PDA

View Full Version : Blanton or Bedard or Bust?



TheBigLebowski
12-14-2007, 07:51 PM
Sure looks that way...

Judging by the price the Backs paid for Haren, I doubt we'll make much of a push for Bedard.

What we'll likely see now is an acquisition of Mark Hendrickson or Livan Hernandez to fill out our rotation and we'll see Bailey at the end of said rotation with Cueto hopefully in short relief.

Honestly, I'm fine with that.

I was exercising on the treadmill when Sportscenter broke the news - "Dan Haren Traded" Had to stop running because I was sure he was going to follow with "to the Cincinnati Reds for minor league OF Jay Bruce and P Homer Bailey and 3 minor leaguers."

The idea of having a guy like Haren or Bedard is nice but I'm very content to keep our young studs.

Bip Roberts
12-14-2007, 07:59 PM
How good are the guys the Backs gave up?

fadetoblack2880
12-14-2007, 07:59 PM
I'd hate to see any of those guys go, but I would also like to see Bedard in a Reds uniform. I say go after him.

Terps
12-14-2007, 08:01 PM
How good are the guys the Backs gave up?

4 of their top 5 guys according to this:

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/fantasy/story/10351336

plus Chris Carter who was ranked 8th on BA's list.

TheBigLebowski
12-14-2007, 08:02 PM
Brett Anderson and Carlos Gonzalez are a lesser version of Homer Bailey and Jay Bruce. According to most, the Backs gave up 5 of their top 10 prospects, although 5 of their top 10 is nowhere near as impressive as it would be had they gotten 5 of our top 10.

I think we may make a play for Blanton now, come to think of it.

Bip Roberts
12-14-2007, 08:06 PM
4 of their top 5 guys according to this:

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/fantasy/story/10351336

plus Chris Carter who was ranked 8th on BA's list.

im not sure its the same chris carter

Terps
12-14-2007, 08:13 PM
im not sure its the same chris carter
It is. The BA list came out on Dec. 7th. The trade with the Nats was in August. So either there are 2 Chris Carters, or they somehow got him back.

Edit: Just did some research. There are indeed 2 Chris Carters. Both First basemen. The first one, the Dbacks traded to the Red Sox in the WM Pena deal. The 2nd one, the DBacks just acquired in early December from the White Sox for Carlos Quentin. The 2nd one is the one that BA lists as their #8 prospect, and is the one being traded to OAK.

Bip Roberts
12-14-2007, 08:17 PM
It is. The BA list came out on Dec. 7th. The trade with the Nats was in August. So either there are 2 Chris Carters, or they somehow got him back.

Well you would think by me saying "i dont think its the same chris carter" it would mean i think there is 2 Chris carters

http://www.thebaseballcube.com/players/C/Chris-Carter-5.shtml is the one the Dbacks jsut traded

Bip Roberts
12-14-2007, 08:18 PM
People with the same names are confusing

fadetoblack2880
12-14-2007, 08:20 PM
People with the same names are confusing

I agree.

Terps
12-14-2007, 08:21 PM
Well you would think by me saying "i dont think its the same chris carter" it would mean i think there is 2 Chris carters see my edit :beerme:

757690
12-14-2007, 08:37 PM
The Diamondbacks did not actually give up that much. Only Gonzelaz was ranked in MILB's top 50 list. The Diamondbacks just had a rush of prospects make it to the majors, so their top 10 list is thinner than most years.

TheBigLebowski said it best. "5 of their top 10 is nowhere near as impressive as it would be had they gotten 5 of our top 10."

It basically is like trading Votto and Maloney and a bunch of lower prospects.

It looks like the A's were looking for quantity over quality. the D-Backs could give up quantity, since they have so many prospects already in the bigs.

But I do think that this means the Reds could get Blanton or Harden without giving up any of the big five.

HokieRed
12-14-2007, 08:54 PM
Well we've dodged the Haren bullet; now if somebody will just come along and make the Orioles an offer they can't refuse.

schmidty622
12-14-2007, 09:18 PM
Bedard or Bust in 2008? I choose bust.

TheBigLebowski
12-14-2007, 11:32 PM
Pros and cons to each.

Pros for Bedard:

The better pitcher of the two

A lefty; possibly would be the only lefty in our rotation

Misses bats - a potential Cy Young candidate

Cons for Bedard:

More expensive, speaking from a salary standpoint as well as what it would take talent-wise to land him

Only signed for 2 more years

Pros for Blanton:

Very capable pitcher, instantly our #3, probably a good fit for GAB

Less expensive, speaking from a salary standpoint as well as what it would take to sign him

Cons for Blanton:

Nowhere near as dominant as Bedard

Unsure about his current contract status - hopefully someone can educate

Does not miss bats


They're both good pitchers and I'd be happy with either but if the choice was mine, I'd go with Blanton. We could probably get Blanton for Cueto or Hamilton +, whereas Bedard would cost possibly both of those and maybe even Bailey. I'd like to see a deal with Hammy and a lesser prospect for Blanton and let Cueto/Bailey develop into the studs I think they will both be. We can compete and possibly win next year with a guy like Blanton in the rotation and we don't completely compromise our farm system.

Blue
12-14-2007, 11:41 PM
I vote that we just keep our prospects.

BearcatShane
12-15-2007, 12:01 AM
I vote that we just keep our prospects.

And let another October pass without Cincinnati in the playoffs. I say GO FOR IT. I wouldn't trade Bruce but I could live without one of our top pitching prospects- Bailey or Cueto, if we could get a Bedard or Blanton.

TheBigLebowski
12-15-2007, 01:22 AM
I vote that we just keep our prospects.

