Why Are Reds Fans So Negative About The Reds?

[gonelong]

It is lame for some on here that are continually negative while all data suggests in certain instances...there is little to nothing to be negative about.

1. Aurillia has been nearly 80% negative comments in his 2 years. I think the guy did a fine job for hardly any $$$ that is cost the reds.

The main beef with Aurillia was that he was going to take playing time away from Lopez, which he did.

Lopez had the possibility of being a long-term answer at SS/2B while RA was an obvious stopgap. With the team floundering it made more sense to see what you had in Lopez than try to win 80 games with Aurillia.

GL

[M2]

It all gets back to what about baseball people enjoy. If you love the game and just want to spend time at the park no matter what happens on the field, then all of the offseason/front office hijinks aren't such a big deal.

If your enjoyment from baseball comes from winning, then all of the macinations of the front office, player moves, and off-season take on a differnet level of importance. In light of the past 6 years especially, I can understand why people would be frustrated.

Neither camp is "wrong" or "right", just different.

Over the years I've found that folks who put a smiley face on all the offseason moves tend to be angrier/more apathetic if the club doesn't play well.

Meanwhile, a lot of the people who turn a critical eye to the offseason tend to less concerned about winning and losing once the games start. Those are the people who tend to be around in the game threads at the end of a tough season, still able to find some enjoyment in the games themselves.

For the former group, it seems performance is the sole focus. They don't dig into direction and take the view that all they care about is if it works out on the field. Yet when performance goes south, they take it hard.

For the latter group, they generally view performance as the result of direction. So when the individual games happen it becomes a matter of "I like baseball" and losses don't seem to linger with them.

At least that's been the zeitgeist around here during the 21st century.

[Always Red]

The main beef with Aurillia was that he was going to take playing time away from Lopez, which he did.

Lopez had the possibility of being a long-term answer at SS/2B while RA was an obvious stopgap. With the team floundering it made more sense to see what you had in Lopez than try to win 80 games with Aurillia.

GL

True enough, but a manager like Narron is playing to win 80, in order to save (keep) his job, which is pretty much year to year. To be fair to Narron, he cannot take the same long view that the FO must take. IMHO, that's why Jerry loves the vets- they know enough ways to win to keep him near .500 (OK, just under .500 ). Playing the kids means more mistakes, and perhaps more losses in the early years. If a manager is more established, has a LTC, he will be more willing to let the kids learn and lose at the same time.

I can't blame Narron for that- I'd have to blame the FO for not giving him a clearer plan of attack.

[M2]

For the last 5 years or so someone has started a post as to why the forum was so "negative" when the Reds clearly had some things going their way.

2006 NL Cent 80-82 (.494)
2005 NL Cent 73-89 (.451)
2004 NL Cent 76-86 (.469)
2003 NL Cent 69-93 (.426)
2002 NL Cent 78-84 (.481)

GL

Excellent point. This is a lather, rinse, repeat subject.

[flyer85]

I can't blame Narron for that- I'd have to blame the FO for not giving him a clearer plan of attack.

without a doubt. A manager operating on short term deals has to try and win as many games as possible. If the FO didn't like the "playing the vets" approach they would simply remove the temptation. Instead they bring in even more.

[Heath]

which does nothing for the Reds fans. However, once again Schuerholz demonstrates the ability to accomplish what he set out to accomplish without giving up much.

One in 30 is not real high odds. What did Walt Jocketty improve on an 83-79 team that won a World Series?

[Will M]

I for one am optomistic about the future.
I think the Reds have the 2nd best team in the division ( Brewers being #1 ) but even if 2007 doesn't work out the future is bright.

The Reds have some real talent ( Harang, Arroyo, EE, Phillips ) & some real prospects ( Bailey, Votto, Bruce, Cueto ). Also Milton & Jr's contracts are gone soon.

[Doc. Scott]

Over the years I've found that folks who put a smiley face on all the offseason moves tend to be angrier/more apathetic if the club doesn't play well.

Meanwhile, a lot of the people who turn a critical eye to the offseason tend to less concerned about winning and losing once the games start. Those are the people who tend to be around in the game threads at the end of a tough season, still able to find some enjoyment in the games themselves.

For the former group, it seems performance is the sole focus. They don't dig into direction and take the view that all they care about is if it works out on the field. Yet when performance goes south, they take it hard.

For the latter group, they generally view performance as the result of direction. So when the individual games happen it becomes a matter of "I like baseball" and losses don't seem to linger with them.

