Krivsky Interview on 1530 HOMER

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by Ltlabner

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.

Yes, the balance sheet that O'Brien ended with is the balance sheet that Krivsky started with including assets and liabilities that come with that balance sheet. Player resource and contingent liabilities make the Reds look to have been bankrupt at the time of O'Briens closing statement of assets and liabilities.

I like REDREAD, but in this case I think that REDREAD is trying to cook the books while getting his debits and credits skewed.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by SpringfieldFan

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.

no, no, no. Thompson was more luck than scouting. Harris went to the Rays, Clayton was blech, Majewski was a mirage, and that left Bray. If you are in win now mode, which it seems Krivsky was pressured to be in, then this was a bad trade. It still might be all Thompson. That's a lot of talent to give up for one guy with an injury history having a great year in AA.

Krivsky erred. plain and simple. And yet the body of his work screams that he was a creative, clever GM with a set of philosophies about how an organization should be run that have made such an impact on this franchise that we'll see the ripples for years to come.

More so than the previous regimes combined.

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by TRF

no, no, no. Thompson was more luck than scouting. Harris went to the Rays, Clayton was blech, Majewski was a mirage, and that left Bray. If you are in win now mode, which it seems Krivsky was pressured to be in, then this was a bad trade. It still might be all Thompson. That's a lot of talent to give up for one guy with an injury history having a great year in AA.

Krivsky erred. plain and simple. And yet the body of his work screams that he was a creative, clever GM with a set of philosophies about how an organization should be run that have made such an impact on this franchise that we'll see the ripples for years to come.

More so than the previous regimes combined.

I could understand and that line of thinking also, then. That Krivsky was hurried to get some upgrades for his bullpen, and did not do his homework while Majewski and Bray were to be the big catch that turned out to be a bust to then. Yet the resources are still available to the Reds in the person of Bray and Thompson even if it was happenstance.

Surely some of those players especially Clayton were Bowden dumping his junk, and Krivsky would know what he was getting in a Clayton. Bowden was probably dumping the risk then in Thompson, thinking even thought that Thompson, Clayton and Majewski were discards. But now, it is not going to shake out that way if Jocketty can get something of higher value for Thompson and Bray.

[TRF]

Which is fine except the stated purpose of the trade was win now. Harris became... nothing. Clayton.... nothing. Majewski... less than nothing. Bray... Incomplete. Thompson might be something, but Thompson was never the target. Bray and Maj were.

Just because part of that trade has some POTENTIAL value, doesn't make it a good one. WK should never have included so much of the Reds offense in one deal. He made a mistake.

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by TRF

Which is fine except the stated purpose of the trade was win now. Harris became... nothing. Clayton.... nothing. Majewski... less than nothing. Bray... Incomplete. Thompson might be something, but Thompson was never the target. Bray and Maj were.

Just because part of that trade has some POTENTIAL value, doesn't make it a good one. WK should never have included so much of the Reds offense in one deal. He made a mistake.

I don't think that Krivsky valued outfielders evidenced by his willingness to move a Kearns, Pena and Hamilton. I think that he would have moved Griffey and Dunn if he could have. We know he doesn't value poor fielding short stops, so I don't think that Krivsky thought that he was making a mistake if I am right that he doesn't value outfielders. Of course that would help support that the pitching was the main thing he was after. So I guess he errored in getting poor product in return for poor product. Then.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by SpringfieldFan

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

Beane would attempt to get value for those guys. Allen would try to get $$$ or just dump the salaries. That's the difference and the point I was making.

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

Beane would attempt to get value for those guys. Allen would try to get $$$ or just dump the salaries. That's the difference and the point I was making.

Won't surprise me if Jocketty does a little of both.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by fearofpopvol1

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).

What free agents did the Reds pass on that would've helped significantly and would've wanted to come here and would've been wanted by Wayne?

