PDA

View Full Version : Would you trade Bailey or Cueto for 1 frontline starter?



AmarilloRed
11-27-2007, 12:43 AM
With all the trade talk swirling around, I thought this was a good question to ask. Pitching prospects are not a sure thing, and I would be interested to know what you think. Would you trade Bailey? Cueto? Both of them? or neither to acquire a front line starter. I personally would like to keep both of them if possible, and prefer to trade a combination of our positional player prospects to acquire a front-line starter. I think both Bailey and Cueto will become front-line starters in a short period of time, and I would prefer to develop my own prospects rather than acquiring a more expensive front-line starter from another organization. I will now create a poll, and listen to what the rest of you think.

Bigredfan#1
11-27-2007, 01:08 AM
YOu give up a future that you might not be able to replace, besides the difference in their salary versus the salary you would have to pay to keep whoever you got. KEEP THEM!!

Bip Roberts
11-27-2007, 01:15 AM
Id have no problem trading either or both for a front line starter as long as that starter isnt a 1 year rental and has no signablilty to this team

Handofdeath
11-27-2007, 02:06 AM
Agreed. Prospects are just that, prospects. I would rather the Reds have a player with proven success. But, they must be signed for at least the next two seasons, if not three and not be a GB pitcher.

757690
11-27-2007, 02:30 AM
Frank Pastore, Pat Pacillo, Jack Armstrong, Scott Scudder, Tim Pugh, John Roper, Rob Bell, Brandon Claussen. Would you have traded any of them for Maddux or Glavine? ;)

The key is how good the frontline starter is. Neither guy will be better than Santana or Webb, or Beckett, or Sabathia, or Bedard. So IMHO, the extra salary is worth the certainty in their cases. But I can't think of anyone else I can say that about.

*BaseClogger*
11-27-2007, 07:31 AM
trade one of the hitters, hamilton or votto

FOR IAN SNELL!!

ChatterRed
11-27-2007, 08:32 AM
I'd have no problem trading either or both for a front line starter as long as that starter isnt a 1 year rental and has no signablilty to this team.


Agreed. Prospects are just that, prospects. I would rather the Reds have a player with proven success. But, they must be signed for at least the next two seasons, if not three and not be a GB pitcher.


Frank Pastore, Pat Pacillo, Jack Armstrong, Scott Scudder, Tim Pugh, John Roper, Rob Bell, Brandon Claussen. Would you have traded any of them for Maddux or Glavine?

The key is how good the frontline starter is. Neither guy will be better than Santana or Webb, or Beckett, or Sabathia, or Bedard. So IMHO, the extra salary is worth the certainty in their cases. But I can't think of anyone else I can say that about.

I agree with all these statements. How many pitching prospects are we going to wait until they have no trade value? You should always go for the proven commodity. By the time Bailey or Cueto are in a groove, it's probably 3-5 years down the road and we'll have to pay them anyway.

Redsnake
11-27-2007, 10:23 AM
BaseClogger are you going to post "...trade for Ian Snell" in every thread?? I can tell you like the player (rightfully so), but I feel if the Reds don't get Ian Snell you might jump off a building.

I get it. You like Ian Snell.

hippie07
11-27-2007, 11:31 AM
It is so enticing to think that next year is the year that Bailey & Cueto make great strides... so in 2009 or 2010 they slide right into #1 and #2 of our rotation for the next 3-5 years... and so, some people are very hesitant to trade them.

I voted for "trade both" and I'd rather trade one, but, for example the Rays want pitching prospectS (plural) for Kazmir ... and if we could get Kazmir I'd give up both Bailey & Cueto.... In a perfect world though, I'd keep at least one.

But for all the reasons already mentioned... I'd rather have a proven ace for 3yrs (like Kazmir) than 5 yrs of two potential aces ... so, many times potential is never reached, for whatever the reason... I'd take the sure thing every day of the week.

