PDA

View Full Version : Reds Should Have Kept Joe Randa



11BarryLarkin11
04-23-2006, 10:02 PM
Ok, sadly, I think it is time to conclude that O’Brien made the wrong move by trading Joe Randa. No, I’m not advocating that they should’ve kept him and dealt Edwin. Rather, they should have kept him, offered him arbitration with the understanding that he wouldn’t be the starter if he accepted it, and then let him leave for draft pick compensation.

The reason I say this is that the talent that we could’ve gotten in this year’s draft would be MUCH more likely to be impact talent then Travis Chick and Justin Germano. Here is a quick breakdown from Baseball America of how the draft pick compensation process works and a list of this past off-season’s free agents with their respective classification.

“The Elias Sports Bureau compiles rankings of all major leaguers by position, based on their performance over the previous two seasons. If teams offer arbitration to a free agent and lose him to another club, they'll receive compensation if he's classified as a Type A (top 30 percent at his position), Type B (31-50 percent) or Type C (51-60 percent) player.

For a Type A player, the compensation is the signing team's first-round pick plus a supplemental first-rounder. For a Type B, it's the signing team's first-round choice. For a Type C, it's a supplemental second-rounder.

However, if the signing team picks in the upper half of the first round, that choice is protected and it loses its second-round selection instead. If a club signs multiple free agents within the same category, its earlier pick goes to the team which lost the higher-rated player. Also, Type C players who have been free agents in the past don't yield any compensation.

Here's your list:

Type A
Wilson Alvarez (LAD), Brad Ausmus (Hou), A.J. Burnett (Fla), Jeromy Burnitz (ChC), Royce Clayton (Ari), Roger Clemens (Hou), Jeff Conine (Fla), Johnny Damon (Bos), Octavio Dotel (Oak), Erubiel Durazo (Oak), Scott Eyre (SF), Kyle Farnsworth (Atl), Rafael Furcal (Atl), Brian Giles (SD), Tom Gordon (NYY), Tony Graffanino (Bos), Mark Grudzielanek (StL), Ramon Hernandez (SD), Trevor Hoffman (SD), Bob Howry (Cle), Todd Jones (Fla), Paul Konerko (CWS), Matt Lawton (NYY), Braden Looper (NYM), Kevin Millar (Bos), Bengie Molina (LAA), Matt Morris (StL), Bill Mueller (Bos), Mike Piazza (NYM), Joe Randa (SD), Al Reyes (StL), Kenny Rogers (Tex), B.J. Ryan (Bal), Rudy Seanez (SD), Julian Tavarez (StL), Ugueth Urbina (Phi), Billy Wagner (Phi), Larry Walker (StL), Jeff Weaver (LAD), Rondell White (Det), Bob Wickman (Cle), Tim Worrell (Ari).

Type B
Antonio Alfonseca (Fla), Rich Aurilia (Cin), Paul Byrd (LAA), Hector Carrasco (Was), Elmer Dessens (LAD), Cal Eldred (StL), Juan Encarnacion (Fla), Shawn Estes (Ari), Carl Everett (CWS), Julio Franco (Atl), Nomar Garciaparra (ChC), Alex Gonzalez (Fla), Todd Greene (Col), Chris Hammond (SD), Scott Hatteberg (Oak), Rick Helling (Mil), Roberto Hernandez (NYM), Jason Johnson (Det), Jacque Jones (Min), Al Leiter (NYY), Esteban Loaiza (Was), Kenny Lofton (Phi), Brian Meadows (Pit), Jim Mecir (Fla), Jose Mesa (Pit), Dan Miceli (Col), Kevin Millwood (Cle), Jamie Moyer (Sea), Mike Myers (Bos), Rafael Palmeiro (Bal), Todd Pratt (Phi), Felix Rodriguez (NYY), Reggie Sanders (StL), J.T. Snow (SF), Sammy Sosa (Bal), Russ Springer (Hou), Frank Thomas (CWS), Brett Tomko (SF), Michael Tucker (Phi), Daryle Ward (Pit), Jarrod Washburn (LAA), Bernie Williams (NYY), Preston Wilson (Was), Eric Young (SD).

Type C (first-time free agents only)
Joey Eischen (Was), Scott Elarton (Cle), Abraham Nunez (StL). “


And, also from Baseball America, here is the 2006 draft order adjusted for compensatory picks.

