Here's your problem: you don't know a whole lot. That's OK, but you don't admit that you don't know a whole lot.
Wayne ran Almaraz (whose value you know because I told it to you) off, but nobody else of value that I'm aware of. Brian Wilson died-- I don't think that you pin that one on WK, do you? Larry Barton Jr left, but Larry Barton Jr was probably as responsible for scores of poor drafts as anyone, being the California supervisor during a very long period of zero Reds productivity in the strongest part of the US market.
Whenever you go into specifics, you come off as mentally challenged. You have two single effective arguments, and I'll restate them for you: 1. some of WayneK's moves backfired and 2. the Reds lost 90 games last year. These aren't good arguments, as I'll show, but your other arguments are simply laughable and it's not worth the time.
first, about moves that backfired: if you use that as a yardstick, then you will tend to admire all GMs that do nothing, because nothing backfires. Joe McIlvaine was well-known that way; DanO was another good example. But because these guys don't make positive moves, either, the team doesn't improve. So the real yardstick is to add up the positives, subtract the negatives, and figure out how positive the total number of moves have been. WayneK, as a very aggressive GM working to improve pitching (which is the hardest thing to accumulate without having moves backfire) had an overwhelmingly positive record. He conjured top major league players out of waiver claims, DFAs, Rule 5's, and aggressive trades. It was a talent that he had over all other GMs in the game, and one that would have been terrific to have in Cincy for a long time.
Now, the problem with the "90 games were lost" argument is that most great GMs have lost big during the first 3 years of a rebuilding job. And you need a great GM in Cincy. So you really need a better argument. being a nice guy, I'll try to point you in the right direction here
Ideally, what you'd like to be able to do is to look at what those great GMs accomplished during their first three years, as opposed to what poor GMs accomplished over their first three years. What are those differences, and did Krivsky's rebuilding job look more like that of a great GM or like that of a poor one? I'm confident that it's the former, because man, I've SEEN some bad GMs.
Have a look at the first three years of guys like Branch Rickey, Billy Beane, Mark Shapiro, etc. Compare them to the Dan O'Briens and others. stop all other arguments. Focus your efforts into something productive and interesting. Maybe you'll teach us something.
Originally Posted by princeton
Here's your problem: you don't know a whole lot. That's OK, but you don't admit that you don't know a whole lot.
