PDA

View Full Version : Are we really out of trading chips?



Ltlabner
01-08-2007, 01:12 PM
Are we really out of trading chips because of the trade?

While the degree of difficulty in putting together a trade has certinally increased post "the trade" I don't think I agree with the oft repeated idea that we suddenly have no trading chips to use whatsoever.

Freel, Deno, Ross, Javy, Phillips, Hatte, Bray and Majic, IMO represent possible trading chips. As much value as a Kearns, for example, no, but value none the less. While you you have to replace their production, and that makes the available trading pool smaller and more difficult, I don't think other teams would look at these particular players and call them "worthless".

Dunn, EE, Harrang, Arroyo, Votto, Bruce and Bailey most certinally have trading value. Obviously you tread very, very, very lightly here and absoutley must get the proper return for them, but they are definatley valuable trading chips.

I hate to type this, but I'd say Jr, and the random cast of charicters in AAA/AA represent a further class of trading chips to be used. I bundled Jr with the minor leaguers only due to his (1) age (2) health (3) contract (4) veto clause.

I don't think it's unreasonable to mix-and-match some of these players (assuming the corresponding production is replaced/improved) and pull off a trade. Especially with so many teams staying out of the FA market this winter.

I don't mean this to be yet another rehash of the trade, rather a discussion about the current trading pool available to Krivsky.

Degenerate39
01-08-2007, 01:21 PM
I don't think we could get any thing we need with the current players we have. We currently won't get a number 3 starter for Deno or Hatte.

redsmetz
01-08-2007, 01:24 PM
Very good question and a nice way of hopefully sparking a good conversation. I've said for a while that I thought a number of players could be on the market. It's doubtful any of our players by themselves would bring what we need, but some combination could be put together without raiding the cookie jar.

I think one or the other of Freel/Deno could be part of a trade. I still think Cormier will go before spring is over and I believe that is why the Reds agreed to buy his option (I think that was how it went), eliminating his 10/5 rights. And even though WK talks about carrying three catchers again, I would not be surprised to see one of our catching corps go.

Until Milton's recovery from surgery is known, I would think he won't go, but then again, who knows in this whacky market. Probably he stays until he shows he's healthy (which could mean he plays out his contract here).

Any number of other assorted players could made available. The Rule 5 pitcher from the A's could be traded with the acquiring team taking on the requirement to hold him on their roster for the year. Same could happen with Hamilton too.

I think you're right that we still have some chips.

TRF
01-08-2007, 01:32 PM
I don't think we could get any thing we need with the current players we have. We currently won't get a number 3 starter for Deno or Hatte.

No, but you could get a #2 for Votto and Cueto.

Johnny Footstool
01-08-2007, 01:43 PM
Sure, there are players the Reds could trade for a decent return, but most of them would leave bigger holes in the current roster.

Quite a few players on the roster have virtually no trade value at this point (Majewski, the ancient bullpenners, Milton). Some players would bring a good return (Harang, Arroyo, Dunn), but their absence would leave major holes in the 2007 roster -- more than a trade could fill.

It would be downright silly to trade guys like Phillips, Ross, Denorfia, and Encarnacion at this point -- they are productive, cheap, and under the Reds' control for several more seasons.

The Reds are in no position to be trading their best minor leaguers right now. They will need as much cheap talent as they can get in 2009.

Freel is the Reds' main chip at this point -- he's got talent but Denorfia makes him expendable, plus he only has one year left on his current deal.

jojo
01-08-2007, 01:59 PM
No, but you could get a #2 for Votto and Cueto.

IMHO, there is no way.....

RedsManRick
01-08-2007, 02:01 PM
I think we have a number of chits to trade but as Johnny points out, we lack depth. Any trade of a player who could be significant return leaves a hole elsewhere. I like Freel's style of play, but he's no longer the best defender (Deno) and his speed has proven to be break-even in terms of real value. I would like to see him dealt while he's still got all his value and before he hurts himself again.

If we're out of the race and somebody is willing to throw us a virtually ready (ready in 2008) top SP prospect and a solid RF prospect for Arroyo (and he rejects and extension offer), you'd have to consider it. As has been pointed out elsewhere, this team needs more talent on the major league level and simply hoping a bunch of prospects pan out probably isn't a smart idea.

lollipopcurve
01-08-2007, 02:06 PM
No, but you could get a #2 for Votto and Cueto.

Who's looking to trade a #2 starter for a 1B prospect and a pitcher who's never been out of A ball?

jojo
01-08-2007, 02:24 PM
I really think any discussion of Reds trading chips should have some reference point concerning return....

