PDA

View Full Version : $22.5 Million dollars



Matt700wlw
04-20-2008, 07:12 PM
*Mike Stanton, 3.5 mill owed this season after release

*Juan Castro, $975,000 for '08, 1.1 mill in '09 (club option/$100,000 buyout)

*Todd Coffey, $925,00 for '08...increase of $517,500 when extended on April 28 of last year.

*Bronson Arroyo, 6.45 mill '08 (3.95 mill base + 2.5 mill signing bonus)
9.5 mill '09, 11 mill '10, 11 mill '11 (club option/2mill buyout)

*David Ross 2.5 mill '08, 3.5 mill '09 (club option/$375,00 buyout)

*Scott Hatteberg, 1.85 mill '08

*Ryan Freel, 3 mill '08, 4 mill '09

*Corey Patterson, 3 mill '08

*Josh Fogg, 1 mill ($400,000 guaranteed)


'08 TOTAL: 22.6 mill

HumnHilghtFreel
04-20-2008, 07:14 PM
Effective use of an expanded payroll. Take notes, up and coming GM's!

Falls City Beer
04-20-2008, 07:18 PM
Hatteberg would be a great pinch hitter. Not as a platoon player.

Caveat Emperor
04-20-2008, 07:19 PM
I still think it's wayyyy too early to be upset about Arroyo.

Matt700wlw
04-20-2008, 07:21 PM
I was fine with Bronson's extension, so I have to remain consistant on that one

Always Red
04-20-2008, 07:21 PM
*Mike Stanton, 3.5 mill owed this season after release

*Juan Castro, $975,000 for '08, 1.1 mill in '09 (club option/$100,000 buyout)

*Todd Coffey, $925,00 for '08...increase of $517,500 when extended on April 28 of last year.

*Bronson Arroyo, 6.45 mill '08 (3.95 mill base + 2.5 mill signing bonus)
9.5 mill '09, 11 mill '10, 11 mill '11 (club option/2mill buyout)

*David Ross 2.5 mill '08, 3.5 mill '09 (club option/$375,00 buyout)

*Scott Hatteberg, 1.85 mill '08

*Ryan Freel, 3 mill '08, 4 mill '09

*Corey Patterson, 3 mill '08

*Josh Fogg, 1 mill ($400,000 guaranteed)


'08 TOTAL: 22.6 mill

http://www.thelotd.com/lance/blog/2008/04/19/sunday

Lance posted this on his blog on Sunday, and he's talking about money owed vs. dead weight and production.

I think it is far too early to include Patterson, Freel, Hatteberg, Ross, Arroyo and Coffey on that list. All of those guys can and most probably will either stick with the team all year or be traded (along with their contracts) to other teams, for value. None of the guys mentioned above are in danger of being just dumped.

Stanton, Castro and maybe Fogg are writeoffs from the bottom line. The Stanton money hurts the worst. I try to remember (when I am being kind to Wayne) that at the time Stanton was signed, the Reds had virtually no bullpen at all, and he was actually a positive acquisition. I think Fogg can possibly stick all year as a long reliever/spot starter. I think he'll get another chance or two before the Reds cut him loose.

Matt700wlw
04-20-2008, 07:24 PM
I guess I should have included that link....seeing as I work for the radio station

:doh:

*BaseClogger*
04-20-2008, 07:24 PM
Josh Fogg reminds me of Kirk Saarloos...

mth123
04-20-2008, 07:26 PM
Josh Fogg reminds me of Kirk Sarloos...

He's not that bad.

Falls City Beer
04-20-2008, 07:29 PM
I still think it's wayyyy too early to be upset about Arroyo.

Maybe so, but you gotta believe that all these HRs will only turn into longer HRs when the weather heats up.

I think the guy is a bad fit for the Reds' park.

*BaseClogger*
04-20-2008, 07:33 PM
He's not that bad.

xFIP disagrees:

Fogg: 4.99, 4.96, 5.11, 5.25
Saarloos: 5.49, 4.71, 5.13, 4.94

edabbs44
04-20-2008, 07:39 PM
I still think it's wayyyy too early to be upset about Arroyo.

Upset? I guess it is a little early to be upset.

But it doesn't change the fact that Wayne jumped the gun on the extension. I thought it was odd at the time to extend someone when they had 2 years left on their contract at such a cheap price. Too much risk with pitchers who are hitting their 30s with the track record of a middle of the road pitcher.

RedsManRick
04-20-2008, 07:48 PM
I don't think I've ever seen people turn on a guy so quickly as some have with Arroyo. He's given up a few homers in a handful of starts and suddenly he's dead weight. Let's completely ignore the 450 IP of sub 4.00 ERA ball the past two years and focus on 4 starts.

He's suffering from his own success, unfortunately. He was ERA lucky in 2006 and regressed to his skill set in 2007. Now people assume after 4 starts that he's in some sort of serious regression.... uggh.

If he continues to be what's he been, he easily merits the extension. You'd think after the sort of rotations we've had, people would appreciate the value of a reliable starter who gives you a QS 60% of the time. Don't get me wrong, I think we gave up a lot of value considering the contract he had when we first acquired him, but I hardly think it's the sort of contract we should be worried about.

There's paying $11M for $8M in production, and then there's paying $8.5M for $0 in production (Stanton, Castro, Freel, Fogg). Paying "extra" for somebody who gives you positive production is less than ideal. But paying anything, and using roster spots, on guys who give you zero or sub-replacement production can completely torpedo your chances of competing.

Bob Borkowski
04-20-2008, 07:49 PM
I remember when it was announced that Freel had signed his current contract.

His comment to the press was something to the effect that, "Man, I am being over-paid".

Hey, I think he might have a point there.

Falls City Beer
04-20-2008, 07:53 PM
I don't think I've ever seen people turn on a guy so quickly as some have with Arroyo. He's given up a few homers in a handful of starts and suddenly he's dead weight. Let's completely ignore the 450 IP of sub 4.00 ERA ball the past two years and focus on 4 starts.

He's suffering from his own success, unfortunately. He was ERA lucky in 2006 and regressed to his skill set in 2007. Now people assume after 4 starts that he's in some sort of serious regression.... uggh.

What if, by the deadline, all the numbers, including the luck component, point to Arroyo being a sub-average pitcher this season? Is it smart to pay him 10-11 million in 09-10?

Rojo
04-20-2008, 07:55 PM
Its odd. His strength -- finding decent players on the cheap -- conflicts with his biggest deficiency -- an itchy contract finger. The former makes the latter less necessary and the latter makes the former harder to do.

mth123
04-20-2008, 08:04 PM
xFIP disagrees:

Fogg: 4.99, 4.96, 5.11, 5.25
Saarloos: 5.49, 4.71, 5.13, 4.94

Look, I think Fogg is bad. I just think that Saarloos is about the worst pitcher in the big leagues. I have a bias against guys who walk more than they K. Saarloos 2 most recent season of pitching any reasonable number of innings as a starter, he walked more than he K'd. He's better as a reliever, but that just proves why Fogg is better. He can at least work as a starter with reasonable number 5 expectations. Also, Fogg was pitching in Coors field while Saarloos was in the very forgiving Oakland park with the huge foul territory that helps pitchers record lots of outs that they would not in most other parks.

Unassisted
04-20-2008, 08:07 PM
I don't think I've ever seen people turn on a guy so quickly as some have with Arroyo. He's given up a few homers in a handful of starts and suddenly he's dead weight. Let's completely ignore the 450 IP of sub 4.00 ERA ball the past two years and focus on 4 starts.
I think all of the public love for and playing music in the greater Boston area has greased the skids for the fall of Mr. Arroyo in the hearts and minds of Reds fans.

