Explain to me the parallels between Lindner and Castellini? Honestly, I’d like to know. Since you equate Castellini with the past ten years, I would like to know why you feel that way.

Don’t you think new ownership should have more than 2 years – that’s right Catellini took the helm in January of 2006 – to put a stamp on an organization?

Please explain to me how Walt Jocketty, who has been GM for less than a year – less than a year! – should be held accountable for Dan O’Brien?

Please. Do tell. I’m sure that you could have come in and turned around the organization in five minutes. As an attorney I would assume you would be familiar with the old addage “the son shall not be punished for the sins of the father.” Why doesn’t that apply here?

What I find tiresome? When people argue that we should assume the Reds organization is making all sorts of great moves (or at least trying), despite at least 10 years’ evidence to the contrary.

Read fangraphs.com or JinAZ’s breakdown of the Hernandez signing. They didn’t overpay. They just didn’t. That’s been my point from the start. You can argue that they should not have signed them, but not that they overpaid.

“You asked me what GM moves I would make. I gave you some. ”

And I didn’t argue that the moves you would make weren’t wise considerations. I simply pointed out that the Reds may be making the inquiries you suggest and are hitting a brick wall.

The point being, it’s easy for us to say we should have signed these other players instead of these players we did sign, but we don’t know they didn’t try.

As for overpaying, I think it’s clear they’ve overpaid for Taveras. Two years guaranteed was a year too long, too. I think Hernandez’s price tag also outweighs his production, as well, but the Reds didn’t sign that contract. I’m glad they got the O’s to pony up a part of his money for this season. But I still feel there were better, more inexpensive options available. The point remains, though, that they have spent their money on mediocrity rather than using that money in other ways for better players.

And I never said the Reds should ‘overspend’ on better players — my statement about offering more was just for Baldelli and him alone to counter any other intrinsic desires he had to play closer to home. That doesn’t mean “offer him millions to play for the Reds” while everyone else is offering no more than $500k, no matter how hard you try to spin it.

While there is no salary cap in baseball, to pretend that the Reds “can spend as much as they want” is ludicrous, unless part of Bob Castellini’s plan for the franchise is to lose as much money as possible. It’s not speculation so much as it is basic observation — the Reds and other smaller market teams have to stay within self-imposed spending limits, dependent upon the economic income of their location and the willingness of their ownership to risk an excessive amount of money in hopes of producing a winning season. While we’ve heard for the past couple of seasons that the Reds were going to increase their payroll, we’ve seen little to prove it. That tells me there are certainly limited funds to work with and that the Reds cannot “spend as much as they want”. To pretend otherwise is foolish.

Do I expect the Reds to go after big-time free agents like Sabathia or Teixeira or Manny? NO. The Reds couldn’t pay them enough. What I do expect, though, is a team like the Reds to use its money wisely on players that will generate both production on the field and interest among the fans. Fans in the seats means more money to spend. None of their free agent signings this winter or players received in trade fit that bill.

You asked me what GM moves I would make. I gave you some. All are based on speculation, as is the nature of any such exercise since I’m not the Reds GM. While I do not know and will not pretend to know what WJ and the Reds front office have offered in secret to other clubs, I merely put forth what YOU asked — practical moves I would have made. At no time did I say or even suggest “The Reds aren’t doing this and they should!”, as you seem to think. It irritates me to no end to see people misconstrue a simple answer to a question THEY asked.

And at no time did I indicate that any of these proposed moves would make the Reds a “contender”, as you also seem to think. Adding an immediate-impact LF, though, would make this club “better”, in my opinion and might actually generate some fan interest. The Reds are a long way away from being a contender in the NL Central in 2009.

And while there may certainly be talks going on with other free agents and blockbuster trades being discussed to which none of us are privy, we can only look and comment on what the Reds have and have not done this off-season. As of right now, their actions over the past couple of months have not been too impressive. Jocketty might swing a deal tonight that will knock our collective socks off. But until that happens, I’ll stick with my current assertion that the Reds have not become a better ball club this winter.

And that is my point.

Spin it however you want. As your previous posts indicate, I’m sure you will.

This argument is completely contradictory to your initial premise. You were upset the Reds overpaid on the players they did. Your solution is to overspend on players you think are better.

You also premise your argument on this manufactured idea that the Reds refused to up the ante because they don’t have the funds to do so. Last time I checked there was no salary cap in baseball. The Reds can spend as much as they want, and I doubt any of us are privy on the Reds’ financial constraints. The argument is made on pure speculation.

“If the Reds really need to be shaken up, then why not move some prospects and guys who need a change of scenery (Homer, for one) and land someone who can help change this club immediately?”

As I’ve said many times, there is an abundance of LF on this team. Votto, EdE, Frazier, Francisco, all could play LF in the not so distant future. We don’t need a long term solution to change the club immediately.

