(08-23-2023, 10:48 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Time to shut him down.

(08-23-2023, 10:48 AM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Time to shut him down.

(08-23-2023, 11:45 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I feel like a parrot at times, but things like this is why I wanted to see the Reds be a little more active at the trade deadline.
You can't always account for guys returning when you think they will, and you can't ensure they'll come back exactly like they were before, at least not immediately.

Now, the Reds could end up having to roll with Lively or maybe call up Connor Phillips or some other dude.
And it could ultimately risk making the postseason this year.

That's the risk the Reds organization chose to take.

(08-23-2023, 12:20 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Well, the good news is I don't think a starting pitcher at the trade deadline would have really helped them. In their 6-12 skid since the beginning of August, their offense has scored 3 or fewer runs 9 times. They've scored 4 runs 4 times. That's 72% of the time, their offense has failed to produce quality results.

Their teamwide OPS of .704 in August is the worst they've had in a single month since April. Their OBP of .295 is the worst single month in 2023, as is their .228 batting average. 

Their team ERA in the month is heavily slanted by two catastrophic games against the Cubs on August 1st and 2nd (in which they gave up 36 runs in two games). In the other 16 games, we received 4 QS from Ashcraft, 1 QS from Williamson, 1 near QS from Abbott and Williamson (.1 out away), another near QS (5 IP) from Abbott and Kennedy, and a half decent start from Weaver (only 1 ER, but on 4.1 IP) and then a decent start by Williamson (4 ER, 5.2 IP). 

By my tally, we got good or great starting pitching 11 of those 16 games. Of the 5 bad starts, 2 were Weaver, 1 was Greene, 1 was Richardson and the final was a bad start by Abbott.

Now, you can say that if we traded for a guy like Giolito at the deadline, we could have replaced those two Weaver (3 if you count the meh 4.1 IP one) and MAYBE the Richardson (it would depend on the timing) starts with a new pitcher, our offense still only scored 3 runs in the 4 of those 5 games (we actually won one of Weaver's bad starts 6 to 5). So he would have needed to be elite in those 3 to 4 starts to have made any difference to our team's position right now. 

Problem is, since he was traded, Giolito has been pretty awful, putting up a 7.06 ERA in 4 starts in August, his outing last night being his best since being traded. 

So it's a toss up. Would trading for a rental like Giolito or Lynn (who, has been incredible in August since being traded with an ERA of just 1.44 in 4 starts) have resulted in more wins? 

With the way this offense has been performing, it's hard to say.

I think we made the right choice by not trading for any starting pitching at the deadline. The Angels gave away a top 100 prospect (MLB Pipeline #86, 55 FV prospect Edgar Quero) and a FV 45 left handed pitching prospect who is close to the majors (Ky Bush) in exchange for Giolito, who is just a rental. 

An equivalent trade from our farm system would have been something like CES (#72 prospect per MLB Pipeline) or Connor Phillips (#72 prospect) and a pitching prospect like Lyon Richardson (also 45 FV, also near the majors).

Personally, I would have been pretty upset if we made that trade haha.

(08-23-2023, 12:32 PM)ochocincos Wrote: There's always risk that the guy you trade for doesn't end up being what you hoped he'd be.
And, as you said, it's not actually been the starting pitching during this August skid, so it may not really have made a difference.
But as it stands now, we're going to have to "settle" for someone like Lively or Phillips to round out the rotation.
Lively had done well in 4 of the previous 5 starts, but that last one that sent him to the IL really was terrible.
Phillips, like any other minor leaguer, is an unknown at the big league level.

I'd just hate to see the Reds fall just a few games short of making the playoffs, but maybe it won't ultimately be because of a lack of moves at the deadline and more of the fact that the offense is so young and the pitching was bad for the first half of the year, in which a trade wouldn't have been able to change.

Hopefully Lodolo bounces back by next year's spring training, if anything.

(08-23-2023, 01:09 PM)Crazyjdawg Wrote: Yea, I think Nick Krall was put into a tough situation at the trade deadline. To this point, his team has gotten to where they were on the backs of lightning in a bottle in the form of several rookies outperforming, by a wide margin, the expectations of a team full of rookies. That 12 game winning streak singlehandedly turned this season from a rebuild season to a potential playoff season, but it was built on the back of EDLC's unsustainable start to his career.

Our situation wasn't nearly as high stakes as theirs, but the Los Angeles Angels are the perfect representation of the risks of buying at the deadline. They could have gotten a truly generational return for Shohei Ohtani. Despite being a rental, he is the best hitter in the AL and one of the best pitchers in the AL as well. They could have easily converted him into several top 100 prospects, maybe even a top 10 prospect plus more. The Athletic estimated they could have received "six to eight top-20 type prospects."


I don't know about that much, but the point is, they could have played it safe, traded off their rentals for a huge prospect gain and moved on to next year.

Instead, they chose to go all in. They traded away 7 minor league pitching prospects, including 4 of their top 30 overall prospects (all of whom were traded for rentals) to acquire a bunch of mid tier players who have not helped them make the playoffs, and now their future is considerably bleaker for it.

They rolled the dice and lost. Horribly.

The Reds didn't hold onto any rentals (like the Angels did Ohtani) that would have brought in major prospect returns, but they could have traded highly valuable prospects for rentals like the Angels did (Like CES or Phillips for Giolito).

I think Krall approached this season as "house money" with next year being the true goal to contend. I know many people feel like if you have the chance, take it, but that can be just as disastrous as playing it safe, so I don't think there was a "correct answer" to what we should have done at the deadline.

The good news is, even with how awful our offense has been over the last 3 weeks, we are still only half a game out of a playoff spot with series against 3 of the 4 teams that we're competing with for those final 2 spots (Diamondbacks, Giants and Cubs. The 4th team is Miami, but we don't play them) coming up in succession very soon.

We can take commanding lead of those playoff spots if we handle business over the next two weeks (A 10 game winning streak over those 3 series would be just peachy  ).

Or we can peter away and miss the playoffs by a few games.

We'll have to see how it goes :).

(08-23-2023, 01:17 PM)ochocincos Wrote: It's probably my distain for the 1-game playoff format for the WC teams a few years ago when they had 5 teams make it, but I always hated making the WC.
Maybe it was more that the Reds were just so bad in those 1-game WC matchups.

Now that the WC series is actually a 3-game series, maybe I'll be less worrisome of losing in one. And to be fair, if the Reds even were to win the division, they'd probably be the 3-seed anyway, so they'd have to play in the WC series regardless.

(08-23-2023, 11:45 AM)ochocincos Wrote: I feel like a parrot at times, but things like this is why I wanted to see the Reds be a little more active at the trade deadline.
You can't always account for guys returning when you think they will, and you can't ensure they'll come back exactly like they were before, at least not immediately.

Now, the Reds could end up having to roll with Lively or maybe call up Connor Phillips or some other dude.
And it could ultimately risk making the postseason this year.

That's the risk the Reds organization chose to take.