If only...

[RedsfaninMT]

Vida Blue definitely jumped to my mind first. As previously posted, I was also one pissed off dude at Bowie Kuhn.

The other would be not protecting Trevor Hoffman rather than letting him go via rule V draft in 1992.

[PuffyPig]

Originally Posted by RedsfaninMT

Vida Blue definitely jumped to my mind first. As previously posted, I was also one pissed off dude at Bowie Kuhn.

The other would be not protecting Trevor Hoffman rather than letting him go via rule V draft in 1992.

He actually went to Florida in the expansion draft.

[RedsfaninMT]

Originally Posted by PuffyPig

He actually went to Florida in the expansion draft.

Yes, mis-stated on my part. But protecting him would have given the Reds a great trading chip, at the very, very least.

[757690]

Originally Posted by RedsfaninMT

Vida Blue definitely jumped to my mind first. As previously posted, I was also one pissed off dude at Bowie Kuhn.

The other would be not protecting Trevor Hoffman rather than letting him go via rule V draft in 1992.

Hoffman was going to be protected, but in Sept of the previous season, Tm Pugh went 4-2 with a shiny 2.58 ERA, so they protected him instead. Any examination of his stats, even his basic ones, would have revealed that that was a bad decision. It was basically the result of pitching against weak teams in Sept.

One thing to remember is that Hoffman at that point was a recently converted Pitcher from SS with only two seasons of pitching under his belt, so it wasn't like he was a sure thing.

[Revering4Blue]

Originally Posted by Unassisted

So brave.

I think you're going to have trouble finding a handful of RedsZoners who will support the payroll strategies of the Lindner regime. I know when he passed, that much was written about how he was a fine patron of the arts and other local causes, so I wouldn't presume to question his life's work. What I do question were his priorities as the chief financial decisionmaker for my favorite team. Playing not to lose (money) is not the same as playing to win (games).

Since the thread is about "what if" scenarios, my choice is to ponder the difference if he'd never been put in charge in the first place. It matters more than any player transaction that occurred during that time - including the deals that led to a high percentage of the payroll being on the DL for hundreds of games.

[Revering4Blue]

My username says it all.

Some additional answers to the OP's question:

* If Peter Angelos hadn't nixed the agreed upon Bobby Bonilla to the Reds for Steve Gibralter and fodder at the '96 deadline. I firmly believe that the addition of Bonilla, along with Kevin Mitchell - acquired for peanuts from Boston days earlier - would have given the offense the jolt it needed to very likely overtake the Cards.

* Granted, even though I'm not even sure that Billy Beane himself could have succeeded under the non-proactive confines of Lindner/Allen, I'd like to have seen what Paul DePodesta could have accomplished as GM if he would have been hired instead of O'Brien.

I'm fairly certain that Paul D could have at least improved the MLB roster. Looking back, I'm not even sure if O'Brien ever "won" one trade.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by edabbs44

Carl Linder was outbid by Castellini.

Yes, that's the #1 wish.
Lindner was the worst case scenerio for the club during his reign of terror.

As far as player moves.. Man, there's a lot of good suggestions on this thread.

Passing on Derek Jeter in the draft (the Reds were high on him, but drafted a nobody instead) would be a pretty nice do-over. The Reds planned to move him to CF, and according to Jimbo, he was willing. Although I guess he might've priced himself out of town before the Reds were good again.

Other thoughts.. if the Reds had the money before the 1999 season and could've gotten a pitcher better than Bere and Avery, we probably don't have the tie-breaker with the Mets.

I don't think any move in 2010 would've made a difference and won the LDS. (Not even Cliff Lee).

2012.. Hard to think of the magical "one move" that would've gotten us past SF.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by MikeS21

Back up the truck a minute ... Lindner spent money on Griffey and Larkin and others. You may not agree HOW Lindner spent his money, but I cannot accuse him of pinching pennies. He had a LOT of money tied up and sitting on the DL. It is true that he didn't throw money away like most baseball owners do, but he didn't get to be a billionaire by throwing away money.

It's not Jr's fault, but drawing 2.6 or 2.7 million fans in his first year here was the worst thing that could've happened to the Reds.

Lindner and Allen assumed that as long as Jr was around, no need to field a competitive team. I assume they figured Larkin was also a key "Drawing card".
Thus, Jr was continually run out to play, even when he was not healthy, because Lindner/Allen thought if Jr went to the DL, it would hurt ticket sales.

That was their entire business model.. Larkin and Jr. Then one winter Carl thought he could turn them into a contender overnight and be able to make the franchise worth even more, and that's how we got Miltoned What a bunch of incompetents the Reds had then.

There's plenty of evidence to show that Lindner pinched pennies.
What about the massive 2003 salary dump?
What about keeping Allen on the payroll (Allen tried to weasel out of building the Reds' HOF, but it was such an embarrasssment that Lindner had to step in to save face).
The fact that Allen ran this team with Lindner's blessing means that Lindner needs to accept responsibilty for Allen's actions. Lindner had all the baseball writers lie and blame the Limited partners for the team's cheapness.. Yet those same limited partners did not stop Marge and Cast from spending on the team.

Carl Lindner = con artist that scammed the city and fans out of millions of dollars.
One of the biggest villians in Cincy sports history.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by Revering4Blue

. Looking back, I'm not even sure if O'Brien ever "won" one trade.

