PDA

View Full Version : Should the Reds trade Brandon Phillips?



RedEye
09-16-2007, 11:38 PM
I've seen a lot of discussion about this guy lately, and rightly so. He's having a really nice offensive year. He's as slick a fielder as the team has. He's still just 26 years old and could take a step forward offensively in 2008.

I've also seen some interesting counter-arguments. Many posters point to the number of outs he makes and to the fact that he's not really much of a run producer.

Here's what I'm wondering: is it time to trade Brandon Phillips?

For all of his good qualities, it looks like this is as high as his value will ever get. We have some capable replacements already on the team (Keppinger, Freel) and landing a good SP could really help this team next year. If Phillips keeps playing this way, he's going to price himself out of the team's range anyway, right?

Thoughts?

flyer85
09-16-2007, 11:49 PM
No player is untouchable, It all depends on the return.

TeamBoone
09-16-2007, 11:52 PM
Seems every single time the Reds have a player who either does well (Phillips) or has a ton of upside (Encarnacion), someone suggests he should be traded.

I don't understand this. Is it to get pitching (which is never a guarantee, not good pitching anyway)? Is it to save money (the Reds don't appear to be as destitute as many think)? Or is it just because?

If all the good players are traded, what's left?

RedEye
09-17-2007, 12:21 AM
I don't necessarily think we should trade him, but I do think he is our most marketable trading chip right now. He's young, cheap, and productive. His current statistics make him look like a much better player than he actually is (I've been convinced of this by other posters on other threads, so I'll have to ask for back up there).

Don't get me wrong, I like BP a great deal. I'm just wracking my brain trying to figure out how this team can deal for pitching in the offseason, and he seems like the best candidate. Dunn is too expensive to trade for a good return right now (and should probably be re-signed anyway since he is our most productive player); Bruce should be perhaps the most untouchable player of all; EdE is the only 3B we have in the pipeline for a long while; I'd prefer not to deal Votto since he has a chance to be a real power-hitting 1B (something we haven't had in years); almost anyone else on the roster wouldn't land us a bag of balls.

There aren't any good FA pitchers out there this offseason, and I'm not sure the FO is inclined to go that route anyway. To me, that leaves two options: stay the course as we are with minor adjustments (the most probable strategy, I admit) or trade Brandon Phillips--not because he should be traded, but because someone should be traded in order to avoid a repeat of 2007.

Krusty
09-17-2007, 07:28 AM
You want to rebuild this club with guys like Phillips.

Falls City Beer
09-17-2007, 08:05 AM
More than likely a trade of Phillips would result in a diminishment of value.

dfs
09-17-2007, 08:15 AM
No player is untouchable, It all depends on the return.
Harang would have to bring a heck of a return. I can't imagine that he's dealable, but everybody else is out on the lot hoping somebody will kick a tire.

mbgrayson
09-17-2007, 08:17 AM
Keep Brandon Phillips, there are very few better second basemen.

We need strong defense up the middle. His 30/30 skills are real, and although we would all like a little better OBP, and his number of hitting into doubleplays is second in the league, I still like him.

That being said, if the right young pitcher were offered, I suppose we would have to listen. But the truth is, good young pitching is rarely available.

redsmetz
09-17-2007, 08:42 AM
I believe some of your thinking is somewhat flawed. I agree with those who say that no one should be untouchable, I think they are also correct in that we should be building around someone like Phillips. Frankly, he's part of our young corps of players (that would also include the veteran Adam Dunn, still just 27 years old this season). You are correct that to improve pitching, we'll have to give up something, hence the camp that agrees that no player is untouchable.

What I see as somewhat flawed (I'm really trying to temper this):

Ryan Freel: It's too early to know whether Freel can come back. While he probably can, will he be the same player. This question also applies as to whether Freel is moveable himself. Neither of these questions can be known until next spring in all likelihood.

Jeff Keppinger: I like Keppinger a lot, as many do, but I think I agree with those who suggest that Keppinger is more valuable to us off the bench. We could be wrong, but I like a bench that has Keppinger, Hopper and Cantu on it.

Adam Dunn: I'm not advocating trading Dunn; I'd like to see him signed to a long term contract. My disagreement is with your assertion that Dunn's contract is too expensive to trade. He's difficult to trade because of the present structure of the contract - something I think both Dunn, his agent and the Reds wanted. But there is no way his contract is too expensive, even for us - it's a very competitive amount even picking up the option (which we will do - he's not going to be permitted to walk - draft picks in MLB are not the same as in the NFL or the NBA).

