Paul Daugherty: Who are the Reds?

Friday, February 22, 2008

Who are the Reds?

Anyone else see a rotation that looks like this:

Harang
Arroyo
Belisle
Fogg
Affeldt

Where are the wunderkids? The prospects that couldnt be dealt? Crown Jewels, the sequel?

Does anyone else see the contradiction of hiring a manager who favors older players to lead a team where everyone loves the young guys? Dusty called Bailey "Bush'' the other day.

If you're going to audition your kids, why bring in Fogg? Why talk openly of dealing for Lofton or Patterson? Who do you want to be?

Fogg's not a reliever. Affeldt will be given a chance to win a starting job. If he's even decent, don't you think Baker will take him over Cueto or Volquez? If the team were so sure about its kids, why does it continue to bring in/talk about acquiring older guys?

For years, the Reds have vacillated between development and winning, and have committed fully to neither. Looks like more of the same.

Tonight at 6 on Sports Talk... bring your arguments.

22 Comments:

at 9:05 AM

Anonymous said...

I agree with the Baker comment, Paul. While he wins, he's not good with the youngsters, and that's how a small market team is going to have to win. The Fogg signing doesn't bother me, because I don't see why you can't move him to the pen, and they certainly need more competition there. And the price is tough to beat.

at 9:14 AM

Anonymous said...

Why hand the wunderkids jobs? Why not make them earn it? Why not make them feel some pressure during spring training not unlike the pressure of the regular season? How many innings has Cueto pitched above AA? Maloney?

Is Fogg's $1M contract so excessive that it precludes him from being DFAed if the kids blow him out of the water? Have the Reds eaten contracts larger than Fogg's during Krivsky's and Castelinni's tenure?

Have either Lofton or Patterson been signed to contracts yet? The Reds weren't interested in making room on the 40-man for Lofton, yet they found a way to get Fogg a MML deal. Does that speak to how 'highly' interested they are in Kenny?

During Dusty's prvious gigs, did the Giants or Cubs have prospects as highly rated as the Reds current Big Four? Did Dusty use Prior and Woods extensively as young players? Has he been 'credited' with ruining their careers? Isn't it ironic to say Dusty favors vets, and yet he supposedly relied too heavily on the two best prospects his previous organizations produced?

at 9:16 AM

Anonymous said...

Agree with you. Bringing in Fogg is really stupid. Hey, has anyone seen Eric Milton? Why don't we bring back Ramon Ortiz? Mr. Krivsky, the fans of the Cubs and Brewers thank you for keeping it a two team race!

at 9:22 AM

Anonymous said...

Hey, Paul. The word is "wunderkind", not "wunderkid".

at 9:50 AM

Anonymous said...

Here is something interesting that I just came across. I'm in favor of seeing what the young guys can do. But I don't have a problem with a 1-year contract for a guy with experience.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=overpayingaplayeronceiso&prov=tsn&type=lgns

at 10:09 AM

Anonymous said...

9:16 - The difference between Fogg and Milton is several million dollars. It's a much cheaper gamble, and again, I've never heard a team complain about having too much pitching.

at 10:28 AM

Anonymous said...

Hey Paul usually I agree with you but not on this situation and I will tell you why and I hope you can see it on my side of the baseline. I was reading an article http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/tom_verducci/11/28/pitchers/index.html
on sports illustrated talking about the year after affect. Basically saying a kid should only pitch about 30 more innings than he did the previous year. Any more than that they hit a brick wall or risk being damaged goods for the following season. These are young guys and I do not have the numbers on them and i could be wrong but none of these guys can throw 200 innings. I am not saying fogg and the other guy will either but what i am saying is wouldnt it be nice to say to some of the young guys that they could pitch for 2 or 3weeks then let them miss a start and run them back out there. your rotation would have 3 guys who could throw 200innings, Harang Bronson, and maybe even belisle using the 30plus innings math. The for your final two sports you pencil in Bailey and Cueto, but you have Volqerez the guy from the Phillies and fogg. Send the other guy to the bull pen because with young unsure guys we will need someone out of the pen.
But like i said I am only seeing it from this side and i hope you can maybe understand my thoughts or maybe add something to what i see.
Thanks

at 10:40 AM

Anonymous said...

4.15 + 4.22 + 4.85 + 4.90 + 4.74 = avg. 4.57

The youngblood starters need to beat those numbers....any of those numbers.

Isn't that the way it should work in spring training?
Is spring training no longer about competition for a job?

Or, as in modern elementary school, is competition just too tough on player self-esteem?

at 11:28 AM

Cheviot Sports Authority said...

Well Paul, if that's the rotation this season, then we won't have to worry about watching any games in October (actually the season will be over in May). The fans will revolt and Krivsky will be out the door. Not all bad.

Realistically, at least one of the young guys has got to be in the rotation come opening day. I know Krivsky just hates to let the youngsters graduate to the major leagues for whatever unknown reason (that he likes to keep to himself). The fact that he did not promote Cueto in Sept and yet had him pitch fall ball instead astounds me. Giving up Josh Hamilton for Volquez and then saying that Volquez can not even start for this rag-tag pitching staff is totally unacceptable.

Lets see what they do in March before we announce the starting staff. Other than Harang, there are no proven quality starters in this camp. I can't why Cueto, Bailey, Volquez can not start here this season and take their lumps if necessary. This team is not going to win anything with Fogg, Afeldt, Arroyo and Belisle anyway.

