PDA

View Full Version : Reds trade Dustin Moseley for Ramon Ortiz



Pages : [1] 2

Matt700wlw
12-14-2004, 06:22 PM
REDS ADD RHP RAMON ORTIZ TO STARTING ROTATION

Acquired From Angels For Minor League RHP Dustin Moseley

CINCINNATI - Cincinnati Reds general manager Dan O’Brien today announced the acquisition of starting RHP Ramon Ortiz from the Angels in exchange for minor league RHP Dustin Moseley.

Ortiz, 31, last season went 5-7 with a 4.43 ERA in 34 games, including 14 starts and 20 relief appearances. Prior to 2004, Ortiz had made all 123 of his Major League appearances as a starting pitcher.

Each season from 2001-2003, Ortiz posted at least 13 victories while making 32 starts and accumulating at least 180.0 innings pitched. He produced his best year during the Angels’ 2002 World Series championship season, when he went 15-9 with a 3.77 ERA and 4 complete games. He followed that campaign by winning a career-high 16 games in 2003.

Ortiz has a career record of 59-49 in 157 Major League appearances, including 137 starts. He led the Angels in victories in 2000 (8), 2001 (13) and 2003 (16).

Moseley, 22, last season combined to go 5-6 with a 3.86 ERA in 20 starts between Class AA Chattanooga and Class AAA Louisville. He was selected by the Reds in the supplemental first round (34th overall) of the 2000 First-Year Player Draft.

wheels
12-14-2004, 06:24 PM
Okay guys...There it is.

I'm not sure how I feel about this.

Puffy
12-14-2004, 06:24 PM
Crap - I wish we got him before he aged 4 years in one night :mhcky21:

I like it - it moves Hancock out of the rotation (please, please) and gives the Reds a guy who can strike people out (although his k per 9 went has gone down every year til last year when it went up, but he pitched poorly last year, so the increased k's might not be a good thing). Plus he throws between 180 and 200 innings every year.

I like it.

wheels
12-14-2004, 06:25 PM
What are his numbers?

Matt700wlw
12-14-2004, 06:25 PM
Not bad, Dan O'Brien (not huge, not awesome, but not terrible)....got a major league experience pitcher, who has had success (10 games over .500 career) for Mosely...let's hope Ortiz last year was just an "off" year

...it's progress

Don Gullett is licking his chops :mhcky21:

Puffy
12-14-2004, 06:26 PM
What are his numbers?

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=6317

Red Leader
12-14-2004, 06:28 PM
I like the idea of getting a major league pitcher for a minor leaguer with flaws, but Ortiz is going to eat a lot of that "extra" money we might have had for bullpen arms and signing Dunn long term. Because of those things, I don't like the trade. Would have preferred the cheaper, Lackey.

puca
12-14-2004, 06:28 PM
OTOH we gave up a 22 year old who has had some success in the high minors at a young age for a guy that very well might have been non-tendered next week.

I don't hate it, but I sure don't love it.

Reds4Life
12-14-2004, 06:29 PM
I'm with RL, Ortiz is fine for rotation filler, but not at his price tag.

princeton
12-14-2004, 06:29 PM
Anaheim wants to dump salary so they naturally think of... Cincinnati?

gm
12-14-2004, 06:29 PM
Who pays Ortiz' 5.5 mil option for 2005?

OldXOhio
12-14-2004, 06:30 PM
Who pays Ortiz' 5.5 mil option for 2005?

Whoever else owns him on Aug 1st

Mitri
12-14-2004, 06:31 PM
Isn't this the guy who had a hissy fit after being removed from the Angels' rotation last year?
Pretty decent stuff if I remember correctly, just has trouble keeping his head on straight. A fresh start with a new team/league could be what this guy needs.

wheels
12-14-2004, 06:31 PM
I wonder if they've agreed to pay some of that.

Red Leader
12-14-2004, 06:31 PM
There had better be cash in this deal, and I would imagine there would have to be. If not, this is just plain stupid. It would be DanO doing the opposite of what he has professed all along..

puca
12-14-2004, 06:32 PM
Unfortunately I have the sinking feeling we will non-tender DJ in order to pay for the arbitration of Ortiz. We can only dream that DJ can be turned into a Moseley type prospect before then.

puca
12-14-2004, 06:33 PM
Who pays Ortiz' 5.5 mil option for 2005?

I thought the Angels declined that option.

Falls City Beer
12-14-2004, 06:33 PM
Awful trade. What else is new?

RedRoser
12-14-2004, 06:34 PM
A baby step maybe, but A STEP nevertheless. As with all moves, guess we just hafta wait and see! :eek:

---'Roser

Matt700wlw
12-14-2004, 06:34 PM
He gives up a lot of Home Runs.....him an Acevedo should have fun together :mhcky21:

It's progress though...

Aronchis
12-14-2004, 06:34 PM
Yawn. Why bother?

wheels
12-14-2004, 06:37 PM
I really hope the Reds have given this guy's arm a good once or twice over before making this deal.

As Puffy said, at least he knocks one of the three H's out of the rotation.

MWM
12-14-2004, 06:37 PM
Nice call, brooklyn.

Now excuse me why I make my way to the closest ledge.

MWM
12-14-2004, 06:38 PM
This should make Krusty happy. Is THIS what you've been waiting for?

Matt700wlw
12-14-2004, 06:39 PM
...this is about as big as it gets in these parts

Playadlc
12-14-2004, 06:39 PM
This is pretty much the equivalent of getting Cory Lidle last year, IMO.

RedRoser
12-14-2004, 06:39 PM
Okay guys, brooklyn and galt:
Give it up! How'd you know something was about to go down??? :eek:


---'Roser

Red Leader
12-14-2004, 06:39 PM
The Angels signed Paul Byrd today as well, just to confirm.

Falls City Beer
12-14-2004, 06:40 PM
This should make Krusty happy. Is THIS what you've been waiting for?

Or Redread...it hurts the Reds bottom line. :devil:

Aronchis
12-14-2004, 06:40 PM
Shows you how much DanO liked Moseley too.

wheels
12-14-2004, 06:40 PM
Nice call, brooklyn.

Now excuse me why I make my way to the closest ledge.

Awwww...This trade isn't TOTALLY ledgeworthy.

Cedric
12-14-2004, 06:41 PM
Serious? We gave up anything for a guy about to be non tendered? The Reds kill me.

wheels
12-14-2004, 06:42 PM
That's a good point Cedric.

KronoRed
12-14-2004, 06:43 PM
Not sure I like this deal, Ortiz seems to be getting worse and he makes a lot of money

princeton
12-14-2004, 06:44 PM
he made $3.3mill last year, and now enters arbitration

I wonder if we'll try to sign him for two years?

jrdunnit
12-14-2004, 06:45 PM
did he let reds take mri ? i would rather reds traded the bong and bubba show!

MWM
12-14-2004, 06:46 PM
Awwww...This trade isn't TOTALLY ledgeworthy.

It's not the tread itself, it's what it represents more than anything else.

M2
12-14-2004, 06:47 PM
Ortiz will cost close to $4M this season. Forget who said it in the other thread, might have been FCB, but this is Lidle revisited. Not a good pitcher, not much hope of being a good pitcher and his salary prevents the club from pursuing other options that might offer actual help (e.g. say the Reds could somehow land A.J. Burnett, now it doesn't matter because he'd put them over budget).

Worst of all is the Angels might have non-tendered Ortiz in another week, putting him on the open market at a greatly reduced price for no compensation whatsoever.

traderumor
12-14-2004, 06:47 PM
His longball #s have always scared the bejeebies out of me whenever his name has come up as available.

BrooklynRedz
12-14-2004, 06:48 PM
Nice call, brooklyn.

Now excuse me why I make my way to the closest ledge.

i'm not sure this necessarily means the reds are done. BUT, it pretty much takes anaheim out of the clement sweeps. whatever.

as far as the money owed ortiz, since the angels declined his option, the reds will go to arbitration with him and he'll certainly get less than the 5.5 option.

people familiar with the situation last year in anaheim contend he's got great stuff, but clashed with the coaching staff to the point he was distracted and out of sorts. i guess we'll see. this can be a good deal for the reds. as someone else noted, gullett is now on the clock.

Matt700wlw
12-14-2004, 06:50 PM
i'm not sure this necessarily means the reds are done. BUT, it pretty much takes anaheim out of the clement sweeps. whatever.



If you really believe they were ever in those sweeps...I want what you're having

iammrred
12-14-2004, 06:50 PM
Do we know for sure Ortiz is even going to be in the rotation? Yeah, he's probably better than just about anyone else we have, but he pitched a lot out of the 'pen last year.

In any manner, I love the deal. We got a major-league ready STARTER with a decent amount of success and a great upside for a Reds minor leaguer who seemed to have fizzled out of the Reds' plans. If nothing else, he could become trade bait (a la Lidle) come trade deadline. Personally, I think Anaheim gave up a quite a bit for a questionable return.

wheels
12-14-2004, 06:51 PM
It would be nice to get a guy with which no mention of Don Gullett needs to be made.

Oh well, that's the lot we've chosen.

Aronchis
12-14-2004, 06:51 PM
Ramon is a stuff pitcher unlike Lidle though coming off a bad year with a attitude. DanO's "stopgap" to July idea this year. Boring, yawn type deal. Could break big for the Reds or just the same ole' same ole'. At least "little Pedro" may surprise. Lidle was open and shut case.

BrooklynRedz
12-14-2004, 06:52 PM
[QUOTE=BrooklynRedz]i'm not sure this necessarily means the reds are done. BUT, it pretty much takes anaheim out of the clement sweeps. whatever.

QUOTE]

If you really believe they were ever in those sweeps...I want what you're having

ummm, believe it or not, anaheim WAS in the clement sweeps. not sure what's so hard to believe about that.

OldXOhio
12-14-2004, 06:53 PM
Ortiz will cost close to $4M this season. Forget who said it in the other thread, might have been FCB, but this is Lidle revisited. Not a good pitcher, not much hope of being a good pitcher and his salary prevents the club from pursuing other options that might offer actual help (e.g. say the Reds could somehow land A.J. Burnett, now it doesn't matter because he'd put them over budget).

Worst of all is the Angels might have non-tendered Ortiz in another week, putting him on the open market at a greatly reduced price for no compensation whatsoever.

No offense, but the Cincy FO landing the likes of an AJ Burnett just seems like a pipe dream any more. They appear to either be not willing to trade from one of our few strengths or they're not willing to foot the bill for it, both in current and future dollars. As one poster put, I think a trade of this nature is about as good as it gets for us.

Cedric
12-14-2004, 06:53 PM
He is a lock for the rotation. You don't trade pitchers with even slight success at AAA at age 22, for someone that is gonna get non tendered in a week and then not pitch him. This trade makes absolutely zero sense. There isn't a way in hell Anaheim was gonna tender him.

gm
12-14-2004, 06:53 PM
I really hope the Reds have given this guy's arm a good once or twice over before making this deal.

So you believe Ramon will consent to an MRI?

Matt700wlw
12-14-2004, 06:53 PM
ummm, believe it or not, anaheim WAS in the clement sweeps. not sure what's so hard to believe about that.


I read it wrong...I though you said us...nevermind..disregard

SORRY!! :p:

I can't eat, work, and play at the same time :D

Red Leader
12-14-2004, 06:53 PM
ummm, believe it or not, anaheim WAS in the clement sweeps. not sure what's so hard to believe about that.

I'm not so sure they still aren't.

Rotoworld.com says they are via FOXSPORTS

The Angels have agreed to terms with Paul Byrd on a one-year deal, TSN's Ken Rosenthal reports.

Byrd apparently will join Bartolo Colon, Kelvim Escobar and John Lackey in the rotation. It looks like the team will continue to pursue Matt Clement and attempt to trade Jarrod Washburn. Dec. 14 - 5:22 pm et

MWM
12-14-2004, 06:54 PM
Here's his last two years (and he'll be 32 this season):

IP - 308
H - 348
BB - 101
WHIP - 1.46 :eek:
K - 176
HR - 46
OPS 2003 - .810
OPS 2004 - .793
ERA 2003 - 5.2
ERA 2004 - 4.43
EBH - 118

wheels
12-14-2004, 06:55 PM
He looks to be a higher K Cory Lidle.

Reds1
12-14-2004, 06:56 PM
Gosh guys! We finally do something and everyone just complains. :) I just think it's funny! We don't even know the deal yet. I'll reserve judgement until I get the facts, but I'd say this is an upgrade to the rotation and really and truly that's a good thing however you look at it. Now if we paid 5,6,7 million maybe not, but I can't say yet as I've not seen the deal. Russ was tough a couple years ago and he was in the AL so facing the NL he could be a nice pitcher. Not the ace everyone wanted, but better is good. Let's get some positive vibes going. ;)

MWM
12-14-2004, 06:57 PM
Ortiz will be 32 (allegedly) in May. I don't think he has any surprises left in him.

Again, I don't think Ortiz will be significantly better than what moseley would have been in 2005. Better, yes. WAY better, I'm not convinced. $4MM better, no way.

RedRoser
12-14-2004, 06:57 PM
So...
Who do we send them for Washburn? :eek: Jimenez or ???

---'Roser

Matt700wlw
12-14-2004, 06:58 PM
D'Lo probably won't be tendered..his money will go to Ortiz, which will make Freel your everyday 2nd baseman, and the Kearns to third thing goes through

...think?

OldXOhio
12-14-2004, 06:58 PM
Gosh guys! We finally do something and everyone just complains. :) I just think it's funny! We don't even know the deal yet. I'll reserve judgement until I get the facts, but I'd say this is an upgrade to the rotation and really and truly that's a good thing however you look at it. Now if we paid 5,6,7 million maybe not, but I can't say yet as I've not seen the deal. Russ was tough a couple years ago and he was in the AL so facing the NL he could be a nice pitcher. Not the ace everyone wanted, but better is good. Let's get some positive vibes going. ;)

Russ??? I thought we got David???

RedRoser
12-14-2004, 06:59 PM
"Russ was tough a couple years ago"

But it's NOT Russ we just landed. It's RAMON, remember? ;)

Hey, OldX---I'd take David...yeah...we could make that work. :D

---'Roser

pedro
12-14-2004, 06:59 PM
Here's his last two years (and he'll be 32 this season):

IP - 308
H - 348
BB - 101
WHIP - 1.46 :eek:
K - 176
HR - 46
OPS 2003 - .810
OPS 2004 - .793
ERA 2003 - 5.2
ERA 2004 - 4.43
EBH - 118


moseley's lifetime ML whip is 1.29.

wheels
12-14-2004, 07:02 PM
Ortiz had an awful 2003.

I sure hope that guy doesn't show up, 'cause that guy looks like a Reds pitcher.

flyer85
12-14-2004, 07:04 PM
uh ... this leaves me scratching ... something.

Falls City Beer
12-14-2004, 07:05 PM
Ortiz had an awful 2003.

I sure hope that guy doesn't show up, 'cause that guy looks like a Reds pitcher.

2004 Ramon was pretty Reds-esque as well--in and out of the rotation, a bunch of hits, low Ks.

Crash Davis
12-14-2004, 07:06 PM
From rotoworld:


Reds acquired RHP Ramon Ortiz from the Angels for RHP Dustin Moseley.

We like that the Reds are getting Ortiz here, but to sacrifice one of their top prospects for a pitcher who was probably going to be non-tendered? Maybe we'll withhold judgment until seeing whether the Reds can avoid arbitration and sign him to an affordable two-year deal. Going to the National League should be very good for Ortiz. The 31-year-old right-hander looked quite a bit better last year than he did in 2003, but he was still very inconsistent, frustrating the Angels. Maybe it will help that he won't have to worry about keeping his rotation spot in Cincinnati. He should be viewed as a potential bargain in NL-only leagues

Edit for rotoworld update:


Reds acquired RHP Ramon Ortiz from the Angels for RHP Dustin Moseley.
We like that the Reds are getting Ortiz here, but to sacrifice one of their top prospects for a pitcher who was probably going to be non-tendered? The Angels had already declined their $5.5 million option on Ortiz. Cincinnati likely will try avoid arbitration and sign him to an affordable two-year deal. Going to the National League should be very good for Ortiz. The 31-year-old right-hander looked quite a bit better last year than he did in 2003, but he was still very inconsistent, frustrating the Angels. He ended up with a 4.43 ERA in 14 starts and 20 relief appearances. Because his stuff has come back, he should be viewed as a potential bargain at $4-$5 in NL-only leagues. He'll join Paul Wilson, Luke Hudson, Aaron Harang and either Josh Hancock or Brandon Claussen in the Cincinnati rotation.

"Because his stuff has come back..."

Well, he's got that going for him...which is nice.

Crash Davis
12-14-2004, 07:08 PM
One month ago on rotoworld:


Angels declined RHP Ramon Ortiz's $5.5 million option for 2005.
This doesn't officially make Ortiz a free agent, as he's short on service time. The Angels will continue to try to trade Ortiz, but it's unlikely that anyone will want to go to arbitration with him. As a free agent, he might come as cheap as $7 million over two years. There should be several middle-market teams interested in him once he's non-tendered.

flyer85
12-14-2004, 07:09 PM
I like ORtiz, he has a little upside. I liked him as an FA after the Angels non-tendered him, which they would have done, noy in a trade for Moseley.

I am left speechless.

With this deal I can honestly say that I have serious doubts if DanO has any clue. I don't see how this fits in any kind of a plan for building a winner.

WVRed
12-14-2004, 07:09 PM
Shows the value of our top prospects:(.

If Gullet can bring around the 2002 Ramon Ortiz, I will be happy. Otherwise, we traded a top chip for Cory Lidle all over again.

flyer85
12-14-2004, 07:12 PM
Shows the value of our top prospects:(.

If Gullet can bring around the 2002 Ramon Ortiz, I will be happy. Otherwise, we traded a top chip for Cory Lidle all over again.

If they can't get him to agree to some kind of a 2 year deal then this trade serves very little purpose anyway.

BrooklynRedz
12-14-2004, 07:12 PM
i've been asking around and, unless i'm mistaken, the angels could not have nontendered ortiz because they offered him arbitration and he accepted. i'll continue to research, but in the meantime if anyone has contrary info, let 'er rip....

M2
12-14-2004, 07:12 PM
No offense, but the Cincy FO landing the likes of an AJ Burnett just seems like a pipe dream any more. They appear to either be not willing to trade from one of our few strengths or they're not willing to foot the bill for it, both in current and future dollars. As one poster put, I think a trade of this nature is about as good as it gets for us.

I used Burnett as a stalking horse. Pick any arb-eligible pitcher making between $1M-$5M, it's the same difference. Point is, with Ortiz in tow, the Reds now have closed that door for this offseason. Essentially this marks the point at which I don't really have to worry about the Reds getting any better for 2005. I agree that Reds management lacks the fortitude to work the trade market in that fashion, though my take is that's a fairly damning statement, the basic equivalent of saying the Reds are a rudderless ship.

Aronchis, you weren't around when the Lidle signing happened, but it was a wildly popular move on this board. Only a few panned it.

Brooklyn, I'd think moving Oritz out of the way would make the Angels more likely to pursue another starter like Clement.

RedRoser
12-14-2004, 07:13 PM
"There should be several middle-market teams interested in him once he's non-tendered. "

Maybe this is why Dano didn't want to wait on the non-tendering? :eek:

flyer85
12-14-2004, 07:13 PM
i've been asking around and, unless i'm mistaken, the angels could not have nontendered ortiz because they offered him arbitration and he accepted. i'll continue to research, but in the meantime if anyone has contrary info, let 'er rip....

The Dec 7 deadline was for free agents. I believe teams have until the 19th to offer it to players not eligible for free agency. Rotoworld(who is usually on top of this stuff) indicates he has not yet been offered arbitration.

pedro
12-14-2004, 07:15 PM
it seems to me that there's a better chance DM will never win 10 games in the bigs than there is that he will. i'm not going cry over this. seems low risk. but that's DO's MO.

Crash Davis
12-14-2004, 07:15 PM
Trying to find a scenario where this trade makes sense. In order to get a potential 200 inning starting pitcher, the Reds would have to deal one of their young outfielders. According to DanO, nobody wants any of our players except Dunn, Kearns & WMP, so sacrificing one of our own Big 3 (outfielders) for a workhorse was less than appetizing.

The other option was signing a good free agent starter (i.e. Odalis Perez, Matt Clement, Russ Ortiz, Jon Lieber, etc.). The problem with this scenario is a 3-4 year commitment for at least $7MM per season. Not the kind of atmosphere in which the Reds are comfortable.

So DanO sees a possible deal for a formerly good starting pitcher with 12-15 win & 200 IP potential. It works because Ortiz is tired of Anaheim jerking him from the rotation to the bully, and the Angels don't want to go to arbitration with him considering their soon-to-be glut of starting pitchers. So maybe DanO believes he can avoid arbitration with a pitcher who just wants to start again on a team where he feels valued. If he can agree to a deal around 2 years/$7MM, it makes some sense.

Kind of sad that this is the only way we can get a potential #3 starter. First time in my life I've been jealous of Brewers fans...and the Pirates are on deck.

Baseballreference.com:


Year Ag Tm Lg W L G GS CG SHO GF SV IP H R ER HR BB SO HBP WP BFP ERA *lgERA *ERA+
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+
1999 26 ANA AL 2 3 9 9 0 0 0 0 48.3 50 35 35 7 25 44 2 2 218 6.52 4.87 75
2000 27 ANA AL 8 6 18 18 2 0 0 0 111.3 96 69 63 18 55 73 2 7 472 5.09 4.97 98
2001 28 ANA AL 13 11 32 32 2 0 0 0 208.7 223 114 101 25 76 135 12 7 916 4.36 4.75 109
2002 29 ANA AL 15 9 32 32 4 1 0 0 217.3 188 97 91 40 68 162 5 7 896 3.77 4.33 115
2003 30 ANA AL 16 13 32 32 1 0 0 0 180.0 209 121 104 28 63 94 12 4 814 5.20 4.26 82
2004 31 ANA AL 5 7 34 14 0 0 13 0 128.0 139 64 63 18 38 82 4 5 543 4.43 4.59 104
+--------------+---+---+---+---+---+---+---+--+------+----+----+----+---+----+----+---+---+-----+-----+-----+----+
6 Yr WL% .546 59 49 157 137 9 1 13 0 893.7 905 500 457 136 325 590 37 32 3859 4.60 4.56 99

BrooklynRedz
12-14-2004, 07:16 PM
Brooklyn, I'd think moving Oritz out of the way would make the Angels more likely to pursue another starter like Clement.

i agree...i'm just reporting what i'm being told by the people who would know.

NC Reds
12-14-2004, 07:17 PM
I liked Dustin Moseley. This trade disappoints me.

BrooklynRedz
12-14-2004, 07:18 PM
The Dec 7 deadline was for free agents. I believe teams have until the 19th to offer it to players not eligible for free agency. Rotoworld(who is usually on top of this stuff) indicates he has not yet been offered arbitration.

right, but since they declined his option, he was technically a free agent. or so it has been explained to me.

WVRedsFan
12-14-2004, 07:18 PM
It would be nice to get a guy with which no mention of Don Gullett needs to be made.

Oh well, that's the lot we've chosen.

When was the last time "Gully" fixed anyone? 1992?

M2
12-14-2004, 07:22 PM
i agree...i'm just reporting what i'm being told by the people who would know.

Goes to one of my theories about baseball people. They can tell you what they're doing at a given moment, but don't ask them to think too much (they'll hurt themselves).

wheels
12-14-2004, 07:23 PM
Well, I guess he "fixed" Pete Schourek in like 1995.

But I get your point.

M2
12-14-2004, 07:25 PM
right, but since they declined his option, he was technically a free agent. or so it has been explained to me.

If he was a free agent, they couldn't trade him. The Angels declined an option and had to offer him arbitration by Dec. 20 if they wanted to keep him.

The Reds now have to offer him arbitration by that date if they want to keep him.

Puffy
12-14-2004, 07:25 PM
Aronchis, you weren't around when the Lidle signing happened, but it was a wildly popular move on this board. Only a few panned it.



I was one of those who hated that signing. But I like this one - I think Ortiz has much more potential to help the Reds than Lidle ever could.

I was right on Lidle, lets hope I'm right on Ortiz.

MWM
12-14-2004, 07:26 PM
Any chance the Reds will non-tender him, ala Pokey Reese and Boston a couple of years ago. In other words, if he isn't willing to sign a 2 year deal for $7MM or less, than just let him walk. "All if cost" to try was a ML pitcher you didn't think was ever going to amount to anything.

wheels
12-14-2004, 07:28 PM
Any chance the Reds will non-tender him, ala Pokey Reese and Boston a couple of years ago. In other words, if he isn't willing to sign a 2 year deal for $7MM or less, than just let him walk. "All if cost" to try was a ML pitcher you didn't think was ever going to amount to anything.

Thing is that would mean they gave Moseley away for nothing.

WVRed
12-14-2004, 07:29 PM
Special Message from Dan O'Brien to Redszone,

Merry Christmas

M2
12-14-2004, 07:29 PM
I was one of those who hated that signing. But I like this one - I think Ortiz has much more potential to help the Reds than Lidle ever could.

I was right on Lidle, lets hope I'm right on Ortiz.

I hope they all work out, but Ortiz's 5.14 K/9 over the past two seasons scares me, a lot.

wheels
12-14-2004, 07:30 PM
I hope they all work out, but Ortiz's 5.14 K/9 over the past two seasons scares me, a lot.

I think his arm is about to fall off.

I really hope they don't throw too much dough at this guy.

Willy
12-14-2004, 07:31 PM
I'm excited that that the Reds have showed a pulse in the front office. On the other hand I'm confussed with the mixed messages being sent.

Dan O has repeatedly said the Reds will not sign anyone that will cost them a draft pick. So they go out and trade one of their better prospects??? What's the deal, I think everyone would rather have D Mos than a risky 1st or 2nd round pick who will be 4-5 years away.

Just make up your mind. Are we building through the farm system? Or are we going to try to finish 3rd?

Pick a side and stick with it.

Puffy
12-14-2004, 07:31 PM
I hope they all work out, but Ortiz's 5.14 K/9 over the past two seasons scares me, a lot.

Yeah, no doubt there is stuff to be scared about - but all reports I read last year and this winter have been that is stuff is still there, he just needs to get his head straight and some consistentcy back.

Lidle never had stuff, so right there Ortiz is a better option, in my book.

SteelSD
12-14-2004, 07:32 PM
Dang. And here I was working on a little project and missed this.

I don't like this one to start out with.

If this turns into a "Moseley/can't re-sign Jimenez because of the money paid to Ortiz" trade, it'll be one of the dumber things I've seen.

And that's saying a lot.

BrooklynRedz
12-14-2004, 07:32 PM
Goes to one of my theories about baseball people. They can tell you what they're doing at a given moment, but don't ask them to think too much (they'll hurt themselves).

hmmm, ok. not totally sure what that means or where that's coming from but thanks for the tidbit. you know, you could also apply that same "theory" to lots of "people."

wheels
12-14-2004, 07:35 PM
I think he was kinda joking around Brooklyn.

wheels
12-14-2004, 07:37 PM
Dang. And here I was working on a little project and missed this.

I don't like this one to start out with.

If this turns into a "Moseley/can't re-sign Jimenez because of the money paid to Ortiz" trade, it'll be one of the dumber things I've seen.

And that's saying a lot.

I can almost see it coming, and it (Non-Tendering Jimenez) has been one of my bigger fears this offseason. This sort of enhances the chances of that or so it seems.

Redmachine2003
12-14-2004, 07:38 PM
Any chance the Reds will non-tender him, ala Pokey Reese and Boston a couple of years ago. In other words, if he isn't willing to sign a 2 year deal for $7MM or less, than just let him walk. "All if cost" to try was a ML pitcher you didn't think was ever going to amount to anything.
No Way! You go to Arb. and then trade him in July and maybe get a better prospect then Mosely.

BrooklynRedz
12-14-2004, 07:40 PM
I think he was kinda joking around Brooklyn.

yr probably right. sorry M2. mind is kinda frazzled after a long night of tracking down nonexistent Dunn-to-DBacks leads. again, my apologies.

redsfanmia
12-14-2004, 07:44 PM
Good move in my opinion. The Reds trade an unknown commidity for a known commodity. There is no pleasing the Reds fans, they complain because we cant get a major league pitcher and we get one and they complain.

M2
12-14-2004, 07:44 PM
hmmm, ok. not totally sure what that means or where that's coming from but thanks for the tidbit. you know, you could also apply that same "theory" to lots of "people."

Just one man's opinion, but I've read and heard too many insane and inane comments from front office types and "insiders" to put a ton of stock in what they think. I long ago decided to trust my own judgment instead of theirs.

So when I see the Angels deal away a starting pitcher who'd have taken roughly $4M out of the budget, my guess is this makes them more likely to pursue some of the remaining free agent starters as there's no sensible reason why one less arm and a pile of freed-up cash would make them less likely to pursue such an arm.

Redny
12-14-2004, 07:46 PM
I like this deal because I always thought Moseley was overated. Ortiz should do well in the NL.

M2
12-14-2004, 07:46 PM
yr probably right. sorry M2. mind is kinda frazzled after a long night of tracking down nonexistent Dunn-to-DBacks leads. again, my apologies.

No problem, I didn't take what you wrote as anything personal. Great job of tracking this down. Seriously, top notch work.

MWM
12-14-2004, 07:46 PM
Good move in my opinion. The Reds trade an unknown commidity for a known commodity. There is no pleasing the Reds fans, they complain because we cant get a major league pitcher and we get one and they complain.

Jimmy haynes is a known commodity as well. So you recommend we sign him? If someone is a known commodiy, but a not so good one, what good is it that we know what he gives us?

M2
12-14-2004, 07:52 PM
I think his arm is about to fall off.

I really hope they don't throw too much dough at this guy.

Ortiz made $3.27M last year and he's going to arbitration. He's structurally guaranteed to make too much money, $3.75M on the low side.

traderumor
12-14-2004, 07:54 PM
Just one man's opinion, but I've read and heard too many insane and inane comments from front office types and "insiders" to put a ton of stock in what they think. I long ago decided to trust my own judgment instead of theirs.

So when I see the Angels deal away a starting pitcher who'd have taken roughly $4M out of the budget, my guess is this makes them more likely to pursue some of the remaining free agent starters as there's no sensible reason why one less arm and a pile of freed-up cash would make them less likely to pursue such an arm.
they signed Byrd

wheels
12-14-2004, 07:55 PM
Ortiz made $3.27M last year and he's going to arbitration. He's structurally guaranteed to make too much money, $3.75M on the low side.


Aw sheesh!

Maybe there's cash involved in this deal. :p:

RedRoser
12-14-2004, 08:00 PM
"Maybe there's cash involved in this deal."

"You're as like to have monkey's fly out your arse" as to get close to that!!! :D

(Titanic was it?) :eek:

wheels
12-14-2004, 08:01 PM
Okay so besides losing Moseley, they've in effect signed two free agent pitchers worth nearly or more than seven million...And Matt Clement wanted eight million?

Hmmmmm....

ThatsAStrike
12-14-2004, 08:02 PM
Well hopefully this is a guy who will eat up innings on a ballclub that really needs a starter to eat up innings. I like the trade.

Matt700wlw
12-14-2004, 08:03 PM
Okay so besides losing Moseley, they've in effect signed two free agent pitchers worth nearly or more than seven million...And Matt Clement wanted eight million?

Hmmmmm....

Their thinking is probably....2 arms instead of one

wheels
12-14-2004, 08:05 PM
Their thinking is probably....2 arms instead of one

Once again...Hmmmmmm....

Redmachine2003
12-14-2004, 08:05 PM
Now if the Reds do sign Merker and Weathers Wednesday is team a better team than last year?

RedRoser
12-14-2004, 08:08 PM
Unless of course there's less interest on two 3.5-4.0 million dollar loans than there is on one 7.0-8.0 million dollar loan? ;)

M2
12-14-2004, 08:08 PM
they signed Byrd

I read that too.

That gives them Colon, Escobar, Bryd, Lackey and Washburn (about whom it's rumored they won't offer arbitration). Going into this offseason it was thought the Angels would punt Ortiz and Washburn, looking for upgrades. They have with Ortiz (at least they think they have), we'll see about Washburn.

RedRoser
12-14-2004, 08:10 PM
Now if the Reds do sign Merker and Weathers Wednesday is team a better team than last year?

Well, does bear poop in the woods stink any more today than it did yesterday? Only the passage of time (or a whiff of something) will tell my friend, but if I had to venture a guess, I'd say this year's team will be a better team, but only marginally unless DanO works a little harder. :D

---'Roser

Phhhl
12-14-2004, 08:12 PM
This is a good deal. So he has had some problems the last couple years... he has better "stuff" than anybody on our major league roster with the exception of Hudson. Yes, he may have signed for a lot less money if he had been allowed to walk by Annaheim, but not here. He'd have been rotting in the Yankees, Red Sox or Dodgers bullpen instead, and everyone on the planet would be chatting up how brilliant those organizations were to have such quality depth. Instead, he can possibly make a difference on THIS club.

Ortiz has had very solid seasons in his career, and 31 is right in the zone of a player's most productive campaigns. National Leaguers have seen very little of him, he is a former world champion (on a team where he carried a heavy load) and we didn't have to give up an arm and a leg to get this done.

Now, if DanO uses this an excuse not to non-tender Jiminez, or decides not to tender Ortiz after trying to work out a new deal, this certainly would be assinine. But there is absolutely no reason why this club can't afford to do ALL of those things... AND add another starter before opening day. None whatsoever.

Lance said it today. The Reds drew the same number of fans per game as the 1976 and 1990 World Champs, so ownership has nothing to complain about. But, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this deal on it's own merits.

Cedric
12-14-2004, 08:16 PM
Ramon Ortiz is a headcase who wasn't gonna be offered arbitration. In my view that isn't worth your highest level pitching prospect.

Chip R
12-14-2004, 08:16 PM
Okay so besides losing Moseley, they've in effect signed two free agent pitchers worth nearly or more than seven million...And Matt Clement wanted eight million?

Hmmmmm....
Good point. However, Ortiz had no say in the matter when they traded him here. A guy like Clement could have signed with anyone. Even if the Reds had offered Clement $8M some other team could have offered $8.5 so there's no guarantee he would sign here. And there's the contract situation to take into account. You only have to pay Ortiz for another season and if he does well, he can be flipped for prospects in July. If not, they can non-tender him. With a Clement, you're paying him for 3-4 years. That's probably how the Reds are looking at it. Believe me, I'd have much rather used Wilson's and Ortiz' money on a Clement.

WVRedsFan
12-14-2004, 08:19 PM
I don't know whether Ortiz will be what this team needs or not, but just from watching him over the last three years, he seemed to know how to pitch. He got hit sometimes, but he mixed his pitches up well.

Fact is, it was the kind of deal that mid to low division teams make. Either they trade a star for prospects or a prospect for someone who hasn't made it yet, but everyone says he will. Same old stuff.

Aronchis
12-14-2004, 08:19 PM
He "might"(Nelson could have had a say in it if healthy) have been the highest level, but Dustin was not a top prospect. Guys like Gardner,Votto and Pauly have stuff to be "top" prospects. Moseley was a middling prospect with a low ceiling. To bad DanO couldn't do better than Ortiz, but maybe that is the best the man can do.

CougarQuest
12-14-2004, 08:21 PM
I like this trade. Right now, I'd say Ortiz is the best starting pitcher on the Reds staff.

Falls City Beer
12-14-2004, 08:24 PM
He "might"(Nelson could have had a say in it if healthy) have been the highest level, but Dustin was not a top prospect. Guys like Gardner,Votto and Pauly have stuff to be "top" prospects. Moseley was a middling prospect with a low ceiling. To bad DanO couldn't do better than Ortiz, but maybe that is the best the man can do.

I agree, it's not all that important to get too weepy about Moseley--but the return still stinks.

buckeyenut
12-14-2004, 08:24 PM
For this team, with this offense, Ortiz could be a perfectly reasonable #3 pitcher the way he pitched last year. The way he pitched 3 years ago, he could be our #1.

Where does Ortiz fit compared to the available FAs on the market? Probably right below the class of Perez and Clement (appx 7m for 3 yr) and above the rest of the guys like around. If 7M is too much for our club and budget, then I like Ortiz as a fall back. I would like Ortiz even better if he was the #3 with Wilson #2 and Clement/Perez fronting the rotation, but that is probably wishful thinking.

If Ortiz pitches like he did last year, we ought to be able to turn around and trade Ortiz at the deadline for a B prospect similar to Moseley. If he resumes 2002 form, we might be able to get better prospects. Or he might just keep us in the race.

Dustin Moseley's best case ceiling is probably about what Ortiz did last year so losing him is not a major deal. Says more about the depth of the Reds system that he is high on charts than it does about him as a prospect.

This is a deal that makes us more competitive in 2005, maybe beyond, than we would have been otherwise. Until the other shoe drops, if it does, I don't understand how anyone can be that opposed to the move.

Of course, if Jiminez is nontendered because of this deal, I 180 my opinion.

westofyou
12-14-2004, 08:26 PM
In the 2004 BP they noted that BA termed Mosley a Rick Reed, Bob Tewksberry type of pitcher, low 90's, decent curve. A performer who usually finds his stuff in his 30's.

Personally I like it, he's a better short term bet than Mosley (who's one great talent has been health in a system fraught with unhealthy pitchers.)

buckeyenut
12-14-2004, 08:27 PM
I like this trade. Right now, I'd say Ortiz is the best starting pitcher on the Reds staff.Sad, but true and that is why this is a good deal IMO. Paul Wilson cannot be your best SP to start the year.

DoogMinAmo
12-14-2004, 08:30 PM
I like the trade more if we get some cash, but something tells me no. Anyways, its ok, as a first step, but some sort of male intuition (no, not that kind) tells me that there is more to come from the desk of O'Brien.

So, not quite two thumbs down, not quite two thumbs up, but :thumbup: :thumbdown

Crash Davis
12-14-2004, 08:34 PM
ROTATION
Ramon Ortiz
Paul Wilson
Aaron Harang
Luke Hudson
Brandon Claussen

Josh Hancock takes over the Van Poppel role.

BULLPEN
Graves
R.Wagner
Acevedo
Valentine

Riedling?
Mercker?
Weathers?
Burba?
Norton?

LOUISVILLE
Coffey
Bong
Belisle
Shakelford

Mitri
12-14-2004, 08:36 PM
Okay so besides losing Moseley, they've in effect signed two free agent pitchers worth nearly or more than seven million...And Matt Clement wanted eight million?

Hmmmmm....
Good point, but I think there are other reasons the Reds could not sign Clement.
We aren't gonna see Clement in a Reds uni next year, Wheels, as much as you and I and just about everyone on this board wanted to. I think this is a decent move for the Reds, nothing earth shattering. Hopefully Ortiz will get a huge boost of confidence by going from the 7th or 8th best pitcher on a club to being the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher on a club.

M2
12-14-2004, 08:37 PM
ROTATION
Ramon Ortiz
Paul Wilson
Aaron Harang
Luke Hudson
Brandon Claussen

Josh Hancock takes over the Van Poppel role.

BULLPEN
Graves
R.Wagner
Acevedo
Valentine

Riedling?
Mercker?
Weathers?
Burba?
Norton?

LOUISVILLE
Coffey
Bong
Belisle
Shakelford


To start with.

Though figuring out the Reds staff on Memorial Day is the real trick.

Tony Cloninger
12-14-2004, 08:38 PM
Did anyone noticed how well he pitched against the Yankees last year...and in years prior to that?

He seems to be able to get his game up when he has to....now it is of matter of doing it consistently ...so he does not have to worry about going to the pen.

wheels
12-14-2004, 08:46 PM
Good point, but I think there are other reasons the Reds could not sign Clement.
We aren't gonna see Clement in a Reds uni next year, Wheels, as much as you and I and just about everyone on this board wanted to. I think this is a decent move for the Reds, nothing earth shattering. Hopefully Ortiz will get a huge boost of confidence by going from the 7th or 8th best pitcher on a club to being the 2nd or 3rd best pitcher on a club.

Of course they aren't going to get Clement, but my point is they should be spending more wisely.

I'm not so sure about a confidence boost, either. Remember he was just traded from a pennant contender to a cellar dweller for a minor league player.

Maybe he'll be the next Jose Guillen (but a pitcher), but he could also become the next Ruben Sierra as well.

It's an iffy deal, but it's all we've got right now and at least we won't see Josh Hancock start twenty or more games.

How about Skully's later on to discuss this in a more innebriated state?

Rojo
12-14-2004, 08:50 PM
Okay so besides losing Moseley, they've in effect signed two free agent pitchers worth nearly or more than seven million...And Matt Clement wanted eight million?

DanO - zero value over replacement GM.

Let's face it folks, these kiss-your-sister trades are why Allen hired him.

Aronchis
12-14-2004, 08:53 PM
DanO - zero value over replacement GM.

Let's face it folks, these kiss-your-sister trades are why Allen hired him.

Allen didn't hire him, he wanted Krivisky.

And this isn't a kiss your sister trade. You REALLY think you would want to spend 5 million on Ortiz?

M2
12-14-2004, 08:53 PM
Just looked this up. In Ortiz's career year, 2002, he posted a 3.77 ERA. Outside of that season he hasn't been lower than 4.36 (2001).

Traditional thinking would be that he did something right in 2002 that he might be able to repeat. Wrong. He did have a higher than normal 6.7 K/9, which surely helped that ERA, but the real reason his ERA was so low was a .241 BABIP, good for fourth in MLB ERA qualifiers that season behind Derek Lowe, Damian Moss and Tim Wakefield (note the two career years there).

Simply put, the guy had some hit luck one season and looked better than he really is because of it. Unless he gets it again, he's an inconsequential-to-bad pitcher.

wheels
12-14-2004, 08:55 PM
Another Cory Lidle?

This smacks of last offseason.

Aronchis
12-14-2004, 08:59 PM
Just looked this up. In Ortiz's career year, 2002, he posted a 3.77 ERA. Outside of that season he hasn't been lower than 4.36 (2001).

Traditional thinking would be that he did something right in 2002 that he might be able to repeat. Wrong. He did have a higher than normal 6.7 K/9, which surely helped that ERA, but the real reason his ERA was so low was a .241 BABIP, good for fourth in MLB ERA qualifiers that season behind Derek Lowe, Damian Moss and Tim Wakefield (note the two career years there).

Simply put, the guy had some hit luck one season and looked better than he really is because of it. Unless he gets it again, he's an inconsequential-to-bad pitcher.

But there is always the possilibity he does 2002 all over again in the National League no less thinks Dan O'brien. DanO is a tool loving Fascist in the game of baseball, not a SABRE driven GM. He probably loves Ramon (baby Pedro) tools and thinks he can rebound in the pitching friendly National league.

Chip R
12-14-2004, 09:00 PM
Lance said it today. The Reds drew the same number of fans per game as the 1976 and 1990 World Champs, so ownership has nothing to complain about. But, there is absolutely nothing wrong with this deal on it's own merits.I think Lance is a bit off on his math. In 1976 they drew 2.6M - and they were just counting butts in the seats then, not tickets sold like they do now. So that was probably more along the lines of 3M. In 1990 they drew 2.4M. The economy of baseball was as different to the economy of baseball today as apples is to bricks. Free agency didn't begin until after that season. If people believe that the Reds are drawing just fine and shouldn't have to start non tendering players like D'Lo then they shouldn't say that Lindner should open up his wallet and spend more on the team. If that's the case the Reds should be making tens of millions of dollars and they should be spending as much as the Cubs, Cards and Astros are.

MWM
12-14-2004, 09:02 PM
But there is always the possilibity he does 2002 all over again in the National League no less thinks Dan O'brien.

But that wouldn't be because of his ability. It would be the result of luck. Any mediocre pitcher the Reds throw out there is just as likely to experience thesame level of luck, and for a lot less (see Haynes, Jimmy circa 2002).

M2
12-14-2004, 09:05 PM
But there is always the possilibity he does 2002 all over again in the National League no less thinks Dan O'brien. DanO is a tool loving Fascist in the game of baseball, not a SABRE driven GM. He probably loves Ramon (baby Pedro) tools and thinks he can rebound in the pitching friendly National league.

That's the thing, Ortiz didn't do anything to make 2002 happen. He just happened to have stricken ball find fielders at an abnormally high rate. He could pitch another 30 years and never get within 30 points of being that lucky again.

If DanO thinks he sees tools, tools that will make 2002 a repeatable thing, then he's chasing a mirage.

Aronchis
12-14-2004, 09:07 PM
That's the thing, Ortiz didn't do anything to make 2002 happen. He just happened to have stricken ball find fielders at an abnormally high rate. He could pitch another 30 years and never get within 30 points of being that lucky again.

If DanO thinks he sees tools, tools that will make 2002 a repeatable thing, then he's chasing a mirage.

Then he is chasing mirages. Ramon has been called "Baby Pedro" in some scouting reports I have read, maybe DanO's has read them to. But I can't see somebody looking at his stats and wanting him especially after the fits he threw last year. It has to be the tools, what else could it be?

Stormy
12-14-2004, 09:08 PM
Don't be fooled by the "his stuff has come back", "he rebounded as a Starter in 2004" nonsense. Instead take a look at the splits.

Last year as a Starter, Ortiz possibly posted the worst numbers of his already erratic career.

2004 as Starter: 5.47ERA, 13HR in only 79IP, huge opponent OPS/BA against and less than 5Ks per 9IP! It was his 49IP of 2.47ERA relief work which made his overall numbers look at least modestly presentable.

So, in effect, you have a starter who posted a horrific 2003 as a Starter (5.20ERA, hittable, high WHIP, high HR rate and low K/9 rates), following up with even worse numbers as a starter in 2004. Until he was yanked and demoted to the bullpen.

He might be an improvement over our potential #5 candidate. He might have a nice anomaly month here or there. He might wind up in he bullpen. However, under any of those scenarios, he's hardly worth the money, the effect he has in shrinking our overall budget flexibility or the price of Dustin Moseley. It would be hard to fathom the rationale behind this deal, and how it adheres to any of DanO's stated philosophies.

MWM
12-14-2004, 09:13 PM
scouting reports I have read,

Scouting reports serve little purpose for a guy who's logged 893 IP in the big leagues and who is about to turn 32 years old.

M2
12-14-2004, 09:13 PM
Then he is chasing mirages. Ramon has been called "Baby Pedro" in some scouting reports I have read, maybe DanO's has read them to. But I can't see somebody looking at his stats and wanting him especially after the fits he threw last year. It has to be the tools, what else could it be?

I don't think you're wrong that DanO's infatuated with what he perceives to be the guy's tools (though every skinny Dominican with a fastball has been called the next Pedro in recent years). In fact, you've probably done a nice job of approximating his thinking.

Like you, I see plenty of reasons in his stats to stay away like he was spewing out the plague (at least for the price tag the Reds will pay him in 2005).

And so I ask, if you and I can figure this out for free why do they pay DanO?

MWM
12-14-2004, 09:14 PM
And BTW, Pedro is only 18 months older than Ortiz, so the term "baby" prbaboly shouldn't apply here.

Redmachine2003
12-14-2004, 09:17 PM
and he might win 15 games.

Matt700wlw
12-14-2004, 09:17 PM
and he might win 15 games.

Who? Pedro or Ortiz? :p:

flyer85
12-14-2004, 09:24 PM
and he might win 15 games.

So did Jimmy Haynes

Raisor
12-14-2004, 09:24 PM
I'm going to say nothing new that hasn't been said by others in this thread. So you can move along if you wish.

In fact, I'm moving along with just one word. Bleh.

LvJ
12-14-2004, 09:26 PM
Welp..

traderumor
12-14-2004, 09:51 PM
But that wouldn't be because of his ability. It would be the result of luck. Any mediocre pitcher the Reds throw out there is just as likely to experience thesame level of luck, and for a lot less (see Haynes, Jimmy circa 2002).Just because Jimmy Haynes had a 15 win season that was due primarily to outstanding run support in many of his starts doesn't mean that you can just throw anyone out there and get 15 wins out of them. So we have an example of a lucky pitcher, does he have to become a byword for the remaining history of Redszone?

Phhhl
12-14-2004, 09:53 PM
I think Lance is a bit off on his math. In 1976 they drew 2.6M - and they were just counting butts in the seats then, not tickets sold like they do now. So that was probably more along the lines of 3M. In 1990 they drew 2.4M. The economy of baseball was as different to the economy of baseball today as apples is to bricks. Free agency didn't begin until after that season. If people believe that the Reds are drawing just fine and shouldn't have to start non tendering players like D'Lo then they shouldn't say that Lindner should open up his wallet and spend more on the team. If that's the case the Reds should be making tens of millions of dollars and they should be spending as much as the Cubs, Cards and Astros are.

You said, Chip. Not me ;).

westofyou
12-14-2004, 09:58 PM
The Tale of the 2 Ortiz Pitchers ( the 3rd was named "Baby" and pitched 13 innnings for the 44 Senators, gawd they must have stunk that year)




HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB

131 8.20 12.97 6.73 4.57 1.47 - 1300 innings

136 9.11 12.76 5.94 3.27 1.82 - 900 innings

Chip R
12-14-2004, 09:59 PM
You said, Chip. Not me ;).
OK, riddle me this, Batman: What do the Reds draw as opposed to the Cubs, Cards and Astros?

Aronchis
12-14-2004, 10:02 PM
The problem with the Limiteds is that they have a very conservative projective rational. For example. The Reds drew 2.3 million last year when say 1.8 million was budgeted.

So what do they project this year? 2.3 million. Instead of taking a "risk" of going for 2.5-6 which will fund a bigger budget budget, they take the easy route incase the GM screws up with a bad team which busts and they have to dump some contracts. DanO doesn't have much backing.

Red Leader
12-14-2004, 10:03 PM
Ok, let me break this down as to why I think its a bad trade and its not because talent given does not equal talent received.

Ramon Ortiz was not going to be offered arbitration by the Angels, meaning that in 6 days, he would become a free agent.

Because of this we gave up a prospect (Moseley) for nothing.

We could have waited and kept Moseley and signed Ortiz after he had become a free agent.

As others have stated, this probably means we won't offer arbitration to D'Lo.

The trade was a dumb idea to start with, in my opinion. Why not wait, keep your prospect and sign Ortiz to the 2 year contract you want him to sign when he becomes a free agent. With what they've done, they've basically painted themselves in a corner (again!) by not having a choice BUT to sign Ortiz to an affordable deal for two years, or go to arbitration with him and spend WAY more money than he is worth.

On D'Lo, they can now either trade him BEFORE December 20th with teams knowing that they HAVE to dump him for salary reasons, or not offer arbitration to him and lose him for nothing. BAD MANAGEMENT.

The Reds keep setting themselves up in these no win situations, and for a small market team, you just can't do that if you expect to improve.

Stormy
12-14-2004, 10:04 PM
Just because Jimmy Haynes had a 15 win season that was due primarily to outstanding run support in many of his starts doesn't mean that you can just throw anyone out there and get 15 wins out of them. So we have an example of a lucky pitcher, does he have to become a byword for the remaining history of Redszone?


I may be misinterpreting MWM's remarks, but I think he's implying that there is a tangible correlation between the two: Namely, Ramon Ortiz was the beneficiary of a 16 Win season as recently as 2 years ago, despite posting a putrid 5.20ERA, as a direct result of exceptional run support. Sure, Jimmy Haynes has become the personification of the deceptive 15 win season, which leads to extensions and salary increase, for Reds' fans. We are facing a similar situation here. Without the benefit of one of the AL's better offenses, Ramon Ortiz is likely a 15 game loser in 2003. The fact that he followed that up with an even more abysmal performance as a starter in 2004, though again his W/L record was helped some by a potent Angels offense, is a bad portent. There is every likelihood that we are revisiting a Haynes or Lidle signing here, with the difference being the relative impact of the money spent, and the fact that this time it cost us a premiere trading chip.

Again, if you take a look at Ortiz's splits as a Starter vs Reliever in 2004, then compile them with his 2003 numbers as a Starter... a very unpleasant picture emerges of a guy who gets knocked around at a 5.30+ERA, High OPSA/BAA clip, whose K numbers are on a steady decline, even as his WHIP and hittability escalate. We'd need some dramatic reversal in his trends for this to work out as anything more than a passable #5 starter, or middle BP help. That would be ok, except we could have found that for less cost/risk, and without losing Moseley in the process.

Kc61
12-14-2004, 10:08 PM
We'll see what else O'Brien does, and I'm glad he's finally acting, but it's hard to like this trade very much.

Ortiz has had one good year, 2002. Yet, he allowed 40 homers that year. His other years have been very ordinary.

Moseley always seemed to have a knack for pitching low run games in the minor leagues. I realize that, absent great stuff, that might not translate to the major leagues, but it would have been nice to see him try with the Reds.

Generally, I'm glad the Reds were willing to trade a minor leaguer to improve the major league team. It's about time they focused on the current major league squad. But not sold on the particular guy they acquired.

Phhhl
12-14-2004, 10:12 PM
OK, riddle me this, Batman: What do the Reds draw as opposed to the Cubs, Cards and Astros?

No, they don't draw as well as the Cubs. But, I do believe they are rolling in cash and are severely shorchanging the fanbase with their frugality. This market draws just about what it has in it's best seasons of all time, and that is a strong baseball market. Where does the front office think the "bump" is going to come from that they keep pleading for? The net worth of the game has grown across the board, and yet this franchise can only afford to spend 10-15 mil more than they did in 1990? Horse bleep! It's there, and some day I truly believe it will come out just how cheap this regime has been.

The ONLY way to get that extra 400-500,000 people they are looking for is to compete with a St. Louis or a Houston payroll, right about where they should be. They have the cash and they won't do it. There is no reason in the world this deal with Ortiz should preclude them from adding much more this winter, and the millions of people who do support Reds baseball every season shouldn't be content until they do.

Redmachine2003
12-14-2004, 10:19 PM
Ok, let me break this down as to why I think its a bad trade and its not because talent given does not equal talent received.

Ramon Ortiz was not going to be offered arbitration by the Angels, meaning that in 6 days, he would become a free agent.

Because of this we gave up a prospect (Moseley) for nothing.

We could have waited and kept Moseley and signed Ortiz after he had become a free agent.

As others have stated, this probably means we won't offer arbitration to D'Lo.

The trade was a dumb idea to start with, in my opinion. Why not wait, keep your prospect and sign Ortiz to the 2 year contract you want him to sign when he becomes a free agent. With what they've done, they've basically painted themselves in a corner (again!) by not having a choice BUT to sign Ortiz to an affordable deal for two years, or go to arbitration with him and spend WAY more money than he is worth.

On D'Lo, they can now either trade him BEFORE December 20th with teams knowing that they HAVE to dump him for salary reasons, or not offer arbitration to him and lose him for nothing. BAD MANAGEMENT.

The Reds keep setting themselves up in these no win situations, and for a small market team, you just can't do that if you expect to improve.
I disagree that Ortiz was not going to be offered Arb. The Angels were going to trade him for what ever they could get. They knew they could something for him and would not have let him go for nothing. He is a pitcher that has had some success in the bigs and with the freeagent market drying up other teams would have gotten him before the Reds. I think the Angels moved to fast on him. He would have only gotten about 4 mill max in Arb and his Value would have been alot higher in spring training.

Willy
12-14-2004, 10:22 PM
We basicly traded a cheap #4 starting pitcher of the future for an expensive #4 starter for today. :dflynn:

Is it me or is this resemble a trade that Jimbo would pull?

Krusty
12-14-2004, 10:26 PM
This should make Krusty happy. Is THIS what you've been waiting for?

Yeah, this just lights up my Christmas. We trade for a guy that would have been non-tendered at this time next week.

Makes me just want to go out and buy tickets for Reds games next season.

Bowden's Ghost
12-14-2004, 10:28 PM
Man, this is one tough crowd on here. At least Dan "Lumberg" O'Brien did something, and showed that he isnt sleeping on the job. Ortiz might have a decent year, let's give him a chance. As it stands now he's our #1. Moseley was a longshot at best. If he turns into Greg Maddox down the road, then we can all complain. For now let's just be glad they've made an attempt to better the team for the 2005 year. I give this trade a C+. I hope it works out to a B+.

Krusty
12-14-2004, 10:30 PM
He is a lock for the rotation. You don't trade pitchers with even slight success at AAA at age 22, for someone that is gonna get non tendered in a week and then not pitch him. This trade makes absolutely zero sense. There isn't a way in hell Anaheim was gonna tender him.

I agree with 100 percent backing. I think O'Brien was so desperate to do something after coming back from the Winter Meetings empty handed that he had to appease the fans somehow. This just doesn't cut it.

Raisor
12-14-2004, 10:35 PM
At least Dan "Lumberg" O'Brien did something, and showed that he isnt sleeping on the job.


If this is the kind of deal he's going to make, I'd rather he do nothing.


If the Dunn to Arizone deal was even talked about, he should be fired.

I'm still shaking my head that Paul Depodesta wasn't even interviewed for the Reds GM position. There are only 30 MLB GM jobs in the entire world, I have a hard time believing that if the job had been offered he (or anyone) would turn down what could be a person's only chance at the big chair.

Chip R
12-14-2004, 10:37 PM
The three things fans wanted the Reds to do this offseason were in no particular order
1. Spend more money
2. Get better starters
3. Do something

All three of those were accomplished with this trade. However people still complain. The reaction here to anything the Reds do reminds me of the "Men On Film" sketch on "In Living Color": "Hated it!" It's almost as much a reflex reaction as breathing or blinking. When word of this trade went down and people figured out it was either Ortiz or Lackey, most thought it would be Lackey because... he is cheaper and the Reds are cheap. But the Reds went for the more expensive guy. In other words they had a choice between spending more money or not spending more money and they chose the former.

I don't think Ortiz is all that but is he better than Hancock or Harang or Claussen or even Wilson? All he has to be is better than one of them and the rotation is better than it was yesterday.

Ever since the season ended most believed the Reds would at the most re-sign Wilson and sit on their hands the rest of the offseason except perhaps picking up some bullpen help. Those who believed that were mistaken. They made a trade. It may not be a steal but it was something. And the fans clearly wanted them to do something, anything. They got their wish but now it wasn't good enough.

I don't think we ripped the Angels off and I don't think they ripped us off. Moseley was a nice pitcher but he wasn't exactly lighting the world on fire in the minors. IIRC, most felt he didn't throw hard enough to be successful in the majors. Perhaps a guy like Ortiz was as good as he was going to fetch.

Redmachine2003
12-14-2004, 10:41 PM
Since when do Non injuried Pitchers with a career 10 games above .500 record start becoming non tenders? You have pitchers out there getting 5-10 mill a year and are below .500 pitchers.

Willy
12-14-2004, 10:42 PM
Well said Chip.

I just think it flies in the face of everything Dan O has been saying about the farm and the future.

Raisor
12-14-2004, 10:43 PM
Since when do Non injuried Pitchers with a career 10 games above .500 record start becoming non tenders? You have pitchers out there getting 5-10 mill a year and are below .500 pitchers.


Because most good General Managers know that W-L record isn't a good indicator on how good a pitcher is.

Barbarossa
12-14-2004, 10:44 PM
So does this mean it's "Baby Perdo" versus "Daddy Perdo" opening day? :gac:

Krusty
12-14-2004, 10:44 PM
For what you're paying for Wilson and Ortiz, we could just as well landed one good starter to head up this rotation.

traderumor
12-14-2004, 10:44 PM
We basicly traded a cheap #4 starting pitcher of the future for an expensive #4 starter for today. :dflynn:

Is it me or is this resemble a trade that Jimbo would pull?True, but when you don't have even have a #2 starter, you gotta start somewhere. Unless we are willing to trade Dunn (which thankfully DO seems as reluctant to do that as we are) or lock into $20-25M for three years with a FA (something else they have shown no willingness to do), this is what other teams are willing to give up.

Ortiz is not the answer, but Moseley has mixed reviews around these parts, which tells me no one is real sure what/if he will enjoy much, if any, major league success. Not a great loss on that end from what I've read.

wheels
12-14-2004, 10:47 PM
Not a great loss, unless this deal prevents them from tendering Jimenez.

If that happens, what's the net gain here?

Krusty
12-14-2004, 10:48 PM
Once again, Jiminez will be in the lineup come Opening Day.

MWM
12-14-2004, 10:51 PM
The three things fans wanted the Reds to do this offseason were in no particular order
1. Spend more money
2. Get better starters
3. Do something


I disagree with this very premise. Some wanted #1, all wanted #2, #3 has so many meanings that's it's really not an accomplishment. Even so, the three aren't mutually exclusive which is what is implied by the notion that this trade accomplished all three so we should be happy. I think people wanted them to spend more money, but spend it in proportion to just how good the said pitcher is. Spending $4MM+ on Oritz is not what anyone who wanted the Reds to spend more money and get better pitching had in mind. And I also don't think Ortiz really qualifies as a "better starter."

Redmachine2003
12-14-2004, 10:52 PM
Ortiz is just as good as pitcher as Driefort, Ishii, and Weaver are an look how much money they make.

wheels
12-14-2004, 10:55 PM
Ortiz is just as good as pitcher as Driefort, Ishii, and Weaver are an look how much money they make.

That's not saying much.

Raisor
12-14-2004, 10:57 PM
That's not saying much.


I can just hear my mom asking "If your friends want to jump off a bridge, does that mean you should too?"

Red Leader
12-14-2004, 11:05 PM
So, if Ramon Ortiz is offered arbitration by the Angels, you say, "wasn't in the cards" and move on. There are other pitchers out there that will produce the same or better stats over the next two years as Ortiz. The point is they could have kept Moseley and spent the $3-4M on another pitcher if that's the money they had for one. Esteban Loiaza comes to mind as someone that should fall in that range. Same money, probably close to the same stats over the next 2 years, and you keep your pitching prospect in the minors for the "future".

ODERED
12-14-2004, 11:05 PM
Maybe DanO was feels there is as much emphasis to be put on how Gullett handles Ortiz, as there is to how Ortiz handles playing in front of this suicide of a bullpen :D

Willy
12-14-2004, 11:06 PM
My biggest problem with this trade is that it goes again everything Dan O has said. Moseley may or may not turned into anything but if you are in the Reds situation you have to find out. Everyone knows this team is not going to win in 05. This is why Jimbo got in trouble, he always played for today. The Reds need to start to develop starting pitchers. They say they are committed to do it, then the go out and trade their closest to the majors pitchers. For this thing to work they need to develop a major league pitcher at least every other year. Even if Moseley turns out to be a solid #4, that is all apart of the process. In 06 or 07 they would of had Moseley in the established in the rotation ready to bring up the next guy(Pauley, Garner). You have to stick with the plan and keep with your young guys. You can't start trading young pitching until you have your system pumping them out on a regular basis. Young pitching is way to valuable. You keep them all, because all of them are not going to to be good. This would have been a more acceptable trade if the Reds had 2 or 3 pitchers at the door o the majors. All this trade did was push the program back a couple of years.

If we are going to model ourselves after other successful small market clubs, than do it. Would the A's or Twins pulled off a trade like this?

I'm sick of the Reds saying on thing and doing another.

Redmachine2003
12-14-2004, 11:07 PM
It just goes to show that the Market for Ortiz is alot higher than what people are willing to admit. There was noway that the Angels were going to non-tender him. Yes they were going to trade him but not non-tender. People will say that what the reports are saying but if you believe those reports Dunn is a D-back and Kearns has been traded what 2 or 3 times already.

traderumor
12-14-2004, 11:11 PM
Buyers remorse is real at Redszone. Now, Moseley takes his obligatory trip up the prospect ladder because he is gone.

Raisor
12-14-2004, 11:12 PM
It just goes to show that the Market for Ortiz is alot higher than what people are willing to admit. .


Then let some other team trade for him and use that money differently.

There's no way that Ortiz is going to be more valuable, either now or in the future then Adam Dunn. Money spent on stiffs like Ortiz (and Wilson for that matter) is money not being spent on getting Dunn locked in long term. Money spent of stiffs like Wilson and Ortiz could have very well landed someone like Odalis Perez, someone with upside and, if it comes down to it, much more trade value. Money spent on stiffs like Wilson and Ortiz could/should be spent on other more important long term things.

Phhhl
12-14-2004, 11:12 PM
I just think the prevailing thought in regards to this deal is that it will prevent other acquisitions, and of course complicate the situation with Jiminez. I have yet to see anyone especially upset about losing Mosely. I do see the problems with Ortiz's declining k rates, but I also see a pitcher who doesn't walk a lot of hitters and has experienced considerable success in a season where he logged 217 innings... just two years ago. I don't advocate overspending on players, and he is probably slightly overpaid for what his numbers from the last two years dicate. But, as I am sure I made nauseatingly clear in the last year, I believe the Reds can afford this type of commitment, or chance and not feel it. This Payroll is woefully underbudgeted to begin with. I have seen Ortiz pitch a few times, and he definately has a live arm and good movment. He can pitch. Sure, it's a risk. But one where the payoff could be spectacular.

I'll grade it a B+... Not bad from O'Brien's biggest critic.

Raisor
12-14-2004, 11:14 PM
Buyers remorse is real at Redszone. Now, Moseley takes his obligatory trip up the prospect ladder because he is gone.


I could care less about Moseley really. There's better ways to spend four-mil then on cannon-fodder like Ortiz. 4-million here (Ortiz), 4-million there (Wilson) and pretty soon you're talking real money (Clement/Perez/LTC Dunn)

SteelSD
12-14-2004, 11:19 PM
I swear I have visions of last offseason's Cory Lidle thread in my head right now.

Redmachine2003
12-14-2004, 11:20 PM
Then let some other team trade for him and use that money differently.

There's no way that Ortiz is going to be more valuable, either now or in the future then Adam Dunn. Money spent on stiffs like Ortiz (and Wilson for that matter) is money not being spent on getting Dunn locked in long term. Money spent of stiffs like Wilson and Ortiz could have very well landed someone like Odalis Perez, someone with upside and, if it comes down to it, much more trade value. Money spent on stiffs like Wilson and Ortiz could/should be spent on other more important long term things.
Can Perez make 60 plus starts a year? We needed more than one starter and both Ortiz and Wilson could win more games each than Perez does. Dunn hasn't been traded, yet and we don't even know if he wants to stay in Cincy. His agent my be telling him to test the free agent market when his time comes.

KronoRed
12-14-2004, 11:20 PM
When you put it that way (minus Wilson and Ortiz add 1 Perez) I want to cry :(

guernsey
12-14-2004, 11:21 PM
I was so hoping DanO would trade Moseley for Randy Johnson ...

MWM
12-14-2004, 11:26 PM
My biggest problem with this trade is that it goes again everything Dan O has said. Moseley may or may not turned into anything but if you are in the Reds situation you have to find out. Everyone knows this team is not going to win in 05. This is why Jimbo got in trouble, he always played for today. The Reds need to start to develop starting pitchers. They say they are committed to do it, then the go out and trade their closest to the majors pitchers. For this thing to work they need to develop a major league pitcher at least every other year. Even if Moseley turns out to be a solid #4, that is all apart of the process. In 06 or 07 they would of had Moseley in the established in the rotation ready to bring up the next guy(Pauley, Garner). You have to stick with the plan and keep with your young guys. You can't start trading young pitching until you have your system pumping them out on a regular basis. Young pitching is way to valuable. You keep them all, because all of them are not going to to be good. This would have been a more acceptable trade if the Reds had 2 or 3 pitchers at the door o the majors. All this trade did was push the program back a couple of years.

nice post. i agree.

Redmachine2003
12-14-2004, 11:27 PM
You know I am starting to feel sorry for DanO. He is Damned if he does and Damned if he don't. He spent the money wrong or he is cheap and won't spend any money. He asked for to much for his players or he he got ripped off and didn't get enough for his players. and on and on and on. Now if Oritz and Wilson win over 12 games each does DanO become ST. DanO.

Stormy
12-14-2004, 11:31 PM
I swear I have visions of last offseason's Cory Lidle thread in my head right now.

Many of the same people who LOVED the Lidle acquisition, are loving the Ortiz acquisition. Go figure!

Raisor
12-14-2004, 11:31 PM
Can Perez make 60 plus starts a year? We needed more than one starter and both Ortiz and Wilson could win more games each than Perez does. .


I'd take a wager that Perez and Hancock (assuming he's the one being pushed out of the rotation by this trade) would out perform Wilson/Ortiz. The difference between Perez and Wilson is much greater then the difference between Ortiz and Hancock, imo.

Raisor
12-14-2004, 11:32 PM
Many of the same people who LOVED the Lidle acquisition, are loving the Ortiz acquisition. Go figure!


I think the scary thing is that some of the people who didn't like the Lidle acquisition don't feel too bad about this one.

Red Daddy
12-14-2004, 11:35 PM
Wilson should have a decent year again. He is the #1. If Hudson stays healthy, he's good. Claussen should break out this year. He's far removed from his arm problems. I thought Harang had a good year last year. He went thru a great stretch.

One thing you know is that a pitcher's ERA will drop considerably moving to the NL. If his era drops below 4, he will have a good year for the Reds. Plus there is Hancock for spot starts.

See, all you have to do is look at the bright side! LOL

CougarQuest
12-14-2004, 11:36 PM
If Dan O'Brien was able to turn Moseley into Ortiz, I can't wait to see what he can do with Danny Graves!!!

guernsey
12-14-2004, 11:36 PM
See, all you have to do is look at the bright side! LOL

Nope. Not allowed ...

Redmachine2003
12-14-2004, 11:43 PM
Because most good General Managers know that W-L record isn't a good indicator on how good a pitcher is.
What is the most important stat in baseball? I have always thought it was wins and Losses. Just ask Randy Johnson about it right now or any player on a losing team. I bet all the GM's will tell you that too since most of their jobs depend on it.

Stormy
12-14-2004, 11:43 PM
I think the scary thing is that some of the people who didn't like the Lidle acquisition don't feel too bad about this one.

I hadn't noticed that, but agree it would be frightening.

The bottomline is that Ramon Ortiz has a 5.30ERA (and equally distressing peripheral statistical barometers) over his last 46 starts. If you feel those numbers merit $4+ million of our constrained budget, then you probably like this trade. You also probably also don't mind that for the price of Paul Wilson + Ramon Ortiz, we could have signed an exceptional free agent pitcher and still traded a guy like Moseley for a major league arm.

REDREAD
12-14-2004, 11:44 PM
ok, this is a historic moment..

GOOD JOB, DANO (seriously :MandJ: )

I've been thinking about this, and I don't understand why people are so upset.

1. Mosely has been off the Reds' radar. I'm willing to give the Reds' FO the benefit of the doubt now and assume Mosely would be no better than the other plentiful #5 starter types we have now. Not a big loss. Sure, he was one of our "top prospects", but this is the Reds, that doesn't mean much.

2. Ortiz would not have been nontendered. No chance. I'm willing to bet several other teams were interested. Decent starting pitching is scarce. Ortiz is no ace, but he's decent, and had trade value. Starting pitchers that are even slightly below average are simply never nontendered. Only the Haynes/Dempsters of the world are, in general. Heck, if push came to shove, Ortiz would've been kept as a bullpenner and shopped again in July.

3. Again, Ortiz is no Clement, but this is a HUGE upgrade to the rotation. Bye, bye Hancock. This could seriously be a 8-10 game swing in our W-L record, because Hancock has 2-18 potential.

4. It shows that the FO has a pulse. That they have enough pride to not field Wilson and 4 crapshoot rookies. It reversed the downward spiral a bit. The team now has the potential to actually improve in 2005, especially if they are in the running for a couple decent bullpen arms.

5. IMO, Jimmeniz is probably gone whether this trade is made or not. I agree it's stupid, but they seem heck-bent on putting Freel at 2b and Kearns at 3b.
We can only hope they're able to trade Jimmeniz before the 20th.

So, IMO, they gave up very little to get a 31 year old starter with upside. Sure, it's a risk, but at the level we are willing to spend at, we're going to have to take some risks.

I can see the arguement with Wilson+ Ortiz = payflex, but I almost think DanO was under orders from a higher power to get Wilson signed. For some reason, the Reds wanted to market/promote him as some kind of a hero.

Nice to see DanO did something other than get ice at the winter meetings. Good move, big upgrade in our rotation (mainly because Hancock was so awful), for little cost. Although I will miss Tmos and wish his son well.

For those that are panning the trade, how would you spend approx 4million that Ortiz will probably get? It's pretty slim pickings, and it's not like we are going to be that desirable to free agents. We have to get respectable before we can attract quality FA, IMO. This was a good step in the right direction, even if Ortiz ends up blowing in our face. The cost was certainly in line with the risk, IMO.

Rocket_Fuel
12-14-2004, 11:45 PM
Very solid deal by O'Brien, I like it. Ortiz has #2 talent and the Reds gave up basically nothing. Lets be truthful here, there are people who are suddenly falling in love with Moseley because of this deal. Dustin Moseley wasn't going to be in the Reds starting rotation. The guy likely topped off. The Reds have a proven starter, who has won 13 or more games 3 of the last 4 years, has a world championship ring and a proven track record. Now people are suddenly complaining about money? You can't have it both ways. People complain the Reds don't spend money, then they spend money, not a ton of money, decent money, or a solid, top shelf pitcher who could be a #2 pitcher, #1 for the Reds, and they only gave up a prospect who wasn't going to do squat for the Reds, and people are complaining?

Stormy
12-14-2004, 11:47 PM
What is the most important stat in baseball? I have always thought it was wins and Losses. Just ask Randy Johnson about it right now or any player on a losing team. I bet all the GM's will tell you that too since most of their jobs depend on it.

That's absurd. See, your stated rationale is exactly the kind of assertion that fools teams into re-signing Jimmy Haynes (because afterall he "Wins games") and in the process costs them money, budget and roster space and leaves them holding a bag when the guy returns to career norms and lays a 6.00+ERA 15 loss season on you. No offense, but that's just terrible analysis. You can like this trade, and make a solid case for why... but that sure isn't it. Ramon Ortiz won 16 games in spite of his ABYSMAL numbers, because he was the beneficiary of great Angels run support. Expecting him to do the same here is absolutely no different than expecting Jimmy Haynes to duplicate his 15 win season. How did that turn out?

Redmachine2003
12-14-2004, 11:49 PM
Nice post Redread I agree totally

Rocket_Fuel
12-14-2004, 11:49 PM
I swear I have visions of last offseason's Cory Lidle thread in my head right now.

Every pitcher isn't going to turn into Corey Lidle for the Reds. I mean, if people are going to use the Lidle deal that burned the Reds as a reason to NEVER make deals like that then, I'm sorry, the Reds are going nowhere. The Reds have been burned with guys like Lidle and Haynes. They have also been rewarded with guys like Dessens, Wilson and Harnish. And the best part is that Ortiz had ONE down year. If people are willing to trash him and pass up on him because of one down year after multiple good years then you know what? You would have given up on Freddy Garcia. Garcia had a couple of good to great years, had one down year and people were dumping on him like they're dumping on Ortiz. Then Garcia came alive and had a good year last year and people were clamoring for the Reds and others to get him. And Garcia is 30 years old. Ortiz is 31. Garcia is the perfect example of why you don't give up on a player after he has one down year.

Redmachine2003
12-14-2004, 11:51 PM
That's absurd. See, your stated rationale is exactly the kind of assertion that fools teams into re-signing Jimmy Haynes (because afterall he "Wins games") and in the process costs them money, budget and roster space and leaves them holding a bag when the guy returns to career norms and lays a 6.00+ERA 15 loss season on you. No offense, but that's just terrible analysis. You can like this trade, and make a solid case for why... but that sure isn't it. Ramon Ortiz won 16 games in spite of his ABYSMAL numbers, because he was the beneficiary of great Angels run support. Expecting him to do the same here is absolutely no different than expecting Jimmy Haynes to duplicate his 15 win season. How did that turn out?
If Wins and Losses are not important to you then don't complain about the Reds record and just sit back and enjoy the game.

REDREAD
12-14-2004, 11:51 PM
I think the scary thing is that some of the people who didn't like the Lidle acquisition don't feel too bad about this one.

Well, I'm one of those. I hated the Lidle signing, but I'm more optimistic about this one. I'm willing to eat my Rhubarb pie in July if I'm wrong though :)

Stormy
12-14-2004, 11:51 PM
Very solid deal by O'Brien, I like it. Ortiz has #2 talent and the Reds gave up basically nothing. Lets be truthful here, there are people who are suddenly falling in love with Moseley because of this deal. Dustin Moseley wasn't going to be in the Reds starting rotation. The guy likely topped off. The Reds have a proven starter, who has won 13 or more games 3 of the last 4 years, has a world championship ring and a proven track record. Now people are suddenly complaining about money? You can't have it both ways. People complain the Reds don't spend money, then they spend money, not a ton of money, decent money, or a solid, top shelf pitcher who could be a #2 pitcher, #1 for the Reds, and they only gave up a prospect who wasn't going to do squat for the Reds, and people are complaining?

So, you maintain that even though he posted a 5.20ERA as a Starter in 2003, then followed it with a 5.47ERA as a Starter in 2004 before being demoted to bullpen duty... that Ramon Ortiz is A #2 type starter who can be a legitimate #1 for the Reds? I'd love to understand that rationale.

RBA
12-14-2004, 11:56 PM
Bad Deal for Reds. Ortiz = Batting Practice Pitcher.

Stormy
12-14-2004, 11:56 PM
If Wins and Losses are not important to you then don't complain about the Reds record and just sit back and enjoy the game.

I leave that to you. You're always pleased with the Reds moves amidst 4 consecutive losing seasons, so I think it's more appropriate that you ignore the record and just sit back and enjoy the game. I'll stick to inquiring as to why we've spent nearly $7 million the past 2 years bringing in fodder pitchers with 5+ERAs, and terrible peripherals, as our primary offseason pitching acquisitions (Lidle/Ortiz).

REDREAD
12-15-2004, 12:00 AM
ESPN's scouting report:
Scouting Report

2003 Season
Hey, 16 wins. Pretty good, right? Ramon Ortiz became the first Angels righthander to win 16 games since 1989, the highlight of a deceptively poor year. In an otherwise sorry offensive season, the Angels provided Ortiz with the fourth-best run support of any American League pitcher. In return, he failed to complete six innings 14 times in 32 starts. His ERA leaped from 3.77 in 2002 to 5.20 last year.


Pitching
Ortiz struck out none in his one complete game, the single-most compelling statistic in noting the alarming drop in his strikeouts from 162 in 2002 to 94 last summer. He once complained, in April, of feeling "no power" in his arm, but beyond that, he and the Angels insisted no injury was evident. Nonetheless, the zip came and went on his fastball, his slider was effective but inconsistent and he had to be reminded to stop throwing his changeup so hard.


Defense
Ortiz made great strides in not letting one poor pitch or one questionable call rattle him, but he still isn't as calm as he should be when fielding, leading to needless errors. His pickoff move is better, but far from good, and even Gold Glove catcher Bengie Molina could throw out only one of the nine runners who tried to steal with Ortiz pitching.


2004 Outlook
Ortiz' father died in September after fighting emphysema for years, and Ortiz pitched with a heavy heart as the illness worsened. He vowed to dedicate the rest of his career to his late father. Ortiz, once dubbed "Pocket Pedro," is no Martinez, but can be a solid No. 2 or 3 starter when right. The Angels have a $5.5 million option on Ortiz for the 2005 season, so he must rebound this year to remain in Anaheim beyond 2004.

letsgojunior
12-15-2004, 12:05 AM
At least he'll fit in well with the rest of the Reds gopherball staff. :rolleyes:

gm
12-15-2004, 12:09 AM
Yessir, there are 30 GM jobs in MLB and at least 30 folks on here who think that it's childs play and they could do so much better

Yeah, surrre

I'm not saying DanO did right or screwed up this trade. Time will tell. I do observe that Moseley was sent to AA out of Sarasota last April and that was a loud/clear signal re: his standing in the system. Naehring mentions the FO's desire "to get younger" as far as prospects go, then a day later Dustin is gonzo. Now you'll see the Gardners and Paulys get their shot to impress. After a decade-long dearth of pitching prospects worth a sniff in trade discussions, Cincy actually parlays their very own drafted/developed arm into something of value. If no one else wants to mark this occasion, I'll take a moment and reflect upon the wonder of it.

...

It's possible that Ortiz would've been available in 6 days to sign as a FA. But it's more likely that he would've 1) been dealt to another team had DanO hesitated, or 2) signed with a different ballclub had he become a FA. The opportunity for the Reds was now, and they rolled the dice. 30-odd wanna-be GMs may not buy into it, but (at the end of the day) they'll still have their noses pressed up against the glass, looking in on the paid decision-makers building upon their oh-so-public track records

OldXOhio
12-15-2004, 12:09 AM
I agree that Reds management lacks the fortitude to work the trade market in that fashion, though my take is that's a fairly damning statement, the basic equivalent of saying the Reds are a rudderless ship.

.

Bingo. The appearance of a rudderless ship indeed and one that seems to lack the savvy necessary to incorporate any constructive change. Who knows, maybe Ortiz will exceed all expectations and OB will look like a genius for pulling this off. The reality of that statement is in the very uncertainty which underlies it - the Reds will continue to operate in this second rate, guessing game for the foreseeable future.

Ga_Red
12-15-2004, 12:11 AM
2/09/07

Redmachine2003
12-15-2004, 12:13 AM
I leave that to you. You're always pleased with the Reds moves amidst 4 consecutive losing seasons, so I think it's more appropriate that you ignore the record and just sit back and enjoy the game. I'll stick to inquiring as to why we've spent nearly $7 million the past 2 years bringing in fodder pitchers with 5+ERAs, and terrible peripherals, as our primary offseason pitching acquisitions (Lidle/Ortiz).
It is all part of baseball. Every team has it cycles some just longer than others. I fallow the Reds every day even if they are out of it because I love baseball and like to fallow young players like Dunn, Kearns, WMP and others to see how they develop and I also feel you can't judge a trade like this one until next year Ortiz could do great or could flop. Mosely could do the same. That is one thing great about baseball good stats don't always = wins and you can't make the playoffs unless you have enough wins. I seen alot of pitchers over the years that had good era's and losing records and some bad era's with winning records. Some pitches pitch just good enough to win and other pitch just good enough to lose. But to spend 7-10 mill dollars on pitchers who are no sure thing to win Like Clement, Perez, Ect is also crazy, But the market is like that because of the weak pitching market this year.

letsgojunior
12-15-2004, 12:14 AM
Yessir, there are 30 GM jobs in MLB and at least 30 folks on here who think that it's child play and they could do so much better

Yeah, surrre



Since when did expressing frustration with a trade equate with arrogance?

You were constantly making similar remarks during the Bowden era (and justifiably so). Why is it not allowed now?

Puffy
12-15-2004, 12:25 AM
I think the scary thing is that some of the people who didn't like the Lidle acquisition don't feel too bad about this one.

:wave:

Listen, Ramon Ortiz has stuff, which Lidle did not. I am so sick of the Reds throwing out 11 guys (5 starters and 6 relievers) who are all stuff challenged and who throw the same stuff challenged crap.

Ortiz has a fastball. Ortiz can strike a hitter out when he needs do. Ortiz is not a groundball pitcher on a team with bad infield defense.

I shed no tears over losing Mosely. Ortiz might not work out. But I would rather O'Brien go after pitchers with stuff rather than 85 mph sinker ball pitchers and 85 mph slop throwers. The rotation needs some diversity, this adds a bit of that. Hudson adds a bit of that.

Do I think Ortiz is a number 1 starter? No way. But he is better than Hancock and that makes me happy. He is better than Harang and that makes me happy.

Now, if Dan O would just go after Gil Meche and make him the closer, that would really make me happy.

gm
12-15-2004, 12:32 AM
Since when did expressing frustration with a trade equate with arrogance?

You were constantly making similar remarks during the Bowden era (and justifiably so). Why is it not allowed now?

Wrong. I never stated or implied that I could do a better job than Bowden. Neither have I called any fellow poster "arrogant" (at least, not since the days of Richard Hand...) I do point out that there's a culture of sports fans who cross the line regularly from "active rooting" to "show him the door!" If you want to take the Philadelphia road to caustic complaining, I have no means to prevent you. Just don't expect me to join the pile.

SteelSD
12-15-2004, 12:37 AM
Every pitcher isn't going to turn into Corey Lidle for the Reds. I mean, if people are going to use the Lidle deal that burned the Reds as a reason to NEVER make deals like that then, I'm sorry, the Reds are going nowhere. The Reds have been burned with guys like Lidle and Haynes. They have also been rewarded with guys like Dessens, Wilson and Harnish. And the best part is that Ortiz had ONE down year. If people are willing to trash him and pass up on him because of one down year after multiple good years then you know what? You would have given up on Freddy Garcia. Garcia had a couple of good to great years, had one down year and people were dumping on him like they're dumping on Ortiz. Then Garcia came alive and had a good year last year and people were clamoring for the Reds and others to get him. And Garcia is 30 years old. Ortiz is 31. Garcia is the perfect example of why you don't give up on a player after he has one down year.

Ramon Ortiz has never had a "great" year. In fact, he's never had a season that's approached Cory Lidle's peak year(s) (yes, plural) in terms of effectiveness. Nor is Freddy Garcia anything near a comp for Ortiz. You can clearly see that in the K/9IP rate as well as Ortiz' OPS Against versus Garcia.

Ortiz' composite .800 OPS Against over the last two seasons would have ranked him 70th out of 86 MLB ERA qualifiers in 2004. Paul Wilson and Cory Lidle ranked 54th and 56th respectively in that department, and we're not even factoring in the concept that Ortiz produced much better numbers out of the pen than he did as a SP in 2004. In fact, Ortiz' SP numbers from 2004 combined with his 2003 data would have probably resulted in a ranking somewhere around 80th in 2004. There are only 86 pitchers on that list.

In short, there is no hope that Ramon Ortiz will be anything better than the chaff we had to deal with in the rotation last season. Angels management is most likely giving themselves (and each other) backslaps for being able to pawn him off on someone before they had to non-tender the guy.

The sad fact of the matter is that Cory Lidle was a better bet to help the Reds going into 2004 than Ramon Ortiz in 2005. And we lost at least one resource for the opportunity to give Ortiz a lot more money than we signed Lidle for last year while giving up nothing. We may lose two resources if Jimenez is non-tendered because of the what the Reds will be paying Ortiz next season.

This would have been a stinker of a FA signing. But it's an even more putrid considering the resource cost to the Reds. And it's pretty much confirmed, to me, that Dan O'Brien has nary a clue about talent evaluation.

Phhhl
12-15-2004, 12:39 AM
Sporting News SCOUTING REPORT: RHP Ramon Ortiz's slight build requires him to use maximum effort to get his fastball to 94 mph. This causes him to lose his mechanics, which flattens out his slider, his out pitch. When Ortiz is on, his stuff is among the best in the A.L., but he needs to concentrate more.--Dong Miller

CBS Sportsline SCOUTING REPORT Ramon Ortiz, RHP

"Little Pedro's got big stuff. It will be very interesting to see what they do with him during the playoffs, whether he pitches second or fourth. It's a wait-and-see with him. You know his stuff is going to be there, but in the playoffs, you cannot put the ball over the middle of the plate like in the normal season. Giving up a two-run homer in the sixth inning sometimes is no big deal in the normal season. You can't do that in playoffs -- and he did it a lot in the season. Outside of (closer Troy) Percival, that's the best stuff on the staff."

Chip R
12-15-2004, 01:00 AM
I disagree with this very premise. Some wanted #1, all wanted #2, #3 has so many meanings that's it's really not an accomplishment. Even so, the three aren't mutually exclusive which is what is implied by the notion that this trade accomplished all three so we should be happy. I think people wanted them to spend more money, but spend it in proportion to just how good the said pitcher is. Spending $4MM+ on Oritz is not what anyone who wanted the Reds to spend more money and get better pitching had in mind. And I also don't think Ortiz really qualifies as a "better starter."
Some people didn't want the Reds to spend more money? I don't know where you have been hanging out at but here on RedsZone, the people who would have been satisfied with a lower payroll or the same payroll either didn't post much or at all. I realize that a high payroll and a winning record don't necessarily go hand in hand. But I think a lot of people like to see the Reds actually going out and spending a little money on a pitcher instead of calling a kid up out of AAA or going with the status quo (read: cheap) or going with a guy like Jeriome Robertson. Ortiz may be a bust but these people at least feel the Reds are trying to put a major league staff out there. Not everyone who buys tickets to the games analyzes a trade like this on how good a pitcher Ortiz is. They just are happy that the Reds actually are paying another starting pitcher over the minimum. DanO could have brought in Chan Ho Park and they would have been delirious because he's making a ton of money and the Reds actually did something. Bringing in Park doesn't improve the pitching, however. Bringing in Ortiz does. You cannot tell me he's not a better pitcher than Claussen or Hancock or possibly Harang. Tell you the truth, I think Claussen's going to end up being the odd man out. And that may not be a bad thing. Maybe he should stay away from Gullett until DanO gets a new pitching coach. I think Hancock pitched well enough last year to be considered the #4 guy before they signed Ortiz. Now maybe he and Claussen fight it out for the 5th spot. Claussen's got the advantage of being a lefty but Hancock has actually performed well against some good teams and DanO traded for him.

I'm curious, though, on which starter the Reds could have traded for who would have cost $4M and only had to give up a minor league pitcher. It would most likely have to be a trade since the only free agents who want to come here are relievers who live close by. As I said before, I would have liked to have seen DanO not re-sign Wilson and use his money and Ortiz' money to go after a Clement or a Perez. But there's no guarantee either would have wanted to come here. They could go anywhere, so why here? We could have offered them $8M but most other teams could not only match that offer but offer more. In reality, there aren't many good starters out there making $4M who we could have had for a pitcher like Moseley.

M2
12-15-2004, 01:04 AM
Every pitcher isn't going to turn into Corey Lidle for the Reds. I mean, if people are going to use the Lidle deal that burned the Reds as a reason to NEVER make deals like that then, I'm sorry, the Reds are going nowhere. The Reds have been burned with guys like Lidle and Haynes. They have also been rewarded with guys like Dessens, Wilson and Harnish.

Stormy covered a lot of this, but the reason why Lidle and Haynes come up is because the Reds are making the same mistake they made with those two pitchers -- paying too much money for guys who've put up plenty of warning signs that they're not worth the cash.

So, yes, they should NEVER make deals like this.

They were rewarded with guys like Dessens, Haynes (2002) and Harnisch (I refuse to include Wilson in that group because I'm not going to call a guy with a below average ERA and well under 200 IP a reward), but they paid a grand total of $1.275M to acquire all three of those guys. Those are examples of successful bottom fishing. I'd have no problem if the Reds bottom-fished Ortiz. It's this business of paying multimillions to pitchers who wind up being no better than guys you can find for $500K that irks me. Guys like this you grab when they're cheap, see if you can wring something out of them and then let 'em go when they start to cost you money. Then, if need be, you go back to the mud flats you found 'em in to get another.

Some pitchers are going to be non-tendered in a week (personally I think the Angels would have been nuts to offer arbitration to Ortiz and pay him around $4M to be their #6 starter). Others are going submit arbitration figures that make their cash-strapped employers gag. The Reds blew $8M on Wilson and Ortiz before these markets even opened. To re-use an analogy, it's like sitting down to play poker and going all in on a pair of sixes within your first few hands.

BTW, take another look at Ortiz's career stats. He got only one good year, not only one bad year.

Cedric
12-15-2004, 01:09 AM
This trade still makes absolutely no sense to me. I've been trying to figure it out since it went down and still can't. Giving 4+ plus million to Ortiz alone is a stretch, tossing in a pitcher that has an actual history of not getting injured and has shown decent numbers makes zero sense.
The Angels were NOT going to tender Ramon Ortiz, basically we made this trade to avoid a bidding war that probably wasn't going to even happen? Is Ramon Ortiz that good that you start worrying about who you are going to bid against and flip a prospect with some semblance of a future?

gm
12-15-2004, 01:13 AM
Sporting News SCOUTING REPORT: RHP Ramon Ortiz's slight build requires him to use maximum effort to get his fastball to 94 mph. This causes him to lose his mechanics, which flattens out his slider, his out pitch. When Ortiz is on, his stuff is among the best in the A.L., but he needs to concentrate more.

This analysis reminded me of Acevedo. Good stuff; lacks focus.

NC Reds
12-15-2004, 01:16 AM
The Reds won't have a quality pitching staff until we start developing our own starters in the minors. It irks me that a 22 yr old with some success at AAA/AA is being moved for a 32 yr old that was going to be on the market soon.

Will Jimenez be tendered a contract now? Did the Reds give up Moseley and Jimenez for a starter the Angels did not want?

jrdunnit
12-15-2004, 01:19 AM
i agree totally.(with chip).first look at the hot commodities.milton had almost 5 era with 43 hrs.clement has been inconsistent,pavano...lets see if he can do it again.national league knows nothing on ortiz and just read where he gave rocket his second loss last season with 6 ip o er at houston.russ ortiz wasnt a true #1 and pedro is not pedro of old so maybe this will work.
i would like to know why some on this board cant stand hancock.based on their performance last year , i would see hancock as #5 with claussen in l-ville unless he has a super spring.
they say one way to see how good someone is , is to see how they do when facing a team twice in a short time period.hancock had 2 starts against stl and 2 against cubs like that and all 4 were quality starts.he was 3-0 with a no decision(blown save) in those 4.claussen needs to work on not being at 70 pitches in 4th inning.
the guys on baseball tonite used to joke about reds elmer dessens not getting respect because of his name.....elmer
i think if josh hancocks name was jose henahua people might think "wow he may be decent"

tom browning
12-15-2004, 01:30 AM
Bad trade.
We traded a young pitcher who might blossom into a good mlb player for a guy whos had one good year and hes 31. He was moved to the bullpen because he basically sucks. His last year as a starter he had an era of 5.20 in 32 starts.

Hes had an era below 4.00 ONCE in his entire career. His lifetime era is 4.60
His wins record is inflated by playing on good teams. His best year was the year they went to the series.

Hes garbage. Typical Reds garbage starter. He was cut losse by the angels who offered him a 100k buyout rather then have him on their roster anymore.
I dont care whether or not Moseley pans out, cause thats not the point. The point is, he has a better chance of being a good mlb pitcher then the bust we got in return.

tom browning
12-15-2004, 01:32 AM
This trade still makes absolutely no sense to me. I've been trying to figure it out since it went down and still can't. Giving 4+ plus million to Ortiz alone is a stretch, tossing in a pitcher that has an actual history of not getting injured and has shown decent numbers makes zero sense.
The Angels were NOT going to tender Ramon Ortiz, basically we made this trade to avoid a bidding war that probably wasn't going to even happen? Is Ramon Ortiz that good that you start worrying about who you are going to bid against and flip a prospect with some semblance of a future?


Exactly. This was a STUPID trade. I am now convinced OB has got to go.

Buckeye33
12-15-2004, 01:34 AM
The Angels were NOT going to tender Ramon Ortiz, basically we made this trade to avoid a bidding war that probably wasn't going to even happen?

A lot of people keep saying the the Angels wouldn't have tender him (no one knows for sure) which would have made him a FA. And everyone just assumes the Reds would have had no problem signing him for 2.5 million/year. That would not have happened. No, there wouldn't have been a bidding war, but someone would have paid Ortiz 4+ million/year to pitch for them. Which means the Reds would not have him as a pitcher.

Starting pitchers don't make 2 million dollars per year anymore. If you can post an ERA under 5 in the AL, you're going to make 3-5 million/year. It's stupid, but it's the truth.

Now, for eveyone who says the Reds are dumb to trade a 22 year old righty who throws 89-91, with 1 decent half a season at AAA for a ML pitcher who has at least got some decent stuff, who would you have rather spent 4 million/year on?? And please be realistic.

Cedric
12-15-2004, 01:34 AM
Acevado doesn't have good stuff, how in the hell that rumor started is beyond me. The guy throws a straight 92 fastball and a flat slider. He isn't good nor ever will be. I forgot to mention the worst part about this trade if it goes down, non tendering DJ because of this.

Cedric
12-15-2004, 01:35 AM
I'd much rather use the money to lock up Dunn or to at least have some flexibility with it. Or not sign Wilson in the first place and take a gamble on Clement, Perez, or someone like that. Signing Ortiz for one year and hoping he does well enough to trade in July just seems lame to me. I would much prefer Dunn long term.

And no offense Buckeye33 but 4 million is about right where the Reds are going to pay him this year. He made 3.5 last year I believe and in arbitration he will get a raise. So basically we flipped a serviceable prospect for no reason and lost four million dollars we could have spent on Dunn. If this causes us to not tender DJ I think everyone will realize how stupid it is.

M2
12-15-2004, 01:36 AM
Wrong. I never stated or implied that I could do a better job than Bowden. Neither have I called any fellow poster "arrogant" (at least, not since the days of Richard Hand...) I do point out that there's a culture of sports fans who cross the line regularly from "active rooting" to "show him the door!" If you want to take the Philadelphia road to caustic complaining, I have no means to prevent you. Just don't expect me to join the pile.

Uh, you were pretty Philly back before 1999 and early in that season. Near as I could tell, you wanted everyone on that team, save Pokey Reese and Ed Taubensee, shown the door. To your credit, you were trying to start a pile more than join one and you recognized fairly quickly that the team was a lot better than you'd thought. In fact, some of my favorite moments from that season were from the heat of the pennant race and posting with you on the old Fastball site about how cool the whole thing was.

I wouldn't call your position that Bowden needed to be canned "caustic complaining," but you were strident in how you thought his personality was damaging the organization.

Now, I never had a problem with you posing those arguments, though I agreed with neither (I wanted Bowden canned because he started losing the talent game in overwhelming fashion, not because I thought he was a front office cancer). You're an articulate and intelligent guy, you make your case, you don't dance around the edge of your opinions. I respect that. BTW, this is a great place to do that as it's a forum devoted to discussing Reds baseball and what you think about it. When they make a trade, if you happen to like or dislike it and have a reason why, this would be the ideal place make those thoughts known.

I don't think I'm letting any cats out of any bags by noting it's been a long four years and that for as frequently as folks who don't like a given trade or set of moves have to face the baseless contention that they secretly hate the Reds/are just saying that to make themselves look good/like to complain/insert additional dime store pop psychology analysis here, most of what the Reds have been doing over that time has failed. This move happens to follow a similar vein of other failed recent moves.

Me, I come here to talk about the Reds and baseball, which I assume is typical of most posters. When I like something they do, I say so and why. When I don't like something they do, I say so and why. I assume that's typical of most posters here. I haven't liked the bulk of what they've done in recent years and I've gotten used to getting knocked for it.

But I'd like to think you know better than to characterize Reds fans who want to see the franchise do better and dislike the direction they see it taking as bad people (which is how I read your comments). I'd think you'd have some sympathy for that point of view, even if you don't agree with the particulars, and I think you're better than that.

SteelSD
12-15-2004, 01:39 AM
i would like to know why some on this board cant stand hancock.based on their performance last year , i would see hancock as #5 with claussen in l-ville unless he has a super spring.
they say one way to see how good someone is , is to see how they do when facing a team twice in a short time period.hancock had 2 starts against stl and 2 against cubs like that and all 4 were quality starts.he was 3-0 with a no decision(blown save) in those 4.claussen needs to work on not being at 70 pitches in 4th inning.

To answer your primary question, Josh Hancock posted a .856 OPS Against while giving up an astounding 14 HR in 54.2 Innings Pitched. That's beyond putrid.

During his minor league career, Hancock has allowed more Hits than IP, has put up pretty low K/IP rates, and simply hasn't done much of anything while pitching against players younger than him every step of the way.

The more Hancock pitches against teams, the more he's going to be brutalized. It's just not a good situation.

RedlegJake
12-15-2004, 01:41 AM
Moseley is not a pitcher to build the future on. I don't think he was part of the Reds' plans, either, so what this is is an attempt to get a guy who will be better than a lot of the guys we have, who costs a bit but doesn't exactly break the bank - especially a couple years down the road (as long as the Reds don't get real stupid and overpay him if he has a decent couple seasons here). It fits my contention that the real intent of DO is a 2008-2010 timetable with Bailey, Pauly, Gardner, new draft picks and maybe a Claussen/Nelson holdover on the mound, and an offense led by Votto, EE & 1 of the current 3 - WMP, AK or Dunn. I'm betting the thinking is this helps a bit short term, doesn't involve anything that damages the long term and gives the impression something is being done now. After the ballyhooed plan of a "rebuilt" team to open GAB with failed so miserably, there's no way the Reds are going to come out and say 'we're not really aiming at winning right now'.

Now if they trade a Gardner, or Pauly or Votto type prospect for Ortiz like results then I'll be upset.

What we got is a starter to replace Hancock initially, a guy who has a chance to be much better than JH, but who probably won't be. In his new Van Poppel role, though, Hancock might be pretty decent. The deal deepens the pen then, while adding a starter. So now the Reds can claim some depth of mediocrity. That's the best praise I can find for the deal. I neither like it or dislike it. It's like treading water - no, you're not drowning but you're not moving out of the deep end either.

M2
12-15-2004, 01:41 AM
I forgot to mention the worst part about this trade if it goes down, non tendering DJ because of this.

Well that meets my criteria for Springer furniture tossing time (credit to chili), but let's hope that doesn't happen.

RedlegJake
12-15-2004, 01:52 AM
To answer your primary question, Josh Hancock posted a .856 OPS Against while giving up an astounding 14 HR in 54.2 Innings Pitched. That's beyond putrid.

During his minor league career, Hancock has allowed more Hits than IP, has put up pretty low K/IP rates, and simply hasn't done much of anything while pitching against players younger than him every step of the way.

The more Hancock pitches against teams, the more he's going to be brutalized. It's just not a good situation.

Not to mention his 1.300+ OPS against when the bases are full, the horrific dropoff in numbers after 75 pitches, and the high BB/K rate to go along with the low overall K/9IP ratio. In Ortiz 2002, he allowed about 1.7 homers every 9 innings - that's not good. Hancock allowed nearly 2.5 homers per 9 innings last year. In a Van Poppel role he may have some utility - but I'd rather see Bong in Cincy and Josh at Louisville.

Carter
12-15-2004, 01:55 AM
Can he pitch?

SteelSD
12-15-2004, 01:59 AM
Not to mention his 1.300+ OPS against when the bases are full, the horrific dropoff in numbers after 75 pitches, and the high BB/K rate to go along with the low overall K/9IP ratio. In Ortiz 2002, he allowed about 1.7 homers every 9 innings - that's not good. Hancock allowed nearly 2.5 homers per 9 innings last year. In a Van Poppel role he may have some utility - but I'd rather see Bong in Cincy and Josh at Louisville.

Y'know, just the adept use of statistics in that post makes me tear up.

And you're completely right. If the choice between Ortiz and Hancock were a movie title, the billboard outside would read...

"Homerun or Homerunerer"

gonelong
12-15-2004, 02:12 AM
For the told-you-so's that come out next year, put me on the side of yuck for this trade. Losing Mosely is not that big a deal IMO, but Ortiz isn't progress either.

GL

tom browning
12-15-2004, 02:47 AM
Bad trade.
We traded a young pitcher who might blossom into a good mlb player for a guy whos had one good year and hes 31. He was moved to the bullpen because he basically sucks. His last year as a starter he had an era of 5.20 in 32 starts.

Hes had an era below 4.00 ONCE in his entire career. His lifetime era is 4.60
His wins record is inflated by playing on good teams. His best year was the year they went to the series.

Hes garbage. Typical Reds garbage starter. He was cut loose by the angels who offered him a 100k buyout rather then have him on their roster anymore.
I dont care whether or not Moseley pans out, cause thats not the point. The point is, he has a better chance of being a good mlb pitcher then the bust we got in return.


what scares me most is...
Reds general manager Dan O'Brien said the acquisition of Ortiz gives the team's rotation ``a step forward in credibility.''
Umm with who would that be dano? Your kidding right? This guy is a 5th at best on most teams. Is this a joke?

``We have been pursuing Mr. Ortiz for months, (god only knows why) '' O'Brien said. ``We sensed he might be available at some point. (what clued you to that dano? would it be that the Angels thought he sucked enough to offer him 100k just to get rid of him??) His success (thanks to playing on a actual contender ) has been as a starting pitcher(where he preceded to stink so bad with a 5.20 ERA the Angels moved him to relief) , accumulating 200 innings ( and alot of dingers) and putting up double-digit wins (and a very ugly 4.60 lifetime ERA) for a successive number of years.

``We feel it's a very simple (only the thought process behind this trade) case of (a bad trade) putting him back into the role in which he's traditionally (done the most damage) been very successful ( in getting rocked). Obviously, we're committed ( you should be for doing this) to (screwing this team up even more )doing that.''


Ryan Dempster anyone?
Blah this trade makes me ill.

Ravenlord
12-15-2004, 03:04 AM
yet another guy who is much better suited to be strong bp guy. at least this one can eat innings though.

Raisor
12-15-2004, 06:59 AM
Some pitches pitch just good enough to win and other pitch just good enough to lose.


:dflynn:

redsfanmia
12-15-2004, 07:00 AM
Lighten up! Ortiz is the second best starter we have now. He is a solid pitcher, no he is not going to win 20 games but he will eat innings and get 10 to 12 wins. I think it was a good move, very low risk we can deal him at the trading deadline for a prospect just like Moseley. This trade at least shows me that the GM has a pulse!

Ravenlord
12-15-2004, 07:10 AM
Some pitches pitch just good enough to win and other pitch just good enough to lose

Player W-L ERA IP K BB H HR
A 5-9 2.71 162.2 118 61 144 15
B 11-15 3.00 203.2 152 63 177 13
C 12-15 3.58 256.2 214 104 196 30
D 15-9 5.10 160.2 99 64 180 23
E 13-9 5.28 202.2 114 57 252 35
F 9-5 5.56 126.1 74 41 153 21

so what you're saying is that you'd take D, E, and F over A, B, and C?

Ravenlord
12-15-2004, 07:30 AM
Lighten up! Ortiz is the second best starter we have now. He is a solid pitcher, no he is not going to win 20 games but he will eat innings and get 10 to 12 wins. I think it was a good move, very low risk we can deal him at the trading deadline for a prospect just like Moseley. This trade at least shows me that the GM has a pulse!
obviously, you haven't read the stat line.

http://anaheim.angels.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/ana/stats/ana_individual_stats_player.jsp?playerID=150009

creek14
12-15-2004, 08:01 AM
Reds land pitching help from Angels
Ortiz won 15 games for '02 Series champs

By the Associated Press

CINCINNATI | The Cincinnati Reds might have added a piece to their 2005 starting rotation Tuesday, acquiring right-hander Ramon Ortiz from the Anaheim Angels in exchange for minor league right-hander Dustin Moseley.

Ortiz, 31, was 5-7 with a 4.43 ERA in 14 starts and 20 relief appearances for the Angels last season.

Before last year, he had made all 123 of his big-league appearances as a starting pitcher. He won at least 13 games each of the previous three years and was 15-9 with a 3.77 ERA in 2002, helping the Angels win the World Series. He has a career record of 59-49 in 157 games.

The Angels declined to exercise the option year of their contract with Ortiz last month, giving him a $100,000 buyout instead of paying him $5.5 million for next year.

Reds general manager Dan O'Brien said the acquisition of Ortiz gives the team's rotation "a step forward in credibility."

"We have been pursuing Mr. Ortiz for months," O'Brien said. "We sensed he might be available at some point. His success has been as a starting pitcher, accumulating 200 innings and putting up double-digit wins for a successive number of years.

"We feel it's a very simple case of putting him back into the role in which he's traditionally been very successful. Obviously, we're committed to doing that."

Moseley, who turns 23 later this month, split time with Double-A Chattanooga and Triple-A Louisville last season, going 5-6 with a 3.86 ERA in 20 starts. He was taken by the Reds as the 34th overall selection in the 2000 amateur draft.

creek14
12-15-2004, 08:08 AM
Reds deal for veteran Ortiz
Club ships prospect Moseley to Angels for right-hander

By John Fay
Enquirer staff writer

ORTIZ'S CAREER STATISTICS
A look at Ramon Ortiz's numbers since coming up in 1999.
Year W-L ERA IP H BB SO
1999 2-3 6.52 48.1 50 25 44
2000 8-6 5.09 111.1 96 55 73
2001 13-11 4.36 208.2 223 76 136
2002 15-9 3.77 217.1 188 68 162
2003 16-13 5.20 180.0 209 63 94
2004 5-7 4.43 128.0 139 38 82

The Reds abandoned their build-for-the-future mode Tuesday and made a move with 2005 in mind.

The Reds obtained starting pitcher Ramon Ortiz from the Anaheim Angels for pitching prospect Dustin Moseley.

"To acquire a pitcher of this caliber, who is potentially under our control for another two years, and insert him in our rotation is a step forward in terms of credibility," Reds manager Dan O'Brien said.

Ortiz, a 31-year-old right-hander, is coming off a rough year. He went 5-7 with a 4.43 ERA in 34 games, including 14 starts.

The Reds are hoping 2004 was an aberration. Ortiz put up double-digit numbers in wins from 2001-03 when he was used exclusively as a starter.

The Reds think by returning him to the rotation they can get Ortiz back to that form.

"The most important focus is the role," O'Brien said. "His success has been as a starting pitcher, accumulating 200 innings and putting up double-digit wins for a successive number of years."

His best year was 2002 - the Angels' world championship season - when he went 15-9 with a 3.77 ERA and won a game in both the American League Championship Series and the World Series.

The Angels used him in a swing role last season after he was ineffective as a starter early on.

"We feel it's a very simple case of putting him back into the role in which he's traditionally been successful," O'Brien said. "Obviously, we're committed to doing that."

Reds manager Dave Miley has Ortiz penciled in the No. 2 spot for now.

"If you look at his resume and the numbers he put up going into the '04 season," Miley said, "he goes right up there to the top of the rotation, along with Paul Wilson.

"All the reports I know about him are all definite positives," Miley added.

Ortiz made $3.1 million last season in the first year of a two-year contract. The Angels had a club option for $5.5 million, but they exercised a $100,000 buyout instead.

Ortiz is arbitration-eligible for 2005 and '06.

There's a chance the Angels could have non-tendered him and he would have become a free agent Monday. The Reds conceivably could have signed him then - without giving up Moseley.

Ortiz will make at least $3.5 million next season. So acquiring him means the Reds are going to bump the payroll into the $55 million range or they are going to non-tender D'Angelo Jimenez, who is due to make about $2.5 million.

A decision on Jimenez must be made by Monday.

The Reds are going to get a read on the Austin Kearns-to-third experiment today when Kearns comes to Cincinnati for a workout. If he looks good, the Reds probably will go into spring training with him at third base. That would allow Ryan Freel to play second base, and for Jimenez to be non-tendered.

The Reds have sought Ortiz for some time.

"To tell you the truth, we've been pursuing him for months," O'Brien said. "He was in a swing role last year after starting his whole career. We had a sense he might be available."

The Reds are convinced Ortiz's stuff is as good as it was from 2001-03, when he went 44-33 and averaged 201 innings a year.

"It's the same as it's always been," O'Brien said. "We had multiple scouts look at this player. We still feel he has plus stuff."

One troubling stat: Ortiz gave up a lot of home runs even when he was pitching well. He allowed 40 in 2002. That's not good for a pitcher whose home park is Great American Ball Park.

Moseley, 22, was a first-round pick (34th overall) in 2000. He went 3-2 with a 2.66 ERA at Double-A Chattanooga and 2-4 with a 4.65 ERA at Triple-A Louisville this season.

"As much as we have high regard for Dustin Moseley, the fact of the matter is it will be a couple of years before he emerges on the major-league scene," O'Brien said.

TUNE IN OR DROP IN
The Reds Hot Stove League show will be broadcast tonight live from the Reds' Hall of Fame and Museum. The one-hour show, hosted by Marty Brennaman and Steve Stewart, begins at 6 p.m. and is broadcast on WLW-AM (700). Doors open at 5:30 p.m. Admission is free.

creek14
12-15-2004, 08:11 AM
Reds' first move of winter produces starting pitcher

By Marc Lancaster
Post staff reporter

Since the day after the Reds fired Jim Bowden and Bob Boone nearly 17 months ago, virtually all of the club's transactions have been geared toward raking in prospects and getting younger, especially on the pitcher's mound.
Tuesday, in a move general manager Dan O'Brien said was months in the making, the Reds turned their own conventional wisdom around by acquiring veteran starter Ramon Ortiz from the Anaheim Angels for 22-year-old pitching prospect Dustin Moseley.

The trade did two things the Reds didn't seem inclined to do this offseason, adding experience and depth to the starting rotation and increasing the payroll.

Ortiz, 31, joins Paul Wilson at the front end of what was shaping up to be a very youthful rotation, becoming the group's most decorated pitcher in an instant. A member of the Angels' organization since he signed out of his native Dominican Republic in 1995, Ortiz has been a full-time major leaguer the last four seasons.

From 2001-03, Ortiz went 44-33 with a 4.40 ERA, starting 32 games in each of those years. His best season came in 2002, when he went 15-9 with a 3.77 ERA and four complete games as the Angels won the World Series.

Ortiz fell victim to a surplus of pitchers in Anaheim last season and was shunted back and forth from the rotation to the bullpen, making 14 starts and the first 20 relief appearances of his professional career. He went 5-7 with a 4.43 ERA and made it clear on several occasions that he'd rather be elsewhere in the starting rotation.

He'll get his wish with the Reds, who believe the way Ortiz was used in Anaheim last year was the primary factor in the end of the pitcher's three-year string of swallowing innings and racking up wins.

"His success has been as a starting pitcher, accumulating 200 innings and putting up double-digit wins for a successive number of years," said O'Brien. "We just feel it's a very simple case of putting him back in the role where he's traditionally been successful, and obviously we're committed to doing that."

That commitment will cost the Reds some money -- more than they had appeared prepared to spend. Ortiz made nearly $3.3 million last season in the final guaranteed year of a contract signed in March 2002. Last month, the Angels declined his $5.5 million option for 2005.

Both the Reds and Ortiz's agent, Pat Roache, would prefer to avoid going through the divisive salary arbitration process, but both sides clearly see Ortiz as a valuable commodity. One with a new lease on life, at that.

"I talked to him today, and he's very, very happy about the situation," said Roache. "He's very happy about the trade and very much looking forward to coming to Cincinnati."

Roache pointed out that Ortiz's career statistics compare favorably to those of some of this winter's big-ticket pitchers, such as Carl Pavano, Matt Clement and Jaret Wright, even though Ortiz has less service time. Considering the market that has been established for those pitchers so far this offseason, it's likely Ortiz will be among the five highest-salaried Reds for 2005 when he signs.

Because he won't be eligible for free agency until after the 2006 season, though, Ortiz represents a relatively cost-effective option for the Reds, as long as they're willing to shoulder that cost. O'Brien said Tuesday that they are.

"There's no issue at all with the fact that this individual is a significant upgrade in our starting rotation and goes right to the front of the pack, so obviously our focus is on reaching an agreement with he and his representative for next year," said O'Brien. "We've had no dialogue with them on this topic, so I can't give you any indication of how that discussion will go."

O'Brien did, however, discount any notion that acquiring Ortiz will preclude the Reds from following through on their long-stated goal of adding a veteran reliever, or compel the team to cut loose players such as D'Angelo Jimenez or John Riedling strictly for financial reasons. The Reds must make a decision on their arbitration-eligible players by Monday, but O'Brien said keeping all of those players on the roster is definitely a possibility.

"I don't think the presence of Ortiz and whatever agreement we come to contractually is really going to have any bearing at all on any decisions we make regarding other players' status," said O'Brien. "We were prepared to add this individual to our payroll."

With Ortiz and Wilson now leading the rotation, there should be some legitimate competition in spring training for the remaining starting jobs. The four incumbents from last season -- right-handers Aaron Harang, Josh Hancock and Luke Hudson, along with lefty Brandon Claussen -- will now be vying for three slots. Add in the unknown, such as an unexpectedly strong spring by a minor-leaguer or non-roster invitee, and the Reds should have something to keep an eye on when they head to Sarasota two months from now.

Before Tuesday's deal, there was an outside chance Moseley might have been one of those pitchers on the fringe capable of making a push for the majors. A supplemental first-round pick (34th overall) in the 2000 draft, Moseley didn't sign until after that season. In his four years with the Reds organization, Moseley not only put together consistent numbers that included a 3.71 ERA, he also avoided undergoing major surgery -- a rarity for a Reds pitching prospect.

Baseball America rated Moseley the fourth-best prospect in the organization entering 2004, but the Reds didn't feel he could help them quickly enough.

"As much as we have high regard for Dustin Moseley, the fact of the matter is that it will probably be a couple of years before he emerges on the major league scene," said O'Brien.

The Angels don't need immediate help, particularly after signing free-agent starter Paul Byrd on Tuesday and remaining in the mix for Clement. Ortiz simply didn't fit into their picture for 2005, and they were pleased to take Moseley in return.

"We had quite a bit of interest in Ramon Ortiz," Angels general manager Bill Stoneman told reporters in California. "He's still got that live right arm."

The Reds, no doubt, are happy to have it.

redsandrails
12-15-2004, 08:17 AM
Not a bad trade....I'm quite happy actually....Ortiz has showed some ML success and he has more upside than Cory Lidle. A good veteran pitcher. I can see him posting about a 4.15 ERA and like 14 wins.

DoogMinAmo
12-15-2004, 08:28 AM
O'Brien did, however, discount any notion that acquiring Ortiz will preclude the Reds from following through on their long-stated goal of adding a veteran reliever, or compel the team to cut loose players such as D'Angelo Jimenez or John Riedling strictly for financial reasons. The Reds must make a decision on their arbitration-eligible players by Monday, but O'Brien said keeping all of those players on the roster is definitely a possibility.

"I don't think the presence of Ortiz and whatever agreement we come to contractually is really going to have any bearing at all on any decisions we make regarding other players' status," said O'Brien. "We were prepared to add this individual to our payroll."


If true, then I think all of us feel a lot better about the trade. While the quality has not improved, the consequences are surely not as dire as some suspected.

redsfanmia
12-15-2004, 08:49 AM
Obviosly you havent read the stat lines of the starting rotation of your Cincinnati Reds.

DoogMinAmo
12-15-2004, 08:52 AM
What about Bob seems to pop into my head: "Babysteps. Babysteps to get better pitching. Baby steps to winning more games. Baby steps to getting more fan support. Baby steps to a higher payroll. Baby steps."

puca
12-15-2004, 08:53 AM
Roache pointed out that Ortiz's career statistics compare favorably to those of some of this winter's big-ticket pitchers, such as Carl Pavano, Matt Clement and Jaret Wright, even though Ortiz has less service time. Considering the market that has been established for those pitchers so far this offseason, it's likely Ortiz will be among the five highest-salaried Reds for 2005 when he signs.


Please tell me they won't compound the mistake by signing him to a deal based on the current market. Please? He also is on the wrong side of thrity unlike those other guys.


"I don't think the presence of Ortiz and whatever agreement we come to contractually is really going to have any bearing at all on any decisions we make regarding other players' status," said O'Brien. "We were prepared to add this individual to our payroll."

He is not sure? Bad sign, it sounds to me like Allen or someone else will have the final say.



"As much as we have high regard for Dustin Moseley, the fact of the matter is that it will probably be a couple of years before he emerges on the major league scene," said O'Brien.

And obvioiusly we are gearing up to compete this year. If the Reds do have high regard for Dustin then they REALLY messed up.



We have been pursuing Mr. Ortiz for months," O'Brien said. "We sensed he might be available at some point. His success has been as a starting pitcher, accumulating 200 innings and putting up double-digit wins for a successive number of years.


Pitching 200 innings in a league with the DH is no real accomplishment. It just means he stayed healthy (can you say law of averages) and until last year wasn't horrible enough to be pulled from the rotation. I can't imagine two statistics I am less impressed with than innings and wins.



One troubling stat: Ortiz gave up a lot of home runs even when he was pitching well. He allowed 40 in 2002. That's not good for a pitcher whose home park is Great American Ball Park.



:eek:

traderumor
12-15-2004, 09:00 AM
Ok, had a night to sleep on the deal. One thing that strikes me about the reactions is "it doesn't fit with what the Reds are trying to do." Now, I am not crazy about Ortiz and was one who was excited about Lidle. So, there is at least one person that is skeptical that Ortiz will suddenly be able to keep the ball in the park or from rattling off the walls.

However, I do not think that trading one middling prospect like Moseley goes against the montra of "developing our own pitching." Argue all you want whether or not Ortiz is a good pitcher, but certainly no one really thinks that we should never trade a prospect for a veteran, esp. a suspect prospect. That is putting the FO in the same box folks say they do not want them to get in. Honestly, they got about what you would expect trading Moseley straight up. His value would have been greatest as part of a multi-player deal.

As for this affecting a LTC with Dunn, it shouldn't have any affect at all. The thing with Dunn is do you lock him up or let him get his raise through arbitration this year. Either way, they have already budgeted his raise. Any correlation to this deal and Dunn not being locked up is loose at best. However, knowing how the Reds seem to work, they may not see it that way.

Its effect on Jimenez? It sounds like they have their minds made up on that one, but aren't showing their hand yet. I'm sure if they non-tender him, this deal will be blamed whether or not that's the correct decision tree or not.

As for signing a Perez or Clement, I agree that we could have afforded one of them, I have to assume they tried and got no interest. Or they still have their head in the sand with regards to the higher priced FAs, who knows.

What do I think of the deal? Our staff still stinks, work still needs to be done in the bullpen, and Ortiz is not likely to change that. I do not think he made our staff any worse, but he also did nothing to dramatically improve it, either. He could indirectly improve the bullpen, though if he pushes a Josh Hancock type into the swing role instead of a regular in the rotation. Guess we'll hope he has another lucky year. However, some of the reasons given why its a bad deal I do not agree with. I think its a neutral deal and the Ortiz' of this world is what you get for $3.5M these days.