Irony

[Redsfan1507]

Strange how things work out.

Cubs spend $155M on Lester, who can't make a throw to a base without pissing down his leg. He's also having a tough time keeping hitters off the base paths to begin with...Reds do the right thing, and force him to throw away a ball, and wind up running into an OF assist at 3b on the same play.

Votto doubles to lead off an inning, and inexplicably runs into an unforced out on the next ground ball.

J.J. Hoover starts throwing strikes, and no one else in the bullpen not named Chapman can. Bailey is coming off the DL, and the Reds keep Marquis in the rotation and Gregg in the bullpen.


Cozart is hitting twice what Mesoraco is.

The Reds suck... And are tied for 1st with a chance to go on top tonight.

Go figure.

 

[JohnU]

What I have already noticed this year simply reinforces what I have known -- managers and teams that play the long season find ways to win games they should be losing. For 3 days, I thought the Reds had figured it out.
Two managers -- Matheny and Maddon -- know how to manage a team for the long season. It starts in April.

 

[Redsfan1507]

Matheney is a product of a system- the Cardinal Way. He still has that consistent mold to run his team from. Maddon had several career roles, but didnt shine until he had the lead role with a quirky, open minded ownership with little to lose. He also didnt have many big league egos or contracts as impediments, and had the advantage of being overlooked and under estimated in his favor. Not all of that applies with the Epstein Cubs.

I think Boche and Hurdle might be the best NL Managers, and Don Mattingly didnt learn much from Joe Torre. I think Showalter and Francona do a good job in the AL, and Girardi is only as good as his roster.

 

[JohnU]

Maddon may not get it done in Chicago because I don't think they have all the tools to sustain a competitive streak. They are high on bluster in Cubbieland, the product of a diarrhea support media that gets a boner any time somebody mentions "young talent." If they don't get 230 innings out of Lester, they could be suffering.
But I think Maddon will put the team in a better position to play well enough to contend. I think in the NL-C, being a contender is probably good enough. This division will likely come down to the last 3-game series of the year.

 

[chico ruiz]

it was a lot more than being quirky and open-minded that explains maddon's success with the rays 1507.

here's an example:

after the 2010 season, during which they won 96 games and finished first in the AL east, the rays lost to trade or free agency: grant balfour, jason bartlett, joaquin benoit, carl crawford, matt garza, dionner navarro, carlos pena, rafael soriano, and dan wheeler. that's their closer, 2 set-ups, and 5 starters (positions & pitcher). after losing all those players they won 91 games in 2011 and made the playoffs. how does an organization do that? it's not from draft picks solely or being quirky. i think you have to objectively ask: is the reds organization equipped to lose an equivalent amount of roster positions and remain competitive? that's the real 'big picture' organizational question. it's not about money anymore. there are only 6 teams that don't have 100 million dollar payrolls. it's about smart baseball decisions.

after 2 starts, i read some posts touting the latos for deslafani trade as looking like a good one. again, this ignores the bigger picture. the real question is: what could jocketty have got for latos 2 years ago? i sometimes think that mark twain was right.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

A healthy productive Mat Latos has a much higher ceiling than Anthony Desclafani, but he also has a much higher price tag this year if healthy and productive or not. IMO, trading Mat Latos had less to do with their assessment of Desclafani's talent and a lot more to do with Latos' potential health issues and as a result declining production. Latos' value was much higher in 2012 and remained high until towards the end of 2013 when his first elbow issue arose. Then followed by a shortened injured 2014, he was the one to go between Cueto and Leake, all three make roughly the same amount and were in their last year. I see no reason the Reds would have traded him when his value was high during the 2012-13 seasons, they were in the midst of making the playoffs. One of the three were going to be traded to shed payroll, they kept the two healthier of the three. It doesn't appear they are going to sign either of the two remaining.

I don't have anything against Maddon or the Rays. They had a good run, but the GM and Maddon both jumped ship leaving the Rays in a less than enviable position. The Reds are not in a great position currently, but there are signs that some of the pieces are in place to make a run in 2018-20.

 

[JohnU]