RedsManRick
04-20-2008, 08:07 PM
What if, by the deadline, all the numbers, including the luck component, point to Arroyo being a sub-average pitcher this season? Is it smart to pay him 10-11 million in 09-10?

Yes, FCB. That's clearly what I meant. [/sarcasm]

If Arroyo is a sub-average pitcher, then obviously paying him $11M isn't smart. And if, by the deadline, all the numbers point to Arroyo being a sub-average pitcher this season, then such complaints about the extension might have some merit.

But today, Arroyo has 4 starts and 21 IP. The numbers this season don't point to anything yet. The reality is that for the last 450 IP, he's been an above average starting pitcher, both in quantity and quality. At this point, putting Arroyo in the same category as Juan Castro and Mike Stanton is a gross overreaction.

Falls City Beer
04-20-2008, 08:08 PM
But today, Arroyo has 4 starts and 21 IP. The numbers this season don't point to anything yet. At this point, putting Arroyo in the same category as Juan Castro and Mike Stanton is a gross overreaction.

What if you just want to get something in return for him before he becomes a prohibitive contract?

mth123
04-20-2008, 08:19 PM
Yes, FCB. That's clearly what I meant. [/sarcasm]

If Arroyo is a sub-average pitcher, then obviously paying him $11M isn't smart. And if, by the deadline, all the numbers point to Arroyo being a sub-average pitcher this season, then such complaints about the extension might have some merit.

But today, Arroyo has 4 starts and 21 IP. The numbers this season don't point to anything yet. The reality is that for the last 450 IP, he's been an above average starting pitcher, both in quantity and quality. At this point, putting Arroyo in the same category as Juan Castro and Mike Stanton is a gross overreaction.


Agree.

I also see FCB's point. The innings are piling up on Arroyo while his price tag is rising. I can see the asset becoming a liability fairly quickly, but since above average rotation arms are so scarce, they really need to let it play out for now. I could see re-evaluating at the deadline if 1.) the Reds are out of it 2.) the Bailey's, Maloney's and Thompson's of the world continue to progress 3.) Belisle and the Kids have establsihed themselves as real deal major league starters. If Arroyo has become Matt Morris by then, so be it.

Falls City Beer
04-20-2008, 08:22 PM
Agree.

I also see FCB's point. The innings are piling up on Arroyo while his price tag is rising. I can see the asset becoming a liability fairly quickly, but since above average rotation arms are so scarce, they really need to let it play out for now. I could see re-evaluating at the deadline if 1.) the Reds are out of it 2.) the Bailey's, Maloney's and Thompson's of the world continue to progress 3.) Belisle and the Kids have establsihed themselves as real deal major league starters. If Arroyo has become Matt Morris by then, so be it.

Can the Reds afford to be this conservative?

RedsManRick
04-20-2008, 08:29 PM
What if you just want to get something in return for him before he becomes a prohibitive contract?

That's the kind of logic that has you always aiming for the next horizon.

There's no reason to believe that Arroyo's contract will become prohibitive other than that it's a 3 year deal for a SP with some innings on him. As far as risks go, Arroyo is hardly on the track to "prohibitive". Will the ratio of production to cost (aka value) shift over the next few years? Of course it will -- such is the nature of nearly every long term deal.

But at the end of the day, you have to have enough talent to win. That's where it ends. Sure, it'd be nice to have an 100 win team all making the league minimum. But it doesn't work that way. You have to pay for some of your talent.

If you think Arroyo is on the verge of becoming replacement level, I'd say that's a ridiculous notion rooted in a terribly small sample size of innings this season. If you think he's likely to get progressively less valuable over the life of his contract, I would agree 100%. However, jumping from that statement to "want(ing) to get something in return for him before he becomes a prohibitive contract" is quite the leap. That logic would justify trading away a lot more than Arroyo.

I can see a case for trading away Arroyo now. Given that his value will likely go down and given that we're not likely going to win this season, I could definitely support the right deal -- it's an argument I was making this time last season. However, your return in that trade better be part of a picture which actually increases the talent of our 25 man roster in 2009 and 2010. Just trading him away for the sake of it to get "something" in return, particularly when that something is even less likely to provide value than Arroyo (Inge) just doesn't make sense.

mth123
04-20-2008, 08:30 PM
Can the Reds afford to be this conservative?

If the team thinks Bailey et al is ready to assume the spot in 2009, I still think the contract could be moved in the off-season. They may not get as much back, but if this team wants to retain any credibilty with its fan base, it needs to keep Arroyo around for now. Losing that credibilty may cost more money over the next couple of years than Arroyo's deal. I guess if they made such a great deal that they would be a solid winner, the fans would still show up. I just don't see that deal out there until the deadline anyway.

edabbs44
04-20-2008, 08:30 PM
There's paying $11M for $8M in production, and then there's paying $8.5M for $0 in production (Stanton, Castro, Freel, Fogg). Paying "extra" for somebody who gives you positive production is less than ideal. But paying anything, and using roster spots, on guys who give you zero or sub-replacement production can completely torpedo your chances of competing.

Like I said in another post, it's not a good thing when you have to make a big signing/extension look better by comparing it with other disasters by the same regime.

Arroyo could turn it around, no doubt. But even if he does, was it worth the risk of extending a pitcher that far out?

Even if it works out it was still a questionable move.

Caveat Emperor
04-20-2008, 08:32 PM
Can the Reds afford to be this conservative?

Sure they can. They're owned by a billionaire who has a stated goal of producing winning baseball in Cincinnati.

The real question is, can they afford to be as reactionary as many here feel they need to be? People are ready to anoint Cueto & Volquez as SureThings™ after a handful of starts apiece, ready to proclaim Bailey has turned the corner after a handful of minor league innings, and ready to show Arroyo the door after a handful of bad starts. I'm sure we should've run Harang out of town after he got lit up on opening day 2 years ago too. Arroyo has a history of delivering solid performance for this team -- why does everyone seem to think (other than a mysterious talent-zapping monster) he's not going to do the same thing this year?

Maybe Bronson should slide more and get his uniform dirty. Apparently emulating scrappy white guys who run really hard on every play is the only way to get appreciated by the fans* in this town.

* - Note, this is not directed at you (or anyone else on this thread), FCB.

Sea Ray
04-20-2008, 08:36 PM
http://www.thelotd.com/lance/blog/2008/04/19/sunday


I think it is far too early to include Patterson, Freel, Hatteberg, Ross, Arroyo and Coffey on that list. All of those guys can and most probably will either stick with the team all year or be traded (along with their contracts) to other teams, for value. None of the guys mentioned above are in danger of being just dumped.

Stanton, Castro and maybe Fogg are writeoffs from the bottom line. The Stanton money hurts the worst. I try to remember (when I am being kind to Wayne) that at the time Stanton was signed, the Reds had virtually no bullpen at all, and he was actually a positive acquisition. I think Fogg can possibly stick all year as a long reliever/spot starter. I think he'll get another chance or two before the Reds cut him loose.

I don't get this kind of thinking. In fairness to Wayne, we should go on record early as to whether we think it is a good move to sign these guys to such contracts. I'd much rather hear from Redszoners now than later on when the call is crystal clear.

