PDA

View Full Version : Zack Greinke?



Pages : [1] 2

GoReds
06-01-2008, 10:19 PM
The Royals are considering trading Zack Greinke. Greinke is having a good year and his contract is 1.4M this year (not sure the length of the contract).

What would it take to land Greinke? Would you consider a package including Edwin and Stubbs for Greinke, putting Kepp at 3rd when he returned?

Greinke would certainly solidify the rotation and allow Bailey and Maloney more time to develop.

cincrazy
06-01-2008, 10:38 PM
I would do that trade in a heartbeat, unfortunately, I think it'd take a lot more than that to pry him away from KC. Good young pitching is so hard to find, I'm astonished that a team like the Royals are trying to trade him.

blumj
06-01-2008, 10:46 PM
I don't know what the Royals would be looking for, but it probably wouldn't include a 3rd baseman.

AmarilloRed
06-01-2008, 10:48 PM
It may simply be a matter of economics. Greinke has 4 years of MLB experience, and I would guess he is getting close to being arbitration-eligible, if not free agency. They may simply try and get the best deal for him that they can rather than get nothing when he leaves.

RedlegJake
06-01-2008, 10:58 PM
Greinke is in his arb years and having a good season. Still he should still be under control for 2 or 3 more years, I believe. The Royals would probably accept a Haren like package of young talent. They'd almost certainly want a young arm or two and good bats in the OF or middle infield. If the Royals decide to go this route I'd sure try to put together a package for Greinke. Harang-Volquez-Arroyo-Greinke-Cueto would be almost unfair going forward.

membengal
06-01-2008, 11:11 PM
I would want the Reds to do what was necessary short of dealing Bruce/Volquez/Cueto/Votto to try and get to Grienke.

RedsManRick
06-01-2008, 11:17 PM
I'd headline any package with Bailey and go from there.

Aronchis
06-01-2008, 11:18 PM
I'd headline any package with Bailey and go from there.

Then they laugh and give their real demands.

Beyond the glory, the fall of Homer Bailey.

membengal
06-01-2008, 11:19 PM
Bailey, Maloney, Stubbs, Francisco? Toss in one more A-ball prospect? Give the Royals a Haren-esque offer? Worth pondering...

Phhhl
06-01-2008, 11:22 PM
No way would I undervalue Edwin like that.

cincyinco
06-01-2008, 11:31 PM
Bailey would easily be a starting point, and a good one at that. He's entirely young enough you can still spin the hype on his potential and stuff. This has been Jocketty's speciality if I am not mistaken - that is, shining up the parts and selling them for more than they really are. He did it countless times in St. Louis as I recall.

There are plenty of intriguing prospects behind Bailey. I agree with membangel, try to also sell Stubbs if you can. I still am not sold on his future either way right now, but there's too much gray area - get rid of the risk if you can use it to get a player of Grienke's calibur.

Aronchis
06-01-2008, 11:36 PM
Bailey would easily be a starting point, and a good one at that. He's entirely young enough you can still spin the hype on his potential and stuff. This has been Jocketty's speciality if I am not mistaken - that is, shining up the parts and selling them for more than they really are. He did it countless times in St. Louis as I recall.

There are plenty of intriguing prospects behind Bailey. I agree with membangel, try to also sell Stubbs if you can. I still am not sold on his future either way right now, but there's too much gray area - get rid of the risk if you can use it to get a player of Grienke's calibur.

Bailey at this point, would at best get a Kyle Lohse type. He is no longer considered a power arm and that is what this board is missing. Steriods? Don't ask me. But the Reds tried HARD to move him over the offseason and they couldn't find takers.

The Reds Thompson,Valaika,Maloney who all probably have more value than Bailey.

Mario-Rijo
06-01-2008, 11:37 PM
If a team like KC wanted to deal a kid that has been pitching the way he has I would have to wonder why. It can't be economics looking at the deals they have been giving to players recently. Meche and Guillen are neither young or have upside and they broke out the wallets for them and yet here this kid is finally putting it together (seemingly) and they wanna deal him? I don't buy it, and if I did I would demand complete access to any medical records, pyschological evals, etc.

He's 5-2 w/ 2.88 ERA, 2 1/2 to 1 K/BB ratio, given up less hits than IP and is avg. nearly 7 IP's per start. For a team who's recent history is starved of pitching?! What gives?

PuffyPig
06-01-2008, 11:41 PM
Bailey at this point, would at best get a Kyle Lohse type. He is no longer considered a power arm and that is what this board is missing. Steriods? Don't ask me. But the Reds tried HARD to move him over the offseason and they couldn't find takers.

The Reds Thompson,Valaika,Maloney who all probably have more value than Bailey.

There is so much wrong with your post, I wouldn't no where to start.

Actually it's easy. It's all wrong.

PuffyPig
06-01-2008, 11:44 PM
This has been Jocketty's speciality if I am not mistaken - that is, shining up the parts and selling them for more than they really are. He did it countless times in St. Louis as I recall.



Name one part he shined up????

His speacialty was finding teams desparate to trade FA's to be, and then having the money to sign them.

membengal
06-01-2008, 11:47 PM
Kent Bottenfield and Adam Kennedy yielded Jim Edmonds in his prime. That was pretty good shining. And then some.

Aronchis
06-01-2008, 11:48 PM
There is so much wrong with your post, I wouldn't no where to start.

Actually it's easy. It's all wrong.

Nope. Ask any scout or individual that has seen Homer pitch. He has been losing velocity since 2007. This year it is really noticeable. He had moments in 2006 where he would throw 91-94 but that was early in the year. He also had games such as his 6 inning no hitters he had, when he was throwing high substained velocity. Then in June he was a machine for practically the rest of the year.

He simply isn't a valued commodity anymore. Desire, fire, steriods? Doesn't matter, it is where he is now. A finesse righty with no offspeed pitch. Those guys don't sell for much.

There is your AAA struggle answer. Demote him to AA and watch him not put up near the numbers he did in 2006. Maybe that would show the evidence to the non-believers.

dougdirt
06-02-2008, 12:03 AM
Aronchis doesn't know what he is talking about outside of Bailey has struggled some in AAA this year. Steroids? Fire? Desire? You have to be kidding me. You obviously don't watch him pitch in AAA.

Aronchis
06-02-2008, 12:06 AM
Aronchis doesn't know what he is talking about outside of Bailey has struggled some in AAA this year. Steroids? Fire? Desire? You have to be kidding me. You obviously don't watch him pitch in AAA.

Yes I have watched Bailey pitch. He no longer has plus velocity.

doug, why even bother discussing it and making excuses for him when you know as much as myself, Homer doesn't have it anymore.

Cedric
06-02-2008, 12:17 AM
Yes I have watched Bailey pitch. He no longer has plus velocity.

doug, why even bother discussing it and making excuses for him when you know as much as myself, Homer doesn't have it anymore.

Why does he need excuses? I have a strange feeling that starting Thursday you won't ever see Homer in AAA again. He is ready to prove a bunch of knuckleheads wrong. Steroids? Seriously watch what you say. Totally classless.

oregonred
06-02-2008, 12:20 AM
Bailey at this point, would at best get a Kyle Lohse type. He is no longer considered a power arm and that is what this board is missing. Steriods? Don't ask me. But the Reds tried HARD to move him over the offseason and they couldn't find takers.

The Reds Thompson,Valaika,Maloney who all probably have more value than Bailey.

Are you serious?

toledodan
06-02-2008, 12:25 AM
KC wants a LH power bat. most talk shows that i've heard since moving here has said the royals would trade some of their young talent but hold on to some others and sign them. i haven't heard of grienke as being one of the ones to trade. KC is really screwed up with some of their contract decisions. they are worried about arbitration on some of the kids but gave big contracts to Jose G. and Gill M. adam dunn's name has been mentioned more than once but they figure he would never sign a contract to stay even if he was traded there. if the reds offered a minor league package together they might get a sniff. of course there would be a long line of teams willing to package some kids for zach.

dougdirt
06-02-2008, 12:31 AM
Yes I have watched Bailey pitch. He no longer has plus velocity.

doug, why even bother discussing it and making excuses for him when you know as much as myself, Homer doesn't have it anymore.

You can tell plus velocity from online video with no radar gun? Are you really trying to tell me your EYE can tell you the difference between 93 and 96, especially on internet video that is 330 kbs? If you are, then I am just going to have to call your bluff.

Then to say he has no desire or fire.... well then I don't know where that comes from. He literally gets visibly upset at times on the mound when he makes a mistake pitch. If he had no desire or fire then that obviously wouldn't be happening.

penantboundreds
06-02-2008, 12:46 AM
Let me start this post by saying I have NOT seen Homer Bailey pitch this year.

