PDA

View Full Version : Make trades already



Kc61
07-22-2007, 11:49 AM
Just change this team already. People will say, "don't change for the sake of change." But we've seen the same basic group for years and it is going no place. A few good minor leaguers due to arrive soon aren't nearly enough to fix this. They don't spend for major free agents, so trades are essential.

I don't care which direction they go. Trades for youth. Trades for veterans. Presumably, the Reds brass are in a good position to make that decision.

But standing pat is unacceptable. I will be disappointed if they do nothing at the deadline.

Of course, Reds can delay until the winter. But I was following things last winter and didn't see a single major pitching acquisition. I liked the Gonzo signing, but the off-season was just more patching things up. And we had the GM's declaration this winter that he was comfortable with Milton and Lohse at the 3 and 4 pitching slots.

You can debate the virtues of individual players. Dunn, EE, Freel, Weathers, Griffey, etc. are debated all the time. It doesn't matter who is right about these guys and others. Nobody has been able to make this group win, time for some real change and something new.

cincrazy
07-22-2007, 11:54 AM
I agree with you about wanting to see a different mix. However, I don't want to see us splurge on the FA market. How many times do free agent pitcher's actually pay off? It's not often. I'd rather develop through our system, and once those pieces are in place, fill in any other pieces that might be missing through free agency.

Big Klu
07-22-2007, 12:06 PM
The only problem with trading right now is that media reports indicate that contending clubs, who normally would be trading partners with the Reds this trading season, seem unwilling to part with any significant prospects. They want to keep their young, cheap players in the fold.

I think that the Reds may trade Lohse, one (but not both) of the first basemen, and possibly Weathers and/or Stanton, but I would be surprised if there is much more action than that--not because the Reds don't want to trade, but because the contenders seem unwilling to give anything up in return.

Unassisted
07-22-2007, 12:21 PM
Just change this team already. People will say, "don't change for the sake of change."

I couldn't disagree more with the notion of making trades for the sake of "doing something." Many of the Reds who others (maybe you?) would have traded for a bag of baseballs a month ago are turning their seasons around. That could make them easier to trade and it can't help but improve the return on a deal involving those same players.

Unloading a player for a sub-optimal return might make you happy, but it will lead to at least a year of teeth-gnashing here in the ORG. The Reds can do better. I'd like to see a trade that builds for the future rather than a trade that placates the anti-inertia fans. From the deal proposals that are leaking out, it sounds like Wayne is asking for the moon. There's still enough time remaining until the deadline that he might get it. ;)

Falls City Beer
07-22-2007, 12:22 PM
They don't want to trade prospects?

Make lateral, MLB-for-MLB, trades, then. Don't worry about getting younger as an end in itself. Just get different and better.

toledodan
07-22-2007, 12:29 PM
hatteburg or connine must be moved to get votto playing time everyday this season. while votto should be the starting at first opening day in 2008 there is no reason not to get his feet wet now. as much as i dislike the tigers they bit the bullet with their young players added a couple of free agent pitchers and made the world series. i'm not saying i would like to watch the reds lose 119 games but we need to let these young players develope here if the FO isn't willing to spend the money(100 million or more) to compete.

Kc61
07-22-2007, 12:31 PM
The only problem with trading right now is that media reports indicate that contending clubs, who normally would be trading partners with the Reds this trading season, seem unwilling to part with any significant prospects. They want to keep their young, cheap players in the fold.

I think that the Reds may trade Lohse, one (but not both) of the first basemen, and possibly Weathers and/or Stanton, but I would be surprised if there is much more action than that--not because the Reds don't want to trade, but because the contenders seem unwilling to give anything up in return.

And how, exactly, do they ever get back to winning? Waiting for the next Homer Bailey to be rushed up and have a 6 plus ERA? Compiling 5 good drafts and taking a renewed look in 20012? Picking up a couple of leftover, cheap free agents nobody wants late in the winter?

Sorry, I don't buy it. One reason the Reds may not get top value is that their players may not command top returns. Keep in mind, this outfit is about 20 games under .500. A good front office looks at its talent objectively.

A good front office can move some pieces and help this team for next year and the year after. Or, make salary cuts with a clear view of using that money next winter for better players, or players at key positions. But sitting still is just not acceptable. Taking the slow, long view of slight changes here and there just will not work.

