I would like the move more if it were for less money, yes, but my larger point is a philosophical one about roster management. $21 million over three years is a lot of money. Add it to the amount the Reds plunked down on Ludwick and you've got $36 million to play with over three years.
Generally speaking, I think the smart GM's look for RP in other places before they spend top dollar on an "established closer". IMO, at the time of the Broxton signing the team already had at least two candidates on the roster to close -- Marshall and Hoover -- along with other folks like LeCure and Simon poised to make a larger contribution.
“Every level he goes to, he is going to compete. They will know who he is at every level he goes to.” -- ED on EDLC
True. I like it much better than the Cordero signing. But I still don't like it. As I said, mine is more a philosophical objection. I'd rather see the money distributed toward upgrading more important parts of the roster.
Can't argue with your point about it not being my money, of course. It's his call, but that doesn't mean I can't complain about it.
“Every level he goes to, he is going to compete. They will know who he is at every level he goes to.” -- ED on EDLC
I understand. How'd you feel about the Ryan Madson signing a year ago?
I'm OK with the Broxton deal because I feel better about him closing than Marshall or Hoover. I don't see either of those two closing on a championship team. If Chapman falters as a starter then we go back to our lights out bullpen of a year ago and that's OK too
I can understand that position, but I just respectfully disagree.
If the money is there (as in the Reds' case) I don't mind spending it on proven relievers (within reason). The bullpen was a big strength last year. Bullpen is really important in the postseason.
We've already seen that Marshall is more comfortable in a setup role and excells there. I really don't want to count on Hoover being the closer. Depth is always welcome. The great thing about signing Broxton now is that we get him for 3 years (hopefully healthy), as opposed to possibly scrambling at the trading deadline to address the pen (and giving up prospects).
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
1. Angels
2. Dodgers
3. Tigers
4. Phillies
5. Giants
6. Reds
7. Nationals
8. Blue Jays
That's my power rankings right now. I don't know if the order matters as they should all be good.
"My mission is to be the ray of hope, the guy who stands out there on that beautiful field and owns up to his mistakes and lets people know it's never completely hopeless, no matter how bad it seems at the time. I have a platform and a message, and now I go to bed at night, sober and happy, praying I can be a good messenger." -Josh Hamilton
We just have different definitions of "within reason" I suppose. And let me emphasize that my complaint is really just a quibble within an overall assessment of Walt's offseason. Broxton didn't break the bank, and neither did Madson -- and I much prefer those signings to the Cordero fiasco of a few years before.Originally Posted by Sea Ray
That said, I think it is also "within reason" for the most savvy front offices to save money by approaching bullpen construction in a different manner. And why not ask for perfection?
“Every level he goes to, he is going to compete. They will know who he is at every level he goes to.” -- ED on EDLC
1. Washington
Pitching, defense, offense, and, believe it or not, upside. Really solid in all phases of the game.
2. Cincinnati
See Washington. Add TOR arm like Chapman as wildcard short series starter. Hope for health.
3. Toronto
Love J. Johnson at the front of a rotation that also includes Buehrle, and Dickey? That's going to be hard to beat in the AL.
4. LA Dodgers
Holes at either SS or 3B and questions around the infield, but that rotation could be great if all breaks right.
5. LA Angels
Unbelievable batting order 1-6, but the rotation is really weak and the pen has questions.
1. Washington
2. Cincy
3. Dodgers
4. Giants
5. Blue Jays
6. Cardinals
7. Los Angeles Angels of Aneheim, world, universe
8. Tigers
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.
Account in some way, any way, for the reality that players' likely performance is not simply a repeat of 2012. There are lots of project systems out there. If that's too big of a hurdle, to project teams 2013 performances based on their talent and not just a recombination of 2012 performances, then the writer has asked the wrong question.
Asking a question that one is not equipped to answer well is not an excuse for providing a weak answer. He could have written an article over just who had the best offseason without including a weak projection of 2013.
Don't get me wrong, I understand that's a hard article to write, especially this time of year. And I know I'm being way too harsh for article that's supposed to be relatively soft/accessible. I just see that kind of lazy thinking all over the place and expect more from a print journalist than sportstalk radio.
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.
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. |