Reds renew all coaches except...........
in [Cincinnati Reds]
|
Prev: Pitching Coach
Next: ASBCR 2009 questions
From: tom dunne on 14 Oct 2009 16:51 On Oct 14, 12:36 pm, HTP <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > On Oct 13, 7:57 pm, tom dunne <dunn...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 4:20 pm, David Short > > > <David.no.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote: > > > tom dunne wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 9:30 am, David Short > > > > <David.no.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote: > > > >> tom dunne wrote: > > > >>> Giving 60 games to Laynce Nix is a big part of the problem, one I hope > > > >>> won't be repeated next year. > > > >> Nix was as good a gamble as Gomes was. AT one time Nix was a highly > > > >> thought of prospect who got hurt instead of having a career. > > > > >> They were just throwing talent against the wall to see what stuck. > > > > > This is an odd argument. Nix has never shown anything remotely as > > > > positive as Gomes's first three full seasons. With Gomes, you're > > > > rolling the dice looking for his 2005 season, and you're content with > > > > his 2007 campaign. With Nix, you're hoping a guy who has never once > > > > posted a .300 OBP can suddenly, at age 28, become a decent hitter? > > > > That's not a gamble, that's magical thinking. > > > > > The Reds gave Nix 337 plate appearances, which is more than he's seen > > > > since he played for the Rangers in 2004 (and more than the Reds gave > > > > the previously successful Gomes or cheaper in-house option Chris > > > > Dickerson.) Nothing in Nix's career said he was worth playing that > > > > much, and in the end he wasn't worth it. Cincinnati actually got the > > > > best season of Nix's career, and it was still just a 95 OPS+. > > > > In 2005 Nix got hurt. Shoulder injury that just never healed right. > > > Before the injury he looks like a kid promoted a little too quickly and > > > overmatched by major league pitching. > > > After the injury before this year, he looks pretty terrible. > > > The reds were hoping that a former uberprospect could regain form in a > > > new city in a new league...kind of like what happened with that Hamilton > > > fellow. > > > It paid off in the sense that Nix did have his best year. It backfired > > > on them because it just wasn't much of a year. > > > It doesn't matter what the cause of Nix's crappy career is - he > > wasn't good enough to deserve 337 major league plate appearances in > > 2009. > > > > > > > > > I realize that talkinjg about Nix is complaining about the in-flight > > > > meal while the plane is going down in flames, but a good franchise > > > > isn't giving guys like Laynce Nix a starting spot hoping he'll stick. > > > > but the reds have been so talent thin over the last few years that this > > > has become a regular strategy. Bowden used to fill out his pitching > > > staff that way every year. Walt fills out his outfield in the same way. > > > What's your point? Since they're talent thin and this has become a > > regular strategy, they ought to keep doing it? I'm actually a little > > shocked that you're defending the Reds for giving half a season to > > Layne Nix...- Hide quoted text - > > > - Show quoted text - > > When the season began, the Reds starting outfield was supposed to be > Hairston/Taveras/Bruce. Nix was on the bench. He was hitting a ton off > the bench and in spot starts and finally moved into the lineup after > the first week in May when Hairston began playing SS regularly. At > that point, people were watching Nix and going "why isnt this guy > playing more". He was hitting .350, so when a spot in the lineup > opened up, he was an obvious choice. > > And then he stopped hitting pretty much the moment he became a > regular. > > But its not like the club brought him in with the intention of giving > him 300+ plate appearances. People got hurt and he started getting > more playing time. He's your typical came-out-of-nowhere-to-win- > the-5th-outfield-spot-nobody. Okay, wow, I must be wrong on this. SInce I'm completely outnumbered here, I'll concede that Nix was a good signing. I realize that it's not ever day you can pick up a guy for double the league minimum and get half a season of sub-league average ball out of him. We'll put this move in the 'Win' column for Jocketty and assume the left field production was bad for reasons other than the players who were assigned to play there.
From: David Short on 14 Oct 2009 17:11 "tom dunne" <dunnetg(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >Okay, wow, I must be wrong on this. SInce I'm completely outnumbered >here, I'll concede that Nix was a good signing. I realize that it's >not ever day you can pick up a guy for double the league minimum and >get half a season of sub-league average ball out of him. We'll put >this move in the 'Win' column for Jocketty and assume the left field >production was bad for reasons other than the players who were >assigned to play there. weird watching the world revolve here. This started because I stated that the signing of Laynce Nix was like the signing of Jonny Gomes.I maintain that's true. The Nix signing was a lower risk/higher reward signing that didn't work out. The Gomes signing was along the same line, but it did work out. You took objection to that and now are feeling persecuted and claiming that somehow Henry and I believe the signing of Nix was a good thing. dfs
