In this article that I linked yesterday, there is some discouraging news for those of us who think that Tony Womack is terrible:

The Reds fielded what appeared to be close to their Opening Day lineup against Minnesota. It looked like this — second baseman Tony Womack, shortstop Felipe Lopez, center fielder Ken Griffey Jr., third baseman Edwin Encarnacion, left fielder Adam Dunn, first baseman Rich Aurilia, right fielder Austin Kearns and LaRue.

One exception — Scott Hatteberg is expected to get the bulk of time at first base over Aurilia. However, Narron felt the order could be adjusted several times throughout the season.

“Right now, Griffey is going to hit third. Other than that, I can’t say where guys are going to hit,” Narron said. “Lopez might hit one, two or probably fifth, sixth or seventh. Mostly one or two. Womack and [Ryan] Freel are going to hit one, two or eighth. Dunn is going to hit three, four or five. Kearns is going to hit anywhere from two to eight. LaRue probably two, seven and eight.

“You want me to keep going? If Javy [Valentin] is in there, there’s no telling where he’ll hit.”

Will Jerry Narron really start Tony Womack on Opening Day?

Will Jerry Narron really start someone with a career OBP of .316 at leadoff?

Will Jerry Narron play someone with a career OPS of 672 as much or more than he plays Ryan Freel (.369 career OBP)?

Sheesh.

30 Responses

  1. Bill Hansing

    I just returned from twelve days in Sarasota. I came back MORE SURE that this regime will lead this franchise back to prominence.

    I met with Bob Castellini and talked with him. Don’t get all tied up in negativity, Bill, like you always seem to do. If Tony Womack isn’t a good choice for lead-off man, I am confident that between Wayne Krivsky, Castellini and Jerry Narron — they will fix the problem.

    Is is at all possible that they know something we don’t know about this situation? Is it at all possible that two bizarre drinking incidents from Ryan Freel are enough for them to consider at least some other option?

  2. Chad

    Bill H–

    I’m glad to hear that you are more sure about this regime. That’s actually very encouraging, that you’d feel like that after watching them up close (I’m envious; I wish I were able to spend some time in Sarasota this spring). We all want that to happen, no question about it.

    As for whether it’s possible that they know something we don’t, well, you are certainly correct — it’s likely that they do. And I’d be much more willing to give them the benefit of the doubt if it didn’t appear that they are all three on the verge of choosing the absolute worst option, in Tony Womack.

    If they decided not to start Freel for almost anyone else, we could argue whether there’s something we don’t know (like the drinking) or whether it’s the best choice, and I could accept that. But no one in MLB, as far as I can tell, thinks that Tony Womack is a good option for a leadoff man right now. Except Krivsky and Narron. Tony Womack has demonstrated himself to be a terrible leadoff hitter. And he’s not going to get better at his age.

    I’m on record as saying that we need to give Krivsky some time before we draw any conclusions about him. He’s barely had time to roll up his sleeves. But even you have to admit that the early returns aren’t encouraging. That doesn’t mean he won’t be a great GM, and we all hope that he is! But in commenting on the Reds, we have to look at each of his decisions as they are happening, and not all have been sterling thus far.

    As for Castellini, I remain very excited about his ownership of the team. He’s just what this team needs, and I’m willing to give him the benefit of the doubt right now. It’s great to have an owner that seems desperate to have his team become champions again.

    It’s tiresome to hear people complain about negativity. If all we did was praise every move the Reds make, this wouldn’t be a very interesting blog. If we criticize moves made by the Reds, people shouldn’t get so defensive about it…it’s only because we love the Cincinnati Reds and want them to be the best team in the world.

    If you disagree with our take, feel free to call us on it. But this cry of “negativity” gets old. Tell us why we’re wrong, and bring facts to back you up. I promise that we’ll listen. We won’t be right every time; so show us where we’re wrong, and we’ll give you credit for it! Just remember that we are all passionate fans of the Reds, and we all have the same goal: to see the Reds holding that championship trophy again.

