Former Red Kyle Farmer Reflects On An Era Gone By

[MoneyInTheBank]

To me this is a two part process. Moving on from guys AND finding other talent to replace those guys. The bad decision wasn’t moving on from those players. It was (at least in the short term) not replacing them with viable veteran MLB talent. The Reds likely have the money to spend on longer term veteran pieces. Last year they chose to spend it on shorter term guys. While this season is still a tbd,signs are pointing towards the same, but with a lower payroll. To me, it looks like they are waiting out the prospects and for Moose and Votto to come off the books to meaningfully add. In the short term that sucks. The long term is tbd. I guess my point was that moving on from those guys wasn’t the bad decision that lead to loses in the short term. I think RZ is overrating that group. But the issue that lead to the fall off was not backfilling with more legit talent after the decision was made to move on, and, instead, wait longer on prospects.

We have dramatically different definitions of re-tooling. To me, what you are describing a full blown re-build.

Re-Tooling would have been trading one of the big three pitchers and backfilling with your cheaper top prospects, replacing Barnhart with a cheaper option and reallocating those funds to find a platoon partner for Naquin (the combo would have been cheaper and 90% of Castellanos) and/or Winker or another OF to slide Winker to DH.

[mth123]

Yes. Likely. I don’t know their actual books and neither do you. Didn’t want to speak in absolutes when I don’t have first hand knowledge. It’s probably a pretty safe assumption that they do.

I don't think there is any question they have the money. They have plenty to spend. The question is whether they will. If they will, now is the time to add a long-term foundational rotation arm (meaning a guy who can provide 175 innings at better than league average for the next three or four years), an OF bat (preferably in CF or RF) and two late inning relievers (at least one a lefty). That's a lot for one year. Should probably at least get one of those guys now instead of waiting until the magic moment when some imaginary switch flips.

I don't think we see them spend until 2025 at the earliest (though they may invoke Votto's 2024 option and call that spending). Hope I'm wrong.

[Bourgeois Zee]

Yes. Likely. I don’t know their actual books and neither do you.

Do you ever speak in absolutes?

[Old school 1983]

Do you ever speak in absolutes?

Nope. Not a Sith Lord.

- - - Updated - - -

We have dramatically different definitions of re-tooling. To me, what you are describing a full blown re-build.

Re-Tooling would have been trading one of the big three pitchers and backfilling with your cheaper top prospects, replacing Barnhart with a cheaper option and reallocating those funds to find a platoon partner for Naquin (the combo would have been cheaper and 90% of Castellanos) and/or Winker or another OF to slide Winker to DH.

Sorry if I wasn’t clear. They are in a full blown rebuild. They gutted it to the walls.

[mth123]

If it was a short term analysis only, I’d agree with you on Castillo. Given the Reds real world budget, spending a large chunk of change on a pitcher over 30 is risky. I’d love to see Castillo be dominant until he’s 40 or so, but the reality is, that rarely happens. I think they did a good job moving him for peak value. Same with Mahle. The pieces that came back still need some proving. But they are very solid prospects. Totally agree on Acuna. Gray was really the one piece that I think made sense for the Reds to maybe ride out in the short term to keep the rotation stable. Petty is a ways away. But he’s showing promise too. I think that comes down to what you believe is more valuable. Perry’s potential or Gray’s ability to stabilize a young rotation. I think it’s a coin toss.

I can’t blame anyone in the pitchfork crowd. It’s been forever. The Reds winning the 1990 World Series was the most exciting sports moment of my life. I was 7 then. I’m 39 now. I want some winning. But I also see a plan in all this mess of a rebuild. And, to me, it looks different than rebuilds of the past. They brought in very legit prospects. They will have a clear payroll. Let’s hope the prospects pan out and they spend the money wisely in the next year or so.

They are going to have to spend a large chunk of change on a pitcher over 30 eventually or this rebuild will never get off the ground. I'd say Castillo is as good a bet as any. He's proven he can pitch in GABP. That's a huge factor IMO.

In Gray's case, they had two cheap years of control and gave it away for a secondary prospect. As I said, I'm hopeful for Petty, but he isn't making anyone's top 100 list. Doesn't mean he can't succeed but seems a light return for what they gave up. If they'd just held him, then at the deadline, I think they could have gotten a return something less than what they got for Castillo but something more than they got for Mahle.

The priority was moving payroll, not getting the best return they could to enable a rebuild. Krall did OK with some of his deals under the circumstances that resulted in him getting lowballed all the time, but several, especially Gray and the Winker/Suarez deals could have been a lot better had the priority actually been acquiring talent rather than just slashing payroll. None of those guys were making outrageous money. worse yet, is they turn around and give the Gray and Winker savings to washed up guys like Pham and Minor.

The subtractions were penny-wise and pound foolish and then they pissed away the pennies they saved anyway.

[Old school 1983]

Do you ever speak in absolutes?

In all seriousness though. I spoke in pretty absolute terms about Suarez’s ability going forward and was proven wrong. It happens.

[Roy Tucker]

The problem is, the Reds haven’t done a darn thing to win anyone’s benefit of the doubt.

One may buy into the “but we have a lot of great prospects” hype. I am not one of those fans. I will continue to throw rocks at them till they do something that ends up with W’s at the MLB level. They’ve used up all of their chits with me.

[Ron Madden]

Yes. Likely. I don’t know their actual books and neither do you. Didn’t want to speak in absolutes when I don’t have first hand knowledge. It’s probably a pretty safe assumption that they do.

They get a fortune in revenue sharing every year.

It would be a waste of time arguing with you so I won't.

[Old school 1983]

They get a fortune in revenue sharing every year.

It would be a waste of time arguing with you so I won't.

Why would it be a waste of time? Hell. Why would it even be an argument? I told you earlier it’s probably a really safe assumption. You’re making a big deal out of something that was virtually a throw away word in my post.

[Jaysland Red]

Yes, the players mentioned in the article at the start of this thread got paid a lot of money to be part of an under-performing Reds team and then went on to earn even more money at other clubs. I suspect that most of us liked having these players on the team and, at the end of their careers, I don’t think the players will spend a lot of time reflecting on the money they earned. They will think about where they enjoyed playing baseball the most, where they had their best team mates and where they liked living. I find it heart-warming to think that, for a lot of guys, it was Cincinnati. I also find it fascinating that such an innocuous thread topic has sparked off so much intense and interesting debate.