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

[REDREAD]

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

But what others?

Anyone can cut bad players like Haynes. That doesn't take genius. A good GM would've cut him before the season even started, instead of waiting for pressure from the fans and media.

DanO did nothing in the offseason to even attempt to improve the bullpen.
He grabbed Jones right before the season started because Jones was the first body available. And yes, he failed on the Reitsma trade. If one thinks Bowden did a poor job getting pitching, I can't see how one can complement O'Brien.
Basically, none of DanO's moves provided more than a 1/2 season bandaid.
And then out of desparation, he moved up some guys from AAA, like Hudson and Claussen, and had mixed results.

We have less pitching talent in the organization than when DanO arrived, IMO.
And that's saying a lot. I say this because Wagner, Claussen and Acevado's stock have fallen, and Reitsma/Wilson aren't Reds anymore.

Getting Hancock and Bailey does not offset that.

[westofyou]

A good GM would've cut him before the season even started

And a good one would have never given him that players option at 2.4.

Before any contract dump (as in eating it) the call only begins at the GM desk.

[GAC]

Anyone can cut bad players like Haynes. That doesn't take genius. A good GM would've cut him before the season even started, instead of waiting for pressure from the fans and media.

DanO did nothing in the offseason to even attempt to improve the bullpen.
He grabbed Jones right before the season started because Jones was the first body available. And yes, he failed on the Reitsma trade. If one thinks Bowden did a poor job getting pitching, I can't see how one can complement O'Brien.
Basically, none of DanO's moves provided more than a 1/2 season bandaid.
And then out of desparation, he moved up some guys from AAA, like Hudson and Claussen, and had mixed results.

We have less pitching talent in the organization than when DanO arrived, IMO.
And that's saying a lot. I say this because Wagner, Claussen and Acevado's stock have fallen, and Reitsma/Wilson aren't Reds anymore.

Getting Hancock and Bailey does not offset that.

The guy came into the job in December, and had approximately 3-4 months to sit down and evaluate the entire situation/dilemna that this organiation was in RR. You give no "grace period" at all to a guy who is new to the job, and knows absolutely zip about our farm system, what is there, the progress of many young players, let alone being familair with those on the major league roster. So yeah, he didn't do a huge shakeup of this BP because he really didn't know what he had...except unprovens.

And with the exception of Reitsma, it wasn't DanO who dismantled this BP the year before in the 2nd half (even though I agreed with some of the decisions/trades they made.... Sully, Williamson, White (whom DanO got back at a much discounted rate).

But I have also stated over and over that going into '05, the BP is gonna be DanO's biggest challenge IMO. He has to address this issue. Give the guy a chance to do his job, and a fair amount of time in order to accomplish it. That is all I am saying.

You say "If one thinks Bowden did a poor job getting pitching, I can't see how one can complement O'Brien."

Unfair comparison IMO. How many years was Bowden in the job compared to DanO? That is my whole point.

And is the "bean counter" Allen more to blame, who sets the perameters that DanO must work within?

[Spring~Fields]

The guy came into the job in December, and had approximately 3-4 months to sit down and evaluate the entire situation/dilemna that this organiation was in RR. You give him no "grace period" at all to a guy who is new to the job, and knows absolutely zip about our farm system, what is there, the progress of many young players, let alone being familair with those on the major league roster. So yeah, he didn't do a huge shakeup of this BP because he really didn't know what he had...except unprovens.

In that case since you are saying that the man was unprepared for the job, then Allen should interviewed Redszoners who do know the team. What's the difference, they would still have to jump through the purse masters hoops.

[Aronchis]

The guy came into the job in December, and had approximately 3-4 months to sit down and evaluate the entire situation/dilemna that this organiation was in RR. You give him no "grace period" at all to a guy who is new to the job, and knows absolutely zip about our farm system, what is there, the progress of many young players, let alone being familair with those on the major league roster. So yeah, he didn't do a huge shakeup of this BP because he really didn't know what he had...except unprovens.

And with the exception of Reitsma, it wasn't DanO who dismantled this BP the year before in the 2nd half (even though I agreed with some of the decisions/trades they made.... Sully, Williamson, White (whom DanO got back at a much discounted rate).

But I have also stated over and over that going into '05, the BP is gonna be DanO's biggest challenge IMO. He has to address this issue. Give the guy a chance to do his job, and a fair amount of time in order to accomplish it. That is all I am saying.

You say [b]"If one thinks Bowden did a poor job getting pitching, I can't see how one can complement O'Brien."

Unfair comparison IMO. How many years was Bowden in the job compared to DanO? That is my whole point.

