PDA

View Full Version : Reds sign Mike Stanton



Tom Servo
11-19-2006, 01:03 PM
per rotoworld:

The Reds and Mike Stanton have reportedly agreed to terms on a two-year deal with a vesting option for a third year.

It wasn't too long ago that both the Mets and the Yankees were eager to rid themselves of Stanton, and he accepted a one-year, $1 million contract from the Nationals last winter. Two good months with the Giants sure did change a lot. It looks like the Reds will have at least three lefties in next year's pen, but no member of the group qualifies as a specialist. Neither Stanton nor Rheal Cormier has much of a split against left-handers, and Bill Bray is on his way to being a quality setup man. Stanton doesn't have the same kind of stuff he once did, but he's durable and he's pitched in every situation the game has to offer. The Reds can't expect better than a 4.00 ERA, but he'll likely be OK.

wheels
11-19-2006, 01:09 PM
Yippee.

Another geriatric left hander.

When will someone tell Wayne to stop collecting this chaff?

Willy
11-19-2006, 01:12 PM
Depth is never a bad thing. Usually its the little moves that put a team over the top not the big ones.

Good signing.

Patpacillosjock
11-19-2006, 01:18 PM
i hate wayne krivsky with a passion.

captainmorgan07
11-19-2006, 01:19 PM
i agree willy depth never bad thing he's veteran guy been throught the wars

BuckWoody
11-19-2006, 01:19 PM
It improves our bullpen, even though that doesn't take too much. I like it...

fadetoblack2880
11-19-2006, 01:20 PM
Depth is never a bad thing. Usually its the little moves that put a team over the top not the big ones.

Good signing.

i agree. it's obvious that going with a multitude of young guys didn't make the reds winners. why not try going with a few veterans in the bullpen.

RedsManRick
11-19-2006, 01:22 PM
Stanton is a left handed David Weathers. It's a huge deal, but I'll take it over Mike Burns.

Edd Roush
11-19-2006, 01:24 PM
As long as this isn't our big free agent signing for the bullpen, I like Stanton who will provide depth. But if a 39 year-old Stanton is our closer, I'm less than enthused with this deal. Come on Krivsky give me Speier and I'll like our 'pen well enough.

edabbs44
11-19-2006, 01:28 PM
As long as this isn't our big free agent signing for the bullpen, I like Stanton who will provide depth. But if a 39 year-old Stanton is our closer, I'm less than enthused with this deal. Come on Krivsky give me Speier and I'll like our 'pen well enough.

Speier going to the Angels, per Gammons. Beliefs are in the $4-5 million realm. That's the difference btw Cincy and the big shots.

And that's why I hate the little bs moves being made. Take Rheal, Hatte and AGon's money and put it towards difference makers.

Patrick Bateman
11-19-2006, 01:35 PM
Stanton is a left handed David Weathers. It's a huge deal, but I'll take it over Mike Burns.

And hopefully Stanton gives Narron a reason to not use Cormier in tight games.

Patpacillosjock
11-19-2006, 01:37 PM
And hopefully Stanton gives Narron a reason to not use Cormier in tight games.

thanks for reminding me of our LHP middle relief roster:

Bray
Stanton
Cormier
Guardado (if he re-signs)
Kent Mercker
Michalak
Scowenweis
Shackelford



Awesome!!!:bang:

CougarQuest
11-19-2006, 01:37 PM
Other sites are saying its a 1 year $1M deal

Edd Roush
11-19-2006, 01:38 PM
Speier going to the Angels, per Gammons. Beliefs are in the $4-5 million realm. That's the difference btw Cincy and the big shots.

And that's why I hate the little bs moves being made. Take Rheal, Hatte and AGon's money and put it towards difference makers.


4-5 million doesn't seem to be too much for a potential closer. Good deal for the Angels, I wish we could pull it off.

The problem with putting all your money towards the "difference makers" is the cases like Griffey. If you put all your eggs in the same basket, and that player happens to get hurt. You are in trouble.

I wish we could have gotten Speier, but there are still some more solid arms on the market.

vaticanplum
11-19-2006, 01:41 PM
Other sites are saying its a 1 year $1M deal

If that's true, this is an incredibly smart signing.

Patrick Bateman
11-19-2006, 01:43 PM
thanks for reminding me of our LHP middle relief roster:

Bray
Stanton
Cormier
Guardado (if he re-signs)
Kent Mercker
Michalak
Scowenweis
Shackelford



Awesome!!!:bang:

Michalak is gone. Mercker is done. Stanton makes "Scowenweis" redundant signalling to his end as a Red. Guardado likely wont factor in to the 2007 plans.

Basically Cormier, Bray, and Stanton will be the lefties, with Shack waiting in AAA.

I'd rather have Shack up than Cormier since he offers different strengths, but as of now, it's not bad to have a little depth as Shack will see his fair share amount of games.

Tom Servo
11-19-2006, 01:43 PM
thanks for reminding me of our LHP middle relief roster:

Bray
Stanton
Cormier
Guardado (if he re-signs)
Kent Mercker
Michalak
Scowenweis
Shackelford



Awesome!!!:bang:
Michalak's already gone, Schoeneweis is as good as gone, and who knows when or if Eddie and Kent are coming back. Even if they do they're currently not under contract with us.

Patrick Bateman
11-19-2006, 01:44 PM
Other sites are saying its a 1 year $1M deal

That would be a great bargain considering this market.

Crosley68
11-19-2006, 01:48 PM
Not outstanding, but solid. I will take a solid bullpen for an entire year. If we had had one this year we might be wearing the rings instead of the Cards.

Krusty
11-19-2006, 01:53 PM
Still waiting for the Reds to sign RHP Eric Gagne to be the closer.

RedsManRick
11-19-2006, 01:59 PM
FWIW, lefties are almost always in demand mid-season. Stocking the pen with them isn't necessarily a bad idea to get some leverage in the deadline trade market.

Superdude
11-19-2006, 02:05 PM
Speier going to the Angels, per Gammons. Beliefs are in the $4-5 million realm.

So what happened to the crap about this being a crazy market? So a no hit/slick glove shortstop is worth as much as a legitimate closer? Good job Wayne.

redsfan30
11-19-2006, 02:09 PM
One year for one million is a steal in this market.

Good signing.

Mario-Rijo
11-19-2006, 02:11 PM
So what happened to the crap about this being a crazy market? So a no hit/slick glove shortstop is worth as much as a legitimate closer? Good job Wayne.

I would have to assume that since Spier signed with the Angels he liked the comfort of knowing that division and likes being a set-up guy. Because unless the Halos have ideas on dealing him they have the AL rolaids relief closer in K-Rod. If he really wanted to close he had plenty of options available to him.

