PDA

View Full Version : Minnesota and Castro



flyer85
06-19-2006, 04:49 PM
I am stilled baffled by this entire episode.

Minnesota is far and away the worst defensive team in the majors in terms of defensive efficiency (% of balls in play converted to outs) which is regarded as the best measure of overall team defense (Reds are in the middle of the pack).

So Minnesota which by this measure is much worse than the Reds still chose to release Castro (a supposed defensive specialist). That can only lead to two conclusions.
1) He isn't nearly as good defensively as his reputation
2) Even though the Twins clearly need better defense, his offense is so bad that they felt compelled to remove him from the lineup.

Plus when EE comes back just when and where is he supposed to play because he brings almost nothing to a game he does not start.

Cincinnati is quickly becoming a haven for guys who can't find a home anywhere else.

Joseph
06-19-2006, 04:53 PM
I think this is as much a sign of Minnesota unfurling the white flag as it is anything else. They haven't run it up the pole yet [trading Hunter or Stewart etc] but Terry Ryan and co have found the flag and are preparing it. I say this because they decided to just run the kid [can't thinkof his name off the top of my head] and are trying to clear some small amount of payroll.

RedsManRick
06-19-2006, 04:56 PM
This deal could've happened after Castro was DFA'd. Ryan just gave Krivsky a call first and Krivsky said "sure, any scrubs in A ball catch your eye?"

I'm thinking this is a case of Krivsky not wanting to use Olmedo solely as a defensive replacement, and finding a cheap way to get a defensive guy on the roster. Problem is that Castro's defense is in regression and his bat barely plays in AAA.

redsfanfalcon
06-19-2006, 05:08 PM
Maybe if Minnesota throws in the towel, Krivsky can trade for the ones worth trading for, and between the two teams, we'll have a good bullpen!

Matt700wlw
06-19-2006, 05:36 PM
Joe Nathan

Johnny Footstool
06-19-2006, 05:41 PM
Joe Nathan

I'd give up Bailey for him.

KronoRed
06-19-2006, 05:51 PM
Bailey for a closer?

redsfanmia
06-19-2006, 06:10 PM
Minnesota has a guy in AAA named Pat Neshek he is a 25 year old closer who seems to be lights out, he seems to deserve a shot at the major league level. This would be a low risk high reward guy to go after, Im sure he wouldnt cost too much in a trade.

Simms11
06-19-2006, 06:45 PM
I'd give up Bailey for him.
Are you serious? I would not give a up the future bedrock of the rotation for a closer...

jimbo
06-19-2006, 06:46 PM
I'd give up Bailey for him.

No way I trade my top starting minor league pitching prospect for a closer.

Matt700wlw
06-19-2006, 08:02 PM
Lopez for Nathan?

Move Phillips to short.....


??

butlerbulldogs
06-19-2006, 08:39 PM
Minnesota has a guy in AAA named Pat Neshek he is a 25 year old closer who seems to be lights out, he seems to deserve a shot at the major league level. This would be a low risk high reward guy to go after, Im sure he wouldnt cost too much in a trade.


i went to college w/ Neshek, and he is a pretty popular guy (1st this year in votes for aaa all-star game), and throws in the high 90's i don't he will be had on the cheap

jimbo
06-19-2006, 10:06 PM
Lopez for Nathan?

Move Phillips to short.....


??

I would seriously consider that trade. Actually, I'd probably do it.

Falls City Beer
06-19-2006, 10:06 PM
I would seriously consider that trade. Actually, I'd probably do it.

I would make that trade twice, and I really like Lopez.

kheidg-
06-19-2006, 10:18 PM
I am stilled baffled by this entire episode.

Minnesota is far and away the worst defensive team in the majors in terms of defensive efficiency (% of balls in play converted to outs) which is regarded as the best measure of overall team defense (Reds are in the middle of the pack).

So Minnesota which by this measure is much worse than the Reds still chose to release Castro (a supposed defensive specialist). That can only lead to two conclusions.
1) He isn't nearly as good defensively as his reputation
2) Even though the Twins clearly need better defense, his offense is so bad that they felt compelled to remove him from the lineup.

Plus when EE comes back just when and where is he supposed to play because he brings almost nothing to a game he does not start.

Cincinnati is quickly becoming a haven for guys who can't find a home anywhere else.


I live in Minnesota and basically watch almost every possibly Reds and Twins game that I can. That pretty much means that I have been unfortunate enough to watch Juan Castro play for 7 consecutive seasons. His offense is horrible and for how much his defense is talked about he does make his share of errors on easy plays. He does make a stellar play in the field every now and again, but who doesn't? I believe the Twins simply got tired of him and weren't going to play him much with Jason Bartlett (who's batted .330 every year in the minors) taking over.

I believe this trade was simply because of what RedsManRick said, Narron/Krivsky didn't want to use Olemedo solely as a defensive replacement. As long as that is all Castro is used for, I don't have that much of a problem with it - as long as he doesn't take too many at bats away from Adam Dunn (as he did tonight) or any other worthy player.

Best case scenario = late inning (9th inning) defensive replacement.
Worst case scenario = consistant at bats.

I just don't think having a defensive replacement for the 9th inning justifies a roster spot.

Johnny Footstool
06-19-2006, 10:30 PM
I'd much rather trade a pitching prospect for an established lights-out closer than give up an established All-Star shortstop for said closer.

Calling Bailey "the future bedrock of the rotation" is kind of silly at this point. I can remember when those same words were applied to Ty Howington.

Bailey is a good prospect, but he's not an elite prospect. He's the best in the Reds organization by default. And he's far from a sure thing.

MWM
06-19-2006, 10:32 PM
I'd trade Homer for Nathan in a heartbeat, and I think Krivsky would too. I don't think Minnesota would bite. If Nathan is available they could get more than Homer.

Highlifeman21
06-19-2006, 10:32 PM
Bailey for a closer?

Joe Nathan will pitch for us this year and probably at least 3 more years. We may not see Homer Bailey pitch on the 25 man roster on a consistent basis in that same time frame...

Our rotation somehow hasn't been the problem this year, it's been relievers not named Coffey. Adding Nathan as the everyday closer and then letting Coffey be the first man out of the bullpen would help this club immensely. I'd even go out on a limb to say we could ham and egg it pretty well with just those 2 out of the pen to contend for the WC.

Any takers, or will the manlove continue to run high for Homer Bailey?

jimbo
06-19-2006, 10:36 PM
I'd trade Homer for Nathan in a heartbeat, and I think Krivsky would too.

I don't think Krivsky would make that move.

jimbo
06-19-2006, 10:37 PM
Any takers, or will the manlove continue to run high for Homer Bailey?

My mancrush continues. :laugh:

MWM
06-19-2006, 10:47 PM
He'd be insance to turn that down if offered. But like I said before, if the Twins put Nathan on the market, they could get a lot more than Homer Bailey, IMO.

Johnny Footstool
06-19-2006, 10:54 PM
Joe Nathan will pitch for us this year and probably at least 3 more years. We may not see Homer Bailey pitch on the 25 man roster on a consistent basis in that same time frame...

Our rotation somehow hasn't been the problem this year, it's been relievers not named Coffey. Adding Nathan as the everyday closer and then letting Coffey be the first man out of the bullpen would help this club immensely. I'd even go out on a limb to say we could ham and egg it pretty well with just those 2 out of the pen to contend for the WC.

Any takers, or will the manlove continue to run high for Homer Bailey?

Summarized perfectly. :thumbup:

jimbo
06-19-2006, 10:58 PM
He'd be insance to turn that down if offered. But like I said before, if the Twins put Nathan on the market, they could get a lot more than Homer Bailey, IMO.

They may be able to get more, but it's going to involve a team who has a big enough payroll on a yearly basis who do not rely on their minor league system as much for player development. The Reds are not one of those teams. It's crucial for the future success of this organization to right their minor league system and improve the ability to develop players.....especially pitchers. I want to win this year as much as anyone, but this team has to be successful at bringing up pitchers through their system because they will never be able to sign the likes of a Randy Johnson or Pedro.

