Well, all analysis and jokes and (extremely enjoyable) lyrics aside, I am certainly down today. I belong to the "I love baseball because it's NEVER over until it's over" so I am not consigning this to the over column yet. But...you know. It's thisclose.
God darn it Reds. You're who I love the most and so you just keep hurting me the worst. I knew the chances were slim all year. Logically speaking, they were as slim on Farney Day last month as they were on any of the hundred thousand days the bullpen blew it in a way. But they teased this year more than they have in a long time, and that makes it more wonderful, and more hurtful.
Forget about postseason for a minute (and maybe forever). I have one request for the Reds now. I agree with those above who say that this team has not lacked for effort and heart. The whole reason we were teased this year was because they have given us more than a few moments of more than unbelievable greatness. I mean that. So, while I know that those moments can't happen on command, it would kill me if this team gave up now. i want to see them PLAY BASEBALL these last few weeks, enjoy it, be a team, be THE team that we've seen glimpses of all year long. All told, this is a group of very agreeable, very fun, very...pretty talented guys. I want them to finish on the best side of things that they can. They have been a downright laughingstock for a long time. If they totally fall apart now, that won't change; the whole first part of the season will be regarded as an accident. If they play like they have at their best moments, they will go into the offseason with some dignity.
That would be nice. After these last five years, that would be very nice.
There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.
“And when finally they sense that some position cannot be sustained, they do not re-examine their ideas. Instead, they simply change the subject.” Jamie Galbraith
I dunno...I feel like this year was different. There's a difference between chasing the top and knocking somebody else down. Is that what you mean by spoilers? I feel like the Reds knocking out the Cubs in 2004, for example, is remembered only in relation to the Cubs, not to the Reds.
And although I can't really get into it yet, I do certainly intend at some boring point in the offseason to bring up the question of whether the idea of chasing the top is what brought them down. On the mental side, anyway.
There is no such thing as a pitching prospect.
While there may be substantial similarities in their biographies, I am not sold that Krivsky is going to lead the Reds to respectability in the way Marvin has.
I don't have time to address all the points, but here's one biggie for me:
Lewis' early "unpopular" personnel moves were basically out of his hands. Spikes refused to come back even when offered a big contract and told he would be the cornerstone of the defense. Dillon made it clear he wanted out. So Marvin went out, and despite his weak negotiating position got good value.
Contrast to Krivsky. He had two assets of reasonable value, likely desirable by a number of franchises. It was three weeks before the trade deadline. He was bargaining from a position of strength, and made an absolutely pathetic trade, an unmitigated disaster so lopsided that nearly every category of baseball fan not tied to the Reds--scouts, sabermetricians, etc.--were basically pointing and laughing.
I think Marvin Lewis, for his occasional faults, is a master negotiator and a shrewd businessman. I look at Wayne Krivsky and I don't see that at all.
Granted, he's had less than a year, so it's too early to make a definitive call. However, I will say that my confidence has never flagged in Lewis' plan. I have no confidence in Krivsky whatsoever.
You would certainly have to come up with more than an exaggeration of the opinions regarding one trade, from the same pundits that picked the Reds dead last, worse than the Pirates, at the beginning of the year, to build a case of the future with Krivsky. There was a similar uneasiness in Bengaldom after the seeming collapse at the end of '03 and the future with Marvin. Your post takes advantage of 2 plus more years of data with Marvin as well. Right now, I'd say your reasons appear to be more subjective, "gut" feels examined at a crossroads in the future of the franchise under Krivsky's leadership than any objective analysis.
Ok, so what I'm hearing when I read this is, "beacause of "the trade" I have no confidence whatsoever in Krivsky and basically he'll not really be able to do anything to earn back that trust." The natural extention is, "we have to get rid of Krivsky because unless he wins the world series next year I don't think I'll ever let go of that trade. Even then, it will be iffy".
That's just what I am hearing, and in all fairness projecting on to you dsmith. I'm not saying that's exactly how you think, but rather my interpretation.
And how is yours any different?
You've pointed out similarities in backgrounds, but at heart, your point is "they both have a plan." How do you know?
And if it is a gut reaction personal to me, who are you to tell me that I was feeling uneasy with the Bengals situation post-2003?
Krivsky did two things this year that qualify as "big" for me.* One was getting Arroyo for Pena. That worked out well. The other was "that" trade. You have to really have faith in a guy to believe that trade will come good, in my opinion. I'm not big on having faith in people I don't "know". I don't "know" Krivsky yet, and so I'm not inclined to give him the benefit of the doubt on something that seemed stupid at the time and seems even stupider now.
(*i.e., indicating the guy's strengths as a GM. I'm not considering Hatteberg or Phillips or Ross any more than I'm considering Mays, Yan, Johnson, etc.)
Where have I stated that I want Krivsky fired if we don't win the World Series next year? That's a laughable and disingenuous interpretation of my previous post. It's a strawman argument. I am fully aware that turning around a losing MLB franchise is like turning around an ocean liner--it takes a long time and it takes a lot of effort.
However, you're implying I'm not allowed to have an interlocutory or tentative (a word I actually used above) opinion about the things I've seen SO FAR. I reject that contention.
Personally, I think this year's Reds team is far, far worse than their record. I am not enamored with what I've seen of Krivsky's organizational strategy, nor his tactial nous in the negotiation game. This could very well change with shrewd moves in the offseason. I reserve my right to change my opinion.
Ok...that's a very reasonable approach.
I wasn't saying that's what you were thinking (Kriv needs to be fired if he doesn't win the WS next year), I was saying that's what I heard when you posted about not trusting him, having faith, etc. As I said in my original post, I was projecting that on you and fully admitted it.
You have to put more consideration into Phillips, Ross, Hatteberg than Yan and Johnson. Johnson hasn't done a thing with the Reds and was just brought in as depth while Yan was a mop-up man. It's not like they were brought in as the ace starter and the closer. I'll give you Joe Mays, but it's silly to give the Phillips and Johnson moves equal weighting.
I guess since you've said it twice, I must now correct your "summarization" of my comparison. If all you took from the post was "similarities in backgrounds," any further discussion is unlikely to get us very far, especially since you've reduced your disagreement to "this is my opinion based on very limited data, with greater weight attached to one particular piece of data than anything else that has went on, and I reserve the right to change that opinion (perhaps when you are examining in hindsight?)." A good start would be to address the actual content of my post, which should give you more than one item to address beyond "similarities in backgrounds."
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. |