I think the player most likely to be traded will be Griffey. While he holds the cards as a 10/5 player, I think he would agree to go to a team with a legitimate shot at the post-season. Whether that happens in the off-season or before next year's trade deadline, I just don't know. We may not want to move him until we see how Bruce performs in spring or the start of next season. I would like an outfield of Adam Dunn, Josh Hamilton and Jay Bruce. Add in an infield of EE, Alex Gonzalez, Brandon Phillips and Joey Votto and that's not a bad starting line-up (the weakest link would be at catcher).

Unassisted
09-17-2007, 08:57 AM
Krivsky seems to value middle-infield defense. I can't imagine him unloading his best 2B unless the return is spectacular.

RedsManRick
09-17-2007, 09:02 AM
Phillips is currently 9th in VORPr (the rate version of VORP) for MLB 2B. His 39 VORP makes him roughly equivilent to Chad Billingsley, Andy Pettite, Cole Hamels, and Matt Cain.

Factor in his superior defense, and you have a pretty darn valuable player. I'm not against trading him at all, but you'd need to get really solid value for him. I wouldn't be ready to move down to, say, Keppinger, or Freel unless a significantly hard to pass up offer presented itself.

PuffyPig
09-17-2007, 09:34 AM
Phillips is currently 9th in VORPr (the rate version of VORP) for MLB 2B. His 39 VORP makes him roughly equivilent to Chad Billingsley, Andy Pettite, Cole Hamels, and Matt Cain.



OK, trade him for Billingsley, Hamels or Cain.;)

The reason you trade someone who is good is if you value the return more.

Phillips may be a very good player, but his offense is over rated, and he's one of the few guys we have that could bring that young, cheap (and good)starter.

Highlifeman21
09-17-2007, 09:44 AM
No player is untouchable, It all depends on the return.

This should be a universal truth.

George Anderson
09-17-2007, 09:56 AM
This should be a universal truth.

I second that!! :thumbup:

Ltlabner
09-17-2007, 09:58 AM
Any player should be "on the block" for the right deal.

That said, what's the probablity of getting "the right deal" for BPhil. If someone offers a true pitching hoss, then by all means. But based on the lack of pitching moves this past deadline (and since then) I'm not sure that is likely to happen.

It's also a little frustrating that the minute someone becomes valuable the calls to trade him pop up. I posted this reciently but can't we just enjoy the guy for a season or two before unloading him? I know that in todays baseball economics that's nieve, but still it would be nice to actually hang onto tallent, especially young tallent.

That BP can be walk challenged isn't a good reason to trade him, IMO. It's a good reason to bat him lower in the order, but that alone is not a good reason to trade him.

bucksfan2
09-17-2007, 10:40 AM
I think you have to trade Phillips. I think you package Phillips and Harang for a bunch of single A prospects. Both Phillips and Harang are young, controlled for several years with good contracts. This makes them very valueable, well maybe valuable to everyone except cincinnati fans.

Chip R
09-17-2007, 10:57 AM
Seems every single time the Reds have a player who either does well (Phillips) or has a ton of upside (Encarnacion), someone suggests he should be traded.

I don't understand this. Is it to get pitching (which is never a guarantee, not good pitching anyway)? Is it to save money (the Reds don't appear to be as destitute as many think)? Or is it just because?

If all the good players are traded, what's left?


I think it's great we have players with value. It could be worse and no one would want our players. That said, everyone has a price. Remember, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We held on to Pokey Reese too long and didn't get squat for him. We held on to Sean Casey too long and got Dave Williams. If someone out there is offering a dependable starting pitcher or a couple of hot shot prospects for him, I reluctantly trade him. Otherwise, you hold on to him.

registerthis
09-17-2007, 11:12 AM
I think you package Phillips and Harang for a bunch of single A prospects.

I'll bet Dunn would fetch us at least some AA roster filler.

registerthis
09-17-2007, 11:14 AM
Factor in his superior defense, and you have a pretty darn valuable player. I'm not against trading him at all, but you'd need to get really solid value for him. I wouldn't be ready to move down to, say, Keppinger, or Freel unless a significantly hard to pass up offer presented itself.

Right, and I'm not talking a couple of middling bullpen-ers either.

Dan
09-17-2007, 12:07 PM
This should be a universal truth.

The '77 Reds would like a word with you please.

camisadelgolf
09-17-2007, 12:15 PM
If someone asked me, "Would you rather have Phillips at second and Lizard as the fifth starter, or would you rather have Keppinger at second and someone of equal value to Phillips as the fifth starter?", I would go for the latter. However, like mbgrayson said, an opportunity to obtain that pitcher by giving up Brandon Phillips is very unlikely.

