Krivsky Interview on 1530 HOMER

[Chip R]

You only sell snake oil for so long. Bob telling people anything won't change to come to the park. The idea of trying to win now doesn't bring people out to the games -- actually winning does. And if it takes another year of mediocrity to get to a place where we can actually field a winner for years in succession, that's better for him, better for the Reds, and better for the fans. It would be one thing if Castellini talked up winning now and pursued an aggressive, smart-growth strategy. But if, for example, we see Bailey traded for Joe Blanton this summer in the name of winning now, that's a step backwards.

A baseball team is like a publicly traded company. To a certain extent, you always have to be watching this quarterly numbers. You owe it to the stock holders to give them value. A new owner may come in and say that he's going to make the company profitable in the first year. To that end, he cuts staff, limits training, etc. The company turns a profit and the stock price goes up. Woohoo. For "now", things look great.

However, if you start jeopardizing the long term fundamentals of the company for the sake of boosting quarterly or annual revenues, eventually that catches up to you. At some point, you end up getting years of stagnation because of the sacrifices you made to "win now" last year, or a few years back.

I have no problem with the vocalized desire to win -- and soon. However, if that isn't balanced with a recognition (at least privately) that building sustainable success is more important than building immediate success, that's troubling to me.

Just for the sake of example, which scenario is more attractive to you:

A
2008: 84 wins
2009: 90 wins
2010: 85 wins
2011: 80 wins
2012: 78 wins

B
2008: 80 wins
2009: 86 wins
2010: 90 wins
2011: 92 wins
2012: 92 wins

We win sooner with plan A, which is supposedly what Castellini wants. But if you put those scenarios in front of him, I'd be he respond by saying he wants plan C, 95 wins, 95 wins, 95 wins, 95 wins, 95 wins. He seems to want to have his cake and eat it too. Jocketty has a history of success when enough money is spent, not when the franchise has developed the talent. I hope Castellini has his checkbook ready.

People are going to believe what they want to believe. Baseball fans here are so hungry for a winning season, the village idiot could buy the Reds, come out with a strongly stated desire to win and people would get all fired up and buy tickets. If the Reds keep losing and there appears to be no hope in sight, then, yeah, people are going to see Bob as the boy who cried wolf.

While it's true that winning brings people out, so does the expectation of winning. Just not as much. I'm all for more years of mediocrity if a winner is assured to be on the horizon. But there are no guarantees in life or in sports. Putting out the message to win now - even if it's a lie - will serve you better in the short run and that seems what Bob is all about.

You keep equating baseball to a regularly run business. In fact it is far from that. In certain ways it's run like a business but if you and I all of a sudden won the lottery and decided to start up a new baseball team in Cincinnati to compete against the Reds, we'd be denied. While it may be prudent to develop a minor league system and either use those players to replace your current ones or use them as trading chips, it's not necessarily guaranteed to work. Baseball and business have different definitions of success. If you win the World Series, even if you lost a ton of money, you are considered a success. In business, if you lose a ton of money, you're in trouble. In baseball if you make a bunch of money and finish in last place, you're a failure. In business, if you make a bunch of money, you're a success.

Fans want a winner and if you polled the average fan whether they would trade the future for a guaranteed World Series championship in the next year or two, they would overwhelmingly vote for that rather than continued mediocrity and maybe a strong team in the future.

I agree that Bob is a win now guy. The problem is that he believes it and may not know how to go about it. His solution was to hire big shots like Dusty and now Walt. Both men have proven track records and a lot of people believe that is all it takes to turn things around. Dusty certainly hasn't had the impact people thought he would. It's too early to tell with Walt, of course, but I'm anxious to see what he is going to do without all that Mark McGwire money in his pockets.

[Spring~Fields]

If John Allen were writing these posts, he would say the Reds should've sold Harang to the Red Sox, and traded Dunn for another Thug Life.
He would also complain about the Phillips contract and would not have comprehended why Patterson was actually a good risk to take.
He would insist that the best course is to lower payroll as low as possible and milk revenue sharing.

