The Reds have promoted Dick Williams to assistant GM

He got his first job with the Reds because his father and uncle bought part ownership of the club in 2006.

(11-05-2015, 04:04 PM)Hoofhearted Wrote: The Reds have promoted Dick Williams to assistant GM

He got his first job with the Reds because his father and uncle bought part ownership of the club in 2006.

It says assistant GM....a new assistant GM.....with his past history more in banking so probably to assist in the money end, not the player end, I hope. ......Which would mean the GM is still there, and this guy is an assistant to help make money in all sorts of promotions and ways, since it is a business and teams need to make money.....Like Mike Brown of Bengals, this banker / lawyer type will probably be a match for player agents in negotiating contracts. No push over on contracts probably. 

(11-05-2015, 06:37 PM)kevin Wrote: It says assistant GM....a new assistant GM.....with his past history more in banking so probably to assist in the money end, not the player end, I hope. ......Which would mean the GM is still there, and this guy is an assistant to help make money in all sorts of promotions and ways, since it is a business and teams need to make money.....Like Mike Brown of Bengals, this banker / lawyer type will probably be a match for player agents in negotiating contracts. No push over on contracts probably. 

The tiotle is a little deceptive



"Walt Jocketty ceded the general manager's title to Dick Williams on Wednesday and he will give up power following the 2016 season.

Williams, 44, was named the team's general manager on Wednesday, while Jocketty keeps his title as President of Baseball Operations. Jocketty is entering the third year of a three-year contract for that position and will leave that spot following the 2016 season for an advisory role to owner Bob Castellini."

I see this as nothing more than a PR move. I was hoping for someone outside of the organization. If Jockety and Castellini weren't buddies, he would have gotten fired, not promoted. This is blatant nepotism as far as I'm concerned.

I saw the title and thought they signed a guy that might change things up a bit. Turns out they were just Dicking around.

(11-08-2015, 12:58 AM)samhain Wrote: I saw the title and thought they signed a guy that might change things up a bit.  Turns out they were just Dicking around.

How exactly do you know that he won't change anything?

Or do you just love to cry and moan about everything?

(11-08-2015, 04:54 AM)fredtoast Wrote: How exactly do you know that he won't change anything?

Or do you just love to cry and moan about everything?

Because I heard an interview with Walt saying he'd been grooming him for the job for years.  I know you're a fan of status quo at all costs, but it looks like more of the same here.  I understand why you'd like him.  You just like to cry and moan about people who don't love the status quo don't you?

(11-08-2015, 08:19 PM)samhain Wrote: Because I heard an interview with Walt saying he'd been grooming him for the job for years.  I know you're a fan of status quo at all costs, but it looks like more of the same here.  I understand why you'd like him.  You just like to cry and moan about people who don't love the status quo don't you?

The people who took over the GM responsibilities from Mike Brown were "groomed" by him, yet I saw a tremendous change when they took power.

(11-08-2015, 08:43 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The people who took over the GM responsibilities from Mike Brown were "groomed" by him, yet I saw a tremendous change when they took power.

Perhaps in time, but not likely soon in this case.  Walt said he'd still have the final say over the next year.  

Heard on WLW this morning that ownership/management have said that there is no player on the roster that is untouchable this offseason. Everybody's on the table for the right deal. I believe it was Walt that said that 2016 will be a "transitional year". Also said that unlike in 2015, ownership is on board 100% with the retool.

(11-11-2015, 12:20 PM)samhain Wrote: Heard on WLW this morning that ownership/management have said that there is no player on the roster that is untouchable this offseason.  Everybody's on the table for the right deal.  I believe it was Walt that said that 2016 will be a "transitional year".  Also said that unlike in 2015, ownership is on board 100% with the retool.

The problem is that there are still some contracts that it will be impossible to move.

I think Bruce is pretty much the only player of any value that we could possibly trade.

(11-11-2015, 01:16 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The problem is that there are still some contracts that it will be impossible to move.

