There is a difference between sucking and rebuilding

[The Snow Chief]

We have not been rebuilding since 99 - we've sucked since 99. The Reds have never committed to rebuilding during that time - even after the mini fire sale of 03. Instead, management tries to put a team together each year and catch lightening in a bottle. Either up the payroll by 30M (which we will not do) or blow it up, get good AA to major league ready prospects, invest in scouting, and start over. This band-aid management year after year is getting to me. Does anyone actually think we are a bullpen arm or two away from competing?

If I'm GM, I deal Arroyo, Hatteburg, Conine, Gonzo, Griffey, Dunn, Freel, and Weathers for the best prospects I can get and announce to the city that we are truly building for the future. Combine the return prospects with the nucleus of Harang, Bailey, Cueto, Bray, McBeth, Salmon, Votto, Phillips, EE, Hamilton, and Bruce.

I'd rather lose 110 games in 2008 and give the future playing time with an eye towards competing in 2010 than continue rearranging the deck chairs on the titanic.

[boognish]

Though I agree there has not been a concerted attempt at a rebuild since '99 (I would actually put the line of demarcation at 2001, after the Griffey trade was proven to not augment the team enough to be a perennial contender), this would have been a poor strategy this year, Snow Chief. More than ever, teams recognize the value of production for cheap players under their control, and trading for the best offer could have led to a disaster.

I was sorely disappointed by the lack of activity from the Reds at the deadline, but if a trade does not upgrade the talent of your system, why make it? I don't want to be dealing useful pieces for AAAA organizational players.

[The Snow Chief]

Originally Posted by boognish

Though I agree there has not been a concerted attempt at a rebuild since '99 (I would actually put the line of demarcation at 2001, after the Griffey trade was proven to not augment the team enough to be a perennial contender), this would have been a poor strategy this year, Snow Chief. More than ever, teams recognize the value of production for cheap players under their control, and trading for the best offer could have led to a disaster.

I was sorely disappointed by the lack of activity from the Reds at the deadline, but if a trade does not upgrade the talent of your system, why make it? I don't want to be dealing useful pieces for AAAA organizational players.

The Braves reportedly offered a great deal for Arroyo. Get whatever you can for Freel, Hatte, Gonzo, Stanton, Conine, Weathers, etc. If the return is not good for Dunn and Griffey, take the draft picks and move on that way.

[boognish]

Originally Posted by The Snow Chief

The Braves reportedly offered a great deal for Arroyo. Get whatever you can for Freel, Hatte, Gonzo, Stanton, Conine, Weathers, etc. If the return is not good for Dunn and Griffey, take the draft picks and move on that way.

That is a little bit better approach, but I disagree on the Arroyo offer. I am not high on Jo-Jo Reyes at all, and though I am in the minority, I do not think Saltalamacchia is the star he is portended to be (to address the earlier rumor). The Braves dealt away their top 3 prospects; why should we settle for leftovers from an organization that has continually fleeced other organizations in trades?

I was most disappointed that Weathers was not dealt. Though Cincinnati sports talk radio will rot your brain, I listened to two schmucks talk about how he was "untouchable" in their eyes, and WK took him off the market when he could have brought a good return. I think Stanton and Conine could be gone in waiver deals, still, but the sellers' market many anticipated did not come to fruition. Freel should have been gone before he was extended, as many on the board advocated during spring training...now we are on the hook for 7MM (IIRC) for a high-injury risk player with a .307 OBP whose speed will leave him soon.

[improbus]

Some quick (and extremely worrying) facts about the Reds:
1) This is the oldest Reds team by age since 1985 and one of the oldest ever.
2) We rank 12th out of 16 in attendance (so much for the Junior bump)
3) We've made the playoffs 3 times in the last 30 years.
4) We haven't developed a significant pitcher since Tom Browning
5) 10 managers in 17 years (probably 11 this offseason)
6) If the season ended today, the Reds would have their 2nd worst record since 1985, and 3rd worst since 1949.
7) Since 2000, the only team with a worse team ERA in the NL than Cincy is Colorado.
8) We've led the NL in strikeouts in 3 of the last 4 seasons ('03,'04,'05).
9) We haven't won a Gold Glove since Pokey Reese in 2000 (and really haven't had a good candidate)

What have we done? Well, the only good thing I can come up with is we have hit around 200 home runs a year since 1999. Lucky us...