And I wouldn't be too worried that the new players may not pan out. What's going to happen -- the Reds won't contend in the Central?

remdog
07-22-2007, 12:59 PM
Don't worry about getting younger as an end in itself. Just get different and better.

Different and better are not necessarily synonymous.

Rem

redsrule2500
07-22-2007, 01:11 PM
Last year we were too early, this year too late lol

nate
07-22-2007, 01:12 PM
I used to work with a guy who said you could get any two results from this list:

Good
Cheap
Fast

at the expense of the other. Given that the Reds are "cheap" (in the scheme of things) and want to be "good", its not gonna be "fast". If you want to be "good" "fast", its not gonna be cheap.

Right now, we have cheap and...well, we have cheap.

The_jbh
07-22-2007, 01:12 PM
I still think this team's core is pretty good. We need to sell some of the older parts like Weathers, Conine, Hatte etc... tho... I think its a matter of the young guys developping into impact players ie Bailey, Votto, Cuento

Falls City Beer
07-22-2007, 01:18 PM
Different and better are not necessarily synonymous.

Rem

Of course not. But in order for the team to get better, it must necessarily follow that it get different. The current recipe is noxious.

KoryMac5
07-22-2007, 01:32 PM
Weathers, Connine, Hatte, Lohse (if you can), and JR should all be dealt by the deadline. It would be nice if Stanton can find a new home as well. These trades make you younger and hopefully better. In the case of Weathers, JR, and Hatte it is selling while their value is at its highest.

UKFlounder
07-22-2007, 01:38 PM
Of course not. But in order for the team to get better, it must necessarily follow that it get different. The current recipe is noxious.

But to get "different" just to be "different" - as the original poster suggested - is just as likely to make the team worse. "More noxious" would technically be different, but nobody here would like that, though this thread seemed to start with the assumption that different would be the same as better.

Clearly, getting "better" is what we all want, but that seems a lot easier said than done.

Falls City Beer
07-22-2007, 02:02 PM
But to get "different" just to be "different" - as the original poster suggested - is just as likely to make the team worse. "More noxious" would technically be different, but nobody here would like that, though this thread seemed to start with the assumption that different would be the same as better.

Clearly, getting "better" is what we all want, but that seems a lot easier said than done.

There's only one guarantee: standing pat = no improvement.

The only way to get BETTER is to get, as I said, different and better. One does not presuppose the other; maybe it's a redundancy on my part that's confusing folks. So I'll just say: get better.

Kc61
07-22-2007, 02:24 PM
There's only one guarantee: standing pat = no improvement.

The only way to get BETTER is to get, as I said, different and better. One does not presuppose the other; maybe it's a redundancy on my part that's confusing folks. So I'll just say: get better.

Agree. Keep in mind a couple of things.

Griffey is finally healthy and playing well. If Reds ever intend to trade him, this is the time. Cannot assume these circumstances will be present again.

Dunn cannot be traded after the season until next June. Either he will be a free agent or, if the Reds exercise his option, he has a full no trade clause until next June. Reportedly.

nate
07-22-2007, 02:25 PM
There's only one guarantee: standing pat = no improvement.

The only way to get BETTER is to get, as I said, different and better. One does not presuppose the other; maybe it's a redundancy on my part that's confusing folks. So I'll just say: get better.

Maybe we just need chicken soup?

REDREAD
07-22-2007, 02:37 PM
I'd like to see Wayne go ahead and move Hat and/or Conine now. Trading them won't turn the franchise around, but they could fetch something interesting that might help down the road.. think of a trade like the 2003 Mercker-Belisile.

Stanton would be nice to move if possible. I really don't care what we get back for him. The guy is old, relatively expensive, and decling. I'd rather not have him on the team next year, even though he's been ok in recent history.

Lohse is another guy that should be moved. If nothing else, it would remove the temptation to bring him back. Sure, I could see him FINALLY putting it together at some point down the road, but he's too much of a crapshoot.

Guys like Weathers, Jr, Dunn, etc should only be dealt for value. The other guys listed above should be dealt on a "best offer" basis.

And I disagree about free agency. Moderately priced free agents can help the Reds. Last offseaon, I wanted Lily and Bradford, especially Bradford.
We had the money to get them, but blew it on turds instead. Now, naturally, those specific two players may have not wanted to come here, but the point is that there are some relatively middle of the road free agents out there that could help the team a lot more than Stanton and Castro.

