Doc on Juan Rivera

[BRM]

With Rivera, you stand to not only lose money but also ballgames, since he's likely to play regardless of how poorly he performs.

Hmmm, looks eerily similar to the argument against another outfielder that's been discussed a lot lately.

[RedEye]

Hmmm, looks eerily similar to the argument against another outfielder that's been discussed a lot lately.

Wait a minute... Rivera is better than Taveras. I mean, right?

[TRF]

Rivera and WT in the OF together?

That looks like were we are headed.

I can't believe you invited HIM to this thread.

[membengal]

Wait a minute... Rivera is better than Taveras. I mean, right?

All joking aside, I think that answer is easily yes, because Rivera has discernable power. The SLG difference makes that an easy call, however walk challenged they may be...

[BRM]

Wait a minute... Rivera is better than Taveras. I mean, right?

I think so. I believe CE's overall point though is that neither will help the Reds win games.

[Johnny Footstool]

Rivera is a decent player to take a chance on. He should be relatively cheap, and he has a lot of upside.

Signing him wouldn't be a disaster, nor would it guarantee the Reds a spot in the playoffs.

I'd rather have Bobby Abreu, but that's not likely to happen.

[dougdirt]

So, if he's healthy -- which he hasn't been lately -- he's "fairly capable" of a good year.

Forgive me, but the Reds just gave up Adam Dunn and Ken Griffey, Jr. Perhaps they could acquire someone who is likely to have a good year -- not just fairly capable if healthy.

I'm sure this guy is a fine ballplayer, but if this is the major offensive acquisition, then I wonder about the commitment to winning.

He was healthy last year, he just didn't play regularly until mid season because others were getting the chances instead of him. Then at that point he was ridiculously unlucky on his balls in play (.242 BABIP).

Now I do want to address your final statement about a major offensive acquisition. Hypothetically speaking players tend to get better until their age 27/28 season. That means the Reds should see improvements from Bruce, Votto, Encarnacion and potentially Phillips. Add in anything thats not Corey Patterson and Paul Bako and we have two more positions that are going to have better offense (unless we do the God awful idea and bring in Taveras). Adding a good but not great bat to a position we have absolutely nothing at right now is just another piece to the puzzle. While I would love to bring in a guy who can OPS .900 to play LF, its unfortunately not very likely. The Reds lost Dunn, which is going to be tough to replace, but losing Dunn while also replacing Bako and Patterson with anything resembling league average (and a league average left fielder) is an improvement of your overall offense. We have a ways to go, but Losing Dunn/Bako/Patterson and adding league average at LF/C/CF is an overall + to the offense. The argument of course comes to whether you believe Rivera can provide league average or better in LF (which for the top 30 PA guys in LF was .279/.354/.464 for an .818 OPS).

[dougdirt]

Hmmm, looks eerily similar to the argument against another outfielder that's been discussed a lot lately.

Except one guy can't hit the ball out of the infield while the other guy has a little above average power and a career OPS that is 132 points higher. But yeah, they are really similar players.

[BRM]

Except one guy can't hit the ball out of the infield while the other guy has a little above average power and a career OPS that is 132 points higher. But yeah, they are really similar players.

Nowhere in my post did I say they were similar players. Nowhere.

[dougdirt]

Nowhere in my post did I say they were similar players. Nowhere.

No, but you were in agreement that Rivera isn't a good baseball player since CE states that either playing leads to the Reds losing ball games.

[BRM]

No, but you were in agreement that Rivera isn't a good baseball player since CE states that either playing leads to the Reds losing ball games.

Actually, I didn't even do that. Although I can see where it's implied.

I just stated that his argument against Rivera (Reds lose if he plays a lot) was the same as the one people made against WT. For the record, I do somewhat agree. I'd take Rivera as a 4th OF, possible platoon guy in LF but not as an everyday leftfielder.

[Caveat Emperor]

No, but you were in agreement that Rivera isn't a good baseball player since CE states that either playing leads to the Reds losing ball games.

What I said was this:

With Rivera, you stand to not only lose money but also ballgames, since he's likely to play regardless of how poorly he performs.

If Rivera signs, all indications are that Rivera will be signing to be the starting LF for the 2009 Cincinnati Reds. He will be penciled into the starting lineup every night by Dusty and will only be removed from the starting lineup if injuries, the Allmighty, or Jocketty intercede. That's how Dusty rolls; he's a former position player and his natural inclination is to let players play through slumps, even if those slumps are career-long and stem from lack of talent as opposed to a bad week or two.