Bean might do that too, trade Harang, Dunn and Phillips bringing back a coup of players ready to keep his A's winning.

[fearofpopvol1]

He did open up his wallet for Cordero, Weathers, Patterson, AGon, Dunn, Harang, Arroyo, Phillips, Stanton, Castro, Freel, Ross, etc.
It would've been a real struggle to get Lindner to approve any of those deals, other than Castro (maybe). Payroll has gone up, considerably.

During Cast's reign, there's been no salary dumps of quality players to meet the budget. We haven't heard of any trades scuttled for financial reasons.

I expect that spending will continue to increase under Cast. IMO, he's putting his money where his mouth is.

Cordero and Phillips I'll give you, but that wasn't until 2008. Harang and Arroyo were 2007, but didn't impede much on any current/future budgets. The rest of those players listed were pretty inexpensive contracts. I'm talking about ponying up for a big (or a couple bigger) free agent(s).

[TRF]

Volquez was a break even trade right now. It's not as if he was stolen.
He gave up a lot to get him.

As for JHamilton, he was a nice pickup, but he was traded. It's debatable whether this team would be better off with Volquez or Hamilton (not a slam dunk either way). What was the replacement in CF? Patterson. Even though most people hate Patterson, I think that was an ok move for the short term.. But after this season.. what was the plan to replace the entire OF? Bruce can only play one position.

You have got to be kidding me. Hamilton is having a nice year, very, very nice, but EV has been a hammer in the rotation, and seems to get better with every start. The Rangers GM said WK was ADAMANT that any trade of Hamilton include Volquez. That he got him AND Hererra (now in AAA with a 0.00 ERA, 0.71 WHIP and 6 K's in 5.2 IP) was incredible. Never forget what an incredible risk Josh Hamilton is. Krivsky flipped him for what is looking like a TOR guy.

All or nearly all of WK's "bad risks" outside "The Trade" impacted this club in a very minimal way. Like princeton stated: GM's that don't take risks and don't make mistakes aren't trying.

[Spring~Fields]

All or nearly all of WK's "bad risks" outside "The Trade" impacted this club in a very minimal way. Like princeton stated: GM's that don't take risks and don't make mistakes aren't trying.

After seeing what Lopez, Kearns and Wagner has done.

I have changed my mind about “the trade”. It looks like Krivsky gave up nothing to me, other than some fan favorites that probably none of those fans would want Kearns, Wagner or Lopez on their fantasy teams let alone the Reds today. Often we read that trades take time to properly evaluate, today it looks like Krivsky at least picked up Bray and Thompson. I don’t think that Bowden got anything in “the trade”.

[princeton]

I don’t think that Bowden got anything in “the trade”.

on the negative, Bowden got bad monetary commitments, which he won't understand, and a big loss of trust (likewise). On the positive, he will be able to comprehend that he stuck another bum arm on Reds fans, and helped to bring down one of his successors.

if Daryl Thompson does well and somehow becomes the straw that breaks Bowden's back, we'll entitle the past two years Shakespeare in Leather.

[princeton]

Redread's posts: "Stanton's contract.!..Cormier's contract!... Gonzalez's contract!.... Ross's contract!... Castro's contract!... Freel's contract!...."


face it: you've become John Allen.

[TRF]

After seeing what Lopez, Kearns and Wagner has done.

I have changed my mind about “the trade”. It looks like Krivsky gave up nothing to me, other than some fan favorites that probably none of those fans would want Kearns, Wagner or Lopez on their fantasy teams let alone the Reds today. Often we read that trades take time to properly evaluate, today it looks like Krivsky at least picked up Bray and Thompson. I don’t think that Bowden got anything in “the trade”.

You don't get it. It doesn't matter what they did after the trade. Their value at the time was so much higher than what they got in return. That was the point of hating the trade.

