The Jocketty Files

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by Jpup

My problem with Jocketty is that he doesn't do much of anything. He seems content to sit around and do nothing which will never improve the club. Half way and almost just doesn't get it done. I can't think of one deal that Jocketty has made to improve the Reds for the future, not one.

Sometimes you don't need to do anything. Sometimes the things you don't do actually improve your club going forward. We really don't know what Jocketty's plan is. We can speculate but he plays everything very close to his vest. I would argue that continuing to keep a core group of players together has been Jocketty's best move. Refusing to trade Homer for Dye may be another great move. Making sure Cueto pitched every 5th day when healthy may have been another good move.

IMO the major league club today is better than the major league club when Jocketty took over.

[Spring~Fields]

End Results under CEO's Castellini and Lindner
	W   L  PCT 	GB 	RS 	RA    DIFF 	Payroll-USA
2009 	78 84 .481 	13 	673 	723   -50  	$ 73,558,500 
2008 	74 88 .457 	23.5 	704 	800   -96  	$ 74,117,695 
2007 	72 90 .444 	13 	783 	853   -70  	$ 68,904,980 
2006 	80 82 .494 	3.5 	749 	801   -52  	$ 60,909,519
2005 	73 89 .448 	27 	820 	889   -69  	$ 61,892,583 
2004 	76 86 .469 	29 	750 	907  -157  	$ 46,615,250 
2003 	69 93 .426 	19 	694 	885  -191  	$ 59,355,667 
2002 	78 84 .481 	19 	709 	774   -65 	$ 45,050,390 

Offense
RK	Year	 BA   OBP  SLG  OPS 	RS		Payroll-USA	
11th	2009	.247 .318 .394 .712 	673		$ 73,558,500
12th	2008	.247 .321 .408 .729 	704		$ 74,117,695 
7th	2007	.267 .335 .436 .772 	783		$ 68,904,980
9th	2006	.257 .336 .432 .768 	749		$ 60,909,519
1st	2005	.261 .339 .446 .785 	820		$ 61,892,583 
10th	2004	.250 .331 .418 .749 	750		$ 46,615,250 
13th	2003	.245 .318 .395 .713 	694		$ 59,355,667 
9th	2002	.253 .330 .408 .738 	709		$ 45,050,390

Team OPS		Team OBP	Team SLG	
Year 	 OPS		 OBP		 SLG		Runs
2009	.712		.318		.394		673
2008	.729		.321		.408		704
2007	.772		.335		.436		783
2006	.768		.336		.432		749
2005	.785		.339		.446		820
2004	.749		.331		.418		750
2003	.713		.318		.395		694
2002	.738		.330		.408		709

Pitching
RK 	Year	ERA 	 IP    QS 	 ER 	  R 	BB 	SO      BAA 	
7th	2009 	4.18 	1458.1 79 	677 	723 	577 	1069 	.258	
13th	2008	4.55	1442.1 78 	729 	800 	557 	1227 	.275	
15th	2007	4.94	1449.2 74 	796 	853 	482 	1068 	.282	
7th	2006	4.51	1445.2 79 	725 	801 	464 	1053 	.278	
16th	2005	5.15	1433.0 70 	820 	889 	492 	955 	.290	
15th	2004	5.19	1443.2 68 	832 	907 	572 	992 	.280	
15th	2003	5.09	1446.1 56 	818 	886 	590 	932 	.278	
11th	2002	4.27	1453.2 67 	690 	774 	550 	980 	.269


Defense
RK	Year	E 	FPCT
10th	2009	89 	.985
3rd	2008	114 	.981
10th	2007	95 	.984
2nd	2006	128 	.979
7th	2005	104 	.983
5th	2004	113 	.981
1st	2003	141 	.977
4th	2002	120 	.981

Payroll looks like it has been more the past two seasons than any GM in the history of the Reds ever had.
Doesn't most of the starting pitching and defense come from the GM's work prior to Jocketty?
Who get's the credit for most of the bullpen?

Who get's the credit for the drop in offense the past two years if we are trying to be fair?? Dusty?

With the exception of Rolen at third, where are the objective improvements for next year for a team that has been 13, 23.5 and 13 games behind, respectively, in the past three seasons, in a bad or weak division?

