PDA

View Full Version : Sean Casey rumored in 3 way trade discussion



savafan
11-17-2003, 01:13 AM
Apparently, those fantasy GM's here on Redszone aren't crazy. The Pirates are rumored to be very interested in Sean Casey. What I hear is that a 3 way deal has been discussed that would send Sean Casey to Pittsburgh, Jason Kendall would be going to San Diego and Kevin Jarvis would be on his way back to Cincinnati.

toledodan
11-17-2003, 02:05 AM
i can't see that happening. first if the padres had the money they would have had kendall when they got giles. second our gm would be lynched if we gave up casey for jarvis. i would like to trade casey though.

Wheelhouse
11-17-2003, 02:24 AM
There must be some prospect(s) thrown in with Jarvis if that's true. Jarvis is a tough athlete and a leader, which might be a good thing on a young staff.

M2
11-17-2003, 02:29 AM
The source of the rumor is?

(I'd do the deal in a hot minute if it was being offered. Jarvis costs $4.25 million in 2004 and had a $500 K buyout of a $5.25 million team option in 2005. The Reds should ask for Dennis Tankersley in addition.)

savafan
11-17-2003, 02:43 AM
Originally posted by M2
The source of the rumor is?



I have a few friends with inside contacts. 2 of them told me that this has been discussed.

Krusty
11-17-2003, 07:55 AM
The Reds would have a tough time justifying trading the Mayor for a journeyman pitcher.

Now, if it netted a deal similar to the Boone deal, I don't think fans would be that upset.

redsfan4445
11-17-2003, 08:36 AM
why isnt Benson in this rumoured deal??????/

RedRoser
11-17-2003, 08:38 AM
This only makes sense from a Reds point of view IF the difference in Casey and Jarvis's salaries enable us to free up some substantial $$$ AND IF we net a prospect who is a pitcher, third baseman, or leadoff hitter.

So, Jax, or somebody, tell us what Jarvis's salary is...:eek:

---'Roser

Raisor
11-17-2003, 08:41 AM
Originally posted by RedRoser
So, Jax, or somebody, tell us what Jarvis's salary is...:eek:

---'Roser


From earlier in the thread:


Originally posted by M2
(I'd do the deal in a hot minute if it was being offered. Jarvis costs $4.25 million in 2004 and had a $500 K buyout of a $5.25 million team option in 2005.

RedRoser
11-17-2003, 09:12 AM
Oops! You'll have to forgive me, it's early, I'm getting old and my eyesight's starting to go. . .

So we wouldn't save much $$$ this season if we were to make the deal, but would save later on, right?

It'd have to be an awfully good prospect or second player for me to rationalize this deal.

---'Roser

Raisor
11-17-2003, 09:19 AM
Originally posted by RedRoser

So we wouldn't save much $$$ this season if we were to make the deal, but would save later on, right?



Savings for 2004: 2.55 million

Savings for 2004+2005: (assuming 500K buyout) 9.85 million.

JaxRed
11-17-2003, 09:20 AM
"why isnt Benson in this rumoured deal??????/"


Because if this deal is being proposed, it's one bad contract being dumped per team.

For Pittsburgh, it's much more important to dump Kendall than Benson.

This would free up 2.55 million this year, and 6.3 million next. It would save us 8.5 million in 2006 if we didn't have the fortitude to limit Casey's at bats to less than 1500 in 3 years. (a pace he's already over)

So I'd do it.

Johnny Footstool
11-17-2003, 09:27 AM
The money would be "freed up" to line the owners' pockets -- I don't believe it would be invested in the team.

Still, I wouldn't mind that deal. It would allow Dunn (or Griffey) to move to 1B and Smitherman to make the big league club.

red-in-la
11-17-2003, 11:09 AM
You do this deal RIGHT NOW for two reasons.

1. You find ANYONE silly enough to take Casey's contract and you do it.

2. There is a six lane highway being built right through the Reds outfield and it is called WMP. If you believe JR is going to suddenly play again, you MUST make a place to move Dunn so that WMP can play everyday.

buckeyenut
11-17-2003, 12:17 PM
Agreed. Wily Mo and Smitherman both need time on the big club next year.

To make that deal work, I'm asking for two of Xavier Nady, Cory Stewart, Dennis Tankersley, Ryan Doumit, or Bobby Bradley from PIT and SD.

JaxRed
11-17-2003, 12:22 PM
Okay, so they tell you to forget the deal then. These are bad contract swaps. You can't get prospects when swapping bad contracts.

Johnny Footstool
11-17-2003, 12:35 PM
I think JaxRed is right -- this deal is a proposed re-allocation of bad contract dollars. No prospects will be included.

M2
11-17-2003, 01:03 PM
Originally posted by JaxRed
Okay, so they tell you to forget the deal then. These are bad contract swaps. You can't get prospects when swapping bad contracts.

Agreed. That's why you ask for Tankersley. He's no longer a prospect. Yet he is a AAA pitcher with some intriguing skills.

I'd do the deal heads-up without a prospect, but it never hurts to ask for a small amount of talent. The Padres and Pirates would be receiving starting players in the deal. The Reds could at least request that somebody throw them a bone.