Let me end this post by saying that from what I saw last year (when he wasn't pitching all that great), I am not ready to give up on HB. Why are we giving up already again? Can someone tell me that?

Is it Hal McCoy and the writers writing their garbage? Is it because he didn't have immediate success? Or is it because we don't know that it takes a while to develop young pitchers? Ask the Yankees (Hughes, Kennedy), Rays (Shields, Kazmir, Jackson), Tigers (Verlander, Bonderman), it is not an easy process

We are lucky to have Volquez and Cueto and the ability to not rely on Bailey to contribute all that much. HB is 21? 22? GIVE HIM TIME he has the stuff and make-up to be a special player.

oregonred
06-02-2008, 01:27 AM
On the original topic, Grienke would be an excellent get that could put this team in a serious compete mode through '10-'11. (He's younger then Volquez). Could we get him without dealing Bailey (probably not). He may be a FA after the 2010 season (not sure, but he has a lot of service time going back to 2004)

Why would KC ever trade him? As M2 pointed out long ago, teams give up on young, high potential arms for all sorts of varying reasons -- not necessarily due to impending FA within the next 1-2 years.

Why would Minn trade Matt Garza after his breakthrough last season, the O's deal Bedard, the Mets deal Kazmir, the A's deal Haren, the Rangers deal Volquez, the Dodgers Edwin Jackson, etc. etc. Why would FCB trade Homer Bailey for a round of beer (just kidding :)) It doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen.

BTW, how sick is the Rays staff looking at this point with Garza/Jackson posting some sweet numbers to go along with Kazmir and Shields.

TRF
06-02-2008, 11:10 AM
I'll say the same thing about Bailey that I have been saying about Pelland: You do NOT give up on 20-22 year old pitcher with Plus FB's at this stage in their careers. Even IF it takes Bailey until he's 24, you don't do it. The upside is there. Ask the Mets about giving up on young pitchers. If they had Kazmir right now, they wouldn't have needed Santana.

Matt700wlw
06-02-2008, 05:21 PM
Why does he need excuses? I have a strange feeling that starting Thursday you won't ever see Homer in AAA again. He is ready to prove a bunch of knuckleheads wrong. Steroids? Seriously watch what you say. Totally classless.

I'm ready to see it.

Go Homer!!!

Matt700wlw
06-02-2008, 05:22 PM
You can tell plus velocity from online video with no radar gun? Are you really trying to tell me your EYE can tell you the difference between 93 and 96, especially on internet video that is 330 kbs? If you are, then I am just going to have to call your bluff.

Then to say he has no desire or fire.... well then I don't know where that comes from. He literally gets visibly upset at times on the mound when he makes a mistake pitch. If he had no desire or fire then that obviously wouldn't be happening.

I think he sees what he wants. He CLEARLY has a bias against Homer Bailey for whatever reason - but that's nothing new.

Mario-Rijo
06-02-2008, 05:53 PM
On the original topic, Grienke would be an excellent get that could put this team in a serious compete mode through '10-'11. (He's younger then Volquez). Could we get him without dealing Bailey (probably not). He may be a FA after the 2010 season (not sure, but he has a lot of service time going back to 2004)

Why would KC ever trade him? As M2 pointed out long ago, teams give up on young, high potential arms for all sorts of varying reasons -- not necessarily due to impending FA within the next 1-2 years.

Why would Minn trade Matt Garza after his breakthrough last season, the O's deal Bedard, the Mets deal Kazmir, the A's deal Haren, the Rangers deal Volquez, the Dodgers Edwin Jackson, etc. etc. Why would FCB trade Homer Bailey for a round of beer (just kidding :)) It doesn't happen a lot, but it does happen.

BTW, how sick is the Rays staff looking at this point with Garza/Jackson posting some sweet numbers to go along with Kazmir and Shields.

This is my point about it exactly, there seems to be logical reasons for each deal of those you mentioned. But I don't think any of those would apply to KC currently, except perhaps the Garza deal. Both Minnesota and KC figure they needed a lift offensively so to speak and used/are using young arms to acquire that piece. I guess now that I think about it this also does apply to the Volquez deal. However in each previous scenario the pitcher had "issues" of some sort. My question is does KC still feel like Grienke has issues and if so then they obviously feel like he's bound to go backwards sometime real soon.

Buyer beware!!

RedlegJake
06-02-2008, 06:11 PM
This is my point about it exactly, there seems to be logical reasons for each deal of those you mentioned. But I don't think any of those would apply to KC currently, except perhaps the Garza deal. Both Minnesota and KC figure they needed a lift offensively so to speak and used/are using young arms to acquire that piece. I guess now that I think about it this also does apply to the Volquez deal. However in each previous scenario the pitcher had "issues" of some sort. My question is does KC still feel like Grienke has issues and if so then they obviously feel like he's bound to go backwards sometime real soon.

Buyer beware!!

KC has a number of holes. If they get a package deal for Greinke I think they'd consider it but I haven't seen one on here yet, Mario. Bailey and Stubs? They'd laugh even with a couple of the add-ons that were suggested. Greinke would be very expensive to acquire. This is the kind of package it would take in my opinion. Bailey, Thompson, Frazier and Cumberland. If that's too much then don't do it. But the people who think KC is going to hand you Greinke for the other packages mentioned so far are wrong.

membengal
06-02-2008, 06:42 PM
Well, Jake, speaking for myself, I tossed out my list as a starting point. Sure KC wouldn't take that. But the list you have put together? Bailey, Thompson, Frazier and Cumberland? I would do that too. It's negotiable. Getting someone like Grienke is worth putting the depth of the Reds system to the test.

OldXOhio
06-02-2008, 06:46 PM
Yes I have watched Bailey pitch. He no longer has plus velocity.

doug, why even bother discussing it and making excuses for him when you know as much as myself, Homer doesn't have it anymore.

Washed up at age 21, what a crock.


As for Grienke, I'd think KC's simply trying to sell high. The guy's been known as a bit of head case in these parts. Royals are a long way away from contending - convert his current 2.88 ERA into something bigger, more long term and move on.

Mario-Rijo
06-02-2008, 07:10 PM
Washed up at age 21, what a crock.


As for Grienke, I'd think KC's simply trying to sell high. The guy's been known as a bit of head case in these parts. Royals are a long way away from contending - convert his current 2.88 ERA into something bigger, more long term and move on.

Yeah you are probably right. One key factor I had forgotten about is that Dayton Moore is the GM who had a cool 22 years under his belt in the ATL. Which as we all know has a particular knack for being able to take an unbiased look at their own talent, polishing it up and dealing it off. Only to find out later you ended up with a real Bong as he's getting smoked right & left.

PuffyPig
06-02-2008, 07:17 PM
Well, Jake, speaking for myself, I tossed out my list as a starting point. Sure KC wouldn't take that. But the list you have put together? Bailey, Thompson, Frazier and Cumberland? I would do that too. It's negotiable. Getting someone like Grienke is worth putting the depth of the Reds system to the test.

That's an awful lot to give up for a pitcher who hasn't put together even a good half season yet.

That wouls be a package that could get you a Haren type pitcher i.e. proven ace.

PuffyPig
06-02-2008, 07:22 PM
Kent Bottenfield and Adam Kennedy yielded Jim Edmonds in his prime. That was pretty good shining. And then some.

Kennedy wasn't shined up. He actually performed better than expected and became a respectable major league secondbaseman.

The trade was for one year of an often injured Edmonds, who then signed a long term deal with the Cards.

As I said, Walt's specialty is signing FA's to be, and then signing them long term. Shining up minor leaguers to trade is something I don't think he's ever done.

Mario-Rijo
06-02-2008, 07:32 PM
Kennedy wasn't shined up. He actually performed better than expected and became a respectable major league secondbaseman.

The trade was for one year of an often injured Edmonds, who then signed a long term deal with the Cards.

As I said, Walt's specialty is signing FA's to be, and then signing them long term. Shining up minor leaguers to trade is something I don't think he's ever done.

Well then by this assessment do you think that Joe Blanton would make the ideal Jocketty target?

GoReds
06-02-2008, 07:41 PM
Haren and Bedard commanded top notch packages to acquire. Greinke is not in the same class with Haren and Bedard. While the package has to be attractive, what I've heard is that KC wants to restock the minors. That makes a package including Stubbs, Bailey and a couple of others appear to meet that goal.

RedsManRick
06-02-2008, 07:50 PM
Greinke's lack of sustained success is precisely why he's a perfect target. Sure, if the Royals want a Haren/Bedard package, you move on. But if you can come in under that, you can get through his prime under market who has made it through the injury nexus unharmed (physically) and has enough innings to prove he's at least a league average pitcher. He's at the cusp of getting too expensive, but not there yet.

I think a Bailey, Stubbs, Fransisco offer would at least get you a real spot at the table. The question comes down to how Bailey is valued. I don't think any of us has a real good sense of the perception out there -- my sense is that his valuation is all over the map. It depends on how the Royals view him.

PuffyPig
06-02-2008, 07:57 PM
Well then by this assessment do you think that Joe Blanton would make the ideal Jocketty target?


It would be if I thought he was actually good ( I don't), and he was in his walk year (he's not).

These type of deals only mak sense if you have the money to throw around and sign these guys.

GoReds
06-03-2008, 08:17 AM
Thompson is pitching well for the Bats since his promotion to AAA. Would you consider a package including Thompson to the Royals for Greinke?

RedlegJake
06-03-2008, 09:24 AM
First off lets deal with Greinke's "head case". He suffered a form of depression that is treatable both clinically and medically. He's not a head case in a baseball sense at all. Very amenable to coaching, very intelligent, and he IS a pitcher, not a thrower. The guy is for real. He, Gordon and David De Jesus are my favorite Royals. Living here I watch several Royals games every year and follow the team with some interest, though not on the same emotional level as the Reds. I would give up the package I named for Greinke. I think he is as good as Haren and will prove out long term but yes, the stigma associated with clinical depression will haunt Zack, probably for the rest of his career. The chance to acquire a young pitcher of his quality is just too good not to go for it.

Brutus
07-23-2010, 03:25 PM
I don't typically like to fixate much on the pie-in-the-sky possibilities, as the landscape in Major League Baseball manages to keep Reds' fans grounded -- or at least does its best to try.

However, today on the CBS Facts & Rumors blog, David Andriesen is citing a New York Post report by George King that the Royals will listen on anyone, including Greinke.

That blog is found here (http://mlb-facts-and-rumors.blogs.cbssports.com/mcc/blogs/view/22297882?tag=globalNav.mlb;headlines).

It seems to me that Greinke is the kind of guy the Reds should pay dearly for and not regret it.

On the down side, he's due for a significant raise next year (up to $13.5 mil from his current $7.25 mil salary).

But on the plus side, he's signed for two seasons, could be fit into this year's budget a bit easier and with Arroyo and Harang likely coming off the books, could be fit into the next few years' payroll much easier. Combine that with the fact he's still young, has a relatively clean bill of health and is a true ace, to me... a package of Travis Wood, Yonder Alonso, et all makes a ton of sense.

Perhaps Kansas City is only listening in theory, and would still ask for half of any team's 40-man roster to make the deal work. But I do think the Reds have what it would take, if they're willing.

savafan
07-23-2010, 03:29 PM
I'm hesitant about trading Wood, but if Greinke was on the table, I'd lose a lot of sleep considering it.

dsmith421
07-23-2010, 03:55 PM
I'm hesitant about trading Wood, but if Greinke was on the table, I'd lose a lot of sleep considering it.

If Greinke was on the table and Wood was the best player we were giving them in exchange, I would bite the Royals' hand so hard that they'd have to praw my jaws open with a crowbar long after I died.

Brutus
07-23-2010, 03:58 PM
If Greinke was on the table and Wood was the best player we were giving them in exchange, I would bite the Royals' hand so hard that they'd have to praw my jaws open with a crowbar long after I died.

Agreed, LOL.

I would imagine it would cost the Reds, at very minimum, Wood and Alonso both, and I fret to imagine what else. But if the package started with those two, it's probably a no-brainer.

membengal
07-23-2010, 04:00 PM
If Grienke were really available, you give them what they want, including Chapman, and you don't give it a seconds glance.

lollipopcurve
07-23-2010, 04:04 PM
If Grienke were really available, you give them what they want, including Chapman, and you don't give it a seconds glance.

For two years of Greinke? No way.

reds44
07-23-2010, 04:05 PM
The Royals wouldn't want Chapman anyway, too much money.

Brutus
07-23-2010, 04:06 PM
The Royals wouldn't want Chapman anyway, too much money.

That was my thinking as well.

RedEye
07-23-2010, 04:12 PM
How good would it feel (just while we're speculating here) to see the Cards' Oswalt and raise them a Greinke?!

IMO almost no prospect can be off-limits for a Greinke deal. I agree that a package headed by Alonso and Wood could attract KC's attention.

nate
07-23-2010, 04:13 PM
How good would it feel (just while we're speculating here) to see the Cards' Oswalt and raise them a Greinke?!

IMO almost no prospect can be off-limits for a Greinke deal. I agree that a package headed by Alonso and Wood could attract KC's attention.

I think it would be awesome to hang a Greinke on the Cards' Oswalt.

:cool:

lollipopcurve
07-23-2010, 04:16 PM
KC does not need Alonso. They've got big LH bats coming (Hosmer plays 1B, as does Billy Butler). My guess is they'd want pitching, a CF and a catcher.

membengal
07-23-2010, 04:23 PM
For two years of Greinke? No way.

Well, you go ahead and plan on staying in the Grienke business after two years. It's what grown-up teams do.

And, again, as the last time we had this conversation, as much as I am intrigued by Chapman, he remains an open question in terms of control and what he actually will be in the major leagues. Grienke, we know. Cy Young candidate and all that...

lollipopcurve
07-23-2010, 04:27 PM
Well, you go ahead and plan on staying in the Grienke business after two years. It's what grown-up teams do.

If you mean they should do their best to extend him, of course. But you don't write KC a blank check on your young talent without knowing you're getting more than two years at a high price tag. Makes no sense, IMO.

membengal
07-23-2010, 04:42 PM
Two years of Grienke for the uncertainty of Chapman et al? THAT I would do. I wouldn't have done that for a rental, but I would for a few years of a Cy Young candidate and the chance to extend him longer.

Eric_the_Red
07-23-2010, 04:42 PM
While I am asking the Royals about Greinke, I'd also see what it would take to get them to throw in Gordon. I'd love to have him as the 3B of the future, learning behind Rolen. He could play third on Rolen's rest/injury days, and I believe he has played some LF this year in the minors.

Grienke/Gordon for Wood/Heisey/Francisco?

membengal
07-23-2010, 04:44 PM
While I am asking the Royals about Greinke, I'd also see what it would take to get them to throw in Gordon. I'd love to have him as the 3B of the future, learning behind Rolen. He could play third on Rolen's rest/injury days, and I believe he has played some LF this year in the minors.

Grienke/Gordon for Wood/Heisey/Francisco?

That would be an ideal two-fer, but it's gonna take giving prospects until it hurts to get them interested.

For those two you would the above three and probably throw in Mesoraco and maybe Chapman too.

lollipopcurve
07-23-2010, 04:44 PM
Two years of Grienke for the uncertainty of Chapman et al? THAT I would do. I wouldn't have done that for a rental, but I would for a few years of a Cy Young candidate and the chance to extend him longer.

Disagree. The "et al" is where things get out of hand -- you've been advocating "giving them what they want" plus Chapman. IMO, that's WAY overpaying.

And "a few years" equals exactly two. There's no option on a 3rd year. He's gone after 2012.

membengal
07-23-2010, 04:45 PM
We have a fundamental disagreement on the value of Zack Grienke at this point.

Eric_the_Red
07-23-2010, 04:45 PM
That would be an ideal two-fer, but it's gonna take giving prospects until it hurts to get them interested.

For those two you would the above three and probably throw in Mesoraco and maybe Chapman too.

Maybe sub Chapman for Wood, and throw in Mesoraco and a B-level prospect? I'd still do it.

membengal
07-23-2010, 04:46 PM
As would I, but I am a smitten kitten with Zack Grienke and what he would be as an anchor for this team's rotation.

lollipopcurve
07-23-2010, 04:49 PM
We have a fundamental disagreement on the value of Zack Grienke at this point.

Absolutely.

Mario-Rijo
07-23-2010, 05:14 PM
As would I, but I am a smitten kitten with Zack Grienke and what he would be as an anchor for this team's rotation.

I am with you mem, however realistically would the Reds actually give him that massive blockbuster type extension, I'm skeptical. I don't know though that we could get the kid without including a much bigger piece or 2 that we wouldn't want to part with like Leake and Bruce. If they counter offered Leake, Bruce & Heisey would you? I probably wouldn't go that far, likely 3 of anyone else except Leake, Votto, Bruce and probably Cueto. Which for me is saying something that I could limit myself to just 4.

I'm thinking Volquez, Stubbs & Wood with a lesser prospect with some upside like Francisco would be the minimum.

lollipopcurve
07-23-2010, 05:32 PM
I'm thinking Volquez, Stubbs & Wood with a lesser prospect with some upside like Francisco would be the minimum.

Wow, this is way overpaying. Rolen gets hurt, who plays 3rd? What's the rotation, minus Volquez and Wood, assuming Arroyo and Harang are both gone? Who plays center? You're going all in on Greinke with a vastly thinned rotation and an offense that practically falls apart if/when Rolen goes down. I just don't see how this secures the future.

Bumstead
07-23-2010, 05:32 PM
Alex Gordon is already 26 and we have Rolen for 2 more years...Gordon has be pretty bad since getting to the majors in 2007...What's he gonna do the next 2 years that is going to make a huge difference in his abilities that he has shown over the last 4 years at the MLB level. Why invest in that? My personal opinion is that he is a tease and staying away from him would serve us well. If we could obtain Greinke that would be great but I don't think we match up too well with their needs. We really need a power hitter and lot's of bullpen help worse than we need starting pitching...

lollipopcurve
07-23-2010, 05:34 PM
We really need a power hitter and lot's of bullpen help worse than we need starting pitching...

Agree, somewhat. I see a core offensive player as the missing piece at this point. The BP isn't as bad as folks think, so long as they have an option behind Cordero.

Eric_the_Red
07-23-2010, 05:42 PM
Alex Gordon is already 26 and we have Rolen for 2 more years...Gordon has be pretty bad since getting to the majors in 2007...What's he gonna do the next 2 years that is going to make a huge difference in his abilities that he has shown over the last 4 years at the MLB level. Why invest in that? My personal opinion is that he is a tease and staying away from him would serve us well. If we could obtain Greinke that would be great but I don't think we match up too well with their needs. We really need a power hitter and lot's of bullpen help worse than we need starting pitching...

Gordon has also been bounced up and down to the minors, dealt with a few injuries, had a TON of pressure put on him and, in faact, shown that he can perform at the major league level for stretches in his career. I just think now would be the time to buy low on him.

Also, if he can play LF, then he could platoon in LF and at 3B. Rolen averages what 120-140 games a year? I don't see what that number would go up as he ages in 2011-12.

Brutus
07-23-2010, 05:43 PM
Wow, this is way overpaying. Rolen gets hurt, who plays 3rd? What's the rotation, minus Volquez and Wood, assuming Arroyo and Harang are both gone? Who plays center? You're going all in on Greinke with a vastly thinned rotation and an offense that practically falls apart if/when Rolen goes down. I just don't see how this secures the future.

I don't think Francisco is the answer to Rolen going down. People were frustrated with EE at third, I can only imagine what a steady dose of Francisco would do. I think he still has a huge upside with the bat - but it, in my opinion, won't be at third.

Mario-Rijo
07-23-2010, 05:51 PM
Wow, this is way overpaying. Rolen gets hurt, who plays 3rd? What's the rotation, minus Volquez and Wood, assuming Arroyo and Harang are both gone? Who plays center? You're going all in on Greinke with a vastly thinned rotation and an offense that practically falls apart if/when Rolen goes down. I just don't see how this secures the future.

Sorry, to me Juan Francisco isn't a realistic major leaguer but I am willing to take advantage of his perceived value. I am much more a fan of Todd Frazier who I think will be just fine at 3rd, despite the fact he has had a tough season. Heisey would then have to play CF in the short term which I have no qualms with either, he's not gonna cover the ground Drew did but he should be more than adequate. We have some younger guys in the pipeline who can play CF down the road. A vastly thinned rotation? How is that when we lose a total of 1 pitcher above what we are getting back?

lollipopcurve
07-23-2010, 06:04 PM
A vastly thinned rotation? How is that when we lose a total of 1 pitcher above what we are getting back?

As I said in that very same post, "assuming Arroyo and Harang are both gone."

lollipopcurve
07-23-2010, 06:05 PM
Juan Francisco isn't a realistic major leaguer but I am willing to take advantage of his perceived value. I am much more a fan of Todd Frazier who I think will be just fine at 3rd

Have to disagree. Frazier is scraping bottom in Louisville, while Francisco continues to put up big power numbers. If I'm rolling the dice on one of these 2 guys, it's the guy who has yet to stumble.

TheNext44
07-23-2010, 06:36 PM
When an elite, young arm becomes available, you really don't worry about which players it will take to acquire him. You just offer what you need to get the job done.

There is no Reds prospect, including Chapman, that I would rather have than Greinke. And he's signed affordably until 2012. That's as long as you want any pitcher signed. If it looks like he'll be great after that, you have time to work out an extension, but not until then. It's the perfect situation.

Greinke would give the Reds not just a TOR starter for two and half years, but a Cy Young candidate for two and half years.

Falls City Beer
07-23-2010, 06:41 PM
You'd have to be daft not to throw the kitchen sink at the Royals for Greinke. It's not something that a sensible person would even pause to consider. Which is why it's so unlikely to happen.

fearofpopvol1
07-23-2010, 07:02 PM
The only player I would want to hang on to would be Mesoraco, but I'd pretty much give them whatever they wanted for ZG.

edabbs44
07-23-2010, 07:11 PM
I would do dirty things in order to get Greinke on this team.

edabbs44
07-23-2010, 07:12 PM
The only player I would want to hang on to would be Mesoraco, but I'd pretty much give them whatever they wanted for ZG.

Imagine the hysteria that would have ensued if you said this 4 months ago?

backbencher
07-23-2010, 07:25 PM
You'd have to be daft not to throw the kitchen sink at the Royals for Greinke. It's not something that a sensible person would even pause to consider. Which is why it's so unlikely to happen.

I agree with all of this.

Scrap Irony
07-23-2010, 07:25 PM
KC would likely want Mesoraco, Alonso, Wood, Heisey, and Chapman for Grienke.
For starters.

I would hesitate to do that, honestly.

While I recognize the talent of Grienke, I would struggle to give up that much for him.

edabbs44
07-23-2010, 07:28 PM
KC would likely want Mesoraco, Alonso, Wood, Heisey, and Chapman for Grienke.
For starters.

I would hesitate to do that, honestly.

While I recognize the talent of Grienke, I would struggle to give up that much for him.

I don't think it would take that much.

Mario-Rijo
07-23-2010, 07:45 PM
Have to disagree. Frazier is scraping bottom in Louisville, while Francisco continues to put up big power numbers. If I'm rolling the dice on one of these 2 guys, it's the guy who has yet to stumble.

That's fair but I look more at projectability and personally while Frazier is struggling this season I still believe he will have a better major league career. In my eyes Frazier could conceivably have issues at the plate (though I think he'll work them out) but Francisco is without a doubt gonna have issues and I don't believe he will work them out. JMO but despite the production Frazier is still the better prospect.

Scrap Irony
07-23-2010, 08:22 PM
I don't think it would take that much.

I'm guessing that's what KC is asking for at the least. (Though, obviously, I have no clue what they're offering, nor does anyone else.)

But for the best pitcher in the game, that's what I'd ask for and I'd not bat an eye if anyone said no thanks.

(That deal, BTW, would make the Royals AL Central contenders as early as next season, assuming they also took Greinke's money-- along with that of Guillien and DeJesus-- and spent it wisely on the FA market.)

You could go:

Betemit 2B
Heisey CF
Butler 1B
Dunn DH
Werth RF
Gordon 3B
Alonso LF
Mesoraco C
Aviles SS

That's a team with some serious pop in a park that supports homers. Dunn may cost some coin, but I don't think he'll cost what he's worth. A four-year, $50 million deal gets it done. Werth is likely around the same. Everyone else is cheap, young, and talented.

Rotation
Bannister
Chapman
Wood
Meche
Davies
Average, blah, and hope for the fuure. But both Wood and Chapman could be ace-like, and Bannister and Meche may be decent options as BOR starters. Maybe Davies finds his MOR arm? Perhaps.

Mario-Rijo
07-23-2010, 10:01 PM
I'm guessing that's what KC is asking for at the least. (Though, obviously, I have no clue what they're offering, nor does anyone else.)

But for the best pitcher in the game, that's what I'd ask for and I'd not bat an eye if anyone said no thanks.

(That deal, BTW, would make the Royals AL Central contenders as early as next season, assuming they also took Greinke's money-- along with that of Guillien and DeJesus-- and spent it wisely on the FA market.)

You could go:

Betemit 2B
Heisey CF
Butler 1B
Dunn DH
Werth RF
Gordon 3B
Alonso LF
Mesoraco C
Aviles SS

That's a team with some serious pop in a park that supports homers. Dunn may cost some coin, but I don't think he'll cost what he's worth. A four-year, $50 million deal gets it done. Werth is likely around the same. Everyone else is cheap, young, and talented.

Rotation
Bannister
Chapman
Wood
Meche
Davies
Average, blah, and hope for the fuure. But both Wood and Chapman could be ace-like, and Bannister and Meche may be decent options as BOR starters. Maybe Davies finds his MOR arm? Perhaps.

IF (a really big if) they are actually listening on him there is a reason otherwise they would just scoff at any and all offers. So because of that reason (probably know they can't afford him long term) there is a package out there they would accept for him and I would lay money it's less than what you have suggested. Has there ever been a package for any player that large both quantitively or qualitively? No matter what they ask for they will get an outstanding package for him and I bet it doesn't come close to that package.

Of course alot of that is ones perception of each of those players and any good GM worth his salt is gonna "sell" these guys on their ultimate upside and whether folks want to believe it or not Alonso does have a fairly high ceiling so him and Chapman alone are 2 potentially large chips if spun on time and correctly. They can be thee 2 players you build a team around, a legit LH ace and a LH #3 hole hitting slugger.

TheNext44
07-23-2010, 10:32 PM
KC would likely want Mesoraco, Alonso, Wood, Heisey, and Chapman for Grienke.
For starters.

I would hesitate to do that, honestly.

While I recognize the talent of Grienke, I would struggle to give up that much for him.

The Royals gave up prospects for Yuniesky Betancourt and his big contract, signed Kyle Farnsworth, Jose Gullion, and Juan Cruz to long term expensive deals.

I agree that if you or I were the GM of the Royals, we would ask for that big of a package for Grienke. But luckily, Drayton Moore is the GM, so I wouldn't be surprised if he asks Jocketty for Gomes, Janish, Gary Matthews jr., and Herrera for Greinke.

Homer Bailey
07-23-2010, 10:37 PM
For the 50,000th time... Chapman doesn't have trade value!

dougdirt
07-23-2010, 10:39 PM
For the 50,000th time... Chapman doesn't have trade value!
For the first time.... yes he does. Lefty who can hit 102 and is in AAA striking out a ton of guys.... yeah, that guy most certainly has trade value even if he is getting paid a few million.

Mario-Rijo
07-23-2010, 10:40 PM
The Royals gave up prospects for Yuniesky Betancourt and his big contract, signed Kyle Farnsworth, Jose Gullion, and Juan Cruz to long term expensive deals.

I agree that if you or I were the GM of the Royals, we would ask for that big of a package for Grienke. But luckily, Drayton Moore is the GM, so I wouldn't be surprised if he asks Jocketty for Gomes, Janish, Gary Matthews jr., and Herrera for Greinke.

Right we could really lay an offer out to him that I would imagine would blow his mind and be called a win for them but in reality not have one player pan out (to their perceived value), kind of like the Jr package Seattle got.

Bailey, Francisco, Heisey, Valaika and IDK say JC Sulbaran or Boxberger. Looks like a haul but in reality you get a couple solid but perhaps marginal starters in Valaika and Heisey a potentially good arm (needing developed) in one of the younger guys and 2 others whose odds aren't great at ever turning out. Those kinds of deals I do all day long.

TheNext44
07-23-2010, 10:41 PM
For the 50,000th time... Chapman doesn't have trade value!

Why not?

So if the Reds offered Chapman to the Braves for David Ross the Braves would say no?

Homer Bailey
07-23-2010, 10:44 PM
Why not?

So if the Reds offered Chapman to the Braves for David Ross the Braves would say no?


For the first time.... yes he does. Lefty who can hit 102 and is in AAA striking out a ton of guys.... yeah, that guy most certainly has trade value even if he is getting paid a few million.

Have we learned anything knew about him that we didn't know in January? Any team could have had him for the current contract, and no one else offered that. Why would any other team give up players AND pay Chapman that amount?

If he had made significant progress, and turned out to be much better than everyone thought he was before he signed, I could understand, but I don't believe that is the case.

Talent wise, of course he has value. But that contract makes his trade value very low.

LoganBuck
07-23-2010, 10:44 PM
I would do dirty things in order to get Greinke on this team.

Zack Greinke
Kyle Farnsworth
Jose Guillen
No cash sent so that is 7.9 Million off the KC books+ $26 Million in future commitments to Greinke, +$.5 Million buyout for Farnsworth

In exchange for

Alonso
Maloney
Heisey
Valliquette
Klinker
Sutton

dougdirt
07-23-2010, 10:46 PM
Have we learned anything knew about him that we didn't know in January? Any team could have had him for the current contract, and no one else offered that. Why would any other team give up players AND pay Chapman that amount?

If he had made significant progress, and turned out to be much better than everyone thought he was before he signed, I could understand, but I don't believe that is the case.

Talent wise, of course he has value. But that contract makes his trade value very low.

We have learned a little bit, yes. We also know that the Reds have already paid some of his salary. Not much, but his money owed is now less than it was before the year and a team still controls him for 6 years.

Homer Bailey
07-23-2010, 10:47 PM
We have learned a little bit, yes. We also know that the Reds have already paid some of his salary. Not much, but his money owed is now less than it was before the year and a team still controls him for 6 years.

They've paid him less than 1/30th of his salary, if I'm calculating right.

Spitball
07-23-2010, 10:48 PM
I don't think the Royals match up well with the Reds as trade partners...especially for the face of their franchise.

First, as has been pointed out, they have no need for Alonso with Butler and Hosmer their future at first and DH for the next several years.

Second, they have little need for Francisco. 2007 top pick Mike Moustakas will be their third baseman next year.

Third, young catcher Will Myers might be their best hitting prospect.

Fourth, even with Callaspo traded back to the Angels, Gordon is no longer an option at third. He will be in the outfield now that DeJesus is out for the season. Ka'Ahulie (sp?) is in waiting also.

Imo, they have a pretty impressive farm system. Their AA team just scored 19 runs last night against Trevor Reckling and the Angels AA team.

TheNext44
07-23-2010, 11:05 PM
Have we learned anything knew about him that we didn't know in January? Any team could have had him for the current contract, and no one else offered that. Why would any other team give up players AND pay Chapman that amount?

If he had made significant progress, and turned out to be much better than everyone thought he was before he signed, I could understand, but I don't believe that is the case.

Talent wise, of course he has value. But that contract makes his trade value very low.

Actually we have learned quite a bit since the Reds signed him. No one really knew much since he had done most of his pitching in Cuba. Basically everyone knew that he threw hard (no real number, but 95+) and that he was a lefty. No one knew what his best off speed pitches were, or how good they were, or what his control was like, or what his poise and intellect was like. There actually is a scouting report on him now, when before he signed, there wasn't one, just a lot bits and pieces. He has to be better than what people thought he was before he signed, because no one knew what he was.

This notion that "Any team could have had him for the current contract, and no one else offered that," is simply false. That is not how negotiations for international free agents work.

You or I have no idea what other teams offered or were willing to offer to sign him. All the negotiations were done in secret. It is highly likely that many teams never imagined the Reds would even be in the bidding, let alone offer a $30M 10 year contract to him. One of the keys to the contract that the Reds offered Chapman is that it is very creative, and very little of the money comes out of general payroll. Most of it comes out of the development side of the organization. And it is spread out over 10 years, so it really costs the team only around $3M a year.

I think it is highly likely that other teams, after they saw the Reds offer, were kicking themselves that they didn't offer something similar. And they would gladly give up players to get Chapman and that contract.

edabbs44
07-23-2010, 11:06 PM
Zack Greinke
Kyle Farnsworth
Jose Guillen
No cash sent so that is 7.9 Million off the KC books+ $26 Million in future commitments to Greinke, +$.5 Million buyout for Farnsworth

In exchange for

Alonso
Maloney
Heisey
Valliquette
Klinker
Sutton

The real problem is that Cincy doesn't have the headliner. Many teams would rather have the big name involved and Cincy really can't provide that.

dougdirt
07-23-2010, 11:09 PM
They've paid him less than 1/30th of his salary, if I'm calculating right.

He got $1.5M right off the bat to put his name on a contract. He also gets $1M for this season, so he has already been paid at least $2M. So yeah, you didn't calculate right.

Homer Bailey
07-23-2010, 11:15 PM
Actually we have learned quite a bit since the Reds signed him. No one really knew much since he had done most of his pitching in Cuba. Basically everyone knew that he threw hard (no real number, but 95+) and that he was a lefty. No one knew what his best off speed pitches were, or how good they were, or what his control was like, or what his poise and intellect was like. There actually is a scouting report on him now, when before he signed, there wasn't one, just a lot bits and pieces. He has to be better than what people thought he was before he signed, because no one knew what he was.

This notion that "Any team could have had him for the current contract, and no one else offered that," is simply false. That is not how negotiations for international free agents work.

You or I have no idea what other teams offered or were willing to offer to sign him. All the negotiations were done in secret. It is highly likely that many teams never imagined the Reds would even be in the bidding, let alone offer a $30M 10 year contract to him. One of the keys to the contract that the Reds offered Chapman is that it is very creative, and very little of the money comes out of general payroll. Most of it comes out of the development side of the organization. And it is spread out over 10 years, so it really costs the team only around $3M a year.

I think it is highly likely that other teams, after they saw the Reds offer, were kicking themselves that they didn't offer something similar. And they would gladly give up players to get Chapman and that contract.

A. It's a 6 year contract.

B. Yes, scouts had real numbers on his velocity. They saw him in the WBC, and he was clocked at 102. They saw him pitch a bullpen in Houston. They saw both his slider and his changeup.

C. By all accounts, the Reds were the highest bidder, which would lead one to believe that is why Chapman signed in Cincinnati. It's not like Cincy had a lot things working in their favor (far from Cuba, no real Cuban environment, bad ballpark, not a winning team in the past, etc.).

D. Has anyone been impressed with Chapman's control? I think his performance has been perfectly in line with how he was scouted before he signed.

E. Also, if I remember right, the contract has numerous clauses that could make it worth up to $75M.

LoganBuck
07-23-2010, 11:16 PM
The real problem is that Cincy doesn't have the headliner. Many teams would rather have the big name involved and Cincy really can't provide that.

It isn't about the prospects names, this is the Kansas City Royals were talking about. This is about dollars. This trade would clear 34.4 Million from the payroll, to likely be replaced at league minimum, so their savings would be about $33 Million.

edabbs44
07-23-2010, 11:17 PM
It isn't about the prospects names, this is the Kansas City Royals were talking about. This is about dollars. This trade would clear 34.4 Million from the payroll, to likely be replaced at league minimum, so their savings would be about $33 Million.

Yeah, but they could also potentially do that while getting better players in return.

Homer Bailey
07-23-2010, 11:18 PM
He got $1.5M right off the bat to put his name on a contract. He also gets $1M for this season, so he has already been paid at least $2M. So yeah, you didn't calculate right.

So I miscalculated the fraction.

He's still owed at minimum $28M over the next 5.5 years.

LoganBuck
07-23-2010, 11:31 PM
Yeah, but they could also potentially do that while getting better players in return.

Potentially, and the Indians thought they were getting more for Cliff Lee last year.

TheNext44
07-23-2010, 11:37 PM
A. It's a 6 year contract.

It's being paid over 10 years. They have his rights for 6 years or more depending on when he makes his first MLB appearance.


B. Yes, scouts had real numbers on his velocity. They saw him in the WBC, and he was clocked at 102. They saw him pitch a bullpen in Houston. They saw both his slider and his changeup.

Thanks for proving my point that no one had a full scouting report on him. None of what you mentioned gives a team any where near the information that they now have after seeing him work with the team and throw in dozens of professional games.


C. By all accounts, the Reds were the highest bidder, which would lead one to believe that is why Chapman signed in Cincinnati. It's not like Cincy had a lot things working in their favor (far from Cuba, no real Cuban environment, bad ballpark, not a winning team in the past, etc.).

The Reds were the highest bidder. We know that now. But that doesn't mean that other teams don't regret being outbid. Bidding on International Free Agents are done blindly. No one knows what anyone else is bidding. It is simply false to claim that no one else was willing to offer Chapman the Reds offer, or possible beat it.


D. Has anyone been impressed with Chapman's control? I think his performance has been perfectly in line with how he was scouted before he signed.

His control has not been good, but there was no baseline for how good scouts thought is was before he signed because no one knew enough about him at that point. Many scouts, after the Reds signed him, said that he had terrible control and command, and probably would never be more than a bullpen arm.

His command so far has been much better than that scouting report.


E. Also, if I remember right, the contract has numerous clauses that could make it worth up to $75M.

Actually not anymore. He would have had to have been called up to the majors already for that to happen. It can still go higher than the $30M, but it looks like the highest it could go right now is around $45-50M, but there are so many caveats that it's really not even worth thinking about.

Homer Bailey
07-23-2010, 11:45 PM
We will have to agree to disagree.

I firmly believe no team is going to think that Chapman, with cost included, is a truly valuable trade piece. Prospects are often traded for veterans to the seller can cut costs. Chapman does not provide that payflex. When teams trade for salary, 99% of the time, they are getting a proven player. There is no way that Chapman fits into the Royals plan, if they are trying to shed Greinke's salary.

edabbs44
07-23-2010, 11:50 PM
We will have to agree to disagree.

I firmly believe no team is going to think that Chapman, with cost included, is a truly valuable trade piece. Prospects are often traded for veterans to the seller can cut costs. Chapman does not provide that payflex. When teams trade for salary, 99% of the time, they are getting a proven player. There is no way that Chapman fits into the Royals plan, if they are trying to shed Greinke's salary.

I understand your point but I'm not sure that I agree with your last statement. The benefit of a trade like this for KC would be to line up additional talent for when they are more likely to need it. They have guys like Moustakis and Hosmer killing it and Greinke would most likely will be gone by the time they are ready.

But I do agree...Chapman's value is limited b/c of that contract.

Spitball
07-24-2010, 12:12 AM
Yeah, but they could also potentially do that while getting better players in return.

Except Greinke is the face of their franchise. Go to a KC game and 8/10 of the people wearing a Royal jersey are wearing a number 23.

And the Reds can't really upgrade the Royals' minor league system because they Royals have more depth at positions the Reds have their best players. If the guy is available, the Rays, Phillies, and Twins probably match up better with better prospects in their areas of need.

The Royals really don't want to move Greinke even for salary relief. Callaspo has already been traded and DeJesus is out for the season, but I expect they will try hard to move Guillen, Farnsworth, Bloomquist, and even Meche (he just made a rehab start), but not Greinke...especially to a team that doesn't match up well with their needs.

Homer Bailey
07-24-2010, 12:19 AM
I understand your point but I'm not sure that I agree with your last statement. The benefit of a trade like this for KC would be to line up additional talent for when they are more likely to need it. They have guys like Moustakis and Hosmer killing it and Greinke would most likely will be gone by the time they are ready.

But I do agree...Chapman's value is limited b/c of that contract.

I'm just saying, they're shedding Greinke's $30Mish owed for Chapman's $30Mish?

I'd agree that lining up talent for when you think you'll be good isn't a bad gameplan, but I think they thought the same thing about the Alex Gordon era.

Mario-Rijo
07-24-2010, 09:07 PM
I'm just saying, they're shedding Greinke's $30Mish owed for Chapman's $30Mish?

I'd agree that lining up talent for when you think you'll be good isn't a bad gameplan, but I think they thought the same thing about the Alex Gordon era.

Isn't Greinke's 30 mill over the next 2 1/4 years as opposed to Chapman at 5+ years? Big, big difference there, far more affordable and would maybe put Chapman as their ace when they actually have some better talent around him as compared to Greinke. At least hypothetically which is the way teams have to think.

Homer Bailey
07-24-2010, 09:20 PM
Isn't Greinke's 30 mill over the next 2 1/4 years as opposed to Chapman at 5+ years? Big, big difference there, far more affordable and would maybe put Chapman as their ace when they actually have some better talent around him as compared to Greinke. At least hypothetically which is the way teams have to think.

You would have to think they could/would try to get a potential ace like Chapman that doesn't have that contract tied to it. Much less risky.

Mario-Rijo
07-24-2010, 09:32 PM
You would have to think they could/would try to get a potential ace like Chapman that doesn't have that contract tied to it. Much less risky.

Well sure but Strausburg isn't available, of course Aroldis probably isn't either.

Homer Bailey
07-24-2010, 09:42 PM
Well sure but Strausburg isn't available, of course Aroldis probably isn't either.

Strasburg is much much more refined, and is much less of a risk than Chapman.

RedsManRick
07-24-2010, 09:48 PM
I'd happily build a package around Chapman, Bailey and Alonso for Greinke and Gordon.

Falls City Beer
07-24-2010, 09:55 PM
Royals aren't trading him.

Blitz Dorsey
07-24-2010, 10:01 PM
Yeah, the Royals are going to give up the only good thing they have going for them. And he's young.

Some of you do have a vivid imagination. I will give you that.

Homer Bailey
07-25-2010, 06:39 AM
Yeah, the Royals are going to give up the only good thing they have going for them. And he's young.

Some of you do have a vivid imagination. I will give you that.

This.

Lets get back to the Hanley Ramirez talk!

Brutus
07-25-2010, 10:16 AM
Yeah, the Royals are going to give up the only good thing they have going for them. And he's young.

Some of you do have a vivid imagination. I will give you that.

I don't expect the Royals will trade Greinke, but this is still the Royals we're talking about. They'll trade anyone if they feel it's necessitated.

Greinke is in line for a $6 million raise next season. In baseball dollars that's a lot. In Royal' dollars that's like, as Dr. Evil would say, "one billion dollars."

The Royals have had some good players, though none like Greinke. Still, I don't think they've had a single player they've ever let get near that much money prior to ridding of them. Carlos Beltran was shipped to Houston when he was ready to make $9 million. Johnny Damon was traded his final year making $7 million, although he was due for free agency, so that likely precipitated the move. Mike Sweeney was once the face of the franchise, and although he was not jettisoned in the same manner as others, had he stayed healthy and putting up the numbers he was putting up, they may have done the same with him.

I think they will wind up holding on to Greinke another season, so I think it's a small chance the trade him. I think it's an even smaller chance the Reds would wind up giving up whatever it is the Royals ultimately ask for if they do consider moving him. But this is still Kansas City. I don't know why anyone would think they wouldn't think about trading a $13 million player - even if it is Greinke.

mth123
07-25-2010, 11:00 AM
I don't expect the Royals will trade Greinke, but this is still the Royals we're talking about. They'll trade anyone if they feel it's necessitated.

Greinke is in line for a $6 million raise next season. In baseball dollars that's a lot. In Royal' dollars that's like, as Dr. Evil would say, "one billion dollars."

The Royals have had some good players, though none like Greinke. Still, I don't think they've had a single player they've ever let get near that much money prior to ridding of them. Carlos Beltran was shipped to Houston when he was ready to make $9 million. Johnny Damon was traded his final year making $7 million, although he was due for free agency, so that likely precipitated the move. Mike Sweeney was once the face of the franchise, and although he was not jettisoned in the same manner as others, had he stayed healthy and putting up the numbers he was putting up, they may have done the same with him.

I think they will wind up holding on to Greinke another season, so I think it's a small chance the trade him. I think it's an even smaller chance the Reds would wind up giving up whatever it is the Royals ultimately ask for if they do consider moving him. But this is still Kansas City. I don't know why anyone would think they wouldn't think about trading a $13 million player - even if it is Greinke.

The Royals will be out from under Guillen and Farnsworth. Heck, Greinke's raise is paid for by the money they won't be paying to Juan Cruz, Mark Teahan, John Parrish and Coco Crisp in 2011. I don't think they'll deal Greinke for money reasons and the consensus is that the farm is pretty well stocked in KC so they don't need to use him to acquire scads of youngsters in a rebuilding scheme.

They just need to let some pricey chaf walk (Podsednik, Betancourt, Ankiel, Bloomquist etc.) and start going with younger cheaper options for the non key roles. I don't see Greinke being dealt.

Brutus
07-25-2010, 02:28 PM
The Royals will be out from under Guillen and Farnsworth. Heck, Greinke's raise is paid for by the money they won't be paying to Juan Cruz, Mark Teahan, John Parrish and Coco Crisp in 2011. I don't think they'll deal Greinke for money reasons and the consensus is that the farm is pretty well stocked in KC so they don't need to use him to acquire scads of youngsters in a rebuilding scheme.

They just need to let some pricey chaf walk (Podsednik, Betancourt, Ankiel, Bloomquist etc.) and start going with younger cheaper options for the non key roles. I don't see Greinke being dealt.

That's certainly possible. But again, it's still the Royals. I do not anticipate we'll see him dealt until into next year. But with KC, you just never know.

KronoRed
07-25-2010, 05:24 PM
The Royals also just spent a bunch of county money to refurbish their stadium and are getting the all star game in 2012, also there is no reason at all the Royals can't and won't have a payroll as high as the Reds.

Brutus
07-25-2010, 05:34 PM
The Royals also just spent a bunch of county money to refurbish their stadium and are getting the all star game in 2012, also there is no reason at all the Royals can't and won't have a payroll as high as the Reds.

But the Reds' payroll has absolutely nothing to do with whatever the Royals do with their budget. The Reds aren't the ones paying Greinke's salary the next two years. The Royals are. History has shown that the Royals are typically stingy. To their credit, the last two years have been comparable with teams in the middle o the pack in salary.

I agree with that rationale that the Royals shouldn't trade Greinke -- and I still believe they ultimately won't. He's the face of the franchise, and in lieu of the fact they traded Callaspo, have Guillen's salary coming off the books and could choose, if they desire, to shed DeJesus, they will have a lot of wiggle room to keep Greinke and not think twice. But with that organization, nothing would surprise me. It seems like they have a terrific nucleus coming in 2012 (ish) and their thinking could be that they'll lose Greinke anyhow, so why not build for that group coming through the ranks.

nemesis
07-26-2010, 02:12 AM
This is the type of deal you'll see get done in the offseason at the Winter meetings. No way to the Royals infuriate the fan base at this point in the season. Plus in the offseason, teams will have most of the next years organizational system set up and know what pieces they have to move, fill and what kind of Payflex it creates.

The Reds will be a very valuable trade partner come the offseason.

Lots of young starting pitching, fresh off a winning season, A MVP first baseman, about $20 million to play with.

Get Greinke in December. Stubbs, Bailey, Valiquette and Gregorious would be a nice smart package for both teams. Let Arroyo and Harang walk.

Greinke
Volquez
Cueto
Leake
Wood

Nice clean rotation with a varying degree of pitchers, styles and not one over 27.

Keeping a nice depth of Chapman, Maloney, LeCure, Klinker, Carroll and Fairel in AAA/AA.

edabbs44
07-26-2010, 11:00 PM
Greinke got abused tonight, ERA now over 4.

RedEye
07-26-2010, 11:42 PM
Greinke got abused tonight, ERA now over 4.

Time to get KC on the phone! ;)

KronoRed
07-27-2010, 12:44 AM
But the Reds' payroll has absolutely nothing to do with whatever the Royals do with their budget.

It does in a way, the thrown around argument that the Reds can afford him while the Royals cannot is a fairy tale IMO, the Reds and Royals operate in the same place in revenue land.

Now, if the Royals don't want to spend the money..well they are idiots :D

Brutus
07-27-2010, 02:11 AM
It does in a way, the thrown around argument that the Reds can afford him while the Royals cannot is a fairy tale IMO, the Reds and Royals operate in the same place in revenue land.

Now, if the Royals don't want to spend the money..well they are idiots :D

The Reds have operated at a higher threshold than the Royals for the last 10 years. This year is the closest the two have been.

Further, unlike the Royals, the Reds are in a playoff chase -- meaning higher (theoretically) revenue down the stretch and the potential for playoff revenue (meaning a bigger windfall).

The Reds aren't exactly the Yankees, but they have far better motivation to add payroll and pay Greinke's salary if he were available than the Royals would to keep it.

Marc D
08-06-2010, 01:21 PM
Per today's MLBTR (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/), Royals could start to seriously listen to off season offers for Grienke.

I'd love for Walt to find a way.

edabbs44
08-06-2010, 07:30 PM
Greinke's lack of sustained success is precisely why he's a perfect target. Sure, if the Royals want a Haren/Bedard package, you move on. But if you can come in under that, you can get through his prime under market who has made it through the injury nexus unharmed (physically) and has enough innings to prove he's at least a league average pitcher. He's at the cusp of getting too expensive, but not there yet.

I think a Bailey, Stubbs, Fransisco offer would at least get you a real spot at the table. The question comes down to how Bailey is valued. I don't think any of us has a real good sense of the perception out there -- my sense is that his valuation is all over the map. It depends on how the Royals view him.

I think it takes more. None of those guys really hurt to lose, and a deal for Grienke is going to have to sting. Thinking Bruce may have to go in any deal.

Cedric
08-06-2010, 07:36 PM
I think it takes more. None of those guys really hurt to lose, and a deal for Grienke is going to have to sting. Thinking Bruce may have to go in any deal.

His post was from 2008.

This thread is REALLY old.

edabbs44
08-06-2010, 11:15 PM
His post was from 2008.

This thread is REALLY old.

Wow...had no idea. I thought there was a more recent Greinke thread.

marcshoe
08-07-2010, 12:10 AM
Here's the recent thread. The old one confused me.

TheNext44
08-07-2010, 12:13 AM
His post was from 2008.

This thread is REALLY old.

Lol. Can't blame Edabbs44. Those names are all on the Reds and viable talent. It speaks well of the Reds organization that all three still have significant value, even two years later.

camisadelgolf
08-07-2010, 12:13 AM
bump

RedLegSuperStar
08-07-2010, 12:20 AM
With Zacks recent frustrations about the organization and its future. I would think a Greinke to Reds would be amazing if you could pull it off.