AmarilloRed
11-27-2007, 12:17 PM
That is always the risk when you talk about potential. The Devil Rays took the time necessary to develop Kazmir, but now find they cannot afford to keep him. I think both Bailey and Cueto are not that far away. I could see Bailey becoming a successful starter this year or in 2009, and I think the same about Cueto. Johnny could get exposure this year, and be ready in 2009. I think both starters could be producing as early as 2009. It's easy to say you want a proven ace, but neither Bailey or Cueto has really had the chance to prove themselves. We will all be kicking ourselves if we trade either Bailey or Cueto and they do turn out to be as good as any other frontline starting pitcher

Strider
11-27-2007, 12:23 PM
Good question...but my answer is always...depends on who it is. For the right starter that is young enough to anchor the rotation for 4-5 years...probably. For any number one starter...No thank you.

Ideally, Cueto and Bailey become number 1-2s in the next 2-3 years.
Potential does not always translate into production.
So...it depends.

Natty Redlocks
11-27-2007, 01:17 PM
I just don't think there's enough information here to answer the question properly. Do I consider Bailey or Cueto "untouchable"? No. Would I think long and hard before dealing them? Of course.

In my mind, the closest thing to "untouchables" the Reds have are Bruce and Harang.

hippie07
11-27-2007, 01:32 PM
That is always the risk when you talk about potential. The Devil Rays took the time necessary to develop Kazmir, but now find they cannot afford to keep him. I think both Bailey and Cueto are not that far away. I could see Bailey becoming a successful starter this year or in 2009, and I think the same about Cueto. Johnny could get exposure this year, and be ready in 2009. I think both starters could be producing as early as 2009. It's easy to say you want a proven ace, but neither Bailey or Cueto has really had the chance to prove themselves. We will all be kicking ourselves if we trade either Bailey or Cueto and they do turn out to be as good as any other frontline starting pitcher

Would we really kick ourselves if giving them away to get Kazmir is an integral part of the Reds winning a Series in 08 or 09... I doub it...

IF (and at this point that's still a big if) they become #1 or #2 starters, we'll prob say... man it woulda been nice to have held onto them.. but wasn't it exciting watching those playoffs and the champagne-popping....

If we hold onto our young position players (Hamilton, Bruce, Votto, etc) we can easily afford FA starting pitching in the distant future (especially w/ world series caliber revenue) - so we won't ruin the future of the ballclub .. it might just save it in fact.....

ChatterRed
11-27-2007, 01:55 PM
As a small market club, the chances of a dynasty are slim to none. Therefore, a chance to win every once in awhile is our best hope. Better to take the sure thingie as opposed to hope a prospect turns out alright.

AmarilloRed
11-27-2007, 02:35 PM
The problem is that there are no sure things. Kazmir could very well blow out his arm, or we could find out that he is not the pitcher in GABP he was in Tampa Bay. I don't think landing one frontline starting pitcher will take us to the playoffs by himself. We could very well have Harang, Arroyo and Kazmir all win 20 games, but the relievers in the 6th and 7th innings blow 20 games in the last 2 spots in the rotation. This scenario is also counting heavily on the fact that our position players step up, and have us competitive enough to challenge in the NL Central. There really are all sort of risks if you trade the best 2 starting pitching prospects the Reds have had in 20 years, and then find out Kazmir, Harang, and Arroyo are unable to take the Reds to the playoffs by themselves.

GoReds33
11-27-2007, 03:17 PM
The salary difference is the issue that made me vote to trade neither. Besides, hopefully they will both be frontline starters.

AdamDunn
11-27-2007, 03:29 PM
As a small market club, the chances of a dynasty are slim to none. Therefore, a chance to win every once in awhile is our best hope. Better to take the sure thingie as opposed to hope a prospect turns out alright.

One frontline starter doesn't help us win. We'd have to do that and get a bunch of other players from FA or trades if the Reds want to "win every once in a while." That would make us not a small market club anymore. The only chance of winning at all is for the Reds to build from the inside. Where do you guys get this idea that trading away prospects will help a team win? Did the Indians, Phillies, A's, Rockies, Mets, or Red Sox do any of that? I don't think so.

