Michael Bourn

[M2]

Got a feeling Bourn might be Walt's misdirection while he goes for the targets he expects to land.

[15fan]

Originally Posted by M2

Got a feeling Bourn might be Walt's misdirection while he goes for the targets he expects to land.

This.

Feign interest to drive up the price for a competitor while keeping a low profile on going after what he really wants.

That's the way to work in a competitive landscape.

[Vottomatic]

Agreed.

The Reds are in the driver's seat. If they don't make any moves, they will again compete for the postseason easily next year with an outstanding starting rotation and solid lineup.

Sure, the Reds have room for improvement, but not in any desperate situation.

I hope this plays in their favor and they can upgrade for a fair cost.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by Vottomatic

Agreed.

The Reds are in the driver's seat. If they don't make any moves, they will again compete for the postseason easily next year with an outstanding starting rotation and solid lineup.

Sure, the Reds have room for improvement, but not in any desperate situation.

I hope this plays in their favor and they can upgrade for a fair cost.

I'd say leadoff hitter is a pretty damn desperate situation. The Reds were dead last, by a fairly wide margin, in leadoff OBP.

[_Sir_Charles_]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

I'd say leadoff hitter is a pretty damn desperate situation. The Reds were dead last, by a fairly wide margin, in leadoff OBP.

And yet they finished first in the division by a wide margin. Sure, there's spots for improvement, but "big picture" we're sitting in a fine spot.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by _Sir_Charles_

And yet they finished first in the division by a wide margin. Sure, there's spots for improvement, but "big picture" we're sitting in a fine spot.

In the 'big picture' the 2012 team was incredibly healthy and had a number of guys put up career years. There are a lot of reasons to believe they will take a step back in 2013 (much like they did in 2011 after an excellent 2010). Shoring up weaknesses would go a long way towards offsetting those reasons, not to mention it might improve the Reds odds of winning a short series sprint in addition to winning the regular season marathon.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

In the 'big picture' the 2012 team was incredibly healthy and had a number of guys put up career years. There are a lot of reasons to believe they will take a step back in 2013 (much like they did in 2011 after an excellent 2010). Shoring up weaknesses would go a long way towards offsetting those reasons, not to mention it might improve the Reds odds of winning a short series sprint in addition to winning the regular season marathon.

Career years by a bunch of guys not yet at their peak years doesn't make me worried so much about them falling off the map. Injuries, perhaps more so, but I feel comfortable about getting 150 games out of Votto rather than 100 too, so that picks up some of the slack if it does happen elsewhere.

[M2]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

In the 'big picture' the 2012 team was incredibly healthy and had a number of guys put up career years. There are a lot of reasons to believe they will take a step back in 2013 (much like they did in 2011 after an excellent 2010). Shoring up weaknesses would go a long way towards offsetting those reasons, not to mention it might improve the Reds odds of winning a short series sprint in addition to winning the regular season marathon.

You're 100% correct the Reds must address the near-term leadoff situation. It's the most pressing need heading into 2013. The team can't afford to be complacent and wait on Hamilton. It either needs to find a short-term solution or someone who can drop to the #2 slot when Hamilton arrives.

[traderumor]

In a general sense, it seems that teams that contend in consecutive years have some roster rotation, and not just in the last 5 or 6 spots on the roster, but in the rotation, in the back of the bullpen, and in the everyday lineup. Hopefully Walt learned from the 2011 follow up season that the Reds are no different.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Career years by a bunch of guys not yet at their peak years doesn't make me worried so much about them falling off the map. Injuries, perhaps more so, but I feel comfortable about getting 150 games out of Votto rather than 100 too, so that picks up some of the slack if it does happen elsewhere.

I agree that some (maybe even most) of the younger guys might have just established a new level of production rather than a one-time blip, but odds are some of them did not and will regress. Also, the older guys like Ludwick and Arroyo are highly probable to regress. Either way, the Reds would wise to disregard the temptation to stand pat.

Another thing to keep in mind is the Reds were +5 versus their Pythagorean wins in 2012. Even if they perform exactly the same next year in terms of run differential, they could wind up below their Pythagorean wins and out of the playoffs.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

In the 'big picture' the 2012 team was incredibly healthy.... .

We had some decent health, but lost Votto for about half the season, and lost Masden, Massett and Bray (3 of our top 4 bullpen guys) for the whole season.

That's quite a bit right there.

[Steve4192]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

We had some decent health, but lost Votto for about half the season, and lost Masden, Massett and Bray (3 of our top 4 bullpen guys) for the whole season.

That's quite a bit right there.

Every team has a list like that .... and a whole lot more. The fact that the Reds got 30+ starts out of every member of their starting rotation more than offsets a few injuries in the bullpen. The Reds had a historically healthy season in the rotation. A team with five guys over 30 starts has only happened nine times in the history of the game. That is EXTREMELY unlikely to happen again.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Steve4192

Every team has a list like that .... and a whole lot more. The fact that the Reds got 30+ starts out of every member of their starting rotation more than offsets a few injuries in the bullpen. The Reds had a historically healthy season in the rotation. A team with five guys over 30 starts has only happened nine times in the history of the game. That is EXTREMELY unlikely to happen again.

To be fair, did anyone lose a player of Votto's caliber for 50 games? I don't think they did, because the guys of that caliber can be counted on two or three fingers. And the Reds lost Votto for those games and even when he came back, he was more Wade Boggs than Joey Votto.

[Benihana]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

To be fair, did anyone lose a player of Votto's caliber for 50 games? I don't think they did, because the guys of that caliber can be counted on two or three fingers. And the Reds lost Votto for those games and even when he came back, he was more Wade Boggs than Joey Votto.

Well the Giants lost Cabrera -not due to injury, but still- who was performing like Joey Votto, and they lost Lincecum to ineffectiveness, but still won the WS.

The Cards were without Carpenter and Wainwright for most of the year (I think?) not to mention Berkman.

The Rangers were without Feliz and Hamilton for large blocks. The Yankees without Rivera and Gardner almost all year, and even Sabathia had 2 separate trips to the DL.

Injuries happen to every team, every year. This year, Madson and Votto were the major injuries for the Reds. The other top 20 guys barely missed a week collectively.

[dougdirt]

I see where you are going Benihana, I just don't think anyone lost was as valuable as Votto was that you named. Mostly good players in there, even some really good ones. But Joey Votto is on a different level than those guys.

What the Giants did in the playoffs doesn't do much for me. The playoffs are a crapshoot. The Giants were a very good team, so don't take it like I am saying they aren't.