PDA

View Full Version : How do the Reds acquire a number three starter?



Spitball
12-13-2006, 09:36 PM
Everyone is venting. There is no use crying over water under the fridge, the Schmidts, Wolfes, Meches, Lillys, Marquis, and Jennings are gone from the market or trading block at remarkably, if not foolishly, high prices. So, were do you suggest the Reds go from here? How does a team reasonably approach the prospect of acquiring a number three starter to fit in behind Harang and Arroyo with the crazy demand for 3-4 starters out there?

And, one more thing, let's try not to turn this into a Adam Dunn for Jeremy Bonderman thread. That would be nice, but it has been driven into the ground. How else are the Reds to acquire a number three starter?

Falls City Beer
12-13-2006, 09:39 PM
Everyone is venting. There is no use crying over water under the fridge, the Schmidts, Wolfes, Meches, Lillys, Marquis, and Jennings are gone from the market or trading block at remarkably, if not foolishly, high prices. So, were do you suggest the Reds go from here? How does a team reasonably approach the prospect of acquiring a number three starter to fit in behind Harang and Arroyo with the crazy demand for 3-4 starters out there?

And, one more thing, let's try not to turn this into a Adam Dunn for Jeremy Bonderman thread. that would be nice, but it has been driven into the ground. How else are the Reds to acquire a number three starter?

At the risk of sounding reductive, I seriously doubt they're going after one; and I would be stunned if, were they to go after one, that they would acquire one in the process.

My guess is that they are very hard at work hammering out more salary dumps--looking into paying parts of salaries to get them off the books. That isn't the worst thing that could happen, but it likely means that talent won't be coming in return.

Ltlabner
12-13-2006, 09:50 PM
This is probably a dumb question.

But if the Reds don't have enough cash to buy a FA. And they don't have enough trade tallent to induce a trade, could the package together some tallent with some cash to make a deal come together with another team?

mth123
12-13-2006, 09:52 PM
I think they have to package Freel with any of the prospects not named Bailey, Votto or Bruce. Maybe throw in a vet bullpen arm also.

Freel has the best combination of talent, salary, position scarcity and ready replacement available to get something back that could actually help. The fact that he is over 30 and due for a big raise in the near future probably factors in.

As far as prospects go, the top three appear to be major pieces of the future core so they shouldn't be traded unless some one knocks the teams socks off. The others are all pretty far away and not projected as impact players. Some could be decent, but decent can be replaced.

The Reds could target a low dollar up and comer. Since they wouldn't be trading much salary it wouldn't require a big contract coming back to keep from blowing the trading partner out of the water. Alternatively, they could take on a contract and trade off Lohse to make room on the payroll.

I have serious doubts that anything will happen though.

Dracodave
12-13-2006, 09:54 PM
We shouldnt be trying for a number three starter. We techinically should already have one. Why we don't already is the big question. Are we out of money? Are we having trouble trading? Is Krivsky just talking out his ass? These are all questions that we need answered.


Along with...after the number three starter, how do we get a righty bat for right field? Too many questions..no answers.

Heath
12-13-2006, 09:57 PM
We could always do it the Jim Bowden way.

Sign 10-15 "name" pitchers at Minor League Contracts with ST invites and let'em duke it out.

fewfirstchoice
12-13-2006, 10:42 PM
About the only way I see the Reds adding to there rotation is through a trade of Dunn.I just think a trade with LA makes alot of sense,probably to much sense to actually happen.I think a sending Dunn to LA for Billingsley or Penny and Ethier or Kemp.It would help both clubs in a big way.It gives Cincy the SP for the rotation and a OF to replace Dunn.It also gives LA the big lefty bat to play LF or 1st. could also see the Reds sending Bray or Cormier to Detroit fro Monroe or Thames.These 2 deals could work well for all clubs involved.

RedLegSuperStar
12-13-2006, 10:58 PM
Depends on what you would classify a #3 starter. A number 3 guy for the Reds could be someones #4 or #5.. ie Bronson Arroyo.

