I actually agree with O Brien's no trade policy, give him a break!

by GOCARDSGO32 on Jul 31, 2005 5:37 PM EDT Comment 27 comments

There's no reason why we should be in a hurry to ship anyone at the trade deadline and get a bunch of players that aren't expected to be anything. Bottom line is, you want pitching you trade sure fire players with low contracts or build them up yourself. In the Reds case we just gotta build them up. Trading Mercker, Weathers, Aurilia, LaRue, or any other veteran role players I'm sorry ... isn't going to get us much at all. At least in Mercker and Weathers case we need a couple of solid veteran relievers to teach these young guys the ropes in the bullpen. They've been former starters, then put in the bullpen and solid relievers for YEARS. This two catcher getting hot thing doesn't mean we need to shop one immediately. Since when have we had one, let alone TWO decent catchers playing this hot?

The reason why there were no deals made this year is basically ... the philosophy that we don't absolutely NEED to drop salary. Frankly I think with these players, especially with the pitchers playing decent as of late, we have a damn good chance to win. We don't need to trade Griffey ... I mean he's showing when healthy he's awesome, and believe me I think he will get BETTER next year as he had a slow start from injury this year, and could benifit from some batting mechanic changes.

No reason to hurry and make stupid mistakes with this team and set us back another few years. We're not going to get any sure fire prospects with ANYONE on the team much less an Aurilia or Weathers. Be patient and don't expect the world.

0 recs | Comment 27 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Aurilia

You do realize Aurilia is a free agent at the end of the year right? Even an A ball prospect would be better than nothing

We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. --Oscar Wilde

by JD Arney on Jul 31, 2005 5:47 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Aurillia

Some one will want him for the stretch run and he will clear waivers so there might be hope. I'm all about not doing anything major until the off season. If this team gets some average major league pitching it will win the division in 2006. I keep saying it, this is like 1969 all over again. Stupid war and everything

"Baseball is a simple game. You throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball." ~Manager Joe "Skip" Riggins, Durham Bulls

by Caleb on Jul 31, 2005 5:53 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, sorta...

Maybe, maybe, this team could make the playoffs next year, but to suggest that it's the second coming of the Big Red Machine (a la 1970) is pretty optimistic...

by bobestes on Jul 31, 2005 5:56 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Offense

I think you're right, but the 2005 Reds offense can't be that much worse than the BRM's.

We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. --Oscar Wilde

by JD Arney on Jul 31, 2005 6:13 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

75-76

In those two seasons the Reds averaged 5.2 runs per game. The biggest difference, I think, was they way they scored. The old Reds did a good job of winning games without the HR. This club struggles in games when they do not homer

"Baseball is a simple game. You throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball." ~Manager Joe "Skip" Riggins, Durham Bulls

by Caleb on Jul 31, 2005 6:21 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Maybe

"This club struggles in games when they do not homer"

I think that's more a reflection of the pitching situation than it is of the offense. If our pitching was halfway decent we wouldn't have to score 6 or 7 runs every game to score.

by Pete on Jul 31, 2005 7:44 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uh...

"win" should be the last word, not "score"

by Pete on Jul 31, 2005 7:45 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

hr hitting

It is more about timely hitting. Of course the pitching stinks but in games when the Reds homer they are 33-22. In games they don't they are 14-36. They need to get more consistent and score some runs other than off of Home Runs. Look at today's game. All of the runs scored via the long ball.

"Baseball is a simple game. You throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball." ~Manager Joe "Skip" Riggins, Durham Bulls

by Caleb on Jul 31, 2005 10:03 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cardinals

I somehow missed a couple of games. But the cards record when they hit a HR is 50-18 while when they don't they are 17-19.

I think its clear that with better pitching I our record would be much better. I mean if the Cards can't be over .500 without a HR do you really think a more efficient offense from the Reds would?

by Pinski on Jul 31, 2005 11:00 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

w/o hr

Pitching is the key without question. But the Reds would be in a much better place in the standings if they were only 2 games under .500 without a hr like the Cards. They just need to improve on the ability to score with out the long ball.

