I love it when people complain before they see the whole picture.
I love it when people complain before they see the whole picture.
Artificial intelligence is no match for natural stupidity.
Who would you have gotten instead for $4 million?As has been said a number of times, why not take that money and go get someone who hasn't been on a big decline for two seasons?
It was Ortiz for $4 million, or Hancock for the league minimum in the rotation. I'd rather have Ortiz at $4 million.
I'm completely not one of those people who says over and over that you can't criticize the front office because you don't know that better deals were out there ... but this time I am.
I haven't seen any better deals that O'Brien has turned down. Clement wasn't an option. Hudson wasn't an option. Mulder wasn't an option. Not if you really want the Reds to be thinking long term.
Tell me, anyone, what you'd prefer the Reds have done. Who should they have signed, that's already signed somewhere else? Out of the people who've been traded in the past few weeks, who should the Reds have nabbed?
These moves make 2005 a little more interesting.
I haven't seen anyone show how they hurt 2006 or 2007.
Turning and turning in the widening gyre
The falcon cannot hear the falconer;
Not me.It was Ortiz for $4 million, or Hancock for the league minimum in the rotation. I'd rather have Ortiz at $4 million.
You know what RF....I completely understand where you're coming from, I really do. I can't argue with your logic.
Thing is, don't expect me to be all warm and funzzy inside, either. The Ramon Ortiz signing and the Joe Randa signing aren't gonna make me warm up my credit card for a future playoff ticket purchase.
We come here to discuss baseball, and analyze it. If someone tells me that Ramon Ortiz has electric stuff, and he automatically makes the Reds a playoff contender because they have a real thirdbaseman now, and the bullpen's better so that means they aren't going to blow leads anymore yeeehhhaawww...
Welp, I'm gonna have to disagree. (I'm not saying you've been one of those people, but you get my point)
If folks wanna call me a grumpdy dumps, that's cool, but I know how I feel about the Reds as an entity, and I'm always having lots of fun, win or lose, so I don't care.
"Baseball players are smarter than football players. How often do you see a baseball team penalized for too many men on the field?" ~ Jim Bouton
Targets shift. Goals shouldn't.Originally Posted by Redsfaithful
It wasn't just Ortiz's money. At a minimum it was Ortiz plus Wilson (which will cost roughly $7.5M in 2005). I figure the Reds probably could have lumped another $1M on top of that without feeling a pinch.
You take that money and you start going after the kinds of pitchers who can make a difference. What you don't do is stop that hunt and settle for rotation filler like Wilson and Ortiz. The key is having the money on hand when the opportunity presents itself. The Reds no longer have the money, making the opportunity a moot point.
I want no part of paying crummy pitchers because it's hard work to get good ones. If you have to play longshots have the good sense not to lavish millions upon them. The option that right now looks to be off the table is making a serious addition to the front of the rotation.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
I don't know Redsfaithful. Clearly I'm not a GM, and even if I pretend to be one in this minute, I don't have many (any?) answers to your questions off the top of my head. Nor do I know all the trades and signings that have been made off the top of my head.
But I would start with: Could Millwood be had for $4M? Or $5M even? What if, instead of signing Weathers and Weber, we combined their money and signed Steve Kline? What if we hadn't signed Randa, and used his money plus the $4M for Ortiz toward a better staring pitcher? Odalis Perez, maybe? In other words, what if our acquisitions were Perez, Kline and Mercker, instead of Ortiz, Weathers, Weber, Mercker and Randa?
It's not that the moves O'Brien made are inherently bad in and of themselves. Even the Randa signing, when taken alone, has its positives. It's the sum of the moves, and the sum doesn't amount to a whole lot. To me, it equals (the possibility of?) a marginally better team, especially concerning the pitching.
Overall, I would agree the team is improved this year over last year, on paper. I just don't know that it's improved enough to matter.
As for the future: Maybe none of these moves will hurt 2006 or 2007. But do any of them really help 2006 or 2007? At best, we seem to be heading for status quo in those years.
I'd like for them to sign a healthy Wade Miller and to trade Griffey for M. Hampton.