From: HTP on 14 Oct 2009 19:04 On Oct 14, 1:51 pm, tom dunne <dunn...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > On Oct 14, 12:36 pm, HTP <tmbowma...(a)yahoo.com> wrote: > > > > > > > On Oct 13, 7:57 pm, tom dunne <dunn...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Oct 13, 4:20 pm, David Short > > > > <David.no.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote: > > > > tom dunne wrote: > > > > > On Oct 13, 9:30 am, David Short > > > > > <David.no.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.edu> wrote: > > > > >> tom dunne wrote: > > > > >>> Giving 60 games to Laynce Nix is a big part of the problem, one I hope > > > > >>> won't be repeated next year. > > > > >> Nix was as good a gamble as Gomes was. AT one time Nix was a highly > > > > >> thought of prospect who got hurt instead of having a career. > > > > > >> They were just throwing talent against the wall to see what stuck. > > > > > > This is an odd argument. Nix has never shown anything remotely as > > > > > positive as Gomes's first three full seasons. With Gomes, you're > > > > > rolling the dice looking for his 2005 season, and you're content with > > > > > his 2007 campaign. With Nix, you're hoping a guy who has never once > > > > > posted a .300 OBP can suddenly, at age 28, become a decent hitter? > > > > > That's not a gamble, that's magical thinking. > > > > > > The Reds gave Nix 337 plate appearances, which is more than he's seen > > > > > since he played for the Rangers in 2004 (and more than the Reds gave > > > > > the previously successful Gomes or cheaper in-house option Chris > > > > > Dickerson.) Nothing in Nix's career said he was worth playing that > > > > > much, and in the end he wasn't worth it. Cincinnati actually got the > > > > > best season of Nix's career, and it was still just a 95 OPS+. > > > > > In 2005 Nix got hurt. Shoulder injury that just never healed right. > > > > Before the injury he looks like a kid promoted a little too quickly and > > > > overmatched by major league pitching. > > > > After the injury before this year, he looks pretty terrible. > > > > The reds were hoping that a former uberprospect could regain form in a > > > > new city in a new league...kind of like what happened with that Hamilton > > > > fellow. > > > > It paid off in the sense that Nix did have his best year. It backfired > > > > on them because it just wasn't much of a year. > > > > It doesn't matter what the cause of Nix's crappy career is - he > > > wasn't good enough to deserve 337 major league plate appearances in > > > 2009. > > > > > > > > > > > I realize that talkinjg about Nix is complaining about the in-flight > > > > > meal while the plane is going down in flames, but a good franchise > > > > > isn't giving guys like Laynce Nix a starting spot hoping he'll stick. > > > > > but the reds have been so talent thin over the last few years that this > > > > has become a regular strategy. Bowden used to fill out his pitching > > > > staff that way every year. Walt fills out his outfield in the same way. > > > > What's your point? Since they're talent thin and this has become a > > > regular strategy, they ought to keep doing it? I'm actually a little > > > shocked that you're defending the Reds for giving half a season to > > > Layne Nix...- Hide quoted text - > > > > - Show quoted text - > > > When the season began, the Reds starting outfield was supposed to be > > Hairston/Taveras/Bruce. Nix was on the bench. He was hitting a ton off > > the bench and in spot starts and finally moved into the lineup after > > the first week in May when Hairston began playing SS regularly. At > > that point, people were watching Nix and going "why isnt this guy > > playing more". He was hitting .350, so when a spot in the lineup > > opened up, he was an obvious choice. > > > And then he stopped hitting pretty much the moment he became a > > regular. > > > But its not like the club brought him in with the intention of giving > > him 300+ plate appearances. People got hurt and he started getting > > more playing time. He's your typical came-out-of-nowhere-to-win- > > the-5th-outfield-spot-nobody. > > Okay, wow, I must be wrong on this. SInce I'm completely outnumbered > here, I'll concede that Nix was a good signing. I realize that it's > not ever day you can pick up a guy for double the league minimum and > get half a season of sub-league average ball out of him. We'll put > this move in the 'Win' column for Jocketty and assume the left field > production was bad for reasons other than the players who were > assigned to play there.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text - Not really saying anything. Mainly its just the idea that the club believed that Nix deserved 337 PA coming into the season that i disagree with. They thought he was worth a look in spring training. They thought he was worth keeping on the roster over, among others, Gomes, but that may have been an options thing. It just worked out that they gave him so much time; injuries, trades, and Nix's hot start. Nix deserved a look, and eventually more playing time, but in the end he has to be viewed as a disappointment, albeit minor. But that signing/playing pales in comparison to the taveras travesty. They intended to start Willie and they payed him more. They can part ways with Lance and move on, not so easy with this other guy (not so easy for management that is).
From: tom dunne on 14 Oct 2009 21:00 On Oct 14, 5:11 pm, "David Short" <David.No.Sh...(a)Spam.Wright.Please.Edu> wrote: > "tom dunne" <dunn...(a)gmail.com> wrote in message > >Okay, wow, I must be wrong on this. SInce I'm completely outnumbered > >here, I'll concede that Nix was a good signing. I realize that it's > >not ever day you can pick up a guy for double the league minimum and > >get half a season of sub-league average ball out of him. We'll put > >this move in the 'Win' column for Jocketty and assume the left field > >production was bad for reasons other than the players who were > >assigned to play there. > > weird watching the world revolve here. > > This started because I stated that the signing of Laynce Nix was like the > signing of Jonny Gomes.I maintain that's true. The Nix signing was a lower > risk/higher reward signing that didn't work out. The Gomes signing was along > the same line, but it did work out. You took objection to that and now are > feeling persecuted and claiming that somehow Henry and I believe the signing > of Nix was a good thing. You: "Reds left fielders had a 720 Ops which given the park they hit in is a disaster." Me: "Giving 60 games to Laynce Nix is a big part of the problem." You: "Nix was as good a gamble as Gomes was." I don't know how to read that as anything but your defending the Nix signing.
From: john smith on 14 Oct 2009 22:19
How many more chances will a guy like Nix get in the future? I think at his age he will now have to be part-time player from now on. Can't blame the Reds for signing him, they tried to catch lightning in the bottle..... Jay Bruce and Laynce Nix have the same problem, an inability to handle the outside strike and drive the ball the other way with regularity. If and when they can do this, they will improve significantly. Bruce at his age still has a chance. Mr. Nix might have seen his last chance last year, relatively speaking of course.... |