I'd suggest this: Dunn would not bring an established #2 starter right now. It's doubtful he would even bring a hot prospect arm like Miller, Lincecum or Morrow that could likely already help the bullpen in '07 let alone someone like Bailey who some think will be inserted into the rotation next season. Adjust the perceived trade value of everyone else accordingly....

Team Clark
01-08-2007, 02:27 PM
Who's looking to trade a #2 starter for a 1B prospect and a pitcher who's never been out of A ball?

True. It took more than that to land Brandon McCarthy.

flyer85
01-08-2007, 02:30 PM
No but most teams seem to be overvaluing their own talent. Most of the deals still seem to be about moving contracts more than anything else.

PickOff
01-08-2007, 02:47 PM
Most of the deals still seem to be about moving contracts more than anything else.

Definitely true. "Baseball" trades for starting players are rare, (Wily Mo and Arroyo come to mind) because most teams don't have the surplus situation that precipitated that trade. It is about dumping and repositioning mainly.

That said, the Reds have plenty of chits, but would most likely have to be willing to give up prospects and take on more payroll. If the Reds deal any of the position players or a Harnang or Arroyo, they would still have to take on more payroll to make the trade worth it.

Bottom line, if you think the Reds will take on more payroll, they have the players, if you don't then, no, they don't have any surplus to make a decent trade.

TRF
01-08-2007, 04:43 PM
True. It took more than that to land Brandon McCarthy.

And less to land Scott Kazmir. And yes, Victor Zambrano is less than 2 of the Reds top 10 prospects.

There is always somebody willing to take a flyer on youth. JimBo traded Rob Bell for essentially 2 minor leaguers, though Mateo had some big league experience, it barely totaled a whole season. And he was coming off a major injury to his leg.

Handofdeath
01-08-2007, 05:56 PM
I remember listening to one of ESPN's baseball hotshots on the radio last year and he was talking about how hard it was to get good relief pitching. It might explain the Reds acquiring so many.

Eric_Davis
01-08-2007, 09:00 PM
No. (in answer to "Are we out of trading chips?

mth123
01-09-2007, 05:33 AM
Plenty of guys to trade. As previously mentioned Freel is the top guy to trade and there are minor leaguers with value and a number of guys with value in the organization even beyond the top 3. There are a number fo roles on the roster that any team needs and trades of excess for excess occur all the time without "star" players being included.

Johnny Footstool
01-09-2007, 10:35 AM
Plenty of guys to trade. As previously mentioned Freel is the top guy to trade and there are minor leaguers with value and a number of guys with value in the organization even beyond the top 3. There are a number fo roles on the roster that any team needs and trades of excess for excess occur all the time without "star" players being included.

Outside of Freel, where do the Reds have excess? I know they have more than their share of ancient, mediocre relievers, but the market for those guys usually doesn't heat up until the trade deadline.

TRF
01-09-2007, 11:29 AM
I remember listening to one of ESPN's baseball hotshots on the radio last year and he was talking about how hard it was to get good relief pitching. It might explain the Reds acquiring so many.

And wouldn't it be dandy if he acquired a reliever not eligible for the seniors discount at IHOP?

Handofdeath
01-09-2007, 05:07 PM
Outside of Freel, where do the Reds have excess? I know they have more than their share of ancient, mediocre relievers, but the market for those guys usually doesn't heat up until the trade deadline.

Yes and that is when they will pay off. Teams will be desperate enough to trade for the relievers they so badly need. I wouldn't call any of the Reds relievers mediocre. Fair to very good? Yes. Older than Moses? Yes. But what is going to happen when the Yankees come calling in July needing 1 or 2 good bullpen arms? The Reds trade what they don't need for something they do need like minor league talent or a corner OF.

TRF
01-09-2007, 05:20 PM
Problem is Stanton WAS good. Cormier was good LAST YEAR, but that's about it. Weathers is solid. But really all these guys have very limited value, and their age brings along health issues.

I'd have preferred to go the Marlins youth route.

Falls City Beer
01-09-2007, 07:35 PM
Plenty of guys to trade. As previously mentioned Freel is the top guy to trade and there are minor leaguers with value and a number of guys with value in the organization even beyond the top 3. There are a number fo roles on the roster that any team needs and trades of excess for excess occur all the time without "star" players being included.

There are several players to trade, but they'd have to change the face of the roster to trade parts to bring back real assets ready for MLB duty in return.

mth123
01-09-2007, 10:14 PM
There are several players to trade, but they'd have to change the face of the roster to trade parts to bring back real assets ready for MLB duty in return.

Spare parts for spare parts. Freel is obviously the main bait but a package of pen guys (especially LH), young guys, etc.

I would welcome a spare part or two from a team like the Cubs who have spent their way into having decent young players with no place to play.