PDA

View Full Version : Sully to Chi Sox with $$$ For PTBNL



Pages : [1] 2

kyred14
08-21-2003, 10:16 PM
for PTBNL

It8ifyifitsgrif
08-21-2003, 10:17 PM
per Nuxxy on the radio

RosieRed
08-21-2003, 10:17 PM
Did Joe just say we sent them Sully AND cash??

BlfdVaFan
08-21-2003, 10:17 PM
To the White Sox for the infamous PTBNL

Big Klu
08-21-2003, 10:18 PM
According to George Grande, it is just a PTBNL. He didn't mention anything about cash.

Raisor
08-21-2003, 10:19 PM
Originally posted by Big Klu
According to George Grande, it is just a PTBNL. He didn't mention anything about cash.


Perhaps Uncle Carl stopped by the Argosy with the check on the way home.

HitByPitch
08-21-2003, 10:20 PM
maybe the PTBNL is Magglio

RosieRed
08-21-2003, 10:22 PM
As I understand it, we're sending the Sox cash.

SYCMiniBus
08-21-2003, 10:24 PM
sticking with the LHP pitcher theme here are some early names to look at (some reasonable some probably pipe dreams)
Corwin Malone (23) Not likely (probably has the most upside)
Neal Cotts (23) NOT GOING TO HAPPEN
Dave Sanders (24) most major league ready outside of Cotts
Ryan Wing (21)
Daniel Haigwood (19) In my opnion most likely
Josh Stewart (24)
Heath Phillips (21)
Dennis Ulacia (22)
Arnie Munoz (21)

Reds4Life
08-21-2003, 10:25 PM
Maybe the PTBNL is Mr. Pile O. Cash. ;)

VR
08-21-2003, 10:29 PM
after the previous acquisitions, it has to be Seymour Cash.

kyred14
08-21-2003, 10:35 PM
per mlb.com email:

REDS TRADE SULLIVAN
The Cincinnati Reds traded right-hander Scott Sullivan and cash
to the Chicago White Sox for a player to be named later.

maybe we get a top prospect?

RosieRed
08-21-2003, 10:35 PM
Originally posted by VR
after the previous acquisitions, it has to be Seymour Cash.

According to AP, WE are sending THEM the cash:


The Cincinnati Reds have traded reliever Scott Sullivan and cash to the Chicago White Sox for a player to be named.

TeamSelig
08-21-2003, 10:38 PM
If we're sending cash, I'll be that we're getting a top prospect. :thumbup:

RosieRed
08-21-2003, 10:45 PM
A longer AP story, but doesn't say much:

Reds trade Sullivan to White Sox
CHICAGO – The Chicago White Sox acquired reliever Scott Sullivan and cash from the Cincinnati Reds for a player to be named in a deal Thursday night between teams that have been exceptionally busy in the trade market.
Sullivan was 6-0 with a 3.62 ERA with the Reds in 50 relief appearances this season. The right-hander struck out 43 in 49 2-3 innings.
Sullivan left a team that began the day 13 games under .500 and joined a club in the thick of the AL Central race. The White Sox, Kansas City and Minnesota started the day within a half-game of each other.
“It will give us a different look and help keep hitters off-balance,” White Sox general manager Ken Williams said. “We were fortunate today to acquire someone that we think can help us in a grand fashion down in the bullpen.”
Sullivan was activated from the disabled list on Aug. 7. He’d been out since July 18 because of tendinitis in his right shoulder.
Sullivan was 37-24 with a 3.91 ERA in 494 appearances in nine seasons with the Reds.
The White Sox acquired second baseman Roberto Alomar from the New York Mets and outfielder Carl Everett from the Texas Rangers in separate deals on July 2. Chicago got left-handed reliever Scott Schoeneweis from Anaheim on July 29.
Since firing general manager Jim Bowden and manager Bob Boone on July 28, the Reds have traded away All-Star third baseman Aaron Boone, outfielder Jose Guillen and relievers Scott Williamson, Gabe White and Kent Mercker.

VR
08-21-2003, 10:46 PM
Originally posted by RosieRed
According to AP, WE are sending THEM the cash:

Yep, the Reds probably asked for Seymour and the Sox countered with Nomar Cash.

Raisor
08-21-2003, 10:48 PM
Originally posted by RosieRed
According to AP, WE are sending THEM the cash:

In related news, it was reported today that Hell has in fact frozen over.

Film at eleven.

:evilgrin:

Oxilon
08-21-2003, 10:48 PM
Does anybody else think Hell has frozen over?

I mean, it's one thing for the Reds to NOT get money in a deal. It's a completely different thing for them to send money.

It has to be a top prospect.

Oxilon
08-21-2003, 10:49 PM
Raisor,

Great minds think alike. :D ;)

Raisor
08-21-2003, 10:50 PM
Originally posted by Oxilon
Does anybody else think Hell has frozen over?



Why, now that you mention it..

;)

Raisor
08-21-2003, 10:51 PM
Originally posted by Oxilon
Raisor,

Great minds think alike. :D ;)

what's our excuse?










(Don't mind me, I'm in a weird mood tonight)

guernsey
08-21-2003, 10:51 PM
I'll take one Kris Honel, please.

Oxilon
08-21-2003, 10:52 PM
Well, I think it has something to do with listening to Joe Buck and Cris Collansworth on the Pre Season football game.

Why, I have no clue?

JaxRed
08-21-2003, 10:54 PM
The cash involved is most probably just Sullivan's salary for the rest of the year.

Wyatt Earp
08-21-2003, 10:56 PM
How about Joe Crede?


SEASON STATS | CAREER: BATTING | FIELDING
YEAR G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO SB CS BA OBP SLG OPS
2003 116 408 45 103 18 0 14 56 28 61 1 1 .252 .304 .400 .704
STAT BREAKDOWN
LAST 7 DAYS 4 13 1 6 1 0 1 4 1 1 0 0 .462 .500 .769 1.269
PROJECTED 148 520 57 131 23 0 18 71 36 78 1 1 .252 .304 .400 .704
CAREER 193 669 74 174 30 1 25 100 39 115 2 3 .260 .303 .420 .723
Through August 21, 2003 - Current stats updated real-time, Career stats updated nightly.

Oxilon
08-21-2003, 10:58 PM
Crede was one of their top prospects, but now he's in the majors for good.

Don't see them trading any top prospects, especially ones that are currently in the majors, but I see us getting a nice propect.

guernsey
08-21-2003, 10:58 PM
Originally posted by JaxRed
The cash involved is most probably just Sullivan's salary for the rest of the year.

I'll bet it's no more than the buyout on his option for '04, which has already been declined.

JaxRed
08-21-2003, 11:02 PM
I also wonder if they are going to address the offense. Do White Sox have an alternative to Crede?

Bill
08-21-2003, 11:05 PM
Sullivan was 37-24 with a 3.91 ERA in 494 appearances in nine seasons with the Reds.

I think it is safe to assume the Reds got the most they could from Sullivan.

Job well done Scott and enjoy the race :thumbup:

Oxilon
08-21-2003, 11:07 PM
Yeah, Scott will definitely be missed.

Sad to see him go.

Northern Red
08-21-2003, 11:23 PM
I'll bet we get Konerko back to play 3rd for the "future." :p

CougarQuest
08-21-2003, 11:28 PM
Originally posted by JaxRed
I also wonder if they are going to address the offense. Do White Sox have an alternative to Crede?

Valentin and Graffanino have played 3rd the last couple of years. Of course Konerko has played there also, but not since 2000. I think Crede has been injured {but not DL injured} lately.

CougarQuest
08-21-2003, 11:32 PM
Originally posted by guernsey
I'll bet it's no more than the buyout on his option for '04, which has already been declined.
That would be a $250,000 buyout.

CougarQuest
08-21-2003, 11:36 PM
Originally posted by Oxilon
Yeah, Scott will definitely be missed.

Sad to see him go.

Agreed and Agreed.

We knew it was coming, but it's still sad to see him go.

Bill
08-21-2003, 11:45 PM
Fans on a Sox board are guessing it could be Borchard. That seems unlikely but he has struggled not just in Chicago this year but also in AAA. Still I am surprised their fans are so quick to give up on him.

CougarQuest
08-21-2003, 11:47 PM
Originally posted by SYCMiniBus
sticking with the LHP pitcher theme ...

Since the departure of Bowden, the Reds have traded for 5 LHP and 4 RHP so far.

WebScorpion
08-22-2003, 12:27 AM
There goes the heart and soul of our magnificent bullpen. No matter how any pitcher in the 'pen is doing they can always look to Sully for an example of the quintessential reliever. Leading the league in relief innings pitched for 4 straight seasons, Scott was always ready, consistent, and full of fire. Don't expect the 'pen to do much for the rest of this season...it just lost its heart. Everyone knew he was going, but I don't think we realize how important he is to our bullpen as a whole. Good luck Sully! We'll miss you!

NC Reds
08-22-2003, 12:50 AM
I'll miss Sully too. :(

It's a shame Haynes and Graves have so damaged their value that they are untradeable. Those are the salaries to dump.

pedro
08-22-2003, 12:57 AM
Originally posted by Bill
Fans on a Sox board are guessing it could be Borchard. That seems unlikely but he has struggled not just in Chicago this year but also in AAA. Still I am surprised their fans are so quick to give up on him.

I hope not. The sporting news says Borchard is the #6 prospect in baseball but he's had a horrid year at AAA.

http://www.baseballamerica.com/cgi-bin/statsfindplayer.pl?player=borchard

6. Joe Borchard, OF, White Sox

Birthdate: 11/25/78. Borchard got a cup of coffee with the White Sox early, but he has otherwise had a bad season. He's still striking out too much, and his power numbers have been down at Class AAA.

I want pitching.

Oxilon
08-22-2003, 01:10 AM
Exactly why we want Borchard?

If we got Borchard, it'd mean we would either trade Casey and move Dunn to first or trade Griffey and move Kearns to center.

Hm.....

CougarQuest
08-22-2003, 01:17 AM
We don't need OF'ers.

The Reds were looking for a 3rd baseman right before they called up Freel.

The Reds stated they wanted young pitchers.

The Reds paid cash with Sullivan.

I'm expecting a good player in this trade for a position of need.

Bill
08-22-2003, 01:18 AM
I would not worry about Borchard. It was just their hunch. Another poster with an "inside source" said it was a player whom is on the 40 and has been up with the Sox but not now which would suggest Rauch, Borchard, Ginter, Sanders or Stewart. If it is Ginter the Reds will have nasty boys II along with Valentine and Wagner.

From the Chicago Trib (so Allen still saves ~ 300k):

Sullivan adds righty relief
Williams moves to fix pen weakness


By Teddy Greenstein
Tribune staff reporter

August 21, 2003, 11:58 PM CDT


The White Sox addressed their final glaring weakness Thursday night when they agreed to a deal with Cincinnati for reliever Scott Sullivan.

Sullivan figures to provide the Sox with the veteran right-hander they needed after losing Billy Koch to right elbow inflammation.

General manager Ken Williams said that even if Koch hadn't gone on the disabled list, the Sox would have made the deal.

"We've had an issue from the right side of the bullpen since before the trading deadline," Williams said.

"We thought we were close to a couple of things before the deadline and obviously they didn't materialize. So we were fortunate to acquire someone we think can certainly help in a grand fashion."

The Sox, who will give up a minor-league player to be named, have to pay only half of Sullivan's remaining salary of $596,000.

Sullivan, 32, went 6-0 with a 3.62 ERA in 50 appearances for the Reds. In 17 games since June 16, he has allowed just one run on 10 hits over 172/3 innings.

"He gives you a little different look, a little different angle," Williams said. "He's not a power guy. He's a sinker/slider guy who can help keep hitters off balance. He has proven to be a competitor who can get the job done."

The 6-foot-3-inch, 210-pound Sullivan leads all major-league relievers in innings pitched since 1997.

The Sox initiated the deal by claiming Sullivan off waivers. At that point, the Reds could have pulled him back or negotiated a trade.

Right-hander Jon Adkins was optioned to Triple-A Charlotte to make room for Sullivan.
Copyright © 2003, The Chicago Tribune

RedsBaron
08-22-2003, 06:30 AM
Originally posted by Bill


Right-hander Jon Adkins was optioned to Triple-A Charlotte to make room for Sullivan.
Copyright © 2003, The Chicago Tribune
I'm sorry to see Jon Adkins sent back to the minors. He is a graduate of my alma mater, Wayne [WV] High School, the son and nephew of some of my former teachers, and nephew of a guy I played baseball with. Jon has a cousin, Tim, who is also a Wayne High product and who is a minor league pitcher. I hope Jon and Tim both keep pursuing their major league dreams.

RedsBaron
08-22-2003, 06:44 AM
I don't really expect it to happen, but one thing I like about some of the Reds recent trades is that they have been trading away guys such as Sullivan and Guillen who will be free agents next year. In theory, the Reds, out of contention, can acquire young talent for guys like Sullivan and Guillen and still have a shot at reacquiring them as free agents after the 2003 season, which would be a case of eating your cake and having it too.

guernsey
08-22-2003, 07:46 AM
From the Post:



The player to be named will be Tim Hummel, a third baseman for the White Sox's Class AAA Charlotte affiliate, according to two industry sources who spoke on the condition of anonymity. One source said the cash was equal to roughly half Sullivan's remaining salary, a prorated share of $2.8 million.

knuckler
08-22-2003, 07:47 AM
The Post reports the PTBNL is 24-year-old 3B Tim Hummel. His stats at AAA Charlotte look decent, though not as flashy as (ahem) Brandon Larson. However, he has had reasonable plate discipline through his career and is several years younger than Larson. BA listed him as the Sox' #6 prospect in 2002 but he dropped off their top 10 list for 2003.

Sounds like a potential stopgap at 3B until Encarnacion is ready, and the beginnings of a competition among Branyan, Larson, and Encarnacio for the starting job next spring.

guernsey
08-22-2003, 07:48 AM
CHARLOTTE KNIGHTS Individual Statistics Thru Games of: 8/21/03 W-L Record: 68- 65
GI ---GAMES BY POSITION---
BATTERS AVG G AB R H TB 2B 3B HR RBI SH SF HP BB IB SO SB CS DP SLG OBP 1B 2B 3B SS OF C E
Hummel, Tim .284 126 468 72 133 209 25 3 15 78 10 4 4 45 2 82 9 3 10 .447 .349 0 6 97 30 0 0 13

guernsey
08-22-2003, 08:01 AM
From Team One Baseball:



2/21/2003 1:56:41 PM - 2003 Scouting Report
This guy needs some pub. Hummel played 2002 at Charlotte and hit .260 with 33 doubles and a .350 OBP while playing 4 positions and committing just 12 errors during the year. He has a steady if not unspectacular game and he’ll be a major league fixture if only because of his versatility- and I actually think his ceiling is a lot higher than just as a role player. Hummel finished 2002 by logging a .420 OBP in 110 AFL at bats.
A wiry player with a strong base, Hummel doesn’t look all that imposing from a distance but he’s actually a physical player with good baseball actions.

At the plate, he’s got a balanced stance with some crouch and a quiet start. His right swing is very direct and compact enough to yank inside fastballs. Despite his frame and compact swing, Hummel hasn’t run into much power but he has more than enough juice to knock pitches to the gaps. With some more bat extension, he might be able to launch with more frequency.

Hummel’s pitch recognition and zone management skills are improving and I really like the way he takes pitches- tracking them all the way into the catcher’s glove. I could see him in the 2-hole eventually.

Defensively, Hummel is quite valuable. He plays all the infield positions and I’m sure he’d be just fine in left if needed. Most of his reps have been at short but long term, he’ll probably see most of his innings at second or third.

Hummel has a chance this Spring. He’ll be 24 for the entire year.

JaxRed
08-22-2003, 08:24 AM
Like this pickup, gives up decent options at 3rd and SS. It also makes sense now that there was a hold up in obtaining a player, and Sullivan said front office delayed the trade until his child was born.

Now let's do the right thing and bring up Almanzar.

cincinnati chili
08-22-2003, 08:44 AM
Question: If it's Hummell, why would they bother with the player-to-be-named-later nonsense? Is he on the DL?

