PDA

View Full Version : Should the Reds re-sign Wilson for 2005?



savafan
07-23-2004, 04:15 PM
I heard Hal McCoy during the game yesterday saying that Wilson wants to return to the Reds next year, and McCoy is of the belief that you have to have at least one veteran in the rotation. He said that Wilson is a leader that the other pitchers look to.

Hal wasn't in favor of DanO's plan to wait until after the season for any contract talks, his reason being that Wilson's price would go up in free agency.

Wilson's been pretty decent this year, but part of me worries that he's Jimmy Haynes v. 2K4, and that signing him to a new contract would just come back to haunt this team.

Thoughts? Should the Reds try to bring Wilson back, or go with a young rotation next season?

flyer85
07-23-2004, 04:18 PM
I say yes(caveat being the price) because I think the young guys do need a veteran pitcher to lead by example. Supposedly nobody works harder than Wilson.

SYCMiniBus
07-23-2004, 04:21 PM
If you get Wilson for around 2-3 mil then I think it is a great move. I may even go up to about 4 mil per for him over 3 years (though I would have to think long and hard about that). But on the open market he my get as much as 5-6 mil from some team in which case I would say Paul thankyou for 2 very good years but we cant match that.
For the record I love Paul Wilson as a pitcher and he is a great guy, and I really do hope the Reds keep him, but it is a buisness.

DeadRedinCT
07-23-2004, 04:22 PM
:idea:

Trade him first, then re-sign him as a FA. :evil:

Raisor
07-23-2004, 04:26 PM
I suppose I can live with a one year deal and an option IF there's no trade that brings in someone with a better future, but his bionic arm scares the heck out of me.

UKFlounder
07-23-2004, 04:28 PM
If you could get him for 1 year for maybe $4 - $5 million at absolute most, then I'd like to have him back (maybe even with a team option for a 2nd year), but I'd be wary of signing him for multiple years, given that this might be a career year (see Haynes in 2002) and his history of injuries.

SYCMiniBus
07-23-2004, 04:33 PM
If you could get him for 1 year for maybe $4 - $5 million at absolute most, then I'd like to have him back (maybe even with a team option for a 2nd year), but I'd be wary of signing him for multiple years, given that this might be a career year (see Haynes in 2002) and his history of injuries.

The difference to me is Wilson has pitched about the same the last 3 years (injuries have jaded the overall numbers) where as Haynes pitched decent one year surrounded by about 12 awful years. Wilson is more "proven" as opposed to Jimmy Haynes who had 1 freak season.

UKFlounder
07-23-2004, 04:38 PM
The difference to me is Wilson has pitched about the same the last 3 years (injuries have jaded the overall numbers) where as Haynes pitched decent one year surrounded by about 12 awful years. Wilson is more "proven" as opposed to Jimmy Haynes who had 1 freak season.

Very good point.

But had Haynes had as many arm troubles as Wilson has had in his career?

Kc61
07-23-2004, 04:40 PM
Reds should sign Wilson for two years. Would give him about $3 million a year or slightly more. Would not resign Lidle who is not as good, very inconsistent.

If Wilson goes bad Reds will lose a few bucks. Big deal. Reds signed Haynes and he crapped out. Big deal.

Signing pitchers to huge long term contracts is a big risk. Signing a consistent veteran for 2 years is not a big risk. If you let every veteran pitcher go every year because of the risk they will go bad, you will never have a pitching staff.

Wilson is not great but is extremely consistent. He is very different from Haynes, who had been released by the Brewers. Wilson is a former top draft pick who has suffered from injuries but who now seems to have settled in as a solid but unspectacular veteran. He seems healthy.

Wilson, plus an acquisition, plus Claussen, Harang and one more young guy (Acevedo, Bong, someone else new) could be an improved rotation next year.

Raisor
07-23-2004, 04:54 PM
[QUOTE=SYCMiniBus]The difference to me is Wilson has pitched about the same the last 3 years (injuries have jaded the overall numbers) QUOTE]


2002-2004
481.2 IP
4.48 ERA

No way do I go more then one year/+ TEAM option on this guy. The biggest mistake the Reds made with Haynes was giving him a player option, blah.

Redmachine2003
07-23-2004, 04:54 PM
:idea:

Trade him first, then re-sign him as a FA. :evil:
That is what I say too. :GAC:

M2
07-23-2004, 05:10 PM
Here's the problem with re-signing Wilson: Timing.

I don't care whether Paul Wilson is your best friend, the Reds needs to go out and bring in two pitchers better than him this offseason.

Unless they move a big contract this summer, that's probably going to require some offseason wheeling and dealing and that takes time. The Reds have to figure out how much money they can pool together to get those pitching upgrades. They've probably got enough to buy a Matt Clement or Russ Ortiz no matter what.

They may not have enough for one of those guys if they sign Wilson. Likewise, if they moved Danny Graves, signing Wilson might cost them a second pitcher.

And they have to make the decision on whether to sign Wilson early in the offseason. Seeing that they need pitching upgrades, knowing that they'll have more money to get those upgrades than at any point in the recent past, I don't see how you justify STARTING your offseason program by settling on a mediocre pitcher whom you ideally want to be your #4 guy.

If the Reds could add those two pitchers quickly and if Wilson was still around and available for one year at a price that fit the Reds' budget, then feel free to sign him. But there's a timeline in play that forces teams to make choices. Re-signing Paul Wilson means that you're chosing to keep largely intact what's been one of the worst rotations in all of baseball. It limits the scale of the other moves you can make and, IMO, the Reds would be fools not to pursue those options.

You've got to have priorities. And, just my opinion, if Paul Wilson's your priority, then I hope you enjoy life as an also-ran because that's where you're headed.

MikeS21
07-23-2004, 05:24 PM
If some team is desperate enough next week (and there will be), they will cough up a couple young players who are a year or two away, who are MUCH better than you ever hoped Paul Wilson will be.

I'm all for keeping some core players, but Paul Wilson ain't it.

oregonred
07-23-2004, 05:43 PM
Agree -- Wilson one year at 3-3.5M. I'd almost consider him a must sign unless the Reds get a killer deal at the deadline this season. Reds have no other viable rotation options in waiting for April 2005 and they need THREE rotation spots filled next season -- and that assumes Claussen/Harang are your two. Moseley maybe can help in '05.

In any event, the Reds need a quality #3 veteran presence. I'm skeptical you'll find anything better than Wilson bottom-fishing on a 1 yr deal -- I think the market for viable arms is going higher in the offseason due to the attendance spike and increased parity. My guess is someone would offer Wilson a 2 yr deal and that's why the F.O. needs to move fast and ship him out if he's not signable.

Hope is that by 2006 the promising wave of Nelson/Moseley/Gardner/Pauly allows you higher upside guys to fill out your rotation holes.

M2
07-23-2004, 05:48 PM
Agree -- Wilson one year at 3-3.5M. I'd almost consider him a must sign unless the Reds get a killer deal at the deadline this season. Reds have no other viable rotation options in waiting for April 2005 and they need THREE rotation spots filled next season -- and that assumes Claussen/Harang are your two. Moseley maybe can help in '05.

In any event, the Reds need a quality #3 veteran presence. I'm skeptical you'll find anything better than Wilson bottom-fishing on a 1 yr deal -- I think the market for viable arms is going higher in the offseason due to the attendance spike and increased parity. My guess is someone would offer Wilson a 2 yr deal and that's why the F.O. needs to move fast and ship him out if he's not signable.

Hope is that by 2006 the promising wave of Nelson/Moseley/Gardner/Pauly allows you higher upside guys to fill out your rotation holes.


Assuming you can't do better, signing mediocrity, hoping for young pitchers to pan out. Haven't we been here before? Wasn't DanO brought in to change things?

Investing in a #3-4 guy and gambling on #1 and #2 doesn't strike me as all that sound an idea when you could invest in #1 and possibly a #2 and gamble on that #3-4 guy.

BEETTLEBUG
07-23-2004, 05:56 PM
Sign Wilson let Lidle walk maybe they can find another pitcher similar to Lidle.

Red Leader
07-23-2004, 06:04 PM
Sign Wilson let Lidle walk maybe they can find another pitcher similar to Lidle.


I take it you want to have this conversation again for the next umpteen years. If we keep doing what we've been doing for the last 3-4 years we'll end up the same place we've been the last 3-4 years in October.

As far as pitchers to target this coming offseason, how do you guys feel about Kurt Ainsworth for the Orioles? I know he's been plagued by elbow issues this year (not TJ surgery) but if I remember correctly he was talked about as having #2-#3 type stuff a year ago. Maybe the O's have soured on him and he can come cheaply in trade. Do you think he'll develop and be an effective pitcher down the road, or better, do you think he can stay injury free?

oregonred
07-23-2004, 06:11 PM
Assuming you can't do better, signing mediocrity, hoping for young pitchers to pan out. Haven't we been here before? Wasn't DanO brought in to change things?

Investing in a #3-4 guy and gambling on #1 and #2 doesn't strike me as all that sound an idea when you could invest in #1 and possibly a #2 and gamble on that #3-4 guy.

I'm assuming investing in a #1/#2 via FA isn't a viable option... Sure, I'll take the #2 guy at 8M per and feel better about gambling on bottomfishing with a Wilson/Lidle clone.

I'd advocate both moves, but its going to take Graves/Larue's contracts off the books at minimum. Assuming KGJ is immovable you might have to move -- gulp --- the mayor :thumbdn:

$3M for a Wilson in 2005 isn't going to kill you for a one yr deal. Might as well shut down the franshise if 2.5M fannies in the seats from 2004 can't fund a below average salary for a starting pitcher.

In any event the equation won't work here unless a couple of the youngsters become viable rotation options in 2006 timeframe. You either run out of money or run out of luck...

M2
07-23-2004, 06:21 PM
Wilson+Lidle+Haynes = $8.75M. They've got enough money to make a big splash on a starting pitcher. Move Graves or Jr. or Casey off the books (Graves being the prime target) and you've got more than $15M.

Those are the numbers. The Reds have enough cash in hand to make the kind of deal we're talking about, potentially enough to do it twice. Sign Wilson and fail to move any of the big contracts and suddenly the capacity to make that deal is gone.

wheels
07-23-2004, 06:31 PM
Dump bad contracts and replace them with a couple of Matt Clement types?

Or

Hold onto guys like Paul Wilson whilst crossing ones fingers hoping they can keep this Reds juggernaut afloat.

You decide.

Red Leader
07-23-2004, 06:34 PM
Dump bad contracts and replace them with a couple of Matt Clement types?

Or

Hold onto guys like Paul Wilson whilst crossing ones fingers hoping they can keep this Reds juggernaut afloat.

You decide.

****in my best John Allen voice****

.....uhhhhh, the second one? :MandJ:

wheels
07-23-2004, 06:41 PM
It just all seems so painfully obvious to me.

Red Leader
07-23-2004, 06:47 PM
It just all seems so painfully obvious to me.

I know. The Reds F.O. reminds me of a bunch of whiny brat kids

ooohhh, we can't trade Graves, we can't trade Wilson / Lidle, the fans will be mad.

ohhhh, we can't afford <insert name>, we're not a large market team

Cali Red
07-23-2004, 07:12 PM
9-2 3.71 era, why not? How many other pitchers do the Reds have like that? If we had a reliable closer he would be 14-2.

Matt700wlw
07-23-2004, 07:13 PM
1 year deal with an option for 2006

I think it'd be a very smart move

flyer85
07-23-2004, 07:17 PM
1 year deal with an option for 2006

I think it'd be a very smart move

1 year deal with a CLUB option for 2006.

Had to specify that after the PLAYER option that Jimbo gave to Haynes.

Matt700wlw
07-23-2004, 07:19 PM
1 year deal with a CLUB option for 2006.

Had to specify that after the PLAYER option that Jimbo gave to Haynes.

...That's what I meant :D

MattyHo4Life
07-23-2004, 07:31 PM
IMO the Reds would be smart to re-sign Wilson. I'd be surprised if he signed a one year deal (a team option is still a one year deal to the player) considering his last deal was for 2 years. Of course this is assuming that the Reds don't make a play for a better pitcher like Ortiz and Clement like M2 posted.

OTOH... if the Reds don't re-sign Wilson... I hope the Cards do since Matt and Woody will most likely be gone after this season. The Cards tried to sign Wilson 2 years ago, but they were outbid by the Reds.

oregonred
07-23-2004, 07:56 PM
IMO the Reds would be smart to re-sign Wilson. I'd be surprised if he signed a one year deal (a team option is still a one year deal to the player) considering his last deal was for 2 years. Of course this is assuming that the Reds don't make a play for a better pitcher like Ortiz and Clement like M2 posted.

OTOH... if the Reds don't re-sign Wilson... I hope the Cards do since Matt and Woody will most likely be gone after this season. The Cards tried to sign Wilson 2 years ago, but they were outbid by the Reds.

Good insight from someone who's not living in the 1980's salary range. The Cards make a good living off finding solid rotation fillers to supplement their rotation needs. Not the 500K-1M retread types, but guys that can be solid middle of the rotation starters for a year or two. 2-3M is viable for middle of the road starters, and should be part of the Reds 2005 payroll budget. $12-15M. Go find a #2 for 8M per year, a Wilson for 3M and take a flyer on one of your kids or a 500K-1M project in '05.

Given the Reds circumstances, they'd be nuts not to sign Wilson in 2005 for a one year deal in the 3M range. Let's see he's good enough to help a contender in 2004 (teams like the Phils/Mets/Giants with a much better rotation in place), yet he doesn't make sense for the pitching-poor Reds (with 2 of 5 rotation spots filled in 2005 in total, both by youngsters) to bring back next season. You can't go from the Reds of 2004 to the mystical rotation of 5 high ceiling arms (Cubs) overnight. Wilson is a necessary and productive filler. You can win with a Paul Wilson in your 2005 rotation.

WVRed
07-23-2004, 07:56 PM
OTOH... if the Reds don't re-sign Wilson... I hope the Cards do since Matt and Woody will most likely be gone after this season. The Cards tried to sign Wilson 2 years ago, but they were outbid by the Reds.

For some reason, I find the Reds outbidding the Cardinals hard to believe;).

oregonred
07-23-2004, 07:58 PM
For some reason, I find the Reds outbidding the Cardinals hard to believe;).

Some even want to outbid the Cubs for Clement instead... :mhcky21:

MattyHo4Life
07-23-2004, 08:31 PM
For some reason, I find the Reds outbidding the Cardinals hard to believe;).

It was published in the St. Louis Post Dispatch at the time. Jocketty made an attempt to sign Wilson, but wasn't willing to give him as much as Bowden was in the second year of his contract.

1990WorldChamps
07-23-2004, 08:33 PM
Wilson is pitching like a very solid #2 this year. If your experts (Gullet) think he can do it for a few more years, you sign hin to a 2 or 3 year deal.

corkedbat
07-23-2004, 08:59 PM
I wouldn't be totally against a one-year extension with a club option for '06 for Wilson, but his risk of another injury and the odds that this is a career-type year make it a risky proposition, IMO.

If were DO'B, and some other club comes to me and offers a significant near major league-ready upgrade at SS, 3B, the rotation or closer, I jump on it. Anything more than that and I would be deliriously happy.

MattyHo4Life
07-23-2004, 09:20 PM
I wouldn't be totally against a one-year extension with a club option for '06 for Wilson, but his risk of another injury and the odds that this is a career-type year make it a risky proposition, IMO.

Wilson's career numbers aren't bad considering he's a career AL pitcher like Suppan and Carpenter. Being on a bad team didn't help things either. Players coming off a good year usually don't settle for one year deals.

corkedbat
07-23-2004, 09:46 PM
Wilson's career numbers aren't bad considering he's a career AL pitcher like Suppan and Carpenter. Being on a bad team didn't help things either. Players coming off a good year usually don't settle for one year deals.

You may well be right, which is why I lean more to combining him in a trade if we can get a decent return. Past experience with guys like Haynes, Dessens, Harnisch, etc., make me leary of giving a guy like Wilson a LTC. He's probably more like Harnisch in terms of talent than Haynes or Dessens, but may have the same durability as Pete.

If I'm the Reds, I try to pick up at least one young arm now to go with Claussen and Harang, then round out the other two spots by adding a couple of projects during the offseason in the mold of Wilson and Lidle to compete with farmhands like Bong, Moseley, Belisle, Nelson and others for the four and five spots.

Kc61
07-23-2004, 10:16 PM
Corked Bat: 3 kids and 2 "projects" next year? Sounds like fun.

corkedbat
07-23-2004, 10:50 PM
Sorry, actually that wasn't how I meant for it to come out. I'd like to see them move "some combination" of Wilson, Lidle, Graves, Jones, LaRue and maybe a prospect or two now before the trade deadline and come up with another solid young starter to form a rotation nucleus with Harang and Claussen.

Then, this offseason they need to move at least one from among Casey, Kearns, Dunn, Griffey and Pena for a top starter and let the projects and young'uns fight for the 5th spot. I'd also like to see them come up with a minimum of a top everyday SS replacement for Barry and a young closer in the deadline and offseason deals.

You might have to go the rest of this year with a rotation like the deadline prospect you receive, Harang, Claussen, Etherton and a constant rotating audition from Louisville, but I just can't see giving Wilson or Lidle and LTC or letting them go without anything in return.

If I got a solid young SS with a decent bat to step up and take over for Barry, I could easily live with Freel at 3B until EdE is ready to step up.

I was hoping that Wagner was a can't-miss closer of the future, after this season though, I think we could use a little more insurance. I'd like to see them add another young hard thrower to battle with Wagner, Reidling, Booker, Coffey and a couple of LHers for the bullpen spots.

Of course, this doesn't take into consideration the very outside chance that the FO might bolster the rotation with any savings realized by trading Wilson, Lidle, Graves, Griffey or Casey.

Krusty
07-23-2004, 11:22 PM
Two words: Pete Harnish

M2
07-23-2004, 11:32 PM
Wilson is pitching like a very solid #2 this year. If your experts (Gullet) think he can do it for a few more years, you sign hin to a 2 or 3 year deal.

That's what they did with Jimmy Haynes.

Oregon, real simple here, $8.75M, can that buy you a pretty damn good starter or not?

LINEDRIVER
07-23-2004, 11:34 PM
If the Reds were to sign Wilson to an extension before the end of this season, how is DanO going to explain that to Miley? lol

Seriously, I want Wilson back, Lidle can go somehere else.

Krusty
07-23-2004, 11:59 PM
Again, Pete Harnish.

Didn't we learn anything when we signed Harnish to a contract extension after a good season only to be racked by injuries?

Wilson's injury history alone would make you leary of signing an extension for three or more years.

WVRed
07-24-2004, 12:04 AM
Im willing to give Lidle a second chance. Considering Wilson was 8-10 and has turned it around this year, and Lidle's great start last year, he could be this years Wilson next year.

Give him a chance to get the kinks worked out and used to NL pitching, and we may have something.

savafan
07-24-2004, 12:10 AM
Give him a chance to get the kinks worked out and used to NL pitching, and we may have something.

It's not as though Lidle's never pitched in the NL before.

CougarQuest
07-24-2004, 12:50 AM
Trade Wilson before the deadline for a quality pitching prospects.

Worry about getting your #3 pitcher for 2005 after you've gotten your #1 and #2 pitchers. Quit working from the middle or bottom, work from the top down. When you look for your number 3's and 4's first, they end up being your #1, still pitching like #3's and 4's.

If the Reds have their #1 and #2 pitchers and Wilson is available, and is within the Reds budget, THEN think about it.

oregonred
07-24-2004, 03:45 AM
Oregon, real simple here, $8.75M, can that buy you a pretty damn good starter or not?

Did you read my post above? By all means sign a #2 starter for 7-8M per season for three years. One with upside and a proven record. I think this is a small list and probably wishful thinking. Sign me up for an Ortiz or Clement right now assuming I can get them for 3/24 type dollars.

I've argued only 6-8 true #1/#2 arms emerge in a given season. Maybe 45-50 true #1/#2'se exist in baseball with an average top tier run of 6-7 seasons (thus only 6-8 new guys can join the club in a given year) You HAVE to get one of these guys at almost all costs, especially if you are an organization with none currently and one with a decent young offensive core (read cheap) to build around.

But, your missing the fundamental disagreement -- You believe Paul Wilson or a PW clone can be had for the 500K-1M and thus PW is not worth the Reds signing him to a 2005 one year deal in the 3M range. I'm saying no way;

1) You simply aren't getting a Paul Wilson or a PW clone (#3 rotation production since 2003) for sub 1 Mil chump change. Your reaching for retreads for sub 1M and good luck -- you bought a lottery ticket or two and you better hope it works out. For every Loiaza I'll find you at least a half dozen Orcas, Van Popples and Hamiltons.

2) $2.5-3M for a proven #3 starter is a BARGAIN and a NECESSITY given the Reds gaping 60% rotation hole in 2005 -- and the 40% (Claussen and Harang) aren't exactly surefire locks. If you toss 2.5M fannies into the seats and you can't fund both $8M for a #2 and $3M for a #3 then you might as well just fold up shop -- Haynes/Graves/Lidle/Wilson/Larue gives you $17m to play with -- assuming you can find a taker for Graves contract (unlikely)

3) Successful teams like the Cards/Giants routinely supplement their rotation with 1-2 proven middle of the road starters. As a bonus they often can squeeze a #2 year out of some of these guys on the cheap (Carpenter, Suppan, Hermanson a few years back, etc.)

4) If said Paul Wilson is good enough to join the Phils/Mets/Giants 2004 rotation for the stretch run, he's darn good enough to anchor a middle of the rotation spot for the Reds in 2005 -- again at a 1 yr/3M deal range.

5) I think the market is going up in the offseason and will impact the #2 type guys and drive the middle of the rotation guys like Wilson higher. 12% higher attendance, better economy and more team parity = bigger contracts in the offing. Better pay to play...

6) We all want five high ceiling guys in the rotation. I'm saying you'll be lucky to have two next season (Claussen and soon to be Reds cap fitted #2 guy ;) ). 3/5 if donkeys fly and the Reds trade for a high ceiling guy too. Better hope is that one of the youngsters emerges in late 2005/ST 2006 to become your third high ceiling guy. That leaves a lot of rotation spots to fill in the next 24 months.

corkedbat
07-24-2004, 04:17 AM
Did you read my post above? By all means sign a #2 starter for 7-8M per season for three years. One with upside and a proven record. I think this is a small list and probably wishful thinking. Sign me up for an Ortiz or Clement right now assuming I can get them for 3/24 type dollars.

I've argued only 6-8 true #1/#2 arms emerge in a given season. Maybe 45-50 true #1/#2'se exist in baseball with an average top tier run of 6-7 seasons (thus only 6-8 new guys can join the club in a given year) You HAVE to get one of these guys at almost all costs, especially if you are an organization with none currently and one with a decent young offensive core (read cheap) to build around.

But, your missing the fundamental disagreement -- You believe Paul Wilson or a PW clone can be had for the 500K-1M and thus PW is not worth the Reds signing him to a 2005 one year deal in the 3M range. I'm saying no way;

1) You simply aren't getting a Paul Wilson or a PW clone (#3 rotation production since 2003) for sub 1 Mil chump change. Your reaching for retreads for sub 1M and good luck -- you bought a lottery ticket or two and you better hope it works out. For every Loiaza I'll find you at least a half dozen Orcas, Van Popples and Hamiltons.

2) $2.5-3M for a proven #3 starter is a BARGAIN and a NECESSITY given the Reds gaping 60% rotation hole in 2005 -- and the 40% (Claussen and Harang) aren't exactly surefire locks. If you toss 2.5M fannies into the seats and you can't fund both $8M for a #2 and $3M for a #3 then you might as well just fold up shop -- Haynes/Graves/Lidle/Wilson/Larue gives you $17m to play with -- assuming you can find a taker for Graves contract (unlikely)

3) Successful teams like the Cards/Giants routinely supplement their rotation with 1-2 proven middle of the road starters. As a bonus they often can squeeze a #2 year out of some of these guys on the cheap (Carpenter, Suppan, Hermanson a few years back, etc.)

4) If said Paul Wilson is good enough to join the Phils/Mets/Giants 2004 rotation for the stretch run, he's darn good enough to anchor a middle of the rotation spot for the Reds in 2005 -- again at a 1 yr/3M deal range.

5) I think the market is going up in the offseason and will impact the #2 type guys and drive the middle of the rotation guys like Wilson higher. 12% higher attendance, better economy and more team parity = bigger contracts in the offing. Better pay to play...

6) We all want five high ceiling guys in the rotation. I'm saying you'll be lucky to have two next season (Claussen and soon to be Reds cap fitted #2 guy ;) ). 3/5 if donkeys fly and the Reds trade for a high ceiling guy too. Better hope is that one of the youngsters emerges in late 2005/ST 2006 to become your third high ceiling guy. That leaves a lot of rotation spots to fill in the next 24 months.

Hey, 1yr./$3M? I say sign him up, but what does PW say?

He says he'd be willing to re-up with the Reds for less, but what is less in his mind? $4M? $5M? $6M/per? And if I'm Paul Wilson, coming off a season like this, headed to FA with my history of arm problems, do I sign for 1yr. or 1yr. w/a club option? No, I try to parlay it into at least 2 or preferrably 3 years of security.

If that's the case, the Reds need to look for the best deal they can get before the trade deadline and get a return instead of losing him.

DeadRedinCT
07-24-2004, 07:20 AM
That's what they did with Jimmy Haynes.

Oregon, real simple here, $8.75M, can that buy you a pretty damn good starter or not?

It may not be exactly $8.75M. The Reds actually will have $13.1M coming off the books prior to next season. Haynes, Wilson and Lidle as you've stated. Additionally, Castro, Jones, Larkin, Mathews, Valentin, van Poppel, vander Wal and White salaries will come off the book.

However, these guys are all on the 25 man roster, so they have to be replaced at least at minimum level (11 players at 300K per or 3.3M total). That leaves 9.8M left. Casey and Graves will receive contractual raises that total together at 1.25M. Now there's 8.55M left. Finally, LaRue, Jimenez, Riedling, Dunn and Kearns are each arbitration eligible and will get decent raises. A conservative figure might be 3.5M total. Which leaves around 5M left, which is looking like it might be Wilson FA territory.

My assumption is that the salary budget remains constant. In order for the Reds to make some decent FA signings, I think the Reds must trade Graves, but will have to pay some of his salary, it's better to pay 2M to save 4M then to pay nothing and save nothing. Also, the Reds IMO will have to decline arbitration to LaRue and Riedling. They are both passing the point where their benefit to the team is outweighed by the cost to retain them. If the Reds FO don't do these two things or if they do not increase payroll, then 2005 already is starting look like it will be like 2004.

1990WorldChamps
07-24-2004, 09:58 AM
That's what they did with Jimmy Haynes.

Different guy, different pitcher, different answer.

M2
07-24-2004, 11:37 PM
Different guy, different pitcher, different answer.

Same process though. Continuing to do the same things and expecting different results is the definition of what?

Oregon, apparently the fact that there are a number of pitchers right now pitching roughly as well as Paul Wilson for small bucks doesn't seem to sway you.

Regardless, I think it's naive to belive that Wilson would return to the Reds for a pay cut (he makes $3.5M this year).

And, most importantly, doling out the kind of contract it would take to sign Wilson very well could blow any chance the Reds have at affording a bona fide staff leader, again that timing thing I mentioned.

If the Reds have cash lying around after they address the front of the rotation, then, fine, spend it on a Wilson type.

But what you're arguing here is that since it might be hard to bottom fish a middler like Wilson that the Reds should bait for him and not even put in their line for a prize winner. That's completely backwards logic. Isn't it that much harder to find a stud out the rummage box than a Wilson?

DeadRed, isn't White being paid for by the Yankees? Aside from that, I don't count those lower-salaried guys toward available cash because I figure that money's going into the sort of shuffle you detailed. I don't think the Reds will decline arbitration to LaRue, he's too good a player, but I figure he's getting dealt. Riedling's gonzo one way or another if he doesn't finish strong. I'm hoping Larkin returns for the exact same contract he has this year, making that a wash. Anyway, seems to me the Reds can keep the amount they spend on arb guys and lower salaries roughly even, leaving the $8.75M I've been talking about for new acquistions. Adding Graves', Jr.'s and/or Casey's salaries could actually make them small-market Rockerfellers this offseason.

CougarQuest
07-25-2004, 02:12 AM
The Reds history of trading MLB players for minor leaguers:

1995
Traded Jacob Brumfield for Danny Clyburn

1996
Got Cash for Eric Anthony

1997
Traded John Smiley and Jeff Brantley for Danny Graves, Scott Winchester, Jim Crowell, and Damian Jackson.

1998
I lost my notes for that year

1999
Traded Brook Fordyce for Jake Meyer
Traded Jon Nunnally for Pat Flury

2000
Traded Denny Neagle and Mike Frank for Ed Yarnall, Drew Henson, Jackson Melian and Brian Reith.
Got Cash for Hal Morris
Traded Manny Aybar for Jorge Cordova
Traded Dante Bichette for Chris Reitsma and John Curtice

2001
Traded Ron Villone for Jeff Taglienti and Justin Carter
Traded Steve Parris for Clayton Andrews and Leo Estrella
Traded Michael Coleman and Drew Henson for Wily Mo Pena
Got Cash for Ed Yarnall
Traded Rob Bell for Ruben Mateo and Edwin Encarnacion
Traded Donne Sadler for Cary Ammons
Traded Mark Wohlers for Ricardo Aramboles
Traded Michael Tucker for Ben Shaffar and Chris Booker

2002
Didn't trade for just minor leaguers


The Reds history of trading minor leaguers for major leaguers:

1995
Traded Tim Costos for Mark Lewis
Traded John Roper, Scott Service, Rickey Pickett, Dave McCarty and Deion Sanders for Mark Portugal, Darren Lewis, and Dave Burba.
Traded CJ Nitkowski, David Tuttle and Mark Lewis for David Wells.

1996
Traded Jhonny Carval for Gabe White
Traded Roberto Meija and Brad Tweedle for Kevin Mitchell

1997
Traded Decomba Conner and Ben Bailey for Ruben Sierra
Traded Ray Brown for Joey Eischen

1998
Same problem as mentioned above.

1999
Traded Johnny Oliver for Chris Snopek
Traded BJ Ryan and Jacob Sequea for Juan Guzman

2000
Traded Dennis Russo for Freddy Garcia
Traded Kenny Lutz for Juan Castro
Traded Robert Averette for Brian Hunter

2001
Traded Eddie Taubensee for Jim Bowers and Rob Pugmire

2002
Traded Ben Shaffar for Jose Silva
Traded Ben Brussard for Russell Branyan
Traded David Espinosa, Gary Varner, and Jorge Cordova for Brian Moehler and Matt Boone.
Traded Pedro Feliciano, Elvin Andujar, Raul Gonzolez, and Brady Clark for Shawn Estes.

oregonred
07-25-2004, 03:57 AM
M2 -- I'm going to try this one more time... For the record, I'd go a one year deal with Wilson for 3.5 tops. If he wants a multi-year deal or more than 3.5M for next season then no thanks I have some promising help on the way in the minors for 2006 rotation. Again priority 1 is to find a #2 filler via trade or FA. We both agree on that... If you can fill this hole, then yes you can take a chance on filling the middle of your rotation, I'm saying do both -- you still have at least 40% of a rotation to amass (Claussen, Harang, and magical #2 man + ? + ?)

I still think you are living in a dreamland (or 1987) thinking you can secure #3 rotation material on the open market in the sub 1M range this offseason. I'd submit for every Wilson you manage to find you'll dredge up a handful of bottom feeders like Van Popple, Hamilton, Orca, Silva et. al. Nothing wrong with paying 3M per season for a solid #3 type starter -- just build it into the budget every year.

Problem is that the club, that according to Redszone, won't ever pay anyone is locked into two horrible 2005 contracts with KGJ and Graves after cutting a 2.5M piece of JimmaH debris in May.

Can they find someone to take on Graves contract?

1990WorldChamps
07-25-2004, 10:43 AM
Same process though. Continuing to do the same things and expecting different results is the definition of what?

You make a good point, but the way I see it Wilson is an asset. You don't give up an asset for nothing. The Reds need to either trade him now or re-sign him. Can't let him walk for nothing. Maybe you sign him and trade him next year, if not now.

M2
07-25-2004, 01:42 PM
You make a good point, but the way I see it Wilson is an asset. You don't give up an asset for nothing. The Reds need to either trade him now or re-sign him. Can't let him walk for nothing. Maybe you sign him and trade him next year, if not now.

I actually think they've got a better chance of re-signing him if they trade him. It removes the short window and allows them whittle down his price.

I figure he's going to see his numbers slide in the last two months of the season as well, pushing downward what will be his free agent value.

Yet, even if they don't trade him, they could get draft picks if another team signs him. And if they don't dare to offer him arbitration (and I think teams can skunk mid-level players away from accepting arbitration), then what's the harm in letting him walk? If that $3.5M is put to the proper use (e.g. a better pitcher), then you've identifiably gotten something.

oregon, and I'm saying that signing Wilson first (which is what you'd have to do) would jeopardize the very thing we agree on the team most needing to do. I agree that both could be done, but it's just as possible that both won't be plausible. Plus, I think you're ignoring that Wilson is a #4 starter who's thrown like a #3 guy for a few months. He'll head back down into #4 territory. The core of it, to me, is that the Reds may not have a #3 guy. Maybe Claussen can be that, though I expect him to experience his trials and tribulations through the 2005 season. So, to me, it's a matter of paying Wilson a good chunk of money that might preclude what should be higher priorities and hoping he overachieves or paying another veteran less and hoping he overachieves. You can't buy a guaranteed #3 guy at $1M, but Wilson isn't a guaranteed #3 guy anyway. You can buy a fixer-upper, which is what Wilson was when he walked though the door, and trust that you've identified a bargain innings eater whom your coaching staff can push toward his ceiling. That does happen, frequently. If the team has the money for it, I'm all for making the safer bet. Though that might not be Wilson because, again, the decision on him has to be made too early in the process. IMO, better to spend later on a Wilson equivalent once you figure out what you're doing in other areas.