  3. Blue

    Stop being so negative…

    just kidding.

    Womack is sure hot this spring, but I still don’t really want him to start OR leadoff unless there is an injury to Freel or Freel can’t play, in which case Womack could earn the spot full-time if he played well.

    Anyway, I’ve never been very enthusiastic about Narron’s batting orders, and it looks like this year will be no different. However it is configured though, this will still be a very good offense.

    Stay tuned…

  4. Randy

    Hey, Bill H–

    What did Castellini have to say? Is he as enthusiastic as he always seems?

  5. Randy

    Blue–

    Yeah, I could take Womack as a backup to Freel, but I don’t understand why they’d even consider starting him.

    I know that Joe Torre couldn’t stand the guy, and couldn’t wait to get him out of NY.

  6. James

    If Tony Womack isn’t a good choice for lead-off man, I am confident that between Wayne Krivsky, Castellini and Jerry Narron — they will fix the problem.

    Why do you think we should just trust them? I’m not attacking you, I’m just wondering why you think that. Maybe you’re right.

    Should people not comment on any move and just assume that they are doing the right thing?

  7. Bill Hansing

    Well, let me offer some “facts” from what I saw while following the Reds for 12 days.

    #1 — Freel has had two serious alcohol related incidents within a twelve month period. Ask yourself, if you are the employer and you have had this occur with one of your employees — what choice do you make? For you folks to be saying that Freel should just be given the job based upon a higher OBP, with out considering any other possibility is the most insane decision of all. That is a fact.

    #2 — Womack has had a great spring. I saw the Reds and Freel and Womack have essentially been alternating between who starts for some time now. The fact is that Womack has been the better player. Freel’s defense has been suspect; he isn’t turning routine double plays as well as Womack; and he hasn’t outperformed Womack in the lead-off role. That is a fact.

    #3 — People can dismiss the fact that Womack has won the job based upon a better spring (and spring training doesn’t matter) — but in head-to-head competition during this spring training, when Ryan Freel has been given as much a chance to win the starting spot as anyone — Womack has performed better. That is a fact.

    #4 — Joe Torre started Womack as well — until he no longer performed. That is a fact.

    #5 — When Womack no longer was doing the job, Torre made the change and I believe (if the same drop-off accurs this year) that Krivsky and Narron will as well. These are performance based people and they hold folks accountable. When the job doesn’t get done — a change will be made. That is a fact.

    # The sun in Sarasota absolutely bakes you during this time of year. The weather was fantastic the whole time I was down there and I told my wife, next year, we’ll have to try to do this for a month. Right now, I have a great tan. That is a fact.

  8. Bill Hansing

    The conversation with Castellini was interesting, for sure. It was the day the Wily Mo trade was announced. He mentioned that the Reds were taking up all his time right now.

    We talked about some personal business issues associated with my time in southern Indiana where he has some of his stores.

    I’m just convinced that he is very serious about fixing the Reds. When you consider what has been done in such a short time frame since they took over — that is quite encouraging in itself.

    The Krivsky hire after the dismissal of O’Brien; the depth already put in place at the minor league level; the changes administratively within the organization that come whenever a new group comes in; the discussion with the state of Florida about getting $20 million to be upgrading the facility; the Arroyo deal; Hatteberg; Womack (agree or not) — ask anyone who is close to this team and they will tell you the same thing.

  9. Bill Hansing

    Why do you think we should just trust them? I’m not attacking you, I’m just wondering why you think that. Maybe you’re right.

    Should people not comment on any move and just assume that they are doing the right thing?

    Comment by James — 3/26/2006 @ 12:59 pm

    I never said we should just trust them. But these are new people who have been in their positions for less than two months now. They are making moves to try to improve the club — and using spring training to work through decisions about what to do going into this season.

    But when they make moves and then there is tangible evidence as to what they are doing and why — we shouldn’t pick them apart ad nauseum either.