How much longer can we keep losing before we REALLY decide to actually try and rebuild? 5 years? 10?

[redrum]

Originally Posted by boognish

That is a little bit better approach, but I disagree on the Arroyo offer. I am not high on Jo-Jo Reyes at all, and though I am in the minority, I do not think Saltalamacchia is the star he is portended to be (to address the earlier rumor). The Braves dealt away their top 3 prospects; why should we settle for leftovers from an organization that has continually fleeced other organizations in trades?

I was most disappointed that Weathers was not dealt. Though Cincinnati sports talk radio will rot your brain, I listened to two schmucks talk about how he was "untouchable" in their eyes, and WK took him off the market when he could have brought a good return. I think Stanton and Conine could be gone in waiver deals, still, but the sellers' market many anticipated did not come to fruition. Freel should have been gone before he was extended, as many on the board advocated during spring training...now we are on the hook for 7MM (IIRC) for a high-injury risk player with a .307 OBP whose speed will leave him soon.

If someone is silly enough to claim Stanton on waivers the Reds will jump for joy. Getting out from under that contract would be enough of a return.

Conine won't fetch much. It might not even be worth the cost of sending a fax to Bud.

Maybe there wasn't any good deals on the table. We may never know. But this team needs a drastic retooling, and one much anticipated opportunity went by with barely a whimper. Considering the types of players that Wayne seems to target, maybe I shouldn't be disappointed. Maybe his predecessor this summer will be more to my liking.

[AmarilloRed]

You should only make trades if you get equal or better value in the trade. I can't fault Krivsky for not making any trades, especially since from all I've heard the other teams were lowballing him. I heard there was an offer for a 30 year old minor leaguer for Conine. These sort of trade offers should be turned down. If the Braves really wanted Arroyo, they would have given us the prospects they gave Texas. I never truly believed Weathers would be traded, especially since we have no one to take his place as closer.It took Cincinnati a long time to get the organization into the mess it is now, and it will take time for the organization to recover.. Krivsky has begun to get the ship righted, but he will need another couple of years retooling the farm system before things will get better.

[AtomicDumpling]

There seems to be an urge on the part of many fans to "just blow up the team and start over". I don't understand this at all. This approach has been tried dozens of times over the years by various teams and it almost never succeeds. It is just an excuse to buy time. The people in charge realize they have done a poor job building a team, so by "blowing it up and starting over" they hope to get the fans off their backs for awhile so they can take another crack at building a team. It usually buys them a couple extra years of drawing the big paychecks before they get fired.

Do we really want to have the Reds sell off their good players in exchange for prospects? This is the team that is so terrible at developing players that we only have one player on the whole team that was drafted and developed by the Reds -- Adam Dunn. This is the same GM that has botched both of his drafts so far. I know it is early to judge a draft but going on the draftees' minor league results so far they have both been pathetic drafts. Tom Browning is the last good pitcher the Reds developed. Their sucess with position players is almost as poor. Just an awful track record. Why should we trust the Reds to build a good team from within?

We need to keep the good players we have. Don't give them away so we can invest in the pipe dream of "scouting and development". Keep the good ones and get rid of the bad ones. We have plenty of bad ones to get rid of before we should even think of ditching good players.

[The Snow Chief]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

There seems to be an urge on the part of many fans to "just blow up the team and start over". I don't understand this at all. This approach has been tried dozens of times over the years by various teams and it almost never succeeds. It is just an excuse to buy time. The people in charge realize they have done a poor job building a team, so by "blowing it up and starting over" they hope to get the fans off their backs for awhile so they can take another crack at building a team. It usually buys them a couple extra years of drawing the big paychecks before they get fired.

Do we really want to have the Reds sell off their good players in exchange for prospects? This is the team that is so terrible at developing players that we only have one player on the whole team that was drafted and developed by the Reds -- Adam Dunn. This is the same GM that has botched both of his drafts so far. I know it is early to judge a draft but going on the draftees' minor league results so far they have both been pathetic drafts. Tom Browning is the last good pitcher the Reds developed. Their sucess with position players is almost as poor. Just an awful track record. Why should we trust the Reds to build a good team from within?

