Loading ...From Newsday:
The phrase, “He needs to pick a lane and stay in it” would’ve been invented for him, if it hadn’t already been out there. He fired GM Wayne Krivsky a little more than two years into Krivksy’s reign, despite the fact that Krivsky did a pretty good job by most accounts. He has a relationship with his new GM, Walt Jocketty, from St. Louis, so maybe Castellini will take a step back now and let Jocketty work.
Thoughts?
I looked at the list, and he may be near the bottom of the list for owners, but there is no way in hell peter angelos is a worse owner. There is just no way.
I meant “there is no way in hell peter angelos is a better owner. Whoops.
I think he means that Angelos is the worst of all — he gave him #30.
I don’t know if I’m just blindly upset with the Reds organization because of the performance this season, but I am really feeling down on Castellini right now. I may have said some negative things about Krivsky during his term in office, but I always felt like we were at least going somewhere, and the fact is he made some great trades (Arroyo, Phillips, Volquez) that all seem like the opposite of Dunn for Owings and Griffey for Masset. They aren’t valueless deals, but I do feel like our hand could have been played better.
The point is, I feel like Castellini has made some spur of the moment, crazy decisions. I am happy to have an owner who is not indifferent and has made it known that he wants to win, also who was willing to expand the payroll some, but I really do feel like the “pick a lane and stay in it” expression fits just right. I will always be confused by the timing and reasoning behind the Krivsky firing.
Castellini has always seemed like an overly emotional and reactionary owner, but I’m hoping Jocketty has some sway and independence to do what he wants separate from Castellini’s whims.
It seems rather hard to rate an owner. It seems like almost all of the positives are based on the GM’s actions not the owners.
I agree with what they said about Castellini though. Whenever he talks about we can win we’re gonna win it just seems like he doesn’t realize what’s going on.
“He needs to pick a lane and stay in it”
Perfect summation. Pick a guy and let them run the show. If he had veto some of Krivsky’s financial decisions, the Reds wouldn’t have stupid contracts like Freel, Arroyo, etc.
On a lesser note, I appreciate his efforts to reconnect with the rich history of this franchise from a former player standpoint. It’s clear he values the impact this franchise has on the entire community. Name the last owner who did that. The guy’s heart is in the right place, let’s hope his wallet is too *in the open position*.
I think he has picked a lane. Jocketty is his guy, Krivsky wasn’t. He picked.
No easy way to build a winner. Their team building decision is blow it up and start all over. Think they have a good start.
Its about championship wins not 600 home runs, championship wins not .900 OPS, championship wins not getting to .500, championship wins not explaining a trade to my 4 year old as to why his favorie player is gone.
How long can we endure keeping the same core of players, just because we like them, and assuming that they are finally going to figure out how to win.
The team can’t get any worse so I am on board with the Castellini. Trade ‘em all and give me a winner in two years.
Go Bob and Walt!
And I agree with you all Angelos is the worst.
I agree. Castellini needs to dial down the rhetoric and let people do their jobs. George Steinbrenner is not a role model.
I hear that Steinbrenner once traded the assistant to the traveling secretary to Tyson for some kind of fermented chicken drink
Mark: When Castellini fired Dan O’Brien, the reason he gave was, “I wanted my own guy.” Then the search, and then came Krivsky. Two years later, Jocketty is newly unemployed and suddenly Krivsky isn’t Castellini’s guy any more. Funny how things change.
Once again, the problem with this team was not the core. It is what surrounds the core (and the manager). Putting salaries aside, I would have felt very good going into 2009 about a core of BP, Dunn, Bruce, Volquez, Cueto, Harang, and Burton.
you have to be kidding me Mark in CC.
It’s about championship wins not .900 OPS?
How do you think you get championship wins? By getting players with .900 OPS.
I don’t think I endured anything bad from the core of players like Dunn and Phillips.
I endured a lot of losses because of dumb organizational decisions, lack of development of our minor leaguers (especially pitching) and poor financial decisions.
This team can get worse. How long do they plan on giving at bats to players like Corey Patterson or Jolbert Cabrera?
Somebody finally got it right! good post Mark in CC
I’m inclined to agree with Matt Steele. Dunn and Griffey were not the problem with this team. Neither was a lack of energy or leadership or any of that other hogwash. The Reds of the last 8 years have not had the pitching to win, pure and simple.
I think we’ve been bad for so long, that we try to complicate and over-analyze the situation to the point we can’t see the forest because of the trees. This guy didn’t run hard on a ground ball. That guy doesn’t get upset enough when he strikes out or makes an error. By nitpicking , we fool ourselves into thinking these are the real reasons we’re 10 games out by the all-star break. Sure, a bone-head play may cost us a game or two here and there, but that’s not going to make up the difference and put us in contention. The beautiful thing about the length of MLB season is its ability to weed out the good teams from the bad. And the Reds are, and have been, part of the latter for awhile now. Not because of hustle or attitude, but because they’ve lacked the talent to win.
I think the situation is neing rectified with this trade (especially if the PTBNL rumors are true) and the Hamilton trade, but please, lets not blame the players that were actually performing above and beyond while their team was not.
Griffey was not coming back next year – not for the club option. He is an aging superstar and it is hard to see a player of his ability slip, but there are better options out there. Masset was the kind of player the Reds were going to get for 8 weeks of Griffey.
Dunn wants 100 to 120 million. If that is where negotiations began, then he wasn’t coming back and the fans, at some point, have to say that Dunn has to take the best deal he can, and Cincinnati couldn’t give him that deal. Owings and change for 6 weeks of Dunn ain’t bad. At least they waited to move him until the team had fallen out of contention by all accounts.
Castellini’s only mistake was thinking the core when he got here was playoff caliber, and making the fans believe it. It is time to start over, from scratch, and I have no problem with that. Does it really matter if the team is 83-81? No.
82 and 80 that is.
Baseball owners are a sorry lot. Being tagged as one of the five worst is like being tagged as five millimeters closer to the bottom of a stagnant pond than the rest of the scum on top of you.
#13 (Per14) said:
“I would have felt very good going into 2009 about a core of BP, Dunn, Bruce, Volquez, Cueto, Harang, and Burton.”
Harumph.
Not much of a core, unless you want to go 62-100.
Cueto, Volquez and Bruce remain unproven. Check back in three years or so.
We don’t know if Harang will regain his form.
Dunn produces an out almost 8 of 10 at bats.
#18 (Andy) said:
“The Reds of the last 8 years have not had the pitching to win, pure and simple.”
Absolutely. Absolutely. Absolutely.
Except bad pitching has been the problem for longer than 8 years.
You cannot possibly hit enough home runs to win a pennant. Check the stats. The Reds built themselves a stadium amenable to homers, but forgot that their bad pitching will give opponents more chances to hit homers.
Good hitting, good baserunning, and good pitching win more games than mediocre hitting, mediocre baserunning, and mediocre pitching supplemented with one or two home run hitters.
justcorbly, generally I’m not in disagreement with your comments, but what’s this nonsense about Dunn producing an out 8 out of 10 ABs?
In case you forgot, walks count as getting on base. NOBODY on that team got on base more than Dunn in any extended playing time.
That’s something like a .200 OBP. Maybe you meant to be talking about CP?
Is that core I mentioned going to the playoffs in 2009? No, not if you surround it with players like Patterson, Colbert, Keppinger, Bako, etc., etc. But if you surround it with solid MLBers and another star or two, that’s a great core. That is why it is a “core”. This team wasn’t good enough because it wasn’t talented enough. But if you want to rehaul the team, which is fine, you don’t throw out the talent you actually have.
As I’ve said, Dunn’s salary expectations were too high, so from that perspective, the Reds probably had to get rid of him. But, a lot of the people defending the trade don’t care about the salary issue, and only think it was a good deal because “we can’t win with Dunn so let’s get rid of him!” And that’s silly.
Steve, Kevin: I stand corrected.
Per14: You’re right about those core players, but I think there’s so much luck and happenstance involved in staffing a ball club that following your recommended course isn’t the best way to go. I tihnk owners and management ought to be open to trading any player at any time if they believe the results will improve the team. When players are effectively taken off the trading board, team’s run the risk of age or injury or declining performance leaving them with inadequate by weak players with no trade value.
On Dunn: I’ve always criticized the anti-Dunn sentiment that wanted to boot him out of town. I’m equally critical of those now who pan management for doing it. Dunn probably did overprice himself; the team probably did decide they didn’t want to pay him whatever their offer was going to be. I’m not at all surprised at what they excepted in trade.