Johnny Footstool
06-19-2006, 11:28 PM
They may be able to get more, but it's going to involve a team who has a big enough payroll on a yearly basis who do not rely on their minor league system as much for player development. The Reds are not one of those teams. It's crucial for the future success of this organization to right their minor league system and improve the ability to develop players.....especially pitchers. I want to win this year as much as anyone, but this team has to be successful at bringing up pitchers through their system because they will never be able to sign the likes of a Randy Johnson or Pedro.

So you acquire Nathan for the run this season, then deal him at any point in the next two years for a prospect or two.

Jpup
06-20-2006, 08:05 AM
Liriano...nevermind, just dreaming. Would Lopez get it done? I can't think it would.

BuckWoody
06-20-2006, 08:39 AM
Joe Nathan is a converted (i.e failed) starting pitcher who found his niche as a closer with the Twins similar to what the Dodgers did with Gagne and several other teams have done. To be a successful franchise for the long term teams like the Reds need to develop their closer in this manner or bring one up through the system. I don't like the idea of trading an established major leaguer (Lopez) or one of the organization's top prospects (Bailey) for an established closer. For an established starter, sure, but not a closer. It doesn't seem worth the cost to me especially since the Reds are more than just a good closer away from seriously contending this year.

Just my $.02.

dabvu2498
06-20-2006, 08:46 AM
Joe Nathan is a converted (i.e failed) starting pitcher who found his niche as a closer with the Twins similar to what the Dodgers did with Gagne and several other teams have done. To be a successful franchise for the long term teams like the Reds need to develop their closer in this manner or bring one up through the system. I don't like the idea of trading an established major leaguer (Lopez) or one of the organization's top prospects (Bailey) for an established closer. For an established starter, sure, but not a closer. It doesn't seem worth the cost to me especially since the Reds are more than just a good closer away from seriously contending this year.

Just my $.02.
Agreed 100%. How many closers have had successful runs over an 8-10 year period in recent history? Rivera, Hoffman, anyone else???

Closers tend to burn bright, then fade away. A starter has a greater probability of maintaining a performance level.

Jpup
06-20-2006, 08:58 AM
Agreed 100%. How many closers have had successful runs over an 8-10 year period in recent history? Rivera, Hoffman, anyone else???

Closers tend to burn bright, then fade away. A starter has a greater probability of maintaining a performance level.

John Franco, Roberto Hernandez, Troy Percival, Jose Mesa, and Billy Wagner. There are more.

dabvu2498
06-20-2006, 09:01 AM
John Franco, Roberto Hernandez, Troy Percival, Jose Mesa, and Billy Wagner. There are more.
All good ones... I'll still take my chances with a short-term project as closer and save my resources for a long-term solution at the front end of the rotation.

Jpup
06-20-2006, 09:11 AM
All good ones... I'll still take my chances with a short-term project as closer and save my resources for a long-term solution at the front end of the rotation.

me too, but you asked. :p:

Johnny Footstool
06-20-2006, 05:28 PM
The Reds' current situation is that A) they have a high-quality offense that might not be together for much longer; B) they have a decent starting rotation for the first time since grass was green; C) they are currently leading the Wild Card race in mid-June; D) their bullpen is terrible; and E) their track record for developing pitchers (relievers and starters both) is horrendous, so they will need to look outside the organization for immediate help.

Playing for the long-term *might* pay off years down the road, but the current Reds team has a shot at the playoffs if they can find bullpen help. If they could get a sure think like Nathan for a prospect like Bailey, they should jump at the chance.

jimbo
06-20-2006, 06:17 PM
I want consistancy with this organization just as much as a World Series. The Reds cannot compete with the likes of the Yankees, Red Sox, etc. in the free agent market so they must maintain a strong minor league system in order to compete on a yearly basis. Depleting an already suspect minor league system in order to win this year may give some immediate success, but hinders future consistant success.

registerthis
06-20-2006, 06:24 PM
Are you serious? I would not give a up the future bedrock of the rotation for a closer...