Years back, in the 1980s, a buddy was ribbing me about the downfall of the Reds. He was a White Sox fan. I casually said, "the Reds will win a World Series before the Sox do." We bet 10 bucks on it. I never collected.
Now, I can say to my Cubs fan friends, "the Reds will win a World Series before the Cubs do." In the past, nobody would have even argued with me.
Now I'm not so sure, as Kenny Loggins would sing. Still, when discussions about 2020 are evident, I begin to do the math on my mortality. The Cubs have never won a pennant in my lifetime and I've been on Soc. Security for 4 years. I have seen the Reds at the top of the mountain and I have seen 1982.
I guess this was more of a whimsical look at the present than a melancholy stare backward at life during the 1970s. I can say that in the winter of 1960, Cincy was expected to finish 6th. They did better than that. They were supposed to blow chunks in 1990, or the year I should have been 10 bucks richer.
Kansas City and SF were lucky entrants in the W.S., both gifted by the Red Sox rule that Selig imposed because Tampa and Maddon, not Boston, made the playoffs, thus fucking up the wonderful East Coast rivalry. St. Louis won the 2011 title because of the same wild-card rule, benefited by the fact that Atlanta did not have the guts to close the deal from May to the end of September.
The Reds are a sloppy week away in 2013 from having to get "Cueto-d" off the field, costing the manager his job and putting us basically where we are.
This little narrative isn't going anywhere special, unless I can say that I still await the return of the 1961 Miracle. Even getting hammered by the Yankees didn't matter. It made a believer of me. Nobody talked contracts that year. The Reds just put Brosnan in to pitch the 8th (and the 9th) ... I want to feel that excitement again, but I don't know that it's possible. In that sense, I am kinda rooting for the Cubs.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

I'm afraid you're going to have to hang in there a few more years John.

Since the coming of free agency and the eventual end to the Big Red Machine teams the Reds contend on a every 3-5 year cycle. The mid 80's saw 2nd place teams on the cusp. Delayed by a managerial scandal the team emerged to win it all in 1990. A rise to 1st place in 1994 to only be washed away by the strike and a1995 team that won the last playoff series to date. The 1999 team came close and then a combination of bad GM's, injured and or bad draft picks would skip a cycle until 2010 came around. With 2012 being the best possible chance at the crown, the team has chased that ghost a little to long and has delayed their chances of winning in the near term.

All teams must continue to rebuild annually. Every time a player makes it to the active roster they have to be adding his replacement to the system by either the draft or trading of soon to be free agents to acquire prospects.

I see the Reds as a team that have fallen behind in the replinishment phase and are in the process of catching up. It'll take a cycle to get it done, but I think they'll contend by 2018 if recent drafts pay off.

2019 World series with the White Sox would be cool with the 100 year anniversary of the Black Sox scandal.

 

[Redsfan1507]

Chico- yea, I realize if all it took was quirky, you and I would be in the HOF. Winning is always a product of talent first, and how it's used next. Maddon is offbeat, and like every other successful person, acted well on an opportunity. He's still doing that.

Along those lines, Theo Epstein arguably "jumped ship" when winds of opportunity shifted in Boston-after breaking the "curse" he's now working on the NL version with the Cubs. They have cash flow, and theoretically if winning is the goal, that's a big plus. I just don't think the Cubs have enough this year. I wouldn't discount their near term future though. Just conparing the NLC- I'd prefer the Cubs current personnel over the Brewers for sure.

On the flip side, I think the Reds sat on their opportunity tool long, and are largely just reacting to environment/results now. Price wasn't hired as the best available, he was just the easiest available, IMO....and under the corcumstances, maybe thats enough.

Teams trade contracts now as much as players, and the Reds are limited to that now, in addition to other limitations of talent and budget. I never saw Jocketty as a builder, I saw him as a finisher, as a GM...a guy that was trying to be competitive now and win sooner than later, and given current events, may be out of his element unless unforeseen performance from currently affordable talent prevails. I think the Reds have 2-3 probable MLB answers, albeit doubtful stars, in the farm, but the current core is where the team is going to live and die, and since all of them can't be retained, a couple of young guys are needed ASAP. I guess I'd rather see a Jocketty tweaking at about .500 if that's all in takes to be more competitive soon, than a more conventional 100 losses for 10 years complete overhaul like many teams go through, but an adjustment is obviously in process.

 

[JohnU]

One of the other problems since 2010 is that the Reds have been "pretty good." That means, unlike what happened to the Rays and the Parrots, who got top draft choices every year and finally sorted out enough to be a contender ...

Cincy is getting a lot of high-impact high school pitchers who spend the first year in the AFL, the next year at Billings, then Dayton, then Bakersfield, then Pensacola, then back to Bakersfield, then up to Lousyville, then ... they sit there and watch while we end up contracting Ludwick, and Schumaker and signing or trading for stiffs like Byrd and Marquis and Maholm and Gregg and ... the left field circus still really hasn't ended.

We just keep seeing the same guy out there every game now instead of the soup du joir ... but the results are still the same.

Cincy lets its talent rot in the minors all under the arbitration clock pretense. I mean ... I'd rather see Lorenzen getting shelled in the 8th inning, knowing he will learn from it, instead of Parra-Gregg-Badenhop-Jumbo, who are still just happy they can still be getting a big-league salary.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

Hard to argue John. The Reds draft picks in recent years are mostly high twenty somethings with a few being compensation picks which really are early 2nd round picks even though they are listed as number 1's.

