PDA

View Full Version : Zito seeks 15 million a year



mound_patrol
11-29-2006, 10:36 AM
http://www.mlb4u.com/rumor.php?order=date&spec=DESC

Barry Zito, LHSP--Oakland Athletics: The Yankees, Cubs, Rangers, Dodgers, Cardinals, Angels, Padres, Mets and Red Sox are among 12-15 teams that are interested. The Dodgers say they will not pursue him. He is interested in playing for 8 of those teams, including the LA teams and the Padres. Mets have made him their top target. He is seeking 7-years, $105M. Rangers will be willing to give him $75M. Angels have made an offer.


If the Reds were on Zito's "wish list" what would be your best/max offer to Zito, if you even went after him?

I personally probably wouldn't offer much over 10 million a year bcause my gut says he'd be disasterous in the GABP. 15 million is a lot for a soft lefty.

IslandRed
11-29-2006, 10:51 AM
It's not the dollars that bother me as much as the length of the contract he's seeking. Seven years is just absurd. He may not get that but I wouldn't be surprised to see him get six. I wouldn't offer anything longer than four. And thus, I wouldn't be signing Zito.

TOBTTReds
11-29-2006, 10:53 AM
http://www.mlb4u.com/rumor.php?order=date&spec=DESC

Barry Zito, LHSP--Oakland Athletics: The Yankees, Cubs, Rangers, Dodgers, Cardinals, Angels, Padres, Mets and Red Sox are among 12-15 teams that are interested. The Dodgers say they will not pursue him. He is interested in playing for 8 of those teams, including the LA teams and the Padres. Mets have made him their top target. He is seeking 7-years, $105M. Rangers will be willing to give him $75M. Angels have made an offer.


If the Reds were on Zito's "wish list" what would be your best/max offer to Zito, if you even went after him?

I personally probably wouldn't offer much over 10 million a year bcause my gut says he'd be disasterous in the GABP. 15 million is a lot for a soft lefty.


I agree with your last statement. He would be Miltonized here. He is a fly ball pitcher with some control issues. I think he would be a disaster here. My max offer would be 3 years for 10 mil total. :D

Jpup
11-29-2006, 11:24 AM
no way I give the guy more than 4 years.

Redsland
11-29-2006, 11:36 AM
Four years plus two mutual option years.

He'll have a tough time getting any more than that, because contracts longer than three years are very difficult to insure.

redsfan4445
11-29-2006, 11:44 AM
with the Reds luck, he will sign with the Cardinals!!..

redsfan30
11-29-2006, 11:49 AM
I share the same opinions as those stated above. I'd like to have him, but not on a 7 year deal.

RedLegSuperStar
11-29-2006, 12:01 PM
I'd rather sign a 15 million Zito than bid 26 million or 51 million to work out a deal and than on top of that spend 8-15 million a year on the player.

RedsManRick
11-29-2006, 12:12 PM
I'd rather have Vicente Padilla over the next 4 years than Barry Zito -- given equal salaries.

Spring~Fields
11-29-2006, 12:18 PM
The long years increase the risk so much, anything can happen to a player.

jojo
11-29-2006, 12:24 PM
I personally think Zito is basically a very expensive innings eater. Currently, xFIP is probably the best predictor of future performance for a starter and Zito's have been very pedestrian ('04: 5.04; '05: 4.61; '06: 5.46).

The interesting thing is his '06 ERA was the lowest this season, his contract year, compared to the previous two even though his xFIP ranked him as the third worst in the AL among qualifying pitchers in '06. Oakland wasn't a particularly good defensive team either.

My curiosity is piqued so to try and investigate a little further, I took a look at his rate stats. Here they are for '06:

BB%: 10.5
K%: 16.0
GB%: 27.0
FB%: 32.0
LD%: 11.6
HR/FB: 9.0
LOB%: 79

Basically his BB% was atrocious and his K% rate was below average so those jive with his xFIP. His GB% FB% indicate he had flyball tendencies, also no suprise there though his GO/AO wasn't as bad as his career average. Interestingly though, his HR rate was 9.0 which is about 1 lower than league average and the best he's posted over the '04-'06. That would help a flyball pitcher obviously. But the most striking rate stat was LOB%. Zito's LOB% was 79% in '06. That's pretty amazing given 70 or so is around average. It was not only high relative to the league but it was also about 6% higher than each of his previous two seasons. Now a few words about HR/FB and LOB%. Neither keeping flyballs in the park nor stranding guys are considered repeatable skills. Generally HR/FB will be around 10.5 and deviations from that figure tend to regress back to the norm for pitchers. Zito's LOB% is very high for him (or anybody) and its difficult to imagine him repeating it-at least consistently and especially over a 7 year contract.

A case could be made that Zito had a bad year in '06 and it was completely masked by a healthy dose of luck in the form of a large, positive swing in a non-repeatable skill.

And for it, someone will give him 7 years at $15M per! :cool:

Z-Fly
11-29-2006, 12:27 PM
I'd rather have Vicente Padilla over the next 4 years than Barry Zito -- given equal salaries.

Really? I am no scout but I would say a lot of people would disagree.

M2
11-29-2006, 12:54 PM
Let's see, six straight 200+ IP seasons and a career 3.55 ERA. In the latest Elias rankings he placed 12th among all starters in MLB.

Yeah, wouldn't want anything to do with a guy like that.

I'd suggest he's doing something right and that he has been for quite some time now.

I don't know that I'd vouch for him repeating his last six seasons over the next six seasons, but he'll be ages 29-34 over that stretch and plenty of pitchers do just fine at that age (in fact it tends to be a very good age for southpaws who are tough on RH hitters, which Zito has traditionally been, though not as much over the last two seasons).

He's expensive and, no, he's not Johan Santana, but he'd completely alter the DNA of the franchise, which I'd argue is a good thing. I chalk it up to being one of those potentially exciting things that won't happen.

TRF
11-29-2006, 01:00 PM
I see a Tanyon Sturtz or John Halama deal being reported any day now.

and it burns my brain.

flyer85
11-29-2006, 01:01 PM
Zito is skating on the knife's edge of effectiveness and his extreme FB tendencies would make him a poor fit for GABP. Just because he has been effective(at most times) for the last 6 years doesn't mean he will be moving forward. In fact, his skill set(high BB, low K, high FB rate) rather suggests that he won't unless he is matched with the right park and and OF defense.

M2
11-29-2006, 01:07 PM
I can see being nervous about his FB tendencies. If I were a GM, I'd want someone to plot his FBs from last season and then show me where they'd fall in the GAB.

flyer85
11-29-2006, 01:13 PM
I can see being nervous about his FB tendencies. If I were a GM, I'd want someone to plot his FBs from last season and then show me where they'd fall in the GAB.... and how many were foul ball outs in Oakland that would be in the stands in almost any other park.

M2
11-29-2006, 01:16 PM
... and how many were foul ball outs in Oakland that would be in the stands in almost any other park.

Good point, though he's been a better away pitcher for his career, particularly in recent years.

flyer85
11-29-2006, 01:19 PM
Good point, though he's been a better away pitcher for his career, particularly in recent years.Oakland, in its current form, is not a bad HR park. Honestly, I am still more concerned with the fact that his skill set tends not to age well. When you have a high BB/low K rate you are always on the razors edge. If his hit rate or HR rate spikes at all he loses his effectiveness and becomes an albatross. For a team like the Reds on a 6 year deal he would seem to be an extremely high risk proposition.

mound_patrol
11-29-2006, 01:22 PM
I can see being nervous about his FB tendencies. If I were a GM, I'd want someone to plot his FBs from last season and then show me where they'd fall in the GAB.