I think Bruce is pretty much the only player of any value that we could possibly trade.

What about Chapman and Frazier?  I figure Chapman is as good as gone.

Any chance a big spending club like the Yankees take on Vottos's contract?  Not that I want him gone but if the team is going to lose 90+ games, they can do it with or without one of the best players in baseball.

(11-11-2015, 01:55 PM)nevergonnachange Wrote: What about Chapman and Frazier?  I figure Chapman is as good as gone.

Any chance a big spending club like the Yankees take on Vottos's contract?  Not that I want him gone but if the team is going to lose 90+ games, they can do it with or without one of the best players in baseball.

I forgot about Chapman.  He is probably the most likely to be traded.

Frazier is not going anywhere.  

Getting rid of Votto would be crazy.  You can't blame our poor record on one of the best hitters in the league.  There is ZERO logic behind that.

People watch the Reds?

(11-11-2015, 03:29 PM)GodHatesBengals Wrote: People watch the Reds?

People who don't watch the Reds post in Reds forums?

(11-11-2015, 02:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I forgot about Chapman.  He is probably the most likely to be traded.

Frazier is not going anywhere.  

Getting rid of Votto would be crazy.  You can't blame our poor record on one of the best hitters in the league.  There is ZERO logic behind that.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming him and I'd hate to see him leave.  It's just they can suck with him or without him and if they could move him, they'd have more flexibility to do...something.

(11-11-2015, 02:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I forgot about Chapman.  He is probably the most likely to be traded.

Frazier is not going anywhere.  

Getting rid of Votto would be crazy.  You can't blame our poor record on one of the best hitters in the league.  There is ZERO logic behind that.

The logic behind trading Votto from what I've read would be that the club believes that they're going to be bad for several years.  Votto may or may not still be the player he is now by the time the retool starts bearing fruit.  No reason to have a contract like that on the books if you have no intention of competing.  Same with Frazier.  If they could get out from under Votto's deal or get a good haul of prospects for Frazier, I think they'd consider it.  

Realistically, though I think a Votto trade is incredibly unlikely.  It's a massive amount of money over a long period of time for a partner to take on.  That fact alone would limit the return the Reds would receive in terms of prospects.  In the unlikely event that they moved him, it would be a money-saving move.

(11-11-2015, 04:07 PM)nevergonnachange Wrote: Don't get me wrong, I'm not blaming him and I'd hate to see him leave.  It's just they can suck with him or without him and if they could move him, they'd have more flexibility to do...something.

The fact that the team sucked with him is no reason to get rid of him.  That is the most ridiculous logic I have ever heard.

We are going to get rid of our best hitter, and one of the true elite offensive players in the league, just because we had a bad team around him?

There is not a single player in baseball that can carry a team.  Not even Trout or Cabrera.

(11-11-2015, 04:45 PM)fredtoast Wrote: The fact that the team sucked with him is no reason to get rid of him.  That is the most ridiculous logic I have ever heard.

We are going to get rid of our best hitter, and one of the true elite offensive players in the league, just because we had a bad team around him?

There is not a single player in baseball that can carry a team.  Not even Trout or Cabrera.

True enough. My only problem with Votto is the contract. He'll be making a gang of money when he's no longer a top notch player. It's going to cripple this team down the road. They already had to let the best pitcher they've had in 20 years or so go. A ten year contract is ridiculous...

(11-11-2015, 02:04 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I forgot about Chapman.  He is probably the most likely to be traded.

Frazier is not going anywhere.  

Getting rid of Votto would be crazy.  You can't blame our poor record on one of the best hitters in the league.  There is ZERO logic behind that.

Frazier, Chapman, Votto, Bruce all need to be dealt. This team is several years away from being competitive again, why waste good years from those 4 when you can deal them, get good young players to piece in with the other prospects and build a new core. In three years when the Reds are close to being able to compete again how over paid will Votto, Bruce, Chapman and Frazier be?