Not a bad opinion at all.

Personally, I think we can win next year without a major trade, providing we pick up a #3-5 starter via FA. Hendrickson, Livan, etc.

I'd be all for keeping our prospects. Thing is, it seems as though our F/O is determined to pick up a good starter via trade.

fadetoblack2880
12-15-2007, 01:29 AM
Bedard.

BucksandReds
12-15-2007, 01:51 AM
I would trade Hamilton and Bailey for Bedard but none of the other big 3 with this deal. I think they would rather have Bailey and I think that Cueto is as likely to succeed. Votto is no injury risk as Hamilton may be and Bruce is not tradeable imho. A small market team must have GREAT homegrown talent and he is that. You can platoon Hopper and Freel at CF and have a rotation of Harang, Bedard, Arroyo, Belisle and 1 of the other contenders. That rotation gives you a better chance (when combined with our hitting and a BP of Weathers, Burton and Cordero) than any other team in our division. We get two years with a chance to win it all and don't lose a can't miss guy (as Bruce is as can't miss as anyone in the minors.) Anything more for just two years of Bedard is beyond foolish, it's reckless. We are not the Red Sox or Yankess. We will NEVER win the WS giving away all of our top prospects.

BucksandReds
12-15-2007, 01:54 AM
It depends soley on what you have to trade. Bedard is better but much more is required. I go no more than Bailey, Hamilton and low level prospects for him.

AmarilloRed
12-15-2007, 01:58 AM
I vote that we just keep our prospects.

That really is the best choice. The price for Blanton or Bedard will be too high, given what the Diamondbacks paid for Haren.

BucksandReds
12-15-2007, 02:08 AM
I hope that this market is still available in 3 years when we get the option to resign a 32 year old Harang or trade him for a ton of prospects. Maybe not a 25 year old but he'll have a few more good years in his arm.

MotownRed
12-15-2007, 11:22 AM
Joe Blanton p
1 year/$0.38M (2007)

renewed 3/07

1 year/$0.327M (2006), renewed 3/06

1 year/$0.3165M (2005), re-signed 2/05
drafted 2002 (1-24), $1.4 M signing bonus
ML service: 2.016

HokieRed
12-15-2007, 11:41 AM
I've been in favor of keeping our prospects all along. The prices mentioned are simply too high, too destructive to the positive trend in this organization.

chettt
12-15-2007, 01:06 PM
Keep our prospects!! Sign 2 free agent starters (Prior, Lieber, Benson, Clement, Tomko) to 1-year contracts. Pitch whichever one is not on the DL. Make '09 our year. If we lose Dunn & Griffey in '09, so be it.

jmac
12-15-2007, 04:59 PM
A couple of quotes from yahoo article. If already posted , sorry:

Sometime soon, too, Baltimore will move Bedard, who has two years of arbitration remaining before free agency. Seattle could get him with two out of the Adam Jones-Brandon Morrow-Jeff Clement troika, though the Mariners are loathe to include more than one for anyone other than Santana. Cincinnati could land Bedard tomorrow if it included outfield prospect Jay Bruce, though the Reds aren't that dumb.

Even the NL Central, with the Cubs' lineup and Milwaukee's brilliant retooling and Cincinnati's rise, should at least intrigue.

Stephenk29
12-15-2007, 05:06 PM
If all else fails its nice to be in the headlines once again.

TheBigLebowski
12-15-2007, 05:31 PM
Every time I check this board I half-expect there to be a new thread about a big trade.

*BaseClogger*
12-15-2007, 05:40 PM
The Diamondbacks gave up 6 good prospects for Haren. No way I want to see 6 of our prospects sent to Baltimore for 2 years of Bedard...

Bip Roberts
12-15-2007, 07:41 PM
The Diamondbacks gave up 6 good prospects for Haren. No way I want to see 6 of our prospects sent to Baltimore for 2 years of Bedard...

They gave up 1 guy thats probably major league ready and like 5 guys that probably never will be.

*BaseClogger*
12-15-2007, 09:46 PM
They gave up 1 guy thats probably major league ready and like 5 guys that probably never will be.

How can you say that it was 5 that probably never will be? Sure, a majority of prospects don't make it, but we're talking about their #1, 3, 7, and 8 prospects...

Bip Roberts
12-16-2007, 04:25 AM
How can you say that it was 5 that probably never will be? Sure, a majority of prospects don't make it, but we're talking about their #1, 3, 7, and 8 prospects...

They are only numbered that because they brought up all the other guys last year.

The guys they gave up arent all that spectacular if you ask me. Heck one guy is a fineness pitcher and another one is projected to maybe be a 4th OF at tops. The numbers dont really mean much to me.

mound_patrol
12-16-2007, 10:21 AM
How can you say that it was 5 that probably never will be? Sure, a majority of prospects don't make it, but we're talking about their #1, 3, 7, and 8 prospects...

Well someone has to be ranked 1-10 in every system. Doesn't mean they are anything special. The D-backs trade would be equivelant to the Reds trading Votto plus 5 other B/C+ type prospects like Stubbs, Roenicke, or Maloney.

mound_patrol
12-16-2007, 10:22 AM
I think the asking price is way to high for the Reds and would rather they just spend the money on one year deals for Leiber, Clement, and Prior, and just throw whoever shows up with the best stuff.

GoReds33
12-16-2007, 01:26 PM
I think the asking price is way to high for the Reds and would rather they just spend the money on one year deals for Leiber, Clement, and Prior, and just throw whoever shows up with the best stuff.I don't think you will get much out of that. Clement and Leiber are past their prime, or never have had a prime. Prior still has some arm issues. I don't know what Prior can give you, but he is the only one out of that group I would take a flier on.

