PDA

View Full Version : Say WHAAAAT?!?!?! Dusty says money SHOULDN'T be a factor in the final choices?!?!



BLEEDS
03-25-2008, 06:27 PM
per McCoy:
http://www.daytondailynews.com/o/content/shared-gen/blogs/dayton/cincinnatireds/entries/2008/03/25/a_question_of_cash.html

"Can Reds afford to cut Stanton?
By Hal McCoy | Tuesday, March 25, 2008, 10:58 AM

Dusty Baker made both an interesting and telling comment Tuesday morning in the visitor’s clubhouse at Clearwater’s Bright House Field.

The question was the final determination of the bullpen, who goes and who stays. As candid as always, Baker said, “I know it is not my money, but I hope money isn’t a factor in the final choices. I know the team wants to stay in a budget, but. …”

But, indeed.

The reference obviously was to left-handed relief pitcher Mike Stanton, who wasn’t very good last year and has been mediocre, at best, this spring. But he has a $3 million guaranteed contract with a $500,000 buyout. If the Reds want him to go away (he already cleared waivers, nobody claimed him) and they can’t trade him, it will cost them $3.5 million to show the fans they REALLY want to win this year.

Baker’s bullpen of left-handers would be Jeremy Affeldt, Bill Bray and Kent Mercker. If ownership says, “Keep Stanton,” then Bray has options and might land in Louisville. Or they could jettison Mercker, a situational pitcher Baker likes.

In six appearances, Stanton has given up three runs, four hits, two walks and struck out one.

Affelt hasn’t been that good, either, but Baker stuck up for him.

“I’m a bit concerned about him after he gave it up Monday (two runs, two hits and a walk in one inning, ballooning his spring ERA to 12.51). But he’s a guy you have to consider as having a good track record. Maybe he is throwing too many strikes. He needs to throw quality strikes and keep it as simple as possible. He is a guy who analyzes things too much and he wears his problems all over his face. He cares big-time and you’d rather have that than a guy who doesn’t care.”

The roster remains too large, but there was one cut made Tuesday. Outfielder Jerry Gil was re-assigned to minor-league camp.

Gil most likely will end up at Class AAA Louisville with Jay Bruce and Chris Dickerson and Baker said, “They are going to have some ouftield in Louisville, man. Boy, that potential outfield they have. Whew. Wow. Some good arms, good speed. Probably one of the best around.”

I was tempted to say it, but bit my tongue when I wanted to say, “If you kept Bruce, you might have a much better outfield in Cincinnati.”

Call me Chicken Little.

Of Gil, Baker said, “He needs to play. He didn’t play at all last year (injury) and he is going to be a good player. He realizes he needs some at-bats and needs to play. In fact, he is going to be a very good player. He just needs to stay away from injuries because he has had some unfortunate things happen to him.”""


Next he's going to say saavy veterans don't deserve roster spots over potential-laden rookies?!?!?

Who is this man, and what has he done with one Johnnie B Baker, Jr?!?!

He's giving slack to the guys he likes - Affeldt (in the pen), EE, Votto - who were having slow Springs, and poo-pooing some guys he obviously doesn't (like, thinks is ready, thinks can contribute) - Stanton, Bruce, Affeldt (in the starting rotation), etc..

IFF this guy actually puts Keppinger in the lineup over Castro, and successfully gets rid of guys like Stanton, I think I might actually forgive him for putting Patterson in the lead-off spot - which actually I was already starting to back down off of the ledge for anyhow, since it looks like he actually DID EARN it by playing well in ST, with some decent hitting and *gasp* OBP stats. Guy took a walk to lead off the game today for Pete's Sake!!!

I might have to rethink this stance if he actually pulls this one off.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Degenerate39
03-25-2008, 06:33 PM
Dusty just went up a notch in my book. He just said what a lot of Redszoners have been saying since Stanton began his stretch of awfulness. I hope the Reds listen to Dusty and they kick Stanton to the curb because they have better options then Stanton.

GoReds33
03-25-2008, 06:49 PM
I offically love this guy. Guys like Stanton and Castro should have to earn their spots, not have them handed to them. I want to see more competition. Who knows, maybe Stanton would have pitched better last year if his spot wasn't handed to him.

Hondo
03-25-2008, 06:59 PM
Stanton might be too expensive to cut
Listen to this article or download audio file.Click-2-Listen

By Hal McCoy

Staff Writer

Tuesday, March 25, 2008

CLEARWATER, Fla. — Dusty Baker didn't mention his name, but relief pitcher Mike Stanton is the only guy in the bullpen who fits the description. He is signed to a guaranteed $3 million contract with a $500,000 buyout.

If the Reds can't trade him, they have to keep him or pay him $3.5 million to walk away jobless.

"It's not my money, but you hope that is not the determining factor," said Baker. "That's the way it is in baseball or any business — they want to stay within a budget."

Baker talks as if he'd like to keep three left-handers in the bullpen — Jeremy Affeldt, Bill Bray and Kent Mercker. If Stanton can't be dealt or isn't released, Bray has options left.

Affeldt came to camp trying to win a rotation job, but was quickly moved to the bullpen and has struggled, posting a 12.51 earned run average.

"We're a bit concerned because he has been giving it up, but you have to consider his track record," said Baker. "He is almost throwing too many strikes. Earlier he was in a rut of not throwing enough strikes. We have to get him throwing quality strikes and getting him comfortable and confident.

"Jeremy tends to worry and analyze a lot of stuff," Baker added. "He has to get to the point, 'As simple as possible.' You can see this guy wears it all over his face. You'd rather have that than a guy who doesn't care and he cares big-time."

The Philadelphia Phillies are desperately searching for a left-handed relief pitcher and would give the Reds third baseman/first baseman Wes Helms, making $2.1 million this year.


Would anyone want Helms?

757690
03-25-2008, 07:14 PM
I would trade any of the lefties other than Bray for Helms is a heartbeat. He would be a perfect platoon with Votto. He does quite well against lefties. .280 .359 .476. I would easily pay the difference this year in salary in Stanton was involved.


The Phillies also have Jason Jaramillo, who is stuck in AAA. He is better than anything the Reds have behind the plate currently. Wonder what it would take to get him and Helms?

Va Red Fan
03-25-2008, 07:45 PM
I would love to see Stanton gone, but the bullpen is still improved, even with him. OK, it really couldn't get worse, but whatever.

DannyB
03-25-2008, 08:49 PM
The reference obviously was to left-handed relief pitcher Mike Stanton, who wasn’t very good last year and has been mediocre, at best, this spring. But he has a $3 million guaranteed contract with a $500,000 buyout. If the Reds want him to go away (he already cleared waivers, nobody claimed him) and they can’t trade him, it will cost them $3.5 million to show the fans they REALLY want to win this year.

It will cost the Reds just as much to keep him as it would to cut him.

757690
03-25-2008, 09:02 PM
It will cost the Reds $1M if they cut Stanton.
They would have to pay his $500,000 buy out for 2009 and then pay an extra salary, around $500,000 to the player that takes his spot on the roster.

DannyB is correct. The $3.5M they pay him if they cut him they would pay him if he is on the team. It is called a Sunk Cost in economics.

So is it worth a $1M to not have Stanton on the roster?

BLEEDS
03-25-2008, 09:17 PM
One Additional Caveat to consider:

Better to cut Stanton now and pay the $500K buy-out for 2009, then let him get 70 CRAPPY appearances in 2008, which would GUARANTEE his 2009 Salary at $2.75M....

We have to pay that $500K buy-out next year REGARDLESS - again, it doesn't cost any more to cut him now than it would later - only POSSIBLY MORE LATER.

We've cut other players and paid large chunks of their salary before - Larue (big, like $5M I think), Cormier, and others.

This would be NO different, and possibly avoid TWO HUGE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS:

1 - letting Stanton stink up the joint in 2008

2 - let him stink up the joint to the tune of 70 appearances, making his 2009 salary, which is slated to be $2.5M, GUARANTEED at $2.75M

If you're going by Economics, it makes MORE sense to dump the guy now.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

IowaRed
03-25-2008, 09:20 PM
well, Baker talks a lot, a lot, A LOT. We'll see how things happen when the games start. If when, Corey Patterson returns to his career sub.300 OBP, will he be taken out of the lineup or at least moved down. It's pretty rare that a guy Patterson's age all of a sudden becomes a quality OB guy. It's also pretty rare that a guy who has played and managed a certain way changes his stance on things. As the saying goes, talk is cheap....

gedred69
03-25-2008, 09:57 PM
well, Baker talks a lot, a lot, A LOT. We'll see how things happen when the games start. If when, Corey Patterson returns to his career sub.300 OBP, will he be taken out of the lineup or at least moved down. It's pretty rare that a guy Patterson's age all of a sudden becomes a quality OB guy. It's also pretty rare that a guy who has played and managed a certain way changes his stance on things. As the saying goes, talk is cheap....

I suspect your comments about Patterson have a serious ring of truth. If the guy all of the sudden "gets it", I will humble my self and say "My bad". (I'm not worried particularly about that prospect).

AmarilloRed
03-25-2008, 10:20 PM
One Additional Caveat to consider:

Better to cut Stanton now and pay the $500K buy-out for 2009, then let him get 70 CRAPPY appearances in 2008, which would GUARANTEE his 2009 Salary at $2.75M....

We have to pay that $500K buy-out next year REGARDLESS - again, it doesn't cost any more to cut him now than it would later - only POSSIBLY MORE LATER.

We've cut other players and paid large chunks of their salary before - Larue (big, like $5M I think), Cormier, and others.

This would be NO different, and possibly avoid TWO HUGE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS:

1 - letting Stanton stink up the joint in 2008

2 - let him stink up the joint to the tune of 70 appearances, making his 2009 salary, which is slated to be $2.5M, GUARANTEED at $2.75M

If you're going by Economics, it makes MORE sense to dump the guy now.