I would also like to say that adding Stanton gives us the flexibility of dealing Cormier for a useful piece if we need to and then re-sign Schoeneweis.

Tom Servo
11-19-2006, 02:13 PM
So what happened to the crap about this being a crazy market? So a no hit/slick glove shortstop is worth as much as a legitimate closer? Good job Wayne.
Ah, jumping to conclusions is fun, isn't it?

1. Who knows what the total amount will be?
2. Who knows if Speier even wanted to come to Cincy?
3. How does 17 career saves make Speier a legitmate closer?

VI_RedsFan
11-19-2006, 02:14 PM
Don't mean to go a little OT here, but does Speier going to the Halos make Shields expendable? I would love to go after him. He could be a Joe Nathan in the making with his stuff. I'm not sure what it would take to get him though...

Patpacillosjock
11-19-2006, 02:14 PM
I would have to assume that since Spier signed with the Angels he liked the comfort of knowing that division and likes being a set-up guy. Because unless the Halos have ideas on dealing him they have the AL rolaids relief closer in K-Rod. If he really wanted to close he had plenty of options available to him.

I would also like to say that adding Stanton gives us the flexibility of dealing Cormier for a useful piece if we need to and then re-sign Schoeneweis.

the problem is, is that WK gathers pieces that nobody else would ever want.

seriously think about all of his acquisitions during the past year (post arroyo/phillips)

Not one team would take anybody we've picked up.

Patrick Bateman
11-19-2006, 02:33 PM
Not one team would take anybody we've picked up.

That's just a hyperbole. Just off the top of my head:

Other teams wanted Schoenweis. Toronto traded him to us when there was a better offer on the table from Boston, but they didn't want to help the Sox out.

Other teams wanted Cormier (including the Cardinals), but Krivsky was willing to give out an extention (which was a poor decision anyways).

There was reported interest in Lohse as a reliever.

And I'm guessing teams have been interested in some of the other pick-ups which we simply haven't heard about.

fadetoblack2880
11-19-2006, 03:06 PM
thanks for reminding me of our LHP middle relief roster:

Bray
Stanton
Cormier
Guardado (if he re-signs)
Kent Mercker
Michalak
Scowenweis
Shackelford



Awesome!!!:bang:

No more Michalak, went to DC.

Casey_21
11-19-2006, 03:06 PM
A 39 year old with a ERA of over 4 in GABP? lol.. I was starting to get ticked, till I saw it was only for a year. Good luck, Stanton,.. I hope you change my mind about you.

fadetoblack2880
11-19-2006, 03:09 PM
I've got an idea, let's all complain about the job krivsky is doing and wish for the good ol' days of linder/o'brien.

reds44
11-19-2006, 03:19 PM
No more Michalak, went to DC.
HE DID??

YES!!!!!!!!!!

:beerme: :beerme: :beerme:

Patpacillosjock
11-19-2006, 03:33 PM
I've got an idea, let's all complain about the job krivsky is doing and wish for the good ol' days of linder/o'brien.

chill out. You know what? i have every right to hate on krivsky because its all relative. When you see what other teams are doing, working with around the same budget, it boggles my mind the players WK goes after and signs and trades for.

it really does.

we have some big holes to fill this offseason. WK even addressed that he'd be looking to fill them.

Last year supposedly our "big need" was the bullpen. So he makes "the trade" and a few more trades/signings to "bolster" our bullpen

so what does he do this offseason? Signs more middle relief.

this guy is hilarious.

Gallen5862
11-19-2006, 03:37 PM
Stanton was listed in Espn Insider as the 30th best free agent.

Tom Servo
11-19-2006, 03:38 PM
chill out. You know what? i have every right to hate on krivsky because its all relative. When you see what other teams are doing, working with around the same budget, it boggles my mind the players WK goes after and signs and trades for.

it really does.

we have some big holes to fill this offseason. WK even addressed that he'd be looking to fill them.

Last year supposedly our "big need" was the bullpen. So he makes "the trade" and a few more trades/signings to "bolster" our bullpen

so what does he do this offseason? Signs more middle relief.

this guy is hilarious.
I don't really understand your logic. We're likely losing Weathers and Schoeneweis, and Franklin can go climb a tree, are we going to sign outfielders to replace their spot in the pen?

vaticanplum
11-19-2006, 03:39 PM
chill out. You know what? i have every right to hate on krivsky because its all relative. When you see what other teams are doing, working with around the same budget, it boggles my mind the players WK goes after and signs and trades for.

it really does.

we have some big holes to fill this offseason. WK even addressed that he'd be looking to fill them.

Last year supposedly our "big need" was the bullpen. So he makes "the trade" and a few more trades/signings to "bolster" our bullpen

so what does he do this offseason? Signs more middle relief.

this guy is hilarious.

There are many holes on this team to be filled, not just one. There are also five months in the offseason, not just one.

A lot of people on this board share your opinion on these moves, but present legitimate reasoning behind it, not just blind opinionated hatred. Your opinion is valid, but it's not really worthwhile to anybody else unless you present it with reason and temper it with logic.

redsfan30
11-19-2006, 03:53 PM
chill out. You know what? i have every right to hate on krivsky because its all relative. When you see what other teams are doing, working with around the same budget, it boggles my mind the players WK goes after and signs and trades for.

it really does.

Just because a player will go to Chicago for 3 years $15 million, does not mean he will go to Cincinnati for 3 years $15 million.

If a player doesn't want to go somewhere, no amount of money is going to change that.

jmac
11-19-2006, 05:20 PM
There are many holes on this team to be filled, not just one. There are also five months in the offseason, not just one.

A lot of people on this board share your opinion on these moves, but present legitimate reasoning behind it, not just blind opinionated hatred. Your opinion is valid, but it's not really worthwhile to anybody else unless you present it with reason and temper it with logic.
exactly.
one move of gonzalez and everyone(well..some) are making out their lineup cards and now this and some hate wayne k.
as you stated there are 5 months in offseason and we have only come thru GM meetings.everyone has their ideas but i seriously doubt the team as it is currently will be the team introduced on opening day.
for the better or worse:that remains to be seen.