BEETTLEBUG
12-16-2007, 01:27 PM
I agree with you I think our players will be great.

mound_patrol
12-16-2007, 01:38 PM
I don't think you will get much out of that. Clement and Leiber are past their prime, or never have had a prime. Prior still has some arm issues. I don't know what Prior can give you, but he is the only one out of that group I would take a flier on.

I'd take a chance with one of those guys, especially Leiber, over mortaging the future on one guy who will be here for 2 years.

*BaseClogger*
12-16-2007, 03:09 PM
Well someone has to be ranked 1-10 in every system. Doesn't mean they are anything special. The D-backs trade would be equivelant to the Reds trading Votto plus 5 other B/C+ type prospects like Stubbs, Roenicke, or Maloney.

so then I take it you advocate trading Votto and 5 other prospects to the Orioles for Bedard?

mound_patrol
12-16-2007, 03:49 PM
so then I take it you advocate trading Votto and 5 other prospects to the Orioles for Bedard?

I would make any trade where we're only giving up one of Votto, Bailey, Hamilton, or Cuerto plus several other mid-level prospects.

Why Not?
12-16-2007, 03:51 PM
The Diamondbacks gave up 6 good prospects for Haren. No way I want to see 6 of our prospects sent to Baltimore for 2 years of Bedard...

I don't think that's what the O's are looking for after trading Tejada for five guys. At some point, there's just too many bodies.

*BaseClogger*
12-16-2007, 03:55 PM
I don't think that's what the O's are looking for after trading Tejada for five guys. At some point, there's just too many bodies.

You're right we can't assume that the asking price from the O's is the same that the A's wanted for Haren... Who know's what Billy Beane is thinking? :)

mound_patrol
12-16-2007, 04:17 PM
You're right we can't assume that the asking price from the O's is the same that the A's wanted for Haren... Who know's what Billy Beane is thinking? :)

Well Beane has a certain Pedigree that he goes after. And a lot of the times its different than what most other teams are looking for.

*BaseClogger*
12-16-2007, 04:21 PM
Well Beane has a certain Pedigree that he goes after. And a lot of the times its different than what most other teams are looking for.

And that's how he got 6 prospects that some of us are blowing off...

mound_patrol
12-16-2007, 04:28 PM
And that's how he got 6 prospects that some of us are blowing off...

It's not like Beane is always right. He did give up Harang and Burton for next to nothing.

*BaseClogger*
12-16-2007, 04:30 PM
It's not like Beane is always right. He did give up Harang and Burton for next to nothing.

I don't think he is always right. But he seems very good at getting something for his old vets when he decides to "rebuild"...

schmidty622
12-16-2007, 05:57 PM
Blanton would be nice if he could be had for cheaper then what the going rate seems to be. He is not a pitcher that I would deal more than one top flight prospect for.

Blue
12-16-2007, 06:03 PM
I wouldn't deal any top flight prospect for him. Especially not one that's ready to contribute.

Dracodave
12-16-2007, 06:25 PM
Blanton would be nice if he could be had for cheaper then what the going rate seems to be. He is not a pitcher that I would deal more than one top flight prospect for.

I'd give them maybe Maloney and Stubbs if that would do it. Since they ARE in rebuild mode. Then I'd have Blanton, and sign him long term while losing very little to what my current team needs.

Hondo
12-16-2007, 07:10 PM
Bedard and Santana could be had for a package of Prospects the Reds have. Look at the Packages the Red Sox and Yankees are proposing.

Melky Cabrera and Coco Crisp? Those guys don't have the Potential Josh Hamilton or Jay Bruce has.

Phil Hughes is by far the Gem.

Santana could be had if the Reds just throw out some Lower Level guys at Minnesota. Probably have to give up Bailey to land Santana but so what?

Give Johan 140 Million over 7 years and be done with it.

Thanks

BucksandReds
12-16-2007, 07:24 PM
We'll never sign anyone to a 140 million dollar deal anytime soon. See Eric Milton and KG Jr contracts. We are a small market team. As much as we all don't like it we have to compete with what we have going for us. A ton of young guys that play for cheap.

Hondo
12-16-2007, 07:38 PM
The Reds just wasted 46 Million on Cordero then

Thanks

BEETTLEBUG
12-16-2007, 07:41 PM
If Bob Cast wants Santana it is his money just go out give up the players and sign him up.

gedred69
12-17-2007, 01:00 AM
We'll never sign anyone to a 140 million dollar deal anytime soon. See Eric Milton and KG Jr contracts. We are a small market team. As much as we all don't like it we have to compete with what we have going for us. A ton of young guys that play for cheap.

True to a point. The Reds are behind the curve by 1 season. There are a plethora of position players in the minor league system that are the '08 season away from proving to be extremely desirable to teams looking at building. (See the Minor League thread inre top prospects). The Reds could well be loaded with guys they will have no place for but the trade block. Every infield spot, as well as outfielders. Pitching? Well, we'll see.

AmarilloRed
12-17-2007, 02:17 AM
There is a similar thread on ORG where they suggest Blanton could probably be had for 1 of the big 4 plus 2 additional prospects, or even 3 prospects other than the Big 4. I would certainly look into a trade for Blanton under those circumstances, especially if the Orioles are going to continue insisting on Bruce.

Blue
12-17-2007, 03:32 AM
Pretty sure I wouldn't give up any of the big 4 except for Blanton except maybe Votto, but the A's have no use for him as they have Daric Barton ready at 1B and Jack Cust at DH, plus a soon to be full outfield. They might be interested in some of our lesser pitching prospects. If they're truly looking to rebuild by trading Haren and Blanton, a package of 3-6 prospects below the top 5 or so might be what they're looking for.

