maybe a very low attendence for the next homestand will make them think different?
apathy always works- look what it did finally to Mike Brown and the Bengals.
Full blown rioting in the streets (or on the message boards ) does mean that at least you still care...
Yep, we saw what happened when Wayne "went for it" last season, then we saw what happened when he didn't go for anything in the off-season. But the trade wasn't so bad, and Wayne's doing a great job, so blah, blah, blah.
(Not a dig at you personally.)
Makes all the routine posts.
To the others, my apologies for my petulant "resume rioting" comment - I grow weary of assuming it all needs to be torn down and everything's wrong. I understand it, but I'd like to look at this further.
More later - onto the gold mines!
I really don't think there was anything Wayne could have done over the off season to make this team competitive this year, even if he hadn't had lost his chips on the casino floor last June. Now, that doesn't mean I'm enamored of the moves he did make, it just means that I don't think that the fact that this team isn't good right now is any type of indication that he's a bad GM. There are a lot of things he has done that I think are good (Hamilton, Ross, Phillips, Saarloos, Gonzalez, contract extensions) and some that I'm not terribly fond of (Conine, Hatteberg, Cormier, Castro) but the real test is going to be what the team looks like when it hits the field in 2008. If it's filled with veteran trash like it is this year and still being led by Jerry Narron, then I'll join the chorus, for now though I think I'll just sit back and watch the tire fire burn.
Get your nunchucks and the keys to your dad's car. I know where we can get a gun
Wayne Krivsky is an interesting guy, that's for sure.
Outside of player contracts, which I think Krivsky fares well, the key area where I've been documented to praise Krivsky involve the happenings down in the Reds' farm system. It seemed as if 2006 was a banner year for Reds prospects developing, putting up good numbers, advancing levels, and showing some potential for actually developing into some form of useful talent at the major league level. So far in 2007, that trend has looked to continue for a bit, and the Reds' farm system is in better shape now than it's been in years.
That's all an excellent aspect of the organizational change we've seen. The key question, however, becomes ... How much does Wayne Krivsky have to do with the above? I've praised him in these areas under the "benefit of the doubt" clause partly. He did install some new coaches, he did change shift around front office personel, he did get rid of some of O'Brien's idiotic rules (read: tandem pitching rotation and take a strike rule), and the farm system as a whole just seemed to immediately start showing signs of improvement.
How much credit does Krivsky deserve? I'm not sure, and that's an interesting discussion, IMO. I've given him praise there, and I've thought that's his strong point. Perhaps O'Brien was a first class drafter and we'd be seeing some of these prospects excel regardless, I'm not sure. Perhaps O'Brien identified the talent, but they're finding ways to succeed and develop better under a Krivsky regime. I guess that's certainly possible too.
Either way, the Reds' farm system is in better shape now than two years ago. I just wish we had a better grasp on why, because that's an important part of determining if Krivsky is the right man for the GM job.
Now, the area where I've been critical of Krivsky is the actual major league team, and the Reds as a 25-man roster right now resembles that of a circus. They have players on the roster who quite frankly just aren't as talented or as valuable as the organization believes (and yes, Juan Castro, Eric Milton, and Chad Moeller, I'm looking at you three as key examples). Young players, no matter how talented, seem to have an exceptionally short leash for mistakes. Meanwhile, veteran players such as a Mike Stanton cough up leads repeatedly and still get sent out to pitch in high leverage situations. It's just a very disturbing trend.
While Krivsky was in Minnesota, the Twins seemed to also partake in that very same disturbing trend regarding veteran players and young talent, and IIRC Steel documented this very well about a year ago. The Twins seemed too often to block young talent and let young players languish in AAA, ride the major league bench, or just generally not be given anywhere near the leash veterans received for making mistakes. The Twins would field players that really had no business being on a major league roster, such as a Juan Castro, although by virtue of playing in an exceptionally weak division, they won a few division titles and reached the playoffs ... just to usually be quickly rolled in the LDS or LCS by more talented teams such as the Yankees.
Meanwhile, early in 2006 the Twins said the heck with useless veterans, installed the young talent they had, and immediately soared to a division title that they very much earned. When Krivsky gets hired in Cincinnati, that very same trend of veteran playings seemingly blocking young talent just seemed to head straight down here from Minnesota. The Reds, and Krivsky, just continued to play around with veterans who simply aren't as good as the organization believes.
