Cliff Lee

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Pythag is pretty useless, especially in May

This year may be different because it's trending in a positive direction for the first time in ages. But it's not like it hasn't been right for the last ten years around this time.

[MWM]

Originally Posted by Will M

IMO the Twins are a good model for the Reds to emulate. (with one exception: when the Twins go outside their team to spend money they often don't do it wisely). i would like for the Reds to try & build a team than can contend year after year. set the bar at 85 or more wins. any year you don't win 85 games is a failure & something went wrong. the current Reds seem to set the bar a lot lower.

The Twins model is the exact model I do NOT want to follow. They build to be competitive, not to win the World Series. Sure, they get to the playoffs regularly, but they never have a legit WS contender. They really have no chance once they get there.

They've won all of ONE playoff series in the past 18 years. The've been bouced 4 straight times in the first round, being swept twice and winning only one game the other two. The one time they did make to the ALCS back in 2002, they were manhandled and lost 4 games to 1. In other words, they've benefitted from being in a bad division and slipped into the playoffs but have been demolished once they got there.

No thanks. I haven't the slightest interest in that model. Dare to be just good enough but never great. I've lived in Minnesota the past 5 baseball seasons and their team has held little interest for me. Not once have I ever watched them thinking this is what I want for the Reds.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by MWM

The Twins model is the exact model I do NOT want to follow. They build to be competitive, not to win the World Series. Sure, they get to the playoffs regularly, but they never have a legit WS contender. They really have no chance once they get there.

They've won all of ONE playoff series in the past 18 years. The've been bouced 4 straight times in the first round, being swept twice and winning only one game the other two. The one time they did make to the ALCS back in 2002, they were manhandled and lost 4 games to 1. In other words, they've benefitted from being in a bad division and slipped into the playoffs but have been demolished once they got there.

No thanks. I haven't the slightest interest in that model. Dare to be just good enough but never great. I've lived in Minnesota the past 5 baseball seasons and their team has held little interest for me. Not once have I ever watched them thinking this is what I want for the Reds.

Yeah, again. The middling-starter model is toast when it matters. You want a guy who can guarantee you two wins in a seven game series. Then go from there.

[vaticanplum]

Originally Posted by MWM

The Twins model is the exact model I do NOT want to follow. They build to be competitive, not to win the World Series. Sure, they get to the playoffs regularly, but they never have a legit WS contender. They really have no chance once they get there.

They've won all of ONE playoff series in the past 18 years. The've been bouced 4 straight times in the first round, being swept twice and winning only one game the other two. The one time they did make to the ALCS back in 2002, they were manhandled and lost 4 games to 1. In other words, they've benefitted from being in a bad division and slipped into the playoffs but have been demolished once they got there.

No thanks. I haven't the slightest interest in that model. Dare to be just good enough but never great. I've lived in Minnesota the past 5 baseball seasons and their team has held little interest for me. Not once have I ever watched them thinking this is what I want for the Reds.

I was just about to post about this. The Twins have not really had much playoff success beyond getting there. They are a fun team to watch, they always have interesting, maddening talent coming through the ranks, and I think their management does a good job being flexible and building with what they have, not with some model they've laid out on paper. But for all that, it isn't a successful playoff team.

I honestly don't know what the Reds are looking to do (and I don't know tht they do either). Often I think they are falling victim to National League management syndrome, which I view as building a team just good enough to win the division and reaping the benefits of playoff ticket sales and hype while not really caring what happens on the field once the first playoff game begins. Through much of this decade, this attitude has been particularly prevelant in the NL Central, where you just had to sneeze the right way and own enough warm bodies to win the division. Though I do think that divisional disparity has lessened significantly the last couple of years, with the exception of the Phillies who are so blindingly ahead of everybody else.

Of course, I really viewed the Cardinals' WS as something of an NL fluke (I think they had 83 wins that year???), but that team has since proven me wrong, at least in the sense that they knew what they were doing in building their team long-term. So my NL syndrome theory may be flawed. Still, I think there's a strong chance the Reds are thinking this way: play well enough to win the division, get to the playoffs, and from then it's anybody's game. Which is sort of true, but not as much as a lot of people want it to be. The current Reds, for example, could be severely embarrassed in the playoffs. I'd be THRILLED to see them there, obviously, but I don't know that this is worth it for a one-shot, potentially three-game deal.

Or are they trying to build a genuinely good long-term team? I hope so. I don't know. Baseball is fickle these days, with a different WS winner every year, and sports remains one of the few businesses where you can be crappy and still make money, let alone be sort of good and make really quite a bit of money, so I'm not sure they have the financial gumption to try to build a long-term powerhouse which is very difficult to do. The galling thing is that I think they actually have a rare chance to do this. They have enough young, affordable talent that with a few shrewd moves, they really do have the potential to be an annual playoff contender. But it might mean sacrificing the next year or two and I don't know that management is in line to do this.

Cliff Lee would be hard for me to pass up in any case if the Reds really were contending, especially for someone like Alonso, whose place on the team long-term isn't assured. I'm not sure I'd give up Bruce though. I see him as a cornerstone, or at least a very important part, of a sustained good team, and this is what interests me for the Reds. I have no idea if management agrees with me though.

[Benihana]

Another interesting guy to monitor is Jake Peavy. He has been rocky at best since returning from his injury, but if he puts it together over the next two months and the White Sox continue to flounder, he could be a nice rental to have. His contract expires at the end of this season, and who knows- he could be an easier sign than Cliff Lee.

[KronoRed]

Originally Posted by MWM

The Twins model is the exact model I do NOT want to follow. They build to be competitive, not to win the World Series. Sure, they get to the playoffs regularly, but they never have a legit WS contender. They really have no chance once they get there.

They've won all of ONE playoff series in the past 18 years. The've been bouced 4 straight times in the first round, being swept twice and winning only one game the other two. The one time they did make to the ALCS back in 2002, they were manhandled and lost 4 games to 1. In other words, they've benefitted from being in a bad division and slipped into the playoffs but have been demolished once they got there.

No thanks. I haven't the slightest interest in that model. Dare to be just good enough but never great. I've lived in Minnesota the past 5 baseball seasons and their team has held little interest for me. Not once have I ever watched them thinking this is what I want for the Reds.

Excellent run down, the A's could be thrown into this as well, consistent also ran who gets blown off the field when it counts.

Go for Rings, not "playoff appearances".

[Will M]

wow. i could not disagree more with the folks who hate the Twins model.

#1 going all in when the team is close may give you a shot at winning in the playoffs but it sets you back big time. the Reds don't have the depth in the system to make some 4 for 1 trade for Cliff Lee or some other star. winning 77games 9 out of 10 years then trading away the farm for a shot in year 10 doesn't seem to be a good plan

#2 several teams way worse than the Twins have won it all. see the 2006 Cards. goal number one should be to get into the playoffs. once there anything goes.

#3 its possible the Twins/As model hasn't had more playoff success because they play in the AL. you have to get by the power house mega payroll teams to get a shot in the series. whereas in the NL the competition is better.

#4 Perhaps the Twins model hasn't done better because they lack the TOR starters needed for playoff success. well the Reds of 2010-2015 should have these guys.

[MWM]

Sets them back from what? More times getting knocked out in the first round?

The Twins are no closer now than they they've been in the past 10 years to winning a pennant. The team they have as it is now has no chance. I don't put a lot of faith in the "get to the playoffs and hope you get lucky" philosophy.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by MWM

The Twins model is the exact model I do NOT want to follow. They build to be competitive, not to win the World Series. Sure, they get to the playoffs regularly, but they never have a legit WS contender. They really have no chance once they get there.

They've won all of ONE playoff series in the past 18 years. The've been bouced 4 straight times in the first round, being swept twice and winning only one game the other two. The one time they did make to the ALCS back in 2002, they were manhandled and lost 4 games to 1. In other words, they've benefitted from being in a bad division and slipped into the playoffs but have been demolished once they got there.

No thanks. I haven't the slightest interest in that model. Dare to be just good enough but never great. I've lived in Minnesota the past 5 baseball seasons and their team has held little interest for me. Not once have I ever watched them thinking this is what I want for the Reds.

So the Braves of the 90's did nothing for you then either?

IMO the Twins model is more fun to watch than 90+ loss seasons.

[membengal]

Originally Posted by TRF

So the Braves of the 90's did nothing for you then either?

IMO the Twins model is more fun to watch than 90+ loss seasons.

And how.

[nate]

Originally Posted by TRF

So the Braves of the 90's did nothing for you then either?

IMO the Twins model is more fun to watch than 90+ loss seasons.

Verily.

[Cedric]

Originally Posted by membengal

And how.

100% agree. Regular season success is not forgotten because of playoff failure. Tournament and playoff importance is overdone in American sports, IMO.

[TheNext44]

I like the model the Reds are now using, whatever that is.

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by Benihana

Another interesting guy to monitor is Jake Peavy. He has been rocky at best since returning from his injury, but if he puts it together over the next two months and the White Sox continue to flounder, he could be a nice rental to have. His contract expires at the end of this season, and who knows- he could be an easier sign than Cliff Lee.

Per Cot's, Peavy is signed through 2012 with a very expensive 2013 option:

• 10:$15M, 11:$16M, 12:$17M, 13:$22M club option ($4M buyout)
• full no-trade clause for 2010, may block trades to 14 clubs in 2011 and 8 clubs in 2012 (also earns 10-and-5 rights in 2012)

[reds44]

Originally Posted by Cedric

100% agree. Regular season success is not forgotten because of playoff failure. Tournament and playoff importance is overdone in American sports, IMO.

Not at all. The goal is to win Championships, not make the playoffs.