KronoRed
09-17-2007, 12:17 PM
The '77 Reds would like a word with you please.

Pitching.

Phillips should be available if it helps the team.

cincinnati chili
09-17-2007, 01:06 PM
I think it's great we have players with value. It could be worse and no one would want our players. That said, everyone has a price. Remember, those who do not learn from history are doomed to repeat it. We held on to Pokey Reese too long and didn't get squat for him. We held on to Sean Casey too long and got Dave Williams. If someone out there is offering a dependable starting pitcher or a couple of hot shot prospects for him, I reluctantly trade him. Otherwise, you hold on to him.

Well said.

On the offensive side of the ball, Brandon strikes me as the quintessential example of a guy whose perceived value exceeds his actual value.

30-30 is a magic number. It dazzles people, and causes them to overlook that player's shortcomings.

His principal shortcoming is on-base skills. He's 15th among qualifying 2B in the major leagues (middle of the pack) in on-base percentage, and 11th in RC/27 (middle third).

He's valuable and fun to watch, But if there's a buyer out ther who is blind to his shortcomings, and will overpay, jump on it.

Ltlabner
09-17-2007, 01:28 PM
30-30 is a magic number. It dazzles people, and causes them to overlook that player's shortcomings.

He's valuable and fun to watch, But if there's a buyer out ther who is blind to his shortcomings, and will overpay, jump on it.

I don't think anybody is confused by the 30-30 thing. I don't think anybody is advocating giving him a 10 year contract. I don't think anybody (or most) would say no to a deal for a true-blue hoss starting pitcher that involved BPhill.

Of corse if anybody is willing to overpay for any player, then it's sionara. But the talk in this thead of "hanging onto him too long" doesn't make sense at this point, IMO. Especially considering this is his is second full year with the team. If he was 34, and wanted a 5 year deal, then you can talk about hanging onto him too long. But when he's still a ways from FA then I don't think you can hang onto him "too long" (unless you pass on a killer deal, then I would agree you screwed up).

But to unload a guy who does a number of things well (SLG, stolen bases, defense) simply because he doesn't cary a 450 OBP doesn't make sense to me. I can live a *somewhat* lower OBP if the guy is producing in other ways. As RMR pointed out, he is producing in other ways.

Bat him lower in the order, but don't discard the guy because his OBP doesn't meet the gold standard.

RedEye
09-17-2007, 01:39 PM
I guess I just think Phillips is likely to regress in 2008. His lack of plate discipline makes him too streaky to consistently put up 30-30 numbers in my opinion. If we are going to trade him ever, this has to be the best time. If I'm Wayne, I'm shopping him hard all off-season to see if I can land the Cain or Billingsley others are projecting as his value. Heck, even Garza for Phillips would be great -- maybe Wayne can take advantage of the flux in Minny after Ryan's departure?

I repeat: this does not mean that I don't like Phillips. I just think he's the player with the greatest negative difference between perceived and actual value. Edwin may have been that player last year, but his slumping first half has knocked him down somewhat. Plus, I think the time to shop Edwin is when he puts together a whole year of good hitting, not just 3 months.

I'd really hate to see the Reds make a Pokey Reese or Sean Casey mistake with this guy. Smart teams trade players when their value is highest. It's a roll of the dice, but with Phillips I think it's a smart bet to make.

camisadelgolf
09-17-2007, 01:42 PM
He's had two successful years in a row, but my concern is that he'll have an off year, which would lower his value. As sick as it is, baseball is a business, and I kind of see the players as if they are some sort of stock, so if you do nothing but buy low and sell high, you should have a team that continually improves.

RedsManRick
09-17-2007, 02:04 PM
I think the point of contention many of us have is what you actually will get in return. It's great to talk in theory about getting equivalent production from a starter. However, the question is who?

Can we trade Phillips for Alexi Casilla and Matt Garza? Who needs a 2B and has a solid starter who we can count on?

Mets?
Cards?
Astros?
Padres?
White Sox?
A's?

That's the list I could come up with. Everybody else seems to have an option to which they're already pretty much attached.

Do you trade for a starter who might be league average and also has a decent shot at not panning out? Do you trade him Jon Garland? (I don't!) Aaron Heilman?

Sure, BP's value is pretty high right now. And yes, calling him a 30-30 guy makes him sound more productive than he is in reality. But when you look at the whole package, he's one of the top 10 2B in baseball and is cheap. Unless you can get a guaranteed upgrade in overall team production (or as close as possible), the risk of losing a significant asset is real and should not be discounted. So, yes, BP might be worth $100 today and possibly only $75 tomorrow. But do you trade that $100 for a roll of the die that could net you anywhere between $25 and $125? What if the return is between $75 and $125? $50 and $150? So based on the risk you're willing to take, who is making the offer?

