Geno to short?

[Kc61]

he won't be ready (and i'm probably as big of a garcia defender as there is on this board) but if he's halfway decent with the stick at louisville for a few weeks, i bet the reds' plan is to bring up garcia and have him make most of the starts at shortstop. at the very least, he will provide good defense. and who knows, maybe his stick will come around this year at the MLB level. i'm convinced it eventually will. he's got some pop in that bat. good bat speed as well. too long of a swing but hopefully he can make that more compact.

barry larkin doesn't go around saying "this guy is eventually going to be a monster" about just anyone. i can't remember him speaking in such glowing terms about a reds' prospect. i tend to think garcia will be at the very least a good starting MLB shortstop. my only question is when.

so, if this is truly the plan, the platoon of farmer/strange-gordon (or holder) would probably be a very temporary solution.

I suspect you’re right as to the Reds plan. It’s not a wise plan if you ask me. if Garcia only gets a few weeks in the minors, they shouldn’t bother, just start him in the bigs.

Guy never played AA or AAA, give the pitchers a chance to adjust to him, for Garcia to adjust back. Either do the seasoning right, or don’t do it at all.

But I suspect the Reds will be champing at the bit to bring up Garcia, and will do so after the first sign of some offensive prowess.

[Wonderful Monds]

Despite this conversation getting weirdly caught up on Barry Larkin’s opinion of him, I still feel pretty good about Jose Garcia’s chances of becoming a good player in the next year or two. It’s not like he’s a complete scrub that a former Red decided to shower praise on.

[MoneyInTheBank]

if he would want the job, maybe he would have it. the reds are all about nepotism anyway.

and i'm sure he's more qualified than nick krall regardless. all larkin would have needed to do was not have the worst offseason in reds' history and he would have topped the job krall did.

If you want to argue Larkin could have done a better job, I understand even though I would disagree. We have no clue what constraints were put on Krall (therefore put on Larkin) by ownership. But, in no way is Larkin more qualified than Nick Krall, who has worked in baseball ops for nearly 20 years. Besides, isn't it a bit hyperbolic to say the WORST offseason in Reds history?

[JFLegal]

If you want to argue Larkin could have done a better job, I understand even though I would disagree. We have no clue what constraints were put on Krall (therefore put on Larkin) by ownership. But, in no way is Larkin more qualified than Nick Krall, who has worked in baseball ops for nearly 20 years. Besides, isn't it a bit hyperbolic to say the WORST offseason in Reds history?

i can't think of a reds offseason where the team lost so much and gained so little.

lost: cy young award-winning pitcher trevor bauer; closer raisel iglesias, set-up man archie bradley, #4/5 starter anthony desclafani, shortstop freddy galvis (i would have let the last two guys leave as well).

added: sean doolittle, noe ramirez, dee strange-gordon, other fodder that might not make the team.

main offseason goal: find a shortstop to bridge the gap until garcia is ready. complete failure.

i'm pretty comfortable with worst offseason in reds history, at least in my time following the team.

[Big Klu]

If you want to argue Larkin could have done a better job, I understand even though I would disagree. We have no clue what constraints were put on Krall (therefore put on Larkin) by ownership. But, in no way is Larkin more qualified than Nick Krall, who has worked in baseball ops for nearly 20 years. Besides, isn't it a bit hyperbolic to say the WORST offseason in Reds history?

For your consideration, the 1981-82 offseason:

Key Additions:
CF Cesar Cedeño
3B Wayne Krenchicki
C Alex Treviño
LF Clint Hurdle
RHP Jim Kern
RHP Greg Harris
LHP Bob Shirley

Key Losses:
LF George Foster
CF Dave Collins
RF Ken Griffey
3B Ray Knight
RHP Paul Moskau
RHP Mike LaCoss

[RedTeamGo!]

if he would want the job, maybe he would have it. the reds are all about nepotism anyway.

and i'm sure he's more qualified than nick krall regardless. all larkin would have needed to do was not have the worst offseason in reds' history and he would have topped the job krall did.

This is clearly not the worst offseason in reds history. Give me a break.

[MoneyInTheBank]

i can't think of a reds offseason where the team lost so much and gained so little.

lost: cy young award-winning pitcher trevor bauer; closer raisel iglesias, set-up man archie bradley, #4/5 starter anthony desclafani, shortstop freddy galvis (i would have let the last two guys leave as well).

added: sean doolittle, noe ramirez, dee strange-gordon, other fodder that might not make the team.

main offseason goal: find a shortstop to bridge the gap until garcia is ready. complete failure.

i'm pretty comfortable with worst offseason in reds history, at least in my time following the team.

No question Bauer was a big loss and, sure, the Reds have never lost the reigning Cy Young Award winner in free agency so, I guess by definition, they've never had a bigger pitching loss. The other 4 were losses but nothing that would make the offseason a disaster

The teardown started during the season but the 2015-16 offseason was pretty rough. Trading your all-star 3rd baseman and all-world closer for Scott Schebler and a half eaten bag of peanuts

[RedTeamGo!]

Aroldis Chapman was traded in the offseason. Enough said.

[Kc61]

In context this was one of the Reds’ worst off-seasons. It got an F in a RedsZone poll, for goodness sake.

Dumping players in a rebuild is different. It’s a rebuild, not much to expect for the upcoming season.

But here the team was on the rise. Indeed, on the rise after all those rebuilding years. That’s why with this off-season was a bummer. But, hope springs eternal, it’s a weak division, could have been worse, etc.

