PDA

View Full Version : Grade the offseason.



redsfan30
02-07-2005, 03:01 PM
Ok, everyone all knows how many individuals feel about what has gone on this offseason. Without getting into the specifics again, please provide your grade for what the Reds have done this winter (A-F) with a BRIEF explanation of why.

My grade: B. They had wholes to fill and they went out and filled them with established Major Leaguers rather than hope that a youngster will pan out.

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 03:04 PM
C-

Hey, they didn't give up Kearns!!!

BoydsOfSummer
02-07-2005, 03:08 PM
A for effort. C for results.

CaiGuy
02-07-2005, 03:08 PM
I agree. Though they didn't go out and pay for big name players, they filled their current needs (3rd base and Bullpin) and improved their starting pitching. They did this without trading the future away(Kearns, Dunn). I say B to B- is a fair rating.

letsgojunior
02-07-2005, 03:08 PM
D

They overspent on mediocre talent, potentially precluding LTC's for Dunn and Kearns, and allowing almost no future payroll flexibility with the expensive, underproductive tandem of Graves-Griffey-Casey (not as bad as the others)-Milton.

westofyou
02-07-2005, 03:09 PM
C

Primer, Turtlewax a new Muffler, some speakers for the back and a eightball gear shift knob. Not pretty, but it gets down the road faster than it looks despite the gas cost and oil leak.

I wouldn't take it across the country though.

KronoRed
02-07-2005, 03:10 PM
C-

They tried to do..something

membengal
02-07-2005, 03:10 PM
B+.

Look, they needed desperately to address both starting pitching and bullpen issues, and find a bench. They did that. Now they have bought some time to let their younger arms mature without being thrown into the fire right away to start 2005. If Ortiz flames out, or the bullpen vets are less than spectacular, then they can go to the kids after giving them some more time to season.

Unlike most of the this board, I like that they acquired a 29-year-old lefty w/out a history of arm problems. Sometimes guys like Milton pitch their best ball in their 30s.

They are better now heading into spring training than they were when the season ended. In mid-December, I wouldn't have thought that possible. It's a start.

GoReds
02-07-2005, 03:15 PM
B-.

Eddie Murphy put it best. When you're out in the desert and haven't had anything to eat for days, that Ritz cracker tastes great.

Now that we've had a few Ritz crackers, maybe next year we can actually get something a bit more substantial.

Ohioballplayer
02-07-2005, 03:15 PM
C- is being grateful, enough said

CaiGuy
02-07-2005, 03:15 PM
D
potentially precluding LTC's for Dunn and Kearns.
I forgot about that when I gave my grade. That is really upseting, but I would still give the offseason a C+. They dramaticly improved the team (even if it is mediocre). Joe Randa will revent them from rushing Edwin, the new starters will be better than last year's rotation, and the bullpin will be lights out.

Redsland
02-07-2005, 03:16 PM
C-

Out with the old, in with the old.
Lots of churn, but precious little cream.

Hey, when the Pirates say you give out ridiculous contracts… ;)

zombie-a-go-go
02-07-2005, 03:18 PM
I give it a 7.

REDREAD
02-07-2005, 03:44 PM
I'll give them a "B".

I can see how people complain about the specifics, but considering the wasteland reputation they have, I'm surprised they were able to get Randa, Milton, and Mercker.
Beats the heck out of last offseason when they "saved" any payflex they had and did nothing with it.

It's already too late to sign Dunn LTC (and save significant $$). Looks like they were determined to go year to year with Kearns as well.. Next year it will likely be too late for him as well. I hope Carl ponies up to keep them until they are free agent eligible though.

Reds1
02-07-2005, 03:45 PM
Wow! Terrible grades. LOL. I'm giving them an A. Adding mucho payroll and filling all needs. A big thing is resigning LaRue, DJ, and not trading away our bench in the big 4 in the OF. Then going out and getting a good 3B and upgrading SS. Not to mention a good lefty and a couple other potential starters along with 3 BP guys. I don't understand how anyone can give the Reds a C or even D as some did. I can see B because there is no front line guy, but I think we upgraded 7 positions. That's unbelievable in my book. When you look at the rest of the division we have done the most. If we only didn't have so far to go. :)

Tell me guys what would it take to get you an A. Signing Pedro and Schilling! :D No, really. What would it take. You have to be realistic. YOu know we aren't going to add payroll, but what would have been done differently. Remember, Dunn wouldn't sign Long Term and all pitchers have been WAY overpriced. I say good job Redlegs!

Ok, beat me with a stick now.

westofyou
02-07-2005, 03:49 PM
I don't understand how anyone can give the Reds a C or even D as some did.

There are over 50 threads picking every move to the minutia... ya missed those eh?

Puffy
02-07-2005, 03:52 PM
I give it a 7.

How can you give them a 7?? I'm giving them a 4.633791. It could have been a 4.633996, but I loathe the Joe Randa signing, hence the decrease.

Reds1
02-07-2005, 03:54 PM
I certainly don't spend the time you do west. I only have time to read a few things and saw this so I guess I haven't. There seems to be a lot of just negativity with some all the time, but read my edited post. (you're too fast) and give me a true answer in 30 words or less. Make me understand. :)

traderumor
02-07-2005, 03:59 PM
How can you give them a 7?? I'm giving them a 4.633791. It could have been a 4.633996, but I loathe the Joe Randa signing, hence the decrease.
I think the Russians got a hold of him.

Puffy
02-07-2005, 04:05 PM
I think the Russians got a hold of him.

If anyone could be influenced by the Russians its Zombie. I heard they kidnapped FREEL!

Joseph
02-07-2005, 04:06 PM
I'd have to say B-

The talent added isn't spectacular, but for the most part it is solid. The Milton contract is decent, not untradeable if the Reds aren't in contention. Ortiz is also locked up for two years due to arbitration. I'd bet Randa would also come back for a second if Edwin isn't yet ready. All in all a decent two year plan to be competitive while giving the kids a little more seasoning.

Matt700wlw
02-07-2005, 04:07 PM
If we win the division....will your grades change?

I don't have a grade -- I'll see what happens

wheels
02-07-2005, 04:07 PM
D+

Holding onto Jimenez, and patching the bullpen up a bit keep this from being a complete disaster.

flyer85
02-07-2005, 04:07 PM
D

They overspent on mediocre talent, potentially precluding LTC's for Dunn and Kearns, and allowing almost no future payroll flexibility with the expensive, underproductive tandem of Graves-Griffey-Casey (not as bad as the others)-Milton.

That pretty much covers it.

kbrake
02-07-2005, 04:35 PM
What do you guys expect the Reds to do about the LTC situation with Dunn? Its Dunn and his people who will not sign a LTC now because they know if he continues to play the way he did last year, he will command a lot of money in the free agent market. I really want Dunn to stay a Red but its not like Obrien can force him to sign a contract. Now I give the Reds a B+ for the offseason. Main reason no more Jimmy Haynes or Brandon Larson.

wheels
02-07-2005, 04:38 PM
What do you guys expect the Reds to do about the LTC situation with Dunn? Its Dunn and his people who will not sign a LTC now because they know if he continues to play the way he did last year, he will command a lot of money in the free agent market. I really want Dunn to stay a Red but its not like Obrien can force him to sign a contract. Now I give the Reds a B+ for the offseason. Main reason no more Jimmy Haynes or Brandon Larson.

It's not that I expected them to sign Dunn long term in the offseason, but that Milton deal might hurt the chances of that happening in the near future.

Jimmy Haynes and Brandon Larson were out of this clubs plans long before last season ended, so I wouldn't include that in my grade.

TOBTTReds
02-07-2005, 04:47 PM
Wow, you guys are some of the most ungrateful fans I've ever seen. This is by far the best off season the Reds have had in over 20 years (please don't say getting Griffey was the best offseason). What did you guys give them last year? Because their off season this year has been about 800% better. I can't even remember what we did last season, Corey Lidle and Todd Jones is all I can think of. Some of you guys need to get off your calculators and baseball prospectus graphs and take a look at the game. We actually have a bench this year (haven't seen that lately) and a bullpen! And for those of you who criticize for overspending...who's money was it, and somebody tell me their budget??? No matter what the budget, we weren't going to get anyone else after our last deal. If Lindner didn't over spend on Milton, we wouldn't have him, and we would just have 8 million dollars more...having that money won't win us games, Milton will. Take a look at what we put on the field, we have 4 all-star caliber OF's, a very solid 3B, good 2B, one of the best hitting 1B in the game, a tough as nails catcher with a great arm, 3 decent starters, which we haven't seen in a while, and a good bullpen... Have you guys noticed our pitching competition is for the 4 and 5 spot (even though I feel it is decided already for Harang and Hudson). Usually our competition is for our 3-5! Jose Acevedo was our #3 last year!

I give them an A for their off season, best one I've experienced.

I guess I should be ready for some responses...

kbrake
02-07-2005, 04:50 PM
It's not that I expected them to sign Dunn long term in the offseason, but that Milton deal might hurt the chances of that happening in the near future.

Jimmy Haynes and Brandon Larson were out of this clubs plans long before last season ended, so I wouldn't include that in my grade.

I can see what your point is with the Milton deal, I guess I am just hoping this offseason Linder had a change of heart and he is going to start spending money. And I know Haynes and Larson were gone but JB would have found a way to work them back in. Other then that though I think they upgraded where they needed too, probaly not a world series winner but I think Obie did a good job

registerthis
02-07-2005, 04:51 PM
I think these moves need to be graded not just in terms of flat-out talent which the Reds picked up, but in what was available to them, and what they were capable of getting. In other words, we all know they weren't going to go after a Beltran or Randy Johnson. If they could have, but didn't, then the grade for their offseason moves would be much lower.

Nut considering the confines of the payroll, the needs the team had, and the talent available to fill those needs, I give the team a grade of

B-

Milton was a good pickup. Not only for the fact that he is an established pitcher with a track record of success, but because it showed that the team was out there playing FA ball with the best of them. He may not win 20 games, and they might have overpaid for him, but I will far and away take this version of the Reds over the one that consistently sent the likes of Jimmy Anderson and Jimmy Haynes to the mound.

Ortiz is a question mark...could be good, could be bad, but if nothing else he provides another veteran presence and can push the young guys.

Re-signing Wilson was key, got him for a good value and will solidify the top o fthe rotation.

Weber and Mercker were good pickups. They won't set the worl don fire, but both are better than Phil Norton and some o fthe other scrubs the Reds threw out there.

I don't like David Weathers.

Randa was a good signing. Veteran 3b-man with great glove and decent bat. Plugs a gaping hole at third and significantly improves the infield defense.

Aurillia, likewise, was a good signing. He's there, contrary to what the Reds may be publicly stating, to push Lopez. Which is definitely a good thing. Plus, he has postseason experience and a track record of success that can only help solidify our bench.

westofyou
02-07-2005, 04:55 PM
This is by far the best off season the Reds have had in over 20 years

Greg Vaughn and Mike Cameron say hi.

westofyou
02-07-2005, 04:57 PM
Some of you guys need to get off your calculators and baseball prospectus graphs and take a look at the game.

Nice rip.........

TOBTTReds
02-07-2005, 05:04 PM
Greg Vaughn and Mike Cameron say hi.

Those 2 players were the best off season? wow

I say hi right back

westofyou
02-07-2005, 05:09 PM
Those 2 players were the best off season? wow

I say hi right back

Now who's being ungrateful?


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
1998

RUNS CREATED/GAME RC/G
1 Reds 4.78

Outfield
RUNS CREATED/GAME RC/G
1 Reds 4.74


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
1998
OF
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RUNS CREATED/GAME RC/G RC/G
1 Dmitri Young 6.08 0.99
2 Jeffrey Hammonds 5.82 0.73
3 Reggie Sanders 5.01 -.08
4 Melvin Nieves 4.60 -.49
5 Chris Stynes 4.20 -.89
6 Jon Nunnally 4.14 -.95
7 Tony Tarasco 4.05 -1.04
8 Pat Watkins 3.60 -1.49
9 Lenny Harris 3.27 -1.82
10 Mike Frank 2.55 -2.54


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
1999

RUNS CREATED/GAME RC/G

1 Reds 5.54

Outfield
RUNS CREATED/GAME RC/G
1 Reds 6.13


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
1999
OF
RUNS CREATED/GAME vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RUNS CREATED/GAME RC/G RC/G
1 Greg Vaughn 6.64 1.07
2 Dmitri Young 6.26 0.69
3 Mike Cameron 6.20 0.63
4 Jeffrey Hammonds 6.01 0.44
5 Michael Tucker 5.08 -.49

Boss-Hog
02-07-2005, 05:17 PM
Denny Neagle and Michael Tucker were also added that offseason.

Redmachine2003
02-07-2005, 05:19 PM
I give the offseason moves a B+. They filled every hole on the team. Got a proven winning pitcher and left hand starter. The only reason it wasn't an A is I would have like to seen Dunn and/or Kearns locked up long term.

REDREAD
02-07-2005, 05:21 PM
D

They overspent on mediocre talent, potentially precluding LTC's for Dunn and Kearns, and allowing almost no future payroll flexibility with the expensive, underproductive tandem of Graves-Griffey-Casey (not as bad as the others)-Milton.

I know this isn't supposed to be a discussion thread about this, but it's possible that getting Milton, Ortiz, etc might actually make it EASIER to hold on to Dunn and Kearns. At least now they see ownership making an attempt to win.

If the front office sat on its payflex, the Reds were looking at a potentially last place finish. That's going to drive Kearns/Dunn away in a hurry.

Players sometimes give a hometown discount if the team is legitimately trying to win. There's no guarantee Dunn will do that, but making him sit through another year of horrible pitching isn't going to make him want to stay either.

wheels
02-07-2005, 05:28 PM
Players sometimes give a hometown discount if the team is legitimately trying to win. There's no guarantee Dunn will do that, but making him sit through another year of horrible pitching isn't going to make him want to stay either.

We might as well kiss him gooddbye if you think that's the case.

Reds1
02-07-2005, 05:44 PM
Wow, you guys are some of the most ungrateful fans I've ever seen. This is by far the best off season the Reds have had in over 20 years (please don't say getting Griffey was the best offseason). What did you guys give them last year? Because their off season this year has been about 800% better. I can't even remember what we did last season, Corey Lidle and Todd Jones is all I can think of. Some of you guys need to get off your calculators and baseball prospectus graphs and take a look at the game. We actually have a bench this year (haven't seen that lately) and a bullpen! And for those of you who criticize for overspending...who's money was it, and somebody tell me their budget??? No matter what the budget, we weren't going to get anyone else after our last deal. If Lindner didn't over spend on Milton, we wouldn't have him, and we would just have 8 million dollars more...having that money won't win us games, Milton will. Take a look at what we put on the field, we have 4 all-star caliber OF's, a very solid 3B, good 2B, one of the best hitting 1B in the game, a tough as nails catcher with a great arm, 3 decent starters, which we haven't seen in a while, and a good bullpen... Have you guys noticed our pitching competition is for the 4 and 5 spot (even though I feel it is decided already for Harang and Hudson). Usually our competition is for our 3-5! Jose Acevedo was our #3 last year!