The other point is that at some point you have to realize the production of your talent base or you're just constantly rebuilding to no end. I don't think we yet have enough talent to roll with it and hope we win. But I'm not sure trading Phillips is the right risk to take unless the potential return is quite substantial. And given the market as I see it, I don't really see that substantial return floating around out there.

I know there are a number of people on the board who don't like the slow growth model. However, I would draw the analogy that we've a number of guys advocate a slow, reliable growth stock portfolio and then invest us stupidly. That doesn't mean the basic logic was wrong, just the investment choices. It doesn't a day-trading, get-rich-quick approach any smarter. I would hate for us to start taking on even more risk, simply as a change of pace for a solid though poorly executed strategy in the past.

Ltlabner
09-17-2007, 03:12 PM
I guess I just think Phillips is likely to regress in 2008.

Smart teams trade players when their value is highest. It's a roll of the dice, but with Phillips I think it's a smart bet to make.

I'm sorry, I tire of the notion that Reds players are destined to regress in the following year and their value will never be higher than it is right now.

For so long, that has been true, I can't argue that. With the exception of the Dunns of the world, for many years we've been hit over the head with marginal players touted as the next best thing. I think the long-term effect of this is that some reds fans are conditioned to think the other shoe is always going to fall and we have to trade NOW NOW NOW or else we'll get burnt. Throw in the Reese and Casey debacles and it's only natural that people would think the highest value for any player was yesterday.

But here we have a player who has provided solid defense and good, if streaky, offense and is only in his 2nd year. Now, if it's his last year before FA it's a different story. But I can't buy into the notion BPhil is "destined" for a collapse in 2008. Sure, it's possible (lots of folks here thought EE was destined for greatness, when in fact he's had a rough 2007) but I don't think it's probable.

I guess I'm saying shouldn't we at least give the guy another year before we hang the "it's only going down from here" moniker on him? If you want to trade him becase of a solid deal, that's cool. But to trade him because OBrian was an idiot with Casey, or because of some flawed notion that he's one minute away from falling apart doesn't make much sense.

Of course, all of this gibberish goes out the window if someone offers a true stud for him...then it's bye-bye BPhil.

RedsManRick
09-17-2007, 03:36 PM
Of course, the trick of the Reese, Graves, and Casey situations is that the comparison is dependent on the value of the imagined trade which was never made. I don't disagree with the concept that we probably held on to each of them too long, however, I do not know what the alternative truly looked like. It's really easy to assume that we would have gotten more value from each by trading them sooner. But unless somebody can tell me what it is we didn't trade for, that's not necessarily the case.

The real lesson of that era was that you only should hold your cards if you have a competitive the hand. The lesson is certainly applicable, but saying that trading Phillips is the way to get a better hand is sort of like trading in your Jack in hopes of something better. How much is that card really going to improve your hand, given that it costs you a jack? And further, what happens if you get a 7 in return? What are the odds of each?

Highlifeman21
09-17-2007, 04:16 PM
Pitching.

Phillips should be available if it helps the team.

Anyone should be available if it helps the team.

If it doesn't help the team, don't make the trade.




I'm not saying trade Brandon Phillips just to trade Brandon Phillips. I am, however, saying that if we can get a legitimate #2 or #3 SP to compliment Harang and Arroyo by trading Brandon Phillips, then by all means, trade Brandon Phillips.

RedsManRick
09-17-2007, 04:20 PM
Anyone should be available if it helps the team.

If it doesn't help the team, don't make the trade.

I'm not saying trade Brandon Phillips just to trade Brandon Phillips. I am, however, saying that if we can get a legitimate #2 or #3 SP to compliment Harang and Arroyo by trading Brandon Phillips, then by all means, trade Brandon Phillips.

How often is a trade made that truly helps both teams? Saying "If it doesn't help the team, don't make the trade." is correct, but so is saying "scoring more runs and allowing fewer will lead to more wins". Ok, the premise makes sense. Got it. Now what?

Most any trade involves risk and the biggest the asset you are giving (and receiving) the bigger the risk. What trades do you guys envision in which the return justifies the risk and which the same can be said for the recipient.

Highlifeman21
09-17-2007, 04:29 PM
How often is a trade made that truly helps both teams? Saying "If it doesn't help the team, don't make the trade." is correct, but so is saying "scoring more runs and allowing fewer will lead to more wins". Ok, the premise makes sense. Got it. Now what?

Most any trade involves risk and the biggest the asset you are giving (and receiving) the bigger the risk. What trades do you guys envision in which the return justifies the risk and which the same can be said for the recipient.