You're putting an awful lot of weight on the kid's shoulders. Let's let him dominate AA first--something he didn't do in Single A--before we anoint him as anything other than a talented, but not elite, prospect.

cincyinco
06-20-2006, 06:27 PM
Bailey for Nathan? Are you guys serious?

Now, maybe Travis Wood and Chris Denorfia or something along those lines.. but I would not give up our best pitching prospect for Nathan. Its a lot easier to find servicable relievers, and a lot harder to find pitchers with ace potential.

IslandRed
06-20-2006, 06:47 PM
John Franco, Roberto Hernandez, Troy Percival, Jose Mesa, and Billy Wagner. There are more.

I'm sorry... I could have sworn you said "Jose Mesa." :D

Johnny Footstool
06-21-2006, 01:01 AM
Bailey for Nathan? Are you guys serious?

Now, maybe Travis Wood and Chris Denorfia or something along those lines.. but I would not give up our best pitching prospect for Nathan. Its a lot easier to find servicable relievers, and a lot harder to find pitchers with ace potential.

1) if it's so easy to find servicable relievers, how come the Reds can't do it?
2) Joe Nathan is worlds beyond "servicable".
3) Homer Bailey is indeed the best pitching prospect in the Reds organization. But that's really because the organization is so bereft of quality prospects that we fans tend to elevate a good prospect like Bailey to savior status. Bailey isn't an elite prospect on the level of Cole Hamels or Chad Billingsley. He's good, not great.

dfs
06-21-2006, 07:35 AM
Nathan has to be pretty close to being a free agent.

Trading the best 20 year old pitcher you've had in 30 years for an expensive closer who is likely to leave in a year or two? Doesn't sound like a plan building for the future to me.

....Likewise with Lopez. That's not even close to value. You won't be able to do that in midseason.

...It's an odd fit, because their outfield looks stacked, till you see they are running Rondell White out there as a DH and he's hitting 209/215/182, but Chris Denorfia could help that offense right now.
I could see trading Denorfia and one of the starters at Dayton. I think that trade might work both ways.

dabvu2498
06-21-2006, 08:05 AM
I'm sorry... I could have sworn you said "Jose Mesa." :D
I thought the same thing... then I looked him up. He fits with the charateristics of the question at hand... 16 or more saves in the last 9 of 11 seasons.

RedEye
06-21-2006, 08:13 AM
Liriano...nevermind, just dreaming. Would Lopez get it done? I can't think it would.

If Minnesota traded Liriano, they would be the stupidest franchise in baseball. The kid is like 21 years old, he's cheap right now, and he's already pitching like his teammate Santana. With those two pitchers alone, the Twins are almost guaranteed to contend for the foreseeable future. If I'm Terry Ryan, I do everything in my power to lock up Johan and his "little brother" Francisco. If he can put any other players around them, the Twinkies will be a force to be reckoned with for the next ten years. I especially hope that Santana signs a LTC with them to avoid the inevitable bidding war between the Yanks and the Sox when he comes up as a free agent in a year or two.

RANDY IN INDY
06-21-2006, 09:06 AM
1) if it's so easy to find servicable relievers, how come the Reds can't do it?
2) Joe Nathan is worlds beyond "servicable".
3) Homer Bailey is indeed the best pitching prospect in the Reds organization. But that's really because the organization is so bereft of quality prospects that we fans tend to elevate a good prospect like Bailey to savior status. Bailey isn't an elite prospect on the level of Cole Hamels or Chad Billingsley. He's good, not great.

Dan O'Brien and Krivsky's late start as GM are pretty good reasons. The Reds have not had trouble finding quality relievers in the recent past. As far as Bailey goes, and I'll preface this statement with the fact that I have not seen the kid pitch, but I think it's a little early to be making statements like that.

zombie-a-go-go
06-21-2006, 09:23 AM
Playing for the long-term *might* pay off years down the road, but the current Reds team has a shot at the playoffs if they can find bullpen help. If they could get a sure think like Nathan for a prospect like Bailey, they should jump at the chance.