    These kinds of areas are sometimes referred to in the media as the “Internet crazies” and I think this is a good example of why sometimes folks in these areas are called that.

    We can’t act like we know more than the y do in absolutely every single thing they do….and sometimes folks in these areas are critical of everything.

  10. Pinski

    I don’t actually think we can blame Krivsky for this one. I think this is all Narron. He wanted “speed”, and Krivsky seems to be all about trying to do that. Look at his backup OF choices, all with reputations as being sort of fast (none which actually are). Womack, it seems to me, was a trade done by DOB for Narron. Why else would ANYONE in their right mind give up ANYTHING for Tony Womack?

    Yeah he beat him out in spring training….
    Uhhh we are talking about vetreans who have track records. Who gives a flying F about spring? Freel is a better player than Womack.

    Drunkeness
    If they really have a problem with that, then why not trade him already? How many teams wouldn’t want a leadoff batter who can play 2nd, 3rd, or OF. His value is pretty high after two very consistent, though injured seasons.

    The love of womack must stop and it must stop now. He is not good, never was (except that one year with the Cards) and certainly at his age NEVER will be.

  11. Randy

    I know this wasn’t an answer to a question from me, but I thought I’d take a stab at answering:

    #1 — You make a great point. In fact, this might be the only thing that is not in Freel’s favor.

    #2, #3, #4, and #5 — You say they are “performance based people,” yet you are telling us that they are going to ignore Womack’s nearly 5000 ABs in his career that show us that he can’t play, in favor of 40 ABs this spring. Does that make sense? Can you really defend that?

    I’m sure that you are correct that Krivsky and Narron will make a change when they see that Womack isn’t doing the job. What I think is that they should already know enough to expect that he’s going to fail, and not put him in that position…a position that will likely cost the Reds (in terms of runs, if not in terms of wins).

    Just my thoughts.

  12. Bill Hansing

    Drunkeness
    If they really have a problem with that, then why not trade him already? How many teams wouldn’t want a leadoff batter who can play 2nd, 3rd, or OF. His value is pretty high after two very consistent, though injured seasons.

    Any good employer would — after two incidents of substance abuse within one year of each other — at least consider other options for a postion within that firm. They may not boot the person — and the Reds have not booted Ryan Freel — but it is very clear (even obvious) that it makes sense to at least position yourself if you need to go another direction.

    Then if in a job sampling, the other person clearly outperforms the incumbent with the substance abuse issues — do you simply ignore that?????

  13. Chad

    Bill–

    Thanks for relaying your conversation with Castellini. I believe he really cares about this organization, which is something that I could never say about Carl Lindner.

    As for giving them time, absolutely! Give them some time to implement their plan. I disagree with some of the moves Krivsky has made, but the only one that I think is indefensible is Tony Womack. There is no excuse whatsoever for giving ABs to that out machine.

    Everything else that has been done can be defended, at least. And that’s why we’re here — to discuss these moves and look at the pros and cons.

    And I’m not sure what the “internet crazies” reference is. We’re not any different from some guys sitting on their porch, listening to Marty and talking about what needs to be done with the team. Is every baseball fan crazy?

    I guess I just don’t understand what you are saying. It seems a lot, like someone else said, that we’re crazy or negative if we don’t just rubber-stamp every move the team makes.

    I like the discussion! I like that everyone doesn’t always agree. That’s what makes for a lively community like we’re building here at RN.

  14. James

    I never said we should just trust them. But these are new people who have been in their positions for less than two months now. They are making moves to try to improve the club — and using spring training to work through decisions about what to do going into this season.

    I’m afraid it’s just rearranging deck chairs on the Titanic.

    Just because they’re making moves doesn’t mean they are the right moves, and we should be allowed to call them on it.

    Anyway, I think we’re actually both right. We need to give them a little more lee-way, and not be so quick to criticize. On the other hand, some people need to quit thinking that everything the team does is perfect. There’s a happy medium; we just have to find it, I guess.

