David Ross Signs Two Year Deal

by JD Arney on Jan 15, 2007 3:50 PM EST in News

Today the Reds signed David Ross to a two-year deal plus a club option for 2009, avoiding arbitration with the catcher.
The team also reached a minor league deal with Paul Wilson, who was also invited to major league camp.

I like this. Even if Ross falls off a cliff I think he'd make a fine backup, which I think mitigates the risk a little. His power alone makes him a solid offensive option for the position.

I'm going to assume the Reds are just being loyal to Wilson, and that's not a bad thing. Maybe he'll be able to help out of the bullpen or something, but I wouldn't count on it.

Tweet Comment 24 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Like both moves.

Ross should be at worst a platoon player against lefties and at best a catcher who can slug .500. I'll take either, and I also like club options. Those are always good.

I have no problem with giving Wilson a minor league deal. If he comes back all the way, however unlikely that may be, then he's a good candidate for the 5th spot in the rotation. Otherwise he's solid organizational depth at no cost.

by Geki on Jan 15, 2007 4:29 PM EST reply actions

Thumbs up

I like both signings as well. Ross was signed for reasonable money, and offering a minor leauge contract to Wilson is a low risk, potentially high reward move. Plus I like Wilson and I think the Reds need to stockpile more "maybe" arms in the organization. Chance are that one out of every three or four will work out and the Reds have very little pitching depth. This is basically the reason I was so confounded when Claussen was unnecessarily released last month. He has a much better chance than Wilson of contributing next year. But he did eat up a spot on the 40 man roster. Wilson will not be on any roster with a MiLB deal.

by James Quinn on Jan 16, 2007 9:30 AM EST up reply actions

Wilson

I like it, even if it is a loyalty thing. I really hope he makes it back

"Your shower shoes have fungus on them. You'll never make it to the bigs with fungus on your shower shoes." - Crash Davis

by Caleb on Jan 15, 2007 5:21 PM EST reply actions

Makes sense to me

They can take a two year chance on Ross, he has a chance to be a pretty decent player.

As far as Wilson goes: If Jose Rijo can make a comeback, so can he. I'll be rooting for him.

by KAredsfan on Jan 15, 2007 5:33 PM EST reply actions

Ross and wilson

Ross was a great move. Hopefully Ross has a great season... and this move prevents arbitration.

Wilson? Who knows? I'd love to see him make a good recovery. He could be a decent 5 pitcher... he's too young to be in our bullpen right?

In accordance to the prophecy

by crolfer on Jan 15, 2007 6:15 PM EST reply actions

are you old enough to remember

Wilson as a Red?

Ha, ha, just kidding. Sort of. What was the last year he pitched for the Reds? I liked him and am rooting for him.

Remember when Bill Pulsifer, Jason Isringhausen, and Paul Wilson were that trio in the Mets who were supposed to bring the team glory for a decade? (Of course you don't, Crolfer, you were in diapers :)

Hopefully Homer doesn't fall down that same laundry chute.

Now a MLB season ticket holder!

by Daedalus on Jan 15, 2007 10:45 PM EST up reply actions

Rossum

Fynal Cut... Get skewered

by boobs on Jan 15, 2007 6:22 PM EST reply actions

Two-year deal with an option

for a third, for a guy who had a career year (and hit .203 after the ASB) after being claimed on waivers.

Oh yeah, and he can't cleanly field a throw from the outfield.

Hmmm, that makes sense....

by cesarhernandez on Jan 15, 2007 7:29 PM EST reply actions

Ross to LaRue

Ross' 2-year $4.1 million contract (with 3rd year option) sure sounds a lot better than the 2-year $9.1 million contract O'Brien gave LaRue last winter, right?