We need to keep the good players we have. Don't give them away so we can invest in the pipe dream of "scouting and development". Keep the good ones and get rid of the bad ones. We have plenty of bad ones to get rid of before we should even think of ditching good players.

The Reds have been keeping just enough "good" players to finish fourth in the Central every year (on average). They are not going to take on the type of payroll to enable them to get rid of the bad ones and replace the bad ones with enough of the good ones. I'd much rather try a Marlins approach than continue winning 65-70 games a year and competing for 4th in the division.

[Orenda]

Originally Posted by The Snow Chief

Does anyone actually think we are a bullpen arm or two away from competing?

Yes. But it depends on your definition of competing. I'd say two more effective relievers and possibly a bat and this team would compete atleast around .500, and have a shot in the central or the wild card. But that wouldn't make a championship ballclub, just average to above average.

I have to say that I am kind of partial to whatever route they take...try my best to not be skeptical. But I do see good and bad in the different options we have here. Wayne and Pete have apparently been pretty close companions before Pete came to Cincinnati and with all of Pete's scouting experience...maybe he'll have a positive influence on where this teams going and the movements we'll take. From what I've read the players seem to really like him also and whether he's a big name or not he may be around to stay at the end of the year. Injuries are hurting us right now also and keeping those players healthy. ie: Freel (who I actually like) With the core players we have now I don't think its going to be as long as a turn over as everyone thinks...or should I say "shouldn't be".

[BurgervilleBuck]

Originally Posted by AmarilloRed

I can't fault Krivsky for not making any trades, especially since from all I've heard the other teams were lowballing him.

Do you think any of that has to do with rumors around the winter meetings of '06 (I think) that most of the other MLB GMs were upset over how he structured Dunn's contract?

Fuzzy memory, darn it, but I seem to recall that other MLB general managers were pretty miffed at him.

[improbus]

Originally Posted by AtomicDumpling

There seems to be an urge on the part of many fans to "just blow up the team and start over". I don't understand this at all. This approach has been tried dozens of times over the years by various teams and it almost never succeeds. It is just an excuse to buy time. The people in charge realize they have done a poor job building a team, so by "blowing it up and starting over" they hope to get the fans off their backs for awhile so they can take another crack at building a team. It usually buys them a couple extra years of drawing the big paychecks before they get fired.

Some teams that pulled off the "blow it up and rebuild"
1) Late '90's Twins
2) Late '90's A's
3) Current Indians Team
4) '01 Marlins
5) Current Tigers
6) Current D'Backs
7) Current Brew-Crew
8) Current Rockies

It happens alot more than you think. And yes, there are teams like the Royals and Pirates, but the Reds have always outspent them, and the fan base would scream bloody murder if things went too bad (unlike Pittsburgh or KC).

Also, Summer, the attitude of playing around .500 baseball is exactly why we are here. Last year, the Reds were 2 games under and we all thought "they'll be better, all they need is an arm or two and maybe another bat". Look where that got us....

In a way, I think 1999 was the worst thing that ever happened to this franchise. The org. and fans say that you could compete w/ a few young guys and a few lucky FA signings and a new manager. So, we've tried to catch the same magic every season since, and failed miserably.

[larryboy]

Its frustrating because its hard to see what exactly is the plan for rebuilding the future. I like what Texas did (can't believe I just said that), they added a good amount of young talent that will be part of their foundation going forward and they moved guys they knew were not going to be part of their future in a few years when their young talent will start getting closer to peak years. You need to maximize the pool of young talent you have to draw from and minimize the having resources allocated to players who won't be part of the futue and who could get help expand that talent pool to draw from. The Reds just seem unwilling to rebuild and just keep spinning their wheels. Guys over 35 have no place on this team. That's young talent you could be adding to build on. Instead we spin our wheels without any real plan. At least we have the Pirates to help make us feel someone is worse than us so it could be worse. Tear it down and rebuild the sucker.

[Bobcat J]

Originally Posted by redrum

Considering the types of players that Wayne seems to target, maybe I shouldn't be disappointed. Maybe his predecessor this summer will be more to my liking.

His predecessor was Dan O'Brien.