2006 Draft Order

“The Dodgers will reap two extra picks for the loss of Type A free agent Jeff Weaver (Angels), getting one late in the first round and another at the start of the supplemental first round. The Braves, with two supplemental picks and two extra second-round picks, and Red Sox, with two supplemental picks and an extra third-rounder, also will come out ahead in this year’s draft.

On the flip side, the Cubs will forfeit their second-, third- and fourth-round picks after signing free agents Bobby Howry, Scott Eyre and Jacque Jones. The Giants, after surrendering their first three picks a year ago, won’t pick in the second or third rounds.”

First Round
1. Royals
2. Rockies
3. Devil Rays
4. Pirates
5. Mariners
6. Tigers
7. Dodgers
8. Reds
9. Orioles
10. Giants
11. Diamondbacks
12. Rangers
13. Cubs
14. Blue Jays
15. Nationals
16. Brewers
17. Padres
18. Phillies (from Mets for Type A Billy Wagner)
19. Marlins
20. Twins
21. Yankees (from Phillies for Type A Tom Gordon)
22. Nationals (from Athletics for Type B Esteban Loaiza)
23. Astros
24. Braves
25. Angels (from Indians for Type B Paul Byrd)
26. Dodgers (from Angels for Type A Jeff Weaver)
27. Red Sox
28. Red Sox (from Yankees for Type A Johnny Damon)
29. White Sox
30. Cardinals

Supplemental First Round
31. Dodgers (for Weaver)
32. Orioles (for Type A B.J. Ryan)
33. Giants (for Type A Scott Eyre)
34. Diamondbacks (for Type A Tim Worrell)
35. Padres (for Type A Ramon Hernandez)
36. Marlins (for Type A A.J. Burnett)
37. Phillies (for Wagner)
38. Braves (for Type A Kyle Farnsworth)
39. Indians (for Type A Bob Howry)
40. Red Sox (for Damon)
41. Yankees (for Gordon)
42. Cardinals (for Type A Matt Morris)
43. Braves (for Type A Rafael Furcal)
44. Red Sox (for Type A Bill Mueller)

Second-Round Adjustments
51. Braves (from Dodgers for Furcal)
53. Padres (from Orioles for Hernandez)
54. Cardinals (from Giants for Morris)
56. Indians (from Rangers for Type B Kevin Millwood)
57. Indians (from Cubs for Howry)
58. Orioles (from Blue Jays for Ryan)
70. Nationals (from Angels for Type B Hector Carrasco)
72. Braves (from Yankees for Farnsworth)

Supplemental Second Round
75. Indians (for Type C Scott Elarton)
76. Cardinals (for Type C Abraham Nunez)

Third-Round Adjustments
83. Red Sox (from Dodgers for Mueller)
86. Diamondbacks (from Giants for Worrell)
89. Giants (from Cubs for Eyre)
90. Marlins (from Blue Jays for Burnett)

Fourth-Round Adjustment
119. Twins (from Cubs for Type B Jacque Jones)


If we assume for a minute that the Pirates still would’ve signed Joe Randa (who may have been even more desirable with a FULL season of numbers from GABP), which it’s likely that they would have, then we would have gotten a supplemental first rounder and the Pirates second round pick. Since the Pirates are in the top 15 draft picks this year, that pick is protected and they would have forfeited their second round pick instead.

A good comparison for Randa is Bill Mueller for whom the Red Sox received a supplemental first rounder and the Dodgers’ third round pick. The Red Sox would’ve received the Dodgers’ second round pick (as their first pick was protected like the Pirates’ pick), but the Dodgers forfeited that one to the Braves by signing Furcal, who was more highly rated by Elias than Mueller.

In the Elias ranking, Joe Randa is ranked number 18 in the NL at 69.951. Bill Mueller is ranked number 19 in the AL at 68.452. Randa is more highly rated than Type A Mueller, so Randa would’ve been classified a Type A free agent as well.

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2005-11-01-player-rankings.htm

Given the lackluster performances of Travis Chick and Justin Germano, I would much rather have an additional first/second round pick and a supplemental first round pick. I think that those two draft picks would have given us two prospects with true IMPACT potential, rather than the low ceiling, struggling Chick and Germano.

I was a proponent of the Randa trade, which made sense at the time, but in hindsight it wasn’t a good deal. The Reds would’ve been much better offer with the draft picks, than Chick and Germano. Remember, Travis Wood was our second rounder last year and I don’t think many would rather have Chick/Germano than another Wood.

