PDA

View Full Version : Meet your 2008 Reds



UPRedsFan
12-21-2007, 09:35 PM
I think Wayne hinted he's done. If so, here's how we look next April.

Bruce
Phillips
Griffey
Dunn
Encarnacion
Votto
Gonzalez
Ross

Bench: .
Freel
Hopper
Hatteberg
Keppinger
Valentin

Rotation
Harang
Arroyo
Bailey
Volquez
Belisle

Pen
Cordero
Weathers
Burton
Bray
Coffey
Stanton
Majewski/McBeth/Coutlangus/Cueto???

Sure does look like we're missing a right handed bat with some pop on the bench. Someone to pinch hit for Votto or Bruce against loogy relievers late in the game. Maybe one more deal for that or a middle reliever?

Bip Roberts
12-21-2007, 09:36 PM
I still think Cueto makes this roster out of spring training in some fashion

*BaseClogger*
12-21-2007, 09:44 PM
Belisle will be the #3 and either Bailey or Volquez will be the #5 so they can be skipped in April with all the offdays...

I say add Hendrickson and Mench and get rid of Freel. Then we are set! :thumbup:

TN Red Fan
12-21-2007, 11:23 PM
Belisle will be the #3 and either Bailey or Volquez will be the #5 so they can be skipped in April with all the offdays...

I say add Hendrickson and Mench and get rid of Freel. Then we are set! :thumbup:

Kevin Mench makes so much sense it'll never happen.

HokieRed
12-22-2007, 12:24 AM
Valenzuela--our rule 5 guy? Any chance at all?

*BaseClogger*
12-22-2007, 12:25 AM
Valenzuela--our rule 5 guy? Any chance at all?

I don't think so...

Blue
12-22-2007, 12:36 AM
I'd like to see Belisle replaced by Cueto or Maloney. I also question how that offense will stand up to the Cubs' and Brewers'.

howyoufreelin
12-22-2007, 01:14 AM
Are we actually...good again? :eek:

Harang
Arroyo
Volquez
Belisle
Bailey
Cueto

And plus, with Hamilton being dealt, there's no reason Jay Bruce shouldn't be the starting CF on opening day. We actually have potential to be good...for a long time. I haven't been this excited about Reds baseball in I don't know how long!!!

:beerme:

Blue
12-22-2007, 01:32 AM
Yeah, hopefully we won't have to trade for a SP for a LONG LONG time. There may be a problem in CF, at SS, and C over the next couple years, though.

*BaseClogger*
12-22-2007, 01:35 AM
It'll be nice to be analyzing offensive FA's instead of pitchers though-cheaper too...

Reds Freak
12-22-2007, 01:47 AM
I'd have to see it to believe it. Take a deep breath and let me just remind you that this is a team that won 72 games this past season. Barring any other changes to the team, they will have 6 of the 8 same players in the starting lineup, mainly the same bullpen, and still a number of question marks in the rotation. It is exciting to start to see some of the fruits of the minor leagues coming to the big show but I would expect a few growing pains from the kids. Although I'm thrilled withthe direction of the club, let's try to keep things in perspective and not have unrealistic expectations...

*BaseClogger*
12-22-2007, 01:53 AM
I'd have to see it to believe it. Take a deep breath and let me just remind you that this is a team that won 72 games this past season. Barring any other changes to the team, they will have 6 of the 8 same players in the starting lineup, mainly the same bullpen, and still a number of question marks in the rotation. It is exciting to start to see some of the fruits of the minor leagues coming to the big show but I would expect a few growing pains from the kids. Although I'm thrilled withthe direction of the club, let's try to keep things in perspective and not have unrealistic expectations...

Prolly not unrealistic to expect something like 82 wins, which in the NL Central is prolly competing. Our Pythag W-L was 75-87, so with some luck in the opposite direction we could win 78 games with the same cast. Arn't Cordero and the young guys worth about 4 wins?

fewfirstchoice
12-22-2007, 01:57 AM
I still think the Reds will make a big push for Bedard.The Volquez trade opens that up even more.I can see a Cueto,Votto,and a minor leaguer to the O's for Bedard.I think the Volquez trade takes Cuetos place and Hatteberg can fill in for Votto.Then we sign Dunn long term to be our 1st baseman.Then in 09 that leaves a OF of Bruce,Stubbs and maybe a FA signing or a young guy.I could even see Cincy signing JR back on the cheap to be in RF for another year or 2.But I think the Volquez trade opens up room for a Bedard trade even more.

Harang
Bedard
Arroyo
Bailey
Volquez
Now thats a solid rotation 1 thru 5 without a doubt.

Then put Belisle in the BP and it helps the rotation and BP out greatly.

BucksandReds
12-22-2007, 02:16 AM
If we get Bedard anything short of a deep push in the playoffs in the next 2 seasons is a complete failure. I'd rather build with what I have that give 4-5 prospects for 2 years of a pitcher.

Blue
12-22-2007, 03:14 AM
Moves I'd like to see now:

Trading for Michael Barrett (I'm really not satisfied with our catching situation right now, and our lineup needs another RH bat. I think he rebounds under Dusty, who saw him put together 3 good years with the Cubs.)

Signing Mike Cameron for 2 yrs (He OPSed over .900 against lefties last season. That would be nice coming off the bench. He's also good insurance if Griffey goes down again. He could be the starting CF on opening day if Bruce should struggle through Spring Training and need to get right in AAA before making the jump to the big leagues.) EDIT: nevermind that last point, he'll be suspended for a little while at the start of the season.

mlbfan30
12-22-2007, 03:25 AM
Cameron won't be playing in April, so your point of Bruce not being ready doesn't matter.
He will be ready anyway.
Barrett isn't bad, but it seems pointless. They aren't going to dump Ross, so that would be paying 8+ mil for a total of 2 below average catchers. Barrett has also declined in his defense. He is an upgrade over Valentine, but not 4.5 mil + prospects worth.

Also just how much do you think Cameron would cost. I see him getting a 2/16 type of deal, and he's just not worth it this year. Next year the Reds might need some OF help, but maybe Stubbs or Dorn is ready, or maybe they make a trade. Or they could sign Dunn to a LTC and pickup griffeys option.

Blue
12-22-2007, 03:49 AM
It would be more like $6.5 million for Barrett and Ross, but there's not really any sense in thinking about it that way. You have to pay Ross anyway, and he's not going to produce. I think Barrett can have another productive year of an .830 OPS or so under Baker. Plus, the players you send San Diego aren't going to be playing for free, so some of the salary can be made up that way.

Cameron wants 2 yrs/$13 million. He won't get it. I'd like him or 2 yrs $8-$10 million. As you know, we need a really good back-up outfielder, and it would be particularly nice if he was righthanded.

I don't think the Reds can win the division without improving at catcher, adding a really good back-up outfielder, and adding a righthanded bat for the bench. I think these are the best bets to address those problems. A touch on the expensive side, but I think it would be worth it.

But, I can certainly see why someone might disagree.

BLEEDS
12-22-2007, 04:37 AM
This is EXACTLY who they needed to trade - the excess LH power OF-er, for a SP. This guy projects to a #2. This is WAY BETTER than Wily Mo for Arroyo.

Sure he had a GREAT turnaround, but when you get a chance to trade a Rule 5 pick-up for another team's #1 Pitching prospect who tasted the Majors last year and ended up with a Quality Start ERA (4.5) then you Thank Your Lucky Stars!!!

Now, if I'm the Reds, I stand pat - especially on Votto, who essentially replaces Josh's power numbers, albeit at 1B.

I thought Cueto/Hamilton and Fodder for Bedard was a goal. Now we've done Hamilton straight up for a #2 SP prospect and a possible Junk-balling Loogy reliever. WOW! And we still haven't given up any pitching.

Trading Cueto and Votto for Bedard now becomes "too much" IMO, we need Votto's bat at 1B, and now we need to get Dunn signed Long-Term, and look at 2009 for our #3 OF-er.

1 - CF: Hopper/Freel/Bruce
2 - 1B: Votto (good eye, great OPS, power)
3 - RF: KGJ
4 - 2B: BP
5 - LF: Dunner
6 - 3B: EE
7 - SS: Gonzo
8 - C: Ross

NICE!!! All 8 of those guys have 20 HR power, and the first 5 25+
Lefties will be a problem, but you can play Keppinger and Freel/Hopper to spell other positions in IF/OF at times.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Orenda
12-22-2007, 09:24 AM
I still think they need some help in the rotation, and I don't want to see any of the top prospects go. Does anyone have the updated list of available free agents?

schmidty622
12-22-2007, 10:01 AM
Mark Prior or Freddy Garcia would be great additions right now because the reds now have the available arms as insurance if they have a setback in their recovery. If those two were to take until May or June to be 100% the Reds could throw out Volquez and Bailey as their 4/5 until they are ready. Then the guy that was performing worse would be moved to either AAA or the Pen.

Harang
Arroyo
Garcia/Prior
Belisle
Bailey/Volquez

Signing either one of those guys to say a 2 year deal full of incentives would put a great cap on a good off season.

Jefferson24
12-22-2007, 10:27 AM
Prolly not unrealistic to expect something like 82 wins, which in the NL Central is prolly competing. Our Pythag W-L was 75-87, so with some luck in the opposite direction we could win 78 games with the same cast. Arn't Cordero and the young guys worth about 4 wins?

Lets not forget Narron has been replaced by Dusty. Narron on his own lost us a few games too in my opinion. I'm hoping Dusty in just his management of the game will add a few more wins than Narron did last year.

Dracodave
12-22-2007, 10:33 AM
Lets not forget Narron has been replaced by Dusty. Narron on his own lost us a few games too in my opinion. I'm hoping Dusty in just his management of the game will add a few more wins than Narron did last year.

Narron went out of his way to lose alot of the times, running out Milton instead when he was clearly out of gas etc. I think Narron did ALOT of bad for the team that it just took players speaking up for Kriv and Cast to hear.

TN Red Fan
12-22-2007, 11:19 AM
If that's the rotation, I wonder if Baker could work some kind of "back of the rotation rotation." What I mean is, why not work in Volquez, Bailey, and Cueto equally into the last two spots. If healthy, each would get about 20 starts with lots of breaks in-between. It's a good way to get guys who I think are still a year away some real, significant major-league experience without putting too much pressure on the young arms.

If all three are pitching well by the end of the season, you could move Belise for a bat at the trade deadline and have yourself a really strong, young rotation for 2009.

Ohioballplayer
12-22-2007, 12:42 PM
Yes but at what kind of price tag will Cam come with?

GoReds33
12-22-2007, 01:09 PM
Yes but at what kind of price tag will Cam come with?With his suspension his price went down. I think he would be looking at 2 years and 6 million total. Maybe a bit more. It's still not a big contract.

*BaseClogger*
12-22-2007, 04:05 PM
Lets not forget Narron has been replaced by Dusty. Narron on his own lost us a few games too in my opinion. I'm hoping Dusty in just his management of the game will add a few more wins than Narron did last year.

Sorry but I am skeptical about Dusty Baker adding wins to this team...

Bip Roberts
12-22-2007, 04:21 PM
Sorry but I am skeptical about Dusty Baker adding wins to this team...

I refuse to believe that he can be worse than narron at running a bullpen

Dracodave
12-22-2007, 04:28 PM
Sorry but I am skeptical about Dusty Baker adding wins to this team...


I refuse to believe that he can be worse than narron at running a bullpen

I refuse to believe anyone but Prior and Woods crappy mechnics can be blamed for their melt downs..

757690
12-22-2007, 04:45 PM
Sorry but I am skeptical about Dusty Baker adding wins to this team...

Yeah, because he has no history of doing that.

In his first year with the Cubs, the team won 21 more games than the year before, and in his first year with the Giants, they won 31 games more than the year before.

I know that the Giants added Bonds, and the Cubs added Prior, but if Baker added nothing to these teams, there is no way they would have gained that many games, no matter who they added.

As I have said before, that is no coincidence.

*BaseClogger*
12-22-2007, 04:50 PM
Yeah, because he has no history of doing that.

In his first year with the Cubs, the team won 21 more games than the year before, and in his first year with the Giants, they won 31 games more than the year before.

I know that the Giants added Bonds, and the Cubs added Prior, but if Baker added nothing to these teams, there is no way they would have gained that many games, no matter who they added.

As I have said before, that is no coincidence.

the players added wins to those teams, not the manager!

757690
12-22-2007, 04:53 PM
the players added wins to those teams, not the manager!

I guess you just don't believe that a manager adds wins to a team. Fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion.

As I said many times before, history has shown that winning managers add wins to the teams they join. Maybe it is just a coincidence?

SMcGavin
12-22-2007, 05:09 PM
I am more excited about the 2009 Reds. It's not unreasonable to expect two of the Bailey/Volquez/Cueto/Maloney group to be at least league average, giving us a very formidable rotation. Assuming we re-sign Dunn, you've got him and Bruce as COFs, and our major need next offseason is to find a leadoff hitter who can play defense in center. Right now our offense is a little mismatched, without any real table-setters and some pretty poor defense in the outfield. But this trade sets us up very nicely for the future. I just wish we still had Denorfia.

*BaseClogger*
12-22-2007, 07:46 PM
I guess you just don't believe that a manager adds wins to a team. Fair enough. You are entitled to your opinion.

As I said many times before, history has shown that winning managers add wins to the teams they join. Maybe it is just a coincidence?

I think part of that is psycological. "hey, we added Dusty Baker. The FO is serious about winning! Lets go play harder!"
I don't think it has anything to do with those guys making great decisions about bunting and hit-and-running. In fact, the best manager would never do any of those stupid things...
I can see the handling the bullpen arguement, but how competent do you have to be to know to bring in Burton, Weathers, Cordero? The GM adds way more wins to a team than the manager by choosing who to put in that bullpen...

Stephenk29
12-22-2007, 08:04 PM
"
I don't think it has anything to do with those guys making great decisions about bunting and hit-and-running. In fact, the best manager would never do any of those stupid things...


:confused::confused:

Jay Bruce
12-22-2007, 08:17 PM
:confused::confused:

In order to maximize the amount of runs a teams scores, it needs to get the most out of their outs. By giving up outs, you have put the offense at a disadvantage, as they have less chances to get a hit, and eventually score runs.

757690
12-22-2007, 09:14 PM
In order to maximize the amount of runs a teams scores, it needs to get the most out of their outs. By giving up outs, you have put the offense at a disadvantage, as they have less chances to get a hit, and eventually score runs.

Many times the best way to get the most out of outs is to sacrifice. You move the runner into scoring position, as opposed to an out that leaves the runner at first. If you sacrifice properly, some times you don't even need to get a hit. It's called small ball, and teams have been winning by using it for decades.

It all depends on the situation, too many variables to mention: number of outs, score, inning, the pitcher, the pitchers in the bullpen, the batter up and the next three batters up, the runner, the infielders, the catcher, the weather....
This is precisely where you need a good manager with experience who can make the right decision more times than not. This is exactly where a manager can make a real difference.


Also, hit and runs have nothing to do with outs. It is all about putting the defense in motion and capitalizing on the holes that creates. Another great way for a good manager to help his team create runs, and wins.

AmarilloRed
12-23-2007, 12:33 AM
I just have a feeling Brad Salmon will make the roster over Coutlangas or McBeth.

GoReds44
12-23-2007, 12:50 AM
This is one sick team..Should be fun to watch in these next few years...Got a lot of young talent..Can't wait till the season starts.

Bip Roberts
12-23-2007, 12:53 AM
I just have a feeling Brad Salmon will make the roster over Coutlangas or McBeth.

I think its a strong chance as well.

Stephenk29
12-23-2007, 01:29 AM
It's obvious you guys always play for the big innings :)

Jay Bruce
12-23-2007, 01:33 AM
Many times the best way to get the most out of outs is to sacrifice. You move the runner into scoring position, as opposed to an out that leaves the runner at first. If you sacrifice properly, some times you don't even need to get a hit. It's called small ball, and teams have been winning by using it for decades.

It all depends on the situation, too many variables to mention: number of outs, score, inning, the pitcher, the pitchers in the bullpen, the batter up and the next three batters up, the runner, the infielders, the catcher, the weather....
This is precisely where you need a good manager with experience who can make the right decision more times than not. This is exactly where a manager can make a real difference.


Also, hit and runs have nothing to do with outs. It is all about putting the defense in motion and capitalizing on the holes that creates. Another great way for a good manager to help his team create runs, and wins.


The object should not be to make the best use of your outs, but to avoid them altogether. They will occur naturally, so giving them up willingly is not the best idea. The only time I would use a sacrifice bunt would be when the pitcher (or Juan Castro) is up, since they will likely get out anyways.

As for the hit and run, it has its problems as well. By putting on the hit and run, you force the runner to run, regardless of getting a good jump, and if the batter misses, he will likely be hung out to dry. In addition, you are forcing the batter to swing, regardless of pitch quality. While it can succeed, it also has a high liklihood for failure.

757690
12-23-2007, 02:30 AM
The object should not be to make the best use of your outs, but to avoid them altogether. They will occur naturally, so giving them up willingly is not the best idea. The only time I would use a sacrifice bunt would be when the pitcher (or Juan Castro) is up, since they will likely get out anyways.

As for the hit and run, it has its problems as well. By putting on the hit and run, you force the runner to run, regardless of getting a good jump, and if the batter misses, he will likely be hung out to dry. In addition, you are forcing the batter to swing, regardless of pitch quality. While it can succeed, it also has a high liklihood for failure.


The object is to win. That means scoring more runs than the other team. Reducing it to outs is oversimplifying a very complex game, but that is a an argument for another day.

Still, I think I showed how there are times when a sacrifice is statistically the best way to score runs. Let me explain it in more detail.

Here is just one of many situations where a sacrifice is statistically the best way to score runs:

Late innings, tie game. The number eight hitter is up with the number 7 hitter on first with no outs. Up next is a pinch hitter with a .350 OBP, the leadoff hitter with a .350 OBP, and the number two hitter with a .350 OBP. None of these three have much power.
The batter has a .300 OBP, is slow and hits more groundballs than flyballs. So if you let him swing away 100 times, 30 of the times, he will advance the runner into scoring position. Of those 30 times, the runner will be driven in about 20 times. Odds are that one of the next three hitters will get on base, or drive him in, but there are also double plays, and being thrown out at home, and times the one that gets on base will only get a walk and the other two will get out. So a run will score around 2/3 of the time.
Of the remaining 70 times, the eight batter will ground into a double play about 35 times, assuming he hits a ground ball around 40 times, and the defense can turn a DP around 85% of the time. That kills the rally.
That leaves 35 more times for the next two batters to drive him in. However, the runner will score only when two of the next hitters get on base, and one of them is at least a single. That will happen around 50% of the time or 17 more times, with three .350 OBP batters next. So that means that if you don't sacrifice, the runner at first will score around 37 out of 100 times.

In that exact same situation, if the #8 batter bunts, he will get the runner over around 85% of the time. In those next 85 at bats, it just requires a hit from one of the next two hitters, and that will occur around 60% of the time with two .350 OBP batters next (that varies depending on how much the OBP is due to hits or walks, but on average, that is about right). That is 50 runs.

So statistically speaking, if you bunt in that specific situation 100 times, you will score 50 runs. If you don't you will score 37 runs.

That is just one of hundreds of situations where bunting is better than swinging away.


As for hitting and running, yes, of course there are risks, but there are risks in everything. The success or failure of a hit and run will depend on the situation. A good runner at first, a batter with good bat control at the plate, a pitch count where the pitcher needs to throw a strike, a pitcher who throws strikes, and too many more to mention. A good manager will know when a good time to use the hit and runs is, and also when a bad time to use it is.

No one is saying that bunting is good most of the time or a hit and run is good most of the time, just that there are situations where they each statistically, will score more runs.

So you just made my point, which is that a good manager, who knows when to hit and run and to sacrifice, and when not to, can add runs, and wins to a team.

*BaseClogger*
12-23-2007, 02:57 AM
OK bunting is good in SOME situations... but not most... can we end it there?

SMcGavin
12-23-2007, 03:40 AM
OK bunting is good in SOME situations... but not most... can we end it there?

Sounds good to me. Bunt in the 8th or 9th with a one run deficit or tie score when a poor hitter is up, but not before then (except when the pitcher is batting of course). Honestly, if Dusty can stay away from the overmanaging, I think he's gonna be great for this team. We have a lot of impressionable young guys and his players have always seemed to love him.

TN Red Fan
12-23-2007, 12:13 PM
Small-ball is a remnant of baseball's past, before the DH and the slide step. It's a lot less effective these days since you can't get the same jump. The steroid era didn't help, either. When HRs are a dime-a-dozen, what's the point?

Too bad for the fans, because small ball is what makes baseball fun to watch. Sacrifices, hit-and-runs, suicide squeezes, stolen bases, that's the good stuff. Lose that, and all of the sudden football is America's game.

That being said, now that baseball has cleaned up it's act, you'll see HR numbers fall, and more emphasis put on manufacturing runs. Now, if only we could bring sanity back to the American League....

crazybob60
12-23-2007, 12:50 PM
Have we given up total hope on possibly acquiring Mark Prior or is his camp looking elsewhere now? Or did the MItchell Report sink that or what's the deal?

Bip Roberts
12-23-2007, 01:11 PM
I dont think we have stopped looking at Prior but most people think hes going to SD.

San Diego is cheap as crap though and probably are offering him 60 bucks and a hotel room with extra pillows

*BaseClogger*
12-23-2007, 02:19 PM
Small-ball is a remnant of baseball's past, before the DH and the slide step. It's a lot less effective these days since you can't get the same jump. The steroid era didn't help, either. When HRs are a dime-a-dozen, what's the point?

Too bad for the fans, because small ball is what makes baseball fun to watch. Sacrifices, hit-and-runs, suicide squeezes, stolen bases, that's the good stuff. Lose that, and all of the sudden football is America's game.

That being said, now that baseball has cleaned up it's act, you'll see HR numbers fall, and more emphasis put on manufacturing runs. Now, if only we could bring sanity back to the American League....

"chicks dig the longball"

757690
12-23-2007, 02:36 PM
"chicks dig the longball"

Just ask Bronson Arroyo. :cool:

TN Red Fan
12-23-2007, 04:49 PM
"chicks dig the longball"

But guys just want to hit and run...

TN Red Fan
12-23-2007, 04:50 PM
But guys just want to hit and run...

And sometimes when you're stuck at third, all you need is a well-placed squeeze...

*BaseClogger*
12-23-2007, 04:52 PM
But guys just want to hit and run...

I don't want to hit and run... I want to "clog the basepaths"

AmarilloRed
12-24-2007, 01:51 AM
I still think they need some help in the rotation, and I don't want to see any of the top prospects go. Does anyone have the updated list of available free agents?

Here is a list of the remaining free agent starting pitchers:

Starting pitchers
Tony Armas Jr. (30)
Kris Benson (32)
Shawn Chacon (30)
Roger Clemens (45)
Matt Clement (32)
Bartolo Colon (35)
Josh Fogg (31)
Casey Fossum (30)
Freddy Garcia (32) - Type B
Mark Hendrickson (34)
Livan Hernandez (33) - Type B
Jason Jennings (29)
Kenshin Kawakami (33)
Byung-Hyun Kim (29)
Brian Lawrence (32)
Jon Lieber (38)
Kyle Lohse (29)
Rodrigo Lopez (32)
Mike Maroth (30)
Eric Milton (32)
Tomo Ohka (32)
Russ Ortiz (34)
Odalis Perez (31)
Mark Prior (27)
Kazumi Saito (30)
John Thomson (34)
Brett Tomko (35)
Josh Towers (31)
Steve Trachsel (37)
Jeff Weaver (31)
David Wells (45)
Jamey Wright (34)
Jaret Wright (32)

Dracodave
12-24-2007, 10:08 AM
Starting pitchers
Tony Armas Jr. (30)
Matt Clement (32)
Bartolo Colon (35)
Josh Fogg (31)
Freddy Garcia (32) - Type B
Mark Hendrickson (34)
Livan Hernandez (33) - Type B
Kenshin Kawakami (33)
Byung-Hyun Kim (29)
Brian Lawrence (32)
Jon Lieber (38)
Mark Prior (27)
Kazumi Saito (30)
Josh Towers (31)
Jamey Wright (34)
Jaret Wright (32)

That would be the very short list of pitchers I would be looking to bring in right now. Those guys or we try to trade for some more youngsters.

BLEEDS
12-27-2007, 04:50 PM
IMO, if we DON'T add another SP, we are WASTING the Dunn Option year, and probably KGJ's last season in Cincy.

Of less significance you also have Hatte and Valentin on your bench as well, and Weathers in the Bullpen, all guys you are unlikely to see in 2009 as well.

One thing is certain, we won't field a team of Dunn, KGJ, and Jay Bruce in the same lineup together in any other year other than 2008. Might as well take advantage of it.

Vasquez/Bailey/Cueto/Maloney are all great to have for the Future - but more than likely they aren't going to contribute until 2009 and beyond.

Trading one of them for 2 years of Bedard would be the better way to set the stage for an improving team ramping up for Contendor status.

Fans aren't going to come to the ballpark to see Maloney get some starts when we are out of it in August. They tried that with Homer this year. They want us CONTENDING in August, knowing that the team will be EVEN BETTER in 2009, not just another promise of "Next Year" all over again.

Surely WK doesn't want that either.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

AmarilloRed
12-27-2007, 09:47 PM
We are not going to trade Bailey of Cueto for 2 years of Bedard. We would need to have Bedard signed to an extension before Krivsky would even consider trading either of our top pitching prospects. Cueto may not help in 2008, but I would expect we could see Bailey and Vasquez in the rotation and making solid contributions. I do agree that it would be a good idea to see if we can add a solid veteran starter thru free agency or in a trade.

BLEEDS
12-31-2007, 04:25 PM
We are not going to trade Bailey of Cueto for 2 years of Bedard. We would need to have Bedard signed to an extension before Krivsky would even consider trading either of our top pitching prospects.

Never say Never. This is just your Opinion.

In all that has been reported, Bailey was on the trading block and part of deals for Bedard that were being thrown around.

IMO, if WK was given the Mantra to WIN NOW, then he will make the trade for a Bedard or Blanton, and giving up ONE of your 4/5 young pitchers would be a No-Brainer to get this team and fans excited.

2 Years of Bedard would be just what the Doctor ordered. If he doesn't resign, then you've got until 2010 to decide between Bailey/Cueto/Maloney minus 1 to keep in your lineup with Arroyo, Harang, Belisle, and Vasquez.

Another 90 loss season, or even just a .500 season is not going to help us heading into 2009. A possible Playoff Run helps not only build excitement, but puts BUTTS IN THE SEATS, which increases revenue, which increases Payroll, which increases Wins, which puts MORE BUTTS IN THE SEATS, and so it continues.

Dusty Baker and Corder are not going to be wasted on 3 SP's with ???. Sure we could live with a Lieber or a Garcia, but Bedard or Blanton would be a better option.


PEACE

-BLEEDS

AmarilloRed
12-31-2007, 04:40 PM
Once you trade your top prospects, you can't get them back. I think if the trade of Bedard could have been done without including Bruce, Bedard would already be a member of the Reds. Bailey and Votto clearly were mentioned as part of a trade for Bedard, but the Orioles wanted Bruce and that killed the deal. Bedard has mentioned moving to the Northwest after his contract is up, and I would think Krivsky at the very least would want an indication from Bedard that he would be willing to talk about an extension with the Reds before he would pull the trigger on any trade. I want a #2 in our rotation just as much as you do, but we need to consider all the ramifications before we make the trade.