"Baseball is a simple game. You throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball." ~Manager Joe "Skip" Riggins, Durham Bulls

by Caleb on Aug 1, 2005 8:46 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Caleb

I believe you are being real picky here. The main reason the Cardinals are only 2 games under .500 without a home run is because of the pitching.

I think I stated this in another thread, so I apologize for repeating myself, but the Reds are 21-5 when the pitching gives up 3 runs or less. You wanna know the Cardinals record in the same type of games? 46-10. Their pitching staff has given up less than 4 runs 30 more times than the Reds. In turn, the Reds have given up 5 or more runs 61 times this season compared to just 38 times for the Cardinals.

If you took that difference of 23 games and moved them to the less than 4 run category, the Reds would be approximately 10 games over .500.

I would love for the offense to be able score in a larger variety of ways, but we're probably not talking about a difference maker for the season. Scoring more in games when they don't homer might buy them 5 games at the most. But until the pitching is fixed, it won't matter how good the offense is.

--
Reds (and Blues)

by Slyde on Aug 1, 2005 9:07 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

For the era

the 75-76 reds were very much a power ballclub. Yes, they had speed too, at certain positions. But honestly, the 75-76 reds are still great without even a single steal, but they absolutely stink without a single homer.

by TheDude on Jul 31, 2005 9:04 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

lol

yep that is me and The Reds. But seriously, look at the pitching woes. If it was average we would be right there chasing the Cards

"Baseball is a simple game. You throw the ball, you hit the ball, you catch the ball." ~Manager Joe "Skip" Riggins, Durham Bulls

by Caleb on Jul 31, 2005 6:12 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Uh ...

'Something better than nothing' is a bad philosophy. So you are fine with getting a Single A 7.80 ERA player for Aurilia? It does more harm than good. I mean why waste our time with crappy players, as in the case with guys like Allan Simpson and Joe Valentine. They are something, but I definately wouldn't classify them as better than nothing. If we get someone who doesn't hurt the team then I say yeah, make the trade .. but really what are you going to get with an Aurilia? I rather let the system work itself out and give players who may have some promise a chance rather than bringing in a crappy player to waste time on. Hell even bring in a veteran solid Triple A player to help the Bats get up over .500, even if that player is not going to have a career in the majors.

by GOCARDSGO32 on Jul 31, 2005 6:16 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Simpson and Valentine

Both Simpson and Valentine have some upside. Look at their K rates. I'd love to get something comparable for Rich Aurilia.

We are all in the gutter, but some of us are looking at the stars. --Oscar Wilde

by JD Arney on Jul 31, 2005 6:18 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

K rates don't matter

When you have a 6 or 7 plus ERA. Why settle for crap?

by GOCARDSGO32 on Jul 31, 2005 6:20 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

K rate

It's true that your strikeout rate doesn't matter when you have an ERA of 6, but K/9 is the best indicator of future pitching success. I'll take a young Valentine or Ryan Wagner (pre-DL) anyday.

by Pete on Jul 31, 2005 7:37 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Potential

Aurilia has the potential to do what next year? Nothing.
Getting a A ball guy with a 7.8 ERA? Potential=something.

Go look at Santana's A ball stats.
http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/johan_santana.shtml

You can't tell me that trading Aurilia for a guy like that who is totally unheralded but the scouting sees something that he can't become a god.

I mean you do understand the concept of potential or slight changes in a pitchers mechanics (or teaching them a change-up), right?

by Pinski on Jul 31, 2005 6:38 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Greinke

I thought Greinke was an up and coming #1 starter...

just checked his record and he's 3-13 with a 6.14 ERA.

Guess he's not the guy we'd want to trade Wily Mo for...

by bobestes on Jul 31, 2005 7:02 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Greinke

He turns 22 in October.

His combined minor league numbers were 16-5, 2.15 ERA, 7.20 K/9, 0.99 WHIP.

In any other organization he'd be developing in triple-A, but KC is notorious for rushing pitchers to the majors.

--
Reds (and Blues)

by Slyde on Jul 31, 2005 7:11 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Greinke

Based on what i've read, everyone from statheads to scouts thinks he's going to be good.

I would pull the trigger on a Greinke for WMP trade.

by Pete on Jul 31, 2005 7:40 PM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

Uggg

Get him out. If these reports are even slightly credible then he needs to go now.

