Anyone disappointed more trades weren't made?

[LouisvilleCARDS]

I'm surprised Weathers, Affeldt, Ross, Valentine, heck maybe ever Patterson as a throw in, weren't traded. What do you think the goal of Castellini and Jocketty is by not trading the guys? I understand they wanted to have the appearance of contention in this, so to me it seems like a PR move that the Reds organization isn't doing firesales anymore is the main goal of not trading. But I don't think that PR move helps the Reds any with guys on one year ocntracts you could likely just resign after the year regardless.

I'm kinda disappointed, I wanted to see the Reds make more moves just to shake things up, and the appearance of a salary dump doesn't make a difference to me. I guess the only goal of the management was that: to show that they're not penny pinching and going to ride it out. And as a season goal at this point, just to make it above .500, which looks like a tall task about 8 games under .500 likely tonight. Anyone else think the Reds should have made more moves, or are happy they decided to keep guys around for the year that won't be after?

[HalMorrisRules]

No.

[757690]

I think a lot of teams were thinking the same thing.

I was surprised that no other players were traded. But Jocketty said that what was offered in return (for the ones that even had offers) was not worth it. He said that it was valuable to have them on the team so the FO can evaluate whether or not to resign them next year. And if you know that what you will get in return will not help your team, why bother?

[Kingspoint]

Absolutely.

The organization always needs to be improved, especially pitching.

Krivsky would have made more than the trade of Junior over the last 4 months.

[ChatterRed]

On TV, they showed that the Reds bullpen, since the All-Star break, has the 5th best e.r.a. in baseball. Why trade anyone? Sign them all up for next season. One less part of the team to worry about.

[Root Down]

I'll put my faith in Jocketty, the guy has made winners in the past and he will again here. I would have like to see more trade motion, however, just for motion's sake. We may have most of the players we need, and there is always the off season. This team is real young. Some of our vets, EE and BP in particular, are only in their mid 20's! We've got a lot to work with. With that said, I'm sure Jocketty has something up his sleeve.

[ChatterRed]

Pitcher ages:

Bailey - 22 years old (rookie)
Cueto - 22 years old (rookie)
Volquez - 25 (3 years exp.)
Bray - 25 (2 years exp.)
Masset - 26 (2 years exp.)
Burton - 27 (2 years exp.)
Majewski - 28 (4 years exp.)
Affeldt - 29 (6 years exp.)
Harang - 30 (7 years exp.)
Arroyo - 31 (8 years exp.)
Fogg - 32 (7 years exp.)
Cordero - 33 (9 years exp.)
Lincoln - 33 (9 years exp.)
Weathers - turns 39 late September (17 years exp. - impressive)

Catchers:
Ross - 31 (6 years exp.)
Valentin - 32 (11 years exp.)
Bako - 36 (10 years exp.)

Infielders:
Encarnacion - 25 (3 years exp.)
Votto - 25 (in September) (rookie)
Phillips - 27 (6 years exp.)
Keppinger - 28 (4 years exp.)
Gonzalez - 31 (10 years exp.)
A. Phillips - 31 (4 years exp.)
Hairston Jr. - 32 (10 years exp.)
Cabrera - 35 (10 years exp.)

Outfielders:
Bruce - 21 (rookie)
Dunn - 28 (7 years exp.)
Hopper - 29 (3 years exp.)
Patterson - 29 (8 years exp.)
Freel - 32 (7 years exp.)


Get rid of Cabrera, Bako and Weathers and nobody is older than 33. LOL.

[BoldOD]

I don't think that Valentin should be on this team either...and didn't Angel Cabrera just get cut for his role in the Dayton Dragons brawl?

[ChatterRed]

That would be Jolbert (spelling?) Cabrera on the major league team.

[FlightRick]

I'm kinda disappointed, I wanted to see the Reds make more moves just to shake things up

Can we PLEASE get some kind of official moritorium on this sentiment that somehow doing SOMEthing is inherently better than doing NOthing? Unless you're a sports-talk-radio dipstick, whose job is predicated on there being SOMEthing to talk about, how hard is it to comprehend that sometimes (maybe even most times) the best thing for the team is do stand pat and do nothing.

