Current State of Reds and Beyond

[Hit-n-Run]

If you have a opinion, you're on the right thread and keystrokes are free.
Fire away

 

[chico ruiz]

you didn't really answer the question.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

I think the topic warrants more than a couple lines.

 

[JohnU]

I can say this about who plays at Billings. The next stop is Dayton and almost nobody who plays for Dayton is a big-league ballplayer.

Since 2000, only three teams have shown the resiliency to stay afloat ... the Red Sox, the Cardinals and the Giants. You can define resiliency anyway you want.

That might be more than two sentences.

David Freese.

 

[eburg5000]

I remember they said they wanted the Reds to be competitive when they opened up GABP in 2003. I don't think they were until 2010. And they had better teams back then. So I wouldn't hold my breath waiting for 2018,
The only difference is now they have the wild card. but you have to be pretty good to get that

 

[chico ruiz]

again, excellent question h-n-r. actually, it's a hugely important question for the reds, and i hope it is reflected on, and armed with a lot of research. mostly, they have to be very accurate evaluating their current talent. let me preface my response with another question. desclafani, moscot, lamb, lorenzen, and finnegan. any of those guys feel like frontline starters to you? for the most part it sounds like the rotation backend, or the start of a better bullpen than the current rendition. the frontline starters will come from the farms and hopefully a healthy homer bailey. stephenson, reed, garrett, and davis, are who the reds, as of now, have banked on to be top of the rotation types. do you think any of those guys are #1's or #2's? as of now, it's an organizational strength, not necessarily a comparative league wide strength. are the reds strong enough in near mlb-ready prospect pitching to target mostly position players? a related question is, how much confidence do you have in the reds development staff?

from what i've seen, if acquisition & development aren't working in tandem on a 'year to year' basis there's catastrophic organizational continuity loss, and 'hell to pay,' for smaller market teams.

 

[JohnU]

I think the matter of a front-of-the-line rotation guy is muddled.
Jake Arrieta, for example, was nothing of the sort until he learned to pitch. Koufax is probably the most classic example.
There just aren't that many front-of-the-line guys out there. If you have one, is he really an ace? That discussion is relative.

Hell, the Giants don't even consider Cueto their ace. If you have 2 Cuetos, are you a contender?

The Mets, I've read, aren't as high on Harvey now as they are Syndergaard, though I suppose that depends on the day of the week.

What's a respectable W-L percentage for any staff? Pundits say W-L for pitchers doesn't matter at all. Some other metric seems to count more though I did read one arrogant scribe say that WHIP was a useless stat, and that ERA was too old-school to matter in the modern era.
With any data in the mill, it's still down to the fact that 7 of the Reds leading pitchers have been or still are incapable of taking the field for a competitive game. The run-up toward being a contender has been delayed for at least 4 months while these guys get healthy enough to do what we expected of them -- improve their pitching. Long-toss isn't exactly rehab work.

I think the names we have on our list could/should yield part of a decent rotation that will pitch in a ballpark that requires special skills. After that, maybe we find another Cuban. Can Iglesias pitch? Some concern there, for sure.

I can see Lamb becoming a lefty version of Arroyo -- if he stays on the field.
Moscot is probably a wash.
Finnegan seems like a bulldog who will need to grow up much like Homer Bailey did.
The guys in the minors still have to get out of the minors.
What's burning this franchise is the need to use Simon and Straily instead of the guys who are part of the future. No great epiphany there. I am among those who are antsy for some success owing to the fact that my lifetime isn't infinite.

In any event the metrics and research that can be presented come equipped with one (*) ... what the hell is an oblique and when did pitchers start injuring it?

 

[eburg5000]

Some other metric seems to count more though I did read one arrogant scribe say that WHIP was a useless stat, and that ERA was too old-school to matter in the modern era.

what the hell?

 

[chico ruiz]

i don't see it as muddled. you have to have 1 or 2 starters who are consistently capable of stopping losing streaks. it may tend to vary as the season wears on, but that just exemplifies the overall strength of the staff. the 'ace' moniker isn't important. but, there are frontline guys out there. the question is, do you acquire more pitching to better your odds at developing one or two?

 

[JohnU]

Never have too much pitching even if it's filler. Yeah, a streak stopper would be nice. All contenders have a guy or two who can give you the QS. They also score a couple of runs along the way. Some pitchers, like Lance Lynn, appear to be front-end guys when they get run support.

Lots of components to weigh in building a franchise. It still comes down to the health of the players. Pitching injuries are usually linked to mechanics, so that needs to be factored in when scouting and developing.