  15. James

    Any good employer would — after two incidents of substance abuse within one year of each other — at least consider other options for a postion within that firm. They may not boot the person — and the Reds have not booted Ryan Freel — but it is very clear (even obvious) that it makes sense to at least position yourself if you need to go another direction.

    Then if in a job sampling, the other person clearly outperforms the incumbent with the substance abuse issues — do you simply ignore that?????

    Two points. Your first paragraph is 100% correct. I mean, you are exactly right.

    Your second paragraph, I disagree with. What you are suggesting is that the Reds should ignore thousands of ABs in these players’ careers that show us how Womack and Freel can play, in favor of 40 ABs this spring.

    You compared this to a regular job. Say you are the employer. You bring in employee #2 as a potential replacement for the drunk guy. But let’s say that, over the last seven years, the replacement employee has been dismissed from several jobs. Further, there are detailed records that show this guy has failed to produce in every other job.

    Then, he has two good weeks. Of course, several times over his career, he’s had a good two-week run, yet returned to stinking up the joint before long.

    Is there any reason to believe that he’s going to change, this late in his career?

    Krivsky and Narron should know this already.

  16. Bill Hansing

    And I’m not sure what the “internet crazies” reference is. We’re not any different from some guys sitting on their porch, listening to Marty and talking about what needs to be done with the team. Is every baseball fan crazy?

    I guess I just don’t understand what you are saying. It seems a lot, like someone else said, that we’re crazy or negative if we don’t just rubber-stamp every move the team makes.

    I like the discussion! I like that everyone doesn’t always agree. That’s what makes for a lively community like we’re building here at RN.

    I like the lively conversation as well Chad — and I want to thnk you for allowing me to be a part of it.

    Let me clarify the “Internet Crazies” comment — using your talk on the porch analogy…..

    It is CRAZY when you are barred from the porch when you say factual things that some people just don’t agree with. That happens too often in areas like these — and it is CRAZY.

    You don’t want me to get into the crazy things I have experienced personally for voicing my opinions on the Reds — but it has gotten personal and crazy.

    This area is not like this and I remember you as being a good and decent guy — who, most importantly, is not so stubborn and egotistical that you treat people who disagree with your opinion like they are pond scum. That is CRAZY.

    I like this area — and appreciate the ongoing commentary.

  17. Bill Hansing

    Another concern I have is that everyone this new regime is adding is old. If we’re going to pick up waiver wire people, how about young players with upside that might improve the minor league system?

    Comment by Bill — 3/26/2006 @ 3:48 pm

    I believe that every move so far — where older players were brought in — are in every case to buy some time. Your Homer Bailey comment was just more facetiousness — which candidly, Bill, grows tiresome.

    Krivsky is creating some depth and some competition — even at the minor league level. The Enquirer article today underscored that point — for the first time in some time, the Reds will have some guys ready to come up and help.

    Looking back, wouldn’t you agree that guys like Ryan Wagner were rushed to the bigs too soon? You really don’t want to do that to Homer Bailey or Phil Dumatrait.

    I think it is wise to bring in some of these veterans. It sends a message to some of the younger guys who have been around that they need to get with the program or they will be gone. Josh Hancock didn’t get it. Neither did Luke Hudson. But I believe some others have been motivated by that competition. It’s been a good thing.

  18. Bill Hansing

    As for Womack, he was annointed by the team before they ever stepped on the field in ST as the starter. Freel was being touted as a utlity player all along. It was like last year when management had already decided that Aurilia was going to be the starter at SS, no matter how well Lopez playing in ST. (That’s not to say that Freel has played well, but that I don’t believe it would have mattered.)

    As for having faith in the organization, explain why they shouldn’t be questioned based on early returns?

    Nearly every move they’ve made has been, at best, questionable, at worst terrible.