Vada Pinson Fan
11-27-2007, 04:22 PM
With payroll being the upmost consideration for doing anything regarding the Reds (not a slight on our team just being realistic) and having Bailey and Cueto under the Reds control for about 5 years, I simply cannot trade this most precious of commodities: young, super-talented starting pitchers the Reds have groomed.

Hopefully Wayne Krivsky can acquire the likes of a Kazmir, Haren or Bedard for an outfielder+, not named Bruce nor 1st baseman: Votto. If I knew that the cost to trade for Kazmir, Bedard or Haren would cost anyone of our young, potential superstars- I just couldn't/wouldn't do it. The Reds are currently primed to excell for years to come with the current and up and coming talent in the minors. Instead of trading at a high cost for any of those 3 potentially available pitchers, I see what Silva would cost and if he is asking for more than he's worth, I wait and sign a pitcher from the 2008 Free Agent class or perhaps talk to San Francisco about one of their top 3 starters. They wouldn't demand what Haren, Bedard or Kazmir would. Maybe consider Willis if the Marlins can be convinced he is on an obvious decline but again I don't trade away any of the crowned jewels for him.

Pitching of this magnitude (Bailey, Cueto and Maloney) must be kept! I've heard it said too many times and this old saying does have merit: "The best trades are sometimes the ones you didn't make."

Degenerate39
11-27-2007, 05:35 PM
Depends on who it is

gedred69
11-27-2007, 07:25 PM
There is so much to consider. Any MLB impact starter the Reds could trade for, must be evaluated as to mechanics and any previous arm/shoulder problems in his past. A pitcher for GABP, must be able to to be successful low in the zone. If you are going to give up major prospects, it must be for someone you can keep 2-3 years at least. He must be a legitimate potential 15 game winner---now. He must be a 200 innings+ pitcher. Otherwise, Reds should keep their prospects. I will say though, I saw in Bailey last season an ego I would be concerned about. Say what you will about Ross, but he is a good defensive catcher who calls a better than decent game. Yet, when Bailey was getting into dangerous territory, he blew Ross off when he tried to tell him something most likely valuable, and proceeded to tank. If I could get such a pitcher for Bailey and say a Freel I would really give it some serious thought.

*BaseClogger*
11-27-2007, 11:17 PM
BaseClogger are you going to post "...trade for Ian Snell" in every thread?? I can tell you like the player (rightfully so), but I feel if the Reds don't get Ian Snell you might jump off a building.

I get it. You like Ian Snell.

haha yeah I always said if I was going to commit suicide I'd jump off a building cuz it sounds like the most fun you can have dieing... I'll stop though if its getting on your nerves... oh but it just makes soooo much sense!

Stephenk29
11-28-2007, 01:06 AM
What's up with Ian Snell? Was it written somewhere that he is available?

757690
11-28-2007, 01:28 AM
What's up with Ian Snell? Was it written somewhere that he is available?

I think considering it's the Pirates, everyone is available. None of their moves in the last decade have made any sense, so why wouldn't they trade the player on their team with the brightest future?

Redsnake
11-28-2007, 07:33 AM
haha yeah I always said if I was going to commit suicide I'd jump off a building cuz it sounds like the most fun you can have dieing... I'll stop though if its getting on your nerves... oh but it just makes soooo much sense!

Ian Snell has been rumored to be on the market. I beleive MLBtraderumors, ESPN and CBSSPORTSLINE has all mention it. However I haven't heard anything recently.

You're right it does make sense Baseclogger!! I will say after reading your post after post on how much you like Snell I started looking into numbers more closely. Put me down on the Ian Snell bandwagon. My only fear is that Snell is under the radar as of right now, but in two years or less his value will probably be too rich for the Reds.

AmarilloRed
11-28-2007, 07:43 AM
* The Reds are willing to trade Ryan Freel or Josh Hamilton to clear space for Jay Bruce.
* Ian Snell could be available. It's not the first time his name has appeared in the rumor mill. Hell, Snell for Hamilton kind of makes sense.

I would go for this. We would keep our 2 top pitching prospects, and give up Hamilton(and maybe a lesser prospect) to land a good #2 starter.