Gallen5862
11-19-2006, 05:20 PM
This was on the Free weekend preview. I like the signing.
Click here: ESPN.com - MLB - Law: Top 40 free agents (21-30)
30
Mike Stanton

POSITION: Relief Pitcher
AGE: 39 | BATS: L | THROWS: L
2006 TEAM: San Francisco Giants
STATUS: Unsigned
2006 SEASON STATISTICS
GM IP W L BB K ERA
82 67.2 7 7 27 48 3.99


Stanton may have done more for his market value this fall than any other non-Cardinals pitcher in baseball. While it's unlikely that any team will see those eight saves and think of Stanton as a closer -- unlikely, but not impossible -- Stanton showed that not only is he still relevant, but he has value as a setup man rather than as only a lefty specialist.

Stanton's pitching plan is simple: get ahead with the fastball and/or cutter, then finish hitters off with the curve middle-out or down (for lefties) or changeup middle-out to outside (for righties). He cuts most of his fastballs, throwing them at 85-86 mph and touching 88, trying to stay away from solid contact while getting ahead in the count. His curve is slow and has a big break, at 69-71 mph, with good depth; he controls that pitch better than any of his other pitches, and will go for the swing and miss on a curve down when he's ahead of a left-handed hitter. His changeup is a little easier to pick up as he slows his arm, but it has some late fade, and makes him more effective against right-handed batters than a lot of lefty relievers today.

Of course, Stanton turns 40 in June, so this could all go south quickly, but a short-term commitment here should pay off nicely.

dunner13
11-19-2006, 05:30 PM
This may mean we dont resign weathers, which wouldnt exactly hurt my feelings any. Stanton has enough left to put up at least one more solid year. I like the signing. Were not the yankees all the best players in baseball want to play for a contender, we are not considered a contended. So you can take the top third free agents and scratch them out because none of them will want to come here.

mth123
11-19-2006, 05:51 PM
This is ok. And if its for $1 Million as reported (I don't believe that) its good. I hope it means Cormier can be traded for something useful. I just don't understand the need for a LH reliever. Its the one thing the Reds had in abundance with Bray, Cormier, Shack, and possibly Pelland, Claussen and Coutlangus. I wonder if they are adding a LH for the middle innings in anticipation of Bray becoming closer.

Stanton isn't a huge upgrade over those guys these days.

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 06:28 PM
I wonder if they are adding a LH for the middle innings in anticipation of Bray becoming closer.

I wonder how long it would take before THAT little experiment blew up in the FO's face?

mth123
11-19-2006, 06:38 PM
I wonder how long it would take before THAT little experiment blew up in the FO's face?

Gotta try and justify that trade you know.

Shaknb8k
11-19-2006, 07:01 PM
So we still dont have any dollar signs on this deal yet right?

Redsland
11-19-2006, 07:12 PM
Stanton is a winner who's been on winning teams and knows how to win.

mth123
11-19-2006, 07:16 PM
Stanton is a winner who's been on winning teams and knows how to win.

So was Clay Carroll. Lets sign him.

Redsland
11-19-2006, 07:20 PM
Is he a pitcher's pitcher?

Does he come ready to play?

Does he battle?

;)

Tigs
11-19-2006, 09:27 PM
Stanton will be either a success, meaning above average reliever we can trust, or he will be DFA'd like all the other relieving scum we have had last season. He controls his own destiny.

redsupport
11-19-2006, 09:29 PM
sign Ted Davidson instead

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 09:51 PM
Stanton will be either a success, meaning above average reliever we can trust, or he will be DFA'd like all the other relieving scum we have had last season. He controls his own destiny.

Wouldn't it be nice if the Reds FO acted as though they controlled their own first?

Handofdeath
11-19-2006, 09:57 PM
Yippee.

Another geriatric left hander.

When will someone tell Wayne to stop collecting this chaff?

That chaff is 3rd all time in appearances behind Orosco and Franco. With the Giants last year he was 4-2 with a 3.09 ERA and 8 saves. If by chaff you mean a 39 year old pitcher who still pitches effectively, then yes he is chaff.

Falls City Beer
11-19-2006, 10:04 PM
sign Ted Davidson instead

I imagine we'll be clamoring for Ted Davidson's 1968 season's numbers by the end of Stanton's contract.

Will M
11-19-2006, 11:43 PM
what i hope is that Stanton was signed for depth and maybe because teams are interested in one of our other middle relievers ( anyone except Coffey and Bray ).

what i don't want to see is a large collection of warm bodies pitching in the pen ala 2006. depth is good. quality and depth is better.

also i really hope we carry 6 relievers and 6 bench players ( not 7 relievers and 5 bench players like last year ). if we have 2 starters who pitch a lot of innings and 6 decent/good relievers then i would rather have the 25th man be a position player.

right now i count 2 set up guys ( Bray & Coffey ) and 4 middle relievers ( Stanton, Cormier, Belisle & Majik ). IF nothing else comes to fruition then i would expect Bray to be the 'closer' at the start of 2007.

TOBTTReds
11-19-2006, 11:49 PM
So we still dont have any dollar signs on this deal yet right?

I just keep seeing 2 years with an option

flyer85
11-19-2006, 11:51 PM
hope they aren't paying much because I wouldn't expect much.

Maybe WK is trying to corner the old washed up lefty market.

edabbs44
11-20-2006, 12:27 AM
hope they aren't paying much because I wouldn't expect much.

Maybe WK is trying to corner the old washed up lefty market.

Mission accomplished. I heard him say last year "Mercker and Hammond down...when is Stanton's contract up?"

Krusty
11-20-2006, 09:40 AM
If Stanton does his job, who gives a crap about his age?

fewfirstchoice
11-20-2006, 01:39 PM
ITs a goog signing if he isnt used for the closer role.

redsupport
11-20-2006, 02:47 PM
stanton has progeria

Handofdeath
11-20-2006, 03:28 PM
hope they aren't paying much because I wouldn't expect much.

Maybe WK is trying to corner the old washed up lefty market.

I would love to hear why you consider him washed up.

Rojo
11-20-2006, 04:05 PM
This is ok. And if its for $1 Million as reported (I don't believe that) its good. I hope it means Cormier can be traded for something useful. I just don't understand the need for a LH reliever. Its the one thing the Reds had in abundance with Bray, Cormier, Shack, and possibly Pelland, Claussen and Coutlangus. I wonder if they are adding a LH for the middle innings in anticipation of Bray becoming closer.

Stanton isn't a huge upgrade over those guys these days.

Bray's long-ball-giving-up tendencies preclude closer to my mind. But I'm intriqued about giving him some starts.

Red Leader
11-20-2006, 04:41 PM
I just keep seeing 2 years with an option

Stanton said in the San Fran newspaper that the reason he decided to sign with CIN instead of resigning with SanFran was because CIN offered him two guaranteed years and SanFran would only give him one guaranteed with an option. So, this contract is definitely 2 guaranteed years with an option.