I complained about this in probably 3-4 threads already, about how if there are no offers on the table that make our team better, then it's just plain stupid to go jumping in with some idiot Videogame Mentality and making any trades we can that make OTHER teams better and which only make us worse... but none of that got through, so let me try one final example:

In so far as I'll care about NASCAR, it's only to see highlights of the crashes. I know, in my brain, that this is awful and it has nothing to do with the (titter) "sport" of it, but I get a visceral thrill out of seeing twisted metal and fire and 2000-pound machines flipping around like Rey Mysterio Jr. Whether or not this makes me a Bad Person can be debated, but I know it makes me a "bad NASCAR fan"; I also rationalize that away by simply admitting that I don't care, because other than the wrecks, I find NASCAR boring and I couldn't care less about who wins or loses or anything like that. I'm a philistine, I'm ill-informed, and I'm a pain in the ass to anybody who takes the time to really understand NASCAR and how you build a winning program.

If you're going around saying "I wanted to make more trades just to shake things up and see something different," I now officially say: you're the same as the person who watches NASCAR just for the crashes. Welcome to the club?


Rick


PS: While we're sanctioning anybody who subscribes to the hyperactive Videogame Mentality, can we also pass some sort of resolution that allows fists to be introduced to the faces of anybody who uses variations of "He is what he is" or "It is what it is" as if they are deep, probing, insightful analyses and value judgments, rather than the equivalent of saying "2 = 2" and expecting to be rewarded with a Nobel Prize? Thank you, drive through...

[Kingspoint]

Can we PLEASE get some kind of official moritorium on this sentiment that somehow doing SOMEthing is inherently better than doing NOthing? Unless you're a sports-talk-radio dipstick, whose job is predicated on there being SOMEthing to talk about, how hard is it to comprehend that sometimes (maybe even most times) the best thing for the team is do stand pat and do nothing.

I complained about this in probably 3-4 threads already, about how if there are no offers on the table that make our team better, then it's just plain stupid to go jumping in with some idiot Videogame Mentality and making any trades we can that make OTHER teams better and which only make us worse... but none of that got through, so let me try one final example:

In so far as I'll care about NASCAR, it's only to see highlights of the crashes. I know, in my brain, that this is awful and it has nothing to do with the (titter) "sport" of it, but I get a visceral thrill out of seeing twisted metal and fire and 2000-pound machines flipping around like Rey Mysterio Jr. Whether or not this makes me a Bad Person can be debated, but I know it makes me a "bad NASCAR fan"; I also rationalize that away by simply admitting that I don't care, because other than the wrecks, I find NASCAR boring and I couldn't care less about who wins or loses or anything like that. I'm a philistine, I'm ill-informed, and I'm a pain in the ass to anybody who takes the time to really understand NASCAR and how you build a winning program.

If you're going around saying "I wanted to make more trades just to shake things up and see something different," I now officially say: you're the same as the person who watches NASCAR just for the crashes. Welcome to the club?


Rick


PS: While we're sanctioning anybody who subscribes to the hyperactive Videogame Mentality, can we also pass some sort of resolution that allows fists to be introduced to the faces of anybody who uses variations of "He is what he is" or "It is what it is" as if they are deep, probing, insightful analyses and value judgments, rather than the equivalent of saying "2 = 2" and expecting to be rewarded with a Nobel Prize? Thank you, drive through...

Most G.M.'s end up doing nothing because most of them are poor at their job. There's usually just a handful of them in each sport that are continually improving their organization. The A's and Twins come closest to the perfect examples, and Krivsky is also a great example. Most deals that I'm talking about are deals that effect the minor leagues. There are only about 5 untouchables in the organization. Jockety has always been a poor example. Jockety never improved the organization in St. Louis. His success came from being able to spend more money every year than this division foes. When that ceased happening after the sale of the Cubs and the Cubs' new ways of doing business, Jockety was gone because he had depleted his minor leagues over the years, and he no longer had the money to outspend his opponents.

If you aren't constantly upgrading players at each level, you aren't trying hard enough, or are incapable of doing so. Jockety fits under both categories. Fortunately for him, O'Brien and Krivsky gave him a goldmine to pluck from. Anything that happens in the next three-four years is all because of them, not Jockety. Jockety's ability to manage the resources he inherited will go a long way's towards any success. In this department, he'd done well so far.

Can we please have a moratorium on the lemming thinking that our leaders know what they're doing and that since nothing was done, then logic dictates that either nothing needed to be done or nothing could have been done?

[kpresidente]

Most G.M.'s end up doing nothing because most of them are poor at their job.

Possibly the most ludicrous statement I've seen, even for the Sun Deck.