TN Red Fan
12-17-2007, 03:34 AM
Give me Bedard and a catcher with a stick and we're the best team in the NL for the next two years.

You have to ask yourself, is the same true when Bruce, Votto, Bailey, et al. get to their primes? By then you'll lose Phillips, Harang, Arroyo.

Small market teams can't afford to have talent at every level of the organization. It has to meet at the same time.

Honestly, if Blanton can be had for what Amarillo is saying, then make both trades. Sell out the farm. Bruce and Bailey for Bedard. Cueto for Blanton. Votto for a catcher.

It'd be the best rotation since Atlanta had Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz and Avery. We'll be in the World Series for the next two years, then blow it up. Trade off Harang, Arroyo, and Phillips after '09 and you'll be able to rebuild the farm. Small market teams just don't get this kind of opportunity.

It's a WS team for two years or an 80-85 win team for 5 years. What do you want?

ChatterRed
12-17-2007, 09:52 AM
Geez, why don't we try and trade for a second tier pitcher?

Why do we have to have Blanton or Bedard? Can't we hit the secondary tier of pitchers and get someone?

I don't get it.

schmidty622
12-17-2007, 10:46 AM
Give me Bedard and a catcher with a stick and we're the best team in the NL for the next two years.

You have to ask yourself, is the same true when Bruce, Votto, Bailey, et al. get to their primes? By then you'll lose Phillips, Harang, Arroyo.

Small market teams can't afford to have talent at every level of the organization. It has to meet at the same time.

Honestly, if Blanton can be had for what Amarillo is saying, then make both trades. Sell out the farm. Bruce and Bailey for Bedard. Cueto for Blanton. Votto for a catcher.

It'd be the best rotation since Atlanta had Maddux, Glavine, Smoltz and Avery. We'll be in the World Series for the next two years, then blow it up. Trade off Harang, Arroyo, and Phillips after '09 and you'll be able to rebuild the farm. Small market teams just don't get this kind of opportunity.

It's a WS team for two years or an 80-85 win team for 5 years. What do you want?

Honestly I would rather have an team whose floor was 80-85 wins because that would mean that the improvement from year to year would have to be minimal to make the playoffs. The team would just be a solid FA pitcher or bat away from making the playoffs year after year.

And small market teams can afford to have talent at every level, they just need a system in place where the talent from the minors is ready to replace some of the talent from the majors every 4-5 years. If the Reds trade away this batch of young talent now they're minor league system will go back to what it was 5 years ago. If they let it develop and continue to put good players into the minor leagues, they will be able to trade away the players who are nearing FA and can be replaced through the minor's. And our young players at that time will be the kind that we are looking at trading for now. Ones that can net us major league ready prospects and help reload out farm system. And thatís another way we reload our talent base.

It can be done but the Reds just need to have a plan and stick to it. It might not equal a world series in the short term but it is a plan for long term success which will be better for the team, the fans, and the city.

TN Red Fan
12-17-2007, 11:18 AM
In order for any long term plan to work, we're going to have to show that we can develop young pitchers. We've been soooo bad at that. Gruler, Howington, Dumatrait. Ryan Wagner looked like a sure-fire closer. All failures.

That's my fear. Right now we have some good names: Bailey, Cueto, Maloney, Wood, Roenicke. But if those guys don't come through, then Bruce and Votto won't be good enough to sustain the team, even if they live up to full potential.

schmidty622
12-17-2007, 11:25 AM
How do we show that we can develop them without letting them develop?

TN Red Fan
12-17-2007, 11:34 AM
How do we show that we can develop them without letting them develop?

Rush them. Both guys need another season in the minors. Bailey has to work out his control issues and Cueto has all of 4 AAA starts.

schmidty622
12-17-2007, 12:07 PM
So you let them have their season. If it means building a team that will have long term success I’m down.

Hondo
12-17-2007, 02:00 PM
I would hold on to Cueto. Trade Bailey only in a package for Santana.

Bedard can be had I would think for a lower tier package like the A's got for Haren. Wish we would have traded 6 Lower guys for Haren. Maybe Bailey...

But then, Haren came from St.Louis for Mark Mulder and Bailey could be the next Haren...

Thanks

bigredbunter
12-17-2007, 02:43 PM
Not a bad opinion at all.

Personally, I think we can win next year without a major trade, providing we pick up a #3-5 starter via FA. Hendrickson, Livan, etc.


Yeah, the Reds lost 90 games last year. Over the off-season they landed a closer and a new manager. I'm curious to know how adding a starter like Livan propels this team to a World Series.

757690
12-17-2007, 02:48 PM
Yeah, the Reds lost 90 games last year. Over the off-season they landed a closer and a new manager. I'm curious to know how adding a starter like Livan propels this team to a World Series.



SEE 2007 COLORADO ROCKIES

mound_patrol
12-17-2007, 06:45 PM
SEE 2007 COLORADO ROCKIES

Didn't Livan play for Arizona? Maybe he was owned by the Rockies? Other than that I have no idea what you are talking about.

Dracodave
12-17-2007, 07:16 PM
Didn't Livan play for Arizona? Maybe he was owned by the Rockies? Other than that I have no idea what you are talking about.

They picked out a starter like Livian (innings eater) that did them good.

757690
12-17-2007, 07:35 PM
My main point was that the Rockies lost 86 games in 2006. They kept their young prospects, and just picked up R. Lugo as a back end innings eater in the off season, and it seemed to work for them.

mound_patrol
12-17-2007, 08:05 PM
My main point was that the Rockies lost 86 games in 2006. They kept their young prospects, and just picked up R. Lugo as a back end innings eater in the off season, and it seemed to work for them.