I give them an A for their off season, best one I've experienced.

I guess I should be ready for some responses...

this was more of my response, but I challenged everyone to tell me what makes an A, B, etc. if the 10 so moves the Reds did this year doesn't cut it. Better at almost every position if you include experience like guys like DJ and LarRue got, Bench much better with Freel and one of the OF. Aurillia is now on the bench if not starting, 3 more pen guys including a lefty and 4 guys fighting for spots 4-5 that were all locks to start. I've had no viable responses. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one that feels the way you do.
Go Reds!

Raisor
02-07-2005, 05:48 PM
D

For reasons that I've been saying all off season.

I appreciate the fact that they've spent money. I just wish they'd spent the money WELL.

guernsey
02-07-2005, 05:53 PM
B - it's going to be a fun season.

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 06:10 PM
this was more of my response, but I challenged everyone to tell me what makes an A, B, etc. if the 10 so moves the Reds did this year doesn't cut it. Better at almost every position if you include experience like guys like DJ and LarRue got, Bench much better with Freel and one of the OF. Aurillia is now on the bench if not starting, 3 more pen guys including a lefty and 4 guys fighting for spots 4-5 that were all locks to start. I've had no viable responses. I'm glad to know I'm not the only one that feels the way you do.
Go Reds!

For a team like the Reds? Here you go:

A= Turned ballclub into definitive playoff contender
B= Improved Run Differential enough to project a 85-win+ season with an outside chance at the WildCard without counting on career years from 3/4 of the squad.
C= Improved Run Differential enough to project a .500 record (plus or minus 4 games)
D= Improved, but not significantly enough to project a winning ballclub and spent a lot of money doing it
F= Improved nowhere and/or spent a lot of money not improving

I'll give 'em a C-minus. And the only reason the offseason ranks that high is that the additional money spent potentially secures a higher payroll next season due to folks who might just buy more tickets because they equate money with performance.

But considering that it doesn't appear that there's a good chance that money will be well spent, I can see how folks are giving the offseason a "D".

westofyou
02-07-2005, 06:10 PM
Without using stats

Inking Eric Milton to a expensive 20 million plus contract is equal to giving that to Jack Billingham after the 1974 season. Ramon Ortiz is this years version of Greg Swindell, Rich Aurillia gives me Terry Pendleton feelings. Randa is a stopgap and not too expensive, thus making him easy to flip..... that said isn't Joe Randa just Brook Jacoby with a better glove?

I like the BP moves and I see how the additions help stop attrition of youngsters arms as does any inning eaters like Paul Wilson (who is more late career Mark Portugal than Pete Harnisch)

But as Guernsey said I think this will be a "fun season" the last two were not.... but I can still follow the Reds without blowing sunshine up their butts too... even with my Simon Bar Sinister approach the game.

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 06:14 PM
For a team like the Reds? Here you go:

A= Turned ballclub into definitive playoff contender
B= Improved Run Differential enough to project a 85-win+ season with an outside chance at the WildCard without counting on career years from 3/4 of the squad.
C= Improved Run Differential enough to project a .500 record (plus or minus 4 games)
D= Improved, but not significantly enough to project a winning ballclub and spent a lot of money doing it
F= Improved nowhere and/or spent a lot of money not improving

I'll give 'em a C-minus. And the only reason the offseason ranks that high is that the additional money spent potentially secures a higher payroll next season due to folks who might just buy more tickets because they equate money with performance.

But considering that it doesn't appear that there's a good chance that money will be well spent, I can see how folks are giving the offseason a "D".


How does a D grade ever connote "improvement?" So "F" is the baseline?

That's not typically how grades work. C is baseline--no improvement/no regression, net. D is regression. F is severe regression.

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 06:21 PM
How does a D grade ever connote "improvement?" So "F" is the baseline?

That's not typically how grades work. C is baseline--no improvement/no regression, net. D is regression. F is severe regression.

It's all relative, FCB. I contend that if a team in the Reds position did nothing to improve themselves during an offseason, that's a complete failure.

I know how typical grades work. But baseball isn't a typical situation.

XRedsfan07
02-07-2005, 06:24 PM
If we win the division....will your grades change?



Of course they will. All the nay sayers will become the guys saying "I told you signing Randa/Milton/Aurilia/etc. would pay off"

That's how sports goes. You've the eternal optamists, the eternal pesamists, and the fair weather fan.

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 06:27 PM
"I know how typical grades work. But baseball isn't a typical situation."

Okay...

But instead of stretching credulity, why not try to approach something that resembles a consensus of criteria.

What if I decided that the only criterion that matters is "dollars spent?"

I'd be free to do that--give the Reds an "A" and a big ole "gO Rdz!!!" But I'd be stupid for arriving at that conclusion.

I'm just not sure I understand the logic that D connotes improvement, that's all. It's always meant regression to me (and virtually the universe). Now if your argument is that by not signing Dunn, the Reds have countervailed all other moves this offseason, and so deserve a "D" then fine. But that takes some pretty tortuous logic, seeing that Dunn'll still be suiting up in red and black this season.

Tommyjohn25
02-07-2005, 06:28 PM
Wow, you guys are some of the most ungrateful fans I've ever seen. This is by far the best off season the Reds have had in over 20 years (please don't say getting Griffey was the best offseason). What did you guys give them last year? Because their off season this year has been about 800% better. I can't even remember what we did last season, Corey Lidle and Todd Jones is all I can think of. Some of you guys need to get off your calculators and baseball prospectus graphs and take a look at the game. We actually have a bench this year (haven't seen that lately) and a bullpen! And for those of you who criticize for overspending...who's money was it, and somebody tell me their budget??? No matter what the budget, we weren't going to get anyone else after our last deal. If Lindner didn't over spend on Milton, we wouldn't have him, and we would just have 8 million dollars more...having that money won't win us games, Milton will. Take a look at what we put on the field, we have 4 all-star caliber OF's, a very solid 3B, good 2B, one of the best hitting 1B in the game, a tough as nails catcher with a great arm, 3 decent starters, which we haven't seen in a while, and a good bullpen... Have you guys noticed our pitching competition is for the 4 and 5 spot (even though I feel it is decided already for Harang and Hudson). Usually our competition is for our 3-5! Jose Acevedo was our #3 last year!

I give them an A for their off season, best one I've experienced.

I guess I should be ready for some responses...

Fantastic Post! :thumbup: I give them an A as well, I also think it's a shame that people like you and I expect to get blasted for being optimistic about the team that everyone on this site is a die hard fan of. I dunno...maybe i just drank too much "kool-aid". :)

westofyou
02-07-2005, 06:30 PM
Of course they will. All the nay sayers will become the guys saying "I told you signing Randa/Milton/Aurilia/etc. would pay off"

That's how sports goes. You've the eternal optamists, the eternal pesamists, and the fair weather fan.

From my experience, all the "naysayers" would probably say.. "wow I was wrong" and if they were wrong they'll spend the time to figure out why they were wrong.

IF.... they are right then all the "Optimists" will be starting threads about how they can't wait until football starts, or how Adam Dunn strikes out too much.

That's how sports boards go... IMO that is.

RedsManRick
02-07-2005, 06:30 PM
A-

We may be one of the few teams in baseball who addressed every reasonable concern in the offseason. Yes, we overspent on Eric Milton. But the contract is only 3 years, and most definitely not untradable. Randa is the perfect bridge to Encarnacion (I've been advocating Randa on the ESPN boards since we dealt Boone). Ramon Ortiz is the kind of risk we can afford to take, as are Weber and Aurillia.

The reason for the minus is that if we knew going in that we had 20M to spend, why is Kearns not in an A's uni right now? This was a great opportunity to add that impact starter and we passed. Kearns/Pena and Moseley could've brought us a real #1 type guy.

However, with Graves 6M gone after this year, Casey likely gone in '07, no other big contracts outside of Jr. and Milton (who will be in year #3), we're in pretty good financial shape relative to our talent for the next 3 or 4 years -- we should be able to continue to compete/improve without raising payroll significantly.

wheels
02-07-2005, 06:30 PM
Of course they will. All the nay sayers will become the guys saying "I told you signing Randa/Milton/Aurilia/etc. would pay off"

That's how sports goes. You've the eternal optamists, the eternal pesamists, and the fair weather fan.

Yup, that sure is the way things work around here... :rolleyes:

BRM
02-07-2005, 06:32 PM
Fantastic Post! :thumbup: I give them an A as well, I also think it's a shame that people like you and I expect to get blasted for being optimistic about the team that everyone on this site is a die hard fan of. I dunno...maybe i just drank too much "kool-aid". :)

In fairness, the supposed "pessimists" are getting blasted every bit as much as the "optimists", maybe more so.

iammrred
02-07-2005, 06:33 PM
How can the team be penalized for not signing Dunn to a long-term contract when he and his agent refused to?

Mind-boggling stuff, really.

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 06:34 PM
How can the team be penalized for not signing Dunn to a long-term contract when he and his agent refused to?

Mind-boggling stuff, really.


I bet he and his agent would not have "refused" had the dollar figure caught their eye. Eh?

MWM
02-07-2005, 06:36 PM
D-

MWM
02-07-2005, 06:37 PM
How many "optimists" will say they wer wrong if the REds lose 90 games?

There will be plenty of reasons why, but it will never be because the moves made weren't good baseball moves.

GriffeyFan
02-07-2005, 06:38 PM
B-

I think a grade of C or below is ridiculous. For those who gave a grade below C, they are never going to be happy unless we spend like the Yankees.

The Reds FO and Carl Lindner tried for the first time in several years to IMPROVE the team and they were successful. This team will be much better than in 2004 or 03 or 02 or 01 or 00. It's not a World Series contender by any means and probably not a NLCS contender, but the playoffs are a legitimate opportunity.

The bullpen was crap last year...it's been addressed. Granted, these veterans are not long-term answers, but outside of closers, most bullpens are made up of grissly veterans.

Starting pitching was crap last year...it's been addressed. Milton and Ortiz should help take the load off Wilson's shoulders. Wilson isn't anywhere near a no. 1 or no. 2 starter and now he doesn't have to be. If Ortiz can regain his form, he'll fit in nicely at No. 2 or No. 3. As far as the last two spots, I just hope we can catch lightning in a bottle with Harang, Hudson or Claussen. Just imagine, if we're actually in it come July, we could go for one starter and potentially have a decent 4-man rotation depending on what happens.

Joe Randa and Rich Aurilla are nice "cheap" signees. We didn't blow a lot of money on these two, but both are veterans who have been very solid major leaguers before and are not very far removed from their best years. I don't want to hear anymore of this Larkin crap. He couldn't stay healthy long enough. Randa and Aurilla can bridge the gap between the present and the future.

Signing Milton, whether you agree we overpaid or not, was a sign to me this team at least somewhat cares about the product on the field. When's the last time the Reds signed a free agent for big-time bucks? I can't remember. It's not like we're the Tigers (signing Mags) and overpaid other teams by $20M. The deal Milton accepted from the Reds was the same offer by 3-4 other teams. To me, I would have rather the Reds signed Milton than them keeping the money in their pockets.

Hopefully, the youth of this team (Kearns, Dunn, Wily Mo) along with the veterans (Griffey, Casey, Randa, DJ, Larue) will mix together well and at least give Reds fans a pennant race to pay attention to.

Much more improvement is needed before we start thinking about the World Series, but this offseason was a step in the right direction, a step that hasn't been made for 5 years.

wheels
02-07-2005, 06:42 PM
B-

I think a grade of C or below is ridiculous. For those who gave a grade below C, they are never going to be happy unless we spend like the Yankees.

The Reds FO and Carl Lindner tried for the first time in several years to IMPROVE the team and they were successful. This team will be much better than in 2004 or 03 or 02 or 01 or 00. It's not a World Series contender by any means and probably not a NLCS contender, but the playoffs are a legitimate opportunity.



Actually, I'd rather they spend like Oakland or Minnesota, but go on believing what you want to believe.

I'm sorry, but this club isn't as good as the '00 team. Ya know, the team that won 85 games.

MWM
02-07-2005, 06:43 PM
B-

I think a grade of C or below is ridiculous. For those who gave a grade below C, they are never going to be happy unless we spend like the Yankees.

Is there really a need for these comments. The world is full of uncertainty with thousands of shades of grey. It is possible to objectively weigh the evidence and come to a different conclusion than YOU "think" we should have come to. I've heard countless times over the course of the offseason how I'll never be happy until they become the Yankees or I'll never be happy period. Quite the contrary is true. I don't want the Reds to spend lavishly on over-priced old aged stars. I want them to spend whatever money they have to spend wisely regardless if it's $100 million or $40 million. And based on my own observation of the offseason I don't think they've done either.

Stop telling me how I'm supposed to feel when I'm capable of doing it on my own. Trust me, I get absolutely nothing out of having a negative viewpoint on the Red front offce, but how can one deny the ineptitude of what they've done over the last 5 years?

BRM
02-07-2005, 06:43 PM
B-

I think a grade of C or below is ridiculous. For those who gave a grade below C, they are never going to be happy unless we spend like the Yankees.


Or spend money on quality players?

If you think Milton and Ortiz are quality pitchers, then a grade of A or B is reasonable. If you think Milton and Ortiz are mediocre and/or below average, then a grade of C or D is reasonable. That's how I see it at least.

wheels
02-07-2005, 06:46 PM
Is there really a need for these comments. The world is full of uncertainty with thousands of shades of grey. It is possible to objectively weigh the evidence and come to a different conclusion than YOU "think" we should have come to. I've heard countless times over the course of the offseason how I'll never be happy until they become the Yankees or I'll never be happy period. Quite the contrary is true. I don't want the Reds to spend lavishly on over-priced old aged stars. I want them to spend whatever money they have to spend wisely regardless if it's $100 million or $40 million. And based on my own observation of the offseason I don't think they've done either.

Stop telling me how I'm supposed to feel when I'm capable of doing it on my own. Trust me, I get absolutely nothing out of having a negative viewpoint on the Red front offce, but how can one deny the ineptitude of what they've done over the last 5 years?

Stop making sense, and get on the bandwagon, bub.

Thinkin's fer wussies.

registerthis
02-07-2005, 06:50 PM
"I know how typical grades work. But baseball isn't a typical situation."

Okay...

But instead of stretching credulity, why not try to approach something that resembles a consensus of criteria.

What if I decided that the only criterion that matters is "dollars spent?"

I'd be free to do that--give the Reds an "A" and a big ole "gO Rdz!!!" But I'd be stupid for arriving at that conclusion.

I'm just not sure I understand the logic that D connotes improvement, that's all. It's always meant regression to me (and virtually the universe). Now if your argument is that by not signing Dunn, the Reds have countervailed all other moves this offseason, and so deserve a "D" then fine. But that takes some pretty tortuous logic, seeing that Dunn'll still be suiting up in red and black this season.
In my college program, 'D' was essentially a failing grade. No one who scored a D on an exam thought they were improving in the least. Indeed, you're barely learning the material, if at all.

