PDA

View Full Version : Time to Start Shopping Arroyo?



nmculbreth
12-28-2006, 01:33 PM
Now that the major free agent pitchers are off the market it would seem that this might be an ideal time to start shopping Bronson Arroyo around to see what we can get for him. After missing out on Zito the Mets might be an ideal trade partner given their desparate need of starting pitching and the number of good prospects in they have in the high minors. I'd love to see Pelfrey and Milledge in Reds uniforms...

redsfan30
12-28-2006, 01:35 PM
I've been an advocate of this for quite some time...but it won't happen.

Falls City Beer
12-28-2006, 01:36 PM
Now that the major free agent pitchers are off the market it would seem that this might be an ideal time to start shopping Bronson Arroyo around to see what we can get for him. After missing out on Zito the Mets might be an ideal trade partner given their desparate need of starting pitching and the number of good prospects in they have in the high minors. I'd love to see Pelfrey and Milledge in Reds uniforms...

I'd open my wrists if all the Reds got back was Milledge and Pelfrey. Hypesville.

Will M
12-28-2006, 01:37 PM
I don't want to trade Arroyo. I am sick of the 'rebuilding' that never comes to fruition. We have a good 1-2 punch of SP. If we can come up with a 3rd somehow and Bailey lives up to the hype the Reds rotation will be good.

Now if after 2007 Arroyo doesn't want to sign a contract extension THEN look at trade options.

pedro
12-28-2006, 01:38 PM
Only for an absolute kings ransom. Arroyo is too cheap relative to his performance to trade for anything less.

flyer85
12-28-2006, 01:39 PM
I'd open my wrists if all the Reds got back was Milledge and Pelfrey. Hypesville.I rather have some guys from Arizona(who is in the market for pitching).

camisadelgolf
12-28-2006, 01:41 PM
Only for an absolute kings ransom. Arroyo is too cheap relative to his performance to trade for anything less.

:thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup: :thumbup:

edabbs44
12-28-2006, 01:43 PM
I'd open my wrists if all the Reds got back was Milledge and Pelfrey. Hypesville.

I'd be all over this offer, but I don't see the Mets going for it.

But to answer your question, I would start shopping him. The only difference he will make to this team is by worsening the 2008 draft position. They're not going to the playoffs with him anyway.

Falls City Beer
12-28-2006, 01:50 PM
I'd be all over this offer, but I don't see the Mets going for it.

But to answer your question, I would start shopping him. The only difference he will make to this team is by worsening the 2008 draft position. They're not going to the playoffs with him anyway.

I see Pelfrey and think Bailey. Let's say another team possessed Bailey instead of the Reds, I sure as hell wouldn't give up Arroyo for Bailey and Milledge. A sure thing for two long, longshots.

bucksfan2
12-28-2006, 01:50 PM
They question to ask would be does Arroyo have more trade value now or will he have more at the deadline in july??? When are teams more likely to give up more, in the offseason when they have aspirations of contending or at the deadline when they know what they need to have in order to contend?

AdamDunn
12-28-2006, 01:52 PM
Milledge, Pelfrey?? for Arroyo... I'd LOVE IT!

mth123
12-28-2006, 01:55 PM
I see Pelfrey and think Bailey. Let's say another team possessed Bailey instead of the Reds, I sure as hell wouldn't give up Arroyo for Bailey and Milledge. A sure thing for two long, longshots.

Substitute Heilman for Milledge and I might do it. I wouldn't want to deal Arroyo, but a reasonable replacement and highly rated prospect isn't bad. I'd need to research some more.

camisadelgolf
12-28-2006, 01:56 PM
Well, Majewski, Bray, etc. netted Kearns and Lopez . . .

Spitball
12-28-2006, 01:58 PM
I don't want to trade Arroyo. I am sick of the 'rebuilding' that never comes to fruition. We have a good 1-2 punch of SP. If we can come up with a 3rd somehow and Bailey lives up to the hype the Reds rotation will be good.

Now if after 2007 Arroyo doesn't want to sign a contract extension THEN look at trade options.

:thumbup:

RedsManRick
12-28-2006, 02:20 PM
I'd do Arroyo for Milledge/Pelfrey and Heilman in a second. Heilman is really the guy I want. Solid ground ball tendencies, good K/9, good K/BB, and solid "frame" suggesting he could be a horse. Purely from the numbers persepective (I don't know his repitiore), he reminds me of another Aaron Harang.

The reason I trade Arroyo now and not after this season is because, quite frankly, I think he's going to regress. Because his deal is so good and he's coming off a great year, his value is as high as it will ever be. Better to cash in now than to "waste" his value on a mediocre Reds squad in 2007.

Falls City Beer
12-28-2006, 02:23 PM
I'd do Arroyo for Milledge/Pelfrey and Heilman in a second. Heilman is really the guy I want. Solid ground ball tendencies, good K/9, good K/BB, and solid "frame" suggesting he could be a horse. Purely from the numbers persepective (I don't know his repitiore), he reminds me of another Aaron Harang.

I might do a Pelfrey and Heilman deal. But I'm still wary of both arms. Honestly, I'd shift my focus from the Mets entirely.

RedsManRick
12-28-2006, 02:27 PM
Who would you go after FCB? I can't think of too many teams with good young arms to spare in return? You think the Twins would make a deal for, say, Bonser/Baker + a prospect? I'd love to get a young bat from AZ.... where would you look?

Falls City Beer
12-28-2006, 02:32 PM
Who would you go after FCB? I can't think of too many teams with good young arms to spare in return? You think the Twins would make a deal for, say, Bonser/Baker + a prospect? I'd love to get a young bat from AZ.... where would you look?

That Twins deal would be better. My main concern with the Mets' deal is that Mets would insist that Pelfrey alone is enough for Arroyo, so the Reds wouldn't likely get both arms in that deal, and instead have to settle for a Milledge, who, in my mind, is pretty useless.

I'd also try to pluck some arms from Detroit.

flyer85
12-28-2006, 02:35 PM
I doubt the Snakes would trade young but I could go for Quentin and a combo of arms(Nippert, Edgar Gonzalez, Pena ... and Daigle, of course).

My gut feeling is that the 2006 Arroyo was a fluke.

lollipopcurve
12-28-2006, 02:40 PM
I liked this idea when it was proposed weeks ago (whose idea was it? I forget), and I still like it.

I think the Mets are the appropriate target. They are desperate for starters, and they want to win now. To me, Milledge is the key -- check out those OBP numbers throughout his minor league career. I like both Heilman and Pelfrey. Pretty sure the Mets would insist on it being Heilman. If they demanded more, I'd add Freel and ask for a top prospect to round it out.

Johnny Footstool
12-28-2006, 02:42 PM
I don't want to trade Arroyo. I am sick of the 'rebuilding' that never comes to fruition. We have a good 1-2 punch of SP. If we can come up with a 3rd somehow and Bailey lives up to the hype the Reds rotation will be good.

Now if after 2007 Arroyo doesn't want to sign a contract extension THEN look at trade options.

The Reds haven't shown the willingness to come up with a 3rd starter using cash, and they really don't have much to trade without leaving a bigger hole somewhere else. They could try to get lucky dumpster-diving, but haven't we seen enough of that in the past 10 years?

Teams will give up a lot more if they know they're getting Arroyo for two years instead of just one. Better to trade Arroyo a year early and reap a king's ransom of ML-ready prospects. The 2008 and 2009 Reds would benefit.

mth123
12-28-2006, 02:43 PM
Who would you go after FCB? I can't think of too many teams with good young arms to spare in return? You think the Twins would make a deal for, say, Bonser/Baker + a prospect? I'd love to get a young bat from AZ.... where would you look?

How about a different tactic? Take on a big contract to stay competitive and get a highly rated prospect or two for taking the payroll hit.

Something like Arroyo for a Tim Hudson and Matt Harrison and maybe another lower rated prospect like an Anthony Lerew.

It wouldn't be a huge Payroll hit in 2007 and with Milton gone next year the Reds could absorb the increase in Hudson's salary.

Too outside the box for Cincy.

Falls City Beer
12-28-2006, 02:45 PM
My main fear with Heilman is that he really is just a reliever. Getting just a reliever and a guy like Milledge for Arroyo would be on a par with the Neagle for garbage trade with NYY, except Milledge doesn't even have the ceiling of a WMP.

wally post
12-28-2006, 02:46 PM
I think Milledge is going to bomb in the majors - too much attitude and not enough brains - big ego. Uncontrollable by the mets - so probably in cincy he'd be hanging out with the bengals.:help:
I predict that whoever gets him will be sorry.
Heilman remains interesting, but it is not a sure thing that he is a starter.

I say Heilman and a stud-no-miss minor league starting pitcher is the ticket. Or two Baileys from somebody else. Otherwise, we should keep our guy. We need pitching! (repeat these last three words X 100)

flyer85
12-28-2006, 02:50 PM
I think Milledge is going to bomb in the majors big market prospects almost always seem to be overrated. Milledge struggled defensively in the majors and if he doesn't provide quality defense(which is highly questionable at this point) in CF then his value drops considerably.

lollipopcurve
12-28-2006, 02:52 PM
I think Milledge is going to bomb in the majors - too much attitude and not enough brains - big ego. Uncontrollable by the mets - so probably in cincy he'd be hanging out with the bengals.
I predict that whoever gets him will be sorry.
Heilman remains interesting, but it is not a sure thing that he is a starter.

I say Heilman and a stud-no-miss minor league starting pitcher is the ticket. Or two Baileys from somebody else. Otherwise, we should keep our guy. We need pitching! (repeat these last three words X 100)

I think these are good points. Valid concerns. Heilman and Humber would be the pairing to shoot for -- very tempting.

PuffyPig
12-28-2006, 03:57 PM
How about a different tactic? Take on a big contract to stay competitive and get a highly rated prospect or two for taking the payroll hit.

Something like Arroyo for a Tim Hudson and Matt Harrison and maybe another lower rated prospect like an Anthony Lerew.

It wouldn't be a huge Payroll hit in 2007 and with Milton gone next year the Reds could absorb the increase in Hudson's salary.

Too outside the box for Cincy.

Isn't Hudson set to make about $32M over the next 2 years of a heavily backloaded contract? Isn't there many thoughts that Hudson now stinks as a pitcher?

Too outside the box for Cincy? Small market teams don't get better trading good and cheap players for bad and expensive players. If you want to trade Arroyo for a better more expensive player, at least pick one who can still pitch.