I can think of a few that would've helped.. Marquis was one of them. Lily was another one (even though he's probably hurt now, but at the time, it seemed good).

There's probably some other ones that could've helped, but it doesn't seem as if the Reds attempted to pursue them. Is that because Cast wouldn't let them, or because Wayne didn't want to? We'll never know.

[fearofpopvol1]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

What free agents did the Reds pass on that would've helped significantly and would've wanted to come here and would've been wanted by Wayne?

I can think of a few that would've helped.. Marquis was one of them. Lily was another one (even though he's probably hurt now, but at the time, it seemed good).

There's probably some other ones that could've helped, but it doesn't seem as if the Reds attempted to pursue them. Is that because Cast wouldn't let them, or because Wayne didn't want to? We'll never know.

There were numerous free agents during that time that the Reds passed on that could've helped. I can say with about 99% certainty that Wayne would've gone after 1/some of them if he had the financial resources to do so. It's pretty obvious he didn't have the green light at that time.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by TRF

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.

It's almost impossible to look at an impact bat and an impact hitter and see which one is better. They are both excellent players and contributing.. that's why I think at this point, if one is objective, we'd have to say that the trade is a push..

Wayne's bad risks were mostly FA signings and poor extensions.
Stanton, Maj, and Cormier all impacted the club negatively. So did Mays.
So did AGon when he was paid for his glove and delivered poor defense.
Do you dispute this? Weathers is going to bite us this year too. That's 4 million that could've been spent more efficiently. plus we could've gotten a prospect for him last year.

Wayne's risk of trading off position players and backfilling with junk generally has worked out poorly. That's why this offense really struggles. The defense is a mess as well. The bench is horrible.

Sure, I like having Volquez in the rotation, but losing Hamilton hurt this club a lot too.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by SpringfieldFan

I don't think that Krivsky valued outfielders evidenced by his willingness to move a Kearns, Pena and Hamilton. I think that he would have moved Griffey and Dunn if he could have. We know he doesn't value poor fielding short stops, so I don't think that Krivsky thought that he was making a mistake if I am right that he doesn't value outfielders. Of course that would help support that the pitching was the main thing he was after. So I guess he errored in getting poor product in return for poor product. Then.

It doesn't matter if he valued them. The market set a standard. WK set one with the WMP trade. You do not trade two starters, one coming off an All-Star season for middle relievers with little to no value.

WK missed big. Again set against the toal of his work, it's not something you fire the guy over. But had he realized their value, sent them packing in different deals, even if the return was all minor league talent, he would have won the day.

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by RedsManRick

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 disagree. Many teams try that same strategy. Few hit 90 wins.
Only six made it last year (two with exactly 90 wins).
Don't you think the Dodgers and Cubs went all out for 90 wins last year? How come they didn't make it?

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.

I disagree with this. It doesn't seem to have hurt their franchise long term at all. They are still a lot healthier than the Reds. Baseball revenue has increased tremendously, which helps wipe out the debt they picked up. They had no problem attracting additional investors as needed.

They seemed to have survived trading Penny, Lee, and Padilla just fine.
I would gladly trade similiar prospects for a World Series. Really, Penny was the only impact player in that group, and they got a closer for him. Now granted, that closer ended up getting hurt, but it wasn't bad thinking on their part to cash in a prospect pitcher for a closer. They just picked the wrong guy to pick up and had the bad luck the guy got injured.

Just as if Cordero got hurt tommorrow, that doesn't necessarily mean that it was a bad idea to sign him if the injury could not be foreseen. (Now I don't remember if the closer the DBax traded for had an injury history or even remember his name right now).




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.
[/quote]


But the Reds have been in a bust period since 2001, without the good years in between. I can take an 111 loss season three years after a world series win The Reds only had one exciting year in the timespan you mentioned (1999). The Dbacks had four 90+ win seasons, one horrible season (2004), and the rest were Reds-like seasons.. So the only downside I see is that the Diamondbacks had to suffer through 2004. Seems worth it to me.