I really don't see how you can grade the offseason at less than a C. They filled every position, brought in some proven talent, re-signed their best starter from last season...that is not a 'D' offseason.

registerthis
02-07-2005, 06:51 PM
I bet he and his agent would not have "refused" had the dollar figure caught their eye. Eh?
Then the people complaining about the Milton contract would be complaining that the team overspent on Dunn.

Damned if you do...etc.

wheels
02-07-2005, 06:52 PM
re-signed their best starter from last season


Faint praise.

wheels
02-07-2005, 06:54 PM
Then the people complaining about the Milton contract would be complaining that the team overspent on Dunn.

Damned if you do...etc.

I would never do that. In my opinion, he's the best bet out there, and it's almost impossible to overspend on him.

Let's see....Would I rather have a pitcher with a career 4.76 ERA, or a young slugger with near Ruthian potential?

That's a reeeeel toughy.

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 06:56 PM
Of course they will. All the nay sayers will become the guys saying "I told you signing Randa/Milton/Aurilia/etc. would pay off"

That doesn't happen on this board.


That's how sports goes. You've the eternal optamists, the eternal pesamists, and the fair weather fan.

A mother who couldn't handle her twin toddlers brought them into the local psychiatrist for help with their behavior.

The doctor asked the mother what the problem was...

"Well," said the young lady, "It seems I have two completely opposite issues. Bobby is full of fear and always thinks the worst thing possible will happen to him. He's impossible to cheer up and cries constantly."

"I see..." the Doctor replied, "...so what seems to be the issue with the other child?"

"That's the thing!" exclaimed the exasperated mother, "Johnny is just the opposite. He's so happy and bright that he doesn't think anything will EVER go wrong. He's not scared of anything and I fear that he'll harm himself if he's not careful."

"That is quite a unique problem, young lady." the Doctor replied, "However, I think I have JUST the thing to cure each of them."

First, the doctor took Bobby, the pessimistic child, into a room completely filled with toys.

"With this many toys around, your child will be forced to play and play and in two days time will be completely cured. He'll be as happy and as playful as a little boy should." explained the Doctor.

"And what will you do to help my overly-optimistic son, Johnny?" the mother inquired.

"Well, this may seem extreme, but we find that in cases like this facing the worst possible is most conducive to curing the mental affliction. Therefore, we will be placing Johnny in a room filled with heaping piles of horse manure and there he will stay for the next 48 hours." the Doctor explained.

After 48 hours, the Doctor escored the anxious young mother to the room full of toys so that they may see how the pessimistic little Bobby was progressing.

Upon opening the door, both onlookers were taken aback as Bobby was crying and huddled in the corner of his room where he'd carved out a small niche among the toys.

"Bobby! What's the matter???" asked the confused mother.

"Mo..mo..mommy..." whimpered the small boy, "I tried to think nice thoughts like the doctor tod me too, but I know we don't have much money. If I'd have touched any of the toys and broken them, we'da hafta pay for them and then you, daddy, Johnny and I wouldn't have a place to live!!!"

Horrified, the mother ran to the adjacent room where her overly optimistic son was trapped in the middle of hundreds of pounds of horse manure.

"Johnny!!! JOHNNY!!! Are you all right!?!?" yelled the mother.

"MOMMY!!!" replied little Johnny while laughing and throwing fistfulls of horse manure in the air, "THIS IS THE BEST EVER!!!!!!! Thank you SO much for bringing me here!!!"

"Oh no...no..." the mother muttered with her head in her hands, "Johnny...do you know what all the stuff in this room is?"

"Oh YES!!!" exclaimed the excited little boy, "It's HORSE POOP!!! And with this much horse poop, it's only a matter of time before I find the PONY!!!!!!!!"

***

The moral of this story?

When facing nothing but horse manure, the expectation of finding a pony isn't "optimism". It's insanity.

But then hey, you probably figure I'm the one thinking that all the toys are going to break should I touch them. That's not reality either.

While we're busy labeling and neatly categorizing fan types, does the word "realist" work into your equation too? Or is that a pony you don't think exists?

westofyou
02-07-2005, 06:58 PM
Then the people complaining about the Milton contract would be complaining that the team overspent on Dunn.

Damned if you do...etc.

Very doubtful, I wouldn't.

But I don't allow myself to believe that any sort of agreement isn't without it's pratfalls for both sides, and as sound business goes an argument could be made by both to why a LT deal hasn't been done at this time and it usually involves layers of stuff that never makes Hal McCoys Sunday rundown of recent Reds and baseball news.

registerthis
02-07-2005, 07:07 PM
Very doubtful, I wouldn't.

But I don't allow myself to believe that any sort of agreement isn't without it's pratfalls for both sides, and as sound business goes an argument could be made by both to why a LT deal hasn't been done at this time and it usually involves layers of stuff that never makes Hal McCoys Sunday rundown of recent Reds and baseball news.
To sign Dunn LT is going to take something very similar to what it took to sign Junior long term. And w eknow how people felt about that.

I'm not necessarily saying it's be bad to sign Dunn LT--quite the opposite. But the Reds will never make a move that some people won't find offensive. Doesn't matter who it is, or at what price.

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 07:08 PM
But instead of stretching credulity, why not try to approach something that resembles a consensus of criteria.

What if I decided that the only criterion that matters is "dollars spent?"

I'd be free to do that--give the Reds an "A" and a big ole "gO Rdz!!!" But I'd be stupid for arriving at that conclusion.

I'm just not sure I understand the logic that D connotes improvement, that's all. It's always meant regression to me (and virtually the universe). Now if your argument is that by not signing Dunn, the Reds have countervailed all other moves this offseason, and so deserve a "D" then fine. But that takes some pretty tortuous logic, seeing that Dunn'll still be suiting up in red and black this season.

Well, maybe it's just me FCB, but standing in place certainly doesn't get you anywhere. Not sure in what class you were given a "C" for non-starting.

Each offseason is an opportunity to produce a championship-caliber ball club. Period. Do little to nothing to improve your club to to a playoff level ballclub and you don't get a sniff of a B or an A from me. Do only that which would produce an outside chance at finishing .500 and you don't get a C from me either.

It appears you think everyone had the same assignment this offseason and thus should be graded as such. I wholeheartedly disagree with that methodology. And no, I don't really care that the Reds' "assignment" was more difficult than the Cardinals'.

Very simply, the Reds didn't do enough to get where they needed to be. The offseason wasn't a failure IMHO, but it wasn't enough to pass the course either.

iammrred
02-07-2005, 07:09 PM
I bet he and his agent would not have "refused" had the dollar figure caught their eye. Eh?

And what dollar figure is that?

registerthis
02-07-2005, 07:09 PM
Faint praise.
considering that in the past they would let him take a walk for nothing, then I think the fact that they re-upped Wilson for two years IS a big deal. Hopefully it signals a turning point in the way, financially, this franchise is run.

I think a lot of people are grading this team as if they had the financial backing/spending history of the Yankees. As far as REDS offseasons go, this is one of the better ones.

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 07:09 PM
To sign Dunn LT is going to take something very similar to what it took to sign Junior long term. And w eknow how people felt about that.

I'm not necessarily saying it's be bad to sign Dunn LT--quite the opposite. But the Reds will never make a move that some people won't find offensive. Doesn't matter who it is, or at what price.

Problem with your logic is that you think that the same people who don't like bad moves also don't like good moves.

That's not the way it works around here.

registerthis
02-07-2005, 07:12 PM
Problem with your logic is that you think that the same people who don't like bad moves also don't like good moves.

That's not the way it works around here.
I didn't mean "the same people" in a literal sense. I've stated my logic quite clearly--there are ALWAYS people who will find a reason to complain about a move the team makes. ALWAYS.

I have an idea how things work around here...it's not too hard to figure out.

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 07:14 PM
And what dollar figure is that?

Probably ten million a year for 5-6 years. Which would have been ideal, imo.

The Reds would get a great player's salad days before playing with 6'6'' (not a svelte 6'6" at that) on those knees renders him a DH.

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 07:18 PM
I didn't mean "the same people" in a literal sense. I've stated my logic quite clearly--there are ALWAYS people who will find a reason to complain about a move the team makes. ALWAYS.

I have an idea how things work around here...it's not too hard to figure out.

Oh, if you mean that some folks will complain about anything or that other folks will complain about some stuff but not complain about other stuff? Yep.

There are even folks who constantly complain about "complainers". Really. No kidding. There are actually folks on this board that find non-pie-in-the-sky baseball talk so offensive that they'll complain about people. I know. Hard to believe, isn't it?

Oh, and they're generally the same folks who start the "Reds/Player X Sucks" posts around late July after ranting and raving about "negativity" all offseason.

Yep. Again, no kidding!

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 07:18 PM
Well, maybe it's just me FCB, but standing in place certainly doesn't get you anywhere. Not sure in what class you were given a "C" for non-starting.

Each offseason is an opportunity to produce a championship-caliber ball club. Period. Do little to nothing to improve your club to to a playoff level ballclub and you don't get a sniff of a B or an A from me. Do only that which would produce an outside chance at finishing .500 and you don't get a C from me either.

It appears you think everyone had the same assignment this offseason and thus should be graded as such. I wholeheartedly disagree with that methodology. And no, I don't really care that the Reds' "assignment" was more difficult than the Cardinals'.

Very simply, the Reds didn't do enough to get where they needed to be. The offseason wasn't a failure IMHO, but it wasn't enough to pass the course either.


For the record, I gave them a C-, with my logic being that tying up a lot of money in mediocre players would preclude moves at the deadline (in the hopes they stick around in a weak--and it is weak--division). In other words, they have expensively run in place. Net deduction, but a minor one.

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 07:20 PM
For the record, I gave them a C-, with my logic being that tying up a lot of money in mediocre players would preclude moves at the deadline (in the hopes they stick around in a weak--and it is weak--division). In other words, they have expensively run in place. Net deduction, but a minor one.

Yeah. That's kinda my thought on it as well although I don't think they needed to backslide to get an "F". But that really seems to be the only difference in our thinking.

We ok now, champ? :p:

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 07:22 PM
Yeah. That's kinda my thought on it as well although I don't think they needed to backslide to get an "F". But that really seems to be the only difference in our thinking.

We ok now, champ? :p:

Sure. Devil's in the details, and all that rot, blah di blah.

wheels
02-07-2005, 07:23 PM
Oh, if you mean that some folks will complain about anything or that other folks will complain about some stuff but not complain about other stuff? Yep.

There are even folks who constantly complain about "complainers". Really. No kidding. There are actually folks on this board that find non-pie-in-the-sky baseball talk so offensive that they'll complain about people. I know. Hard to believe, isn't it?

Oh, and they're generally the same folks who start the "Reds/Player X Sucks" posts around late July after ranting and raving about "negativity" all offseason.

Yep. Again, no kidding!

I remember an actual thread title that went something like this:

"Let's face it...The Reds SUCK."

"Boycott LINDER!!!!" Also a good one.

gO rEdZ!

Rocket_Fuel
02-07-2005, 07:23 PM
A+. The Reds have shown in the past that if they just get decent pitching they can win 85 to 90 games, health willing. They have stayed in the division race with retreads on the mound and no bench depth and relied on the bullpen (last year being an aberration). Now we have that great bullpen again, a strong pitching staff that can not only keep us in games but take over games, a good bench and a powerful offense. The pieces are in place for an 85 to 90+ win season and a spot in the playoffs.

Rocket_Fuel
02-07-2005, 07:25 PM
For the record, I gave them a C-, with my logic being that tying up a lot of money in mediocre players would preclude moves at the deadline (in the hopes they stick around in a weak--and it is weak--division). In other words, they have expensively run in place. Net deduction, but a minor one.

If they don't make those moves the Reds aren't around to make a move at the trade deadline. And when the trade deadline comes who are the pitchers who are available? Guys like Paul Wilson, Eric Milton and Ramon Ortiz.

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 07:26 PM
A+. The Reds have shown in the past that if they just get decent pitching they can win 85 to 90 games, health willing. They have stayed in the division race with retreads on the mound and no bench depth and relied on the bullpen (last year being an aberration). Now we have that great bullpen again, a strong pitching staff that can not only keep us in games but take over games, a good bench and a powerful offense. The pieces are in place for an 85 to 90+ win season and a spot in the playoffs.

Great bullpen??? :eek:

When did the Reds sign Foulke and Gagne?

I'd say our bullpen is somewhere between mediocre and awful. And if Weber doesn't pan out, super awful.

wheels
02-07-2005, 07:27 PM
If they don't make those moves the Reds aren't around to make a move at the trade deadline. And when the trade deadline comes who are the pitchers who are available? Guys like Paul Wilson, Eric Milton and Ramon Ortiz.

'Course a deadline deal for a guy like Eric Milton wouldn't cost as much.

Raisor
02-07-2005, 07:28 PM
I remember an actual thread title that went something like this:

"Let's face it...The Reds SUCK."

"Boycott LINDER!!!!" Also a good one.

gO rEdZ!


U are just the jealoous type and its' clear that you aren't not a real fan because if you wire u'd think that.

Matt700wlw
02-07-2005, 07:31 PM
There were some absolutely outlandish contracts given this offseason -- the Reds aren't the only ones who "overspent" to add to their team

This is what baseball is becoming..get used to it

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 07:32 PM
If they don't make those moves the Reds aren't around to make a move at the trade deadline. And when the trade deadline comes who are the pitchers who are available? Guys like Paul Wilson, Eric Milton and Ramon Ortiz.


If last year's team could compete into June (which it did), then a few inexpensive adjustments and lucky NRIs, we could, this year, still be "competing" in what I consider a lame Central division.

Ravenlord
02-07-2005, 07:33 PM
C--. as close to a D as you can get and still not get it. the Milton signing and Dunn not having a LT offer cinch the craptacularness for me.

westofyou
02-07-2005, 07:36 PM
This is what baseball is becoming..get used to it

That has to be the spring training catch phrase... I hear it every year, When players held out they said it, when Wayne Garland signed a 10 year contract they said it, when Bud Black was signed by the Giants in 1991......it's as much a part of baseball as crackerjacks and ballplayers on a hotel roof.

Matt700wlw
02-07-2005, 07:40 PM
I love it....the Reds do nothing, people complain because they're doing nothing (I was a big advocate there)

The Reds spend some money, make some moves to upgrade the team as a whole, by addressing their needs with major-league talent and people complain

Did they overspend? Yeah, probably, but see my last post.

Did they upgrade? I think they did, and I think it will show

Did they actually show that they really may want to win? Yes, which is a huge step in the right direction

Were there better players available to the ones we obtained? Yes...sure there were, but can you imagine how much we would have had to overpay for them? Unfortunately the economics of baseball isn't fair when it comes to salaries and parity

Plus, the Reds didn't give any of these guys real lengthy deals, which, in the past, have gotten this organization into trouble on more than one occasion

Bottom line, this offseason finally showed me that there is a direction and a plan. Whether it pans out or works, we'll probably begin to see that as the season plays out

Ravenlord
02-07-2005, 07:47 PM
Matt,

if Acevedo had won 12+ games over the last 3 seasons, would you have given him Milton's contract?

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 07:48 PM
I love it....the Reds do nothing, people complain because they're doing nothing (I was a big advocate there)

The Reds spend some money, make some moves to upgrade the team as a whole, by addressing their needs with major-league talent and people complain

Did they overspend? Yeah, probably, but see my last post.

