How Would You Rate O'Brien's First Year As GM?

[REDREAD]

Yes they were, well anderson at least but what do you want for nothing?

You say Machado won't be anything, but the fact is he can field and take a walk, plus he has speed... those are tools and they are good to get cheap

I agree that those trades were good. The cost to the Reds was practically nothing, and I doubt another team would've given up more.

I'm not going to get too excited about Hancock's relatively good 5 starts (or whatever his brief appearance at the end of the year was). I've seen too many Acevados get lit up the 2nd or 3rd time a team sees them.

You have a good point, maybe Machado will amount to something better than Juan Castro Jr. If he does, I'll go back and retroactively raise DanO's grade for this year.

The point I was trying to make though, is that when Hancock and Machado are the best things on your resume, that doesn't deserve a high first year grade. The Phillie trades were good, but everything else DanO did, ranged from mediocre to disastrous.

[westofyou]

The point I was trying to make though, is that when Hancock and Machado are the best things on your resume, that doesn't deserve a high first year grade. The Phillie trades were good, but everything else DanO did, ranged from mediocre to disastrous.

I give him an I.

But he's officially on Dean Wermers Double Secret Probation watch.

[johngalt]

Letting your 5th best hitter go that wanted to come back and be willing to play for less than 1 mil be considered a plus move it gives you an idea of how bad of first year was.

The direction of this organization should be toward the future - 2006, 2007, etc. Yes, putting the best team on the field should be an objective at all times, but Dan O'Brien's goal from Day 1 was to build this organization into a winner for the future.

In order to do that, you have to give the future a chance. Keeping Barry Larkin for 2005 would be completely counter to everything else this organization is trying to do. The argument's been beaten to death, but the move gets a plus from me because it was time. It was time last year and it's way past time now.

[johngalt]

A year ago I thought DanO had two must-dos at the major league level: move at least one of the big three contracts and pick up arms for the long-term. He did neither.

This is the point that I keep hearing people bring up that just perplexes me to no end.

Now, from the way I read this, you're marking off a couple points on DOB's resume for not doing a couple of things. If that's the reasoning, I completely understand it and it's a valid negative for him.

However, what I hear a lot of people saying is that they see it as a negative that DOB and the Reds haven't tried to move some contracts or haven't tried to sign a free agent or haven't tried to sign Dunn to a LTC.

The problem with that argument is that we don't know everything these guys are trying to do. When Bowden was in charge, you heard rumors every day on TV and in the papers about deals, signings, etc. because that's how he oprated. He leaked more stories to the press than an old Chevy. Therefore, everyone was always aware of what he was trying to do and always had the impression that "Hey, Bowden's trying to do this" or "Bowden's really working hard."

With DOB, it seems like he's the kind of guy to keep things quiet. He doesn't seem to want all that out in the press. As a result, people don't hear things and assume he's not doing anything. Making trades, signing players and extending contracts takes more than one party, folks.

[SteelSD]

However, what I hear a lot of people saying is that they see it as a negative that DOB and the Reds haven't tried to move some contracts or haven't tried to sign a free agent or haven't tried to sign Dunn to a LTC.

Try or try not. DO or DO NOT. There is no try.

[Krusty]

It takes two teams in order to do the MLB tango.

[SteelSD]

It takes two teams in order to do the MLB tango.

And that being said, there have been some UGLY contracts that moved to different beats at trade sockhops in recent years.

You either put a good team on the field or you don't. Effort doesn't play into it.

I'm sure Jim Bowden tried very hard to improve the Reds' pitching.

See?

[johngalt]

And that being said, there have been some UGLY contracts that moved to different beats at trade sockhops in recent years.

You either put a good team on the field or you don't. Effort doesn't play into it.

I'm sure Jim Bowden tried very hard to improve the Reds' pitching.

See?

My point was that some people aren't judging it that way. Some people are criticizing him for not trying, not necessarily for what he has or has not accomplished.

[Redsland]

I can't speak for everyone, but I don't criticize him for not trying; I criticize him for not doing.

As M2 said, DanO's in a show-me job. So far he hasn't shown much.

[wheels]

I guess I used the word "try", but his inability to "do", I surmised that he wasn't trying hard enough. Conjecture? Sure?

But you can't argue with the lack of results.

[GAC]

DanO has to be given more time. He inherited a mess IMO. He has taken some risks his first year, and has had some successes, and also some mistakes. But it's just too early to tell. But I thik his main objective is to get our pitching straightened out. And not necessarily via FA, but by building up our program in developing young pitching. He has made strides in this area IMO.

But he has to address this BP in the off-season. He has released some players (which is good). Now he must do his homework and fill the voids aptly.

Dano is no Jim Bowden (and thank God!)

[wheels]

Who's to say he's not going to put some wheels in motion this offseason?

I'm definitely hopeful he can bring some quality to the organization in one way or another.

The thing is, he's not shown a propensity for the dramatic deals that need to be made to right the ship.

What's his contract length? Three years? Five years?

He needs to get cracking.

[REDREAD]

. But I thik his main objective is to get our pitching straightened out.

And he's failing miserably, IMO.
Other than Todd Jones (who was just a 1/2 season bandaid), every pitching move he's done has backfired.
Although the jury is out on Hancock, he doesn't project to be a guy to brag abuot.

[GAC]

And he's failing miserably, IMO.
Other than Todd Jones (who was just a 1/2 season bandaid), every pitching move he's done has backfired.
Although the jury is out on Hancock, he doesn't project to be a guy to brag abuot.

What moves in particular? Reitsma?.... maybe. I was never a Reitsma fan though.

But what others? He tried to utilize what he had on hand (or what was handed down to him). Dumping Haynes and dealing Lidle were good moves. Releasing some of the BP guys at season's end were good moves.

His objective is to continue to bring some of the younger arms along in this organization, while also making some acquistion (not high priced FA's) to add to and continue that process. Are you saying he should have had instant results in his first season?

While I agree they did a very poor job with the BP they assembled (they tooks some risks that didn't pan out), we got to see some maturity (and hope) out of a couple young guys in '04.

Plus...what was available on the market during the season (pitching-wise) that could have been obtained. When you have teams taking a serious look at Estes, then you know it's lean.

I still believe RR that we would go along way to helping ourselves in '05 if we emphasize our middle relief/BP. I'm not sure to the exactness of this stat (help anyone?); but didn't we blow 30+ games in the 7th inning or beyind when we were either tied or had the lead? That's atrocious.

[Spring~Fields]

Are you saying he should have had instant results in his first season?

Something that O'Brien and the Reds budget can do is to seriously strengthen the bullpen and bench to a degree of respectability for the coming season. We shall see if they do.