I think adding a guy like Livan would be a bad choice. He definitely seems to be on a downward slide in his career. If we are going to keep our prospects then I'd target Lieber first.

thatcoolguy_22
12-17-2007, 08:48 PM
Didn't Livan play for Arizona? Maybe he was owned by the Rockies? Other than that I have no idea what you are talking about.

I believe 757 was referring more to the waterfall affect an innings eater can have on improving a pitching staff...

thatcoolguy_22
12-17-2007, 08:49 PM
I think adding a guy like Livan would be a bad choice. He definitely seems to be on a downward slide in his career. If we are going to keep our prospects then I'd target Lieber first.


a bird in the hand or a handful of used lamp shades, well... something along those lines. Either or would be fine if used as a #5 SP.

*BaseClogger*
12-17-2007, 09:59 PM
I think Carlos Silva would give us just as good of production as Joe Blanton...

jmac
12-17-2007, 11:22 PM
I think Carlos Silva would give us just as good of production as Joe Blanton...

Blanton however being a Ky boy could possibly sign an extension later on. He isnt a #1 or 2 but a decent #3 or a very good #4 or 5.

Blue
12-17-2007, 11:30 PM
I think he's a good #3 with the potential to be a #2. I hope we get him. If he goes deep into games as he has in the past, it would help the Reds take advantage of the improved back of the bullpen, as well as make it easier to carry two rookies in the rotation. He pitched better last season than his ERA indicates. He had a .679 OPSA.

*BaseClogger*
12-17-2007, 11:46 PM
Blanton however being a Ky boy could possibly sign an extension later on. He isnt a #1 or 2 but a decent #3 or a very good #4 or 5.

OK, so Blanton signs an extension or Silva signs a 5-year contract what is the difference? I'll tell you- Silva doesn't cost anything in a trade...

757690
12-17-2007, 11:57 PM
OK, so Blanton signs an extension or Silva signs a 5-year contract what is the difference? I'll tell you- Silva doesn't cost anything in a trade...

That is true, but Blanton would not cost much salary wise for the first two years, so if he didn't work out, no need to sign him to an extension. Also, that frees up money to go after Lowe or anyone else in 2009.

Sign Silva to a four year $40M contract and he makes it difficult to afford anyone else if he gets hurt, or just doesn't pan out.

Personally, I don't think either one is a good option. Blanton will get killed outside of the AL West, especially in GABP. He probably would have near a 5 ERA here.

Silva would be a great addition, but he costs too much, for too long.

*BaseClogger*
12-18-2007, 12:28 AM
That is true, but Blanton would not cost much salary wise for the first two years, so if he didn't work out, no need to sign him to an extension. Also, that frees up money to go after Lowe or anyone else in 2009.

Sign Silva to a four year $40M contract and he makes it difficult to afford anyone else if he gets hurt, or just doesn't pan out.

Personally, I don't think either one is a good option. Blanton will get killed outside of the AL West, especially in GABP. He probably would have near a 5 ERA here.

Silva would be a great addition, but he costs too much, for too long.

I agree- stay away from both. My point was just that I think signing Silva is better than trading for Blanton because it doesn't mortgage the future and heck... it's not my money!

Handofdeath
12-18-2007, 02:52 AM
Quite honestly, I don't think that acquiring another starter by trade may be all that necessary. When I look at the pitching staffs of this season's successful N.L. teams, I see staffs that aren't very good top to bottom. Let's look at the N.L. East winner the Phillies for example. Their top 4 starters were as follows:

1. Cole Hamels 15-5 3.39
2. Kyle Hendrick 10-4 3.87
3. Jamie Moyer 14-12 5.01
4. Adam Eaton 10-10 6.29

Now Harang and Arroyo can be counted on to do AT LEAST what Hamels and Hendrick did, if not be even better. Matt Belisle did as well as Moyer and Eaton and with more experience should improve.

Now, as I see it, a pitcher like Bedard is not an absolute necessity. He would fit in quite nicely and would no doubt improve the rotation immensely but the Reds could very well be successful without him. How do I know this? I use the 2006 Reds team as an example. It is without question that the stiffs manning the Reds bullpen that season cost them several wins. In fact, the Reds bullpen cost the Reds the 2006 N.L. Central title. By all rights, the Reds should have won 85-90 games that year. Who was the #3 starter on that Reds team? The infamous Eric Milton with an 8-8 record and ERA of 5.19.

My point is, the Reds could improve their rotation and be able to be successful by acquiring a starter who is a #3-5 pitcher for their staff instead of trading for a Bedard or Kazmir. By doing so they would not be trading away a boatload of prospects and they might very well be able to acquire such a pitcher via free agency.

Hondo
12-18-2007, 03:01 AM
Did someone say Silva for 4years @ 40 Million????

I want a VOTE Now!

Who would rather pay Santana 20 Million a year over 7 years (140 Million)?

Who would rather pay Silva 10 Million a year over 5 years (50 Million)?

1. Santana


My God, who would give Silva 50 Million?

Thanks

bigredbunter
12-18-2007, 08:20 AM
My main point was that the Rockies lost 86 games in 2006. They kept their young prospects, and just picked up R. Lugo as a back end innings eater in the off season, and it seemed to work for them.

I assume you mean Rodrigo Lopez (who pitched 80 innings last year)--The reason the Rockies "turned it around" in 2007 has less to do with their pitching than some nice performances they got out of position players. The difference between the Rocks' ERA in 2006 and 2007 was about a 1/3 of a run. The offense scored about 50 runs more.