Did they upgrade? I think they did, and I think it will show

Did they actually show that they really may want to win? Yes, which is a huge step in the right direction

Were there better players available to the ones we obtained? Yes...sure there were, but can you imagine how much we would have had to overpay for them?

Plus, the Reds didn't give any of these guys real lengthy deals, which, in the past, have gotten this organization into trouble on more than one occasion

Bottom line, this offseason finally showed me that there is a direction and a plan. Whether it pans out or works, we'll probably begin to see that as the season plays out


Actually, as embarrassing as it may sound, I thought DanO brought in more talent for value dollar last offseason. I liked the Lidle signing, and still do, for the money involved. I really liked the VanderWal pickup--he got hurt, what can you do? Couple those pickups with what I thought, and still think, is a good deal in the Reitsma for Bong and Nelson, and DanO had an unsexy but respectable offseason.

This offseason is just bizarre; I don't know how else to put it.

redsfan30
02-07-2005, 07:49 PM
Just want to throw my two cents in.

The perception going around that the "stat geeks" would say I knew these moves would work if they do win is the farthest thing from the truth. I am not a stat happy person. Never have been. I enjoy reading the different stats that West of You posts. They are interesting, it's just not my cup of tea. Just because I choose not to make my season prediction based on a "theryom" does not mean I do not respect the opinions of those that do. You guys are very stand up people and just the same way would not rub it in everyone's faces should they lose this year.

Please don't let a few trolls make you think that we ("optimists") don't respect you and take what you are saying in high regard. That is not the case at all.

The one thing that I would have to say gets under my skin about the numbers game is sometimes the way it's presented. It's just that sometimes it seems that you guys act like you know what is going to happen based on the numbers. The fact is nobody knows what is going to happen. NOBODY. I don't, the stat heads don't. That's my big complaint.

Just don't think that the optimists don't respect what you do and how you think.

notredymade
02-07-2005, 07:52 PM
Maybe this should be another thread, but I suggest some of the more outspoken naysayers give a couple examples of teams that they think had good offseasons. Do you seriously think that teams that paid all that money for older pitchers (Pedro, Schilling, Clemens, Leiter) and mediocre pitchers (Lowe, Benson, Benitez) makes Milton seem that bad? Are you gonna say that Perez is gonna have a full season with his nice ERA, Jaret Wright pull another great year out of nowhere? Yes, I would have liked Pavano and Russ Ortiz, but they have their weaknesses, too. Yeah, Milton's HRs scare me. But looking at his other stats and the situation he was at in Philly, I'm willing to write off some of the overpayment. Keyword, SOME. I could go through the rest, but I'd like to see how y'all would like to put their offseason IN CONTEXT with the rest of the league's offseason.

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 07:53 PM
I love it....the Reds do nothing, people complain because they're doing nothing (I was a big advocate there)

The Reds spend some money, make some moves to upgrade the team as a whole, by addressing their needs with major-league talent and people complain

Again, that's a dramatic oversimplification.

In fact, the majority of the folks who were scratching their heads about whether or not O'Brien could do something wouldn't have been anything but happy and bright eyed had Dan O'Brien made better moves.

That's the problem with that kind of thinking, Matt. It's the quality of the moves- not the quantity and not the money spent- that folks have issues with.

Make quality moves, get quality responses. That's all that's needed. Making moves just to make moves doesn't elicit a "hip-hip-hooray! they're TRYING!!" from me. Yeah. Hampster on a treadmill is "trying" too. He's just not getting anywhere.

Seems that a lot of folks are being grumped at for not being impressed with the hampster for running in circles.

I can tell you this and I can tell you this with all certainty- if Dan O'Brien had a real quality 2004 draft followed by a real quality 2004 offseason there'd be nothing but sunshine and flowers from the folks who are being grumped at right now.

Raisor
02-07-2005, 07:59 PM
Maybe this should be another thread, but I suggest some of the more outspoken naysayers give a couple examples of teams that they think had good offseasons. .


I thought the A's had an outstanding offseason, given that they pretty much had to unload Hudson and Mulder.

I thought the Fish did a great job, and I'm probably going to pick them in the NL East when I do my predictions later in the spring.

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 08:01 PM
I could go through the rest, but I'd like to see how y'all would like to put their offseason IN CONTEXT with the rest of the league's offseason.

A bunch of teams started the offseason well ahead of the Reds in regards to talent and performance, particularly on the pitching side. A bunch of teams finished the offseason still well ahead of the Reds in regards to talent and performance, particularly on the pitching side. The Reds had more work to do than other teams and didn't get it done even though many other teams lost components yet still hold better odds of making postseason play than the Reds do. There's your context.

A team's offseason isn't judged by what other teams do. It's judged by what that team does.

Matt700wlw
02-07-2005, 08:02 PM
And you can't fully judge the offseason until you see how things play out

Speculate, Yes...judge, no.

Boss-Hog
02-07-2005, 08:04 PM
Matt, you and a few others praising the Reds in this thread were some of the bigger 'complainers' who always wanted the Reds to do SOMETHING...that's strictly my opinion from reading this board for a long time. Well, the Reds did SOMETHING this past offseason, and I'm glad that these moves make you happy. However, if, by some small chance, these moves don't amount to more than incremental improvement, (i.e. finishing 18 games behind the first place team instead of 20) or an even worse fate, perhaps then you'll learn the difference between doing SOMETHING and doing something well.

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 08:04 PM
Marlins had a good offseason.

I'm one of, like, two people who likes the Mets' signing of Pedro.

A's had a solid offseason.

Red Sox are better for having signed Clement (though they got stupid with Renteria).

westofyou
02-07-2005, 08:05 PM
It's just that sometimes it seems that you guys act like you know what is going to happen based on the numbers.

I don't know what's going to happen, but looking at the numbers and culling information from them is just like playing blackjack, if you pay attention to trends, history and remember what the cards were that have played you can "guess" where the hands will go. And sometimes... just sometimes you can us that to your advantage.

It's what props up the insurance business and other things in this world.

Matt700wlw
02-07-2005, 08:06 PM
Marlins had a good offseason.

I'm one of, like, two people who likes the Mets' signing of Pedro.





My boss is a huge Mets fan, and doesn't like the Pedro signing because of the money involved, given his age, and injury risk

Sounds like the same thing Reds fans are debating -- so who's really to say who had the better offsesason?

Matt700wlw
02-07-2005, 08:08 PM
I don't know what's going to happen, but looking at the numbers and culling information from them is just like playing blackjack, if you pay attention to trends, history and remember what the cards were that have played you can "guess" where the hands will go. And sometimes... just sometimes you can us that to your advantage.

It's what props up the insurance business and other things in this world.

Stats give you an idea and something to base an argument on, or something to look at to get an idea of what COULD happen....but that's really about it

I don't get all wrapped up in them, but that's just me.

Stats can be padded...

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 08:08 PM
And you can't fully judge the offseason until you see how things play out

Speculate, Yes...judge, no.

I don't judge decisions based on results. I judge them based on their merit (ie. the probability of said decision working out).

Anything else is pure hindsight.

Hitting on a blackjack hand of 18 while the dealer has a 6 showing isn't a good decision even if you flop a 3.

If you've seen a player do that and hit 21, you sure don't say to yourself, "Wow. Was that SMART!". You say, "Wow. Was that dumb. Lucky, but dumb!"

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 08:10 PM
My boss is a huge Mets fan, and doesn't like the Pedro signing because of the money involved, given his age, and injury risk

Sounds like the same thing Reds fans are debating -- so who's really to say who had the better offsesason?


Honestly, even given Pedro's age, I'd much rather be debating the intelligence of the Reds' signing Martinez versus Milton.

westofyou
02-07-2005, 08:10 PM
Stats can be padded...

Stats are the naked truth. Opinions are the push up bra of the sports world.

Matt700wlw
02-07-2005, 08:10 PM
I don't judge decisions based on results. I judge them based on their merit (ie. the probability of said decision working out).

Anything else is pure hindsight.

Hitting on a blackjack hand of 18 while the dealer has a 6 showing isn't a good decision even if you flop a 3.

If you've seen a player do that and hit 21, you sure don't say to yourself, "Wow. Was that SMART!". You say, "Wow. Was that dumb. Lucky, but dumb!"



So if this sub-par offseason happens to lead to a playoff spot...it's still a bad offseason?

Ravenlord
02-07-2005, 08:11 PM
Keyword, SOME. I could go through the rest, but I'd like to see how y'all would like to put their offseason IN CONTEXT with the rest of the league's offseason.
i think Anaheim had the best off season.....

Boss-Hog
02-07-2005, 08:12 PM
Honestly, even given Pedro's age, I'd much rather be debating the intelligence of the Reds' signing Martinez versus Milton.
Right...even if the Mets do regret signing Pedro to that contract given his age/injury history, I can't imagine Eric Milton's best being any better than Pedro's worst, based on substantial track history. And then there's that Beltran guy...

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 08:12 PM
So if this sub-par offseason happens to lead to a playoff spot...it's still a bad offseason?


It won't. Use any metric you want--it's not gonna happen.

Matt700wlw
02-07-2005, 08:12 PM
Stats are the naked truth. Opinions are the push up bra of the sports world.

Well, then opinions still leaves a little to the imagination :D

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 08:14 PM
So if this sub-par offseason happens to lead to a playoff spot...it's still a bad offseason?

The positive result of a bad decision, that doesn't make the decision itself any better.

redsfan30
02-07-2005, 08:15 PM
It won't. Use any metric you want--it's not gonna happen.
Did you think the 1999 team had a chance to be in the race on the day after the last day of the season?

Don't say it won't happen because you don't know.

red-in-la
02-07-2005, 08:16 PM
Well, I guess a few of us are happy and comfortable in our ignorance......I compare getting Milton to getting Neagle or Smiley. Ortiz could just as easily turn into getting Danny Jackson as the bad move I guess his acquistion is getting from the learned.

As they say, ignorance is bliss.

Of course, you could use your superior insight and knowledge of baseball to give the Reds a bad grade, and as has been shown in the past, you will probably be right. But I am just going to go with a rotation of at least 4 decent pitchers and some interesting youngsters.....with the hope that there MIGHT even be some help on the farm coming.....and just be excited about this coming season.

Boss-Hog
02-07-2005, 08:19 PM
Did you think the 1999 team had a chance to be in the race on the day after the last day of the season?

Don't say it won't happen because you don't know.
I hear this a lot and I can tell you from experience that a lot of people that post on this board were a lot more excited about the 1999 Reds' chances than this year's team - myself included. M2 posted an interesting comparison between the two not too long ago that, IMO, debunked the notion that you couldn't have seen those 96 wins coming ahead of time...

westofyou
02-07-2005, 08:23 PM
Did you think the 1999 team had a chance to be in the race on the day after the last day of the season?

Don't say it won't happen because you don't know.

The 1999 team had a good outfield, but lots of folks were weary of the youth in the infield prior to the season, aside for Larkin the other 3 players had a total of 1072 ab's between them.

A team that really increased their offensive and rode the BP like a Pony Express rider.

They surprised me.

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 08:24 PM
"with the hope that there MIGHT even be some help on the farm coming."

You know, you're absolutely right about this--the farm is/was/will be the X-factor for any team, and it always changes the course of the ENTIRE sport of MLB. Every year, the race to the postseason is affected by the emergence of someone unforeseen (or foreseen as the case may be) coming from the minors. I do think this is the reason most pre-season predictions come derailed, even those of the smartest minds in baseball--the failure to predict ETA of prospects.

However, I don't see any impact players on a scale of a Cabrera in the Reds system.

redsfan30
02-07-2005, 08:25 PM
I hear this a lot and I can tell you from experience that a lot of people that post on this board were a lot more excited about the 1999 Reds' chances than this year's team - myself included. M2 posted an interesting comparison between the two not too long ago that, IMO, debunked the notion that you couldn't have seen those 96 wins coming ahead of time...
It'd be interesting to see some of those threads from back then. There were alot a career years that year leading to those big win totals. So I'm not sure I can understand how people would be more excited about 1999 than 2005 based on career numbers.

red-in-la
02-07-2005, 08:26 PM
Stats are the naked truth. Opinions are the push up bra of the sports world.

But do the stats predict the Reds 1999 season? Do the stats predict that JR has been a total bust? Do the stats predict the 1990 WS Championship?

The push up bras you refer to are those with the insight to interpret the stats to predict what probably will happen.....and to my knowldege, in over 100 years, NOBODY has cornered the maket on the ability to that consistently in baseball.....period.

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 08:27 PM
Well, I guess a few of us are happy and comfortable in our ignorance......I compare getting Milton to getting Neagle or Smiley. Ortiz could just as easily turn into getting Danny Jackson as the bad move I guess his acquistion is getting from the learned.

Danny Jackson put up ERA+ numbers of 121, 133, 114 the three seasons before he joined the Reds. He was a well above average pitcher when he got to Cinci and was about to bust into the beginning of his age-prime years. If Ortiz compared favorably with Jackson as a starter, I'd be saying the same thing. But he doesn't.

Nor does Milton's recent performance match up with either Neagle or Smiley at that time.

The only comparison is that they're all pitchers the Reds didn't have the year before. But Neagle, Smiley, and Jackson were all far better acquisitions who actually projected to significantly impact performance to the positive.

Falls City Beer
02-07-2005, 08:28 PM
It'd be interesting to see some of those threads from back then. There were alot a career years that year leading to those big win totals. So I'm not sure I can understand how people would be more excited about 1999 than 2005 based on career numbers.


I thought the 1999 team would be good, but not 96 wins good.

But you know what, maybe they weren't--as the 2000 team (=1999 team plus Junior/Bichette minus Cameron)--only won 85 games. 1999 team was a fluke--they happen.

guernsey
02-07-2005, 08:36 PM
Matt, you and a few others praising the Reds in this thread were some of the bigger 'complainers' who always wanted the Reds to do SOMETHING...that's strictly my opinion from reading this board for a long time. Well, the Reds did SOMETHING this past offseason, and I'm glad that these moves make you happy. However, if, by some small chance, these moves don't amount to more than incremental improvement, (i.e. finishing 18 games behind the first place team instead of 20) or an even worse fate, perhaps then you'll learn the difference between doing SOMETHING and doing something well.

OTOH, if the '05 Reds are playing meaningful games in Sept., will you admit that the FO did something well, or just chalk it up to dumb luck?

Boss-Hog
02-07-2005, 08:37 PM
It'd be interesting to see some of those threads from back then. There were alot a career years that year leading to those big win totals. So I'm not sure I can understand how people would be more excited about 1999 than 2005 based on career numbers.
I agree that there were plenty of career years from the 1999 team and I don't think anyone could have seen them winning 96 games - and actually missing the playoffs with that win total. However, my point is that there were quite a few who predicted good things for that team.

Boss-Hog
02-07-2005, 08:38 PM
OTOH, if the '05 Reds are playing meaningful games in Sept., will you admit that the FO did something well, or just chalk it up to dumb luck?
Of course I will and I'll be happy to do so because the Reds will be a good team, if that's the case. Have you ever not known me to be a stand up guy? Rest assured, this thread will be archived.

