ESPN Power Rankings: Nationals, Reds 1-2

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

That's actually a reasonable quick way to determine the effectiveness of a reliever.

Chapman gave up runs in 8 appearances out of 68 games
Broxton gave up runs 13 appearances out of 60 games last year (one of those appearances was no earned runs).

So if we project Broxton's numbers to 68 games, that means he would've given up runs in about 15 games. The difference between Broxton and Chapman last year could be estimated that Broxton gives up runs in 7 more appearances (roughly). I'm not sure how to project that into blown saves/losses, but it's potentially significant.

It is probably 2-3 games, at worst. Not every game is a one run lead. You don't lose every game in which your closer gives up the lead.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

You don't lose every game in which your closer gives up the lead.

Chapman did.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Nathan

Chapman did.

Well it isn't likely to happen that way.

[Nathan]

Originally Posted by dougdirt

Well it isn't likely to happen that way.

Agree. But, the argument was it does happen.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Going into the offseason, the Reds needs were LF, CF, 2 bench infielders, and bullpen. Since they were able to address them all (except maybe one more LH reliever), I guess I would say the Broxton's salary was not an issue.

Or maybe you like Broxton, but at a lower price? Like if they could get Broxton for 3-5 million, would you like the move then?

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.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I know where you're coming from but it's half of what Cordero was paid and Cordero was not a huge waste of money. In hindsight he gave us pretty much what he was signed to do. And hey, it's not our money. If this makes Cast feel better, have at it

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.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by RedEye

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.

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

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by RedEye

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.

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).

[Jpup]

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.

[RedEye]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

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.

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

I understand. How'd you feel about the Ryan Madson signing a year ago?

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.

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?

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by RedEye

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.

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?

I hear ya...

I'm greedy. I want to stockpile pitching

[Scrap Irony]

Originally Posted by Jpup

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.

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.

[MikeThierry]

1. Washington
2. Cincy
3. Dodgers
4. Giants
5. Blue Jays
6. Cardinals
7. Los Angeles Angels of Aneheim, world, universe
8. Tigers

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

I guess I disagree with this.

Where would've been a better place to spend Broxton's money?
I think we needed another top end arm in the bullpen, especially with Chapman planned to start. Even if you make Hoover the closer, you'd need to add a reliable BP arm.

In fact, I'd argue the Reds still need to add a good LH reliever too.

Going into the offseason, the Reds needs were LF, CF, 2 bench infielders, and bullpen.
Since they were able to address them all (except maybe one more LH reliever), I guess I would say the Broxton's salary was not an issue.

Or maybe you like Broxton, but at a lower price? Like if they could get Broxton for 3-5 million, would you like the move then?

Could the Reds have Choo in LF and Michael Bourn in CF if they didn't sign Ludwick and Broxton?

[RedsManRick]

Originally Posted by smith288

Such as? I guess im having a difficult time trying to understand what other variables you are looking for from a national writer to do for all the teams when all that's different between end of season and now is off season moves.

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.