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Spring~Fields

With the exception of Rolen at third, where are the objective improvements for next year for a team that has been 13, 23.5 and 13 games behind, respectively, in the past three seasons, in a bad or weak division?

Bruce not having a .222 BABIP would be a great start. Top that off with Bruce getting 150 starts. Homer Bailey pitching like a #3 pitcher for 190 innings. Johnny Cueto doing something similar. Drew Stubbs playing instead of Willy Taveras.

Those are the things that will make or break the Reds 2010 season.

[WVRedsFan]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Bruce not having a .222 BABIP would be a great start. Top that off with Bruce getting 150 starts. Homer Bailey pitching like a #3 pitcher for 190 innings. Johnny Cueto doing something similar. Drew Stubbs playing instead of Willy Taveras.

Those are the things that will make or break the Reds 2010 season.

I totally agree, Doug. If Bruce becomes the player everyone thinks he will be and we keep fodder off the field (and Cueto et al coming to form) the Reds can contend. Otherwide, we're going to be a near .500 club. To me, Bruce was a huge disappointment last year and Cueto (and I admit both are young), too. IF the kids work out, we'll have a chance. Keeping Taveras off the field and Votto on will make a big difference.

That said, Harang and Arroyo must produce and Homer has to be as good as he was at the end of the season. If all that falls together, we'll be singing Jocketty's praises. Wait. I forgot. This is RedsZone. Never mind.

[mth123]

Originally Posted by WVRedsFan

I totally agree, Doug. If Bruce becomes the player everyone thinks he will be and we keep fodder off the field (and Cueto et al coming to form) the Reds can contend. Otherwide, we're going to be a near .500 club. To me, Bruce was a huge disappointment last year and Cueto (and I admit both are young), too. IF the kids work out, we'll have a chance. Keeping Taveras off the field and Votto on will make a big difference.

That said, Harang and Arroyo must produce and Homer has to be as good as he was at the end of the season. If all that falls together, we'll be singing Jocketty's praises. Wait. I forgot. This is RedsZone. Never mind.

So the real question is this, if the team's success hinges on Bruce, Cueto and Bailey joinng Votto and becoming what their minor league pedigree suggests, how is that any different than Krivsky? Both brought in some important contributors (Phillips, Rolen) some stinkers (Stanton, Cormer, Lincoln and Taveras) and had some high dollar deals they inherited to limit their actions.

I'm not really sure much has changed, except that Jocketty brought in Bavasi which may be a bigger long term negative than anything Krivsky did.

[bucksfan2]

Originally Posted by mth123

So the real question is this, if the team's success hinges on Bruce, Cueto and Bailey joinng Votto and becoming what their minor league pedigree suggests, how is that any different than Krivsky? Both brought in some important contributors (Phillips, Rolen) some stinkers (Stanton, Cormer, Lincoln and Taveras) and had some high dollar deals they inherited to limit their actions.

Find me a team that doesn't have stinkers. Find me a GM who hasn't bought a stinker in his career.

Every team's success hinges on a handful of players. Even more so when you are dealing with a small/middle market club. I would much rather place the success of my club on Votto, Bruce, Cueto, and Bailey instead of Hatteberg, Wilson, Joey Hamilton, etc.

I find it difficult to compare GM's without further knowledge. Its hard to know what edict either are given from the owner in regards to direction and finance. To me Jocketty has been rather inactive in making moves. The much maligned move to sign Taveras shouldn't hamstring a club. $7M over the course of 2 years shouldn't financially strap a club and if it does the owner should sell the team.

In Jocketty's tenure as a Red he let one player walk, Dunn, and traded one prospect of note, Stewart. Dunn wasn't coming back and Stewart has been discussed ad nauseum. At the same time Krivsky traded away the teams starting SS and RF in one trade in order to fix the bullpen. The price paid was very high at the time, in retrospect it probably was a net loss for both clubs.

I'm not really sure much has changed, except that Jocketty brought in Bavasi which may be a bigger long term negative than anything Krivsky did.

