I love all the names being bantered about. Saarloos, Coffey, Santos, Stanton, Weathers, Bray, Majewski. Everyone is forgetting about "Everyday Eddie":creepy: Guys, the Reds have played 32 games and are 8 games out!! That is a definite red flag, and the Reds are hinging their season on an aging pitcher that is coming off arm surgery. Yikes:scared: Doomed I tell ya. At this rate the Reds finish 40 games out. How do you like that? Mr. Krivsky, instead of telling the fans that the Reds will be fine with the current roster (you know that to be false) just tell us the truth. You know the team has no chance to make the playoffs and for now you're standing pat. Discount tickets, sell the entertainment value and kiss your job goodbye:fire:

If Milton tanks it on Tuesday, you have to move him somewhere. I'd go ahead and bring up Bailey. This team needs a shot in the arm and Narron isn't a rah-rah in your face kind of manager. A jolt is needed from somewhere or this team will be out of contention by the time they finish the Cleveland series.

 

 

I believe the Reds would call up Bobby Livingston before they rushed Bailey. I believe Bailey proved in Spring Training that he isn't ready yet.

I believe the Reds would call up Bobby Livingston before they rushed Bailey. I believe Bailey proved in Spring Training that he isn't ready yet.

 

Totally agree. :thumb:

 

The Reds are what, (0-6) when Milton pitches? And as for the bullpen. Eddie G. is not going to be the answer. His arm will never be what it was when he was an all-star and by the time he's ready, the Reds will be 15+ games out of the race. Bray and Majewski are different stories however and Majewski seems to be near ready if not for his sister getting killed recently (if I heard that right from John Fay on the broadcast last night.) At this point, I'd take my chances with Salmon and Countlangus in key situations over Stanton & Weathers - let the young guys get a chance at it, can't be much worse.

 

Surprising that Castellini hasn't come out and said something publicly about shaking things up.

 

Send Edwin to Louisville and play Freel at 3B and call up Keppinger...Cut Stanton & Milton and activate Majewski and bring up Livingstone...Don't bring up Baliey for the sake of keeping interest and butts in the seats...Get a set lineup from GM's office and officially put Narron on the hot seat.

Bailey is still throwing close to 100 pitches in 5 and 6 innings at AAA. He needs to stay in Louisville. Period. End of story...

 

 

I'm not saying I agree w/ it, but I read somewhere that over the last 5-7 years the Twins have brought up their young future starters and had them work out of the pen to get their feet wet.

He falls in love with the hard stuff and it just doesn't work....

 

For the record, the problem last night was that he didn't throw the fastball on 3-2 and got beat on a pitch "he's working on (change-up)." If you saw Pole after the inning (nice to see him get into his grill) he wanted the heater there and not a 88 mph batting practice fastball (err, change-up).

 

I agree with Malachi, depending on Guardado to be the difference 6 months after Tommy John surgery is a joke.

At least they've dashed all our hopes by early May this year instead of holding us in suspense until middle June. :irked:

 

How many games has the bullpen lost this year? I'm not just talking 'official' record. I'm also talking about the runs they allowed that the starter left on base, too. Although those are charged to the starter, the bullpen couldn't do their job and leave them stranded.

Quick rant:

 

I hate the way losing pitchers are determined. The losing pitcher should be the guy that gave up the run that caused the margin of victory. Lohse (officially) gives up the first 3 runs and leaves trailing 3-2 (officially). The final is 5-4, but since the Reds never tied up the game, Lohse is still the loser.

 

I ranted about this a couple of years ago when a starter left the game 2-1. The final was like 11-8, but because the Reds never tied it up, the starter still took the loss.

 

That is just a horrible way to determine the "losing" pitcher.

 

Okay, I'm done.

Quick rant:

 

I hate the way losing pitchers are determined. The losing pitcher should be the guy that gave up the run that caused the margin of victory. Lohse (officially) gives up the first 3 runs and leaves trailing 3-2 (officially). The final is 5-4, but since the Reds never tied up the game, Lohse is still the loser.