Given that fact, and my prior point that Rivera lacks a projectable "base" performance level, he becomes a large risk to the Reds lineup should any number of things not go his way this season, including but not limited to:

* Dip in contact rate and increase in strikeout rate
* BABIP levelling out at ~.270-.280 (which is possible, given his low level of pitch selectivity and propensity to put any ball he can reach into play)
* Power numbers leveling off

I'm not saying Rivera isn't a good baseball player (given his injury history and sporadic play over the last two years, I don't think anyone really knows what he is anymore) -- what I'm saying is that he's a RISKY baseball player. I don't like signing risky ballplayers when better, more known, options are on the table. I especially don't like signing risky ballplayers and penciling in optimistic numbers next to their name as you proceed to fill out your lineup card for the season.

Rivera is a question mark. The Reds needs more exclamation points.

[Mario-Rijo]

What I said was this:



If Rivera signs, all indications are that Rivera will be signing to be the starting LF for the 2009 Cincinnati Reds. He will be penciled into the starting lineup every night by Dusty and will only be removed from the starting lineup if injuries, the Allmighty, or Jocketty intercede. That's how Dusty rolls; he's a former position player and his natural inclination is to let players play through slumps, even if those slumps are career-long and stem from lack of talent as opposed to a bad week or two.

Given that fact, and my prior point that Rivera lacks a projectable "base" performance level, he becomes a large risk to the Reds lineup should any number of things not go his way this season, including but not limited to:

* Dip in contact rate and increase in strikeout rate
* BABIP levelling out at ~.270-.280 (which is possible, given his low level of pitch selectivity and propensity to put any ball he can reach into play)
* Power numbers leveling off

I'm not saying Rivera isn't a good baseball player (given his injury history and sporadic play over the last two years, I don't think anyone really knows what he is anymore) -- what I'm saying is that he's a RISKY baseball player. I don't like signing risky ballplayers when better, more known, options are on the table. I especially don't like signing risky ballplayers and penciling in optimistic numbers next to their name as you proceed to fill out your lineup card for the season.

Rivera is a question mark. The Reds needs more exclamation points.

Everyone knows (I think) where I fall on this argument, I like Rivera and believe he is an exception to the rule. That said this is the best argument I have seen against that argument. I still have to disagree but I can see where this warrants more consideration based on your points. At least where contact rate is concerned anyway. I'm not sure when that typically falls off in a player but if it does it certainly hurts Rivera more than most. I don't see his power leveling off yet and especially not in this park or division, but the contact rate could effect the bottom line there also. His BABIP has always been low for his results, many times lower than what you have listed there but he has still maintained good BA's despite that fact. But again contact rate comes into play here as well, if it dips everything does. Plus his BA would probably we lower in GABP than most places but his OBP% shouldn't take as much of a dive as a result with his Slg% being propped up a bit by the park.

Overall I still see a good bet here I think the guy is a professional line drive type hitter. But after this post it does give me a tad more pause but not enough to not pursue him. I'd much rather have a Matt Holliday but given our options Rivera is closer to the answer than the opposite.

Problem is however that I don't think the middle of the lineup is as a big an issue as the top of the lineup at this point. If we don't score runs it won't likely be because of Rivera or whomever else we get to play LF but because we have no legit options at the top of the lineup who also play everyday positionally. I think Dusty and Walt both know this but for whatever reason are ignoring OBP% if they sign Taveras, but even if he works out (extreme longshot I know) there is still a big hole at the #2 spot. Oh I know what they are thinking Taveras CF & #1 and Kepp SS & #2 (sorry this stinks).

[Mario-Rijo]

Basically I echoed what Dave Cameron had to say (even though I wrote it before he did, we basically had the same things to say). While Cyclone thinks he isn't very likely to do that because guys who don't walk aren't very projectable (while I normally would agree, Rivera is in a very different place than most other free swingers because he has both good power and a very high contact rate). Thus he see's Rivera being 'teh suck', I see Rivera as being a guy, if healthy, fairly capable of hitting .290-.300 with a .340 OBP and slugging you .475+.

I agree with you post Doug but just wanted to point out that Cameron and OBM beat us all to that argument. I hadn't noticed it at 1st either but OBM actually posted Cameron's thoughts on the other Rivera thread.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/newre...eply&p=1776546

[Mario-Rijo]

Additionally I would add that a trade for Dye or signing of a Burrell or the like may prohibit us from acquiring anything at the deadline. Whereas Rivera if he can help keep us in the thing to the deadline almost forces the hand of the F.O. to add at the deadline and they don't have the money excuse not to. Of course that could mean bad news for any good prospects we have near the bigs. Frazier, Valaika and the like come to mind, Valaika I could live with parting with but Frazier I really like.