SteelSD
11-17-2003, 01:30 PM
So there's potentially a possible rumor maybe involving the following players:

Sean Casey
Jason Kendall
Kevin Jarvis

And the guy we'd take is Jarvis? And we'd be happy about it simply because we'd only have to pay him for a season while he stunk? The alternative is to release Jarvis so at least he can negatively impact some other team's performance.

And we let the best player in the deal- a top 5 catcher- who would cost a couple mil more than an unproductive Casey to go to team #3...

...so we can get a player who we'd be best off releasing- thus eating his salary.

And we're ok with diminishing returns...because we'll get cheaper.

That's the smokescreen of "Payroll Flexibility" folks. Because if you can't use Casey's dollars to afford a productive Kendall, your team is truly screwed.

Kendall doesn't have the greatest contract, but if you can't afford it while moving 6.5 M, then you should just hang it up. Ridiculous.

4256 Hits
11-17-2003, 01:34 PM
Originally posted by M2
The source of the rumor is?

(I'd do the deal in a hot minute if it was being offered. Jarvis costs $4.25 million in 2004 and had a $500 K buyout of a $5.25 million team option in 2005. The Reds should ask for Dennis Tankersley in addition.)

Man what did Jarvis ever do to warent this kind of contract???? At least the bad contracts the Reds gave out the players has at least been good players just got worse after signing the contract.

red-in-la
11-17-2003, 01:38 PM
This from the "he has the job so he must know what is doing crowd." You are sure right, who in the wrong mind would give Kevin Jarvis a BIG LTC? Welcome to the Padres world.

BTW, it is the same folks who gave Brett Tomko a big contract.

red-in-la
11-17-2003, 01:43 PM
Steel, I agree that the Reds are helping the Padres to steal :D Kendall.....but you do this because you get rid of money AND you open a place to play better (or at least potentially better) players on your team.

Of course, IFIFIF Casey goes to the Pirates and posts a .900 OPS, then the Reds look stupid.....but Casey couldn't post that when he had Kearns, Dunn, Boone and JR in the line up with him.

I cannot see how he could improve in the no name line up the Pirates are going to boast.

JaxRed
11-17-2003, 01:57 PM
Whoever gets Kendall is the loser in this deal unless the Pirates pay a big portion of his salary (in which case Pirates are big losers)

Reds are big winners no matter what.

traderumor
11-17-2003, 02:17 PM
I realize that Casey is not the poster child 1B the last two seasons, but I would see this deal with only Jarvis in return akin to giving him away. About the only thing it would provide is a shorter time of a contract not matching production. But the question is, why is it ok to give Casey away when it was a firesale with Boone for Claussen? And there is no heir apparent to play the position. OK, move Dunn, make room for Wily Mo. I don't like that plan to start off the season. Maybe an in season deal, is a better bet to get something in return for Casey. That seems to be the best time to get someone to overpay for your marginal players in today's market, just like the above mentioned Boone for Claussen deal.

Carter
11-17-2003, 02:22 PM
I agree 100% with traderumor.. I wouldn't even think about the deal. Only way I would is if the money was going to actually be spent on something else of significant use. I for one wouldn't want to see Haynes and Jarvis in the same rotation.

Ravenlord
11-17-2003, 02:23 PM
personally, i feel for the dollar amounts, Casey is a better value than Jarvis.

M2
11-17-2003, 02:26 PM
Kendall annually ranks among the best catchers in baseball. Obviously if he doesn't continue to do that then you've sunk a lot of money into nothing. Yet if he does, you've invested your money in a plus up-the-middle player ... and isn't that the kind of player you want to invest in?

Basically if Kendall does what he did the previous two season for the next three years, the Padres wouldn't have any reason to complain. The real risk is that he turns 30 next season.

The Reds only win that deal if they reinvest the money they've saved into something useful. Otherwise it's just a budget cut and, last I looked, they don't award any trophies to the team with the most regressive budget.

red-in-la
11-17-2003, 02:34 PM
traderumor, here's the difference between the Boone deal and the Casey deal.

I never was a Boone fan, but the Reds trade him and now, all they can talk about is who do they get to play 3B.

If you trade Casey today, you have at least TWO very good candidates to replace him. Both Dunn and JR (or even WMP) could be OK defensive 1B's (at least as good as the slow footed Casey) and provide much more 1B-like production.

Plus, in Casey, you have a 3 year contract at large money to deal with. With Boone, the worst that could be said was that you had to deal with arbitration.

Falls City Beer
11-17-2003, 02:49 PM
I fall into the camp that believes that the money saved would be reinvested, if not this season, then in the long-term. If this team's raison d'etre is to save money, then they could have saved even more by not hiring a GM, and Allen could have filled both positions. The aim of this team is to compete cheaply. Not as some would have you believe--exist cheaply, cheap as an end in itself. I've said this once before; O'Brien wants to be a GM again when his contract is up in 3 years; he has great incentive to compete. I'm willing to wait and see if he can compete cheaply.
So, in short, I'd do the deal; Jarvis can pitch out of the bullpen if Valentine isn't ready.

M2
11-17-2003, 03:00 PM
I'm not sure it will be reinvested, but you can't reinvest what you don't free up in the first place. That's why I'd do the deal.

The good news for O'Brien would be that the real savings don't kick in until 2005, so it's not like he'd immediately have to reach into his hat and grab any rabbits.