I think this thread was kind in that it didn't include A. Gon. I think WK has erred greatly in the number of years he's given these guys. In the case of Stanton and Castro, he gave them multiple years when it seemed that no one else was beating down the door to sign them. In Freel's case we had him "controlled" for a few more years. There was no reason to commit us for three years. Ditto for Ross.

As for Arroyo, I really like him in my rotation but not at $10mill+ a year. That kind of money is reserved for aces in my book. In fact if you include his signing bonus and possible buyout for 2011, he will make more in 2009 and 2010 than Aaron Harang. Source: http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/cincinnati-reds_24.html

Nothing against Bronson Arroyo, but he's not worth $11-13mill/yr. If you think he is I'd be curious to know what other pitchers being paid 2 yr/$25mill you think are worse than Bronson.

If I'm Castellini, I'm gettin' pretty ticked at all my money he's asking me to eat everytime the subject of a Castro, Stanton, Freel or whoever comes up during this year.

Sea Ray
04-20-2008, 08:43 PM
There's no reason to believe that Arroyo's contract will become prohibitive other than that it's a 3 year deal for a SP with some innings on him. As far as risks go, Arroyo is hardly on the track to "prohibitive". Will the ratio of production to cost (aka value) shift over the next few years? Of course it will -- such is the nature of nearly every long term deal.



There's every reason to believe that his contract has already become prohibitive. The way I see it, he is now untradeable unless the Reds eat the lion's share of the contract. I doubt any other team in baseball would take over Bronson's contract as it stands now. Because of that, it was a bad move on WK's part

RedsManRick
04-20-2008, 08:57 PM
Like I said in another post, it's not a good thing when you have to make a big signing/extension look better by comparing it with other disasters by the same regime.

Arroyo could turn it around, no doubt. But even if he does, was it worth the risk of extending a pitcher that far out?

Even if it works out it was still a questionable move.

There is nothing to turn around -- that's the problem with this whole conversation. It's based on some faulty idea that he's quickly headed down the path to replacement level. Arroyo has had a few less than stellar starts. The end. It happens every year. It happens to every starter. Sometimes it happens in July, sometimes it happens in April.

For example, take July 26 - Aug 10 2006.

Arroyo had 4 starts.
25.1 IP
9 HR
7.11 ERA

And yet, 2006 ended up pretty well for Arroyo. Heck, look at all of July and June of 2006 -- an ERA over 5.00 and a Miltonesque HR rate. It happens and it's not predictive of future failure -- or success -- of anything.

Arroyo will likely decrease in value of the life of his current deal and there is a very good argument to be made for cashing in Arroyo for something with better long term value and a non-zero short term value. But that argument has absolutely nothing to do with his past 4 starts or the level of production we should expect out of him in 2008. And it certainly does not conclude with trading him for a mediocre spare part like Brandon Inge.

edabbs44
04-20-2008, 09:03 PM
There is nothing to turn around -- that's the problem with this whole conversation. It's based on some faulty idea that he's quickly headed down the path to replacement level. Arroyo has had a few less than stellar starts. The end. It happens every year. It happens to every starter. Sometimes it happens in July, sometimes it happens in April.

For example, take July 26 - Aug 10 2006.

Arroyo had 4 starts.
25.1 IP
9 HR
7.11 ERA

And yet, 2006 ended up pretty well for Arroyo. Heck, look at all of July and June of 2006 -- an ERA over 5.00 and a Miltonesque HR rate. It happens and it's not predictive of future failure -- or success -- of anything.

Arroyo will likely decrease in value of the life of his current deal and there is a very good argument to be made for cashing in Arroyo for something with better long term value and a non-zero short term value. But that argument has absolutely nothing to do with his past 4 starts or the level of production we should expect out of him in 2008. And it certainly does not conclude with trading him for a mediocre spare part like Brandon Inge.

I agree to a point.

Every decline starts somewhere. Obviously you believe that BA's hasn't begun. Some think this is it. I happen to think that he has some value and that he will pitch better, but not enough for this team to drop $22MM on over the next two years. Especially when they will probably be ready to take that serious step towards contention in his last year or the year after.

If they can get some solid long-term value for him now I would hop on it qithout thinking twice. But I think that the task is rather large, since there is some doubt in his effectiveness and he is owed a good chunk of change over the next 2 years.

RedsManRick
04-20-2008, 09:12 PM
There's every reason to believe that his contract has already become prohibitive. The way I see it, he is now untradeable unless the Reds eat the lion's share of the contract. I doubt any other team in baseball would take over Bronson's contract as it stands now. Because of that, it was a bad move on WK's part

I'd disagree. If the Reds put Arroyo on the market, I think we'd have a number of teams interested. Again, let's not overcomplicate this. Arroyo is a 31 year old pitcher coming off two years of 225 IP and a sub 4.00 ERA. He's signed through 2010 for a total of $24.45M including this year. There's an $11M team option for 2011. That has value.

Now maybe this is blaspheme, but fiscal freedom doesn't win ballgames. There are a limited number of pitchers capable of pitching 200+ IP a year and allowing something around a 4.50 ERA. If you want to win in MLB, you have to have a few of those guys -- and there aren't enough for every team to have enough.

Who are you spending Arroyo's money on? Now remember that, in the spirit of this thread, you already have $11M to spend from the other contracts which magically went away. The Reds aren't pinching pennies. They have significant production coming from very little cost over the next 2-3 years both in the pitching staff (Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Burton, Bray) and the lineup (Votto, Bruce, EE, Phillips to some extent).

How do you intend not just to shed salary, but to get more production from that salary -- because fiscal freedom is just a means to an ends. If the idea is to replace Arroyo's production with Bailey, Fogg, Shearn, or who knows who else, I don't see the point.

Again, I'm not against trading Arroyo away. I just need a little more logic than shedding salary for the sake of it or adding Brandon Inge.

RedsManRick
04-20-2008, 09:16 PM
I agree to a point.

Every decline starts somewhere. Obviously you believe that BA's hasn't begun. Some think this is it.

Obviously you haven't read my posts. I DO think his decline has begun. I just don't think that his decline looks like this:

2006: Star
2007: Decent
2008: Replacement level player with a prohibitive contract


I happen to think that he has some value and that he will pitch better, but not enough for this team to drop $22MM on over the next two years. Especially when they will probably be ready to take that serious step towards contention in his last year or the year after.

If they can get some solid long-term value for him now I would hop on it qithout thinking twice. But I think that the task is rather large, since there is some doubt in his effectiveness and he is owed a good chunk of change over the next 2 years.

Again, I agree with the basic concept -- IF we can get some good long term value. But trading him for a spare part, or for a maybe prospect, just doesn't do it for me.

"Some doubt of his effectiveness" -- again what do you think his decline looks like and, aside from this tiny 4 start sample, what is your concept of his decline rooted in?

redsrule2500
04-20-2008, 09:20 PM
Maybe so, but you gotta believe that all these HRs will only turn into longer HRs when the weather heats up.

I think the guy is a bad fit for the Reds' park.

What the heck? If he does what he did in 2006 or even 2007 he is a decent starter, and worth having on the team. The pay might be a little high, but he will pitch a ton of good innings.

Sea Ray
04-20-2008, 09:44 PM
What the heck? If he does what he did in 2006 or even 2007 he is a decent starter, and worth having on the team. The pay might be a little high, but he will pitch a ton of good innings.


That's a big if. Those two years were among the best in his career. I hope you're right but I foresee him pitching like a 4th or 5th starter while paying him like an ace in 2009 and 2010 and that's not a recipe for success in a market like this.