Even though, I do agree on your last point... if there was a stat for "Most balls dropped at homeplate with a chance to tag a runner out" David Ross would have led the league, possibly set a Major League record.

by indy on Jan 16, 2007 8:35 AM EST up reply actions

Wilson

Ok, this is going to be mean, but here goes. Why does everyone like Paul Wilson? And I'm not asking why people think he'll be a decent pitcher, because I don't think anybody does. Why are people pulling for him, happy for him, glad to hear from him...?

This first struck me on the C. Trent blog. Some samples:

Glad to see Wilson in camp

Seems to be a good team player though can't help but root for a guy like that.

I am a big Paul Wilson fan... He is such a competator.

I am glad he didn't sign with houston.

Why?! I just don't understand the goodwill. He had a couple just-below average seasons in Cincy, got a foolish extension and promptly exploded, causing significant collateral damage from his Wilson-shrapnel.

I don't harbor reactionary ill-will based on his performance, but shouldn't somebody? Ok, it looks like it's up to me to even out the rhetoric and restore karma to the universe:

Paul Wilson is the biggest waste of talent in the past decade. Krivsky has risen below his usual level of incompetence. Kremchek should sow Wilson's shoulder with salt so nothing will ever again grow there. If Paul Wilson throws a pitch for the Reds the terrorists will have won. He's a big fraud who poops his pants. He's worse than Hitler. Paul Wilson should have his children taken away.

by Red Menace on Jan 15, 2007 11:44 PM EST reply actions

Was the greatest day in you life...

when Paul Wilson got his ass kicked by Kyle Farnsworth?

by indy on Jan 16, 2007 8:27 AM EST up reply actions

Hmm.

I liked his style of pitching, and don't ask me to qualify that either. I just liked watching him pitch. Do we owe him anything? Nah. But it would be nice to see someone you like get redemption.

What if your posting quality started to waiver, then you were in a freak gasoline fight accident, and had to type with a straw in your mouth? Based on your take, we'd have to cut you from the site, revoke your dental benefits, celebrate your demise and historical folly, etc., because there's no reason to like you if you aren't good? :))

Let me put it this way: You like boobs, don't you? Assuming that's a yes, and you and Slyde are on the outs, explain to me why. Better yet, put your answer in chart form so we can dissect your illogical fondness of boobs. I love boobs. Why? I don't know, I just do.

Krivsky always said life was like a box of players....

by sukr on Jan 16, 2007 10:32 AM EST up reply actions

Fourteen Points on Wilson

First of all I don't get any dental benefits, so don't even go there.

I don't dislike Wilson, I just can't understand why people like him. The last time I saw this sort of outpouring of goodwill was with Jose Rijo. I totally understood that. Now Paul Wilson. Huh?

Gasoline fire? He injured his pitching arm. It's no tragedy. That's what happens to pitchers. More specifically that's what happens to Paul Wilson. Is anyone rooting for Jimmy Haynes to come back? What about Joey Hamilton?

Usually when a player comes on board and performs badly they're torn apart (Franklin, McCracken). Nobody cares if they're good people. We don't know them personally. Even players who did a lot for the club like Kearns and Lopez are routinely trashed. So why am I the only one who has anything besides good things to say about Paul Wilson?

By the way, guess who was our fourth highest paid player last year. Paul Wilson at $3.75M. That could have come in handy.

Let's clean up your analogy. What if my posting quailty wasn't any good to begin with (haha, save it). And what if I only posted for a very brief time before my internet connection shorted out or something. Also I got paid a lot of money. And let's pretend blogging is an ultra-competitive business and I hurt the team. Would it be weird if no one said, "We don't need him to fix his internet connection. He sucked."?

by Red Menace on Jan 16, 2007 11:03 AM EST up reply actions

Personally

I am rooting for the return of Pete Harnisch.

And mega bonus points for your historical referencing headline.

See? That is why I like this place. You can learn something even if you sleep through most things like me.

"I'd walk through hell in a gasoline suit to play baseball" - Pete Rose

by Officer Dibble on Jan 16, 2007 11:15 AM EST up reply actions

Rebuttal

First, I only counted like six or seven points, but I'm not a points stickler.

Gasoline fight was a Zoolander quote I thought would be funny and only semi-fitting.

Where did I say Wilson was a good person, not a drain, etc.. I said he was enjoyable to watch, and that's enough for me. Maybe this difference that elevates you from the casual fan, but if w/l is the only reason you like dislike a player or team, jump on a bandwagon. But I know that's not the case with you.

My analogy was clean enough.But, if you were in a blogging profession as you described, I'm saying I'd be pulling for you as a fan of your blogging style to fix your connection if possible. But who's saying Wilson doesn't need to fix anything?

You avoided the boobs question, btw. That really is the key to my argument in principal. Some times people just like things, silly things, just because. How else do you explain bell bottoms?

Krivsky always said life was like a box of players....

by sukr on Jan 16, 2007 11:48 AM EST up reply actions

You want to hug it out?

Let's hug it out, bitch!
</grabs sukr in a bear hug>

So I guess both our references sailed under each other's radars. And I don't answer hypotheticals about boobs. I've always taken that position and it's served me well.

Lots of people can like Paul Wilson. That's fine. But I feel like in fairness there really should be a couple people pointing out that he sucked. Lacking that, I'm going to have to bring up the time he killed a guy then paid another guy to keep it all hush-hush.

Ok, another convoluted analogy attempt: I feel like Wilson was a guy who transferred to your high school for a few months, didn't distinguish himself in any way, just sort of got along. Then later you find out half the cheerleading team is carrying his babies and everyone's in love with him. And you're like, "That guy?"

Wow, that was bad. That's what I get for trying to make my posts relevant to crolfer's generation.

by Red Menace on Jan 16, 2007 12:30 PM EST up reply actions

I see your hug and raise you a thumb wrestle

I know what you're saying. There are players I've felt the same way about. I guess it's hard for Wilson man lovers to defend via a logical explanation why they like him to the point that his faults are not of major concern. I'll certainly give you that we've had better players at a higher value and not liked them. It's not reasonable, but neither is preferring chocolate ice cream to rocky road. Rocky road kicks chocolate's ass based solely on the extra items you get, but I can't get anyone to listen.

Childish teen movies are beneath me and I certainly would never watch them for the 20 year old chix that play HS students. You know the hot ones that wear the red cheerleader outfits. Nah.

btw, I want everyone to know that people in FL hate everyone from OH. I DID NOT DO THIS. Apparently there was a game recently that has brought every belligerent, mouth running, one-toothed, hypocritical non-native out of the glades' to talk smack about our drivers who probably happen to be old and our football teams. What the Hell is football, I'm wearing a Reds hat?
I feel better

Krivsky always said life was like a box of players....

by sukr on Jan 16, 2007 1:01 PM EST up reply actions

Being positive...

Signing Ross to a pretty reasonable deal is a step in the right direction. $2.5 million in 2008 would be pretty steep if he were merely a backup catcher, but it would be pretty much market value if he winds up hitting .250-ish with 10-15 home runs while splitting time with LLM. If he winds up duplicating 2006 (aside from the drops) or improving on it, the deal is like hitting the jackpot.

Surprising stat: As much as people bash Ross for his defense, he actually threw out 45% of opposing base-stealers in 2006. Now if he could just catch the ball and hold on to it more often, he would be great.

As for Paul Wilson, Grade A meh.

There. That was positive, wasn't it?

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

by Paul Householder on Jan 16, 2007 6:22 PM EST reply actions

THANK YOU!

by Red Menace on Jan 16, 2007 6:59 PM EST up reply actions

Y'know...

I don't dislike the Ross deal so much considering that it was pretty obvious the Reds were hitching their Catching wagon to him by dealing LaRue.

Of course, that doesn't mean I have to like what it represents...

