PDA

View Full Version : Why are the Reds looking for a second baseman?



Mainspark
06-15-2007, 07:00 PM
I'm sorry if this has been addressed in one of the many Dunn-related threads, but this item from today's Los Angeles Times has me wondering why the Reds are wanting, among other things, a second baseman in return.

From the L.A. Times:

"The Angels had preliminary discussions with Cincinnati about acquiring Dunn, according to a baseball source, but those talks quickly ended when the Reds requested a proven major league starting pitcher, a major league infielder preferably a second baseman and a top prospect.

Those demands were considered too hefty for a player whose $13-million option for 2008 would be voided if he's traded, meaning he could become a free agent after this season. The Angels probably wouldn't even trade second baseman Howie Kendrick for Dunn straight up, according to the source."

Matt700wlw
06-15-2007, 07:02 PM
I'm sorry if this has been addressed in one of the many Dunn-related threads, but this item from today's Los Angeles Times has me wondering why the Reds are wanting, among other things, a second baseman in return.

From the L.A. Times:

"The Angels had preliminary discussions with Cincinnati about acquiring Dunn, according to a baseball source, but those talks quickly ended when the Reds requested a proven major league starting pitcher, a major league infielder preferably a second baseman and a top prospect.

Those demands were considered too hefty for a player whose $13-million option for 2008 would be voided if he's traded, meaning he could become a free agent after this season. The Angels probably wouldn't even trade second baseman Howie Kendrick for Dunn straight up, according to the source."


Trade Gonzo, move Phillips to short?

I doesn't know...

MrCinatit
06-15-2007, 07:06 PM
Trade Gonzo, move Phillips to short?

I doesn't know...

That is the only thing I can come up with - at least, I hope that is the reason.

pedro
06-15-2007, 07:06 PM
I think it has to do with the Angels prospects at that position more than that they are looking to move Phillips.

KronoRed
06-15-2007, 07:31 PM
Hoard prospects, no matter where they play

Spitball
06-15-2007, 07:43 PM
I think it has to do with the Angels prospects at that position more than that they are looking to move Phillips.

The shortstop position is where the Angels have depth. Cabrera and Aybar are already on the 25 man roster. Brandon Wood has been moved to third, but he has the athletic ability and range play shortstop. Sean Rodriguez at Arkansas looks like very good prospect.

Kendrick has been projected as a future batting champion by some scouts, but I would hate to see Dunn traded for a second baseman.

pedro
06-15-2007, 07:50 PM
The shortstop position is where the Angels have depth. Cabrera and Aybar are already on the 25 man roster. Brandon Wood has been moved to third, but he has the athletic ability and range play shortstop. Sean Rodriguez at Arkansas looks like very good prospect.

Kendrick has been projected as a future batting champion by some scouts, but I would hate to see Dunn traded for a second baseman.

Aybar's been playing 2B this year though (when Kendrick was out).

UKFlounder
06-15-2007, 09:25 PM
Hoard prospects, no matter where they play

But no "*****d" prospects who never pan out (like Yankee prospects :) )

KronoRed
06-15-2007, 09:32 PM
But no "*****d" prospects who never pan out (like Yankee prospects :) )

Braves too, Rob Bell! :D

RedEye
06-15-2007, 11:52 PM
Didn't we then trade Rob Bell for Ruben Mateo and EdE?

corkedbat
06-15-2007, 11:59 PM
Phillips to third, new guy second, EE to 1st, Votto to LF. I could have just said Votto to 1st and EE to LF, but that would not be convoluted enough and makes Votto's recent forays into the L'Ville LF pasture completely meaningless,,,wait...that's probably it. :bang:

pedro
06-16-2007, 12:15 AM
Didn't we then trade Rob Bell for Ruben Mateo and EdE?

indeed.

too bad mateo never made it. he really had a lot of talent.

osuceltic
06-16-2007, 09:09 AM
Phillips to third, new guy second, EE to 1st, Votto to LF. I could have just said Votto to 1st and EE to LF, but that would not be convoluted enough and makes Votto's recent forays into the L'Ville LF pasture completely meaningless,,,wait...that's probably it. :bang:

I think it would be new guy to third, Encarnacion either to first or traded. If he goes to first, then Votto will be traded.

NJReds
06-16-2007, 09:15 AM
Maybe because there's little organizational depth at the position.

Spitball
06-16-2007, 10:57 AM
From the L.A. Times:

"...according to a baseball source..."

You know, there might really be a "baseball source" in this story, but that is a very vague reference to the source. This could have been credible front office person, but...really...why would anyone with a job in a baseball front office leak this story??? I doubt it could possibly have come from the Reds because Krivsky doesn't approve of discussing trades or possible trades. And, why would the Angels' front office strain relations with the Reds by leaking specifics of the players involved in the negotiations? I believe Peter Gammons does have front office connections (see Moneyball), but I am suspicious of the vague "baseball source". Now, I know some scouts will talk openly about minor league prospects that they are watching, but generally they merely speculate on potential moves because they are not paid to be privy to the actual moves of the big league club.

I believe this writer probably took a small particle of insider talk from the ballpark talk that goes around and built the story out of seemingly logical speculation.

Redsland
06-16-2007, 12:19 PM
FWIW, usually the "baseball source" for a story about a trade is one of the GMs involved. Alternatively, when the story is about a free agent signing, the "baseball source" is usually the player's agent.

pedro
06-16-2007, 01:06 PM
In some ways this strikes me as the type of leak made when you really don't want to really want to trade for a guy and you want to convince your fan base that it's not worth it so they don't bag you for being inactive.

blumj
06-16-2007, 01:25 PM
In some ways this strikes me as the type of leak made when you really don't want to really want to trade for a guy and you want to convince your fan base that it's not worth it so they don't bag you for being inactive.
That's Stoneman. The next time he makes that kind of trade will be the first, but you always find out how ridiculously high the price would have been.