Redhook
12-13-2006, 11:01 PM
About the only way I see the Reds adding to there rotation is through a trade of Dunn.I just think a trade with LA makes alot of sense,probably to much sense to actually happen.I think a sending Dunn to LA for Billingsley or Penny and Ethier or Kemp.It would help both clubs in a big way.It gives Cincy the SP for the rotation and a OF to replace Dunn.It also gives LA the big lefty bat to play LF or 1st. could also see the Reds sending Bray or Cormier to Detroit fro Monroe or Thames.These 2 deals could work well for all clubs involved.

If it sounds too good to be true, then it probably is.

penantboundreds
12-14-2006, 12:42 AM
the same bronson arroyo from 2006 or when we got him?

M2
12-14-2006, 01:20 AM
It's going to require a trade and the Reds probably need to identify a guy who's struggled a bit, but could bust out in 2007. A whole lot of names got brought up in this thread:

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=51917

The other option is to find a veteran who you think can rebound with some ferocity. Got no idea what Atlanta wants for Tim Hudson, but I'd sure be asking.

Supposedly the Angels are willing to discuss Ervin Santana. What for? I've got no idea. They could use some DH and catching help, maybe a lefty setup man too.

RedsManRick
12-14-2006, 01:44 AM
Develop a #1 and call Arroyo your #3. Seriously. I would argue that there is no such thing as a #3 starter. There are aces, mid rotation-guys, and back of the rotation guys. That's it. The rest of the distinctions are a function of context. Matzusaka is going to open as the Red Sox #3 starter.

Aces are guys who are the best pitcher on the staff year in and year out. (Roy Oswalt, Pedro Martinez). In the NL, think a sub 3.25 ERA on a regular basis.

Mid-Rotation guys are those guys who you can count on every year to be reliable and pretty successful, but probably won't ever challenge for a Cy-Young (Aaron Harang, Andy Pettite). In good years, they are bad #1's or good #2's. In bad years, they are bad #3's or good #4's. In the NL, think a 3.75 ERA with a half run in either direction depending on the year.

End-of-the-Rotation guys could win you 12-14 games in a good year, but could also bomb and do more harm than good. (Jimmy Haynes, Glendon Rusch) In good years, they are solid #3's. In bad years, they shouldn't be in a rotation at all. The rest is all shades of gray. We have 2 very solid mid-rotation guys, 2 back of the rotation guys, and an unknown. In the NL, think 4.50 ERA with a half run on the upside and much more on the downside.

I think we get too hung up on career averages or what a guy did last year. There's a ton of variability and unpredictability. For this reason, I love Nate Silver's PECOTA system. What we should reasonably be able to get is a guy who can give us a quality start more often than not with some upside of better than that; the guy who probably won't give us a 3.00 ERA, but definitely won't give us a 5.50 ERA either.

I don't think we should pay 10-12MM for that. I think we need to be developing that. I think too often we get caught up in the need for our developed prospects to be stars. Many stars were not even hot stuff coming up. If it happens great. Sometimes guys do more than expected. However, if we could just start getting some major league regulars, it would remove a huge burden from our FA& trade needs. Every useful player came from somewhere. We shouldn't have to trade for or sign every piece of our rotation and quite frankly, we simply can't afford it.

Topcat
12-14-2006, 03:02 AM
My answer is find out what the Angel's want for Joe Saunders :cool:

M2
12-14-2006, 11:05 AM
Every useful player came from somewhere. We shouldn't have to trade for or sign every piece of our rotation and quite frankly, we simply can't afford it.

That's nice in theory, but it's exactly what the Reds have to do. Long term, yes the team should be able to develop some pitchers and work them in from the back of the rotation to the front, but for the time being, if the Reds want another pitcher to give them 200+ IP and a sub-4.00 ERA, then they're going to have to find that arm elsewhere.

As for the cost, it's only expensive if you're signing free agents. Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo were inexpensive pickups (though the Reds had to wait a season and a half for Harang to put his game together). Those are the kinds of moves the Reds need to duplicate. Mind you, I do think the Reds could splurge on at least one member of the rotation.

Anyway, if the Reds aren't looking outside their organizational walls for more starting pitching then they likely aren't going to be improving in that area in 2007.

Falls City Beer
12-14-2006, 11:14 AM
There's one potential starter in the Reds' minors. One. And he's two years away, at best (which means he'll likely flame out and never see an inning as a Reds' pitcher). The Reds have zero choice but to deal.