I figured that if it's a player to be named that it's either a) one from a list of players, b) a player who signed out of high school or college less than a year ago, c) a guy who's injured.

If it is Hummell, it's about the level of guy I'd expect to get from Sullivan. Hummell is probably going to be a non-impact major league hitter, as he's spent two years at triple a without breaking a .350 on base percentage. On the other hand, he's started to hit homers for the first time this year. So he has a chance to be a Jay Bell type of impact middle infielder. (Homers and a lot of sacrifice bunts).

Did anyone catch Sean Casey's quote: "for what Scott Sullivan brought, he was cheap. ... It's a sad day here for a lot of guys."

I don't agree with this at all.

Doc. Scott
08-22-2003, 08:45 AM
Well, those of you who thought the Reds would or should go after Joe Randa... little did you know. Not a bad pickup to get this guy instead of the actual Joe Randa, though.

LexingtonRedsFan
08-22-2003, 08:50 AM
This is from Top Prospect Alert's 2002 top 10 list for the white sox

3) Tim Hummel, 2B, 23yo (OBA: 1.1, LWP: 0.1, SPD: 1.1, EYE: 1.5)

The White Sox 2nd round pick in 2002, isn’t a "tools" favorite. He has little power, tends to be a step slow defensively and doesn’t have a canon for an arm. But he is the type of player that has the makeup to ensure success at the next level. He makes great contact and has a compact swing that will provide him gap power. He doesn’t have blazing speed, but his baseball instincts should allow him to steal 15 bases a year while hitting a ton of triples. His greatest skill is tremendous plate discipline that should make him a favorite of the OBA fans. Hummel is the type of ballplayer that winning organizations always seem to have. He should start the season at AAA, but I expect him to win a utility IF spot before the year is up. Being a little slow for SS and not possessing the arm for 3B, 2B looks like his eventual position and could force a Ray Durham trade as early as 2003. At his peak he will be an above average major league middle infielder, batting around .290 with a ton of doubles and triples and double digit homeruns.

So they dont think that he will be able to play 3b/SS and will have to be a 2b....

On the list, they had Joe Crede as the 4th best in the sox organization....

JaxRed
08-22-2003, 08:51 AM
Paper said they were trying to have him clear waivers. If he clears, Reds get him immediately, if he doesn't they wait till later.

TexasTea
08-22-2003, 08:52 AM
hasn't the trade deadline come and gone???

15fan
08-22-2003, 08:56 AM
Looks like having a baby is the most sure fire way to be dealt.

Williamson was moved to the Red Sox just a few days after his son was born.

Now Sullivan gets shipped to the south side of Chicago just a few days after his daughter was born.

Any of the remaining players set to become parents in the next few weeks?

LexingtonRedsFan
08-22-2003, 08:56 AM
Here is what the site--prospect report.com has to say about Hummel from a few days ago

4. TIM HUMMEL (3B) - DOB: 11/18/78 - ETA: 2004
(Triple A - 388 AB, .294/.362/.464) Hummel has bounced back from a mediocre 2002 with a very good performance in AAA-Charlotte. He's played second base and shortstop, but has spent the majority of his time at third base. There's no reason to think he couldn't put up Ty Wigginton-like numbers, or very possibly - better.

It would appear that he has enough arm strength after all to play the hot corner...

RedsBaron
08-22-2003, 08:58 AM
Originally posted by cincinnati chili
Did anyone catch Sean Casey's quote: "for what Scott Sullivan brought, he was cheap. ... It's a sad day here for a lot of guys."

I don't agree with this at all.
I'm surprised by Sean's quote. Sullivan was apparently well liked by his teammates, and, if you are a major league player, you want to win this season, not later. The moves the Reds have made in the last few weeks may put a better team on the field in 2005 or 2006, but Sean Casey may not be here by then-he wants to win now. The problem was that the team the Reds had at the start of 2003 would never win a title.

buckeyenut
08-22-2003, 09:00 AM
I was really hoping it would be Rauch or Borchard. I'm not sure I like Hummel in that deal, esp with giving up cash. Hummel seems like the type of guy we could get without having to give up the money. But that is just me. I could be selling the guy short.

RANDY IN INDY
08-22-2003, 09:03 AM
Sullivan was a "stand up" kind of guy with a lot of character. He will be missed. Good luck with the Sox, Sully!

Krusty
08-22-2003, 09:05 AM
Well, it is good to see the Reds get away from going after ballplayers with five-tool potential and acquire players that can play baseball.

Hummell will probably get every chance of winning the 3rd base spot next season. Batting lower in the lineup should help him early on.

buckeyenut
08-22-2003, 09:07 AM
Originally posted by RedsBaron
I'm surprised by Sean's quote. Sullivan was apparently well liked by his teammates, and, if you are a major league player, you want to win this season, not later. The moves the Reds have made in the last few weeks may put a better team on the field in 2005 or 2006, but Sean Casey may not be here by then-he wants to win now. The problem was that the team the Reds had at the start of 2003 would never win a title.

With any luck, Sean actually would be the next one to go. And he is one that would have to get dealt with cash.

The Cubs traded for Tony womack so if that is the case, I guarantee there are teams out there dumb enough to trade for Sean Casey.

Now that we are done with Arizona, how about Sean Casey and cash to pay him the rest of this year to ARI in exchange for Lyle Overbay and John Patterson or Andrew Good or Mike Gosling. Sean can just stay here rather than flying home.

And I would like to see us bring Sully back next year as a FA along with Mercker and maybe even Guillen.

cincinnati chili
08-22-2003, 09:09 AM
Here's what Baseball Prospectus has said about him. I don't have their 2003 comment, but here's their old comments from previous years:

Keep in mind that these comments are before he hit his wall in Triple-A. He seems like the type of hitter who needs to hit for a good batting average to be productive. Doesn't walk enough for my taste.

---



2002

Hummel, a second-round pick in 2000, is a comparable player to Ray Durham but without Durham's excellent speed. A shortstop at Old Dominion, he's now a so-so second baseman who some people think will eventually move to third base. That would cloud his career prospects in this organization; leaving him at second base would give the Sox options if they can't or won't re-sign Durham at the end of the 2002 season.

2001

A second-round pick in the 2000 draft, Old Dominion star Tim Hummel was considered by Baseball America to be one of the best pure hitters coming out of college. He’s a big guy who will probably move to third base, but the Sox are willing play him at shortstop until he proves he can’t handle it. Hummel is already one of the better players in a weak field of hitting prospects, but he’s more than a year away from entering the major-league picture.

guernsey
08-22-2003, 09:10 AM
This is from Top Prospect Alert's 2002 top 10 list for the white sox

3) Tim Hummel, 2B, 23yo (OBA: 1.1, LWP: 0.1, SPD: 1.1, EYE: 1.5)

The White Sox 2nd round pick in 2002, ...


Except that he was drafted in 2000 ...

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 09:14 AM
Originally posted by JaxRed
The cash involved is most probably just Sullivan's salary for the rest of the year.

Or less, perhaps..

It could mean that the White Sox were willing to pay 1/2 of Sully's prorated salary, for instance.

EDIT: I responded before reading the entire thread.. it was just a guess.. wasn't trying to be a smart aleck, Jax...

wheels
08-22-2003, 09:15 AM
They added cash to the deal to get this Hummel guy?

Am I just hung over, or did the Devil Front Office Incarnate actually add cash to a deal to get a needed 3B?

I dunno.....Maybe the Sox slipped Lindner a few extra bills under the table. :rolleyes:

Raisor
08-22-2003, 09:21 AM
Originally posted by buckeyenut
With any luck, Sean actually would be the next one to go. And he is one that would have to get dealt with cash.



Casey's second half 2003

260/336/317

Who would want him?

The only good thing I can think of about Casey's second half is that it makes the odds of me having to run around the GAB naked while singing "Stand By Your Man" very tiny (per a pre-season bet some of you might remember)

guernsey
08-22-2003, 09:23 AM
Top Ten RARP, by League

International League
Player Team League Pos Out PA EQA EQR RARP MjEQA
Utley, Chase Scranton/Wilke AAA Internatio 2B 296. 483. 0.328 91.1 49.7 0.279
Seguignol, Fernando Columbus Clipp AAA Internatio Oth 241. 396. 0.342 82.1 48.5 0.291
Larson, Brandon Louisville Bat AAA Internatio 3B 191. 312. 0.344 66.5 39.6 0.293
Cust, Jack Ottawa Lynx AAA Internatio OF 240. 413. 0.325 72.2 37.2 0.277
Estrada, Johnny Richmond Brave AAA Internatio C 237. 392. 0.319 68.3 36.3 0.272
Abad, Andy Pawtucket Red AAA Internatio 1B 320. 510. 0.303 81.1 34.8 0.258
Gload, Ross Charlotte Knig AAA Internatio 1B 319. 481. 0.299 78.3 31.9 0.255
Scutaro, Marcos Norfolk Tides AAA Internatio 3B 174. 283. 0.333 55.5 31.4 0.283
Hummel, Tim Charlotte Knig AAA Internatio 3B 335. 512. 0.292 76.9 31.3 0.248
Collier, Lou Pawtucket Red AAA Internatio OF 254. 393. 0.307 66.6 30.7 0.262

cincinnati chili
08-22-2003, 09:24 AM
Originally posted by buckeyenut
The Cubs traded for Tony womack so if that is the case, I guarantee there are teams out there dumb enough to trade for Sean Casey.


While I agree that trading for Womack was not a good idea, keep in mind that the Cubs got him at the prorated minimum salary. Arizona ate his contract when they let him go. Colorado picked him up pretty much so they could deal him to a dumb team like Chicago and get a fringe prospect for free.

Redny
08-22-2003, 09:26 AM
What is RARP?

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 09:26 AM
Originally posted by cincinnati chili

Did anyone catch Sean Casey's quote: "for what Scott Sullivan brought, he was cheap. ... It's a sad day here for a lot of guys."

I don't agree with this at all.

I think Casey was probably referring to Sully over the last 4-5 years, not necessarily this year.

Sully has been our most valuable pitcher ever over that time span by a long shot. Yes, he's been hurt this year, but he's been a dream middle reliever. I think Casey was paying tribute towards that.. And I agree with Casey, Sully was cheap for what he brought to the table.

That's one problem with trades like this.. This isn't a computer game.. you are going to have a demoralized club house.. Guys like Casey who want to win aren't going to be happy with moves like this.. And not to mention, if you strip a team down to AAA players and non-movable contracts, you're going to have a tough time attracting free agents/nontenders/and all but the worse retreads...

creek14
08-22-2003, 09:26 AM
Since this guy doens't exactly look like Scott Rolen on paper, are you going to ***** and moan when he puts up Boone-like numbers?

guernsey
08-22-2003, 09:28 AM
Originally posted by Redny
What is RARP?

Runs Above Replacement Player

Raisor
08-22-2003, 09:29 AM
Originally posted by REDREAD
Guys like Casey who want to win aren't going to be happy with moves like this..


If Casey wants to win, he needs to improve his own game first, don't you think?

wheels
08-22-2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by creek14
Since this guy doens't exactly look like Scott Rolen on paper, are you going to ***** and moan when he puts up Boone-like numbers?

If he can take a walk, and not swing at pitches at eye level, late in the game on the very first pitch...Well, then I guess he never will put up Boone like numbers.

I loved the quote from one of those scouting referrences....Something to the effect of "He's not a tools guy"

Color me sold.

For now.

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 09:32 AM
Originally posted by creek14
Since this guy doens't exactly look like Scott Rolen on paper, are you going to ***** and moan when he puts up Boone-like numbers?

IMO, this guy isn't going to put up Boone numbers. Doesn't look like he has Boone's power or speed.
Oh well, it looks like he can field at least, unlike Larson/Branyan.

Bye, bye Larson.. I wish you the best, I think your career is officially over now though.

Chip R
08-22-2003, 09:34 AM
Originally posted by Raisor
Casey's second half 2003

260/336/317

Who would want him?

The only good thing I can think of about Casey's second half is that it makes the odds of me having to run around the GAB naked while singing "Stand By Your Man" very tiny (per a pre-season bet some of you might remember) Why, Pittsburgh would want him. Don't you read RedsZone? ;) I suppose there is a good side to Casey's performance the second half of the year. :D

I don't blame Casey for being upset. I like the trade but if it were up to these guys, they would want their old buddies on the team from now till the day they retire no matter if they suck or not. He did take less money to play here but it's not like he just signed that deal either. Perhaps we can get him back after the season. If not, then vaya con Dios, Sully. Thanks for all your hard work and loyalty. :thumbup:

Raisor
08-22-2003, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Chip R
I suppose there is a good side to Casey's performance the second half of the year. :D

I

I would like to point out that I am a very good singer.

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 09:36 AM
Originally posted by Raisor
If Casey wants to win, he needs to improve his own game first, don't you think?

True, but maybe we have to accept that this is what Casey is..
I don't think he's sandbagging it..

I bet if you polled the Reds clubhouse, none of them consider this a good trade.

In fact, I'm not convinced it's a good trade either.. Isn't this Hummel guy pretty similiar to the generic replacement level guy that people claim can be picked up for free on the waiver wire?
I can't wait to hear people complain about the guys' lack of power at 3b.

The Reds might've been better off picking up Sully's option, hoping he's healthy next year, and getting a better prospect for him. In essense, they traded Sully when he was close to his bottom value..

But Allen saves 300k in salary, plus the 250k buyout, plus he doesn't have his contract next year... that's all that matters, I suppose.

wheels
08-22-2003, 09:37 AM
I think ol' Case is gonna gripe about his buddies getting traded no matter what. He's probably the best teammate in all of professional sports. I'll never have a problem with what he says about a trade.

But it doesn't necessarily make him a future GM candidate, either.

princeton
08-22-2003, 09:38 AM
Originally posted by cincinnati chili
Here's what Baseball Prospectus has said about him... Hummel, a second-round pick in 2000, is a comparable player to Ray Durham

other than having been in the White Sox organization, he doesn't really sound a bit like Ray Durham, does he?

I hope that he puts it together, but it strikes me that the Reds let the Sox, who REALLY needed Sully, get off cheap.

Maybe this squares everything over their D'Angelo Jimenez debacle

Raisor
08-22-2003, 09:40 AM
Originally posted by REDREAD
True, but maybe we have to accept that this is what Casey is..
I don't think he's sandbagging it..

I agree he's not sandbagging it.




I bet if you polled the Reds clubhouse, none of them consider this a good trade.



Baseball players are notorious for not knowing what a good trade is.

creek14
08-22-2003, 09:42 AM
Gesh, ease up on Sean. Look how many guys he's had to watch leave this team either by trade or injury. He and Larue have to be feeling a little lost out there right now - hmmmm, now who is that over on 3rd tonight?

Like no one here has ever said anything out of frustration. It's just that his thoughts are printed in the paper.

wheels
08-22-2003, 09:42 AM
Originally posted by REDREAD
True, but maybe we have to accept that this is what Casey is..
I don't think he's sandbagging it..

I bet if you polled the Reds clubhouse, none of them consider this a good trade.

In fact, I'm not convinced it's a good trade either.. Isn't this Hummel guy pretty similiar to the generic replacement level guy that people claim can be picked up for free on the waiver wire?
I can't wait to hear people complain about the guys' lack of power at 3b.

The Reds might've been better off picking up Sully's option, hoping he's healthy next year, and getting a better prospect for him. In essense, they traded Sully when he was close to his bottom value..

But Allen saves 300k in salary, plus the 250k buyout, plus he doesn't have his contract next year... that's all that matters, I suppose.

So you automatically know for a fact that he's not going to hit for power?

I thought his power numbers were up at AAA this year?

Heck. I don't care if he's just a doubles hitter.

As long as they don't pay him 7.5 MM to do it. They will have more than enough power to go around in the years to come.

I've read that this guy can flat out pick it. Wouldn't it be nice to have an IF defense made up of guys like Jimenez, and Hummel?

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by princeton
I hope that he puts it together, but it strikes me that the Reds let the Sox, who REALLY needed Sully, get off cheap.


I really share that opinion princeton..

But unfortantely, Sullivan was on Allen's hit list.. The Sox knew that Maddox/Kullman had to dump him, so they could low ball us.

I'm not sure this Hummel guy is an upgrade over Castro..

And I'm puzzled why guys are glad he's a limited tools guy.
Limited tools = Limited upside.

Just because a guy has tools, doesn't mean he's Curtis Goodwin.

KronoRed
08-22-2003, 09:44 AM
Hummel seems like a "maybe could be", maybe the Reds 3 headed leader were thinking they would get lucky again (like Jimenez)
I say call him up and give him 3rd for the rest of the year.

Raisor
08-22-2003, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by creek14
Gesh, ease up on Sean. Look how many guys he's had to watch leave this team either by trade or injury. He and Larue have to be feeling a little lost out there right now - hmmmm, now who is that over on 3rd tonight?

Like no one here has ever said anything out of frustration. It's just that his thoughts are printed in the paper.

I would have to say that the odds are Casey will be the first one on the team to give the new guy a hug!

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 09:45 AM
Originally posted by Raisor

Baseball players are notorious for not knowing what a good trade is. [/B]

And fans are too ;)

I really hope Hummel is the next Bill Meuller, but I'm in wait and see mode here.. Like I said, I'm not convinced he's an upgrade over the 2003 version of Castro.

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 09:51 AM
Originally posted by wheels
So you automatically know for a fact that he's not going to hit for power?

I thought his power numbers were up at AAA this year?

Heck. I don't care if he's just a doubles hitter.

As long as they don't pay him 7.5 MM to do it. They will have more than enough power to go around in the years to come.

I've read that this guy can flat out pick it. Wouldn't it be nice to have an IF defense made up of guys like Jimenez, and Hummel?

He appears to me to be a below average 3b.. I'm not sure he's better than Castro at this point.. As far as his defensive prowess, here's what one of those articles said about him:


The White Sox 2nd round pick in 2002, isn’t a "tools" favorite. He has little power, tends to be a step slow defensively and doesn’t have a canon for an arm.

That carries a lot more weight to me than a flowery article comparing him to Ray Durham.. Let's not forget that magazines love to hype prospects, because fans want hope.. They want to read a magazine that hypes their prospects.

princeton
08-22-2003, 09:53 AM
probably right-- the Sox thought that the Reds would blink, and they did.

Hummel could fill a big need -- in the shortterm, nobody can play third, but more importantly over the long-term, we need a guy that can back up a lot of positions and hit in tight situations. It seems unlikely that Larson will ever do the second part, and Brandon can't really play a position, either. So he's not displacing Brandon.

It doesn't look as though Hummel will have a big bat-- but maybe he'll show a timely bat. Combined with positional flexibility, that would make him ideal for the bench. It's worth finding out

I just happen to like Sully a LOT-- because he essentially fills two plus roster spots, I never thought that he was too expensive. Before we went this route-- a lesser prospect that fills a need-- I'd have dangled an extension offer to him.

but the Reds don't have a GM, so that can't be done

princeton
08-22-2003, 09:55 AM
Originally posted by KronoRed
I say call him up and give him 3rd for the rest of the year.

absolutely. The best way to make a good bench player is to give him a lot of major league exposure at a young age. And the Reds have an open spot

Kc61
08-22-2003, 09:57 AM
Sounds to me like the Reds are trying to make sure they don't have to pay anybody to play in 2004. When Larson did so poorly they had a problem: how to cover third base next year without shelling out any money. Probably Zeile wanted to be paid, so he was not an option.

So the Reds divert from the "pitching, pitching, pitching" plan to take somebody who may be able to play third and won't require much money.

On a positive note, at least in the minors, Hummel seems like a hitter who doesn't strike out too much. The Reds could use a few of those. Even if he is not a dynamic power guy.

Raisor
08-22-2003, 09:59 AM
Originally posted by Kc61
Sounds to me like the Reds are trying to make sure they don't have to pay anybody to play in 2004. When Larson did so poorly they had a problem: how to cover third base next year without shelling out any money. Probably Zeile wanted to be paid, so he was not an option.

.


I hope you're not complaining about Zeile not being an option.

Johnny Footstool
08-22-2003, 10:00 AM
Sounds like Danny isn't happy, per ESPN.com:


Sullivan left a team that is 14 games under .500 and joined a club in the thick of the AL Central race. His departure left several Reds visibly upset -- pitcher Danny Graves was even crying.


"When I heard what we got for him, I nearly threw up. We've been best friends since 1997, since I've been here. It hurts. I don't know how to think of it right now,'' said Graves, the losing pitcher Thursday night against Arizona.

creek14
08-22-2003, 10:01 AM
Originally posted by KronoRed
I say call him up and give him 3rd for the rest of the year.
So if we call him up now, will the back of his jersey say "PTBNL"? ;)

KronoRed
08-22-2003, 10:05 AM
Originally posted by princeton
absolutely. The best way to make a good bench player is to give him a lot of major league exposure at a young age. And the Reds have an open spot

You read my mind! ;)
We need more bench players :D

RedsBaron
08-22-2003, 10:09 AM
Originally posted by Johnny Footstool
Sounds like Danny isn't happy, per ESPN.com:
Hey, if Graves, with a 4-14 record, is unhappy, maybe he will ask for his release so he can rejoin his friends. Fine by me.

princeton
08-22-2003, 10:10 AM
instead of the comparisons to Ray Durham, doesn't he sound a bit like Todd Walker?

Todd was never my favorite player, because he was forced to start. But I always thought that Todd would make a fine bench player.

osuceltic
08-22-2003, 10:11 AM
Let's face it... Hummel is what he is. He's a cheap alternative at third base who may or may not have more of a clue than Larson. And that's not a bad thing. The Reds got him for an aging, declining, soon-to-be-free-agent setup man. I love what Sullivan has done, but the Reds can't afford to be sentimental. If you're going to operate on a limited budget, there's no room for "reward for time served" contracts. The last one of those we handed out (Larkin) has been crippling this team for three years.

Best-case scenario, Hummel turns into Chris Sabo--a .270 guy with 20 HR power who plays hard and does a fine job with the glove. Worst case scenario, he's a total bust. Either way, he's cheap--and if the Reds are going to make mistakes, they MUST be cheap mistakes. The expensive ones (Larkin, Casey, Graves, Griffey) are killing them. The team can afford a few relatively big contracts, but they have to be for the right guys. Otherwise, you're stuck with them and you have to trade away good players when their pay level gets too big. Sound familiar?

It's time to accept reality. We can moan and complain about Lindner and Allen, but it's not going to change anything. I don't want to hear excuses about budgetsanymore. It is what it is. Work within it and find a way. Does it make it tougher? Sure. Can it be done? Obviously. So accept the situation and build a winner.

Will Hummel be a part of that? Who knows? But he won't be the reason it doesn't work. He's a disposable part. The big ticket guys (and the front office who made the mistake of giving them those contracts) are the problems IN THE CURRENT REALITY.

If Hummel gives you .250, 15 HRs and 70 RBIs, plays every day and fields his position, he's fine. AT HIS CURRENT SALARY. If that's what he's giving you as his salary goes up, you part ways and move on to the next disposable part. It's not what we'd all like, but it's reality.

DeadRedinCT
08-22-2003, 10:12 AM
Originally posted by REDREAD

In fact, I'm not convinced it's a good trade either.. Isn't this Hummel guy pretty similiar to the generic replacement level guy that people claim can be picked up for free on the waiver wire?
I can't wait to hear people complain about the guys' lack of power at 3b.


Which is exactly what the Reds have done. If a team picks up a player off the waiver wire, the claiming team still has to pay the claimed player the league minimum (with the team that waived said player paying the rest of that year's salary).

New everyday 3b-man? I'm not sure about that because I'm in the "Branyan for 3B" camp. But at the least, he could be a nice utility player.

IslandRed
08-22-2003, 10:13 AM
I can understand why the guys aren't happy, but I'm not sure what Graves thought we were going to get. As much as Sullivan's done for this team, he's a free-agent-to-be middle reliever whose best days are likely behind him. We weren't going to get the crown jewels in return, from the Sox or anyone else.

Raisor
08-22-2003, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by princeton
instead of the comparisons to Ray Durham, doesn't he sound a bit like Todd Walker?

Todd was never my favorite player, because he was forced to start. But I always thought that Todd would make a fine bench player.

Walker has been an average offensive 2B for his career. Nothing wrong with being average, in the right situations.

creek14
08-22-2003, 10:15 AM
Originally posted by RedsBaron
Hey, if Graves, with a 4-14 record, is unhappy, maybe he will ask for his release so he can rejoin his friends. Fine by me.
Oh come on. Do you expect these guys to be emotionless blobs?

All of this stuff about Sean and Danny reminds me of the kids my mom use to have in 1st grade. They were amazed to find out she went grocery shopping - they didn't realize she was a person, just like them.

How very funny - for all the ranting that goes on here over this team, it's now unacceptable for the actual players to have opinions too.

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 10:17 AM
Originally posted by princeton
instead of the comparisons to Ray Durham, doesn't he sound a bit like Todd Walker?


Is Hummel "fool's gold"?.. I got a good laugh when you dug up that old quote of yours in that Todd Walker thread a couple days ago..

But I really don't think a future utility man is that great of a return for Sully. I'm not ready to vomit like Graves, but we got taken here.

I'd rather play Castro at 3b and keep Sully (and they did have an option on him, so there was no need to negotiate an extension).

Raisor
08-22-2003, 10:19 AM
Originally posted by REDREAD

I'd rather play Castro at 3b and keep Sully (and they did have an option on him, so there was no need to negotiate an extension).

Sullivan's contract had already been bought out, last year.

He's a free agent in 2004.

princeton
08-22-2003, 10:22 AM
Originally posted by Raisor
Walker has been an average offensive 2B for his career. Nothing wrong with being average, in the right situations.

actually, there's a lot wrong with being an average offensive 2Bman if you can't defend the position.

Todd would have to be a tremendous offensive player in order to offset his glove. And, as you say, he's not even above average

there's more to playing winning baseball than offensive numbers. It may be impossible to quantify-- but that doesn't make it less true.

KronoRed
08-22-2003, 10:23 AM
Originally posted by creek14
So if we call him up now, will the back of his jersey say "PTBNL"? ;)

That sounds good, maybe we can field an entire team of PTBNL's.
Now batting PTBNL number 4. :cool:

SYCMiniBus
08-22-2003, 10:24 AM
Originally posted by Krusty
Well, it is good to see the Reds get away from going after ballplayers with five-tool potential and acquire players that can play baseball.

Hummell will probably get every chance of winning the 3rd base spot next season. Batting lower in the lineup should help him early on.

Repeat after me tools are a GOOD thing. You guys whine about Casey well here is Sean Casey (except he hasn't hit .300 since A ball). He K's a decent amount see 95 K's in 142 games last season and hits almost no HR's (13 in 3 seasons). I quite honestly do not understand this. He is not high ceiling and not an impact guy. Yes he hustles, but he is not someone that is going to help this organization at all, except for maybe the remaining games of this season as a 3B stop gap.

Raisor
08-22-2003, 10:25 AM
Originally posted by princeton
actually, there's a lot wrong with being an average offensive 2Bman if you can't defend the position.

Todd would have to be a tremendous offensive player in order to offset his glove. And, as you say, he's not even above average

there's more to playing winning baseball than offensive numbers. It may be impossible to quantify-- but that doesn't make it less true.

Walker is no where near as bad a defensive player that people seem to think he is.

At the most, he's slightly below average, and I think he's better then that.

He's not Pokey, which is who everyone tries to compare him to, since that is who they saw play before Todd.

KronoRed
08-22-2003, 10:26 AM
Tools are fine when the player knows how to use them, the Reds are loaded down with players with tools who have no clue how to use them to play baseball.

Raisor
08-22-2003, 10:29 AM
Originally posted by SYCMiniBus
Repeat after me tools are a GOOD thing. .

Tools mean nothing if they aren't used.

I could care less if a guy is fast if he can't get on base. I could care less if a guy can bench press 500 pounds if he can't hit. I could care less if a guy has a great throwing arm, if he can't catch the ball.

I'd sign Weird Al if he could get on base 40% of the time.

princeton
08-22-2003, 10:33 AM
Originally posted by Raisor
He's not Pokey

OK, there's something that we'll agree on

(although, in actuality, he's not even Aaron, who succeeded him and was horribly out of position ;) )

Carter
08-22-2003, 10:38 AM
When I heard Sully was traded for a PTBNL.. I hoped it would be Rauch. Now, I think the Reds really missed the boat by not taking a chance at getting him. Because if they would have.. that would be our ace out of the rotation. Guy has the build to be one and is has some nasty stuff. But instead we got Hummell. Which I actually don't mind. The guy sounds like he is going to be pretty good. The type of hitter he is.. is exactly what we need. I'm tired of all the free swingers.. get me a good contact hitter with a high OBP anyday.

Todd Walker now.. he had exceptional defense. He hustled he gave it his all. I agree in saying he was a little below average. But he manned the position very well.

princeton
08-22-2003, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Carter
\ Todd Walker now.. he had exceptional defense...I agree in saying he was a little below average. But he manned the position very well.

I'll bite: how can exceptional defense be a little below average?

PuffyPig
08-22-2003, 10:43 AM
Suulivan was a FA after this season, so he's gone anyway, unless we sign him, which we can do whether he stays or goes this year. So, anything we get is better than nothing.

The PaleHose claimed him on waivers, so we deal with them or nobody. Sowhat if we paid part of his salary. We were gonig to pay it all without a deal, it's a sunk cost. He actually make out better financially having traded him.

At this stage, he looks like our best bet for starting thirdbase next year. For 6 weeks of Sullivan, that's a tremendous trade. He was one of the Sox' best prospects, and major league ready. He can play a number of infield positions.

I'd say that this is a great trade. Do you really think we would get a number #1 starter for 6 weeks of Sullivan? Sullivan was owed about $700,000 for the remainder of this year, so we also save $350,000.

westofyou
08-22-2003, 10:44 AM
"When I heard what we got for him, I nearly threw up. We've been best friends since 1997, since I've been here. It hurts. I don't know how to think of it right now,'' said Graves, the losing pitcher Thursday night against Arizona.

Ya know, I'm not happy that Graves didn't work on pitching out of the windup BEFORE ST, I'm not happy that he didn't come to camp in better shape, because he looks a little soft and he can't ever go more tha 5 innings, lastly I'm not happy that Graves is getting big bucks to be a crappy starter.

Carter
08-22-2003, 10:51 AM
Originally posted by princeton
I'll bite: how can exceptional defense be a little below average?

He lacked great range, but the balls he was able to reach he was able to make the play. Of what I remember he didn't have to many errors.

Carter
08-22-2003, 10:56 AM
Question: Late last season and offseason.. Rangers had Blalock on the block.. what was the offer RedsZone came up with? I can't quite remember.. I want to say that it was Sullivan being rumored to the Rangers for him.

Also.. do you remember in 1999 the Astro's wanting Sully.. and the "rumor" was we would be getting Berkman in return. That of course was before his breakout.

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 10:56 AM
Originally posted by Raisor
Sullivan's contract had already been bought out, last year.

He's a free agent in 2004.

ok, thanks, I didn't realize that.

SYCMiniBus
08-22-2003, 10:56 AM
Ok, so we didn't get a toolsy guy, and people rejoice. Congrats the Reds traded for Ryan Freel except with out the speed. Call me crazy but Ryan Freel's with out speed are about a dime a dozen. I think Bowden made way to much of toolsy guys, which I has made people think tools are a bad thing. Wouldn't be ironic if the guy that pushes the A's over the edge and helps them win a playoff series or World Series is a "toolsy" OF who never takes a walk? And where in the Reds sytem do you see players who "are loaded down with players with tools who have no clue how to use them to play baseball."
In the minors outside of Tony Blanco I am not really seeing any. Schramek, Votto, and Smitherman are not toolsy guys. Edwin Encarnacion is a toolsy guy, but he knows how to use them. This a big perception vs. reality issue right here

westofyou
08-22-2003, 11:05 AM
BP 2003

Hummell has been the 2nd baseman of the future since he was drafted back in 2000. But hasn't progressed as much as the Sox had hoped he would and the arrival of Jimenz puts a dent in his future, he'll be a SS for the Knights in 2003 , then the Sox can evaluate his ability there once Valentine moves on.

=======================================

I like getting ANY IF with the ability to play more than 3 positions.

Redread, Sullivan is a 32 year old reliever with a MESS of innings whose performance had leveled out, he was making over 2 million bucks.

Starting Castro at 3rd and keeping Sullivan would have been the WORST thing the Reds could do.

How can you attack the FO for money moves with they are doing what every team in the history of the game has done?

Selling strengths to shore up weaknesses.

This team needs Castro at 3rd and Sully in the bullpen for a whole season for what?

No team wins with a 3rd baseman who gets on base 26% of the time he comes to bat, even if they can keep a workhorse reliever who makes more than he should.

princeton
08-22-2003, 11:06 AM
Originally posted by Carter
Question: Late last season and offseason.. Rangers had Blalock on the block.. what was the offer RedsZone came up with? I can't quite remember.. I want to say that it was Sullivan being rumored to the Rangers for him.

I was posting on the merits of dealing Scott Williamson and a prospect for Hank Blalock

what's your vision?

creek14
08-22-2003, 11:13 AM
I'm just wondering since the Sox claimed Scott off waivers - meaning they must have really wanted him - especially with Kock's elbow problems - then why didn't we really play hardball with them? I can't believe we got a so-so infielder and also have to pay them part of Scott's salary.

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 11:24 AM
Originally posted by westofyou

I like getting ANY IF with the ability to play more than 3 positions.


While that is nice, is there a shortage of guys that can play more than 3 Inf postions? .. I see Castro, Olmedo, Lopez, and Freel in a pinch already..



Originally posted by westofyou


Selling strengths to shore up weaknesses.

This team needs Castro at 3rd and Sully in the Bullpen for a whole season for what?

No team wins with a 3rd baseman who gets on base 26% of the time he comes to bat, even if they can keep a workhorse reliever who makes more than he should.

What I'm saying is though that Hummel might turn out to be a zero though.. In order for this trade to shore up a weakness, he has to be better than Castro.. It appears he's a weaker fielder than Castro.. and there's certainly no guarantee he'll even be able to hit ML pitching.. It's quite ironic that Brandon Larson has him beat on the RARP chart that was posted..

I'm just saying it's possible that Hummel won't be an upgrade at all. Is Hummel even an upgrade over Freel or Lopez? Again, I'm not sure at this point.

As far as "why does this team need Sullivan in the bullpen next year/end of this year"? Well, it depends on what the goal of the team is.. Is the goal of the team to win games or minimize payroll?

Consider that Lightenberg got about 1 million as a free agent.. I question whether Sullivan with his injury history is going to get more than 1.5 million.. Then consider that your typical scrap heap reliever makes 500-600k.. Consider the difference in production.
For somewhere between 400k and 1 million more, you can have Sullivan as opposed to a crapshoot reliever.. It's worth it, IMO, if the team is trying to win games.

If the goal is to minimize payroll, then I guess we won't be able to justify bringing back Heredia next year either .. do you agree?
Heredia is probably going to run in the 1 million neighborhood as well.. Can we justify keeping him?

I really don't like the logic of "Well, we aren't going to contend, so let's field a team of entirely minimum salary players".. That's the way the Devil Rays think..

I'm not sure Hummel is an upgrade at 3b.. that was my point in comparing him to Castro.

PuffyPig
08-22-2003, 11:28 AM
I'm not sure Hummel is an upgrade at 3b.. that was my point in comparing him to Castro. [/B]

But I'm not sure that he isn't. Hummel has always been rated one of the best Sox' prospects. You certainly can't say that about Castro.

And he will be about $500,000 cheaper than Castro. That will get you something in todays market.

Red Leader
08-22-2003, 11:30 AM
I really like the trade. I have read a lot of peoples comments about how Hummel is a no-stick middle IF hitter (worse than Castro, similar to Freel, etc). I don't agree. He's got a decent eye at the plate, makes good contact, and has decent speed. The one article I read mentioned that he could probably steal 15 bags a year. He has shown some power this year in AAA. With the dimensions at GAB, I would imagine he could produce close to 20 HR's a year. I think Hummel will be a good player for the Reds. I don't think management will give Branyan a shot to start at 3B everyday mainly because of his high strikeout rate. Larson is absolutely pathetic. I can't even stand to see his name anymore. I think Hummel could fit in very well in the #2 spot behind Jimenez and in front of Griffey. I picture him offensively to be what Marcus Giles was at the beginning of his career. A lot of potential, but it might take some time to get there. Everyone projected Marcus Giles to have the kind of season he's having this year about 3 years ago, it just took him a little more time to get there. I think we have a similar offensive player in Hummel.

Raisor
08-22-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by creek14
I'm just wondering since the Sox claimed Scott off waivers - meaning they must have really wanted him - especially with Kock's elbow problems - then why didn't we really play hardball with them? I can't believe we got a so-so infielder and also have to pay them part of Scott's salary.

Because the alternative was getting nothing for him and paying all of his salary for the rest of this season.

cincinnati chili
08-22-2003, 11:35 AM
Originally posted by creek14
I'm just wondering since the Sox claimed Scott off waivers - meaning they must have really wanted him - especially with Kock's elbow problems - then why didn't we really play hardball with them? I can't believe we got a so-so infielder and also have to pay them part of Scott's salary.

I think the White Sox held better cards than we did. Sullivan' is not a sure thing, just an innings eater.

Think of it this way. If we kept Sullivan this year and then bought out his contract, we'd get nothing for him, but we'd still have to pay his salary the rest of the way. In a way, this is sort of like paying for an extra draft pick but Hummel's close to being major league ready. Personally, I think Hummell could use a third year at Triple A, but I imagine he'll be called up this year or compete for a job next year.

More than likely he becomes a major league utility player, as he can play 2b/ss/3b, but at 24, he still has a chance to be more than that.

princeton
08-22-2003, 11:36 AM
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Red Leader
[B] He has shown some power this year in AAA. [B] [QUOTE]

that's really the wild card. Power's always the last tool to develop. If Hummel can now be projected to hit with power, then he's intriguing.

you'd like to hope that the Reds dispatched Johnny Almarez and Gene Bennett to track Hummel over the past couple of weeks, and that they just LOVED his power potential.

and not that we settled for the guy that the Sox wanted to stick us with

Raisor
08-22-2003, 11:38 AM
Originally posted by cincinnati chili
. If we kept Sullivan this year and then bought out his contract, .

The Reds have already bought out his contract, last season.

princeton
08-22-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by cincinnati chili
In a way, this is sort of like paying for an extra draft pick but Hummel's close to being major league ready.

right. and if this really was a waiver deal, then one of our other options was to not revoke the waivers and let Sully go to the Sox for free-- except that the Sox would have been responsible for the entire salary. Put another way, the Reds felt that Hummel was worth $350,000.

since the Reds have draft picks that are currently holding out for smaller bonuses than that, the deal also says that the Reds felt that Hummel was more valuable than a couple of intriguing top 10 draft picks. Hopefully, that's true

Red Leader
08-22-2003, 11:44 AM
Originally posted by princeton
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Red Leader
[B] He has shown some power this year in AAA. [B]

that's really the wild card. Power's always the last tool to develop. If Hummel can now be projected to hit with power, then he's intriguing.

you'd like to hope that the Reds dispatched Johnny Almarez and Gene Bennett to track Hummel over the past couple of weeks, and that they just LOVED his power potential.

and not that we settled for the guy that the Sox wanted to stick us with

I agree, princeton. If he can hit 20-25 HR's a year, he'll be solid. Like I said, I think he'll be similar to Marcus Giles, a lot of potential, but may take some time to fully develop. I wonder if we can get minor league comparisons for each side by side to see how similar they are.

PuffyPig
08-22-2003, 11:46 AM
Does everyone remember that Aaron Boone certainly didn't put up eye-pooping numbers in the minor leagues, with little power until later.

Gee, sounds just like Hummel. I don't get it. Hummell is a very highly rated prospect who is now developing power. He's not a throw in. Plus, all we are trading is 6 weeks of Sullivan (no value to us) and saving about $350,000. And he plays positions we need the most (aside from pitching).

A great deal. As good as the Mercker deal, which I loved, but Mercker, as a LH reliever, and cheaper, and pitching better, had more value.

CougarQuest
08-22-2003, 11:47 AM
I thought I read somewhere last night that the amount left on Sullivan's contract for this year was in the $590,000ish range.

I was looking at the White Sox AAA position players that could play 3rd base stats last night, and saw Hummel. There was another guy whose last name also started with an "H", can't think of his name right now. Something about Hummel made me think about Chris Stynes.

SYCMiniBus
08-22-2003, 11:48 AM
Originally posted by Red Leader
I really like the trade. I have read a lot of peoples comments about how Hummel is a no-stick middle IF hitter (worse than Castro, similar to Freel, etc). I don't agree. He's got a decent eye at the plate, makes good contact, and has decent speed. The one article I read mentioned that he could probably steal 15 bags a year. He has shown some power this year in AAA. With the dimensions at GAB, I would imagine he could produce close to 20 HR's a year. I think Hummel will be a good player for the Reds. I don't think management will give Branyan a shot to start at 3B everyday mainly because of his high strikeout rate. Larson is absolutely pathetic. I can't even stand to see his name anymore. I think Hummel could fit in very well in the #2 spot behind Jimenez and in front of Griffey. I picture him offensively to be what Marcus Giles was at the beginning of his career. A lot of potential, but it might take some time to get there. Everyone projected Marcus Giles to have the kind of season he's having this year about 3 years ago, it just took him a little more time to get there. I think we have a similar offensive player in Hummel.

He has nevr stolen 15 bags in a season and I can garuntee that wont start at the MLB level (no one steals and better catchers). He really doesn't project as a 20 HR guy you don't tend to get much more power past age 25 (right about where he is). And since when is 82 K's this season and 95 a year ago a guy who doesnt K much. That projects to over 100 K's in the big leagues. I really do not understand this guy. He brings nothing, that god help more saying this, that Juan Castro doesn't bring except the Gold Glove. we have enough infielders who can play 3 positions in this organization we dont need another especially since unlike the rest of them this guy doesn't have plus speed. And your comparison to Giles I dont think holds water because Giles probably hasnt seen a breaking ball all season. With Sheff, Jones, and Jones hitting behind him he just gets fastballs all day long and he hits them. Also Giles has more speed then Hummel.

Raisor
08-22-2003, 11:48 AM
Here are his career minor league numbers

2000-Class A 413/426 K/BB-32/34
2001-Class AA 364/416 K/BB-69/62
2002-Clas AAA 332/346 K/BB-95/51
2003-Class AAA 349/447 K/BB-82/45

pedro
08-22-2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by Red Leader
I picture him offensively to be what Marcus Giles was at the beginning of his career. A lot of potential, but it might take some time to get there. Everyone projected Marcus Giles to have the kind of season he's having this year about 3 years ago, it just took him a little more time to get there. I think we have a similar offensive player in Hummel.

I'm not knocking Hummel, because he may be ok. but his minor league numbers don't compare to Giles at all. Giles destroyed minor league pitching

hummel

http://www.forecaster.ca/thestar/baseball/player.cgi?2076

giles.

http://www.forecaster.ca/thestar/baseball/player.cgi?2627

If hummel turns into giles this is a GREAT trade. the truth, however, is probably somewhat less exciting, but not miserable IMO.

BTW- Danny Graves picthing performance last night almost made ME puke.

Raisor
08-22-2003, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by SYCMiniBus
He brings nothing, that god help more saying this, that Juan Castro doesn't bring except the Gold Glove.

Hummel does one thing that Castro has never done, get on base at a good rate.

The Reds need as many people that can do that as possible.

Redmachine2003
08-22-2003, 11:54 AM
I read a post earlier that said he was a big stringy guy with a strong lower body, so if that is true than why do people say he can't hit for power. Doesn't the lower body produce power? He is only 24 and his upper body will start to develop as he gets closer to 26 or so ( peak age). People keep saying that he is slow footed but they also project him to steal 15 bases or so. On this team if you steal 15 bases you have speed.

princeton
08-22-2003, 11:58 AM
Originally posted by Red Leader
Like I said, I think he'll be similar to Marcus Giles, a lot of potential, but may take some time to fully develop.


oh, I was just painting the rosiest picture possible

what seems more likely, given that the Reds needed a third baseman last week, is that we reached to fill a need.

Benihana
08-22-2003, 11:59 AM
Very good trade. I was even an advocate of letting Sully just get claimed off waivers to save us $$. The report from my White Sox source says that Hummel projects decently, very Joe Crede-like. I'll take that for now until EdwinE is ready or we can acquire Beltre. We had ZERO use for Sully this year, and he's gone next.

Now please take the 350K saved and sign D'Alessio and Cornell.
Pleeeeeeeeeeeeeaaaaaaaaassssssssssse

Red Leader
08-22-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by pedro
I'm not knocking Hummel, because he may be ok. but his minor league numbers don't compare to Giles at all. Giles destroyed minor league pitching


OK, so that wasn't the greatest comparison. I didn't realize that Giles hit 37 HR's in A ball in one year. His power did seem to drop off as he rose through the system, but still more impressive than what Hummel has shown so far, and they are almost the same age. I can now say, "I know Marcus Giles, and Tim Hummel is no Marcus Giles" ;) ;) ;)

princeton
08-22-2003, 12:00 PM
Originally posted by SYCMiniBus
you don't tend to get much more power past age 25

sorry, but not only is that not true, it's the opposite of true

power's the last tool to develop

wheels
08-22-2003, 12:03 PM
Since when were Boone's numbers so eye popping that we can only hope to get that in the future? Just because he's gone does not mean that he is THE STANDARD FOR ALL FUTURE REDS 3B.

I don't care if the Reds don't replace his somewhat average stats. As long as the guy gets on base, and doesn't cost what Boone would cost in the open market.

That ballpark can make a 20Hr hitter out of alot of guys anyway.

pedro
08-22-2003, 12:08 PM
Originally posted by Red Leader
OK, so that wasn't the greatest comparison. I didn't realize that Giles hit 37 HR's in A ball in one year. His power did seem to drop off as he rose through the system, but still more impressive than what Hummel has shown so far, and they are almost the same age. I can now say, "I know Marcus Giles, and Tim Hummel is no Marcus Giles" ;) ;) ;)

yeah I know all about Marcus Giles because I had an ongoing arguement with a guy I worked with about how I THOUGHT HE'D NEVER MAKE IT IN MAJORS.

(In timid defense of myself he did look bad at 2nd base when he first came up but apparently, unlike some guys named danny graves, worked hard in the offseason to overcome his deficiencies)

creek14
08-22-2003, 12:09 PM
Originally posted by Raisor
Because the alternative was getting nothing for him and paying all of his salary for the rest of this season.
Yeah, so. And we have a guy out in the pen who can mentor some of these young pups. Now we're just going to have to hire the Goddard School or some daycare to come in and babysit out there.

PuffyPig
08-22-2003, 12:13 PM
Originally posted by princeton
sorry, but not only is that not true, it's the opposite of true

power's the last tool to develop

That's right. Just ask Aaron Boone, who never projected to hit for power.

I believe they said that Jeff Bagwell would not hit for power.

Look at the early careers of Sammy Sosa. Mike Lowell and a ton of others.

Chip R
08-22-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by creek14
Yeah, so. And we have a guy out in the pen who can mentor some of these young pups. Now we're just going to have to hire the Goddard School or some daycare to come in and babysit out there. Well, if Danny goes back ot the pen he can mentor these pups. Some of these guys are going to have to grow up and actually practice what their mentors have preached to them.

Raisor
08-22-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by creek14
Yeah, so. And we have a guy out in the pen who can mentor some of these young pups. Now we're just going to have to hire the Goddard School or some daycare to come in and babysit out there.

Considering I've been in favor of a full blown rebuilding project, I can't complain about letting a soon to be free agent go for a decent prospect.

I understand that Sullivan is a good guy, and that players and fans are going to miss him. I get it, I just don't care all that much. He wasn't going to be on the team next year, and it's time to start thinking about next year and beyond.

creek14
08-22-2003, 12:17 PM
Why wasn't he going to be on the team next year? We have all that money between 40 (current) - 60 (projected bwahahahahaha) in the budget to sign a couple vets.

Red Leader
08-22-2003, 12:20 PM
Originally posted by creek14
Why wasn't he going to be on the team next year? We have all that money between 40 (current) - 60 (projected bwahahahahaha) in the budget to sign a couple vets.

I know that if I say the Reds declined the option on Sullivan for next year, you are going to say that the Reds just weren't interested in bringing him back at that salary, which may be the case. But, if that is true, then Sullivan will be back. I just think that once Sullivan hits FA at the end of this season, the Reds won't even get involved, unless he drops well into the range they are willing to spend on a reliever. Even then, I could see them bringing back Mercker before Sullivan.

PuffyPig
08-22-2003, 12:22 PM
Sullivan may be on the team next year.

He may not.

I don't think this trade changes that.

Raisor
08-22-2003, 12:22 PM
Originally posted by creek14
Why wasn't he going to be on the team next year? We have all that money between 40 (current) - 60 (projected bwahahahahaha) in the budget to sign a couple vets.

Instead of spending money on a middle reliever, why not spend that money towards a good young starter.

Payroll flexibility.

PuffyPig
08-22-2003, 12:26 PM
Originally posted by Red Leader
I just think that once Sullivan hits FA at the end of this season, the Reds won't even get involved, unless he drops well into the range they are willing to spend on a reliever.

Good, I certainly wouldn't get into a bidding war for him. If he can't get $1M+ from another team, I might be willing to spend $750,000 on him, depending on our bullpen at that time.

Anmd if we had kept him...the exact same scenario.

Who knows, Sullivan's 6 weeks from home might convince him he doesn't want to pitch anywhere else than in Cincinnati.

creek14
08-22-2003, 12:27 PM
Sullivan had said in interviews before that he wanted to stay with the Reds. So yeah, I think that he would have come back at the Reds salary.

And nice concept, Raisor, now exactly who is that good young starter and how do we get him here?

westofyou
08-22-2003, 12:28 PM
As far as "why does this team need Sullivan in the bullpen next year/end of this year"? Well, it depends on what the goal of the team is.. Is the goal of the team to win games or minimize payroll?


The goal is NOT to pay more money for less.

Sully is on the downward trend, his ERA last year was over 6 and this season he's become a situation guy, 50 appearences and only 49 innings, that's a LOT of cash for so little.

Middle relief is much easier to replace at a low cost, you seem to think every move the Reds make that sheds salary is another white flag.

To me the white flag is paying guys for more than they can give and slotting guys like Castro to make up for keeping said players.

Projections will tell you that Sully has peaked and Castro will never get better, both are past 30 and make more than guys who can replace them. Keeping them as key cogs is not good business sense.... and that is something you're always accusing the Reds of not possessing.

Spending cash and player anaylisis don't always go hand and hand, maybe the Reds are finally getting it?

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 12:30 PM
Originally posted by creek14
Why wasn't he going to be on the team next year? We have all that money between 40 (current) - 60 (projected bwahahahahaha) in the budget to sign a couple vets.

I agree with your line of thought Creek..Why did it have to be a given that Sully wouldn't be back next year? (Other than Allen's
cheapness)..

If Kerry Lightenberg only got about 1 million as a free agent last season, I can't imagine
Sullivan getting much more..

Consider that the average retread makes 500-600k...

I really don't like this Devil Ray philospy of saying "Well we suck, so let's just
field a team of minimum salaried players"..

The goal of these type of trades should be to increase the overall talent base
of the team.. this trade did not do that.

CougarQuest
08-22-2003, 12:31 PM
Let's get this kid up and see what he looks like.

Let's see, with the Reds habits this year, Freel hit a HR, so he should be sent down to AAA any moment. ;)

Raisor
08-22-2003, 12:31 PM
Originally posted by creek14
Sullivan had said in interviews before that he wanted to stay with the Reds. So yeah, I think that he would have come back at the Reds salary.

And nice concept, Raisor, now exactly who is that good young starter and how do we get him here?

It's easier to find one when you have the cash then when you don't. If the Reds can't find one, they can always go back and spend that money on something else.

Creek, I really can't believe you are so against flipping a free agent for something. Like others have said, if Sullivan wants to be a Red next year, this deal doesn't make that impossible.

Chip R
08-22-2003, 12:32 PM
I wouldn't mind having Sully back. But if he wants to play here so bad, he'd accept a 1 year deal at $1-1.25M. My guess is that someone - like StL - is going to show him the money (probably close or a little more than he made this year) and he'll sign with them. And I wish him the best.

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 12:34 PM
Originally posted by westofyou
The goal is NOT to pay more money for less.



I can agree with this general line of thought..We are in a disagreement over whether Hummel is worth more than Sullivan..
IMO, even a situational reliever is worth more than Hummel, but I can respect your counter-assesment..

So let me pose this question again.. What about Heredia? Is it worth bringing him back next year, or should he be dumped for the best we can get for him? Let's assume Heredia would cost between 1-1.5 million next year..

PuffyPig
08-22-2003, 12:36 PM
Originally posted by Chip R
My guess is that someone - like StL - is going to show him the money (probably close or a little more than he made this year) and he'll sign with them.

If the Cards want to give Sullivan $2.8M (or a little more) next year, be my guest.

He'll get closer to a third of that.

Redmachine2003
08-22-2003, 12:37 PM
Tim Hummel 18SS


Full name: Timothy Robert Hummel
Born: 11/18/78
Birthplace: Goshen,NY
Height: 6'2"
Weight: 195
Position: SS
Bats: Right
Throws: Right
College: Old Dominion
MLB Debut: No ML Debut

.000

.000


G AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI TB BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG

YTD 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 .000 .000 .000




2002 Highlights:
Rated by Baseball America prior to the 2003 season as the No. 17 Prospect in the Sox organization...set a franchise record with 142 games played at Class AAA Charlotte...led team in hits (136), walks (51), sacrifice flies (nine) and multihit games (33), tied for the lead with 10 hit by pitch and ranked second in doubles (33)...his 33 doubles ranked fifth on the Knights' single-season list...hit two or more doubles in a game five times...played all four infield positions, compiling a .980 fielding percentage (12 E/645 TC)...hit .316 vs. left- handers...ended season with an 11-game hitting streak and earned International League Batter of the Week honors for 8/26-9/2...tied for second on team in walks (18)...played for Peoria in the Arizona Fall League, hitting .303 (27-89) with no home runs and seven RBI in 29 games.

Minor League Highlights
2001: Was listed by Baseball America as the No. 6 Prospect in the organization and No. 2 Second Baseman in the minor leagues... also named by same publication as the Class AA All-Star second baseman...spent entire season at Class AA Birmingham and finished fifth among all Class AA second basemen with a .290 average...ranked among Southern League leaders in hits (T2nd, 152), doubles (T3rd, 33), runs scored (5th, 83), triples (T5th, six) and average (8th)...finished among the organization leaders in hits (2nd), runs scored (2nd), triples (T3rd), average (4th), doubles (4th), walks (4th, 62), total bases (5th, 218), extra-base hits (T7th, 46) and RBI (10th, 63)... named to the SL midseason All-Star Team...led team with 10 sacrifice flies...reached base safely in 19 straight games from 6/6-29... played 93 games at second base, 36 at shortstop and five at third...played for Mesa in the Arizona Fall League...tied for team lead in doubles (eight) and finished second in runs scored (22) and walks (19).

2000: Split his first pro season between Class A Burlington and Class A Winston-Salem...combined to hit .326 (79-242) with two home runs and 30 RBI in 66 games....326 average would have ranked second among Class A shortstops, .001 off the lead, but he fell short of the required plate appearances...cited by Baseball America as the Best Hitter and as making the Best Pro Debut from the Sox 2000 draft class...played 41 games at shortstop and 25 at third base...reached base safely in 37 of 39 games with Burlington, including 26 straight from 6/25-7/21...compiled a 12-game hitting streak...was promoted to Winston-Salem on 8/6...was 6-7 (all singles) on 8/27 at Frederick ...was one of five minor-leaguers in 2000 and the only player in the Carolina League to collect six hits in one game...was recommended/signed by Doug Laumann and Alex Cosmidis.

Personal:
Single...played collegiate baseball at Old Dominion...became the first baseball player in school history to be named to all five All- America teams in the same season...was ranked 43rd among Baseball America's Top 100 Prospects...was named First-Team All- America by Baseball America, Baseball Weekly and Collegiate Baseball...earned the Colonial Athletic Association Player of the Year and Defensive Player of the Year awards in 2000...posted a school single-season school record with a .963 fielding percentage...hit .388 (254-655) with 20 home runs and 185 RBI in three seasons...posted a school and CAA record .508 career on-base percentage...earned CAA Rookie of the Year honors and was selected as a First-Team All-America by Baseball America and Collegiate Baseball as a freshman ...was a two-time selection on the USA Today High School All-America squad...played in the Cape Cod League...was chosen in the fifth round of the 1997 draft by San Diego but did not sign...brother, Daniel, is a catcher in the St. Louis Cardinals organization.

Raisor
08-22-2003, 12:39 PM
Originally posted by REDREAD
I can agree with this general line of thought..We are in a disagreement over whether Hummel is worth more than Sullivan..


The question is, is having control of Hummel for the next six years (or so) worth more then hanging onto Sullivan until October in a lost year?

Sullivan CAN be resigned next year, and the team would still keep Hummel.

Hummel >Free agent Sullivan
Hummel+whatever Reds use the money they would have paid Sullivan (even if it IS Sullivan) > Free Agent Sullivan

creek14
08-22-2003, 12:41 PM
I understand the reasoning behind trading a FA for something. I have just been more than a little suspect of all the trades since the Willy cash grab. That one left such a bad taste in my mouth that even a 1985 Dom Pérignon couldn't cleanse it.

PuffyPig
08-22-2003, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by REDREAD

The goal of these type of trades should be to increase the overall talent base
of the team.. this trade did not do that.

let's see. Next eyar we have Hummell instead of.......nothing.

That's an increase in talent.

And we might just have Hummell and Sullivan. We just saved about $350,000 which can help towards Sullivan's salary.

In every trade involving a FA to be, you don't tend to get a comparable talent in return, on the basis that you are trading a talented FA to be (for 6-8 weeks) for a player who's yours for longer.

If we got a great, young cheaper version of Sullivan, for Sullivan, it would be pretty pointless of the Sox to do that, wouldn't it.?

So, expecting an increase in talent is debatable. But in this case, we might have just got it.

Of the players we have traded, Sullivan had by far the least trade value. And we may have picked up a starting thirdbaseman.

Benihana
08-22-2003, 12:44 PM
Originally posted by creek14
Why wasn't he going to be on the team next year? We have all that money between 40 (current) - 60 (projected bwahahahahaha) in the budget to sign a couple vets.

Creek, I'm sorry but if you wanted to give Scott Sullivan a contract extension at $2+ a year, I am just glad you are not employed by the Reds FO.

What use does a retooling, small market team have for a high priced, declining middle reliever that has logged more innings in the past four years than virtually anyone in history?!?!! Especially with the plethora of young, inexpensive and talented pitching (specifically RELIEF pitching) that we have just acquired??

That is EXACTLY not how we need to be using our limited resources. Please don't submit your name to the Reds for consideration for the GM job if this is the direction you would like to see the team pursue.

Raisor
08-22-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by creek14
I understand the reasoning behind trading a FA for something. I have just been more than a little suspect of all the trades since the Willy cash grab. That one left such a bad taste in my mouth that even a 1985 Dom Pérignon couldn't cleanse it.


I agree that the Williamson trade was bad, but I'm of the belief that the others were all at least good trades that will help the club in the future.

2003 is over, I'm just considering this a very long off season.

D-Man
08-22-2003, 12:46 PM
I think one thing has been missing from this discussion:

*Wouldn't Sullivan have garnered draft picks as compensation if the Reds had kept him through the offseason and let him sign elsewhere? Of course there are two big downside risks: he accepts arbitration (he would probably get big $$ after five years of 90+ innings), or other teams might be scared off by having to relinquish a draft pick for signing Sullivan.

I can't say I'm overly impressed with Hummel. Nevertheless, I do like how Hummel plays several IF positions, given that 3/4 of the infield is unsettled for next year. The options he brings to the table have immense value--Tony Phillips was the most underrated player in baseball for several years because no one realized that someone who could play seven positions made it much easier for the decisionmmakers to manage a team w/ scarce resources (i.e., a 25-man roster).

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 12:48 PM
Originally posted by Raisor
Sullivan CAN be resigned next year, and the team would still keep Hummel.


That's true, he COULD be resigned, but I'm not holding my breath, considering he was on Allen's dump list.

But you raise a good point.. In an ideal world, where the GM has flexiblity to use the 300k saved in this trade to sign draft picks, etc.. then this trade becomes a lot more palatable.

If all these trades since July give the Reds financial flexiblity to make some moves in the winter, I'll view them much more favorable.. But based on the past 6 years, I expect that Allen is simply trying to drive the 2004 to rock bottom, to make up for his lowered projected attendence..

That's been my main beef on a lot of these trades, they shave salary, BUT they don't give the team any corresponding financial flexiblity.. it all goes into Carl's pocket.

Raisor
08-22-2003, 12:49 PM
Originally posted by D-Man
I think one thing has been missing from this discussion:

*Wouldn't Sullivan have garnered draft picks as compensation if the Reds had kept him through the offseason and let him sign elsewhere? Of course there's the big downside risk that he accepts arbitration (he would probably get big $$ after five years of 90+ innings), or other teams might be scared off by having to relinquish a draft pick for signing Sullivan.



Would Sullivan been rated a class A or B free agent, especially after his season last year?

PuffyPig
08-22-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by D-Man
I think one thing has been missing from this discussion:

*Wouldn't Sullivan have garnered draft picks as compensation if the Reds had kept him through the offseason and let him sign elsewhere? Of course there's the big downside risk that he accepts arbitration (he would probably get big $$ after five years of 90+ innings), or other teams might be scared off by having to relinquish a draft pick for signing Sullivan.



To get draft picks, we would have to offer him arbitation, where he would get a min. of $2.24M which he would accept gleefully. And that's the min. number, he might get way more.

No thanks. There's no chance of Sullivan being offered arbitration. Way better, and even cheaper, players than Sullivan are being non-tendered.

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 12:50 PM
Originally posted by PuffyPig

If we got a great, young cheaper version of Sullivan, for Sullivan, it would be pretty pointless of the Sox to do that, wouldn't it.?


Let me clarify.. if for example, we got a prospect from the Sox that projected to be similiar to Sully in 1-2 years, that would be a great trade, and the Sox might do it because they need bullpen help now.

The Mercker trade might turn out to be a trade like that..

I just don't see Hummel at this point being anything more than a utility man/fill in guy.. and we have those in spades.

westofyou
08-22-2003, 12:50 PM
So let me pose this question again.. What about Heredia? Is it worth bringing him back next year, or should he be dumped for the best we can get for him? Let's assume Heredia would cost between 1-1.5 million next year..

You bet, he's a LH on a team that is getting destroyed by LH hitters in a LH hitters park, he's in his late 20's and has pitched 260 less innings than Sullivan.

He's exactly where some of Sullys money should/will be sent.

The Reds are leveraging their bets that what they get for Sullivan will be better for the organization than what Sullivan could give.

Like I said projections of players careers point to Sullivan experiencing a downward trend.

All trades are gambles and an organization needs to shore up weaknesses, ours is the AAA/ML left side, with Lopez possibly being out until June (and probably not being full strength until 2005) this is a good trade IMO.

Especially considering that Sullivan has pitched a grand total of 21 innings since June 1st.

Chip R
08-22-2003, 12:52 PM
Originally posted by PuffyPig
If the Cards want to give Sullivan $2.8M (or a little more) next year, be my guest.

He'll get closer to a third of that. I could see the Cards overpaying for Sully since their bullpen is so bad.He could be that bridge in the middle innings to Izzy.

REDREAD
08-22-2003, 12:54 PM
ok, thanks WOY..
I too hope they can keep Heredia.. despite the fact that he's a potential FA, I don't want him dumped..

I wish the Reds' FO would move and sign the guy now.

princeton
08-22-2003, 01:14 PM
I'd certainly have offered to extend him before the deal. Who knows-- maybe his home situation would have prompted him to sign cheap. A cheap, proven reliever in hand is worth more than an older prospect...

here's a question that I have. In Gammons column, he writes about Rafael Palmeiro: "But what he missed was that he has more of a chance to return to the Rangers if he finishes the season with the Cubs than if he were with the Rangers, because he's going to be a January signee and the Rangers aren't about to offer him salary arbitration"

so the Reds weren't about to offer Sully arbitration either-- does this mean that he's more likely to return to the Reds post-trade? What does a "January signee" mean?

I vaguely recall a rule about a team not being able to re-sign a guy until May 15-- is this the consequence of not offering arbitration or am I muddling two different rules together?

PuffyPig
08-22-2003, 01:23 PM
Originally posted by princeton

here's a question that I have. In Gammons column, he writes about Rafael Palmeiro: "But what he missed was that he has more of a chance to return to the Rangers if he finishes the season with the Cubs than if he were with the Rangers, because he's going to be a January signee and the Rangers aren't about to offer him salary arbitration"

so the Reds weren't about to offer Sully arbitration either-- does this mean that he's more likely to return to the Reds post-trade? What does a "January signee" mean?

I

Good point. If the Reds did not offer Sullivan arbitration, he could not resign with them until May1. Now he can sign as a FA at any time.

CougarQuest
08-22-2003, 01:23 PM
I say lets see what the kids got before we rush to judgement on this trade. The way the White Sox organization used him, IMO, it's hard to truly judge the kid, he's been bounced from position to position all year. Anyone here actually seen the kid play? I see things in his stats that I really appreciate.

creek14
08-22-2003, 01:31 PM
Originally posted by CougarQuest
he's been bounced from position to position all year.
And that never happens to the guys who wear the Wishbone C. :p ;) ;)

charlotte_14
08-22-2003, 01:33 PM
When I've watched Joe Borchard this season, I feel like I'm looking at this year's Adam Dunn.....we don't want him in exchange for anything/anyone. They are already projecting Jeremy Reed to start in CF for the White Sox next year.

Having watched the Knights over the last 4 years, Tim Hummel (can play 3B, SS or 2B) is likely the most worthwhile player on their current roster. If we've got Dunn, Griffey & Kearns for the power numbers, it would sure help if someone could just get on base in front of them.

The only other choices are:

2B Aaron Myles, who hits for average and plays a good 2B but is 26 or 27 and is just finishing his 1st full season at AAA.

1B/OF Ross Gload, good average with some power.....but the Reds need a 1B/OF candidate like they need another hole in their head.


THE ONLY worthwhile pitcher in the Chisox organization is Jon Rauch.


One other side note on PTBNL from Chicago's view......they may be trying to "throw a bone" to their AAA organization. The Knights have faint hopes of making the International League playoffs. If Hummel goes now, so does the potential money making opportunity for the Knights..........and they don't draw well at all (on top of the fact, they were 20-30 games under .500 last season.). If all likelyhood, the Knights season will be over Sept. 1.

PuffyPig
08-22-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by Chip R
I could see the Cards overpaying for Sully since their bullpen is so bad.He could be that bridge in the middle innings to Izzy.

The Cards have money woes. Thee payroll next year would be substantialy higher with the same team, so cuts will have to be made. They wil not have the money to overpay anyone. And even if they did, Sullivan is not the type of pitcher that you overpay for.

Perhaps one of the cards fans who visit us could comment on whether or not they woudl be in the financial position next year to overpay for a guy like Sullivan, and whether that's the type of guy they would overpay for.

I can see Sullivan with the Cards, but for no more than $750,000 to $1,000,000.

Stormy
08-22-2003, 06:12 PM
Receiving Hummel is akin to receiving nothing. He's a poor man's Brandon Larson, which is akin to being nothing. We declined Sullivan's option. We traded him for nothing after we made his FA status a reality. You'd think a guy of Sullivan's pedigree for the pennant run would bring at least someone of minimal value to the team. It didn't, and the visible alienation which resulted by the procedures, will not only likely persuade Sullivan to not consider returning to the Reds, but obviously just hurt the Reds future negotiation stances with key pieces of the puzzle like Reitsma and Dunn who are furious. So much for Sullivan's described "invaluable" work with Ryan Wagner over the next 40 games.

The Reds have it backwards: They have managed to move all the valuable, productive, fairly inexpensive players, and have received virtually nothing of *certain* value in return, (yes we may get contributions from Claussen and Valentine eventually, but the rest is a complete crapshoot and we tossed away a lot of talent, not to get a single MLB ready impact stud in return somewhere)... and conversely have yet to move a single one of the burdensome contracts (which are abundant on this team) ala Bichette for Reitsma.

They are completely rudderless in a volatile sea.

Welcome Hummel, you're instantly the 4th best 3B in an organization with terrible 3B prospects.

J "Cooper"
08-22-2003, 06:19 PM
The market has changed in the last 2 years. Teams don't pay big prices for middle relievers anymore because they know they are a dime a dozen.

It's a decent trade if Hummel plays 2nd base. He'll bring a decent OBP and some SLG plus he's 24. It was a good trade. A real good trade.

The Market has changed folks.

MWM
08-22-2003, 06:22 PM
What I don't understand is that it seems of Williamson, Sullivan, and Mercker, the Reds seemed to get the best return for Mercker.

I would have thought it would been the exact opposite.

traderumor
08-22-2003, 06:29 PM
Originally posted by Chip R
Why, Pittsburgh would want him. Don't you read RedsZone? ;) I suppose there is a good side to Casey's performance the second half of the year. :D

I don't blame Casey for being upset. I like the trade but if it were up to these guys, they would want their old buddies on the team from now till the day they retire no matter if they suck or not. He did take less money to play here but it's not like he just signed that deal either. Perhaps we can get him back after the season. If not, then vaya con Dios, Sully. Thanks for all your hard work and loyalty. :thumbup:

Chip,

I might be repeating myself to some, but I humbly doubt that someone sits and ponders my posts enough to recall something I said weeks ago. These "oldtimers" and their whining are revealing part of the reason the Reds have been mediocre to poor the last few years, in a Sean Casey led clubhouse. I think there is a desire to win, but not at any cost. They treat the Reds as if they are a fat guy softball team (maybe that's why they got Jimmy Anderson?) that plays ballgames every day and then gets together in someone's backyard for a BBQ and beers after the game.

That's fine if you're playing for who buys the case of beer when they strike out (which would guarantee plenty of ale with this group), but last I checked they are competing for a World Championship. Of course, someone with Casey's collegial, frat brother mentality, he's just reacting to his emotions rather than trying to understand what the team he represents is hoping to accomplish.

I'll listen more when he tells Mandy not to cash his next paycheck because he doesn't approve of the organization's direction and purpose.

Oxilon
08-22-2003, 06:34 PM
Are we positive it's Hummel?

According to "The Score" (a radio station in Chicago) the Reds have the option of either Rauch or some Knotts fellow (forgot his name).

Could the Post have screwed up?

FlyingPig
08-22-2003, 06:34 PM
I live 15 miles from Charlotte and have seen the Knights play many times this season...My take on Hummell? He's not what we need at third.

Hummell has never impressed me. He doesn't look like a third baseman, nor does he play like one...Tall, wiry, almost too skinny. His arm is suspect, and although he hustles, he never comes up with the big play. He hits ok for a third baseman in AAA, but then again, so does Branden Larsen. He strikes out a lot and hits a lot of ground balls. Not much power.

I don't see this guy replacing Aaron Boone at third for the long term. To me, he's another Larsen or Branyon....one of those players you wait and wait for him to break out but never does. His numbers weren't as good as Larsen's at the AAA level and I don't see him improving at the major league level...

Red Leader
08-22-2003, 06:39 PM
Originally posted by Oxilon
Are we positive it's Hummel?

According to "The Score" (a radio station in Chicago) the Reds have the option of either Rauch or some Knotts fellow (forgot his name).

Could the Post have screwed up?

I'm pretty sure it would be Hummel. Jon Rauch is the White Sox top pitching prospect, I doubt they would move him for Sullivan. The other one....can't find anyone named "Knotts" in their farm system, so I'll assume they meant, Cotts, as in, Neal Cotts, and he is pitching on the major league roster now. I doubt they would part with him either. So, my guess is Hummel is the more likely return.

cincinnati chili
08-22-2003, 06:41 PM
Originally posted by Red Storm
Receiving Hummel is akin to receiving nothing. He's a poor man's Brandon Larson

Is there such thing as a poor man's .156 career hitter?

NCred. Thanks for the review. Have you seen him play 2b? I know Jimenez has played well, but I wouldn't exactly hand him the keys to the kingdom yet. If nothing else, could he be a platoon guy on the infield.

His lack of power doesn't worry me as much as his lack of walks. If you check his career minor league numbers, he's only had a good on base % in years where he hit .300. Even Alfonso Soriano is finding out that's tough to do in the show.

CougarQuest
08-22-2003, 06:44 PM
Originally posted by Oxilon
Are we positive it's Hummel?

According to "The Score" (a radio station in Chicago) the Reds have the option of either Rauch or some Knotts fellow (forgot his name).

Could the Post have screwed up?

That would seem to make more sense, since the Reds PAID money.

Rauch is 6'11", 260 lb righthanded 24, soon to be 25 year old.

FlyingPig
08-22-2003, 06:47 PM
Chili, I have not seen him play second, but he does look and play more like a second baseman than a third baseman if that makes any sense.

He definitely isn't a shortstop. I'd say the worst part of his game is his arm...the guy just simply can't throw with velocity.

buckeyenut
08-22-2003, 06:54 PM
Originally posted by CougarQuest
That would seem to make more sense, since the Reds PAID money.

Rauch is 6'11", 260 lb righthanded 24, soon to be 25 year old.

If the Post was wrong and the Reds get Jon Rauch out of this deal, they would have gotten a steal if they had paid Sullys entire contract for the year.

I am of the opinion that it is a good deal if they get Hummel, a Mercker type deal (aka great, fabulous, hire these guys as co-GMs right now for the long term type deal) if they got Jon Rauch. No matter how either one eventually turns out.

guernsey
08-22-2003, 06:55 PM
From BA Trade Central:



Hummel, 24, was a second-round pick from Old Dominion in 2000. At one point he looked like he'd be the White Sox' second baseman of the future, but the club made trades for players such as D'Angelo Jimenez and Roberto Alomar. Hummel has played just six games at second base this year, instead seeing time at third base and shortstop. He's having his best year ever with the bat, as his 15 homers are two more than he hit in his first three seasons combined. Hummel is hitting .284 with a .349 on-base percentage and .447 slugging percentage in 126 games. He still projects as a second baseman, because his bat would stand out there. His power surge aside, he may not have the pop for third base and lacks the range of a typical shortstop.

Stormy
08-22-2003, 08:34 PM
Originally posted by cincinnati chili
Is there such thing as a poor man's .156 career hitter?

Yea, that's kinda the point. Having seen Hummel in Charlotte, and evaluating his overall numbers, he pretty much is a poor man's Brandon Larson. That's sad. Larson eclipsed Hummel's numbers in the same AAA IL this year, obviously - and frankly Hummel is miscast for pretty much every position. He lacks the lateral range, quick turn and instincts for 2B maybe because of his wiry frame), and yet he looks rigid at 3b, and with a less than remarkable arm for the position. Likewise, he's a real tweener offensively who more than lacks the pop to play a corner, and has no real prowess for getting on base. He'll be 25+ before we reach next season, and even with increased power has put up pretty modest numbers at AAA.

There really is no single outstanding aspect of his game. He's bench fodder, unless this team doesn't acquire a legitimate 3B (to bridge the gap to Encarnacion?) in the immediate future, and/or all of the 2B candidates flop.

We pretty much dumped Sullivan just for the sake of dumping him (and saving 1/2 of the already minimal amount owed him on the remainder of the 2003 contract), if this remains our only return.

Ga_Red
08-22-2003, 08:37 PM
2/09/07

PuffyPig
08-22-2003, 08:39 PM
Originally posted by Red Storm

They have managed to move all the valuable, productive, fairly inexpensive players


Don't you consider guys like Kearns, Dunn, Jiminez, Wagner, Reitsma valuable, productive, inexpensive???

Williamson would make $5M next season, and plays a position (closer) we can replace more cheaply with Reitsma.

Boone would make about $6M next season, which is too much for a career .780 OPS guy (about .760 this year).

Both are FA after next season.

Guillen, Sullivan, Mercker and White are all FA after this season.

If all of these players had beeen kept, our team would be worse next season. Because 4 of them would be no closer to our team if we kept them.

And we'd be complaining about Williamson and Boone's salary.

Complaining about the return is one thing. Complaining about trading them is an entirely different matter.

westofyou
08-22-2003, 08:40 PM
Remember the Bats infielder
who tore up AAA in 2000, 2001?
Lotsa power, good shortstop,
but he just couldn't make it
in the bigs when the Reds and Boston
brought him up?


Who?

Chris Sexton?

Stormy
08-22-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by PuffyPig
Don't you consider guys like Kearns, Dunn, Jiminez, Wagner, Reitsma valuable, productive, inexpensive???

Williamson would make $5M next season, and plays a position (closer) we can replace more cheaply with Reitsma.

Boone would make about $6M next season, which is too much for a career .780 OPS guy (about .760 this year).

Both are FA after next season.

Guillen, Sullivan, Mercker and White are all FA after this season.

If all of these players had beeen kept, our team would be worse next season. Because 4 of them would be no closer to our team if we kept them.

I understand your point, and I agree that some of these guys HAD to be moved. I think you know I was preaching the mantra that Williamson, Boone, Guillen were the types of guys who almost had to be moved this year *for the right return*. We are acting like it's an accomplishment to have moved these guys though: No it's not, they aren't some exorbitantly paid, underproductive lot. It is not an achievement to move a career 2.94ERA K-monster fireballer, the league's third most productive 3B at the time of the trade, and an OF with 320ABs of 1000+OPS ball making peanuts. These are not moves with a degree of difficulty like trading Bichette's $7 million, or Reese's escalating cost etc... and yet we are treating it like it is. "These guys were going to eventually make money, so it was a success just to move them." No.

The return was everything. We were balking at talks about Williamson for Juan Cruz + a prospect when we were in contention, and yet we traded him for a single A guy who should be more advanced, and a GCLer!!!! That is the problem. A guy voted to the All-Star team (deservedly or not) in Boone and a very effective lefty reliever like Gabe White traded for a combination of Manning (24+ at single A!!!, gee thrilled he can finally master it before his next shelling at AA) and a high ceiling pitcher a year removed from TJ whose velocity and K rates are down. I don't hate it, but it's hard to be pleased with it as well - as it weakens us everywhere and will take awhile to show returns). Guillen trade was OK, but frankly Harang will return to 5.00ERA form - book it. Valentine is in the midst of his worst year ever, and his 4th-5th organization... despite electric velocity and slider, and another A baller who should be more advanced for his age/stage, but isn't.

Why trade Sullivan? He is beloved by the Reds one area of strength, the bullpen. Hume calls him his "Assistant Pitching coach." Reitsma and Wagner have alluded to his great help and guidance, and we've managed to outrage an already disillusioned group of guys we want to eventually sign in guys like Reitsma, Dunn, Kearns? (not sure about him, but I'd bet solid "yes"). What did it accomplish? We got NOTHING, and I do mean nothing for him. A guy who won't even make our roster if we field more than a AAA team next year. What did we save, maybe $200,000?? At what cost.

I think the return, the process, and the tenor have all been wrong. And my point is that, if you are going to move your talent you'd better either get a.) maximum return, rather than cash savings, and b.) At least make teams who can sneeze at Williamson's $1.6 million, or Boone or White's or Mercker's miniscule salary eat one of the contracts we truly need to unload to get payroll flexibility.

the guys whose contracts are going to burden the 2004 Reds are all still here (Casey, Graves, Haynes, Wilson, Dempster?, Griffey)... so we really haven't dumped much in the way of payroll burdens, but we sure have dumped a lot of talent.

We basically head into next year with a good bullpen (though being weakened), part of a solid OF, and a horrid IF and Rotation... and we have to clear a lot more heavy salary to make the kind of additions that can fill those multitude of holes.

Moves like this serve no purpose IMHO.

PuffyPig
08-22-2003, 09:00 PM
Originally posted by westofyou
Who?

Chris Sexton?

Sexton was a career minor leaguer. Nobody expected him to contend for a starting job.

Based on your theory, every good hitting minor leaguer is worthless???

westofyou
08-22-2003, 09:02 PM
Based on your theory, every good hitting minor leaguer is worthless???

I'm sorry.. was this directed at me? Or Ga Red?

Stormy
08-22-2003, 09:03 PM
Originally posted by PuffyPig
Sexton was a career minor leaguer. Nobody expected him to contend for a starting job.

Based on your theory, every good hitting minor leaguer is worthless???

Regarding Hummel, that's irrelevant, as he's not a good hitting minor leaguer, even at AAA, as he nears 25.

J "Cooper"
08-22-2003, 09:16 PM
For a 2nd baseman, and i know he played 3rd this year, but if he plays 2nd those are good numbers for a 24 yr. old middle infielder. In fact, I'd venture to say they might be top 3 for a 2nd baseman in AAA. There's nothing wriong with that.

J "Cooper"
08-22-2003, 09:26 PM
The average 2nd baseman in the International league is .725 OPS. Hummel put up a .796 OPS. His was .291 2nd best 3rd baseman in the IL. If he plays 2nd his EQA is also #2.

RS: how can you write he's not a good hitting minor leaguer. It appears you are comparing him against Outfielders when that's not really fair. Are there that many 3rd baseman in the minors who are better than Hummel?

His numbers for an IF are well above average for a middle infielder-his age also works for him. At 24 he's got a couple years to reach his peak and fill out.

37red
08-22-2003, 10:11 PM
All the stats aside, I only see the ownership dumping the best players on the team. They are counting pennies compared with what they have, and it sucks that the people of Cincinnati paid for a new stadium without a clause that the billionaire wouldn't have to put up the bucks to make a competing team. I hate looking at the line up and not knowing any of the names. It mostly sucks to me. I don't even know what to say, the reds are gone as a team. It's rebuilding so we can dump again when they get good enough to trade or give away for more money in the banana mans pocket. There is no satisfaction to me to see the players leave that have recently, no, I'd like to have seen their qualities added to not detracted from. The reds aren't even qualified to be in a major league stadium. How can any of you look at this team and not feel sorry for the few remaining players that have played and stayed. It sucks.

37red
08-22-2003, 10:19 PM
My kids wanted to go to a game this year, but this is the end for awhile. I'll take them to another park that has some tradition and some honor. The reds have become nothing to speak of, a bus stop for players and that's all. It hurts having been a kid that spent many times in Crosley Field watching the reds of memory. This stuff today is nothing but more imports from china. They need to kick out the banana man and all of his buddies and make owners sign contracts that will fulfill the needs of providing a MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM, kick out the liers, make them put up or get out.

westofyou
08-22-2003, 10:20 PM
It hurts having been a kid that spent many times in Crosley Field watching the reds of memory.

37 no offense but Crosley housed some pretty bad teams in its day.

37red
08-22-2003, 10:27 PM
they were teams that stayed together and played together. The owners sucked at times, but the shuffling of players wasn't so constant. If it comes down to it west of you, I feel like the support for the reds is rediculous. Why even make a team picture for the card packs when there is so little support for a "team".

Buckeye33
08-22-2003, 10:58 PM
Ummm....teams that played in Crosley Field stayed together because for the majority of the time it was open, there was no free agency.

They didn't stay together because the owners/GMs wanted or didn't want them to.

Stormy
08-22-2003, 11:01 PM
Originally posted by J "Cooper"
His numbers for an IF are well above average for a middle infielder-his age also works for him. At 24 he's got a couple years to reach his peak and fill out.

It won't take much time watching him to realize why he won't be playing much 2B anymore. So, I regard him as a 25 year old (in 3 months) corner IF, who is putting up solid but less than exceptional numbers at AAA. We've seen that Larson and Mateo's monster IL AAA numbers have yet to translate to much at this level, and my estimate is that Hummel's much less impressive numbers and modest skills will translate into even less.

We'll see I guess.

westofyou
08-22-2003, 11:30 PM
they were teams that stayed together and played together.

From 1950-1969 the Reds finished 4th or worse 15 times, in 1950 the average salary was $13,228 in 1969 it was $24,909.

In short those teams stayed together because they had no power, no choice... nothing, you got to know everyone because everyone was always coming back. That was your team, your guys the ones who lived in your neighborhood, my mother-in-law lived down the street from Klu, she knew Ed Bailey. If a guy got traded chances were the guy they got looked just like him and was there for a few years as well, soon you knew all his nuances.

In 2002 the average salary in MLB was $2,024,677,522.

That's why the "team" never stays the same.

pedro
08-22-2003, 11:35 PM
Originally posted by 37red
It sucks.

It does suck. But so did the reds this year and if things didn't change they were going to suck next year too. Now, I'm not ready to say things are all better yet, but if the reds still had the same roster and management as they did at all star break they'd have maybe won 2-3 more games than they have. maybe. now that sucks.

Falls City Beer
08-23-2003, 02:01 AM
This deal is a turd.

We could have gotten an arm for Sullivan and cash. We didn't.

Very disappointing.

This team must single-mindedly pursue pitching.

Branyan should be our 3rd baseman next year; he's cheap and better than Boone offensively.

Silly trade.

Hap
08-23-2003, 11:15 AM
Originally posted by westofyou
In 2002 the average salary in MLB was $2,024,677,522.

???????????????????????????????????

Two billion????????????????????????????

Are you sure??????????????????????????

:ipoke:

westofyou
08-23-2003, 11:27 AM
Whoops, you're right Hap that's the TOTAL of all the salaries in MLB.

The correct number is:

$2,384,779 - 2002.

RedSchmo2
08-23-2003, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by Red Storm
It won't take much time watching him to realize why he won't be playing much 2B anymore. So, I regard him as a 25 year old (in 3 months) corner IF, who is putting up solid but less than exceptional numbers at AAA. We've seen that Larson and Mateo's monster IL AAA numbers have yet to translate to much at this level, and my estimate is that Hummel's much less impressive numbers and modest skills will translate into even less.

We'll see I guess.

You are right Red Storm. We will see. If Hummel contributes to 15 wins for the Reds in the future, then its a good deal. That is about the maximum Sullivan may have done the rest of this year.

If you are right, Hummel will not even contribute that much.

But to say he has less than minimal value is a stretch. In the Spring of this year, Baseball America said of Hummel he is "considered a textbook hitter with an unusually pure righthanded stroke." Since that statement, he has hit .286 with 15 HR and 80 RBIs. Really, the guy has had 3 1/2 years in the minors with 1 bad year.

Here is what you don't know, nor does anyone. Can he carry that success to the next level? Some guys who hit 40 HRs in AAA cannot hit squat in the majors. Yet, some guys are stars in the bigs after never hitting .280 in the minors. We know Larson has not been able to adjust. We just don't know that about Hummel.

I do know this though, if he hits .285 with 15 HRs, 80 RBIs with solid but not spectacular defense in the bigs, he will be OK.

I think the theory of "25 years old and in the minors = dud" is a bit off-base, don't you? Also, this "tools" crap should be thrown out the window with Bowden.

After all, I am sure you would agree that Joe Borchard would have made this a great deal... but he is exactly the same age as Hummel, drafted in the same draft out of college, and by the way floundering in AAA this year.

Oxilon
08-23-2003, 12:48 PM
Chris Reed, the creator of The Prospect Report, compared Hummel to none other than the Mets superstar, Ty Wigginton


4. TIM HUMMEL (3B) - DOB: 11/18/78 - ETA: 2004
(Triple A - 388 AB, .294/.362/.464) Hummel has bounced back from a mediocre 2002 with a very good performance in AAA-Charlotte. He's played second base and shortstop, but has spent the majority of his time at third base. There's no reason to think he couldn't put up Ty Wigginton-like numbers, or very possibly - better.

I'm no Bill James prodigy or anything, but we traded Scott Sullivan and cash for a Ty Wigginton player? Esh......

PuffyPig
08-23-2003, 01:29 PM
Originally posted by Oxilon
Chris Reed, the creator of The Prospect Report, compared Hummel to none other than the Mets superstar, Ty Wigginton



I'm no Bill James prodigy or anything, but we traded Scott Sullivan and cash for a Ty Wigginton player? Esh......

We traded 5 weeks of Sullivan for a player descibed as "quite possibly putting up better than Wigginton numbers".

That's not bad. His OPS is about .020 worse than Boone's this year, so any improvement by Hummell over Wigginton'd numbers would put him ahead of Boone.

All for 5 weeks of Sullivan.

SteelSD
08-23-2003, 02:21 PM
Originally posted by PuffyPig
We traded 5 weeks of Sullivan for a player descibed as "quite possibly putting up better than Wigginton numbers".

That's not bad. His OPS is about .020 worse than Boone's this year, so any improvement by Hummell over Wigginton'd numbers would put him ahead of Boone.

All for 5 weeks of Sullivan.

You're right, PP. This season, Ty Wigginton is right at ML Average for 3B (.263EQA, 0.0 Runs Above Position) and projects to improve on that.

ML Average- 2B

EQA- .263

ML Average- 3B

EQA- .262

Third Base as a "Corner Infield" position is actually perceived to be more about offense than 2B, but this season it's not.

Assuming that the player is Hummel, we may have a League Average (with potential for more) 2B or 3B. Those kind of projections at 2B would actually place Hummel just below Jimenez, Eric Young, and Mark Grudzielanek- and above Todd Walker.

Hummel has developed power this season, and overall he's displayed decent plate discipline in the Minors (1761AB/192BB)= 1BB/9.17AB) with an OBP of .350+ in all but one season (2002).

That's not a bad return for a couple months of Scott Sullivan, IMHO.

Oxilon
08-23-2003, 02:26 PM
I'm not saying we shouldn't of traded Sullivan away; it was a good idea to trade him.

But if we can get a prospect of Matt Belisle for Kent Mercker, why can't we get even a better prospect for Sullivan (who's a better reliever) and cash?

I just thought we could of gotten more for him.

Raisor
08-23-2003, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by Oxilon
I'm not saying we shouldn't of traded Sullivan away; it was a good idea to trade him.

But if we can get a prospect of Matt Belisle for Kent Mercker, why can't we get even a better prospect for Sullivan (who's a better reliever) and cash?

I just thought we could of gotten more for him.


Merker
a) was having a better season then Sullivan
b) was owed less for the rest of the season

westofyou
08-23-2003, 02:33 PM
Merker
a) was having a better season then Sullivan
b) was owed less for the rest of the season

C. Atlanta had a weakness (no LH reliever aside from Ray King) and was willing to overpay for it.

SteelSD
08-23-2003, 02:42 PM
Originally posted by Oxilon
I'm not saying we shouldn't of traded Sullivan away; it was a good idea to trade him.

But if we can get a prospect of Matt Belisle for Kent Mercker, why can't we get even a better prospect for Sullivan (who's a better reliever) and cash?

I just thought we could of gotten more for him.

Well, "better" really depends on what we actually think of Belisle. Personally, I'm not as high on Belisle as many are. Low Walk totals, but he's only had one season allowing less than 1 Hit per IP and will probably finish the year at about a 1/1 ratio or higher for his career.

Certainly he's young and is now almost two seasons removed from injury, but I'm not convinced that Belisle's upside is any higher than a guy like Hummel at this point. And very possibly, Hummel has more of a shot at being ML Average than Belisle does.

Not that I wouldn't take the good seasons of Brian Moehler though...;)

PuffyPig
08-23-2003, 03:08 PM
At the time of the trades, Hummel was probablky a higher rated prospect than Belise.

I think both trades were great.

Ga_Red
08-23-2003, 03:40 PM
2/09/07

PuffyPig
08-23-2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by Ga_Red
PP,

I HOPE the trades turn out great as well!

BUT this Sullivan transaction was a salary dump,
pure and simple, with a prospect who COULD NOT MAKE
THE 2003 SOX TOP 10 LIST as a bone to
appease the Red's fan who thinks ALL CHANGE
is good.



Salary dump???????

That's simply not true. If the Reds wanted to simply dump salary, they could have allowed the Sox waiver claim, and been freed of Sullivan's entire salary.

Instead, they pay half his salary and get a prospect rated #3 at the 2003 midpoint by ProspectAlert.

Raisor
08-23-2003, 04:27 PM
Originally posted by Ga_Red
BUT this Sullivan transaction was a salary dump,
pure and simple, with a prospect who COULD NOT MAKE
THE 2003 SOX TOP 10 LIST
(and which no other other major league team
thought worth enough to put in a waiver wire
claim for)

Wait a second.

Was Hummel ever on the 40 man roster? Did the White Sox take him off the 40 man roster?

They wouldn't have to put him on revocable waivers for this deal.

Ga_Red
08-23-2003, 04:28 PM
2/09/07

westofyou
08-23-2003, 04:30 PM
Was Hummel ever on the 40 man roster?

Yes he was.

Not on the 25 man roster though.

Raisor
08-23-2003, 04:35 PM
Originally posted by Ga_Red
PP,

this would be the prospect rated so highly
that the majority of major league teams
chose not to put in a waiver claim
for him in order for the
the Reds to trade for him?


This, iirc, only applies to players on the 25-man roster. Hummel would not need to clear waivers to be traded.

pedro
08-23-2003, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by PuffyPig
At the time of the trades, Hummel was probablky a higher rated prospect than Belise.

I think both trades were great.

FWIW, belisle was sporting news' #85 prospect, hummel not on list.

BTW- WMP is only other red at #59

PuffyPig
08-23-2003, 06:47 PM
Originally posted by pedro
FWIW, belisle was sporting news' #85 prospect, hummel not on list.

BTW- WMP is only other red at #59

There's lots of differnt lists.

Hummel rated the #3 propsect for the White Sox mid season by Top Propect Alert. Going into 2003, Belise was rated #29 of the Braves by BA.

guernsey
08-23-2003, 10:26 PM
From the Reds game notes:



Chamblee might not stay long with Cincinnati. Next week, the Reds are expected to announce the acquisition of third baseman Tim Hummel, who's reportedly the player to be named later in the Scott Sullivan deal with the Chicago White Sox. Indications are that Hummel will proceed directly to the Reds.

Krusty
08-23-2003, 11:06 PM
Might as well see the final month if Hummell is possibly the answer to our 3rd base dilemna come next season. Larson has shown that he is the second coming of Dave Revering. And Russell Branyan will be nothing more than a bench player.

REDREAD
08-23-2003, 11:27 PM
Originally posted by 37red
They need to kick out the banana man and all of his buddies and make owners sign contracts that will fulfill the needs of providing a MAJOR LEAGUE TEAM, kick out the liers, make them put up or get out.

I just had to give you a big AMEN..

I agree.. this is downright sickening.. I really don't see how anyone can look at the sum of all these trades and say the Reds have added talent.. The talent level of this team continues to go down the tubes..

There was no reason to give sullivan away.. I don't care if he's a pending free agent. The Sox are a contending team, and you make them pay dearly for bullpen help. If they don't pay, you eat that extra 300k for Sully's contract and laugh at the Sox. Then maybe next time the Sox come to talk trade, they won't treat the Red's like the "Cincy superstore". Only trade Sully if you get something that has value..

People used to have a theory that no one wanted to trade with the Reds due to Bowden.. Well, now with Bowden gone, everyone knows they can pluck any player off the Reds making around 1.5+ million for peanuts...

REDREAD
08-23-2003, 11:34 PM
Originally posted by PuffyPig
Salary dump???????

That's simply not true. If the Reds wanted to simply dump salary, they could have allowed the Sox waiver claim, and been freed of Sullivan's entire salary.



actually, I don't think we know if the Sox claimed Sully or not.
That is pure speculation.

Sully might've cleared Waivers, and then the Sox might've called the Reds and said, "we can work out a deal if you pay 1/2 his salary"...

Ga_Red
08-23-2003, 11:54 PM
2/09/07

Raisor
08-23-2003, 11:56 PM
Originally posted by REDREAD


There was no reason to give sullivan away.. I don't care if he's a pending free agent. The Sox are a contending team, and you make them pay dearly for bullpen help. If they don't pay, you eat that extra 300k for Sully's contract and laugh at the Sox. Then maybe next time the Sox come to talk trade, they won't treat the Red's like the "Cincy superstore". Only trade Sully if you get something that has value..



Sullivan has been something like the 62nd "best" relief pitcher in the majors this year (there are 61 RP with at least 30 IP and a lower ERA then Sullivan).
I'm not exactly sure what everyone thinks he's worth, but at his salary and what he's done on the field the last two years, it's not much.

I think the FO did pretty well considering.

Raisor
08-24-2003, 12:10 AM
Originally posted by REDREAD
actually, I don't think we know if the Sox claimed Sully or not.
That is pure speculation.

Sully might've cleared Waivers, and then the Sox might've called the Reds and said, "we can work out a deal if you pay 1/2 his salary"...


The White Sox claimed Sullivan, ensuring that the Kansas City Royals or any other team above them at the time couldn't grab him. At that point, the Reds either had to make a deal with the White Sox or pull back Sullivan. The White Sox are responsible for half of Sullivan's $596,000 sala


http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/cws/news/cws_news.jsp?ymd=20030822&content_id=493077&vkey=news_cws&fext=.jsp&c_id=cha

REDREAD
08-24-2003, 12:22 AM
ok, thanks for the link Raisor.. that does prove Sully was claimed.

But Sully had his worst year in 98 ... a 5.21 ERA.. I remember a lot of people on the fastball board wanting to run him out of town,
but he followed it up with 3 great years..

Sullivan isn't THAT old at 32.. He's been hurt this year, but you've
got to ask yourself, what has better odds:

1. Sullivan bouncing back (and he was ok this year) and having a couple more good years.

2. Or having Hummel become a significantly better 3b than our other current mediocre options.

I like #1 better.. If we had gotten a better prospect, this trade would've been easy to stomach.. but this is like so many other give away trades.. Tucker, Williamson, Walker, etc.. if you get zilch in return, it doesn't help you.

Raisor
08-24-2003, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by REDREAD

Sullivan isn't THAT old at 32.. He's been hurt this year, but you've
got to ask yourself, what has better odds:

1. Sullivan bouncing back (and he was ok this year) and having a couple more good years.

2. Or having Hummel become a significantly better 3b than our other current mediocre options.

I like #1 better.. If we had gotten a better prospect, this trade would've been easy to stomach.. but this is like so many other give away trades.. Tucker, Williamson, Walker, etc.. if you get zilch in return, it doesn't help you.

The problem with number one is that Sullivan is a free agent, and there's little chance he'd be brought back. Hummel for five weeks of Sullivan is a deal I can live with.

westofyou
08-24-2003, 12:28 AM
But Sully had his worst year in 98 ... a 5.21 ERA.. I remember a lot of people on the fastball board wanting to run him out of town,


2002 was his worst year.


SCOTT SULLIVAN

2002

YEAR TEAM AGE W L PCT G GS CG SV GF IP H R ER BB SO ERA RSAA
2002 Reds 31 6 5 .545 71 0 0 1 16 78.2 93 60 53 31 78 6.06 -14
TOTALS 6 5 .545 71 0 0 1 16 78.2 93 60 53 31 78 6.06 -14
LG AVERAGE 4 4 .501 0 4 78.2 77 39 36 30 59 4.11 0

YEAR TEAM HR H/9 BR/9 SO/9 BB/9 SO/BB SHO WP IBB HBP BFP BK NW NL
2002 Reds 15 10.64 14.76 8.92 3.55 2.52 0 2 11 5 357 0 4 7
TOTALS 15 10.64 14.76 8.92 3.55 2.52 0 2 11 5 357 0 4 7
LG AVERAGE 9 8.83 12.67 6.77 3.49 1.94 0 2 3 3 339 0

Phhhl
08-24-2003, 01:10 AM
Of all the clowns who call into talks shows in this city, and Peter Gammons who seems to have lost his biggest "informer" when Jim Bowden was fired as GM of this club and threw a rod, I am most surprised by the allergic reaction that the poetically lucid Redstorm has had to the moves the Reds have made in the latter half of this season.

This club has lost a third baseman and a pitcher who proved incapable of nailing down a role worthy of his immense talent in four years of tenure with this club, and one who continues to struggle even after the move. Scott Sullivan falls third in line of the casualties behind these two flawed performers, and yet I can see two or three pitchers who can replace him.

I am shocked at the pessimism of Redstorm in lieu of current events, because I have always considered him to be a paragon of intellectual strength against the irrationality of the emotional fan. AND I AM A EMOTIONAL FAN!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

To date, we have lost noone that signifigantly diminishes our chances to win in the short nor the long term. As long as the Reds outfield remains intact and thrid basemen like Bill Mueller are valued as upper tier players in the game, this club has lost absolutely nothing on the field in it's pursuit of a younger, cheaper and much more talented ballclub. Unfortunate injuries have contributed greatly to the ugly complexion of this team as it stands today, but the addition of 7 to 8 eager and near major league ready arms going to 2004 more than make up for the loss of Aaron Boone at third base and several overpaid hurlers.

The front office HAS to do something in the off season to fill third base and strengthen the bench. But, if it does nothing to add pitching depth to the Reds, it still is about 100% better off than it would have been sitting on it's hands for the duration of this season.

I thought the more intelligent of our crew was prepared to make sacrafices to see our beloved Reds step forward. Nobody said it would be painless. I am frankly disappointed in those that have let their emotional attachment to players fog their vision of the future. No player is bigger than the concept of what it means to be a Cincinnati Red, and no contract should be designed to eclipse the importance of that player to the greater good. As sentimental as we would all like to be about it, winning is a mathmatical equation today more than ever before.

People can gripe about our bounty in these deals all they want, but after visiting the wasteland that is Dayton I personally see where Kullman and company are coming from.

RFS62
08-24-2003, 01:24 AM
Originally posted by Santo Alcala
I am most surprised by the allergic reaction that the poetically lucid Redstorm has had to the moves the Reds have made in the latter half of this season.

I thought the more intelligent of our crew was prepared to make sacrafices to see our beloved Reds step forward. Nobody said it would be painless. I am frankly disappointed in those that have let their emotional attachment to players fog their vision of the future.


Santo, I wouldn't presume to speak for Red Storm. But from what I've read since the purge began, his biggest complaint isn't that the Reds are re-tooling. I think he's questioning the return on the trades we've made.

I think it's a valid observation. I don't always agree with Stormy's take on every situation. But he always makes me dig deeper, especially when we take opposing viewpoints.

Personally, I'm leaning towards your point of view. Nobody will know the final tally on these trades for many months. At least he has the balls to put his opinion out there before we have a post-purge track record to judge.

Stormy
08-24-2003, 01:34 AM
Thanks Santo. I have no emotional attachment to any of the players we have traded, with the sole exception of Scott Williamson. I simply am disturbed by the method, means and motivation of the moves made by our F.O. There is no plan currently in place, and frankly, I'm betting Lee and Brad Kullman would likely admit as much in a more candid moment. Perhaps we will afford the new Reds GM (assuming there is a legitimate replacement named) some payroll flexibility, but we've already removed all of his trading commodities. He'll have nothing but albatross contracts and an unexceptional farm with which to make any moves towards improvement. Anyone relying upon the FA market is apparently new to following Reds baseball.

I have been in favor of moving everyone who has been moved by the Reds, even Willy, and WAY before most were of that opinion, because I believed the Reds would be a 70-92 team this year if the F.O. didn't help them - which it never intended to. However, I believed it was a necessity to turn our few valuable trade commodities into a great infusion of MLB ready talent, even if we had to pay a little extra to do it. Instead we disregarded the best talent infusion in favor of merely unloading players to the team which would take contracts off our hands. I'm not impressed by a slew of A ball pitchers (several whom I've now seen) who are behind the learning curve age wise, a minor league closer already with his 4th-5th organization and struggling mightily at AAA, an enormous injury risk, high ceiling unknown, and several tweeners as the sum haul for the MLB proven talent we traded. God bless those who are pleased with the return. I'm just not one of them. I like some of the new guys potential to contribute - Claussen and Valentine in particular, but that's not an equitable return for the MLB talent we dumped. Barring a new visionary GM, given free reign in player drafting and development, and a miracle of an offseason... this team is headed to the bargain basement cellar for years to come.

PS: I think Williamson has been awesome since the trade. He has allowed a total of 1ER in his past 7 games. 7IP 4 Hits 7Ks. He actually has allowed 0ER in 9 of the 11 games he's pitched since the move. That's great when you are in a pennant race. In fact, he's only had 1 bad appearance skew his ERA. His WHIP, K totals are great since the move. And with 1 exception, has kept the BoSox in every game he's pitched in. I have a feeling the Red Sox may just make him their closer for the last month of the season, and he'll pay dividends when/if they do. meanwhile, we may see Dumatrait learn to modestly handle AA next year, if lucky... though I wouldn't count on it.

J "Cooper"
08-24-2003, 01:56 AM
We've made these trades that were supposedly going to wreck our bullpen yet since the trades have occurred our bullpen has performed better than at any time this season. Some of that could be related to the change in managers, i suspect most of it has to do with bullpen pitchers being very replaceable. I'm very surprised by what some seem to think Scott Sullivan was/is worth. Whay do we need to keep him? What does he bring to the table? Is he replaceable? Is he worth next years salary?

I'm wondering what the folks who are against the trade--who or what kind of return do you think we should have got?

Phhhl
08-24-2003, 01:58 AM
Originally posted by Red Storm
Thanks Santo. I have no emotional attachment to any of the players we have traded, with the sole exception of Scott Williamson. I simply am disturbed by the method, means and motivation of the moves made by our F.O. There is no plan currently in place, and frankly, I'm betting Lee and Brad Kullman would likely admit as much in a more candid moment. Perhaps we will afford the new Reds GM (assuming there is a legitimate replacement named) some payroll flexibility, but we've already removed all of his trading commodities. He'll have nothing but albatross contracts and an unexceptional farm with which to make any moves towards improvement. Anyone relying upon the FA market is apparently new to following Reds baseball.

I have been in favor of moving everyone who has been moved by the Reds, even Willy, and WAY before most were of that opinion, because I believed the Reds would be a 70-92 team this year if the F.O. didn't help them - which it never intended to. However, I believed it was a necessity to turn our few valuable trade commodities into a great infusion of MLB ready talent, even if we had to pay a little extra to do it. Instead we disregarded the best talent infusion in favor of merely unloading players to the team which would take contracts off our hands. I'm not impressed by a slew of A ball pitchers (several whom I've now seen) who are behind the learning curve age wise, a minor league closer already with his 4th-5th organization and struggling mightily at AAA, an enormous injury risk, high ceiling unknown, and several tweeners as the sum haul for the MLB proven talent we traded. God bless those who are. I'm just not one of them. I like some of the new guys potential to contribute - Claussen and Valentine in particular, but that's not an equitable return for the MLB talent we dumped. Barring a new visionary GM, given free reign in player drafting and development, and a miracle of an offseason... this team is headed to the bargain basement cellar for years to come.

PS: I think Williamson has been awesome since the trade. He has allowed a total of 1ER in his past 7 games. 7IP 4 Hits 7Ks. He actually has allowed 0ER in 9 of the 11 games he's pitched since the move. That's great when you are in a pennant race. In fact, he's only had 1 bad appearance skew his ERA. His WHIP, K totals are great since the move. And with 1 exception, has kept the BoSox in every game he's pitched in. I have a feeling the Red Sox may just make him their closer for the last month of the season, and he'll pay dividends when/if they do. meanwhile, we may see Dumatrait learn to modestly handle AA next year, if lucky... though I wouldn't count on it.

Wow! I guess I just disagree. There are several guys I would have moved before the guys we did, but I don't think it was possible. Speculation is that this organization will cut payroll going into 2004 by 40% or so, but I have to see it to believe it. Maybe I am naive, but there seems to be a presumption among the masses that there is no fight left in the dog.

I guess the winter will tell one way or the other. It's funny to actually look forward to an offseason with this much interest.

Stormy
08-24-2003, 02:06 AM
Originally posted by Santo Alcala
but the addition of 7 to 8 eager and near major league ready arms going to 2004 more than make up for the loss of Aaron Boone at third base and several overpaid hurlers.

Who are these 7-8 near MLB ready guys Santo? Manning, still toiling at single A at age 24+? Pelland, a guy pitching in the GCL? Bruksch, again a guy at high A who should be more advanced given his time in the minors and age (23)? Dumatrait and his low K, erratic control at high A... though the brightest of the bunch? These are A ballers, not 7-8 MLB ready arms.

Only 3 of the guys are near MLB ready, and they vary from high ceiling injury/question mark to an emminently hittable back of the rotation guy who brought a 5.00ERA and 350 BAA with him from the AL, to a strictly BP guy whose inability to harness his otherwise electric stuff have already landed him with 4+ organizations.

I see a few bright spots acquired shrouded by many more guys who will likely never see a Reds' uniform.

Bill
08-24-2003, 02:26 AM
Storm, i agree with you that the return they have received has been questionable which it would be bound to be when cash is prized over talent. However, I wanted to note that not all the Reds 3B prospects are mediocre as you suggested previously. I had some doubts about Encarnacion since he was more a tools guy, but, after stumbling in AA from the Reds being overly aggressive with him, he has produced outstandingly for a 20 year old. An .860 OPS from a 20 year old 3B in high A is excellent and he has continued that pace since returning to AA. Most impressively, he has increased his walk rate rather than just relying on his quick bat. As he fills out, he should add more HR to his gap power.

Combine the above with a strong arm and some speed, and the Reds might have something special (if they take it easy with him). I view Hummel merely as a stand in until EE is ready and then perhaps Hummel will move to 2B where his bat would a positive (since by that point Jiminez will be earning too much to stay in town). Of course, I would have liked to have seen more in return, but if Chicago had a waiver claim on him, the Reds had little leverage.

Oh, and in fairness to Bruksch, this is only his second year of pro ball although I agree he is likely not major league talent, but rather a successful college pitcher Beane quickly turned into payment for a major league player.

Falls City Beer
08-24-2003, 10:38 AM
"What does he bring to the table? Is he replaceable? Is he worth next years salary?"

The question is not at all what Scott Sullivan will bring to the Reds or how much he is worth to us, but rather how much is he worth to the White Sox (or any other team). Scott Sullivan and cash would have gotten us a AA arm, there is no doubt in my mind. That's what we should have gotten. If he's going to be a third baseman, get one with a better OBP; this guy's is totally pedestrian--not awful, just pedestrian. Branyan's OB will totally eclipse this kid's.

For the record, I supported the Guillen and Boone and Mercker deals unequivocally; they were brilliant, brilliant deals; deals that Bowden would have never made. It's just that I'm objective enough to call a good deal a good deal and a bad one a bad one--instead of harping on perceived party lines. I have no problem flipping Sullivan--just get more next time (particularly if you're also flipping cash).

westofyou
08-24-2003, 11:00 AM
Branyan's OB will totally eclipse this kid's.

I'll take that bet, Branyan doesn't get the bat on the ball enough (or walk) to do that IMO.

Branyan had a .349 OB% in 2100 ML ab's and a .320 in 1003 MLB AB's. In the ML he K'd every 2.55 AB in MLB it's every 2.44 (Dunn every 3.1)

Hummel has roughly (since I don't know his HBP or SF) a .358 OB% in 1700 ML ab's.

The only league that Branyan ever had an OB% above .360 was A ball.

Plus next year he'll be 28, not exactly the age that ones game changes.

However Branyan has more power by a mile, but OB skills, no.