Brandon Claussen DFA

[dsmith421]

That analogy is very subtle, but I'm going to guess that the "dog crap" is AL All-Star starting pitcher, Joe Mays, who should not have been given a chance based on six starts (even though pretty much any pitcher ever has looked bad over a six-start period).

2005 in KC: 6-10, 5.65 ERA, 1.564 WHIP
2006 in KC: 0-4, 10.27ERA, 2.197 WHIP.

Since missing 2004, the guy had been abject and total garbage. He's the pitching equivalent of dog crap.

Low risk moves are fine, I guess, if there's any chance of reward. Joe Mays had shown no reason to believe he could get anyone out at the major league level since returning from injury.

I could care less what the guy did in the first half of the 2001 season. That kind of attitude is what netted us the roster full of geriatric batting tees that made last spring so delightful.

[BRM]

2005 in KC: 6-10, 5.65 ERA, 1.564 WHIP
2006 in KC: 0-4, 10.27ERA, 2.197 WHIP.

Since missing 2004, the guy had been abject and total garbage. He's the pitching equivalent of dog crap.

You're being very kind. He was garbage in 2002 and 2003 as well.

[Dracodave]

Whats the point?

[camisadelgolf]

You keep using Mays' previous few years as the only evidence needed to say that he was going to do poorly. What about Schoeneweis? He allowed one run over 16 games with the Reds, and what did he do prior to that? You'd probably call it "dog crap".

When Krivsky signed Mays, I don't think anyone ever said the Reds were getting a guy who would put up Cy Young-type numbers. It was just an attempt to fill a hole that desperately needed filling, and the options he had at that time were players like:
Chris Michalak
Justin Germano
Jason Standridge
Brian Shackelford
Mike Burns
Mike Gosling
Ryan Wagner
Jake Robbins

I mean, what are you supposed to do when those are your alternatives to Dave Williams, Rick White, and Chris Hammond? I'm just trying to say that, given the situation, Mays deserved a shot. Granted, the way he pitched, he didn't deserve 27 innings, but he deserved a shot, nonetheless.

[TRF]

You keep using Mays' previous few years as the only evidence needed to say that he was going to do poorly. What about Schoeneweis? He allowed one run over 16 games with the Reds, and what did he do prior to that? You'd probably call it "dog crap".

When Krivsky signed Mays, I don't think anyone ever said the Reds were getting a guy who would put up Cy Young-type numbers. It was just an attempt to fill a hole that desperately needed filling, and the options he had at that time were players like:
Chris Michalak
Justin Germano
Jason Standridge
Brian Shackelford
Mike Burns
Mike Gosling
Ryan Wagner
Jake Robbins

I mean, what are you supposed to do when those are your alternatives to Dave Williams, Rick White, and Chris Hammond? I'm just trying to say that, given the situation, Mays deserved a shot. Granted, the way he pitched, he didn't deserve 27 innings, but he deserved a shot, nonetheless.

Of the guys you listed only 2 were starters, and I'd have taken Germano over Mays 10 times out of 10.

[dsmith421]

When Krivsky signed Mays, I don't think anyone ever said the Reds were getting a guy who would put up Cy Young-type numbers. It was just an attempt to fill a hole that desperately needed filling, and the options he had at that time were players like

Justin Germano

There you go. At least if he goes out and stinks up the joint, you have learned something about a player in your organization. Every other pitcher you named (AFAI remember) is a reliever and is thus irrelevant.

No need to go dumpster diving in Kansas City.

[And no, Schoeneweis' 14 good innings in CIncinnati do not make him a good pitcher. It made him a lucky one for two weeks. Mays' 27 inning disaster was exactly in line with his production in '04 and '05; therefore, it was eminently foreseeable.]

[camisadelgolf]

dsmith421, what were you for Halloween this year? Failure-to-See-the-Point Man? I never said Schoeneweis was good. In fact, I tried to imply the opposite. I was just saying that Krivsky was hoping for more "luck" from Mays and that his odds were about as good as anyone else's available at the time. Germano may have seemed like a better option to some, but 1.) he had twice as many innings as strikeouts, 2.) it would have added to his service time, 3.) he probably would've been knocked around just as much, and 4.) Mays, although only a limited amount, had a history of MLB success (and in 2006, had more minor league success, too, for whatever that's worth).