Kc61
07-22-2007, 02:57 PM
I'd like to see Wayne go ahead and move Hat and/or Conine now. Trading them won't turn the franchise around, but they could fetch something interesting that might help down the road.. think of a trade like the 2003 Mercker-Belisile.

Stanton would be nice to move if possible. I really don't care what we get back for him. The guy is old, relatively expensive, and decling. I'd rather not have him on the team next year, even though he's been ok in recent history.

Lohse is another guy that should be moved. If nothing else, it would remove the temptation to bring him back. Sure, I could see him FINALLY putting it together at some point down the road, but he's too much of a crapshoot.

Guys like Weathers, Jr, Dunn, etc should only be dealt for value. The other guys listed above should be dealt on a "best offer" basis.

And I disagree about free agency. Moderately priced free agents can help the Reds. Last offseaon, I wanted Lily and Bradford, especially Bradford.
We had the money to get them, but blew it on turds instead. Now, naturally, those specific two players may have not wanted to come here, but the point is that there are some relatively middle of the road free agents out there that could help the team a lot more than Stanton and Castro.

I respect your view, just think the Reds need to be more aggressive. Going into next year with the same two corner outfielders, consuming more than $25 million of salary, and then just going for "moderate" free agents is, in my view, standing still. Other than Harang, Phillips, and maybe Arroyo, I would be moving pieces freely right now.

traderumor
07-22-2007, 05:44 PM
I'm pretty sure trading requires at least two teams.

REDREAD
07-22-2007, 11:37 PM
I respect your view, just think the Reds need to be more aggressive. Going into next year with the same two corner outfielders, consuming more than $25 million of salary, and then just going for "moderate" free agents is, in my view, standing still. Other than Harang, Phillips, and maybe Arroyo, I would be moving pieces freely right now.

I wouldn't mind moving Jr or Dunn if we get a fair return.

To clarify, I meant that Wayne needs to get the best return he can for Hat, Conine, Lohse, and Stanton. Even if all four of them just amount to a handful of magic beans, that's ok. Naturally, I'd rather get something potentially useful as opposed to a 28 year old AAA lifer, but Wayne needs to move those guys. I'd like him to move them now, so he can focus on bigger trades in the 11th hour.

My fear is that at 30 minutes before the deadline expires, he'll still be trying to pry that extra A ball arm away in a deal for Hat.. Just get that deal done already...

REDREAD
07-22-2007, 11:39 PM
I'm pretty sure trading requires at least two teams.

Well, we know there's interest in Conine, Hat, and Lohse.

I can't see any team interested in those guys suddenly getting desparate and upping the ante. They aren't impact players. They are useful role players for a contending team. So let's just make the best deal we can, so those deals are out of the way. Like I said, a handful of A/AA guys is fine by me. Maybe we'll get one ML player out of the bunch. That's about all you can expect when you trade filler.

You do have a point that maybe there's no market for Stanton. I concede that.

coachw513
07-23-2007, 12:46 AM
Different and better are not necessarily synonymous.

Rem

the question is, what is in the Reds case more likely: staying pat and getting better OR getting different and getting better???

guess the answer lies in one's view of WK's ability to make the right decisions...i'm not specifically advocating either, just emphasizing the enormity of Krivsky's decisions not only in the next 10 days but in the next 8 months...

remdog
07-23-2007, 07:57 AM
Well, we know there's interest in Conine,....

During the Angels series Rex Huddler reported that Conine told him that he was planning on retireing at the end of the season. If that's the case he has no value after Sept. 30 so they may as well get something for him now.

Rem

puca
07-23-2007, 08:10 AM
I wouldn't mind moving Jr or Dunn if we get a fair return.

To clarify, I meant that Wayne needs to get the best return he can for Hat, Conine, Lohse, and Stanton. Even if all four of them just amount to a handful of magic beans, that's ok. Naturally, I'd rather get something potentially useful as opposed to a 28 year old AAA lifer, but Wayne needs to move those guys. I'd like him to move them now, so he can focus on bigger trades in the 11th hour.

My fear is that at 30 minutes before the deadline expires, he'll still be trying to pry that extra A ball arm away in a deal for Hat.. Just get that deal done already...

