The Jocketty Files

[Kc61]

Originally Posted by Will M

i

the reason 3 pitchers take up 50% of the Reds payroll is that the Reds payroll is so low. to get a team that is going to be competing for the playoffs each year Bob C is going to have to push that payroll up to the $90M mark.
even at $90M the Reds have to be smart & careful about their choices. at $70M dollars its hard to beat teams with payrolls significantly higher than yours (ie Cubs, Cards)

This is correct. Too much emphasis on particular contracts. Sometimes you have to pay to get quality.

The fans' emphasis should be on the overall payroll number, which is so low that it is very, very difficult to build a winner.

[Jpup]

My problem with Jocketty is that he doesn't do much of anything. He seems content to sit around and do nothing which will never improve the club. Half way and almost just doesn't get it done. I can't think of one deal that Jocketty has made to improve the Reds for the future, not one.

[GAC]

Is it the GM's fault as much as it's those that control his reign (.i.e. ownership)?

We brought in some "St Louis boys", such as Bob C and then Jocketty, and some hoped they'd be able to replicate that same success here. But Walt's success in St Louis, being able to make that big deal, and being the GM who was "in the right place at the right time", was coupled with the fact that the ownership put up the monies to score those players.

I don't see that happening here in Cincy. Sure, we still have some big contracts on the books in guys like Harang, Arroyo, and Cordero; but we've also cleared some monies off the books too with Jr, Dunn, and Milton.

And we're hearing rumors that they'd love to clear maybe one or two of those contracts out if they could. Subtraction can be good; but where's the additions?

One of the "worries" concerning Walt was that he isn't that big when it comes to the draft/farm system, and that he may trade away what talent we have built up in that system for short-term success. Well, he hasn't done that, and I give him credit.

But is the reason he hasn't done so is because this ownership refuses to put up that money, even if such a Jocketty deal presented itself?

[RANDY IN INDY]

The purse strings and ownership's control is always the first thing to make or break a GM.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Jpup

My problem with Jocketty is that he doesn't do much of anything. He seems content to sit around and do nothing which will never improve the club. Half way and almost just doesn't get it done. I can't think of one deal that Jocketty has made to improve the Reds for the future, not one.

That's easy. Massett and a minor leaguer for Griffey. A good young reliever for an old body, zero fielding range slugger whose contract was expiring certainly was a good, future oriented transx.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

I'm having a hard time seeing what matters besides W/L record actually. Wake me up when we get a GM/Owner combo that fixes that.

How anyone can defend a guy that signed Taveras to a two year contract is beyond me. The Reds in the past few years have seemed to make it a priority to sign and acquire guys I specifically hoped would never end up in Cincinnati, it'd be nice if that would stop.

Defend, oppose, or neutral, I don't see how anyone thinks that any evaluation of a GM starts and ends with looking at a two year, mid $ contract, no matter how bad the results have been to date.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by Kc61

This is correct. Too much emphasis on particular contracts. Sometimes you have to pay to get quality.

The fans' emphasis should be on the overall payroll number, which is so low that it is very, very difficult to build a winner.

We have to play with the hand we are dealt. I think this team can build to that number but over time and when it is appropriate. Bang those larger contracts out when it makes sense, don't force it.

[edabbs44]

Originally Posted by HokieRed

O'Brien acquired Bailey, Bruce, Cueto, and Francisco--in two years. If adding impact players is to be the standard, as I think it should be, there's no doubt the biggest mistake the organization's made in recent years is getting rid of O'Brien.

Bavasi's first transaction in Seattle was a pretty solid FA signing of Raul Ibanez. Maybe we should see if we can get him on board to help with the FO responsibilities.

Oh wait...

[Spring~Fields]

Originally Posted by Captain Hook

It's very complicated for sure and while I admit to not having a good answer I will say that even the Yankees could find a couple starting pitchers and a few position players of need for 35 million dollars.

Cano 6 mil
Swisher 5.4 mil
Granderson 3.5 mil
Pettitte 5.5 mil
Vazquez 11.5 mil

I know using the Yankees is a bad example but this is what 32 million got them.I'm just saying that's a lot of money on todays free agent market.

I think that you are pointing out that it can be done, and of course you’re right. Also many other’s over time have pointed out that other organizations such as Minnesota, Oakland, Florida, and Tampa have done it, so it can be done. It is very important in those, that prospects and trades become something of an improvement moving forward and that the cash available be applied diligently in a positive. The guys are right, it is how you spend the money and utilize those resources.

I also think that those that work so hard and long to point out the numbers/stats that are the drivers for the offensive, pitching and defensive stats are correct too, because those drive the numbers that go into the win, loss, runs scored and runs allowed numbers that are an accumulation of the individual player and team stats.

So the talent has to move toward increasing the stats in a positive direction for offense, pitching and defense. The general manager, no matter who he is has to upgrade the performances, and I think that is what the people really want to see, is that which, is clearly moving in that direction, supported by some numbers we call stats which are the historical records of player production, that feed team performance and team performance records.

These numbers tell the guys that work on them passionately if what the front office does or does not is moving toward achieving paragraph one above.

When we look at the individual player, that makes up the team and see the same basic numbers of production and performance for around or about the same money, well, we tend to realize that the outcomes will be at or about what they were listed in the win/loss, runs scored, runs allowed columns in the past, as if those were the bottom line from all the detail stats (offense, defense, pitching stats) that go into creating that bottom line of runs scored, runs allowed, win, loss etc.

[Redsfaithful]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Defend, oppose, or neutral, I don't see how anyone thinks that any evaluation of a GM starts and ends with looking at a two year, mid $ contract, no matter how bad the results have been to date.

Nah, it begins and ends with W/L record, Taveras is just a pretty damning data point.

[dougdirt]

Originally Posted by Redsfaithful

Nah, it begins and ends with W/L record, Taveras is just a pretty damning data point.

I think it depends on a few other things, mainly how long we are talking about. If a guy has 3 years, its tough to judge him solely on W/L record because they may have been building toward the future. Short term losses in favor of long term gains. Likewise a team could take long term losses for short term gains that resulted in winning big one season but losing the subsequent several seasons because of what it cost to win that one year.

[WVRedsFan]

After reading all 85 posts in this thread, I've decided to follow RedLegSuperStar's lead and just get rid of everyone by selling the franhise to Donald Trump. Unlimited money means that we won't have to worry about payroll and how much anyone is making (which is a tradition of Reds fans). We can hire Wayne Krivsky back to the pleasure of many. Fire Dusty Baker. Trade for Edwin Encarnacion because he has so much potential. DFA Taveras, Codero, and a host of others. And the list is endless.

Of course, Trump would move the club to Atlantic City, so I guess that's not such a good ideda.

Sorry. Christmas depression setting in. Along with 30 inches of snow...

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by WVRedsFan

After reading all 85 posts in this thread, I've decided to follow RedLegSuperStar's lead and just get rid of everyone by selling the franhise to Donald Trump. Unlimited money means that we won't have to worry about payroll and how much anyone is making (which is a tradition of Reds fans). We can hire Wayne Krivsky back to the pleasure of many. Fire Dusty Baker. Trade for Edwin Encarnacion because he has so much potential. DFA Taveras, Codero, and a host of others. And the list is endless.

Of course, Trump would move the club to Atlantic City, so I guess that's not such a good ideda.

Sorry. Christmas depression setting in. Along with 30 inches of snow...

Can't win with 'em, Can't win without 'em

[Jpup]

Originally Posted by traderumor

That's easy. Massett and a minor leaguer for Griffey. A good young reliever for an old body, zero fielding range slugger whose contract was expiring certainly was a good, future oriented transx.

OK, that's one, but I do not really consider a reliever as a big move for the future. Maybe going out and getting a shortstop, catcher, or a big bat might help.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by Jpup

OK, that's one, but I do not really consider a reliever as a big move for the future. Maybe going out and getting a shortstop, catcher, or a big bat might help.

A young reliever that has game finishing potential and served very well as the setup guy in one of the league's top bullpen? If that isn't a future oriented move, none are.

The others you mention are current needs and clearly the weakest links in this ballclub. Addressing those needs is actually more likely to be a short-term move for a good GM.