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.

I don't care if the Diamondbacks owner could've better invested that 80 million. The truth is that he correctly predicted that future revenue streams would make the debt seem a lot smaller. The clubs now get 30 million/year from internet media contracts (IIRC). The TV contracts are bigger.
Defering all that money is not a drain on them.

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.

And then they rebuilt the farm and are doing great now. The Diamondbacks seem to have had two great runs with a relatively quick rebuild in between.
During the same time, the Reds pretty much spun their wheels (other than 1999). Give me the Diamondback model. And I think their dire straights financially was greatly exaggerated. If they were in such poor shape, how were they able to throw all that money at Gluas and other FAs?

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.

I don't know why the Diamondback attendence is what it is. But I see they've got a great thing going, because they compete for multiple years and then rebuild and then contend again. What's so bad about that?

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.

And meanwhile, the Reds have taken 8 years to spin their wheels.

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.

The Diamondbacks aren't a good example that famine has to follow feast. From 1999-2003, they were either contending or at least over .500.
I'll gladly take a run like that from the Reds, no matter how it gets done.

[TRF]

Originally Posted by REDREAD

It's almost impossible to look at an impact bat and an impact hitter and see which one is better. They are both excellent players and contributing.. that's why I think at this point, if one is objective, we'd have to say that the trade is a push..

Wayne's bad risks were mostly FA signings and poor extensions.
Stanton, Maj, and Cormier all impacted the club negatively. So did Mays.
So did AGon when he was paid for his glove and delivered poor defense.
Do you dispute this? Weathers is going to bite us this year too. That's 4 million that could've been spent more efficiently. plus we could've gotten a prospect for him last year.

Wayne's risk of trading off position players and backfilling with junk generally has worked out poorly. That's why this offense really struggles. The defense is a mess as well. The bench is horrible.

Sure, I like having Volquez in the rotation, but losing Hamilton hurt this club a lot too.

You are so unbelievably off base here.

The Reds have had impact bats for the last 8 years. It's got them squat. The Reds are an interesting team right now because their rotation is interesting. How is Hamilton's bat helping the Rangers? Dead last in the AL in pitching and it ain't close. They have the WORST record in baseball. With Volquez, they potentially have 4-5 more wins, an above .500 record, and a foundation on which to build a good rotation. The Reds on the other hand aren't lacking an impact bat without Hamilton. Their impact BATS merely slumped the first month. Hamilton offensively is a wash with EE. Having him doesn't ensure wins in any way, especially when 3/5 of the Reds rotation would be Fogg, Belisle (who I still like) and Cueto (still learning). yikes.

Hamilton has the potential to be a star. He has the potential to be suspended for life too. Volquez is a risk in that he's a pitcher, and all pitchers are risks. He also has the potential to be a dominant TOR pitcher, and he's meeting those expectations.

Put it this way, Jason Bay is an impact bat. Think the Pirates are going anywhere this year?

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by SpringfieldFan

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? .

Well, the reaction of other club executives at the time of the trade was pure disbelief and a general consensus that Wayne got ripped off.
My guess is that Wayne didn't shop Kearns, etc to every club.

He wanted Maj and Bray really bad, and was willing to do whatever it took to get them, in a desperate attempt to fix the bullpen.

I mean, if I go to a used car lot and pay $3000 over fair market value, would you say that the car must be worth that, otherwise I wouldn't have paid that much?

[REDREAD]

Originally Posted by SpringfieldFan

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

Then I guess Wayne got the shaft on Arroyo, because now the Red Sox owe Wily Mo nothing, and the Reds are stuck with a big contract for the next 3 years.

Likewise, by that logic, if Phillips doesn't produce at 2007 levels, the Reds got the shaft in the Philips trade.

Of course, that is wrong... but IMO, it's silly to add up the salaries Wash is paying Kearns and Lopez to justify the trade was good.