[RedsManRick]

Either one is more attractive than 80, 72, 74 ....
which is what the Reds are on now.
There's no written rule that says if you quickly turn a team around, that you should expect an immediate downturn (as scenerio A says).

Get this team to 90 wins. That's the hard part, getting the talent to that level. After that, you only need to maintain the talent level. It's arguably easier to maintain a high level of talent than it is to build up to that level.

I'll take that bait. Any team in baseball, if they were so inclined, could make trades and FA signings such that they could win 90 games in 2009. Every single one. Trade away your all young guys, all your prospects, etc. Sign the top FAs to crazy contracts. It can be done. Heck, the Diamondbacks won a WS with that strategy.

Getting to 90 wins isn't that hard. What's hard is getting to 90 wins without setting yourself up for disaster. I think the case of the Diamondbacks is instructive. Their management decided that they wanted to win right out of the gate. Starting in 1999, Colangelo opened up the checkbook big time (Randy Johnson, Matt Williams) and encouraged the GM to make the necessary trades of prospects (Brad Penny, Travis Lee, Vicente Padilla) to make them a contender. In the process, they built up a ton of debt, but had a very nice run, including winning a ring.

Here's their brief history showing record, payroll, and attendence.

Year	Record	Payroll	Attendence
1998	65-97	$38M	3.6M		New Franchise
1999	100-62	$71M	3.0M
2000	85-77	$88M	2.9M
2001	92-70	$77M	2.7M		WS Champs
2002 	98-64	$105M	3.2M
2003	84-78	$81M	2.8M
2004	51-111	$70M	2.5M	
2005	77-85	$67M	2.1M
2006	76-86	$70M	2.1M
2007	90-72	$61M	2.3M

As you can see, the major investments they made, which paid off immediately and were in part supported by attendance figures due to being the new kid in town, set them up for a bust period as well. Yes, there was a dictate to win now, but there was commensurate financial investment (that $80M would be more like $120M today) to make it happen. We don't have that attendance backdrop and, so far, haven't had that sort of financial commitment. Castellini wants the payoff but, so far, isn't willing to invest up front.

After the run, the bills came due. The prospect cupboard was bare and the payroll had to be slashed so debts could be handled. The record dropped as did attendance. People didn't come out to see a team with a winning reputation or when the management wanted to win now. They came out to actually see the team win. Even in 2007, you see they had a hard time drawing fans back in. Fans don't attend games because management says they're committed to winning.

Now, the D'Backs recovered thanks to a series of good drafts (Upton!) and good trades (RJ -> Vazquez -> Chris Young). But it took 5 years. Now imagine that we make sacrifices to get to that 90 win plateau, only it's done halfway, we don't make the World Series, and yet we still have to go through the trough. I desperately want that 90 win season. But I would hope we do it in such a way as to stave off the slump that follows. The, let's get to 90 wins and figure it out from there plan just doesn't sit well with me.

[Spring~Fields]

on the negative, Bowden got bad monetary commitments, which he won't understand, and a big loss of trust (likewise). On the positive, he will be able to comprehend that he stuck another bum arm on Reds fans, and helped to bring down one of his successors.

if Daryl Thompson does well and somehow becomes the straw that breaks Bowden's back, we'll entitle the past two years Shakespeare in Leather.

Yes,

Number per espn.
Austin Kearns - $5,000,000 - .182 .302 .273 .574 - still a good fielder
Felipe Lopez - $4,900,000 - 263 .337 .325 .662 - 21 errors last year.
Wagner - $450,000 - DL
$10, 350, 000

Plus what is their trade value?

I think that Jocketty could get a little something for Bray and Thompson, maybe a big something.

Even this thorn that you mention "he stuck another bum arm on Reds fans" might get himself looking decent in the minors to an outsider who think that they could help him. Of course we fans don't want him (Majewski) back.

[Spring~Fields]

You don't get it. It doesn't matter what they did after the trade. Their value at the time was so much higher than what they got in return. That was the point of hating the trade.

