(12-12-2012 12:48 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  

(12-12-2012 12:42 PM)Bearcat04 Wrote:  

(12-12-2012 03:33 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  You either acted or were completely ignorant when I said the Reds traded one set of problems for another and you replied: "Traded one set of problems for another???" Let's start with the uncontested fact that Choo hit .199 against LHP last year - that's a problem as even a child knows. Now you act like you've been talking about Choo's defensive problems and the downgrade in CF that he represents all along. If you understand he's a downgrade, well that's another problem and that makes a set. You can't say both: that you don't understand there's some problems trading Stubbs for Choo in CF AND that you always knew that Choo was a downgrade defensively (unless you are satisfied with a leadoff hitter hitting .199 against LHP). Those are incompatible, so I'm sorry if I picked the wrong lie to call you on.

If you would have actually read one of my previous posts I did acknowledge your mountain out of a molehill issue with Choo against LHP. Let's go through it again...

The Reds hit LHP very well. Their .770 OPS was 7th best in baseball last year. On the other hand, they are below-average offensively against RHP (.710 OPS was 23rd overall and not even average by NL standards). Even if Choo were to struggle against LHP (career .338 OBP) it's such a small issue because the rest of the lineup hits LHP and you face southpaws less than 30% of the time anyway. In other words, I don't give a damn what he does against LHP!! His value to the Reds against RHP, a noted weakness, more than makes up for any issues against LHP, the Reds offensive strength.

That is not trading one set of problems for another. That is fixing your biggest area of weakness.

Agree with this. From a lineup standpoint, Choo makes all the sense in the world, and his hitting against left handed pitching would not even give me pause for a second.

There is no way on earth I play Choo in CF...at all, ever.

If they made the trade assuming he would play RF, I am good with it. If they think he is going to play CF, we are absolutely going to have major, constant OF defensive issues.

I just can't imagine Walt would see Choo as a centerfield option. This is a GM that brought uber gold glover Jim Edmonds to St. Louis. That is something a guy like Jim Bowden would do but Walt has really proven himself as a GM that builds great, sound teams that defend as well as hit.

I would put Choo in RF and give him frequent off days when facing LHP. He could come off the bench as a pinch hitter in the latter innings against RH relievers

The guy really struggles to hit lefties, but he hits the sh*t out of RHP and doing a semi-platoon will give us a chance to develop a guy like Billy Hamilton who switch hits anyway.

Career #"s versus RHP: .307 BA .400 OBP .514 SLG .914 PS

Just my .02

Per twitter, Jim Riggleman will manage Louisville Bats this year.

Quote:Amanda Comak ‏@acomak

RT @johnfayman: Riggleman announced as Louisville manager. #reds
Retweeted by Buster Olney

(12-12-2012 01:37 PM)BeerCat Wrote:  So that closes the door on Rolen right?

You'd think so, but then I just saw this...

Rolen may return for another year with Reds

By Danny Knobler | Baseball Insider
December 12, 2012 12:01 pm ET

Already thrilled with their trade for Shin-Soo Choo, the Reds might be getting more good news.

Scott Rolen could be coming back for another year.

Rolen, who will turn 38 in April, seemed ready to retire when the Reds season ended with their playoff loss to the Giants. He was limited to just 92 games because of injuries, after playing only 65 games the year before.

But Rolen has now suggested to the Reds that he might want to go to spring training and give it another try, according to sources, and the Reds would be more than happy to give him a chance. The Reds believe he can help, on the field and especially in the clubhouse, where they value his leadership.

The Reds have given themselves other options at third base. Todd Frazier played 73 games there last year, and Wednesday, the Reds agreed to terms with Jack Hannahan.

http://www.cbssports.com/mlb/blog/danny-...-with-reds

I view Choo as a bridge to Hamilton.

We know that Bruce can play some CF if necessary. What he lacks in pure speed he makes up for in instincts.

(12-12-2012 12:42 PM)Bearcat04 Wrote:  

(12-12-2012 03:33 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  You either acted or were completely ignorant when I said the Reds traded one set of problems for another and you replied: "Traded one set of problems for another???" Let's start with the uncontested fact that Choo hit .199 against LHP last year - that's a problem as even a child knows. Now you act like you've been talking about Choo's defensive problems and the downgrade in CF that he represents all along. If you understand he's a downgrade, well that's another problem and that makes a set. You can't say both: that you don't understand there's some problems trading Stubbs for Choo in CF AND that you always knew that Choo was a downgrade defensively (unless you are satisfied with a leadoff hitter hitting .199 against LHP). Those are incompatible, so I'm sorry if I picked the wrong lie to call you on.

If you would have actually read one of my previous posts I did acknowledge your mountain out of a molehill issue with Choo against LHP. Let's go through it again...

The Reds hit LHP very well. Their .770 OPS was 7th best in baseball last year. On the other hand, they are below-average offensively against RHP (.710 OPS was 23rd overall and not even average by NL standards). Even if Choo were to struggle against LHP (career .338 OBP) it's such a small issue because the rest of the lineup hits LHP and you face southpaws less than 30% of the time anyway. In other words, I don't give a damn what he does against LHP!! His value to the Reds against RHP, a noted weakness, more than makes up for any issues against LHP, the Reds offensive strength.

That is not trading one set of problems for another. That is fixing your biggest area of weakness.

You make zero sense as you continue to claim replacing Stubbs with Choo doesn't create new problems:
1. When you have a strength (e.g. hitting LHP) and you add a guy who can't hit LHP and want him to be your leadoff hitter thereby weakening that strength, that's a problem even if you "don't give a damn."
2. When a key to your success is defense and you add and plan on starting a guy who is one of the worst in the league on defense at his position, that's a problem.
3. You exacerbate it when you have a very good to excellent CF and you replace him with a guy in his 30s who simply IS NOT a CF, that's a problem.
4. When you trade a guy who should be part of a platoon facing LHP and you trade him for a guy who should be part of a platoon facing RHP that's trading one problem for another.
5. When you trade significant value to count completely on one season from a player in his 30s who has injury issues and has been trending downwards, that's a problem.
6. When you trade your only remaining SS prospect who is at all close to the major leagues (and happens to be an excellent prospect), leaving your only option at SS a 27 year old with a .290 career OBP coming off an injury season, you create a vulnerability problem.

Yes Choo helps in an important area of need as a LHB who can get on base. But you have to be an absolute fool not to see this trade also creates its own set of problems starting with Choo's defense which is exacerbated by a foolhardy plan to move him to the critical defensive position of CF. There were surely other better options.

Keith Law's take is espn.com insider, but here's a couple of quotes:

Quote:Choo has just 83 major league innings in center, none since 2009, and was awful in right field in 2012, according to both UZR and DRS. In fact, he is among the worst right fielders in the game, and asking him to play center is delusional.

He's also pretty bad against left-handed pitching, enough that pinch-hitting for him late in close games is a good idea, if not outright platooning him.

(12-12-2012 01:51 PM)Coopdaddy67 Wrote:  I view Choo as a bridge to Hamilton.

Yeah everybody does. But that's an awful lot to pay for a guy in trade when you are putting all your eggs in a one-year basket who will then be leaving for a LTC guided by Scott Boras. Especially a guy with his negatives/risks. And what happens if 22 year old Hamilton doesn't progress as amazingly quickly as he has on offense or at his new position on defense and needs 1.5 to 2 years at AAA (as I think is more realistic) or gets injured or just flops?

Quote:We know that Bruce can play some CF if necessary. What he lacks in pure speed he makes up for in instincts.

As I said earlier, that's probably the smarter option although I doubt Dusty sees it that way. And it's a problem when your "smart" option takes a team built in large part on strong defense and makes below average defensive replacements at both CF and RF.

Here's Law on that btw:

Quote:In fact, he (Choo) is among the worst right fielders in the game, and asking him to play center is delusional. They'd probably be better off trying Jay Bruce, who hasn't played center since 2008, to handle it, although I wouldn't expect him to be even average out there.

I think that the idea is move Bruce to CF.

(12-12-2012 02:04 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  

(12-12-2012 12:42 PM)Bearcat04 Wrote:  

(12-12-2012 03:33 AM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  You either acted or were completely ignorant when I said the Reds traded one set of problems for another and you replied: "Traded one set of problems for another???" Let's start with the uncontested fact that Choo hit .199 against LHP last year - that's a problem as even a child knows. Now you act like you've been talking about Choo's defensive problems and the downgrade in CF that he represents all along. If you understand he's a downgrade, well that's another problem and that makes a set. You can't say both: that you don't understand there's some problems trading Stubbs for Choo in CF AND that you always knew that Choo was a downgrade defensively (unless you are satisfied with a leadoff hitter hitting .199 against LHP). Those are incompatible, so I'm sorry if I picked the wrong lie to call you on.

If you would have actually read one of my previous posts I did acknowledge your mountain out of a molehill issue with Choo against LHP. Let's go through it again...

The Reds hit LHP very well. Their .770 OPS was 7th best in baseball last year. On the other hand, they are below-average offensively against RHP (.710 OPS was 23rd overall and not even average by NL standards). Even if Choo were to struggle against LHP (career .338 OBP) it's such a small issue because the rest of the lineup hits LHP and you face southpaws less than 30% of the time anyway. In other words, I don't give a damn what he does against LHP!! His value to the Reds against RHP, a noted weakness, more than makes up for any issues against LHP, the Reds offensive strength.

That is not trading one set of problems for another. That is fixing your biggest area of weakness.

You make zero sense as you continue to claim replacing Stubbs with Choo doesn't create new problems:
1. When you have a strength (e.g. hitting LHP) and you add a guy who can't hit LHP and want him to be your leadoff hitter thereby weakening that strength, that's a problem even if you "don't give a damn."
2. When a key to your success is defense and you add and plan on starting a guy who is one of the worst in the league on defense at his position, that's a problem.
3. You exacerbate it when you have a very good to excellent CF and you replace him with a guy in his 30s who simply IS NOT a CF, that's a problem.
4. When you trade a guy who should be part of a platoon facing LHP and you trade him for a guy who should be part of a platoon facing RHP that's trading one problem for another.
5. When you trade significant value to count completely on one season from a player in his 30s who has injury issues and has been trending downwards, that's a problem.
6. When you trade your only remaining SS prospect who is at all close to the major leagues (and happens to be an excellent prospect), leaving your only option at SS a 27 year old with a .290 career OBP coming off an injury season, you create a vulnerability problem.

Yes Choo helps in an important area of need as a LHB who can get on base. But you have to be an absolute fool not to see this trade also creates its own set of problems starting with Choo's defense which is exacerbated by a foolhardy plan to move him to the critical defensive position of CF. There were surely other better options.

With any trade or new addition to a team, an old set of problems goes away and a new set comes up, is there such a thing as a complete team without glaring weakness/ holes?

Hopefully these people calling the shots are aware of Choo's less than average defense, inexperience in CF, and statistics against LHP, but I think making this move improves the team.

We are losing someone with good defense and terrible offense for someone with good offense and ok defense. We needed a lead off hitter and got him, this was the best option IMO.

(12-12-2012 02:07 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  Keith Law's take is espn.com insider, but here's a couple of quotes:

Quote:Choo has just 83 major league innings in center, none since 2009, and was awful in right field in 2012, according to both UZR and DRS. In fact, he is among the worst right fielders in the game, and asking him to play center is delusional.

He's also pretty bad against left-handed pitching, enough that pinch-hitting for him late in close games is a good idea, if not outright platooning him.

Good take IMO - he took two short paragraphs to say what took me about 6.

in the past 4 seasons Choo's worst OBP for the season is higher than Stubbs best season. The issue with the reds offensively last season was not having anyone on base when the 3 and 4 hitters hit. Look at Votto's stats pre-injury. he was on pace to break the MLB record for doubles in a seson but didn't have many RBI's. That had to be addressed by the Reds. The best way to address it is with home grown talent. Hamilton unfortunately is not ready to be a lead off hitter/CF in MLB.

Stubbs defense is way better than Choo's, however in GABP with a good RF and LF defensively Stubbs roming around was not that important. If Stubbs could have batted in the top of the order he would still be here. that is what the reds need from their CF on this team. Maybe in large ball parks like SF and LA but for 1/2 the season the best thing that Stubbs does is not that important.

The Reds last season DID NOT hit right-handed pitchers that well. You face right-handed pitching 75% of the time. Choo hits right-handed pitching at a .300 clip for his career. Looks like the Reds have significantly upgraded their offense. I say the pitchers are happy as they do get tired of having to pitch a shutout or a one or 2 run game to get a win. the Reds had way too many of those type of games last season.

I think claiming Shoo is ok defense is a stretch, BUT even assuming I give you that he is an "ok" right fielder, the Reds are losing a really good CF defensively and are not getting a CF in return. Whoever plays CF is going to be a significant downgrade. The Reds have taken their outfield defense from a strength to what is likely to be a major weakness. Is it worth it for Dustyproofing the lineup with a leadoff hitter who knows how to get on base? Well that's the question.

(12-12-2012 02:04 PM)Bearhawkeye Wrote:  You make zero sense as you continue to claim replacing Stubbs with Choo doesn't create new problems:
1. When you have a strength (e.g. hitting LHP) and you add a guy who can't hit LHP and want him to be your leadoff hitter thereby weakening that strength, that's a problem even if you "don't give a damn."
2. When a key to your success is defense and you add and plan on starting a guy who is one of the worst in the league on defense at his position, that's a problem.
3. You exacerbate it when you have a very good to excellent CF and you replace him with a guy in his 30s who simply IS NOT a CF, that's a problem.
4. When you trade a guy who should be part of a platoon facing LHP and you trade him for a guy who should be part of a platoon facing RHP that's trading one problem for another.
5. When you trade significant value to count completely on one season from a player in his 30s who has injury issues and has been trending downwards, that's a problem.
6. When you trade your only remaining SS prospect who is at all close to the major leagues (and happens to be an excellent prospect), leaving your only option at SS a 27 year old with a .290 career OBP coming off an injury season, you create a vulnerability problem.

Yes Choo helps in an important area of need as a LHB who can get on base. But you have to be an absolute fool not to see he also creates his own set of problems starting with his defense which is exacerbated by a foolhardy plan to move him to the critical defensive position of CF. There were surely other better options.

I'll say it one last time and then I'm done. Yes, Stubbs is a better defensive CF than whoever plays there this year. That's an issue. Yes, Choo isn't nearly as good at the plate against LHP. That's an issue. However, I believe Choo's impact in filling the team's biggest needs (leadoff hitter, OBP, and RHP) will ultimately dwarf the added issues. You obviously disagree. So be it.

By the way, who are all these better options that you continuously speak of and how exactly were you going to acquire them?

(12-12-2012 02:50 PM)bearcatmark Wrote:  I think claiming Shoo is ok defense is a stretch, BUT even assuming I give you that he is an "ok" right fielder, the Reds are losing a really good CF defensively and are not getting a CF in return. Whoever plays CF is going to be a significant downgrade. The Reds have taken their outfield defense from a strength to what is likely to be a major weakness. Is it worth it for Dustyproofing the lineup with a leadoff hitter who knows how to get on base? Well that's the question.

Choo is a short term solution. He won't be here next year after his contract ends, but we will get a draft pick in return.

For me, the question about Stubbs is whether would have seen the guy from last year who had a .277 OBP or the guy from 3 years ago who got on base .444. One stat line means quality bat plus huge plus fielder, the other means huge plus fielder that you literally can't afford to have in the lineup. Beats me which guy would show up next year.

Honestly, I think Stubbs needed to get out of here. He is a tremendous athlete, the issues are all between his ears. It may end up being a plus deal for each team. He was better 3 years and for a guy who is 28 years old and in great shape he shouldn't be showing declining numbers. He just gets into major slumps and he presses like crazy. Change of scenery, new ballpark, new fans, new hitting coach etc might be just what he needs.

I wouldn't be surprised to see him go somewhere else and have a year more like 3 years ago and not the dismal season he had last year.

Yep. Plus every NL staff knew the book on him. Jabooo swing but no hit breaking ball with 2 strikes.

Verlander has to be happy though, his chance at 20 K's/game just increased significantly when he faces the Indians.

Why does everyone keep insisting that the reds were going to platoon stubbs...or get a guy to platoon...When was the last time they platooned anyone? They said last year they were going to...and the year before...it didnt happen then and it wont happen now...Dusty is a stickler for giving his "starters" at bats. He could have platooned heisey and stubbs last year..and there was talk about heisey and ludwick..it didnt happen...it wasnt going to happen. thats just the fans coming up with ideas on what they think will make the team better. But this isnt a video game. You cant mess with the minds of your players and thats why dusty wont do it. He doesnt believe that just because a guys numbers against LHP arent good that he cant hit LHP. Ex...Stubbs couldnt hit right handed batters yet he never did anything about it...just continued to put him back out there....so quit with the platoon talk...its not happening nor was it ever nor will it ever

(12-13-2012 08:52 AM)R03jsniper Wrote:  Why does everyone keep insisting that the reds were going to platoon stubbs...or get a guy to platoon...When was the last time they platooned anyone? They said last year they were going to...and the year before...it didnt happen then and it wont happen now...Dusty is a stickler for giving his "starters" at bats. He could have platooned heisey and stubbs last year..and there was talk about heisey and ludwick..it didnt happen...it wasnt going to happen. thats just the fans coming up with ideas on what they think will make the team better. But this isnt a video game. You cant mess with the minds of your players and thats why dusty wont do it. He doesnt believe that just because a guys numbers against LHP arent good that he cant hit LHP. Ex...Stubbs couldnt hit right handed batters yet he never did anything about it...just continued to put him back out there....so quit with the platoon talk...its not happening nor was it ever nor will it ever

Jonny Gomes / Laynce Nix?

What would you call that?

My hope is that Choo can score more runs to secure wins than he gives up with his poor defense.

There are going to be a lot of gap shots that Stubbs caught that will now be doubles. Defense is the pitchers best friend. Our pitchers are in mourning.

how can you consider ryan ludwick and chris heisey a platoon? Ludwick was your left fielder last year..the only time heisey played in left was when ludwick got hurt or when he needed a days rest...Heisey started 36 games in left last season..not a platoon at all..And same with Gomes and Nix...Gomes was the starter as he started 126 games in left in 2010...Just because a guy gets a rest every few games does not mean its a platoon