PDA

View Full Version : Joe Blanton



AmarilloRed
01-13-2008, 10:28 PM
Besides making a bid for Erik Bedard, the Reds have had some preliminary discussions with the A's regarding Joe Blanton.
The market for Blanton is quiet now, but it could heat up again if the Mets fail to land Johan Santana. If talks with the Reds get serious at all, the A's would probably ask for Homer Bailey or Johnny Cueto in a deal for Blanton.

http://www.rotoworld.com/content/home_MLB.aspx

I wonder what sort of preliminary discussions they have had. It would seem to indicate that the Reds are moving on from Eric Bedard.

BearcatShane
01-13-2008, 11:07 PM
I really hope they don't include Bailey or Cueto in a Blanton trade. I'd give them Bray, Maloney, and Lecure or something like that.

Bigredfan#1
01-13-2008, 11:10 PM
I really hope they don't include Bailey or Cueto in a Blanton trade. I'd give them Bray, Maloney, and Lecure or something like that.

I agree he is not worth either of them. I hope the Reds are not itching to get rid of Bailey or Cueto!

*BaseClogger*
01-13-2008, 11:21 PM
EriK Bedard

redhawk61
01-14-2008, 07:01 AM
I agree he is not worth either of them. I hope the Reds are not itching to get rid of Bailey or Cueto!

Yeah don't worry. If Kriv won't give up Cueto for Haren he def. isn't going to give one of them up for a scrub like Blanton

I(heart)Freel
01-14-2008, 08:52 AM
Not sure why this board doesn't dig on Blanton the way I do.

For giggles I compared his 3-year numbers to our top of the rotation guys, and to Derek Lowe, since he seems to be the guy lots of people believe we need to make a run for next off-season.

Here's the breakdown:


Player W L ERA GS CG SO INN HA HRA BBI K GdAO WHIP OBA QS
Harang, Aaron SP CIN 14 10 3.783 34 3 1 226 224 26 53 199 0.9 1.226 0.3022 19
Arroyo, Bronson SP CIN 12 12 3.986 34 1 0 219 222 27 60 147 0.8 1.288 0.3151 22
Blanton, Joe SP OAK 14 11 4.097 33 2 1 208.7 220 19 55 121 1.1 1.318 0.3182 19
Lowe, Derek SP LA 13 12 3.718 34 2 1 213 213 21 56 139 3 1.263 0.3057 21

In essence, he's basically another Bronson, with less homers allowed, identical On Base pct, less strikeouts and more groundballs.

GABP (and not AL West stadia) would certainly up his homers, but I also think a move to the NL would put him on par with Arroyo for Ks. Plus there's that groundball tendency of his. It's not DLowe-like. But it's better than what we get out of our roto right now.

I would trade either Cueto or Bailey (whichever one you're less hot on) for 3-arbitration years of him.

redhawk61
01-14-2008, 09:24 AM
I don't have the numbers in front of me but I have seen them before, and the reason I don't want him, especcially including a deal that would send Cueto or Bailey, is because he is horid away from Oakland. That ballpark helps him out a lot. once you put him in GABP we will be looking at the right handed version of Eric Milton

ChatterRed
01-14-2008, 09:26 AM
Actually, I had the same thought. So many are ripping Blanton, but he's pretty on par with what we already have.

REDblooded
01-14-2008, 09:48 AM
Blanton doesn't miss bats, and that doesn't always fare well in GABP..........

I'd rather take a chance on Cueto or Bailey panning out.

SMcGavin
01-14-2008, 11:02 AM
Not sure why this board doesn't dig on Blanton the way I do.

For giggles I compared his 3-year numbers to our top of the rotation guys, and to Derek Lowe, since he seems to be the guy lots of people believe we need to make a run for next off-season.

Here's the breakdown:


Player W L ERA GS CG SO INN HA HRA BBI K GdAO WHIP OBA QS
Harang, Aaron SP CIN 14 10 3.783 34 3 1 226 224 26 53 199 0.9 1.226 0.3022 19
Arroyo, Bronson SP CIN 12 12 3.986 34 1 0 219 222 27 60 147 0.8 1.288 0.3151 22
Blanton, Joe SP OAK 14 11 4.097 33 2 1 208.7 220 19 55 121 1.1 1.318 0.3182 19
Lowe, Derek SP LA 13 12 3.718 34 2 1 213 213 21 56 139 3 1.263 0.3057 21

In essence, he's basically another Bronson, with less homers allowed, identical On Base pct, less strikeouts and more groundballs.