If I'm WK I don't give him this extension. I try to sign him for about 2 yrs/$15mill and if he decides to walk I take the draft pick compensation and say thanks for the 3 good years.

At the very worst you can likely replace him with a Jose Silva type FA but hopefully you're smart and you can land a guy like Justin Germano.

mth123
04-20-2008, 10:00 PM
That's a big if. Those two years were among the best in his career. I hope you're right but I foresee him pitching like a 4th or 5th starter while paying him like an ace in 2009 and 2010 and that's not a recipe for success in a market like this.

If I'm WK I don't give him this extension. I try to sign him for about 2 yrs/$15mill and if he decides to walk I take the draft pick compensation and say thanks for the 3 good years.

At the very worst you can likely replace him with a Jose Silva type FA but hopefully you're smart and you can land a guy like Justin Germano.

Except, $11 Million per year is not paying him like an ace. Its the going rate for solid mid-rotation vets these days and that is what Arroyo is until he goes longer without being effective.

RedsManRick
04-20-2008, 10:04 PM
That's a big if. Those two years were among the best in his career. I hope you're right but I foresee him pitching like a 4th or 5th starter while paying him like an ace in 2009 and 2010 and that's not a recipe for success in a market like this.

Not that my personal projection of Arroyo is any more prescient than yours, but based on what exactly?



If I'm WK I don't give him this extension. I try to sign him for about 2 yrs/$15mill and if he decides to walk I take the draft pick compensation and say thanks for the 3 good years.

At the very worst you can likely replace him with a Jose Silva type FA but hopefully you're smart and you can land a guy like Justin Germano.

If a team has an equally capable, but cheaper starter on it's hands, why would they trade us him for Arroyo? And if you're going to FA, what kind of starter do you think you can get to replace him (who's actually going to be a FA) and at what cost?

I would suggest that the $20M over two years we have committed to him in 2009 and 2010 is hardly "ace" money in today's market. It's mid-rotation starter money -- you know, exactly what Arroyo is and likely will continue to be over the next 2.5 years. That doesn't mean I think the extension was a great idea. We had a bargain and gave it away; I've argued the "trade Arroyo" side of this conversation before. But there's no need to artificially inflate the risk of a collapse of production or to suggest that we could definitely get a better return on that investment elsewhere without providing any reasonable scenarios in which that actually happens.

This whole conversation reeks of grass-is-greener hand wringing over something that isn't really a problem. The money spent on Arroyo isn't the most efficient, but it's hardly "prohibitive". This team doesn't lack cash -- and hasn't lacked cash. It's lacked talent and it's lacked production. Trading away production for cash isn't a position I would quickly get behind. And suggesting that Arroyo is going to suddenly stop giving us production is chicken littlesque. If we're going to worry about a contract given to a 30 year old starter on the basis that he's likely to collapse in the near future, we should be probably dump Harang now too. What if HE collapses -- then we're in big trouble. Better flip him for a useful piece.

The reality of the situation is that this conversation is borne out of a sub-par four start run to start the season. If he had allowed 3 ER less over the 4 starts, and carried a 4.23 ERA in to today, he wouldn't have been cited in the opening post of this thread and this entire conversation wouldn't be happening. That should suggest just a bit how exaggerated the "run before it blows" argument is.

TRF
04-20-2008, 10:12 PM
Who are you spending Arroyo's money on? Now remember that, in the spirit of this thread, you already have $11M to spend from the other contracts which magically went away. The Reds aren't pinching pennies. They have significant production coming from very little cost over the next 2-3 years both in the pitching staff (Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Burton, Bray) and the lineup (Votto, Bruce, EE, Phillips to some extent).

Who says you have to spend it? It's not how much you spend, but rather how. 3/5 of the Reds rotation makes 1 mil or less. Arroyo would likely be replaced by Bailey, so that makes it 4/5. Now you can be competitive in in the FA market for either a SP if any of the cheap 4 don't impress enough or go after top tier BP talent. Since it's likely Griffey comes off the books, maybe you go after a RF, if there is no one in the system ready. there is nothing wrong with having cheap young talent.

Sea Ray
04-20-2008, 10:15 PM
I disagree with you Rick that we're not paying him ace money. He's the 14th highest paid starting pitcher in baseball: http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2000/05/most-lucrative-contracts.html

He's now 23-28 as a Cincinnati Red and you've already admitted that his decline has begun. I don't see how you can see him as being anything but an albatross to this team's payroll in the next couple of years.

If he's say 9-12 with a 4.50 ERA in the future then we can't afford him at $25mill for two years. Remember this thread Rick. I hope you're right and I'm dead wrong but I think time will show you to be the cockeyed optimist on this one.

GAC
04-20-2008, 10:22 PM
IMHO, BA pretty much peaked in 05 and 06. He didn't have a bad year last year, and was a victim of this BP quite a bit. He was 0-2 last April in 5 starts, had an ERA of 2.86, and was the victim of not getting any run support. But this April looks different in that he is only lasting 5 inning/start, and his ERA is more then double compared to last April.

I agree with FCB in that Arroyo is not really suited for GABP. He has given up 6 Hrs in 21.1 innings. If that pace continues, then it's not a pretty sight for 2008. It seems to me, just from an observation standpoint, that he is struggling with consistency when it comes to his breaking stuff, which is causing him to rely more on a fastball that just isn't there. And that is where he is getting hurt.

I didn't agree with the extension by WK at the time, though I can understand WK doing it coming off that '06 season and the fact we were starving for quality starting pitching. He gets 4.5 mil this year, and then it escalates to 9.5 next year, and 11 mil in 2010, with an option for 2011. Pecota stated BA was worth 15.5 mil in 2009/2010.

I just wonder if WK, in all honesty, regrets that extension. ;)

*BaseClogger*
04-20-2008, 10:23 PM
I disagree with you Rick that we're not paying him ace money. He's the 14th highest paid starting pitcher in baseball: http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2000/05/most-lucrative-contracts.html.

That is a bit misleading, as he will make $11M in 2009, and there are a lot of pitchers making very close to that ($9M or more). He's probably in the group of the 30 highest paid pitchers in MLB, which means he is likely making too much. However, you can afford to overpay a little bit if it means you are getting lots of innings.


He's now 23-28 as a Cincinnati Red and you've already admitted that his decline has begun. I don't see how you can see him as being anything but an albatross to this team's payroll in the next couple of years.

If he's say 9-12 with a 4.50 ERA in the future then we can't afford him at $25mill for two years. Remember this thread Rick. I hope you're right and I'm dead wrong but I think time will show you to be the cockeyed optimist on this one.

9-12 with a 4.50 ERA sounds about right... with 200 innings. That's big, and we most certainly can afford him, especially with the pitchers we have had around here recently. A guy who I would expect to put up similar numbers in GABP, Derek Lowe, will likely fetch a similar contract this season at age 36. That contract is the going rate these days for league-average pitching. It sucks. I think Rick would feel differently if this was a five year contract, but it only runs through 2010...

RedsManRick
04-20-2008, 10:27 PM
I disagree with you Rick that we're not paying him ace money. He's the 14th highest paid starting pitcher in baseball: http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2000/05/most-lucrative-contracts.html

He's now 23-28 as a Cincinnati Red and you've already admitted that his decline has begun. I don't see how you can see him as being anything but an albatross to this team's payroll in the next couple of years.

If he's say 9-12 with a 4.50 ERA in the future then we can't afford him at $25mill for two years. Remember this thread Rick. I hope you're right and I'm dead wrong but I think time will show you to be the cockeyed optimist on this one.