MWM
02-07-2005, 08:51 PM
I'll go on record right this second and say that if the Reds win close to 90 wins this season, I'll gladly admit I was wrong. If the Reds are out of the race by August, will all the "eternal optimists" admit they were wrong about the offseason?

red-in-la
02-07-2005, 08:53 PM
Danny Jackson put up ERA+ numbers of 121, 133, 114 the three seasons before he joined the Reds. He was a well above average pitcher when he got to Cinci and was about to bust into the beginning of his age-prime years. If Ortiz compared favorably with Jackson as a starter, I'd be saying the same thing. But he doesn't.

Nor does Milton's recent performance match up with either Neagle or Smiley at that time.

The only comparison is that they're all pitchers the Reds didn't have the year before. But Neagle, Smiley, and Jackson were all far better acquisitions who actually projected to significantly impact performance to the positive.

I guess I don't see the big difference between Jackson and Ortiz before they each came to the Reds. Thye both have VERY good points and really bad ones. The year before the Reds got Jackson he WALKED 109 batters.....and he LOST 18 games.

Although Ortiz's ERA was generally not as good as Jackson, he was never the walk machine Jackson was.

As to Milton and Smiley and Neagle.....I was simply pointing out that all 3 were considered established ML pitchers who were at some what of a cross roads in their careers. Milton might well find that switching leagues will elevate his game....it might do the opposite.....but change right now seems like a good idea for him. Even though you guys have (maybe righfully so) doubted the intelligence of pay what they did, you cannot deny that he is far and away the BEST pitcher they have acquired or developed in a VERY long time....with Neagle in 1998 being the only other close copy.

Matt700wlw
02-07-2005, 08:53 PM
I'll go on record right this second and say that if the Reds win close to 90 wins this season, I'll gladly admit I was wrong. If the Reds are out of the race by August, will all the "eternal optimists" admit they were wrong about the offseason?

Absolutely. I'm not an eternal optimist though.....I was pretty down on them last season

It won't take much to get back to form :mhcky21:

redsfan30
02-07-2005, 08:58 PM
I'll go on record right this second and say that if the Reds win close to 90 wins this season, I'll gladly admit I was wrong. If the Reds are out of the race by August, will all the "eternal optimists" admit they were wrong about the offseason?
To answer your question, yes I will admit I was wrong if they are out of the race by August.

But my question to you is this: If Milton wins 16 games and posts and ERA of 4.40, strikesout close to 200 and improves on his homerun numbers...

If Ortiz does similar things to Milton....

If Randa hits .300 with 14 homers and 75 RBI and has another solid fielding percentage....

If Weathers, Mercker and Weber help solidify the bullpen....

and the Reds are still out of the race by August say due to injuries. Do you still consider this offseason a failure?

Ravenlord
02-07-2005, 09:01 PM
and the Reds are still out of the race by August say due to injuries. Do you still consider this offseason a failure?
probably not. but even with injuries, i think if the acquisitions do all that, i don't think there's anyway the Reds are out of it in August.

red-in-la
02-07-2005, 09:14 PM
I'll say this.....unless the Reds experience an injuries disaster, they will have 4 pitchers win in double figures.

redsfan30
02-07-2005, 09:18 PM
I'll say this.....unless the Reds experience an injuries disaster, they will have 4 pitchers win in double figures.
And if they have 4 pitchers with 10+ wins, they will not be the horrible team everyone is making them out to be.

Ravenlord
02-07-2005, 09:18 PM
I'll say this.....unless the Reds experience an injuries disaster, they will have 4 pitchers win in double figures.
even the Cubs with their staff last year only had two pitchers with double digit wins. same with the Astros.

red-in-la
02-07-2005, 09:20 PM
I agree 30.....and I guess if I studied the numbers hard enough, I could see all kinds of problems coming in 2005.....all I know is that this spring feels better than any since circa 2000 (before they traded for JR which I thought was distater back then) and circa 1994.....and O guess I still fail to see how anyone can feel differently.

MWM
02-07-2005, 09:26 PM
But my question to you is this: If Milton wins 16 games and posts and ERA of 4.40, strikesout close to 200 and improves on his homerun numbers...

I'm not sure that's really all that gret a season. A 4.40 ERA is likely to be below the league average. If he finishes the season better than the league average, then I'll admit I'm wrong.


If Ortiz does similar things to Milton....

Ditto for Ortiz. Although, if Ortiz pitches 200 innings at an ERA below 5.00 I'd consider that a successful season for him.

But with both Ortiz and Milton, I'd gladly wager anything reasonable that says they won't do that. I hope like hell they do, but the odds say they won't.


If Randa hits .300 with 14 homers and 75 RBI and has another solid fielding percentage....

First of all, not to get into another stat argument, but replace BA with OPS and I'll make the same "league average" assertion for him. If he's above the league average and plays good defense, I'll consider it a good signing.

For the record, I'm pretty indifferent about the Randa signing. I'm not thrilled about it, but I the money involved and the years involved make it pretty harmless. My only fear with Randa is that he'll be having a good "traditional" season with a decent batting average and the city will start screaming for the Reds to re-sign him and the FO will listen.


If Weathers, Mercker and Weber help solidify the bullpen....

Lots of "ifs" in your post. I don't think the bullpen will be a difference maker this season for the Reds. The starters are bad enough that a good bully won't matter.


and the Reds are still out of the race by August say due to injuries. Do you still consider this offseason a failure?

See, that's a built in excuse right now. I can see it already, the Reds are out of the race early and the offseason moves and it will all be because of injuries.

I don't think it's all that relevant. For me it will come down to the pitching staff. If Eric Milton pitches like Eric Milton has pitched the last three years, and Ramon Ortiz pitches the way he has over the last two years, will you consider the offseason a failure?.....regardless of injuries to other players. If the players DanO acquired don't perform better than they have over the last couple of years, I think it's safe to say that the offseason was a failure.

MWM
02-07-2005, 09:27 PM
I'll say this.....unless the Reds experience an injuries disaster, they will have 4 pitchers win in double figures.

Refresh my memory here ril, what did you say about the 2003 staff going into that season? ;)

westofyou
02-07-2005, 09:27 PM
I'll say this.....unless the Reds experience an injuries disaster, they will have 4 pitchers win in double figures.

The 2000 Reds had 4 guys with at least 10 wins, they won 85 games, other Reds teams with 4 guys with 10 wins.. 1992 (90 wins) 1990 (91 wins) omly 3 on 1999.

Therfore I agree if the Reds have 4 starters with at least 10 wins the chances are pretty good that they are having a good year.

redsfan30
02-07-2005, 09:30 PM
Actually the more I think about 4 pitchers with 10+ wins, the less far fetched it may be. Think of the run support this staff figures to get this year then think about this....

Milton's career totalls seem to indicate that he is going to win 10 or more.

Ortiz has won 16 and 15 games in his career.

Harang pitched well last season and won 10 games so he has a chance.

If Hudson pitches like we all think he can he is a definete threat to win 10 or more.

Wilson was our best starter last season and got over the 10 win mark.

That's five pitchers right there who you could make a legitimate case for them winning 10+ games this year. You know that not all five of them are going to do it, but maybe three or four is not totally out of the question.

Matt700wlw
02-07-2005, 09:32 PM
Actually the more I think about 4 pitchers with 10+ wins, the less far fetched it may be. Think of the run support this staff figures to get this year then think about this....

Milton's career totalls seem to indicate that he is going to win 10 or more.

Ortiz has one 16 and 15 games in his career.

Harang pitched well last season and won 10 games so he has a chance.

If Hudson pitches like we all think he can he is a definete threat to win 10 or more.

Wilson was our best starter last season and got over the 10 win mark.

That's five pitchers right there who you could make a legitimate case for them winning 10+ games this year. You know that not all five of them are going to do it, but maybe three or four is not totally out of the question.

With an improved bullpen, Wilson would have had close to 20 wins

The bullpen is improved, which means, if we get the run support one would think we can get, the bullpen should be able to actually hold leads and close out games this year

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 09:34 PM
I guess I don't see the big difference between Jackson and Ortiz before they each came to the Reds. Thye both have VERY good points and really bad ones. The year before the Reds got Jackson he WALKED 109 batters.....and he LOST 18 games.

Although Ortiz's ERA was generally not as good as Jackson, he was never the walk machine Jackson was.

And Danny Jackson allowed 7, 13, and 11 HR in the three years preceeding his acquisition by the Reds. I'll take more than a few BB from a pitcher if he keeps his HR against at that level. Ortiz hasn't been anywhere near the pitcher Jackson was before he hit Cinci.


As to Milton and Smiley and Neagle.....I was simply pointing out that all 3 were considered established ML pitchers who were at some what of a cross roads in their careers. Milton might well find that switching leagues will elevate his game....it might do the opposite.....but change right now seems like a good idea for him. Even though you guys have (maybe righfully so) doubted the intelligence of pay what they did, you cannot deny that he is far and away the BEST pitcher they have acquired or developed in a VERY long time....with Neagle in 1998 being the only other close copy.

If Eric Milton is the "best" pitcher acquired or developed in a very long time, then that's a commentary on the quality of pitchers acquired or developed rather than a lauding of Eric Milton who, BTW, ranks no higher than Paul Wilson on the acquisition ladder. As for "change" being a good idea for Milton? He played exactly one season with the Phillies. How often is the guy supposed to change teams?

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 09:39 PM
To answer your question, yes I will admit I was wrong if they are out of the race by August.

But my question to you is this: If Milton wins 16 games and posts and ERA of 4.40, strikesout close to 200 and improves on his homerun numbers...

If Ortiz does similar things to Milton....

If Randa hits .300 with 14 homers and 75 RBI and has another solid fielding percentage....

If Weathers, Mercker and Weber help solidify the bullpen....

and the Reds are still out of the race by August say due to injuries. Do you still consider this offseason a failure?

Absolutely it's a failure because a successful offseason doesn't bank on multiple fluke performances like those you listed.

red-in-la
02-07-2005, 09:40 PM
Refresh my memory here ril, what did you say about the 2003 staff going into that season? ;)

I am fortunate MWM in that at my age, my memory is no longer able to embarrass me that way. And your point is vert well taken.....especially in 2003 since it was just an attempt to get over 2002.

I can only say in my defense that this staff has 4 starters who have won 10 ML games in the very recent past......that certainly wasn't so true in 2003....or maybe it was....I don't remember.

Now, where did I put that bottle of milk-of-amnesia?

redsfan30
02-07-2005, 09:43 PM
I'm not sure that's really all that gret a season. A 4.40 ERA is likely to be below the league average. If he finishes the season better than the league average, then I'll admit I'm wrong.



Ditto for Ortiz. Although, if Ortiz pitches 200 innings at an ERA below 5.00 I'd consider that a successful season for him.

But with both Ortiz and Milton, I'd gladly wager anything reasonable that says they won't do that. I hope like hell they do, but the odds say they won't.



First of all, not to get into another stat argument, but replace BA with OPS and I'll make the same "league average" assertion for him. If he's above the league average and plays good defense, I'll consider it a good signing.

For the record, I'm pretty indifferent about the Randa signing. I'm not thrilled about it, but I the money involved and the years involved make it pretty harmless. My only fear with Randa is that he'll be having a good "traditional" season with a decent batting average and the city will start screaming for the Reds to re-sign him and the FO will listen.



Lots of "ifs" in your post. I don't think the bullpen will be a difference maker this season for the Reds. The starters are bad enough that a good bully won't matter.



See, that's a built in excuse right now. I can see it already, the Reds are out of the race early and the offseason moves and it will all be because of injuries.

I don't think it's all that relevant. For me it will come down to the pitching staff. If Eric Milton pitches like Eric Milton has pitched the last three years, and Ramon Ortiz pitches the way he has over the last two years, will you consider the offseason a failure?.....regardless of injuries to other players. If the players DanO acquired don't perform better than they have over the last couple of years, I think it's safe to say that the offseason was a failure.
As far as Randa is concerned, his OBP is not outstanding. There is no arguing that. But as far as run production he is an upgrade over anything we could have put out there from in house.

Yes there are alot of "ifs" in my post, but there that is what the offseason is all about. Nobody knows for sure what is going to happen. The offseason is one big giant "if."

I would not use injuries as an excuse per se. I think the injuries are a big reason the club hit the downward spiral last season. Some may say that the numbers would say that it was coming regardless but I don't think there's any doubt that the injuries coincided with the fall. When Griffey, Kearns and Larkin all went out for long periods of time is right about the time the slide began. Were they the only reason, absolutely not. The pitching was bad and there is no getting around that. But injuries did play a role in the slide in my opinion.

As far as Milton and Ortiz pitching the way they have recently, yes I think that is a success. 200 or more innings with good strikeout numbers and win totals. With what I think is an improved bullpen and an outstanding 1-8 lineup, yes I think that is good enough to win some games with.

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 09:46 PM
As far as Milton and Ortiz pitching the way they have recently, yes I think that is a success. 200 or more innings with good strikeout numbers and win totals. With what I think is an improved bullpen and an outstanding 1-8 lineup, yes I think that is good enough to win some games with.

So you'd consider the offseason a "success" if Milton posted a 4.80 or so ERA and if Ortiz posted an ERA over 5.00 in the rotation as he has the past coupld seasons as a starter?

If that's "success", I'd hate to see failure.

BTW, for the most part one can't predict injuries. But a team can guard against them. Believe it or not, the Reds lost little with Pena or Freel in CF versus Griffey and they should have known that Kearns was going to take some time to heal. Hard to blame injuries when it's preparation at which the finger should be pointed.

redsfan30
02-07-2005, 09:47 PM
Absolutely it's a failure because a successful offseason doesn't bank on multiple fluke performances like those you listed.
I'm working on my detailed response, but reviewing my original post, I meant to say close to 200 innings out of Milton and Ortiz.

My apologies.

SteelSD
02-07-2005, 09:50 PM
I'm working on my detailed response, but reviewing my original post, I meant to say close to 200 innings out of Milton and Ortiz.

My apologies.

But if each gives the Reds 200 IP at a 4.80 and a 5.00+ ERA, you've just nailed the issue.

That's not a "success". To be a success, they'd have to be far far better than they have been recently, meaning that we're counting on Dan O's crystal ball rather than reasonable expectations.

MWM
02-07-2005, 09:54 PM
As far as Milton and Ortiz pitching the way they have recently, yes I think that is a success. 200 or more innings with good strikeout numbers and win totals.

the problem with that line of thinking is that if both of these guys pitch like they have the last couple of years, they're not likely to win a lot of games. They'll lose a lot more than they'll win.

redsfan30
02-07-2005, 10:07 PM
Absolutely it's a failure because a successful offseason doesn't bank on multiple fluke performances like those you listed.
I don't think any of those numbers I posted as "what ifs" for Milton, Ortiz and Randa would be totally "flukes."

I said 16 wins for Milton with a 4.40 ERA with around 200 IP and better homerun numbers. His last four full seasons he has won 13, 15, 13 and 14 games so history says he may get close to 16 wins. As far as the ERA of 4.40 goes, it would take a twist of history to reach that. But at the same time there is no evidence that he is going to be at 5.00+. 43 homeruns is alot of homeruns. It'd be a pretty tough feat to top that number so one would think there's only one way to go and that's down. At least we can hope so. He's always had high homerun totals, but not that high.