I sometimes wonder what precisely we ought to be looking for on the mound. I had an old coach tell me once that the pitcher's job was to go out and pitch. Everything else was out of his control.

 

[chico ruiz]

you mentioned the mets staff. it reminds me of certain names i've heard, and the importance of a development staff. also -for me- it begs the question: can the 2018-19 reds pitching staff be as good as the 2016 mets staff? maybe, but more importantly, why not? what would impede that success? the reason i bring it up is -primarily- the mets pitching developmental staff. ron romanick (mets minor league pitching coordinator) and dan warthen had a hand in developing all the mets starters, as well as frank viola and phil regan. i know you guys remember regan. i watched many a afternoon televised ballgame from wrigley during the summers. seemed like he pitched in every game v. the reds in the late 60's and early 70's. they called him the 'vulture.' apparently, he is one hell of a technical coach in terms of the physical changes necessary with delivery, release point, grip, etc etc etc. steve matz barely had a curveball before regan got to him. more of a 'show me' pitch, as they say. regan had the pitcher come over the top a little more, which helped him keep the ball down. A more consistent release point helped him make the movement more consistent. matz was hanging them. they would be different shapes, and it would run more or less, before regan and viola got to him, based on romanick's observations. those little tweaks, that on the surface sound simple (they're not), created a effective mlb secondary pitch, that begat, in addition to the curve, a slider, that begat a repetoire, that begat a outstanding starting mlb pitcher.


it seems to me, for a team like the reds that is focusing so much on building pitching from within, the minor league instructors have even more importance. in fact, vital importance. did the reds replace riggins in his capacity as minor league pitching coordinator? do the reds have such a develop team, as the mets, in place? these are the things i hope williams is concentrating improvement on. it didn't take long for the mets to turn it around, and they did it while being financially handcuffed.

 

[JohnU]

I related here earlier and will do so again, the story of Wayne Simpson from the 1970 Reds who was 14-3 in a rookie of the year start. Bob Gibson, interviewed while watching Simpson, said the kid was due to have an arm problem because his mechanics sucked. Gibby was spot on. Here is the problem. How do you tell a guy who is 14-3 in his first full year that he needs to modify his mechanics? What's wrong with success? Inevitably, everyone fails.

Not having seen the Mets pitchers in their first years, one can assume one of two things: 1.) they are all naturally gifted or 2.) they were taught to be that way.

Leo Mazzone of the Braves was credited with sharpening up the mechanics of the Wonder Arms. Price was lauded as a master coach. Um ... enough on that.

Cueto fixed his problems on his own. Evidently the new kids on the block in Cincy are not getting that help or are ignoring it, perhaps not fully understanding or capable of fixing flaws in their delivery. If indeed that's all that's wrong. Maybe they are just mediocre pitchers. One would hope that the PR churn from the FO is more about the future than it is the present.

It's not like there isn't a volume or two of data out there showing what does or doesn't happen when you grip a baseball a certain way and throw it 92 mph. I don't much care if you are pitching in GABP or Yellowstone, Cueto proved you can win by keeping the ball in the park. This year's Reds pitchers have some awe-inspiring numbers on the HR ball. Not good.

We spend a lot of time discussing the draft and how to measure, evaluate and scout. Then along comes a guy like Aroldis Chapman. More of those guys are around now that the Asian markets are open, Cuba soon will be and who knows what else.

Two things have to happen. The Reds need to identify the market they choose to inhabit. Either play to win or play to exist. After that, they need to find pitchers who have the tools to compete at the top level. To do that, they need people who understand kinetics and arm stress and emotional makeup. Screw the 100 mph heater if you can't throw a 69 mph change. The truly great pitchers in history threw 350 innings every year for 20 years. Many of them are dead now, which is too bad.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

My kids grew up in Colerain. It's a football driven community. The little league program runs the wishbone.... the Jr. High School runs the wishbone.

Why? Because the High School runs the wishbone. A sustainable successful philosophy starts at the lowest level.

The Reds have stated their desire for a quick turn around. Their trade agenda was to acquire MLB ready or near ready talent. They sent a bit of a mixed message by drafting a HS catcher #1 last year. That can be a 5-6 year process. College player/s would be more in line with the quick turn around strategy.

I'm more interested to see if they're drafting 4 yr/ JC players or HS kids. Could be a mix with a eye on a quick turn around and sustainable success through a balanced talent dispersment across their MiLB levels.