Red Rover
11-20-2006, 04:48 PM
ITs a goog signing if he isnt used for the closer role.

Hal McCoy, of the Dayton Daily News, reports recently signed Cincinnati Reds RP Mike Stanton will be expected to fill the closer's role next season. Stanton was 4-2 with a 3.09 ERA and eight saves for the San Francisco Giants last season.

Ron Madden
11-20-2006, 04:52 PM
Hal McCoy, of the Dayton Daily News, reports recently signed Cincinnati Reds RP Mike Stanton will be expected to fill the closer's role next season. Stanton was 4-2 with a 3.09 ERA and eight saves for the San Francisco Giants last season.

I hope Hal is the only one that expects Stanton to close.;)

AccordinglyReds
11-20-2006, 05:28 PM
Per ESPN:

Stanton agreed to a two-year deal for $5.5 million, with a vesting option for a third year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2669701

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 05:43 PM
Per ESPN:

Stanton agreed to a two-year deal for $5.5 million, with a vesting option for a third year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2669701

Terrible deal.

They must really not give a hoot about money. Because that's how they're spending it.

Guy has a mediocre season in two very pitcher-friendly parks last season. Hooray.

Handofdeath
11-20-2006, 06:44 PM
Terrible deal.

They must really not give a hoot about money. Because that's how they're spending it.

Guy has a mediocre season in two very pitcher-friendly parks last season. Hooray.

With all due respect, I think you are totally wrong. I wasn't aware that having an ERA of 3.99 was considered mediocre. In today's MLB I consider that damn good. Even if he was mediocre, at least the Reds are willing to spend money now.

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 06:47 PM
Even if he was mediocre, at least the Reds are willing to spend money now.

Now that's some unassailable logic.

Rojo
11-20-2006, 06:50 PM
They must really not give a hoot about money. Because that's how they're spending it.

Yet you bemoan the club's penny-pinching in the LaRue deal. Curious.

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 06:53 PM
Yet you bemoan the club's penny-pinching in the LaRue deal. Curious.

Nah. Just an observation. As long as they don't ***** about money and say stuff like, "well, we tapped out in signing our bullpen, so we can't pursue a starter," I don't care what they do with their money. I still think picking up Stanton, regardless of money, was a terrible idea, but when you add the possible component of a move like this precluding other moves it becomes almost unbearable.

Rojo
11-20-2006, 06:58 PM
I still think picking up Stanton, regardless of money, was a terrible idea, but when you add the possible component of a move like this precluding other moves it becomes almost unbearable.

The slough off a contract and that proves they're cheap. They add a contract and that proves......they're cheap. Wow, tough crowd.

Handofdeath
11-20-2006, 07:00 PM
Now that's some unassailable logic.

Then explain why it was terrible. I would like to know. Because his ERA was better than a lot of pitchers on the Reds staff. It was just .30 worse than Jason Isringhausen, who is one of the best releivers in the league.

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 07:03 PM
The slough off a contract and that proves they're cheap. They add a contract and that proves......they're cheap. Wow, tough crowd.

No contradiction in what I'm saying, if you really cared to read my points.

As long as they don't complain about their spending, I don't obviously mind the size of the contracts. But experience tells me we fans will be chastised 8-10 months from now by John Allen, Wayne, & co. for not coming out to see his sub-.500 ballclub lose.

The comment about "terrible move" (though the notion that Mike Stanton would cost anyone $2.75 million is breathtakingly horrible) had very little to do with the dollars per se, but with Stanton as the recipient of those dollars.

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 07:08 PM
Then explain why it was terrible. I would like to know. Because his ERA was better than a lot of pitchers on the Reds staff. It was just .30 worse than Jason Isringhausen, who is one of the best releivers in the league.

He's 40 years old.

He was mediocre last season.

He was mediocre last season in parks that are highly friendly to pitchers (PacBell & RFK).

We have fourteen soft-tossing lefties already on the roster, so it doesn't change the looks opposing teams will get from our bullpen.

Ron Madden
11-20-2006, 07:08 PM
Then explain why it was terrible. I would like to know. Because his ERA was better than a lot of pitchers on the Reds staff. It was just .30 worse than Jason Isringhausen, who is one of the best releivers in the league.

ERA is no way to judge relief pitchers.

Handofdeath
11-20-2006, 07:09 PM
No contradiction in what I'm saying, if you really cared to read my points.

As long as they don't complain about their spending, I don't obviously mind the size of the contracts. But experience tells me we fans will be chastised 8-10 months from now by John Allen, Wayne, & co. for not coming out to see his sub-.500 ballclub lose.

The comment about "terrible move" (though the notion that Mike Stanton would cost anyone $2.75 million is breathtakingly horrible) had very little to do with the dollars per se, but with Stanton as the recipient of those dollars.

Then explain why you think he's horrible.

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 07:13 PM
Then explain why you think he's horrible.

I was told during the season when Wayne was throwing around dookie in the dark and seeing which wall it would stick to that I should just be patient: I'd see, they said, when he has a full offseason he won't be so desperate and won't be picking up marginal last-gasp arms to fill out the bullpen.

Well, here we are: offseason central, and he's going out and collecting the same castoffs, except now he's giving them big contracts.

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 07:23 PM
I know Wayne's thought process vis. Stanton. I know it note for note.

He's seeing that Stanton surrendered only two HRs all last season. But he's ignoriing the park factors for that phenomenon and he's ignoring the fact that Stanton walked a vertiginously high 27 batters in 73 innings. And he's ignoring that he doesn't K anybody. So he's fixating on his ability to "keep the ball in the park." Sounds good. But when you have a BP like the Reds, it's just a constant case of filling up the bases with runners (which Stanton will do if you believe his WHIP the last couple of seasons) only to hand it over to someone else who can't strike anybody out, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Stanton looks JUST LIKE EVERY OTHER no strikeout, nibble-artist in this godforsaken bullpen!

Handofdeath
11-20-2006, 07:26 PM
He's 40 years old.

He was mediocre last season.

He was mediocre last season in parks that are highly friendly to pitchers (PacBell & RFK).

We have fourteen soft-tossing lefties already on the roster, so it doesn't change the looks opposing teams will get from our bullpen.

Age has nothing to do with ability. That "soft tosser" is 51st all-time in K/9. 24th among active players. 70th all time in games finished. 16th on the active list. There wasn't anything mediocre about his season last year.

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 07:27 PM
Age has nothing to do with ability. That "soft tosser" is 51st all-time in K/9. 24th among active players. 70th all time in games finished. 16th on the active list. There wasn't anything mediocre about his season last year.