[TRF]

dsmith421, what were you for Halloween this year? Failure-to-See-the-Point Man? I never said Schoeneweis was good. In fact, I tried to imply the opposite. I was just saying that Krivsky was hoping for more "luck" from Mays and that his odds were about as good as anyone else's available at the time. Germano may have seemed like a better option to some, but 1.) he had twice as many innings as strikeouts, 2.) it would have added to his service time, 3.) he probably would've been knocked around just as much, and 4.) Mays, although only a limited amount, had a history of MLB success (and in 2006, had more minor league success, too, for whatever that's worth).

1. no, he didn't. this year 8 K's 6.2 ip. Did you mean for his career? 24 K's, 28 ip. Not much of a book on him at the major league level.
2. So?
3. You actually don't know that. And his one start was better than ANY of Mays starts in two leagues in 2006.
4. His success was in 2001. He's had one good year since 1999. Jimmy Haynes had a better resume.

As for Schoeweis, his three year splits indicate that as a reliever he wasn't awful. He dominated LH hitters. As a situational Lefty, he wasn't a bad pickup.

[dsmith421]

dsmith421, what were you for Halloween this year? Failure-to-See-the-Point Man?

That's the single worst joke of all time. Congratulations.

No, the point is that there is no reason, no reason at all for anyone to believe that Joe Mays could contribute anything to the Reds in 2006 except giving up a load of runs. You seem to think it was a gamble that surprisingly worked out poorly. I think it's like betting on the Washington Generals.

[camisadelgolf]

About Germano's K numbers, I used hyperbole. In AAA, he had a 5.15 k/9ip rate. That screams to me "hittable"--especially in MLB. But hey, maybe he's a control pitcher. Well, once you get past his career WHIP of 2.00.

But anyway, let me address the part where I said that it was surprising that the Mays trial didn't work out: [I'll have to get back to this later--I'm still looking for somewhere I've ever said I was surprised by Mays' failure.]

All I'm saying is that Mays was worth a limited chance at success. He was an All-Star in 2001. Granted, it was a long time ago, but he has never been in the National League, and when he was successful, he was still young. The thought was that facing National League hitters for the first time would be to his advantage. Obviously, it didn't work out. The Reds were desperate. If you think Germano would've been a better option, I won't disagree. If you think he would've been a much better option, I will disagree.

[TRF]

About Germano's K numbers, I used hyperbole. In AAA, he had a 5.15 k/9ip rate. That screams to me "hittable"--especially in MLB. But hey, maybe he's a control pitcher. Well, once you get past his career WHIP of 2.00.

But anyway, let me address the part where I said that it was surprising that the Mays trial didn't work out: [I'll have to get back to this later--I'm still looking for somewhere I've ever said I was surprised by Mays' failure.]

All I'm saying is that Mays was worth a limited chance at success. He was an All-Star in 2001. Granted, it was a long time ago, but he has never been in the National League, and when he was successful, he was still young. The thought was that facing National League hitters for the first time would be to his advantage. Obviously, it didn't work out. The Reds were desperate. If you think Germano would've been a better option, I won't disagree. If you think he would've been a much better option, I will disagree.

He was a much better option. He was an unknown. no real book on him. The book on Mays was 6 years old. He was a known quantity. And he was awful. You keep pointing to 2001 like it was normal production for him. It was a complete aberration on his career. BTW bringing up Germano's career MAJOR LEAGUE WHIP of 2.00 is a bit misleading. it's 28 innings of work. Mays had a 2.20 WHIP with KC. As for Germano's 5.15 K/9 did you ignore the 8.04 K/9 he put up in the PCL the year before?

Germano's only start with the Reds yielded this line:

DATE  OPP RESULT  IP H R ER HR BB SO GB FB TBF  #Pit Dec.   ERA
7/29 @Mil  L 3-6 5.2 8 4  4  1  2  8  9  3  27   96 L(0-1)  5.40

There is good and bad in those numbers. Too many hits, and too many runs. Nice GB/FB ration, good K numbers. And considering it was his first start since 1994 with SD, I'd say he warranted a second look.

What, besides 2001 has Joe Mays EVER done that warranted his signing in Cincinnati this year?

Signing Mays was not a gamble. It was sending wins into a wood chipper. Could Germano have pitched better? Well he couldn't have pitched worse, and he was already on the 40 man roster. The point is, if it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and has a 10.43 ERA, try to avoid the duck that can't pitch.