RANDY IN INDY
11-17-2003, 03:12 PM
Kevin Jarvis, huh?:rolleyes: Haven't we seen enough of him, already? Although it might free up some pocket change for Lindner and Co., that trade would be a tough sell for 2004. Kevin Jarvis. Now there's a player that will put some fannies in the seats. Matter of fact, the Reds PR department could probably build their whole 2004 marketing campaign around him. "Come see the "re-runs." It's probably the only "runs" you'll see this season.

gm
11-17-2003, 03:24 PM
Sell Casey low to buy Jarvis high? The desperation to dump Sean is reaching epic proportions

Chip R
11-17-2003, 03:25 PM
Originally posted by RANDY IN CHAR NC
Kevin Jarvis, huh?:rolleyes: Haven't we seen enough of him, already? Although it might free up some pocket change for Lindner and Co., that trade would be a tough sell for 2004. Kevin Jarvis. Now there's a player that will put some fannies in the seats. Matter of fact, the Reds PR department could probably build their whole 2004 marketing campaign around him. "Come see the "re-runs." It's probably the only "runs" you'll see this season. Yep. Jarvis for Casey would look like a joke to a lot of Reds fans. Not only is Jarvis a former Red who was unsuccessful in his time here he also would look like a retread to fans too. I'm not saying it's a bad deal but the Reds are going to have some 'splaining to do to the fans if they traded Casey for Jarvis.

Ravenlord
11-17-2003, 03:28 PM
Originally posted by gm
Sell Casey low to buy Jarvis high? The desperation to dump Sean is reaching epic proportions yep. we got Casey low...and want to sell him now for even less. let him play next season...if he hits 300 or so and OPS's 750-850 he should be able to be moved for a pretty good deal to someone like Montreal or Detroit...or some other "old school" team. taht's why Graves needs to close this year. i think if he can be 3rd in saves in the NL behind Smoltz and Gagne, we can trade him to a team in contention who wants a closer.

traderumor
11-17-2003, 03:29 PM
RIL,

They tried WMP at 1B in ST, but he did not play one inning there during the regular season, so I don't know if that is an option. Dunn is only a bad first baseman, not horrible, and just like in the OF, comes up with the highlight reel play occasionally while booting two routine balls. I am simply evaluating this trade as equivalent to a salary dump if Jarvis is the return. Yes, we get out from the LTC of Casey, but still dump $4.5M into the hopper next year for Jarvis, if I'm getting my numbers straight. This smells like a deal that sophisticated fans won't gripe about when it goes down in the off-season, but when balls start flying into the Ohio River during Jarvis' Batting Practice sessions, and our 1B are hitting a combined .205 with 300 Ks between them, the deal won't seem to make so much sense.

RANDY IN INDY
11-17-2003, 03:39 PM
I don't like that deal. It would be different if I really thought that the Reds would try to improve the team with the savings, but I'm sure it would get mixed in with the spin that "the fans haven't supported the team as well as we thought they would when we opened the new ballpark, and we have no choice but to lower the payroll to offset our losses." I'm afraid it would just make it easier for them to justify putting inferior talent on the field. I hope O'Brien has a magic wand and a silver tongue because that's exactly what it's going to take to justify moves like that one to the paying public, and then make it work.

pedro
11-17-2003, 04:04 PM
Originally posted by Ravenlord
yep. we got Casey low...and want to sell him now for even less. let him play next season...if he hits 300 or so and OPS's 750-850 he should be able to be moved for a pretty good deal to someone like Montreal or Detroit...or some other "old school" team. taht's why Graves needs to close this year. i think if he can be 3rd in saves in the NL behind Smoltz and Gagne, we can trade him to a team in contention who wants a closer.

i agree RL. I think Casey will have a better year in 2004 and Jarvis is just useless.

Johnny Footstool
11-17-2003, 04:21 PM
I think Casey will have a better year in 2004

Based on his current career trends, I would be very surprised if that happens.

Ravenlord
11-17-2003, 04:29 PM
Originally posted by Johnny Footstool
Based on his current career trends, I would be very surprised if that happens. as do i...but his SLG should go up about 30 points this year. if it doesn't, expect this to be Casey's last contract expecting him to be a starter.

M2
11-17-2003, 04:40 PM
Probably the hardest thing to justify to fans is that it isn't a pure giveaway. If it were Casey for two non-descript minor leaguers, then you'd be able to point to the $6.8 million the team had to chase other talent.

If it's Casey for Jarvis with the savings deferred largely until 2005, then it is a harder sell. I'd still do it and I'd feel no compunction to hand Jarvis a job on the team. If you can get out from under two years of Casey's contract, it's that much sooner you can point the club in the right direction.

Randy, I can see where the Reds might not spend the $2 million or so they'd save in 2004 and, if fans stay away in droves next year, never spend a dime of that PayFlex in 2005. It's the danger of trusting the current ownership/management. That said, I don't see where we have a choice in the matter. Hopefully they understand that giving away Casey and having nothing to show for it after two years would be like sticking your head into a noose.

red-in-la
11-17-2003, 04:43 PM
traderumor, Dunn is a young, athletic, highly coordinated man with both speed and a good arm. Casey is NONE of these.

Dunn is not a bad 1B. I am not sure where you get this from. He is certainly MORE capable of learning to become a fine 1B than Casey ever dreamed of.

Dunn is also inexpensive.