I may be in the minority here, but anytime you can bring in talent into the front office that is a good thing. Bavasi may have been a failure as a GM but he didn't work his way through the system by being an idiot. The same could be said about both Krivsky and Obie. Both were fired as a GM but would be a nice addition to any team's scouting department.

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Bruce not having a .222 BABIP would be a great start. Top that off with Bruce getting 150 starts. Homer Bailey pitching like a #3 pitcher for 190 innings. Johnny Cueto doing something similar. Drew Stubbs playing instead of Willy Taveras.

Those are the things that will make or break the Reds 2010 season.

I think that there are honest question marks about the entire outfield, offensively, and playing time. Of course the question of ss. I also think that the team has real concerns about the starting pitching one through five and what those combinations will bring, performance, production wise and consistency from their perspective starts. Through it all we have to somewhat ignore or omit any discussion on a good bench for the Reds.

Regarding the players, and questions being a masked way of saying that we don’t know if they will overcome their underachiever status to date, without being unkind and saying chances are they won’t.

So if the widgets produced by the players don’t push the production stats upward toward a more positive direction that matches or overcomes the competition, well, I am not sure that any GM, Bowden, O’Brien, Krivsky, Jocketty or the short term interim that they had, even though I think he brought in Harang in a trade with Oakland, I not am sure any GM can truly improve this team under the chief executive officers of a Lindner or a Castellini.

What I get from reading you on the minor league boards (respectfully) is that there are some genuine reasons and comparisons regarding players making it or not at the MLB level, and that some are just not capable of being more than they are at the time of your reports. So from that perception I get that the entire Reds outfield, ss, and 3/5’s of the Reds starting pitching might be some of those that can serve a purpose but not actually obtain the greater heights that the team needs to reach greater goals than what has been the result under the multiple general managers and the chief executive officers, Castellini, and Lindner.

I think that 2010 could be a good growth and development year if the player resources are utilized in a manner that produces that type of outcome. Certainly with Mr. Baker, several players will get opportunities to play sporadically, and of course the DL and potential injury time is there to give other’s a chance to perform, which could prove to be beneficial in future seasons.

Those numbers up above, one way or another have to show improvement before, the tenure of Jocketty can claim improvement legitimately and even then he might have to share joint credit with the ill-fated GM’s previously under the hand of Castellini and Lindner.

[kpresidente]

Originally Posted by Spring~Fields

[code]

Payroll looks like it has been more the past two seasons than any GM in the history of the Reds ever had.

You should post their ML rank. Raising payroll doesn't do you any good if everybody else raises theirs the same.

[kpresidente]

Originally Posted by mth123

I'm not really sure much has changed, except that Jocketty brought in Bavasi which may be a bigger long term negative than anything Krivsky did.

The problem with Jocketty is that his moves suggest that he's way too formulaic with the speed and defense thing, overlooking quality players that don't fit whatever his dreamy little model is. I always had the feeling with WK that at least he understood that value was most important, just that sometimes he couldn't help himself and went overboard with the contracts, desperate to win now. Both amount to the same thing, you don't maximize your talent, but WK's problem seemed less philosophical, more execution. He just needed more patience, which meant there was hope. For Jocketty, it's fundamental. He's not going to change because he's old school, and that's a big problem.

[HokieRed]

Not sure how defense can be a problem. Seems to me essential to have excellent defense in the bandbox that is GABP. How else will we ever attract or retain pitchers? Do you want to give up extra outs in that place?

[mth123]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

Find me a team that doesn't have stinkers. Find me a GM who hasn't bought a stinker in his career.

Every team's success hinges on a handful of players. Even more so when you are dealing with a small/middle market club. I would much rather place the success of my club on Votto, Bruce, Cueto, and Bailey instead of Hatteberg, Wilson, Joey Hamilton, etc.

I find it difficult to compare GM's without further knowledge. Its hard to know what edict either are given from the owner in regards to direction and finance. To me Jocketty has been rather inactive in making moves. The much maligned move to sign Taveras shouldn't hamstring a club. $7M over the course of 2 years shouldn't financially strap a club and if it does the owner should sell the team.

