Grade the offseason.

[SteelSD]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

For the record, I gave them a C-, with my logic being that tying up a lot of money in mediocre players would preclude moves at the deadline (in the hopes they stick around in a weak--and it is weak--division). In other words, they have expensively run in place. Net deduction, but a minor one.

Yeah. That's kinda my thought on it as well although I don't think they needed to backslide to get an "F". But that really seems to be the only difference in our thinking.

We ok now, champ? :

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Yeah. That's kinda my thought on it as well although I don't think they needed to backslide to get an "F". But that really seems to be the only difference in our thinking.

We ok now, champ? :

Sure. Devil's in the details, and all that rot, blah di blah.

[wheels]

Originally Posted by SteelSD

Oh, if you mean that some folks will complain about anything or that other folks will complain about some stuff but not complain about other stuff? Yep.

There are even folks who constantly complain about "complainers". Really. No kidding. There are actually folks on this board that find non-pie-in-the-sky baseball talk so offensive that they'll complain about people. I know. Hard to believe, isn't it?

Oh, and they're generally the same folks who start the "Reds/Player X Sucks" posts around late July after ranting and raving about "negativity" all offseason.

Yep. Again, no kidding!

I remember an actual thread title that went something like this:

"Let's face it...The Reds SUCK."

"Boycott LINDER!!!!" Also a good one.

gO rEdZ!

[Rocket_Fuel]

A+. The Reds have shown in the past that if they just get decent pitching they can win 85 to 90 games, health willing. They have stayed in the division race with retreads on the mound and no bench depth and relied on the bullpen (last year being an aberration). Now we have that great bullpen again, a strong pitching staff that can not only keep us in games but take over games, a good bench and a powerful offense. The pieces are in place for an 85 to 90+ win season and a spot in the playoffs.

[Rocket_Fuel]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

For the record, I gave them a C-, with my logic being that tying up a lot of money in mediocre players would preclude moves at the deadline (in the hopes they stick around in a weak--and it is weak--division). In other words, they have expensively run in place. Net deduction, but a minor one.

If they don't make those moves the Reds aren't around to make a move at the trade deadline. And when the trade deadline comes who are the pitchers who are available? Guys like Paul Wilson, Eric Milton and Ramon Ortiz.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by Rocket_Fuel

A+. The Reds have shown in the past that if they just get decent pitching they can win 85 to 90 games, health willing. They have stayed in the division race with retreads on the mound and no bench depth and relied on the bullpen (last year being an aberration). Now we have that great bullpen again, a strong pitching staff that can not only keep us in games but take over games, a good bench and a powerful offense. The pieces are in place for an 85 to 90+ win season and a spot in the playoffs.

Great bullpen???

When did the Reds sign Foulke and Gagne?

I'd say our bullpen is somewhere between mediocre and awful. And if Weber doesn't pan out, super awful.

[wheels]

Originally Posted by Rocket_Fuel

If they don't make those moves the Reds aren't around to make a move at the trade deadline. And when the trade deadline comes who are the pitchers who are available? Guys like Paul Wilson, Eric Milton and Ramon Ortiz.

'Course a deadline deal for a guy like Eric Milton wouldn't cost as much.

[Raisor]

Originally Posted by wheels

I remember an actual thread title that went something like this:

"Let's face it...The Reds SUCK."

"Boycott LINDER!!!!" Also a good one.

gO rEdZ!

U are just the jealoous type and its' clear that you aren't not a real fan because if you wire u'd think that.

[Matt700wlw]

There were some absolutely outlandish contracts given this offseason -- the Reds aren't the only ones who "overspent" to add to their team

This is what baseball is becoming..get used to it

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by Rocket_Fuel

If they don't make those moves the Reds aren't around to make a move at the trade deadline. And when the trade deadline comes who are the pitchers who are available? Guys like Paul Wilson, Eric Milton and Ramon Ortiz.

If last year's team could compete into June (which it did), then a few inexpensive adjustments and lucky NRIs, we could, this year, still be "competing" in what I consider a lame Central division.

[Ravenlord]

C--. as close to a D as you can get and still not get it. the Milton signing and Dunn not having a LT offer cinch the craptacularness for me.

[westofyou]

This is what baseball is becoming..get used to it

That has to be the spring training catch phrase... I hear it every year, When players held out they said it, when Wayne Garland signed a 10 year contract they said it, when Bud Black was signed by the Giants in 1991......it's as much a part of baseball as crackerjacks and ballplayers on a hotel roof.

[Matt700wlw]

I love it....the Reds do nothing, people complain because they're doing nothing (I was a big advocate there)

The Reds spend some money, make some moves to upgrade the team as a whole, by addressing their needs with major-league talent and people complain

Did they overspend? Yeah, probably, but see my last post.

Did they upgrade? I think they did, and I think it will show

Did they actually show that they really may want to win? Yes, which is a huge step in the right direction

Were there better players available to the ones we obtained? Yes...sure there were, but can you imagine how much we would have had to overpay for them? Unfortunately the economics of baseball isn't fair when it comes to salaries and parity

Plus, the Reds didn't give any of these guys real lengthy deals, which, in the past, have gotten this organization into trouble on more than one occasion

Bottom line, this offseason finally showed me that there is a direction and a plan. Whether it pans out or works, we'll probably begin to see that as the season plays out

[Ravenlord]

Matt,

if Acevedo had won 12+ games over the last 3 seasons, would you have given him Milton's contract?

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by Matt700wlw

I love it....the Reds do nothing, people complain because they're doing nothing (I was a big advocate there)

The Reds spend some money, make some moves to upgrade the team as a whole, by addressing their needs with major-league talent and people complain

Did they overspend? Yeah, probably, but see my last post.

Did they upgrade? I think they did, and I think it will show

Did they actually show that they really may want to win? Yes, which is a huge step in the right direction

Were there better players available to the ones we obtained? Yes...sure there were, but can you imagine how much we would have had to overpay for them?

Plus, the Reds didn't give any of these guys real lengthy deals, which, in the past, have gotten this organization into trouble on more than one occasion

Bottom line, this offseason finally showed me that there is a direction and a plan. Whether it pans out or works, we'll probably begin to see that as the season plays out

Actually, as embarrassing as it may sound, I thought DanO brought in more talent for value dollar last offseason. I liked the Lidle signing, and still do, for the money involved. I really liked the VanderWal pickup--he got hurt, what can you do? Couple those pickups with what I thought, and still think, is a good deal in the Reitsma for Bong and Nelson, and DanO had an unsexy but respectable offseason.

This offseason is just bizarre; I don't know how else to put it.