What's more, they were a wildcard team who caught fire down the stretch and lucked into a WS appearance. I think there are better models for how to build a team than the 07 Rocks.

BEETTLEBUG
12-18-2007, 10:47 AM
I say Santana.

*BaseClogger*
12-18-2007, 02:31 PM
Josh Towers could probably give us similar production to Joe Blanton...

757690
12-18-2007, 03:25 PM
I assume you mean Rodrigo Lopez (who pitched 80 innings last year)--The reason the Rockies "turned it around" in 2007 has less to do with their pitching than some nice performances they got out of position players. The difference between the Rocks' ERA in 2006 and 2007 was about a 1/3 of a run. The offense scored about 50 runs more.

What's more, they were a wildcard team who caught fire down the stretch and lucked into a WS appearance. I think there are better models for how to build a team than the 07 Rocks.

Thanks for the correction. I meant Lopez, not Lugo.

You actually made my point.

Wild Card teams make the World Series all the time these days. In fact, seven wild card teams in the past 6 years have played in the World Series. So basically, a team just needs to make the playoffs and they have a good chance of making the World Series.

The Rockies did not luck into the World Series, they swept the Phillies, than the Diamondbacks. That's not luck. They did luck into the playoffs, with that controversial win over the Padres after the season ended, but they dominated once in the NL playoffs.

They are a great model on how to build a team. They will be very, very good for quite awhile, I can assure you. They were rated the best overall organization many years in a row, leading up to this year. They built a great farm system, and held onto all their young, cheap talent, then acquired affordable veterans like Fogg, R. Lopez and Hawkins to round out the roster.

That is what the Reds need to learn from them. Hold onto your own young, cheap talent, got get affordable veterans to fill out the roster, and be patient.

mound_patrol
12-18-2007, 04:35 PM
Thanks for the correction. I meant Lopez, not Lugo.

You actually made my point.

Wild Card teams make the World Series all the time these days. In fact, seven wild card teams in the past 6 years have played in the World Series. So basically, a team just needs to make the playoffs and they have a good chance of making the World Series.

The Rockies did not luck into the World Series, they swept the Phillies, than the Diamondbacks. That's not luck. They did luck into the playoffs, with that controversial win over the Padres after the season ended, but they dominated once in the NL playoffs.

They are a great model on how to build a team. They will be very, very good for quite awhile, I can assure you. They were rated the best overall organization many years in a row, leading up to this year. They built a great farm system, and held onto all their young, cheap talent, then acquired affordable veterans like Fogg, R. Lopez and Hawkins to round out the roster.

That is what the Reds need to learn from them. Hold onto your own young, cheap talent, got get affordable veterans to fill out the roster, and be patient.

Actually your point was the he was an innings eater that helped them get to the playoffs. But you are right in saying that you just need to find a way into the playoffs and then anything can happen. And in the NL central we should be able to compete right now with the talent we have compared to the rest of the division.

TheBigLebowski
12-18-2007, 04:41 PM
Josh Towers would give us similar production to Jimmy Haynes with a slower fastball.

AmarilloRed
12-18-2007, 04:42 PM
The Mariners just look to have signed Silva for 44 million(over 4 years), so someone was willing to offer him 10 million. This should improve our bargaining position with the Orioles.

BEETTLEBUG
12-18-2007, 04:54 PM
Towers is better than Haynes right?

bigredbunter
12-18-2007, 05:08 PM
Actually your point was the he was an innings eater that helped them get to the playoffs. But you are right in saying that you just need to find a way into the playoffs and then anything can happen. And in the NL central we should be able to compete right now with the talent we have compared to the rest of the division.

I stand corrected-The Rocks lucked into the Playoffs, not the WS--

The Rocks shaved a third of a run off their era while adding 50 runs to get to where they are (a +102 run differential).

The Reds were at -70 runs last year (with really no major injuries). In order to get to 90 wins, the Reds need a turnaround of 170 runs. Given that the roster is for the most part unchanged, I'm still confused as to A) Why the Rockies are a good model; and B) Why some think the Reds are close enough to compete for the Central with the roster they have.

757690
12-18-2007, 05:59 PM
I stand corrected-The Rocks lucked into the Playoffs, not the WS--

The Rocks shaved a third of a run off their era while adding 50 runs to get to where they are (a +102 run differential).

The Reds were at -70 runs last year (with really no major injuries). In order to get to 90 wins, the Reds need a turnaround of 170 runs. Given that the roster is for the most part unchanged, I'm still confused as to A) Why the Rockies are a good model; and B) Why some think the Reds are close enough to compete for the Central with the roster they have.


A) All I am saying about the Rockies being a good model is that the Reds can learn a lot from them about how to run an organization. They may not be the best model on how the 2007 Reds can make the playoffs in 2008, specifically, but they are a good model for all major league teams in general.


B) A better model for the 2007 Reds to learn from is the 2005 Tigers. They had a similar run differential (-64) as the 2007 Reds, and lots of good young talent,
They brought in a veteran manager with a history of winning, Leland, a veteran innings eater, Rogers, and veteran closer, T. Jones. They then let their young talent play, and they went to the World Series.
Remember, the Reds played at .500 ball the second half of the year. They are not that bad of a team.

Parity is now a part of MLB. Exclude the Red Sox and Yankees, and all other teams are very similar in talent. It does not take much to improve by 10 or more games in one year, and if that happens to the Reds, they are definitely playoff contenders. Heck, even with a terrible year last year, with less than a month to go, they were still in contention. That is how much parity has taken over MLB.

bigredbunter
12-18-2007, 08:45 PM
A) All I am saying about the Rockies being a good model is that the Reds can learn a lot from them about how to run an organization. They may not be the best model on how the 2007 Reds can make the playoffs in 2008, specifically, but they are a good model for all major league teams in general.


