The next 12 games ....

[JohnU]

A-fucking-mazing. Byrd can't hit, can't hustle for a popup ... and anybody who thinks otherwise, this team would be dead last if Votto got hurt again. They may be anyhow. This team is showing to be a LOT worse than I had expected -- ignorant fan that I am.

Realize Byrd has an incentive to get 550 PA ... does that translate to 400 strikeouts?

 

[Hit-n-Run]

They sure haven't looked competitive the last couple games versus the two lefty SP.

They entered the game hitting .218 against LHP. But it hasn't been better against RHP with a equally dismal .217.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

They actually did hit Lester, they just didn't hang on to win.

LHP Travis Wood and RHP Wacha shut'em down in back to back games, doesn't seem to currently matter who's pitching.

Seems like along time ago that this team was winning it's first four games in it's last at bat.

 

[eburg5000]

Hamilton batting 189, Frazier down to 220. the only ones hitting is Votto and believe it or not Cozart. I knew it wouldn't last, when then they win 4 in a row to start off the season, but I didn't think they would fall apart this fast

 

[JohnU]

It's hard to quantify but I am looking at a team that really isn't prepared to win. That "bunt" that Hamilton offered was nothing short of a joke.

Byrd striking out 3 times and popping up the other time ... how long does the team endure that? What can they possibly be thinking? Bruce is completely clueless, Pena is playing way over his head and Frazier is maybe showing that he doesn't belong in the 3 spot, though the early returns were good.

Price has to throw another sack of potatoes into the game disguised as a relief pitcher. Really, when JJ Hoover is our BEST choice, where do we go from here?

Cozart getting 3 hits ... time to up him up the 3 spot, right?

Byrd's SLG is somewhere around .160.

BTW, the Cardinals announcers said Byrd looked lost at the plate, even pointed out that he fanned on three fastballs right down the middle. So it's not just me noticing it.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

Last year around this time Ludwick was told he was a platoon player hitting .240. Byrd looks like he might strike out 240 and seems to have his name etched in permanent marker on the lineup card.

Price is clueless and will steer this team right off the cliff. He's not the only problem with player performance and GM acquired roster factoring in, but he does very little to create matchups using the roster he has. For a guy that was a pitching coach, he doesn't manage his bullpen very well.

 

[eburg5000]

Bottom line here, This team is in trouble, They have maybe 3 hitters that can get on base. one that can drive them in. The starting rotation is questionable. The Bullpen is arguably the worst in my 64 and a half years that I have seen. And the defense is not playing well either.

Well last week at this time we were feeling somewhat optimistic, maybe we well be feeling that again this season.

 

[JohnU]

If they salvage one in St. Louis and come home feeling a sense of accomplishment, then they can forget it.
Already I think they believe they can't beat St. Louis, which is acceptable -- if you are a high school team.

 

[tlakes20]

This is pretty much the typical Reds offense we've seen the last 5 years, only a few guys in the lineup hitting and live by the homer and die by the homer. Just not going to cut it, it's proven it doesn't work. Votto is back to his self again, but he can't be the whole team. There is still a hell of a long way to go, but again what I've seen so far is no better than an 81-81 team.

 

[JohnU]

81-81 implies they are as good as the league. As of now, I'd say ... maybe the Rockies and the Phils, maybe the Braves are worse ... Reds don't exactly own those teams either and they only play them 6 or 7 times. It is possible they can win a season series against the Brewers. Otherwise, not. And the AL-C, the interleague schedule, has only the Twins that suck.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

Everything about this team's potential success was founded on a lot of "ifs". Without all the "ifs" coming true this was what we were going to see.

They'll play better at times, but unlikely it'll be sustainable enough to play over .500 with inconsistent offense and pitching unlikely to improve.

 

[JohnU]

I would say the odds of any "if" happening are directly related to the percentages. Cincy traded for a left fielder who spent his best years pumping 'roids and ... a year ago, struck out 185 times. I'd think, going in, that the odds that this guy would strike out 185 times were pretty good. Now, given the fact that the right fielder strikes out 185 times, the 3B is a free swinger, as is the 2B ... and a SS whose numbers have been declining to the point of being the worst offensive regular in the NL last year ... the only "if" that had to matter was whether Votto could hit .340 after spending all of last year with a bad knee. All other "ifs" were, "if the pitchers all get sick, our offense might NOT set a modern record for team strikeouts."

The other "if" was whether Kevin Gregg's 10 runs in 9 innings a year ago was a fluke, or whether the TJ surgery that kept Marquis out of the game the whole season ... and a bullpen that improved only because the Reds PR office said it did ... yeah, the "IF factor" on this team was pretty damned daunting.

 

[JohnU]

I spared myself the indignity, just watched it on the condensed game. This team can't beat anybody.

 

[Hit-n-Run]

The "ifs" come from fans trying to convince themselves this team is better than it is. The front office is happy with fans selling that notion because it helps sell tickets.

The All Star game has a even bigger impact on the attendance to this point. The announced attendance has been higher than actual butts in the seats. A rainy home stand plays into that, but would also decrease walk up ticket sales. The Reds have secured enough season ticket sales to meet 2015 attendance goals....next year won't be as kind for a team that is more pretender than contender.

This team often looks like it doesn't have a plan. Sometimes good plans don't work out and other times a bad plan looks like no plan
Philosophy and opinions vary, but long term results are hard to ignore.

 

[JohnU]

Part of the problem is that baseball is structured to let every team think it has a chance for post-season, which is -- by accepted standards -- the benchmark for success. We bought into it -- 3 playoffs in 4 years -- so the lie is easy to swallow. The 5-team divisional setups suggest that a fortunate season can end up like Kansas City or the old Florida Marlins. Every so often, you just win something. Milwaukee has been buying this lie for 6 or 7 years. Now the Parrots are buying into it.

 

[eburg5000]

It's probably do to my pessimistic nature, but I never thought the Reds were going to be very good this year. I thought Byrd would be an improvement, but any pitcher could do as well.

I believe after we play the Brewers. We will have some questions answered, as to what this team has, or doesn't have

 

[Hit-n-Run]

There's a difference between being pessimistic and realistic. Doubting this team's success based on acquisitions made in the past off season leans towards being realistic.

Marquis, Gregg, Boesch, and even Maholm whom was released when he made it known he wasn't interested in a bullpen role were signed as part of a plan. I think most fans didn't perceive the signings that way because they didn't appear to fill any of the obvious voids. The Reds saw it differently and that should be the most concerning thing about this team. Players, managers, and GM's come and go, but the decisions made in player acquisitions, draft picks, and farm system development have long lasting consequences that can derail a organization for nearly a decade.

 

[chico ruiz]

i agree with hit-n-run. i've observed the same things concerning mgr. price. from the ouside looking in, it would appear he manages like he is still a pitching coach. we're all critical from the POV of dyed in the wool wishbone 'c' ardently faithful reds fans. that's what makes this board compelling. we don't complain to just complain. we want the reds to win, and we're astute enough to see critical short-comings.

but, i have to agree with you h'n'r. the previous manager played the odds more, in terms of match-ups, and -not always- but usually, got the result he wanted. he probably should have intentionally walked arias. on the other hand, his overall use of the bullpen was actually good. anybody who watches mlb (all the teams) knew the overuse criticism was bs. just ask bruce bochy - 3 world series titles later. i was, and am, completely baffled by the gregg signing. all the 100's of possibilities out there, and the reds settle on kevin gregg? and please my fellow posters, do not let this degenerate into a price v. the previous manager thread. i'm just using it as one comparative example. there are many more applicable cases from other teams and managers.

it's not all bad. lorenzen, stephenson, howard, travieso etc may very well be mlb ready soon. those appear to be good draft choices. wally was just late to the party. right? timing is everything in baseball. unfortunately, he put all his eggs in one basket - the draft. nothing has come via trade of any significance. i think wally was more interested in hoisting a second trophy (asap - to stick a finger in the eye of the organization that let him go) for personal legacy reasons, than planning for and executing sustained success. it's an old way of conducting business to try and fill holes solely with off-season cost effective signings (marquis, gregg). my argument all along has been that this is not a strength of jocketty's. it may have been 20 years ago. but, and in fact, i view it as a weakness in 2015. you have to keep one eye on the present and one eye on the future. it's means everything for any organization. There are times when you make decisions that are more short-term focused and other times when the moves are more long-term focused, but it's appreciating the balance between them, while never losing sight -to john's point- of the talent you have coming. for the sake of discussion, i'll call it the reds r&d dept. is r&d underfunded? is r&d inept? does r&d even exist? is r&d handcuffed by a boss who has predominantly signed players that have already played for him? that seems limiting to me. out of thousands of potential signings wally usually decides to go with rolen, marquis, shoemaker, cairo, edmonds, ludwick, renteria, etc etc etc. i don't know about you guys, but it seemed to me that it was decided at the start of spring training that marquis was going to be a starter come hell or high water. i read a lot of posts that asked the question (directly or indirectly): who is managing this team?

the consistently successful teams i've seen the last ten years put in time researching and analyzing viability and specific talent for specific needs. the cardinals are always identified as a team that has a system in place that works and produces consistently good results over long periods of time. tell me why a franchise like the cincinnati reds shouldn't be the same. and don't say it's money or high draft choices.

it's the line-up that has me stumped. why NOT mix it up? the reds have a lot of versatility. the possibilities are endless. versatility should be routine. it's like i'm watching dave bristol manage the reds in 2015. it really is frustrating, and the posts in this thread reflect that frustration.