My assumed logic was that Brandon Phillips alone will not net the pitching we so desperately need, so I had already accounted for giving away kids in the minors. Therein lies the risk.

You're absolutely correct, rarely do you see trades made that actually help both sides.

Once you add prospects to any trade, you're exponentially increasing the inherited risk. Trading the present for the future is always a risky endeavor. The fun part about Phillips is that we think we know what we have with him. He could improve, he could stay the same, he could regress. We think we know Brandon Phillips, but we honestly have no clue.

Johnny Footstool
09-17-2007, 04:33 PM
Sure, shop him around. See what teams are offering. If someone makes the right offer, pull the trigger.

RedEye
09-17-2007, 07:10 PM
But here we have a player who has provided solid defense and good, if streaky, offense and is only in his 2nd year. Now, if it's his last year before FA it's a different story. But I can't buy into the notion BPhil is "destined" for a collapse in 2008. Sure, it's possible (lots of folks here thought EE was destined for greatness, when in fact he's had a rough 2007) but I don't think it's probable.

I guess I'm saying shouldn't we at least give the guy another year before we hang the "it's only going down from here" moniker on him? If you want to trade him becase of a solid deal, that's cool. But to trade him because OBrian was an idiot with Casey, or because of some flawed notion that he's one minute away from falling apart doesn't make much sense.

Of course, all of this gibberish goes out the window if someone offers a true stud for him...then it's bye-bye BPhil.

That last argument is true of anyone on the roster, I think.

Otherwise, I don't think my argument is a strong as you're making it out to be. I don't want to just give him away, of course. I just think he's the Reds' best trading chip that they actually might be able to afford trading.

All I'm saying is that the Reds have consistently failed at trading players in the past because they weren't willing to roll the dice on a player's career year. IMO, there are players you would never trade if you can help it--the ones that produce high OBP, high run production, and quality defense. Those, in my opinion, are the ones you build around, no questions asked.

Yes we have a really good player here, no doubt a top-10 2B, probably top-5, signed for cheap. This, my friends, is exactly why another team should want Brandon Phillips! They could want him because he IS good.

What I'm saying is that giving them what they want might not be a bad idea--if we can get a decent return. His stats, while they look fancy, are based around his high number of HR and SB, which in his case are the baseball equivalent of smoke and mirrors because they hide a middling overall performance.

Even if he produces the same numbers again, BP is still just an average middle infielder. I think there is a good shot K could get in some interesting trade talks if he dangles him out there. And I'm sure those talks would be more interesting than the talks involving almost anyone else on our roster not named Bruce, Bailey, Harang or Arroyo (the players we REALLY shouldn't consider trading IMO).

Now, another previous poster was right to point out that I don't know exactly WHICH teams might be interested. That might be the biggest problem with my argument.

redsmetz
09-17-2007, 07:20 PM
This has been a superb discussion - good give and take. Five stars all around.

jojo
09-17-2007, 08:22 PM
I'm in the camp that thinks a lot of Reds fans overrate Phillips with references to GGs and Joe Morgan. That said, he would be near the bottom of the list of guys that I'd consider trading. Second base is a premium defensive position and the Reds have a check mark next to that item for the next four years at a reasonable price. While PBP-based metrics suggest Phillips is really only slightly above average defensively and I think he's really only a slightly above average offensive second baseman (the power spike this season notwithstanding), the two summed make him one of the ten best second baseman in the majors. He's not first tier like Utley, Polanco, or Roberts but with his power spike this season he'll probably end up being somewhere between a 4.5 and 5 win player. That's more of an impact than Adam Dunn when subtracting Dunn's defense from his offensive value. At 400K this season, Phillips has been a phenomenal bargain.

bucksfan2
09-18-2007, 12:16 PM
I think trading Phillips because you need pitching is flawed logic. I see the argument made that pitching wins championships and just shake my head at it. IMO this is one of the most over rated baseball theories out there. A good balanced team wins championships. Teams that are heavy in one aspect but weak in another aspect rarely do any good once they make the playoffs. Look at the Padres for example. They have two of the best pitchers in the league yet have no made it past the first round of the playoffs recently. The A's also remind me of a team that has always been strong in pitching yet weak in offense. They have not made a world series in years.