GABP (and not AL West stadia) would certainly up his homers, but I also think a move to the NL would put him on par with Arroyo for Ks. Plus there's that groundball tendency of his. It's not DLowe-like. But it's better than what we get out of our roto right now.

I would trade either Cueto or Bailey (whichever one you're less hot on) for 3-arbitration years of him.

Nice post. I also would really like to get Blanton. His groundball tendencies would play very well here.

SMcGavin
01-14-2008, 11:05 AM
I don't have the numbers in front of me but I have seen them before, and the reason I don't want him, especcially including a deal that would send Cueto or Bailey, is because he is horid away from Oakland. That ballpark helps him out a lot. once you put him in GABP we will be looking at the right handed version of Eric Milton

He does perform better in Oakland but his ERA on the road the past three years is 4.70... hardly horrid. Blanton is nothing like Eric Milton.

REDblooded
01-14-2008, 11:47 AM
Nice post. I also would really like to get Blanton. His groundball tendencies would play very well here.


Groundball tendencies play much better when you have a good defensive infield. Ours is average.

I(heart)Freel
01-14-2008, 12:46 PM
Groundball tendencies also negate the Great American Ballpark effect.

That said, he's not an extreme GB-pitcher. But he's better about that than our top of the roto guys now.

I might also argue he misses bats as well as Bronson does. Let him face pitchers 3 times a start and watch his K numbers grow.

757690
01-14-2008, 01:16 PM
Blanton has a career 5.83 ERA outside of Oakland, Anaheim and Seattle. He gives up a lot of hits and doesn't strike out many. He basically is a slightly younger and better Josh Fogg. Not a bad pick up, but not even close to being worth a top prospect.

Bip Roberts
01-14-2008, 01:18 PM
Blanton has a career 5.83 ERA outside of Oakland, Anaheim and Seattle. He gives up a lot of hits and doesn't strike out many. He basically is a slightly younger and better Josh Fogg. Not a bad pick up, but not even close to being worth a top prospect.

My feeling exactly. A guy that probably wont be much better than a 4 for his career but is a solid innings guy that could help win quite a few games when backed with a solid line up.

SMcGavin
01-14-2008, 01:46 PM
Groundball tendencies play much better when you have a good defensive infield. Ours is average.

Call it what you want but our infield defense is leaps and bounds better than our outfield defense. Couple that with our small park and you can expect a groundball pitcher to do much better in GABP than a flyball pitcher.

I(heart)Freel
01-14-2008, 02:06 PM
The earlier post about Blanton's ERA outside of three parks seemed a little deceiving. I need some sample size and better investigation into the conclusion.

I did a 3-year study on his home/away splits.


Category**** W L ERA G GS INN H R ER HR BB IBB SO SB CS AVG
2007 home 7 5 2.69 15 15 110.1 93 35 33 6 16 3 66 5 1 0.227
2007 away 7 5 5.11 19 19 119.2 147 71 68 10 24 1 74 14 3 0.304
2006 home 9 5 4.52 15 15 97.2 116 50 49 7 25 3 48 8 2 0.299
2006 away 7 7 5.12 17 16 96.2 125 61 55 10 33 1 59 5 3 0.318
2005 home 6 5 3.35 17 17 107.1 90 45 40 14 36 3 65 5 1 0.226
2005 away 6 7 3.73 16 16 94 88 41 39 9 31 0 51 3 0 0.247

3-yr home 7 5 3.52 16 16 104.8 100 43 41 9 26 3 60 6 1 0.251
3-yr away 7 6 4.65 17 17 103.1 120 58 54 10 29 1 61 7 2 0.290


Seems like the ERA inflation didn't necessarily come from homers. Only four and three more on the road than in the home park the past couple years. And he gave up less dingers away than home in 2005.

If anything his walks seem up on the road. That can't be a ballpark thing.

Methinks maybe he just likes home-cooking and hates hotels. In which case there's no reason to think he couldn't do well in GABP.

If our flyball pitchers can pitch with success here, why think that Blanton wouldn't?