PuffyPig
12-28-2006, 04:02 PM
My main fear with Heilman is that he really is just a reliever. Getting just a reliever and a guy like Milledge for Arroyo would be on a par with the Neagle for garbage trade with NYY, except Milledge doesn't even have the ceiling of a WMP.


It should be noted that the garbage did eventually net us Arroyo.

But it's a good reminder that it takes a number of propsects (even very good ones) to make 1 good major league player.

Dracodave
12-28-2006, 04:13 PM
Arroyo should be shopped like Mulder. Look for the best deal, young up-coming pitchers who have very little value to their teams, a young prospect (decent prospect) and a throw in.

Make teams overpay for good pitching, much like Rox did to Houston. However, make sure that up-coming pitcher has more upside or as much upside as Arroyo does though. Don't trade him for "trash".

RedsManRick
12-28-2006, 04:19 PM
Arroyo should be shopped like Mulder. Look for the best deal, young up-coming pitchers who have very little value to their teams, a young prospect (decent prospect) and a throw in.

Make teams overpay for good pitching, much like Rox did to Houston. However, make sure that up-coming pitcher has more upside or as much upside as Arroyo does though. Don't trade him for "trash".

The problem is that it often takes 2-3 years of performance (or lack thereof) to sort the trash from the treasure and they look remarkably similar at this point. However, I agree that the Mulder deal should be the example. Always better to trade a year too soon rather than a year to late. Mulder had a much better track record, but I would be absolutely thrilled with a package even remotely similar.

camisadelgolf
12-28-2006, 04:24 PM
Isn't Hudson set to make about $32M over the next 2 years of a heavily backloaded contract? Isn't there many thoughts that Hudson now stinks as a pitcher?

Too outside the box for Cincy? Small market teams don't get better trading good and cheap players for bad and expensive players. If you want to trade Arroyo for a better more expensive player, at least pick one who can still pitch.

The $33M is over the next three years, and 2006 was definitely his worst year (with the seven years prior being very successful). However, relatively speaking, he could still be seen as a bargain with the recent contracts kept in mind, and he still managed to pitch over 200 innings, start 35 games, and have a winning record in an "off year". My guess is that he's past his prime, but for the most part, I think 2006 was a fluke. Only time will tell, though. With that said, I agree in the sense that I'd rather have Arroyo for less than $8M over two years than Hudson for $33M over three years.

Always Red
12-28-2006, 04:26 PM
The reason I trade Arroyo now and not after this season is because, quite frankly, I think he's going to regress. Because his deal is so good and he's coming off a great year, his value is as high as it will ever be. Better to cash in now than to "waste" his value on a mediocre Reds squad in 2007.

I'd rather win with him and Harang right now, but if the Reds get off to a slow start, and it becomes obvious this team can't win with him, I'd deal him to a contender right before the trade deadline for as much as I could get back. Because he's made it pretty clear he'd rather be on a bigger stage (I don't really blame him for that, and actually think it's pretty honest of him, though it makes me cringe when he says it.)

And then I'd sign Harang to a LTC ASAP.

Falls City Beer
12-28-2006, 04:27 PM
It should be noted that the garbage did eventually net us Arroyo.

But it's a good reminder that it takes a number of propsects (even very good ones) to make 1 good major league player.

And also the time it took for Pena to reach the commodity-status that allowed him to net Arroyo.

edabbs44
12-28-2006, 04:28 PM
I see Pelfrey and think Bailey. Let's say another team possessed Bailey instead of the Reds, I sure as hell wouldn't give up Arroyo for Bailey and Milledge. A sure thing for two long, longshots.

Sometimes you gotta say, "What the f***?"

I would take two top prospects for Arroyo in a minute. I know you don't like pitching prospects, but if Cincy can't afford legit ML pitching and shouldn't go after young pitching, then they should just shut it down and move. They'll never have pitching in that case.

And we all know that Beane covets Milledge, so who's to say they couldn't turn Milledge into some more prospects?

So if the Yankees had Milledge and they offered Hughes and Milledge, you wouldn't make that trade for Arroyo? You are crazy.

Falls City Beer
12-28-2006, 04:30 PM
So if the Yankees had Milledge and they offered Hughes and Milledge, you wouldn't make that trade for Arroyo? You are crazy.

No I wouldn't.

And Beane almost entirely disregards the "personal" element of player acquisition. And I suppose he's had reason to, to some extent: seeing how well both Bradley and Thomas performed for them.

vaticanplum
12-28-2006, 04:35 PM
No I wouldn't.

And Beane almost entirely disregards the "personal" element of player acquisition. And I suppose he's had reason to, to some extent: seeing how well both Bradley and Thomas performed for them.

I wouldn't either. There Is No Such Thing As A Pitching Prospect. It's not "liking" or disliking; it's established vs. not.

I see no reason to trade Arroyo this year, not when he's good and cheap. Next year, maybe, depending on the state of the team, and yes I realize that his value could depreciate depending on his performance this year. But we're not paying a lot for him this year so that's a risk I'm willing to take.

There are basically three things to look at in terms of a pitcher's immediate value to a team: is he healthy? is he proven good on a major league level? is he cheap? Arroyo is ALL THREE of those things. Prospects are two at best by default. Sure, he's probably headed out of Cincinnati the first chance he gets. The first chance that he gets is still two seasons away.

nmculbreth
12-28-2006, 04:44 PM
I don't want to trade Arroyo. I am sick of the 'rebuilding' that never comes to fruition. We have a good 1-2 punch of SP. If we can come up with a 3rd somehow and Bailey lives up to the hype the Reds rotation will be good.

Now if after 2007 Arroyo doesn't want to sign a contract extension THEN look at trade options.

I'm not wild about being in perpetual "rebuilding" either but if Bronson isn't interested in being here long term wouldn't it be best to try to move him now while his value is at his peak? I think waiting a year to deal him negates one of the the best selling points - the fact that he's under contract for two more years at a budget friendly salary. I think we'd be able to get a much higher return if the other team knew they were getting two years of Bronson vs. a one year rental. Not only that but waiting adds in the risk that Arroyo returns to the pitcher he was with the Sox and loses a ton of value.

vaticanplum
12-28-2006, 04:48 PM
I'm not wild about being in perpetual "rebuilding" either but if Bronson isn't interested in being here long term wouldn't it be best to try to move him now while his value is at his peak?

How many players on this team do you think actually want to stay in Cincinnati forever? They may not be as vocal about it, but that doesn't mean they don't feel the same way. If they're of Arroyo's caliber, they're at least going to test the free agent waters, no question. As well they should.

Once a player is under contract, whether the player agreed to that contract or not, the team calls the shots, not the players. Are the Reds supposed to build their team based on which players like living in the Queen City because then they can retain players til they're old? I understand the logic of trading him at peak value, but the reason of "he doesn't want to be here anyway" has been thrown around a lot and this holds no water with me. We don't know how he really feels, we don't know how he will feel in a couple of years, and more importantly, unless he's blatantly unhappy (and he's given no indication of that), how he feels isn't really the issue.

RedsManRick
12-28-2006, 04:51 PM
The reason to trade Arroyo is the exact same reason to keep him. He's good, cheap, healthy, and has two years on his deal. Those factors make him worth a certain amount -- be it to the Reds or elsewhere. If you honestly think the Reds can compete in 2007, by all means, hold on to him.

However, after 2007, Arroyo will be good (maybe not as good if he regresses), still cheap, hopefully still healthy, and signed for 1 more deal. In other words, unless he turns in a Cy Young year, he's worth less a year from now than he is now.

If you don't think the Reds can win this year, it's better to convert that short term value in to longer term value right now, rather than wait a year "hoping" to compete and letting him likely lose value in the process.

Sure, I'd like to win in 2007 as well. But unless we add another v2.006 Arroyo to the rotation or Dunn to the lineup, we're not likely to be a .500 squad, let alone legit contenders. Not understanding the realities of the situation is why the Royals sign a Reggie Sanders, why the Pirates sign Jeremy Burnitz, why the Orioles just spend 20 million on middle relief, and why Sean Casey was resigned by the Reds only to be traded for a washout starter.

I'm not saying you have to trade Arroyo and you take the best deal you can get. But now is the opportune time to double down on the the gains of the Wily Mo - Arroyo deal. His value has nowhere to go but down in the next 2 years and barring a miracle, the Reds aren't going to compete seriously in that time frame. Even the deal is right, you may not even take a single step back. The Mulder for Haren/Calero/Barton deal is the perfect example. Haren was Mulder's equal in 2005 and better in 2006 -- to say nothing of solid IP out of Calero and the solid potential of Barton. Again, you don't make a deal for the sake of it - but if you can improve the level of the talent in the organization without completely killing yourself in the short term, do it.

Falls City Beer
12-28-2006, 04:53 PM
The reason to trade Arroyo is the exact same reason to keep him. He's good, cheap, healthy, and has two years on his deal. Those factors make him worth a certain amount -- be it to the Reds or elsewhere. If you honestly think the Reds can compete in 2007, by all means, hold on to him.

However, after 2007, Arroyo will be good (maybe not as good if he regresses), still cheap, hopefully still healthy, and signed for 1 more deal. In other words, unless he turns in a Cy Young year, he's worth less a year from now than he is now.

If you don't think the Reds can win this year, it's better to convert that short term value in to longer term value right now, rather than wait a year "hoping" to compete and letting him likely lose value in the process.

Sure, I'd like to win in 2007 as well. But unless we add another v2.006 Arroyo to the rotation or Dunn to the lineup, we're not likely to be a .500 squad, let alone legit contenders. Not understanding the realities of the situation is why the Royals sign a Reggie Sanders, why the Pirates sign Jeremy Burnitz, why the Orioles just spend 20 million on middle relief, and why Sean Casey was resigned by the Reds only to be traded for a washout starter.

I'm not saying you have to trade Arroyo and you take the best deal you can get. But now is the opportune time to double down on the the gains of the Wily Mo - Arroyo deal. His value has nowhere to go but down in the next 2 years and barring a miracle, the Reds aren't going to compete seriously in that time frame. Even the deal is right, you may not even take a single step back. The Mulder for Haren/Calero/Barton deal is the perfect example. Haren was Mulder's equal in 2005 and better in 2006 -- to say nothing of solid IP out of Calero and the solid potential of Barton. Again, you don't make a deal for the sake of it - but if you can improve the level of the talent in the organization without completely killing yourself in the short term, do it.


I agree that Arroyo's worth more now than he will be next offseason, but if the Reds come up even *slightly* short in their return, we're looking at pushing contention back 3 or 4 years, at minimum, whereas at least for the moment, we have the 2007-2008 window, narrow as it may be.

What we're looking at in short is threading 15 needles with one string on the first try if we're to trade Arroyo right now.

vaticanplum
12-28-2006, 04:57 PM
That is all fair, Redsmanrick. I guess I feel that there are so many question marks in the NL Central that I'm not willing to concede failure in 2007 yet. The Reds are not a great team. But I just don't feel they're yet at the level of the cellar dwellers -- the Pirates, the pre- (and possibly post-)basquillion dollar Cubs. I think it's still worth hanging onto him.

It's not unthinkable, with Arroyo, that the Reds could squeak into the postseason if one or two other NL Central teams don't live up to their absolute best potential. And if they do squeak in, they could squeak by for a handful of games with a solid 1-2-(3) rotation. They need Arroyo for both of those things, obviously.

RedsManRick
12-28-2006, 05:10 PM
I agree that Arroyo's worth more now than he will be next offseason, but if the Reds come up even *slightly* short in their return, we're looking at pushing contention back 3 or 4 years, at minimum, whereas at least for the moment, we have the 2007-2008 window, narrow as it may be.

What we're looking at in short is threading 15 needles with one string on the first try if we're to trade Arroyo right now.

I would argue your statement about 15 needles applies to counting on a 2007-8 window which is virtually 100% reliant on Votto and Bailey materializing 100%, continued advancement out of EE, Philipps, and Dunn, and no regression from Ross, Arroyo, or Harang. Basically if everything breaks right, the Reds could be a 90 win team and push for a playoff spot in 2007-8. If not, we just wasted the value of Arroyo. If you trade Arroyo and get a Danny Haren and change in return, you don't miss a single beat in the current AND you build for the future.

This is a team that can't be complacent with the current amount of talent in the organization. We need a perfect storm of performance out of our existing 2007-08 core to compete. I don't want to put my eggs in that basket. If there isn't a Mulder-eque deal to be had, then by all means hold on to Arroyo. But the hold tight and pray for reinforcements strategy doesn't do much to inspire me given the lack of overall talent we've got at the moment.

I agree 100% that it's a risky move. However, if we don't have a GM who can, through trades, increase the level of talent in the organization, then we might as well just stop trying to win and maximize profits as a losing team until something miraculous happens.

Falls City Beer
12-28-2006, 05:17 PM
I would argue your statement about 15 needles applies to counting on a 2007-8 window which is virtually 100% reliant on Votto and Bailey materializing 100%, continued advancement out of EE, Philipps, and Dunn, and no regression from Ross, Arroyo, or Harang. Basically if everything breaks right, the Reds could be a 90 win team and push for a playoff spot in 2007-8. If not, we just wasted the value of Arroyo. If you trade Arroyo and get a Danny Haren in return, you don't miss a single beat in the current AND you build for the future.

This is a team that can't be complacent with the current amount of talent in the organization. We need a perfect storm of performance out of our existing 2007-08 core to compete. I don't want to put my eggs in that basket. If there isn't a Mulder-eque deal to be had, then by all means hold on to Arroyo. But the hold tight and pray for reinforcements strategy doesn't do much to inspire me given the lack of overall talent we've got at the moment.


I think the baseball market is dynamic enough at this point that the chances for the Reds competing for the division crown are pretty solid for 2008.

It seems that your take on it is that the Reds are likely 4-5 years away from any contention, whichever route they take. Is that right?

If so, I don't agree.

I would love to get a Mulder-esque deal for Arroyo, but Heilman/Pelfrey and Milledge ain't it. I might do the deal for a Matt Cain/Correia return, but even then, I'm still leery.

I thought about Haren as a return, but I doubt Beane makes that deal. I'm guessing Beane regards Haren and Arroyo as similar talents, with Haren being cheaper for the time being.

nmculbreth
12-28-2006, 05:31 PM
How many players on this team do you think actually want to stay in Cincinnati forever? They may not be as vocal about it, but that doesn't mean they don't feel the same way. If they're of Arroyo's caliber, they're at least going to test the free agent waters, no question. As well they should.

Once a player is under contract, whether the player agreed to that contract or not, the team calls the shots, not the players. Are the Reds supposed to build their team based on which players like living in the Queen City because then they can retain players til they're old? I understand the logic of trading him at peak value, but the reason of "he doesn't want to be here anyway" has been thrown around a lot and this holds no water with me. We don't know how he really feels, we don't know how he will feel in a couple of years, and more importantly, unless he's blatantly unhappy (and he's given no indication of that), how he feels isn't really the issue.

I'm not advocating making a deal to keep Bronson happy, my feeling is that by the time the Reds have the pieces in place to contend Bronson isn't going to be a Red so it makes more sense to deal him now and get the maximum return. I'm certainly not looking to dump him but if the Reds could get a package of high minors prospects with good upside they' should make the deal.

RedsManRick
12-28-2006, 05:35 PM
I think the baseball market is dynamic enough at this point that the chances for the Reds competing for the division crown are pretty solid for 2008.

It seems that your take on it is that the Reds are likely 4-5 years away from any contention, whichever route they take. Is that right?

If so, I don't agree.

I would love to get a Mulder-esque deal for Arroyo, but Heilman/Pelfrey and Milledge ain't it. I might do the deal for a Matt Cain/Correia return, but even then, I'm still leery.

I thought about Haren as a return, but I doubt Beane makes that deal. I'm guessing Beane regards Haren and Arroyo as similar talents, with Haren being cheaper for the time being.

I think that unless something drastic happens, we're an infinite number of years away from competing. I simply think we lack the talent, both in the majors and coming in the next 2-3 years from the minors to compete. Yes, I agree that if everything comes together as we hope it will, 2008 looks promising. But we're so shallow, a little shoulder tendinitis here, an elbow sprain there, and .500 looks like an unlikely goal again.

Post 2008, we have the potential departures of Dunn, Arroyo, and Harang. Griffey will be as good as gone, and even with current issues, he's still a major cog for us. Hopefully Bruce will be ready to step in, but counting on a few specific prospects usually isn't the best plan.

While I absolutely want to win in the short term, I don't want to orient my organization towards a goal of '07-08 at the expense of '09 and beyond. Furthermore, if the goal is '07-08, we sure as heck better do MORE do secure that window. If we're position ourselves for a run in the next 2-3 years, we need to do more than simply hunker down and wait for Homer Bailey and Joey Votto -- chances are, that simply won't be enough. If you want to win in 2008 give Jason Schmidt 50MM over 3 and shoot for moon.

Otherwise, continue making moves that increase the overall talent level in the organization and expand the width of that "window" in the future, whenever it may be, until you reach a point where you have enough talent to keep it open perpetually (Twins, A's). Maybe the Mets deal isn't the right one. I'm willing to admit that package might be insufficient - particularly given Milledge's attitude and lack of power and Heilman's age. But at least from a philosophical perspective, I think you need to be shopping Arroyo for whatever you think that right deal is. Matt Cain could very well be better than Arroyo in 2007, and he's certainly cheaper. I'm not sure why the Giants would do that.

As for better deals, I think that the Snakes might actually be a very good fit. They've got more young bats than they know what to do with and some solid pitching prospects as well. What they don't have is another solid "veteran" arm in the rotation right now and all signs point to them willing to trade youth to get one.

Jpup
12-28-2006, 05:38 PM
I would enjoy a Arroyo trade that include Pelphrey. He's going to be a solid #2 if not a #1. Arroyo is a mirage IMO.

Dracodave
12-28-2006, 05:41 PM
I think the baseball market is dynamic enough at this point that the chances for the Reds competing for the division crown are pretty solid for 2008.

I would love to get a Mulder-esque deal for Arroyo, but Heilman/Pelfrey and Milledge ain't it. I might do the deal for a Matt Cain/Correia return, but even then, I'm still leery.


Honestly, the Reds best chance for the division is to go young..with a strong team. The Cardinals aren't going to run out a very good pitching line up outside Carpenter if Reyes and Wainwright do half-as expected then maybe they have a top three. The Cubs are running out Zambrano, Marquis, Lilly, as thier top three. The Astros have Oswalt, Jennings, the god knows what. The pirates..well non-factor here. Brew-Crew has Sheets-Cap-Bush-Suppan.

If the reds want to contend they need more then Harrang-Arroyo. If we could get say a return on Arroyo of say Kevin Correia, Jonathan Sanchez and a good prospect...

I'd hard pressed to turn that deal down. Even if that deal winds up being Arroyo + Cueto/Wood for the above three. That doesn't set us back much, as it gives us two good young options to enter the rotation and a good/not great prospect.

RedFanAlways1966
12-28-2006, 05:48 PM
Was Arroyo lucky in 2006 b/c he faced a new league? A lot of people wonder this. His ERA and WHIP in non-first-starts was better than his totals for first starts (ERA: 3.09 vs. 3.58 ; WHIP: 1.07 vs. 1.36).



1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, 5th start against a team

Start GS QS IP H ER W ERA WHIP

1st 15 10 98.00 104 39 29 3.58 1.36
2nd 11 7 81.33 68 26 13 2.88 1.00
3rd 4 3 27.00 23 8 7 2.67 1.11
4th 4 1 27.33 23 15 13 4.94 1.32
5th 1 1 7.00 4 0 2 0.00 0.86

RedsManRick
12-28-2006, 05:53 PM
Interesting stuff RedFan. Of course, the logic of trading Arroyo is largely independant of whether or not 2006 was a fluke or not. If you can get trade value as if he is a pitcher of that quality, than the possibility of a regression is irrelevant. Even we could guarantee that, if he remained a Red, he's repeat his 2006 performance for the next 2 years, the case to trade him remains the same.

Jpup
12-28-2006, 05:59 PM
How about Bronson Arroyo for Humberto Sanchez, Melky Cabrera, and Jose Tabata? The Yankees system, at least at the top, is looking pretty strong right now. They might consider it a step backwards to make this deal, but I would really like to have Sanchez in the Reds rotation.

guttle11
12-28-2006, 06:10 PM
All the "Is it time to trade Harang and Arroyo?" stuff makes me laugh because most of it comes from people who are mad the Reds aren't going after guys like Suppan and Lilly.

Krusty
12-28-2006, 06:25 PM
If you don't plan to build a rotation with Harang and Arroyo, when do plan to?

RedsManRick
12-28-2006, 06:42 PM
If you don't plan to build a rotation with Harang and Arroyo, when do plan to?

I don't plan to build anything on a foundation that will erode before the building is ready. It's not the quality of Arroyo's pitching that worries me, it's the fact that constructing a building on a foundation with a publicly stated 2 year lifespan isn't a very smart idea -- especially if you can trade that foundation for twice as much foundation that might only take a year or two more to realize, which is still in line with other pieces you have in place.