KronoRed
06-16-2007, 01:59 PM
Didn't we then trade Rob Bell for Ruben Mateo and EdE?
True, but at the time this team was in dire need of pitching and Bell didn't produce squat, the Rangers tossing EE in reflects poorly on their gm.

Spitball
06-16-2007, 02:00 PM
FWIW, usually the "baseball source" for a story about a trade is one of the GMs involved. Alternatively, when the story is about a free agent signing, the "baseball source" is usually the player's agent.

No offense, but I believe that it is certainly the implication with the use of a "baseball source," but I think it is a bit naive to believe that implication. Why would a general manager talk under any condition of anonymity if it were that simple to figure out?

Look at the post below and notice that MLB Trade Rumors Blog took a stab at the players involved. I believe that is exactly what the LA Times writer did, only much less logically, and attached the "baseball source" tag to give it credibility. Again, what would either GM have to gain by telling the particulars of a failed trade? If Stoneman wanted to strain relations with Krivsky, then he might have but I doubt it.


The Angels Are Done Talking About Dunn
by Matt Watson


When I wrote earlier this week that Adam Dunn was already available on the trade market, I predicted that the Reds would likely demand a king's ransom for their prized slugger. According to the Los Angeles Times, that's exactly what they're doing:
The Angels had preliminary discussions with Cincinnati about acquiring Dunn, according to a baseball source, but those talks quickly ended when the Reds requested a proven major league starting pitcher, a major league infielder - preferably a second baseman - and a top prospect.

Those demands were considered too hefty for a player whose $13-million option for 2008 would be voided if he's traded, meaning he could become a free agent after this season. The Angels probably wouldn't even trade second baseman Howie Kendrick for Dunn straight up, according to the source.
The MLB Trade Rumors blog looked at the rosters and took a stab at which players Cincinnati was asking about, coming up with Ervin Santana, Erick Aybar and Brandon Wood. If that's the case ... wow, I applaud the Reds for trying, but I also understand why the Angels walked away. (Minor quibble: Santana is obviously talented, but he's always been a flyball pitcher. Given the fact they play their home games in the launching pad known as The Great American Ball Park, the Reds would be better served going after extreme groundball pitchers.)

I hope you like reading about these types of rumors, because there's a good chance this Dunn's situation will get drawn out for much of the season. Considering his option for next season is a team option and not a player option, the Reds can afford to hold onto him for a good 13 months before they actually need to worry about cashing in.

Redsland
06-16-2007, 02:21 PM
No offense, but I believe that it is certainly the implication with the use of a "baseball source," but I think it is a bit naive to believe that implication.
Ask yourself who would be privy to "preliminary discussions with Cincinnati about acquiring Dunn." That's a short list of people.

As for why they'd talk, some GMs like to curry favor with the press. Of course, we've never had one of those here. ;)

blumj
06-16-2007, 02:22 PM
Again, what would either GM have to gain by telling the particulars of a failed trade? If Stoneman wanted to strain relations with Krivsky, then he might have but I doubt it.

pedro told you why, you just don't believe it. But this always happens with the Angels. Stoneman doesn't want to make a trade, he wants an excuse to NOT to make one.

VR
06-16-2007, 02:25 PM
I guess some of the Dunn bashers had a point?

Spitball
06-16-2007, 02:43 PM
Ask yourself who would be privy to "preliminary discussions with Cincinnati about acquiring Dunn." That's a short list of people.

As for why they'd talk, some GMs like to curry favor with the press. Of course, we've never had one of those here. ;)


pedro told you why, you just don't believe it. But this always happens with the Angels. Stoneman doesn't want to make a trade, he wants an excuse to NOT to make one.



Then WHY isn't the general manager mentioned by name or even by team??? Why is it left as "baseball source" if there is a self-serving motive to leaking the names of players involved in trade talks?

IslandRed
06-16-2007, 03:00 PM
Then WHY isn't the general manager mentioned by name or even by team??? Why is it left as "baseball source" if there is a self-serving motive to leaking the names of players involved in trade talks?

Plausible deniability?

Spitball
06-16-2007, 03:48 PM
Plausible deniability?

A plausible maybe. ;)

pedro
06-16-2007, 05:23 PM
Then WHY isn't the general manager mentioned by name or even by team??? Why is it left as "baseball source" if there is a self-serving motive to leaking the names of players involved in trade talks?

What additional benefit would Stoneman gain from having his name directly tied to the rumor?

blumj
06-16-2007, 06:14 PM
Plus, it might not even be accurate, in which case, he really wouldn't want it linked to him.

Spitball
06-16-2007, 06:42 PM
What additional benefit would Stoneman gain from having his name directly tied to the rumor?

This is what you have already stated


In some ways this strikes me as the type of leak made when you really don't want to really want to trade for a guy and you want to convince your fan base that it's not worth it so they don't bag you for being inactive.

Soooo, if you benefit from the story, why wouldn't you add creedence to the quote by owning up to it? :bang:


Plus, it might not even be accurate, in which case, he really wouldn't want it linked to him.

You are kidding me, right?

pedro
06-16-2007, 06:46 PM
Soooo, if you benefit from the story, why wouldn't you add creedence to the quote by owning up to it? :bang:





because maybe it's not true.