And is the "bean counter" Allen more to blame, who sets the perameters that DanO must work within?

If you want to put it that way, you should have said: DanO just used the year to evaluate the franchise, check out some parts and pieces then move ahead for 2005. For die-hards that is always going to be tough to take.

[johngalt]

We have less pitching talent in the organization than when DanO arrived, IMO.And that's saying a lot. I say this because Wagner, Claussen and Acevado's stock have fallen, and Reitsma/Wilson aren't Reds anymore.

Since O'Brien's taken over...

Gone
Chris Reitsma
Jimmy Haynes
John Bale
Mark Watson
Charlie Manning
Scott Randall
Seth Etherton

Added
Bubba Nelson
Jung Bong
Josh Hancock
Homer Bailey
Ben Kozlowski
Gabe White
Joe Wilson
Elizardo Ramirez
Damian Moss

Can you honestly look at those two groups and say you'd rather have the first one?

And it's a little early to be writing off Wagner and Claussen after a combined two years of Major League service time.

[M2]

I can honestly look at those two groups and say it's a big wad of I don't care. Only guy in the "in" pile who does anything for me is Kozlowski. It's entirely possible Reitsma goes on to have a better career than everyone else on those two lists combined ... and Reitsma might only need another year like 2004 in order to achieve that.

[SteelSD]

Since O'Brien's taken over...

Gone
Chris Reitsma
Jimmy Haynes
John Bale
Mark Watson
Charlie Manning
Scott Randall
Seth Etherton

Added
Bubba Nelson
Jung Bong
Josh Hancock
Homer Bailey
Ben Kozlowski
Gabe White
Joe Wilson
Elizardo Ramirez
Damian Moss

Can you honestly look at those two groups and say you'd rather have the first one?

And it's a little early to be writing off Wagner and Claussen after a combined two years of Major League service time.

You did leave out Russell Branyan, who was more productive in 2004 than anyone the Reds through out at 3B. Also left out was Jason Romano who does so little for me, I hate to even mention him. And please, let's not get into the draft (where Homer Bailey resides). Please?

The single player for whom I hold out hope for from that mix is Bubba Nelson. Otherwise, it's a mess of crud.

Basically, what O'Brien has done is move a pile of crud and acquired a pile of crud. Whoopee!

[Aronchis]

You did leave out Russell Branyan, who was more productive in 2004 than anyone the Reds through out at 3B. Also left out was Jason Romano who does so little for me, I hate to even mention him. And please, let's not get into the draft (where Homer Bailey resides). Please?

The single player for whom I hold out hope for from that mix is Bubba Nelson. Otherwise, it's a mess of crud.

Basically, what O'Brien has done is move a pile of crud and acquired a pile of crud. Whoopee!

Calling "O'briens" pile crap, which was hauled in one years time is absurd. Calling outcomes is classic fan nilihilism. Cut it out.

[SteelSD]

Calling "O'briens" pile crap, which was hauled in one years time is absurd. Calling outcomes is classic fan nilihilism. Cut it out.

Then objectively debate the point.

Keep in mind that this thead was started to guage fan reaction to O'Brien's first year at the helm.

Argue away. What has Dan O'Brien done in his first year at the helm to make Reds fans feel that the team was better off in 2004 and will be better off in 2005?

And please don't say "He spent a year evaluating the franchise". Good GM's move quicker than that.

[BuckeyeRedleg]

Nothing. Zero. Zilch. Incomplete.

[Aronchis]

Then objectively debate the point.

Keep in mind that this thead was started to guage fan reaction to O'Brien's first year at the helm.

Argue away. What has Dan O'Brien done in his first year at the helm to make Reds fans feel that the team was better off in 2004 and will be better off in 2005?

And please don't say "He spent a year evaluating the franchise". Good GM's move quicker than that.

Then you should debate as well instead of calling players "crap" when you don't have a clue how they will turn out.