While I think Nady is the best solution available, adding Dye, Nady or Swisher doesn’t all of a sudden make the Reds contenders.

“I would’ve actively tried to move Homer Bailey, Edward E5, Ryan Freel, and Bronson Arroyo.”

Who said that the Reds aren’t doing that? It irritates me to no end when people suggest the Reds aren’t doing something because it hasn’t appeared as a rumor on the hotstove.

“As for Free Agency, I would’ve actively pursued a big-bat corner OF (even Adam Dunn) and made sure there was a HR threat in the middle of my lineup. ”

I believe that’s exactly what they did and for whatever reason nobody fit the bill. They are still in on Abreu. They may be looking at other options. Again, you don’t know because it hasn’t been reported.

As for Dunn, who says he’d have come back to Cincinnati?

a) I think the Reds made mistakes in signing Taveras and trading for Hernandez. But they did.
b) In doing so, I think they’re spending too much money on two players who are going to provide very little change for 2009.

Call it two different arguments if you wish, but I see it as two parts of the same issue.

While I can understand and appreciate the value of taking a chance on guys who are undervalued, it is just that — a chance. The Nix and Fultz signings are great examples of that — low cost, possibly good upside, not going to destroy your plans if they flop. Neither could make it out of Spring Training with the big club and it’s okay if they don’t.

Rhodes, I think, is a poor replacement for Affeldt. Sure, AR had a barely above 2.00 ERA last year, but he only pitched 35 innings all season. I would rather have kept Affeldt, his younger arm, and the ability to throw more than 2/3 of an inning every third day.

I’m fine with Hairston coming back, but I don’t think he should be counted on as an everyday player. That certainly seems to be the plan right now, though. And that, I cannot understand.

As for the “big splash LF”, I’m certainly aware that money is not the only concern. But enough cash can certainly make those other concerns less important. Sure, there were things other than money that Baldelli was interested in. However, from all reports, the Reds offered the same money as the Red Sox — my point was that if they really wanted him, they would’ve offered more salary to counter Rocco’s other interests. But they couldn’t since that money was already spent.

As for Burrell, if his initial offer was too much and the Reds were at all interested in him, wouldn’t it have made sense to have stuck with the negotiations, stayed in touch with his agent, etc., and then be ready to pounce when his demands lessened? We all heard how much the Reds were looking for a powerful RHB to put in LF and Burrell certainly fit that bill. Instead, the Reds seemed totally surprised Burrell signed for what he did. Could we have afforded his lower price? Was Burrell interested in staying in the NL? Perhaps, but we’ll never know. Now, we hear Abreu’s asking too much and Dunn’s return is not an option. That leaves the Reds heading into spring training with a makeshift platoon in LF that will likely not produce the numbers desired for a corner OF.

I’m certainly not suggesting that we could’ve had Grady Sizemore or Taylor Teagarden in any way, shape, or form. Or Furcal for SS, or Sabathia to pitch, or Teixeira for 1B, since you want to give some absurd examples. But why should the Reds limit themselves to only the CFs on the open market? They didn’t do that for a Catcher, did they?

Jocketty’s history in St. Louis indicates that he’s willing to swing a big trade to get what he needs — McGwire, Rolen, Edmonds, Renteria — but we’ve not seen anything approaching that ilk in his short time here. If the Reds really need to be shaken up, then why not move some prospects and guys who need a change of scenery (Homer, for one) and land someone who can help change this club immediately? Instead, we get Ramon Hernandez as our ‘big off-season trade’.

As for other catchers out there, again, why limit just to the free agent market? The D-Backs were taking offers for Chris Snyder before they inked him to an extension. You’re not going to find much better in the way of defense behind the plate and he’d put up acceptable O numbers, as well. Gerald Laird was a trade possibility, too, but would best have been used as a platoon with Hanigan. Would he have been the best option? Perhaps not, but it could’ve saved some money for other positions.

The Reds are pretty much stuck at SS for the time being. Gonzalez’s contract really hamstrings the Reds in that no one else will take him, they can’t move him without losing a load of money, and no one is sure how healthy he’ll be. There’s really not much that could be done here, other than ‘grin and bear it’ for another year. But, hey since you’re so sure I’m so impractical, how about we trade A-Gon for Hanley Ramirez?!?

Lastly, Taveras and his unbelievable contract. I cannot imagine that a platoon of Chris Dickerson and Norris Hopper wouldn’t have provided the same value as Taveras. Yes, Taveras has the edge of speed over both the others, but CD certainly has more pop in his bat. Heck, Hopper has more pop in his bat than Taveras! What the Reds would lose in speed would be made up in other offensive areas. Keeping those two as your CF wouldn’t have been a game-changer, but it would’ve saved some cash that could’ve been spent somewhere else for the next year or so until the Reds farm system could produce a new starting CF, like Drew Stubbs.

As for what I would’ve tried to do this winter, here’s some suggestions: I would’ve actively tried to move Homer Bailey, Edward E5, Ryan Freel, and Bronson Arroyo. I would’ve been looking first for an everyday Catcher, secondly for a CF. Jocketty was right in that filling those two positions were crucial — however, the players taking those roles for next year are certainly nothing to expect much out of. If you couldn’t score a CF, then go with CD and Hopper for now and look for something later. A LF, like Nady or Swisher, could’ve also been an option here, too. I also would have entertained offers on Francisco Cordero.

As for Free Agency, I would’ve actively pursued a big-bat corner OF (even Adam Dunn) and made sure there was a HR threat in the middle of my lineup. I would’ve resigned Lincoln and Affeldt and let David Weathers go. I would’ve taken Hairston back or gone after Aaron Miles, whichever I could get cheaper. I would also have continued to pursue Ty Wigginton for either 3B or LF, if I couldn’t fill those positions another way.

You asked, I answered. Notice neither Sizemore nor Teagarden are anywhere in my plans; neither are Teixeira, Sabathia, Furcal, Ramirez (Manny or Hanley), K-Rod, Ruth, Cobb, Mantle, Feller, Ryan, Ripken, or Bench.

That would’ve been impractical.

Overpaid as it is used in the context of win value is intriguing to me. If Abreu’s worth is say 7.2 million based on his win value, and he is asking for two years 11 million a year, then the Reds are better to ignore that demand. Go look for someone who demands are in line with win value and could surprise.

That’s what the Reds have done all offseason. They have taken players who had down years and whose contract demands are in line with present win value. The Reds get a “bargain” as it were if the guy out-performs his contract.

I know that you want that big splash LF, but contract negotiations are a two way street. You assume that salary is the only factor, and if the Reds matched dollar for dollar the money given to Burrell or Baldelli they would be Reds right now. Salary wasn’t an issue with Baldelli. Baldelli took less money to play for the Red Sox because he is New Englander. Burrell also reportedly took a lot less money to play for the Rays. I believe Jocketty’s comment was “that’s not the kind of money he was demanding initially.”

As for whether we should have signed those players? I don’t know. Would I rather have Grady Sizemore in CF? Sure, but I doubt he is available. What other CFs hit the open market? If there are internal options you’d prefer, well, those guys are still here. Would I rather have Teagarden over Hernandez? Absolutely, but it would cost a lot more than Ryan Freel (who could not longer be counted on to play 100 games).

I thought Arthur Rhodes was a terrific signing for a LOOGY. I also thought Hairston was a good signing as well. He won’t put up the numbers he did last year, but he is a nice utility player. Would I rather Aaron Miles? Sure, but we missed out.

As for the lineup, again, I am not interested in speculating. I want to see the real deal.

I’m all for hearing what deals you would have made. I’m sure they probably weren’t practical, filled all the holes we have, etc. But really I’m open to hearing what you got.

Silly of me to forget the crucial piece of the puzzle that’s going to turn this team into the “Rays of 2009″…

Changed some things around and forgot to edit that bit before I posted…

Is there not still a gaping hole in LF? Is there still any sort of proven long-ball threat present on the current roster? Are we still considering the lesser of three evils at SS? The answer to all of those is “YES”.

We’ve already heard how Abreu’s contract would be “too much” for Cincy to afford. The Reds apparently didn’t even take a crack at Burrell and couldn’t promise enough for Baldelli to even consider us. And just a couple of weeks ago, Jocketty said he was willing to go to camp with what the Reds had right now. To me, that sounds an awful lot like “we can’t afford to bring in anyone else”.

Just because the Reds have been “active in the FA market” this winter, would you really consider those moves ground-breaking? Take a look at who they’ve signed: Laynce Nix, Aaron Fultz, Willy Taveras, and Jerry Hairston, Jr. None of those players are going to make a substantial impact on this club.

Of all of them, it is Taveras who will have the most opportunity to do so — a guy who has (1) consistently been _under_ the league fielding average for his position, even though Jocketty has repeated what a great fielder he is; (2) a career OBP of .331, 25 pts lower than Ryan Freel, for comparison; and (3) seemingly unable to hit the ball out of the infield. Forgive me if I’m not excited about the possibilities.

The $8m that’s been promised to Taveras and Hernandez could’ve gone a long way toward getting someone on the roster that we really needed. Instead, we’ve got Corey 2.0 for two years and a declining catcher for one year.

If that’s success to you, we must be using completely different dictionaries.

As for the lineup I provided, I went and looked up the lineups Trusty Dusty used most last season. What I posted was merely a guess at what he would do with the new players, considering how he used what he had last year. I’d be willing to entertain any other possibilities you might provide.