These words leave a sour taste in my mouth, but... I don't think the Reds are or should start trading potential long-term pieces to make a run at the playoffs. I don't believe that the 06 Reds, were they to sneak into the playoffs, would go any further than the first round. Are they contenders for a playoff spot? Absolutely. Are they contenders for a WS berth? Not by a long shot.

I hope Kriv is thinking big. Playoffs are nice, but they don't mean squat if you come home without a title.

Now if they could win the NLC pennant, I'd go for it. But these Reds are a WC team, and even that's hella-iffy.

Johnny Footstool
06-21-2006, 09:29 AM
Nathan has to be pretty close to being a free agent.

Trading the best 20 year old pitcher you've had in 30 years for an expensive closer who is likely to leave in a year or two? Doesn't sound like a plan building for the future to me.

....Likewise with Lopez. That's not even close to value. You won't be able to do that in midseason.

...It's an odd fit, because their outfield looks stacked, till you see they are running Rondell White out there as a DH and he's hitting 209/215/182, but Chris Denorfia could help that offense right now.
I could see trading Denorfia and one of the starters at Dayton. I think that trade might work both ways.

Nathan is signed through 2007 with a club option for 2008.

The whole point of acquiring Nathan would be to push *this season's* Reds into the playoffs, so a two or three-year contract would be fine. And the Reds could trade Nathan for prospects in 2007 or 2008, thus "building for the future."

The Reds have been "building for the future" for so long, some of you might not realize that it's almost here.


Dan O'Brien and Krivsky's late start as GM are pretty good reasons. The Reds have not had trouble finding quality relievers in the recent past. As far as Bailey goes, and I'll preface this statement with the fact that I have not seen the kid pitch, but I think it's a little early to be making statements like that.

Do you mean it's a little early to say he's not an elite prospect? If so, that's backwards. You've got to earn "elite" status. Thusfar, Bailey has proven he's good, not great.

dfs
06-21-2006, 09:43 AM
Nathan is signed through 2007 with a club option for 2008.

Thanks. Good catch. That does make him more attractive. I still wouldn't trade Bailey or Lopez for him.

registerthis
06-21-2006, 10:02 AM
Thanks. Good catch. That does make him more attractive. I still wouldn't trade Bailey or Lopez for him.

Man, if you get the chance to trade an unproven good-but-not-great minor league prospect for one of the dominant relievers in the game--particularly considering the Reds 'pen--you do it. I just can't see a good reason not to. Maybe I'm just not as "sold" on Bailey as others here are, but at this point, to me, he looks like another prospect with great stuff who hasn't been able to put it together, like so many others. Maybe he'll pan out to something great, but it's far from a sure thing.

RANDY IN INDY
06-21-2006, 10:03 AM
Nathan is signed through 2007 with a club option for 2008.

The whole point of acquiring Nathan would be to push *this season's* Reds into the playoffs, so a two or three-year contract would be fine. And the Reds could trade Nathan for prospects in 2007 or 2008, thus "building for the future."

The Reds have been "building for the future" for so long, some of you might not realize that it's almost here.



Do you mean it's a little early to say he's not an elite prospect? If so, that's backwards. You've got to earn "elite" status. Thusfar, Bailey has proven he's good, not great.

I didn't realize that players were only allowed to be as good as someone's "label" of them out of high school, college or early minor league career.

That's really funny, particularly when you're talking about a position like pitcher that usually takes some seasoning and can be very volatile.

Johnny Footstool
06-21-2006, 02:52 PM
I didn't realize that players were only allowed to be as good as someone's "label" of them out of high school, college or early minor league career.

That's really funny, particularly when you're talking about a position like pitcher that usually takes some seasoning and can be very volatile.

They aren't. They're allowed to be as good as their performance suggests. Bailey's performance suggests a good, but not great pitching prospect, despite the "savior" label many Reds fans are pinning on him.

And yes, pitching prospects are extremely volatile. For every one that makes it, there are fifty Ty Howingtons living in vans down by the river.