At least that's been the zeitgeist around here during the 21st century.

Well put. I wonder if the changing face of baseball thought has had something to do with the rise of the latter viewpoint?

[membengal]

Call it pessimsim, negativity, realism, whatever. It's getting to be a bummer to read some of the posts. The Reds never do anything right, the front office is full of idiots. Jerry's a dope. Wayne's a dope. Bob C. lied, etc. etc. etc.

You have to take the bad with the good. For instance, I pretty consistently sang WK's praises for the flyer on Phillips, and, of course, for the results. At the same time, I have been one of the many hugely disappointed with "the trade". And the off-season "ennui". I refuse to try and spin my disappointment to anything other than what it is. I similarly am pleased with moves that made sense at the time and have worked out. I love EE and his future, and have been vocal on that. At the same time, I will always distrust Narron because of how he handled EE last year. Others disagree that I should distrust Narron. Such is the fodder for message board conversation amongst passionate fans. I don't see why it is should be a "bummer". No team is perfect (this one certainly is not), and fans, being fans, will chew over the moves the team makes, from the front office on down. I wouldn't want it any other way.

[M2]

Well put. I wonder if the changing face of baseball thought has had something to do with the rise of the latter viewpoint?

Possibly. Many of us are Information Age fans. Certainly the more information you absorb about the game the less magical it seems.

It doesn't seem to make people enjoy the game any less, but it does seem to make them watch it differently. It'll be interesting to see how the relationship of fans to the game develops over the next 20 years.

[westofyou]

One in 30 is not real high odds. What did Walt Jocketty improve on an 83-79 team that won a World Series?

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...7c9cf1e3d3#SLN

Summary: It wasn't a brilliant winter, and a lot of things didn't work out the way the Cardinals wanted, but rather than pout about it, Jocketty has resorted to some adequate temporary fixes. Even so, the team increasingly resembles a disjointed collection of compromises and place-holding solutions, instead of a concerted effort to give Albert and Carpenter a top-shelf supporting cast. The trophy's nice, but this team might not match last season's 83 wins, and the rest of the division didn't sit still.

[top6]

I totally agree that fans should be pessimistic and negative, given the performance of the team over the last 6 years. And I am both of those things.

However, I don't see how you can expect fans to be positive when your team's primary spokesman - Marty Brennaman - exudes bitterness and negativity towards the team he is covering - even the young players who could be part of a more positive future.

For example, I just read an interview where he says he is "pretty close to giving up" on Adam Dunn. Great. I'm sure some casual fans will read that and "give up" on him as well. That means less jerseys sold, less tickets sold, and less money for the Reds. Nice work, Marty.

Again, I'm not even saying get rid of Marty B. (although I personally would be thrilled); just pointing out that any negative attitude towards the Reds might just start in their radio booth.

(Link to that interview: http://www.amnews.com/public_html/?m...15&format=html.) (linked to and discussed on many blogs)

[flyer85]

The Reds have some real talent ( Harang, Arroyo, EE, Phillips ) & some real prospects ( Bailey, Votto, Bruce, Cueto ). Also Milton & Jr's contracts are gone soon.

The Reds will have to flip Arroyo after this year and there really isn't any evidence that Phillips is a talent. His minor league numbers don't portend future success and he really struggled the 2nd half of the season once pitchers figured out you don't have to challenge him with fastballs. Phillips was more than happy to get himself out chasing breaking pitches away. Post AS BP has .287OBP and a 700OPS, which only looks good in comparision to somebody like Castro.

[RollyInRaleigh]

True enough, but a manager like Narron is playing to win 80, in order to save (keep) his job, which is pretty much year to year. To be fair to Narron, he cannot take the same long view that the FO must take. IMHO, that's why Jerry loves the vets- they know enough ways to win to keep him near .500 (OK, just under .500 ). Playing the kids means more mistakes, and perhaps more losses in the early years. If a manager is more established, has a LTC, he will be more willing to let the kids learn and lose at the same time.

I can't blame Narron for that- I'd have to blame the FO for not giving him a clearer plan of attack.

Nice, "real" post!

[Always Red]

Disappointment.

IMO, they were on the verge of being a serious contender. They had 3 big needs to fill this offseason: a #3 starter, a quality RH bat, and a closer. They could have filled all of those needs in free agency by spending some cash. Instead, they went cheap and filled exactly none of those needs. Very disappointing.

I think you nailed it, Johnny.