As someone said on another thread, it's a great move...for 1996.

Age, unfortunately, has a ton to do with ability. (Says this 40 year old).

Handofdeath
11-20-2006, 07:40 PM
As someone said on another thread, it's a great move...for 1996.

Age, unfortunately, has a ton to do with ability. (Says this 40 year old).

Horse hockey. Mike Stanton pitched 26 games and 23 and 1/3 innings for the Giants. That soft tosser K'd 18 and walked only 6. 3.09 ERA and 1.24 WHIP. Oh yeah he also had 8 saves. He may not be a sexy signing but he's a good one.

Highlifeman21
11-20-2006, 07:47 PM
Horse hockey. Mike Stanton pitched 26 games and 23 and 1/3 innings for the Giants. That soft tosser K'd 18 and walked only 6. 3.09 ERA and 1.24 WHIP. Oh yeah he also had 8 saves. He may not be a sexy signing but he's a good one.


I think your definition of good signing and the definition of good signing for most sane people differ greatly.

The money we wasted on Stanton is just throwing gas on a fire to try and solve the problem, but instead of gas, we're throwing money. Throw money at a problem and get zero results, phenomenal way to run a ballclub.

Handofdeath
11-20-2006, 07:52 PM
I think your definition of good signing and the definition of good signing for most sane people differ greatly.

The money we wasted on Stanton is just throwing gas on a fire to try and solve the problem, but instead of gas, we're throwing money. Throw money at a problem and get zero results, phenomenal way to run a ballclub.

Why don't you tell me why he's such a bad signing. FCB called him a soft tosser which just meant he didn't bother to do his homework because I showed him to be no such thing. All I hear is how mediocre he is but no one has given anything supporting why he is.

Rojo
11-20-2006, 07:52 PM
No contradiction in what I'm saying, if you really cared to read my points.

As long as they don't complain about their spending, I don't obviously mind the size of the contracts. But experience tells me we fans will be chastised 8-10 months from now by John Allen, Wayne, & co. for not coming out to see his sub-.500 ballclub lose.

I think your looking to closely at the tea leaves. WK made three moves in short order that don't move the budget line very far one way or the other. (And, I'd argue resolved some issues). Stanton's looked solid the last couple of years, but I'm not going to the mat over the signing. But I don't think it portends of anything.

Will M
11-20-2006, 07:56 PM
CINCINNATI --_ Needing a shortstop and a late-innings reliever, the Cincinnati Reds committed roughly $20 million to fill two of their bigger holes. Later, they spent a little more to get rid of their logjam behind home plate.

One of baseball's most active teams isn't slowing down in the offseason.

Shortstop Alex Gonzalez and left-handed reliever Mike Stanton finalized multiyear contracts Monday with the Reds. Cincinnati then traded catcher Jason LaRue to Kansas City for a player to be named, agreeing to pay part of his $5.2 million salary next season.

The Reds were one of the more aggressive teams last season under new owner Bob Castellini, making a flurry of trades that transformed their roster. Cincinnati finished in third place in the NL Central with an 80-82 record, its sixth straight losing season.

The moves on Monday suggested they're still going full-speed.

"Stay tuned," said general manager Wayne Krivsky, who has acquired 40 players since he took over last spring training.

The light-hitting Gonzalez, 29, committed only seven errors last season with Boston. Stanton, 39, split the season between Washington and San Francisco, where he had eight saves and proved he can still pitch effectively on short rest.

Together, they'll fill a couple of big gaps.

Gonzalez is expected to improve a defense that had the second-most errors in the National League last season. He hit .255 with 24 doubles and nine homers for Boston.

Gonzalez gets $3.5 million next year, $4,625,000 in 2008 and $5,375,000 in the third year. If he wins the Gold Glove in either of the first two years, the third-year salary increases to $5.5 million. There's a $6 million mutual option for 2010 with a $500,000 buyout.

"We'll take the .260 and that Gold Glove-caliber defense and be happy with that," Krivsky said.

Felipe Lopez started at shortstop last season, but was undependable on routine plays and was part of an eight-player trade with Washington in July to restock the bullpen. Cincinnati got shortstop Royce Clayton as part of the deal, but he hit .258 and started only nine games in September.

The Reds also have been trying to upgrade their bullpen since the middle of last season. Left-handed closer Eddie Guardado, acquired from Seattle in one of those midseason trades, had reconstructive elbow surgery in September and won't be ready to pitch at the start of next season.

Stanton gives the Reds a proven option for late in games. He went 3-5 with a 4.47 ERA in 56 games last season for Washington, which traded him to San Francisco on July 28 for a minor league pitcher. Stanton was 4-2 in 26 games for the Giants with eight saves and a 3.09 ERA.

"He's shown he can close games, but he hasn't done it over a full year," Krivsky said. "I'm not going to get into projecting roles."

Stanton gets salaries of $2 million next year and $3 million in 2008. There's an option for 2009 at $2.5 million, with a buyout of $500,000. If he appears in 140 games over the next two seasons, the option-year salary vests at $2.75 million.

Stanton's deal was negotiated by Sam and Seth Levinson, who have represented him for more than two decades.

Stanton said in a telephone interview from the Cincinnati airport that about a half-dozen other teams also made offers. Stanton wanted to be closer to the East Coast --_ his family lives in New Jersey -- and wanted to play for a team that could contend.

When Krivsky increased his original offer to a two-year deal, Stanton accepted.

"Obviously, the second year had a big influence on it," Stanton said. "It's still very early in the free agency period. It just looked like the right deal to me."

Although he saved games for the Giants, Stanton said it doesn't matter whether he's in a set-up role or closing games for the Reds, who were in contention until the last week of the season.

"What the organization and the team have done and what they're going to do shows they're going in the right direction," Stanton said. "I don't want to spend any time away from my family, more than I have to, especially if you're just playing out the season. I want to win."

LaRue was the No. 1 catcher heading into spring training, where he tore cartilage in his knee and had surgery. He moved behind David Ross and Javier Valentin at the spot, and never regained a full-time job.

Ross started 73 games last season and hit .255 with 21 homers. LaRue hit only .194 with 57 starts. Valentin started 32 games behind the plate and was the team's top pinch hitter.

Tigs
11-20-2006, 08:00 PM
"Stay tuned," said general manager Wayne Krivsky Zito?:pray:

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 08:02 PM
Why don't you tell me why he's such a bad signing. FCB called him a soft tosser which just meant he didn't bother to do his homework because I showed him to be no such thing. All I hear is how mediocre he is but no one has given anything supporting why he is.

I gave you a lot. You just don't care to examine it.