I am not in the camp that Phillips is an over valued as a red. I just looked up his seasonal stats and as of right now he has eclipsed every offensive stat over last year except for BB and doubles. This is coming off a season in which many reds fans felt he could not duplicate his first reds season. Were not talking about you average joe or a guy who came out of no where. This is a guy who was a very valuable prospect in the indians organizatoin. This is a guy who is young, cheap, and good. I dont understand why people want to trade Phillips. The value that you recieve in return isn't going to be great and in order to get value you must take some risk with prospects. As Phillips matures as a ball player I look for his strike zone knowledge to increase and his OBP to increase as well. He has shown good power and should be a 30-30 guy year in year out. IMO he is also a good defender and if he stays away from some mental lapses should be in contention for a gold glove. You build clubs around guys like Phillips. You don't trade them away when they are cheap and controlled for another couple of years.

Cedric
09-20-2007, 04:43 PM
I like winning baseball the most, but I also like entertaining baseball. I'm also somewhat fond of building a nucleus of a team and watching them grow together. I know in today's sports world that is rare, but unless we get an amazing offer I wouldn't do it.

lollipopcurve
09-20-2007, 04:46 PM
I like winning baseball the most, but I also like entertaining baseball. I'm also somewhat fond of building a nucleus of a team and watching them grow together. I know in today's sports world that is rare, but unless we get an amazing offer I wouldn't do it.

Agree with this 100%.

15fan
09-20-2007, 04:59 PM
This has been a superb discussion - good give and take. Five stars all around.

2 months and 1 day ago, we had a dress rehearsal in this (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60557&highlight=Brandon+Phillips) thread.

I'm still in the camp that says shop Phillips hard for quality pitching and try to drive the market.

Until this team has significantly better pitching, it isn't going anywhere.

PuffyPig
09-20-2007, 05:14 PM
I think trading Phillips because you need pitching is flawed logic. I see the argument made that pitching wins championships and just shake my head at it. IMO this is one of the most over rated baseball theories out there. A good balanced team wins championships. Teams that are heavy in one aspect but weak in another aspect rarely do any good once they make the playoffs. Look at the Padres for example. They have two of the best pitchers in the league yet have no made it past the first round of the playoffs recently. The A's also remind me of a team that has always been strong in pitching yet weak in offense. They have not made a world series in years.



Yes, it would be good to have pitching and hitting.

But teams like that tend to cost $100M or more.

if you look at the smaller market teams that have excelled over the last 10 years, they tended to have better pitchung than hitting.

You get good pitching, the rest can fall into place pretty fast. It's easier to go out and find a few hitters at the dealine than it is to find any pitching.

RedEye
09-20-2007, 07:29 PM
Yes, it would be good to have pitching and hitting.

But teams like that tend to cost $100M or more.

if you look at the smaller market teams that have excelled over the last 10 years, they tended to have better pitchung than hitting.

You get good pitching, the rest can fall into place pretty fast. It's easier to go out and find a few hitters at the dealine than it is to find any pitching.

I second that emotion. Yes, good pitching and good hitting win championships together... but the pitching part is harder to come by, so it's more valuable on the market. That's why you think long and hard about trading a hitter who might be at his maximum value ever.

cincrazy
09-20-2007, 08:31 PM
Thanks to computer problems, I haven't been around for a few weeks, so I've missed a ton of discussion. And I must be honest, all I read in this entire thread was the orginal post, and I need to read no more: NO!

Eric_Davis
09-20-2007, 09:50 PM
In the REDS' case, they should try to obtain as many players that are having their peak years at a price the REDS can afford. Phillips is one of those, so no, don't trade him. In three years, maybe consider it.

RedEye
09-20-2007, 10:01 PM
In the REDS' case, they should try to obtain as many players that are having their peak years at a price the REDS can afford. Phillips is one of those, so no, don't trade him. In three years, maybe consider it.

Except that's precisely the reason why other teams would want him AND be willing to give up top-of-the-line pitching talent to get him.

Obviously, no one WANTS to give up Brandon Phillips unless the right deal comes around. I just think that this off-season is the most likely time for that to happen.

RedEye
09-20-2007, 10:02 PM
Thanks to computer problems, I haven't been around for a few weeks, so I've missed a ton of discussion. And I must be honest, all I read in this entire thread was the orginal post, and I need to read no more: NO!

I hope this isn't Wayne's thinking, too. If so, we're in trouble. He should be considering all possible trades to improve the team--and my hunch is that BP will draw some of the best offers.

RedLegSuperStar
09-20-2007, 10:10 PM
How about Brandon Phillips who was just interviewed on Reds Live by Grande saying he hopes he finishes his career in Cincinnati.

redsrule2500
09-20-2007, 10:59 PM
No, No, No.

RedsManRick
09-20-2007, 11:13 PM
How about Brandon Phillips who was just interviewed on Reds Live by Grande saying he hopes he finishes his career in Cincinnati.