Given that he's going to be gone before the building is built, you might as well maximize the value you can get out of him. Unless you honestly believe this team will be a serious playoff contender in 2007 or 2008, Arroyo isn't going to be a part of a playoff Reds team. So to maintain (or build upon) his value as organizational talent, you trade him while he's at his highest value in the trade market and while you hold the leverage. Using the Mulder example, I'm arguing that it may be possible to have our 2008 cake and eat it too.

Again, it's not a "trade Arroyo for 3 single A prospects with high ceilings" argument. It's a, "see if you can get Mulder-esque return while his value is super high" argument. Maybe I'm overestimating his value in this market and the right trade simply isn't out there. But that doesn't change the validity of the argument.

wally post
12-28-2006, 06:47 PM
For me, (to try to answer Krusty and guttle11), I see this thread as an acknowledgement about the concept of trading a valuable diamond to get several diamonds. If our GM is good at trading (let's not turn this discussion into "the trade" please), he could do somehting like this in this current atmosphere. But yes, my interest in this does to some degree admit my feeling that the Reds simply aren't gonna have a better season next year. So it is one step back for two steps forward -

Maybe it's a bad concept, but to me it is worth discussion because so far all I see are band aids being applied to a broken arm!

Doc. Scott
12-28-2006, 06:57 PM
Arroyo isn't as good as he was in 2006, I don't think.

But what the Reds get for what he's getting paid? Great deal.

Trading him now might be considered smart because the Reds could get maximum value, but I really think that at this moment Bronson's value to the team is higher than what he might bring in a deal.

I might change my mind given how things are going at the trade deadline, however.

wally post
12-28-2006, 07:00 PM
Arroyo isn't as good as he was in 2006, I don't think.

But what the Reds get for what he's getting paid? Great deal.

Trading him now might be considered smart because the Reds could get maximum value, but I really think that at this moment Bronson's value to the team is higher than what he might bring in a deal.

I might change my mind given how things are going at the trade deadline, however.

Yeah, I can dig that.

mth123
12-28-2006, 07:46 PM
Isn't Hudson set to make about $32M over the next 2 years of a heavily backloaded contract? Isn't there many thoughts that Hudson now stinks as a pitcher?

Too outside the box for Cincy? Small market teams don't get better trading good and cheap players for bad and expensive players. If you want to trade Arroyo for a better more expensive player, at least pick one who can still pitch.

Actually, from a performance standpoint Hudson won't be as bad as 2006 and Arroyo probably won't be as good. The difference in 2007 will be negligible IMO.

As far as payroll goes, the hit to 2007 is $3 Million and the increase in 2008 would be paid for with Milton's money.

The Reds would be able to trade a guy at peak value, avoid losing him since the assumption is he's intent on leaving, replace him with a more accomplished pitcher that keeps the top part of the rotation competitive, and add 2 pitching prospects who are more advanced than anyone in the organization except Bailey. 1 Of whom would easily slot as the Reds #4 prospect and projects as a legit #3 starter.

If the idea is to add to the prospect pool and stay competitive by getting an established starter in return, Hudson is probably the best guy on the market.

As I said earlier in the thread, my first preference is to keep Arroyo. But if the assumption is that he can not be signed I don't want only prospects in return. I want a guy who can take his place as the #2 starter.

Why would a team swap #2's unless its to save payroll? So the trading partner gets payroll relief and the Reds get prospects in exchange for taking on salary. This is basically a trade of Arroyo and Milton for Hudson and 2 good prospects at about the same Salary level overall. And yes, that is outside the box.

Falls City Beer
12-28-2006, 08:07 PM
I think that unless something drastic happens, we're an infinite number of years away from competing. I simply think we lack the talent, both in the majors and coming in the next 2-3 years from the minors to compete. Yes, I agree that if everything comes together as we hope it will, 2008 looks promising. But we're so shallow, a little shoulder tendinitis here, an elbow sprain there, and .500 looks like an unlikely goal again.

Post 2008, we have the potential departures of Dunn, Arroyo, and Harang. Griffey will be as good as gone, and even with current issues, he's still a major cog for us. Hopefully Bruce will be ready to step in, but counting on a few specific prospects usually isn't the best plan.

While I absolutely want to win in the short term, I don't want to orient my organization towards a goal of '07-08 at the expense of '09 and beyond. Furthermore, if the goal is '07-08, we sure as heck better do MORE do secure that window. If we're position ourselves for a run in the next 2-3 years, we need to do more than simply hunker down and wait for Homer Bailey and Joey Votto -- chances are, that simply won't be enough. If you want to win in 2008 give Jason Schmidt 50MM over 3 and shoot for moon.

Otherwise, continue making moves that increase the overall talent level in the organization and expand the width of that "window" in the future, whenever it may be, until you reach a point where you have enough talent to keep it open perpetually (Twins, A's). Maybe the Mets deal isn't the right one. I'm willing to admit that package might be insufficient - particularly given Milledge's attitude and lack of power and Heilman's age. But at least from a philosophical perspective, I think you need to be shopping Arroyo for whatever you think that right deal is. Matt Cain could very well be better than Arroyo in 2007, and he's certainly cheaper. I'm not sure why the Giants would do that.

As for better deals, I think that the Snakes might actually be a very good fit. They've got more young bats than they know what to do with and some solid pitching prospects as well. What they don't have is another solid "veteran" arm in the rotation right now and all signs point to them willing to trade youth to get one.


If I don't get an affordable ready-to-contribute starter back for Arroyo, I don't do the deal. Period. I don't want a maybe-reliever back. No amount of offense could sweeten it, either. I want a young starter in return. End of discussion. There's just no room to play "gambler" anymore. Not after Krivsky's summer.

IMO.

jmac
12-28-2006, 08:50 PM
That is all fair, Redsmanrick. I guess I feel that there are so many question marks in the NL Central that I'm not willing to concede failure in 2007 yet. The Reds are not a great team. But I just don't feel they're yet at the level of the cellar dwellers -- the Pirates, the pre- (and possibly post-)basquillion dollar Cubs. I think it's still worth hanging onto him.

It's not unthinkable, with Arroyo, that the Reds could squeak into the postseason if one or two other NL Central teams don't live up to their absolute best potential. And if they do squeak in, they could squeak by for a handful of games with a solid 1-2-(3) rotation. They need Arroyo for both of those things, obviously.

These are my thoughts exactly. I am not the most intelligent baseball fan but a pretty knowledgeable that has followed the reds and MLB since actually 1979. As VP stated.....the reds are not in the AL but the NL.
Unless the stros sign clemens..their top 2 are oswalt and woody williams.
stl.....carpentar and ??
What would a rotation of Harang/BA/decent #3 accomplish??

Here is what i dont understand ....some say trade BA.
Does he say he wants to go...yes ! so ? get another year out of him and see if we can improve and maybe he would come to love it. Winning has a way of changing people.

Some say trade Harang....because we will never be able to re-sign him.
Some say trade bailey......(example many have said for a willis type)

well ...why get dontrelle willis because he would not want to be here like BA,or because we would never be able to re-sign him like Harang.

why get a guy like heilman because if he pitches well.....we wont be able to afford him like Harang.

why trade Bailey (because he is only a prospect) and get prospects (:confused: ) who's future is no more gauranteed than bailey's?

IMO and i'm sure you guys are glad i am not the GM but you pick up a solid #3 and go for it. Yeah....we can rebuild and by then STL and stros will be running full throttle again. Gett'em while they are down. Strike while it's hot and all that stuff.
Dont trade Harang then talk of getting a #1. We are not getting santana or halliday and Harang's #'s will be very similar if not better than zito's.
I guess sometimes i think we have been so starved for pitching and now we have a good one-two with a good prospect and many say trade them cause we need pitching(????).
as i said , everyone has their own opinion but i say go for it now while central is down !

RedsManRick
12-28-2006, 11:54 PM
I can see where you're coming from Vatican. My complaint is that if this is our window, we need to go for it. If it's not, we need to capitalize on the assets we have at hand for whenever the window truly is. As it stands right now, I don't think we have enough talent to push this year. The offense is going to be average at best and the pitching could be slightly above average -- but that's not a recipe for the playoffs. Simply put, this organization needs more talent before it's ready to win. If we aren't going to acquire it in FA now so that we can really compete in 07 or 08, then we might as well do the best we can to have the most talent heading in to 09 and beyond.

Johnny Footstool
12-29-2006, 02:15 AM
All the "Is it time to trade Harang and Arroyo?" stuff makes me laugh because most of it comes from people who are mad the Reds aren't going after guys like Suppan and Lilly.

As I've explained, the call to trade Arroyo stems from the sad fact that the Reds won't spend money to bolster the rotation for 2007 and beyond.

If the Reds would have signed Ted Lilly, I'd be calling to extend Arroyo's contract for two more years. As it is, they're going nowhere, so they might as well get top value for Arroyo and build for 2009.

vaticanplum
12-29-2006, 09:42 AM
There's another minor point in all this, which is that Arroyo, for all of his talk of missing Boston, has been a very good asset to the Reds off the field. He's always willing to talk to the press -- usually straightforwardly and insightfully -- he's done a good bit of community and charity work in a year's time, and the Reds seem to trot out him and his guitar around at every event they can. The baby Cincinnati fans love him and would be quite upset if he were traded right now. Of course I am not saying that a baseball team should be built according to fans' desires, but he does provide something that many of his fellow Reds don't, even off the mound.

Again, this is a small consideration in the greater baseball scheme of things, but if we're going to consider the question marks/possible negative points of someone like Milledge off the field, then I think that the positive points for Arroyo in this area should be given consideration as well.

Also, one more word on my previous point: I think that if you're the Cincinnati Reds's GM -- or just about any GM at this point, given the market -- you have to operate under the assumption that all your players (especially your good ones) are going to leave via free agency as soon as they can. You may be wrong on some of them, but it forces you to consider the way you treat them, to think about long-term contracts, and in turn have a clearer picture of all the future possibilities of this team. That, specifically, is why I don't think Arroyo's stated desire to leave (and is it actually a desire to leave or just a pining for Boston?) should not be a leading factor in trading him -- or, I guess, that it should be a given with all players and not a bigger factor in this case. My brain is still kind of asleep so I hope that made sense.

Chip R
12-29-2006, 10:28 AM
The baby Cincinnati fans love him and would be quite upset if he were traded right now.