Hatte has value for the Reds next year; if nothing more than a left handed hitter and caddy for Votto. The Reds certainly shouldn't give him away. Although that pre-supposes that whoever is managing the Reds won't panic when Votto struggles and re-insert Hatte as the starting firstbaseman - even after the season is lost.

GAC
07-23-2007, 08:11 AM
I respect your view, just think the Reds need to be more aggressive. Going into next year with the same two corner outfielders, consuming more than $25 million of salary, and then just going for "moderate" free agents is, in my view, standing still.

But those two corner Ofers are not the problem with this team. In fact, they are assets. Compare Jr's stats with other starting RFers in the league. And besides - from what I have read, teams aren't making viable offers for either of these two, so what is Krivsky suppose to do in this situation?

We need a commodity that unfortunately is in huge demand, yet short supply..... pitching. We're in competition with every other team in baseball. And what do we have to offer up for it IF and WHEN any may be available?

You have to be able to "match" with that other team - fill a need, meet a need.

Trade Hatteberg? I have no problem with that. But I kinda hope they'd keep him as a bench player to backup (support) Votto. But if someone offers up something substantial, as far as prospects, then you have to seriously consider it.

I really don't think there is anyone desiring Conine's sevices, but it's possible. And he'll be gone after this year anyway.

And I'm sure Krivsky, who has already put out "flyers" to everyone that he is ready to deal, is considering serious offers. But again, they had better be serious offers. I don't want them giving away or dumping players because they feel changes need to be made. And I don't think they will.

There will be no fire sale IMHO.

I really don't think we'll see any really big (or surprising) moves prior to the deadline. And not because we don't want to deal, or want to stand pat; but because teams aren't possibly making serious offers that could help this team. Help them? Yeah. But not us.

Reds1
07-23-2007, 08:23 AM
No reason to make early trades just to make them. Sometimes the market needs to build. Sometimes it's a great market and sometimes not so much. We have a few vets that we should trade as we have Votta, Keppinger, etc that need to play to see what we have. IMO anyways!

REDREAD
07-23-2007, 12:15 PM
During the Angels series Rex Huddler reported that Conine told him that he was planning on retireing at the end of the season. If that's the case he has no value after Sept. 30 so they may as well get something for him now.

Rem

That's what I'm thinking. Get an A or AA ball player for him. Even if it's just a 5 tool lottery ticket. The guy doesn't have a lot of value, and won't help us next year. Smart teams that are out of the race cash in guys like that.

Like I said, if we get one ML player out of Stanton, Conine, Hat, and Lohse, I will be pleased. Even if we don't get a ML player out of those guys, I want to see effort expended to do so. If we don't even attempt to cash in at least most of those guys, I will be disappointed.

Kc61
07-23-2007, 01:22 PM
But those two corner Ofers are not the problem with this team. In fact, they are assets. Compare Jr's stats with other starting RFers in the league. And besides - from what I have read, teams aren't making viable offers for either of these two, so what is Krivsky suppose to do in this situation?


I really don't think we'll see any really big (or surprising) moves prior to the deadline. And not because we don't want to deal, or want to stand pat; but because teams aren't possibly making serious offers that could help this team. Help them? Yeah. But not us.

Well, if you accept that the two corner outfielders should use up about 35 to 40 percent of the team's payroll, despite their (in one case) injury history and (in the other case) impending free agency and limitations as a player, that's fine. But when the Reds tell us next winter that they have salary room to pay existing salaries with increases, but "we can't be a player for the top free agents," then explain to me how the team improves.

Maybe I'm different from some, but I don't get that much pleasure watching a few good individual performances on a terrible team. Whatever the merits of these guys, it is time to move on.

I also disagree that this team will get much better with the existing minor league talent. There are some good prospects, but the organization is not rich with top tier guys. It has about 3 or 4 who will play in the majors in the near future. This is ok, but I don't see it turning things around.

So the team needs to be materially changed, either with deals for more very good kids, or a different mix of veterans. There's a good argument for keeping Harang and Arroyo, since pitching is the key, but keeping other guys because they hit the long ball is more of the same.

flyer85
07-23-2007, 02:32 PM
We need a commodity that unfortunately is in huge demand, yet short supply..... pitching. We're in competition with every other team in baseball. that's why a small market team must produce a sizeable amount of the necessary pitching on their own.