    From the signing of Hatteberg and the passing on Choi (for free), to the every increaseing age of the bullpen, to the trade of Pena for an average to mediocre starting pitcher, to the belief in Womack as a leadoff hitter, to the scrapping of pitch count limits on the low minor pitchers, to the trade of a possible pitching prospect for a backup catcher that could have probably been claimed off waivers. It’s a series of judgements that give clues as to how the management of this team sees things, and it’s not a promising picture.

    Explain to me why there shouldn’t be any question, other than the fact that you spent some time talking to the new owner? What moves have they made, other than the signing of Adam Dunn, to show that they have a plan in place for turning this franchise around?

    It seems to me to be more about just not doing things the way the previous regime did, rather than keeping some things that worked and changing the things that didn’t.

    Comment by Bill — 3/26/2006 @ 2:03 pm

    This year — it’s Womack; last year it was Aurilia.

    I’ll repeat myslef — Womack will be replaced quickly if his performance is just a short-term thing. But it wasn’t in St. Louis — and he has had some good years.

    Last spring people were ranting about Aurilia as over-the-hill. He ended up leading the team in hitting with runners in scoring position — and knocked in 10 more runs than the firstbaseman did (in far fewer ABs).

    And most importantly, Lopez was ultimately annoited and played out the year at SS as he should have.

    This year — just a few short weeks ago — I read in this very area how Narron would not give Encarnacion a shot at 3B; his mind was already made up. People mocked Narron about how he’d handle this.

    Well, who do you think will start at 3B — based upon their spring performance???

    This “average to mediocre” starter pitched 202 innings last year for the Red Sox. Only Harang pitched more for Cincy. Arroyo was tenth in the AL in Quality Starts last year. Does that make anyone who had fewer than him also “mediocre”??? That’s allot of pitchers.

    Wily Mo Pena has incredible power — but he is a defensive liability who can’t hit for average; doesn’t run well already at an early age and has shown a propensity to get injured easily.

    With the Reds current pitching plight, I will trade Wily Mo for a guy who is reasonably inexpensive, threw more innings than anyone the Reds had (other than Harang) and had more Quality Starts that all but nine starters in the AL last year.

    Put another guy in the rotation who can throw 200 innings and this club just got better. It isn’t even a question.

  19. Bill Hansing

    Good points, Bill. I don’t think I ever called Arroyo mediocre, but I also don’t think that it’s entirely fair (or better, “convincing”) to pull one seemingly-random stat where he ranked in the top 10. (By the way, espn.com says he ranked in a 6-way tie for 12th).

    Bill, the Big Dog, used thew term mediocre to describe Arroyo. He threw 202 innings — that isn’t chopped liver. Put an innings eater like that along side Harang and the whole staff has the chance to be better.

  20. Bill Hansing

    So, as long as they realize once the season starts that Womack is terrible, it’s ok that he starts there. Exactly how many games should he be allowed to be terrible in before he’s replaced?

    Which exact years were Womack’s good years?

    Womack had a pretty decent year in 2004 in St. Louis.

    Like it or not, if he does for the Reds what he did in St. Louis, you are going to be seeing allot of him. If he doesn’t play well, he will be replaced.

    We can go back and forth on that — trying to get “the last word” — but there really isn’t any point to that.

    As they say in the Marine Corp — let’s move on.

  21. al

    i know it’s not the be-all-end-all metric on defense, but womack has made 4 errors in the equivalent of 9 regular season games’ worth of playing time (46 PA), compared to freel’s 1 error in 11 games time (60 PA).

    BillH, maybe you saw something at ST that the rest of us didn’t, but it’s hard for me to think that womack has really been beating out freel on D by that much, since he’s on pace to commit 75 errors over a full season.

    and as for the assertion that womack is a reasonable candidate to leadoff, consider this:

    womack is “having a great spring” because he’s getting a lot of hits for one reason or another, but his OBP is still only 54 pts higher than his average. Looking at his career, he’s never played a season with his OBP more than 55 pts over his average.

    Since you’d have to be on crank to think that womack was going to hit .370 in the regular season, let’s go ahead and give him his career high in average (.307) and his career high in OBP over average (.055) to get what would be a career high OBP of .362.

    That is still worse than freel’s career mark (.369), and his last two years have been higher than that with more playing time. so it really just doesn’t add up, “good spring” or not, especially with all the miscues in the field.

  22. al

    as a follow up, this article does extensive analysis and finds that “A point of OBP is worth about .003 runs per game from the leadoff man”

    womack’s best year was .349, which is 20 pts off of freel’s career mark. that’s .06 runs per game by those figures, 9.72 runs over a season, or a full win.

    10 runs over a season aren’t that easy to come by. We just traded Wily Mo Pena to improve our pitching staff by about 20-25 runs. When you can better your team by 10 runs just by making a smart decision in your lineup, you do it. Everyday.

  23. Bill Hansing

    Does Arroyo improve the rotation? Yes, but does he improve the team? I think the jury is still out. My opinion is no, he does not because of the movement of Dunn back to the outfield and Hatteburg starting at 1B, which makes the Reds offense much worse.

    Lets see if this sounds accurate — the Reds are worse off because they address two of their most glaring weaknesses — pitching and defense. Did I hear that correctly?

    Offense is NOT the problem with this club — or haven’t you been paying attention???

    Dunn has looked horrible over at 1B — and the last time I checked — our pitching could use all the help we can get.

  24. Bill Hansing

    I would question whether Freel has had 2 serioius alcohol related incidents. I would say one (the DUI) was serious, the other was either pled out or dismissed, I can’t remember which.

    This comment has continued to trouble me.

    If I am Bob Castellini or Wayne Krivsky or Jerry Narron — or any other perfectly reasonable employer, I am troubled by these two alcohol related incidents. To say that one was serious and the other was “pled away” means nothing to me as an employer.

    If I have had an employee who had a DUI on Opening Day last year — and then gets involved in another incident (under any circumstances whatsoever) I am concerned at the least. At most I am looking at possible other options.

    I don’t care if this is my best player with the best OBP; my manager or myself. An actual DUI and a “drunk and disorderly” in a twelve month period is a concern to me as the employer. To deny that is to be in denial — INDEED.

  25. Bill Hansing

    Nearly every move they’ve made has been, at best, questionable, at worst terrible.

    From the signing of Hatteberg and the passing on Choi (for free), to the every increaseing age of the bullpen, to the trade of Pena for an average to mediocre starting pitcher, to the belief in Womack as a leadoff hitter, to the scrapping of pitch count limits on the low minor pitchers, to the trade of a possible pitching prospect for a backup catcher that could have probably been claimed off waivers. It’s a series of judgements that give clues as to how the management of this team sees things, and it’s not a promising picture.

    Explain to me why there shouldn’t be any question, other than the fact that you spent some time talking to the new owner? What moves have they made, other than the signing of Adam Dunn, to show that they have a plan in place for turning this franchise around?

    It seems to me to be more about just not doing things the way the previous regime did, rather than keeping some things that worked and changing the things that didn’t.

    This too has troubled me. Let me respond.

    I do not believe that every move has been questionable at best, at worst terrible.

    (1) DON’T FORGET, WE HAVE TO IMPROVE THE PITCHING AND DEFENSE: I do believe that the moves regarding Hatteberg, moving Dunn back to LF, and even Womack at 2B — could all be seen as attempts to improve the defense.

    All the comments about Freel relate to his offensive numbers but the last I checked the Reds don’t have a big problem there.

    They do have a problem pitching and catching the ball. Those areas have to be addressed if the Reds are to get better.

    How is that so hard to see?

    (2) CHOI ???? Why would we need Choi? What would he bring to the club that we need? How would he address the main issues?

    (3) SIGNING OLD GUYS: The “old” bullpen — is certainly old, but I believe that Krivsky has looked at the magnitude of the pitching woes and concluded that he has to “buy some time” to develop/acquire younger relievers. In the meanwhile, he is going with Weathers and White and Mercker and Hammond — with the hope that they can do the job until someone else comes along (either internally or externally).