I think the onus is on you to point out why he's good. And no, talking about the entirety of the guy's career doesn't count--we're talking abou his recent past, i.e. last year, which is likely to give us the closest reading of what he's going to produce.

You pointed to his stint in SF--I'll point to his stint in Washington, a great pitcher's park: 1.53 WHIP. Looks like a nibbler to me at this point in his career.

Highlifeman21
11-20-2006, 08:04 PM
Why don't you tell me why he's such a bad signing. FCB called him a soft tosser which just meant he didn't bother to do his homework because I showed him to be no such thing. All I hear is how mediocre he is but no one has given anything supporting why he is.

1. He's 40 years old
2. He walks way too many people (27 in 68 IP last season)
3. We wasted money on something that wasn't better than what we already in house
4. He doesn't strike people out (lil better than 2:1 K:BB for his career, only 855 in 1056 career IP)
5. He blew 6 saves last year in 14 SVO. Stellar.
6. He has declining K/9 rates.
7. That 1.40+ WHIP last year really screams 2 year deal. Above his career norm of 1.33.
8. 1.07 G/F in 2 pitcher parks. Excellent
9. Allowed OPS of .710 in 2006. Again, above his career norm of .692.
10. When your numbers start going to the wrong side of your career norms, stay way the hell away, and especially at over 2M per year.

Handofdeath
11-20-2006, 08:17 PM
I gave you a lot. You just don't care to examine it.

I think the onus is on you to point out why he's good. And no, talking about the entirety of the guy's career doesn't count--we're talking abou his recent past, i.e. last year, which is likely to give us the closest reading of what he's going to produce.

You pointed to his stint in SF--I'll point to his stint in Washington, a great pitcher's park: 1.53 WHIP. Looks like a nibbler to me at this point in his career.

You didn't give me anything. You said his being 40 was part of why he was mediocre. No, being 40 is a sign of being a good pitcher. You called him a soft tosser but gave no proof. I showed you how ludicrous that statement was. You want to include that time in Washington? Ok, 67 and 2/3 innings pitched and he had 48 K's. Soft tosser? Pitched in 82 games last year too. He's not the best signing out there but he's a good one.

vaticanplum
11-20-2006, 08:26 PM
1. He's 40 years old

39! He is 39!!!!! Officially he is not even 39 and a half!

Highlifeman21
11-20-2006, 08:28 PM
39! He is 39!!!!!

He'll be 40 6/2 of this season. That's 40 in my book. He might start the season on the better side of 40, but he'll celebrate a birthday in-season.

So we have him signed until he's 41, with an option for 42? This is getting better by the minute...

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 09:36 PM
You didn't give me anything. You said his being 40 was part of why he was mediocre. No, being 40 is a sign of being a good pitcher. You called him a soft tosser but gave no proof. I showed you how ludicrous that statement was. You want to include that time in Washington? Ok, 67 and 2/3 innings pitched and he had 48 K's. Soft tosser? Pitched in 82 games last year too. He's not the best signing out there but he's a good one.

48 Ks in 68 innings sucks. Just because you have no idea how to interpret stats even when you have them on hand isn't my problem.

48/27 K/BB ratio--that really sucks.

Notice I didn't mention anything about his age.

Patrick Bateman
11-20-2006, 09:41 PM
4. He doesn't strike people out (lil better than 2:1 K:BB for his career, only 855 in 1056 career IP)
5. He blew 6 saves last year in 14 SVO. Stellar.



While a number of your points were good, I'll have to disagree with these 2.

855 K's in 1056 innings is an excellent K rate.

A number of his blown saves came in a set up role, when pitchers can only blow saves, not get any. A better reflection is his 8 saves and 15 holds in 29 opportunities.

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 09:44 PM
855 K's in 1056 innings is an excellent K rate.


And this was my salient point: he was once a very good reliever. The last couple of seasons + his age say he's headed down.

flyer85
11-20-2006, 09:48 PM
And this was my salient point: he was once a very good reliever. The last couple of seasons + his age say he's headed down.if you go look at his career and the wonderful pitchers parks he has spent them in, his reputation far exceeds his performance.

Patrick Bateman
11-20-2006, 09:55 PM
48 Ks in 68 innings sucks. Just because you have no idea how to interpret stats even when you have them on hand isn't my problem.



That translates to 6.35 K's per 9 innings.

Other soft tossers who can't strike out guys:

Oswalt 6.79
Buckholz 6.13
Hancock 5.84
Francis 5.29
Willis 6.44
Hudson 5.81
Beckett 6.94
Zito 6.14
E. Santana 6.22
Holladay 5.40
Verlander 6.00
Garcia 5.61

mth123
11-20-2006, 09:57 PM
Not to jump in. But knowing the $ verifies for me that this move sucks.

flyer85
11-20-2006, 10:04 PM
That translates to 6.35 K's per 9 innings.
comparing relievers to starters in things like Ks and ERA is a complete non-starter.

while pitching the majority of his career in very large pitchers parks during his 16 seasons

ERA < 3 - 3 times(last in 2001)
ERA between 3 and 4 - 5 times
ERA between 4 and 5 - 7 times

career ERA 3.81, a very average releif pitcher who probably has grealty benefited from the HR suppression of his home ballparks

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 10:04 PM
That translates to 6.35 K's per 9 innings.

Other soft tossers who can't strike out guys:

Oswalt 6.79
Buckholz 6.13
Hancock 5.84
Francis 5.29
Willis 6.44
Hudson 5.81
Beckett 6.94
Zito 6.14
E. Santana 6.22
Holladay 5.40
Verlander 6.00
Garcia 5.61


You know it's a false comparison to compare relievers to starters in K/9

By your comparison, Todd Coffey kicks Roy Oswalt's (and Stanton's) ass as a pitcher.

A 6.35 K/9 would be acceptable if he didn't walk a soul. But he did walk a ton of people last season.

Willy
11-20-2006, 10:42 PM
If you look a little deeper at those stats, 11 of his 27 walks were intentional.

16 walks in 68 innings is NOT A TON.

vaticanplum
11-20-2006, 10:42 PM
Upon more careful reading of the article I'm not too happy with the signing of the sprightly 39-year-old Stanton. Maybe my hopes were too raised by the one-year, $1 million deal, but that does just seem too much for him. I'm happy to see that Gonzalez's contract is backloaded though; with Griffey's salary gone in the last year of Gonzo's contract that's a smart move and still gives me hope of spending a little more in the nearer future.