[camisadelgolf]

Those are all good points. I just don't think there was any way to know that Mays was going to do as poorly as he did. I'm not saying it's a surprise that he pitched badly. But if Schoneweis giving up only one run in his tenure with the Reds was "luck", the Reds were hoping for the same luck with Mays.

I don't think you can always rely on recent production as a good source. Schoeneweis had a 6.51 ERA at the time he was traded. Schoeneweis had mediocre-at-best production as a starter (over a three-year span, which isn't exactly a sample size). Mays was pretty much the same thing--terrible ERA and mediocre-at-best starter the past few years. And for all you know, the Reds may have thought they saw what Mays' problem was. In the Reds' eyes, maybe he wasn't following through on his delivery; maybe he wasn't happy and/or being as competitive with lowly Royals; maybe he was trying too hard to be a strikeout pitcher. We'll never know.

[Degenerate39]

.

Reds still interested in Claussen
Wednesday, Dec 13, 2006 11:13 am EST
The Cincinnati Reds designated for assignment left-handed pitcher Brandon Claussen, but that does not mean his career with the team is over.

"We told him we would like for him to come back on a minor-league contract and we remain interested in keeping him," said General Manager Wayne Krivsky.

Source: Dayton Daily News

[TRF]

Those are all good points. I just don't think there was any way to know that Mays was going to do as poorly as he did. I'm not saying it's a surprise that he pitched badly. But if Schoneweis giving up only one run in his tenure with the Reds was "luck", the Reds were hoping for the same luck with Mays.

I don't think you can always rely on recent production as a good source. Schoeneweis had a 6.51 ERA at the time he was traded. Schoeneweis had mediocre-at-best production as a starter (over a three-year span, which isn't exactly a sample size). Mays was pretty much the same thing--terrible ERA and mediocre-at-best starter the past few years. And for all you know, the Reds may have thought they saw what Mays' problem was. In the Reds' eyes, maybe he wasn't following through on his delivery; maybe he wasn't happy and/or being as competitive with lowly Royals; maybe he was trying too hard to be a strikeout pitcher. We'll never know.

no. no. no.

He's had exactly 1 season (2001) that can be considered even moderately successful, and even that one was mostly smoke and mirrors. He doesn't K guys at anywhere resembling a decent rate.

And don't compare him to Schoeneweiss. Mays was brought in as a starter. Schoeneweiss was brought in as a reliever. And as a reliever, he's been pretty good in his career post a K/9 as high as 9.35, though it usually stayed in the high 6's. Mays posted a K/9 over 6 (6.05) 1 time in his entire career. And that was 1999.

He was never a good pitcher.

[camisadelgolf]

First of all, at no point did I say "moderately successful"--I said "mediocre-at-best". I also never said his 2001 numbers were normal production for him. And I never said it was a surprise that Mays didn't work out. But if you want to keep putting words in my mouth to make it seem like you're right, I guess you can do that.

Anyway, Mays wasn't brought here as a starter. It was the bullpen that was extremely desperate. His first few appearances as a Red were as a reliever, and he posted a 1.29 ERA over seven innings pitched. Once again, it's a lot like the Schoeneweis situation. And why do I compare him to Schoeneweis? It's beacuse there is a comparison. Mays' first three years as a starter (4.37, 5.56, and 3.16 ERA, respectively) compared to Schoeneweis' first three years as a starter (5.45 ERA, 5.08 ERA, and 4.88 ERA, respectively). In fact, Mays probably looked better than Schoeneweis. And for whatever it's worth, those numbers are over the same three-year period. I bring that up because I believe it's possible for a mediocre (or even poor) starter to be a good bullpen addition, as evidenced by Schoeneweis.

In fact, I never thought putting Mays in the rotation was a good idea. But if you saw him in the bullpen, he was actually very impressive. However, when he was moved to the rotation, his sinking pitches flattened out, and I believe there was a slight decrease in velocity. As a reliever, Mays did a great job in his limited opportunity (which is exactly what the Reds and Krivsky hoped for). Whoever said to move him to the rotation (which I never condoned) is the one who made the mistake.

But you know what? If you're going to keep putting words in my mouth, then you're always right, and I'm always wrong. Mays was brought here to be a starter. Mays was nothing but bad in his time here. Oh, and you spell the ex-Angels' name 'Schoeneweiss' and 'Schoeweis'.