*BaseClogger*
01-14-2008, 02:31 PM
Nobody is agaisnt acquiring Blanton alltogther, but we don't want to give up any top prospects...

redhawk61
01-14-2008, 02:35 PM
if they really want Homer in a deal they better give us Dallas Braden as well He is a sick lefty and only 24. fastball 87-89 can hit 91, not overpowering but he knows where to throw it like a vet. Plus and absolutly nasty screwball. It has crazy movement and comes in at 70-73mph which makes it that much more effective in camparison to his fastball. plus he throw and average change. Go watch his highlight videos and watch the screwball it is absolute filth. And then go over to baseball cube and check out his minor league stats.

Player Bio- oakland.athletics.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=460284

Stats- thebaseballcube.com/players/B/Dallas-Braden.shtml
330 K's to only 81 BB's in minors career with a 26-9 record and 3.47 ERA

REDblooded
01-14-2008, 02:43 PM
Nobody is agaisnt acquiring Blanton alltogther, but we don't want to give up any top prospects...


bingo! if it was a deal centered around Maloney, I'm fine with it, but to give up a Bailey or a Cueto for a number 3 guy........ I'll pass.

BLEEDS
01-14-2008, 03:18 PM
bingo! if it was a deal centered around Maloney, I'm fine with it, but to give up a Bailey or a Cueto for a number 3 guy........ I'll pass.


a guy in the ORG put it best: (my own added bolds)

"Blanton would step in and be a dependable #3 today if the Reds acquired him. Bailey and/or Cueto might be a dependable #3 tomorrow, they might be more, they might turn out to be hyped prospects. Even without the very unlikely occurance of throwing Street in the mix, Blanton would be worth either Cueto or Bailey today."

Depends if you want to wait and see how Bailey/Cueto develop.

Unfortunately "tomorrow" we will be without guys such as Harang, Arroyo, Jr, possibly Dunn, AGon, etc...

We've been waiting for TOMORROW for a long darn time.

Most people would give up ONE of Bailey/Cueto for a proven #3 today, so we can take advantage of a window with some pretty solid veterans in the lineup and SP rotation.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

I(heart)Freel
01-14-2008, 03:26 PM
bingo! if it was a deal centered around Maloney, I'm fine with it, but to give up a Bailey or a Cueto for a number 3 guy........ I'll pass.

I respect your POV, I really do. But are you that sure that both Bailey and Cueto will be better than a number 3 guy? And if so, when?

I just think we're in our window, and to get someone who is - right now - a solid major league pitcher is worth a chance/risk/possibility of a young guy who might be better some day.

Not sure if that's conservative or pragmatic or what. Just what I feel right now.

AmarilloRed
01-14-2008, 04:42 PM
Hot Stove: A's unlikely to trade Blanton
Right-hander expected to start 2008 season as Oakland's ace
By Jim Molony / MLB.com

Meanwhile, movement involving some of the other names being bandied about the Hot Stove market was varied, with talks concerning Erik Bedard continuing -- but the possibility of Oakland's Joe Blanton following Kotsay out of town apparently lessening.

Here's the rundown on people and places:

Athletics: While Kotsay was in Atlanta for a physical Monday in the final step to complete the trade with the Braves, an A's source said Monday he's expecting right-hander Blanton to not be traded. The source also expects Blanton to open the season as Oakland's ace, drawing the Opening Day assignment in Japan against the Red Sox.

Blanton's name has surfaced in many rumors since last July, but he's not going to cost the A's much in 2008 because he's arbitration-eligible for the first time this winter. The source said the team would have to get a lot more than what it's been offered thus far to part with its only returning starter without recent significant health issues.


http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20080114&content_id=2345442&vkey=hotstove2007&fext=.jsp&partnered=rss_mlb

I suppose this possibility is now ended.

jmac
01-14-2008, 05:19 PM
I would love to see Blanton a Red but there is no way the A's should get what they think they will for a # 3 type pitcher.
Of course maybe that explains the not alot of interest as mentioned by one report.

*BaseClogger*
01-14-2008, 05:56 PM
I respect your POV, I really do. But are you that sure that both Bailey and Cueto will be better than a number 3 guy? And if so, when?