A 2005 Yankees meltdown would be nice as well :mhcky21:
Never, in any of my posts did I say that these moves made the Reds a World Series contender. But I just don't get how you could say that Joe Randa is not an improvement over Brandon Larson....Kent Mercker is not an improvement over Phil Norton...David Weathers is not an improvement over Todd Van Popple....Ben Weber (assuming he's healthy) is not an improvement over Juan Padilla.
I never said this is a championship club. I said that this team is improved over last season and I will fight that point for as long as it takes.
"Strickland Propane... Taste the meat, not the heat." - Hank Hill
For example, I would love to see the Reds get more aggressive with some early season moves, or get more involved at the trade deadline. For example, Weathers was the principle in the Hidalgo deal (I know that was a salary dump more than anything, but...).I love it when people complain before they see the whole picture.
I am right with those who wanted to deal some folks to take advantage of hot starts/first halfs by Casey, Griffey, Wilson. Not necessarily trades to get rid of guys, although a dump of Graves in that vein would be welcome anytime, but good baseball trades for both sides, or someone who might like fool's gold.
For example, take trading Kearns as has been suggested. Don't deal him now unless a deal knocks your socks off. If he comes out of the gate healthy and on fire, then go after your target and dangle him out there, then maybe you are more likely to get a quality pitcher as opposed to the hot stove league. That is an area where you can pull off a deal in the heat of the battle that you might not be able to pull off when the fire is blazing in the furnace and you still figure everyone you need to have a career year will. Not to mention injuries that create holes on clubs.
"Rounding 3rd and heading for home, good night everybody"
I never said that the moves made them a contender, I said that it makes us a better team over what we ran out there last year.
And I'm confused because I think that????
"Strickland Propane... Taste the meat, not the heat." - Hank Hill
Baby steps, MWM. Baby steps.
"Enjoy this Reds fans, you are watching a legend grow up before your very eyes" ... DoogMinAmo on Adam Dunn
I don't think most people are arguing that point. Most people here, IMO, would agree that those individual players are better than the players they replaced. Of course Mercker is better than Norton, etc.
The so-called complaing stems from a larger picture than those individual players, which is this: The overall pitching on this team last year was BAD. It was the worst the team has EVER had. Now, with the new players, it is not as bad as it was last year. But it is still not GOOD. One could argue it is still not even close to good.
Hey, Redsfan, count me as being in agreement.
Posters here seem to think that the team is capable of doing more than it can. Who's to say Kline, Miller, etc etc ad nauseum would even WANT to sign, even if you offered them MORE money?
After years of complaining fans (for good reason), the front office is finally upping the payroll a bit and trying to do it with an idea of trying to improve incrementally, rather than throw money at Hampton (who, btw would be THE WORST signing in Reds history for the $$ he is owed) or his ilk.
So I hear ya. Seems the Reds are damned if they don't and damned, now, if they do.
Lots of false choices being offered here.
For instance, is Joe Randa a better 3B option than Ryan Freel? Are the extra outs Randa gets with the glove worth the extra outs he makes at the plate? No reason to compare him to Brandon Larson.
Why compare Weathers to Van Poppel? He's replacing Todd Jones. Will he do better than Jones did last year? I wouldn't bet on that.
Weber may or may not be healthy. He'd be replacing Riedling if he is, but until we know he's ready to pitch and capable of pitching well again, it's empty speculation as to whether this helps the team.
Why would anyone be compared to Juan Padilla? The Reds will call up some journeyman next September to pitch a dozen innings, probably not well, and that's who's replacing Padilla.
Ortiz replaces Lidle, who was a bust, and doesn't profile as being any better.
Mercker does replace Norton, so the Reds have identifiably improved their primary LH reliever (assuming Mercker doesn't go all gopherball like he did a few years ago). So the Reds have improved roughly 55 IP worth of a 1,450 IP season.
Seems to me that for the Reds to do better in 2005, players already with the team will have to step up. The new acquisitions don't strike me as having a lot of impact.
Last edited by M2; 12-22-2004 at 07:09 PM.
I'm not a system player. I am a system.
:notworthy :notworthy :notworthy
That's why M2 is M2. Beautifully articulated.
Grape works as a soda. Sort of as a gum. I wonder why it doesn't work as a pie. Grape pie? There's no grape pie. - Larry David
Posting Permissions
|
Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please. |