It's just become pretty clear to me that Krivsky is a small sample size guy. He sees it short term, figures it's real, and then makes decisions based on flawed expectations. Heck, we've got evidence going as far back as the 4-year, 20 million dollar Joe Mays deal Krivsky negotiated in Minnesota after the 2001 season (a season in which Mays produced a 4.74 K/9 IP rate). After that deal was signed, the successive ERA numbers produced by Mays, along with corresponding salary were:

5.38 (2.35M)
6.30 (4.15M)
none (5.75M)
5.65 (7.25M)

Wow. Money well spent, I'd say. And a good job backloading that contract too, Wayne. That way, if the player doesn't produce you can pay him an awful lot because he's pretty much untradable. Simply understanding how solid defense protects a player with a low K rate could have prevented that but, alas, no understanding was forthcoming.

Fast-forward to present-day. To be fair, using small sample sizes as his guide, Krivsky may also be prone to making decisions to rid the team of players who don't produce short-term. Problem is that he collects players who don't project to produce short or long-term regardless; which pretty much mitigates any benefit derived from the haste he takes in ridding the team of players he shouldn't have acquired in the first place.

He dumped Quinton McCracken after 53 awful AB. Problem is that Krivsky acquired him and then kept him on the roster in favor of Cody Ross. DeWayne Wise got only 38 AB. But those were 38 AB a smart GM would have never given to DeWayne Wise. Royce Clayton was eventually pulled. But Royce Clayton was also acquired. Todd Hollandsworth was signed. Enough said. Chris Denorfia ended up with 11 more AB than Juan Castro. Brendan Harris- who was allegedly a key component of "The Trade"- got 10 AB. If he stinks that badly, then why acquire him in the first place? The list goes on and on.

But he did get rid of Tony Womack pretty quickly. Thank you Wayne. Now get that smart with everyone and stop bringing in bad players. And stop relying on small sample sizes to determine who the good players are because, frankly, you suck at it.

That's all I ask and I don't think it's too much. But then, Krivsky is the guy who negotiated a 4-year 20 million dollar contract for Joe Mays. So maybe my expectations are too high. But then, the nasty part of me thinks that one can survive off hanging on to Terry Ryan's coattails for only so long.

And if, at any point, Krivsky acquires Carlos Silva I'll turn into a primary financial backer of www.firewaynekrivsky.com.

by Reds123 on Jan 17, 2007 12:51 AM EST up reply actions

Krivsky to blame?

As the Assistant General Manager at the time, he is to take full responsbility for the Joe Mays deal in Minnesota? Terry Ryan had no input on that? Was that deal laid out saying, "Terry Ryan, the General Manager, had no hand in this deal?" I'm honestly asking, because I am unaware of how the Minnesota Twins work their contracts, other than that I rarely see Assistant GM's getting the blame for bad deals. Shjould we start blaming Bob Miller when the Reds make bad deals?

When 'The Trade' went down, a lot of people tried to back it because, "Hey, Krivsky was with Minnesota when they dealt AJ Pierznsky for Liriano/Nathan/Bonsor in 2003" which I always thought was a stretch because Terry Ryan was the GM, and he is the one that should get credit for it.

Wayne has made some very questionable moves with the Reds, no doubt (I believe the Cody Ross mistake was perhaps his worst and most underated bad deal, only because the cost of keeping him was just a DFA for McCracken), but I think pinpointing the Joe Mays deal on him is a little unfair.

by indy on Jan 17, 2007 8:33 AM EST up reply actions

To be fair...

Ryan certainly did need to sign off on the deals with which Krivsky was tasked. But Krivsky did handle contract negotiations (including both Torii Hunter and Brad Radke's deals) and that was positioned as a key skill set for him when he was hired. Certainly Ryan should take heat for the Mays contract premise, but the contract structure was Krivsky's baby.

Also to be fair- Krivsky is cited as being key in identifying Joe Nathan as a potential closer prior to that trade. Unfortunately, his current body of work points to that epiphany as being a fairly isolated instance of good judgment.

by Reds123 on Jan 17, 2007 12:07 PM EST up reply actions