B) A better model for the 2007 Reds to learn from is the 2005 Tigers. They had a similar run differential (-64) as the 2007 Reds, and lots of good young talent,
They brought in a veteran manager with a history of winning, Leland, a veteran innings eater, Rogers, and veteran closer, T. Jones. They then let their young talent play, and they went to the World Series.
Remember, the Reds played at .500 ball the second half of the year. They are not that bad of a team.


A) Fair enough.
B) Well they've done the first two (manager & closer). To shave off 170 runs (maybe 150 to have a shot at the Central) is a huge task. The quickest way to get there is to:

sub someone like Bedard for our combination of worst starters. Our #5 starters combined for about 240 innings while giving up 186 runs. Bedard gave up 66 runs in 180 innings. Adding Bedard to the rotation (and subtracting ballast) immediately gets you 100 runs closer. I don't think that Bailey/Cueto gets the team anywhere close to where they need to be in 08.

jmac
12-18-2007, 10:19 PM
Quite honestly, I don't think that acquiring another starter by trade may be all that necessary. When I look at the pitching staffs of this season's successful N.L. teams, I see staffs that aren't very good top to bottom. Let's look at the N.L. East winner the Phillies for example. Their top 4 starters were as follows:

1. Cole Hamels 15-5 3.39
2. Kyle Hendrick 10-4 3.87
3. Jamie Moyer 14-12 5.01
4. Adam Eaton 10-10 6.29

Now Harang and Arroyo can be counted on to do AT LEAST what Hamels and Hendrick did, if not be even better. Matt Belisle did as well as Moyer and Eaton and with more experience should improve.

Now, as I see it, a pitcher like Bedard is not an absolute necessity. He would fit in quite nicely and would no doubt improve the rotation immensely but the Reds could very well be successful without him. How do I know this? I use the 2006 Reds team as an example. It is without question that the stiffs manning the Reds bullpen that season cost them several wins. In fact, the Reds bullpen cost the Reds the 2006 N.L. Central title. By all rights, the Reds should have won 85-90 games that year. Who was the #3 starter on that Reds team? The infamous Eric Milton with an 8-8 record and ERA of 5.19.

My point is, the Reds could improve their rotation and be able to be successful by acquiring a starter who is a #3-5 pitcher for their staff instead of trading for a Bedard or Kazmir. By doing so they would not be trading away a boatload of prospects and they might very well be able to acquire such a pitcher via free agency.
You make some interesting points.
I believe the division as it stands now , Cincy could compete with as you stated a good #3 type starter. Bedard , I feel pushes Reds
to top of division to battle with cubs.
Now if cubs get Bedard as rumoured they are now interested in, the cubs become a whole lot tougher ! In other words, if we dont get Bedard, hopefully cubs wont either !

757690
12-18-2007, 10:32 PM
A) Fair enough.
B) Well they've done the first two (manager & closer). To shave off 170 runs (maybe 150 to have a shot at the Central) is a huge task. The quickest way to get there is to:

sub someone like Bedard for our combination of worst starters. Our #5 starters combined for about 240 innings while giving up 186 runs. Bedard gave up 66 runs in 180 innings. Adding Bedard to the rotation (and subtracting ballast) immediately gets you 100 runs closer. I don't think that Bailey/Cueto gets the team anywhere close to where they need to be in 08.


The Diamondbacks last year actually had a -20 runs difference last year and went to the NL Championship series. The Cardinals won the World Series in 2006 with a +19 runs difference.

So let's say the Reds need to get where the Cards were in 2006. That means they have to gain 89 runs. If they have to be as good as the Cubs were last year, they need to gain 132 runs.

By adding Cordero, they move Weathers and Burton back, and don't have to use guys like Stanton or Coffey as much. Last year the Reds bullpen gave up 281 runs. The league average is 220 runs for a bullpen. I say that Cordero makes the Reds least an average bullpen. That's 61 runs right there.

And remember that just with MacKanin, they gained over 20 runs than with Narron. I think Dusty will be at least as good as MacKanin. So that's a gain of at least 81 runs.

Just with Cordero and Baker, the Reds are back to even or better.

Add with EE probably having a better year, Votto being an improvement over Hatteberg, Hamilton healthier for more than 90 games, Gonzalez healthy and available for more than 110 games, a full of year of Hopper and Keppinger on the bench the Reds gain around 20 runs. So even with terrible 3-5 starters again, the Reds probably gain at least 100 runs.

The 3-5 starters gave up 348 runs (in 509 innings for a whopping 6.15 ERA). I think that it is safe to say the Reds 3-5 starters can gain 34 runs (10%) with just a few tweaks.

So, it really is not that hard to see how the Reds could make up 130 runs, and be competitive.

AmarilloRed
12-18-2007, 10:39 PM
A few notes from Fay about Bedard:

Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Talking to Krivsky

I spoke with Wayne Krivsky this afternoon. He did not sound like a man on the verge of a deal.

"We don't have anything at this point," he said. "Today was a pretty quiet day."

The reason I asked is foxsports.com reports that Seattle is close to signing Carlos Silva. Seattle was considered one of the front-runners to land Erik Bedard.

"When somebody signs a free agent, it possibly takes them out of trying to trade for other players," Krivsky said. "But a team may sign someone and still try to trade."

