Hatteberg signed

[MWM]

I view this about the same as i did Randa. I don't care either way. It's not a move generating any emotion either way.

However, I disagree completely with the argument that it gives them flexibility to trade one of the outfielders or Dunn. A significant decision to trade or not trade one of these assets, or even what makes an acceptabble return, should not AT ALL hinge on how it affects the 2006 season. I think it's clear to most that this is a transition season at best and they have no chance of contending. I understand that you don't want to go out and lose 100 games, but any decision that will have long-term implications for the franchise (such as trading a Dunn or Kearns), should be made 100% independently of how it affects the 2006 roster, IMO. Making a move like signing Hatteberg, if done for the purpose of "allowing you trade" someone like Kearns or Dunn is poor business, IMO. If the right deal comes along, take it. If the right one doesn't come along, keep them. I'd hate to think that having or not having a Scott Hatteberg was a difference in these kinds of decisions.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by MWM

I view this about the same as i did Randa. I don't care either way. It's not a move generating any emotion either way.

However, I disagree completely with the argument that it gives them flexibility to trade one of the outfielders or Dunn. A significant decision to trade or not trade one of these assets, or even what makes an acceptabble return, should not AT ALL hinge on how it affects the 2006 season. I think it's clear to most that this is a transition season at best and they have no chance of contending. I understand that you don't want to go out and lose 100 games, but any decision that will have long-term implications for the franchise (such as trading a Dunn or Kearns), should be made 100% independently of how it affects the 2006 roster, IMO. Making a move like signing Hatteberg, if done for the purpose of "allowing you trade" someone like Kearns or Dunn is poor business, IMO. If the right deal comes along, take it. If the right one doesn't come along, keep them. I'd hate to think that having or not having a Scott Hatteberg was a difference in these kinds of decisions.

Great post. Thanks for the objectivity.

[pedro]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

You still haven't described how this move substantively differs from DanO's acquisition of VanderWal a few years ago. Actually VanderWal was a much better expenditure of $750,000.

Except Vanderwal was hurt when we signed him IIRC. Plus at that point the Reds had Casey and Dunn to play first.

I do agree with what MWM had to say though.

[RFS62]

Nobody said the only reason, or even the main reason we signed him was so we could trade an outfielder.

It's just one of several positives. Nobody is making a big deal out of this acquisition other than it's detractors.

[KronoRed]

Trading an OF and making Hatterberg a starter doesn't sound positive to me

Hope this guy is just bench guy 3.

[MWM]

Originally Posted by RFS62

Nobody said the only reason, or even the main reason we signed him was so we could trade an outfielder.

What I'm suggesting is if that it shouldn't factor in AT ALL. The signing doesn't bother me at all. But if influences, to any degree, any decision with long-term implications, that's a BAD thing. I don't think that's what they were thinking. I'm just responding to what some here have suggested. I don't see that as a positive at all, or a negative for that matter. One doesn't have to do with the other, IMO.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by pedro

Except Vanderwal was hurt when we signed him IIRC. Plus at that point the Reds had Casey and Dunn to play first.

I do agree with what MWM had to say though.

No. He got hurt after the signing.

[RFS62]

Originally Posted by MWM

What I'm suggesting is if that it shouldn't factor in AT ALL. The signing doesn't bother me at all. But if influences, to any degree, any decision with long-term implications, that's a BAD thing. I don't think that's what they were thinking. I'm just responding to what some here have suggested. I don't see that as a positive at all, or a negative for that matter. One doesn't have to do with the other, IMO.

The only thing I can see is that it would make it easier in the short term to move one of them without worrying about first base IMMEDIATELY, if Dunn moved back to the outfield.

[KronoRed]

Just for fun..how bout this lineup

2B Womack
SS Lopez
3B Aurilia
1B Hatterberg
RF Kearns
LF Pena
CF Deno
C Valentin

[RFS62]

Stop that, Krono.

[westofyou]

This deal reminds me of the Charlie Brown Thanksgiving special, Peppermint Patty invites herself to Thanksgiving and in a pinch "Chuck" has to make do with popcorn and toast.

Boy was PP peeved, not realizing that her expectations were far beyond what was possible with the time and resources available.

In the end they all got in the back of the car and headed off into a future unknown.

[Falls City Beer]

Originally Posted by RFS62

Nobody is making a big deal out of this acquisition other than it's detractors.

No, you're right. It isn't a big deal. That's part of the problem.

It does nothing to change the fortunes of the club in any capacity. I'm only asking for there to be some tempering of enthusiasm for the deal--and well, a whole bunch of people were cheering the acquisition before I showed up, so it's not as though I was the first one to be making a big deal out of it. I'm not, like you, saying there's "several negatives" (as you claim with your "several positives") to this move. I take issue with the belief that it brings several positives. If that makes it a big deal, then I'm Odd Lots.

[cincinnati chili]

Originally Posted by Falls City Beer

You still haven't described how this move substantively differs from DanO's acquisition of VanderWal a few years ago.

Unless Hatteberg broke his collarbone shoveling his driveway today, the two moves can't be compared.

I loved the Vanderwal signing, but they never got him healthy enough to help.

[westofyou]

It does nothing to change the fortunes of the club in any capacity.

That's your opinion, you have discounted his experience, his on base skills and his ability to translate those skills at the cost of 750K.

What to you want for nothing a week into the job?

[red-in-la]

Originally Posted by acredsfan

First, if naehring is the one messing with the line up there is something wrong. second, yeah, Cruz was one of the best PH in the league, but in my opinion he was not a very good backup player, so that is what is called a weakness, SH strengthens up the bench because he can fill in if needed, not just walk up to the plate once a night to hopefully get a hit. By good PH you are saying that cruz got 20 pinch hits last year, did that help us get to .500? No. Will losing a few hits by this move make us lose 10 more games. I doubt it. Are you just looking for something to be mad about or what, this move has very few implications on this season, we had the most runs in the league last year, where did that get us? If anything, like was stated before, it gives us flexibility to trade an OF, and that doesn't mean Dunn would have to move to the outfield, we also have Freel to move out there.

So sorry, insert Narron for Nearhing.....taking this stuff for vertigo and the brain farts are coming faster than I can type. Sorry again.