The baby fans? Not quite sure what you mean by that. You talking about young girls? :confused:

vaticanplum
12-29-2006, 10:29 AM
The baby fans? Not quite sure what you mean by that. You talking about young girls? :confused:

Just the young 'uns in general, I mean. Children, I think they're called.

Chip R
12-29-2006, 10:38 AM
Just the young 'uns in general, I mean. Children, I think they're called.


Gotcha. :)

TeamBoone
12-29-2006, 12:03 PM
You make a very good point, VP, and I agree with you. Even 6-yr-old Little Team Griffey likes him. I asked him what his favorite part of RedsFest was and he said "the concert".

That point aside, I still can't understand the "trade Arroyo" supporters. When pitching is a team's weak spot, why would you trade away a decent, affordable pitcher that's locked up for two more years?

If I've thought it once, I've thought it a ton of times... it simply makes no sense to me.

I also don't agree with those who say he had a career year in 2006. My reasoning is this: how do you know it was a career year for him? Answer: you don't. Could be that, with more experience, he's simply getting better.

In addition, he pitched even better than his record reflects. With decent run support in some of those games he lost through no fault of his own, his record would be prettier.

Chip R
12-29-2006, 12:11 PM
You make a very good point, VP, and I agree with you. Even 6-yr-old Little Team Griffey likes him. I asked him what his favorite part of RedsFest was and he said "the concert".

That point aside, I still can't understand the "trade Arroyo" supporters. When pitching is a team's weak spot, why would you trade away a decent, affordable pitcher that's locked up for two more years?

If I've thought it once, I've thought it a ton of times... it simply makes no sense to me.

I also don't agree with those who say he had a career year in 2006. My reasoning is this: how do you know it was a career year for him? Answer: you don't. Could be that, with more experience, he's simply getting better.

In addition, he pitched even better than his record reflects. With decent run support in some of those games he lost through no fault of his own, his record would be prettier.

I don't want to trade him either but I can see where people who want to are coming from. Perhaps now isn't the best time to do it and maybe at the 08 trading deadline would be the optimal time to trade him. If he has a similar year to 06 in 07, he's going to want Jason Schmidt money and, as we all know, the Reds will be reluctant to give him that kind of loot. And while I'm sure he likes it here, he may want to go someplace where the spotlight is a little brighter since it seems, to me, he loves attention. That's not necessarily a bad thing but why settle for attention on a local basis when you can get it on a national basis?

RedsManRick
12-29-2006, 12:11 PM
The short answer TB, is that if you aren't going to win in 2007 or 2008, then it doesn't matter if Bronson Arroyo fills a current weakness for 2007. If you think we can compete in 2007 and 2008, then why aren't we doing more to address the weakness now? Instead, we're getting the worst of both worlds. We're utilizing Arroyo's value in 2007 by having him pitch for a team that isn't going to make the playoffs even with another round of his 2006 performance.

If WK is trying to win in 2007, then he's not adding enough talent to do so (in my opinion). If he's trying to building primarily for the years 2008 and beyond, than trading Bronson Arroyo could be the most effective way of doing that. And again, it's not "trade Arroyo" -- it's "shop Arroyo, and trade him if the return makes sense". The attitude that 'we can't trade away any of the talent we have in hopes of getting more talent in return' is a sure-fire approach to only getting better if our current talent improves all on it's own. If you think we have enough talent to win in '07 and they just need to play better, I guess this makes sense. I for one, don't think we have enough talent and don't think we're going to be adding any through FA.

buckeyenut
12-29-2006, 12:40 PM
After looking at the Mets a little bit and what they need and have, what do you guys think about this for a trade offer?

Cinci sends
Bronson Arroyo SP
Rheal Cormier RP
Ryan Freel 2B/OF

to NYM in exchange for
Aaron Heilman (SP for us, MR for them)
Mike Pelfrey (SP spect)
Lastings Milledge (OF spect)
Fernando Martinez (OF spect)

Why would NYM do this deal?
This deal really fills all of the NYM holes at the ML level. They need a #2 starter behind Glavine. Arroyo is a big name, sure to grab headlines #2 starter to fill that gap. They need a good lefty in the pen which Cormier would do for them. And Freel can lead off and play 2B for them, filling their one offensive gap. Or he can fill a big need as utility guy behind OF and 2B as well if they are more comfortable with that. Milledge would be a backup for them and they had some problems with him last year. Heilman is a pen guy who wants to be in rotation but who they don't believe can be, given their moves last year. And the prospects, while good, are just prospects, not a huge loss given they would still have Humber to fill a rotation slot and wouldn't have much room for the kids anyways.

Why would the Reds do the deal?
They would for sure take a fan hit on this one, but I think they could be as good in 2007 and better down the road for a deal like this. They have a hole in the OF which Milledge would compete for against Denorfia. Heilman would take over for Arroyo in rotation. Neither guy will do what Arroyo did in 2006 during 2007 but I believe Heilman can perform reasonably close to what Bronson does in 2007 as I believe Arroyo was lucky last year and will not be in 2007. (if that was Bronson's true performance level, I likely don't deal him, but I believe he will revert to norm and be a #3 type pitcher which I think Heilman can also do). We have a deep pen so losing Cormier really doesn't hurt much, maybe giving the Rule 5 kid a better shot to make the team.

The real reason we do the deal is the two younger kids we pick up. Pelfrey has a mid 90s fastball with good movement and should be ready to be the #5 starter we need this year, with frontline starter upside. Martinez has tremendous upside as an OF as well, so he would be a guy who might take over for Jr in a year or two.

We might need to even sweeten the pot if we really wanted to get Martinez, but this is the type of deal I think we should explore for Arroyo, something that makes sense for both teams.

lollipopcurve
12-29-2006, 01:13 PM
Cinci sends
Bronson Arroyo SP
Rheal Cormier RP
Ryan Freel 2B/OF

to NYM in exchange for
Aaron Heilman (SP for us, MR for them)
Mike Pelfrey (SP spect)
Lastings Milledge (OF spect)
Fernando Martinez (OF spect)

Heck yes I'd make that deal. But I'm sure the Mets would not. Too much outstanding young talent coming to Cincy in that deal. I think it's reasonable that something like this could happen:

Arroyo + Freel
for
Milledge + Heilman + a top prospect not named Martinez or Humber

IslandRed
12-29-2006, 02:15 PM
The short answer TB, is that if you aren't going to win in 2007 or 2008, then it doesn't matter if Bronson Arroyo fills a current weakness for 2007. If you think we can compete in 2007 and 2008, then why aren't we doing more to address the weakness now?

2008 is a long way off. It's one thing to evaluate right now and say, we're probably not going to get where we need to go in 2007; that doesn't mean the organization can't get there by 2008, particularly since most everyone who's any good will still be here and if Bailey and Votto don't have any major setbacks they'll be here. Punting a year in advance makes little sense. Things happen. But if that's what you believe, then you need to be calling for a general fire sale, because Arroyo's not the only core player that can walk after '08.

Caveat Emperor
12-29-2006, 02:45 PM
If you think we can compete in 2007 and 2008, then why aren't we doing more to address the weakness now?

Why is now so important?

Arroyo was traded to the Reds in spring training last year. Another deal like that (or even a deal that brings back DECENT pictching as opposed to the great pitching Arroyo provided), and suddenly the Reds are 3 horses strong in a decidedly 2 horse division.

lollipopcurve
12-29-2006, 03:23 PM
Why is now so important?

Arroyo was traded to the Reds in spring training last year. Another deal like that (or even a deal that brings back DECENT pictching as opposed to the great pitching Arroyo provided), and suddenly the Reds are 3 horses strong in a decidedly 2 horse division.

Here's how I see it. Arroyo's value is extremely high right now. The haul you could get for him may be so much better now than at any other time that you have to explore the market for him. As it turns out, the Mets look like an outstanding match. They seem willing to package Heilman and Milledge (and who knows? maybe more, or better?). Heilman wants to return to starting. It seems within the realm of possibility that he could give you 200 league-average innings. If Arroyo regresses, Heilman may end up giving you close to what Arroyo would have. Worst case, Heilman returns to being an excellent set-up guy in 08. Meanwhile, you're also getting a young outfielder who is major-league ready and has star potential. He could play CF -- certainly better than Griffey these days. So, all in all, the 07 team stands a reasonable chance of being at least as good as it would have been with Arroyo, and you're adding youth and talent in places where the Reds need it. In my opinion, trade partners that mesh this well are pretty rare. You can be sure that the Mets will trade for a veteran starter by July 31 at the latest, so if the Reds like what Minaya has to offer, they need to consider a move like this before 08.

RedsManRick
12-29-2006, 03:33 PM
Why is now so important?

Arroyo was traded to the Reds in spring training last year. Another deal like that (or even a deal that brings back DECENT pictching as opposed to the great pitching Arroyo provided), and suddenly the Reds are 3 horses strong in a decidedly 2 horse division.

Well, perhaps Now is more a euphemism for "for the 2007 season". I guess I just don't see any FA acquisitions or trades that would significantly bolster our chances for 2007 still sitting out there. This isn't last year when we had a clear surplus in the OF that we were able to turn in to pitching. This team's only surplus is veteran relief pitchers and it's not like we're going to flip Rheal Cormier for Matt Cain. The offense is mediocre and shallow, the rotation is mediocre after the top 2 and there aren't many availalble players better than our current 3-7 starters. Brandon Phillips fell in our laps last year -- that was great. Now we just need Cleveland to DFA Jake Westbrook or Jeremy Sowers.

The argument for shopping Arroyo "now" (this offseason) rather than in 8, 12, or 18 months is that, unless he gets even better than 2006, or if the market for pitching grows even tighter, his value is as high now as it will be in the next 2 years. I think I've made this case clearly.

Again, either try and win in 2007 or make decisions based on winning beyond 2007. It seems WK is trying to toe that line and unfortunately I think that leads to us not having enough talent to win: a) now -- because he didn't/hasn't yet supplemented the roster sufficiently to make us contenders in 2007 b.) down the road, because, there are 3 ways to add impact talent to the 25 man roster and WK won't sign that player, and you're advocating not trading for him. If he doesn't trade for any impact talent (it takes talent to get talent 99% of the time) and he doesn't sign any impact FA, our only real growth is through player development. How many players in our system are going to significantly raise the amount of talent on our 25 man in the next 2 years -- Bailey, Votto.... Salmon?