I just think we're in our window, and to get someone who is - right now - a solid major league pitcher is worth a chance/risk/possibility of a young guy who might be better some day.

Not sure if that's conservative or pragmatic or what. Just what I feel right now.

It's not just who will be better- we would control Bailey or Cueto for SIX years...

Dracodave
01-14-2008, 06:01 PM
It's not just who will be better- we would control Bailey or Cueto for SIX years...


Thats what I keep thinking..

For instance

Bailey comes out next year and posts a 3.94 era...
Cueto comes out and posts a 4.53..

We mortage NOTHING to get those stats..and we let our own PROSPECTS prove they can be major leaguers. Plus we get five more years of each before we have to seriously pay out cash..

I(heart)Freel
01-14-2008, 08:49 PM
It's not just who will be better- we would control Bailey or Cueto for SIX years...

Um, it is. If neither of them end up as nothing better than back of roto guys, then six years of them (or possibly five in Bailey's case) don't amount to much.

Truth is that Volquez and Belisle probably have as good a shot to be front liners as Bailey and Cueto. So take one and go get something proven. You still have three horses in the race who could end up being winners. Oh, and Maloney!

I would rather have three years of proven #3 starter AND 24 years of mystery than 30 years of mystery.

SMcGavin
01-14-2008, 10:04 PM
Thats what I keep thinking..

For instance

Bailey comes out next year and posts a 3.94 era...
Cueto comes out and posts a 4.53..

We mortage NOTHING to get those stats..and we let our own PROSPECTS prove they can be major leaguers. Plus we get five more years of each before we have to seriously pay out cash..

If those two put up those ERAs while pitching a significant amount of innings next year, I would probably pee my pants.

redhawk61
01-14-2008, 10:22 PM
Um, it is. If neither of them end up as nothing better than back of roto guys, then six years of them (or possibly five in Bailey's case) don't amount to much.

Truth is that Volquez and Belisle probably have as good a shot to be front liners as Bailey and Cueto. So take one and go get something proven. You still have three horses in the race who could end up being winners. Oh, and Maloney!

I would rather have three years of proven #3 starter AND 24 years of mystery than 30 years of mystery.

Belise as a front of the rotation guy. hahahah thats funny. Cueto and Bailey have so much of a better shot plus the don't get scared when they are on the mound like Matt does

jmac
01-15-2008, 05:15 AM
If those two put up those ERAs while pitching a significant amount of innings next year, I would probably pee my pants.
And then buying playoff tickets when thru ! :)

*BaseClogger*
01-15-2008, 05:26 AM
Um, it is. If neither of them end up as nothing better than back of roto guys, then six years of them (or possibly five in Bailey's case) don't amount to much.

Truth is that Volquez and Belisle probably have as good a shot to be front liners as Bailey and Cueto. So take one and go get something proven. You still have three horses in the race who could end up being winners. Oh, and Maloney!

I would rather have three years of proven #3 starter AND 24 years of mystery than 30 years of mystery.

First of all, yes we do still have 6 years of Bailey as we never started his arbitration clock. Second, six years of a 5.00 ERA is more valuable to a team than 3 years of a 4.50 ERA. It is worth more. Sure you would rather have the 4.50 ERA for one year, but considering how much less Bailey and Cueto will make, you have to keep them...

BLEEDS
01-15-2008, 10:35 AM
Second, six years of a 5.00 ERA is more valuable to a team than 3 years of a 4.50 ERA. It is worth more.

I'd like to see the logic that supported the creation of this statement.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

SMcGavin
01-15-2008, 11:40 AM
And then buying playoff tickets when thru ! :)

Haha, absolutely.

roby
01-15-2008, 12:37 PM
If those two put up those ERAs while pitching a significant amount of innings next year, I would probably pee my pants.

Again? :D

REDblooded
01-15-2008, 01:01 PM
Um, it is. If neither of them end up as nothing better than back of roto guys, then six years of them (or possibly five in Bailey's case) don't amount to much.

Truth is that Volquez and Belisle probably have as good a shot to be front liners as Bailey and Cueto. So take one and go get something proven. You still have three horses in the race who could end up being winners. Oh, and Maloney!

I would rather have three years of proven #3 starter AND 24 years of mystery than 30 years of mystery.