Listen, we all have different opinions, but we must not fall into patterns of self-rightousness because the GM didn't make your fantasy move. Every GM has a plan, whether is works out or not is the question. I contended that Dan O'brien, the new GM of the Reds was handcuffed because of money and value, both of which he had little of entering last season minus players he probably didn't want to deal(AD for example). My suspicions of DanO's rational:
1)The team wasn't going to have much value or money to make many deals so DanO used the money he had to sign "stopgap" player like Lidle and Vanderwal so he wouldn't rush the younger players.
2)Trade away pieces that had value for younger players with further Arb/FA times. Reitsma fell into this part
3)Redux for the "veterens". Casey,Wilson,Haynes,Graves,Larson ete. Bring them back, see if they can bring their value back up and possibly trade them. Haynes washed out, Casey got back on track, Wilson had a better year than 2003, Graves returned to the closer role though all to hittable, Larson washed out. Why was Branyon cut? Because they wanted to watch Larson. If they had intended to contend in 2004, no way is Branyon non-tendered, but Branyon's of the world aren't rare. In the end, nobody from the list was dealt and many different factors could be reasons why. Maybe they didn't want to trade Casey at this time? Haynes and Larson did so bad, they had to be cut. Wilson is the mystery, why wasn't he dealt? Keep grumpy fans happy? Couldn't get a good return? Keep players happy? Maybe a little bit of all. Did DanO screw up by not trading Wilson or even Casey? Possibly, hard to tell however. How they end up being used in DanO's plan will probably be evidence enough(in other words, Wilson being let go off without getting a draft pick or prospect would stink).
4)Bring up the "young players". WMP,Lopez,Claussen,Hudson ete. Players who the Reds had which couldn't quite be called "prospects" but youngsters that could have a good future up in the bigs or have been delayed by injury. WMP and Lopez fit the latter. With Larkin supposedly to "retire" and Griffey's career winding down due to injury. Both these guys were pushed to see if they could fill in the void to a degree. Lopez got used at SS and 3rd base,especially in September when Machado got called up. WMP took over for Griffey in July and didn't collapse like I thought he would in Augest. Getting their performance and AB's like the Reds did, gives DanO some good material on how they fit into this organization. In other words, if DanO is still SS prospect hunting this winter, Lopez didn't grade out well.
Pitching wise, I will focus Hudson and Claussen considering Harang and Hancock are 4/5 fillers. Both were injured in 2003, though hardly anybody figured Hudson would do as well as he did on his return. He didn't pitch alot of innings, but was fairly good and better than most expected. Claussen struggled out of the gate in AAA but rebounded by June and July. He got called up the end of July and posted some seemly poor numbers. But considering this was his first extended time in the majors and still working back from TJ surgury, he obviously flashed some of his talent which made Kullman/Maddox deal for him in the first place. Again, they gave some valuable film and data for DanO to see how they fit in this organization.

Maybe DanO was to "sleepish" he missed on some big deal that would have transformed the Reds around. However, maybe a "good" GM does exactly what DanO did and start from the inside, evaluate the products inside your system and try to move with money and value you got, the best you can. It lead to a few trades and low class FA pickups in year 1. However, we got to see some younger players in extended roles for the first time with "some" success, veteren's rebound and old friends saying goodbye.

This coming offseason will undoubtly test DanO. He has more value and probably will have more money to play with. How he works it will determine how quickly we rise. So my view is pretty simple: The year most posters are saying DanO should have had last year, he will most likely have this year. I think you all were a year to quick considering what DanO had to work with and are just a bunch of bitter die-hard fans in the end. But be carefull what you wish for, you may get it

[GAC]

In that case since you are saying that the man was unprepared for the job, then Allen should interviewed Redszoners who do know the team. What's the difference, they would still have to jump through the purse masters hoops.

unprepared is not the right word. Look at his credentials while at Houston, over the course of his career. He was simply new to the job/position. How many GM positions has he held in the past?

In the private sector, if you were newly hired in a high profile management position, and the reason they brought you in was because the company was in trouble, and they wanted you to turn it around... wouldn't you first take the time and effort to first oversee and evaluate the mess you inherited...what they were doing wrong....what you have on hand...what you can change immediately to start to make an impact...and what steps you need to take that looks/builds toward the future?

Aronchis mat have worded/put it better then I did when he said.... DanO just used the year to evaluate the franchise, check out some parts and pieces then move ahead for 2005. For die-hards that is always going to be tough to take.

And the die-hards are gonna have to show some sort of pateince with DanO. I don't think he is getting a fair shake from alot of fans, for the short time he has been in the job.

Shouldn't more of the blame be put on Allen then DanO?

[Steve4192]

In the private sector, if you were newly hired in a high profile management position, and the reason they brought you in was because the company was in trouble, and they wanted you to turn it around... wouldn't you first take the time and effort to first oversee and evaluate the mess you inherited

Absolutely.

However, it usually takes a few weeks or a month to wrap your head around a new job, not a year. Baseball ain't brain surgery, and the Reds are certainly not an extremely complex organization. I'd venture to say that a brand manager at P&G has to deal with more complexity than baseball GM. If a brand manager took a YEAR to 'evaluate' without actually doing anything, he'd find himself looking for work before he had fully 'evaluated' the situation.

[Krusty]

Excellent post Archonis. I couldn't have said it any better.