[757690]

In context this was one of the Reds’ worst off-seasons. It got an F in a RedsZone poll, for goodness sake.

Dumping players in a rebuild is different. It’s a rebuild, not much to expect for the upcoming season.

It wasn’t a rebuild. It was a tear down. And how did it go, btw?

[RedsManRick]

First, concerning Senzel, I talked laid it out not as a binary choice, but included all the variables. Take a look again. Why would a labrum surgery effect him 3B but not CF? Zero logic there.

I would posit that the demands on one's throwing arm are less in CF than at 3B and that one can provide more defensive value with a weak arm in CF than at 3B. Juan Pierre and Johnny Damon were never gonna play 3B... I'd be happy to have somebody with more first hand coaching/playing experience contradict me, but that's my understanding.

Second, you’re trying to have it both ways. At first you’re saying the math works for Suarez to move to SS. Now you are saying teams don’t do it because the math doesn’t work. Which is it? Clearly teams have had similar situations to the one the Reds are in now before. And they never have moved the 3B to SS.

I am not having it both ways. I'm saying the following:

1) Geno is not a -50 SS -- not remotely close. So I don't know what that was part of the conversation at all.

2) The reason you don't generally see teams move 3B back to SS is because it's usually just a game of whack a mole with relatively little upside, a neutral shifting of production that doesn't accomplish much while possibly lower that players total value in the short-term.

3) The Reds are in an unusually position where their math is different. They have nothing resembling an even decent non-Geno option at SS. Their current set of options basically have replacement level upside. Meanwhile, they have an average defensive 3B with SS experience and a bat that can carry a ding to his defensive value, a 2B with extensive 3B experience, an athletic OF with 2B/3B experience and a bat with upside who is otherwise going to be stuck in a platoon. It's a pretty strange confluence of circumstances.

It's still entirely reasonable to conclude that all the positional shifting and clubhouse uncertainty that creates isn't worth the extra win or two the math says you likely get from it. That's an entirely defensible position. But claiming that Geno would be a historically poor defensive SS is not. Nor is claiming having a historically poor defensive SS necessarily spells doom for a team.

[MoneyInTheBank]

In context this was one of the Reds’ worst off-seasons. It got an F in a RedsZone poll, for goodness sake.

Dumping players in a rebuild is different. It’s a rebuild, not much to expect for the upcoming season.

But here the team was on the rise. Indeed, on the rise after all those rebuilding years. That’s why with this off-season was a bummer. But, hope springs eternal, it’s a weak division, could have been worse, etc.

This offseason has been (name your adjective) bad, disappointing. ONE of the worst in the modern era? I wouldn't gripe too much. Definitively THE WORST in Reds history just seemed very hyperbolic to me. It ultimately doesn't matter because the results on the field will tell the story, not "winning the offseason"

[MikeS21]

This off-season doesn’t even make the top twenty worst off-seasons for me. And I have been following this team since 1969.

[Ron Madden]

Disco pitched 33.2 innings in 2020 with a 7.22 ERA, Bradley pitched all of 7.2 innings for the Reds, Freddy Galvis had 0.3 WAR. I wouldn't call any of those three a big loss

[757690]

I would posit that the demands on one's throwing arm are less in CF than at 3B and that one can provide more defensive value with a weak arm in CF than at 3B. Juan Pierre and Johnny Damon were never gonna play 3B... I'd be happy to have somebody with more first hand coaching/playing experience contradict me, but that's my understanding.

Suarez was also coming off of shoulder surgery in 2020 and the Reds had no issue with him at 3B, so there goes that theory.

I am not having it both ways. I'm saying the following:

1) Geno is not a -50 SS -- not remotely close. So I don't know what that was part of the conversation at all.

This started with post #106, in which BZ brought up the 50 runs below average number.

I still think you continue to underestimate the chasm of what Reds' SS project to provide, 75.

Were Suarez to approach his 2018/ 2019 form in 2021, he's have to be nearly 50 runs below league average to approach the level of ineptitude projected by ZiPS.

2) The reason you don't generally see teams move 3B back to SS is because it's usually just a game of whack a mole with relatively little upside, a neutral shifting of production that doesn't accomplish much while possibly lower that players total value in the short-term.

3) The Reds are in an unusually position where their math is different. They have nothing resembling an event decent non-Geno option at SS. Their current set of options basically have replacement level upside. Meanwhile, they have an average defense 3B with SS experience and a bat that can carry a ding to his defensive value, and a 2B with 3B extensive experience, an athletic OF with 2B experience and an upside bat who is otherwise going to be stuck in a platoon. It's a pretty strange confluence of circumstances.

You're saying that this is the first time that a team had to deal with having a replacement level SS? That's absurd. Plenty of teams have been in a similar position the Reds are in, and to the best of my knowledge, none of them have moved their 3B to SS to make room for more offense.

SS is a much harder position to fill than 3B. Far more often a team has excess 3B than it does SS. The Reds this year have like 7 3B options and zero SS options, lol. This notion that teams would have a hard time finding another bat to put into the lineup flies in the face of history and logic.

Again, you need to pick a horse. Does the math work with Suarez or doesn't it? If it does, then there should be more examples of this throughout history. Not often, but definitely enough for us to notice and remember. But if the math works and there aren't examples throughout history, that strongly suggests that teams feel that there is more to it than just the math, or that the math that we are using is off. If that math doesn't work, then this is all a moot point.[/QUOTE]