With the final demolition of the rotation coming this fall, I think we'll get to see a few youngsters get their baptism under fire next April, or at least I hope so. If not, it's more of the same retreads and I'd rather see a developing young pitcher than a retread getting whiplash as the ball goes flying by him faster than he threw it in.

I'd agree Jocketty has mostly been a finisher and currently finds himself in a possibly unfamiliar role.

By 2018 this team will look much different and Jocketty may be gone as well with his contract being up next year. Votto, Homer, Iglesias, and Mesoraco in his last year are the only players signed through out. The future OF looks to be Hamilton and Winkler plus 1, the infield might be Votto, Suarez, Blandino and either a 2nd or 3rd basemen. I suspect Bruce, Frazier, and Chapman will be gone due to cost, and Cozart, Byrd, and Phillips will be gone for obvious reasons.

The future pitching staff has plenty of options with it being the focus of recent drafts and trades. If they have missed in those drafts, could be a lengthy drought coming.

 

[Redsfan1507]

I only remember the Reds from mid 60's- just prior to BRM, so my Reds expectations started pretty high. The FA era disintegration of the BRM brought on the worst Reds teams in the early 80's, and the 1990 team IMO, kind of came out of no where and raised expectations largely dissapointed in the 90's. The subsequent KGJ era was more about selling a stadium and getting an owner committed than winning, IMO. Castellini did bring back some optimism / expectations until now.

So, It's all cyclical, and teams as ballplayers, have short spans to make an impression. John U has better perspective than me on how fans looked at the Redslegs in between the '40 winner and the BRM. Do you see similarities then to now, John ? Or do you think this is marching toward the post BRM dismal years ? Personally, I think it's somewhere in the middle- where injuries and contracts and farm talent is all going to have to come together for a big year, and the rest of the time they'll try to play around .500.

 

[JohnU]

I'd say, growing up, Reds fans never really discussed winning pennants with the exception of 1956, which was my first year to actually pay attention. That team was one of the most interesting ever -- with a team ERA around 4.00 in a day when ERA's were considered good if they were around 3.00. But that team had more HR power than the '27 Yankees -- and two really good pitchers -- Brooks Lawrence (for one year) and Hersch Freeman, who was the bullpen specialist. They didn't need pitching. Temple and McMillan were a human "art form" at the keystone. Rarely did that team make an error.

Mostly in the 50s, the Reds were just trying to finish .500 and usually were around that. But baseball was much different. The fans KNEW the players. And I mean, they would see them in stores, bars ... players were around town because most of them just were really not over-paid. They usually had off-season jobs and when they signed, they stayed in town until they were traded. It would not be rare to see one of the players in town with a local girl as his "date" ... whatever that means to you.

Expectations were based on bringing in a rookie like Frank Robinson, who wasn't really popular for obvious reasons though most people were OK with his performance on the field. (Ah life as it was). Otherwise, Cincy depended on retreads like Don Hoak or Whitey Lockman or even Billy Martin for a year. Finishing 6th was expected. Brooklyn always won, but Milwaukee finally did.

Crowds at Crosley were, tops ... about 8,000 for a Sunday DH. Some nights, 5,000 was normal. A lot of teams had that problem. Wrigley used to close the upper deck for most day games.

And in the 50s, ST. LOUIS SUCKED.

As for similarities, clearly the rules have changed. A team can upgrade pretty easily now through the FA market. In the olden days, bonus babies were signed by teams that could afford them, which meant the Yankees always could -- and did. The reserve clause in the olden days meant you'd see the same guys for quite some time. Players had nothing like no-trade clauses and the only time a team would trade someone was when the owner got pissed and decided the player was making too much money.

I do think 1961 was the unofficial start of an overall optimism in Cincy. The 1962 team won 98 games in an expansion season. By 1964, I think we knew we had a special future with Rose and Perez finally making a difference. Reds could/should have won the 1964 pennant. When Bench came up in the 66-67 seasons, nobody was surprised at how good he was. It was just a matter of time before that team jelled.

I think it's fair for Reds fans to expect a contender. There's no reason to think otherwise. Teams know what they have to do to contend. Achieving that is another matter but it's not like in the 1930s-50s when the Yankees were the money team and could afford to pay more in a system that saw owners trade their top guys to NYY just to pay the rent on the ballpark. Naturally, smart GMs did exist. Gabe Paul ran the Reds pretty well for awhile and Branch Rickey is legendary all the way back to 1926.

Really bad teams in the 1950s -- Cubs, Pirates, Phils, Senators, Browns-Orioles, the A's... they just had cheap-ass owners who were lost in a system that made no sense to them. I am hoping we don't see that in Cincy.