In other words, Seattle may still be interested in Bedard. If the Mariners aren't and with the Dodgers out of the field, the Reds' chances would be considerably better.

posted by John Fay at 6:47 PM

*BaseClogger*
12-19-2007, 04:56 PM
And remember that just with MacKanin, they gained over 20 runs than with Narron. I think Dusty will be at least as good as MacKanin. So that's a gain of at least 81 runs.

Just with Cordero and Baker, the Reds are back to even or better.

Yeah a manager can't make up at least 20 runs (Especially Dusty "Don't clog my basses" Baker). They just can't... Sorry...

757690
12-19-2007, 05:30 PM
Yeah a manager can't make up at least 20 runs (Especially Dusty "Don't clog my basses" Baker). They just can't... Sorry...

But Mackanin did. Just look at the numbers. The run differential during Narron's 82 games was -44. That would be -87 in a full 162 game season. It was -26 in MacKanin's 80 games which would -52. That is a difference of 35 runs.

Personal wise, very little changed. The big differences were changes that MacKanin wanted, like dropping the third catcher, calling up Keppinger and using Burton more often.
Those three things were the result of a new manager. MacKanin also used the bullpen much more wisely than Narron, and changed the attitude of the team.

I think it is being very conservative to say that MacKanin helped the team gain 20 runs last year. Are you saying that it was a complete coincidence that the Reds starting playing .500 baseball under MacKanin, after playing .378 baseball under Narron?

Also, just theoretically, all it takes for one manager to be the result of 20 extra runs in a season is to make a better pitching change at least 20 times during a 162 game season. Putting the right pitcher in at the right time easily results in an extra run, each time. Knowing how to manage a bullpen is what separates winning Managers from average or losing managers.

Reds fans have seen many examples of bad managers costing the team run after run (Knight, Boone, Miley, Narron just in recent history), with bad bullpen management. Good managers can easily create at least 20 runs a season.

*BaseClogger*
12-19-2007, 06:34 PM
But Mackanin did. Just look at the numbers. The run differential during Narron's 82 games was -44. That would be -87 in a full 162 game season. It was -26 in MacKanin's 80 games which would -52. That is a difference of 35 runs.

Personal wise, very little changed. The big differences were changes that MacKanin wanted, like dropping the third catcher, calling up Keppinger and using Burton more often.
Those three things were the result of a new manager. MacKanin also used the bullpen much more wisely than Narron, and changed the attitude of the team.

I think it is being very conservative to say that MacKanin helped the team gain 20 runs last year. Are you saying that it was a complete coincidence that the Reds starting playing .500 baseball under MacKanin, after playing .378 baseball under Narron?

Also, just theoretically, all it takes for one manager to be the result of 20 extra runs in a season is to make a better pitching change at least 20 times during a 162 game season. Putting the right pitcher in at the right time easily results in an extra run, each time. Knowing how to manage a bullpen is what separates winning Managers from average or losing managers.

Reds fans have seen many examples of bad managers costing the team run after run (Knight, Boone, Miley, Narron just in recent history), with bad bullpen management. Good managers can easily create at least 20 runs a season.

Even if Mackanin had something to do with Keppinger and Burton coming up, They were the ones that made up the runs, not Mackanin. Mackinan wasn't on the field, it was Keppinger and Burton...

757690
12-19-2007, 07:08 PM
Even if Mackanin had something to do with Keppinger and Burton coming up, They were the ones that made up the runs, not Mackanin. Mackinan wasn't on the field, it was Keppinger and Burton...

If you are counting them that way, then you are right, a manager doesn't add any runs, unless he is a player manager.

I was counting them differently. I would give both the player and the manager credit, since the player would not have been on the field if not for the new manager, hence 37 extra runs for the team means 20 came from the manager. But I could be wrong.

All I know is that I have seen too many times a new manager come in and turn a team around for it to be a coincidence.

*BaseClogger*
12-19-2007, 11:37 PM
If you are counting them that way, then you are right, a manager doesn't add any runs, unless he is a player manager.

I was counting them differently. I would give both the player and the manager credit, since the player would not have been on the field if not for the new manager, hence 37 extra runs for the team means 20 came from the manager. But I could be wrong.

All I know is that I have seen too many times a new manager come in and turn a team around for it to be a coincidence.

we just see things differently. Just color me skeptical now that Dusty Baker is in control, hence my username...

AmarilloRed
12-20-2007, 11:57 PM
Thursday, December 20, 2007
A Bedard update


From John Fay:

I did some checking on the Erik Bedard front today. It's sounds like nothing has changed -- the Orioles want Jay Bruce; the Reds aren't going to give him up. That is not to say the deal is dead. The Reds are hopeful as the field narrows that they'll be able to work something out.

The Mariners, despite agreeing to a deal with Carlos Silva, are still interested in Bedard.

The Reds are also looking at pitchers other than Bedard. I don't have specifics. But Oakland's Joe Blanton may not be Plan B.



It would be interesting to know what the Reds "Plan B" will be. I most certainly would want someone who will not cost such a high price in prospects.

Hondo
12-24-2007, 11:17 AM
If the Bedard deal doesn't get done, this team is fooling itself about contention and I will be fine if this is another building year for the Prospects to develop...

Thanks

Krawhitham
12-24-2007, 11:48 AM
you would only have Bedard for 2 seasons, is that worth 3 players

AmarilloRed
12-24-2007, 11:58 AM
We would need to sign Bedard to a LTC to make any trade possible.

Hondo
12-24-2007, 12:35 PM
you would only have Bedard for 2 seasons, is that worth 3 players

You have to use the 72 hour window to negotiate a LTC

I wouldn't trade any Blue Chips for a 1 or 2 year rental...

Thanks