In Jocketty's tenure as a Red he let one player walk, Dunn, and traded one prospect of note, Stewart. Dunn wasn't coming back and Stewart has been discussed ad nauseum. At the same time Krivsky traded away the teams starting SS and RF in one trade in order to fix the bullpen. The price paid was very high at the time, in retrospect it probably was a net loss for both clubs.



I may be in the minority here, but anytime you can bring in talent into the front office that is a good thing. Bavasi may have been a failure as a GM but he didn't work his way through the system by being an idiot. The same could be said about both Krivsky and Obie. Both were fired as a GM but would be a nice addition to any team's scouting department.

Of course all teams revolve around a few guys. But we've been hearing for years Bruce, Votto, Cueto and Bailey are the future. Krivsky added to that core by stealing Hamilton and flipping him for Volquez. So far Walt has muddied the water by drafting Alonso where a core piece already was in place and dealing off his other good draft pick for an old guy. The losing was supposed to stop when the change was made, but Walt seems to have the same "wait for the core talent to gel" plan that WK did. At least WK was adding younger pieces like Phillips and the aforementioned Volquez to supplement the core. WK hasn't really done anything (though adding Masset for Griffey was a pretty darn good move). Maybe Mike Leake will be his stamp on this team.

As for Bavasi, he's from a storied baseball family and the heavy lifting for the family name was done by others. Not sure the working his way-up reference applies to him any more than it does to Mike Brown or David Shula. If he's here to lend a hand it may be OK, but I fear that when WJ makes his retirement official (as opposed to the unofficial retirement that we've seen from his GM tenure) that Bavasi will be the man.

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by kpresidente

You should post their ML rank. Raising payroll doesn't do you any good if everybody else raises theirs the same.

I see your point, honestly I got a bit confused on what the rankings were ranking over at ESPN, whether it was runs, OPS, OBP, SLG etc.

What I was trying to do with the payroll this time around vs complaining about it and so forth, was that I was trying to line up the dollars next to the outcomes and performance to get some kind of idea what those dollar amounts were buying the Reds in the past seasons.

I am trying to see if they are buying basically the same OPS, OBP, SLG even if the names change, but do the numbers for the same dollars etc. Might be a bad idea.

Of course we think they could have done better with the money they had, but then, maybe they could have, and maybe they couldn't. Not sure anymore.

Besides I thought that maybe some others might add some better insights to interpreting that grouping.

I wasn't trying to blow any smoke up anyones skirts with those numbers, I was just trying to paint an accurate picture of where they have been, where they are, and where they might be going.

[Ron Madden]

Originally Posted by HokieRed

Not sure how defense can be a problem. Seems to me essential to have excellent defense in the bandbox that is GABP. How else will we ever attract or retain pitchers? Do you want to give up extra outs in that place?

There's nothing wrong with targeting good defense. In order to obtain good defensive players you must first have the ability to identify good defensive players. On the day Willy Taveras signed both Walt and Dusty described him as an excellent defensive CFer.

Excuse me for being concerned about Walt and Dusty's talent evaluation skills.

[HokieRed]

I didn't like the Taveras signing any better than anybody else, but he's an above average CF, despite his taking bad routes to the ball--which is not unheard of among good centerfielders. The infield defense at the end of the season--Rolen, Janish, Phillips, Votto--was as good as it's been in Cinti for years. This year's team, with Stubbs in CF, Bruce in RF, and Nix, then Votto in LF, and very good catching with Hanigan, decent catching with Hernandez, will be one of the best defensive teams in the major leagues--if not the best.

[Ron Madden]

Originally Posted by HokieRed

I didn't like the Taveras signing any better than anybody else, but he's an above average CF, despite his taking bad routes to the ball--which is not unheard of among good centerfielders. The infield defense at the end of the season--Rolen, Janish, Phillips, Votto--was as good as it's been in Cinti for years. This year's team, with Stubbs in CF, Bruce in RF, and Nix, then Votto in LF, and very good catching with Hanigan, decent catching with Hernandez, will be one of the best defensive teams in the major leagues--if not the best.

Of all the players named above the only good defensive player Walt has added to the club is Rolen. Excellent defensive CFers get a good jump on and don't take bad routes to the ball. Hernandez doesn't impress me with his defense. JMHO