I know there are a number of players who can be gone after 2008, and my logic with them is the exact same. So perhaps I could reprhase my Arroyo contention to include the phase "Try and sign him long term. If he won't sign, then shop him around to maximize the value he can provide to the organization during our window of true competitiveness." I'd do the exact same with Dunn (and have made this argument with him for 2 years running), and the same with Harang. The only difference is that neither of them has been quite so vocal about wanting to play elsewhere and leaving once their current deal is up. However, the same logic applies.

edabbs44
12-29-2006, 04:45 PM
Why is now so important?

Arroyo was traded to the Reds in spring training last year. Another deal like that (or even a deal that brings back DECENT pictching as opposed to the great pitching Arroyo provided), and suddenly the Reds are 3 horses strong in a decidedly 2 horse division.

1) The pitching market seems tighter now than last year. I seriously doubt you could get an Arroyo like pitcher now for a Pena type.

2) The Arroyo deal was almost a miracle that it worked out like that. I seriously doubt Wayne, or most other GMs, could pull something like that off 2 years in a row. And it isn't just one more pitcher. The lineup is hurting and the BP is old. And the 4 & 5 guys in the rotation don't excite me too much.

3) If Meche is worth $55 million over 5 years, what would Arroyo command in a trade?

4) Related to #3, that's what makes an Arroyo trade brilliant. Exploit the market. Sell high. If this team isn't going to make a serious push to contend within the next 2 years then Arroyo's value is wasted. We all laugh when pitchers like Meche and Lilly get what they are getting. Well, what could they get for Arroyo? The guy has 2 years left on his contract for peanuts...basically Stanton money. I originally thought a Pelfrey/Milledge deal would be ridiculous to consider, but the Mets are turning into the Yankees and they are hurting for pitching. I don't think it's out of the question that they start diluting their system for right now.

Basically, we can either watch 2 more years of Arroyo potentially regressing to his personal mean while we complain about the rest of the team or WK can start to build in anticipation of the arrival of Bruce, Bailey and Votto while building around Harang, EdE and possibly Dunn. But I wouldn't be against moving Dunn for the same reason as Arroyo, if the price was right. This wouldn't be an all out fire sale...just buy low and sell high.

TRF
12-29-2006, 05:48 PM
I was one of the VERY FEW that thought the Reds came out on the short end of the stick in the Arroyo/Pena trade. I still think that. WMP took an interesting step in 2006. He destroyed RH pitching, while struggling against LH. The opposite of what he had been doing the previous 2 seasons. Depending on what happens with the JD Drew contract situation, and whether Crisp stays with the Red Sox, we could see WMP's first season with 500+ PA's. His ceiling is pretty damn high, and had the Reds not traded Kearns AND FeLo, despite my protestations at the time, I could live with it.

Trading Arroyo right now puts a hurt on this team that could last another decade. Harang/Arroyo might be the best 1-2 in all of baseball. Certainly top 5. This team is missing maybe 2 bats and another starter. Maybe Homer is that starter. I know Milton/Lohse aren't. Maybe Belisle is. I really don't know. What I do know is this: Billy Beane flat out robbed St. Louis in the Mulder deal. I don't see Krivsky getting anywhere close to the same deal for Arroyo or Harang. Beane shed payroll AND got immense talent in return. Arroyo will never be expensive for the Reds. And by the time his contract comes to an end, the Reds could be on the cusp of graduating Homer, Cueto, Wood, LeCure and who knows.

But trade him now for what? Pitching? He's already what we want. young, cheap, good. Bats? Well we know what happens when the Reds have a bunch of bats and no rotation. Not the damage to the offense is done. The help from the minors is a long way off if you exclude Votto. The OF is a disaster. The identity of this club is confused at best.

But it has 2/5 of a GREAT rotation. I can accept Lohse as a #4/5 starter. What I cannot accept is another Lohse in the rotation at #2.

Keep Arroyo for his entire tenure. As long as he produces in a Reds uni, I'd keep him, offer him arb at the end of his contract, and take the comp picks when he heads back to Boston.

buckeyenut
12-29-2006, 07:13 PM
Heck yes I'd make that deal. But I'm sure the Mets would not. Too much outstanding young talent coming to Cincy in that deal. I think it's reasonable that something like this could happen:

Arroyo + Freel
for
Milledge + Heilman + a top prospect not named Martinez or Humber

Maybe I am undervaluing the NYM prospects. Either that or you are IMO undervaluing the value of Arroyo and the value of major leaguers vs minor leaguers. Or you are undervaluing the Mets desperation after losing out on Zito. But I firmly believe we can get a lot more. not both martinez and humber but we ought to be able to get one of the two in the deal.

Even closer to what I am asking than what you are asking (which I might do what you are asking, but it would be the floor not the ceiling of what I would want), we would be ripped by the fans. But I think we have to get a ton to make dealing Arroyo worthwhile.

Aronchis
12-29-2006, 07:39 PM
[QUOTE=TRF;1219269]I was one of the VERY FEW that thought the Reds came out on the short end of the stick in the Arroyo/Pena trade. I still think that. WMP took an interesting step in 2006. He destroyed RH pitching, while struggling against LH. The opposite of what he had been doing the previous 2 seasons. Depending on what happens with the JD Drew contract situation, and whether Crisp stays with the Red Sox, we could see WMP's first season with 500+ PA's. His ceiling is pretty damn high, and had the Reds not traded Kearns AND FeLo, despite my protestations at the time, I could live with it.

Trading Arroyo right now puts a hurt on this team that could last another decade. Harang/Arroyo might be the best 1-2 in all of baseball. Certainly top 5. This team is missing maybe 2 bats and another starter. Maybe Homer is that starter. I know Milton/Lohse aren't. Maybe Belisle is. I really don't know. What I do know is this: Billy Beane flat out robbed St. Louis in the Mulder deal. I don't see Krivsky getting anywhere close to the same deal for Arroyo or Harang. Beane shed payroll AND got immense talent in return. Arroyo will never be expensive for the Reds. And by the time his contract comes to an end, the Reds could be on the cusp of graduating Homer, Cueto, Wood, LeCure and who knows.

But trade him now for what? Pitching? He's already what we want. young, cheap, good. Bats? Well we know what happens when the Reds have a bunch of bats and no rotation. Not the damage to the offense is done. The help from the minors is a long way off if you exclude Votto. The OF is a disaster. The identity of this club is confused at best.

But it has 2/5 of a GREAT rotation. I can accept Lohse as a #4/5 starter. What I cannot accept is another Lohse in the rotation at #2.

Keep Arroyo for his entire tenure. As long as he produces in a Reds uni, I'd keep him, offer him arb at the end of his contract, and take the comp picks when he heads back to Boston.[/QUOTE

Disagree. Another 10 years? Mercy man, take a risk and trade off Dunn,Harang and Arroyo. With some luck, we will be pitching rich if Buckley doesn't do badly either. That would leave plenty of money to spend on bats.

Arroyo was a modest fluke in 2006 as were the Reds. 2007 will be far harsher and reality sets in that it will take more than 85 wins to make the playoffs.

Caveat Emperor
12-29-2006, 07:51 PM
3) If Meche is worth $55 million over 5 years, what would Arroyo command in a trade?

Basically, we can either watch 2 more years of Arroyo potentially regressing to his personal mean while we complain about the rest of the team or WK can start to build in anticipation of the arrival of Bruce, Bailey and Votto while building around Harang, EdE and possibly Dunn. But I wouldn't be against moving Dunn for the same reason as Arroyo, if the price was right. This wouldn't be an all out fire sale...just buy low and sell high.

Here's the fallacy of that logic -- Meche is worth $55 million dollars. Money spends a LOT easier than prospects because you can always just make more money. Media contracts, ticket sales and merchandising all produce money, but they don't produce pitching prospects.

The market is crazy -- but it's dollars and cents crazy, not prospect crazy. Gil Meche is worth a lot more money than he is prospects. You've seen a lot of money thrown at pitchers, but you haven't seen many big-time deals go down for them yet.

The reason for that is simple -- it's just not feasible to keep paying for production in the market. Good players cost too much to have more than a few of at market price, and bad players cost too much to waste money on at market price. Teams are holding onto their pitching prospects like family heirlooms. Even the Yankees realize this, which is why Phil Hughes is still scheduled for pinstripes.

You're not going to get a king's ransom in pitching prospects for Arroyo beccause each one of those prospects, even the middling ones, might save you $55 million down the road and keep Gil Meche off your roster.

Maybe I'm wrong on that, though -- we'll see how it plays out.

RedsManRick
12-29-2006, 08:10 PM
The flip side of that coin that CE is that if you NEED a pitcher now, your only choice is Gil Meche. In Arroyo you can get that All Star production without having to pay for Gil Meche. It's what you wish you could get out of your prospect who's not quite ready. The Yankees haven't traded Hughes because they can win 95 games without trading him for the major league talent to do so. If you can't afford to pay Mike Mussina, Randy Johnson, Carl Pavano, etc. and you don't have a prospect ready but you want to win, well, your call -- Gil Meche or Bronson Arroyo?

Scrap Irony
12-29-2006, 10:43 PM
The only Arroyo deal I'd do would be Arroyo, Freel, and Milton to the Yankees for Hughes Sanchez, Cabrera, Pavano, and two more solid B- prospects.

Both Hughes and Sanchez are plugges into the rotation (along with Bailey). Cincinnati takes its lumps this season, but, in 08, should be very solid across the board.

remdog
12-30-2006, 12:18 AM
I'm right there with Rick on this question. I laid this out a couple of times in other threads so I'm, just gonna' give ya' the Cliff Notes version:

-The Reds play in a crappy division.

-The Reds, as currently constituted, are crappy as well.

-The Reds' major asset is that they have the best 1-2 starters in the division. Beyond that the rest of the team, overall, is well, crappy.

-There is a window open to win said division in '07. In order to do that you need to solidify your strength in starting pitching with a 3rd solid starter. (The Reds have failed to do that so far, choosing instead to spend their money on the Conines and Moellers of the world.)

-If you choose not to persue said window in '07 shop Arroyo now and build an overall better team for '08 and beyond before your competitors (Cards, Astros, Brewers) do.

Rem

guttle11
12-30-2006, 12:41 AM
I'm right there with Rick on this question. I laid this out a couple of times in other threads so I'm, just gonna' give ya' the Cliff Notes version:

-The Reds play in a crappy division.

-The Reds, as currently constituted, are crappy as well.

-The Reds' major asset is that they have the best 1-2 starters in the division. Beyond that the rest of the team, overall, is well, crappy.

-There is a window open to win said division in '07. In order to do that you need to solidify your strength in starting pitching with a 3rd solid starter. (The Reds have failed to do that so far, choosing instead to spend their money on the Conines and Moellers of the world.)