 

[chico ruiz]

i appreciate the wayne simpson references. like you guys, i was a huge fan of the '70' reds. i was so jealous of my dad that year. he went to the all-star game at riverfront (would rose's game-winning scoring run / hammering of fosse be deemed illegal today?) and went to a nl championship game. he said he got the tickets through work. it seemed awfully mysterious and secretive to a ten year old. why in all that was good, right, and holy couldn't i go? 'because you can't,' said dad. 'you can't always get what you want in life son.' most dads i knew back then had some version of that on the tip of their collective tongues. they were always trying to toughen us up. mostly, it was a failsafe response that mom would soften later with real life examples. oh well, he'd have to tell me all about it when he got home. i always wanted angel bravo to get into the game. i was a weird curious kid, but i loved the reds. wow, it's been a while since i thought about that.

while the wayne simpson story is interesting and sad, it is difficult to connect to today's game, for several reasons. ease of video, medical, instruction, etc. [ btw, one of the few things i didn't like about sparky was his public shaming / open skepticism of nolan's and simpson's injuries. today, mri's would reveal a rotator cuff problem that would keep anderson's big pseudo-macho mouth shut, and would have saved these guys the embarrassment of being called head cases, or sissy's. ] but, the biggest reason his mechanics would have been adjusted before 1970 is money. if he had been drafted 40 years later, he would have been a millionaire, and the reds would have protected that investment. he wouldn't have arrived to mlb with atrocious mechanics. if he did, and there were still things they were concerned about, his pitch count would be severely limited. simpson threw a ton of pitches in 1970, and if i recall, was on pace to throw close to 300 innings. that would never happen today, because millions of dollars are at stake. injuries happen, but preventive and strengthening programs are in place now to avoid a wayne simpson like case from happening.

i can confidently answer / respond to your second paragraph john. it's not either / or. it's both.

your last paragraph is a little unclear. you write, 'the reds need to identify the market they choose to inhabit.' what market are you referring to?

 

[JohnU]

The market is either, you have the money to compete or you don't. Stop pretending on one hand and living on the other. The Major Leagues has not yet given a pass to teams that pretend they don't have the money to contend.

 

[JohnU]

On the draft, a stated agenda is nice but you still need to get the best guy who is available. If you end up with 6 catchers, you have 6 catchers.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

The only agenda I ever hear from the Reds when drafting is to take the best athlete available. Getting the best athlete sounds good until you find out he looks like Drew Stubbs, but hits like Drew Stubbs.

Talent evaluation, development, and realizing when you've made a mistake and moving on are all equally important. Sometimes the moving on should be the people making the decisions.

I don't think it's a good draft strategy to base your picks on needs. It's easier to trade from a position of strength to fill needs.

MLB draft picks are not tradable. Not the pick itself or the drafted player until after the WS. Only the competitive balance lottery picks are tradable.

Any conspiracy theories on why draft picks can't be traded?

 

[Hit-n-Run]

The Reds have the 2nd biggest signing pool ($5.163M) in the upcoming International signing period. The media makes the Reds' position sound better than it actually is.

There are no limits to how much a team can spend. There are penalties for going over your allotted amount, but teams are blowing past their limit to gobble up the picks of the litter.

Penalties include 100% tax on amounts over your allotted spending pool and a limitation of $300k per player for a year or two after your violation. The rules were meant to curtail International spending and provide a advantage to teams like the Phillies and Reds the same way the rule 4 draft is designed to do. But the reality has been much different. The system still benefits the deep pocket teams. Smaller revenue teams are forced to reduce spending in other critical areas if they want a piece of the pie.

The Reds have reduced payroll and had hoped to trade Phillips and Bruce freeing up a additional $26M while adding a prospect or two. The prospects they didn't get hurt some, but the $26M is a much bigger deal as they enter the July 2 International signing period.

To my knowledge here's a list of the violators..
Cubs, Dodgers, Giants, Royals, Blue Jay's, Diamondbacks, Red Sox, Yankees, Angels.
The Rays would round out the list and would be the best small market example of being creative in a attempt to compete.

Will the Reds follow suit. We'll see.

 

[JohnU]

One would assume that the day MLB set up the signing rules that somebody said, 'yeahbut, what if we do this? Is that legal?' MLB probably shrugged and said, 'well, if you want to cheat to win, there isn't much we can do.' (Think PEDs here.)

It was not until the 1980s that baseball actually achieved some semblance of parity, and that was only for a few years. That's not anything that's worthy of research but it illustrates that MLB has typically had a balance problem. When the Yanks built the ballpark and Landis effectively ruined the White Sox with an absurd ruling, all bets were off.

I am not really sharing any useful history here, but I am often reminded that some franchises just never quite got it right. And never will.

I do, however, see a lot of money being thrown at Cuban shortstops or Korean relief pitchers ... and the names are a big deal on the interwebs for a week or so until the kid signs and gets sent to Pomona rookie ball. After a month, I forget who the kid was and ... oddly ... the teams that sign these guys still end up with the same old stale faces in the middle of the infield when the season starts.