Ramon Ortiz has won 13, 15 and 16 games in his career so 16 would not be an unrealistic expectation. His career ERA is 4.60 and has been at 4.40 or lower three times. He's been over 200 innings twice and was close a third time.

Joe Randa is a career .286 hitter and has been around the .287 mark the past three years. I set 14 homeruns as his "target" for 2005. The last five seasons he has his 16, 16, 15, 13 and 11. I set his RBI total "target" for 2005 at 75. The last five years he has driven in 106, 83, 80, 72 and 56. Yes last year he only hit 11 HR with 56 RBI which are steady declines over his career totals, but if I remember correctly he played most of last year injured. He has always been solid defensively so I don't know why that would change this season.

The (for lack of a better term) "target" numbers I posted for the additions are not "flukes". They are for the most part reachable figures based on their career numbers. With the rest of the team around them, is that good enough? Yes I think it is. We are obviously going to score alot of runs this season which does nothing but support a pitcher. Is it acceptable? Depend on your definition of acceptable. For me, I can live with it because if they put these numbers up they will be helping the team win games.

MWM
02-07-2005, 10:17 PM
Since 1980, only 6 times has a NL pitcher had an ERA of 4.40 or above and won 16 or more games.


NATIONAL LEAGUE
SEASON
1980-2004

WINS >= 16
ERA >= 4.40
LOSSES displayed only--not a sorting criteria

WINS YEAR W W ERA L
1 Kevin Tapani 1998 19 19 4.85 9
T2 Kevin Ritz 1996 17 17 5.28 11
T2 Scott Elarton 2000 17 17 4.81 7
T2 Pedro Astacio 1999 17 17 5.04 11
T5 Garrett Stephenson 2000 16 16 4.49 9
T5 Jason Jennings 2002 16 16 4.52 8

westofyou
02-07-2005, 10:19 PM
Since 1980, only 6 times has a NL pitcher had an ERA of 4.40 or above and won 16 or more games.

I love you man..... :p:

How many were rockies?

MWM
02-07-2005, 10:32 PM
I love you man..... :p:

How many were rockies?

You're still not having my Bud Light. :devil:

3 of them were non-Rockies.

this might be a little better. In the same time period, here are the pitchers who had an ERA +.2 over the league (NL only) who won 16 games. Pretty much the same names.


SEASON
1980-2004

WINS >= 16
ERA <= -.2 vs. the league average
LOSSES displayed only--not a sorting criteria
ERA displayed only--not a sorting criteria

WINS YEAR W W ERA L ERA
1 Kevin Tapani 1998 19 19 -.61 9 4.85
T2 Kevin Ritz 1996 17 17 -1.06 11 5.28
T2 Shane Rawley 1987 17 17 -.30 11 4.39
T2 Pedro Astacio 1999 17 17 -.48 11 5.04
5 Jason Jennings 2002 16 16 -.40 8 4.52

REDREAD
02-07-2005, 10:33 PM
Right at the end of last season, I gave DanO the following homework:
http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=29350&highlight=winter


Here's what DanO has to do to earn a "C" this winter:

1. Don't botch up the rule V draft. Don't draft someone injured. Don't draft a starting pitcher.. no good ones are ever exposed. INSTEAD:
- draft a useful bullpen arm like Neu (usually a couple clubs every year can find a useful bullpen arm in Rule V, and with our pathetic pen, it wouldn't take much to find a useful arm
- OR try the Bip Roberts strategy. Draft a high ceiling guy that will clearly be overmatched, and carry him for the year, then send him back to the minors for 2006.
But please, we don't need any more Aaron Harangs. Don't try to find a starting pitcher. If any good ones are exposed, they will be gone long before we pick.

2. Don't make any dumb trades. If you have to dump salary, get some value.
Win any trades that you make.

3. Dunn's contract. Don't go to arbitration. Settle it amicably. Don't go to arb over 200k like the Reds did with Casey a couple years ago.

4. Sign at least 1 good bullpen arm. The bullpen SUCKS. You've had a year to see that, so do something about it.

That's what I consider the BARE minimum to get a "C". If he wants an "A" or "B", he must do some or all of the following:

1. We'll probably only have one veteran starter. Upgrade from Wilson. Use that payflex wisely. Don't be braindead and simply resign Wilson and take the rest of the winter off.

2. Sign Dunn, Kearns and/or Pena to long term deals.

3. Get some legitimate high ceiling prospects.

4. Fix the bullpen. Fix the rotation.

5. Fix the 3b problem. This Kearns experiment is not going to work well.

Well, DanO skipped the Rule V draft, but that's ok, as he's added a bunch of players, so it doesn't make sense to rule V. He didn't do any dumb trades. He didn't take Dunn to arb. He reinforced the pen. He got Milton and Ortiz to reinforce the rotation. Not exactly dream material, but a big upgrade (IMO), and he fixed 3b with a cheap stopgap. Thus, I give him a "B"

He didn't do everything I put on his homework, but he did a fine job. Sure, I'd rather have a SP better than Milton/Ortiz.. but think about how bad the alternative was. I honestly don't see how DanO gets below a "C-" this winter. Don't underestimate how difficult it was to get Milton. And for that matter, getting Ortiz for a marginal prospect was a good move.

DanO had no trade bait, but was able to add 3 starting pitchers and 3 relievers. That's commendable, IMO.

LetsGoReds11
02-07-2005, 10:51 PM
I Don't Like To Be Negative Towards The Reds So I Will Say This..........First From All Implications Dunn and His Agents Agreed They Didn't Want A LTC As Of Now........Also Offering Dunn An Outrageous Amount Of Money Or Even A Reasonable Amount.... I Still Don't Think He Would Have Taken The Deal.....Lets Face It Until The Reds Start Winning They Won't Be Able To Sign LTC With Young Players In Their System.....So Everyone Who is Saying That Offering Dunn A Good Amount Of Money Would Have Kept Him For Along Time I Really Disagree.....Maybe If Winning This Coming Year and Getting In The Playoffs....This Might Get Dunn To Sign......I Also Can't Judge These Signings This Offseason Until I See Them Play This Season

iammrred
02-07-2005, 11:12 PM
Well, DanO skipped the Rule V draft, but that's ok, as he's added a bunch of players, so it doesn't make sense to rule V. He didn't do any dumb trades. He didn't take Dunn to arb. He reinforced the pen. He got Milton and Ortiz to reinforce the rotation. Not exactly dream material, but a big upgrade (IMO), and he fixed 3b with a cheap stopgap. Thus, I give him a "B"


:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

;)

gonelong
02-07-2005, 11:23 PM
Yes there are alot of "ifs" in my post, but there that is what the offseason is all about. Nobody knows for sure what is going to happen. The offseason is one big giant "if."


I don't see why its difficult to accept that someone can (and would want to) assign probabilities to your IFs. We have mounds of data to determine what is likely to happen. No one knows for sure, but the data gives you a pretty good idea of what is likely to happen.

If the sun comes up tomorrow, I'll go to work.

If the world gets thumped by metors tonight, I'll stay home.

There are two IFs here, one is more likely than the other, no?

I don't know if the Reds will end up 62-100 or 100-62 or somewhere in between ... but I'd say its pretty likely they win less than 90 games this season, which more than likely leaves them out of the playoffs.

Where could my prediction go wrong? Griffey and Kearns could stay healthy all year and produce. Significant help could come from the minor leagues. One or two of the starters could have a much better year than expected. Dunn could hit .325 with 65 HRs and 150 RBI. The rest of the teams in the division could have major injuries to key players. The Reds might be close enough, late enough, to warrent a trade for a legit starting pitchers. If a few of these happen this year the Reds could be a contender, and I'll happily watch, attend, listen to most all the games, same as I would if they lose 100 games. I'll happily be wrong in my prediction. I'll flat out rejoice!

Does anybody have vegas over/unders for Reds Ws this year? Do they offer that type of action same as the NFL? Might have to put some money where my mouth is this year.

GL

wheels
02-07-2005, 11:37 PM
I don't see why its difficult to accept that someone can (and would want to) assign probabilities to your IFs. We have mounds of data to determine what is likely to happen. No one knows for sure, but the data gives you a pretty good idea of what is likely to happen.

If the sun comes up tomorrow, I'll go to work.

If the world gets thumped by metors tonight, I'll stay home.

There are two IFs here, one is more likely than the other, no?

I don't know if the Reds will end up 62-100 or 100-62 or somewhere in between ... but I'd say its pretty likely they win less than 90 games this season, which more than likely leaves them out of the playoffs.

Where could my prediction go wrong? Griffey and Kearns could stay healthy all year and produce. Significant help could come from the minor leagues. One or two of the starters could have a much better year than expected. Dunn could hit .325 with 65 HRs and 150 RBI. The rest of the teams in the division could have major injuries to key players. The Reds might be close enough, late enough, to warrent a trade for a legit starting pitchers. If a few of these happen this year the Reds could be a contender, and I'll happily watch, attend, listen to most all the games, same as I would if they lose 100 games. I'll happily be wrong in my prediction. I'll flat out rejoice!

Does anybody have vegas over/unders for Reds Ws this year? Do they offer that type of action same as the NFL? Might have to put some money where my mouth is this year.

GL

I've been trying to say exactly that over the last few weeks.

Nicely done.

Redsland
02-08-2005, 12:03 AM
considering that in the past they would let him take a walk for nothing, then I think the fact that they re-upped Wilson for two years IS a big deal. Hopefully it signals a turning point in the way, financially, this franchise is run.

I think a lot of people are grading this team as if they had the financial backing/spending history of the Yankees. As far as REDS offseasons go, this is one of the better ones.
Giving millions to a below-average pitcher rather than letting him leave and giving the money to better personnel = one of the Reds better off-seasons?

:confused:

Redsland
02-08-2005, 12:04 AM
I can tell you this and I can tell you this with all certainty- if Dan O'Brien had a real quality 2004 draft followed by a real quality 2004 offseason there'd be nothing but sunshine and flowers from the folks who are being grumped at right now.
As archiver of the Dan-isms, I can confirm that this is 100% correct. Underline. Exclamation point. ;)

CincyRedsFan30
02-08-2005, 12:17 AM
Most of the comments have already been covered, from both extremes, but I will offer my grade:

B+

Reds1
02-08-2005, 12:24 AM
I think I'll have to change mine to a D+ :) - just kidding. Maybe to an A- now. ;)

Scrap Irony
02-08-2005, 01:05 AM
Red Improvements:

Replaced the septet of Freel, Castro, Larson, Lopez, and Hummel with Randa.
Rough average of 2004 chaff OPS while playing 3B: .665
Career OPS of Joe Randa: .765
Probable Improvement: 100 OPS points

Replaced Jose Acevedo (5.94 ERA) with Ramon Ortiz (4.43 ERA).
Replaced Cory Lidle (5.32 ERA) with Eric Milton (4.75 ERA).
Net Gain: 1.04 R/Game

Replaced John Rielding (5.10 relief ERA in 77.7 IP) with David Weathers (4.15 ERA).
Replaced Phil Norton (ERA of 5.07 in 65.7 IP) with Kent Mercker (2.55 ERA).
Replaced Todd Van Poppel (6.09 ERA in 115.7 IP) with Ben Weber (8.06 ERA).
Net Gain: .50 R/Game

Fairly self evident the Reds improved themselves. Greatly.

That said, I would have liked to see at least one LTC given to Kearns or Dunn. I understand the importance of having the player agree to the contract and assume Dunn is rightfully aware of his value in today's market-- i.e., he's among a handful of players that are possibly worth $10-15 million per year. Assuming his agent has clued him into these numbers, I also can't fault DanO for failing to find common ground on a LTC with Dunn. (This logic seems to be lost on some posters, as they assume the Reds could sign Dunn if only they shell out enough cash. This is obviously a specious argument and cannot be proven valid by either side. Suffice it to say, I am fairly content DanO has tried and seems to know full well the value of Dunn in Cincinnati.)

Overall grade: B-

gm
02-08-2005, 01:20 AM
Well, DanO skipped the Rule V draft, but that's ok, as he's added a bunch of players, so it doesn't make sense to rule V. He didn't do any dumb trades. He didn't take Dunn to arb. He reinforced the pen. He got Milton and Ortiz to reinforce the rotation. Not exactly dream material, but a big upgrade (IMO), and he fixed 3b with a cheap stopgap. Thus, I give him a "B"

He didn't do everything I put on his homework, but he did a fine job. Sure, I'd rather have a SP better than Milton/Ortiz.. but think about how bad the alternative was. I honestly don't see how DanO gets below a "C-" this winter. Don't underestimate how difficult it was to get Milton. And for that matter, getting Ortiz for a marginal prospect was a good move.

DanO had no trade bait, but was able to add 3 starting pitchers and 3 relievers. That's commendable, IMO.

Mark it down, this is one of the few times that REDREAD and I have ever agreed on anything :p:

(Grade: solid B)

Now if I can just get RR to admit that John Allen really isn't that bad of a guy... :mhcky21:

Raise your hand if you think the Spiridellis brothers should focus their next Jibjab on the polar-opposition that is...M2 and guernsey ;)

SteelSD
02-08-2005, 02:06 AM
Replaced Jose Acevedo (5.94 ERA) with Ramon Ortiz (4.43 ERA).
Replaced Cory Lidle (5.32 ERA) with Eric Milton (4.75 ERA).

Or, replaced Cory Lidle (4.90 full season ERA) with Eric Milton (4.75 full season ERA)
Or, replaced Jose Acevedo (6.64 ERA as a Starter) with Ramon Ortiz (5.47 ERA as as Starter)

BTW, Reidling won't put up his 5.00+ ERA again. And Weathers stands little chance of putting up a 4.15 ERA again. That's a push, but Dan O' doesn't know it. Lidle/Milton is pretty much a push as well (the Phillies think so too). If Weber's healthy, he'll top Van Poppel to be sure and Mercker will also deal better than Norton, tis true.

But when you swap SP's in the range of 5.50 and 6.50 that's just the difference between losing ugly and losing uglier-er. And when you give up the number of Runs the Reds' starters project to give up...well, let's just say that they make the pen less of a factor than they should be even if that pen is improved. Tough to make a difference when constantly pitching from behind no matter how good you are.

There's no obvious "great" improvement there other than a LHP who'll top out at 65 IP.

M2
02-08-2005, 02:59 AM
What Steel just said.

Just to add to that, one of the things we bump into every offseason is the insistence that no terribly bad pitchers will emerge in the coming season. Yet they always do. The 2005 Reds would do well if they only need 300 IP (roughly 33 games worth of pitching) from replacement-level pitchers. They don't have a staff full of reliable innings eaters and this isn't a workhorse bullpen.

REDREAD
02-08-2005, 09:34 AM
:shocked: :shocked: :shocked:

;)

Well, I like to at least think I am fair when this front office actually does something to improve the team. I haven't slammed Carl this winter either (or at least not after the acquisions) :)

Ultimately, I think this team should be a 70-75 million payroll team, so hopefully we're headed that way.

