Sunday Links

by JD Arney on Jul 23, 2006 6:06 AM EDT in News

Reds bloggers write alot. And I can't believe there are even 29 Reds blogs in existence, it wasn't that long ago when it was just me and Shawn.
Awesome. And disturbing, yet oddly satisfying.
Kent Mercker is headed to the DL, and Brian Shackelford will be rejoining the club. I shudder to think of things he's probably going to hear now from opposing fans.
I'm also tired of Griffey hitting it at defenses, so I guess that makes two of us.
Just in case you ever wondered about the Web Gem process.
The Braves still think the NL East runs through them, and I'm not sure that's so crazy. They've been down 10 games before in August and come back (1993). I'm not going to believe in the Mets until the Braves are eliminated, because I've thought the Braves were done many times before and I've obviously been burned each and every time.
Yeah, I would have Scott Williamson for the rest of the year, especially at the price of two mediocre A-ball pitchers. But I guess our bullpen is all fixed or something.
It just never ends with Jose Canseco.
The Brewers might trade Carlos Lee if things continue heading south for them. Just trade him out of the division guys.

Tweet Comment 19 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

bullpen

I don't want to beat a dead horse, but I'm with you, J.D.

Guardado for Chick.
Wickman for a A-ball catcher that's not a great prospect.
Williamson for a couple of A-ball pitchers that will probably flame out before they hit the majors.

I said after the Kearns/Lopez deal that there would relievers dealt for much, much less than what Krivsky paid. People mocked then, and they continue to defend the deal now. But the fact is, the Reds could have fixed their bullpen for much less than what they paid.

This has nothing to do with Majewski and Bray. Bray's been great. Just saying, the Reds could have kept their lineup intact and still fixed the bullpen for a good run at it this year. If you wanna argue that, you're ignoring the facts of the Wickman/Williamson trades.

by greg456 on Jul 23, 2006 9:36 AM EDT reply actions

We also write

a lot. ;-)

And before you and me, it was just me. That's why I got the most descriptive name.

Rootin' the Reds home.

by sweaver on Jul 23, 2006 9:38 AM EDT reply actions

Williamson

Do you think that a) the Cubs would trade him to another central team, and b) the Reds should give up two pitching prospects?

What's good for the Padres isn't necessarily good for the Reds.

"Players have two things to do. Play and keep their mouths shut." -Sparky Anderson

by boohiss on Jul 23, 2006 11:29 AM EDT reply actions

It's all relative

Wickman is 37 years old, on a one year deal, has a 4.18 era and is making 5 million. You're only getting half a year from him.

Williamson is 30, has a 5.08 era, and makes 2 million. That era is a little scary, but passes for OK these days.

Bray is 23 years old, make minimum salary, has options, will be around for a while. His ERA is 3.54.

Majewski is 26, makes $352,000, and will be around for a while.

Kearns and Lopez were among the lowest starters on the team in win shares - cincinnati fans had on one big pair of beeer goggles with Kearns.

I'd say, given the market and relative worth of what we have up, that Krivsky made one hell of a deal.

by Billingsfan on Jul 23, 2006 11:29 AM EDT reply actions

Wickman

Using ERA to compare relievers is a little deceptive. One or two bad outings can inflate an ERA so that a reliever looks like he gives up a run every other inning when actually he just got rocked one time out, which is kinda what happened to Wickman. I posted this somewhere else earlier, but Wickman didn't allow a run in 80% of his outings so far this seasons, Bray 77% and Majewski in 68%. So even though he has a higher ERA, he's been at least as effective.

This is all theoretical from the Reds perspective in terms of whether or not he would have been a better option. As is stated below, he did have 10-5 rights so he may have declined a trade anyway. So, of course that changes his value a bit, but there is a huge difference between a single-A catcher and the amount Reds gave up (even if the Reds did get more in return).

by Slyde on Jul 23, 2006 12:01 PM EDT up reply actions

Reliver ERA

A rocky outing has little more impact on a relievers ERA than a starter's - it's not a factor of number of starts, but of cumulative innings. True, a rocky one inning outing early in the season can produce a ghastly number, but as the season wears on and innings accumulate, ERA becomes a meaningful stat. I submit that the ERS'a of Wickman, Williamson, Bray and Majewski are indicative of their pitching ability.

by Billingsfan on Jul 23, 2006 6:55 PM EDT up reply actions

One clarification too

Kearns and Lopez were low on the Reds in Win Shares Percentage - a rate stat based on their playing time - not Win Shares. They were both tied for 5th in Win Shares. It's a minor point, but I just wanted to clarify it.

by Slyde on Jul 23, 2006 12:07 PM EDT up reply actions

Playing time

I seem to recall that Kearns and Lopez sat out hrdly a game, so that the Winshare number is significant.

by Billingsfan on Jul 23, 2006 6:52 PM EDT up reply actions

My point

was that it wasn't Win Shares, but WSP, that's all.

by Slyde on Jul 23, 2006 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions

Win Shares

I looked at Hardball Times and found that Kearns and Lopez are eleventh and twelfth among non-pitching Reds regulars in winshare percentage, Kearns at .588, Lopez at .538.

by Billingsfan on Jul 23, 2006 7:02 PM EDT up reply actions

Win Shares

Total Win shares, non pitchers through 7/10
Dunn 13
Phillips 10
Hatteberg 10
Kearns 9
Lopez 9
Freel 9
Ross 8
Encarnacion 7
Griffey 7
Aurilia 6
Larue 2
Valentin 1

by Red Menace on Jul 23, 2006 9:41 PM EDT up reply actions

Where's Q-Crapp?

I bet if you added him and McWisen together, you still wouldn't get anything that actually registered.

Don't mind me...just pitching to contact, that's all...

by Paul Householder on Jul 23, 2006 9:46 PM EDT up reply actions

Q

McCracken comes in at (drum roll please)... 0.

by Red Menace on Jul 23, 2006 9:48 PM EDT up reply actions

WSP

Win share percentage is greatly affected by playing time. The top Red position player is Denorfia followed by Olmedo, Ross, Womack(!) and Cody Ross. I cheerfully submit it's not the best tool for this job.

by Red Menace on Jul 23, 2006 9:47 PM EDT up reply actions

Win Shares

I dont like either. It's difficult to use a stat to use evaluate players when I have little to no clue on what the heck it means. Yeah its called "win shares" so you'd think it means how many wins they have contributed but its a pretty complex formula. I couldn't calculate it for the life of me. Such a simple name, yet so hard to understand.

by Stevo154 on Jul 23, 2006 10:31 PM EDT up reply actions

Wickman

I was disappointed that the Reds couldn't snag Wickman, but Wickman was able to veto trades and what not, being a 10-5 player.

I think he even said that he would stay in Cleveland or go to Atlanta and that's it.

How can you guys say that the Reds could've made either of these trades?

"Players have two things to do. Play and keep their mouths shut." -Sparky Anderson

by boohiss on Jul 23, 2006 11:32 AM EDT reply actions

huh?

"Time will tell whether he was right or wrong. More than one week's time."

Aren't you the same guy who was defending the trade by posting Kearns' and Lopez's ugly stats with the Nationals after one week?

by greg456 on Jul 23, 2006 1:07 PM EDT up reply actions

your inane logic

I ripped the deal from the moment it happened because Krivsky overpaid. I have not and will not use the performance of Majewski as a reason for my opposition.

I am not using one week's worth of stats to make a point. You are. Don't confuse the two.

Pal

by greg456 on Jul 23, 2006 1:35 PM EDT up reply actions