That would be a nice graph to see before making a decision, but that plot wouldn't take into account the way the ball carries in GABP compared to how it did in oakland.

Would definitly be some nice matchups throughout the NL Central. A lot of potent right handed hitters Zito would have to face in hitter friendly parks. (Pujols, Berkman, C Lee, D Lee, Bay, Ramirez) I wouldn't take Zito in any of those matchups

M2
11-29-2006, 01:40 PM
Oakland, in its current form, is not a bad HR park. Honestly, I am still more concerned with the fact that his skill set tends not to age well. When you have a high BB/low K rate you are always on the razors edge. If his hit rate or HR rate spikes at all he loses his effectiveness and becomes an albatross. For a team like the Reds on a 6 year deal he would seem to be an extremely high risk proposition.

I don't know, I'd say Zito's skill set tends to age pretty very well. Tom Glavine leaps to mind. In fact, I'd say the complaints lodged against Zito would apply to most effective LH starters (with the superhumans like Santana and Randy Johnson being notable exceptions).

I agree length of contract is scary for a smaller market club. Certainly I'd have preferred to snare Zito two years ago (when Oakland was shopping starting pitchers). At that time I thought the hand wringing over Zito was excessive and that he'd turn out to be the best bet from Oakland's big three in the coming years. That's how it panned out. My basic take now is that Zito's probably going to be a good pitcher in the coming years. Six years in a row? You can probably count on at least one off year in the mix even if he manages to stay healthy (not that I'm particularly worried he won't, but you never know with pitchers).

Is there risk attached? Yeah, there is to pretty much every big move. I'd still be thrilled if the Reds signed him. Mind you, this is all theoretical because they won't.

lollipopcurve
11-29-2006, 01:47 PM
For a team like the Reds on a 6 year deal he would seem to be an extremely high risk proposition.

A couple years ago I thought Zito was on a downward trend, and I've been proven wrong. However, I don't think I've ever been under the illusion that he'd be interested in coming to Cincinnati, even if the Reds gave him the best offer.

flyer85
11-29-2006, 01:48 PM
I don't know, I'd say Zito's skill set tends to age pretty very well. Tom Glavine leaps to mind. Different skill sets. Glavine is a decidely GB pitcher(1.44 while Zito is 0.87) with a lower BB rate and lower HR rate(likely a function of his GB rate). I'd rather take Glavine on a 1/2 year deal than Zito on a 6/7 year deal.

M2
11-29-2006, 01:49 PM
However, I don't think I've ever been under the illusion that he'd be interested in coming to Cincinnati, even if the Reds gave him the best offer.

Which is probably the bigger point here. The opportunity to jam with Bronson Arroyo is only so much of an enticement.

jojo
11-29-2006, 02:11 PM
Let's see, six straight 200+ IP seasons and a career 3.55 ERA.

sarcasm alert:

yes because ERA is clearly the best way to evaluate a pitcher... :mooner:


:D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

lollipopcurve
11-29-2006, 02:21 PM
The opportunity to jam with Bronson Arroyo is only so much of an enticement.

May happen in a couple years. Only it's Arroyo who'd be joining Zito. (No way Bronson hangs around the Queen City any longer than he has to -- one has to wonder when will be the best time to start shopping him...)

RedsManRick
11-29-2006, 02:51 PM
Let's see, six straight 200+ IP seasons and a career 3.55 ERA. In the latest Elias rankings he placed 12th among all starters in MLB.

Yeah, wouldn't want anything to do with a guy like that.

I'd suggest he's doing something right and that he has been for quite some time now.

I don't know that I'd vouch for him repeating his last six seasons over the next six seasons, but he'll be ages 29-34 over that stretch and plenty of pitchers do just fine at that age (in fact it tends to be a very good age for southpaws who are tough on RH hitters, which Zito has traditionally been, though not as much over the last two seasons).

He's expensive and, no, he's not Johan Santana, but he'd completely alter the DNA of the franchise, which I'd argue is a good thing. I chalk it up to being one of those potentially exciting things that won't happen.

Unfortunately, you're are signing the Barry Zito of the next 6 years, not the last 6 years. The Barry Zito of the next 6 years is not likely to put up a 3.55 ERA, based on everything we know about what makes pitchers successful. He walks more than he used to. He strikes outs fewer. I see 2 different pitchers in Zito's career.

01-03: 675.3 IP, 3.17 ERA, 1.18 WHIP, 7.1 K/9, 3.38 BB/9, .83 HR/9, OPSA .631
04-06: 662.1 IP, 4.05 ERA, 1.33 WHIP, 6.6 K/9, 3.66 BB/9, 1.10 HR/9, OPSA .724

In 2001-2003, Barry Zito turned the hitters he faced in to Neifi Perez in a bad year. In 2004-2006, he turned them in to Orlando Cabrera in an average year. That's a big difference. Some people will claim a move to the NL will help. I'd agree. I'd also state that you don't get a more friendly pitching environment than Oakland.

Zito is a fine pitcher, but not without his warts. He's the #1 pitcher on a bad team and a #2/3 on a good one. That's definitely worth something. Is a guy who posts a high 3's ERA and 200+ IP worth a lot? Heck yeah. But is that an ace worth 15MM? Not in my book. If I'm the Mets, Sox, or Yankees and I have the money to spend and my real constraint is available talent, go for it. If I'm the Rangers or Padres (or Reds) and this guy is going to be my big fish for the next 5 years, I pass.

Rojo
11-29-2006, 03:16 PM
I don't know, I'd say Zito's skill set tends to age pretty very well. Tom Glavine leaps to mind.


Also Jamie Moyer and Kenny Rogers. The problem is that all those guys are good #2's and Zito will get #1 money. Hell, he'd be a #3 on the Reds. For the money, eh, no.

nmculbreth
11-29-2006, 03:20 PM
May happen in a couple years. Only it's Arroyo who'd be joining Zito. (No way Bronson hangs around the Queen City any longer than he has to -- one has to wonder when will be the best time to start shopping him...)

I think the time to shop him is right now. Given the dearth of quality starters on the free agent market this offseason and Arroyo's budget friendly contract I think there would be a lot of interest in his services. The Reds aren't going to win next year anyways so they might as well sell high on Bronson before he turns back into a pumpkin.

Falls City Beer
11-29-2006, 03:27 PM
Also Jamie Moyer and Kenny Rogers. The problem is that all those guys are good #2's and Zito will get #1 money. Hell, he'd be a #3 on the Reds. For the money, eh, no.

Zito a number 3 on the Reds? Does that mean Harang and Arroyo are numbers 4 and 5 then? Man, I can't wait to see their 1 and 2.

Falls City Beer
11-29-2006, 03:29 PM
I think the time to shop him is right now. Given the dearth of quality starters on the free agent market this offseason and Arroyo's budget friendly contract I think there would be a lot of interest in his services. The Reds aren't going to win next year anyways so they might as well sell high on Bronson before he turns back into a pumpkin.

I imagine this is exactly the issue being bandied about right now. I'd say they're looking long and hard at a total teardown. I'm guessing the money's "not there" to go for it.

M2
11-29-2006, 03:47 PM
sarcasm alert:

yes because ERA is clearly the best way to evaluate a pitcher...

Got to be honest with you. After a guy has 1,400+ IP under his belt, I don't care about the more granular stuff. That's just a lot of noise when what you're trying to determine is his overall effectiveness over that time period. ERA+ is probably the best quick and easy measurement to use, but, frankly, quibbling with a 3.55 ERA over six-plus seasons strikes me as pretty boneheaded. He's pitched awfully well during his career to date. The question to be asking there is what has he done to achieve it, not whether it's a mirage (because I've got a law of large numbers that says it isn't).

RMR, you raise valid concerns. The biggest concern is that HR/9. My guess, and this is the same take I had two years ago when folks were guaranteeing he was about to fall into the ocean, is that Zito's going to succeed despite those concerns.

On the question of paying him like #1, is that really an issue? The Reds need some more good starting pitchers. 200+ IP with a sub-4.00 ERA is a pretty tasty dish. Zito does it as consistently as anyone in the game and he's still a few months shy of age 29. We've seen with our own eyes what adding guys like that to the mix can yield. I'd suggest that one more would make the Reds a serious contender (pretty hard to find a team that isn't a contender with three pitchers who fit that description). My take is pay him like you actually want to win ballgames instead of getting slaps on the back for price performance (as no one hands out trophies for it). Can the Reds afford Zito and the other things they need to add? Hard to say, it would be a tight fit and the team would probably need to take a leap of faith that if it spends on a really good team that fans (and their money) will follow.

That said, it's a leap of faith I could get behind (as a fan and as a consumer).

Matt700wlw
11-29-2006, 03:49 PM
I would NEVER give a pitcher a gauranteed 7 year deal. EVER.

nmculbreth
11-29-2006, 03:51 PM
I imagine this is exactly the issue being bandied about right now. I'd say they're looking long and hard at a total teardown. I'm guessing the money's "not there" to go for it.

I tend to agree but if their intention is to blow everything up and build for three years from now it wouldn't make much sense to sign guys like Alex Gonzalez and Mike Stanton to multiyear deals. If you really planned on starting from scratch wouldn't you rather save money and giving some of your players a shot at the big leagues?

Rojo
11-29-2006, 03:55 PM
Zito a number 3 on the Reds? Does that mean Harang and Arroyo are numbers 4 and 5 then? Man, I can't wait to see their 1 and 2.


Harang -- 234 innings, 3.76 ERA
Arroyo -- 240 innings, 3.29
Zito -- 221 innings, 3.83

Yeah, I'm silly.

Rojo
11-29-2006, 03:58 PM
Can the Reds afford Zito and the other things they need to add? Hard to say

Not hard at all, no.

M2
11-29-2006, 04:43 PM
Not hard at all, no.

Well, I'm guessing the club wouldn't really run into deficit spending until it hit the high $70Ms, possibly $80M.

Then you've got the question of whether a more expensive, good team would make more money. My guess is that if the Reds burst out of the financial box Carl Lindner created for the franchise (the "we couldn't possibly do []that[/i]" box) it would find a lot of fans.

Anyway, like FCB, I'm done with can't do. It's become a cancer with the Reds since the Jr. trade. The Reds don't have to sign Zito to impress me. They don't have to spend gobs of money. Yet I'm about five galaxies past the point where I'm willing to put any credence into the argument that the Reds can't get a taste of the good stuff. People who want to make things happen figure out ways to do it. If the Reds really want Barry Zito, then, damn the torpedoes, get Barry Zito.

I don't know that they do, but I'm not giving myself over to the notion that they're such a sadsack operation that they can't.

Rojo
11-29-2006, 05:28 PM
People who want to make things happen figure out ways to do it.

This isn't the way to do it.

klw
11-29-2006, 05:34 PM
http://www.mlb4u.com/rumor.php?order=date&spec=DESC

He is seeking 7-years, $105M.

So am I, So am I.

vaticanplum
11-29-2006, 05:34 PM
Well, I'm guessing the club wouldn't really run into deficit spending until it hit the high $70Ms, possibly $80M.

Then you've got the question of whether a more expensive, good team would make more money. My guess is that if the Reds burst out of the financial box Carl Lindner created for the franchise (the "we couldn't possibly do []that[/i]" box) it would find a lot of fans.

Anyway, like FCB, I'm done with can't do. It's become a cancer with the Reds since the Jr. trade. The Reds don't have to sign Zito to impress me. They don't have to spend gobs of money. Yet I'm about five galaxies past the point where I'm willing to put any credence into the argument that the Reds can't get a taste of the good stuff. People who want to make things happen figure out ways to do it. If the Reds really want Barry Zito, then, damn the torpedoes, get Barry Zito.

I don't know that they do, but I'm not giving myself over to the notion that they're such a sadsack operation that they can't.

I completely agree. Why the hell else even bother?

Seven years is a very long time, but I'd be more inclined to give it to Zito than just about any other player at $15 million a year. Scarily enough, $15 million sounds almost reasonable at this point for a starting pitcher of his caliber. I know he's got a reputation as being a very laid-back dude, but he's also known to be an absolute maniac about work and about being the best. Those six years of 200+ innings are not just physique and luck. He works his tail off to stay healthy and to pitch well. So I figure that in a seven-year contract you can probably count on at least four very solid seasons from him, with a good possibility that some of those will be mind-bogglingly good. That's a risk, at a price, that I'd take in a heartbeat. And I use "risk" almost facetiously.

Rojo
11-29-2006, 05:42 PM
I completely agree. Why the hell else even bother?

So its either Zito or pack up shop? I guess I'm really missing something.

vaticanplum
11-29-2006, 06:36 PM
So its either Zito or pack up shop? I guess I'm really missing something.

I'm referring to a general pervading attitude of "we're a small-market franchise; we don't make big-money deals". If you're really brilliant at building a great team by never spending any money, by all means have at it. But there are about two people in baseball who are that gifted.

It's hard to explain, but there's a real sense of tradition and fiscal conservatism with this team that sometimes crosses the line to blind pride in these things even when their merits don't cross over too. Complacency and self-victimization. Rarely traits of teams that win.

Rojo
11-29-2006, 07:12 PM
But there are about two people in baseball who are that gifted.

And one of them is letting Zito walk.


It's hard to explain, but there's a real sense of tradition and fiscal conservatism with this team that sometimes crosses the line to blind pride in these things even when their merits don't cross over too. Complacency and self-victimization. Rarely traits of teams that win.

This is true. But why does an unwillingness to sign Zito to $105M contract put you in that camp?

vaticanplum
11-29-2006, 07:20 PM
This is true. But why does an unwillingness to sign Zito to $105M contract put you in that camp?

Oh, I'm not using that as the whole basis for the argument. i've made it clear how I feel about Zito but I know in my heart of hearts that it's not the most realistic goal for this team. I was saying that as a more general mentality of the organization that spreads to the fans too...an immediate reaction for any expensive player is "the Reds aren't that kind of team", even when the expensive player is, as he is in this case, well-worth the money in my opinion.

If they don't get Zito because they can truly put the money to a number of varied and better things, yay. If they don't get Zito because they "don't pay that kind of money for a player", boo.

vaticanplum
11-29-2006, 07:22 PM
And one of them is letting Zito walk.

Oh, I meant to address this too...Beane is very constricted by his finances, not like the Reds running around saying they might, maybe be spending more money. But I honestly believe that he thrives on that challenge of finding good cheap talent. He knows he can do it, no matter how tough it is. I really think that once a player gets expensive, he loses his luster for Beane, not just in a financial way but in a personal way. sort of: I did my job with this kid, now let somebody else pay for him.

Falls City Beer
11-29-2006, 07:24 PM
And one of them is letting Zito walk.


Beane has way bigger fish to fry than his starting rotation.

Like an entire offense overhaul.

RedsManRick
11-29-2006, 07:34 PM
If they don't get Zito because they can truly put the money to a number of varied and better things, yay. If they don't get Zito because they "don't pay that kind of money for a player", boo.