If he gives us 200 IP per year and a 4.50 ERA over the rest of his contract, he's worth the money, easy. You can't have a bargain at every spot on the roster and still have enough talent to compete. You have to pay for some of it. Arroyo isn't a bargain and may be over paid moving forward. But again, the bottom line here is wins and losses (team, not pitchers'), not how efficiently you get them. Over the next 2-3 years, the Reds have Cueto, Volquez, and Bailey dirt cheap. They're going to get Junior off the books. Money simply isn't the be-all, end-all. It's production. If you're asking me if I'd pay 25M for a rotation of Harang, Cueto, Volquez, Arroyo, Bailey in 2009 and 2010 versus 15M and swapping out Arroyo for Tom Shearn, Matt Belisle, or bargain FA guy, I'll take the former. Arroyo's contract simply doesn't preclude us from doing anything that we need to do to win -- and I'm a lot less confident than you are that his production can be so easily replaced.

It shocks me how willing people are to give up a reliable league average starter for financial flexibility. I guess I'd rather a bird in hand than a bush full of dollar bills and maybe an egg. If you can convince me that trading Arroyo actually makes us a better team, not just a richer one, I'd be a little more receptive to the argument. The "trade away production for money and prospects" argument only works when you have good confidence in the prospects and/or a very clear plan for turning that cash back in to production.

Sea Ray
04-20-2008, 10:34 PM
9-12 with a 4.50 ERA sounds about right... with 200 innings. That's big, and we most certainly can afford him, especially with the pitchers we have had around here recently. A guy who I would expect to put up similar numbers in GABP, Derek Lowe, will likely fetch a similar contract this season at age 36. That contract is the going rate these days for league-average pitching. It sucks. I think Rick would feel differently if this was a five year contract, but it only runs through 2010...


I seriously doubt that Derek Lowe will get a $10mill+ contract from a small market team. Our Reds have to be managed differently than the LA Dodgers or the Bosox. Those teams can afford the luxury of pouring that kind of money into a # 4 or 5 starter. We can't.

Kc61
04-20-2008, 10:35 PM
Is it correct that Patterson has only K'd 4 times this year? If that's so, I would expect the hits to start falling for him soon against righty pitching.

Sea Ray
04-20-2008, 10:38 PM
If you can convince me that trading Arroyo actually makes us a better team, not just a richer one, I'd be a little more receptive to the argument. The "trade away production for money and prospects" argument only works when you have good confidence in the prospects and/or a very clear plan for turning that cash back in to production.


I am confident that the Reds can wave around 2yrs/$25mill and attract a better pitcher than Bronson and we haven't even touched the possibility of injury when committing to a pitcher long term like they have with Arroyo.

This is not a risk I'd have taken were I running this team.

*BaseClogger*
04-20-2008, 10:39 PM
I seriously doubt that Derek Lowe will get a $10mill+ contract from a small market team. Our Reds have to be managed differently than the LA Dodgers or the Bosox. Those teams can afford the luxury of pouring that kind of money into a # 4 or 5 starter. We can't.

Like the KC Royals (Gil Meche) or the Milwuakee Brewers (Jeff Suppan)? Or the money we poured into a closer? :rolleyes:

Oh, and Derek Lowe is much better than a #4 or #5...

*BaseClogger*
04-20-2008, 10:42 PM
I am confident that the Reds can wave around 2yrs/$25mill and attract a better pitcher than Bronson and we haven't even touched the possibility of injury when committing to a pitcher long term like they have with Arroyo.

This is not a risk I'd have taken were I running this team.

Who? Carlos Silva just got 4/$48M on the open market. It's hard to find a pitcher that will take a 2-year contract at that discounted of a price...

RedsManRick
04-20-2008, 11:02 PM
I am confident that the Reds can wave around 2yrs/$25mill and attract a better pitcher than Bronson and we haven't even touched the possibility of injury when committing to a pitcher long term like they have with Arroyo.

This is not a risk I'd have taken were I running this team.

Really? Who?

Sea Ray
04-20-2008, 11:03 PM
Like the KC Royals (Gil Meche) or the Milwuakee Brewers (Jeff Suppan)? Or the money we poured into a closer? :rolleyes:

Oh, and Derek Lowe is much better than a #4 or #5...


The Suppan and Meche deals were widely criticized. I was referring to Derek Lowe. I doubt a small market team will be offering him a Gil Meche deal but I could be wrong. Do you think otherwise?

If you think Derek Lowe is better than a #4 or #5 then I have no problem with that. That begs the question: Is Derek Lowe comparable to Bronson Arroyo or might he be a tick better?

*BaseClogger*
04-20-2008, 11:25 PM
The Suppan and Meche deals were widely criticized. I was referring to Derek Lowe. I doubt a small market team will be offering him a Gil Meche deal but I could be wrong. Do you think otherwise?

If you think Derek Lowe is better than a #4 or #5 then I have no problem with that. That begs the question: Is Derek Lowe comparable to Bronson Arroyo or might he be a tick better?

I agree with you that I don't see Lowe getting a Meche type deal (as in five years), mostly because he will be 35 going on 36 years old. I would think a 3/$36M is more likely. I certainly think a small market team like the Reds could offer a contract like that.

Now, lets compare their last three seasons:

Bronson Arroyo
2005: 4.51 ERA, 4.4 K/9, 2.4 BB/9, 0.96 HR/9, 37.9% GB, 5.38 xFIP
2006: 3.29 ERA, 7.2 K/9, 2.5 BB/9, 1.21 HR/9, 38.2% GB, 4.40 xFIP
2007: 4.23 ERA, 6.6 K/9, 2.7 BB/9, 1.18 HR/9, 35.3% GB, 4.76 xFIP

Derek Lowe
2005: 3.61 ERA, 6.0 K/9, 2.3 BB/9, 1.15 HR/9, 63.7% GB, 3.53 xFIP
2006: 3.63 ERA, 5.2 K/9, 2.3 BB/9, 0.60 HR/9, 67.0% GB, 3.80 xFIP
2007: 3.88 ERA, 6.9 K/9, 2.8 BB/9, 0.94 HR/9, 65.0% GB, 3.50 xFIP

Bronson Arroyo had his career reborn in Cincy. Pitching in the National League, he was much tougher to hit and racked up more strikeouts. Due to some spectacular luck, he had a huge 2006. He was about the same pitcher in 2007, but posted a more reasonable ERA. It has become evident this season that GABP is not a conducive environment for his flyball tendencies. However, his fielding indepent numbers point to a guy who you can count on for 200 league-average innings (4.50/4.75 ERA).

While Arroyo would be a good fit for spacious Dodger Stadium, Derek Lowe is the kind of starting pitcher the Reds should target for GABP. Only Brandon Webb is a more groundball dominant pitcher. He even made guys miss at a better rate than Arroyo last year. You would expect his ERA to be greatly aided by his home park, but his xFIP says he is consistently a very good pitcher. He is just a much better pitcher than Bronson Arroyo (mostly due to the groundballs). I would expect about 200 innings of a 3.75/4.00 ERA out of Derek Lowe in GABP.

Bronson Arroyo is a #3
Derek Lowe is a #2

dfs
04-20-2008, 11:33 PM
I think you can pretty much play this game with ANY franchise out there.

A couple of GM truism's the reds haven't really violated. Don't pay TOP dollar unless it's top level talent. The reds haven't sigend any Mike Hampton type disaster deals. That's a GOOD thing.