 

I ranted about this a couple of years ago when a starter left the game 2-1. The final was like 11-8, but because the Reds never tied it up, the starter still took the loss.

 

That is just a horrible way to determine the "losing" pitcher.

 

Okay, I'm done.

So what should be the way to determine it? The pitcher that gave up the last runs to finalize the losing margin.

 

Let's use last night's game as a question point.

 

With the system you are implying, Coffey gets the loss. But let's say Gonzalez does not hit the HR, does Loshe get it since the Reds would have never overcome the runs Loshe gave up? Or does Coffey still get it because he gave up the runs that finalized the score?

I believe the Reds would call up Bobby Livingston before they rushed Bailey. I believe Bailey proved in Spring Training that he isn't ready yet.

:thumb: :thumb: I agree, no way do I rush Bailey in before he is ready, that is a perfect recipie to destroy confidence. JMO

So what should be the way to determine it? The pitcher that gave up the last runs to finalize the losing margin.

 

Let's use last night's game as a question point.

 

With the system you are implying, Coffey gets the loss. But let's say Gonzalez does not hit the HR, does Loshe get it since the Reds would have never overcome the runs Loshe gave up? Or does Coffey still get it because he gave up the runs that finalized the score?

 

If you lose 8-7, whomever gives up the 8th run should be the losing pitcher IMHO. Using last night, yes, it would be Coffey. Had the final been 5-2, yes, whomever gave up the 3rd run would be the loser (which would have been Lohse). I've always thought the system they use is peculiar.

If you lose 8-7, whomever gives up the 8th run should be the losing pitcher IMHO. Using last night, yes, it would be Coffey. Had the final been 5-2, yes, whomever gave up the 3rd run would be the loser (which would have been Lohse). I've always thought the system they use is peculiar.

Problem with that is a pitcher comes out and gives up 11 runs in the first 2 innings. Pulled for a reliever who goes the distance as the manager wants to save the bullpen. That relief pitcher gives up 1 run in the 7 innings of work and gets the loss. Is that fair?

Problem with that is a pitcher comes out and gives up 11 runs in the first 2 innings. Pulled for a reliever who goes the distance as the manager wants to save the bullpen. That relief pitcher gives up 1 run in the 7 innings of work and gets the loss. Is that fair?

 

Fair? Maybe not, but I'd think those types of comebacks and 12-11 scores are far more the aberration than the norm. There is no way that the guy that gives up the 3rd run in a 5-4 game should be the loser -- illogical.

 

In your example, fair, no. However, had that reliever held them there the team would have gone to extras, so yes, it is what I'm talking about. Again, fairly extreme example, but yes.

Fair? Maybe not, but I'd think those types of comebacks and 12-11 scores are far more the aberration than the norm. There is no way that the guy that gives up the 3rd run in a 5-4 game should be the loser -- illogical.

 

In your example, fair, no. However, had that reliever held them there the team would have gone to extras, so yes, it is what I'm talking about. Again, fairly extreme example, but yes.

I didn't say comeback. His team lost 12-0 and the reliever gets the loss after the starter gave up 11 runs. Illogical just as I agree that it was illogical last night.

I didn't say comeback. His team lost 12-0 and the reliever gets the loss after the starter gave up 11 runs. Illogical just as I agree that it was illogical last night.

 

No -- the loss should go to the pitcher that gave up the deciding run -- not the last one. In your example, the guy who gave up the first run (since 1 bests the 0 the Reds scored in your example) would be the loser. Whomever allows the "losing run" should get the loss.

No -- the loss should go to the pitcher that gave up the deciding run -- not the last one. In your example, the guy who gave up the first run (since 1 bests the 0 the Reds scored in your example) would be the loser. Whomever allows the "losing run" should get the loss.

Gotcha. I could go for that.