If the market really valued them that much, then why weren't they knocking down the doors with fat offers for Kearns, Lopez and Wagner at the time? Surely if the market showed such high demand for those three even a blind hog like Krivsky would have taken the better deal .

I think that "I do get it" that the market and market demand sets the value of assets. Do you actually believe that Krivsky would have turned down better offers?

I think that we Reds fans had them over priced and certainly over valued, and the market was saying that they weren't in high demand, thus making them have a low value.

[Spring~Fields]

You don't get it. It doesn't matter what they did after the trade. Their value at the time was so much higher than what they got in return. That was the point of hating the trade.

Bowden got the shaft I think now that we are getting a truer read on the outcomes.

[TRF]

If the market really valued them that much, then why weren't they knocking down the doors with fat offers for Kearns, Lopez and Wagner at the time? Surely if the market showed such high demand for those three even a blind hog like Krivsky would have taken the better deal .

I think that "I do get it" that the market and market demand sets the value of assets. Do you actually believe that Krivsky would have turned down better offers?

I think that we Reds fans had them over priced and certainly over valued, and the market was saying that they weren't in high demand, thus making them have a low value.

I believe his vision was myopic. I think he saw the Reds had an opportunity for post-season play and fixated on relief help (scary because his rotation kinda sucked too after Harang/Arroyo). I think he was looking for a quick fix to what would be a two year problem. I think he put ALL his remaining eggs in 1 basket.

In short, I think he screwed the pooch on that one. He got Arroyo for WMP alone. Kearns had more value than WMP. So did FeLo.

[Spring~Fields]

In short, I think he screwed the pooch on that one. He got Arroyo for WMP alone. Kearns had more value than WMP. So did FeLo.

Sure of course Krivsky was looking for relief pitching, along with stocking up his minor league system, obvious by his actions and no revelation there. To judge the trade in full then was in error, they do take time to see how they shake out, as of today, Krivsky did alright and Bowden blew it. He also lost his first basemen to injury over it with the Kearns collision. Krivsky is dollars ahead too, looking at how much they cost Bowden for less than desirable performances.


So you are assuming that the Red Sox valued Kearns more than WMP, but Krivsky held out and would not let Kearns go then ? Or that if Pena could get an Arroyo that a Kearns could get more? Doesn't look like the market thought so.

Actually it looks like the Sox GM over paid for a bad player and gave up a servicable pitcher in Arroyo, a player that was later to be found in Bowdens nest. What could Bowden get for all four of them now? What could Jocketty get for Bray and Thompson now? That is the true value.

After thought, what could Jocketty get for Arroyo ? The Reds stand a much better chance of getting something vs. the Red Sox or Washington now from the then present value to the now future value.

[Ltlabner]

It's debatable whether he arrived with "ruinous" and changed it to solid.

Actually it's not debateable to any reasonable or objective observer that the state of the Reds when Wayne arrived was "ruinous". You can argue about the solidity of the Reds currently, but it takes an ostrich with it's head in the sand, or a person with an unyielding adgenda to make the case that the state of the Reds franchise in 2005 was anything other than horrific.

When your team has names like Williams, Jiminez, Wilson, Milton, Claussen, LaRue, Lopez et al penciled in, and the up-and-coming stars in the system are named Wagner, Hopper and Elizardo Rameriz you'd have to be a complete blithering idiot or a idologe to believe the franchise was anything other than barren.

Any team in baseball, if they were so inclined, could make trades and FA signings such that they could win 90 games in 2009. Every single one. Trade away your all young guys, all your prospects, etc. Sign the top FAs to crazy contracts. It can be done.

Which is the dirty little secret the internet-GM's don't want to admit. Sure, we can go hog wild and be in the hunt next year. But I don't want to go back to misery in 2010 and beyond for the one-night stand of glory. That's a "walk of shame" I'd rather avoid.

But, we're beating a dead horse here...

No kidding.