-If you choose not to persue said window in '07 shop Arroyo now and build an overall better team for '08 and beyond before your competitors (Cards, Astros, Brewers) do.

Rem

That's all well and good, but who is out there to make this team better now, while not doing long term damage?

There's no one.

The Reds do play in a crappy division that they can win with the current team they have if everyone stays healthy. (Health is a universal concern.) There's no need to spend a lot to win now, and there's no need to go into a full scale rebuild. Both would be disasters in their own right.

This is not "nowheresville" or being cheap. It's trying to stay afloat while waiting for some contracts to expire (Milton and Griffey) and waiting for reinforcements to (hopefully) make this team better. (Bailey, Votto, Bruce.)

To those who say that prospects are a gamble and all that hullabaloo...which is worse, signing guys like Suppan and Lilly or waiting on the three amigos?

I'll take the latter 8 days a week. When they arrive and are added to the core that they have now (Dunn, Edwin, Harang, possibly Arroyo, Phillips, Gonzo) then, and only then, does overpaying for essential role players make sense. O'Brien had the right idea when he went and got Milton because a young core was in place, he just made a terrible choice in who he picked.

remdog
12-30-2006, 01:43 AM
That's all well and good, but who is out there to make this team better now, while not doing long term damage?

There's no one.

I tend to agree with you on that. However, the money was there to sign a Zito and take charge of the division from the git go. Basically, Krivsky missed his chance while he was courting the likes of Stanton, Moeller, Crosby et al.


The Reds do play in a crappy division that they can win with the current team they have if everyone stays healthy.

Unfortunately, I don't share your optimism on this point. Therefore, my conclusion is that, unless you can add a third solid starter via trade (a dubious possibility in my mind), move Arroyo while his value is at its' peak and use '07 as a springboard to a title run in '08. Unlike some here, I don't think trading Bronson, assuming you get the right players in return, necessarily dooms you to waiting until '10 or '11 to contend.

That's just the way I see it. :dunno: You could be perfectly correct.

Rem

Caveat Emperor
12-30-2006, 02:45 AM
-If you choose not to persue said window in '07 shop Arroyo now and build an overall better team for '08 and beyond before your competitors (Cards, Astros, Brewers) do.

Why stop at Arroyo, in that case? Why not shop Harang, Dunn, Freel and anyone else that doesn't figure to be part of this.

Sell everything not nailed down and hope to god the plan goes the way of the Marlins as opposed to the Pirates, Brewers, Royals, and every other team that's been building for a future that never came.

buckeyenut
12-30-2006, 07:06 AM
Why stop at Arroyo, in that case? Why not shop Harang, Dunn, Freel and anyone else that doesn't figure to be part of this.

Sell everything not nailed down and hope to god the plan goes the way of the Marlins as opposed to the Pirates, Brewers, Royals, and every other team that's been building for a future that never came.

You stop at Arroyo because you are selling him high. And I wouldn't necessarily stop at him, but I wouldn't deal Dunn or Harang, because I believe neither are at peak value and both can be better than they were last year. Arroyo, and to a lesser extent Freel, will never have more value than they have right now.

Falls City Beer
12-30-2006, 08:51 AM
Arroyo, and to a lesser extent Freel, will never have more value than they have right now.

Oh, oh, Bailey, too!

Dracodave
12-30-2006, 09:21 AM
Oh, oh, Bailey, too!

You know honestly..if Bailey can net us a Pelfry or Hayden Penn or Adam Loewen. I'd jump on the chance to trade him. That's just saying we can trade a prospect for mlb ready pitcher.

Problem comes down to this though...

If we're going to rebuild and make a strong team for the next five years..We shouldn't hold just Arroyo on the block. Harrang, Dunn, Hatteburg, Ross, Milton, Griffey etc all have to be put on the block too. Even if the return isn't great, we'd still net a few good prospect's for the future.

I think Florida had it right, but do we have the major trading chips they did? No, but if we sell high on certain guys whos to say we can't get the same return Beane did, or Florida did for our players.

The Mets need starters and I really have to think Arroyo would be a good fit for them, I'd start by asking for Pelfry, Soler and a prospect (Soler being the throw in here). If they want more than Arroyo for that, we start adding players to the mix. Cormier, Conine, Weathers.

As long as the return is strong, giving up these players doesn't matter.

lollipopcurve
12-30-2006, 09:38 AM
if Bailey can net us a Pelfry or Hayden Penn or Adam Loewen. I'd jump on the chance to trade him. That's just saying we can trade a prospect for mlb ready pitcher.

No way. Bailey is close to ready. These are tit-for-tat trades, at best, and I don't think Penn really belongs in this group. Stick with the guy you drafted and developed. It's good for the organization as a whole. (That's why you almost never see propsect for prospect deals.)

guttle11
12-30-2006, 09:47 AM
You know honestly..if Bailey can net us a Pelfry or Hayden Penn or Adam Loewen. I'd jump on the chance to trade him. That's just saying we can trade a prospect for mlb ready pitcher.

Problem comes down to this though...

If we're going to rebuild and make a strong team for the next five years..We shouldn't hold just Arroyo on the block. Harrang, Dunn, Hatteburg, Ross, Milton, Griffey etc all have to be put on the block too. Even if the return isn't great, we'd still net a few good prospect's for the future.

I think Florida had it right, but do we have the major trading chips they did? No, but if we sell high on certain guys whos to say we can't get the same return Beane did, or Florida did for our players.

The Mets need starters and I really have to think Arroyo would be a good fit for them, I'd start by asking for Pelfry, Soler and a prospect (Soler being the throw in here). If they want more than Arroyo for that, we start adding players to the mix. Cormier, Conine, Weathers.

As long as the return is strong, giving up these players doesn't matter.

Contention by 2014!

I'm all for trading Griffey and Milton if you can. Problem is that you can't.

Dracodave
12-30-2006, 09:48 AM
No way. Bailey is close to ready. These are tit-for-tat trades, at best, and I don't think Penn really belongs in this group. Stick with the guy you drafted and developed. It's good for the organization as a whole. (That's why you almost never see propsect for prospect deals.)


Thats basically what any Bailey trade will be. We'll get a one year contract pitcher IE Jennings to Houston, or another prospect/mlb ready pitcher.

mth123
12-30-2006, 09:51 AM
Thats basically what any Bailey trade will be. We'll get a one year contract pitcher IE Jennings to Houston, or another prospect/mlb ready pitcher.

Then keep him.

Dracodave
12-30-2006, 09:53 AM
Contention by 2014!

I'm all for trading Griffey and Milton if you can. Problem is that you can't.

I think you can find a decent return for Griffey and Milton now that the contracts have gone up in pricing. Griffey might veto, thats my only problem with him. Milton on the other hand, if teams need pitching, I'd be hard-pressed to not work out a deal during spring training for Miltie if he does good.

Plus I'm playing a little of the devils advocate here. Firesales are going to push our contention time back by a few years, but in this already weak division, I wouldn't even say more than a year or two. Which still puts us ready for 2008-2009. Meaning Bailey would be used to major league hitting, Votto would be our everyday first baseman. Our infield outside of Gonzalez would be decently young.

mth123
12-30-2006, 10:08 AM
I think you can find a decent return for Griffey and Milton now that the contracts have gone up in pricing. Griffey might veto, thats my only problem with him. Milton on the other hand, if teams need pitching, I'd be hard-pressed to not work out a deal during spring training for Miltie if he does good.

Plus I'm playing a little of the devils advocate here. Firesales are going to push our contention time back by a few years, but in this already weak division, I wouldn't even say more than a year or two. Which still puts us ready for 2008-2009. Meaning Bailey would be used to major league hitting, Votto would be our everyday first baseman. Our infield outside of Gonzalez would be decently young.

But the only reason this team is even remotely close is the top 2 starters of Harang and Arroyo. Trade one of them and you are not close to contention again. If you want to trade Arroyo because you can't keep him and maximize the return ok. But any trade of Arroyo makes contending less likely unless a similar major league pitcher is received in return.

If you want to trade Bailey it needs to be for another Harang/Arroyo type who can be kept long term.

If the message is contend now, it doesn't make sense to trade Arroyo for prospects who may never pan out. If the message is build the future, it doesn't make sense to trade the top pitching prospect in baseball for a 1 year rental or a lesser prospect.

I'll repeat my earlier thought. The best thing to do with Arroyo is sign him. If that can't be done, he needs to be traded for a more expensive version of what Arroyo can provide. The reds get a prospect or 2 for taking on the extra salary. It maintains the now and helps the future.

Tim Hudson is the perfect target because he doesn't get expensive until 2008 and the Reds will have the money with Milton off the books. Arroyo for Hudson and a prospect or two. Atlanta gets a key guy for the rotation and saves big time corporate $. The reds still have a number 2 and get a couple prospects for taking on $.

Using this year as a guide it would be the best way to use the money freed up when Milton leaves. Or perhaps we like spending that $9 Million on next year's versions Stanton, Weathers, Cormier and Conine who cost right about at that $9 Million.

Dracodave
12-30-2006, 10:28 AM
If you honestly think you can compete this year.

We should sign Ohka, Armas and whatever young pitching is avaible to see who sticks in our rotation. Then attempt to give out LTC's (In this case no more than three years) to both Harrang and Arroyo.

That would give us a starting rotation of..

Harrang
Arroyo
Ohka
Armas
Milton

Lohse becomes trade bait-we get some level of prospects back.

Problem is..

As fans we see this as "Go out and do it"
Our Gm see this as...well..what the hell is our GM doing but sitting on his hands?

Krusty
12-30-2006, 10:39 AM
With Zito signed, that might speed up the signings of the remaining free agent pitchers.

Jpup
12-30-2006, 04:41 PM
If you honestly think you can compete this year.

We should sign Ohka, Armas and whatever young pitching is avaible to see who sticks in our rotation. Then attempt to give out LTC's (In this case no more than three years) to both Harrang and Arroyo.

That would give us a starting rotation of..

Harrang
Arroyo
Ohka
Armas
Milton

Lohse becomes trade bait-we get some level of prospects back.

Problem is..

As fans we see this as "Go out and do it"
Our Gm see this as...well..what the hell is our GM doing but sitting on his hands?

I'd rather have Lohse than Armas.

buckeyenut
12-31-2006, 04:42 PM
I'd rather have Lohse than Armas.

If I could sign armas and deal lohse for something, I could live with Armas over Lohse. I think they will perform pretty similarly.

edabbs44
12-31-2006, 04:52 PM
If I could sign armas and deal lohse for something, I could live with Armas over Lohse. I think they will perform pretty similarly.