If DanO's moves don't work out, hopefully he'll replaced with someone better quickly, but for now, I'm happy that I'm not going to have to sit through a last place season. I doubt this team contends, but they will be good entertainment his season. I doubt any of our vet pitchers win the Cy, but they are at least legit major league pitchers.

REDREAD
02-08-2005, 09:43 AM
Or, replaced Cory Lidle (4.90 full season ERA) with Eric Milton (4.75 full season ERA)
Or, replaced Jose Acevedo (6.64 ERA as a Starter) with Ramon Ortiz (5.47 ERA as as Starter)

.

I agree that Ortiz is somewhat of a wildcard at this point. Was his last season's debacle as a starter the start of a trend, or will he be happy/more relaxed/confident if he knows he has a starting job nailed all season as a Red?
Too hard to predict, IMO. The thing I like about Ortiz is he cost us very little in trade bait, and he's had success in the past. Acevado is a AAAA player with no upside as a starter.

Cory Lidle improved dramatically in Philly. He was not really an option for us to sign this winter, as apparently Philly wanted him bad (Why would he want to come back to Cincy to be trade bait again?) I don't remember anyone criticizing the Lidle deal at the time. Anyhow, while I know you are trying to compare 2005 and 2004, it seems fair to give Lidle's performance as a Red.
Those two shutouts he pitched in Philly didn't contribute to the Reds' 2004 W-L, and we really didn't have the option of bringing Lidle back.
In essense, Milton doesn't replace Lidle of 4.9 ERA. He replaces Lidle of 5.23 ERA or he replaces Claussen (if you're looking at the 2005 pool).

REDREAD
02-08-2005, 09:47 AM
What Steel just said.

Just to add to that, one of the things we bump into every offseason is the insistence that no terribly bad pitchers will emerge in the coming season. Yet they always do. The 2005 Reds would do well if they only need 300 IP (roughly 33 games worth of pitching) from replacement-level pitchers. They don't have a staff full of reliable innings eaters and this isn't a workhorse bullpen.

Even though I gave DanO a "B" (largely based on incremental improvement, I don't think anyone could transform this team into a contender in one winter),
I agree with you.

Ortiz is somewhat of a wildcard. The two youngsters (whoever they end up being) are wildcards. It's highly likely that at least one of those three will be a disaster. Fortunately, we have a little depth for a change (Claussen waiting in the wings). I think Ortiz can hover around .500 (worst case, but I could be wrong). Hudson and Harang are still a bit scary though.

redsandrails
02-08-2005, 11:17 AM
You have to give the FO some credit. I would have been happy if he had just signed Wilson. Not only did we sign him, we got two pitchers who are just as good in Ortiz and Milton. Sure we overpaid but Dunn won't take a tremendous pay increase next year. Once Graves' contract comes off the books that money can be invested in Dunn and Wagner can hopefully be a solid closer. Not only did we DRAMATICALLY improve the pitching staff- remember when Harang was our second best starter even with Wilson. I'd take Milton, Wilson, Ortiz, Harang and Hudson any day of the week and twice on sunday over Harang, Hudson, Claussen, Hancock and Robertson. Sure we are a little older but any of our starters could break out and get their ERa's around 4 and or win 15 games. We have an outside chancew at the playoffs now. Look at the pen too. Graves is an ok closer, Wagner is showing signs of success, Acevedo is showing signs of success, Weber might rebound, Merker is solid and finally Weathers ain't bad. Not only did we add Randa and Aurillia, solidifying our infield but we retained Kearns, Dunn, Griffey and Pena. With Kearns/Pena, Freel, Aurillia, Cruz and Estellea/Valentin on the bench we have plenty of depth. I feel this was a dramatic step in the right direction. Sure we didn't add an ace but we added a lot of solid talent. I give them a B+ for this.

SteelSD
02-08-2005, 12:36 PM
I agree that Ortiz is somewhat of a wildcard at this point. Was his last season's debacle as a starter the start of a trend, or will he be happy/more relaxed/confident if he knows he has a starting job nailed all season as a Red?

Well, considering Ortiz' 5.20 ERA from 2003, and it appears that 2004 was the continuation of a trend, not the start of one.


Cory Lidle improved dramatically in Philly. He was not really an option for us to sign this winter, as apparently Philly wanted him bad (Why would he want to come back to Cincy to be trade bait again?) I don't remember anyone criticizing the Lidle deal at the time. Anyhow, while I know you are trying to compare 2005 and 2004, it seems fair to give Lidle's performance as a Red.
Those two shutouts he pitched in Philly didn't contribute to the Reds' 2004 W-L, and we really didn't have the option of bringing Lidle back.
In essense, Milton doesn't replace Lidle of 4.9 ERA. He replaces Lidle of 5.23 ERA or he replaces Claussen (if you're looking at the 2005 pool).

I think it's a bit wacky to include Milton's ERA from all his starts for Philly, but then just leave off Lidle's starts for Philly. The full season numbers are what Lidle and Milton did against MLB hitters.

And don't think for a second that I want Lidle back considering that I didn't really want him in a Reds uniform to begin with.

REDREAD
02-08-2005, 01:08 PM
Well, considering Ortiz' 5.20 ERA from 2003, and it appears that 2004 was the continuation of a trend, not the start of one.


I agree that the people that didn't like the Ortiz signing may be completely right. He might bomb. I like the risk-reward though. It only costs us 4 million and a marginal prospect. No long term commitment, but if he's ok, we can bring him back in 2006. I think he's asking for 4 million in arb (not sure). So, even if he wins his arb case, I see it as paying about 1.2 million more than Lidle cost us last year, but controlling that extra year is nice. Lidle was one year and gone, regardless of how he pitched.

I see where you are coming from in your comparisons. Too bad we couldn't do the tweak that the Philly coach did that appeared to work on Lidle.

In any event, I'd rather have an Ortiz (or even Lidle) over an overmatched youngster. Although I acknowledge that Ortiz has some serious downside as well.

Red Thunder
02-08-2005, 01:12 PM
B

The Reds are better with Milton than without him.
The same goes for Randa. And Mercker. And Weathers. And Aurilia (with Machado injured). Maybe Weber as well.

The market for free agent starting pitchers was thin. Especially concerning left handers. Matt Clement & Kevin Millwood didn't want to join the Reds. So who was actually left for the Reds to make a run at? You know what you will get with Milton and I'm convinced that he can be traded if the need arises without a problem.

M2
02-08-2005, 01:14 PM
Also, if you're going to do the math on what Milton replaces from the 2004 Reds then you've got to figure in Lidle and the guy who replaced Lidle (Luke Hudson). Together they posted a 4.60 ERA in 197.1 IP.

Hudson, who may or may not be a mirage, replaces the #5 starters (Claussen/Van Poppel/Haynes).

CincyRedsFan30
02-08-2005, 01:44 PM
Or, replaced Cory Lidle (4.90 full season ERA) with Eric Milton (4.75 full season ERA)
Or, replaced Jose Acevedo (6.64 ERA as a Starter) with Ramon Ortiz (5.47 ERA as as Starter)

BTW, Reidling won't put up his 5.00+ ERA again. And Weathers stands little chance of putting up a 4.15 ERA again. That's a push, but Dan O' doesn't know it. Lidle/Milton is pretty much a push as well (the Phillies think so too). If Weber's healthy, he'll top Van Poppel to be sure and Mercker will also deal better than Norton, tis true.

But when you swap SP's in the range of 5.50 and 6.50 that's just the difference between losing ugly and losing uglier-er. And when you give up the number of Runs the Reds' starters project to give up...well, let's just say that they make the pen less of a factor than they should be even if that pen is improved. Tough to make a difference when constantly pitching from behind no matter how good you are.

There's no obvious "great" improvement there other than a LHP who'll top out at 65 IP.

Don't you think the possibility exists that Ramon Ortiz' numbers could go up somewhat due to not having to face the DH in the NL? I'm not sure how MUCH that will help him, but it's something to consider.

Also, on Weathers, I would be very pleased if he put up numbers as good as if not better than last year's numbers:

2000: 3.07 ERA
2001: 2.41 ERA
2002: 2.91 ERA
2003: 3.08 ERA
2004: 4.15 ERA

He has been a much better pitcher overall since converting to pretty much only a reliever.

SteelSD
02-08-2005, 09:39 PM
Don't you think the possibility exists that Ramon Ortiz' numbers could go up somewhat due to not having to face the DH in the NL? I'm not sure how MUCH that will help him, but it's something to consider.

Also, on Weathers, I would be very pleased if he put up numbers as good as if not better than last year's numbers:

2000: 3.07 ERA
2001: 2.41 ERA
2002: 2.91 ERA
2003: 3.08 ERA
2004: 4.15 ERA

He has been a much better pitcher overall since converting to pretty much only a reliever.

I think that there's a possibility that ANYONE'S numbers can go up or down. It's the probability of improvement that I worry about (ie. low probability).

The reason I worry about Weathers is that he's 35 and thus, projects to be more performance-volatile than I'd like. That 4.15 ERA last year was a product of a HR rate that was over twice that of 2003 and 2002. And that wasn't due to playing in Houston.

Now, is is possible that Weathers goes all Todd Jones for the Reds in 2005? Sure, it's possible. But it's possible that Weathers blows up as well. Considering that a 4.15 ERA in the pen isn't such great shakes anyway- particularly if he's trying to hold games rather than relieve early, I'm left worrying about the guy.

CincyRedsFan30
02-08-2005, 11:00 PM
Oh, I understand your point, and it certainly is a cause for a little concern, but I just wanted to point those numbers out. Personally, I think he'll be pretty effective for us overall, but I guess we'll soon find out, won't we? :)

Scrap Irony
02-09-2005, 01:09 AM
If, as you say,


Or, replaced Cory Lidle (4.90 full season ERA) with Eric Milton (4.75 full season ERA)

AND if, as you again say,


Weber's healthy, he'll top Van Poppel to be sure and Mercker will also deal better than Norton, tis true.

AND Randa is indeed that much of an improvement,

THEN

the Reds improved.

___________________________________

Too,


BTW, Reidling won't put up his 5.00+ ERA again. And Weathers stands little chance of putting up a 4.15 ERA again. That's a push, but Dan O' doesn't know it. Lidle/Milton is pretty much a push as well (the Phillies think so too).

I crave statistics now. You've converted me. I know Voras McCracken isn't a utility infielder with a penchant for striking out in the clutch. I've learned that K's matter little to nothing in the overall scheme of all things Dunnian. Bill James should be canonized into Annie Savoy's Church of Baseball. While my Pythagorean may still only be A+B+C, I'm looking to square everything away.

And, oh yeah, I, like the Outlay Josey Wales, am from Missouri.

Show me.

cincinnati chili
02-09-2005, 09:08 AM
D

They overspent on mediocre talent, potentially precluding LTC's for Dunn and Kearns, and allowing almost no future payroll flexibility with the expensive, underproductive tandem of Graves-Griffey-Casey (not as bad as the others)-Milton.

I agree 100%.

And by "D," I think they might have been better off doing nothing. I think they're record will be very similar to last year, and they'll be stuck with bad LTCs making the signing of Dunn very difficult.

redsfan30
02-09-2005, 11:08 AM
Eric Milton is tradeable. There is always a market for a left handed starting pitcher. If we were out of it at the deadline we could easily spin him for a couple prospects to a team like the Sox or Yankees. He will pitch 200 innings and win 10+ games for us. I'll take that because it not only improves the rotation, it takes stress off the bullpen which in turn makes them better.

Ramon Ortiz could be the biggest addition of them all or he could be the worst. He got what he wanted.....a fresh start and a promised spot in the rotation. I could easily see him pitching very well this season. He is another one that could pitch 200 innings and win 10+ and take the pressure off of the pen. If he flops, we're only on the hook for one year then he's gone. If he pitches well then we got an absolute steal and can bring him back in 2006.

Joe Randa is an upgrade over anything we've ran out there at third in a year and a half. The knock on him his he hits an "empty" .287. He doesn't walk or hit for power. In our lineup, we've got some pretty good on base guys in Junior, Casey, Dunn and Jiminez. We've obviously got enough power to make up for his "empty" 15 or so career average in homeruns. He will hit 15 homeruns and drive in 70 in a lineup that was already stacked without him. He will play very solid defense. There is not one 3B in the organization who can do that right now. We got him cheap and he provides a very good one year bridge to Edwin Encarnacion. If the Reds fall out of the race and Edwin is ready to go, then you spin Randa for a prospect.

Rich Aurillia is another one that could be a huge pickup. Not long ago he was an MVP candidate. He has had steady declines in his numbers and was hurt much of last season. We picked him up on a minor league deal for very cheap. If he rebounds to the Aurillia of a couple years ago he is our starting shortstop. If not, you are not on the hook for much of anything at all as it's a minor league contract.

Kent Merkcer is one of the best lefthanded relievers in baseball. I don't think anyone could argue that he is not a solid addition to the weakest part of our team last season.

Ben Weber is yet another one who could sneak up on people. Before he came down with Carpel Tunnle last season he was one of the best relievers in the game for a number of years. All indications are he's over that and is ready to go and there's really no reason to believe he won't get back to where he was before the injury. If not, then we release him and let one of our talented kids have a shot.

Jack McKeon was not happy to lose David Weathers. He is someone who can give you solid numbers out of the bullpen and give you a spot start now and then and pitch well. He has pleanty of experience and is not scared of anything. He will take the ball in any situation. I'll take a bulldog mentality with good numbers anyday of the week.

You may not like the pickups. You may have prefered someone else. But I just don't see how anyone could possibly say they were better off doing nothing.

Redsland
02-09-2005, 11:19 AM
No one is saying that the Reds haven't improved by replacing rotting, stinking garbage with mere refuse.

What people are saying is that incremental improvement, particularly at a time when cash apparently pours torrentially from the skies, is a waste of resources that could have been much better utilized if the goal is to get us into the post season anytime soon.

SteelSD
02-09-2005, 11:20 AM
Show me.

Ok.

157 Runs. That's the Run Differential improvement the Reds need to have a legit shot at a .500 W/L record in 2005.

They need an improvement of well over 200 Runs between the offense and defense just to sniff the playoffs. A 250 Run swing might make it in. That was Dan O'Brien's job this offseason- to find those Runs. Instead, he spent a whole lotta change to leave the Reds nowhere near the first benchmark.

Here's the problem...I can't show you where those Runs are because I don't know where they're hiding. They're certainly not in the back pockets of Milton, Weber, Weathers, and Randa.

Do you know where they are?

redsfan30
02-09-2005, 11:29 AM
Spend the money better? Like getting Matt Clement who wasn't intested in coming here? Like getting Odalis Perez who wasn't interested in coming here? Like signing Dunn to a long term deal who wasn't interested in signing for more than one season this year?

I have no inside knowledge, but I could almost promise you that these moves in no way shape or form will hinder us from giving Dunn a long term deal. In fact they may actually help us in that situation. The moves we made this winter may speak volumes to Dunn in the fact that we finally opened the purse to make an effort to improve the team. He probably didn't want to sign a long term deal because this team has never shown an interest in paying market value for it's talent. They also have not shown in quite some time that they are serious about making improvement geared towards winning. They did both this winter and that has to look good to Adam Dunn right about now.