"FOR MY TASTE" the reds are far too willing to pay the free agent market for talent whose equivalece already exists in the system or the 6 year minor league free agent list. But it's not the money that is hamstringing the organization, it's the PT that goes to these stiffs.

RedsManRick
04-20-2008, 11:36 PM
The Suppan and Meche deals were widely criticized. I was referring to Derek Lowe. I doubt a small market team will be offering him a Gil Meche deal but I could be wrong. Do you think otherwise?

If you think Derek Lowe is better than a #4 or #5 then I have no problem with that. That begs the question: Is Derek Lowe comparable to Bronson Arroyo or might he be a tick better?

Suppan and Meche were widely criticzed as much for the length of the deals as the size. Arroyo is on a 3 year deal (including '08) plus a team option. Arroyo is 1 year older than Meche, 2 years younger than Suppan.

Arroyo has a better career ERA and FIP than Suppan or Meche and better track record of health than both of them as well.

Yet, you've still completely avoid the question of why you think Arroyo will be a #4/#5. This is the basis of your argument and you've provided no basis for your projection.

Derek Lowe is a bit better than Arroyo. He's also 4 years older. And if you think that anybody, big market or small will get Lowe for 2 and 25, you're fooling your self.

Arroyo is no bargain and nobody is claiming he is. In fact, he might be slightly overpaid, particularly in 2009 and 2010. But that, in and of itself, doesn't make the argument for getting rid of him. You really need to show how trading him makes the Reds a better team in more than a vague, fully conceptual, "we can buy better production" argument without any supporting evidence to the point. I'd even get on board at that point. But until I see how the math works, it's fantasy GM at it's worst -- something I've been very guilty of many times.

I'm not a fan of big contracts for mediocre talent. But the reality is that spending less money won't make the Reds a better team. The reality of baseball today is that at a certain point, every dollar spent is increasingly inefficient. Unfortunately, it takes wins and wins take production. I would have liked Arroyo to have been flipped last year before the deal was signed, coming off a monster year, and when he still had a sweetheart contract. His trade value outstripped his realizable value easily then. Now not so much. And unless you can actually turn his money in to better production, shedding a contact just because it's not a good deal simply leaves us with a smaller payroll, and fewer wins.

So, how does trading Arroyo make the Reds better? Tell me that we can trade Arroyo, Coffey, and Hatteberg for Jose Tabata and Alan Horne, and then sign Lowe for 3 and 36, then I'm definitely all ears. But if it's Arroyo for Inge (or the like) followed by signing Jon Garland or a big time injury risk like Sheets or Burnett for $15M a year, I'll pass.

Topcat
04-21-2008, 01:04 AM
I still think it's wayyyy too early to be upset about Arroyo.

I agree , Bronson will be a big key for us this season. fickle fans throw guys under the bus way to fast:confused:

REDREAD
04-21-2008, 09:45 AM
'08 TOTAL: 22.6 mill



Don't forget to add Gonzo in there as well.
I said from the day of signing that Wayne should could just bottom feed and find someone for min salary that would be comparable. The proof is in the pudding as Wayne himself found two better options.. Harris and Keppinger.

Much like Stanton, Gonzo was an obviously declining player with no "plus" skills that was given a long term deal..

REDREAD
04-21-2008, 09:57 AM
Also, as I said at the time, I don't mind Arroyo's deal so much.

It certainly is riskier than some would like, but let's go back to the time Arroyo was extended. Arroyo was one of two starting pitchers pitching well for us. He felt as though he had gotten the shaft by getting traded here after signing a low contract (and I can see his point of view on this). Then he sees Harang get a big pay day.

At this point, the Reds have to reach out with an extension to Arroyo or pretty much accept that he's going to walk when his contract is up (which would've been the end of this year). For a team with very questionable pitching, it was the right thing to extend Arroyo, even if it meant overpaying 3 or 4 million for him (does anyone think we overpaid by more than 4 million?)

Just like the Reds had to overpay to get Cordero here. It's ok to overpay for a few good players. That doesn't kill you, especially on a team like the Reds that really doesn't have that many big contracts. I'd much rather see them overpay Arroyo by 3-4 million/year than waste money on the Stantons and Gonzos of the FA world. That's what's killing us financially, IMO.

Sea Ray
04-21-2008, 11:52 AM
Yet, you've still completely avoid the question of why you think Arroyo will be a #4/#5. This is the basis of your argument and you've provided no basis for your projection.

Derek Lowe is a bit better than Arroyo. He's also 4 years older. And if you think that anybody, big market or small will get Lowe for 2 and 25, you're fooling your self.

Arroyo is no bargain and nobody is claiming he is. In fact, he might be slightly overpaid, particularly in 2009 and 2010. But that, in and of itself, doesn't make the argument for getting rid of him.


Is Arroyo a # 4 or # 5? He might be right now. I can foresee a future of Harang, Cueto and Volquez as our #1-3. If Bailey or Belisle improve Arroyo could drop to #5.

I agree Lowe will get good money but it probably will come from a large market. I also think he is not comparable to Arroyo. He's much better.

My comment on Arroyo was that I would not have signed him to that deal. As for trading him now, I think his contract makes that such an impossibility it's not worth discussing.

RedsManRick
04-21-2008, 11:54 AM
Is Arroyo a # 4 or # 5? He might be right now.

Based on what? His last 21.1 IP -- as opposed to the prior 450 suggesting he's a solid #3?

Falls City Beer
04-21-2008, 11:56 AM
Lowe is much better? I don't think so. Better maybe, but I wouldn't sign a 35-year-old pitcher to a three year contract at his price. I'd just as soon keep Arroyo--or trade him at the deadline.

Sea Ray
04-21-2008, 11:57 AM
Just like the Reds had to overpay to get Cordero here. It's ok to overpay for a few good players. That doesn't kill you, especially on a team like the Reds that really doesn't have that many big contracts. I'd much rather see them overpay Arroyo by 3-4 million/year than waste money on the Stantons and Gonzos of the FA world. That's what's killing us financially, IMO.

I disagree that the Reds don't have that many big contracts. They have quite a few for a small market team. Harang, Dunn, Griffey,Cordero, Phillips and Arroyo is quite a bit for Cincinnati to handle. I don't see such top heavy contracts for Cleveland, Minnesota, Oakland and Milwaukee.

Sea Ray
04-21-2008, 12:05 PM
Who are you spending Arroyo's money on? Now remember that, in the spirit of this thread, you already have $11M to spend from the other contracts which magically went away. The Reds aren't pinching pennies. They have significant production coming from very little cost over the next 2-3 years both in the pitching staff (Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Burton, Bray) and the lineup (Votto, Bruce, EE, Phillips to some extent).



If they'd not extended Arroyo he'd still be here this year. You'd still get his production this year. The contract only comes into play starting in 2009. As for where we'd spend the money, we'll have to see who's on the market next winter.

Sea Ray
04-21-2008, 12:08 PM
Based on what? His last 21.1 IP -- as opposed to the prior 450 suggesting he's a solid #3?

Based on my thinking that Arroyo will decline over the next couple of years and Cueto and Volquez will improve. Do you disagree with that projection? How do you project Arroyo vs Harang, Cueto and Volquez in say 2010? Where do you project Bronson to fall among those 4?

RedsManRick
04-21-2008, 12:11 PM
I disagree that the Reds don't have that many big contracts. They have quite a few for a small market team. Harang, Dunn, Griffey,Cordero, Phillips and Arroyo is quite a bit for Cincinnati to handle. I don't see such top heavy contracts for Cleveland, Minnesota, Oakland and Milwaukee.