 

[JohnU]

Cincy currently is running 3 replacement level guys out there every day -- Cozart, Byrd and Pena. Phillips is close to that description and Bruce is playing like it.

Add in a starting staff that has 2 replacement level rotation guys and 3 more in the bullpen, plus that's sort of what the bench actually is -- this should equate to about 77 wins this season.

Honestly, knowing what this team has needed since 2010, there is no excuse for that.

 

[chico ruiz]

i don't understand some critiques of phillips i've read on this board. It doesn't make sense to trade him. contract viability or not. i've read all the negative and non-sensical stuff about him. for instance, brandon drove in 100+ runs two years ago. 'he only did it because choo's & votto's OBP's were so high,' some on this board said. that's absolute b & s, and i don't mean balls and strikes. hint: it smells bad and you don't want to step in it. he had more opportunities, but he drove in 100+ runs in a season at the mlb level - period. he hit the ball and base runners scored. by that logic, tony perez should have had 150 RBIs in 1975 and 200 RBIs in 1976. perez had a lot of runners on base too. in fact, the machine years saw rose, griffey sr., and morgan all with .400 OBP's for several years. i don't remember anyone writing that perez's rbi numbers should have an asterisk beside them. there are no qualifiers, or disclaimers, that can be attached to that achievement. tony had more than 100 K's in ten different seasons. branden has only had one season with more than 100 K's. in that year he hit 30 HR's and drove in 94 runs. does anyone see what i'm driving at here? brandon is the best second baseman (exclusively) -not named morgan- to ever put on a reds uniform. heinie groh? played mostly 3rd base. johnny temple? good average, but made a lot more errors than brandon, as a red, and didn't have the versatility brandon does.

he turns age 34 in june. he'll turn 36 in his final season with the reds. guys, he's just not that old yet. let's not write him off prematurely. get rid of him after 4 games? he's not playing hard because he's batting 7th? he's egotistical? he's only done everything asked of him since he came to the reds. he's not a team player? i don't see it. does he spout off? yes. should he have publicly aired his contract negotiations? no. very unseemly to fans who are busting their humps to make 100k. he's guilty of not thinking before he speaks sometimes. i can't speak to his personality with any first hand knowledge, but he doesn't impress me as being a liar. nobody on this board can seriously believe that negron, schumuaker, or falu would be better as replacements. can you?
apparently, he can rub people the wrong way. i guess rosecrans can attest to that. we're all adults and we know this stuff. he's competitive and wants to win. things can get heated in such a fish bowl. but, dig this: i heard rosecrans on high heat during spring training, and you would have thought he was a cubs fan. he was telling russo that he thought votto needed to change his approach at the plate. really trent? how is that? specifically. he didn't even say that the reds could surprise some people this year. he really didn't have anything positive to say at all. and, of course, he did not have a bad word to say about the GM. didn't even allude to the latos / simon trades with any misgivings. it's funny only because a lot of the posts on this board, and reds fans in general, had been talking almost exclusively about organizational shortcomings that led to those trades. there is no doubt it wasn't right for phillips to go off on trent a few years ago the way he did. the name calling will always make you look bad. but maybe -just maybe- trent deserved it for the reason i just described. they don't have to be cheerleaders. i get it. it's their job. but, what sets people off -usually- is the way you ask a question, and not so much the question itself. and rosecran's did couch the question smugly.

you can't sit at your desk and pour over stats and assert you have a better answer than the manager. i remember the 'win now' boiler room situation clearly from 2013. not many, if any, alternatives to batting phillips second when ludwick returned. maybe the 'manager' could have stuck votto there. reds had their starting left fielder tear up his shoulder on opening day. the reds best pitcher only started 11 games that year. marshall's shoulder went kablooey. the 'manager' did an adequate job using the bullpen that year. he didn't manage like a pitching coach. he managed like a mlb manager should. whether those decisions were wrong or right were the subject of great 'debate.' the reds went cold at the end of the year. damn near got swept by the mets, and then did get swept by the pirates. it was probably time for that manager to go regardless. he had become too predictable. price gave the illusion of being a bright, resourceful, and innovative manager when he was first hired. my fellow posters, up to this point, i do not see any of those qualities. we're only 11 games into the new season and i think he deserves more time. i think the reds have all the answers to improving in-house. lorenzen (2 wins, 0.69 era). lecure is down there with him. i do not believe that sam has suddenly lost the ability to pitch at the mlb level. bailey is back. if you're not going to start chapman use him to get 5 or 6 outs. especially against your #1 rival. price's use of the bullpen has been, to be kind, questionable. there are a lot of options in putting together the reds line-up, and i haven't seen anything i would call out-of-the-box thinking from price in 173 games.