PDA

View Full Version : Trading for an established ace is not without it's own risks.



Stingray
12-20-2007, 12:27 PM
The win now, to hell with the future, crowd acts as if a proven ace is a sure thing but that just isn't true. Two years ago Willis was a sure thing. Colon, Akiel, Rijo, and many other erstwhile aces have lost their ace status overnight through injury or just unexpected drop in performance. I haven't researched the subject but subjectively I think the Randy Johnson's and Gregg Maddox's who sustain their elite status long term are the exception among pitchers.

If the Reds trade three or four top prospects for a proven ace, they could weaken their bright mid term future(09, and 10) without any guarantee of success in 08. I feel the risk of Bailey failing perform at a #3 level in 08 is no higher than the "ace" we trade him(and several other top prospects) for failing to perform as expected.

I've been a Reds fan for nearly seventy years and they have never had the young core they have now(Dunn, EE, Hamilton, Phillips, Burton, Bruce, Votto, Bailey, Cueto). That core and Harang, Arroyo, Cordero and others make a WS appearance in 09 a reasonable possibility. Yet half the Redszone community want to trade away several of that core for, what could well be, the mirage of winning this year.

Also I don't consider 08 a lost cause w/o a trade for an ace. A trade not including any of the above could net an above replacement value #4 or #5 starter or as others have suggested such a starter could be obtained through free agency on a 1 or 2 year incentive laden contract without giving up any prospects.

If I can be patient at my age(76), you youngsters here a Redszone who have many years ahead of you should also be able to hold out for another year or two for what could be a several year dynasty.

Don't make any ill-advised trades and follow the ideas set forth by Triples in his latest thread and we fans could be in for a long term treat.

Edit: Anyone who experienced the agony of Frank Robinson as a non-RED would be sick at the thought of trading Jay Bruce.

Stephenk29
12-20-2007, 01:18 PM
Anyone who experienced the agony of Frank Robinson as a non-RED would be sick at the thought of trading Jay Bruce.

That is the scary part. I hope we keep him personally, but that pretty much goes without saying for about 80% of Reds fans.

TN Red Fan
12-21-2007, 01:15 PM
Bedard is a sure-thing. Outside of injuries, of course.

TN Red Fan
12-21-2007, 01:18 PM
The Frank Robinson thing is overstated. It was a different era.

If it was 20 years of Jay Bruce for 2 years of Bedard, of course that's crazy. But it's not 20 years of Bruce. It's 6 years of Bruce. Then he leaves as a FA to the Yankees. And he probably won't reach his potential until the last 2 or 3 of those years, anyway.

HokieRed
12-21-2007, 02:26 PM
Why do you automatically assume we won't be able to sign Bruce long term if that's what we want after 6 years? There's no reason to assume that.

TN Red Fan
12-21-2007, 02:28 PM
Because if he becomes the player we want him to be, and it's 6 years from now, he'll command $30 million/year.

Stingray
12-21-2007, 02:38 PM
Because if he becomes the player we want him to be, and it's 6 years from now, he'll command $30 million/year.

If he performs to that level his trade value in his last year will be higher than Bedard's is now.

Stingray
12-21-2007, 02:45 PM
Bedard is a sure-thing. Outside of injuries, of course.

Did anyone predict Willis's performance, for example, would drop as it has?

Pitchers are not nearly as likely to have long consisently productive careers as hitters. Quailty pitchers frequently flameout after just a few years.

podgejeff_
12-21-2007, 02:51 PM
The Frank Robinson thing is overstated. It was a different era.

If it was 20 years of Jay Bruce for 2 years of Bedard, of course that's crazy. But it's not 20 years of Bruce. It's 6 years of Bruce. Then he leaves as a FA to the Yankees. And he probably won't reach his potential until the last 2 or 3 of those years, anyway.

This actually brings up a question I've had (but lack the post count to start a new thread): Are players more inclined to sign long-term with the team that gave them their first big shot out of the minors?

Jay Bruce, if he lives up to his potential, would be hard to see going to the Yankees searching for the (relatively) larger paycheck, as a fan anyways. I guess that's what happens when you grow up a fan of Barry Larkin, you wish for some franchise loyalty in the age of Free Agency.

mlbfan30
12-21-2007, 02:57 PM
People assume Bruce will be gone in 6 years, but if the Reds are smart, they should give him a LT contract during his 2-3 year of ML service, such as the Mets did for Wright.
Wright signed a 6 year + option extension after 2 years of ML service.
The Mets will have 10 years of Wright for less than 75 Million total.
Sizemore was signed after 1 year of ML service, and the Indians get 9 years for less than 35 Million Total.
A LTC to a player so early is very risky and has resulted in horrible moves by a few teams, but when you get that star player, any good team will do it.

mlbfan30
12-21-2007, 03:01 PM
This actually brings up a question I've had (but lack the post count to start a new thread): Are players more inclined to sign long-term with the team that gave them their first big shot out of the minors?

Jay Bruce, if he lives up to his potential, would be hard to see going to the Yankees searching for the (relatively) larger paycheck, as a fan anyways. I guess that's what happens when you grow up a fan of Barry Larkin, you wish for some franchise loyalty in the age of Free Agency.

Usually players who declare FA after those arb years will go to the highest payer. The reason why many teams can get discounts by extended contracts past those arb years is due to security. Any player can get a career ending injury at any time, so by getting that extension, they are guaranteeing a large raise even if they could get more in a couple years, but risk being out of baseball.

podgejeff_
12-21-2007, 03:12 PM
Then the Reds need to definitely take advantage of giving earlier LTCs to players like Bruce (based on initial performance of course).

If he's not a candidate then who is?

757690
12-21-2007, 04:17 PM
Because if he (Bruce) becomes the player we want him to be, and it's 6 years from now, he'll command $30 million/year.

I understand your skepticism, given the Reds past. But that was a different regime. Linder would not even add Chuck Finely in 2002 because his trade would add $100,000 to the budget.

But Cast as shown that he is willing to sign quality players to long term contracts and set the budget at whatever it takes to produce a winner. He signed Harang and Arroyo to huge raises, he said he wants to sign Dunn to a long term contract, he just signed Cordero for $46M.

I have complete faith that if Bruce or Bailey, or Votto put up great numbers, Cast will do what it takes to keep them.