How do we not have a Tyler Mahle thread?

[WrongVerb]

So you're sitting on 20 in blackjack and hit, and get an Ace, and you say "I made the right decision"?

The right decision can wind up in a situation that doesn't work out. That doesn't make it the wrong decision. Likewise, the wrong decision CAN work out, but it doesn't make it the right decision, either. If it were guaranteed, there wouldn't be a decision.

It surprises me how many people don't recognize that virtually every decision involves a risk/reward calculation and a percentage expected value (EV). As long as you make enough decisions over time, and in every decision the EV is greater than the risk, you'll eventually come out ahead.

The only quibble is that right now the playing field is very unfair for small market vs. large market teams. Large markets can make more of those bets, so the overall gain from them is greater, and they can take more risks than small market teams.

[M2]

It wasn't nearly as bad of a decision as a lot of people like to pretend it was. There was risk involved, but people overreact big time because of how it turned out rather than looking at the information available at the time.

Homer Bailey, at the time he signed that deal, was roughly one of the 20 best starting pitchers alive over the previous two seasons. He got paid like that kind of guy.

There was a pretty broad range on that Homer deal, including those who were none too pleased (i wasn't one of them). Given the information available at the time, a lot of posters wouldn't have signed him.

[Boston Red]

Is this the Homer Bale-y thread?

[kaldaniels]

So you're sitting on 20 in blackjack and hit, and get an Ace, and you say "I made the right decision"?

The right decision can wind up in a situation that doesn't work out. That doesn't make it the wrong decision. Likewise, the wrong decision CAN work out, but it doesn't make it the right decision, either. If it were guaranteed, there wouldn't be a decision.

I don’t like took at it like that.

It should be looked at as “ok the deal didn’t work out, what could have been done differently.” I think there are many valid answers to that question.

My issue (well one of them) is that the payroll spigots, perhaps (or not) fairly, were turned off after that deal. At the time I wasn’t viewing the deal through that lens.

Was it the right or wrong deal to make...that point is just gonna be argued back and forth.

[reds44]

Mat Latos was even better during that period. They decided to offer that contract to Bailey but not Latos. So other reasons besides those numbers went into the decision. It’s not a stretch to think the no hitters were two of those reasons.

Also not a stretch to consider Latos put nearly 400 innings in the big leagues before the age of 24 and evidentially was a massive ****** and both of those were also factors.

[WrongVerb]

For the record, I think it was wrong for the Reds to sign Homer to that deal, just as I thought it was wrong to sign Joey to a deal of that length. I also thought it wrong for the Reds to sign Phillips to his deal. I think all should have been traded after 2013 for the top talent they could get. But it's spilled milk under the bridge. I don't get to make those decisions, and with the deal given to Suarez but not Cozart, it would appear that the Reds may have learned their lesson.

[dougdirt]

There was a pretty broad range on that Homer deal, including those who were none too pleased (i wasn't one of them). Given the information available at the time, a lot of posters wouldn't have signed him.

There's certainly a difference between "wouldn't have signed the deal" and how a lot of people act today on the deal and it's merits.

[Tracy Jones]

So you're sitting on 20 in blackjack and hit, and get an Ace, and you say "I made the right decision"?

The right decision can wind up in a situation that doesn't work out. That doesn't make it the wrong decision. Likewise, the wrong decision CAN work out, but it doesn't make it the right decision, either. If it were guaranteed, there wouldn't be a decision.

One can easily argue (and many did at the time) that the mistake in judgement was giving any pitcher that contract if you’re the Reds. To go with your blackjack analogy, sitting at the table to begin with.

I’m not going to get hurt having a string of bad fortune playing blackjack at the $100 table. If I have the same bad fortune at the $100,000 table, then yeah that stings. The Reds played at the 100 million dollar table and got burned.

I liked the deal at the time. It was a bold move that the Reds rarely made in the past, and I’m with you in that it appeared that Homer was turning into one of the top pitchers in baseball. But as with every investment and every gamble, ROI is all that matters. What caused the ROI to be a disaster, whether it was bad decision making or bad fortune is irrelevant. It was a bad deal.

[Patrick Bateman]

At the time it did seem like a pretty handsome investment for a player with Bailey's track record. He was being paid to be an ace, and wasn't quite ever that.

The injuries and subsequent "recovery" would be hard to predict, and a risk taken with virtually any long term pitching contract.

Ultimately the Reds can't hand those out very often, and really should only be doing it in a similar vein to Suarez ( during the arb process) with manageable dollar values that there is some potential for an out and not be completely sunk.

Was probably an overplay of resources, was structured where risk was not properly mitigated, and ended up being dealt a crap hand.

[kpresidente]

What doesn’t make sense about the Homer Bailey signing is that a year later they were rebuilding. I liked the signing (thought they paid too much, but not outrageously so) because I figured they’d sign another one out of Cueto, Latos or Leake and keep the train rolling. At least one, maybe two depending on what was going to happen with the hitters. I guess it turns out they didn’t have the money for that, but they should’ve known that, there was no way we could know. So why sign someone, then say “oh crap, we’re out of money, guess we have to blow it up and tank.”

[dougdirt]

What doesn’t make sense about the Homer Bailey signing is that a year later they were rebuilding. I liked the signing (thought they paid too much, but not outrageously so) because I figured they’d sign another one out of Cueto, Latos or Leake and keep the train rolling. At least one, maybe two depending on what was going to happen with the hitters. I guess it turns out they didn’t have the money for that, but they should’ve known that, there was no way we could know. So why sign someone, then say “oh crap, we’re out of money, guess we have to blow it up and tank.”

I don't think they started rebuilding because they were out of money. They started rebuilding because they realized, or at least one person was finally shown that they simply weren't good enough.

[KronoRed]

The Reds didn't plan to rebuild, that's why they had to be dragged into it, they thought they could retool on the fly and stay a competitive team.

[Boston Red]

How do we not have a Tyler Mahle thread?

[WrongVerb]

The Reds didn't plan to rebuild, that's why they had to be dragged into it, they thought they could retool on the fly and stay a competitive team.

Funny thing is, with savvy, aggressive moves they could have. But they had to have Cueto and Frazier around for the All-Star game, and couldn't be bothered to move Chapman at the time when he had the most value, and couldn't figure out how to walk and chew gum at the same time with the Bruce and Cozart deals, and signed players to risky contracts (Bailey, BP) when they should have dealt them, and didn't hire the right guys to develop the next line of talent. Everything between opening day 2013 and the trade of Chapman has essentially been a fuster cluck as far as rebuilding goes. And we still don't have a GM who is willing to make aggressive moves.

[dougdirt]

How do we not have a Tyler Mahle thread?

Because Redszone.