 

[Redsfan1507]

I believe a team is always evolving, and the good ones don't ever have to start from scratch, but keep a finger on the pulse and at least have an idea when a guy is going elsewhere and have done kind of plan in place when it happens. The Reds aren't exempt, but I wouldn't say they are a top franchise either. They either don't have the resources or the time to have better talent groomed in the farm, or unable to plan for 80% of the starting rotation to be free agents at the same time.

I'd say it's more likey ladt season, they expected healthy Bailey, Votto, Bruce to start deserving more of the big contract, and may have expected better progress from youngsters Stephenson, Igladias, Corcino, and maybe expected Santa to leave a breaking ball under Cingrani's tree, and felt Simon and Latos were sell high candidates, and maybe Scherzer and Lester would sign shorter term $120m deals instead of lottery money that pushed the bar on Cueto out if reach. There is some poor vision in that scenario, but generally, I think the current core is still a viable place to build from- although Frazier, Mesoraco, Hamilton, Cozart, Desclafani and an unknown ( and unfound so far) bullpen presence are required to perform at a relative discount to compete. Phillips is a great defender, and as 2b go, isn't a terrible hitter- the fact the Reds keep giving him a lineup role he's ill skilled for isn't his fault- it's the guy with the pencils fault.

Most think it was a mistake choosing Byrd, Marquis, Gregg, and most of the bullpen over "other " options, but exactly what other options are/were there ? I think I'd rather have had Corcino and Iglasias, Lorenzen, but they could have bombed too.

This lineup strikes out too much to be considered one that can hit themselves into contention- they have to pitch and play D. They're short on the pitching so far. I believe sooner than later, they're going to have to dip into the farm arms, and give up on the old guys, but maybe they will serve the purpose of getting a few more Minor league innings and better command in first.

 

[JohnU]

I guess, in defense of me concerning Marlon Byrd, the guy had all of spring training to get his timing down. He's had all of 3 weeks to get his timing down. He struck out 185 times last year. He's almost into May and hasn't done much more than pass gas.
Byrd was supposed to be the missing piece to this offense.
I don't blame the front office all that much on Byrd. I blame Byrd.

 

[Redsfan1507]

Well, Byrd hit the cover off the ball in ST...i guess he can't help he's a whiffaholic, and he's 1 year older, but it wasnt a secret. The team that signs him should consider that. I don't think he'll hit .149 all year, but I'm not sure he can hit .399 for a length enough to raise it beyond about .249 for the season.

I think he'll have better stats this year than Ludwick had last year, not saying much, but Byrd is also a better defender. I know 69 year old men and 8 year old boys with better arms than Ludwick. In fact Johnny Damon is the only recent OF I can think of with a worse OF arm than Ludwick. I started really disliking Ludwick when after he started stinking and I realized he was a fair weather clubhouse guy- you know, a positive guy when he's playing and not so much when he isn't. The comments he made about fans lack of enthusiasm in the Reds lackluster season end, spoke to me- I witnessed fan responses specific to him- then, and there wasnt much fan response (nor was any deserved) to him at all...but to his occasional and percieved future OF replacement -Billy Hamilton-recieved a lot of positive fan support... and believe that Ludwick was not only a diminished player, he was a jealous me first one as well.

It's neither here nor there, last I heard Ludwick's not playing on the Rangers discount dime, and Byrd is making nearly Ludwick money in the Nati...where (i hope) odds are, he's about to improve. I DO wish the Reds would stop signing 2 year deals with these past prime, would be unemployed role players though. What's Boesch making ? A lot less than Byrd, and other than being lefthanded and younger, I don't see much difference between them...or Hesiey or Rosales, or for that matter, Shumaker, or two dozen other similar players....not sure Yorman or Lutz would be worse, even if Winkler isn't "ready" yet. Add up all the wasted bucks on the Hannahan, Cairo, Patterson, Madson, Lincoln, Marquis, Gregg, types, and I may be naiive, but I still believe a shrewd GM would save enough of those throwaway dollars to sign an occasional All-Star like Cueto.

Personally, Id rather see 6-8 minimum salary youngsters on the roster and Cueto pitching, than 3-4 expensive retreads and Marquis pitching. The "veteran presence" thing has worn old for me. They haven't helped these guys learn winning baseball 101, so might as well go young and cheap on the roster fill ins, and let the old "veteran" coaches do their job instead, IMO.

 

[JohnU]

I think anybody who plays ball knows how to win. Veteran or not. How they translate experience to success is partly out of their control. I just wish this outfit would stop letting its talent rot in the minors at the expense of the ongoing Latin-speaking utility infielder. Or the former Cardinal steady-as-she-goes guy.

 

[Redsfan1507]

Well, time is on the side of Jocketty running out of ex Jocketty Cardinals, they're all about retirement age now.