|
|
Post by Rodneck on May 8, 2017 13:51:11 GMT -5
I don't like circling dates on calendars. Due diligence today always gets you there better when that date arrives. You can get sloppy when you have a plan. Even if it is a good plan it doesn't mean it's always going to be smart and definitely not efficient at all times. This move to me signals a still not intellectually sound front office. We are baseball fans. We are smarter than other sports fans. We hug our numbers like trees! It doesn't take sabermetric swath to know what we know about our Reds. We are top 10 in offense, defense, and bullpen. That overwhelming combination of statistics is what led to this levee break of winning. We had good starting pitching in the series but we started the week at the bottom of the pile with over a 6.00 ERA. That's a fuckin atrocity. As is the move to send Garrett down at this moment. To me it sends the signal to fans that they are either not bright enough to realize what I have pointed out above. Or they already punted this year and are circling a year on the calendar to compete. There are a few of us that had a little more foresight about this team going into this season. We knew we were going to be good offensively and in the pen. Winning was not a foreign concept. I knew we were at the very least a .500 team. Right now this front office is making sure we are a .500 at best because they sent our best starter down. For what to save 1 year of arbitration? I get it. I really do. But when you are 1st in the standings and last in starter ERA you don't send down one of your best starters to save 1 fucking year of arbitration.
These are judgement calls and the decision has a sound background. But it's the wrong call in my opinion. My face is flush and ears are hot. I'm pissed off. This is amateur hour in the decision making process IMO. They were not prepared to win and IMO are trying to blow an opportunity right in front of their face. I just hope they don't participate in more willful stupidity. Fingers crossed.
|
|
|
|
Post by redsfan4life on May 8, 2017 16:00:56 GMT -5
Yeah I get why they are doing it as well. But why not fucking wait and see how season plays out. We are in first so keep using Garrett. If we collapse in Aug and are 12 games out. Then send him down for two weeks and gain the extra year. But not now.
|
|
|
|
Post by clinz on May 8, 2017 16:53:50 GMT -5
I don't like circling dates on calendars. Due diligence today always gets you there better when that date arrives. You can get sloppy when you have a plan. Even if it is a good plan it doesn't mean it's always going to be smart and definitely not efficient at all times. This move to me signals a still not intellectually sound front office. We are baseball fans. We are smarter than other sports fans. We hug our numbers like trees! It doesn't take sabermetric swath to know what we know about our Reds. We are top 10 in offense, defense, and bullpen. That overwhelming combination of statistics is what led to this levee break of winning. We had good starting pitching in the series but we started the week at the bottom of the pile with over a 6.00 ERA. That's a fuckin atrocity. As is the move to send Garrett down at this moment. To me it sends the signal to fans that they are either not bright enough to realize what I have pointed out above. Or they already punted this year and are circling a year on the calendar to compete. There are a few of us that had a little more foresight about this team going into this season. We knew we were going to be good offensively and in the pen. Winning was not a foreign concept. I knew we were at the very least a .500 team. Right now this front office is making sure we are a .500 at best because they sent our best starter down. For what to save 1 year of arbitration? I get it. I really do. But when you are 1st in the standings and last in starter ERA you don't send down one of your best starters to save 1 fucking year of arbitration. These are judgement calls and the decision has a sound background. But it's the wrong call in my opinion. My face is flush and ears are hot. I'm pissed off. This is amateur hour in the decision making process IMO. They were not prepared to win and IMO are trying to blow an opportunity right in front of their face. I just hope they don't participate in more willful stupidity. Fingers crossed. This is the business side of baseball. It's for an extra year of eligibility. The timing does suck but we knew it was gonna happen. Young pitchers are protected with "inning limits". If you're gonna do it, do it earlier rather than later. If the Reds happen to be in the hunt in September I want him on the mound. I'm sure they had this planned with the two days off. Don't be surprised when he's called back up he'll be sent down again. |
|
|
|
Post by Rodneck on May 8, 2017 19:37:42 GMT -5
Linz I get it brother. But in my opinion this is one of those rare, very rare times when you have such an embarrassing situation that you punt the year of eligibility, not the season. Remember the last time they and we thought they were going to be perennial contenders? It happens when it happens. Many well laid plans have gone to waste. I just am absolutely ate up by this move. Disagree with this move wholeheartedly. Lapse in judgement IMO. Like I said I'm steaming.
|
|
|
|
Post by socalredsfan on May 10, 2017 16:24:41 GMT -5
I'm sort of in agreement with Rod on this. I get all the business angles, but in the end, if he's as good as he appears to be, then he HAS to be locked up in a long term deal before the arbitration issues come into play. If it's an innings limit thing, then shorten his outings some. Frankly, he threw 140+ innings last year, why in the world can't he throw 190 this year? And by the way, is he going to sit on the bench for 2 weeks in Louisville, or is he going to pitch? If he sits for 2 weeks, then he's probably going to suck when he comes back, at least for a start or two. Why stop the momentum on this young kid?
|
|
|
|
Post by Rodneck on May 10, 2017 17:08:56 GMT -5
I'm sort of in agreement with Rod on this. I get all the business angles, but in the end, if he's as good as he appears to be, then he HAS to be locked up in a long term deal before the arbitration issues come into play. If it's an innings limit thing, then shorten his outings some. Frankly, he threw 140+ innings last year, why in the world can't he throw 190 this year? And by the way, is he going to sit on the bench for 2 weeks in Louisville, or is he going to pitch? If he sits for 2 weeks, then he's probably going to suck when he comes back, at least for a start or two. Why stop the momentum on this young kid? Oh man I didn't even consider this reality. Exactly. There is a way to go about this when it can benefit your team and now and later. I just think with the reality of our rotation and how good the rest of the team is that it is such an egregious error to do this. |
|
|
|
Post by FoulBalz on May 10, 2017 18:56:47 GMT -5
I'm not worried about locking him up because
He is already 25 years old. If he stayed up and pitched all year he is eligible for free agency at the age of 31
With the extra year he will be 32
Either way I'm not paying a 31-32 year old pitcher unti he is 36 or so.
