Turn Off Ads?
Page 13 of 14 FirstFirst ... 391011121314 LastLast
Results 181 to 195 of 201

Thread: Paul Wilson signs a 2 yr contract with the Reds

  1. #181
    Member
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    251
    Wow!!!

    Ouch!!!


    Holy Cow!!!


    Boys Boys Boys!!!


    Can't we all just get along????

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #182
    Team Tuck
    Guest
    Ron Villone's 3 one-hitters are the most amazing thing from 1999. Luck? Just a little, I'd say. Steve Parris was what, 11-4 that year? Luck? A little.

  4. #183
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,134
    More than offset by Brett Tomko, who had been a good pitcher the previous two years, going kerplooey and Denny Neagle hitting the shelf for half the season.

    All I know is that plenty of people (me included) saw that '99 team coming from way around the bend.

    Just like this year's team looks like nothing special.

    I've given JimBo and this ownership the past three years. They haven't delivered.

  5. #184
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    11,243
    For the record, the Reds acquired Greg Vaughn on Feb. 2, 1999, so perhaps Team Tuck's suggestion that JimBo is not yet done assembling the '03 Reds is a valid one.

    February 2, 1999: The Reds acquire outfielders Greg Vaughn and Mark Sweeney from the Padres for OF Reggie Sanders, IF Damian Jackson and P Josh Harris.
    "People that frequent Internet forums resemble the cast of One Flew Over the Cuckoos Nest!" - C. J. Cregg, The West Wing

  6. #185
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    20,897
    Calling Cameron or Tucker "solid" acquisitions during that offseason is laughable.
    Hold on a minute.. It's relative here. I didn't say Tucker was an allstar. But he's a lot more solid than picking up wilton Guerrero this offseason. Tucker was good enough to start for the Atlanta Braves when we traded for him. When Vaughn was hurt, Tucker and Hammonds filled in and we didn't miss a beat. Tucker contributed a lot that season.

    Cameron was a CF that had 1 good year and 1 bad year. We desparately needed a CF. We traded a guy that wasn't going to get any playing time anyhow. Again, a solid acquision ,because he had a good chance to fill a glaring need. He ended up exceeding expectations, but even at the time it was a great gamble to fill a need.

  7. #186
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    20,897
    red-in-la,

    Let me also add Reyes to your list. That guy definitely had his best year ever in 1999.

    I'm still having nightmares of screaming at the radio to McKeon "Why didn't you start Neagle in the one game playoff if he was available" Too bad Parris' luck ran out in that game.

  8. #187
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, aka, the most prosperous city in the world.
    Posts
    10,523
    Originally posted by REDREAD
    [I'm still having nightmares of screaming at the radio to McKeon "Why didn't you start Neagle in the one game playoff if he was available" Too bad Parris' luck ran out in that game. [/B]
    I think that starting Parris (11-3 at the time) on 4 days rest was certainly better than Neagle on 2 days reasr, as Neagle had pitched 6 innings on Friday. We did not score any runs against Leiter. I'm not sure that it mattered who started the game for us.

  9. #188
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    20,897
    I'm I think that starting Parris (11-3 at the time) on 4 days rest was certainly better than Neagle on 2 days reasr, as Neagle had pitched 6 innings on Friday..
    But Neagle appeared in the game anyhow, after Parris had lost it.

    If Neagle was only available for 2-3 innings (which he was), I would've preferred Neagle to start. Then, if necesary, I use up Williamson, Reyes, Graves and the entire pen to finish it. McKeon should've played that game as if there was no tommorrow.

    We might've still lost the game, as Leiter was awsome. But if Neagle started, we would've had a better start, instead of being down 4-0 ? when Neagle came in.

    I agree, we probably lose the game anyhow. But I was furious that our entire season's fate rested on Steve Parris.

  10. #189
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, aka, the most prosperous city in the world.
    Posts
    10,523
    Originally posted by REDREAD
    But Neagle appeared in the game anyhow, after Parris had lost it.

    If Neagle was only available for 2-3 innings (which he was), I would've preferred Neagle to start. Then, if necesary, I use up Williamson, Reyes, Graves and the entire pen to finish it. McKeon should've played that game as if there was no tommorrow.

    We might've still lost the game, as Leiter was awsome. But if Neagle started, we would've had a better start, instead of being down 4-0 ? when Neagle came in.

    I agree, we probably lose the game anyhow. But I was furious that our entire season's fate rested on Steve Parris.
    Parris was one of our best pitchers that year. He was 11-3 going into that game. We really blew it on that Friday, when Neagle turned over a 3-1 lead to the bullpen after 6 innings. That same bullpen proceeded to blow the lead and the game. Also, Parris only gave up 3 of the runs. Neagle gave up the forth. The decision to start Parris was obvious and correct. it didn't turn out well, but it made little difference. Neagle wasn't very sharp.

  11. #190
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,134
    Oh, that Friday game. Is it all right to own a voodoo doll of Kevin Barker?

    He must be made to suffer.

  12. #191
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    20,897
    I agree with you there Puffy.. Actually, if we had won one lousy game in that last 3 game series with the Brewers, it would've all been moot.

    I think Guzman lost one of the Brewer games too.

    I disagree about Parris being one of our best pitchers that year though. He got the wins, but the guy always seemed to put a ton of runners on base and get lucky.

    If you had to choose one of the Reds 1999 starters to pitch a game, neglecting rest issues (which were certainly relevant in the 1 game playoff of course).. I don't think many folks would pick Parris as the money pitcher in that rotation.

  13. #192
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,214
    Here's what the Reds starters were like in 1999

    Code:
    WALKS/9 IP                    BB/9 IP     IP       ERA      GS     BR/9 IP   BB/9 IP    
       Juan Guzman                2.45     77       3.04       12    10.75     2.45   
       Pete Harnisch              2.59    198       3.68       33    11.45     2.59   
       Brett Tomko                3.14    172       4.92       26    12.51     3.14   
       Denny Neagle               3.23    111.1     4.28       19    11.24     3.23   
       Steve Parris               3.65    128.1     3.51       21    12.76     3.65   
       Ron Villone                4.62    142.1     4.24       22    12.14     4.62   
    Parris had the best ERA on the team, but the least amount of starts and innings.
    Last edited by westofyou; 01-15-2003 at 04:26 PM.

  14. #193
    All dyslexics must untie!
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    SW Portland, OR
    Posts
    8,604
    "I think Guzman lost one of the Brewer games too"

    Yup, Saturday day game...not too many hard hit balls off Guzman during that outing, but he made a couple of fielding/throwing errors that led to runs. And the Red's bats were silent

    The Met's playoff game shoulda never been necessary...
    Last edited by gm; 01-15-2003 at 04:29 PM.
    Never overlook the obvious

  15. #194
    Member
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Posts
    4,225
    Originally posted by westofyou
    here's what the Reds starters weer likein 1999
    You left out the two best pitchers in that rotation: Guzman & Neagle.

    After thos two, I'd say Parris & Harnisch were a tossup for the #3 spot, with Harnisch getting the nod because he was the more experienced of the two. Net, IMO, Parris was the 4th best pitcher in that rotation after Neagle's return and the Guzman acquisition.

  16. #195
    breath westofyou's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    PDX
    Posts
    42,214
    You left out the two best pitchers in that rotation: Guzman & Neagle.
    Yeah, I fixed it. Their low innings would account for villone being on the list.


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