Belisle? Are you kidding me? It boils down to natural ability (i.e. stuff), and Bailey and Cueto both have way more talent than Blanton, and ecspecially Belisle.

*BaseClogger*
01-15-2008, 01:30 PM
I'd like to see the logic that supported the creation of this statement.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Last year Paul Byrd had a 4.59 ERA over 192.1 innings and had a wins over replacement player (WARP) of 4.1. So Paul Byrd was worth 4.1 wins last year as about the player I mentioned. If he did this for 3 seasons, that would be a value of 12.3 wins. I'll assume the next three years are filled by a replacement player, so the value over six years remains 12.3 wins.
In 177.2 innings Paul Maholm had a 5.02 ERA. His WARP was 2.7. Over six seasons, that means a pitcher like Maholm would have a value of 16.2. So, this type of pitcher would be worth 16.2 wins to his team.
16.2>12.3
That is why a pitcher with a 5.00 ERA over six years is worth more than three years of a 4.50 ERA and then replacement level.

Bip Roberts
01-15-2008, 01:37 PM
Thats assuming they just run out anyone with a heart beat after the 3 years

*BaseClogger*
01-15-2008, 01:37 PM
Thats assuming they just run out anyone with a heart beat after the 3 years

Like Dumatrait and Shearn!?!? :rolleyes:

Bip Roberts
01-15-2008, 01:39 PM
Like Dumatrait and Shearn!?!? :rolleyes:

Yea then you are correct 6 years of a 5.00 is going to be better. Really though 1 year of a guy with a 1.75 era is going to worth less than 10 years of a 6.00 era amirite?

*BaseClogger*
01-15-2008, 01:42 PM
Yea then you are correct 6 years of a 5.00 is going to be better. Really though 1 year of a guy with a 1.75 era is going to worth less than 10 years of a 6.00 era amirite?

10 years of a 6.00 ERA is replacement level so it would be worth nothing. So no

Bip Roberts
01-15-2008, 01:44 PM
10 years of a 6.00 ERA is replacement level so it would be worth nothing. So no

how about a 5.00 era then?

*BaseClogger*
01-15-2008, 01:45 PM
how about a 5.00 era then?

^^^

5.00 ERA is above replacement level...

BLEEDS
01-15-2008, 01:47 PM
a pitcher with a 5.00 ERA over six years is worth more than three years of a 4.50 ERA and then replacement level.

Oh, so you changed your premise. I see now. Great Logic.

In mine, I had it 3 years of 4.50 ERA and then Cy Young Award Winner.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

*BaseClogger*
01-15-2008, 01:48 PM
Oh, so you changed your premise. I see now. Great Logic.

In mine, I had it 3 years of 4.50 ERA and then Cy Young Award Winner.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Help me out here I'm confused...

Bip Roberts
01-15-2008, 01:50 PM
^^^

5.00 ERA is above replacement level...

So 10 years of 5.00 is better than 1 of 1.75?

*BaseClogger*
01-15-2008, 01:54 PM
So 10 years of 5.00 is better than 1 of 1.75?

In 2000, when Pedro Martinez had a 1.74 ERA in 211 innings he had a WARP of 14.6. So yes, in terms of value, ten years of 5.00 ERA is better. However, considering the 1.75 ERA gives you a good chance at the WS, I would say it is a much different comparison then three years of 4.50 ERA...

Bip Roberts
01-15-2008, 01:59 PM
In 2000, when Pedro Martinez had a 1.74 ERA in 211 innings he had a WARP of 14.6. So yes, in terms of value, ten years of 5.00 ERA is better. However, considering the 1.75 ERA gives you a good chance at the WS, I would say it is a much different comparison then three years of 4.50 ERA...

I think its a bad assessment no matter what the case

*BaseClogger*
01-15-2008, 02:00 PM
I think its a bad assessment no matter what the case

why? I give you facts, you give me 3 word responses that offer nothing more than your opinion. Hardly changing my mind with riveting arguements...

Bip Roberts
01-15-2008, 02:07 PM
why? I give you facts, you give me 3 word responses that offer nothing more than your opinion. Hardly changing my mind with riveting arguements...

Because the argument that 6 years of worse pitching is going to be better than 3 years of better pitching is a dumb argument to begin with.

*BaseClogger*
01-15-2008, 02:11 PM
Because the argument that 6 years of worse pitching is going to be better than 3 years of better pitching is a dumb argument to begin with.

its actually a simple quantity vs. quality arguement...

so why? got anything else going for you other than opinions?

Bip Roberts
01-15-2008, 02:19 PM
its actually a simple quantity vs. quality arguement...

so why? got anything else going for you other than opinions?

Your argument is pointless because you cant just assume that after 3 years they replace the 4.50 era guy with terrible pitching.

*BaseClogger*
01-15-2008, 02:20 PM
Your argument is pointless because you cant just assume that after 3 years they replace the 4.50 era guy with terrible pitching.

have the Reds shown that they can easily replace pitchers with a 4.50 ERA?

Bip Roberts
01-15-2008, 02:25 PM
have the Reds shown that they can easily replace pitchers with a 4.50 ERA?

So you are going down the path of its better to have worse players for longer than worrying about replacing the better players?

*BaseClogger*
01-15-2008, 02:26 PM
So you are going down the path of its better to have worse players for longer than worrying about replacing the better players?

Well I already have Harang and Arroyo so I would rather have the cheap stability of a 5.00 ERA. Remember- we are only talking about a 4.50 ERA... what are you getting so worked up about?

Bip Roberts
01-15-2008, 02:32 PM
Well I already have Harang and Arroyo so I would rather have the cheap stability of a 5.00 ERA. Remember- we are only talking about a 4.50 ERA... what are you getting so worked up about?

How am I getting worked up?

Your argument is just meaningless because you cant predict what the other 3 years after the 4.50 era guy is replaced by. It could be a 4.00 era or it could be a 5.00 or what ever.

AmarilloRed
01-15-2008, 02:39 PM
Blanton To Stay Put?

MLB.com's Jim Molony talked to an A's source who expects Joe Blanton to stay put and be Oakland's Opening Day starter. The offers so far must not have been encouraging.

This would seem to cool things for the time being. We may yet land Blanton before the trade deadline, but he is not going anywhere for now.

*BaseClogger*
01-15-2008, 03:03 PM
How am I getting worked up?

Your argument is just meaningless because you cant predict what the other 3 years after the 4.50 era guy is replaced by. It could be a 4.00 era or it could be a 5.00 or what ever.

you have to assume a replacement level player (they are called that for a reason) because their replacement is not part of the trade or the FA contract...

Bip Roberts
01-15-2008, 03:22 PM
you have to assume a replacement level player (they are called that for a reason) because their replacement is not part of the trade or the FA contract...

You dont have to assume anything. You can assume what ever you want but you dont have to assume only one of the many possibilities

*BaseClogger*
01-15-2008, 03:25 PM
You dont have to assume anything. You can assume what ever you want but you dont have to assume only one of the many possibilities

Alright, how about this for a compromise: 3 years of 4.50 followed by an unkown replacement has more risk but also a higher possible return. The conservative choice is 5.00 for 6 years. However, there is no argueing that three years of 4.50 is worth more in the wins column than 5.00 for six years...

BLEEDS
01-15-2008, 03:40 PM
Help me out here I'm confused...

I was just busting your chops.

I asked you how you came up with "6 years of 5.00 ERA is better than 3 years of 4.50 ERA", then you come back and say "6 years of 5.00 ERA is better than 3 years of 4.50 ERA and then 3 years of Replacement Pitching ERA". I said my contingent/premise was then "3 years of 4.50 ERA and 3 years of Cy Young Pitching is better than 6 years of 5.00 ERA".

It's a ridiculous statement. Being conservative and going for the KNOWN 6 years of BELOW AVERAGE pitching, instead of getting 3 years of ABOVE AVERAGE pitching, followed by an unknown - could be better - is what has caused the Reds to be struggling to get to .500 baseball and haven't sniffed the playoffs since 1995.

If you want to WIN, you trade your 6 years of 5.00 ERA, most of it in the future, for 3 years of 4.50 ERA NOW. Then, in 3 years, you do the same.

It's all rhetorical because you're still assuming this magical 6 years of 5.00 ERA from guys who haven't pitched 10 games in the Majors between the 2 of them versus guys who have pitched for 3+ years in the Majors already.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

*BaseClogger*
01-15-2008, 03:43 PM
but how many of us really beleive that Cueto and Bailey's ceiling is a 5.00 ERA?

Bip Roberts
01-15-2008, 04:46 PM
Alright, how about this for a compromise: 3 years of 4.50 followed by an unkown replacement has more risk but also a higher possible return. The conservative choice is 5.00 for 6 years. However, there is no argueing that three years of 4.50 is worth more in the wins column than 5.00 for six years...

You cant argue either side of the argument because they arent comparable. The final 3 years are a complete unknown.

BLEEDS
01-15-2008, 05:22 PM
but how many of us really beleive that Cueto and Bailey's ceiling is a 5.00 ERA?

Maybe it's not, but as has been stated previously, by the time they MIGHT reach it, they will probably be ALONE - sans many of the core players that are on this roster now.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

REDblooded
01-15-2008, 05:31 PM
blanton stinks

HokieRed
01-15-2008, 05:39 PM
I think all the discussions on this board concerning Bailey suggest how conservative nearly everybody here is. My argument for keeping Bailey would be that it's worth the risk because this is a kid with a very high--repeat very high--ceiling. I'd hope to see him realize that and then have him here for 15 years.

REDblooded
01-15-2008, 06:32 PM
Bailey has the stuff, and the mindset to be better than Bedard, much less Blanton. Take that to the bank.

As far as A's starters go, I'd get much more excited if we were talking about Harden.

BLEEDS
01-17-2008, 02:13 PM
Thats what I keep thinking..

For instance

Bailey comes out next year and posts a 3.94 era...
Cueto comes out and posts a 4.53..



What year? 2011?

Bailey shave off almost TWO FULL POINTS off his ERA, becoming a solid #2, from last year?

Cueto, who's barely pitched 14 games above A+ ball, is going to come in and pitch as a #3 SP in the Bigs?

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Bip Roberts
01-17-2008, 02:20 PM
Im willing to put money on that this years rotation is better than last years.

757690
01-18-2008, 01:56 PM
What year? 2011?

Bailey shave off almost TWO FULL POINTS off his ERA, becoming a solid #2, from last year?

Cueto, who's barely pitched 14 games above A+ ball, is going to come in and pitch as a #3 SP in the Bigs?

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Bailey was injured last year, and most of his games in the majors were while he was injured. I could easily see Bailey pitch a lot better than last. Also, that is what young pitchers do, they improve.

Dracodave
01-18-2008, 04:04 PM
What year? 2011?
Bailey shave off almost TWO FULL POINTS off his ERA, becoming a solid #2, from last year?
Cueto, who's barely pitched 14 games above A+ ball, is going to come in and pitch as a #3 SP in the Bigs?
PEACE
-BLEEDS

Okay, if Bailey can't hit a sub 5 era before 2011..He's not LEGIT at all. Hell, ERA is team based to be honest with you and with injuries behind him, strike out totals raising due to better command and MORE GAMES PLAYED..You could see Bailey post interesting numbers...
Thats the expectation I have of Bailey, his stats will show ACE..even if his era doesn't... I wouldnt be suprised if Bailey posts a defense independent ERA much better than his real ERA for awhile due to the Reds poor defense. The fact is, Baileys stock can only raise..while Blanton can only decline. If Bailey bombs he bombs at league minuim. If Blanton bombs, he bombs for Cueto/Bailey and money.

Giving up the prospects that can duplicate or better producion from other players is not the path the Reds should take. Even in a weak division, we have to rebuild the rotation from the ground up..Bailey, Volquez, Cueto, Maloney. We have four good young pitchers and for awhile we may only need to keep replacing the fifth starter.

But I guess most people see Blanton had success in a home ballpark with great defense..something The Reds LACK. Put him in GABP, and his 4.38 road era will become his real era and I doubt he might even post a era under 4.50..But that's better than waiting for Bailey or Cueto to be better than right?

I(heart)Freel
01-18-2008, 05:14 PM
My original point: to give up ONE of the our prospects (preferably the one we feel least confident about) for someone who has proven to be a reliable #3 would be a smart plan for right now.

Yes, these guys *could* all be brilliant in a few years. But I happen to think the Reds' window is now, while we have a good offense, a signed closer and a legit, division-winning top of the rotation. Every baseball decision should be based on this 2008-2011 window.

And again, I'll stress that we'd only likely be giving one of our top prospects for someone like Blanton. We will have 3-4 others to fill the 4SP and 5SP slots during this window, playing the hot hand and patiently developing the others.

BLEEDS
01-23-2008, 10:37 AM
My original point: to give up ONE of the our prospects (preferably the one we feel least confident about) for someone who has proven to be a reliable #3 would be a smart plan for right now.

Yes, these guys *could* all be brilliant in a few years. But I happen to think the Reds' window is now, while we have a good offense, a signed closer and a legit, division-winning top of the rotation. Every baseball decision should be based on this 2008-2011 window.

And again, I'll stress that we'd only likely be giving one of our top prospects for someone like Blanton. We will have 3-4 others to fill the 4SP and 5SP slots during this window, playing the hot hand and patiently developing the others.

Sir, your Logic has no place here.

Please put your Rose-Colored Glasses back on and take another look at DreamLand, where EVERY Pitcher has a career year this year, Belisle is suddenly an above average #3 SP, Bailey shaves 2 points off his ERA from a year ago, Arroyo is a #1 pitching in the #2 hole (instead of a #3 pitching in the #2), nobody gets injured requiring us to play guys who aren't ready for the bigs yet, a 200+ innings eater has no place on this roster, the clouds are made of cotton candy, and the rivers flow chocolate...

PEACE

-BLEEDS

BLEEDS
01-23-2008, 11:49 AM
Okay, if Bailey can't hit a sub 5 era before 2011..He's not LEGIT at all.

That's not the point. You said 2008, that's the frame of the discussion. I think there's a SLIGHT chance he MIGHT do that by 2011 - good planning because Harang and Arroyo's contract are up then.

You're the one who said you "expect" him to do it in 2008.

Wishing/Dreaming at best.


But I guess most people see Blanton had success in a home ballpark with great defense..something The Reds LACK. Put him in GABP, and his 4.38 road era will become his real era and I doubt he might even post a era under 4.50..But that's better than waiting for Bailey or Cueto to be better than right?

Yes, actually that IS the point most people are debating.

They'd rather get a better "known" than wait for 2011 for a MAYBE.
Not saying give them ALL up, but maybe one of them, still keeping the other guys around.

IMO, I'd rather give up Cueto now, and keep Bailey. Cueto is more polished and consistent, and more near his ceiling already. Bailey has WAY more upside.

So yes, I would rather have Blanton and Bailey NOW, instead of Bailey and Cueto LATER.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

AmarilloRed
01-23-2008, 01:15 PM
Blanton and A's avoid arbitration, agree on $3.7 million, 1-year deal
January 18, 2008

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- Joe Blanton and the Oakland Athletics agreed Friday on a $3.7 million, one-year contract that avoided arbitration.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AngUplACclgSJu2EfqIL7qWFCLcF?slug=ap-athletics-blanton&prov=ap&type=lgns



We can still trade for Blanton, but he now has a 1 year deal. We would also need to sign him to a LTC to keep him.

Bip Roberts
01-23-2008, 01:26 PM
Blanton and A's avoid arbitration, agree on $3.7 million, 1-year deal
January 18, 2008

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- Joe Blanton and the Oakland Athletics agreed Friday on a $3.7 million, one-year contract that avoided arbitration.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AngUplACclgSJu2EfqIL7qWFCLcF?slug=ap-athletics-blanton&prov=ap&type=lgns



We can still trade for Blanton, but he now has a 1 year deal. We would also need to sign him to a LTC to keep him.

Just arbitration

BLEEDS
01-23-2008, 01:29 PM
Blanton and A's avoid arbitration, agree on $3.7 million, 1-year deal
January 18, 2008

OAKLAND, Calif. (AP) -- Joe Blanton and the Oakland Athletics agreed Friday on a $3.7 million, one-year contract that avoided arbitration.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AngUplACclgSJu2EfqIL7qWFCLcF?slug=ap-athletics-blanton&prov=ap&type=lgns



We can still trade for Blanton, but he now has a 1 year deal. We would also need to sign him to a LTC to keep him.

That's wrong. He's not eligible to be a FA after next year. This is his FIRST year of arbitration eligibility. It does not "Expire" with a trade.

PEACE

-BLEEDS