Handofdeath
11-20-2006, 10:52 PM
1. He's 40 years old
2. He walks way too many people (27 in 68 IP last season)
3. We wasted money on something that wasn't better than what we already in house
4. He doesn't strike people out (lil better than 2:1 K:BB for his career, only 855 in 1056 career IP)
5. He blew 6 saves last year in 14 SVO. Stellar.
6. He has declining K/9 rates.
7. That 1.40+ WHIP last year really screams 2 year deal. Above his career norm of 1.33.
8. 1.07 G/F in 2 pitcher parks. Excellent
9. Allowed OPS of .710 in 2006. Again, above his career norm of .692.
10. When your numbers start going to the wrong side of your career norms, stay way the hell away, and especially at over 2M per year.

I will say it one more time. 51st ALL TIME in K/9. 24th among active players. You said I don't know to interpret stats, I don't think you even know how to read them. If you can look at those stats and tell me he has a
lousy K rate, then you have no credibility with me. I'll just let it go.

Highlifeman21
11-20-2006, 11:00 PM
I will say it one more time. 51st ALL TIME in K/9. 24th among active players. You said I don't know to interpret stats, I don't think you even know how to read them. If you can look at those stats and tell me he has a
lousy K rate, then you have no credibility with me. I'll just let it go.

Actually, FCB said you don't know how to interpret stats.

You're heralding Stanton for his career K/9. Good for him and his 51st all time ranking. What did he do in 2006? The correct answer, is diddly squat. That 1.43 WHIP he put up last year really impresses me, along with the almost 30 walks in just under 70 IP. Yeah, let's give him the ball at the same rate Narron gave Franklin the ball last year....

But I appreciate you putting words in my mouth when it was really FCB who said you have no idea how to interpret stats.

Please continue to defend this waste of money signing....

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 11:03 PM
If you look a little deeper at those stats, 11 of his 27 walks were intentional.

16 walks in 68 innings is NOT A TON.

Hey, when you can't retire a hitter...next best thing is a IBB.

Highlifeman21
11-20-2006, 11:04 PM
If you look a little deeper at those stats, 11 of his 27 walks were intentional.

16 walks in 68 innings is NOT A TON.

Not knowing to whom he issued the free passes, two things immediately jump to mind with 11 IBB in 68 IP.

1. He can't be trusted to attempt to get some better hitters out, thus the free pass.
2. Why on earth is he in the game if he's just handing out free passes to 1B?

So, if you take the IBB out of the WHIP equation, I think that would bring him down to a 1.26. Still nothing to write home to mom about.

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 11:08 PM
So, if you take the IBB out of the WHIP equation, I think that would bring him down to a 1.26. Still nothing to write home to mom about.

You can't take it out, though. It's all part of the fabric of his production--it at least says that his manager has no faith in his ability to retire a hitter.

Highlifeman21
11-20-2006, 11:15 PM
You can't take it out, though. It's all part of the fabric of his production--it at least says that his manager has no faith in his ability to retire a hitter.

I realize that completely.

It was just emphasizing our echoed stance that Stanton can't be trusted to get hitters out as he approaches 40, and two managers last year thought his purpose at times was to offer 4 free ones to the hitter and put him on.

And we're paying over 2M per year for these services, aren't we?

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 11:16 PM
I realize that completely.

It was just emphasizing our echoed stance that Stanton can't be trusted to get hitters out as he approaches 40, and two managers last year thought his purpose at times was to offer 4 free ones to the hitter and put him on.

And we're paying over 2M per year for these services, aren't we?

Oh I know you understand. I was just sort re-emphasizing the point in a different way. Never mind me.

:bang:

Patrick Bateman
11-20-2006, 11:31 PM
If you look a little deeper at those stats, 11 of his 27 walks were intentional.

16 walks in 68 innings is NOT A TON.


In fact, it's very good. A 3-1 K/W ratio.

PuffyPig
11-20-2006, 11:46 PM
Hey, when you can't retire a hitter...next best thing is a IBB.


That's an amazing analysis, especially coming from someone who said the following in describing Suppan's (semi) intentional walks given up in the playoffs:

"A lot of Suppan's walks have been deliberate and timely, not the result of the inability to throw strikes".

So it's intelligent for a Card to pitch around players, but it's a sign of weakness for a Red player to do so.

Double standard, favouring the Cardinals........

strange.....

Falls City Beer
11-20-2006, 11:52 PM
That's an amazing analysis, especially coming from someone who said the following in describing Suppan's (semi) intentional walks given up in the playoffs:

"A lot of Suppan's walks have been deliberate and timely, not the result of the inability to throw strikes".

So it's intelligent for a Card to pitch around players, but it's a sign of weakness for a Red player to do so.

Double standard, favouring the Cardinals........

strange.....

Again comparing starters and one-inning relievers. If a reliever can't come in and retire 3 hitters, what good is he?

A starter has to face a completely different set of circumstances.

Topcat
11-21-2006, 12:24 AM
I love the Stanton aquisition for 2 reasons he is a dealable asset come play off race if we are out of it and number 2 reason is every player (alomost) that FCB runs down ends up playing well for the Red's. FCB is out if he is against it mojo the guy does well (in most cases not all).

edabbs44
11-21-2006, 12:33 AM
I love the Stanton aquisition for 2 reasons he is a dealable asset come play off race if we are out of it and number 2 reason is every player (alomost) that FCB runs down ends up playing well for the Red's. FCB is out if he is against it mojo the guy does well (in most cases not all).

I think the contract may hinder his dealability a little come July.

mth123
11-21-2006, 12:46 AM
I think the contract may hinder his dealability a little come July.

I tend to agree, but we've seen teams get a little crazy for relief pitching in a penant race.

Patpacillosjock
11-21-2006, 01:54 AM
I cannot understand how anybody can defend this signing. I would have "accepted" the fact that we had signed him had it been one year 1mil or even 2 years 2 mil INSTEAD of 2 year 5MILLION!?!??!?!!?

I am so perplexed by this move right now. our payroll budget is so tight right now we cannot afford to waste money on players like this when we could combine some dollars to sign a much younger and more talented FA!

Cedric
11-21-2006, 02:28 AM
I cannot understand how anybody can defend this signing. I would have "accepted" the fact that we had signed him had it been one year 1mil or even 2 years 2 mil INSTEAD of 2 year 5MILLION!?!??!?!!?

I am so perplexed by this move right now. our payroll budget is so tight right now we cannot afford to waste money on players like this when we could combine some dollars to sign a much younger and more talented FA!

If the payroll is so tight that 2.5 mil matters we best get out of this game. Contract us!

Topcat
11-21-2006, 02:37 AM
If the payroll is so tight that 2.5 mil matters we best get out of this game. Contract us!