I don't think that's the point being made. It's not "we're small market and small market teams can't spend 15MM on a player". It's given our ability to spend money on our team, there is virutally no player who's contributions on the field justify an investment of that size FOR US. It's not Barry Zito, it's that there is virutally no single player who is worth 20% of a team's payroll. If Albert Pujols or Johan Santana were available, perhaps they would be. But they aren't and Barry Zito isn't on their level.

It's not about 15MM going to a player in the abstract, simply on principle. It's about 15MM of OUR payroll being spent on THAT player relative to how else you can spend 15MM to increase your chances of winning.

Falls City Beer
11-29-2006, 07:40 PM
I don't think that's the point being made. It's not "we're small market and small market teams can't spend 15MM on a player". It's given our ability to spend money on our team, there is virutally no player who's contributions on the field justify an investment of that size FOR US. It's not Barry Zito, it's that there is virutally no single player who is worth 20% of a team's payroll. If Albert Pujols or Johan Santana were available, perhaps they would be. But they aren't and Barry Zito isn't on their level.

It's not about 15MM going to a player in the abstract, simply on principle. It's about 15MM of OUR payroll being spent on THAT player relative to how else you can spend 15MM to increase your chances of winning.

Some team will fit Zito into their budget--probably the equally midwestern Cardinals.

Rojo
11-29-2006, 07:51 PM
It's not about 15MM going to a player in the abstract, simply on principle. It's about 15MM of OUR payroll being spent on THAT player relative to how else you can spend 15MM to increase your chances of winning.

Wow, thanks for putting it so succinctly.

Rojo
11-29-2006, 07:52 PM
Some team will fit Zito into their budget--probably the equally midwestern Cardinals.

Harrumph.

Falls City Beer
11-29-2006, 07:57 PM
Harrumph.

The Reds have not only been bad at in-season winning for 6 years running, they've failed at virtually every step in the offseason, too. At this point, it would be money well spent to keep Zito off the Cardinals' roster (I don't think a better pitching performer will be gotten via trade this offseason) both as a performer and as a future trading chip for re-stocking their farm if the fancy strikes them.

You not only get talent when you get sought-after players, you get the opportunity to get cool minor league stuff when you're done with said player.

vaticanplum
11-29-2006, 08:08 PM
I don't think that's the point being made. It's not "we're small market and small market teams can't spend 15MM on a player". It's given our ability to spend money on our team, there is virutally no player who's contributions on the field justify an investment of that size FOR US. It's not Barry Zito, it's that there is virutally no single player who is worth 20% of a team's payroll. If Albert Pujols or Johan Santana were available, perhaps they would be. But they aren't and Barry Zito isn't on their level.

It's not about 15MM going to a player in the abstract, simply on principle. It's about 15MM of OUR payroll being spent on THAT player relative to how else you can spend 15MM to increase your chances of winning.

I really should not have made that point in this thread. I was agreeing with a general point about mentality, not specifically in relation to one player.

That said...I totally understand what you're saying, but it's just my personal opinion that in this case the player worth it. A contract like that would probably be backloaded. He would be an immediate help to this team and a good building block for a long time to come. In a few years, his contract gets a little more expensive, the Reds are free of Milton and then Griffey and then ideally doing well enough to have a higher payroll altogether. And my feelings on this player have only been heightened int he context of this offseason's market. If things keep going at this rate, $15 million for an ace six or seven years from now is going to be a steal.

I am fairly conservative financially, really, and I've been a Reds fan for a long time. I don't advocate throwing money around; it's rare that I feel this way about a player who commands this kind of money.

jmac
11-29-2006, 08:19 PM
The Reds have not only been bad at in-season winning for 6 years running, they've failed at virtually every step in the offseason, too. At this point, it would be money well spent to keep Zito off the Cardinals' roster (I don't think a better pitching performer will be gotten via trade this offseason) both as a performer and as a future trading chip for re-stocking their farm if the fancy strikes them.

You not only get talent when you get sought-after players, you get the opportunity to get cool minor league stuff when you're done with said player.

course in some situations....you cant get the "cool minor league stuff" when you're done with the said player( see eric milton) so you end up not being done with him afterall.

i remember one poster who knew it was coming (milton signing) saying a few days before something like "by monday, you guys will have your #1 starter".:rolleyes:
Let me add however, zito would be better than milton without a doubt.

Rojo
11-29-2006, 08:26 PM
In a few years, his contract gets a little more expensive, the Reds are free of Milton and then Griffey and then ideally doing well enough to have a higher payroll altogether. And my feelings on this player have only been heightened int he context of this offseason's market. If things keep going at this rate, $15 million for an ace six or seven years from now is going to be a steal.

Real good points but, I can't quite get past my take on Zito, that he's Avis, not Hertz.

Rojo
11-29-2006, 08:29 PM
At this point, it would be money well spent to keep Zito off the Cardinals' roster (I don't think a better pitching performer will be gotten via trade this offseason) both as a performer and as a future trading chip for re-stocking their farm if the fancy strikes them.

Do the Cardinals drive all your actions?

Falls City Beer
11-29-2006, 08:35 PM
Do the Cardinals drive all your actions?

Should they not?

They are the class of the division and the doorway to the postseason.

Rojo
11-29-2006, 08:39 PM
They are the class of the division

There's more than one way to get to 83 wins.

Falls City Beer
11-29-2006, 08:41 PM
There's more than one way to get to 83 wins.

And the Reds haven't moved their needle off @ 73.

Rojo
11-29-2006, 08:58 PM
And the Reds haven't moved their needle off @ 73.

The Reds need improvement. Of this, I am aware.

Cyclone792
11-29-2006, 09:01 PM
I fully understand where Rick and others are coming from, and I somewhat agree with them. I also somewhat agree with M2, FCB and VP. Really, for me, the intelligence of the Reds spending that much money on a Barry Zito comes down to how the cards fall in the rest of the stack.

I'm sure every single person reading this agrees that spending money on bad players isn't such a brilliant move. Spending lots of money on horrible players - Eric Milton, that's you - is a near fatal move. But spending lots of money on good players can be a good move, and it can be a bad move. It depends what all else is going on.

All that said, if the Reds signed Barry Zito to $15 million per in conjunction with the other correct internal and external moves, I think it'd have some excellent potential of being a good signing. If the Reds signed Barry Zito to $15 million per in conjunction with other idiotic internal and external moves, I wouldn't like the signing.

As most people know, I've been a heavy proponent of installing Chris Denorfia into center field on a regular basis and moving Ken Griffey, Jr. to a less important defensive position on the diamond, such as a right field or a first base. When Alex Gonzalez was signed last week, I stated that an up-the-middle defensive trio of Gonzalez at shortstop, Phillips at second base, and Denorfia at center field would create a situation where the middle of the field defensively would be known as the place where hits go to die. Whether the Reds actually take this action or not, who knows, but I firmly believe that's what they should do, and I firmly believe it'd be a major asset to our overall run value. That's one internal move that needs to happen.

The Reds are also a bat short offensively, however. We need another stick from somewhere, or at the very least, we need another option at first base to at least split time and platoon with Scott Hatteberg. It's been mentioned on here several times, and I agree, that a guy such as a Craig Wilson would be an asset for our offense in this manner. Signing a Craig Wilson and utilizing both him and Hatteberg correctly would be an external and internal move that would benefit the team and give us some of that offensive punch we're still needing.

Also on the list is shaping up the bullpen, which needs a bit more than the addition of an old Mike Stanton. Still, I believe it's very possible for the bullpen to be reconfigured somewhat this offseason and improved upon compared to what we've seen in recent seasons. We overpaid for Bill Bray, but he better darn well help out. I was never high on Majewski when we acquired him, and I'm still not high on him, but if we can create a situation where Majewski is one of our weakest bullpen arms rather than one of our strongest, then we'll be doing ok on the relief front.

Now if all the above happens, I'm all for signing Barry Zito, even if it costs us $15 million per season. I'm a bit on edge about the supposed length of seven years - scratch that, I'd be petrified of it - and would much rather have a four or five year deal out of Zito, but I could even possibly swallow that type of contract length.

A starting rotation top three consisting of Zito, Arroyo, and Harang, in conjunction with an up-the-middle defense of Gonzalez, Phillips, and Denorfia would result in some massive run prevention. A reconfigured bullpen in conjunction with that up-the-middle defense would also be some nice run prevention. Give that team an offense with a little bit more punch, such as a Craig Wilson, and I think we'd be looking at a serious playoff contender.

The key would just be that simple phrase of "serious playoff contention", and that simple phrase would turn the highly risky investment of $15 million per season in Barry Zito into a system reaping dividends. If this team can find a way to get into serious playoff contention, the fan base expands outward through the midwest region again and returns to the GABP turnstyles. Playoff contention brings playoff excitement, which brings in more revenues and gets the Reds trotting down the path of the St. Louis Cardinals in being an overall regional power.

If the Reds are ever going to be a consistent winner, it's going down that path of the St. Louis Cardinals in regards to regional attractiveness that has to happen. FCB catches flak on here about the Cardinals, but I think this is what he's consistently referencing when bringing up the Cardinals. The Reds need an excited regional-wide fan base to bring in revenues to maintain a consistent winner. But first grabbing one winner has to happen, and following that up with back-to-back winners is also just about a necessity.

However, if the proper moves are made around a big, risky signing such as a Barry Zito, then that big, risky signing can work. Those combined moves would go a long way toward turning this team into a winner for 2007 and continuing that winning trend into 2008. Achieve that, and we've got the regional fan base excited, and we've got the revenues pouring in. The Barry Zito contract, as it'd stand at that point, would be much more easier to bear and the high risk/high reward investment would have paid off.

On the flip side, if the wrong moves occur around the big, risky signing of a Barry Zito, well ... yea that's bad. :)

Falls City Beer
11-29-2006, 09:01 PM
The Reds need improvement. Of this, I am aware.

So why not improve the Reds and let a little air out of the tires of the Cards? Sounds like a plan to me. Like I said, the Cards aren't going to find a better starter via trade. Zito's the best arm to switch teams this offseason. I'll guarantee it.

Patpacillosjock
11-30-2006, 12:23 AM
i can understand people's analysis and speculation of Zito's demise, if he were to sign with the Reds.. I agree..he might give up a lot of long balls in our park----but I think you're crazy to insinuate that he's not a good pitcher. He's a great pitcher. He had a great ERA considering he pitched in the AL West with offensive powerhouses of Anaheim, Texas, and Seattle the past 5 years. he's had an anemic offense behind him and they never had much of a defense..yet he still put up good numbers.

He doesnt suck..he just might not be a good fit in our ballpark.

George Foster
11-30-2006, 12:31 AM
The last time we signed a guy to a long term contract it came back to bite us year, after year, after year, and is still biting us!

Hondo
11-30-2006, 01:47 AM
While I do not think the Reds would sign Barry Zito...

The new ownership should sign him. They came in and talked about winning. This would show the fans, the team, and all of Baseball their commitment to winning. Castilinni (mispelled) Should open up the wallet and sign this gut to 7 years/105 million. Maybe a little overpayment, but Detroit overpayed for Ordonez, Rodriguez, and Percival just so they could compete and attract other Free Agents...

Signing Alex Gonzalez to 3 years/14 million is ludicrous. That kind of money for his production??? I would have rather kept Aurilla for sure and had him play SS or 2nd with Phillips visa versa.

Mike Stanton? Yeah, a good lefty but the Reds could have used him 6 years ago.

Bubba Crosby? This makes no sense....Nice bench player but is this the kind of player the team really needed?

The Reds need to sign Barry Zito and maybe even add Ted Lilly. Then trade Milton for something, anything.

Zito
Harang
Lilly
Arroyo
Bailey

That would get respect.

Redsland
11-30-2006, 02:25 PM
The last time we signed a guy to a long term contract it came back to bite us year, after year, after year, and is still biting us!
The guy who handed out that contract isn't handing out contracts for us anymore.

He was, in theory at least, replaced with someone who is better at it.

Highlifeman21
11-30-2006, 02:28 PM
As Teddy KGB said in Rounders, "pay that man his money".

Pony up for Zito.

If he wants 15, give him 15 and make him a Red.

If Bob and Wayne are gonna talk winner, let's walk winner.

Rojo
11-30-2006, 03:47 PM
So why not improve the Reds and let a little air out of the tires of the Cards? Sounds like a plan to me.

Because 7 years is a long time and $105M a lot of money. There's compelling reasons for adding Zito (consistency being the major one) but blocking the Cards is way down the list.

Falls City Beer
11-30-2006, 03:49 PM
Because 7 years is a long time and $105M a lot of money. There's compelling reasons for adding Zito (consistency being the major one) but blocking the Cards is way down the list.

Okay, how about blocking the Cards, Cubs, and Astros? :) Much better, eh?

In the end--it's just about the division you're in.

Highlifeman21
11-30-2006, 03:50 PM
Because 7 years is a long time and $105M a lot of money. There's compelling reasons for adding Zito (consistency being the major one) but blocking the Cards is way down the list.

Call me crazy, but isn't signing a FA that could help not only your club, but your opponent had they signed him, a good idea?

Would we rather throw a big contract at Zito and maybe move him after 3 years if he doesn't work out, or would we rather the Cards get 3 years of service out of Zito and then move him?

If those are my two options, I want Zito on my team for the exact reasons that he helps us, and doesn't pitch for the Cards. Nice lil two-pronged attack, don't ya think?

Redsland
11-30-2006, 04:07 PM
Just because Zito is "looking for" seven years doesn't mean anyone is going to show it to him.

IMHO, he can be had for four or five years guaranteed, particularly if options or incentives help sweeten the pot.

Rojo
11-30-2006, 04:23 PM
Would we rather throw a big contract at Zito and maybe move him after 3 years if he doesn't work out, or would we rather the Cards get 3 years of service out of Zito and then move him?

If he "doesn't work out" which I assume means he sucks, who's going to take him for the next four years? Especially when you assume a back-loaded contract, which most are. Your minimizing the risk. Risks are necessary but you have to be fully aware of them. Six years ago, Mike Hampton looked like an even better bet than Zito does now and that didn't work out so good.

vaticanplum
11-30-2006, 05:48 PM
The last time we signed a guy to a long term contract it came back to bite us year, after year, after year, and is still biting us!

So because it didn't work once, due to unforeseen and unusually high rates of injuries, we should never do it again?

You can never build a good team without a couple of long-termers on the roster. There's no stability and not enough time in the GM's day to deal with all the ramifications.

pedro
11-30-2006, 05:54 PM
I smell a "Mike Hampton Type" return on investment on this one.

Falls City Beer
11-30-2006, 05:59 PM
I smell a "Mike Hampton Type" return on investment on this one.

You may be right. But as I said in another thread, Zito's the best arm switching teams this offseason, via either trade or FA.

You're passing on that opportunity. They don't come 'round all that often. Almost certainly not again until next offseason. If you're cool with waiting to gain real traction and not waiting on farm arms that likely won't come, that's cool.

terminator
11-30-2006, 06:01 PM
You can never build a good team without a couple of long-termers on the roster. There's no stability and not enough time in the GM's day to deal with all the ramifications.