    (4) TRADING WILY MO: The Pena trade has been discussed and I believe that Pena is overvalued by Reds fans — and a pitcher like Arroyo who can be cheap, pitch 200 innings (which further preserves the bullpen) and maybe wins some ballgames for us is a good thing. Again, the club needs pitching.

    (5) THE GREAT PPROSPECT BOBBY BASHAM: Basham was no longer a pitching prospect. he has had a chance and has not delivered. Ross is nothing to get excited about — but neither is Basham. The old Reds regime would have held on to Basham until it was so painfully obvious that he was washed up that he would be released for nothing.

    (6) “THEY SCRAPPED THE PITCH COUNT”: The “scrapping of the pitch count” comment really troubles me. I am of the opinion that to say that the new Reds regime has “scrapped the pitch count” is a feeble attempt to “spin” the truth to make a point that really doesn’t exist.

    What I read was that the Reds were no longer going with an arbitrary number for a pitch count that would be applied across the board to all pitchers. What I read said that this would now be looked at as an individual decision for each pitcher. Some guys might have a limitation even below a certain number of pitches; some might be higher — but decsions would still be made — for each player.

    That seems to make sense — and could not possibly be seen as something wrong — to anyone who is really listening.

  26. Bill Hansing

    Freel. If he is a drunk and you have concerns about it, TRADE HIM NOW. You can get something for him before it really becomes a problem. Also baseball however you may think it is, is not your normal job.

    Comment by Pinski — 4/6/2006 @ 11:25 pm

    You’re right — it isn’t. I want a guy who is even more healthy and acts like a professional on and off the field.

  27. Bill Hansing

    The waiting game… Thats what DOB tried to do. Where are these young relievers going to come from? Mercker and Weathers are fine servicable (though old) MRs. But even admitting that what’s Rick White or Chris Hammond doing on a major league roster? Hancock (fat and overweight and all that) is playing on the team thats probably going to win the Central. We released him. Elizardo Ramirez probably will never make the starting rotation, so why not move him to MR.

    Buying time while one develops/acquires is not the same as what O’Brien did. Krivski is so far from being O’Brien — it’s like night and day.

  28. Bill Hansing

    Maybe we have overrated Pena. But at what cost do we go after average arms? Do you give up a guy who could possibly hit 45 HRs for a pitcher that will give up 25+ HRs and is nothing more than league average? This trade just doesn’t make any sense to me, probably because I think that Arroyo will have an ERA at or near 5 (at the very least that will be his home ERA).

    If Wily Mo ends up routinely hitting 45 homers — it’ll be because he is DHing allot.

    We had a 40 + HR guy and leather pants dealt him after giving him 55 plate appearances in Cincinnati. (Paul Konerko).

    You might think Arroyo will be a bust and Wily Mo will be the next coming of Hack Wilson — but you could be just as wrong as you could be right — and the fact remained that we needed and still need pitching.

  29. Bill Hansing

    The Pitch Count. The pitch count was there to control overzealous coaches. The minor league coaches want to win, and its not a surprise that they didn’t like this. But what signs were there that this wasn’t working? The number was not arbitrary and other clubs have been doing it for years. This just seems like a change to distance the new leaders from the old leaders.

    There still is a pitch count — it is just a unique number for each pitcher. You really do not know that the Reds minor league instructors are building for the future success of the big league club??? With Bob Castellini and Wayne Krivski, I can assure you that if a minor league instructor blows out a guys arm because he has him throwing too many pitches, that guy will be posting things here the next day — to go with your profundity.

  30. Bill Hansing

    Freel. If he is a drunk and you have concerns about it, TRADE HIM NOW. You can get something for him before it really becomes a problem.

    Two ugly incidents already — it already is a problem and to pose it even as a question is to be in big time denial.