This move keeps him from being a super 2 eligible for arbitration too
So all and all you have one pissex off player even if he doesn't say so and teammates that are also pissex off
Won't get no home team loyal contract pissing of a player performing best at his position this way. May cause other young players to think twice too
|
|
|
|
Post by clinz on May 10, 2017 20:32:03 GMT -5
He's going to pitch one inning when it's his turn to start. It shows the Reds have a plan and are sticking with it. Remember when they changed the Chapman plan. They're adding an extra year of arbitration. The chances of the Reds signing him long term are slim. He'll be 32 years old. How did giving guys long term money work out. You got a 5 year window with certain players then you start the next batch of players. That's how the Reds have to operate. I'm ok with the move. Missing two to three starts early for a potential postseason run and an extra year. As long as the hitting and bullpen keep it up they'll be fine.
|
|
|
|
Post by socalredsfan on May 10, 2017 22:50:22 GMT -5
He's going to pitch one inning when it's his turn to start. It shows the Reds have a plan and are sticking with it. Remember when they changed the Chapman plan. They're adding an extra year of arbitration. The chances of the Reds signing him long term are slim. He'll be 32 years old. How did giving guys long term money work out. You got a 5 year window with certain players then you start the next batch of players. That's how the Reds have to operate. I'm ok with the move. Missing two to three starts early for a potential postseason run and an extra year. As long as the hitting and bullpen keep it up they'll be fine. It may show that the Reds have a plan, but I'm not sure having a plan is any good if it's not a good one. If they want to shorten his innings limit, or his time-table, then do it later in the season when we have 2, if not all 3 of the injured starters back. Not when he's the current best pitcher in the rotation. I would also disagree with you about the long term contracts. I'm not suggesting, signing the kid to a long term contract when his arbitration ends. I'm suggesting that after this year, or maybe next, you sign the kid to a long term contract that takes him maybe into 1 year of free agency, which means he's 32 or 33. The way arbitration works, if this kid is outstanding, we will get killed in arbitration each year, and a contract will be much cheaper. A team like the Reds if it doesn't want to rebuild every 3 or 4 years, has to ink kids to deals through their arbitration years, and maybe 1 free agent year. Take away Mesoraco, and I'd say this has worked quite well for the Reds. Bruce, Cueto, Votto, and even BP wasn't a loser deal for them. Bailey's deal was from the free agent point; not earlier. Here's my other mindset on this topic, especially with pitchers. If you don't think a kid is going to stick with you, or you aren't going to pay him, then to hell with this innings limit crap in the 1st place. Use the kid like a horse. Why save his arm for the next team who wants to sign him for millions. Back to Garrett. sitting him for two weeks in Louisville, and letting him pitch one inning is going to set him up for failure at the MLB level when he comes back. These kids aren't machines; you can't turn them on and off, and expect top shelf performance. |
|
|
|
Post by vb1123 on May 10, 2017 23:15:10 GMT -5
Chris nails my thinking on it. I get it on all fronts. But..he and nearly all young guys w/ innings restrictions get tired as the innings limits get higher/beyond what they're used to. Would've made more sense to me to do it in Aug., let him come back rejuvenated than to try and do it now. The timing is puzzling to me.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rodneck on May 11, 2017 18:46:55 GMT -5
If they are purely talking innings limits I can somewhat agree with this.
Except that his absence is hurting us most right now. He could get an extended break about the allstar break when we have potentially 3 injured pitchers back. Like I said I get the basic assumptions on the moves just not the timing. I really harbor dark suspicions that they want to tank the year because 18-20 is on the calendar not 2017. To me that stinks.
Anyway that's my Garret/Comey conspiracy theory! LOL!
|
|
|
|
Post by clinz on May 11, 2017 19:08:14 GMT -5
If they are purely talking innings limits I can somewhat agree with this. Except that his absence is hurting us most right now. He could get an extended break about the allstar break when we have potentially 3 injured pitchers back. Like I said I get the basic assumptions on the moves just not the timing. I really harbor dark suspicions that they want to tank the year because 18-20 is on the calendar not 2017. To me that stinks. Anyway that's my Garret/Comey conspiracy theory! LOL! I wouldn't call it tanking . He would miss one start. If they bring him back up on the 18th. We're 2-1 with him sent down. That's a good start. So Garrett would've started tomorrow's game the 12th and 18th. Thats 10 days. |
|
|
|
Post by redsfan4life on May 16, 2017 18:49:22 GMT -5
Garrett back up Thursday.
|
|
|
|
Post by davis44 on May 19, 2017 7:54:53 GMT -5
Yesterday is what happens when you send a good and young pitcher down to sit around 12 days. They lose their feel for the strikezone.
Good job, Reds Brass.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rodneck on May 19, 2017 13:21:51 GMT -5
Yesterday is what happens when you send a good and young pitcher down to sit around 12 days. They lose their feel for the strikezone. Good job, Reds Brass. They didn't count it but on a popup with 2 outs there were essentially 2 errors on 1 play. Cozart lost the popup in the sun then the flip to Peraza he didn't have his foot on the bag. All the runs that Garrett allowed scored in that 1st inning alone. But yeah 2 innings in 12 days doesn't cut it. |
|