Step 1. Big prospect has underwhelming debut and fails to "make it" in his first solid opportunity. CHECK

Step 2. Prospect gets 2nd chance, perhaps with a new organization, and fulfills once lofty expectations. CHECK

Step 3. Becomes star, part of the "core" of the team, and perhaps even the face of the franchise. He boldly declares that he wants to retire a _______, with free agency and big paychecks still a ways on the horizon. CHECK

Step 4. Expectations become unrealistic as player fails to single handedly deliver championship. Meanwhile, his salary grows and free agency looms.

Step 5. Fans turn on the player as he becomes the example of the failings of the organization. His shortcomings are highlighted and his salary lamented as fans look to the next big thing who should replace him.

Step 6. Player moves on, either via trade player or letting him leave in FA. New team has expectations more in line with reality and player goes on to have solid career, if not the HoF career once predicted.

Step 7. Fans of the prior organization talk about how they always liked him and wish he could've stayed -- wonder why he got such a bad rap.

How's that look?

RedEye
09-21-2007, 12:34 AM
Step 1. Big prospect has underwhelming debut and fails to "make it" in his first solid opportunity. CHECK

Step 2. Prospect gets 2nd chance, perhaps with a new organization, and fulfills once lofty expectations. CHECK

Step 3. Becomes star, part of the "core" of the team, and perhaps even the face of the franchise. He boldly declares that he wants to retire a _______, with free agency and big paychecks still a ways on the horizon. CHECK

Step 4. Expectations become unrealistic as player fails to single handedly deliver championship. Meanwhile, his salary grows and free agency looms.

Step 5. Fans turn on the player as he becomes the example of the failings of the organization. His shortcomings are highlighted and his salary lamented as fans look to the next big thing who should replace him.

Step 6. Player moves on, either via trade player or letting him leave in FA. New team has expectations more in line with reality and player goes on to have solid career, if not the HoF career once predicted.

Step 7. Fans of the prior organization talk about how they always liked him and wish he could've stayed -- wonder why he got such a bad rap.

How's that look?

That looks like a "yes" to me.

RedsManRick
09-21-2007, 01:18 AM
That looks like a "yes" to me.

More of a long-winded way of saying guys who have yet to hit arbitration don't know what they want because they don't really have a choice in the matter.

I think it would be very difficult to receive the kind of compensation that would justify a trade of Phillips at this point. That said, nobody is ever untouchable. Nobody. Ever.

Eric_Davis
09-21-2007, 03:05 AM
Except that's precisely the reason why other teams would want him AND be willing to give up top-of-the-line pitching talent to get him.

Obviously, no one WANTS to give up Brandon Phillips unless the right deal comes around. I just think that this off-season is the most likely time for that to happen.

I agree with you 100% that trading a player away at his peak value is the right way to go. Potential trading partners can be divided into two categories: Teams with lower payrolls similar to us and teams with payrolls much more than ours. For those teams that have payrolls similar to ours, they are looking for the same thing we are and won't give us a similar quality player that is as cheap as Brandon Phillips is right now. Starting pitching is what you'd have to be after trading away Phillips now, and I don't know of a single team with our payroll that would do that.

However, for those teams that spend a lot more money than we do each year, Phillips' salary in 3 years is no more a concern to them then than it is now. It's not an issue of whether they want him or not.

The difference between what we'd get for Phillips in three years from a one of the higher payroll teams isn't much different than what we would get from them now.

He has such great value to the REDS right now.

1 year/$0.4075M (2007)

renewed 3/07 (split contract paying $196,200 in minors)

1 year (2006)
acquired in trade after being DFA 4/06

renewed 3/06

1 year/$0.3168M (2005)
re-signed 2/05
split contract paying $162,000 in minors

1 year/$0.3009M (2003) 3/03
agent: Levinson brothers

ML service: 2.022 (which will change to 3.022 at end of the season)

Eric_Davis
09-21-2007, 03:10 AM
We have 3 years of Arbitration left with him.

Eligibility

The following players are eligible for arbitration:

Players with at least 3 but less than 6 years of Major League service time.

The top 17 percent of players with at least 2 but less than 3 years of Major League service. (See Super 2). To qualify as a Super 2, a player must have accumulated at least 86 days of service in the previous year. (A year of service is 172 days. The historical cutoff point for Super 2 status is 2 years, 128 days of service, though the requirement has been as high as 2 years, 140 days.)

Players who have filed for free agency and both received and accepted offers of arbitration from their former club.

jojo
09-21-2007, 06:54 AM
2 months and 1 day ago, we had a dress rehearsal in this (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=60557&highlight=Brandon+Phillips) thread.