O'Brien didn't do much, I guess that's good because just about everything he did was bad.
Randa's FA deal is the only thing I can count close to being a good move that I remember.
Oh wait, he signed Mercker and got one good year out of him.

Got nothing for Reitsma.
Signed Milton.
Traded Casey for Dave Williams, said Williams was a potential #2 starter.
Sat on an overcrowded OF, without trading one to improve the team.
Signed Van Der Wall as a "big move".


Although the Reds did well on the prospect front during his era, so he does deserve some credit for that.

[bucksfan2]

If only....

The Reds hadn't traded Hamilton for Volquez. What if they had just waited one year to trade Hamilton? They went from making one of the best baseball moves in the past decade, to someone who was afraid of the unknown.

The worst non move by the Reds was the balking at trading for and then signing Scott Rolen to an extension. He wanted to come to Cincy but ended up in St. Louis because the Cards ownership was willing to pay for him. It sure would have been nice to see Scott as a Red during his prime and for a decade.

It was also sad when the Reds had a chance to win the division but wouldn't fork over the extra cash to trade for Colon or Chuck Finley.

[Revering4Blue]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

O'Brien didn't do much, I guess that's good because just about everything he did was bad.
Randa's FA deal is the only thing I can count close to being a good move that I remember.
Oh wait, he signed Mercker and got one good year out of him.

Got nothing for Reitsma.
Signed Milton.
Traded Casey for Dave Williams, said Williams was a potential #2 starter.
Sat on an overcrowded OF, without trading one to improve the team.
Signed Van Der Wall as a "big move".


Although the Reds did well on the prospect front during his era, so he does deserve some credit for that.

Most definitely.

We'll never know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised -- judging by Bowden's last years -- if Lindner/Allen blocked potential O'Brien moves such as trading Casey, Paul Wilson and others while they still had value.

As for Milton, by all accounts, a significant drop in season ticket renewals -- surprise, surprise -- led to his signing.

[Revering4Blue]

The Reds hadn't traded Hamilton for Volquez. What if they had just waited one year to trade Hamilton? They went from making one of the best baseball moves in the past decade, to someone who was afraid of the unknown

Given the info at the time, it seemed justifiable to me. Unfotunately, as we all know, it didn't work out in the Reds favor. But, in my eyes, Wayne K acquiring Phillips for pennies on the dollar, and the Arroyo for Mo Pena heist both made up for it.

The worst non move by the Reds was the balking at trading for and then signing Scott Rolen to an extension. He wanted to come to Cincy but ended up in St. Louis because the Cards ownership was willing to pay for him. It sure would have been nice to see Scott as a Red during his prime and for a decade.

It was also sad when the Reds had a chance to win the division but wouldn't fork over the extra cash to trade for Colon or Chuck Finley.

The Reds actually outbid the Cards -- reportedly, Larson, Mo Pena and Williamson -- for Rolen. Considering Larson didn't pan out, and most likely wouldn't have in Philly, and that Williamson was literally given away one year later, it was Missed Opportunity 101.

While it is true that even if the Reds had acquired Rolen in 2002, and Colon the following offseason to open GAB -- the perfect microcosm of the Lindner/Allen era was Jimmy Haynes as opening day starter in '03 at the new GAB --they most likely wouldn't have won the division. But it most certainly would have led to an increase in excitement/ticket sales the following year, when a boost in attendance is normal.

Which, again, signifies the weakness of the Lindner/Allen era.

No, it wasn't lack of a 100 million payroll, it was the lack of proactive thinking.

Thank goodness those days are over.

[redsmetz]

Originally Posted by RedsBaron

A year or so ago the Hardball Times had a series on the 1960s Reds and what could have been had they NOT made a number of bad trades and moves. Keeping Frank Robinson is the obvious move, but the 1960s Reds at one time had Mike Cuellar, Claude Osteen, and Cesar Tovar among others. IIRC the articles concluded that had the Reds simply kept some of the players they at one time had, they would have added to their 1961 pennant additional NL titles in 1964, 1966, and 1969, and possibly in 1962 and 1965. They would have begun the 1970s, the decade of the Big Red Machine, with all the key players of that powerhouse, but with Robinson, Cuellar, Osteen, Tovar, Leo Cardenas, et al, added to the mix, for a really, really BIG Red Machine.

Here's the link to Part 1 of that article. It's very interesting and I think I've posted it before. From back in 2010:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...i-reds-part-1/

and here's the 2nd part

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/ar...i-reds-part-2/

And here's a bit from last September talking about the Curt Flood trade:

http://www.hardballtimes.com/main/bl...de-curt-flood/

[medford]

Don't know the truth behind these stories, but the I've heard it said that the Reds felt the $50,000 asking price for Miquel Caberera was too much.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by Revering4Blue

We'll never know for sure, but I wouldn't be surprised -- judging by Bowden's last years -- if Lindner/Allen blocked potential O'Brien moves such as trading Casey, Paul Wilson and others while they still had value.
.

You might be right about Casey.. Lindner might've figured he was a "Drawing card"..
Paul Wilson and the other guys? I think it was just DanO being lazy or there being no market.
Lindner/Allen would've loved to cut another salary. Wayne K was extremely active at churning the roster.

I will always remember DanO from that scene at the Houston game. The Reds pitching imploded, and the Astros were pilling it on us. They showed DanO up in his suite laughing his butt off.. DanO was one of the worst GMs the Reds have had.