If I'm reading it right, between the A's and Twins there is one player signed beyond the 2008 season who would not otherwise be tied to his team -- Eric Chavez. A couple guys have 2009 club options. And there are a couple guys signed for 2009 but who would have been tied to the club anyway based on service time (Crosby and Haren).

Falls City Beer
11-30-2006, 06:05 PM
If I'm reading it right, between the A's and Twins there is one player signed beyond the 2008 season who would not otherwise be tied to his team -- Eric Chavez. A couple guys have 2009 club options. And there are a couple guys signed for 2009 but who would have been tied to the club anyway based on service time (Crosby and Haren).

That's a bit of an unfair comparison--both clubs that you mention have elite farm systems, something the Reds won't have, if ever, until at least 2010 (that is, producing viable players for the MLB roster).

Somebody has to play the 2007, 2008, and 2009 seasons before they arrive, no?

And that's one of the good things about acquiring Zito--his acquisition won't preclude growing the farm.

RedsManRick
11-30-2006, 06:05 PM
I smell a "Mike Hampton Type" return on investment on this one.

Maybe Zito will come to Cincy for it's schools...

pedro
11-30-2006, 06:06 PM
You may be right. But as I said in another thread, Zito's the best arm switching teams this offseason, via either trade or FA.

You're passing on that opportunity. They don't come 'round all that often. Almost certainly not again until next offseason. If you're cool with waiting to gain real traction and not waiting on farm arms that likely won't come, that's cool.

I'd consider giving him that type of jack for 3, maybe 4 years. Not 7.

Falls City Beer
11-30-2006, 06:09 PM
I'd consider giving him that type of jack for 3, maybe 4 years. Not 7.

Then you're never going to acquire an elite FA arm. Not that there's anything wrong with that philosophy per se, but know that turning the franchise around is likely to take much longer than it otherwise might by the instant talent infusion of a Zito.

Rojo
11-30-2006, 06:09 PM
Something the Reds won't have, if ever, until at least 2010 (that is, producing viable players for the MLB roster).

$105 million would help this cause.

Falls City Beer
11-30-2006, 06:10 PM
$105 million would help this cause.

If you're scrimping at the MLB to afford building the farm, then your system's just plain broken.

Throw in the towel at that point.

Chip R
11-30-2006, 06:12 PM
Yeah, I'm getting pretty sick and tired of this head in the sand woe is me attitude that seems to permeate this franchise and some of their fans.

I don't know if Zito would sign here for all the tea in China. And I understand anything over 3 years is a risk. So, here's my solution. If the man wants 7 years, give it to him with a catch. After the 4th year put in an option. Could be a club or a mutual option. Sort of like what the Cubs did with Ramirez only they made it a player option. And backload the deal so maybe 60% of the money is after the 4th year. Zito and Boras get their $105M and if the price for players keeps going up he can opt out and try his luck on the open market again. Or, if he's a bust, you can let him go after year 4. You add a guy like Zito and that could have a domino affect on the team as a whole. Perhaps Bronson would want to stay here a little longer so he can jam with Zito. Maybe Aaron Harang sticks around a little longer. Plus you have the added bonus of keeping him away from other teams like the Cards or Cubs or Astros or even the Dodgers or San Diego. And, if Homer is every bit as good as he is advertised, who has a better stating rotation? I know he's a flyball pitcher but so are Harang and Arroyo. Home runs are going to happen. Especially in this day and age in a park like GAB. The trick is to minimize the HRs by keeping guys off base. Is it a risk? Sure it is. But you show me a sure thing and I'm right there with you.

vaticanplum
11-30-2006, 06:15 PM
If I'm reading it right, between the A's and Twins there is one player signed beyond the 2008 season who would not otherwise be tied to his team -- Eric Chavez. A couple guys have 2009 club options. And there are a couple guys signed for 2009 but who would have been tied to the club anyway based on service time (Crosby and Haren).

Some of the players on those two teams will be handed long-term contracts before they walk. I guarantee it. The point was made that we made a long-term deal that blew up on us and that is the entire reason we should not make another long-term deal (at least the way it was stated); that's what I was responding to.

M2
11-30-2006, 06:16 PM
I smell a "Mike Hampton Type" return on investment on this one.

Nah, geography is what screwed up Hampton. Had he signed pretty much anywhere else he'd have been fine and wouldn't have made all those crazy adjustments that messed up his arm.

But at least his kids got to go to some good schools.

Rojo
11-30-2006, 06:18 PM
After the 4th year put in an option. Could be a club or a mutual option. Sort of like what the Cubs did with Ramirez only they made it a player option. And backload the deal so maybe 60% of the money is after the 4th year.

Do you think that would do it, putting most of the money behind a wall, to grab after his best years are behind him, if the club agrees. If Wayne can pull that off, I'm on board.

vaticanplum
11-30-2006, 06:18 PM
I know he's a flyball pitcher but so are Harang and Arroyo. Home runs are going to happen. Especially in this day and age in a park like GAB. The trick is to minimize the HRs by keeping guys off base.

That is a very good point. Unless a pitcher is coming to us from the Phillies or one or two other teams, almost every pitcher who comes to the Reds from outside the team's farm system is going to have his home run total go up. That will just be the case as long as the Reds are in GABP. We need to accept that, and see what else the pitcher can do. Zito is a flyball pitcher. Milton is a flyball pitcher. But Zito does not = Milton.

Falls City Beer
11-30-2006, 06:20 PM
That is a very good point. Unless a pitcher is coming to us from the Phillies or one or two other teams, almost every pitcher who comes to the Reds from outside the team's farm system is going to have his home run total go up. That will just be the case as long as the Reds are in GABP. We need to accept that, and see what else the pitcher can do. Zito is a flyball pitcher. Milton is a flyball pitcher. But Zito does not = Milton.

And a genuine, bona fide, gold-plated groundball-inducing starter is a rare bird.

M2
11-30-2006, 06:27 PM
And a genuine, bona fide, gold-plated groundball-inducing starter is a rare bird.

Thus my interest in Paul Maholm if the Pirates should tire of him during his apprenticeship.

Falls City Beer
11-30-2006, 06:31 PM
Thus my interest in Paul Maholm if the Pirates should tire of him during his apprenticeship.

He's not a bad target. I do think the nuttiness over grabbing GB pitchers is a tad overwrought; even under the best of circumstances, a great farm system, and ton of FA money, no MLB team is likely to have more than one genuine GB pitcher in their rotation on average. Two under the luckiest of circumstances.

In some ways the true GB pitcher is something of a Moby Dick swimming in the Fountain of Youth.

Tigs
11-30-2006, 07:12 PM
interesting article I found about Zito meeting with the Texas Rangers

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20061130&content_id=1748414&vkey=hotstove2006&fext=.jsp

11/30/2006 5:53 PM ET
Coveted lefty Zito meets with Rangers
Owner, GM made pitch to ace and agent Boras on Thursday
By T.R. Sullivan / MLB.com

ARLINGTON -- "Snow, sleet and ice hit the Dallas-Fort Worth area on Thursday.
So did free-agent pitcher Barry Zito and his agent, Scott Boras.

The Rangers are hoping that the inclement weather won't keep Zito from wanting to pitch at Ameriquest Field in Arlington. A source said Zito and Boras came in to meet with Rangers owner Tom Hicks and general manager Jon Daniels. Rangers officials declined comment but are definitely serious about Zito being their No. 1 free-agent target this winter.