It is also highly volatile, prone to attrition, and hard to predict. That is why quantity is just as important as quality.

GAC
07-24-2007, 10:13 AM
Well, if you accept that the two corner outfielders should use up about 35 to 40 percent of the team's payroll, despite their (in one case) injury history and (in the other case) impending free agency and limitations as a player, that's fine.

It's not that I accept that Kc. I personally believe that this FO would like nothing better than to trade both of them; but they are finding out, since they have put those "feelers" out in the market that they are available, that those teams interested in them want to basically steal them from the Reds with offering little in return. Or they don't want to take the risks (see below). Maybe those organizations carry the thinking that they feel the Reds are "over a barrel", being in last place, and feel this FO would dump these guys just to be rid of their salaries, the need to make changes, and therefore they refuse to offer anything substantial in return?

Wiil (or should) this FO bite?

Would Red fans be too upset if it just came down to a salary dump of these two players IF teams refuse to offer up anything substantial because....

1) They are both pretty expensive

2) One is old and injury prone. Also holds veto rights.

3) the other's pending free agency. Whoever trades for Dunn this year could very well lose him - unless they are a team that can pony up the bucks, which shortens the list of candidates (organizations) who can afford the money. Because a trade now means he is a FA at season's end. So - even though there are some teams out there that would like to have Dunn's services, they aren't going to risk giving away talent on a rent-a-player IMO.


But when the Reds tell us next winter that they have salary room to pay existing salaries with increases, but "we can't be a player for the top free agents," then explain to me how the team improves.

This organization can clear out alot of money at season's end by getting rid of some of the "deadwood" we have in those peripheral players.

Milton 10.3 Mil
Lohse 4.2 Mil
Weathers 2.2 Mil
Stanton 2.0 Mil
Conine 2.0 Mil
Hatteberg 1.5 Mil
Saarloos 1.2 Mil
Moeller .7 Mil

There's 24 Mil right there. Now some on that list are being scouted and are of interest to other teams. Take advantage of it, trade'em and get the best you can for them while also clearing out salary. There's 12 Mil tied up in Weathers, Lohse, Stanton, Conine, and Hatteberg. And all of those have had inquiries made.

You've got 11 Mil gone at season's end in Milton and Moeller. Add another 7.5 between Lohse, Conine, and Saarloos, who are all under 1 yr contracts (if I can't trade them). Either way, they, and their salaries, need to be gone IMO.

The only ones out of the above that have contracts for '08 (committed monies) are Weathers, Stanton, and Hatteberg (approx 6 Mil). But again - there are teams very interested in Weathers and Hatteberg.

But we basically have the potential to free up around 22 Mil at season's end via trades or letting contracts expire.

And if we really need the roster spots, then going into '08 I'd eat Stanton's 2 Mil and Castro's .9 Mil.


So the team needs to be materially changed, either with deals for more very good kids, or a different mix of veterans. There's a good argument for keeping Harang and Arroyo, since pitching is the key, but keeping other guys because they hit the long ball is more of the same.

I fully agree that this team's "chemistry" needs to be changed. The question is HOW we go about doing it?

Do they trade (dump) Dunn for simply prospects, just to free up the salary? Jr ain't going anywhere because I think he'll veto most trades, unless it's to a team like Atlanta (close to home).

GAC
07-24-2007, 10:17 AM
that's why a small market team must produce a sizeable amount of the necessary pitching on their own.

I agree. But that also takes time. In this market, a vast majority of teams are not going to part with their high/top level pitching prospects. They have become a very valiable commodity.

If you are in dire need of pitching, as most teams are - would you trade away a Homer Bailey as an example of a top level farm prospect? For what?

Kc61
07-24-2007, 12:42 PM
It's not that I accept that Kc. I personally believe that this FO would like nothing better than to trade both of them; but they are finding out, since they have put those "feelers" out in the market that they are available, that those teams interested in them want to basically steal them from the Reds with offering little in return. Or they don't want to take the risks (see below). Maybe those organizations carry the thinking that they feel the Reds are "over a barrel", being in last place, and feel this FO would dump these guys just to be rid of their salaries, the need to make changes, and therefore they refuse to offer anything substantial in return?