RedsManRick
12-14-2006, 11:24 AM
I agree M2 -- developing pitchers isn't the solution for 2007's 3rd starter spot. The thing about the Harang and Arroyo acquisitions however is that they were based on dealing from our strengths. While we have a more balanced squad now, we're not really deep anywhere, unless you count aging relievers. I don't see a player of value who we can trade other than Freel, for whom we have a good replacement ready to step in (and many would argue Deno isn't that guy anyways).

ochre
12-14-2006, 11:27 AM
As for the cost, it's only expensive if you're signing free agents. Aaron Harang and Bronson Arroyo were inexpensive pickups (though the Reds had to wait a season and a half for Harang to put his game together). Those are the kinds of moves the Reds need to duplicate. Mind you, I do think the Reds could splurge on at least one member of the rotation.


I think they have duplicated those types of trades with similar moves. It's just that pitchers like those tend to be nearly as volatile as those that the development method can deliver, particularly when those that are, ultimately, selecting the targets to acquire are the same ones doing the development and prospecting.

Falls City Beer
12-14-2006, 11:29 AM
I agree M2 -- developing pitchers isn't the solution for 2007's 3rd starter spot. The thing about the Harang and Arroyo acquisitions however is that they were based on dealing from our strengths. While we have a more balanced squad now, we're not really deep anywhere, unless you count aging relievers. I don't see a player of value who we can trade other than Freel, for whom we have a good replacement ready to step in (and many would argue Deno isn't that guy anyways).

Then it's time for a firesale, IMO. This is the conclusion I've reached. The thing is is that the Reds are really limited in who they can acquire even via trade--if said trade adds even negligible payroll it's going to get shot down unless a subsequent move dumps payroll. As I said on another thread, my guess is that the team is in the process of working out salary dumps right now in hopes of maybe putting something together for the deadline if they're still hanging around. That's a pretty weak strategy, but I'm afraid I just can't really conceive of another. I'd prefer the teardown at this point.

TRF
12-14-2006, 11:52 AM
I'm thinking Boston has seven starters for 5 rotation spots, if you believe Papelbon is heading to the rotation. And though dealing with the Reds again after the backlash they got for the Arroyo/WMP trade might be a bit unpalatable, they could be a good fit again.

What's their situation with Crisp? Now that they have Drew have they soured on WMP? If so, I'd gladly take him back and say Matt Clement (and the remainder of his contract) for some kind of Freel+ package.

klw
12-14-2006, 12:02 PM
I'm thinking Boston has seven starters for 5 rotation spots, if you believe Papelbon is heading to the rotation. And though dealing with the Reds again after the backlash they got for the Arroyo/WMP trade might be a bit unpalatable, they could be a good fit again.

What's their situation with Crisp? Now that they have Drew have they soured on WMP? If so, I'd gladly take him back and say Matt Clement (and the remainder of his contract) for some kind of Freel+ package.

Clement is likely out all next year due to his shoulder surgery. By all appearances the Reds are not blowing things up. With this they sould still try to pursue Tomo Okha or one of the remaining FA arms to fill in at this slot. Barring that Mike Morgan is probably rested and ready.

M2
12-14-2006, 12:05 PM
I agree M2 -- developing pitchers isn't the solution for 2007's 3rd starter spot. The thing about the Harang and Arroyo acquisitions however is that they were based on dealing from our strengths. While we have a more balanced squad now, we're not really deep anywhere, unless you count aging relievers. I don't see a player of value who we can trade other than Freel, for whom we have a good replacement ready to step in (and many would argue Deno isn't that guy anyways).

I think there's a market for Jr. out there. He won't fetch a king's ransom, but I think he could fetch you someone like the Bronson Arroyo of a year ago. He's got a no-trade clause, but those things are usually just there to give a player some say in where he goes, not to prevent him from going anywhere.

Freel, Jr., Votto and Ross would the four guys I'd be looking to leverage on the trade market at the moment. As you mentioned, you might be able to sweeten an offer with a reliever as well.

roby
12-14-2006, 03:14 PM
The reds strategy on getting a #3 seems to be to sit around and whine about the high cost of free agents and do absolutely nothing. It's going to be a long season if Eric Milton is your #3...and some of us are getting really tired of long seasons!