No kidding! bottom line Red's just got at least a new 25 million dollar revenue stream thru the internet and xm satellite deal.

Falls City Beer
11-21-2006, 09:57 AM
I love the Stanton aquisition for 2 reasons he is a dealable asset come play off race if we are out of it and number 2 reason is every player (alomost) that FCB runs down ends up playing well for the Red's. FCB is out if he is against it mojo the guy does well (in most cases not all).

Yeah, I can only think of Phillips performing above my predictions last year.

I liked the Arroyo and Ross pickups (when very few did).

It just appears that I'm wrong a lot because I make bold predictions, so the exceptions stand out.

I'm right frighteningly often if you really check the record.

Ltlabner
11-21-2006, 10:00 AM
I'm right frighteningly often if you really check the record.

Like the time you said Houston would eat The Lizzards lunch. And he struck out 12 (or something like that) and made them look like little leaguers? :laugh:

Falls City Beer
11-21-2006, 10:02 AM
Like the time you said Houston would eat The Lizzards lunch. And he struck out 12 (or something like that) and made them look like little leaguers? :laugh:

And he had his Waterloo, what, 2 weeks later?

So I'm off by a few starts.

Big deal.

Ltlabner
11-21-2006, 10:04 AM
And he had his Waterloo, what, 2 weeks later?

So I'm off by a few starts.

Big deal.

Well, if you say it long enough, eventually you will be right.

But, I'm just goofing on you buddy. I think most people mistakenly get side-tracked by your bluster and grand statements and miss the core truth of what you are saying.

RedEye
11-21-2006, 01:45 PM
Zito?:pray:

I'd be excited if this happened too, but I wonder if Zito would be a good signing for the Reds. I know it would be a long shot anyway, but I think we'd have to commit way too much money in order to sign someone like that. He's been inconsistent at best over the past few years, and I don't think his measurables match-up well with GAB. Isn't he a flyball pitcher? The one thing he has going for him is age (28), but then again so does someone like Gil Meche, who would be cheaper and (I think) induces more ground balls. Also, if you think about the other former A's pitchers (Hudson and Mulder) who broke down shortly after leaving Beane, Zito gets even scarier.

Am I off base here?

flyer85
11-21-2006, 02:38 PM
Hal McCoys article stated the Reds expect Stanton to be the closer. This is going to turn out very badly. I have no clue what WK sees in Stanton.



Reds to announce signing of left-handed reliever Stanton
The 39-year-old, who played for the Giants last season, is expected to fill the closer's role.

By Hal McCoy

Staff Writer

Monday, November 20, 2006

On a balmy spring day in 1997, then Cincinnati Reds general manager Jim Bowden extracted a jersey from his desk drawer and held it up, the back facing writers sitting in his office, displaying the name on the jersey: "Stanton."

Bowden thought he had the left-handed relief pitcher signed to a free agent contract, but the New York Yankees spirited him away with more money and Bowden owned a useless jersey.

Now, nearly 10 years later, that jersey can be used. The Reds and Stanton are expected to announce soon that they have agreed to a two-year contract. The Reds will announce Stanton's signing and the signing of free agent shortstop Alex Gonzalez sometime this week.

Stanton is expected to fill the closer's role after registering eight saves late last season for the San Francisco Giants, who wanted Stanton back. But when the Giants wouldn't guarantee the second year on a new contract, Reds GM Wayne Krivsky offered to guarantee the second year and the deal was done.

Bowden did eventually get his man. As GM for the Washington Nationals, Bowden twice acquired Stanton in trades, but when he started last season 3-5 with no saves and a 4.47 ERA in 56 games he was traded to the Giants.

With the Giants he was 4-2 with eight saves and a 3.09 ERA in 26 appearances.

Stanton auditioned well for Krivsky in December, recording two saves in three days against the Reds on Sept. 4 and Sept 6, protecting one-run leads on both days. On Sept. 4, Stanton struck out the last two hitters, getting Adam Dunn on a called third strike, to preserve a 5-4 lead.

Asked the difference in his year between Washington and San Francisco, the 39-year-old 6-1, 215-pounder said of his Giants experience, "I spent a lot more time in the strike zone, especially early in the count. For anybody, that is a bonus. I had a little more adrenaline pitching in a pennant race (for the Giants). I've always been one to thrive in big games."

During his 18-year career he is 67-60 with 84 saves and a 3.81 ERA while pitching for Atlanta, Boston, Texas, the New York Yankees, New York Mets, Washington and San Francisco.

Gonzalez, shortstop for the Boston Red Sox last season, has agreed to a three-year $14 million contract pending his passing of a physical examination.

Tom Servo
11-21-2006, 02:40 PM
Krivsky said it would remain to be seen until Spring Training whether or not Stanton will be closing games, and Stanton claims it doesn't matter either way to him.

pedro
11-21-2006, 02:41 PM
Stanton has never been a good closer.

BRM
11-21-2006, 02:48 PM
Stanton is expected to fill the closer's role

Let's hope that's pure speculation on Hal's part. Let's also hope Hal is completely wrong.

Highlifeman21
11-21-2006, 03:14 PM
Let's hope that's pure speculation on Hal's part. Let's also hope Hal is completely wrong.

With Hal's crack staff of editors and fact checkers, I'd be very surprised if this was correct.

It's amazing what kind of free passes you get with a lifetime achievement award...

How's that workin for Dan Rather?

mth123
11-21-2006, 08:56 PM
I'd be excited if this happened too, but I wonder if Zito would be a good signing for the Reds. I know it would be a long shot anyway, but I think we'd have to commit way too much money in order to sign someone like that. He's been inconsistent at best over the past few years, and I don't think his measurables match-up well with GAB. Isn't he a flyball pitcher? The one thing he has going for him is age (28), but then again so does someone like Gil Meche, who would be cheaper and (I think) induces more ground balls. Also, if you think about the other former A's pitchers (Hudson and Mulder) who broke down shortly after leaving Beane, Zito gets even scarier.

Am I off base here?

You are right on IMO. Lots of baserunners (1.40 WHIP) and he would give up Homers in Cincy. The ball dies in Oakland.

Will M
11-21-2006, 11:49 PM
IMO Zito isn't an ace but will get paid like one.

edabbs44
11-21-2006, 11:54 PM
If the payroll is so tight that 2.5 mil matters we best get out of this game. Contract us!

I think that WK is wasting a lot more than just $2.5 million. Btw Rheal, Stanton and AGon, that adds up to a pretty good FA. Throw in a Votto for Hatte switcheroo and now we're talking.