The Reds, on the other hand, sent mixed signals in all directions -- and aggravated more teams than anyone else in baseball.

"I don't understand what they were doing," said an executive of one contender. "I thought we made real solid offers for a couple of their guys, and we'd never get a response. They'd never give you names of guys they want. They wouldn't tell you what they were trying to do. You were never sure who they wanted. You could never tell whether guys you were talking about were available. And they might not even call back."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2121261&num=2

by Pinski on Jul 31, 2005 11:17 PM EDT reply actions 0 recs

Yes, but...

One GM's "credible offer" is another GM's Brandon Backe for Adam Dunn.

I'd be more willing to have an opinion if people would point to specific offers that were rejected by DanO.

If he rejected any credible offer for the Bad Man, then he is a witch, so we should burn him.

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

by Paul Householder on Aug 1, 2005 10:39 AM EDT up reply actions 0 recs

We've found ourselves a witch!

Let's examine how Paul came to his conclusion...

CROWD: A witch! A witch! A witch! We've got a witch! A witch!
VILLAGER #1: We have found a witch, might we burn him?
CROWD: Burn him! Burn!
Paul Householder: How do you know he is a witch?
VILLAGER #2: He looks like one.
Paul Householder: Bring him forward.
DanO: I'm not a witch. I'm not a witch.
Paul Householder: But you are dressed as one.
DanO: They dressed me up like this.
CROWD: No, we didn't -- no.
DanO: And this isn't my nose, it's a false one.
Paul Householder: Well?
VILLAGER #1: Well, we did do the nose.
Paul Householder: The nose?
VILLAGER #1: And the hat -- but he is a witch!
CROWD: Burn him! Witch! Witch! Burn him!
Paul Householder: Did you dress him up like this?
CROWD: No, no... no ... yes. Yes, a bit, a bit.
VILLAGER #1: He has got a wart.
Paul Householder: What makes you think he is a witch?
VILLAGER #3: Well, he turned me into a newt.
Paul Householder: A newt?
VILLAGER #3: I got better.
VILLAGER #2: Burn him anyway!
CROWD: Burn! Burn him!
Paul Householder: Quiet, quiet. Quiet! Thime are ways of telling whethim
he is a witch.
CROWD: Are thime? What are they? Do they hurt?
Paul Householder: Tell me, what do you do with witches?
VILLAGER #2: Burn!
CROWD: Burn, burn them up!
Paul Householder: And what do you burn apart from witches?
VILLAGER #1: More witches!
VILLAGER #2: Wood!
Paul Householder: So, why do witches burn?
[pause]
VILLAGER #3: B--... 'cause they're made of wood...?
Paul Householder: Good!
CROWD: Oh yeah, yeah...
Paul Householder: So, how do we tell whethim he, is made, of wood?
VILLAGER #1: Build a bridge out of him.
Paul Householder: Aah, but can you not also build bridges out of stone?
VILLAGER #2: Oh, yeah.
Paul Householder: Does wood sink in water?
VILLAGER #1: No, no.
VILLAGER #2: It floats! It floats!
VILLAGER #1: Throw him into the pond!
CROWD: The pond!
Paul Householder: What also floats in water?
VILLAGER #1: Bread!
VILLAGER #2: Apples!
VILLAGER #3: Very small rocks!
VILLAGER #1: Cider!
VILLAGER #2: Great gravy!
VILLAGER #1: Chimries!
VILLAGER #2: Mud!
VILLAGER #3: Churches -- churches!
VILLAGER #2: Lead -- lead!
ARTHUR: A duck.
CROWD: Oooh.
Paul Householder: Exactly! So, logically...,
VILLAGER #1: If... he.. weighs the same as a duck, he's made of
wood.
Paul Householder: And thimefore--?
VILLAGER #1: A witch!
CROWD: A witch! A duck! A duck!
Paul Householder: We shall use my largest scales!
[yelling]
Paul Householder: Right, remove the supports!
[whop]
[The scale seals DanO's fate.]
CROWD: A witch! A witch!
DanO: It's a fair cop.
CROWD: Burn him! Burn!