I don't have a theory on how it all ought to work. Reverting to the old cliches about too much pitching or how valuable is a utility player or catcher who hits .235 ... I also notice that baseball goes through phases.

I never considered whether the MLB picks taboo was a conspiracy. I can see arguments either way. I haven't read anything other than some speculation on what might have happened had such-and-such team been able to trade so-and-so.

 

[chico ruiz]

excellent posts by john and hnr. not because i agree with them (i do), but because they spawn other great questions. i've been critical of the reds front office since i joined this board. maybe i posted too much on the subject, and maybe i was too long winded. but, i tried not to ramble, and attempted to bring my critiques full circle. i promise not to repeat them. please understand, it was killing me to watch what they were doing to my beloved reds. killing me. but, it's a new day and i think it's going to be alright. i've made peace with it. i understood the reds threw in the towel on this year last year. anyway, i have a few, very general, outlier thoughts.
in my opinion, john is correct. the reds as a organization have obviously not been asking themselves the right questions, because there are no short cuts for smaller market teams. the evidence of this? the reds desperately tried to trade their way up and out of a hole they had dug for themselves. 'desperately' is the operative word here and other teams knew it. in fact, the reds have consistently traded from a position of need -not want- for the last few years. it's a substantial part of the reason, the reds have imploded in the front office and on the field. how they got to that point? i promised not to repeat myself.

i don't see any organizational continuity yet. i hear a lot of names from other organizations who love their jobs as instructors / coordinators, but are constantly, and purposefully, passing on info and methodology to their underlings. when they get a promotion, there is no loss in the process installed. in a lot of ways, with the exception of the prospect pitching acquisitions, the reds are starting from square one. i think the reds should be honest with themselves and fans. define it as it should be defined. in other words, they shouldn't be calling it a re-build. they should be calling it a re-organization, and implementing like it is. what's that r&d maxim? fail faster, succeed sooner.

btw, criticizing the coaching staff is absolutely fair game, because they are a part of the overall disarray. however, i wouldn't worry too much about them. i believe, as is typical of a organization in shambles, they will be fired. riggins will go with jocketty. price was not william's choice and williams will want to make that change to define himself and what kind of team he envisions going forward. a lot of these guys will not be in red next year. scary proposition because it goes to continuity. square one. ironically, this is one of the dangers of promoting from within, and making this unwieldy gm transition. h'n'r has occasionally expressed some trepidation about williams, with good reason. when it comes to baseball experience, williams is a reds lifer. so essentially is sam grossman. the problem with people who have only worked for one organization is they tend to have a restricted view of their industry. how much 'newness' is it reasonable to expect from people who have never been a part of doing it any other way? which gets back to john's post and square one. williams better be a genius, with a very open mind to ideas and hirings outside the organization.

regardless, good draft slots and international signings will / should augment the reds overall strength. williams has, in various ways, promised due diligence with upcoming drafts and open signing & trade dates. that's one promise that i believe he will make good on, because it could define his beginning years as reds gm. it may be a signature moment for him and, of course, the real reason; he has to because the reds have no mlb vet that will return any real value in trade. as h'n'r alluded to, trade value shifted dramatically to top tier prospects a long time ago. teams have increasingly found creative ways to acquire this talent through other means other than the draft. for example, pittsburgh's signings of marte, polanco, kang. not lucky. smart, and affordable through 2020. also, the rays entire outstanding rotation, with the exception of moore, came to the rays via trades as prospects. it's a year to year ongoing process particularly important to smaller market teams. the ball can't be dropped for 2 or 3 years, because the disparity of wealth in mlb is enormous, and years like 2016 and more will have to be endured. there's nothing elusive or vague about it, other than how the players will develop, which is another piece of the organizational puzzle. the fact the reds have so much riding on this year's draft, signings etc. reveals a lot about them. first and foremost, it reveals, in terms of depth, they're weak around the entire diamond.


also, if the above (acquisition & development) is all implemented efficiently there is no reason a smaller market team can't be playoff contenders for a decade or more. i am a true believer of that. to say there is finite windows of time for success is defeatist and ignores the possibilities. i'm hoping my favorite team moves forward with a process in place where the goal is consistent competitiveness. it's doable. it has been proven by less flush teams than the reds. there does not have to be a unending cycle of boom - bust - boom -bust.
qualifier: transitioning an entire organization with such a deeply entrenched institutional resistance to change (in some cases, likely unintentional) will require more than a magic wand. i think it will require 20 hour work days.