As many as eight teams are pursuing Zito, and it's long been assumed that he wanted to pitch in either New York or Los Angeles. The Mets are considered one of the favorites because Zito is close to their pitching coach, Rick Peterson, who worked with him in Oakland.

But Zito also has a strong relationship with new Rangers manager Ron Washington, who spent the last 11 years as a coach with the Athletics. The two spoke right after Washington was named manager and Zito told him that he was strongly interested in playing for the Rangers.

The feeling is mutual. Zito and Boras met with the Rangers on Thursday and were planning to have dinner with Hicks on Thursday night.

Zito was 16-10 with a 3.83 ERA in 34 starts and 221 innings with the Athletics last year. Since the beginning of 2001, he is 95-59 with a 3.61 ERA. His 208 starts over the past six years are the most by any pitcher in the Major Leagues, and he is third in innings pitched.



Complete coverage >
The winter weather may have been ill-timed for Zito's visit, but he is well-acquainted with the summer conditions in Arlington. The southpaw has a career record of 11-1 with a 3.75 ERA at Ameriquest Field.

A winter visit by Boras and his client is usually a good sign for the Rangers. Boras brought Kevin Millwood last year, and he ended up signing a five-year, $60 million contract.

The Rangers still have interest in re-signing Vicente Padilla and have talked about other free-agent pitchers, including Ted Lilly and Miguel Batista. But Zito has been at the top of their list, and Hicks has shown a willingness to spend money on the right pitcher this winter. The Rangers submitted a $27 million bid in an effort to win the rights to Japanese pitcher Daisuke Matsuzaka.

The Boston Red Sox ended up winning that process. The Rangers are serious about winning this one and having Zito pitch for them next season -- and beyond."

vaticanplum
11-30-2006, 07:14 PM
If Zito doesn't come to the Reds, I want him to stay put in the American League Central or West. The Rangers are as fine a second choice for me as any.

mth123
11-30-2006, 10:51 PM
That is a very good point. Unless a pitcher is coming to us from the Phillies or one or two other teams, almost every pitcher who comes to the Reds from outside the team's farm system is going to have his home run total go up. That will just be the case as long as the Reds are in GABP. We need to accept that, and see what else the pitcher can do. Zito is a flyball pitcher. Milton is a flyball pitcher. But Zito does not = Milton.

But one of the other things Zito does do is allow a lot of Baserunners. Adding more HR for a pitcher like him is much more harmful. Those won't be solo HR he'd be allowing. He hasn't been an elite top dollar worthy pitcher for 3 years IMO. If I spend $15 Million/year on the rotation a bunch of it goes to Harang before any of these guys. Padilla looks like the best guy on the market to me. Not Zito or even Schmidt (I do like Schmidt though).

Falls City Beer
11-30-2006, 11:00 PM
But one of the other things Zito does do is allow a lot of Baserunners. Adding more HR for a pitcher like him is much more harmful. Those won't be solo HR he'd be allowing. He hasn't been an elite top dollar worthy pitcher for 3 years IMO. If I spend $15 Million/year on the rotation a bunch of it goes to Harang before any of these guys. Padilla looks like the best guy on the market to me. Not Zito or even Schmidt (I do like Schmidt though).

I'll take Zito for 6/7 years 15 million over Padilla for 4 years 10 million. You might get lightning in a bottle with Padilla for a season, but you're just as likely to get a right-handed Milton.

Rojo
11-30-2006, 11:10 PM
But one of the other things Zito does do is allow a lot of Baserunners. Adding more HR for a pitcher like him is much more harmful. Those won't be solo HR he'd be allowing. He hasn't been an elite top dollar worthy pitcher for 3 years IMO. If I spend $15 Million/year on the rotation a bunch of it goes to Harang before any of these guys. Padilla looks like the best guy on the market to me. Not Zito or even Schmidt (I do like Schmidt though).

I like Padilla's upside better but Zito's got the track record.

IslandRed
11-30-2006, 11:20 PM
As many as eight teams are pursuing Zito, and it's long been assumed that he wanted to pitch in either New York or Los Angeles. The Mets are considered one of the favorites because Zito is close to their pitching coach, Rick Peterson, who worked with him in Oakland.

But Zito also has a strong relationship with new Rangers manager Ron Washington, who spent the last 11 years as a coach with the Athletics.

In a nutshell, this is the problem. We're debating whether Zito is worth the reported asking price, but the asking price is based on the presumption that it's being offered by a team Zito likes. Barry Zito doesn't want to pitch for the Reds, so far as we know. The only way he'd sign here is if we outbid everyone else. Significantly. If $15 million per year is what the teams he prefers would offer, what would it take from us? $17 million? $18 million? $20 million? Is there any real chance that wouldn't look like an albatross contract pretty soon?

I don't know. I'm OK with the notion of overpaying to land the front-line pitcher we need, but there's overpaying and then there's overpaying. I still think our better bet is to pull off a trade where the ability to take on money is what makes it happen.

Falls City Beer
11-30-2006, 11:22 PM
I still think our better bet is to pull off a trade where the ability to take on money is what makes it happen.

It'll cost us Bailey and Bruce. That's not the end of the world to me, but Bruce is an absolute can't-miss prospect.

IslandRed
11-30-2006, 11:26 PM
It'll cost us Bailey and Bruce.

For who?

I probably wasn't clear enough -- it's late -- I was envisioning the type of deal where we'd pick up a pricey pitcher and just take on the money, thus reducing the amount of talent we'd have to send back in return. But if we're sending Bailey AND Bruce in a deal for a pitcher, we'd better be getting a no-brainer-great pitcher we could afford for awhile.

Falls City Beer
11-30-2006, 11:31 PM
For who?

I probably wasn't clear enough -- it's late -- I was envisioning the type of deal where we'd pick up a pricey pitcher and just take on the money, thus reducing the amount of talent we'd have to send back in return. But if we're sending Bailey AND Bruce in a deal for a pitcher, we'd better be getting a no-brainer-great pitcher we could afford for awhile.

It's possible. Who'd you have in mind?

mth123
11-30-2006, 11:37 PM
I'll take Zito for 6/7 years 15 million over Padilla for 4 years 10 million. You might get lightning in a bottle with Padilla for a season, but you're just as likely to get a right-handed Milton.

I guess I just disagree. I think given the same park and defense behind them, Padilla is a better pitcher at this point. Zito is as much a product of the park he plays in as any pitcher I've seen in a while. When I think of him going to a team like Cincy or Texas I think of Chan Ho Park when he left LA. A guy who was arguably the best pitcher statistically of a generally weak free agent crop who totally went south by going to the wrong situation. Zito would probably be great for the Yankees, Giants or Mariners. I think he would struggle in a HR park given his penchant for allowing lots of baserunners. I'd rather sign a guy who is a little lesser pitcher who may be a more known commodity because he is coming from a similar park. This year that guy is Padilla.

Moot point though. The Reds have no chance at either for the reasons that Island Red stated very well.

Falls City Beer
11-30-2006, 11:38 PM
I guess I just disagree. I think given the same park and defense behind them, Padilla is a better pitcher at this point. Zito is as much a product of the park he plays in as any pitcher I've seen in a while. When I think of him going to a team like Cincy or Texas I think of Chan Ho Park when he left LA. A guy who was arguably the best pitcher statistically of a generally weak free agent crop who totally went south by going to the wrong situation. Zito would probably be great for the Yankees, Giants or Mariners. I think he would struggle in a HR park given his penchant for allowing lots of baserunners. I'd rather sign a guy who is a little lesser pitcher who may be a more known commodity because he is coming from a similar park. This year that guy is Padilla.