One wonders if O’Brian made this trade in an attempt to save his job or if he just poorly evaluated Chick and Germano. Regardless, this is another in a long line of poor decisions made by O’Brien. Once again, the Reds didn't maximize value from their assets. Hopefully, this one won't come back to haunt us in the upcoming draft, but two additional early picks could've REALLY helped out our struggling farm system by adding impact talent.

cincyinco
04-23-2006, 10:09 PM
The 2006 draft class is weak. Once you get past the creame on the top, there's not much left to get excited about. Experts are calling this the worst draft class in years... even worse than 2000 draft.

Travis Chick is not a low ceiling pitcher... I suggest you do some further research on him. He is a project yes, and he may never reach his ceiling, but to call him a low ceiling prospect is incorrect. I would also argue that he was over promoted and rushed.

He was more highly thought of than Tim Stauffer of the Padres. Please review - and take note of his 2004 season:

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/C/travis-chick.shtml

Sea Ray
04-23-2006, 10:13 PM
Ok, sadly, I think it is time to conclude that O’Brien made the wrong move by trading Joe Randa. No, I’m not advocating that they should’ve kept him and dealt Edwin. Rather, they should have kept him, offered him arbitration with the understanding that he wouldn’t be the starter if he accepted it, and then let him leave for draft pick compensation.

I disagree. Look at the reality of the situation. The reality is if Joe Randa was worth arbitration he'd have been offered it by the Padres with the hope of getting draft pick compensation as you listed above. But the fact is the Pittsburghs of the world would not sign him under those circumstances so guess what happens? You end up with him going to arbitration and getting an outrageous amount of money and your stuck with the contract.

In theory your hypothesis is sound but it doesn't work in the real world. The Reds knew that Randa was not the kind of guy you could afford to offer arbitration to so a deadline trade like this one was the only way to get something for him.

11BarryLarkin11
04-23-2006, 10:50 PM
I disagree on both points.

As for Chick, I'm unimpressed. I think best case, he's a middle reliever. Worst case, he's a bust. He was impressive in 2004, but as impressive as he was, he was equally unimpressive in 2005. I don't view him as having impact potential and I certainly think we could've gotten someone better in the first two rounds of the 2006 draft. As for Germano, he is AAA rotation depth. He's not an impact talent.

As for the 2006 draft, there is definitely talent in the first two rounds of the draft, regardless of how weak the draft class is.

I don't agree with the arbitration point either. Bill Mueller was offered arbitration and was signed to a contract. And, given a full season in GABP, Randa would've been a much hotter commodity in the marketplace. Randa was the toast of the town in Cincy last year and was having a career year.

Someone would've been interested. Regardless, Randa wouldn't have accepted arbitration anyway, as he would've been a bench player for us and he'd want to start somewhere.

Also, since when are the Pirates smart enough to lay off of a player because he would cost draft picks?

kaldaniels
04-23-2006, 10:52 PM
I disagree. Look at the reality of the situation. The reality is if Joe Randa was worth arbitration he'd have been offered it by the Padres with the hope of getting draft pick compensation as you listed above. But the fact is the Pittsburghs of the world would not sign him under those circumstances so guess what happens? You end up with him going to arbitration and getting an outrageous amount of money and your stuck with the contract.

In theory your hypothesis is sound but it doesn't work in the real world. The Reds knew that Randa was not the kind of guy you could afford to offer arbitration to so a deadline trade like this one was the only way to get something for him.

I agree. Can't knock DanO for this trade.

Sea Ray
04-23-2006, 11:10 PM
I don't agree with the arbitration point either. Bill Mueller was offered arbitration and was signed to a contract. And, given a full season in GABP, Randa would've been a much hotter commodity in the marketplace. Randa was the toast of the town in Cincy last year and was having a career year.

Someone would've been interested. Regardless, Randa wouldn't have accepted arbitration anyway, as he would've been a bench player for us and he'd want to start somewhere.

Also, since when are the Pirates smart enough to lay off of a player because he would cost draft picks?

You make my point. If he'd had a great year at GABP, it would have helped him in arbitration. I get back to my original point. Why didn't SD offer hm arbitration?

I'm sure they decided the risk wasn't worth it.

11BarryLarkin11
04-23-2006, 11:34 PM
You make my point. If he'd had a great year at GABP, it would have helped him in arbitration. I get back to my original point. Why didn't SD offer hm arbitration?

I'm sure they decided the risk wasn't worth it.


Joe Randa 2005 Stats

CIN: 92 Games
BA/OBP/SLG/OPS: .289/.356/.491/.847
Runs/HRs/RBI: 44/13/48

SD: 58 Games
BA/OBP/SLG/OPS: .256/.303/.395/.698
Runs/HRs/RBI: 27/4/20

Why didn't San Diego offer him arbitration? That's easy. Randa hit very poorly in Petco Park. The Padres faced the likelihood of having to pay Randa based on his GABP numbers, while getting his Petco Park numbers.

However, if Randa had stayed in Cincy the whole season, his numbers would've been very impressive, which would increase the likelihood that another team would be willing to sign him despite losing draft picks.

If you extropolate his partial year Cincy stats out over a whole season, you get the following:

PA: 609
BA/OBP/SLG/OPS: .289/.356/.491/.847
Hits: 159
HRs: 22
BBs: 55
HBP: 3

I find it hard to believe that someone wouldn't have signed such a player, despite the cost of a single draft picks. Bill Mueller was signed despite having much worse stats than these.

Again, I think it's very likely that Randa declines arbitration in an attempt to parlay his career season into a lucrative multiyear contract elsewhere. And, I think it's just as likely that he finds a team willing to sign him.

cincyinco
04-24-2006, 01:35 AM
I disagree on both points.

As for Chick, I'm unimpressed. I think best case, he's a middle reliever. Worst case, he's a bust. He was impressive in 2004, but as impressive as he was, he was equally unimpressive in 2005. I don't view him as having impact potential and I certainly think we could've gotten someone better in the first two rounds of the 2006 draft. As for Germano, he is AAA rotation depth. He's not an impact talent.

There is more than performance/numbers that go into projecting what a kid like Chick will do. Numbers can't quantify the human element to the game, which is very real. Performance counts for something, and he did have a bad 2005. But his 2004 was very impressive and he could just as likely adjust and perform better in 2006. You act as if a pitcher cannot learn, adjust, and become better. Scouts obviously saw SOMETHING they liked very much in Chick.

Strengths: Chick’s size, aggressiveness, velocity and ability to throw strikes remind some scouts of a young Curt Schilling. He consistently gets ahead in the count with a fastball that sits in the low 90s and touches 94-95. He has a hard slider and an advanced changeup for his age.

Thats 3 pitches my friend, of which you need to be a successful starter at the big league level.

Weaknesses: Chick can depend on his fastball too much, and his changeup will improve more quickly if he uses it more often. He overthrows his slider, causing it to lose its horizontal break. He also works too high in the strike zone at times.

Sounds to me like the kid might overthrow a bit. He may also need to learn how to mix his pitches and his game up a bit more. If he can refine the secondary pitches, and gain some command of them, he'll be a solid pitcher.

It seems to me that you always think we can get something better. That there is "Value left on the table" - and I point to the WMP deal and your above quote about this deal. While that may be the case, I also think you completely overvalue Reds players. WMP was a guy with many flaws. Yes he has a high ceiling, but he may very well never reach it. The same can be said for Chick. There is ALWAYS inherent risk with prospects of course, thats the nature of the beast... but there's good gambles, and bad gambles.. and I happen to think Chick/Germano for Randa(an aging, mediocre but solid 3b), in a non existent trade market(there were almost NO deadline deals of consequence last year), is a pretty good gamble. One of Obrien's better moves.


As for the 2006 draft, there is definitely talent in the first two rounds of the draft, regardless of how weak the draft class is.

As for the draft, may I suggest you go read up on it some more... There are almost NO standouts. Very few beyond a handful of college pitchers, and maybe 2 college hitters and 1 prep guy. From there the talent gets real thin, real quick. I personally am not going to be dissapointed about missing out on a "possible" compesation pick in a weak draft class.

And you don't know about Germano yet... I'd wager he's better than some of the bums we've already thrown out on the mound this year.

11BarryLarkin11
04-24-2006, 02:43 AM
There is more than performance/numbers that go into projecting what a kid like Chick will do. Numbers can't quantify the human element to the game, which is very real. Performance counts for something, and he did have a bad 2005. But his 2004 was very impressive and he could just as likely adjust and perform better in 2006. You act as if a pitcher cannot learn, adjust, and become better. Scouts obviously saw SOMETHING they liked very much in Chick.

Strengths: Chick’s size, aggressiveness, velocity and ability to throw strikes remind some scouts of a young Curt Schilling. He consistently gets ahead in the count with a fastball that sits in the low 90s and touches 94-95. He has a hard slider and an advanced changeup for his age.

Thats 3 pitches my friend, of which you need to be a successful starter at the big league level.

Weaknesses: Chick can depend on his fastball too much, and his changeup will improve more quickly if he uses it more often. He overthrows his slider, causing it to lose its horizontal break. He also works too high in the strike zone at times.