BLEEDS
12-31-2007, 04:52 PM
Once you trade your top prospects, you can't get them back. I think if the trade of Bedard could have been done without including Bruce, Bedard would already be a member of the Reds. Bailey and Votto clearly were mentioned as part of a trade for Bedard, but the Orioles wanted Bruce and that killed the deal. Bedard has mentioned moving to the Northwest after his contract is up, and I would think Krivsky at the very least would want an indication from Bedard that he would be willing to talk about an extension with the Reds before he would pull the trigger on any trade. I want a #2 in our rotation just as much as you do, but we need to consider all the ramifications before we make the trade.

The Ramifications would be INSTANT Credibility, more Quality Starts sent to the Pen/Cordero, Contention for the Division, Playoff Possibilities for the first time in 13 years. BUTTS IN THE SEATS (and the rest of the cycle).

Otherwise, it's more of the same - talking about our Pitching Prospects and the Cincinnati Cubs always talking about "Next Year". We've been talking about our pitching prospects since Lou Pinella had no Gray Hair and was managing the Reds in 1991. We got a plethora of them now, so trade ONE of them for a PROVEN Commodity, even if it's just for 2 years, so you can turn your Organization around.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

AmarilloRed
12-31-2007, 05:07 PM
We have had very few legitimate starting pitcher prospects since Tom Browning(I know, I saw him pitch). I think Krivsky is really working on turning the farm system around, but it will be some time before we see Baileys and Cuetos coming out of our farm system on a regular basis.In the near future, I want to be very careful on trading any of our pitching prospects. The time for making the sort of trades you are talking about is when we see that sort of quality from the farm ona yearly basis.

BLEEDS
12-31-2007, 05:20 PM
We have had very few legitimate starting pitcher prospects since Tom Browning(I know, I saw him pitch). I think Krivsky is really working on turning the farm system around, but it will be some time before we see Baileys and Cuetos coming out of our farm system on a regular basis.In the near future, I want to be very careful on trading any of our pitching prospects. The time for making the sort of trades you are talking about is when we see that sort of quality from the farm ona yearly basis.

I disagree whole-heartedly. This team didn't hire Dusty Baker and sign Chad Cordero to entrust our Bullpen with 3 HUGE Question Marks to go along with Harang and an Overmatched Arroyo in the #2 spot...

FYI, I saw Tom Browning pitch as well, many times. I grew up in Cincinnati in the 70's and have been a fan ever since. We've been looking for a pitching prospect ever since.

However, we have an offense on this team that hasn't been matched since the 1970s IMO. It'd be a shame to waste this window - with KGJ, Dunn, and Bruce on the same roster for probably the only time in History - because we wanted to keep 4 Pitching Prospects instead of 3. That's Bad Business.

Where's the Billy Beane quote when you need it? We need to make a run now, and we can do it without giving up the Farm.

If you'd rather have Jon Lieber and the "new" Fab Four (Vasquez/Bailey/Cueto/Maloney) instead of Bedard and 3 of the 4, that is your choice, but it's not a prudent one.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

smoke6
12-31-2007, 06:02 PM
I disagree whole-heartedly. This team didn't hire Dusty Baker and sign Chad Cordero to entrust our Bullpen with 3 HUGE Question Marks to go along with Harang and an Overmatched Arroyo in the #2 spot...

FYI, I saw Tom Browning pitch as well, many times. I grew up in Cincinnati in the 70's and have been a fan ever since. We've been looking for a pitching prospect ever since.

However, we have an offense on this team that hasn't been matched since the 1970s IMO. It'd be a shame to waste this window - with KGJ, Dunn, and Bruce on the same roster for probably the only time in History - because we wanted to keep 4 Pitching Prospects instead of 3. That's Bad Business.

Where's the Billy Beane quote when you need it? We need to make a run now, and we can do it without giving up the Farm.

If you'd rather have Jon Lieber and the "new" Fab Four (Vasquez/Bailey/Cueto/Maloney) instead of Bedard and 3 of the 4, that is your choice, but it's not a prudent one.

PEACE

-BLEEDS
We signed Chad Cordero? AWESOME!!!:D
I think you mean Francisco Cordero.