Maybe WMP cannot be played at 1B.....I dunno. But a place needs to be made for him to play everyday.

What makes Casey MOST unacceptable to me is the fact that the Reds have lost 2 excellent outfielders in the past two years just so that Casey and his great smile and anemic production would have a place to play.

Now we have the prospect of WMP and maybe even Smitherman wilting on the vine so that we can endure 3 more years of a slow singles hitter who is a mediocre 1B at best.

I would make this trade then RELEASE Jarvis of that is what it took. At its best, I can see Jarvis fulfilling the role that Jim Brower did so capably for a year or so. At worst, he is just another Jimmy Haynes....and in a year he is gone.

When you have Jimbo's penchant for signing really BAD long term contracts, you are going to have to make hurtful sacrifices somewhere along the line.

Kc61
11-17-2003, 04:59 PM
Now that would send a good message to Reds fans: the return of Kevin Jarvis.

It is a bad trade. Selling Casey low and buying Jarvis high (or at least overpaid).

Only way to justify it is:

1. Turn around and trade Jarvis immediately.

2. Get a good prospect in the deal (either the first deal or the retrade).

3. Use the pay differential to sign a good free agent, this year.

Don't see the Reds dumping Casey for nothing; he is too popular.

Ravenlord
11-17-2003, 05:00 PM
Originally posted by Kc61
1. Turn around and trade Jarvis immediately.

2. Get a good prospect in the deal.

3. Use the pay differential to sign a good free agent, this year. and almost no chance of any of those happening.

M2
11-17-2003, 05:06 PM
I've always wondered if JimBo didn't have an ulterior motive in the Casey signing.

Maybe he figured that what he was doing was booking himself close to $7 million a year with Sean Casey as the placeholder. Bowden surely had confidence in his ability to make a trade. Obviously the player market headed south and now it's not so easy to move Casey, but I can see where JimBo might have been as interested in preserving his player budget as he was in keeping Sean Casey.

traderumor
11-17-2003, 05:15 PM
RIL,

Where I get that Dunn is a bad 1B (from an everyday perspective like you are promoting) is watching him play there. He is ok for a fill in, but it would scare the bejeebies out of me to see him over there everyday. I agree with the athleticism, but I think you are making Casey into a bigger problem with our team than he really is. The biggest baggage he brings with him is the size of his contract, but don't make him out to be a worse ballplayer than he is simply because you think we are paying him too much. I agree that his value is less than his contract in the Reds world, but it may not be so in another team's budget. Heck, out where you are in Dodgerland, he'd be a possible cleanup hitter ;)

He is worth more than the Kevin Jarvis' of this world and we should release him (which ain't gonna happen) or trade him for prospects before we exchange him for some piece of garbage like Jarvis in the name of "payroll flexibility." That's why I said if we can wait and hope that a trade deadline deal could move him this year, that would be optimal. Then, we could give Adam some more significant time at 1B before handing him the responsibility. But I'd hate to see us just give him away. I know it's possible because it's a Bowden contract. I just don't agree with the logic that's being used for such moves.

savafan
11-17-2003, 05:19 PM
Also rumored, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh may cut out San Diego and swap Casey for Benson. The deal may be held up though, because Pittsburgh is also asking for one of Jimenz or Lopez.

pedro
11-17-2003, 05:34 PM
Originally posted by Johnny Footstool
Based on his current career trends, I would be very surprised if that happens.

true, however i think the shoulder has been a bigger problem than we know. certainly this year is make or break though.

CougarQuest
11-17-2003, 05:45 PM
Good god, this 3-way deal absolutely reeks for the Reds.

Kevin Jarvis!?!? No thanks.

Dunn is no where near a decent 1st baseman, that is obvious from watching him in person play 1st.

Jr is not going to play first, nor should he.

WMP was not good in the OF last year. I've never seen a MLB player take all the indirect routes to get to the ball as he does. He does not read the ball off the bat well at all. His speed helps him make up for his initial mental mistakes.

IMO, Smitherman is not ready for the majors. He is definitely not withering on the vine.

TheManWith3Legs
11-17-2003, 05:45 PM
Man, I been looking at Jarvis' stats......and my conclusion is that his contract could be the worst in MLB. To quote Butthead, "sucks is not a strong enough word to describe that crap" The Casey PLUS Jimenez or Lopez talk is crap IMO. We been beating that rumor to death for like 3 years in seems. Both guys have gotten increasingly worse too.

red-in-la
11-17-2003, 05:47 PM
Well traderumor, since everybody and his brother has been talking about moving Casey quite some time now, he must NOT be as easy to move you say.

Casey is bad because he clogs up a postion where the Reds have a lot of other, better alternatives. Casey is bad because he is just about LAST in almost every offensive category amongst his peers.

Casey has NEVER been mentioned in any talk I have ever seen in the same paragraph as gold glove. He is SLOW. Many pop-ups go unplayed that he never gets to. When Reese was over there running down everything in sight, Casey didn't look so out of place. But Jimenez just doesn't have that kind of range (who does?).

Casey is VERY poor at picking up balls in the dirt....and maybe, just maybe, with a little more skilled 1B, the Reds might NOT have led the league in errors.

Anyway, I guess we are not going to agree on this. The good news is that Casey CAN hit .300 when completely healthy.....so at least he isn't a .225 hitter with no power and no speed and an average glove......but I would be very pleased if the Reds actually came through with this trade.

M2
11-17-2003, 05:59 PM
Originally posted by savafan
Also rumored, Cincinnati and Pittsburgh may cut out San Diego and swap Casey for Benson. The deal may be held up though, because Pittsburgh is also asking for one of Jimenz or Lopez.

Ooooh, I like that one better. I choose to believe this rumor instead. Casey and FeLo for Benson is fine with me.

And folks, let's not fret over who plays 1B if Casey's gone. The Reds would have close to three months to figure that one out. Worst case scenario is Russ Branyan. And that's remote because the market will be flooded with 1Bs after the non-tender deadline.

gm
11-17-2003, 06:08 PM
Gullett has always like Benson, and McClendon is down on Kris. Back when KB was a #1/Ace in the making (and before his latest contract) I was bullish on a Sean/Kris deal. I see no reason to change my tune, now...but Pittsburgh does NOT get D'Angelo Jiminez...let them find their own starting 2nd baseman

Red Leader
11-17-2003, 06:11 PM
Originally posted by M2
Ooooh, I like that one better. I choose to believe this rumor instead. Casey and FeLo for Benson is fine with me.

And folks, let's not fret over who plays 1B if Casey's gone. The Reds would have close to three months to figure that one out. Worst case scenario is Russ Branyan. And that's remote because the market will be flooded with 1Bs after the non-tender deadline.

I agree. I'd take Benson from the Pirates for Casey and Lopez. And I also agree with what you said about someone playing 1B. There will be teams, say the Cubs, that will go out and get a new first baseman (Sexson?), which will leave players like Choi available for a trade, and others like Randall Simon, free to sign with whom they want. That's just one example. There will be plenty of Randall Simon, Robert Fick types that can be had for $1M=1.5M per year that will produce just as much if not more, than Casey did.

Krusty
11-17-2003, 06:24 PM
Don't see why we need to add Lopez to the deal. If the Pirates really want Casey, make if Casey for Benson.

Raisor
11-17-2003, 07:22 PM
Originally posted by Krusty
Don't see why we need to add Lopez to the deal. If the Pirates really want Casey, make if Casey for Benson.

I'd gladly give up FeLo to get rid of Casey.

Brutus_the_Red
11-17-2003, 07:45 PM
Originally posted by Krusty
Don't see why we need to add Lopez to the deal. If the Pirates really want Casey, make if Casey for Benson.

I don't think its so much that the Pirates want Casey as it is the Reds don't want Casey. If they need FeLo to take Casey, I pull the trigger.

savafan
11-17-2003, 08:29 PM
Here's hoping O'Brien can work a little magic that won't come back to bite us.

http://www.chriscaffery.com/phpBB2/images/smiles/dragon.gif

pedro
11-17-2003, 09:05 PM
Originally posted by Raisor
I'd gladly give up FeLo to get rid of Casey.

me too, he has potential but there's a good chance he'll be a wash out.

4256 Hits
11-17-2003, 09:31 PM
I think Casey contract calls for if he is traded that extra year becomes a players option. This would make him a little harder to trade.

Raisor
11-17-2003, 09:34 PM
Originally posted by red-in-la

Maybe WMP cannot be played at 1B.....I dunno. But a place needs to be made for him to play everyday.



That's the bottom line right there. The Reds are NOT going to contend next year, therefore WMP HAS to play in every game possible. For WMP to play everyday, Casey has to go. It's that simple.

Even if the money saved is NOT put back into the team, it's a move that has to be done for baseball reasons, not financial.

REDREAD
11-17-2003, 09:34 PM
Guys, in case you are wondering, last season Jarvis was 4-8 with a 5.87 ERA. The league batted .304 against him. He has a career
5.83 ERA..

I know some are touting all the payroll flexiblity trading Casey would bring.. but what exactly are we going to spend it on?

Based on the past, it's very unlikely the Reds will shop for free agents that would actually be impact players.. their MO is to just grab cheap, filler free agents..

Well, maybe we could use that payroll flexiblity to trade for a young up and coming pitcher in 2005 that is hitting arbitration.. well, what do we have to trade for a Vasquez-like pitcher in 2004?
The farm is pretty bare..

I know you can make a strong arguement that in theory the freed up Casey money will lead to a brighter future, but the reality is that it might just be another step into Milwaukee-land and the goal of a 30 milllion dollar budget.

I know Casey has been disappointing, but this trade has major disaster written all over it.. Until the Reds start actually spending some of their "flexiblity", it's going to be hard to sell the fans on trading Casey for a scrub.

Remember, the 2005 budget is influenced by the 2004 attendence... (at least according to Allen).

SteelSD
11-17-2003, 09:47 PM
That's the bottom line right there. The Reds are NOT going to contend next year, therefore WMP HAS to play in every game possible. For WMP to play everyday, Casey has to go. It's that simple.

I'm not sure that's the right path, Phil. I agree that chances are the Reds go nowhere next season, but I'd suggest that Smitherman needs to make it or break it and we have time with Pena. Heck, with our injury history, it's possible that Pena racks up 250+ PA even if Smitherman starts in LF.

I agree with moving Casey. Heck, I agree with moving Casey for virtually nothing.

The problem is that this "rumor" puts us in a position of dealing Casey for LESS than nothing (Kevin Jarvis) when there's supposedly a very productive Jason Kendall involved.

Instead, if this rumor is to be believed, I'm keeping Kendall and moving Larue- who should actually have some value to a team desperately needing a decent Catcher.

That's a bit of a net gain in payroll, but it's also a HUGE net gain in actual talent on this team.

I'd suggest that there's more than one way to trade a Casey.

Red Heeler
11-17-2003, 11:05 PM
EEEEeeeeekkkk!!!!

I've been pounding the drum for trading Casey for a while now, but this isn't at all what I had in mind. My motive for trading Casey is to get PayFlex this year. Miguel Bautista or Kelvim Escobar are there for the taking. Either would greatly improve the Reds' outlook for next year.

M2
11-17-2003, 11:36 PM
Raisor, maybe for WMP to play everyday it's Jr. that has to go. There's options beyond moving Dunn to 1B is all I'm saying.

REDREAD, look at what the White Sox dealt for Bart Colon or what the Phillies dealt for Kevin Millwood. The Reds can beat that, easy. What you need is the cash to take on that kind of contract.

Steel, I agree that there's more than one way to trade a Casey and the Reds should scout around for their best deal. Yet the one thing I hope they avoid is not pulling the trigger on him and finding themselves in this exact same situation next year. As cringe-inducing as Jarvis is (and I'd be all for cutting him) that deal would get the Reds out from under Casey's deal two years early.

Heeler, I'm thinking the trade market makes more sense than going the FA route. Livan Hernandez, Byung-Hyun Kim, Odalis Perez - guys like that. That's where the mid-range talent is and that's where shaving $2 million off the payroll by moving Casey might do you some good.

cincinnati chili
11-17-2003, 11:46 PM
I ask for more than the original deal. Steve Smitherman is not worth "making room" for. He's basically a 25 year old who tore up double a, then sucked in triple a and the majors. Big deal. Wily Mo Pena should get more playing time, but should still be a fourth outfielder for the time being.

Kevin Jarvis is a Major League Nothing. He's below replacement level. The major league equivalent to your neighborhood crack dealer: the community is better off without him.

Basically, the Reds would be paying $4.75 million to buyout Casey's contract.

No thanks.

Here's a better idea: Get a good right handed batting infielder that he can platoon with, and allow him to get some rest on occasion (yeah, yeah I know he had a better year against lefties... that's called a fluke). Bring in a batting coach that can help him get back his doubles stroke.

Or look for a better deal.

At least Casey gets on base.

CougarQuest
11-18-2003, 12:06 AM
10/31/03 Kris Benson, who missed the second half of the season with a shoulder issue, has completed a light throwing program and won't begin throwing again until December. Benson saw shoulder specialist Dr. Craig Morgan last week and was given a clean bill of health. He never did undergo surgery for his problem, which was just believed to be tendinitis.

Benson comes with a lot of questions. I know McClendon has had issues with Benson. Is Benson really injured worse than this last report, since he hasn't pitched since 07/18/03? Could he have pitching well before the end of the year, but because of the issues between Benson/McClendon the Pirates kept him out? Did the Pirates keep him out because they were out of it anyway and hoped the rest would get him ready for next year? Anyone trading for him, I would hope would have all the updated physical history.

Benson, who just turned 29, will be in the last year of his four year contract next year and will make $6.1M, but if he makes all of his incentives, he'll make $7.1M.

This trade rumor makes more sense than the Jarvis rumor. If they want FeLo also, then I would expect a low minor leaguer to accompany Benson to the Reds.

SteelSD
11-18-2003, 12:08 AM
Steve Smitherman is not worth "making room" for. He's basically a 25 year old who tore up double a, then sucked in triple a and the majors. Big deal.

I'm not looking to "make room" for Smitherman. I'm wanting to use the room created to see if he'll sink or swim. Either that, or deal the guy. I don't really care which.

And I totally agree on not using Kevin Jarvis as a virtual buyout for Casey's deal. Ugh.

Ravenlord
11-18-2003, 12:16 AM
Originally posted by cincinnati chili
At least Casey gets on base. but way below the average 1B. i hear people comparing Casey and Hatteberg. people not understanding why Hatteberg is now a millionaire thanks to one Billy Beane. it hasn't come up in this thread, but it's an interesting comparision, especially considering price of production:

Player Casey Hatteberg
AVG 291 253
OBP 350 342
SLG 408 383
OPS 758 725
M. SLG 432 427
IsoD 059 089
IsoP 117 130
IOS 176 219
P/PA 3.59 3.99
RC/27 5.26 4.05
MRC/27 5.32 5.10
Hatteberg had an off year, and still has a noticably higher IsoD, IsoP, and IOS. when using Doubles Modified Slugging, Hatteberg has the bigger rise in his SLG because he hits more doubles. his RC/27 also go up much more than Casey's when using M. SLG.

Ga_Red
11-18-2003, 01:45 AM
Jarvis???????????????????????

If Casey has to be traded,
do it at the trading deadline,
after he has had an injury free
opportunity to redeem himself,
and we can get some prospects
in return.

Same with KGJ.

The albatross contract, imo, is DG.
Any kind of three way that reduces
immediately the cost of that contract
has to be considered seriously.

Wheelhouse
11-18-2003, 02:51 AM
I'd be happy to get rid of Casey just to get rid of the bounce...

lollipopcurve
11-18-2003, 07:21 AM
I'd do either trade for these reasons:

1. There may be no other team interested in Casey, and Pittsburgh is likely only interested in him as part of a salary swap. They'll move Kendall to SD somehow, and I'm sure they can find takers for Benson -- whether the Reds are involved or not.

2. We create space in the OF for WMP. In my opinion, we need to get him 500 ABs, not 250, to get a better read on whether he's a possible keeper/cornerstone for the future. There's a lot of talk about EdwinE, but WMP is the #1 position player prospect we have, a possible middle of the lineup difference maker (and possible bust), so committing to his development is more important than rolling the dice that we'll find another taker for Casey.

3. I have no problem with taking on a burden (Jarvis or possibly Benson) in 2004 if it means we have more resources in 2005. Like Falls City, I believe the Reds will invest the money in their baseball operation, whether it's at the MLB level or in player development. I don't think this team will compete in 2004, nor do I think they should allocate dollars with only 2004 in mind -- that was always Bowden's MO, I thought -- trying to be competitive every year and sacrificing the future (for example: no $ for draft signings). I hope this administration sees farther than 6 months ahead.

There's no downside to moving Casey in either deal, in my opinion, so long as you accept that 2004 will be a year to build, not compete. If we hold onto him, we may be stuck with him through 2005 at least, and possibly through 2006. Is that a gamble you're willing to take, when the payoff is possibly just something a little better than Kevin Jarvis (or a savings of $4.25 million in 2004)?

Krusty
11-18-2003, 08:02 AM
You want a three-way deal with this thing? What about this...

Reds trade Casey to Pittsburgh for Kris Benson.

Pirates then deal Kendall to San Diego for Jarvis.

Jarvis replaces Benson in the rotation while Casey mans lst base for the Bucs. The Pirates save 3 million in salaries with this deal. Of course, the Bucs and Padres have to agree how much money the Bucs will send to offset Kendall's contract.

cincinnati chili
11-18-2003, 09:15 AM
I know that people on this thread have said that the Pirates have an interest in Casey. But I also know some people at the Pirates, and they have repeatedly told me over the last several years that the Littlefield crew does NOT like him. They don't care that he's from Pittsburgh. If savafan's reports are accurate, then most likely they are more interested in dumping other contracts than they are in acquiring Casey in particular.

REDREAD
11-18-2003, 10:38 AM
Originally posted by M2

REDREAD, look at what the White Sox dealt for Bart Colon or what the Phillies dealt for Kevin Millwood. The Reds can beat that, easy. What you need is the cash to take on that kind of contract.
.

This is a good point.
However, both Millwood and Colon came cheap in trades
partially because they were one year away from free agency.
A move like that is great when you are close to contending.
It would've been great for 2003.. plugging in Millwood/Colon
instead of our sorry parade of #5 starters might've kept us
in the race long enough to avoid a fire sale.

However, it 2005, we're probably far away from
contending.

The Reds are at the point now where they have to accumulate
as much talent as possible. If they do trade for pitching,
it has to be pitching talent that will be around for awhile.

That's why I'm not really high on the idea of Casey for Jarvis.
There's a pretty big deficit in talent there. Casey certainly isn't
the top 1b in the league, but he's a lot better than Jarvis.
I don't think anyone is arguing that. The whole reason you'd
trade Casey is for the hope of pay-flex in 2005-2006..
But in those years, we'll likely still be in a talent gathering
phase.. Could we realistically expect the payflex money to be
dumped into the draft or on Latin/Cuban players? If we could expect
that, I'd be more inclined to accept this deal.

Or if we could get a useful player for 2004.. not necessarily great,
but useful, then I'd be more inclined to like this deal.

But it looks to me like we're trading Casey for one year of a black
hole and no promises that the payflex won't be used to "cover raises",
as it always has in the past.

If the farm system was loaded enough to give us legitimate hope for 2005,
I'd be more optimistic as well.. (that the payflex could make an impact
in 2005)..

malcontent
11-19-2003, 01:28 AM
Originally posted by REDREAD
Casey certainly isn't the top 1b in the league, but he's a lot better than Jarvis.
Considering position played, contract status, and detriment to the development of other, younger players, I'd say Casey is a lot worse than Jarvis. What's more, the Reds wouldn't necessarily have to hand Jarvis a starting spot. One can only imagine the wailing and gnashing across Redsland if they actually sat Casey.

I'll also go on record to say that Jarvis is a bright enough guy that he just might go against all expectations and trends and have a good year or two.

Then again, I'm also waiting for Jimmy A. to surface...

CougarQuest
11-19-2003, 05:39 AM
Originally posted by malcontent
Considering position played, contract status, and detriment to the development of other, younger players, I'd say Casey is a lot worse than Jarvis. What's more, the Reds wouldn't necessarily have to hand Jarvis a starting spot. One can only imagine the wailing and gnashing across Redsland if they actually sat Casey.

I'll also go on record to say that Jarvis is a bright enough guy that he just might go against all expectations and trends and have a good year or two.

Then again, I'm also waiting for Jimmy A. to surface...

Jarvis worse than Casey :laugh:

Jarvis bright enough :roll:

Jarvis having a good year :lol:

STOOOOP it, you're killing me :laugh: :lol: :roll:

westofyou
11-19-2003, 10:41 AM
I'll also go on record to say that Jarvis is a bright enough guy that he just might go against all expectations and trends and have a good year or two.

Is this similar to when you went on record that Jimenez wouldn't cut it becuse his 'eyes' didn't have the look of life that you were comforable with.


I'd say Casey is a lot worse than Jarvis.

You can say it all day, now proving it is where your problem lies.

Cali Red
11-19-2003, 11:40 AM
Originally posted by savafan
I have a few friends with inside contacts. 2 of them told me that this has been discussed.

Has any of your so called rumors ever even remotely come close to happening? I would get rid of those two friends with inside contacts. They are making you look real bad!!

In case you missed it, my inside contacts (ESPN) announced a trade between the Padres and the A's yesterday. I doubt the Padres will be dealing for Jason Kendall having just acquired cather Ramon Hernandez. :rolleyes:

Dude, I love your enthusiasm. But don't come with stuff unless you have legitimate information. What a waste this thread was!!

SteelSD
11-19-2003, 01:33 PM
Dude, I love your enthusiasm. But don't come with stuff unless you have legitimate information. What a waste this thread was!!

Really? Savafan's initial post spawned a very good discussion on the relative value of players and player contracts. I consider the discussion a productive and insightful one...

...until your random flame.

I'll give you a tip- 99% of "rumors" either aren't true or they have merit but never come to frutition. That's regardless of whether you hear them from Peter Gammons or a Reds fan named Savafan.

If you don't like discussing things relavant to the Reds, may I suggest that you find a board that specializes in only things you'd like to read.

Take "Miss Shady" with you (another obvious flamer). I'm sure NEILYNG will welcome you both to his board.

The true "waste" certainly wasn't this thread.:rolleyes:

wheels
11-19-2003, 01:56 PM
Steel!

Cali Red
11-19-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by SteelSD
Really? Savafan's initial post spawned a very good discussion on the relative value of players and player contracts. I consider the discussion a productive and insightful one...

...until your random flame.

I'll give you a tip- 99% of "rumors" either aren't true or they have merit but never come to frutition. That's regardless of whether you hear them from Peter Gammons or a Reds fan named Savafan.

If you don't like discussing things relavant to the Reds, may I suggest that you find a board that specializes in only things you'd like to read.

Take "Miss Shady" with you (another obvious flamer). I'm sure NEILYNG will welcome you both to his board.

The true "waste" certainly wasn't this thread.:rolleyes:

Okay, so I heard a rumor we are going to get Alex Rodriguez for prospects. Should I post that?

Every single rumor Savaran posts is crap. And he says he knows people with inside information. Yet doesn't have the nads to reveal these so called insiders. Peter Gammons has credibilty. He works for the largest sports television network in the world and he is very close to many people inside of many organizations.

Have some accountability for what you post. Substantiate it with some kind of credibilty. Throwing BS rumors out there because soemone is bored whether it is about the Reds or not is for from relevant!!

I'll stay on this board if I like. And if you dont like it you can go Fu@# yourself!! (That's in responce to the "flamer" remark)

And if Miss Shady looks good I'll take you up on that offer. :thumbup:

SteelSD
11-19-2003, 02:01 PM
Very adult post, Cali.

I'm consistently amazed at the computer access allowed to preschoolers nowdays.

I'll be waiting for your next profane response, Cali. But can you help me out?

When exactly is your next milk break???

Y'know, so I can schedule you in. Of course, I'm assuming that you've already had nappy time, so let me know...

Cali Red
11-19-2003, 02:06 PM
Originally posted by SteelSD
Very adult post, Cali.

I'm consistently amazed at the computer access allowed to preschoolers nowdays.

I'll be waiting for your next profane response, Cali. But can you help me out?

When exactly is your next milk break???

Y'know, so I can schedule you in. Of course, I'm assuming that you've already had nappy time, so let me know...

Okay, you refer to me as a "flamer" and dont expect to get something back?

Don't start no stuff, wont be no stuff!!!

wheels
11-19-2003, 02:08 PM
Follow your own advice Cali.

Chip R
11-19-2003, 02:14 PM
OK, boys and girls. Let's get this thread back on the subject.

Cali Red
11-19-2003, 02:17 PM
Originally posted by wheels
Follow your own advice Cali.

Dude he started with the name calling. Can you not read? I am an idiot if I sit here and take crap from some one. I wouldn't expect you to do so, so please dont expect me to do so.

wheels
11-19-2003, 02:27 PM
I'm talking about you constantly banging on Savafan. It seems like you're sooo offended by someone posting a rumor a time or two. Your response to his posts just seem to go way too far in relation to what it really was: He heard a rumor, he posted it. It doesn't necessarily mean that he's lying just because it didn't come to fruition.

I like rumors. Real rumors, or false rumors...Doesn't really matter to me. It makes for good discussion. If you don't like rumors, simply don't read them. You don't need to dog someone over and over. It becomes tedious.

If you posted your own thread (which, I don't recall you ever doing) titled SteelSD is a big old jerk, and Savafan's rumors never come true, I won't read it. The thing is, you always seem to turn threads into arguments that don't even mean anything.

I guess I'm adding to the problem, but I'm not a patient man. When something bugs me, I say something.

Chip R
11-19-2003, 02:44 PM
I guess I didn't make myself clear. :mad: