PDA

View Full Version : The New Ownership....



RedsMan3203
05-21-2006, 09:59 PM
So far, so GREAT. They haven't been worried about making a move... When they've made the move... Its been the right move. Something, the old ownership didn't do.

But, I do have a question about them.

Have they come out and said anything along the lines of raising pay-roll? Cutting some pay-roll? Or staying at what we are at now.

I'm wonding because I see we need to trade this person, and this person, then this person. But... Do we REALLY need to trade them?

I'm hoping, praying, writing it down, that the new ownership is going to add payroll this off season... See we are able to keep Austin Kearns, Adam Dunn, and Lopez. And not trade them away for pichers, they go out and sign them without the trade.

By the way, Like Tracey Jones said last night - Aint nobody gonna touch Jason LaRue with his 4.5 milliol dollar salary. Jason is here to stay. Unless the Braves want to trade for him.

edabbs44
05-22-2006, 12:14 AM
So far, so GREAT. They haven't been worried about making a move... When they've made the move... Its been the right move. Something, the old ownership didn't do.

But, I do have a question about them.

Have they come out and said anything along the lines of raising pay-roll? Cutting some pay-roll? Or staying at what we are at now.

I'm wonding because I see we need to trade this person, and this person, then this person. But... Do we REALLY need to trade them?

I'm hoping, praying, writing it down, that the new ownership is going to add payroll this off season... See we are able to keep Austin Kearns, Adam Dunn, and Lopez. And not trade them away for pichers, they go out and sign them without the trade.

By the way, Like Tracey Jones said last night - Aint nobody gonna touch Jason LaRue with his 4.5 milliol dollar salary. Jason is here to stay. Unless the Braves want to trade for him.
I believe Bob said that, if the situation was there, he would add payroll. No #s, so we don't know if he is talking about $5 or $5 million.

Falls City Beer
05-22-2006, 12:18 AM
The Reds aren't going to be "in it," but that shouldn't stop the Reds from making trades at the deadline that *might* add payroll. Deadline trades should be made to help the MLB product, not stock the minors. That's what the draft is for.

edabbs44
05-22-2006, 12:19 AM
The Reds aren't going to be "in it," but that shouldn't stop the Reds from making trades at the deadline that *might* add payroll. Deadline trades should be made to help the MLB product, not stock the minors. That's what the draft is for.
So if someone comes knocking at the deadline and offers one or two prospects for RA, are you saying no?

Falls City Beer
05-22-2006, 12:21 AM
So if someone comes knocking at the deadline and offers one or two prospects for RA, are you saying no?

No. But RA's not a trading chit, really.

I'm talking about real trading items: Kearns, Larue, Lopez, even Arroyo.

Sure, trade marginal guys for prospects if you want; I should have stipulated as much.

Further, I have no problem if deals involving real players (as above) bring in prospects secondarily, but the principals in those trades should be MLB-ready.

edabbs44
05-22-2006, 12:24 AM
No. But RA's not a trading chit, really.

I'm talking about real trading items: Kearns, Larue, Lopez, even Arroyo.

Sure, trade marginal guys for prospects if you want; I should have stipulated as much.
I would trade LaRue for anything right now. as long as any savings will be put towards the payroll within a year.

Falls City Beer
05-22-2006, 12:25 AM
I would trade LaRue for anything right now. as long as any savings will be put towards the payroll within a year.

I think when Larue goes on a tear when the weather heats up, he'll be worth a decent amount--not just "anything."

reds44
05-22-2006, 12:26 AM
No. But RA's not a trading chit, really.

I'm talking about real trading items: Kearns, Larue, Lopez, even Arroyo.

Sure, trade marginal guys for prospects if you want; I should have stipulated as much.

Further, I have no problem if deals involving real players (as above) bring in prospects secondarily, but the principals in those trades should be MLB-ready.
Dunn isn't a trading item?

Falls City Beer
05-22-2006, 12:26 AM
Dunn isn't a trading item?

Not to me, he's not.

reds44
05-22-2006, 12:28 AM
Not to me, he's not.
But Lopez is?

Is it because Boras is his agent? If so, then that is valid if we don't think we can resign him.

Falls City Beer
05-22-2006, 12:31 AM
But Lopez is?

Is it because Boras is his agent? If so, then that is valid if we don't think we can resign him.

Would I rather hang on to Lopez? Absolutely. But he is going to be superexpensive.

And I see nothing in the Reds pipeline that's going to produce the offensive output that Dunn is going to provide the Reds for the next few seasons.

reds44
05-22-2006, 12:32 AM
Would I rather hang on to Lopez? Absolutely. But he is going to be superexpensive.

And I see nothing in the Reds pipeline that's going to produce the offensive output that Dunn is going to provide the Reds for the next few seasons.
Gotcha :thumbup:

edabbs44
05-22-2006, 07:23 AM
I think when Larue goes on a tear when the weather heats up, he'll be worth a decent amount--not just "anything."
I think his contract is a little rich (esp next year). That's why I would deal him. I think he is at $3.9 mil this year and $5.2 mil next.

westofyou
05-22-2006, 11:24 AM
I think his contract is a little rich (esp next year). That's why I would deal him. I think he is at $3.9 mil this year and $5.2 mil next.
If he's traded after Oct. 15, his 2007 salary will automatically increase to $5.45 million.

edabbs44
05-22-2006, 11:26 AM
If he's traded after Oct. 15, his 2007 salary will automatically increase to $5.45 million.
I just think LaRue's $ can be better spent elsewhere. He doesn't do enough to justify his high % of payroll.

oneupper
05-22-2006, 11:27 AM
Who did the LaRue contract? DanO, Kullman or Krivsky?

westofyou
05-22-2006, 11:28 AM
I just think LaRue's $ can be better spent elsewhere. He doesn't do enough to justify his high % of payroll.
Yeah we've heard that argument, but the payroll could go up next year too and you'd probably feel the same.

westofyou
05-22-2006, 11:31 AM
Who did the LaRue contract? DanO, Kullman or Krivsky?
Dan.

I see LaRue as being the guy who goes, longest tenured Red, older catcher... you know the drill.

The Reds as a team in this market will always take a wash at a position, trading defense for hitting and vice-a-versa. I think that Krivsky and Narron would prefer to do that up the middle and starting with Catcher.

Chances are very good that LaRue will be offered up.

edabbs44
05-22-2006, 11:32 AM
Yeah we've heard that argument, but the payroll could go up next year too and you'd probably feel the same.
Yep...$5.2 million is a lot no matter how you shake it and I doubt payroll will go up enough to make his contract a non-factor.

boognish
05-22-2006, 11:44 AM
The Reds aren't going to be "in it," but that shouldn't stop the Reds from making trades at the deadline that *might* add payroll. Deadline trades should be made to help the MLB product, not stock the minors. That's what the draft is for.

FCB, do we have any indications that Krivsky thinks the same way? So far what we have seen are piece-wise additions to the bottom of the roster (sometimes by subtraction) and those moves seem to indicate he follows this strategy, but what conclusions can we draw from his time as an assistant in Minnesota?

I like to believe that the Reds' plan is to build the farm system through intelligent scouting and drafting, but O'Brien paid lip service to rebuilding the farm system but just didn't seem willing to execute.