PEACE

-BLEEDS

Does anyone know if the 2.5 million he gets next year if he gets those 70 appearances goes into effect if he gets them with another team? Say we cut him and he gets 70 appearances with the team he would sign with this year; I have heard we would have to pay that money next year. I have heard the only way we can avoid paying that money is if he gets less than 70 appearances with the Reds this year, or if we trade him and his contract becomes his new team's concern.

757690
03-25-2008, 10:59 PM
One Additional Caveat to consider:

Better to cut Stanton now and pay the $500K buy-out for 2009, then let him get 70 CRAPPY appearances in 2008, which would GUARANTEE his 2009 Salary at $2.75M....

We have to pay that $500K buy-out next year REGARDLESS - again, it doesn't cost any more to cut him now than it would later - only POSSIBLY MORE LATER.

We've cut other players and paid large chunks of their salary before - Larue (big, like $5M I think), Cormier, and others.

This would be NO different, and possibly avoid TWO HUGE ADDITIONAL PROBLEMS:

1 - letting Stanton stink up the joint in 2008

2 - let him stink up the joint to the tune of 70 appearances, making his 2009 salary, which is slated to be $2.5M, GUARANTEED at $2.75M

If you're going by Economics, it makes MORE sense to dump the guy now.

PEACE

-BLEEDS


You are right about the $500,000 buy out. So the cost for cutting Stanton is $500,000. Not a very big price to pay if he is not doing the job.

However, the 70 appearances is a non issue if he stays with the team. There is no way the team would let him reach that total, especially with the number of decent lefties in the organization. If Stanton is anywhere near that number, the Reds will probably release him, since he will only have a month or so left on his contract. There is no way the Union can protest this, given Stanton's performance.

The only concern is AmarilloRed's, and that all depends on the specific language in the contract. If it says that the option kicks in if Stanton makes 70 appearances for the Reds, then it won't if he makes them for another team. If it says that it will kick in if he makes 70 appearances in a major league game, then it will no matter who he plays for. It might even be worded another way. There is no way for us to know without looking at the contract.
The Reds are responsible for every term of the contract if he is waived and then signed with a new team.

whackspliff
03-25-2008, 11:09 PM
I heard Tracy and Eddie saying that he will make the team, but the Reds will eat is contract is he doesn't do well.........right away.

BLEEDS
03-25-2008, 11:19 PM
I heard Tracy and Eddie saying that he will make the team, but the Reds will eat is contract is he doesn't do well.........right away.

SO, after he blows 3-4 games right? Those games that Bray could have salvagved wins out of, and those games that could end up costing us the Division or Wild Card right?

BRILLIANT!!!

As close as we all "HOPE" that we will be come September, I don't want to take the risk of THIS magnitude in April.

As far as the wording, I would have to check into that more. I think the wording was 140 appearances between 2007-2008; he had 70 appearances last year. NO CLUE about if that transfers to the new team or not.

The $500K thing; the way I see it we pay it regardless. The only difference might be if we release him this year we pay it this year - BUT then we DON'T have to pay it next year, so I don't think it means a lot in the end. $500K on an $80M payroll is not even 1%, and it's barely .5%...

$2.75M on the other hand :eek:

FYI, for 2007 we had the following contracts on our books:
2007 payroll obligations for former players:
$2,950,000 (Jason LaRue)
$2,250,000 (Rheal Cormier)

Suddenly $3M for Stanton seems like a relative bargain...

PEACE

-BLEEDS

George Foster
03-25-2008, 11:28 PM
This closes any doubt that Dusty is not "Wayne's guy" and never was. Dusty was chosen by Cast, and Wayne did not have any say.

Hey Meat
03-25-2008, 11:29 PM
Yippee. Dusty just went up in my book.

whackspliff
03-25-2008, 11:29 PM
I agree 100%. I would eat his contract because of the steroid issue alone.

Moosie52
03-26-2008, 07:32 AM
Let's not forget Eric Milton...

Moosie52
03-26-2008, 07:32 AM
Unless we can.

Snowmanlikeme
03-26-2008, 08:01 AM
Unless we can.

hahaha. absolutely.

Caveman Techie
03-26-2008, 08:33 AM
This closes any doubt that Dusty is not "Wayne's guy" and never was. Dusty was chosen by Cast, and Wayne did not have any say.

:confused: I don't know how you make that leap of logic there. How does Dusty making this statement mean that he wasn't Wayne's choice for manager?

Newman4
03-26-2008, 03:48 PM
Mike Stanton lhp
2 years/$5.5M (2007-08), plus $2.5M 2009 club option

signed as a free agent 11/06
07:$2M, 08:$3M, 09:$2.5M club option ($0.5M buyout)
2009 option guaranteed at $2.75M with 140 appearances 2007-08

Not one of WK's finest moments.......

DannyB
03-26-2008, 05:19 PM
Mike Stanton lhp
2 years/$5.5M (2007-08), plus $2.5M 2009 club option

signed as a free agent 11/06
07:$2M, 08:$3M, 09:$2.5M club option ($0.5M buyout)
2009 option guaranteed at $2.75M with 140 appearances 2007-08

Not one of WK's finest moments.......

At the time Wayne said there were other teams talking to Stanton and thats what it took to get him.:eek: