PDA

View Full Version : Castellini Says He Approved Casey Trade



Red Hot Mama
02-20-2006, 11:17 PM
Yeah, I'm quoting myself. So sue me.
http://www.red-hot-mama.com/comments.php?id=355_0_1_0_C


I was watching the Reds Week programming on FSN Ohio tonight. During an interview with George Grande, Reds CEO Bob Castellini acknolwedged that he was consulted before the Casey trade went through and that he concurred with the decision.

Castellini said that "baseball reasons" were the impetus for the decision and that monetary concerns are a part of the baseball reasons. He said you have to spend something of value to get pitching and recounted a heartwarming tale of a neighborhood scamp giving his daughter grief over the deal.

I always figured that a trade of that magnitude wouldn't go down with at least a consultation with the probable new owner, but I didn't think he'd say anything about it for a while. Then if Dave Williams sucked, it would be easy enough to fall back on the It-Happened-Before-I-Was-Here excuse; alternately, Castellini could always claim some of the credit later if Williams rocked.

But, of course, Mr. Castellini doesn't seem to be the type to shirk the responsibility. Good for him.

KronoRed
02-20-2006, 11:23 PM
Didn't think Carl was the one to sign off on that.

pedro
02-20-2006, 11:27 PM
two points for RCast.

harangatang
02-20-2006, 11:34 PM
I knew there was no way Lindner would trade Casey because of what has happened with Larkin and Griffey. Lindner put fans in the stands by singing past their prime vets. Well at least Castellini is signing veterans for the FO and the coaching staff instead of putting them on the field.

Nugget
02-20-2006, 11:42 PM
I don't think you can call Junior a past his prime vet when he was signed by the REDS.

RFS62
02-20-2006, 11:45 PM
Was there ever really any doubt?

Caveat Emperor
02-20-2006, 11:53 PM
Isn't this some sort of tampering violation -- since he hadn't been approved as Reds owner by MLB at this point?

dougdirt
02-20-2006, 11:59 PM
Yes there was some doubt that Lindner wanted to hold onto Casey. Not by me, but by some others on this board, who thought that Lindner wouldnt step in and not let Casey go.

Team Clark
02-21-2006, 12:59 AM
two points for RCast.


I agree. In my book he has yet to misstep. If he does, well whoopty doo, he's doing heck of a job laying a new foundation.

M2
02-21-2006, 01:15 AM
Well, I'm glad he hired a GM who hopefully won't make stupid trades like that in the future.

Reds Nd2
02-21-2006, 01:21 AM
If he does, well whoopty doo, he's doing heck of a job laying a new foundation.

The process of design and build is a challenge - but donít be daunted by the technicalities. There are hundreds of professionals and experts who will be available to advise you, or undertake the work, at every stage of your build project. It can be a frustrating time when you are sinking money into a hole with no visible rewards but, planning and foresight should help everything to run smoothly.

http://www.selfbuildit.co.uk/foundations.htm

Reds Nd2
02-21-2006, 01:24 AM
Well, I'm glad he hired a GM who hopefully won't make stupid trades like that in the future.

:confused:
Griffey, Casey, or both?

Heath
02-21-2006, 01:28 AM
Yeah, I'm quoting myself. So sue me.
http://www.red-hot-mama.com/comments.php?id=355_0_1_0_C

I'd probably never sue someone who calls herself "Red Hot Mama".

Just sayin.....

M2
02-21-2006, 01:30 AM
:confused:
Griffey, Casey, or both?

The Casey deal or, more to the point, trading for Dave Williams. Blech.

Cedric
02-21-2006, 01:33 AM
I would have taken Billy Dee Williams to get Casey off this team. Just my opinion.

I like Casey, just think it was time for some new blood in certain roles. Chance for others to take larger roles.

cincinnati chili
02-21-2006, 01:38 AM
I would have taken Billy Dee Williams to get Casey off this team. Just my opinion.

Trading for Billy Dee would be smooth... damn smooth.

Heath
02-21-2006, 01:39 AM
I would have taken Billy Dee Williams to get Casey off this team. Just my opinion.

I tell you what, when he was in those Colt .45 commericals (the malt liquor, not the baseball team) he really put a new meaning of 'hitting in the clutch".

SteelSD
02-21-2006, 01:47 AM
The Casey deal or, more to the point, trading for Dave Williams. Blech.

Casey traded for Williams December 6th, 2005.

December 8th, 2005- Tony Womack acquired from Yankees.

Rich Aurilia re-signed January 8th, 2006.

An involved dolt of an owner who wants to win isn't any better than an uninvolved dolt of an owner who wants to break even.

Hopefully Krivsky can save Castellini from himself.

Reds Nd2
02-21-2006, 01:59 AM
The Casey deal or, more to the point, trading for Dave Williams. Blech.

Casey wasn't going to put this team over the top and Williams won't sink them to depths below where they currently reside. Unfortunantly, part of the payroll flex provided by the trade was unwisely spent on Womack, but overall I'm pretty bleh on the deal either way.

I do think the Reds will miss Casey's defense, if Dunn starts most of his games at 1B this season, but that's JMO after re-watching some games from last season. Too many errant throws from the right side of the infield that I have little confidence in Dunn making on an everyday basis.

M2
02-21-2006, 02:08 AM
Casey wasn't going to put this team over the top and Williams won't sink them to depths below where they currently reside.

IMO what Casey would or wouldn't have done is almost immaterial. What Williams won't do, namely pitch well, is what I find nauseating about the deal. The Reds traded for a Ramon Ortiz replacement. I can't get behind that.

WVRedsFan
02-21-2006, 02:11 AM
Casey traded for Williams December 6th, 2005.

December 8th, 2005- Tony Womack acquired from Yankees.

Rich Aurilia re-signed January 8th, 2006.

An involved dolt of an owner who wants to win isn't any better than an uninvolved dolt of an owner who wants to break even.

Hopefully Krivsky can save Castellini from himself.

I'll rationalize for Bob by saying this did improve the club if you're one to believe that pitching is more than 50% of the game.

Williams is not Cy Young, nor is he anything approaching even what is considered a number 3 starter, but he is an improvement over the Luke Hudson-whoever was in the minors who could pitch formula we used last year. And Casey was way overpriced for his skillset. Casey was a wonderful fellow who could hit .300, but didn't produce many runs. You can hit .300 all day and if you don't produce any runs, what difference does it make? With Williams, you get a starter who can get to the 6th inning without giving up 10 runs every other start. That probably saves more runs than Casey can produce. And that allows us to see what Kearns and Pena really are made of in the outfield. Remember, this is a work in progress. We're not going to win it all this year.

The Womack acquisition was to develop a bench--something we haven't had in years and some bona fide infielders. Our bench consisted of numerous players named Machado, Bergolia, Castro, Olmedo, and others too famous to remember. All of them banjo hitters and all of them probably never wases at the major league level. Hopefully we won't see much of Womack as a starter.

Aurilia is another matter. The guy may be over the hill, but at least you could count on him for some pop. Once again, you have to hope Edwin beats him out (which I predict he will) and Narron has the good sense to start Freel at second. If the stars allign right, we'll see Rich and Tony on rest days for EE and Freel.

Much better thnking, IMHO. Of course, if opening day, Aurilia's at third and Womack is at second, I may have to eat those words. If we win10-0 and Rich and Tony go a combined 4-8 with 3 RB's and two SB's, then maybe not.

WVRedsFan
02-21-2006, 02:13 AM
Casey wasn't going to put this team over the top and Williams won't sink them to depths below where they currently reside. Unfortunantly, part of the payroll flex provided by the trade was unwisely spent on Womack, but overall I'm pretty bleh on the deal either way.

I do think the Reds will miss Casey's defense, if Dunn starts most of his games at 1B this season, but that's JMO after re-watching some games from last season. Too many errant throws from the right side of the infield that I have little confidence in Dunn making on an everyday basis.

Adam's a pretty good athlete. He'll get better as he plays more games there. In fact, I'll be willing to bet we'll forget Casey pretty fast when Adam has played there 30-40 games.

M2
02-21-2006, 02:26 AM
I'll rationalize for Bob by saying this did improve the club if you're one to believe that pitching is more than 50% of the game.

IMO, the more you value pitching, the less you should like Williams. The only argument I can see for him is that you figure pitching doesn't matter all that much and you can try to scrape by with Williams.


Williams is not Cy Young, nor is he anything approaching even what is considered a number 3 starter

And if he's not anything approaching even what is considered a #3 starter then the Reds should have stayed away from him like the plague.


but he is an improvement over the Luke Hudson-whoever was in the minors who could pitch formula we used last year.

Better than Luke Hudson isn't the measuring stick I'd be using to justify a pitching acquisition and if this is a work in progress a guy like that isn't someone you'll want around for very long.

Reds Nd2
02-21-2006, 02:37 AM
An involved dolt of an owner who wants to win isn't any better than an uninvolved dolt of an owner who wants to break even.

Hopefully Krivsky can save Castellini from himself.

I'm not saying RCast is a dolt of an owner, but his win now attitude does concern me a bit. Hopefully, Krivsky can put a bit of a damper on his enthusiasm.

Topcat
02-21-2006, 02:37 AM
[QUOTE=M2]IMO, the more you value pitching, the less you should like Williams. The only argument I can see for him is that you figure pitching doesn't matter all that much and you can try to scrape by with Williams.



And if he's not anything approaching even what is considered a #3 starter then the Reds should have stayed away from him like the plague.



Better than Luke Hudson isn't the measuring stick I'd be using to justify a pitching acquisition and if this is a work in progress a guy like that isn't someone you'll want around for very long.



OR we can be optimistic and hope the disdain you have for David Williams creates the same mojo as last years all so famous. "I loathe the the Randa signing" That Puffy copyrighted and ended up working out quite well for the Reds.

Reds Nd2
02-21-2006, 02:52 AM
IMO what Casey would or wouldn't have done is almost immaterial.

It shouldn't be immaterial for the $8.5 million the Reds were on the hook for in '06.

SteelSD
02-21-2006, 02:53 AM
I'll rationalize for Bob by saying this did improve the club if you're one to believe that pitching is more than 50% of the game.

Then get good pitchers.


Williams is not Cy Young, nor is he anything approaching even what is considered a number 3 starter, but he is an improvement over the Luke Hudson-whoever was in the minors who could pitch formula we used last year.

Meh. Six of Dave Williams, half a dozen of Matt Belisle.


The Womack acquisition was to develop a bench--something we haven't had in years and some bona fide infielders. Our bench consisted of numerous players named Machado, Bergolia, Castro, Olmedo, and others too famous to remember. All of them banjo hitters and all of them probably never wases at the major league level. Hopefully we won't see much of Womack as a starter.

Smart teams don't salary dump and then spend some of the savings on one of the two or three worst players in the game to "develop" a bench. It's ironic that you'd use the term "banjo hitter" to debase other players when the topic in Tony Womack. And I'm not sure I can remember the last time he was a "bona fide infielder". Awful hitter. Bad fielder. Less-than-worthless players don't help your team.


Aurilia is another matter. The guy may be over the hill, but at least you could count on him for some pop. Once again, you have to hope Edwin beats him out (which I predict he will) and Narron has the good sense to start Freel at second. If the stars allign right, we'll see Rich and Tony on rest days for EE and Freel.

Yeah, you can also count on Aurilia to whine about which contender he should be starting for rather than focusing on mentoring guys like Lopez or Encarnacion. The very idea that Encarnacion should have to "beat out" Aurilia is a complete joke.


Much better thnking, IMHO. Of course, if opening day, Aurilia's at third and Womack is at second, I may have to eat those words. If we win10-0 and Rich and Tony go a combined 4-8 with 3 RB's and two SB's, then maybe not.

If Rich Aurilia and Tony Womack are on the diamond on opening day, you've just witnessed the first game of a hopelessly lost season regardless of what they do that day.

SteelSD
02-21-2006, 02:56 AM
I'm not saying RCast is a dolt of an owner, but his win now attitude does concern me a bit. Hopefully, Krivsky can put a bit of a damper on his enthusiasm.

I don't want Castellini less enthusiastic. I want him smarter, which means that I don't want him signing off on stupid deals because of what Tony Larussa said or what he saw Tony Womack do in 2004.

Even better, I don't want those kind of stupid deals even presented to him.

SteelSD
02-21-2006, 03:02 AM
OR we can be optimistic and hope the disdain you have for David Williams creates the same mojo as last years all so famous. "I loathe the the Randa signing" That Puffy copyrighted and ended up working out quite well for the Reds.

Worked out quite well did it?

The Reds forked over almost two million bucks for the rights to Justin Germano and Travis Chick.

Ugh.

Caveat Emperor
02-21-2006, 03:13 AM
Worked out quite well did it?

The Reds forked over almost two million bucks for the rights to Justin Germano and Travis Chick.

Ugh.

In DanO's defense, he heard that "Chick digs the longball" and figured Travis would be a great fit on this team.

MrCinatit
02-21-2006, 08:23 AM
this only brings more questions to mind.
did Cast approve a deal of Casey, or a deal for Williams (or both).
was this done as a salary dump, or a player dump so the logjam in the outfield could be settled (or both).
perhaps there were other reasons. we can only guess.
at least he did not attempt to point fingers, though. i will give him that.

gonelong
02-21-2006, 09:39 AM
OR we can be optimistic and hope the disdain you have for David Williams creates the same mojo as last years all so famous. "I loathe the the Randa signing" That Puffy copyrighted and ended up working out quite well for the Reds.

73 Ws, $2M down the drain. Blech.

That move was panned because we already had Freel to man 3B, we just flat out didn't need Joe Randa. We could have won 73 without Randa.

That $2M could have been put to use in any number of ways that would have benefited the Reds.

GL

REDREAD
02-21-2006, 09:59 AM
I knew there was no way Lindner would trade Casey because of what has happened with Larkin and Griffey. Lindner put fans in the stands by singing past their prime vets. Well at least Castellini is signing veterans for the FO and the coaching staff instead of putting them on the field.


Yes, I think part of the problem was Allen too. Allen seemed to be a lot warmer to resigning vets currently on the team than acquiring players.
For example, the same year Allen approved resigning Haynes and Graves, he thought Penny was too expensive.

I think Carl's main problem was that he considered the Reds purely as an investment. He didn't give a rat's behind about the team. He knew the Reds were an easy way to more than double his money, so he ignored the team while Allen ruined it.

HalMorrisRules
02-21-2006, 10:04 AM
IMO what Casey would or wouldn't have done is almost immaterial. What Williams won't do, namely pitch well, is what I find nauseating about the deal. The Reds traded for a Ramon Ortiz replacement. I can't get behind that.

I've been looking for an appropriate thread to state a few things and this thread looks good.

Hindsight being 20/20, I sure would like to still have Casey and see what Krivsky could arrange in a trade rather than what O'Brien was able to do. Krivsky has been called creative in his contract negotiations with the Twins players and I assume that can easily correlate into creativity when it comes to trade negotiations.

That being said, I am a diehard Sirius radio subscriber but I get XM with my DirecTV subscription. The only XM talk channel that DirecTV offers is the baseball channel. I like listening on the weekends when I am home and this past weekend there was a Pittsburgh fan that called in and was just ripping on the Pirates front office for trading for Casey. He was against it not because he thought Casey was washed up or too expensive, as those might be legitimate topics of discussion. No, what this guy was upset about was because the Pirates gave away TOO MUCH. He was raving about how Dave Williams was the best pitcher that the Pirates had and they didnt get enough in return for him. Just goes to show that how a trade is viewed is truly a matter of perspective.

BuckU
02-21-2006, 10:06 AM
We could have won 73 without Randa.
GL

72 without Randa...opening day was all his ;)

REDREAD
02-21-2006, 10:07 AM
The Casey deal or, more to the point, trading for Dave Williams. Blech.

I think Williams was fair value for Casey. Williams is definitely below average, but he's cheap rotation filler, which the Reds need.

Realistically, we weren't going to get an average pitcher for Casey.

Maybe we could've gotten a good prospect for him. A good GM always has the chance of pulling an Ed Encarcion for Rob Bell, or something like that.

However, Casey had a high salary and has been an obvious decline. His market was pretty limited. Of course, I agree with you that it was unlikely that DanO was aggressively shopping him as he should have been.

REDREAD
02-21-2006, 10:10 AM
December 8th, 2005- Tony Womack acquired from Yankees.

Rich Aurilia re-signed January 8th, 2006.

.

I'm not sure I want the owner involved in signing bench players. That strikes me as micromanaging.

The Reds needed some cheap stop gap infielders. The Reds needed to acquire them without sacrificing legitimate talent. There really wasn't a whole lot of them available. I'd rather have Pokey (who was available) than Womack, but in the end, it's not going to make a whole lot of difference.

Blimpie
02-21-2006, 10:11 AM
If Rich Aurilia and Tony Womack are on the diamond on opening day, you've just witnessed the first game of a hopelessly lost season regardless of what they do that day...and yet I am still getting butterflies when I view recent spring training photos from Sarasota. What is WRONG with me?????:bang:

lollipopcurve
02-21-2006, 10:18 AM
..and yet I am still getting butterflies when I view recent spring training photos from Sarasota. What is WRONG with me?????

Nothing. Hope, wherever you can find it, is good. Leave desperation to the desperate.

M2
02-21-2006, 10:22 AM
OR we can be optimistic and hope the disdain you have for David Williams creates the same mojo as last years all so famous. "I loathe the the Randa signing" That Puffy copyrighted and ended up working out quite well for the Reds.

I don't disdain Williams, just the trade that brought another bad pitcher into the Reds rotation. You can hope for anything you want. I don't hope on guys like Williams. I've seen too many over the years and I know the breed. He'll do well to keep his final ERA under 5.00.


It shouldn't be immaterial for the $8.5 million the Reds were on the hook for in '06.

Over the years I've lost count of the number of posts that tried to justify a deal based on what the Reds traded away rather than what they traded for. Sean Casey's no longer a Cincinnati Red. Dave Williams is and that's the problem. If Casey wasn't able to fetch better he shouldn't have been dealt.


I like listening on the weekends when I am home and this past weekend there was a Pittsburgh fan that called in and was just ripping on the Pirates front office for trading for Casey. He was against it not because he thought Casey was washed up or too expensive, as those might be legitimate topics of discussion. No, what this guy was upset about was because the Pirates gave away TOO MUCH. He was raving about how Dave Williams was the best pitcher that the Pirates had and they didnt get enough in return for him. Just goes to show that how a trade is viewed is truly a matter of perspective.

No offense, but that's a pretty worthless perspective that caller had. The Pirates had seven starting pitchers on the quality list in front of Williams.

RFS62
02-21-2006, 10:26 AM
I don't think that Castellini had anything at all to say about the actual trade and return for Casey.

But I never doubted for a minute that they ran it by him to approve the concept of trading Sean beforehand.

The return was all DanO.

M2
02-21-2006, 10:27 AM
..and yet I am still getting butterflies when I view recent spring training photos from Sarasota. What is WRONG with me?????:bang:

I get 'em too, but that doesn't mean the Reds are a good team. I'm going to get butterflies for game 153 when the Reds have been out of contention for a few months.

Some people need to think the team's better than it is to be excited about the season. Others don't.

traderumor
02-21-2006, 10:32 AM
I don't think that Castellini had anything at all to say about the actual trade and return for Casey.

But I never doubted for a minute that they ran it by him to approve the concept of trading Sean beforehand.

The return was all DanO.I agree, just as I do not see laying the Womack and Aurilia deals at his feet. A "hands-on" owner is not necessarily micro-managing, and I would not be surprised that the few moves DanO did make and received some form of tacit approval from the owner-to-be may have sealed his fate. Regardless, all that proves is that Castellini should not be the GM, which he isn't.

Blimpie
02-21-2006, 10:37 AM
I get 'em too, but that doesn't mean the Reds are a good team. I'm going to get butterflies for game 153 when the Reds have been out of contention for a few months.

Some people need to think the team's better than it is to be excited about the season. Others don't.Yeah, I am happy simply avoiding the emotional roller coaster that comes with being a Reds fan. For the last several years, I have tried to learn how to be on an even keel with regards to the day-to-day happenings of this team.

Leaving ST last year, once could have had a large helping of pessimism regarding the starting rotation and the bench. Then, you would have experienced the pyrite that was the opening series sweep of the Mets. Six weeks later, we are talking about draft positioning and which guys will be gone by July.

I guess the moral of the story is don't get too high with the highs--or too low with the lows....

M2
02-21-2006, 10:52 AM
Yeah, I am happy simply avoiding the emotional roller coaster that comes with being a Reds fan. For the last several years, I have tried to learn how to be on an even keel with regards to the day-to-day happenings of this team.

Leaving ST last year, once could have had a large helping of pessimism regarding the starting rotation and the bench. Then, you would have experienced the pyrite that was the opening series sweep of the Mets. Six weeks later, we are talking about draft positioning and which guys will be gone by July.

I guess the moral of the story is don't get too high with the highs--or too low with the lows....

I'm actually all for riding the rollercoaster. It's not my gig, but I fully understand that's the fun part for a lot of folks.

The problem we encounter around here is that this is a discussion board and "Go team!" is a thin premise. For those who say it, there isn't much to say beyond that. Plus, once you start actually discussing it, reality creeps in and, unfortunately, the reality of the situation is a bit of a buzzkill at this moment.

Reds Nd2
02-21-2006, 11:03 AM
Over the years I've lost count of the number of posts that tried to justify a deal based on what the Reds traded away rather than what they traded for. Sean Casey's no longer a Cincinnati Red. Dave Williams is and that's the problem. If Casey wasn't able to fetch better he shouldn't have been dealt.

That's assuming that an overpaid 1B, on the wrong side of his production curve and only worth a little more than four wins above replacement level last season could fetch anything better.

M2
02-21-2006, 11:10 AM
That's assuming that an overpaid 1B, on the wrong side of his production curve and only worth a little more than four wins above replacement level last season could fetch anything better.

Again, if he can't, don't trade him.

I'd be fine with Casey at 1B in his walk season.

Sooner rather than later the Reds have to start trading FOR players. Failure on that front is a big part of how the team has put itself in this big of a hole.

TRF
02-21-2006, 11:16 AM
I've come to the conclusion that Dave Williams IS Joe Randa.

The Reds didn't need Randa as Freel was already in the fold.
The Reds didn't need Williams as Belisle was already in the fold.

It's deja vu all over again. Aquisition for the sake of aquisition. And while this did give the Reds the much ballyhooed payflex, big whoop. None of that payflex went toward a pitcher that's worth spending it on.

You really want to impress me? Release Milton and Wilson. Do it right now, so they can get jobs elswhere. Offer Wilson a job as minor league pitching coach if you want. Eat their contracts, add Belisle or whatever young pitcher steps up in ST their spots in the rotation. Make a decision about Williams in a hurry. That ecision should be LOOGY or AAA. Make the season interesting. Don't overpromote guys like Wood or Bailey. Give the shot to Basham or Dumatrait or Ramirez or Germano. Heck, acknowledge the Reds don't have 5 starters and go to a 4 man rotation. I'd rather Harang got 6 extra starts than see Milton throw a single pitch this year. I hope he catches on with a team that plays in a national park like Yellowstone, finishes his career there and posts great numbers. That just won't happen at GAB. And it won't happen for Wilson or Williams either.

Caveat Emperor
02-21-2006, 02:26 PM
Again, if he can't, don't trade him.

I'd be fine with Casey at 1B in his walk season.

Sooner rather than later the Reds have to start trading FOR players. Failure on that front is a big part of how the team has put itself in this big of a hole.

What about the Kearns/Pena issue? By trading Casey and moving Dunn to 1B, it opens up lineup spots for both of the two young outfielder.

The goal of this season has to be getting one of those two hot and dealing them for good, young pitching. If the Reds are (as indicated by their recent dealings) going to be holding onto Adam Dunn, then Kearns or Pena represents the best trade bait that the Reds have. They both need to be playing every day in order to have a chance of increasing their stock sufficiently to get the type of return the Reds need to have any shot at building a more talented rotation in the 2007 season and beyond.

That, to me, is the only plus about this trade -- hopefully one of those two makes the most of things and allows this to work out.

M2
02-21-2006, 02:38 PM
What about the Kearns/Pena issue? By trading Casey and moving Dunn to 1B, it opens up lineup spots for both of the two young outfielder.

The goal of this season has to be getting one of those two hot and dealing them for good, young pitching. If the Reds are (as indicated by their recent dealings) going to be holding onto Adam Dunn, then Kearns or Pena represents the best trade bait that the Reds have. They both need to be playing every day in order to have a chance of increasing their stock sufficiently to get the type of return the Reds need to have any shot at building a more talented rotation in the 2007 season and beyond.

That, to me, is the only plus about this trade -- hopefully one of those two makes the most of things and allows this to work out.

I'd have been fine with dealing Kearns or Pena or Jr. instead of Casey. There were four ways to skin that cat. Getting rid of a useful guy for someone you really shouldn't want doesn't help your team in the long run. I'm not asking for the moon here. I'd have been perfectly happy to let Pittsburgh name the four starters they most wanted to keep and then pick one guy from the remainder (probably Gorzellany or Snell). If Pittsburgh wasn't willing to trade its 5th best starter to help fix that putrid offense then they're wasting your time.

The Reds needed to turn the team's surplus into what the club needs. It didn't happen with the Casey deal and now the surplus is depleted.

Though I do agree about the current goal. I'd be looking to deal Kearns and Pena and Jr. if the market was right.

REDREAD
02-21-2006, 03:27 PM
You really want to impress me? Release Milton and Wilson. Do it right now, so they can get jobs elswhere. .

The Reds just can't do that now. You could plug Belisle into one of those slots, but who gets the other? The sad thing is that Geranomo and the other AAA arms can be worse than Milton. Zero depth in the minors is killing us. That's why we had to trade for Williams (or someone like him). We need bodies.

With Milton, you hope he can rebound to below average instead of horrible.
As inflated as pitching salaries have become, it's not out of the question that some team may take on the rest of his contract either this July or next year at the deadline. So there's still a chance to recover some of that Milton money (which you couldn't by cutting him).

This team has no chance whatsoever of contending next year (even if Wilson and Milton are cut), so it's worth a shot to try to convert those guys into an asset or try to recover some of their salaries.

KronoRed
02-21-2006, 03:35 PM
You really want to impress me? Release Milton and Wilson. Do it right now, so they can get jobs elswhere.
Throw in Womack and I'm throwing a party

BRM
02-21-2006, 03:55 PM
Throw in Womack and I'm throwing a party

You REALLY dislike Woe-mack, eh Krono?

Matt700wlw
02-21-2006, 03:56 PM
The Casey deal or, more to the point, trading for Dave Williams. Blech.

Freeing up the money allowed them to sign Dunn to a contract and avoid arbitration. It also gave them a young pitcher (lefty at that) with a lot of upside. It freed up the clog in the outfield, and also left this team with the flexibilty to trade someone else down the line for pitching.

Doesn't sound too "blech" to me...

M2
02-21-2006, 04:04 PM
Freeing up the money allowed them to sign Dunn to a contract and avoid arbitration.

No it didn't. The Reds had already saved all the money they needed to sign their arb eligibles before the Casey deal. Shaving off Graves, Ortiz, Jiminez, Randa and Weber saved the club $15.42M. Raises for Dunn, LaRue, Kearns, Harang, Lopez, Pena, Freel and Valentin cost $11.32M.


It also gave them a young pitcher (lefty at that) with a lot of upside.

You're high if you think that describes Dave Williams.


It freed up the clog in the outfield, and also left this team with the flexibilty to trade someone else down the line for pitching.

Now that's a contradictory statement. First off, unclogging the OF situation for a putrid return is a horrible idea in itself. Yet if you've traded away a working part for a non-working part then you have less flexibility and less talent to offer in future trades.


Doesn't sound too "blech" to me...

Let's see ... hit lucky, defense dependent, longball prone, shielded by a park that was rough on RH power in Pittsburgh, gimpy wing, lacks projectible stuff ... I wouldn't want to get my vomit dirty by puking on that.

Chip R
02-21-2006, 04:16 PM
It's nice that he didn't veto a Casey trade. He could have but he didn't. But trading Sean Casey just to trade him doesn't give you a gold star in my book. Trading him for a decent return does. Now we have to remember DanO was the person who made the deal and he can't find talent with a compass and a map. Pin your hopes all you want on Dave Williams winning 15 games with an ERA under 4 but color me skeptical after witnessing what DanO brought in last year.

Aronchis
02-21-2006, 04:20 PM
It's nice that he didn't veto a Casey trade. He could have but he didn't. But trading Sean Casey just to trade him doesn't give you a gold star in my book. Trading him for a decent return does. Now we have to remember DanO was the person who made the deal and he can't find talent with a compass and a map. Pin your hopes all you want on Dave Williams winning 15 games with an ERA under 4 but color me skeptical after witnessing what DanO brought in last year.

If you are "pinning" your hopes on that, you are delusional. For the Casey trade fans, it is mainly about getting rid of Casey, a fallen player in their view, who needed to be jetisoned for anything you could get. In otherwords, if Dave Williams throws up 12 wins 4.40 ERA, they are happy considering of what they thought of Casey before and what he could bring.

TRF
02-21-2006, 04:28 PM
The Reds just can't do that now. You could plug Belisle into one of those slots, but who gets the other? The sad thing is that Geranomo and the other AAA arms can be worse than Milton. Zero depth in the minors is killing us. That's why we had to trade for Williams (or someone like him). We need bodies.

With Milton, you hope he can rebound to below average instead of horrible.
As inflated as pitching salaries have become, it's not out of the question that some team may take on the rest of his contract either this July or next year at the deadline. So there's still a chance to recover some of that Milton money (which you couldn't by cutting him).

This team has no chance whatsoever of contending next year (even if Wilson and Milton are cut), so it's worth a shot to try to convert those guys into an asset or try to recover some of their salaries.

Belisle could do as well as Milton. Germano/Ramirez could do as well as Wilson. We really don't know what Basham or Dumatrait could do, though I think Basham is going to turn a few heads this ST. You are correct in that we know they could perform at the same level. Heck they might do better.

The point is we know Milton will suck. again. We know Wilson will likley never put up decent numbers. The odds are too long because he really never put up decent numbers to begin with. It's not like Jr. who at least had superstar success. You always saw flashes with him of his former self. In 2005 at the plate, he did not disappoint at all.

WK needs to realize that Wilson and Milton are sunk costs, and cut the dead weight from the roster. At least with the kids it would be interesting.

vaticanplum
02-21-2006, 05:01 PM
I still hold out some hope for Dave Williams. He's young enough that I feel that he could get significantly better...am I completely out of my mind here?

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on him, haven't heard much since we traded for him and I'm curious to see how he does in spring training.

lollipopcurve
02-21-2006, 05:15 PM
I still hold out some hope for Dave Williams. He's young enough that I feel that he could get significantly better...am I completely out of my mind here?

I'd like to hear people's thoughts on him,

I have some hope for him too. His away numbers have been quite good, while his numbers pitching in Pittsburgh have been horrid. I'm hoping that getting out of PNC will help. Plus, he's relatively young (especially considering he lost time to injury) and apparently has a nice change-up. Lefties are said to develop late, so maybe he'll be on an upward trajectory.

vaticanplum
02-21-2006, 05:53 PM
Lefties are said to develop late, so maybe he'll be on an upward trajectory.

This is what I am hoping. The guy is not Johan Santana, but it seems like everyone has immediately dismissed him as horrid, which is not fair on a team that, among other things, employs Eric Milton.

williams was 40-23 in the minors. He had very good K rates and ERAs.

He is 27, I think. Other lefties who were roughly where Williams was at 27: Kenny Rogers, Jamie Moyers...Randy Johnson had 24 career victories, just a few more than Williams, at 27; David Wells had two STARTS before he was 27and had his breakout season at Williams's age. Dennis Rasmussen was nothing until he was 27, when he won 18 games for the Yankees. Harvey Haddux (best name ever) had two career wins when before he won 20 games at age 27.

I'm not saying I expect any of this from Williams per se, but I think there may be hope for him. I don't think it's a given that he's going to be awful and

M2
02-21-2006, 06:07 PM
This is what I am hoping. The guy is not Johan Santana, but it seems like everyone has immediately dismissed him as horrid, which is not fair on a team that, among other things, employs Eric Milton.

A) Eric Milton's got nothing to do with Dave Williams other than being a huge warning sign against acquiring guys with longball issues to pitch in the GAB. Better than Eric Milton shouldn't be a justification for any mid-tier trade or signing.

B) If you can explain to me what Williams shares with David Wells, Randy Johnson and Harvey Haddix, other than being left-handed, I'm all ears.

C) I dismiss him as horrid because he's been hit lucky, defense dependent and longball prone. Add in the GAB, his injury woes and the pedestrian stuff he throws and, IMO, familiarity with Dave Williams becomes the leading reason not to like Dave Williams.

vaticanplum
02-21-2006, 06:12 PM
B) If you can explain to me what Williams shares with David Wells, Randy Johnson and Harvey Haddix, other than being left-handed, I'm all ears.

No, that's pretty much it.

Really, I'm very unfamiliar with Dave Williams. I've never seen him pitch and he hasn't been around long enough that I've picked up much about him by default. I KNEW Milton was not a good fit for GABP. I don't necessarily feel that it's quite as clear-cut with Williams, so I'm looking for possible reasons to hope he'll get better. That was just some good evidence of lefties developing later.

I know it's probably futile. But there hasn't been as much discussion about him around here considering he's one of our starters now and I'm trying to get a feel for why everybody has discounted him completely...I guess your post, sadly, is a step toward my understanding that.

westofyou
02-21-2006, 06:14 PM
B) If you can explain to me what Williams shares with David Wells, Randy Johnson and Harvey Haddix, other than being left-handed, I'm all ears.

Like Harvey and David he's a Red?

pedro
02-21-2006, 06:25 PM
To play devils advocate to M2 look at Williams home/away splits. He got creamed in PNC park, so M2's comments about pitching in a pitchers park don't hold any water.

I'm still not sold on the idea that this trade was total crap. I still think it's addition by subtraction and that anything Williams does positive, if at all, is just a bonus.




ERA W L SV SVO G GS CG IP H R ER HR BB SO AVG
Home 6.68 3 7 0 0 12 12 0 61.2 78 48 45 16 21 44 .312
Away 2.65 7 4 0 0 13 13 1 78.0 59 26 23 4 37 44 .215

M2
02-21-2006, 06:25 PM
No, that's pretty much it.

Really, I'm very unfamiliar with Dave Williams. I've never seen him pitch and he hasn't been around long enough that I've picked up much about him by default. I KNEW Milton was not a good fit for GABP. I don't necessarily feel that it's quite as clear-cut with Williams, so I'm looking for possible reasons to hope he'll get better. That was just some good evidence of lefties developing later.

I know it's probably futile. But there hasn't been as much discussion about him around here considering he's one of our starters now and I'm trying to get a feel for why everybody has discounted him completely...I guess your post, sadly, is a step toward my understanding that.

If he had more projectible stuff, I might have optimism about him stepping up. Any pitcher, no matter what hand he throws with, has a decent shot at getting better after his first 300 IP in the majors. In Williams' case though you have to adjust for some fairly extreme luck to date and a bad profile (e.g. the longballs and defense reliance) for the place where he's headed. So you've got a lot of factors which should shoot him above 5.00 in ERA. It's entirely possible the guy could get better, but it would only net him something in the high 4.00s.

My take is that if he can't make more people miss then he's going to be in a lot of trouble.

pedro
02-21-2006, 06:29 PM
And I just don't believe anyone was going to give anything more for Casey or that we'd be better with him playing everyday. I'll take my chances with WMP.

Reds Nd2
02-21-2006, 06:31 PM
C) I dismiss him as horrid because he's been hit lucky, defense dependent and longball prone. Add in the GAB, his injury woes and the pedestrian stuff he throws and, IMO, familiarity with Dave Williams becomes the leading reason not to like Dave Williams.

What do you make of his rather large discrepancy in home/away splits from last season? He looked like an ace on the road and Miltonesque at home. Can a difference that large really be attributed to being BABIP lucky, or is it just a case of small sample size?

Reds Nd2
02-21-2006, 06:35 PM
Once again, I type too slow and someone beats me to the point. :doh:

Caveat Emperor
02-21-2006, 07:02 PM
Let's see ... hit lucky, defense dependent, longball prone, shielded by a park that was rough on RH power in Pittsburgh, gimpy wing, lacks projectible stuff ... I wouldn't want to get my vomit dirty by puking on that.

Traded for an unbelievably overpaid contact hitter with inconsistent power, declining skills, below-average value for his position, a GB/FB ratio approaching 2-1, and unbelievably poor plate-approach over the last season and a half.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I normally respect greatly what you have to say, M2, but I think you're a little off the reservation on this one. There was more value to be had for Casey in 2004 when he was going gap-to-gap with the baseball and batting close to .375 in the first half, but the Reds management was asleep at the wheel and didn't pull the trigger on him when he was at his maximum value. At present time, however, this was probably the best they were going to do for Sean Casey.

You claim they just should've kept him, but then they'd be paying millions of dollars to a guy with no guarantee there'd be anything better available for him at the deadline. All the while a younger player such as Pena or Kearns is forced to sit the bench and not be improving their trade value on the field. That doesn't seem like smart baseball management to me.

I don't like Dave Williams, but I honestly think that's about as good as the Reds could've done for Casey.

M2
02-21-2006, 07:33 PM
To play devils advocate to M2 look at Williams home/away splits. He got creamed in PNC park, so M2's comments about pitching in a pitchers park don't hold any water.

I'm still not sold on the idea that this trade was total crap. I still think it's addition by subtraction and that anything Williams does positive, if at all, is just a bonus.


And I just don't believe anyone was going to give anything more for Casey or that we'd be better with him playing everyday. I'll take my chances with WMP.

Or maybe he'd have been even worse at home without the RH power shield. That's possible too.

Williams isn't likely to do anything positive (e.g. be an above-average pitcher), so there goes your bonus. The Reds have got a major problem he'll contribute to rather than fix. That's subtraction by addition in my book.

And if Casey couldn't fetch you some actual help, then someone else should have been dealt. The Reds had four guys to shop and 29 teams to shop them to. Like I said, now the surplus is gone and no meaningful help was obtained. That's how we got here in the first place.


What do you make of his rather large discrepancy in home/away splits from last season? He looked like an ace on the road and Miltonesque at home. Can a difference that large really be attributed to being BABIP lucky, or is it just a case of small sample size?

Technically, LHPs should thrive in PNC. In general Pirates southpaws did pitch better at home last year. For whatever reason, Williams got ripped on longballs there. The GAB won't help that.

BABIP's a separate issue and the problem with that is that you've got to put a steep downward adjustment on whatever projections you make for him. An extra 30 points in BABIP, and that's what you're looking at with Williams, isn't going to be pretty no matter where he pitches.


Traded for an unbelievably overpaid contact hitter with inconsistent power, declining skills, below-average value for his position, a GB/FB ratio approaching 2-1, and unbelievably poor plate-approach over the last season and a half.

Garbage in, garbage out.

I normally respect greatly what you have to say, M2, but I think you're a little off the reservation on this one. There was more value to be had for Casey in 2004 when he was going gap-to-gap with the baseball and batting close to .375 in the first half, but the Reds management was asleep at the wheel and didn't pull the trigger on him when he was at his maximum value. At present time, however, this was probably the best they were going to do for Sean Casey.

You claim they just should've kept him, but then they'd be paying millions of dollars to a guy with no guarantee there'd be anything better available for him at the deadline. All the while a younger player such as Pena or Kearns is forced to sit the bench and not be improving their trade value on the field. That doesn't seem like smart baseball management to me.

I don't like Dave Williams, but I honestly think that's about as good as the Reds could've done for Casey.

A) As good as the Reds could do for Casey shouldn't be the measuring stick. It should be as good as the Reds could do for the team. Sean Casey wasn't the problem with the Reds, not even sort of the problem. The pitching is and the Casey trade hasn't provided any sort of cure.

B) I don't care what Casey was making. It was a one year deal. So instead it goes to Rich Aurilia, Tony Womack, Dave Williams, Scott Hatteberg and part of Casey's contract while he plays for the Pirates. Yippee for that.

C) Who said Casey was the only guy the Reds could trade. You seem to be arguing that the other guys in the 1B/OF are better. If so, then one of them should have been able to fetch a better arm.

D) I wish everyone with an unbelievably poor plate approach could net you a .371 OB.

E) I've been off the reservation before, but I'm pretty confident I know Dave Williams' kind of buffalo and that he'll be grazing on my praries before too long.

F) "I don't like Dave Williams ..." - Right there is all you should need to not like the trade then. I don't like Dave Williams either (as a pitcher) and because of that I don't think it was a good idea that the Reds traded FOR him.

pedro
02-21-2006, 07:42 PM
I just don't agree that trading Kearns or WMP was a better idea than trading Casey. You may be right about Williams, I've never seen him pitch and he was acquired by DanO, which isn't much of an endorsement.

M2
02-21-2006, 07:54 PM
I just don't agree that trading Kearns or WMP was a better idea than trading Casey.

For me, the better idea was whomever brought you a pitcher you like. Kearns, Pena, Casey -- they don't pitch. The Reds led the league in scoring last year with Sean Casey as the regular 1B, so it's not like keeping him and dealing one of the other two would have hamstrung the offense.

I'm focused on the guy wearing the Reds uni and that's not Sean Casey. If, like me, you don't think very highly of Dave Williams' pitching prowess then that's all the reason you should need not to like the trade.

Caveat Emperor
02-21-2006, 08:05 PM
A) As good as the Reds could do for Casey shouldn't be the measuring stick. It should be as good as the Reds could do for the team. Sean Casey wasn't the problem with the Reds, not even sort of the problem. The pitching is and the Casey trade hasn't provided any sort of cure.

Sean Casey wasn't part of the problem, but I think it's very apparent that he wasn't part of the solution either. He was just there -- taking up contract space, a spot on the diamond that could be used for a better, younger player, and anchoring a clubhouse that had produced losing ballclubs for half a decade.


B) I don't care what Casey was making. It was a one year deal. So instead it goes to Rich Aurilia, Tony Womack, Dave Williams, Scott Hatteberg and part of Casey's contract while he plays for the Pirates. Yippee for that.

Who the Reds spent the money on isn't part of the equation in looking at this trade alone. I agree with you -- I wouldn't have picked any one those guys if I was trying to build a ballclub, but that doesn't change the fact that Casey was overpaid for what he was doing. By keeping him, the Reds were just throwing money down a black hole with no guarantee of any return at the deadline -- much like they did with Joe Randa. As was pointed out elsewhere, it cost the Reds $2 million to net a return of Travis Chick and Justin Germano. That could just as easily have been this season -- costing the Reds $4 million to get someone no better than Dave Williams. So, maybe it's a false choice, but if I have to choose between paying $4 million to Casey, having an awful team, and getting garbage return at the deadline or NOT paying $4 million to Casey, having an awful team, and getting a garbage return -- I choose to not pay the $4 million.

Plus, money is not only important to the Reds, it's improtant to other teams as well. Casey's value was hampered by the fact that he was overpaid for the value he brought in return. That severely limited any potential return that could've been made on him.


C) Who said Casey was the only guy the Reds could trade. You seem to be arguing that the other guys in the 1B/OF are better. If so, then one of them should have been able to fetch a better arm.



Here's the way I see it: The Reds have tradable commodities in Dunn, Kearns, Pena, and Casey (Griffey, due to injury reasons, his status as a 10/5 player, and money issues was and is probably unmovable for anything remotely resembling value). The Reds, smartly, decided that Dunn was simply too valuable to trade and unlikely to fetch fair return value. That leaves them with Kearns, Pena and Casey to attempt to trade to improve the pitching.

Kearns and Pena are both moving toward what should be the prime of their careers. Both are coming off seasons where neither one played to potential. Their value, at present, is low when compared to their potential future performance. However, both players have the ability to significantly improve their value through their performance in this season. That only can happen if both are out in the field and playing -- seeing at bats on a daily basis. If their platooning, it limits the development and chance for value-increase on both players, and if only one player is playing it all but kills any value-increase on the benched player. In short, in order for the Reds to even think about getting maximum value out of Kearns or Pena, they have to play every day and showcase their talents. They could've moved either one, but for a much lower value than both players are likely worth.

On the other hand, Casey's value was not going to move much higher during the course of the season than it was during the offseason. It might've ticked up a little bit, but Casey peaked in 2004. His value was going to, at best, stagnate through the AS break -- possibly even decline. The value-return on Casey was likely going to be as mediocre 7 months from the winter meetings as it was then.

So -- here's your scenario: keeping Casey likely does nothing to significantly improve his trade value but likely keeps either Kearns or Pena (possibly both) from improving their own trade value. Casey has to be out of the way in order for this to happen.


D) I wish everyone with an unbelievably poor plate approach could net you a .371 OB.

Or some two dozen GIDPs, 10th on the team in SLG, 8th on the team in OPS, and in the bottom half of NL 1st basemen in VORP.


E) I've been off the reservation before, but I'm pretty confident I know Dave Williams' kind of buffalo and that he'll be grazing on my praries before too long.

Dave Williams is likely going to be awful -- I don't think anyone sanely can debate that point.

M2
02-21-2006, 08:21 PM
Caveat,

A) Is Dave Williams part of the solution? If your answer is no or probably not, then the Reds shouldn't have traded for him.

B) I could care less if the Reds save money. I don't follow the team in the hopes that it turns a tidy profit. I care about whether the team is putting together a club that might be able win more than it loses. I'd rather not trade for Germanos, Chicks and Williamses, period. If that costs the Reds some money that they've got in pocket, that's no skin off my nose.

C) Here's my scenario, the Reds had five guys to play OF and 1B and a team that can't pitch. Now the Reds have four guys to play OF and 1B and the team's got the exact same pitching problem.

D) I like OB and, IMO, it covers for Casey's other sins. If you can get on base 37% of the time, you're helping the cause. Maybe you're not the greatest thing since pizza delivery, but you've got your uses.

E) "Dave Williams is likely going to be awful" ... and he's the one in the Reds uniform.

dougdirt
02-21-2006, 09:10 PM
M2, Ryan Freel gets on base 37% of the time, has nearly the power Casey has, can play 4 times the positions and has speed. Hopefully Freel can win the 2b job, and he can replace Casey and his .370 ob% and the Reds in turn did get someone who wont be the worst pitcher on the staff. If he is better than Ortiz, Milton and Wilson were last year, then yes, he is a part of the solution.

princeton
02-21-2006, 09:36 PM
OKing a trade by a lame duck GM sounds pretty stupid to me.

but at least LaGenius approved.

pedro
02-21-2006, 11:05 PM
See, I'm still not sure Dave Williams is useless. Maybe I'll be wrong, but I still think it was worth the risk, which was none.

lollipopcurve
02-21-2006, 11:10 PM
I like Dave Williams to surprise.

wheels
02-21-2006, 11:35 PM
Dave Williams = Ramon Ortiz = bad deal.

M2
02-21-2006, 11:36 PM
M2, Ryan Freel gets on base 37% of the time, has nearly the power Casey has, can play 4 times the positions and has speed. Hopefully Freel can win the 2b job, and he can replace Casey and his .370 ob% and the Reds in turn did get someone who wont be the worst pitcher on the staff. If he is better than Ortiz, Milton and Wilson were last year, then yes, he is a part of the solution.

The point was that Casey gets on base at a good clip and that guys who get on base at a good clip have their uses. I'd have no problem with both of them in the lineup if it came to that. In fact, the Reds managed to lead the league in scoring last year with both as lineup regulars. That's not an argument for keeping Casey no matter what, it's just pointing out that the guy has been productive and part of a productive offense.

As for part of the solution, I fail to see what problem a crappy pitcher solves. For the record, I think Williams is a perfect fit for the Ortiz/Lidle bad pitching slot in the rotation for 2006, a man cut from almost the exact same quality of cloth, a guy whose successes have been flukes and who is about to prove that with a vengeance. Part of the solution would be a pitcher around whom you could build something by the end of this decade, because this team will have to fight like crazy to top 76 wins in 2006. That won't be Dave Williams.

M2
02-21-2006, 11:42 PM
See, I'm still not sure Dave Williams is useless. Maybe I'll be wrong, but I still think it was worth the risk, which was none.

Think about that, you're not sure he's useless. Yeah, that's a good guy to bring in to raise the Titanic. Risk, schmisk, it's way past time to fix the pitching problem and you're trying to justify dealing for a guy over whom you're not sure if he's useless or not.

pedro
02-21-2006, 11:57 PM
Think about that, you're not sure he's useless. Yeah, that's a good guy to bring in to raise the Titanic. Risk, schmisk, it's way past time to fix the pitching problem and you're trying to justify dealing for a guy over whom you're not sure if he's useless or not.

I know. It's sad.

But really, Casey, even if he played like 2004, wasn't going to change this team, ever, IMO.

Dave Williams might end up being good, and more likely he might be awful. But really, at this point, the Reds have to take a chance on it. They have to. The upside if he does do well is too big.

TMBS, I think he's a better acquisition than Milton, Ortiz, or Wilson was, and sad as I know it is to say, that's where we're at.

M2
02-22-2006, 12:06 AM
I know. It's sad.

But really, Casey, even if he played like 2004, wasn't going to change this team, ever, IMO.

Dave Williams might end up being good, and more likely he might be awful. But really, at this point, the Reds have to take a chance on it. They have to. The upside if he does do well is too big.

TMBS, I think he's a better acquisition than Milton, Ortiz, or Wilson was, and sad as I know it is to say, that's where we're at.

It's where the team's at because it's put itself there, by making deals like this. The only thing that makes it better is to go out and find better talent.

Williams isn't a chance you have to take. He's a crumpled up Chinese lottery ticket that you're not even sure has expired.

westofyou
02-22-2006, 12:13 AM
FWIW PECOTA has Casey pegged to get 19.3 VORP and Williams 7.2.

Casey is set to get 8.5 million and Williams 1.5 (the Reds are paying 1 million bucks to the Pirates too)

That's $440,414 per point of VORP for Casey and for Williams it comes out to $347,222 per point of VORP (including the extra million for Casey)