Turn Off Ads?
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 31 to 45 of 49

Thread: mike stanton!

  1. #31
    Vampire Weekend @Bernie's camisadelgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    11,434

    Re: mike stanton!

    Quote Originally Posted by RedsManRick View Post
    And there's the rub. If all you expect out of a bullpen guy is an ERA in the high 4s or worse and some innings being eaten, don't spend your money on that in FA. Every team has somebody at AA or AAA who can come up and provide innings. If you don't have that guy, you probably aren't in contention anyways. We've got Brad Salmon wasting away so that we can fund Mike Stanton's retirement.

    Sure, it's only a few million on Stanton, but it's also a few milliion on Cormier, a few million on Conine, a million on Juan Castro etc. and suddenly you've spent a superstar's worth on guys who you could have replaced in house if you had the guts to do so. If your table shows us anything, it's that crop of mediocre FA talent simply isn't worth the risk for the very limited upside they provide.

    Free agency is for impact players you can't obtain otherwise and replaceable bit pieces that you can acquire at virtually no cost. That middle ground is where the market is the most inefficient and the easiest way to waste your money.
    The Reds were in contention when they traded for Cormier, and Cormier wouldn't allow the trade unless there was an extension, so I don't think it's fair to include him in this part of the conversation. Jeff Conine has been worth his salary so far, so I'm not going to complain about trading for him. Juan Castro is making less than $1M, so I'd be nitpicking if I complained about that.

    However, here is a list of every single pitcher who was signed in the most recent off-season who made more than Stanton's salary of $2M and less than the $7.175M the Reds would have saved if they hadn't signed Juan Castro, Jeff Conine, Rheal Cormier, and Mike Stanton. Please tell me which of these pitchers you would have signed before the season started.
    Code:
    $ 4,000,000	Danys Baez		41.1 IP		5.88 ERA	1.38 WHIP
    $ 4,250,000	Joe Borowski		49 IP		5.51 ERA	1.45 WHIP
    $ 3,000,000	Chad Bradford		49.1 IP		3.47 ERA	1.38 WHIP
    $ 5,000,000	Octavio Dotel		27.1 IP		4.61 ERA	1.46 WHIP
    $ 2,250,000	Alan Embree		55 IP		3.60 ERA	1.24 WHIP
    $ 6,875,000	Adam Eaton		133 IP		6.36 ERA	1.62 WHIP
    $ 5,000,000	Keith Foulke		hasn't pitched
    $ 6,000,000	Eric Gagne		40.1 IP		4.02 ERA	1.34 WHIP
    $ 3,500,000	Roberto Hernandez	39 IP		6.23 ERA	1.80 WHIP
    $ 4,000,000	Kei Igawa		62.1 IP		6.79 ERA	1.68 WHIP
    $ 2,500,000	Jose Mesa		39 IP		5.77 ERA	1.44 WHIP
    $ 3,100,000	Ramon Ortiz		93.1 IP		5.01 ERA	1.40 WHIP
    $ 4,000,000	Joel Pineiro		53 IP		4.25 ERA	1.38 WHIP
    $ 2,100,000	Chris Reitsma		23.2 IP		7.61 ERA	1.94 WHIP
    $ 3,600,000	Scott Schoeneweis	42.2 IP		5.06 ERA	1.57 WHIP
    $ 3,750,000	Justin Speier		34 IP		2.91 ERA	0.97 WHIP
    $ 3,000,000	Jamie Walker		46 IP		3.13 ERA	1.26 WHIP
    $ 4,000,000	Kip Wells		132.1 IP	5.24 ERA	1.53 WHIP
    $ 6,000,000	Woody Williams		159 IP		4.92 ERA	1.37 WHIP
    I see only a couple players who could've made a noteworthy difference for the Reds. One is Jamie Walker, who will be 38 years old and making $4.5M in 2009. The other is Justin Speier, who will be 36 years old and making $5.25M in 2010. Those two are two huge investments for middle relief, if you ask me. I'm not sure the Reds can afford those kinds of risks. I think Mike Stanton was worth a shot. Also, Stanton still has a chance to turn things around.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #32
    He has the Evil Eye! flyer85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    south of the border
    Posts
    23,858

    Re: mike stanton!

    Quote Originally Posted by camisadelgolf View Post
    The Reds were in contention when they traded for Cormier, and Cormier wouldn't allow the trade unless there was an extension
    they should have been smart enough not to want him in the first place. He was a disaster waiting to unfold.
    What are you, people? On dope? - Mr Hand

  4. #33
    Vampire Weekend @Bernie's camisadelgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    11,434

    Re: mike stanton!

    Quote Originally Posted by flyer85 View Post
    they should have been smart enough not to want him in the first place. He was a disaster waiting to unfold.
    The Reds should have known David Ross wouldn't be leading National League catchers in homeruns. They should've known that Brandon Phillips and his .206 batting average through 135 games was going to be lucky to hit over .250. Sometimes things work out, and sometimes they don't. Pretty much no matter what, there was always a better option. Signing Mike Stanton would have been one of the best conracts out of the ones I just listed. The Reds may have had better options, but the majority of their contract options were worse.

  5. #34
    He has the Evil Eye! flyer85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    south of the border
    Posts
    23,858

    Re: mike stanton!

    Cormier's peripheral were a disaster and his xERA was well over 4 at the time of the trade ... a smart FO would have known what they were likely to get.

    Cormier is an example of why "sometimes they don't" and it was predictable.

    To the untrained ear, these scouts were unbelievably convincing,some of their subjective opinions almost sounded like they were objective ... while having a complete lack of empirical evidence to support (their) claims.
    What are you, people? On dope? - Mr Hand

  6. #35
    Vampire Weekend @Bernie's camisadelgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    11,434

    Re: mike stanton!

    Part of being a good manager is knowing when to put which player son the field, and Jerry Narron showed he wasn't very good at that. If Mackanin were manager at the beginning of the year, maybe Cormier would be leading relievers in ERA again.

  7. #36
    He has the Evil Eye! flyer85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    south of the border
    Posts
    23,858

    Re: mike stanton!

    Quote Originally Posted by camisadelgolf View Post
    If Mackanin were manager at the beginning of the year, maybe Cormier would be leading relievers in ERA again.
    Cormier in the first half of 2006 was nothing more than a complete fluke basely more on good fortune than anything else ... his peripherals(extremely low K rate, extremely low BABIP) pointed to a regression to the mean was coming and it was going to be a hard fall.

    He was an excellent bet to fall of the planet in terms of performance and he did ... who knew.
    What are you, people? On dope? - Mr Hand

  8. #37
    Stat Wanker Hodiernus RedsManRick's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Guelph, ON
    Posts
    16,029

    Re: mike stanton!

    Quote Originally Posted by camisadelgolf View Post
    The Reds were in contention when they traded for Cormier, and Cormier wouldn't allow the trade unless there was an extension, so I don't think it's fair to include him in this part of the conversation. Jeff Conine has been worth his salary so far, so I'm not going to complain about trading for him. Juan Castro is making less than $1M, so I'd be nitpicking if I complained about that.

    However, here is a list of every single pitcher who was signed in the most recent off-season who made more than Stanton's salary of $2M and less than the $7.175M the Reds would have saved if they hadn't signed Juan Castro, Jeff Conine, Rheal Cormier, and Mike Stanton. Please tell me which of these pitchers you would have signed before the season started.

    I see only a couple players who could've made a noteworthy difference for the Reds. One is Jamie Walker, who will be 38 years old and making $4.5M in 2009. The other is Justin Speier, who will be 36 years old and making $5.25M in 2010. Those two are two huge investments for middle relief, if you ask me. I'm not sure the Reds can afford those kinds of risks. I think Mike Stanton was worth a shot. Also, Stanton still has a chance to turn things around.
    And you've made my point for me, twice.

    Firstly, if you have to give an old, mediocre at best reliever an extension to acquire him, or give a 40 year old middle reliever a 2 year deal with an option to sign him, he probably isn't worth it -- and he knows it. Hence the request for as much guaranteed money as possible before the end of the line rather than an opportunity to get a more lucrative offer after a successful season. And I don't care if we were in contention, adding Rheal Cormier doesn't improve a bullpen. If adding Rheal Cormier does improve your bullpen, you're not really in contention.

    Secondly, I wouldn't have signed any of those pitchers, and that's my point. Signing a middle reliever in free agency costs you a few million bucks and likely doesn't even improve your team. We have people on the board crying poor about Adam Dunn, wanting to cut him loose rather than give him a $3M boost that still leaves him below market price. The free agent market is a very inefficient use of money when it comes to pitchers. For $13M would you rather have Dunn or Joe Borowski, Joey Table, and Woody Williams?

    Stop trying to find the 8th, 9th, 10th, 11th guys on your pitching staff in free agency and save your FA dollar for a guy you can count on to make a real impact. And yes, there aren't very many of those. Sometimes it might mean sitting on your hands one year so you don't have $3M already committed to an ineffective 41 year old the next.

    I won't even touch the idea that when a pitcher pitches determines whether he's the league ERA leader or a scrub. There are shades of gray, but it's pretty simple. Good pitchers pitch well, bad pitchers pitch poorly. Misuse can make a good pitcher worse, but it's pretty hard to make a crappy pitcher better through usage patterns. And if you can do that, why not just sign good pitchers and then make them even better...
    Last edited by RedsManRick; 08-20-2007 at 04:48 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. #38
    Vampire Weekend @Bernie's camisadelgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    11,434

    Re: mike stanton!

    Quote Originally Posted by flyer85 View Post
    Cormier in the first half of 2006 was nothing more than a complete fluke basely more on good fortune than anything else ... his peripherals(extremely low K rate, extremely low BABIP) pointed to a regression to the mean was coming and it was going to be a hard fall.

    He was an excellent bet to fall of the planet in terms of performance and he did ... who knew.
    Personally, I agree with you. I think acquiring Cormier wasn't a very good idea. But your argument goes both ways. If he performs horribly, then he should follow that up by doing well. Cormier's WHIP as a Red was 1.76. His career WHIP was 1.28. He had a 3.71K/9IP as a Red, but for his career, it was 5.60. His ERA as a Red was 5.29, and for his career, it was 4.03. That would imply he should've started pitching well at some point this year. There was nothing he did in St. Louis that implied he had lost whatever it was that had given him success for over ten years. Like I said, if he had been used at better times, I think you would've seen much better results. I don't think he was a good acquisition, but I don't think it was as bad of an acquisition as a lot of people are saying.

  10. #39
    He has the Evil Eye! flyer85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    south of the border
    Posts
    23,858

    Re: mike stanton!

    Quote Originally Posted by camisadelgolf View Post
    But your argument goes both ways. If he performs horribly, then he should follow that up by doing well.
    The argument goes both ways ... only ... if the peripherals do not support the current performance (be it good or bad). In Cormier's case his xERA has ~4.5 at the time of the trade which showed his performance was a fluke and completely unsustainable.

    The opposite case was why I suggested early last year that they go after Wuertz after nothing more than a run of bad luck got him banished to the minors.
    What are you, people? On dope? - Mr Hand

  11. #40
    Vampire Weekend @Bernie's camisadelgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    11,434

    Re: mike stanton!

    Quote Originally Posted by flyer85 View Post
    The argument goes both ways ... only ... if the peripherals do not support the current performance (be it good or bad). In Cormier's case his xERA has ~4.5 at the time of the trade which showed his performance was a fluke and completely unsustainable.

    The opposite case was why I suggested early last year that they go after Wuertz after nothing more than a run of bad luck got him banished to the minors.
    You're right. I'm guessing the Reds thought he could sustain it just a little bit longer. I didn't think he would, but when I saw that they had to give up only Justin Germano, I wasn't angry about the Reds givinig it a shot.

  12. #41
    Member Ron Madden's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2003
    Posts
    5,815

    Re: mike stanton!

    Kinda funny.. how much the Phillies improved after the fire sale they held at the trading deadline in '06.

    They sure missed Rheal Cormier, didn't they?


  13. #42
    He has the Evil Eye! flyer85's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2004
    Location
    south of the border
    Posts
    23,858

    Re: mike stanton!

    Quote Originally Posted by Ron Madden View Post
    Kinda funny.. how much the Phillies improved after the fire sale they held at the trading deadline in '06.

    They sure missed Rheal Cormier, didn't they?

    ... and Ryan Franklin.
    What are you, people? On dope? - Mr Hand

  14. #43
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,081

    Re: mike stanton!

    Quote Originally Posted by camisadelgolf View Post
    The . Please tell me which of these pitchers you would have signed before the season started.
    I was hoping they would sign Bradford all during the last offseason.
    I can't believe Baltimore got him that cheap.
    Would've added the solid RH reliever that our pen desparately needed.

    There's no reason to give a relatively expensive, multiyear contract to a guy like Stanton who is obviously old and fading, particularly when the Reds already had Cormier under contract.

    It just wasn't a good risk at all. A lot of folks called it before the season started.

    If they really wanted Stanton, they should've just offered him a one year deal. At least that way, they wouldn't be sabotaging 2008.

    Wayne has shown poor judgement by giving multiyear deals to players he shouldn't be. It was dumb to give Freel and Castro multiyear deals, and many people called it at the time as well.
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!

  15. #44
    Vampire Weekend @Bernie's camisadelgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    11,434

    Re: mike stanton!

    Quote Originally Posted by REDREAD View Post
    I was hoping they would sign Bradford all during the last offseason.
    I can't believe Baltimore got him that cheap.
    Would've added the solid RH reliever that our pen desparately needed.

    There's no reason to give a relatively expensive, multiyear contract to a guy like Stanton who is obviously old and fading, particularly when the Reds already had Cormier under contract.

    It just wasn't a good risk at all. A lot of folks called it before the season started.

    If they really wanted Stanton, they should've just offered him a one year deal. At least that way, they wouldn't be sabotaging 2008.

    Wayne has shown poor judgement by giving multiyear deals to players he shouldn't be. It was dumb to give Freel and Castro multiyear deals, and many people called it at the time as well.
    The only reason Stanton came to the Reds was because they were the only team to add a potential third year on Stanton's contract. When the signing happened, I was a little skeptical, but I still think Stanton can turn things around next year. (I'm not saying he will--I'm just saying it's possible.)

    Obviously, Chad Bradford would've been a better player to sign. The Orioles might have regrets about it when they're paying him $3.5M in 2009, but for now, it looks like a good season. However, of the 20 or so contracts I listed, no more than a fourth of them would've helped the Reds more than hurt them. Mike Stanton's chances of success this year might not have been great, but I think his odds were better than the majority of options the Reds had. For the record, I think many pitchers are aware of GABP's reputation and avoid signing here at all costs, so perhaps that's a factor in who the Reds can sign.

  16. #45
    You know his story Redsland's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2000
    Location
    Norfolk, VA
    Posts
    7,714

    Re: mike stanton!

    Quote Originally Posted by camisadelgolf View Post
    The only reason Stanton came to the Reds was because they were the only team to add a potential third year on Stanton's contract.
    So you're saying that if the Reds hadn't offered him that third year, then we wouldn't have had the pleasure of watching him this year?

    I'm not seeing how that's a bad thing.

    In fact, it's more evidence that Wayne is out of his depth. Every other GM decided that instead of giving Stanton another year, he'd go in another direction. Wayne bucked the trend and 56 games of 5.80 ERA and 1.7 WHIP later, here we are.

    Like REDREAD said, Wayne has a curious habit of throwing multi-year contracts at guys who figure to be role players at best.
    Makes all the routine posts.


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