And Armas would probably be cheaper.

Dracodave
12-31-2006, 05:13 PM
And Armas would probably be cheaper.

Now theres something to catch your attention, a cheaper younger version of what we have, with abit more upside. The problem with banking on Lohse to suddenly "put it together" is theres cheaper younger versions of that out there, we just have to figure out which takes a higher prority to us. Lohse at 6 million, or Ohka + Armas at 10 million.

Does going a cheaper younger way mean more to us than a more expensive pile of dreams?

Wheelhouse
12-31-2006, 05:20 PM
Definitely must hold onto Arroyo for this reason: the Reds have a horrible culture for developing young pitchers. Even if the Reds got a couple good young arms for Bronson, the organization has shown NO ability to develop young starting pitching. And this has been the case for 20 years--the Reds are bottom of the barrel in coaching "young arms." Let's let the organization prove itself a little bit, i.e. with Bailey, before we give up 1/2 of the strongest 1-2 combo in the division.

TRF
12-31-2006, 09:58 PM
Disagree. Another 10 years? Mercy man, take a risk and trade off Dunn,Harang and Arroyo. With some luck, we will be pitching rich if Buckley doesn't do badly either. That would leave plenty of money to spend on bats.

Arroyo was a modest fluke in 2006 as were the Reds. 2007 will be far harsher and reality sets in that it will take more than 85 wins to make the playoffs.

Yup 10 years. When was the last time the Reds had 2 dominant starters? 1995? '94?

by the end of the 2006 season, i felt confident the reds would win whenever Harang or Arroyo were on the mound.

Maybe Homer becomes that second starter, but it likely won't be for a year, maybe 2. Trade Dunn? there isn't much of an offense now.

No. there is a small window opening in front of the Reds. they damn well better jump through it.

RedsManRick
01-02-2007, 11:45 AM
From today's BP Unfiltered, Lastings Milledge's PECOTA:

Here’s what PECOTA sees for the next five seasons. For the uninitiated, PECOTA is the most accurate forecasting system out there.



BA OBP SLG VORP MORP
2007 .284 .356 .457 24.5 $11.2M
2008 .287 .361 .467 27.6 $13.1M
2009 .288 .365 .472 30.0 $15.0M
2010 .290 .371 .480 33.2 $17.2M
2011 .287 .368 .477 30.6 $17.5M

Apparently, Norfolk (his AAA location) is one of the worst hitting environments in all of baseball. Basically, it's harder to hit there against AAA pitching that it is to hit in Shea against Major League pitching. This certainly supports the idea that a Milledge & Heilman/Pelfrey deal for Arroyo might not be a bad idea, particularly if you buy in to the idea that we're in more need of offense than pitching. Nate Silver contends that Milledge is not only worth more than Joe Blanton, by far, but that he's more valuable than Dan Haren.

Jpup
01-02-2007, 12:24 PM
From today's BP Unfiltered, Lastings Milledge's PECOTA:

Here’s what PECOTA sees for the next five seasons. For the uninitiated, PECOTA is the most accurate forecasting system out there.



BA OBP SLG VORP MORP
2007 .284 .356 .457 24.5 $11.2M
2008 .287 .361 .467 27.6 $13.1M
2009 .288 .365 .472 30.0 $15.0M
2010 .290 .371 .480 33.2 $17.2M
2011 .287 .368 .477 30.6 $17.5M

Apparently, Norfolk (his AAA location) is one of the worst hitting environments in all of baseball. Basically, it's harder to hit there against AAA pitching that it is to hit in Shea against Major League pitching. This certainly supports the idea that a Milledge & Heilman/Pelfrey deal for Arroyo might not be a bad idea, particularly if you buy in to the idea that we're in more need of offense than pitching. Nate Silver contends that Milledge is not only worth more than Joe Blanton, by far, but that he's more valuable than Dan Haren.

Milledge hits that well and I'll eat my cap.

camisadelgolf
01-02-2007, 12:31 PM
If he hits that consistently, I'll eat my face.

RedsManRick
01-02-2007, 12:43 PM
Well, I'm not a scout, but the Scouts love his skill set and the sabermetric types project good things. He may be an arrogant jerk, but that shouldn't affect our projection of his ability. He'll be 22 in April and showed both decent patience and power as a 21 year old in the majors. Is he a Dunn replacement? Nope. But if he's league average for league minimum salary, that's a good player to have.

Falls City Beer
01-02-2007, 02:38 PM
He may be an arrogant jerk, but that shouldn't affect our projection of his ability. .

It probably should affect it, but there's no telling how much.

RedsManRick
01-02-2007, 03:15 PM
It probably should affect it, but there's no telling how much.

Should it affect us wanting him on our team? Sure. Make-up has been a long held tenet of the Braves for 20 years and they've done pretty well developing talent. Will it have an affect on his on the field performance based on where he's gotten himself to this point? Albert Belle, Barry Bonds, and company suggest maybe not as much as you'd think.

Falls City Beer
01-02-2007, 03:56 PM
Should it affect us wanting him on our team? Sure. Make-up has been a long held tenet of the Braves for 20 years and they've done pretty well developing talent. Will it have an affect on his on the field performance based on where he's gotten himself to this point? Albert Belle, Barry Bonds, and company suggest maybe not as much as you'd think.

I think my statement covers what you're saying. It may affect it, and probably will, but no one knows just how much.

Dracodave
01-02-2007, 04:09 PM
God forbide Lastings should ever play in Cleveland either. People will be wondering if Bradley simply changed his name.

vaticanplum
01-02-2007, 07:53 PM
Should it affect us wanting him on our team? Sure. Make-up has been a long held tenet of the Braves for 20 years and they've done pretty well developing talent. Will it have an affect on his on the field performance based on where he's gotten himself to this point? Albert Belle, Barry Bonds, and company suggest maybe not as much as you'd think.

And Milledge is also still a kid. A lot of people felt that way about Brandon Phillips and I don't think there's been any "attitude" concerns since he found himself in an organization where he fit.

If Milledge had a reputation for brutally killing small animals, I might take that into consideration...but apart from that I think you have to give him a chance until he really blows it (which he hasn't yet). Very few people are fully formed at 21.

Handofdeath
01-02-2007, 09:10 PM
If I'm the Reds I would probably wait until around the trade deadline and see about a possible trade with the Rangers. I think perhaps a Teixiera/Arroyo blockbuster might be just the thing for both teams

Reds send Dunn, Encarnacion, Votto, and Arroyo for Teixiera, Blalock, 2 good pitching prospects and Millwood at the trade deadline. This gives them the opportunity to redo the offense that needs to be overhauled and helps them stock the minors with some good pitchers.

Dracodave
01-02-2007, 09:41 PM
If I'm the Reds I would probably wait until around the trade deadline and see about a possible trade with the Rangers. I think perhaps a Teixiera/Arroyo blockbuster might be just the thing for both teams

Reds send Dunn, Encarnacion, Votto, and Arroyo for Teixiera, Blalock, 2 good pitching prospects and Millwood at the trade deadline. This gives them the opportunity to redo the offense that needs to be overhauled and helps them stock the minors with some good pitchers.

And that trade has no chance of happening, period. No offense man, thats asking alot from Texas for very little return from the Reds.


Re-do that trade to look something like Dunn Arroyo and Votto for Millwood + 2 pitching prospects, maybe Blalock and Texas would bite it.

Dracodave
01-02-2007, 09:43 PM
And Milledge is also still a kid. A lot of people felt that way about Brandon Phillips and I don't think there's been any "attitude" concerns since he found himself in an organization where he fit.

If Milledge had a reputation for brutally killing small animals, I might take that into consideration...but apart from that I think you have to give him a chance until he really blows it (which he hasn't yet). Very few people are fully formed at 21.

As a twenty-two year old, I can firmly say I know twenty-eight year olds who are more immature than I am as well. Age doesn't mean anything when the maturity level/level of responsablity isn't there. Now, if that will isnt there cause he's still "finding himself" or because he just wants to party is beyond me.

vaticanplum
01-03-2007, 12:09 AM
As a twenty-two year old, I can firmly say I know twenty-eight year olds who are more immature than I am as well. Age doesn't mean anything when the maturity level/level of responsablity isn't there. Now, if that will isnt there cause he's still "finding himself" or because he just wants to party is beyond me.

I think age certainly means something within the context of baseball, in which certain ages are generally contained within certain levels of the profession and therefore the players tend to be surrounded mostly with peers only of similar age. Maturity is really what we're talking about here, yes, but my point is that it would be a big mistake to base expectations of a players entire career merely on the reputation -- exclusive of physical ability -- that he's gained by age 21.

With Milledge, what exactly are the issues we're talking about anyway? I know he's rumored to be a handful, but is it a lack of respect, a lack of discipline, an unwillingness to be coached, what? I'm not familiar with the details.

Dracodave
01-03-2007, 05:10 PM
With Milledge, what exactly are the issues we're talking about anyway? I know he's rumored to be a handful, but is it a lack of respect, a lack of discipline, an unwillingness to be coached, what? I'm not familiar with the details.

I'm not either, but we've had the unwillingness to be coached on this team before, we've had the lack of respect as well.

I agree with you on the fact that at 21, his ability is very good compared to alot of other players. Can his maturity stunt that? Perhaps, but can he be so immature and egotistical it forces him to be the best he can be? Perhaps, but that can also push him through playing with injuries, the inability to be coached, and the lack of respect for fellow players, coaches etc. I don't exactly know what the issues are with Milledge nor do I personally care. Is he better than Freel and Denorfia? You bet. Would I want him in right field over Freel or Denorfia? You bet again.

He could turn into a RH 300/20-30, and thats techinically what this team needs. Do we try to trade say Arroyo for him and personally, I like Maine over Heilman. Maine's only 26 and did very good in 16 starts last year. Could he pull a Haren for us? Perhaps. Arroyo for Milledge Maine and a prospect would be a steal.

klw
01-03-2007, 05:10 PM
Ok here is a new target team: the Seattle Mariners.
http://www.baseballamerica.com/today/stats/organization.php?org=SEA

How about
Reds send: Arroyo
Mariners send: Cha Seung Baek and Jeff Clement or Adam Jones

http://www.baseball-reference.com/b/baekch01.shtml
http://www.baseball-reference.com/j/jonesad01.shtml

Looking more at these guys, I think this probably isn't enough for Arroyo and I don't know that all three would be.

Or perhaps
Cormier
for
Baek

http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/baseball/298162_mari03.html