2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Harang 6.75 11.0 12.5 12.75 ----
Cordero 8.5 12.0 12.0 12.0 ----
Arroyo 6.45 9.5 11.0 11.0 ----
Dunn 13.0 ---- ---- ---- ----
Griffey 12.5 4.0* ---- ---- ----
Phillips 2.75 4.75 6.75 11.0 12.0
Total 49.95 53.75 42.25 46.75 12.0
*buyout

Again, it's about production. You can't win on bargains alone -- and if you do manage to do it, you certainly can't sustain it.

Question 1: How many of those long term deals are bad deals? Cordero is a stretch. Harang is a bargain. Arroyo is a bit steep. Dunn is gone after 2008. Griffey is likely gone after 2008. Phillips is a bargain through 2010.

Question 2: What else do we need 10's of millions for? A payroll in the $75M range is fully sustainable. We have a lot of production coming from guys who won't start getting expensive for a few years yet, meaning we won't be forced in to shedding production in order to manage payroll. We're actually in pretty good shape fiscally. As these deals start to come off the books, they will likely be replaced by deals to EE, Cueto, Voqluez, Votto, Bruce, Bailey.

As has been pointed out in the first post, the real problem comes from guys who eat payroll and provide zero production. Yes, some big ticket guys have slumped a little to start 2008. But there's reason to believe that by the end of the year, each of these guys will have earned that money. What will be the difference this year is the amount of production we get, or don't get, from the guys not getting paid millions and the guys getting paid just a few million.

Sea Ray
04-21-2008, 12:17 PM
2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
Harang 6.75 11.0 12.5 12.75 ----
Cordero 8.5 12.0 12.0 12.0 ----
Arroyo 6.45 9.5 11.0 11.0 ----
Dunn 13.0 ---- ---- ---- ----
Griffey 12.5 4.0* ---- ---- ----
Phillips 2.75 4.75 6.75 11.0 12.0
Total 49.95 53.75 42.25 46.75 12.0
*buyout

Again, it's about production. You can't win on bargains alone -- and if you do manage to do it, you certainly can't sustain it.

Question 1: How many of those long term deals are bad deals? Cordero is a stretch. Harang is a bargain. Arroyo is a bit steep. Dunn is gone after 2008. Griffey is likely gone after 2008. Phillips is a bargain through 2010.

Question 2: What else do we need 10's of millions for?


My answer to question #1 is Griffey and Arroyo.

As to question #2 I'd like to have money for a centerfielder and maybe a catcher and another starter.

RedsManRick
04-21-2008, 12:24 PM
My answer to question #1 is Griffey and Arroyo.

As to question #2 I'd like to have money for a centerfielder and maybe a catcher and another starter.

Which CF, which C, and which SP? Look at the 2009 FA pool, who would you target and at what price range?

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/12/2009-mlb-free-a.html

*BaseClogger*
04-21-2008, 02:05 PM
Based on my thinking that Arroyo will decline over the next couple of years and Cueto and Volquez will improve. Do you disagree with that projection? How do you project Arroyo vs Harang, Cueto and Volquez in say 2010? Where do you project Bronson to fall among those 4?

So... If we had a rotation of Peavy, Santana, Webb, Beckett, and Harang that would mean Aaaron Harang is a #5? I don't think you can force pitchers into certain roles based on their team. This is like saying Mark Hendrickson is a #1. We know he's not. It's based on the rest of the league. In that case, a #1 has rougly a 3.50 ERA, a #2 has a 4.00 ERA, a #3 has a 4.50 ERA, and son on. In that case Arroyo has historically been somewhere between a #2/#3, and should continue to pitch like a #3 considering his home environment...

Sea Ray
04-21-2008, 03:02 PM
In that case, a #1 has rougly a 3.50 ERA, a #2 has a 4.00 ERA, a #3 has a 4.50 ERA, and son on. In that case Arroyo has historically been somewhere between a #2/#3, and should continue to pitch like a #3 considering his home environment...

I hope you're right. I don't share your optimism

Sea Ray
04-21-2008, 03:04 PM
Which CF, which C, and which SP? Look at the 2009 FA pool, who would you target and at what price range?

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2007/12/2009-mlb-free-a.html

It's too early to argue about specifics. At this point we're just guessing when deciding who will be available in a trade or free agency. If we start going back and forth on those possibilities this thread will go on for days...

RedsManRick
04-21-2008, 03:24 PM
It's too early to argue about specifics. At this point we're just guessing when deciding who will be available in a trade or free agency. If we start going back and forth on those possibilities this thread will go on for days...

Did you follow the link? Can you give me even 1 ideal scenario?

Sea Ray
04-21-2008, 03:51 PM
Did you follow the link? Can you give me even 1 ideal scenario?

In fairness to WK, this decision was made over a year ago. There's no way he could have known what the market would look like two years in advance. I'm on record as saying I would not have given this contract to Bronson. Even if the market is empty this fall, I believe this was not a good risk to take.

My thinking is that there's always a Randy Wolf type FA available and that's probably the direction I'd go.

RedsManRick
04-21-2008, 03:56 PM
In fairness to WK, this decision was made over a year ago. There's no way he could have known what the market would look like two years in advance. I'm on record as saying I would not have given this contract to Bronson. Even if the market is empty this fall, I believe this was not a good risk to take.

The FA market for starting pitching NEVER looks good for small market teams. Any good to decent pitcher gets snapped up by the big boys. The smaller market teams have to overpay to get decent pitching -- see Meche and Suppan.

That's really my point. The failure of last year was not having the balls to trade him when he still had a sweetheart of a contract. But given that he has a contact, it's really not that bad of one. It's short and close to FA market price for a #3 starter (which he is until he proves otherwise). If we were to pursue a guy in FA, we couldn't likely get more for less, particularly in regards to the risk associated with the years involved.

So, is the contract ideal? Hardly. Was it a good idea at the time? Maybe, maybe not. But bottom line is that the Reds were desperate for pitching and had the opportunity and the money available to spend on a reliable mid rotation starter. You can have a roster full of bargains and lose 100 games. Arroyo isn't a bargain, but he's a solid starter and his contract isn't the reason the Reds are short on talent. There are at least 6 or 7 bigger fish to fry along those lines.

MartyFan
04-21-2008, 04:01 PM
Upset? I guess it is a little early to be upset.

But it doesn't change the fact that Wayne jumped the gun on the extension. I thought it was odd at the time to extend someone when they had 2 years left on their contract at such a cheap price. Too much risk with pitchers who are hitting their 30s with the track record of a middle of the road pitcher.

I thought it was a strange thing too but I actually thought it was motivated more by Mr. C than Special K at the time.

I've always thought Arroyo was overrated, even when he signed the deal with the Red Sox he was overrated...the fact that we got one GREAT year and the potential of a couple good years from him is more than Wily Mo Pena ever offered to this team...and more than he will deliver to the Nationals or whever other team he plays for in the future. With that in mind even though Arroyo is overrated, I still view him as a plus over Wily Mo and anything else the team could have put in the rotation at the time...it isn't like he is blocking some CAN'T MISS prospect or keeping the team from signing a key top of the rotation FA pitcher.

REDREAD
04-21-2008, 06:50 PM
I disagree that the Reds don't have that many big contracts. They have quite a few for a small market team. Harang, Dunn, Griffey,Cordero, Phillips and Arroyo is quite a bit for Cincinnati to handle. I don't see such top heavy contracts for Cleveland, Minnesota, Oakland and Milwaukee.

That's true, but overpaying a bit for say Dunn, Arroyo and Cordero isn't going to hurt them as badly as having to eat a few contracts every year.

They've already wasted about 4 million this year by eating Stanton and Castro's contracts. I don't think Arroyo is being overpaid by 4 million. That was my point, I guess. If the Reds are having problems with payroll efficiency, they are much better served if they stop giving out dumb contracts and extensions. Overpaying good players does less harm to the club.

REDREAD
04-21-2008, 06:52 PM
If they'd not extended Arroyo he'd still be here this year. You'd still get his production this year. The contract only comes into play starting in 2009. As for where we'd spend the money, we'll have to see who's on the market next winter.

If we didn't extend Bronson, he probably gets bad feelings and is going to bolt the team after this year. Given at the time, we only had one other reliable starting pitcher (Harang), it was the right move, IMO.

Also, I am not positive, but Bronson might've had enough seniority to demand a trade after year 1 because he was traded in the middle of a multiyear contract. I don't know if Bronson qualified for that (as NEagle did) or not.

GAC
04-21-2008, 09:04 PM
but let's go back to the time Arroyo was extended. Arroyo was one of two starting pitchers pitching well for us. He felt as though he had gotten the shaft by getting traded here after signing a low contract (and I can see his point of view on this). Then he sees Harang get a big pay day.

That is all true RR, but it's not the Red's fault that he signed a lowball deal with Boston, got the shaft, and we somehow should make amends for that. Yes, he pitched well for us in 2006. That's one year. Look at his resume/history prior to that. IMO, doesn't justify that extension. Everyone pretty much agrees that it was a risky maneuver by this FO.... so why take the risk when it wasn't necessary? That's my point. We had him signed at a discount price for the next two years. Let it play out, at least for another year, and see how things go.

Harang warranted it. In fact, he signed a below market contract to stay with the Reds.


At this point, the Reds have to reach out with an extension to Arroyo or pretty much accept that he's going to walk when his contract is up (which would've been the end of this year).

If he continues to pitch like he has, then how would that have been a bad thing? Yeah, he's worth the 4.5 mil we're paying him in '08. But IMHO, he's going to show he's not worth the 9.5 next year, or the 11 mil in 2010 (or 2011).


I'd much rather see them overpay Arroyo by 3-4 million/year than waste money on the Stantons and Gonzos of the FA world. That's what's killing us financially, IMO.

Unnecessarily spending money can kill too.

If BA has a rough 2008, then would people be upset if we hadn't extended him, and he was allowed to walk? The way the situation is now though, it doesn't matter what he does because we're still obligated to not only pay him but pay him more then double of what he is currently making. No, that doesn't make sense IMO.

Aronchis
04-21-2008, 09:10 PM
The extension was completely not necessary. Wayne's poor spending habits are a downside he brings. Arroyo's 2006 was a fluke and he has nowhere to go but down. Why resign somebody to a extension after a career year is amazingly poor GMing.

mth123
04-21-2008, 09:15 PM
In fairness to WK, this decision was made over a year ago. There's no way he could have known what the market would look like two years in advance. I'm on record as saying I would not have given this contract to Bronson. Even if the market is empty this fall, I believe this was not a good risk to take.

My thinking is that there's always a Randy Wolf type FA available and that's probably the direction I'd go.

Why do you think Wolf or the like would take your money as opposed to some one else's? Its likely that an even worse deal would need to be handed out to get an even remotely comparable pitcher. Your other choice would be to dumpster dive for a cheap gas can like say Josh Fogg.

Sea Ray
04-22-2008, 12:11 AM
Why do you think Wolf or the like would take your money as opposed to some one else's? Its likely that an even worse deal would need to be handed out to get an even remotely comparable pitcher. Your other choice would be to dumpster dive for a cheap gas can like say Josh Fogg.

You take a guy who's down on his luck and he looks at Cincinnati as a legitimate place to get a chance to pitch every 5th day. He looks around and says "all I have to do is beat out Josh Fogg and Matt Belise and I'm golden."

I'm Ok with Arroyo's contract this year but it could become an albatross in the next couple of years.

If he pitches 200 innings, I agree the contract is not an albatross. I'm just not confident that's what we'll get. Let's face it, when we acquired him he was a #6 starter (for Boston).

mth123
04-22-2008, 05:04 AM
You take a guy who's down on his luck and he looks at Cincinnati as a legitimate place to get a chance to pitch every 5th day. He looks around and says "all I have to do is beat out Josh Fogg and Matt Belise and I'm golden."

I'm Ok with Arroyo's contract this year but it could become an albatross in the next couple of years.

If he pitches 200 innings, I agree the contract is not an albatross. I'm just not confident that's what we'll get. Let's face it, when we acquired him he was a #6 starter (for Boston).

So in previous years its been even easier to win a spot in the Reds rotation yet who are all these pitchers of Arroyo's caliber that signed of their own free will? Paul Wilson? Eric Milton? Jimmy Haynes? Josh Fogg? The Reds pursued a lot of better caliber guys and ended up paying even more for the consolation prize. That is what you get usually when "you take a guy who's down on his luck and he looks at Cincinnati as a legitimate place to get a chance to pitch every 5th day." Arroyo pitched 240 effective innings in 2006 and 210 effective innings in 2007. He is just the type of mid rotation vet that a team with a bunch of high ceiling kids should be counting on for stability while the others sort themselves out.

I see and don't completely disagree with the point that Arroyo gets pricey over the next few years. I also think that he's piled a lot of innings on that arm and is a bit of a risk and probably won't be a bargain even if he's decent, but lesser pitchers make more. I'm pretty cost conscious and don't like to see the team hand out wasteful contracts, but the whole point is not to overpay for things that you can get anyway for cheap so that money is available to overpay a bit for things you have to have that are going to cost you. Its foolish to pay $3 Million for replacement level guys like Stanton and Cormier, but the reason its bad is that it prevents the Reds from investing in things it takes to win (IMO these things are effective rotation starters and middle of the order bats that don't kill you on defense). But starting pitching of the caliber that Arroyo has provided is not the kind of thing you can get for cheap anyway. Splurging on a guy like Arroyo is exactly the type of investment that you pinch the pennies elsewhere for. And the realization still hasn't hit everyone that it would probably cost more to get some one who is not as good on the free agent market.

As far as Arroyo's current problems go, I think he needs to be evaluated carefully to be sure he's healthy. Loss of command is sometimes an early warning sign of reduced arm strength and is many times an indicator of some type of injury about to rear its head. Sudden loss of ability to throw an effective breaking ball is many times a symptom of looming elbow issues. I'd give him some rest as a precaution coupled with a thorough exam and see how he bounces back. If he goes south, it was still a better way to spend the money then spreading it around in two or three million dollar chunks that likely would lead to more Stantonesque deals. Arroyo's deal does not belong on a list of ill advised wastes like Stanton, Castro and Cormier.

Sea Ray
04-23-2008, 12:48 PM
Today we get news that WK has been fired. This would not surprise me and I'm of the opinion that money had a lot to do with it. Castellini has given him money to increase payroll but the Reds' fortunes have not changed. He's blown way too much money on the players mentioned to start this thread and I think Cast has had enough. A good owner says "here's the jack now go build me a winner." Well WK blew the jack on marginal vets while talented cheap players rot in the minors. I bet Cast is tired of eating contracts like Frenchy, Stanton and Castro.

Good move Cast! If it were my checkbook, I'd have fired him too.