Loading ...The Enquirer has an online poll in which we are asked to grade the performance of GM Wayne Krivsky. Go vote here, then return and tell us how you voted.
After 800 votes, the results tell me only that a lot of people are buying what Krivsky is selling.
I am in the majority, I give him a B
I went D. That trade with Washington was a disaster. Pitching may be better, but now we can’t score enough to win. I think we are good enough to be .500.
The poll catches us at a high point – this week we’re pleased he’s locking up good pitching, we’re pleased he’s spending money (yet spending it wisely and not just for appearance’s sake…Jim Hendry), and we’re pleased because it’s nearly pitchers & catchers, and the whole season is in front of us.
And it’s Valentine’s Day this week. Who doesn’t love everybody right now?
I was thinking the same thing, DA. I’d have like to have seen this pool after the Bubba Crosby signing.
The odd question was the last one:
What else should Wayne Krivsky do to make the Reds legitimate contenders?
Find a front-line closer
Add Homer Bailey to the Opening Day roster
Trade for more offense
Other
Everyone is voting for “closer,” but I really can’t see how that makes this team contend. “Trade for offense” is a much bigger problem, though I have no clue what we have to give up, or where a new bat would play.
How can people give him a B and then go and say the Reds aren’t going to contend (by saying that they will only finish above .500). That makes absolutely no sense. If the Reds aren’t going to contend, then the GM hasn’t done his job and should get a D or an F.
We did not have one established closer in 1990. The notion that you need one closer needs to go away.
Randy Myers had 50 saves over 1988-89 and was traded for John Franco before the 1990 season. The Reds had a very established closer. The wild-card of that bullpen was the way Dibble and Charlton emerged.
The GM gets a failing game if the team isn’t going to contend? Half the teams don’t contend. Is that the GM’s fault?
Ownership decisions (like in Washington), players, injuries, better talent on other teams, luck, kismet — all sorts of things — come into play for a contender. Not just the stroke of the GM.
I think eventually, people will realize that closers are overrated, overpriced, and have a short shelf life. For every one Trevor Hoffman, there are 20 Bobby Thigpens and Mark Wohlers(es). Someone on Rosecrans’ blog actually suggested trading Dunn for Mike Gonzalez. That would’ve been brilliant.
Back to the point: It’s almost impossible for two relievers to be worth the price Krivsky paid last summer. Even if Majewski and Bray perform above all expectations, they aren’t going to be as valuable as Harang is. (Again, that’s just looking at the “coming in” side of both trades.)
I gave a “C”. Would of chosen “jury still out” if that was an option.
Said chance to finish to over .500
Said needed to trade for offense.
I said B and I said content for the wilcard. But I could have said contend for the division or finish above .500. they are all the same to me. I think if they are over .500 they will be contending for the division and/or the wilcard.
i’m with the hammer, i went C, because i feel like so far kriv has taken 2 steps forward and 1, maybe 1.5 steps back. I do feel better about the team than i did at this point last year, but we haven’t made big strides.
and in the end, it’s all about the trade. if you take that away, it would have been a B or maybe an A. Which gives me hope, since it might be an isolated interest.
I probably would have given him a B if he’d shown more respect for OBP and gotten craig wilson instead of conine.
I voted B, and said we will contend for the title. I believe Krivsky has built a foundation for success. The foundation is stable pitching and strong defense up the middle.
If he could come up with a stronger option than Freel in centerfield, I would change my vote to an A.
I had no problem with the Kearns/Lopez trade. It freed up a big chunk of money to build with. And build, he has.
The team gained seven wins over the big offensive team of 2005, and I expect it will gain another seven wins this year, proving once again that big free-swinging batters are overrated.
Chris, K-Rod is 25. He has led the AL in saves the past two years. He throws BBs. And if the Reds had his 47 saves last year they would have gone to the playoffs, Arroyo would have won 20 games and the Cy Young, Krivsky wouldn’t be a moron and Narron wouldn’t have his head on a block.
Okay, maybe Narron would have his head on the block anyhow.
But closers are not overrated . . . when you have one who can call in the dawgs and piss on the fire.
i don’t think many people deny the value of a great closer, but it’s been pretty well established that relief pitching is the most volitile aspect of the game, do it’s questionable whether going out and getting someone who’s been a good closer in the past is worthwhile.
The k-rods of the world are rare. last year only 12 of the top 30 relievers (by BP’s wins added) were on that list the previous year, and while that was the highest total i found looking back to 2002, it was usually right around 1 in 3.
some names that have appeared on that list in recent years: david weathers, danny graves, rheal cormier, dustin hermanson, and gary majewski to name a few.
sure mariano rivera, k-rod, and joe nathan seem to be locks year in year out, but for the most part, if you go out and get a guy who was on that list last year, you have 1/3 odds he’ll be there again, and a lot less that he’ll be there two years in a row.
with the money big closers can make now that’s a big risk, and i think it makes sense for teams like the reds to say “well, we’ll get a few guys in there that we think have a shot at being a good closer, and hope someone steps up” rather than paying bj ryan money for a guy who’s probably not going to be worth it in a year or two.
My point exactly. Sure, it would be great to have Rivera or Hoffman. But I also would’ve gotten excited for Gagne in ‘04, Billy Koch in ‘03, etc., etc.
Heck, Joe Nathan was more or less a thrown-in three years ago. Now he’s an “elite closer.”
The reality is that relievers are, save for a small handful of exceptions, inferior pitchers to front-line starters. As such, they’ve got a much smaller margin of error.
There’s nothing to worry about – the Reds have enough okay arms that they should have a closer in house. The real issue is dealing with the mental pressures of the job (see Coffey, Todd).
Eighteen teams had a closer with 30 or more saves in 2006. If you want to go to the playoffs and advance, you will like need that closer, especially in a short series.
I do find the stat about 12 of 30 being on a leaders list from the year before interesting. I want to ask some pitching coaches at spring training about the reasons.