Redsland
02-09-2005, 11:39 AM
I have no inside knowledge, but I could almost promise you that…
:rolleyes:

You mean you can guess. So can I. I've heard Allen cry poor for eight years. I'm not going to assume that year's spending frenzy is anything more than an aberration until he shows me otherwise.

And I never mentioned Dunn. You did.


Spend the money better? Like getting Matt Clement who wasn't intested in coming here? Like getting Odalis Perez who wasn't interested in coming here? Like signing Dunn to a long term deal who wasn't interested in signing for more than one season this year?
Or putting it in his pocket until the trading deadline. Or saving it for the draft. Or printing up ticket vouchers to prop up attendance. Or throwing it into the deal that gets Danny Graves out of here. Or sticking it in the bank for a rainy day.

He didn't have to give to 4.76, or 4.60, or 4.46, or even 4.19. But he did.

MWM
02-09-2005, 11:43 AM
Spend the money better? Like getting Matt Clement who wasn't intested in coming here? Like getting Odalis Perez who wasn't interested in coming here? Like signing Dunn to a long term deal who wasn't interested in signing for more than one season this year?

What you've done here is create a scenario that takes any responsibility away from the general manager. You're saying there's was nothing he could do to get the team where they needed to be. If that's the case, then there really isn't any need for a GM in the first place.

And if none of these players are interested in coming here right now, that in istelf is an indictment on the front office. If that's the case, then the Reds need to get guys in the FO who will make these guys want to come here.

MWM
02-09-2005, 11:45 AM
Redsland, nice posts. All of them. :clap:

westofyou
02-09-2005, 11:45 AM
if the goal is to get us into the post season anytime soon.

And it's not, the goal is to build an infrastructure to get to the point where it's possible to get there more than once every 5-10 years.

This is a "Ronco Salad Shooter" season, that salad shooter is great, does wonders, eventually wears down, or breaks completly. Between now and then it sells lots of salad and allows that perhaps that that will help contribute to them getting more than just lettuce and lemnon juice to put on that salad down the road.

That's how I see it, for $19.99 some folks will enjoy the salad shooter and hope it works forever, others will never buy it and still others will use it till it's used up and hope that it enables them to get something better and more useful later on.

REDREAD
02-09-2005, 11:54 AM
That's how I see it, for $19.99 some folks will enjoy the salad shooter and hope it works forever, others will never buy it and still others will use it till it's used up and hope that it enables them to get something better and more useful later on.

Well, I'll take the salad shooter over a plastic knife that we would've had for the pitching staff if DanO sat on his hands. :)

I can completely understand the disappoint of the posters who feel the 18 million of payflex could've been used to help with the longterm more. Not sure it was possible under the circumstances ( Clement/Perez seemed to be the only FAs some posters here wanted).

I also see MWM's point that it's a reflection on the FO when the best FAs don't want to come here.

I'm being optimistic (perhaps too much so), but I'm hoping that Milton, Ortiz, etc can raise the perception of this team a little bit and change the Reds' reputation to the point where in a couple of years, FAs won't automatically assume Cincy is a wasteland only interested in getting vet players to flip at the deadline for prospects.

GoReds
02-09-2005, 11:56 AM
Or putting it in his pocket until the trading deadline. Or saving it for the draft. Or printing up ticket vouchers to prop up attendance. Or throwing it into the deal that gets Danny Graves out of here. Or sticking it in the bank for a rainy day.

He didn't have to give to 4.76, or 4.60, or 4.46, or even 4.19. But he did.


We are ALL guessing here, unless someone with insider information is willing to come to the board and take questions.

No?

I don't find it difficult to believe that none of the top FAs wanted to come to Cincinnati. I find it relatively easy to believe that Sean Casey needed to get involved at some level to persuade Milton, Aurilia, et al. to come here and try to help. I have little doubt that this year's team would wax last year's team based on the new additions and the expected improvement in health over last year (knock on wood).

What I can "guess", along with everyone else here, is that the moves DoB was able to make this year was meant to accomplish a few tasks, such as:

1. Improve the team from last year. The Reds may still not have enough to make the playoffs, but they should at least improve on their record from last year.
2. Change the environment in the clubhouse and the fan base. Most of the fans are providing positive feedback about the moves that were made during the offseason. Most of the pub has been pretty positive as well, so at least DoB has something to build on.
3. Set the course for continuing improvement. Cincinnati has not been a place that top quality players want to play and has not been since Vaughn in 1999 (Griffey is a totally different story). It appears that the front office is making some noise about getting that problem resolved. Maybe the Reds didn't really want Milton, Weathers, Mercker, et al. But the FA signings of this year may pave the way for additional positive changes in the next couple of years.

I like the way that a lot of pundits have taken the Reds to task, indicating that the Reds should have done more and then failing to mention the way to get that done. I may not agree with the moves that DoB has made this year, necessarily, but I see that he is at least making moves. Let's see if that leads to better offerings down the road as a result.

iammrred
02-09-2005, 08:03 PM
And if none of these players are interested in coming here right now, that in istelf is an indictment on the front office. If that's the case, then the Reds need to get guys in the FO who will make these guys want to come here.

Fire the marketing director! Terminate the clubbies! Release Gapper! I want Odalis Perez!

MWM
02-09-2005, 08:16 PM
Fire the marketing director!

I've been saying that for years. The Cincinnati Reds are the marketed horribly and have been for a long tie. Want my single biggest gripe with the FO, it's their lack of marketing strategy.

westofyou
02-09-2005, 08:17 PM
I've been saying that for years. The Cincinnati Reds are the marketed horribly and have been for a long tie. Want my single biggest gripe with the FO, it's their lack of marketing strategy.

I hear they moonlight making Gold Star Commercials and reccomended that the window guy use his daughters in his commercials.

Scrap Irony
02-09-2005, 08:58 PM
157 Runs. That's the Run Differential improvement the Reds need to have a legit shot at a .500 W/L record in 2005.

That's not what was asked. The question was if the Reds improved.

They have.

Simple, really.

SteelSD
02-09-2005, 09:17 PM
That's not what was asked. The question was if the Reds improved.

They have.

Simple, really.

No one ever said that the Reds didn't improve. That's not at issue. Never has been.

Problem is that folks seem to think that marginal improvment equates good offseason. It doesn't.

Simple, really.

Scrap Irony
02-09-2005, 09:41 PM
Any improvement makes for a good offseason. You string enough improved offseasons together and you can eventually print WS tickets.

SteelSD
02-09-2005, 09:56 PM
Any improvement makes for a good offseason. You string enough improved offseasons together and you can eventually print WS tickets.

Uh-uh.

Each offseason is an opportunity to produce a playoff team. I care not that the Reds job is harder than some because the Reds started lower on the talent ladder.

Substitute marginal improvement at high prices for putting a winning team together and you end up running in place at best due to talent attrition, particularly when there are no real studs ready in the system (particularly MLB-ready pitching studs).

Teams like the Reds don't slowly inch up the ladder rung by rung as you seem to think. The Reds NEEDED to jump multiple rungs this offseason and simply failed to do it.

Situational dynamics. Reds replaced bad with simply below average. Not good. Ever.

Scrap Irony
02-09-2005, 10:16 PM
Uh-huh.

Difference of opinion here, SD. I believe improvement in any form is just that-- improvement. You know, getting better. Turning last season's losses into wins.

As for "inching slowly up the ladder," I also disagree. "Inching" would mean jumping past at least one team in the standings this season. That team, at the moment, appears to be either Chicago or Houston.

That is certainly doable.

Also, forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean by talent attrition? I can;t seem to wrap my head around that particular phrase.

SteelSD
02-09-2005, 11:38 PM
Uh-huh.

Difference of opinion here, SD. I believe improvement in any form is just that-- improvement. You know, getting better. Turning last season's losses into wins.

As for "inching slowly up the ladder," I also disagree. "Inching" would mean jumping past at least one team in the standings this season. That team, at the moment, appears to be either Chicago or Houston.

That is certainly doable.

You think the Reds are going to leapfrog either Chicago or Houston? To have a legit shot at either team, you're going to be needing a 190-200 Run Differential improvment. That's improbable at best and certainly not representative of "incremental" improvment.

To move ahead of either of those teams, it takes the kind of rung leaping I mentioned regarding talent influx- which is what the Reds haven't done this offseason.

Simply put, they brought in below average players and now you're expecting them to be at the center of a Run Diff improvement that would be truly historical in proportion for the Reds. That's not a reasonable expectation.

We don't have a difference of opinion as much as we have a difference in reasoning. You think the Reds 76 Wins last year were representative of the baseline and that the players acquired will add wins to that. I know that they're not building on 76 Wins. They're building on 65.


Also, forgive my ignorance, but what do you mean by talent attrition? I can;t seem to wrap my head around that particular phrase.

Incremental improvement of the type we're looking at means that the team won't be ready to do anything by the time much of the young talent is still either young or under the Reds' control.

Talent attrition.

CincyRedsFan30
02-10-2005, 01:21 AM
As far as the Reds jumping past Houston/Chicago, I don't think it just comes down to the Reds' improvements, but the possibility of those two flopping.

Houston: Lost Miller, Beltran. Berkman out for at least a while. Biggio/Bagwell a year older.

Chicago: Lost Clement, lost Sosa(not sure how bad that is at this point), lost Alou(ouch), lost Farnsworth... still have Wood/Prior, but the risk of them getting injured is a concern, as is the possibility that Maddux might start slipping further and that Rusch might not be so good.

I can easilly see both of them scoring fewer(maybe a decent amount)/giving up more runs(maybe a decent amount).

Scrap Irony
02-10-2005, 02:21 AM
Regarding talent attrition, then, is for the future. As for today (and this particular offseason), no one of significance (with the possible exception of Dustin Moseley) has been lost. Therefore, no talent attrition.

As to below average, we will again have to disagree. I see talent added, with lesser talent departing. As stated in my original post, I see two starters added that are much better (a half run per game started) than those that left Cincinnati. I see three bullpen arms-- two with stratospherically better ERA's and one even you assume to be more valuable-- than those that left in 2004. I see a solid 3B 100 OPS better than the aggregate chaff sent to the hot corner last season.

In short, I see the probability of improvement and the possiblity of marked improvement.

Too, as many have previously pointed out, both Houston and Chicago (those teams you assume Cincinnati has zero shot at outperforming taking giant steps down the ladder of competitiveness.

Chicago lost two-thirds of an outfield and now relies on three above average bats, questionable defense, an untried and unproven bullpen, and a truly outstanding pitching staff. Hey, one out of four ain't bad, right? Both teams lost a large part of their offensive output from last season. (More than any in the game, in fact.) In Chicago, the two lost stars accounted for 70+ home runs, a combined OPS over 850, and about 200 RBI. Between Sosa, Alou, Clement, and other assorted Cubbies, they lost over 60 win shares from last year's team.

That's a bunch. Perhaps, however, they added help in the offseason. Win share gain? Zero.


Houston, OTOH, lost an All Star caliber 2B and CF, have holes in two outfield positions, questions at two infield positions, and no clue behind an admittedly superior starting rotation. Their closer is outstanding; however, the rest of the Astro bullpen is less than stellar. The Astronomicals lost more than 60 win shares as well. Win share gain? Again, zero.

The Reds? Lost 10 from Larkin. Gained 8 for Milton and 6 for Mercker.

Certainly, the Reds helped themselves, while both the Cubs and Astros took a step (or two) down the ladder.

Therefore, those incrimental steps forward I discussed earlier (and you agreed to), it seems to me, look like rung leaping to me while comparing the Cincinnati offseason to those of both Chicago and Houston. I see a Red team that could improve its Run Differential by (assuming relatively healthy seasons by all Reds with the exception of Junior and age-related improvements by Dunn, Kearns, Lopez, Harang, Claussen, Wagner, et al) 100 runs. I could also see both Chicago and Houston losing 100+ runs apiece, due to a lack of offseason moves, questionable hitters, and either a weak pen or a weak back end of the rotation.

But, again, I am seeing the world through rose-colored glasses and I'm not nearly the statistical expert that you are.

SteelSD
02-10-2005, 03:52 AM
BP, what you're not realizing is this:

If the Cubs and Astros lose 100 Runs to their RD, they'd still project to finish over .500. If the Reds add 100 Runs to their RD, they'd still project to finish under .500 (and would be 50+ Runs short of doing so).

But really, I think the difference in our thought process on this is that I don't give the Reds bonus points for projecting a sub-.500 record regardless of what other teams did or didn't do to their own squads.

BTW, per 200 IP the difference between Eric Milton and Cory Lidle is about 10 Runs. That's the kind of improvement you're looking at when swapping a below-average pitcher for another below-average pitcher. And when you're talking about that kind of incremental improvment, it's easy to eat it away if just one pitcher underperforms slightly versus 2004.

guernsey
02-10-2005, 02:44 PM
Then there's this from the DFW Star-Telegram:



Cincinnati Reds GM Dan O'Brien, a long-time Rangers assistant, was one executive who managed to have a fairly productive winter without going overboard. He signed free-agent left-handed pitcher Eric Milton and traded for right-hander Ramon Ortiz, among other moves.

"In the larger markets, there seems to be a lot more attention paid to ... making a splash," O'Brien said. "But for the rest of us, those in the smaller markets, our first priority is to improve our teams. If there is some corresponding media attention, so much the better, but that's not your focus."

REDREAD
02-10-2005, 03:26 PM
And by "D," I think they might have been better off doing nothing. I think they're record will be very similar to last year, and they'll be stuck with bad LTCs making the signing of Dunn very difficult.

Unless the signing of Dunn wouldn't matter. Maybe DanO is forbidden to give Dunn a LTC. I think it's highly possible that Allen now has a policy of going year-to-year until he's forced otherwise. And it may not be that bad of a policy in some cases. The time to lock up young players and save money is before they establish themselves. I'm not sure there's been a LTC that saves significant money after the player busts out. Of course, there's always the risk that Dunn goes into 70 Hr territory next year. But the Reds do control Dunn for 3 more years (I think). By then, Milton's contract is off the books.

Wilson, Milton, and Ortiz might all flop, but I think signing them is a lot better than doing nothing. Their replacements would likely be: Claussen, Hancock, and Acevado/Robertson. That's certainly a downgrade.

If the only justification of giving them a "D" is that it MIGHT hurt our chances of signing Dunn/Kearns longterm, I'm not that worried. I can buy the arguement that maybe the money could've been spent on better FAs (hypothetically, but I'm not sure that in reality we had a chance to get Clement/Perez at any price).

Edit: I do agree with you on one thing. The Reds had a lot of "luck" last year, so it's possible their W-L may not improve. However, I think their W-L will be better than if they had done nothing this winter. Thanks.

4256 Hits
02-10-2005, 11:25 PM
Biiter Pill you have some good points but if Houston loses a all-star CF you need to note that Chicago picks up a full season of a All-Star SS.

But I agree w/ Steel here in that the Reds have a LONG way to go to catch up to Chicago and Houston and are no where even close to St. Louis.