[LouisvilleCARDS]

Can we please have a moratorium on the lemming thinking that our leaders know what they're doing and that since nothing was done, then logic dictates that either nothing needed to be done or nothing could have been done?

Great quote. The guy can bash me for my opinion all he wants, but lets face it: keeping Weathers, Affeldt, and other end fo contract guys - what does it do for us?

There's a couple scenarios in this:

A) We keep the players and then either resign them or don't at the end of the year. Keeping them doesn't raise our chances of making the postseason, doesn't increase our chances of resigning them for next year, we pay their salary for the rest of the year (which albeit, isn't a ton, but its something), and we get no possible prospects out of it.

B) We trade the guys, save salary which cumulatively would have likely been enough total to resign one of them to a one year deal next year for free out of it. We get maybe a couple of sleeper prospects, who may or may not do something, but at least we get something out of it.

Remember, Hanley Ramirez was *just* a .260 batting Double A guy at one point too, and Darryl Thompson was an injured throw in insult from Jim Bowden in that 2006 trade. Sometimes those throw ins turn out to be promising. That Lincoln guy who was a reject seems to be doing well, along with that Rule 5 reject Burton.

But yeah, actually TRYING to find that sleeper is just useless videogame mentality right? No player we get could ever get could possibly be better than an injured bullpen catcher in low Single A right? Yeah, wouldn't even wanna make the effort. Lets just keep Weathers around for the year, when he may or may not come back next year, or even be effective after this year.

[FlightRick]

Possibly the most ludicrous statement I've seen, even for the Sun Deck.

What are you talking about? It makes perfect sense.

Major league GMs: there are only 30 of them in the whole world, it's an impossible job to get, and if you do get it, your every move is under a microscope, and your life expectancy will be very short unless you deliver a winning team, but if you succeed you'll become one of very few executives who turn the job into a long-term career.

Guy posting on the Intarwebs: there are millions of them (thousands, probably, in our little corner here at RedsZone), there are no qualifications to sign up, there are no standards to maintain, and the medium has no mechanism to monitor quality as it inherently marginalizes and democratizes intelligence.

Clearly, if Some Guy says that all GMs are incompetent buffoons, he knows what of he speaks, and is just as clearly one of the millions of people qualified for the job of major league GM. Or possibly selling hot dogs. One or the other. I'm not sure which.


Rick


PS: Just so as to add SOME actual non-snippy commentary, let me be clear that this is not an issue of "faith" in the front office or a blind belief that they know best. It's simple pragmatism based on anecdotal evidence. Like the anecdote that the Rockies came asking about Josh Fogg because they thought he'd help them out as a #4 or #5 starter, and we asked for a guy who projects as little more than a #4 OF in return. The Rockies said "No way." We said "Fine, enjoy finishing fourth in your division. We'll do the same. At least in part because we'll still have Josh Fogg." This isn't blind faith, this is an actual account of the type of deal the Reds FO was seeking, and the type of counter-proposals they were receiving.

[FlightRick]

Remember, Hanley Ramirez was *just* a .260 batting Double A guy at one point too, and Darryl Thompson was an injured throw in insult from Jim Bowden in that 2006 trade. Sometimes those throw ins turn out to be promising. That Lincoln guy who was a reject seems to be doing well, along with that Rule 5 reject Burton.

But yeah, actually TRYING to find that sleeper is just useless videogame mentality right?

Ummm, you can't have it both ways: those players developing (to various degrees; let's not all get ahead of ourselves with Thompson or anything) is not an accident. They are the result of careful analysis and effort by the Front Office.

The same Front Office that -- two posts above -- was said to be "very bad at their jobs" because they are standing around doing nothing when they could be flinging our poo at other teams and seeing what they fling back.

So which is it?

Do baseball execs sometimes get it right when assessing the promise of A-ballers and "throw-ins" because they are well-trained experts, and thus, we should essentially trust that if we did nothing at this trading deadline, it's because there wasn't anything -- not even as "good" as Daryl Thompson, whose goodness is still a matter to be determined -- out there worth obtaining? Or is it all a crapshoot, and Hanley Ramirez and Burton and all that are just accidents, front offices are retards, and teams should be run by intarwebbers and sports-talk callers who are willing to roll the dice?

One or the other; no agreeing with the original guy's point, and then saying something the exact opposite of what he posited, as if that all makes perfect sense.


Rick