Sounds to me like the kid might overthrow a bit. He may also need to learn how to mix his pitches and his game up a bit more. If he can refine the secondary pitches, and gain some command of them, he'll be a solid pitcher.

It seems to me that you always think we can get something better. That there is "Value left on the table" - and I point to the WMP deal and your above quote about this deal. While that may be the case, I also think you completely overvalue Reds players. WMP was a guy with many flaws. Yes he has a high ceiling, but he may very well never reach it. The same can be said for Chick. There is ALWAYS inherent risk with prospects of course, thats the nature of the beast... but there's good gambles, and bad gambles.. and I happen to think Chick/Germano for Randa(an aging, mediocre but solid 3b), in a non existent trade market(there were almost NO deadline deals of consequence last year), is a pretty good gamble. One of Obrien's better moves.

As for the draft, may I suggest you go read up on it some more... There are almost NO standouts. Very few beyond a handful of college pitchers, and maybe 2 college hitters and 1 prep guy. From there the talent gets real thin, real quick. I personally am not going to be dissapointed about missing out on a "possible" compesation pick in a weak draft class.

And you don't know about Germano yet... I'd wager he's better than some of the bums we've already thrown out on the mound this year.


Indeed, there is definitely a human element. And, pitchers don't follow the career development path that hitters do. They develop in starts and fits, rather than the more traditional, steady path of position players. So, it's possible that Chick develops into a solid pitcher, but from what I've read/heard some are already projecting him to be a reliever with his fastball/slider combo. How often do you hear anyone talk about Travis Chick as a good prospect?

And, yes. I do typical think that there is something better out. In most of the Reds deals, I do think they've left value on the table. How many times has Billy Beane had a "Freakin' A" trade? How many good deals has John Schuerholz made? Why is it the Reds never outright "win" a trade? Why can't we ever steal talent from an organization? Find a diamond in the rough?

A better question might be, why don't we expect more? Sadly, we have been conditioned to accept mediocrity and incompetence from our front office. As of late, intelligent, quality player personnel moves aren't the norm in Cincy, they are the exception.

At the time, I applauded the spirit of the Randa deal. Just like Wily Mo Pena for Bronson Arroyo (and yes, I still think we left value on the table in that one, but that's not relevant to the issue at hand;)), the strategy behind the deal is sound. Dealing a veteran that we have no use for to acquire much needed young pitching is a sound strategy. But, while the strategy was sound, sadly, I suspect that the execution was lacking. In baseball, it isn't enough to do the "right thing", you have to execute it well too.

I'd love to see Chick become an impact talent, but I'll believe it when I see it. And Germano may be better than what we are throwing out there at the MLB level, but that's not the same as being a good, valuable pitcher. ;) Personally, I'd much rather see what Krivsky could have done with the extra two draft picks.

As for the draft, I find it VERY hard to believe that there aren't going to be some good players available in the first and second rounds. And, the more picks we have, the better our chances of finding impact talent. And, given the dearth of talent in our system, we need as many picks as we can get.

I'd rather have two additional 1/2 round draft picks, than Chick and Germano. But, evidently, that's just me.

As per usual, just my $.02.

Bobcat J
04-24-2006, 06:36 AM
However, if Randa had stayed in Cincy the whole season, his numbers would've been very impressive, which would increase the likelihood that another team would be willing to sign him despite losing draft picks.



But, if Randa stayed with the Reds all year and played a significant amount of time in order to make him more attractive to other teams in the off season, EE would not have gotten over 200 AB. EE would be in a situation this year where he was either just getting his first significant playing time or even worse where he was beat out by Aurilia because Narron wasn't sure the kid could handle the job.

In the end, if trading Randa allowed EE to develop a little faster then it was worth more than a draft pick, especially given the risk that we might have ended up with Randa for antoher $2 million.

REDREAD
04-24-2006, 07:08 AM
However, if Randa had stayed in Cincy the whole season, his numbers would've been very impressive, which would increase the likelihood that another team would be willing to sign him despite losing draft picks.
.

I think there's a sound reason why clubs don't do as you suggest. (Offer a player arb, but then threaten to bench them).

1. A lot of players probably wouldn't mind being benched, if they are getting paid. Not saying Randa is one of those, but some players are.

2. It would impact the Reds signing other FAs. Not to say the Chris Hammond was a great catch, but if players see us offer players arbitration not in good faith, it will hurt us.

3. If he accepts and wins 3+ million, we're screwed, as the budget was pretty tight this year.

4. I'm a firm believer you can find good talent in the draft after the 1st and 2nd round IF you are willing to spend money. If the Reds have money to sign a supplemental pick, they could throw that money at a kid that needs extra $$ to be convinced not to go to college or return to college or something.

Patrick Bateman
04-24-2006, 08:49 AM
If Randa was offered arbitration, he wouldn't have found anyone wiilling to forfeit a 1st round pick to sign him. He would have been forced to accept arbitration and get $5M or so especially, as you say, he finished the year strong.

You simply can't offer arbitration to guys like Randa.

Johnny Footstool
04-24-2006, 10:18 AM
I doubt the Reds would have been able to select anyone with the talent of Travis Chick, and even if they die, they certainly would have had to wait longer for him to develop.

Chick is exactly the type of pitcher the Reds should be acquiring -- good stuff, fairly advanced, still needs polish, high ceiling.

Sea Ray
04-24-2006, 11:15 AM
I think OB was one of the worst GMs ever. But this trade was OK IMO. It is my opinion that we'd be stuck with Randa if we'd offered him arbitration but the fact is there was at least "a risk" that we'd be stuck with him and that warrants making the deal.

As for Travis Chick, he is mentioned in this morning's paper as having just pitched 6 shutout innings with five Ks in AA. If he turns out to be a reliever in the majors, so what? We need relievers here in Cincinnati. Our bullpen is not good. He is only 21 pitching in AA. That's not a bad risk. Our minor league stud is Homer Bailey and he's 19 and he is just getting started in high A this year. I think this trade made sense at the time. I really do.

11BarryLarkin11
04-24-2006, 04:53 PM
If Randa was offered arbitration, he wouldn't have found anyone wiilling to forfeit a 1st round pick to sign him. He would have been forced to accept arbitration and get $5M or so especially, as you say, he finished the year strong.

You simply can't offer arbitration to guys like Randa.

Randa had a better season than Bill Mueller. And yet, the Dodgers still forfeited a draft pick to sign Mueller. And, I still find it hard to believe that a player coming off a 20+ HR season wherein he batted ~.285 would have a hard time finding a new team, especially a well respected pro like Randa. If Randa continued at something resembling his first half pace, then he would've had some rather nice numbers.

I still think that coming off that kind of season, Randa would be much more interested in trying to find a sizable multiyear contract, than he would a one year arbitration contract. Especially, as even he knew that Edwin was the future at the hot corner.

A downside might be that Edwin wouldn't have gotten as much experience, but the upside could have been that he could've gotten more time to work on his defensive problems.

As for Chick, he was drafted in the 14th round by the Marlins. As such, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that we could've found a better prospect in one of the first two rounds of the 2006 draft.

Obviously, I'm in the minority, so to make a long story short, I'd still rather have the two draft picks than Chick and Germano. Would it have been more risky? Undoubtedly so. But, I don't think it would've been quite as risky as some may think. Randa would rather have gone somewhere on a multiyear deal where playing time is assured and the Reds wouldn't have wanted him back. I think there would've been an amicable parting of the ways.

Johnny Footstool
04-24-2006, 05:43 PM
As for Chick, he was drafted in the 14th round by the Marlins. As such, I don't think it's much of a stretch to say that we could've found a better prospect in one of the first two rounds of the 2006 draft.

Given the Reds' recent track record, I'd say it IS a stretch to assume they could find a better prospect. They're more likely to find the next Ty Howington than the next Travis Chick. Plus they'll have to shell out more bonus money. Plus they'll have to wait longer to see if that pick pans out.

Too many variables for my taste. I'll take what we've already got.

11BarryLarkin11
04-24-2006, 05:53 PM
Given the Reds' recent track record, I'd say it IS a stretch to assume they could find a better prospect. They're more likely to find the next Ty Howington than the next Travis Chick. Plus they'll have to shell out more bonus money. Plus they'll have to wait longer to see if that pick pans out.

Too many variables for my taste. I'll take what we've already got.

I'll take whatever's behind door number 1.

I think the chance to land a true impact talent or two is worth far more than Germano/Chick. Our draft track record isn't great, but it has improved in recent years and I'd love to see what Krivsky could do with those two additional picks. It's higher risk, but higher levels of risk are necessary to reap higher levels of rewards.

Chick was a 14th rounder, so finding a better prospect in the first or second round of the 2006 draft isn't a huge stretch in my estimation. But, if you believe that Germano and Chick will be solid contributors at the MLB level, then I can understand your point of view.

Patrick Bateman
04-24-2006, 06:11 PM
Chick was a 14th rounder, so finding a better prospect in the first or second round of the 2006 draft isn't a huge stretch in my estimation.

The fact that he was a former 14th round pick has extremely little to do with his current prospect status.

It's like saying Rich Harden was a 17th round pikc so it shouldn't be very difficult to find someone better in the first 5 rounds.

Chick has gotten better since the draft meaning his worth is far from a 14th round pick. Now if you think a 1/2nd round pick is still worth more than Chick then that's a different story, his previous draft status should be inconsiquential to the situation.

11BarryLarkin11
04-24-2006, 06:26 PM
The fact that he was a former 14th round pick has extremely little to do with his current prospect status.

It's like saying Rich Harden was a 17th round pikc so it shouldn't be very difficult to find someone better in the first 5 rounds.

Chick has gotten better since the draft meaning his worth is far from a 14th round pick. Now if you think a 1/2nd round pick is still worth more than Chick then that's a different story, his previous draft status should be inconsiquential to the situation.

Indeed, it isn't overly relevant, but it was meant more for those who don't think there is much talent in the 2006 draft this year. And, I do think a 1st/2nd round pick is still worth more than Chick. And, I do think that two 1st/2nd round picks are more valuable than Chick and Germano.

Patrick Bateman
04-24-2006, 06:32 PM
Indeed, it isn't overly relevant, but it was meant more for those who don't think there is much talent in the 2006 draft this year. And, I do think a 1st/2nd round pick is still worth more than Chick. And, I do think that two 1st/2nd round picks are more valuable than Chick and Germano.

Even with the risk of Randa taking arbitration and having to pay hi 3-5M for a guy we don't need?

Even if we tell him he wont start, he might still have taken the cash.

cincyinco
04-24-2006, 06:37 PM
Indeed, it isn't overly relevant, but it was meant more for those who don't think there is much talent in the 2006 draft this year. And, I do think a 1st/2nd round pick is still worth more than Chick. And, I do think that two 1st/2nd round picks are more valuable than Chick and Germano.

And I'm debating this with you on 2 different message boards :)

Again, Miss Cleo, is that you? You cannot make assumptions. Your scenario is an educated guess at best.

Tell me, hypothetically, if Randa HAD accepted arbitration after putting up great numbers as his first half suggested.. what would you do? Pay him to sit on the bench? EE was pounding on the door already... I think it was a wise choice for him to get a 1/2 season under his belt in a non pressure situation. We were not contending last year.

Chick is a good prospect, despite being drafted in the 14th round. Roy Oswalt wasn't a 1st/2nd rounder either. Neither was Mike Piazza. But I think getting Chick and Germano, especially considering the conditions of the trade market last year, was a solid decision.

Like it or not this draft class is weak. Very weak. I've heard analysts say its going to be worse than the class of 2000. And that was a terrible draft class. So that says something. I'm glad OB got the "sure" value instead of gambling millions of dollars that Randa would not accept arbitration, and would be signed before the set date as to receive the compensation picks.

I love the discussions you bring to the table Larkin, but I think you need to let go of the ego a bit on this one... I'm all for letting a guy go and getting compensation picks.. its a great way to build the farm system. Billy Beane in Oakland has excelled at this.. Theo in Boston has too in recent years. And even the Twin's Terry Ryan(who hopefully Krivs learned something from) have had success doing this(their 2004 draft was SICK!).. But that does not mean a GM as inept as Obrien would have. ;)

11BarryLarkin11
04-24-2006, 08:25 PM
And I'm debating this with you on 2 different message boards :)

Again, Miss Cleo, is that you? You cannot make assumptions. Your scenario is an educated guess at best.

Tell me, hypothetically, if Randa HAD accepted arbitration after putting up great numbers as his first half suggested.. what would you do? Pay him to sit on the bench? EE was pounding on the door already... I think it was a wise choice for him to get a 1/2 season under his belt in a non pressure situation. We were not contending last year.

Chick is a good prospect, despite being drafted in the 14th round. Roy Oswalt wasn't a 1st/2nd rounder either. Neither was Mike Piazza. But I think getting Chick and Germano, especially considering the conditions of the trade market last year, was a solid decision.

Like it or not this draft class is weak. Very weak. I've heard analysts say its going to be worse than the class of 2000. And that was a terrible draft class. So that says something. I'm glad OB got the "sure" value instead of gambling millions of dollars that Randa would not accept arbitration, and would be signed before the set date as to receive the compensation picks.

I love the discussions you bring to the table Larkin, but I think you need to let go of the ego a bit on this one... I'm all for letting a guy go and getting compensation picks.. its a great way to build the farm system. Billy Beane in Oakland has excelled at this.. Theo in Boston has too in recent years. And even the Twin's Terry Ryan(who hopefully Krivs learned something from) have had success doing this(their 2004 draft was SICK!).. But that does not mean a GM as inept as Obrien would have. ;)

I've already stated the reasons why I don't think Randa (age 35, coming off a career best season) would've wanted to sign a one year contract and why I think other teams would be willing to sign him. In fact, I'd be surprised if he didn't go elsewhere and if a team wasn't willing to sign him. But, let's assume the worst, that he accepts arbitration and comes back to the Reds. To me, he'd start at first base for us and put up comparable, or better, numbers to Hatteberg. Then, we'd deal him at the deadline or hold onto him until the off season and try it again. But, I still think that would be a real long shot scenario.

As for the draft class, I don't see how you can argue that Chick is a very good prospect despite his 14th round selection on the one hand and then bash the upcoming draft as being very weak and watered down on the other. To me, those seem to be contradictory arguments. There are many impact players who were drafted late in the draft, so how can you state that there will be a lack of talent in this draft? One argument disregards the evaluation ability of the scouts/pundits(impact talent in the later rounds, i.e. Chick in the 14th or Harden, etc), while the other argument relies on the opinions of those same scouts/pundits for support. There WILL be MLB talent in this draft. It's there for the picking, but you have to have the picks. ;)

As for my ego, it's actually almost non-existent. There's a lot of behind the scenes knowledge about running of a baseball organization that I admittedly don't possess and I certainly don't pretend to know best. I just was thinking about the haul we got in the Randa trade and felt that we could have done better with draft picks. Obviously, I hold the minority opinion, but that's nothing new for me.

I don't ever make posts declaring the rightness of my ideas (and, I never mean for it to come off that way), rather I post to bounce ideas off of other people. I like to see what everyone else thinks, as it helps me to sharpen my own thoughts and exposes me to countless new ideas and philosophies. I've learned a tremendous amount from other people on the message board, which is exactly why I like them.

I don't pretend to have any answers, I just like to search for them. ;)

Patrick Bateman
04-24-2006, 10:06 PM
I've already stated the reasons why I don't think Randa (age 35, coming off a career best season) would've wanted to sign a one year contract and why I think other teams would be willing to sign him. In fact, I'd be surprised if he didn't go elsewhere and if a team wasn't willing to sign him. But, let's assume the worst, that he accepts arbitration and comes back to the Reds. To me, he'd start at first base for us and put up comparable, or better, numbers to Hatteberg. Then, we'd deal him at the deadline or hold onto him until the off season and try it again. But, I still think that would be a real long shot scenario.

As for the draft class, I don't see how you can argue that Chick is a very good prospect despite his 14th round selection on the one hand and then bash the upcoming draft as being very weak and watered down on the other. To me, those seem to be contradictory arguments. There are many impact players who were drafted late in the draft, so how can you state that there will be a lack of talent in this draft? One argument disregards the evaluation ability of the scouts/pundits(impact talent in the later rounds, i.e. Chick in the 14th or Harden, etc), while the other argument relies on the opinions of those same scouts/pundits for support. There WILL be MLB talent in this draft. It's there for the picking, but you have to have the picks. ;)

As for my ego, it's actually almost non-existent. There's a lot of behind the scenes knowledge about running of a baseball organization that I admittedly don't possess and I certainly don't pretend to know best. I just was thinking about the haul we got in the Randa trade and felt that we could have done better with draft picks. Obviously, I hold the minority opinion, but that's nothing new for me.

I don't ever make posts declaring the rightness of my ideas (and, I never mean for it to come off that way), rather I post to bounce ideas off of other people. I like to see what everyone else thinks, as it helps me to sharpen my own thoughts and exposes me to countless new ideas and philosophies. I've learned a tremendous amount from other people on the message board, which is exactly why I like them.

I don't pretend to have any answers, I just like to search for them. ;)

Hey you have an argument I just disagree. Randa could have cost an extra 4M than Hatteberg while the risk of netting better prospects wasn't worth the risk IMO.

redsrule2500
04-24-2006, 10:22 PM
O'Brien making a bad move....

LoganBuck
04-24-2006, 11:58 PM
Where pretail would Randa be playing?