but I think Griffey's hand injury should help to bring an easy resolution to this problem in the near term.
    Well, the DER was up slightly from 2005, but it was still below where it was in 2002-2006. Gonzalez hopefully can drag it back up the .700 region. We'll see if the CF situation gets addressed. If it doesn't that leaves the defense in limbo. Certainly it makes a return to the robust Pokey-era defense of 1999 (.731) and 2000 (.710) an impossible dream.

    Quote Originally Posted by D-Man
    When you look at the win shares for the defense and pitching, it is pretty astounding at the huge strides that were made in Wayne's first season as GM. The 2004-2005 defenders and pitchers were historically pathetic, putrid, woeful, atrocious, etc.

    Code:
    	        2004	2005	2006
    Hitting WS	151.6	149.5	106.1
    Fielding WS	26.6	26.6	42.2
    Pitching WS	50.0	42.6	94.0
    
    Average Age	28.4	28.6	29.6
    The pitching Win Shares gain mostly can be attributed to two things - Bronson Arroyo and cutting out guys who had negative Win Shares (-10 in 2005, -1 in 2006). The total Win Shares swing on that latter part, once you figure in the positive Win Shares given to mediocre, instead of horrific, pitchers probably comes out to around 20.

    Well, you only make the jump from horrific to mediocre once. It's made and, far as I can tell, the jump from mediocre to good isn't in the cards with the pitchers the Reds have on hand. Mind you, the greatest single driver in that leap was Arroyo, who had a career year. Chances are he won't be quite as good in 2007. Harang might not be either. They could both fall back to 15 WS and still be fine pitchers, but who's joining them? Do the Reds have another pitcher who's going to get more than 10 WS in 2007, let alone something in the mid-teens?

    Lohse got 10 in 2005, 10 in 2003 and 11 2002. So maybe him. Milton hasn't done better than 8 in a season since 2001. So where does the plan move from here? The addition of Mike Stanton isn't going to mean much in the grand scheme. We've basically been treated to a winter of stagnation. Joy.

    Quote Originally Posted by D-Man
    Even though the club was slightly older in 2006 than it was in 2005, I think it was somewhat irrelevant. Coming into 2006, the club kept a young core in place, went older at 1B, and went younger at 2B and C.

    In 2007, the return to a peak-age SS is a positive trend. Conine and Moeller are part-time chaff, and I don't anticipate that either of them will get more than platoon-like playing time in 2007. Nearly all of the key players are in their twenties or early thirties.
    And three notables could be gone in two years. Honestly, I'm at a loss as to what the "core" of this team is. Arroyo and Harang are the pitching staff. Dunn's a core bat. Are EdE and Phillips core? I'd like to think they can be, but they might just be Kearns/Lopez level guys (two young guys who were shed during 2006). People seem to think Bailey, Votto and Bruce are right around the corner (desperation reflex, IMO -- I mean, imagine if they're not, that would be scary). My take is Bailey's 21, Votto's as close as Ben Broussard was in 2001 and Bruce isn't making any impact until at least 2009.

    Gonzalez is at the tail end of his prime. That's the kind of guy you add in a go-for-it situation. I'm fine with going for it, but right now Alex Gonzalez, Mike Stanton and Jeff Conine constitute the push. You'll excuse me for yawning.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  16. #60
    RZ Chamber of Commerce Unassisted's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2003
    Location
    San Antonio
    Posts
    13,463

    Re: Wayne Krivsky's "Plan"

    Maybe "Wayne's Plan" was short-circuited by "Bob's Plan," which might have been "acquire some bullpen help and see if we can win in 2006?" If that's the case, then it was "Bob's Plan" led to "the trade" in May.

    If Wayne's Plan was actually Bob's Plan, I don't want a change in ownership. It would also explain why there wouldn't be any public second-guessing of the "trade" coming from the offices in GABP, unless it came from Bob himself.
    /r/reds


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