I am beginning to think that Bob Castellini really wants to win but he just doesn't have a clue about how to go about it. My first indication of this was NOT HIRING Lou Piniella when he had the chance.

at 11:59 AM

Anonymous said...

Doc,

what do you mean when you said Dusty called Homer Baily "bush"?

at 12:10 PM

Anonymous said...

You heard it first here. Baker's going to platoon Volquez and Bailey with the #4 & #5 guy depending on the team.

He'll also have platoons at first, center, and shortstop.

He'll have so many platoons, that he'll have a whole freakin' battalion.

They'll be deployed to Iraq in October.

at 12:25 PM

Unknown said...

Paul said, "For years, the Reds have vacillated between development and winning, and have committed fully to neither."

OR

If you can’t run with the big dogs, stay up on the porch."
-- Forbes.com

at 12:28 PM

Anonymous said...

Baker is right about Bailey...what the hell is wrong with you people wanting to ruin his career by bringing him up last year? Everyone who was yelling about how he should've been on staff on opening day has no credibility.

at 5:40 PM

Anonymous said...

Does anyone else see the irony here that despite continuous carping about how good our young talent is going to be, the Reds hire a coach who has always favored veterans? This team, from Castellini on down, seems desperate and without a clear cut strategy. I was much more inclined as a fan to get behind an effort that included last year's roster with some adjustments to the bullpen. They should have kept Hamilton and just went with Bailey and Cueto.

at 10:39 PM

Anonymous said...

Let's say that fate smiles on us and Fogg pitches 200 innings. A $1 million contract makes that worth $5,000 an inning. At 2 hours per game, that means no more than 80 hours of work, which means $12,500 per hour.

And Fogg's a throw-away pitcher, an afterthought, a lightweight.

These thoughts brought to you at no more than $30 an hour.

(Where do I send the bill?)

:>)

at 12:26 AM

oldtimer said...

I think it's a hedge against the kids falling flat on their faces. Not surprising with Jocketty waitihg in the wings if Krivdawg fails.

I'd say go ask Kriv, but what are the odds you'd get a straight answer? Still, I gotta admit I like the signing.

at 10:17 AM

Anonymous said...

ALL teams in baseball -- good and bad -- will end up having anywhere from say 8 to 12 guys start at least one game this year. It's just how it works -- always! Look it up.

The notion of picking 5 guys for your rotation and then everyone else is stuck in the bullpen or the minors simply never happens.

My prediction is that Harang, Arroyo, Belisle, Affeldt, Fogg, Bailey, and Volquez will all make starts for the Reds this year. (I'm not as sure about Cueto or Maloney, since they have so little time above AA ball.)

All in all, the Fogg signing makes perfect sense to me. You just have more options now. You haven't lost any.

In my opinion, the number-1 goal for the Reds right now is to make sure those young pitchers develop as fully and healthily as possible. Fogg fits perfectly w/ that goal.

at 3:39 PM

Anonymous said...

Regardless what the starting rotation is, this team is going to need it's starters to go at least four to five strong innings. Looking at last year's loses, the Reds were often out of the game by the third inning, down 5,6, 7 runs or more. That is demoralizing. I see middle relief and the setup relief playing a more important role and believe these are the two primary areas the Reds need to improve upon.

at 9:26 PM

robby said...

Couldn't agree with you more. The Reds can't seem to make up their minds about how to go about becoming competitive. One day they are building for the future. The next they are talking about bringing in Kenny Lofton. They trade Josh Hamilton who has the potential to be a star in the league and get a player they aren't sure is good enough to start for the team with the worst pitching in the league. Youth movement? Look at the average age of the team. Other than Jay Bruce what player signed and developed by the Reds appears to be ready for the major leagues? And don't say Homer Bailey. How far has his stock fallen? The Reds are a long way from being a contender and if the last two number one picks are any indication Krivsky's crew might not be too good at drafting players either.

at 9:55 AM

Anonymous said...

Dusty doesn't "favor veterans" when the young guys are a better option.

Mark Prior:22
Carlos Zambrano:22
Corey Patterson:23
Jerome Williams:23
Sean Marshall:23

The rotation in particular was made up of young guys through his 4 years there. But I guess we can't expect you to do some research to support the commonly held wisdom.

at 10:57 AM

Anonymous said...

I don't get it, Paul. Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought you were lobbying for trading away a combination of the young studs to get Blanton. Yet, if I'm not mistaken, get Blanton out of Oakland and Fogg out of Colorado and Fogg has better numbers. Better numbers, doesn't cost the Reds a single prospect, and "only" $1 million. What gives?

at 1:04 PM

Anonymous said...

We can argue this point all day, but Baker, as previously noted by many baseball people, overuses and favors veterans. On the surface, using your example of the Cubs, it would appear your statement refutes this. I simply ask that you go back through history and look at all of his managerial decisions. As a Giants fan, I can assure you that on many occasions we were perplexed why young starters could not break the lineup in favor of struggling veterans. It's not a stretch to say this happened. Perhaps Baker has learned from the criticism he received in several cities but to say it didn't happen is just not true.

Previous Posts

Friday, February 22, 2008

Who are the Reds?

22 Comments: