PDA

View Full Version : Reds sign Wilson



Pages : [1] 2

Reds Fanatic
11-30-2004, 12:47 PM
According to Ken Rosenthal of the Sporting News the Reds are close to resigning Paul Wilson to a 2 year deal. Here is the link:
http://msn.foxsports.com/story/3205406

Johnny Footstool
11-30-2004, 12:49 PM
I'll reserve judgement until I see the final dollar amount.

Reds Fanatic
11-30-2004, 12:50 PM
According to the story the dollar amount would be about 7 million for 2 years

WVRed
11-30-2004, 12:53 PM
Jimmah

Red Leader
11-30-2004, 12:57 PM
Jimmah

Jimmah? .....Timm-uh!!!!

http://216.58.174.213/rusty2wocom/sp/sp03/timtruck.gif

MWM
11-30-2004, 01:00 PM
:barf: :barf: :barf:

:slap: :slap: :slap:

:cry2: :cry2: :cry2:

westofyou
11-30-2004, 01:03 PM
Wilson for 3.5 isn't sooooooooo bad, nor sooooooooo good. what's bad is that he'll be slotted number one in salary and in performance, then they'll eschew any attempt to pay a power pitcher if one becomes available.

MWM
11-30-2004, 01:06 PM
then they'll eschew any attempt to pay a power pitcher if one becomes available.

IMO, that's sooooooooooo bad.

Raisor
11-30-2004, 01:17 PM
The only good news is that it's not a three year deal.

Still..blah.

Red Leader
11-30-2004, 01:23 PM
Think the Reds should make a run at Matt Morris? Apparently he's after a 1 year incentive laden deal after undergoing some labrum cleanup to re-establish his market value.

I'm not sure what kind of $$$$ Morris would be looking for on a 1 year deal, though. Most likely more than he's worth semi-injured. I would think $4.5 with bonuses for IP, All-Star, Cy Young votes, etc should get it done.

Redmachine2003
11-30-2004, 01:24 PM
3.5 mill a year for Wilson, I can live with that. He made that much last year so it doesn't hurt the Reds payroll. Maybe my math is wrong but Dunn is the only one due for a big raise, Larue is signed (right?), and DJ may get a million dollar raise, So doesn't that mean when everyone that is on the roster now is taken care of the Reds Payroll will be around 45-48 million. If the payroll is suppose to go up to that 55 million range the Reds should still have 7-10 million to get a pitcher and maybe some help for the bullpen.

M2
11-30-2004, 01:31 PM
It's the pitcher who's better than Wilson that you can't sign and desperately need that makes this a sin.

The other thing is Wilson's doing all he can to be below average. If he slumps a little bit or his stuff goes downhill even a fraction, the results will be hideous.

Puffy
11-30-2004, 01:31 PM
If they still go out and get one or two more starters (better than Wilson so that Wilson slides down to number 3 in the rotation) plus some bullpen help I say Bully!!

If this precludes them in any way from going out and getting better pitchers than Wilson then I say big mistake.

BrooklynRedz
11-30-2004, 01:33 PM
Will the $3.5mil/yr prohibit additional signings?

Puffy
11-30-2004, 01:35 PM
Will the $3.5mil/yr prohibit additional signings?

Impossible to tell yet - the Reds haven't let anyone know what their salary budget will be, but knowing Allen 3.5 million to anyone will prohibit other signings on some level, I would guess.

letsgojunior
11-30-2004, 01:35 PM
Will the $3.5mil/yr prohibit additional signings?

In Reds world 350K prohibits any additional signings.

M2
11-30-2004, 01:41 PM
Will the $3.5mil/yr prohibit additional signings?

This deal, if it happens, probably whittles the Reds' available cash pile down to the $5M-$10M range. The team needs a minimum of two pitchers substantially better than Wilson. Now you're forced into some ugly choices. Do you pay Adam Dunn the extra up front money it's going to cost to ink him to a long-term extension or do you get that pitcher you need? It's a choice you shouldn't have to make, but $3.5M to Paul Wilson most likely puts you in that situation.

jmcclain19
11-30-2004, 01:53 PM
I've always felt that the overtures to Wilson is a teambuilder more than anything else.

Regardless of what the stats say, the players on the team believe that Wilson is a guy who can get them 12-15 wins.

I don't think this is lost on Dan O'Brien, and when guys like Casey make an out and out pitch to keep him on the team, and O'Brien is listening.

Not that I think it's the right course of action. Wilson is a better signing than Haynes, a much better risk, but not the best the Reds could go after.

But I do know where O'Brien is coming from on this one.

zombie-a-go-go
11-30-2004, 01:55 PM
I like Wilson's attitude, and hope he'll be back with the Reds this season. He's a decent middle-rotation pitcher, and, basically, I like the guy.

With the payroll raise you get Clement, ink Dunn, find a cheap reliever or two and call it an offseason (barring trades). I think that's all you can expect from payroll this season. Getting two top of the rotation starters just ain't gonna happen, and wasn't even before Wilson signs.

Red Thunder
11-30-2004, 02:03 PM
An ERA of 4.36 makes $ 3.5 million per year look reasonable. If it's a wise decision to spend it on someone like Wilson is another question. On the other hand the Reds are really depending on Wilson plus another frontline starting pitcher to have some flexibility in 2005. The rotation for next season could easily be the worst in the majors, if they plan to depend on Harang, Claussen, Hancock, Hudson and maybe even Robertson.

BrooklynRedz
11-30-2004, 02:12 PM
just a heads up, this deal has been completed. will be announced very soon.

zombie-a-go-go
11-30-2004, 02:13 PM
just a heads up, this deal has been completed. will be announced very soon.

Woot! :thumbup:

jmcclain19
11-30-2004, 02:14 PM
Thanks BR

redsfan30
11-30-2004, 02:16 PM
Paul Wilson has one of the best work ethics of any player in the game. He is a great role model to the younger pitchers in the rotation. He is a good (not great) pitcher as well. Remember, this guy could have approached 20 wins last season if it weren't for the ineptity of the bullpen. He got hurt and came back and struggled and that's why the ERA is inflated over what it was for most of the year.

Paul Wilson is not a Hall of Famer, but he is servicable. $3.5 million does not hamstring the club from making addtional signings. They should figure to have around $5-10 million left to work with and that can sign a decent starter and one or two bullpen arms.

Good signing.

M2
11-30-2004, 02:16 PM
I've always felt that the overtures to Wilson is a teambuilder more than anything else.

Regardless of what the stats say, the players on the team believe that Wilson is a guy who can get them 12-15 wins.

I don't think this is lost on Dan O'Brien, and when guys like Casey make an out and out pitch to keep him on the team, and O'Brien is listening.

Not that I think it's the right course of action. Wilson is a better signing than Haynes, a much better risk, but not the best the Reds could go after.

But I do know where O'Brien is coming from on this one.

I'd submit that players on the team will believe that of any semi-competent pitcher. Imagine the confidence instilled if they had a hammer or two fronting the rotation instead of Wilson?

Also I don't see where this is any better a signing than Haynes was. Haynes was more mercurial, but in 2002 he had a season far better than anything you're going to get from Paul Wilson. I thought the Haynes at two years and $5M was a horrible move at the time and, if I'm going to be fair and consistent about it, then I've got to take the same tack on Wilson at two years and $3.5M. You can bottomfish a better pitcher and spend your money where it's needed.

Plus, Sean Casey likes everyone he meets. If you're a GM you can't let his affability run your club.

zombie, I still say if you have the money to spend on Wilson, then you could spend it on someone better. Though if the Reds get that Clement type and ink Dunn and make some minor bullpen adds (I'm really starting to cotton the idea of Wilson Alvarez as a 100 IP swingman), then it will be a solid offseason for the Reds. Nothing spectacular, but solid. The Wilson deal will just be a bit of unpleasant in an otherwise tasty meal in that case.

Yet what if they don't get that higher quality pitcher? What if it's another Lidle type or a flyer on a Matty Mo? Because my guesstimation is that's where we're headed. IMO, that's just spinning the wheels on a bad rotation.

lollipopcurve
11-30-2004, 02:19 PM
I have no problem with this signing. The real intrigue of this offseason is what happens now....

Super_Barry11
11-30-2004, 02:19 PM
My dad just CALLED ME in the middle of his work day to inform me of this signing!! :MandJ: He's really excited, and so am I. I'm really happy for Paul, and pleased that he can be around to set a good example for the other pitchers AT THE VERY LEAST. He's always someone you can depend on to work his hardest out there for you on the mound.

Red Leader
11-30-2004, 02:20 PM
Reds re-signed RHP Paul Wilson to a two-year contract with a club option for 2007.

No terms yet. Hopefully the Reds didn't go beyond the two-year, $6.3 million contract Cory Lidle received from the Phillies. Wilson was effective last season, but it was the first year he's been anything more than a bottom-of-the-rotation guy.

Thank the Lord its a club option for 2007 and not a player option.

Rojo
11-30-2004, 02:20 PM
Spending just enough to keep us outta the cellar. Kansas City here we come!

M2
11-30-2004, 02:23 PM
An ERA of 4.36 makes $ 3.5 million per year look reasonable.

Got to know your park. Wilson's 4.36 in the elephant grass grown in 2004 was exactly as productive as his 4.64 ERA in 2003, not to mention his 4.83 and 4.88 ERAs with the Rays in 2002 and 2001.



just a heads up, this deal has been completed. will be announced very soon.

MWM, slide over and give me some bucket access.

:barf:

Phhhl
11-30-2004, 02:45 PM
The person that said in another thread that "you can't keep bringing the same players back and expect different results" was dead on the money. I like bringing Paul back. Every year removed from his arm surgery might bring him closer to being the horse he was projected to be as a Metropolitan phenom. But, this is the absolutel LEAST the front office could do this winter to start turning this thing around.

I am going to keep beating the drum, and I am sincerely sorry to those who are tired of hearing it... this franchise is rolling in cash. Ownership is just not happy if their profit margin doesn't increase by a certain percentage every year. They can afford to up the payroll signifigantly, to include those two frontline pitchers the Reds desperately need IN ADDITION to Wilson. They can do this, and they simply won't. Don't ask me to prove it, because I obviously cannot. But, we are fools to accept their cries of poverty, goals of being "competitive" and the constant stream of crap from this collection of buttoned down business geeks who care nothing of winning and play us for suckers year in and year out.

The Reds are one of the greatest franchises in the history of the game, and ownership is treating it like Colorodo Springs of the International League. I am sick and tired of mediocrity and contentment with mediocrity. I used to the be most positive poster on Redszone, but have been turned into a grumpy old man by these grumpy old men.

Start with Wilson, fine. But, there had better be more to come.

Aceking
11-30-2004, 02:54 PM
The Enquirer has the story up now:

http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20041130/SPT04/41130003

KittyDuran
11-30-2004, 02:55 PM
Tuesday, November 30, 2004
Reds sign Wilson to 2-year deal

By John Fay
Enquirer reporter

The Reds made their first big move of the offseason today when they reached terms with Paul Wilson on a 2-year contract with a club option for 2007.

Wilson was the only one of their three free agents that the Reds attempted to sign. The signing is key because it gives the club a veteran to anchor the young starting rotation.

Wilson, the 31-year-old right-hander, went 11-6 with a 4.36 ERA for the Reds last season. He led the staff in starts (29), qualitity starts (16) and innings pitched (183 2/3).

Terms of the deal were not disclosed.

Wilson has averaged 29 starts and 181.1 innings pitched over the last 3 seasons.

M2
11-30-2004, 02:58 PM
Start with Wilson, fine. But, there had better be more to come.

You mean like Woody Williams?

traderumor
11-30-2004, 03:06 PM
You mean like Woody Williams?Hopefully Wilson turns into Woody Williams over the next two years, a mediocre pitcher that enjoyed his best success in his thirties.

REDREAD
11-30-2004, 03:09 PM
Well, the good news is that this might keep Robertson out of the opening day rotation...

The bad news is that this might be as good as it gets. I find it hard to believe that DanO has much payflex left. My guess is we get a sub million dollar reliever or two, and DanO sleeps the rest of the winter. If DanO does have 5-10 million in payflex left, this signing is a crime, because with 8.5-13.5 million in payflex (add Wilson's money back in), we could get the ace we really need.

I'm kind of surprised that Wilson caved in to the Reds negotiation tactics though. He must've really wanted to come back. At least I figure there'd be a sucker out there to give him the 2 year 9 million he was asking for.

Doc. Scott
11-30-2004, 03:11 PM
$8.2 million minimum over two years. $3.6 in 2005, $3.7 in 2006, and a 2007 club option of (up to pending escalators) $5.15 or a $850k buyout.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=1935163

NOW what do you think?

Doc. Scott
11-30-2004, 03:14 PM
So it's more than Lidle, but way less than, say, Kris Benson, who Wilson out-VORPed in 2004

Red Leader
11-30-2004, 03:15 PM
$8.2 million minimum over two years. $3.6 in 2005, $3.7 in 2006, and a 2007 club option of (up to pending escalators) $5.15 or a $850k buyout.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=1935163

NOW what do you think?


:slap:

REDREAD
11-30-2004, 03:17 PM
$8.2 million minimum over two years.

So it looks like they did end up "meeting in the middle".

Phhhl
11-30-2004, 03:18 PM
You mean like Woody Williams?

Sure, they should take a look at Williams.... Jaret Wright... Matt Morris... What about Radke or Pavano? Anybody on the market. Why not? If you can't sign an impact pitcher, so be it. That is the bed the Reds have made for themselves, almost universally acknowledged as an undesirable option for players. But, this Wilson signing cannot be "it". They are pinching pennies and people have started to give them a free ride. You tell a lie often enough and it becomes the truth. I am not a proponent of spending money foolishly, but you must take a degree of wisdom from our baseball people for granted.

Look at what the Cardinals did with their staff last year. Not a great staff by any means, but good enough to get them to the World series. How much did Suppan, Marquis and Carpenter cost them? It can be done.

pedro
11-30-2004, 03:18 PM
$8.2 million minimum over two years. $3.6 in 2005, $3.7 in 2006, and a 2007 club option of (up to pending escalators) $5.15 or a $850k buyout.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=1935163

NOW what do you think?

that's too much money.

TMBS, i have a hard time believing that many pitchers would want to come to the Reds, as bad as they've been the last few years. so while I agree with M2 that the money would probably be best spent elsewhere, that money might just have been left in the bank when the reds failed to convince a good pitcher to come to cincy.

the reds are going to have to trade for a good starter, if they want one.

Johnny Footstool
11-30-2004, 03:18 PM
$8.2 million minimum over two years. $3.6 in 2005, $3.7 in 2006, and a 2007 club option of (up to pending escalators) $5.15 or a $850k buyout.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire...=mlb&id=1935163

NOW what do you think?

I think the club just made it's last free agent signing of the winter. :thumbdown

M2
11-30-2004, 03:19 PM
$8.2 million minimum over two years. $3.6 in 2005, $3.7 in 2006, and a 2007 club option of (up to pending escalators) $5.15 or a $850k buyout.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=1935163

NOW what do you think?

Wait a second, got to use the bucket again.

:barf:

Wonder if there's any way for Wilson to lock in the third year based on IP?

Redmachine2003
11-30-2004, 03:19 PM
$8.2 million minimum over two years. $3.6 in 2005, $3.7 in 2006, and a 2007 club option of (up to pending escalators) $5.15 or a $850k buyout.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=1935163

NOW what do you think?
I like the Deal. If he pitches well during the next two years that 5.15 will be cheap. Now impress me DanO, sign Perez. I would like to have two lefties in the rotation.

westofyou
11-30-2004, 03:19 PM
Take some of Pauls numbers as a Red (IP, Games Started, K/9, BR/9) and he falls in with this group, at the bottom



ERA ERA GS H/9 IP BR/9 IP SO IP
1 Jason Schmidt 2.79 61 6.59 9.32 459 432.2
2 Carlos Zambrano 2.93 63 7.69 12.04 356 423.2
3 Brandon Webb 3.24 63 7.73 12.62 336 388.2
4 Jake Peavy 3.27 59 7.95 11.74 329 361
5 Roy Oswalt 3.31 56 8.62 11.26 314 364.1
6 Livan Hernandez 3.41 68 8.46 11.41 364 488.1
7 Ben Sheets 3.54 68 8.51 10.19 421 457.2
8 Al Leiter 3.61 60 7.98 13.33 256 354.1
9 Carl Pavano 3.61 63 8.84 11.31 272 423.1
10 Dontrelle Willis 3.70 59 9.01 12.28 281 357.2
11 Odalis Perez 3.87 61 8.75 11.01 269 381.2
12 Steve Trachsel 3.89 66 8.99 12.44 228 407.1
13 Matt Clement 3.90 62 7.62 11.90 361 382.2
14 Russ Ortiz 3.97 68 8.07 12.84 292 417
15 Greg Maddux 3.99 69 9.25 10.98 275 431
16 Woody Williams 4.01 64 9.06 11.98 284 410.1
17 Tom Glavine 4.03 65 9.30 12.44 191 395.2
18 Mike Hampton 4.05 60 9.54 13.14 197 362.1
19 Brian Lawrence 4.16 67 9.40 12.23 237 413.2
20 Matt Morris 4.28 59 8.87 11.40 251 374.1
21 Kevin Millwood 4.34 60 9.05 12.27 294 363
22 Adam Eaton 4.35 64 8.87 12.10 299 382.1
23 Paul Wilson 4.50 57 9.81 13.10 210 350.1

Boss-Hog
11-30-2004, 03:20 PM
$8.2 million minimum over two years. $3.6 in 2005, $3.7 in 2006, and a 2007 club option of (up to pending escalators) $5.15 or a $850k buyout.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=1935163

NOW what do you think?
It's a terrible signing.

Reds1
11-30-2004, 03:20 PM
I can't see how anyone is surprised with this signing. I'm just happy we got one pitcher. We need more and Wilson being our #1 really sucks, but now we only need to get 2 more starters instead of 3! ;) If we could get a semi-ace I could live with this!

ACE (Not Acevedo)
Wilson
Hudson
Harang
Claussen

Aronchis
11-30-2004, 03:23 PM
The option is club, meaning, adios no matter what happens to Wilson.

This move is about what was thought. The contract isn't that bad, especially if you think Paul is going to have a late career surge, maybe even a bargain. But it is still a stopgap type move and "mentor" role to young pitchers over the next 2 seasons.

Roy Tucker
11-30-2004, 03:24 PM
To me, the litmus test is would the Reds have signed Wilson for this kind if money if he hadn't been on the team last year and had been just another guy on the market.

My guess is no. Why they placed such a premium on good citizenship and good work ethic I don't know.

letsgojunior
11-30-2004, 03:24 PM
$8.2 M?!?!?!?

Pass the bucket M2. :angry:

LvJ
11-30-2004, 03:26 PM
Erm.. well... ok. I like Wilson, but that's a bit too much.

ALTHOUGH, I will not fault OB or Wilson for the cheap ... um .. people ... in the front office. It's THEIR FAULT we can't sign guys. Not OB. I'm not throwing in the towel yet though.

Boss-Hog
11-30-2004, 03:29 PM
To me, the litmus test is would the Reds have signed Wilson for this kind if money if he hadn't been on the team last year and had been just another guy on the market.

My guess is no. Why they placed such a premium on good citizenship and good work ethic I don't know.
Excellent point.

Doc. Scott
11-30-2004, 03:30 PM
I don't necessarily think it's the end of the world. LaRue and Valentin both signed for cheaper than I thought/was realistically hoping. Wilson cost a little more. Framed against Lidle's $6.3/2yrs it's not great, but Wilson is a distinct half-step or so better than Cory and he comes way cheaper than the $22.5MM for three years that Kris Benson, who's only two years younger, got from the Mets. Wilson was better than Benson in 2004.

Boss-Hog
11-30-2004, 03:30 PM
ALTHOUGH, I will not fault OB or Wilson for the cheap ... um .. people ... in the front office. It's THEIR FAULT we can't sign guys. Not OB. I'm not throwing in the towel yet though.It's 100% on O'Brien for spending the money that is available to him on signings like Paul Wilson.

Raisor
11-30-2004, 03:31 PM
ugh ugh ugh

Horrible deal.

Doc. Scott
11-30-2004, 03:31 PM
It isn't totally what they were going to pay Wilson, anyway. It's what they will or won't pay a Clement/Perez/#1-on-the-Reds-staff free agent.

I'm feeling a little skeptical about that #1OTRSFA at this moment.

DoogMinAmo
11-30-2004, 03:39 PM
$8.2 M?!?!?!?

Pass the bucket M2. :angry:

Easy everyone, its 2 years at 7.3 mil total, plus the 800+k buyout makes the deal a guaranteed $8.15M. To me, it seems like both parties should be happy here. The Reds get their starter for little over the 3.5 mil a year they originally offered, and Paul gets his guaranteed 8M. If Paul ends up staying exactly the same pitcher, the Reds have wasted money in worse ways. If he improves, then it is money well spent. If he falls, well lets just say I hope we don't have to consider this.

The bright side is it was only a marginal raise form last year, where he pitched above expectations. I say good enough. :thumbup:

LvJ
11-30-2004, 03:45 PM
It's 100% on O'Brien for spending the money that is available to him on signings like Paul Wilson.

Are you saying we shouldn't have signed Wilson at all? Now, if we could sign a guy like Clement if we didn't sign Wilson at all, then I would agree. My point was, signing Wilson for .. what? 2 Million cheaper? 2.5 Cheaper? That isn't going to affect signing anyone important, atleast not in my opinion. I'm sure if a top of the line guy said I want 2.5 more, they would go for it. But again, it comes back to should he have signed Wilson at all? Could we compete with the big teams for a better option?

letsgojunior
11-30-2004, 03:47 PM
Easy everyone, its 2 years at 7.3 mil total, plus the 800+k buyout makes the deal a guaranteed $8.15M. To me, it seems like both parties should be happy here. The Reds get their starter for little over the 3.5 mil a year they originally offered, and Paul gets his guaranteed 8M. If Paul ends up staying exactly the same pitcher, the Reds have wasted money in worse ways. If he improves, then it is money well spent. If he falls, well lets just say I hope we don't have to consider this.

The bright side is it was only a marginal raise form last year, where he pitched above expectations. I say good enough. :thumbup:

I'm sorry, but it's not good enough for me. First of all, we're operating on a low payroll ($45 M last year), that is already extremely top heavy (think Jr-Casey-Graves). It would be one thing if we already had one or two very good young pitchers who could anchor the rotation, and we needed a solid #3-4 starter to win 10-12 games and have an ERA around 4. Except that we don't have any great young pitchers, and we're signing Wilson with the expectation that he'll anchor the staff. Second of all, the price tag implies that even if Wilson doesn't pitch incredibly well, he'll at least be an innings eater. That is not the case. He has yet to eclipse 200 IP in his time with the Reds, or even in his ENTIRE CAREER for that matter. Third, this is a guy who is pretty injury prone, and we've already got a roster replete with guys who are injury prone. He's missed time each of the last two seasons, and was a top prospect before he blew out his arm. Fourth, what direction does this signing indicate the club is going in? It seems to me that we're going in about seven directions at once. Handing the SS reins over to Lopez/Machado, and trying Kearns out at 3B implies that we're building for the future. Signing Wilson for big bucks indicates we want to win right now. What exactly are we doing?

Raisor
11-30-2004, 03:50 PM
So, what are the odds that ten minutes after he actually signs the contract Wilson's bionic elbow will explode, and having already been cut on numerous times will not be covered by insurance thus sticking the club with an 8 million dollar rubberband?

REDREAD
11-30-2004, 03:50 PM
My guess is no. Why they placed such a premium on good citizenship and good work ethic I don't know.

This is a continual pattern by John Allen though. He is far easier to convince to bring someone back than to bring someone new in.

Look at how easy it was for him to approve Graves, Haynes, Casey.. Yet there wasn't 1.5 million for Penny.

I'm convinced part of Allen's "marketing plan" is to get the fans to like people like Casey, Wilson, etc and then keep them around. He thinks that's more effective than using the same money to get a pitcher 15% better than Wilson for example.

But DanO doesn't get off free either. It's his job to try and convince the idiots upstairs what to do to win ballgames.

If they were willing to give Wilson 4.1 million/year, why not just resign him last summer? They ended up meeting in the middle anyways.

Boss-Hog
11-30-2004, 03:52 PM
Yes, that is what I'm saying. The money used to resign Wilson (at a premium) would have been much better spent on legitimately upgrading the starting pitching and/or signing Dunn to an extension. Hell, even if they couldn't have made a trade for a good pitcher or signed a Clement/Perez/Pavano/etc., I'd prefer the money be spent on our draft budget, hiring minor league instructors from an organization with a track record for developing pitching, or premium scouts. Instead, the Reds select the status quo: keeping Paul Wilson as our 'ace'. Joy.


Are you saying we shouldn't have signed Wilson at all? Now, if we could sign a guy like Clement if we didn't sign Wilson at all, then I would agree. My point was, signing Wilson for .. what? 2 Million cheaper? 2.5 Cheaper? That isn't going to affect signing anyone important, atleast not in my opinion. I'm sure if a top of the line guy said I want 2.5 more, they would go for it. But again, it comes back to should he have signed Wilson at all? Could we compete with the big teams for a better option?

creek14
11-30-2004, 03:54 PM
If this means there is a lot of this magical flex floating around and this is the the start of good things to come, I can live with it.

If Bland Dan just used up all the flex on this signing, then I am one unhappy girl.

Crash Davis
11-30-2004, 03:58 PM
$8.2 million minimum over two years. $3.6 in 2005, $3.7 in 2006, and a 2007 club option of (up to pending escalators) $5.15 or a $850k buyout.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/wire?section=mlb&id=1935163

NOW what do you think?

Eerily similar to the 2 year deal the Reds inked with Jimmy Haynes on the heels of his fluke-ish lottery season.

I guess my biggest question is why the Reds dumped Bowden & Boone, yet still remain under the same mindset that bogged them down under that regime.

Haynes & Wilson are 2 pitchers who look like $3.5MM pitchers only when paraded into a room with the other 4 members of the Reds starting rotation.

We aspire to mediocrity. Get your seasons tickets now!

DoogMinAmo
11-30-2004, 03:59 PM
Yes, that is what I'm saying. The money used to resign Wilson (at a premium) would have been much better spent on legitimately upgrading the starting pitching and/or signing Dunn to an extension. Hell, even if they couldn't have made a trade for a good pitcher or signed a Clement/Perez/Pavano/etc., I'd prefer the money be spent on our draft budget, hiring minor league instructors from an organization with a track record for developing pitching, or premium scouts. Instead, the Reds select the status quo: keeping Paul Wilson as our 'ace'. Joy.

Easy Boss, you are welcome to be frustrated, but it is not even close to the last day of the offseason. Come Dec 7th we will all know how committed the Reds are to bringing in better talent; O'Brien is not gonna lose a draft pick to sign someone now he could get in a little over a week.

If Wilson was to be signed, he had to be signed fast, so that arbitration could be avoided. Now its time for all of us to wait and see, and not just assume that this is it. We all seem to forget at times this is O'Brien's second offseason, and possibly even the first in which he is genuinely concerned with improving the big club. I am not content with just a Wilson signing, but I am happy it is done, and I hope the team does in fact get better by other factors than mere subtraction of "bad" players.

LvJ
11-30-2004, 04:01 PM
Yes, that is what I'm saying. The money used to resign Wilson (at a premium) would have been much better spent on legitimately upgrading the starting pitching and/or signing Dunn to an extension. Hell, even if they couldn't have made a trade for a good pitcher or signed a Clement/Perez/Pavano/etc., I'd prefer the money be spent on our draft budget, hiring minor league instructors from an organization with a track record for developing pitching, or premium scouts. Instead, the Reds select the status quo: keeping Paul Wilson as our 'ace'. Joy.

Listen, I completely understand and agree. But ultimately, it all comes back to the main guys, when they are surely capable of spending more money on the Reds, they refuse to do so. It just really hurts inside, knowing we are very, very much able to compete by spending a few more pennies (atleast to them) they simply give the cold shoulder. Also, I'm one who wanted to keep Wilson around, but also go after Perez or Clement or Pavano. DanO may have made the wrong choice, but I'll wait and see on that. Atleast until the off season is over.

Crash Davis
11-30-2004, 04:02 PM
This is a continual pattern by John Allen though. He is far easier to convince to bring someone back than to bring someone new in.

Look at how easy it was for him to approve Graves, Haynes, Casey.. Yet there wasn't 1.5 million for Penny.

I'm convinced part of Allen's "marketing plan" is to get the fans to like people like Casey, Wilson, etc and then keep them around. He thinks that's more effective than using the same money to get a pitcher 15% better than Wilson for example.

:agreed:

:slap:

wheels
11-30-2004, 04:03 PM
I really, really, really HATE this deal.

I think I'm gonna need to take a little break from all of this for awhile.

This front office isn't cheap.

They're simply clueless.

3.5 Mil PLUS for Paul freaking Wilson.

I can just see the quote now "We've really taken a good step towards trying to remain competitive. With our core of solid yong pitchers, Paul Wilson will fit right in. He'll lead by example and solid work ethic..."

Same exact ballclub we saw last year sans Barry Larkin, and maybe a new bullpen arm or two.

Yee Haw.

Why do we do this to ourselves?

Raisor
11-30-2004, 04:03 PM
. Also, I'm one who wanted to keep Wilson around, but also go after Perez or Clement or Pavano.


The problem is that keeping Wilson makes it that much tougher to pick up any of those three. Having that extra 4.1 million a year would go a long ways towards picking one of them up.

DoogMinAmo
11-30-2004, 04:04 PM
DanO may have made the wrong choice, but I'll wait and see on that. Atleast until the off season is over.

:gac: :thumbup:

wheels
11-30-2004, 04:04 PM
Eerily similar to the 2 year deal the Reds inked with Jimmy Haynes on the heels of his fluke-ish lottery season.

I guess my biggest question is why the Reds dumped Bowden & Boone, yet still remain under the same mindset that bogged them down under that regime.

Haynes & Wilson are 2 pitchers who look like $3.5MM pitchers only when paraded into a room with the other 4 members of the Reds starting rotation.

We aspire to mediocrity. Get your seasons tickets now!

Great post!

RosieRed
11-30-2004, 04:07 PM
I don't mind seeing Wilson back at all. I don't think $3+ million a year is that much to pay him. I don't think signing one player to a contract like his automatically precludes the Reds from trying to sign another pitcher. (But then again, I never thought the Reds would sign a top FA pitcher this year anyway.)

So many times it's said on here that cheap, good FA pitchers can be had. (Such as the example of the Cardinals' rotation this past year.) Based on the last couple Reds' seasons, it's either 1. not very true, or 2. the Reds don't know how to find said pitchers. I suspect the latter. Maybe that will change for the Reds, but I'm not really counting on it. And half the time I think the examples of cheap, good FA pitchers come after the fact. Who knew before last season that Carpenter would win 15 games?

westofyou
11-30-2004, 04:08 PM
The problem is that keeping Wilson makes it that much tougher to pick up any of those three. Having that extra 4.1 million a year would go a long ways towards picking one of them up.

Why (and I ask this seriously) would any of those guys want to hook up with the Reds at this point and time? They're rebuilding the left side of their infield, they don't have a large budget, they play in a division with 3 teams with bigger payrolls and 2 of them have really good starters.

Maybe someday, but the current state of the Reds (not to mention their history with Type A FA's) screams that this is all wishful thinking.

Grandma said, "If wishes were horses we'd all be riding now."

Raisor
11-30-2004, 04:12 PM
Why (and I ask this seriously) would any of those guys want to hook up with the Reds at this point and time? They're rebuilding the left side of their infield, they don't have a large budget, they play in a division with 3 teams with bigger payrolls and 2 of them have really good starters.

"

I'm hoping the pictures Creek has of all these guys will be a deciding factor!

SteelSD
11-30-2004, 04:17 PM
Silly.

Dan O'Brien just signed a player who isn't as good as he thinks for a lot more money than he's worth.

Great.

RedTeamGo!
11-30-2004, 04:20 PM
Didn't he make around 3.5 million last year? If that is so this isn't that bad of a deal...You aren't going to sign Clement for around 4 million per/yr and the Reds know this. Clement will probably sign for around 7 million or so maybe a little less. Scouts think too highly of him for him to be signed around 4. Wilson is a solid veteran that has good stuff and if stays healthy will pitch deep into games and give you a chance to win most nights he pitches. I'm not saying this is a for-sure good thing...i'm just saying give it a chance.

M2
11-30-2004, 04:27 PM
The bright side is it was only a marginal raise form last year, where he pitched above expectations. I say good enough. :thumbup:

Again, this is why GMs have to understand their park effects. Due to some creative groundskeeping the Reds transformed the GAB into a pitchers park last season. Wilson's 4.36 ERA wasn't any better in relative terms than his 4.64, 4.83 and 4.88 marks in previous years. In fact it was exactly the same. So he didn't pitch above expectations. He pitched directly to his career norms and if the Reds think otherwise then they've failed to take into account the effects of their own actions.

Wilson did have a winning record for the first time in his career, but that had almost everything to do with getting 5+ runs a game from the offense in his starts. Would you pay that much for an 8-11 pitcher with a 4.50 ERA? Because that's what Wilson is on average.



It's 100% on O'Brien for spending the money that is available to him on signings like Paul Wilson.

Exactly. And it's not like the ownership won't lump the blame for these decisions on his shoulders if it leads to a losing product the next two years.

Crash, great stuff.

Chip R
11-30-2004, 04:30 PM
Why (and I ask this seriously) would any of those guys want to hook up with the Reds at this point and time? They're rebuilding the left side of their infield, they don't have a large budget, they play in a division with 3 teams with bigger payrolls and 2 of them have really good starters.

Maybe someday, but the current state of the Reds (not to mention their history with Type A FA's) screams that this is all wishful thinking.

Big fish, small pond?

If you like Paul Wilson and think he can be a valuable contributer for only $100K more than he then it's a good deal.

However, if you think the Reds could have done better and offered that $3.6M plus another $3.5M-$5M a year for a much better pitcher, then it's not so good of a deal.

Personally, I'm in the latter camp. I don't begrudge Wilson his money but we can do better. Of course all the mediots will be jumping for joy over this signing. :rolleyes:

johngalt
11-30-2004, 04:32 PM
The problem is that keeping Wilson makes it that much tougher to pick up any of those three. Having that extra 4.1 million a year would go a long ways towards picking one of them up.

People keep saying this about signing Perez, Clement, etc. as if money is the only concern for these guys.

Did it ever cross anyone's mind that DanO and his staff have contacted some of these players (and/or their agents of course) and found that they're not really interested in coming here? Or that guys who might be willing to come here are guys we might not be interested in?

traderumor
11-30-2004, 04:33 PM
Just FYI,

Lance McAllister is gushing over the Wilson signing. Speaking of missing posters...

Roy Tucker
11-30-2004, 04:36 PM
I fervently hope this is only the first signing for the Reds with others to come.

However, I am not foolish.

Why is it I think of a tick bird on an insect-ridden rhino when I think of the Reds in the FA market?

Phhhl
11-30-2004, 04:36 PM
We've been reduced to quibbling over whether Paul Wilson is worth 4 mil or 2.5 mil per season. Who cares. Whatever the difference between this contract and what he will ultimately be worth, this doesn't get these greedy basta*ds off the hook for upgrading this staff with veteran pitching the remainder of the winter. Paul Wilson can help this team, but not by himself.

A guy I like may get his walking papers from the Astros soon... Wade Miller. Despite his shoulder problems, the Reds should be all over Miller if he is bought out of his contract.

westofyou
11-30-2004, 04:37 PM
Big fish, small pond?

If you like Paul Wilson and think he can be a valuable contributer for only $100K more than he then it's a good deal.

However, if you think the Reds could have done better and offered that $3.6M plus another $3.5M-$5M a year for a much better pitcher, then it's not so good of a deal.

Personally, I'm in the latter camp. I don't begrudge Wilson his money but we can do better. Of course all the mediots will be jumping for joy over this signing. :rolleyes:

Of course if the Reds could/can get another pitcher for more than so be it.

I just don't see any Type A's coming to Cincinnati, especially before 12-7, especially with the unstable IF.

Like I said I don't like Wilson as a #1, I'd prefer to have guys like him at the bottom of the rotation than TVP.

Some of his peers from last year got some bucks.


NATIONAL LEAGUE
SEASON
2004


ERA ERA GS ERA ERA RSAA AGE
1 Mike Hampton 4.28 29 4.28 0.03 0 31
2 Kris Benson 4.31 31 4.31 0.00 -3 29
3 Paul Wilson 4.36 29 4.36 -.05 -7 31
4 Adam Eaton 4.61 33 4.61 -.29 -14 26
5 Josh Fogg 4.64 32 4.64 -.33 -10 27
6 Kazuhisa Ishii 4.71 31 4.71 -.40 -11 30
7 Matt Morris 4.72 32 4.72 -.41 -12 29
8 Kirk Rueter 4.73 33 4.73 -.41 -6 33
9 Eric Milton 4.75 34 4.75 -.43 -9 28

Kc61
11-30-2004, 04:39 PM
My take. This is $4.1 million per year, with $850,000 deferred to the third year as a buyout option. The deferral reduces the value to Wilson and helps the Reds keep some cash in the first two years. Probably a fair deal for Reds, given today's prices, although not a bargain.

The problem, of course, is that it seems unlikely that the Reds will now pay for another good starting pitcher. Hard to see Reds now signing a Perez or Clement.

Instead, the other signings will be inexpensive relievers (probably several) and maybe a veteran fifth starter type, somebody who will work for $1 to 1.5 million.

Looks to me like the Reds probably plan to rise or fall with Wilson and 4 youngsters in the rotation and an improved bullpen. If the 4 youngsters were top tier prospects this might work, but you have to question whether it can work with Hudson, Claussen, Harang and Hancock.

In short, this move indicates that Reds will continue their conservative ways, with no bold moves this off-season. Hope I am wrong.

Crosley68
11-30-2004, 04:39 PM
Chip R..... who are these pitchers that will sign with us for 3.5 mil?

Rojo
11-30-2004, 04:41 PM
Did it ever cross anyone's mind that DanO and his staff have contacted some of these players (and/or their agents of course) and found that they're not really interested in coming here?

I don't buy this. Good players sign with bad teams all the time.

Doubling the money and signing a real ace is one thing, bargain hunting for innings-eaters is another. But this deal is neither fish nor fowl and that's the real problem. Its a risk-averse, prevent-defense move.

Bill
11-30-2004, 04:43 PM
This comes as no surprise. If discussions were being held with the Clements etc, we would have known. I held no expectations of the Reds signing a competent pitcher. Lindner never has or will he give the money. He gave the money to get Griffey and as far as he's concerned, his money is spent (as long as JR is on the roster).

I believe the plan is to hope to be average while staying the in the black until Jr's contract exprires and during which they will build during the draft so as to be a contender by 2009 when they can sign that missing #1 pitcher with the freed money. Look at the bright side, at least signing Wilson as opposed to a Clement does not cost them a draft pick. It also moved M2 to use the rare emoticon.

Doc. Scott
11-30-2004, 04:44 PM
Like I'd been saying all along, you knew Wilson couldn't take a pay cut with the backended deal JimBo gave him, especially after his best year to date. Which is why I knew that the people looking at Wilson's career numbers and age and were arguing he wasn't worth $2.5MM were both right (about P-Dub's value in a vacuum) and wrong (that the Reds would ever get P-Dub for his "true" value).

If the Reds wanted to keep Paul, they should have reasoned going in that the per-year base was going to *have* to be $3.5MM or a little more.

I don't find the deal ridiculous, just not a bargain. And it's only a signing that actively hurts the team if it means we don't get someone else of good quality in here as well.

I actually sort of like DanO's seeming tendency towards acquiring a player or two more than he needs (witness: SS) so there's a fallback plan if someone gets injured or sucks. I would especially like to see that with the pitching, and done in a more intelligent manner than JimBo's annual Pitchin' Jamboree down in Sarasota.

Matt700wlw
11-30-2004, 04:45 PM
Good move and good price...only a very small raise from last season! He's a good leader and had a good year last year.

Ace? No.

This better not be the ONLY move

Rojo
11-30-2004, 04:45 PM
Any wagers on the Washington team beating the Reds to the post-season?

westofyou
11-30-2004, 04:47 PM
Any wagers on the Washington team beating the Reds to the post-season?

Different divisions skew that wager somewhat.

deltachi8
11-30-2004, 04:51 PM
OK, I have been a supporter of Dan O's way of doing business. I know he gets piled on here alot, but I think the patient, developmental approach is what this organization lacked for far too long.

BUT...

This bothers me. The Reds overpaid IMHO. If you told me the Reds overpaid for Pavano or Clement or Perez...I would be fine with it, But Wilson?

Nice guy, decent pitcher, bad signing.

Doc. Scott
11-30-2004, 04:51 PM
Any wagers on the Washington team beating the Reds to the post-season?

Now, that's harsh. Bowden's done more to hurt the Nationals long-term in his couple of weeks on the job than DanO has done to the Reds in his entire tenure.

Bowden has already: overpaid for a mediocre shortstop, overpaid for a mediocre-at-best and old third baseman, and traded one young player plus a very solid prospect for a guy who's only a small amount better (but way more expensive and a PR nightmare for a first-market-year team) than that one young player. He gave away one of his AAAA pitchers from his already poor depth for nothing and protected a slap-hitting, no-walking AA infielder instead. He even overpaid for his backup catcher.

If DanO came in and did those things to the Reds, I'd be storming GABP with lit torches. Signing Paul Wilson for market price for two guaranteed years is not that bad in context.

johngalt
11-30-2004, 04:54 PM
I don't buy this. Good players sign with bad teams all the time.

I don't necessarily mean it just like that, though. There are a lot of guys who prefer teams on the West Coast or East Coast or other areas. Weather, area, etc. play factors for a lot of these guys.

On the baseball side, you may have some guys who don't want to be in a rotation with a bunch of youngsters. They might not want the pressure.

Take Cory Lidle last year for example. One of the major reasons he said he signed here was because of a solid bullpen in the past. After what happened last year, a lot of guys probably won't want to come here for the opposite reason.

Of course, GABP also has been playing recently as a pitcher's park, which should encourage guys to come here. But I think the stigma of it giving up a lot of homers is still out there for a lot of people too.

I'm just saying that it's not as easy as plunking down a bunch of money and bringing someone here. Circumstances matter too.

Aronchis
11-30-2004, 04:56 PM
This comes as no surprise. If discussions were being held with the Clements etc, we would have known. I held no expectations of the Reds signing a competent pitcher. Lindner never has or will he give the money. He gave the money to get Griffey and as far as he's concerned, his money is spent (as long as JR is on the roster).

I believe the plan is to hope to be average while staying the in the black until Jr's contract exprires and during which they will build during the draft so as to be a contender by 2009 when they can sign that missing #1 pitcher with the freed money. Look at the bright side, at least signing Wilson as opposed to a Clement does not cost them a draft pick. It also moved M2 to use the rare emoticon.

Doesn't fit with DanO's time limit however. I think instead, the Reds hope for Griffey to retire, maybe a buyout so they can keep the younger players to longer deals(like Adam Dunn for example).

It is a organizational decision and if you want extra money, get a good GM who can improve the product like Beane did in Oakland without big payrolls intially, that is where Lindner's influence will be felt. Intill the limiteds either change views or are bought out, that is how they will attempt to rebuild the Reds.

Wilson is the father figure now, especially to the Claussen's Moseley's,Gardner's,Pauly's and what other 21-26 year olds come our way. As the rotation is built with young pitching, the Reds belief is a Paul Wilson can be mentor that can help quicken their development with the example of great character and work ethic. I wouldn't give the time or day to Hancock or Harang, fillers for sure. I wouldn't be surprised to see Moseley and possibly Gardner or Nelson get looks this year if they pitch well by mid-summer. With Pauly in 2006.

M2
11-30-2004, 04:59 PM
Why (and I ask this seriously) would any of those guys want to hook up with the Reds at this point and time? They're rebuilding the left side of their infield, they don't have a large budget, they play in a division with 3 teams with bigger payrolls and 2 of them have really good starters.

Maybe someday, but the current state of the Reds (not to mention their history with Type A FA's) screams that this is all wishful thinking.

Grandma said, "If wishes were horses we'd all be riding now."

The Reds have a history with Type A free agents?

John Smiley, who was a great sign, and then I'm drawing a blank.

As for why sign with the Reds: A) They can pay what you think you're worth, B) Maybe you don't view them as a hopeless situation, C) They do a good job of selling you.

For instance, the Reds beat up pretty well on Matt Clement as a rule. He might look at the Reds as a place he can go and get gobs of run support. He might also like the idea of being the lead dog and, from what I've read, he's interested in being close to his western PA home. Now that's just one guy and the Reds could make every reasonable effort to land him and still miss, but I don't think players as a rule are binary about signing with winning clubs and avoiding losing clubs. The Mets and Orioles have had no problem finding people to take their money.

It was only a decade ago when Reds players actively recruited outside players to join the club because the believed Cincinnati was such a great place to play (iirc Smiley, Brantley and Larkin were the ring leaders of that operation). The pitch was something like "Do you want to spend more time on baseball and 75% less time on all the nonsense that swirls around the game? Do you want to live somewhere where you and your family can have a normal life?"

There's a lot about Cincinnati that should appeal to certain players. Others won't care for it, but I wouldn't throw a blanket assumption over the whole free agent market.

Raisor
11-30-2004, 05:01 PM
Wilson is the father figure now, especially to the Claussen's Moseley's,Gardner's,Pauly's and what other 21-26 year olds come our way. As the rotation is built with young pitching, the Reds belief is a Paul Wilson can be mentor that can help quicken their development with the example of great character and work ethic..


Personally, I'd rather the Reds pay money for a good pitcher rather then a "mentor".

PuffyPig
11-30-2004, 05:02 PM
Whether or not you like the signing or not, I suggest that the going rate for a pitcher like Wilson is about $3.5M per season

westofyou
11-30-2004, 05:04 PM
The Reds have a history with Type A free agents?

John Smiley, who was a great sign, and then I'm drawing a blank.

Parker qualifies eh?


The Mets and Orioles have had no problem finding people to take their money.

You've never been to Cincinnati have you?

World of difference between the coasts and the Mid East, especially if a slow developing, small market team resides there and you're from another country or either of the coasts........... plus you have your choice of where to play.

flyer85
11-30-2004, 05:04 PM
Dan O'Brien just signed a player who isn't as good as he thinks for a lot more money than he's worth.


We have a winner.

flyer85
11-30-2004, 05:07 PM
This better not be the ONLY move

If you looking for a bigger signing for more money you better not hold your breath.

I can see the only other siginings being some relievers and a couple of position reserves.

NC Reds
11-30-2004, 05:07 PM
I agree with the assessment that Wilson was paid his market value. In that sense, I won't bash the signing at all. I like Wilson too. He gained a lot in my eyes when he charged Farnsworth that time.

However, I hope we are all surprised by another FA signing or the miraculous dumping of an unwanted veteran's salary (Graves).

traderumor
11-30-2004, 05:09 PM
The Reds have a history with Type A free agents?

John Smiley, who was a great sign, and then I'm drawing a blank.

As for why sign with the Reds: A) They can pay what you think you're worth, B) Maybe you don't view them as a hopeless situation, C) They do a good job of selling you.

For instance, the Reds beat up pretty well on Matt Clement as a rule. He might look at the Reds as a place he can go and get gobs of run support. He might also like the idea of being the lead dog and, from what I've read, he's interested in being close to his western PA home. Now that's just one guy and the Reds could make every reasonable effort to land him and still miss, but I don't think players as a rule are binary about signing with winning clubs and avoiding losing clubs. The Mets and Orioles have had no problem finding people to take their money.

It was only a decade ago when Reds players actively recruited outside players to join the club because the believed Cincinnati was such a great place to play (iirc Smiley, Brantley and Larkin were the ring leaders of that operation). The pitch was something like "Do you want to spend more time on baseball and 75% less time on all the nonsense that swirls around the game? Do you want to live somewhere where you and your family can have a normal life?"

There's a lot about Cincinnati that should appeal to certain players. Others won't care for it, but I wouldn't throw a blanket assumption over the whole free agent market.
After all, Mike Hampton liked the schools in Denver :mhcky21:

Raisor
11-30-2004, 05:10 PM
I agree with the assessment that Wilson was paid his market value. In that sense, I won't bash the signing at all. I like Wilson too. He gained a lot in my eyes when he charged Farnsworth that time.

.


Would he be worth 5-million if he'd drilled Barry Bonds a couple of times?

flyer85
11-30-2004, 05:11 PM
I agree with the assessment that Wilson was paid his market value.

That may be true but he won't do anything to make them better next year or prepare for a playoff in run in 2006.

We have seen the best Wilson has to offer. WIth a below average pastball and his only one better than average pitch(his change), WIlson has no upside. I would have preferred spending the money on someone who has some upside. While that implies more risk that is how you get rewarded.

Redmachine2003
11-30-2004, 05:11 PM
for those who say this is a bad signing and wished DanO would have spend 3.5-5 mill more on a Clement or some like that, just think you are willing to spend up to 5 mill dollars more for maybe 5 extra wins at the most if that much.

traderumor
11-30-2004, 05:11 PM
Would he be worth 5-million if he'd drilled Barry Bonds a couple of times?OOOOhhh. I'd chip in. But he would have to miss the body armor. :gac:

Hubba
11-30-2004, 05:19 PM
WHO? And how much?
That may be true but he won't do anything to make them better next year or prepare for a playoff in run in 2006.

We have seen the best Wilson has to offer. WIth a below average pastball and his only one better than average pitch(his change), WIlson has no upside. I would have preferred spending the money on someone who has some upside. While that implies more risk that is how you get rewarded.

Aronchis
11-30-2004, 05:22 PM
Of course if Danny Graves is traded, all bets are off.

flyer85
11-30-2004, 05:26 PM
WHO? And how much?

Won't be able to tell you that until spring training is ready to start..

Raisor
11-30-2004, 05:28 PM
Won't be able to tell you that until spring training is ready to start..


Once the non-tenders hit the market, we'll have a much better idea who is going to be available. There's going to be some very good value available.

M2
11-30-2004, 05:32 PM
Parker qualifies eh?

I think he'd have been Type B or C when he signed, only 800 ABs the previous two seasons. IIRC, he also took a paycut coming to Cincinnati. Yet if he was Type A then that makes two nifty Type A signings in team history.



You've never been to Cincinnati have you?

World of difference between the coasts and the Mid East, especially if a slow developing, small market team resides there and you're from another country or either of the coasts........... plus you have your choice of where to play.

Yes, I have been. Not a lot, but enough to know I prefer Skyline to Star.

Baltimore's a lot like Cincinnati when you get right down to it. Anyway, I think it's fair to say the average baseball player isn't exactly a metropolitan sort of fellow. Cincinnati has some smaller fishbowl comforts it can sell.

flyer85
11-30-2004, 05:34 PM
The Reds have never been active players in the free agent market. All they have ever done is bottom feed. I don't see that changing in the future.

Doc. Scott
11-30-2004, 05:38 PM
I remember that Parker was more or less the Reds' first-ever major free agent signee. He was majorly down on his luck following drug scandals, injuries, and flat-out poor play from 1981-1983. He hadn't had a complete and effective year since 1980.

He joined a club that had had no one hit more than seventeen homers the previous year (1983) and could muster only 16 his first season (1984). I even remember an article in the Reds' newspaper-thingy: "Get off Parker's back, he'll hit homers". He didn't hit one until well over a month into the season.

But he certainly paid off in 1985 and 1986 (only falling down a bit in 1987, where he was behind the curve of the baseball-wide offensive explosion).

Nowadays, if the Reds signed a 32/33 year-old outfielder who hadn't done much in the three years previous, everyone would scream that they were getting ripped off to have someone for four years in their decline phase. But it really all depends on the player.

westofyou
11-30-2004, 05:42 PM
Cincinnati has some smaller fishbowl comforts it can sell.

Sure it does.

But the horse that pulls that wagon is the ability to contend enough to make a rush in season if need be, that means stability in the farm system, money to buy guys to get over the hump and depth all around.

Stuff that the Reds are currently lacking in.

That's a hard sell to FA's at this point, if a better pitcher who makes more jack than Wilson is to be had it will probably be by a trade.

Reds1
11-30-2004, 05:44 PM
I'm just not sure what you guys expect. We saw Cory Lidle and we saw Benson. This contract seems pretty fairly priced. It could have been better and it could have been worse, but it's not terrible. It's also not over. Many here think it's over. We might still end up with a guy who will be the ace and then that makes 2-5 that much better. I believe Wilson would have been able to get more money and the option year was just done to get Wilson to sign. The hit to the payroll is only 100,000 more NEXT YEAR. I'll take a guy who won 11 and should have won at least 4-5 more for just 100M more. It's still early and I expect at least another pitcher. Solid pitchers just don't grow on trees. Remember Denny Neagle (sp) got 12 million a year. Gabe White was 3.1 million. In todays world that's just not a high dollar figure and this is a guy who can have success. The fans complained the Reds weren't doing anything and now we do and it seems there are many that are just disgusted with the deal and I just don't understand why! It might be better to pass judment when we are done and not in November (4 months before ST)!

traderumor
11-30-2004, 05:45 PM
I remember that Parker was more or less the Reds' first-ever major free agent signee. He was majorly down on his luck following drug scandals, injuries, and flat-out poor play from 1981-1983. He hadn't had a complete and effective year since 1980.

He joined a club that had had no one hit more than seventeen homers the previous year (1983) and could muster only 16 his first season (1984). I even remember an article in the Reds' newspaper-thingy: "Get off Parker's back, he'll hit homers". He didn't hit one until well over a month into the season.

But he certainly paid off in 1985 and 1986 (only falling down a bit in 1987, where he was behind the curve of the baseball-wide offensive explosion).

Nowadays, if the Reds signed a 32/33 year-old outfielder who hadn't done much in the three years previous, everyone would scream that they were getting ripped off to have someone for four years in their decline phase. But it really all depends on the player.
I think the biggest issue with signing Parker was shaving his beard.

Raisor
11-30-2004, 05:46 PM
That's a hard sell to FA's at this point, if a better pitcher who makes more jack than Wilson is to be had it will probably be by a trade.


I agree with this too, and the signing hurts those chances too, unless the Reds can somehow flip Junior or Casey or Graves.

Boss-Hog
11-30-2004, 05:49 PM
I'm just not sure what you guys expect. We saw Cory Lidle and we saw Benson. This contract seems pretty fairly priced. It could have been better and it could have been worse, but it's not terrible. It's also not over. Many here think it's over. We might still end up with a guy who will be the ace and then that makes 2-5 that much better. I believe Wilson would have been able to get more money and the option year was just done to get Wilson to sign. The hit to the payroll is only 100,000 more NEXT YEAR. I'll take a guy who won 11 and should have won at least 4-5 more for just 100M more. It's still early and I expect at least another pitcher. Solid pitchers just don't grow on trees. Remember Denny Neagle (sp) got 12 million a year. Gabe White was 3.1 million. In todays world that's just not a high dollar figure and this is a guy who can have success. The fans complained the Reds weren't doing anything and now we do and it seems there are many that are just disgusted with the deal and I just don't understand why! It might be better to pass judment when we are done and not in November (4 months before ST)!
I hear this mantra every off season. I expect a few cheap bullpen pitchers to be added and maybe another Lidle or Vanderwal type signing, but today's resigning of Paul Wilson effectively took a team with a budget as tight as the Reds' out of the market for real pitching talent, which is exactly what we need. I'll have no problem admitting I was wrong if we make a trade or signing for someone of Zito/Clement/Perez/caliber - I'll be pleasantly surprised to admit I was wrong, in fact. However, I'll expect the same out of everyone who is banging the 'The offseason isn't over!' drum, if and when we do little more to improve the team.

Boss

M2
11-30-2004, 05:55 PM
Sure it does.

But the horse that pulls that wagon is the ability to contend enough to make a rush in season if need be, that means stability in the farm system, money to buy guys to get over the hump and depth all around.

Stuff that the Reds are currently lacking in.

That's a hard sell to FA's at this point, if a better pitcher who makes more jack than Wilson is to be had it will probably be by a trade.

Honestly, do you think the average baseball player has any clue as to the relative strength of a team's farm system? Or that the same ballplayer needs to hear anything more than "We're committed to doing everything necessary to making this franchise a winner and it all starts with YOU." to make him think he's going to a franchise that's on the right track?

I understand there's some that will look deeper and be big-market-powerhousecentric, but the Reds can tick off the names of their better players on offense and that's going to impress more than a few pitchers out there -- Adam Dunn? That guy kills me. Be nice to have him on my side for once.

The Reds had a certain chunk of PayFlex to start this offseason. My figuring was that, if they kept a laser focus on getting at least one quality pitcher, they had up to $9M to spend on said pitcher if there was no payroll increase. That can buy you someone pretty good regardless of your zip code. That sum might be down to $5M now, meaning that trade may be the only sensible avenue to finding the kind of talent the Reds need.

iammrred
11-30-2004, 05:57 PM
Honestly, do you think the average baseball player has any clue as to the relative strength of a team's farm system?

Yes. Or at least his agent does... especially if they're discussing a multi-year deal.

REDREAD
11-30-2004, 05:58 PM
I don't buy this. Good players sign with bad teams all the time.
.

Yep. Whether you think they are dumb or good signings, the Tigers have signed IRod and a few other FAs recently.

I do agree that you might have show a Clement or Millwood that you have plans to compete within the next 3 years to get their interest. They might not want to come here with no other changes. But let's say the Reds upgraded 3b (instead of the Kearns experiment), and got another starter and a couple relievers.. It would certainly be easier.

I do agree with WOY that Allen and the Reds' reputation probably makes some agents not even bother to return DanO's calls. The Reds would have to make some changes in the way they operate.

westofyou
11-30-2004, 06:02 PM
Yes. Or at least his agent does... especially if they're discussing a multi-year deal.

What he said.

I really think that the agents job is to get more than just cash and year, it also involves putting his guy in a position to exceed personal numbers or comfort.

Buckeye33
11-30-2004, 06:04 PM
Rotoworld agrees with most of the posters on here:

Paul Wilson's two-year contract with the Reds is worth $8.2 million.
Wilson will make $3.6 million next year and $3.75 million in 2006. There's a team option for 2007, when he could make up to about $5.15 million depending upon escalators, or the Reds can buy out the option for $850,000. We know this is starting to sound like a broken record, but this is just too much money. Wilson posted the best ERA of his career last year, but his ERA+, which is adjusted for league and ballpark, has held steady at 92 each of the last four years. The main reason last year was the best season of his career is because he allowed fewer unearned runs. Wilson has never pitched 200 innings and he's nothing more than a league-average starter when healthy. Better pitchers will come cheaper later on this winter. Nov. 30 - 2:14 pm et

M2
11-30-2004, 06:06 PM
Yes. Or at least his agent does... especially if they're discussing a multi-year deal.

Your average player wants to know who he's going to be playing with, not the names of some kids he doesn't know from Job. And an agent's just as likely to steer a player away from a franchise with a strong farm system (because they may look to trade his client in a year or two if he doesn't get a no-trade clause) as he is steer you towards it. This is assuming that agent values farm system anywhere near its overall payroll, which I submit, along with recent record and current personnel, are the only significant measures those agents will be using to gauge who a contender is.

traderumor
11-30-2004, 06:06 PM
I think the primary concern for a FA changing teams is the size of the check and will it clear. All of the other stuff is secondary and they certainly consider it, but most guys like Clement and Perez, in their first run through the game, they are looking primarily at contract. They always give lip service to the other things, because, let's face it, they sure aren't going to pull a Leon after just signing with a new team and say "They offered me the best contract so I took it."

NJReds
11-30-2004, 06:15 PM
Rotoworld agrees with most of the posters on here:

Paul Wilson's two-year contract with the Reds is worth $8.2 million.
Wilson will make $3.6 million next year and $3.75 million in 2006. There's a team option for 2007, when he could make up to about $5.15 million depending upon escalators, or the Reds can buy out the option for $850,000. We know this is starting to sound like a broken record, but this is just too much money. Wilson posted the best ERA of his career last year, but his ERA+, which is adjusted for league and ballpark, has held steady at 92 each of the last four years. The main reason last year was the best season of his career is because he allowed fewer unearned runs. Wilson has never pitched 200 innings and he's nothing more than a league-average starter when healthy. Better pitchers will come cheaper later on this winter. Nov. 30 - 2:14 pm et

They must have fainted at first sight of Benson's contract.

M2
11-30-2004, 06:15 PM
What he said.

I really think that the agents job is to get more than just cash and year, it also involves putting his guy in a position to exceed personal numbers or comfort.

Cash
Years
Comfort in new surroundings
Everything else

I think that would be just about the standard checklist. For some players going to a team that did well last year is going to be part of that comfort. For others factors like media market and his own aesthetics (some players might only want to be in Cali for instance) take precedence.

But strength of system is something you never even hear discussed in all the various ramblings about the free agent market.

IMO, those are things you and I care about, but we're by no means indicative of the standard thought process in the marketplace.

guernsey
11-30-2004, 06:18 PM
My figuring was that, if they kept a laser focus on getting at least one quality pitcher, they had up to $9M to spend on said pitcher if there was no payroll increase.


But there is going to be payroll increase, which means there could still be $9M available for a pitcher (although I think that figure was high by a couple million). And another could come through trade.

westofyou
11-30-2004, 06:20 PM
But strength of system is something you never even hear discussed in all the various ramblings about the free agent market.

That's a micro look at it, it factors into the "Can they really win it" part of why should I sign with the Cincinnati Reds.

And currently the answer is No, they don't have the resources.

M2
11-30-2004, 06:20 PM
I'm just not sure what you guys expect. We saw Cory Lidle and we saw Benson. This contract seems pretty fairly priced.

Measuring against bad standards will net you bad decisions. Though I think you may have perfectly captured the Reds' mindset on this.

And what Boss said about waiting for the other shoe to drop. After the last four offseasons, I'm proceeding from the standpoint that I'll believe it when I see it.

M2
11-30-2004, 06:23 PM
That's a micro look at it, it factors into the "Can they really win it" part of why should I sign with the Cincinnati Reds.

And currently the answer is No, they don't have the resources.

Then neither do the Blue Jays or Indians, reported to be the two teams leading the Clement chase at the moment.

The Red Sox, Yankees, Cardinals and Dodgers can't sign everyone.



But there is going to be payroll increase, which means there could still be $9M available for a pitcher (although I think that figure was high by a couple million). And another could come through trade.

You draw a pretty picture, but we've got no concrete proof it's more than that. I hope you're right. Though if the $9M was a tad high, then how do the Reds afford Wilson, a free agent AND a guy acquired through trade? Seems to me either they have a lot more than that $9M or that's a pipe dream.

princeton
11-30-2004, 06:23 PM
I felt better at this time last year. Wilson wasn't the "big signing" then, Claussen seemed close, the market was down and we had a bit of cash (which we subsequently blew on Cory Lidle), and we seemed to have a chance at a closer with Reitsma/Wagner.

this year, we have a bit of cash but the market is way up, we know more about Claussen, and there's no hope for a closer.

one hope to compete is to rush the young arms. There's more of 'em, and Ellis is gone. Still, we've been down THAT road before.

a better idea is probably to trade the kid arms. But I don't think that DanO can do it.

westofyou
11-30-2004, 06:27 PM
Then neither do the Blue Jays or Indians, reported to be the two teams leading the Clement chase at the moment.

The Red Sox, Yankees, Cardinals and Dodgers can't sign everyone.

The Indians are a lot closer then the Reds, especially in that dog division.

Reds1
11-30-2004, 06:29 PM
I hear this mantra every off season. I expect a few cheap bullpen pitchers to be added and maybe another Lidle or Vanderwal type signing, but today's resigning of Paul Wilson effectively took a team with a budget as tight as the Reds' out of the market for real pitching talent, which is exactly what we need. I'll have no problem admitting I was wrong if we make a trade or signing for someone of Zito/Clement/Perez/caliber - I'll be pleasantly surprised to admit I was wrong, in fact. However, I'll expect the same out of everyone who is banging the 'The offseason isn't over!' drum, if and when we do little more to improve the team.

Boss

I guess all I can be is hopeful. This is a new GM so I guess I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, but my point is there is really not a lot out there and the Zito, Clement type guys you mentioned are way more then 3-4 million dollars. Even without signing Wilson we aren't getting those guys.

Reds1
11-30-2004, 06:33 PM
Measuring against bad standards will net you bad decisions. Though I think you may have perfectly captured the Reds' mindset on this.

And what Boss said about waiting for the other shoe to drop. After the last four offseasons, I'm proceeding from the standpoint that I'll believe it when I see it.

You are right. We aren't talking about going for Zito, Clement, Perez. It's funny in my mind I don't even consider that. I guess that is sad. It is my mindset. It sure would be great to get one of those guys, but I'm not holding my breath. That's why I like this deal. I hope we get one more little better then Wilson type to round out the 5, but I'm not sure how many there are available. We know we have to get pitching from the youngsters and that's a hard way to go, but it can happen. This deal just seems fair to me. I hate to say it, but getting to 4 million guys is probably better served then 1 8 million guy when you consider our starters right now. I guess that's hard to say for sure, but I'm afraid I believe that. Hopefully the roto world write up is correct and you can get better pitchers cheaper. That way we can get 2 starters and not just focus on Wilson and then we only need 2-3 youngsters to do well instead of all 4 or all 5. Have to run.

Raisor
11-30-2004, 06:34 PM
By the way, here's what I said the first time the Reds signed Wilson. My view hasn't changed.


I'm not too hip on this.

His arm could fall off at any time. He's been consistently bad the last two years, and he's a former Met.
What's not to hate?

PSR

Reds1
11-30-2004, 06:36 PM
At least his arm didn't fall off the 1st year! ;)

M2
11-30-2004, 06:37 PM
The Indians are a lot closer then the Reds, especially in that dog division.

I like the Indians better too, but it's taken 90+ games to win that division each of the past six years. If you're really placing a lot of stock on strength of system then Minnesota may be in a position to own that division until someone buys it away from them. It was only 2003 when the Reds were in what was a supposedly hapless division.

Plus, you're accounting for matters of taste when arguing that one 80-82 team is way better than another suitor who finished 76-86. If it came down the Reds and Indians for Clement's services, money and contract length being equal, it would probably be a decision of whether Clement wants a shorter drive to his hometown or whether he prefers to stay in the NL.

traderumor
11-30-2004, 06:41 PM
Tucked away in my mind is DanO seeming to minimize the needs in the rotation to the bullpen, so this signing may be it. Recipe for another disastrous year on the hill.

flyer85
11-30-2004, 06:48 PM
I'm just not sure what you guys expect. We saw Cory Lidle and we saw Benson. This contract seems pretty fairly priced.

The Reds are not going to build a winner signing FAs to fairly priced contracts. They have to find the gems(which Wilson clearly is not) and sign them to under priced contracts.

princeton
11-30-2004, 06:56 PM
The Reds are not going to build a winner signing FAs to fairly priced contracts. They have to find the gems(which Wilson clearly is not) and sign them to under priced contracts.

correct.

though I note that even the Reds can afford a few players at market value.

If the Reds see Wilson as a no. 4 starter, and now have plans to land nos. 1-3, plus a closer, then all is not lost. Say, by trading LaRue, WMP, Jimenez, Freel, and minor league arms

but if the Reds plan, as last year, to keep Wilson as ace, to sign a Lidle-type for no. 2, to add a no. 4 starter in Rule V...

Boss-Hog
11-30-2004, 07:03 PM
You are right. We aren't talking about going for Zito, Clement, Perez. It's funny in my mind I don't even consider that. I guess that is sad. It is my mindset. It sure would be great to get one of those guys, but I'm not holding my breath. I get the impression that you and the Reds are very much on the same page. :)


That's why I like this deal. I hope we get one more little better then Wilson type to round out the 5, but I'm not sure how many there are available. We know we have to get pitching from the youngsters and that's a hard way to go, but it can happen. This deal just seems fair to me. I hate to say it, but getting to 4 million guys is probably better served then 1 8 million guy when you consider our starters right now.Maybe if you consider Paul Wilson-types part of the solution; I don't. You do realize that Wilson and the same other 'youngsters' that some are counting on compiled a team ERA that ranked only ahead of the altitude-challenged Rockies, right? The same starters that had the worst collective ERA in team history?

Signing the Paul Wilson's and Cory Lidle's of the world and calling it an offseason (my prediction based on the past several years) is akin to placing a bandaid on a shotgun wound; that's how bad our starting pitching is and bringing back Wilson does very little to fix the problem. All it does is take away from what little money we have to do so.


I guess that's hard to say for sure, but I'm afraid I believe that. Hopefully the roto world write up is correct and you can get better pitchers cheaper. That way we can get 2 starters and not just focus on Wilson and then we only need 2-3 youngsters to do well instead of all 4 or all 5. Have to run.

Milezinni
11-30-2004, 07:18 PM
I think Paul Wilson is as good a signing as half the pitchers on the FA market.....

He is a solid, reliable, veteran #3 or #4 on the rotation. And a pretty good chance, potential anyway, to win 12-15 games next season.
And has finally proven his arm is back in the 88-90% healthy range.

What we need is that a true #1-#2 comes up through the system/draft.

I am hoping that Hudson or Claussen, who I personally don't believe is 100% yet, will step it up another notch and give The Redsa much better rotation in '05 than we started in '04.....

Now, the bullpen on the other hand?!?

Crash Davis
11-30-2004, 07:21 PM
I was trying to pinpoint exactly what it is about this signing that goes beyond the Haynes comparisons, the preference for keeping "our" guys and the acceptance of mediocrity, and I think I found it.

What are the odds on a guy like Ramon Ortiz outpitching Paul Wilson the next 2 seasons? Jeremi Gonzalez? Bruce Chen? Pedro Astacio? Elmer Dessens? Jamey Wright?

Seriously? 40/60?

Is Paul Wilson $8MM better than any of those guys? It's not just that other, cheaper alternatives were available (we've been down that road before), but I think it's more that Paul Wilson doesn't instill in me any confidence that he will outpitch those guys the next 2 seasons.

Are the odds that Paul Wilson goes Haynes on the Reds and finds himself collecting millions from his couch higher than the odds that he wins 15 games in one of the next two seasons?

I get the same feeling either way. Both scenarios are very possible. But you could say the same thing about the list of $1MM or less guys listed above.

It's bad enough giving $8MM to Paul Wilson, but the worst is that you can say goodbye to your hopes for a possible #2 like Odalis Perez or Matt Clement. Why don't we even go after those types of pitchers? That's terrible.

cincinnati chili
11-30-2004, 07:22 PM
I don't like this deal. I don't expect Wilson to pull a Jimmy Haynes, and completely fall off the cliff. The guy certainly has heart. But you don't fork over $4 million/year for heart. I thought Omar Vizquel was a bad signing, but I'd rather have him for (I think) similar money, and take my chances that we can find a 4.50 ERA pitcher on the scrap heap for a lot less $$$.

Big Donkey
11-30-2004, 07:35 PM
Just my two cents since I haven't rang in on this yet, not that anyone cares. Basically, it's all about if we add another pitcher. As simple as that. If it were announced tomorrow (or a week after tomorrow, more realistically, December 8th, but this is hypothetical) that the Reds have come to terms with Odalis Perez or Matt Clement or Jaret Wright or whomever, the Wilson signing is ok in everyone's book. I know people would rather have TWO of the aforementioned pitchers than Wilson, but anyone knowing our team will accept one of those along with Wilson, and then round it out with Harang, Hudson, Claussen, Hancock, Moseley or whomever else will be in contention for the back end of the rotation. If we stop here though and just worry about one bullpen arm and maybe one middle infielder, it's looked at as the worst move EVERRRRR. At least it looks to me that's what most of the people are saying.

Raisor
11-30-2004, 07:44 PM
Hopefully, Wilson will become trade bait (I haven't read anything saying that he got a no-trade clause, if he did O'Brien should be fired today) by the deadline. Maybe knowing what he makes the next couple years will give some contending team the idea to trade for him.

That's about my only upside.

Chip R
11-30-2004, 07:46 PM
If the Reds don't add another starter like Clement or Perez the only way this signing puts a smile on my face is if the Reds use that money they would have spent to sign one of those pitchers, to lock up Dunn long term.

Raisor
11-30-2004, 07:47 PM
If the Reds don't add another starter like Clement or Perez the only way this signing puts a smile on my face is if the Reds use that money they would have spent to sign one of those pitchers, to lock up Dunn long term.


Even if they don't sign another starter they need to lock up Dunn.

Crash Davis
11-30-2004, 07:49 PM
Hopefully, Wilson will become trade bait (I haven't read anything saying that he got a no-trade clause, if he did O'Brien should be fired today) by the deadline. Maybe knowing what he makes the next couple years will give some contending team the idea to trade for him.

That's about my only upside.

Agreed. However, the time to trade him was July 2004.

What happens when Wilson has a good first half again? O'Brien won't have the balls to deal him.

I have a feeling "nothing will be imminent" on that front...until it's too late.

M2
11-30-2004, 07:49 PM
Basically, it's all about if we add another pitcher. As simple as that. If it were announced tomorrow (or a week after tomorrow, more realistically, December 8th, but this is hypothetical) that the Reds have come to terms with Odalis Perez or Matt Clement or Jaret Wright or whomever, the Wilson signing is ok in everyone's book.

For my part that won't make the Wilson signing ok. No matter what, the Reds could have done better with that money. Though Clement or Perez (not Wright by a longshot) would give me the ability to look at the offseason through a Tralfamadoran lens where I only visit the happy parts of the experience.

Raisor
11-30-2004, 07:51 PM
Agreed. However, the time to trade him was July 2004.

What happens when Wilson has a good first half again? O'Brien won't have the balls to deal him.

.


I think the problem was the Reds were seen as being in contention when Wilson was at his best in 2004. If the Reds are stinking it up, while Wilson is doing well, I doubt there will be much of a protest in dealing him.

Aronchis
11-30-2004, 07:57 PM
Another point to bring up is Populism. The Reds players I bet were gun hoe for the Reds to resign Wilson. Doesn't make it right, but with Miley a populist manager, it wouldn't surprise me on alot of personal moves, if O'brien goes with the players voice. Not all the time like with the Reitsma deal, but far more than most teams do.

The Wilson signing doesn't sound good to the Reds fan, but for the players themselves, they are probably very happy right now.

Raisor
11-30-2004, 08:03 PM
The Wilson signing doesn't sound good to the Reds fan, but for the players themselves, they are probably very happy right now.


Which is why I'm glad there aren't any Player/GM's (at least officially).

I'm a firm believer that the boss shouldn't be friends with his/her employees. They can be friendly, but it's business not personal.

DoogMinAmo
11-30-2004, 08:27 PM
for those who say this is a bad signing and wished DanO would have spend 3.5-5 mill more on a Clement or some like that, just think you are willing to spend up to 5 mill dollars more for maybe 5 extra wins at the most if that much.

Execellent post! Even if it were 7-10 more wins from Clement, which I doubt, could that money not be better spent on bullpen help? If our bullpen blew half as many games last year, we would have had a winning season.

iammrred
11-30-2004, 08:43 PM
Cash
But strength of system is something you never even hear discussed in all the various ramblings about the free agent market.

IMO, those are things you and I care about, but we're by no means indicative of the standard thought process in the marketplace.

I really think those are things players would care about, especially the ones the Reds are likely to go after. Someone like Pedro Martinez can sign with a team and have not a worry in the world about his role on a roster. However, he's going to want to know if there's any help from the minor leagues to contribute to winning.

And on the other hand, someone like a Wade Miller, the type of pitcher the Reds could go after, has been in a steady decline over the past few years. Before he signs with a team, I'd assume he'd want to know whether or not there are a couple of prospects knocking on the door, which could send him to the bullpen if he gets off to a shaky start.

I'm not saying it's a huge consideration (nowhere near the actual dollar amount of the total number of years of the contract) for most players, but for the type of players the Reds are going to target, it's probably a significant one.

M2
11-30-2004, 08:47 PM
Execellent post! Even if it were 7-10 more wins from Clement, which I doubt, could that money not be better spent on bullpen help? If our bullpen blew half as many games last year, we would have had a winning season.

It's madness to think the Reds can tinker their way to success. This staff is broken, worst pitching in team history (something that apparently hasn't soaked in with some folks). Either they populate the rotation and pen with quality pitchers or it's just going to be more of the same.

bleedsred
11-30-2004, 08:49 PM
If 3.5 million to Paul Wilson hamstrings the Reds from signing another 1 or 2 starters than maybe Cincy should just be a minor league team. I like the signing...Wilson deserves this contract and could have probably done a lot better somewhere else. Thumbs up to Wilson for WANTING to be a RED with hardly a raise at all. If the Reds can't put another 9-15 million into the staff, don't blame Paul Wilson, blame the guy making who knows how many millions with a brand new stadium with all the fixin's....

Raisor
11-30-2004, 08:58 PM
Everyone pretty much agrees that the Cory Lidle signing was a blunder for the Phils.

Here's something to keep in mind. Paul Wilson and Lidle had the exact same OPS against, .771.

M2
11-30-2004, 09:00 PM
I really think those are things players would care about, especially the ones the Reds are likely to go after. Someone like Pedro Martinez can sign with a team and have not a worry in the world about his role on a roster. However, he's going to want to know if there's any help from the minor leagues to contribute to winning.

And on the other hand, someone like a Wade Miller, the type of pitcher the Reds could go after, has been in a steady decline over the past few years. Before he signs with a team, I'd assume he'd want to know whether or not there are a couple of prospects knocking on the door, which could send him to the bullpen if he gets off to a shaky start.

I'm not saying it's a huge consideration (nowhere near the actual dollar amount of the total number of years of the contract) for most players, but for the type of players the Reds are going to target, it's probably a significant one.

Pedro Martinez wants to A) get paid and B) win now. He's not sitting down looking at the relative strengths of the Mets, Yankees and Sox minor league operations. When it comes to winning, he's going to look at the major league roster, how the team did in recent years and how much it can spend on additional immediate help. Period. Mostly it sounds like he wants to get paid. If you think he's sitting down assessing the relative strengths of Kelly Shoppach vs. Dioner Navarro, you're sorely mistaken.

I think you're right that Miller's going to want to go a team with a lousy rotation where he's guaranteed a start every fifth day, but I'm hard-pressed to think of a team with multiple stud prospects on the cusp of making the majors. Again, he's going to focus a lot more on who's in the rotation right now (Wilson, Harang, Hudson, Claussen). Everything I've ever read and heard from major leaguers indicates that they care almost exclusively about players in the majors and put little to no stock in kids who haven't done a thing in The Show.

Chip R
11-30-2004, 09:00 PM
Even if they don't sign another starter they need to lock up Dunn.
Oh, I agree. I'm just saying the Wilson re-signing will be more palatable if they lock Adam up.

RFS62
11-30-2004, 09:02 PM
This Reds front office is adverse-risk. All they have to do to remember why is look at Junior.

I don't think they would sign another big contract if they had the chance.

If this is all we do, then obviously, the critics are exactly right and we're in deep trouble.

Personally, I believe that we'll go on and get a couple of arms for the bullpen and not much else.

The only way we're going to get a front line pitcher is to trade one of the three stud kids, IMO. And best case scenario would be to tie Danny Graves to that deal.

I'm not saying I like it, I'm just saying that that's the read I have on this front office.

They placed a lot of value on Wilson's work ethic and his importance in setting an example in the clubhouse, concepts that are always discounted as nearly meaningless and worth very little around here. But I guarantee you that DanO sold that line hard to Allen and Lindner. That's what those two want to hear. Slow, steady, conservative movement. The antithesis of Bowdens years.

That's the Reds front office. Not a swashbuckling shoot from the hip style. More like a traditional CPA's approach. Reduce risk, it's hammered you before, don't let it happen again.

In the end, it stifles creativity and squashes any hope of daring or innovative moves. But it keeps the plodding, steady, conservative, mediocrity machine bumbling forward like a herd of turtles.

DanO still has plenty of time to put a few more pieces together, and I'm sure he'll do something. But I don't see this organization rolling the dice on a big name free agent.

Redmachine2003
11-30-2004, 09:04 PM
I think the Wilson signing is a pretty good signing. With Hudson and Claussen both coming of arm injuries, I think Wilson is a great mentor for them. He has great work habbits and he be through everything these kids are going to go through. Wilson will give you 15-20 quality starts a year but when he goes bad he is bad. He will have four really bad starts a year and give up like 20 some runs in 15 innings which keeps him from having a 3. something era. But Wilson has improve every year since he came back from his arm trouble and who is to say he won't continue to improve.

M2
11-30-2004, 09:06 PM
RFS,

You've summed up the rolling disaster that is the Cincinnati Reds perfectly.

Now is there any truth to the rumor that Homer Bailey has changed his last name to Godot?

MattyHo4Life
11-30-2004, 09:06 PM
Thumbs up to Wilson for WANTING to be a RED with hardly a raise at all.

Don't be fooled by the FO spin. Paul Wilson did get a big raise. His previous contract was heavily backloaded (.5 mil in 2003 and 3.5 mil in 2004). I remember most posters here expected him to be traded since he was being "overpaid" in 2004. With the team option, the 3rd year really is non existant, so the Reds will owe the buyout which makes the buyout basically the same as a deferred payment. Wilson is getting 4.1 mil a year for two years. His previous contract was for an average of 2 Mil per year for 2 years. The only way you can think he's not getting a raise is if you're using fuzzy math. ;)

westofyou
11-30-2004, 09:07 PM
Everyone pretty much agrees that the Cory Lidle signing was a blunder for the Phils.

Here's something to keep in mind. Paul Wilson and Lidle had the exact same OPS against, .771.

Wilson VORP 24.6, Lidles 11.9

Here's some other comps for Wilsons seson last year, 2.2 below him and 2.2 above him with his VORP of 24.6 being the mean.

Pretty interesting names in that group.

15 million dollar starters and 700K Relievers


NAME TEAM LG G GS IP H/9 BB/9 SO/9 HR/9 BABIP ERA RA PK_RA RA+ RP VORP

A.J. Burnett FLO NL 20 19 120.0 7.7 2.9 8.5 0.7 0.291 3.67 3.75 3.95 118 9.9 26.8
John Smoltz ATL NL 73 0 81.7 8.3 1.4 9.4 0.9 0.315 2.76 2.76 2.76 170 17.6 26.7
Shingo Takatsu CHA AL 59 0 62.3 5.8 3.0 7.2 0.9 0.207 2.31 2.45 2.32 217 18.8 26.5
Jeremy Bonderman DET AL 33 32 184.0 8.2 3.6 8.2 1.2 0.286 4.89 4.94 5.09 98 -1.3 26.4
Kevin Brown NYA AL 22 22 132.0 9.0 2.4 5.7 1.0 0.290 4.09 4.43 4.57 110 6.8 26.4
Brett Tomko SFN NL 32 31 194.0 9.1 3.0 5.0 0.9 0.283 4.04 4.55 4.41 106 5.9 26.2
Roy Halladay TOR AL 21 21 133.0 9.5 2.6 6.4 0.9 0.313 4.20 4.47 4.25 118 11.5 26.1
Steve Trachsel NYN NL 33 33 202.7 9.0 3.7 5.2 1.1 0.282 4.00 4.62 4.67 100 0.5 25.8
Ryan Madson PHI NL 52 1 77.0 7.9 2.2 6.4 0.7 0.276 2.34 2.69 2.66 176 17.3 25.8
Salomon Torres PIT NL 84 0 92.0 8.5 2.2 6.1 0.6 0.298 2.64 3.23 3.36 139 13.6 25.3
Jon Garland CHA AL 34 33 217.0 9.2 3.2 4.7 1.4 0.277 4.89 5.18 4.89 102 3.4 25.2
Latroy Hawkins CHN NL 77 0 82.0 7.9 1.5 7.6 1.1 0.270 2.63 2.96 2.82 166 17.0 25.0
Guillermo Mota LAN NL 52 0 63.0 7.3 3.9 7.4 0.6 0.280 2.14 2.14 2.23 210 17.2 24.9
Ramon Ortiz ANA AL 34 14 128.0 9.8 2.7 5.8 1.3 0.306 4.43 4.50 4.55 110 6.9 24.9
Braden Looper NYN NL 71 0 83.3 9.3 1.7 6.5 0.5 0.314 2.70 3.02 3.05 153 15.1 24.8
Bronson Arroyo BOS AL 32 29 178.7 8.6 2.4 7.2 0.9 0.291 4.03 4.99 4.75 105 5.6 24.7
Paul Wilson CIN NL 29 29 183.7 9.4 3.1 5.7 1.3 0.293 4.36 4.56 4.90 95 -4.3 24.6
Mike Hampton ATL NL 29 29 172.3 10.3 3.4 4.5 0.8 0.315 4.28 4.49 4.49 104 3.8 24.4
Chad Cordero MON NL 69 0 82.7 7.4 4.7 9.0 0.9 0.278 2.94 3.05 3.18 147 13.9 24.4
Lance Carter TBA AL 56 0 80.3 8.6 2.6 4.0 1.3 0.252 3.47 3.59 3.73 134 11.6 24.1
Mark Prior CHN NL 21 21 118.7 8.5 3.6 10.5 1.1 0.333 3.94 3.94 3.76 124 12.3 24.0
Ron Mahay TEX AL 60 0 67.0 8.1 3.9 7.3 0.7 0.281 2.55 3.09 2.83 177 16.3 23.8
Damaso Marte CHA AL 74 0 73.7 6.8 4.2 8.3 1.2 0.256 3.42 3.42 3.23 155 14.8 23.4
Javier Vazquez NYA AL 32 32 198.0 8.9 2.7 6.8 1.5 0.278 4.91 5.18 5.34 94 -6.9 23.1
Mike Mussina NYA AL 27 27 164.7 9.7 2.2 7.2 1.2 0.317 4.59 4.97 5.13 98 -1.8 23.0
Ryan Franklin SEA AL 32 32 200.3 10.1 2.7 4.7 1.5 0.294 4.90 5.21 5.60 89 -12.8 22.7
Antonio Alfonseca ATL NL 79 0 73.7 8.7 3.4 5.5 0.6 0.289 2.57 2.93 2.93 159 14.4 22.7
Miguel Batista TOR AL 38 31 198.7 9.3 4.3 4.7 1.0 0.293 4.80 5.21 4.96 101 1.5 22.6
Jeff Suppan SLN NL 31 31 188.0 9.2 3.1 5.3 1.2 0.283 4.16 4.69 4.84 96 -3.1 22.4

Raisor
11-30-2004, 09:11 PM
The only way we're going to get a front line pitcher is to trade one of the three stud kids, IMO. And best case scenario would be to tie Danny Graves to that deal.



WMP and Graves to Bowden. Yeah yeah yeah, potential potential potential, but I'd rather open up an OF spot for Kearns (and third for Freel) and be able to deep six Graves. Don't really care what the team got back either (don't know Les Nationals roster at all..)

Even with all the injuries in 2004, WMP still only got 360 TPA, which is just over half what he NEEDED. I wouldn't be surprised at all if he takes a step backwards in 2005 with more playing time (a .316 OBP is a recipe for backsliding).

M2
11-30-2004, 09:13 PM
But Wilson has improve every year since he came back from his arm trouble and who is to say he won't continue to improve.

Again, Wilson's ERA+, the stat that measures the relative strength of his ERA against a park-adjusted league average has been a below average 92 four straight seasons. Wilson hasn't improved one iota. Some of the external factors around him may make it seem that way, but it's an illusion and the Reds' purported baseball professionals should be able to spot it for what it is from a mile away.

Raisor
11-30-2004, 09:13 PM
Wilson VORP 24.6, Lidles 11.9




WOY, does that include Lidles' with both Cincy and Philly?

westofyou
11-30-2004, 09:17 PM
WOY, does that include Lidles' with both Cincy and Philly?


You're right they split them, apparently Cory had a VORP of 0.4 with the Reds.

In a 149 innings

Yeeechhhhhhhh

Makes the trade look even better.................. I bet the clubhouse even smelled better after he left, that's a stinker of a year.

Falls City Beer
11-30-2004, 09:17 PM
Execellent post! Even if it were 7-10 more wins from Clement, which I doubt, could that money not be better spent on bullpen help? If our bullpen blew half as many games last year, we would have had a winning season.


Bullpens that don't log tons of innings have fewer opportunities to blow games. The best way to fix blown saves is to have starters go longer--which means, in short--get better starters. I see no move in that direction.

RFS62
11-30-2004, 09:17 PM
WMP and Graves to Bowden. Yeah yeah yeah, potential potential potential, but I'd rather open up an OF spot for Kearns (and third for Freel) and be able to deep six Graves. Don't really care what the team got back either (don't know Les Nationals roster at all..)


I think the biggest mistake last year was not getting rid of Graves at the deadline. All last year we were moaning "shine him up and move him out". Well, we got him shined up far beyond his real value, and we didn't pull the trigger.

Reds1
11-30-2004, 09:28 PM
[QUOTE=Boss-Hog]I get the impression that you and the Reds are very much on the same page. :)

I think we are on the same page. :) I'm not an fool. Why would I think we would go get a Zito type pitcher. We never have! I think you discount the fact that we have young players that the Reds and I believe will improve. That worst ERA didn't include Hudson. Harang had a nice spell. Even Handcock showed to be above ave. in a short time. I think the hope is Claussen becomes a nice lefty who shows more then the potential this season. It's a lot to bank on, but no Acevdeo, Haynes and at least Wilson is not a Mazanillios. (sp) Look at the Cardinals. If we add another Wilson type and the other 2-3 guys show up and improve I think there's a shot to have a decent 5. At least a better shot then a starting line up that includes Haynes as your opening day starter.

The pitchers just aren't out there. Look at Phil. picking up our very own Cory Lidle. Tell me Boss! What do you expect the Reds to do? What has the FO said that gives you the impression we are going for a #1. They haven't. They said we go young and fill in a couple vets and we try to score lots of runs with this potent line up.

If the Reds get another Wilson type pitcher and a decent lefty in the pen and possibly another righty I think with this line up we can stay in the hunt and hope for an injury free miracle 99 season. At this point the reality is we need a couple years to develope the young guys, but if the Kearns situation works out and they stay healthy we will be winning some high scoring games exactly like the Cardinals did. Is it the best way to do it - Who knows - it's not my job! I just don't see pitchers out there that are guarantee locks. Even Zito who I keep hearing stunk much of the year last season. There are no guarantees. I just like seeing a potential outfield that can all hit 40 HRs, mixed in with Kearns, Casey, DJ, and an above ave. catching hitter.

To be continued...........

Reds1
11-30-2004, 09:31 PM
The Reds are not going to build a winner signing FAs to fairly priced contracts. They have to find the gems(which Wilson clearly is not) and sign them to under priced contracts.

That would be nice. Maybe it's Handcock, maybe it's Robinson/Robertson (sp) - guy from Houston, maybe its Hudson, maybe it's Claussen. I don't know. Wilson is just a leader and a vet with a great work ethic to be mixed in. I don't see how that can be bad at this point!

Reds1
11-30-2004, 09:40 PM
Everyone pretty much agrees that the Cory Lidle signing was a blunder for the Phils.

Here's something to keep in mind. Paul Wilson and Lidle had the exact same OPS against, .771.

Exactly my point. There are not many pitchers out there much better then Wilson and Lidle. Phil. picked up Lidle for a playoff run and he helped them with a couple complete games and then he got shelled. Wilson is more consistant, works hard, the guys want him there, and he wants to be here. He took less money to stay in Cincy. I would think people would appreciate that. Pitchers don't grow on trees. You could pay 20 million and get Randy Johson, Pedro, Schilling and really what does one pitcher do. He could get hurt, the same sucky bullpen can blow there games, etc. This team needs more then 1 guy and I think upgrading 3-4 spots is more help then one Ace.

guernsey
11-30-2004, 09:41 PM
Then neither do the Blue Jays or Indians, reported to be the two teams leading the Clement chase at the moment.


The Indians were only a game behind the Twins in late August last year, and then proceded to lose 7 or 8 straight. The AL Central is there for the taking by any one of three or four teams.




Though if the $9M was a tad high, then how do the Reds afford Wilson, a free agent AND a guy acquired through trade? Seems to me either they have a lot more than that $9M or that's a pipe dream.


The $9M was high if the payroll stayed the same. The payroll is going up. Numerous sources have stated that, including the Reds. By how much? That question hasn't been answered. I'm saying that $7M was probably available if the payroll stayed the same. ESPN lists the Reds '04 payroll at about $43M. I'm guessing the '05 figure will be $50M (at least). That means there's $14M new money to be spent for '05. $3.5M just went to Wilson, leaving $10.5 for other acquisitions.

Now's the time to see how the secondary starting pither market sorts itself out. Rumors are that the Twins will have to come up with $27M over three years for Radke. I'll pass. Pavano's a goner to somewhere else. Clement's looking at $8M+ for at least three years. Maybe. The White Sox are reportedly offering Jaret Wright a 3-year deal. No $$ mentioned. I'd like to see what it would take to land Odalis Perez, Eric Milton or Jon Leiber. I'd pass on Russ Ortiz and Kevin Millwood, unless Millwood gets a lot less than Boras thinks he can get for him. Kevin may be the one guy still standing at the station next February when all the trains are pulling out of the station. (Derek Lowe may be standing next to him, but I'm betting someone will bite on Derek's great postseason.)

Oh, and just because DanO signed Wilson, I don't see him not continuing trade talks of Kearns for Harden or Dunn for Beckett. Lots of folks here didn't think DanO could think that big.

Krusty
11-30-2004, 10:03 PM
Nice signing by the Reds today. Wilson's contract won't break the budget and the Reds don't have a longterm commitment. What people forget is Haynes' contract is off the books and the Reds used that money to increase the offer to Wilson.

Now, I would like to see the Reds offer Jaret Wright to a three year deal for similar money. Would it be enough? I don't know but if you put Wilson and Wright at the top of the rotation to go with Hudson, Claussen and either Harang or Hancock, I think it makes the rotation competitive.

guernsey
11-30-2004, 10:03 PM
You do realize that Wilson and the same other 'youngsters' that some are counting on compiled a team ERA that ranked only ahead of the altitude-challenged Rockies, right? The same starters that had the worst collective ERA in team history?


There's lots of talk about the pitchers who combined to give the Reds their worst team ERA in history. Let's look at a few of the fellows who made that happen. The Reds had nine pitchers who posted ERAs over 6.00. They logged 324 innings, or 36 nine-inning games (nearly a fourth of the schedule). Of those fine folks only Claussen figures to be back with the Reds next year. The others won't don a Reds uni in '05 (Van Poppel, White, Matthews, Reith, Sanchez, Myette, Haynes & Padilla).

The next guy on the ERA list-of-shame is Jose Acevedo, who posted a 6+ ERA as a starter, and a 0.00 ERA in 17 innings of relief. Very small sample size, but if he can't continue to cut it as a reliever, he surely won't be given the chance to duplicate his starting role. (DanO has shown a propensity to cut bait.)

Redmachine2003
11-30-2004, 10:05 PM
Again, Wilson's ERA+, the stat that measures the relative strength of his ERA against a park-adjusted league average has been a below average 92 four straight seasons. Wilson hasn't improved one iota. Some of the external factors around him may make it seem that way, but it's an illusion and the Reds' purported baseball professionals should be able to spot it for what it is from a mile away.
Next you will tell me that some of the External factors are that he had the best defense with the most range and the best double play combo behind him the last 2 years. Then you will tell me that he got all the calls from the umps last year and that the wind blows into GAB more than it blows out just like Wrigley. I guess what I am trying to say is that stats lie and can be used to show what you want it to. Just as an accountant can use numbers to hide profits and loses. I work in quality and we use Data to our advantage all the time. If we don't like what stats are telling us we don't use them we use other stats to get us what we want. Just like what we do in baseball. Hey this player has an alright era and Whip but I don't think he is that good so we dig to find stats so we can say nope he isn't his VORP ( I have no idea of what this is) sucks. I agree Wilson is not an Ace but he is a good piece of the puzzle and his contract doesn't hurt us at all and he has pitched well enough to be a 12-15 game winner the last couple of years with a good bullpen and offense. If Wilson was with the Cards or the Astros the last two years I believe he would have been a 15 game winner each year.

Raisor
11-30-2004, 10:06 PM
Now, I would like to see the Reds offer Jaret Wright to a three year deal for similar money. Would it be enough?


I thought we were able to convince you that Jaret Wright is not a guy that should be getting LTC from the Reds?

Wright in 2004 has "fluke season" written all over him.

Krusty
11-30-2004, 10:11 PM
Wright in 2004 has "fluke season" written all over him.

Based on what? The guy showed he could win 15 games and have an ERA around 3.20 and throw the ball in the mid 90s again. His 159 strikeouts in 185+ innings is testimony to that. His shoulder woes are finally behind him.

You're going to pay alot more to sign a Clement, Perez or even Lowe.

From what you're telling me, you would have never agree to Bowden signing Paul Wilson from the Devil Rays.

Redmachine2003
11-30-2004, 10:12 PM
M2 is there a pitcher the Reds have any where in their system that you like? Or does everyone have to have Nolan Ryan type of stats for you to like them? Just a couple of questions, I am not trying to be a smart butt, I am curious on your take and if you do like any of the reds pitching prospects?

guernsey
11-30-2004, 10:12 PM
Jaret Wright will get more than Paul Wilson. Possibly 50% more ($6M/season).

Redmachine2003
11-30-2004, 10:14 PM
I like Wright's upside and if the Reds can get him for about 4-6 mill a year jump on it.

guernsey
11-30-2004, 10:14 PM
Oh, M2 likes Gardner and Pauly.

But they won't be ML winners until '07 at the earliest. '05 in the minors; maybe a cup of coffee. '06 learning to pitch in the majors. And maybe winning more games than they lose in '07.

Krusty
11-30-2004, 10:17 PM
If the Reds offer Wright a three year deal with it backloaded to look like this:

2005--4.0 mil
2006--5.0 mil
2007--6.0 mil

3 year deal for 15 million.

westofyou
11-30-2004, 10:19 PM
There's lots of talk about the pitchers who combined to give the Reds their worst team ERA in history. Let's look at a few of the fellows who made that happen. The Reds had nine pitchers who posted ERAs over 6.00. They logged 324 innings, or 36 nine-inning games (nearly a fourth of the schedule). Of those fine folks only Claussen figures to be back with the Reds next year. The others won't don a Reds uni in '05 (Van Poppel, White, Matthews, Reith, Sanchez, Myette, Haynes & Padilla).

The next guy on the ERA list-of-shame is Jose Acevedo, who posted a 6+ ERA as a starter, and a 0.00 ERA in 17 innings of relief. Very small sample size, but if he can't continue to cut it as a reliever, he surely won't be given the chance to duplicate his starting role. (DanO has shown a propensity to cut bait.)

Here's some of those guys.




GAMES G ERA IP GS H/9 IP BR/9 IP
1 Todd Van Poppel 48 6.09 115.1 11 10.61 13.34
2 Gabe White 40 6.23 39 0 9.00 10.15
3 Jose Acevedo 39 5.94 157.2 27 10.73 13.59
4 Mike Matthews 35 6.30 30 0 9.30 14.70
5 Brian Reith 22 7.27 26 0 10.38 18.00
6 Brandon Claussen 14 6.14 66 14 10.91 15.95
7 Juan Padilla 12 10.67 14.1 0 14.44 20.09
T8 Aaron Myette 5 8.31 4.1 0 6.23 27.00
T8 Jimmy Haynes 5 9.60 15 4 15.60 21.00
10 Jesus Sanchez 3 7.53 14.1 3 11.30 16.95

Raisor
11-30-2004, 10:20 PM
Wright in 2004 has "fluke season" written all over him.

Based on what? The guy showed he could win 15 games and have an ERA around 3.20 and throw the ball in the mid 90s again. His 159 strikeouts in 185+ innings is testimony to that. His shoulder woes are finally behind him.

based on the fact that he's never been close to those numbers before. Giving a guy with his injury history and past performance a LTC for a team like the Reds is just asking for trouble.





From what you're telling me, you would have never agree to Bowden signing Paul Wilson from the Devil Rays.


Darn right. I wouldn't have done it then, and I wouldn't have done it now. His injury history indicates that he's one pitch away from being retired. Now, that's true of every pitcher, but even more so with a guy with Wilson's history.
Risk vs Reward

guernsey
11-30-2004, 10:26 PM
Here are the NL starting pitchers with win shares equal to or greater than Paul Wilson last year.

C Pavano 20
L Hernandez 19
J Wright 13
A Leiter 12
O Perez 12
M Clement 11
R Ortiz 11
D Wells 10
G Rusch 9
J Lima 9
P Wilson 8
E Milton 8

How many will sign for less money than Paul did? Yes, Glendon Rusch already did, but the consensus on this board was that folks were praying he wouldn't get a Reds contract.

Krusty
11-30-2004, 10:26 PM
Hate to say it but if you aren't going to sign a pitcher based on his medical history, I think that eliminates 50 percent of the pitching field.

So, if a guy gets injured and finally rebounds and has a good season, we shouldn't sign him based on he was injured in the past? Seems to me we should be kicking half of the pitchers in the Reds organization to the curb too.

Paying big bucks for pitchers is rolling the dice. The risk of injury and subpar performance is great. On the otherhand, the rewards can be great too.

If anything, a guy who rebounds to have a career year after having a career of injuries shows me that fighting attitude that I would want on my team. I'm not going to hold his past against him if he is healthy today.

M2
11-30-2004, 10:33 PM
The Indians were only a game behind the Twins in late August last year, and then proceded to lose 7 or 8 straight. The AL Central is there for the taking by any one of three or four teams.

And the Reds were in first place at some point each of the past four seasons.



The $9M was high if the payroll stayed the same. The payroll is going up. Numerous sources have stated that, including the Reds.

I don't recall the Reds saying anything definitive on the matter, but I'll take your word it as I was paying next to no attention to these things for a few months. So that would mean $9M isn't high anymore, right? All I ever did was take the sum total of three pitchers who'd come off the books and say that I'd keep that in separate pile, lock box!, and make the rest of the budget balance itself (which probably would have necessitated dumping Jason LaRue if the payroll wasn't going to get any sort of bump).

So let's run through the math here. The Reds had $11M from Larkin, Castro, Wilson, Lidle, Haynes and (I expect) Riedling. Add the $7M you predicted (though the official starting total for the 2004 was $46.6M because, as we've learned, the Reds don't discount for Jr.'s deferral when they announce these figures). Anyway that's $18M to play with.

Wilson plus LaRue's raise eats up $4M.

Dunn's going to cost about $4M, that's an extra $3.5M compared to last year. Let's say Kearns and Jiminez get an extra $1.5M between them. Could be more, could be less, but that seems fair to me.

That leaves you with $9M left to spend on additional pitching (though it could be $4M less if the team's using that higher salary estimation). DanO's been pretty vocal about chasing bullpen help, so that's probably $1M-$3M out of the pie. Dunn may cost more if the team wants to sign him to an extension, based on the principle that you pay a little more up front in order to keep his salary reasonable down the road.

All tolled, that might leave you enough for a flyer on Matt Morris or Woody Williams -- better options than Lidle was last year, but essentially you've got the same club as in 2004. Again that's if the club uses your $43M starting point in getting to $50M and not the higher figure they traditionally use. Either way, I'm not seeing a lot of room for two quality pitchers in there.

paulrichjr
11-30-2004, 10:37 PM
Everyone pretty much agrees that the Cory Lidle signing was a blunder for the Phils.

Here's something to keep in mind. Paul Wilson and Lidle had the exact same OPS against, .771.

I don't care what the OPS of the two were. You can look at that stat all day long and quote it but anyone who kept up with this team at all last year knows that Paul Wilson pitched much much better than Lidle did. Sure Lidle would go through streaks of 2-3 games were he pitched wonderful but Wilson was fairly solid all year and kept us in a lot of games that the bullpen later lost. I think we all need to realize that after 3 years of cheap free agent signings the contracts are certainly going up this year. Every contract that has been signed has been for a lot more than I a nd most of you expected. The big difference has been no more 7-8 year deals. The dollars have come back out of the owners wallets for 2005.

alloverjr
11-30-2004, 10:39 PM
:thumbdown

Wasted cash from a team with limited resources, UNLESS DanO has a deal all but completed to deal Graves/Junior/Casey to free up additional cash. I doubt this. What scares me is that I think most fans share the same mentality as John Fay - he used "big move" and "Paul Wilson" in the same sentence.

Redmachine2003
11-30-2004, 10:50 PM
Oh, M2 likes Gardner and Pauly.

But they won't be ML winners until '07 at the earliest. '05 in the minors; maybe a cup of coffee. '06 learning to pitch in the majors. And maybe winning more games than they lose in '07.
Good that means we both like two pitchers? I like both of these guys better than any pitcher the Reds had coming through the system in years. I also like What Basham did until he said that the reason he made such big strides was that the Reds completely redid his delivery and you knew him and Doc Hollywood spend plenty of time together. I also like this years draft of pitchers. The top 3 of 4 HS pitchers will be good pitchers. Bailey, Gonzalez, and Valiquette

SteelSD
11-30-2004, 10:57 PM
I don't care what the OPS of the two were. You can look at that stat all day long and quote it but anyone who kept up with this team at all last year knows that Paul Wilson pitched much much better than Lidle did. Sure Lidle would go through streaks of 2-3 games were he pitched wonderful but Wilson was fairly solid all year and kept us in a lot of games that the bullpen later lost.

Only three of those games the "bullpen lost" were quality starts for Wilson, so it' not like he didn't ever tax the pen by going short in games or needed the offense to pick him up.

I kept up with this team all last year, and I'll be the first to say (and was last year) that Wilson's smoke-and-mirror job isn't something a team should hang their hat on. There isn't a metric out there that shows Wilson to project anything resembling a 4.34 ERA (OPS Against is one of those) in 2005. He's the same pitcher he was three years ago and pretty much the same pitcher Cory Lidle was in 2004...well, except that Lidle pitched more Innings.

westofyou
11-30-2004, 10:58 PM
Having Wilson on your staff isn't bad, but having him as your number one starter is.

Here's a good historical comparison.

30 years ago yhe Reds inked a new starterand the the Reds just inked a guy who has pitched over 870 innings and started over 110 games, he walks a little more than average thus he allows a small percentage more of baserunners. Therefore his ERA is a bit above average for his career.

Then he'd give you this.


FRED NORMAN

1975-1976

YEAR TEAM AGE W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA RSAA
1975 Reds 32 12 4 .750 34 26 2 0 1 188 163 85 78 84 119 3.73 0
1976 Reds 33 12 7 .632 33 24 8 0 2 180.1 153 71 62 70 126 3.09 10
TOTALS 24 11 .686 67 50 10 0 3 368.1 316 156 140 154 245 3.42 10
LG AVERAGE 20 20 .500 11 1 368.1 356 166 146 137 205 3.57 0

YEAR TEAM HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB SHO WP IBB HBP BFP BK NW NL
1975 Reds 23 7.80 11.82 5.70 4.02 1.42 0 9 5 0 795 1 8 8
1976 Reds 10 7.64 11.28 6.29 3.49 1.80 3 6 5 3 745 0 11 8
TOTALS 33 7.72 11.56 5.99 3.76 1.59 3 15 10 3 1540 1 19 16
LG AVERAGE 25 8.71 12.23 5.00 3.35 1.49 3 12 16 7 1569 3

Now imagine Fred Norman as your number one starter.

guernsey
11-30-2004, 11:03 PM
And the Reds were in first place at some point each of the past four seasons.


Not in late August, and that's a lot closer to the finish line than any point when the Reds were in 1st place in the past four seasons.

M2
11-30-2004, 11:07 PM
There's lots of talk about the pitchers who combined to give the Reds their worst team ERA in history. Let's look at a few of the fellows who made that happen. The Reds had nine pitchers who posted ERAs over 6.00. They logged 324 innings, or 36 nine-inning games (nearly a fourth of the schedule). Of those fine folks only Claussen figures to be back with the Reds next year. The others won't don a Reds uni in '05 (Van Poppel, White, Matthews, Reith, Sanchez, Myette, Haynes & Padilla).

Same argument gets made every offseason and during the season, sometimes by you. New crap replaces the old crap on the crap conveyor.



I work in quality and we use Data to our advantage all the time. If we don't like what stats are telling us we don't use them we use other stats to get us what we want. ... Hey this player has an alright era and Whip but I don't think he is that good so we dig to find stats so we can say nope he isn't his VORP ( I have no idea of what this is) sucks.

Yeah, that's how you use data to gain advantage. Ignore what it's telling you and the problem will go away. Wilson did not have an all right ERA and WHIP. He was below average on both counts. That's what the data would tell you if you gave it a careful look.

Wilson also got superlative run support last season (roughly the same amount the Cards scored on average and better than what the Astros scored) and he only won 11 games. So I don't see where the notion that he'd be a 15-game winner elsewhere holds much water. Not to mention that his pitching stats would have suffered in a more close-cropped park.



M2 is there a pitcher the Reds have any where in their system that you like? Or does everyone have to have Nolan Ryan type of stats for you to like them? Just a couple of questions, I am not trying to be a smart butt, I am curious on your take and if you do like any of the reds pitching prospects?

Though I get the distinct sense guernsey was driving at something in the sarcastic vein when he answered this question for me, he got the general facts of it right. I like Pauly and Gardner, though I don't think they'll be able to offer immediate help. 2007 is a sensible timeline for both. Some people run on the theory that if a kid's a "prospect" he's got to be ready tomorrow. It doesn't work that way.

Dustin Moseley's shown flashes, but they've only been brief. Bubba Nelson has talent, but he's got to get back on track this season. Steve Kelly could be a sleeper, but no way would I bank on that. IMO, everyone else is too young to put them on the visible horizon.

Anyway, my take is whatever starting pitching help the farm can provide isn't coming anytime soon.



How many will sign for less money than Paul did? Yes, Glendon Rusch already did, but the consensus on this board was that folks were praying he wouldn't get a Reds contract.

And that's not the point. The Reds need to pay money to pitchers who can elevate the staff. Wilson, at his best, only manages to keep the team from constantly scraping bottom. The Reds just spent $3.6M on what they don't need. I have no issue with them spending more to get what they do need. I'm all for them spending more to get what they do need.

guernsey
11-30-2004, 11:08 PM
I don't recall the Reds saying anything definitive on the matter, but I'll take your word it as I was paying next to no attention to these things for a few months.


Thank you for the vote of confidence in me, but here's the definitive statement.



Reds' payroll, prices going up
By Marc Lancaster
Post staff reporter

Trying his best to mine the good news from an inherently unpleasant public-relations situation, John Allen said Wednesday the Reds' payroll will increase for 2005.

The club's chief operating officer wouldn't say how much the budget for player salaries might rise, but he did say it was one of the reasons behind a significant bump in single-game ticket prices for next season.


http://www.cincypost.com/2004/11/11/reds11-11-2004.html

guernsey
11-30-2004, 11:10 PM
Though I get the distinct sense guernsey was driving at something in the sarcastic vein when he answered this question for me ...


Nope, not this time.

Sorry.

M2
11-30-2004, 11:13 PM
Not in late August, and that's a lot closer to the finish line than any point when the Reds were in 1st place in the past four seasons.

Hair meet axe. If you're a free agent sitting down listening to pitches from sub-.500 teams it all translates to "We have some talent and we've been able to compete to a degree, but we need you to put us over the top."



Trying his best to mine the good news from an inherently unpleasant public-relations situation, John Allen said Wednesday the Reds' payroll will increase for 2005.

The club's chief operating officer wouldn't say how much the budget for player salaries might rise, but he did say it was one of the reasons behind a significant bump in single-game ticket prices for next season.

Well, that leaves me less than filled with confidence. That could mean they spend $48M next season. I'll wait for a definitive number or a significant addition before I get enthusiastic about that.

guernsey
11-30-2004, 11:15 PM
And that's not the point. The Reds need to pay money to pitchers who can elevate the staff. Wilson, at his best, only manages to keep the team from constantly scraping bottom. The Reds just spent $3.6M on what they don't need. I have no issue with them spending more to get what they do need. I'm all for them spending more to get what they do need.


The point is that the Reds paid market value for Wilson, maybe a little less.

The next point is that of the NL FA pitchers with Win Shares equal to or greater than Wilson will all be significantly more costly than him, and quite possibly for not a lot of added production. Folks salivate over Matt Clement and his three additional Win Shares. Why is Clement worth $5M (or more) a season more than Wilson for three extra WS?

guernsey
11-30-2004, 11:18 PM
Same argument gets made every offseason and during the season, sometimes by you. New crap replaces the old crap on the crap conveyor.


I'm willing to bet right here, right now, that the Reds don't log 324 innings next year from pitchers with ERAs over 6.00.

Any takers?

Archive this sucker.

guernsey
11-30-2004, 11:30 PM
That leaves you with $9M left to spend on additional pitching (though it could be $4M less if the team's using that higher salary estimation). DanO's been pretty vocal about chasing bullpen help, so that's probably $1M-$3M out of the pie. Dunn may cost more if the team wants to sign him to an extension, based on the principle that you pay a little more up front in order to keep his salary reasonable down the road.

All tolled, that might leave you enough for a flyer on Matt Morris or Woody Williams -- better options than Lidle was last year, but essentially you've got the same club as in 2004. Again that's if the club uses your $43M starting point in getting to $50M and not the higher figure they traditionally use. Either way, I'm not seeing a lot of room for two quality pitchers in there.


Well, if they have $9M to spend after arbitration, using $3M to beef up the 'pen leaves $6M for a starter. That could land a Milton or Perez or Leiber. Maybe Millwood, if Boras gets too greedy and he's not signed on Groundhog Day.

As for the starter acquired through trade, I'm looking for it to be about an even swap of salaries. Position player for pitcher of roughly equal service time and $$, so the budget impact is minimal.

M2
11-30-2004, 11:32 PM
I'm willing to bet right here, right now, that the Reds don't log 324 innings next year from pitchers with ERAs over 6.00.

Any takers?

Archive this sucker.

Well you could have made this bet after 2003, claiming the Reds wouldn't get 382 such innings from such horrid pitchers again in 2004 and I suppose you'd have been right, but the team ERA went up anyway.

I'll bet you this. The 2005 Reds get lots of work from lots of bad pitchers.



The point is that the Reds paid market value for Wilson, maybe a little less.

The next point is that of the NL FA pitchers with Win Shares equal to or greater than Wilson will all be significantly more costly than him, and quite possibly for not a lot of added production. Folks salivate over Matt Clement and his three additional Win Shares. Why is Clement worth $5M (or more) a season more than Wilson for three extra WS?

And, as has been stated too many times in this thread and in previous months, others will pay far less for better. The Reds bid against themselves for a pitcher they didn't need.

The point with Clement is he can get you 15+ WS, while Wilson's ceiling is just about 8. You're paying for his coming seasons and, IMO, Clement's been dogged by some bad luck his past two years, his peripherals are better than his outcomes. That worm turns (or just flattens out) and you've got yourself a heck of a pitcher.



Well, if they have $9M to spend after arbitration, using $3M to beef up the 'pen leaves $6M for a starter. That could land a Milton or Perez or Leiber. Maybe Millwood, if Boras gets too greedy and he's not signed on Groundhog Day.

As for the starter acquired through trade, I'm looking for it to be about an even swap of salaries. Position player for pitcher of roughly equal service time and $$, so the budget impact is minimal.

Milton, no thanks. Lieber, maybe but I wouldn't pay more than $4M for him and I'd be real nervous about it. Millwood maybe, but only for a cheap one-year deal. Basically Perez is the only guy on your list who does anything for me. And you haven't allocated any extra cash toward Dunn's LTC, which may be necessary.

As for the trade, if that's your plan, you'd better hope someone LOVES D'Angelo Jiminez. Or you could trade Dunn, which strikes me as a thoroughly horrid idea. The best way to work the trade market is to do it with some cash in your pocket so you can ease someone else's financial pain. Costs you less in talent, and the Reds need to horde talent, plus teams don't tend to trade good pitchers they can afford, which is what you've assumed with your plan.

guernsey
11-30-2004, 11:35 PM
The 2005 get lots of work from lots of bad pitchers.


Now that's definitive!!

:MandJ: :MandJ:

Good night.

SteelSD
11-30-2004, 11:59 PM
The point is that the Reds paid market value for Wilson, maybe a little less.

The next point is that of the NL FA pitchers with Win Shares equal to or greater than Wilson will all be significantly more costly than him, and quite possibly for not a lot of added production. Folks salivate over Matt Clement and his three additional Win Shares. Why is Clement worth $5M (or more) a season more than Wilson for three extra WS?

Because it's not three extra Win Shares.

(BTW, the best Pitchers are consistently worth fewer Win Shares than their offensive counterparts. Just an FYI. Win Shares, although I like THT's numbers better, are fairly nebulous when applied to pitchers. Wish we had the formula but oh well.)

Over the past three seasons, Clement is worth 18 more Earned Runs (or about 20 total Runs) than Wilson per 200 IP (as if Wilson will ever SEE 200 IP in a single season). That's just about the Run Value difference between an .750 OPS hitter and a .850 OPS hitter. Basically, that's about two standard performance deviations and the upper level is worth geometrically more than the lower.

But you're pimping the Wilson deal as being worth "market value". Problem is that you can only cite teams being stupid as the "market". Because smart teams understand that you don't pay as much for smoke and mirrors.

M2
12-01-2004, 12:05 AM
Steel, stop making sense.

SteelSD
12-01-2004, 12:39 AM
Steel, stop making sense.

My bad. :(

CougarQuest
12-01-2004, 12:54 AM
CougarQuest scairt to look up ... sky ... falling! And it's not even December yet.

RFS62
12-01-2004, 12:55 AM
RFS,

You've summed up the rolling disaster that is the Cincinnati Reds perfectly.

Now is there any truth to the rumor that Homer Bailey has changed his last name to Godot?


How ironic that the risk-adverse Reds front office inadvertently took one of the biggest risks of all in the draft, apparently without even knowing the odds.

We drafted a high school pitcher, one of the primary taboos of Sabrmetric philosophy.

Who knew DanO could be so bold?!?!

PuffyPig
12-01-2004, 01:10 AM
It's madness to think the Reds can tinker their way to success. This staff is broken, worst pitching in team history (something that apparently hasn't soaked in with some folks). Either they populate the rotation and pen with quality pitchers or it's just going to be more of the same.

Your point is correct, but, what would you do to get 12 quality pitchers within the confines of the existing budget?

We can only tinker and hope some of the younger pitchers actually improve.

We won 76 games with a very poor pitching staff.

We can tinker and win 85.

That's a start.

M2
12-01-2004, 01:10 AM
How ironic that the risk-adverse Reds front office inadvertently took one of the biggest risks of all in the draft, apparently without even knowing the odds.

We drafted a high school pitcher, one of the primary taboos of Sabrmetric philosophy.

Who knew DanO could be so bold?!?!

I'd use another adjective, something like foolish or clueless.

M2
12-01-2004, 01:17 AM
Your point is correct, but, what would you do to get 12 quality pitchers within the confines of the existing budget?

We can only tinker and hope some of the younger pitchers actually improve.

We won 76 games with a very poor pitching staff.

We can tinker and win 85.

That's a start.

You've assumed the Reds can duplicate 76 wins given their quality of play last season. Obviously it could happen. It did once. But I wouldn't go around counting on the unlikely. The coin doesn't land on its side too often.

The Reds could tinker, improve a bit and win only 71 games.

RFS62
12-01-2004, 01:21 AM
I'd use another adjective, something like foolish or clueless.


Yeah, I know. Left out the sarcasm smilie.

But the guy who drafted Nolan Ryan out of high school bucked similar odds, as did the guy who drafted Van Poppel.

M2
12-01-2004, 01:27 AM
Yeah, I know. Left out the sarcasm smilie.

But the guy who drafted Nolan Ryan out of high school bucked similar odds, as did the guy who drafted Van Poppel.

The guy who drafted Nolan Ryan took him in the 12th round and the team that drafted Nolan Ryan traded him before he did much along with three others for Jim Fregosi on his downside.

RFS62
12-01-2004, 01:36 AM
The guy who drafted Nolan Ryan took him in the 12th round and the team that drafted Nolan Ryan traded him before he did much along with three others for Jim Fregosi on his downside.


So, maybe he should have gone a little higher?

M2
12-01-2004, 01:45 AM
So, maybe he should have gone a little higher?

Well, if you were willing to hold onto him for seven years until he turned 25, sure.

The Mets got 410 IP and a 29-38 record out of the guy over five seasons and finally lost patience.

WVRedsFan
12-01-2004, 02:02 AM
It's a terrible signing.

I've read all five pages and agree. Just simply old men grasping at straws to make the club "respectible." No look at being competitive. They signed a 6-inning pitcher for $4 million a year with a gimpy arm (who just happened to have a career year last year). For those of you so happy about this...what ya gonna do when he gets lit up early in the season? and he will.

DoogMinAmo
12-01-2004, 02:19 AM
I've read all five pages and agree. Just simply old men grasping at straws to make the club "respectible." No look at being competitive. They signed a 6-inning pitcher for $4 million a year with a gimpy arm (who just happened to have a career year last year). For those of you so happy about this...what ya gonna do when he gets lit up early in the season? and he will.

And what if he doesn't? It's still only December; can, will, and probably me to death right now, it is just as weighty as a hopefully. I just choose to hope for good, rather than dogging now so I can tell everyone "I told you so" later. Maybe I am wasting myself, or maybe I just can feel better thinking the Reds have a chance. Call me stupid... :)

M2
12-01-2004, 02:43 AM
I just choose to hope for good, rather than dogging now so I can tell everyone "I told you so" later.

Believe me when I say that no one has that motivation and there's no joy in being right about these things. I've got five seasons of general disgust with the Reds rotation and I haven't gotten an ounce of satisfaction out of knocking the product or being right in doing so. Watching the team you root for make what you consider the same obvious mistakes year after year sucks, big time.

WVRedsFan
12-01-2004, 02:49 AM
And what if he doesn't? It's still only December; can, will, and probably me to death right now, it is just as weighty as a hopefully. I just choose to hope for good, rather than dogging now so I can tell everyone "I told you so" later. Maybe I am wasting myself, or maybe I just can feel better thinking the Reds have a chance. Call me stupid... :)

I'll never call anyone stupid. You can bet on that. My point is that with all that's available and with the history of the club what with the Jimmy Haynes, Pete Schoeurek, and countless other backfire situations, why would you gamble that much money on a pitcher who had a career season?

I don't know. Time will tell and I hope you're right. Nothing would make me happier. I'm a Reds fan til death.

DoogMinAmo
12-01-2004, 03:51 AM
I'll never call anyone stupid.

Sorry about that, I wasnt implying that you actually have or would call me stupid, it was meant as an expression of my blind affinity. :p:

Ravenlord
12-01-2004, 07:22 AM
i remember back in Spring Training....our staff looked something like this:

RHP Lidle
RHP Wilson
RHP Acevedo
RHP Harang
RHP Haynes

RHP Van Poppel
RHP Riedling
RHP Wagner
RHP Reitsma (it was before trade)
LHP Norton
LHP Matthews
RHP Graves

in reserve
RHP Reith
LHP Sanchez
LHP Claussen
RHP Valentine

and i started a thread, which i since can't find, about what i projected the team ERA and Runs Against to be based on that staff. And then Steel added onto it by projecting a much better Runs Against than i did, as well as predicting what the team ERA would have to be in order for the Reds to be competitive. as well, Steel also projected the Reds to score about 770 runs if memory serves.

what it broke down to was this:
Ravenlord's Predictions
Team ERA: 5.38
Runs Against: 872 (this is not adjusting for unearned runs, but that's later)

Steel's Predictions
to be competitive ERA needs to be: 4.48
Runs Against: 720

i don't remember what Steel's projection was for what the Reds' staff was likely to do, and i really wish i did.

the actual results the Reds had were like so:
Runs: 750
Runs Against: 832 (907)
ERA: 5.19

the parenthetical number is the actualy runs againts, not just earned runs. about 8.3% of the Reds runs against were unearned. the Reds final record was 76-86. three games better than their Pythagorean Record.

by the projections i used, i had the Reds record at 71-91. removing unearned runs from the mix, it becomes 75-87.

by the projections Steel used, the record is put at 78-84. removing unearned runs from the mix, it becomes 85-77.

the Reds finished 3 games above their run differential. to me, that means their intangible elements got them 3 extra wins above their skill. so we end up with something like this

Projection/Record
Actual/76-86
Ravenlord/74-88
Steel/81-81

why do i mention all this? because the FO has set itself up for the same doom once again.

RHP Lidle>>Wilson
RHP Wilson>>Hudson
RHP Acevedo>>Claussen
RHP Harang>>Harang
RHP Haynes>>Hancock (who just may make us yearn for Ryan Dempster circa 2003)

RHP Van Poppel>>Valentine
RHP Riedling>>Riedling
RHP Wagner>>Wagner
RHP Reitsma (it was before trade)>>Bong
LHP Norton>>Norton
LHP Matthews>>Acevedo
RHP Graves>>Graves

in other words, 7/12 of what was used for those ST (i think in March) projections, is returning to the Reds. except another year of being borderline contenders until Mother's Day if this keeps up.

RedsBaron
12-01-2004, 07:48 AM
The 2004 Reds had the worst pitching staff in team history and one of the worst in major league history. What have the Reds done thus far to improve that staff for 2005?

flyer85
12-01-2004, 09:41 AM
What have the Reds done thus far to improve that staff for 2005?

Pick me! Pick me! I know the answer!

NOTHING!!

Krusty
12-01-2004, 10:05 AM
It all comes down to the development of the young pitchers (Claussen, Hudson, Hancock and Harang). If they can take the next step in order to be successful major league pitchers, then the club is on the right track.

If not, we plunge back to the depths of the past four seasons.

wheels
12-01-2004, 10:10 AM
Problem is, they probably won't take the next step.

Those guys aren't exactly primo prospects....Claussen was highly regarded, but that's about it.

There is no way to convince me that this club is on the right track, and I'm one of the world's bigger optimists.

Krusty
12-01-2004, 10:24 AM
I forgot to add Mosley and Gardner to the list. If they get off to hot starts at Louisville, don't be surprise to see them in the Reds rotation the second half of the season.

BuckeyeRedleg
12-01-2004, 10:39 AM
The patient has been wheeled into the ER with a gaping shot-gun wound to the head.

The Reds have placed a 4-million dollar Sponge Bob pinky Band-Aid over the wound in the hopes of controlling the bleeding.

Sweet.

Maybe the grounds crew can plant some bushes and trees in the infield to go along with the elephant grass.

flyer85
12-01-2004, 10:54 AM
I forgot to add Mosley and Gardner to the list. If they get off to hot starts at Louisville, don't be surprise to see them in the Reds rotation the second half of the season.

Don't forget Pauly.

And what about the 2 studs, Nelson and Bong, that we got for Reitsma?

KronoRed
12-01-2004, 11:13 AM
Nice signing :thumbup:

REDREAD
12-01-2004, 11:17 AM
That's a micro look at it, it factors into the "Can they really win it" part of why should I sign with the Cincinnati Reds.

And currently the answer is No, they don't have the resources.

I agree that any free agent signing here would have to accept that we aren't going to win it next year.

But let's pretend the Reds' farm system was stuffed with young talent. The first wave was comming in 2006, but the bulk in 2007-2008.

I doubt that would make any difference to a potential free agent. He's mainly interested in the guys on the roster right now. By 2007, there's a good chance he's going to be traded anyway.

M2
12-01-2004, 11:25 AM
Quick little pain distribution chart here because guernsey inadvertently hit upon something.

2004

Pitchers with 6.00+ ERA - 324 IP
5.00-5.99 - 479
4.00-4.99 - 466
Under 4.00 - 174

2003

6.00+ - 381
5.00-5.99 - 254
4.00-4.99 - 510
Under 4.00 - 300

The only three guys who returned from the under 4.00 group from 2003 were Acevedo, Wagner and Norton, none of whom threw more than 27 IP in 2003 and all of whom proved their small sample sizes to be unreliable.

Graves and Hudson are the two returnees from that group in 2004. Wilson, Harang, Wagner, Hancock and Bong are the 4.00-4.99 returnees. Wilson's close to a mortal lock to stay in that group. Harang and Hancock, given their peripherals, could fall into the 5.00+ category. Bong may not pitch much in the majors next year. That leaves Wagner as the most likely to graduate to something better.

But the above charts highlight a few things - the failure to field much in the way of quality (21% of the total IP in 2003 and 12% in 2004), the difficulty in getting career palookas to flourish en masse and how easy it is replace bad pitchers with more bad pitchers.

REDREAD
12-01-2004, 11:27 AM
Hopefully, Wilson will become trade bait (I haven't read anything saying that he got a no-trade clause, if he did O'Brien should be fired today) by the deadline. Maybe knowing what he makes the next couple years will give some contending team the idea to trade for him.

That's about my only upside.

Problem is, that's a very expensive way to acquire talent. You pay him about 1.8 million or so for half a year and then flip him for an assortment of Machados... For 1.8 million, you could probably convince some kids in the draft that were hard to sign to come on board and get better quality.

I know you are reaching for a silver lining here Raisor, but I just don't see it.

If we wanted to sign someone for trade bait, we should've signed Pervical.
That's a guy that potentially could have an impact in the playoffs. Wilson is not a playoff impact guy. A contender would probably prefer not to start him in the playoffs.

westofyou
12-01-2004, 11:36 AM
That's a guy that potentially could have an impact in the playoffs.

That's a guy getting more cash than he should.

REDREAD
12-01-2004, 11:37 AM
WMP and Graves to Bowden. .

I don't see the urgency to move Graves anymore. He's gone after this year, one way or another.

By the time he's moved this winter (if that happens), Bland Dan is going to be too slow to do anything significant, even if he's allowed to spend the payflex.

I might agree with you if we had an aggressive go-getter GM.

WMP is too much to sacrifice to get rid of Graves at this point (since dumping Graves now would probably be of minimal benefit vs letting his contract expire).

Heck, if Graves has a decent year, he's going to be VERY movable in July as a setup man/bullpen arm to a contender. A contender will pay 3 million for the second half of his contract.

westofyou
12-01-2004, 11:39 AM
Heck, if Graves has a decent year, he's going to be VERY movable in July as a setup man/bullpen arm to a contender. A contender will pay 3 million for the second half of his contract.

Ifs and buts ain't candy nor nuts.

Trade him as soon as someone asks about him.

cincinnati chili
12-01-2004, 11:40 AM
Got to know your park. Wilson's 4.36 in the elephant grass grown in 2004 was exactly as productive as his 4.64 ERA in 2003, not to mention his 4.83 and 4.88 ERAs with the Rays in 2002 and 2001.


Some evidence of this, from Lee Sinnis:

The Reds re-signed free agent P Paul Wilson to a 2 year, $8.2 million contract.

After 4.83 ERA/-8 RSAA and 4.64 ERA/-7 RSAA seasons, Wilson had a 4.36 ERA/-7 RSAA in 29 starts. He has a 4.71 career ERA, compared to his league average of 4.39, and -45 RSAA in 161 games.

Bottom line: Wilson exhibits above-average heart, but produces below average output, and now he's going to be paid a significantly above-average salary.

I actually like the guy in a root-for-the-underdog-nice-comeback-from-surgery sort of way, but not at this price.

RFS62
12-01-2004, 11:40 AM
Nobody is gonna ask for Danny, IMO. We're going to have to attach him to another deal.

REDREAD
12-01-2004, 11:41 AM
If the Reds get another Wilson type pitcher and a decent lefty in the pen and possibly another righty I think with this line up we can stay in the hunt and hope for an injury free miracle 99 season. .....

In order to have a chance at a 1999 miracle season, we need to add Harnisch and Neagle types -- two solid starting pitchers. Wilson is more analagous to Parris (although Wilson is better, you can't count on him to be a #1 or #2).
We'd also need to seriously shore up the pen in order to hope to contend.

westofyou
12-01-2004, 11:44 AM
I actually like the guy in a root-for-the-underdog-nice-comeback-from-surgery sort of way, but not at this price.

What is the average price for a 180 inning, 30 start guy with an average ERA?

And is the market adjusting upward to change that average?

Hubba
12-01-2004, 11:52 AM
:) :p:

REDREAD
12-01-2004, 11:56 AM
I'm willing to bet right here, right now, that the Reds don't log 324 innings next year from pitchers with ERAs over 6.00.

Any takers?

Archive this sucker.

Hmm, interesting bet. I might take it in spring training. I need to see what relievers DanO signs.

With Hudson, Hancock, Acevado, possibly Robertson, Harang, Valentine.. I think it's a possiblity.

REDREAD
12-01-2004, 12:06 PM
That's a guy getting more cash than he should.

If you're signing a guy to flip for prospects, IMO good closer is better than a #4 starter.

Now, I wouldn't have signed Percivical either, I just think it's less dumb than Wilson if you're trying to acquire trade bait :)
Paul Wilson is not a playoff starter. He's attractive as a bandaid in the #4/#5 slot to a contender that is a few games behind the pace.

REDREAD
12-01-2004, 12:09 PM
Ifs and buts ain't candy nor nuts.

Trade him as soon as someone asks about him.

Would you give away WMP as part of the deal? That's what I meant.

Unless DanO gets and uses the payflex from a Graves dump, I'd rather just keep Graves though. For example, trading Graves in spring training and then
resigning Van Poppel for a year makes the rest worse off.

Dumping Graves is only beneficial if the payflex is available and used this year. Otherwise, I'll keep my best bullpen arm.

westofyou
12-01-2004, 12:12 PM
Would I?

Yes, I would..... if any player on the Reds is due for a fall it's WMP.

Of course that's only opinion.


Otherwise, I'll keep my best bullpen arm.

That's an opinion too.

M2
12-01-2004, 12:27 PM
What is the average price for a 180 inning, 30 start guy with an average ERA?

And is the market adjusting upward to change that average?

IMO, the best way to answer that is to look at the previous season, see who fits your criteria and figure the average (though possibly the median would be a more illuminating number). Using forward speculation salary figures you automatically cut out a significant group -- discount pitchers who pitch better than advertised -- because it's a subset that only comes into focus using your rearview. A year ago you'd have drawn guffaws insisting Jaret Wright, Jake Westbrook, Doug Davis, Chris Carpenter, Jason Marquis, John Thomson, Bronson Arroyo, Jose Lima, Jeff Suppan, Carlos Silva, Mike Maroth, Josh Fogg and Mark Hendrickson would all have good to inoffensively mediocre years.

Meanwhile it would have seemed like science fiction to assert Javier Vazquez, Bart Colon, Sidney Ponson, Derek Lowe, Jose Contreras and Esteban Loaiza would sort in behind those guys.

Anyway my guess is the median salary for ERA qualifiers with a 4.xx ERA isn't that high. Plus, the Reds need to operate in the under market in that category. Paying market value or higher for that kind of pitcher is a losing proposition for the Reds.