No team is perfect in April

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I understand that no team is perfect and it takes time, tuning, thought, and patience to get the club to its optimum configuration (or as close as possible).

But games count just as much in April as they do in September. So let's not dilly-dally about getting it together.

If there is a reasonable replacement in the minors, let's not waste time on letting sub-replacement level vets get it together (Mr. Milton, I mean you sir).

Exactly.

I'm all for shaking out the roster as the season progresses. Good teams need to cull the weak and bolster the lineup, rotation, bullpen, etc.

But why bother starting the season with guys you are 90% certain will be terrible? I guess it's okay if you're willing to gamble on that 10% chance they'll succeed and capture that old magic, or that they'll get off to a hot start.

Unfortunately, when that gamble pays off, teams tend to ride that bet way, way too long. Danny Graves piling up 30 Saves by the All-Star Break in 2004 convinced a lot of people that he could "get the job done." That worked out well, didn't it?

Make yourself a better team as the season goes on, but don't start the marathon by running backwards.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Roy Tucker

I understand that no team is perfect and it takes time, tuning, thought, and patience to get the club to its optimum configuration (or as close as possible).

But games count just as much in April as they do in September. So let's not dilly-dally about getting it together.

If there is a reasonable replacement in the minors, let's not waste time on letting sub-replacement level vets get it together (Mr. Milton, I mean you sir).

I completely agree with that. Like I said, part of what an organization should be doing right now is eliminating known problems. There's no reason to invite more trouble than necessary.

I'll toss hitting Alex Gonzalez in the 2-hole on that pile. That's not going to work, guaranteed. The more obvious mistakes a team avoids, the more it will allow luck and individual hot starts to win out in April.

[Redsland]

A lot of people talk about baseball being a marathon. Often that's a way of saying it's no big deal if you stumble early.

Okay, but the Kenyans win a lot of marathons.

Where do you think they start them? Back here?


Or up here?

[BRM]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

Make yourself a better team as the season goes on, but don't start the marathon by running backwards.

This line says it all for me. Don't put yourself in a bad situation right out of the gate.

[Tom Servo]

With the options we have like Brad Salmon and probably Jon Coutlangus starting in the minors there is no reason for guys like Rheal Cormier and Dustin Hermanson to be kept around if they put up Chris Hammond and Rick White numbers. There's also no reason to trade Edwin and BP to the Nationals for some relievers. We need to be quick to pull the plug on the seniors tour.

[Always Red]

Originally Posted by Tom Servo

With the options we have like Brad Salmon and probably Jon Coutlangus starting in the minors there is no reason for guys like Rheal Cormier and Dustin Hermanson to be kept around if they put up Chris Hammond and Rick White numbers. There's also no reason to trade Edwin and BP to the Nationals for some relievers. We need to be quick to pull the plug on the seniors tour.

I tend to agree. But, if they pitch better than Hammond and White, then this team has a lot of depth, more than in recent years.

If the Reds jetison the old guys and Milty, and the fresh young replacements (who looked so good in spring training) post Hammond-like numbers, then what happens? Because there is no one in line after them. And Coutlangus, Belisle, Salmon, Burton, and Livingston are all unproven. Yes, they looked good, all of them, in ST, but they are all still unproven.

I think Cormier's dealable; I'd trade him in a heartbeat since we already have so many lefties. I'd try Hermanson simply because there is no one else. Guardado was posting Hammond-like numbers with the M's last summer until he got here, and somehow with smoke and mirrors, pitched like there was no tomorrow (to be fair to Eddie, the man does know how to pitch, which is why he got guys out, he just can't throw it all that hard anymore).

[Cooper]

I say we start the triple A team that way if things go south we got something to fall back on.

[Johnny Footstool]

Originally Posted by Always Red

If the Reds jetison the old guys and Milty, and the fresh young replacements (who looked so good in spring training) post Hammond-like numbers, then what happens? Because there is no one in line after them. And Coutlangus, Belisle, Salmon, Burton, and Livingston are all unproven. Yes, they looked good, all of them, in ST, but they are all still unproven.

So the Reds must endure a level of Known Suckitude (Milton, Hermanson) to avoid discovering whether or not their young prospects can handle the bigs or not? I don't agree with that reasoning.

How will Salmon, Burton, et al. ever get a chance to be "proven" if they have to wait for someone to die before a roster spot clears?

I'll take an unproven guy with a high ceiling over a guy who has proven to be mediocre at best.

[Always Red]

Originally Posted by Johnny Footstool

I'll take an unproven guy with a high ceiling over a guy who has proven to be mediocre at best.

Yes, but none of these guys are high-ceiling guys except for Homer. And we weren't even talking about him until I brought his name up. I wouldn't say Burton and Livingston are high-ceiling guys, either, they were left unprotected for a reason, and have never proven themselves. I agree that they look promising, if you you consider ST games of value.

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here; I don't know the answer as my crystal ball is out for repairs. I do know if you unload all the vets, and the rookies crump, then you are done for the year, quickly, because there is no one else. If you keep who you can, store depth at AAA, weed out the broken arms, has-beens and never-were's, and maybe patch together a mediocre pitching staff.

I think I've talked myself into realizing that this is not a very good staff once you get past Harang and Arroyo.

[Cedric]

Originally Posted by Always Red

Yes, but none of these guys are high-ceiling guys except for Homer. And we weren't even talking about him until I brought his name up. I wouldn't say Burton and Livingston are high-ceiling guys, either, they were left unprotected for a reason, and have never proven themselves. I agree that they look promising, if you you consider ST games of value.

I'm just playing Devil's advocate here; I don't know the answer as my crystal ball is out for repairs. I do know if you unload all the vets, and the rookies crump, then you are done for the year, quickly, because there is no one else. If you keep who you can, store depth at AAA, weed out the broken arms, has-beens and never-were's, and maybe patch together a mediocre pitching staff.

I think I've talked myself into realizing that this is not a very good staff once you get past Harang and Arroyo.

And sadly I think that is what happened. Stanton and the likes haven't allowed for much flexibility at this point. Marty has been beating this drum for awhile now and he's right, IMO. Might surprise some people here

[Cooper]

The Twins are currently in love with Sidney Ponson and Carlos Silva...and they got other options in triple A. I have no idea why they put themselves through this. I'm with Johnny F: put in the higher ceiling guys. Even if their ceilings are .50 runs lower than the so-called first option.

[Roy Tucker]

I guess the rationale is hope to squeeze out some innings/at-bats from the maybe-maybe-not has-been vets because you never know when you might get some surprise production from them. If you get production, then the rookies get more experience down on the farm.

And if the vets fail, then up come the kids.