Moot point though. The Reds have no chance at either for the reasons that Island Red stated very well.

Wow. Reds couldn't lure Padilla?

Sad state of affairs.

vaticanplum
11-30-2006, 11:40 PM
I probably wasn't clear enough -- it's late -- I was envisioning the type of deal where we'd pick up a pricey pitcher and just take on the money, thus reducing the amount of talent we'd have to send back in return. But if we're sending Bailey AND Bruce in a deal for a pitcher, we'd better be getting a no-brainer-great pitcher we could afford for awhile.

:laugh: IslandRed, are you saying that the only way for us to get a good pitcher is to eat the contract of a big-money pitcher another team is tired of paying for...ie. that no top FA would want to pitch here? I'm not disagreeing at all, but it's funny to hear it stated outright (or between the lines).

If I'm the top FA pitcher, it's not going to be easy to convince me to come to one of the worst pitchers parks in baseball which happens to be the home of a struggling mid-market team in a city not exacty known for its nightlife. And top offers don't always work either...the Orioles constantly have top-dollar offers rejected by FAs who just don't want to play for that team.

that is why it takes something extra, appealing to the pitcher in a way that other teams don't. Anybody can offer money. How many teams can offer singing children? Hmmm? Singing children and rare guitars, I'm telling you. It's a wonder the Reds haven't responded to my letters on this. I'm about to start sending them straight to Boras and Zito instead.

Anyway, IslandRed, I see your point.

mth123
12-01-2006, 12:07 AM
:laugh: IslandRed, are you saying that the only way for us to get a good pitcher is to eat the contract of a big-money pitcher another team is tired of paying for...ie. that no top FA would want to pitch here? I'm not disagreeing at all, but it's funny to hear it stated outright (or between the lines).

If I'm the top FA pitcher, it's not going to be easy to convince me to come to one of the worst pitchers parks in baseball which happens to be the home of a struggling mid-market team in a city not exacty known for its nightlife. And top offers don't always work either...the Orioles constantly have top-dollar offers rejected by FAs who just don't want to play for that team.

that is why it takes something extra, appealing to the pitcher in a way that other teams don't. Anybody can offer money. How many teams can offer singing children? Hmmm? Singing children and rare guitars, I'm telling you. It's a wonder the Reds haven't responded to my letters on this. I'm about to start sending them straight to Boras and Zito instead.

Anyway, IslandRed, I see your point.

What we all overlook as fans is what the Free Agent situation means to these guys as individuals. For us, we see Free Agents every year and it means about the same thing every year. For the players its usually a once in a lifetime chance to choose (at least only once in the prime years when they really have power). Given that perspective, I can't see why any guy who is going to end-up with more money than he could possibly spend would choose a perennial loser over a team with a shot at winning unless the money was so much more the loser completely blows the winning team away. The only logical exception I see is when a guy is going home. Since so many players are from Texas, California, Florida, Latin America and Asia, the Reds don't have this advantage very often.

IMO The Reds will always struggle to lure primo players unless we see a return of the dynasty days of the 70's, then they won't need them.

Singing children might work though.:)

Chip R
12-01-2006, 01:22 AM
Do you think that would do it, putting most of the money behind a wall, to grab after his best years are behind him, if the club agrees. If Wayne can pull that off, I'm on board.


I don't know if it would do it or not. There may be no way on God's green earth he comes here for any amount of money. It would be nice to pay him about $8M or so the first few years and then put the rest of it after the option year but I'm guessing he's going to want some of that up front. So maybe pay him $8M next year then jack it up to about $12-13M the next year. We'll be rid of $9M in dead weight then. Jr's salary comes off the books after 08 so there's even more room then. Now there may be aesthetic reasons he doesn't want to play here. The ballpark is too small, the city's too small, you really can't surf the Ohio River, it's the Midwest. But you appeal to his pride. Ask him if he's worth as much as he thinks he is, he ought to be able to pitch well anywhere. And if you can pitch well here, it's doubly impressive. Show him th estats that while it is a HR park, it's really a neutral park. You also remind him there is no DH in the NL so he gets to pitch to a lot of pitchers. Conventional wisdom also says that it's easier to pitch against the NL than the AL. If he thinks he can't pitch well in this park, show him some of Arroyo and Harang's highlights. So you can't surf here. You can't surf in TEX or StL or CHI either. And would he really want to surf in New York? Yes, he's a California guy and Cincinnati is about as anti-California as it gets. Harang is a San Diego guy and he doesn't seem to mind it here. For all of Arroyo's pining for Boston he seems to like it here.

Is it a risk? Sure it is. The escape clause makes it less of a risk but you can't just stick your head in the sand and hope the minor leaguers can turn into our Hudson, Zito, and Mulder. And you certainly can't rely on Dick Pole to turn Milton and Claussen and the Lizard, et. al. into dominant pitchers. He may turn out to be a good pitching coach but very few pitching coaches can make chicken salad out of chicken guano. Duncan can do it and maybe Mazzone but if someone is that good, he's usually going to stick in one place for a while.

It's riskier to depend on the minor leaguers and our current staff to be great pitchrs than it would be to sign Zito to that kind of a deal. And it's not to just make people happy because you are doing something. I don't want to spend that money on just any Juan, Gary or Alfonso. I want to spend on someone with a track record of success. If he doesn't bite, no harm done. But you score some brownie points with the fans and possibly with other players besides your own. They are going to realize that the Reds are once again serious players.

Rojo
12-01-2006, 02:13 AM
Since so many players are from Texas, California, Florida, Latin America and Asia, the Reds don't have this advantage very often.

And the one time it did, ech.

Rojo
12-01-2006, 02:20 AM
Chip,

You're still left trying to talk him into an option-laden contract with a team/park/city he had to be convinced isn't so bad. Uphill all the way.

Chip R
12-01-2006, 08:17 AM
Chip,

You're still left trying to talk him into an option-laden contract with a team/park/city he had to be convinced isn't so bad. Uphill all the way.


You're right. It won't be easy. But selling a player to come here is what a good GM/owner has to do. Most great accomplishments weren't easily done.

IslandRed
12-01-2006, 11:05 AM
:laugh: IslandRed, are you saying that the only way for us to get a good pitcher is to eat the contract of a big-money pitcher another team is tired of paying for...ie. that no top FA would want to pitch here? I'm not disagreeing at all, but it's funny to hear it stated outright (or between the lines).

More or less. Unless there's a reason why a free-agent pitcher is inclined to prefer us (e.g. a Griffey situation), we'd not only have to win the bidding war, but win it going away. That's not an original thought, mind you. Depending on the numbers, it may mean we couldn't sign Zito on terms we could live with. In a trade, we may end up taking on a less-than-optimal contract but at least the "how much, how long" are known in advance.

It's not necessarily a permanent condition. As others have pointed out, build a team that gives players a chance at a ring and suddenly it's not such a bad place to be at all.

Falls City Beer
12-01-2006, 11:08 AM
More or less. Unless there's a reason why a free-agent pitcher is inclined to prefer us (e.g. a Griffey situation), we'd not only have to win the bidding war, but win it going away. That's not an original thought, mind you. Depending on the numbers, it may mean we couldn't sign Zito on terms we could live with. In a trade, we may end up taking on a less-than-optimal contract but at least the "how much, how long" are known in advance.

It's not necessarily a permanent condition. As others have pointed out, build a team that gives players a chance at a ring and suddenly it's not such a bad place to be at all.

There's really only one pitcher within shouting distance of Zito who might be on the trade market this offseason (though I doubt it) and that's Jennings. No one else even close will be traded this winter with the pitching shortage as slim as it is.