Milton 10.3 Mil
Lohse 4.2 Mil
Weathers 2.2 Mil
Stanton 2.0 Mil
Conine 2.0 Mil
Hatteberg 1.5 Mil
Saarloos 1.2 Mil
Moeller .7 Mil

There's 24 Mil right there. Now some on that list are being scouted and are of interest to other teams. Take advantage of it, trade'em and get the best you can for them while also clearing out salary. There's 12 Mil tied up in Weathers, Lohse, Stanton, Conine, and Hatteberg. And all of those have had inquiries made.


Do they trade (dump) Dunn for simply prospects, just to free up the salary? Jr ain't going anywhere because I think he'll veto most trades, unless it's to a team like Atlanta (close to home).


Agree that the Milton savings is important. Disagree that you can rebuild successfully by dumping role players. If the role players cost $12 million, it will cost something to replace them, and if the new guys are cheaper they probably won't be very good. You can replace them with youngsters and have 6 or 7 rookies as role players next year, but somehow I don't see that a as an improvement.

For a team to get better it has to change major players with major salary slots. Moving around role players won't do it. Just my view.

GAC
07-25-2007, 09:37 AM
Disagree that you can rebuild successfully by dumping role players. If the role players cost $12 million, it will cost something to replace them, and if the new guys are cheaper they probably won't be very good. You can replace them with youngsters and have 6 or 7 rookies as role players next year, but somehow I don't see that a as an improvement.

But you're freeing up salary. Freeing up salary, and in some of those cases getting rid of non-producing players, is a giant first step. It's like having money in the bank for that "rainy day".

And some of those players on that list are not role players (Weathers, Lohse, Hatteberg). Others are.

But you replace Hatteberg/Conine with Votto. You can then try (hope) to strengthen your bench with kids like Keppinger. Lopez could even replace Castro. You're giving these inexpensive kids a chance to prove themselves. And if it doesn't work out, then there is little risk. You're not tied down and still have money to search out other options. And that is the key - having that money if/when that option appears.

What has really killed this team for the last couple of years has been the starting pitching and bullpen. And yes, looking at the market and demand, it's gonna be harder to replace guys like Weathers and Lohse. But as badly as this BP has performed this year, I still think there are some good, young arms in this organization that are just inexperienced and need the time to develop.

And what about kids like Bray, Burton, and McBeth? Could they be the players that can fill those vacancies? We have to find out. And the way you find out os by jettisoning some of these other players and give them a shot.

What about Bailey, Dumatrait, and Livingston? Again - inexpensive talent and low risk. Should they be given the chance in '08 befoer we go out, take a risk, and try to sign a "Zito", who has underwhelmed so far in '07?

I'm not opposed to trading a Jr or Dunn. Though I am apprehensive when it comes to Adam. But if someone offers me a deal that I can't refuse, then yeah, I do it. I just don't want to see them dumped, for the sake of saving salary, when it can first be done in other areas of this team.

And we also have another young ballplayer who could be ready after next year, named Jay Bruce.

I've stated before that '09 is a pivotal year for me, as far as how I'll rate this FO.

Kc61
07-25-2007, 09:48 AM
But you're freeing up salary. Freeing up salary, and in some of those cases getting rid of non-producing players, is a giant first step. It's like having money in the bank for that "rainy day".

And some of those players on that list are not role players (Weathers, Lohse, Hatteberg). Others are.


What has really killed this team for the last couple of years has been the starting pitching and bullpen. And yes, looking at the market and demand, it's gonna be harder to replace guys like Weathers and Lohse. But as badly as this BP has performed this year, I still think there are some good, young arms in this organization that are just inexperienced and need the time to develop.


I'm not opposed to trading a Jr or Dunn. Though I am apprehensive when it comes to Adam. But if someone offers me a deal that I can't refuse, then yeah, I do it. I just don't want to see them dumped, for the sake of saving salary, when it can first be done in other areas of this team.

And we also have another young ballplayer who could be ready after next year, named Jay Bruce.

I've stated before that '09 is a pivotal year for me, as far as how I'll rate this FO.

If you're going to free up dollars, free up real dollars and fundamentally change the team. Don't free up dollars around the margins. If the latter course, Reds will only be able to change the team around the margins, which won't work.

To commit more big dollars to this group of players makes no sense to me. With the exception of Harang, Reds should free up major salary slots and put the money into pitching. By holding on to some of these players for another year or two, they are just delaying the inevitable.

I think it's tough medicine, but Reds need to take it.