I'm still in the camp that says shop Phillips hard for quality pitching and try to drive the market.

Until this team has significantly better pitching, it isn't going anywhere.

Isn't that the same thread where people started suggesting that Krivsky should trade Bailey ASAP?

registerthis
09-21-2007, 04:52 PM
Isn't that the same thread where people started suggesting that Krivsky should trade Bailey ASAP?

Are you suggesting that the peeps on Redszone can be a little reactionary from time to time?

Perish the thought.

KronoRed
09-22-2007, 12:55 AM
Are you suggesting that the peeps on Redszone can be a little reactionary from time to time?

Perish the thought.

Not just people here, take a listen to sportstalk sometime, it's a fan thing in every spot.

membengal
09-22-2007, 11:45 AM
It would have to be for a mind-blowing return. He's gold glove caliber, he's within an eyelash of 30/30, he plays the game as hard and with as much passion as any Red I have seen since Bip Roberts in 1992.

Sure, if some team offers you a boatload of top shelf major league ready pitching, okay. Short of that? No way. You build teams around guys like Brandon Phillips.

corkedbat
09-22-2007, 12:01 PM
I agree that no one is untouchable, but it would take a heck of a deal to part with Phillips - we have little enough RH pop in the lineup as it is.

To even consider it I would need either a young starter with at least #2 potential or a deal that netted me a couple of young players that solidified two positions - for intstance, a top young 2B to replace him and a solid starter or closer porspect.

I think, even at that, I'd still probably hold onto BP.

Spitball
09-23-2007, 12:01 AM
I just don't see teams giving up too much for second basemen. Teams recognize the the ease and inexpense with which the position is filled. A Grudzielanek can be signed at a discount and still win a Gold Glove while putting up decent offensive numbers.

Besides, teams will surely look at Rich Aurilia's numbers and couple those with Felipe Lopez's and Kearns's and question the ball park factor.

If precious, inexpensive pitching is offered, I would trade Phillips in a nano-second and replace him with Keppinger or whomever. Otherwise, I'd hold onto him.

mth123
09-23-2007, 04:32 AM
I just don't see teams giving up too much for second basemen. Teams recognize the the ease and inexpense with which the position is filled. A Grudzielanek can be signed at a discount and still win a Gold Glove while putting up decent offensive numbers.

Besides, teams will surely look at Rich Aurilia's numbers and couple those with Felipe Lopez's and Kearns's and question the ball park factor.
If precious, inexpensive pitching is offered, I would trade Phillips in a nano-second and replace him with Keppinger or whomever. Otherwise, I'd hold onto him.

I think this is an overall astute comment - especially the part in bold.

Its why:

1. Any trade for pitching will probably require an arm or two be included in the package from the Reds as well (Maloney?? McBeth?? etc.)

2. Votto may be the best trade bait based more on minor league prospect status than GAB inflated numbers.

Topcat
09-23-2007, 06:17 AM
It is come a time for now, that the Reds must stop trading off there top talent. Not to say never of course but beyond unrealisticly over whelming offers the Reds can not send of the few players that produce.

RedEye
09-24-2007, 12:25 AM
It is come a time for now, that the Reds must stop trading off there top talent. Not to say never of course but beyond unrealisticly over whelming offers the Reds can not send of the few players that produce.

Wait a minute... which "top talent" are you referring to here? Kearns and Lopez? Sean Casey? Mike Cameron? Paul Konerko?

I honestly don't see this franchise as one that has taken many risks by trading "top" talent. If anything, we tend to overvalue our own talent (see Casey, Sean and Reese, Pokey) and miss out on opportunities to cash them in for even better players for the future.

The trick of trading as a GM, IMO, is to recognize at what point a player is at his top value and then weighing his trade potential against his future value to the team. This is NEVER an easy decision because most of the time you need to GIVE UP top players in order to GET anything nice in return.

To me, the biggest challenge facing Krivsky now is to decide with which parts he wants to build this team. BP could either be a cog in the machine or a spare part. Chances are, he's going to price himself out of the Reds' market range just as the rest of the upcoming core (Bruce, Votto, Bailey, Cueto) start producing on the ML level and can complement our two solid SPs (Harang, Arroyo).

In a best case scenario, both Cueto and Bailey will turn into top pitchers. However, I know better than to expect that. No matter how good our offensive core becomes, we absolutely need to get more good pitchers

Of course, in a perfect world I don't want to trade Brandon Phillips. I just think he might be our best trading chip. The other candidates are Votto and Encarnacion (Adam Dunn is another story... see all of the other threads in this forum). To me, BP is the most tradeable and the most likely to regress based on his peripheral numbers.