Is this merely a coincidence, or is this an alarming trend to be worried about in the future if/when a bursting young pipeline of Reds talent is ready for the big leagues? I really don't know, though I sure as heck hope it's merely a coincidence rather than an alarming trend.
Good teams, playoff caliber teams, World Series contending teams ... they usually tend to have one key component in common that separates them from the rest of the pack. That key component is fewer weak links, fewer weak spots in their lineup, rotation, bullpen, bench, sometimes even the coaching staff.
The Reds have such a higher number of weak spots on their roster that it's ridiculous. What's even more ridiculous is many of these weak spots were players acquired by Wayne Krivsky, players/veterans who simply aren't as talented as the organization believes. I understand that certain players will be used as stopgaps, but eventually it comes to a point where the organization needs to move on from an old, useless player if a younger, more talented and higher ceiling player is ready to start performing on the big league level. That transition is an aspect that I'm not at all sold on about Krivsky and this current regime. I hope they do sell me on it, and I hope it happens, but right now ... I'm anything but sure about it.
Last edited by Cyclone792; 05-15-2007 at 02:21 PM.
Kevin Gregg and Jason Marquis will bring back memories of the Lost Decade.
Kevin Gregg: DFA'd May 11, 2015
Jason Marquis: Hopefully not far behind
Cyclone, there is simply nothing further I can add to that and the entire passage sums up my current feelings completely.
To say the Reds have "played" 39 games is being pretty generous.
Maybe Wayne meant to say that Panic would set in after 40 Games! 39...whooptie dooo. 40... Now we're talking!
There is no reason to panic. If this were Sept and we were letting a 10 game lead slide away I could see reason to panic. IMO, the Reds were not built to win but stay close enough to make a run. Jerry and Wayne may have been told to "WIN NOW" last season but that doesn't mean they were told that this spring. "Wayne, just try to keep us in the hunt until we can unload some of these contracts" would be a likely scenario from where I am sitting. Granted the Reds are far from being in the hunt but I remember when Bob Boone had the Reds in 1st place 2 years in a row in June. Where did that end up?
No reason to panic. However, that doesn't mean you have to like losing either.
Cedric 3/24/08It'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...
But I think you will find it similiar to most organizations.
It's not unheard of to give the benefit of the doubt to veterans with a history of success vs. rookies with little past history
Not saying I agree completely, but you see it all the time.
Even the Cards are still playing Rolen and Edmonds virtually everyday even though they are hitting in Juan Castro's territory.
Wells is 1-7. Lets give him some more starts.
Go over to the Astros board and see post after post condemning the continual playing of Ensberg and Everett with very poor hitting results.
It's just not the Reds.
It could be July 1st, this team could be out by 25 games and I still would say there is no need to panic. This team is what it is.
Good post, Cyclone. I'll just toss out a couple of counterpoints for discussion's sake:
Like most front offices, they have players they like too much and players they don't like enough, and I don't always understand it. I just don't see it as a clearly young/old thing.
Except that the Twins went right back to the veteran-mediocrity well this past offseason, at least where their starting rotation was concerned. They had kids lined up ready for a shot. Maybe they didn't want to force their hand and be in a position where the kids had to pitch, ready or not, but, c'mon, Sidney Ponson and Ramon Ortiz?While Krivsky was in Minnesota, the Twins seemed to also partake in that very same disturbing trend regarding veteran players and young talent ... early in 2006 the Twins said the heck with useless veterans, installed the young talent they had, and immediately soared to a division title that they very much earned. When Krivsky gets hired in Cincinnati, that very same trend of veteran playings seemingly blocking young talent just seemed to head straight down here from Minnesota.
For those who believe, no proof is necessary. For those who don't believe, no proof is possible
I probably suffer from Narron-itis more than most, but I'd be very surprised if WK doesn't get A LOT of input from JN. The manager/GM partnership is key in most winning formulas around baseball.
It makes no sense for WK to go get players that JN won't play or doesn't need.
For one, I have the impression that last year, JN's plea "I need a bullpen" was one of driving forces behind "the Trade" (plus the plethora of BP movements).
GMs and Managers usually get together to fine tune the final "25" and you can be pretty certain that JN is behind the three catcher thing.
Now that things aren't going well...like in any partnership, you can expect some cross-blaming and small differences in opinion to become big issues.
It should be interesting to watch.
"A person is smart. People are dumb, panicky, dangerous animals and you know it."