I'd go Heisey, Klinker, Joesph, and Frazier for Greinke

Spitball
08-07-2010, 12:26 AM
I think it takes more. None of those guys really hurt to lose, and a deal for Grienke is going to have to sting. Thinking Bruce may have to go in any deal.

The Reds will have to give up someone who hurts. The Royals are not going to move this guy unless they can improve their team.

Forget trading them Yonder Alonso because they already have Billy Butler and Eric Hosmer who are probably better and their first baseman and DH of the future.

Forget trading them Juan Francisco because they have Mike Moustakas who is probably better and their third baseman of the future.

Forget trading them Devin Mesoraco because they have Wil Myers who is probably better and their top offensive prospect.

So, what package are the Reds suppose to put together? The Royals have little need where the Reds have depth. The Royals won't want to gamble on Bailey. With the injury and questionable production, he has little trade value at this point. Besides, the Royals are pretty deep in pitching prospects.

The Royals won't trade Grienke unless they get a deal that will help their franchise on the field. They don't have to gamble. They have a number one starter (Grienke) making less than four million. They can demand prospects/players who can make impacts at their areas of need. The Reds just don't match up well with the Royals for a major trade.

TheNext44
08-07-2010, 12:32 AM
The Royals have loved speedy CF with great gloves. I think a package around Stubbs and a young arm (Bailey, Wood, Joseph) starts the conversation.

And it would be poetic if the Reds could turn Stubbs into a Cy Young winner.

KronoRed
08-07-2010, 12:37 AM
Quoting Spitball from the other thread

The Reds will have to give up someone who hurts. The Royals are not going to move this guy unless they can improve their team.

Forget trading them Yonder Alonso because they already have Billy Butler and Eric Hosmer who are probably better and their first baseman and DH of the future.

Forget trading them Juan Francisco because they have Mike Moustakas who is probably better and their third baseman of the future.

Forget trading them Devin Mesoraco because they have Wil Myers who is probably better and their top offensive prospect.

So, what package are the Reds suppose to put together? The Royals have little need where the Reds have depth. The Royals won't want to gamble on Bailey. With the injury and questionable production, he has little trade value at this point. Besides, the Royals are pretty deep in pitching prospects.

The Royals won't trade Grienke unless they get a deal that will help their franchise on the field. They don't have to gamble. They have a number one starter (Grienke) making less than four million. They can demand prospects/players who can make impacts at their areas of need. The Reds just don't match up well with the Royals for a major trade.

:clap:
The Royals are pretty loaded with prospects and maybe could be's, they will want something of substance, someone who has played in the majors, think Cueto to open the conversation.

membengal
08-07-2010, 12:38 AM
Stubbs/Bailey/Maloney/Frazier.

marcshoe
08-07-2010, 01:05 AM
The Royals have loved speedy CF with great gloves. I think a package around Stubbs and a young arm (Bailey, Wood, Joseph) starts the conversation.

And it would be poetic if the Reds could turn Stubbs into a Cy Young winner.

That would be more than poetic, it would be just plain weird.

btw, I think this is a good package.

TheNext44
08-07-2010, 01:58 AM
Quoting Spitball from the other thread


:clap:
The Royals are pretty loaded with prospects and maybe could be's, they will want something of substance, someone who has played in the majors, think Cueto to open the conversation.

When you factor in age and salary, I'm not sure Greinke is better than Cueto. But I agree that the Royals will want players that are major league ready.

LoganBuck
08-07-2010, 02:21 AM
Quoting Spitball from the other thread


:clap:
The Royals are pretty loaded with prospects and maybe could be's, they will want something of substance, someone who has played in the majors, think Cueto to open the conversation.

I would trade Leake, Joseph, their choice of centerfielders, and an two other prospects not named Chapman for him.

Mario-Rijo
08-07-2010, 09:11 AM
Quoting Spitball from the other thread


:clap:
The Royals are pretty loaded with prospects and maybe could be's, they will want something of substance, someone who has played in the majors, think Cueto to open the conversation.

I wouldn't go for it if I were Walt. If they insisted on Cueto I guess we simply can't make a deal. Not that I don't think it's a fair deal but because ideally I'd like to pair them up. I believe a package of Stubbs, Bailey and another young arm is just about what they would like to hear perhaps with a young guy with upside (Duran perhaps) to boot. If they say Bailey isn't on their list I'd just stop right there because apparently they are smarter than I give them credit for.

However I wonder what they would think about a guy like Wade Davis. I mean we could flip Alonso for him and send him, Stubbs and IDK what else but we should be able to get creative if we can find the right mix. Players simply never go for what one thinks they might these days everyone grips tight to those prospects. But no matter what there is a package out there that can fetch Grienke and I believe we have the resources to pull it off.

Spitball
08-07-2010, 10:36 AM
If the Royals put Grienke on the trade market, there will be plenty of interest from many teams...some with lots of value to offer...some with a greater desperation for starting pitchers than the Reds.

The Royals will have the luxory of demanding a high price for their Cy Young pitcher. Someone will overpay for their ace top of the rotation pitcher...or the Royals simply will not trade him.

If I were to target a Royal, I'd go for Soria. Unfortunately, a team would have to overpay for him also.

TheNext44
08-07-2010, 11:51 AM
If the Royals put Grienke on the trade market, there will be plenty of interest from many teams...some with lots of value to offer...some with a greater desperation for starting pitchers than the Reds.

The Royals will have the luxory of demanding a high price for their Cy Young pitcher. Someone will overpay for their ace top of the rotation pitcher...or the Royals simply will not trade him.

If I were to target a Royal, I'd go for Soria. Unfortunately, a team would have to overpay for him also.

I agree that teams will have to overpay for Greinke, but I think two former 1st round top ten draft picks that are in the majors and have high ceilings, plus other prospects, is overpaying for one pitcher, no matter how good.
Just like the trade for Cliff Lee, it will come down to which players the Royals like best, but I think Stubbs plus Bailey puts the Reds in the conversation.

(BTW, did you know that your signature doesn't make any sense? Although it does look to be grammatically correct. ;) )

cincrazy
08-07-2010, 11:54 AM
I agree that teams will have to overpay for Greinke, but I think two former 1st round top ten draft picks that are in the majors and have high ceilings, plus other prospects, is overpaying for one pitcher, no matter how good.
Just like the trade for Cliff Lee, it will come down to which players the Royals like best, but I think Stubbs plus Bailey puts the Reds in the conversation.

(BTW, did you know that your signature doesn't make any sense? Although it does look to be grammatically correct. ;) )

Neither Stubbs or Bailey, IMO, projects to be of "star" quality in the majors. Maybe Bailey will develop into a solid 3 starter, maybe not. Maybe Stubbs is a solid every day centerfielder, maybe not. But those guys might be the opposite of "can't miss." The Royals would be CRAZY to give up Greinke for anything other than top notch royalty.

TheNext44
08-07-2010, 12:06 PM
Neither Stubbs or Bailey, IMO, projects to be of "star" quality in the majors. Maybe Bailey will develop into a solid 3 starter, maybe not. Maybe Stubbs is a solid every day centerfielder, maybe not. But those guys might be the opposite of "can't miss." The Royals would be CRAZY to give up Greinke for anything other than top notch royalty.

Drew Stubbs, right now, is producing as a league average CF. If he can cut down his mental mistakes in the field, and make more contact at the plate, he could be an elite 5 win player with ease.

Bailey has TOR stuff, and has flashed it many times in his young career. And he's only 24.

I can't think of too many teams that can offer two young players with such high ceilings, that are both producing in the majors.

And remember that Greinke is having an off year this year. He has had more 6+ run games this season than he has had his whole career.

Spitball
08-07-2010, 12:58 PM
Drew Stubbs, right now, is producing as a league average CF. If he can cut down his mental mistakes in the field, and make more contact at the plate, he could be an elite 5 win player with ease.

Bailey has TOR stuff, and has flashed it many times in his young career. And he's only 24.

I can't think of too many teams that can offer two young players with such high ceilings, that are both producing in the majors.

And remember that Greinke is having an off year this year. He has had more 6+ run games this season than he has had his whole career.

They won't give up Grienke for the mere potential of Stubbs and Bailey. Someone would make a better offer. A much better offer for a Cy Young winner making 4 million. They won't settle for two guys who have largely underwhelmed and have been pushed out of jobs on their current team. The Rays would trump a Stubbs/Bailey offer with Jennings/Davis and still have more chips to ante up.

It is also possible that anyone taking Gienke would have to take on Meche's or Kendall's contract.

nemesis
08-07-2010, 01:25 PM
Would any of you do it if it took a package of Leake, Bruce and a couple B pitching prospects? That is a little closer to what it would take to pry him away.

RedEye
08-07-2010, 01:37 PM
His name is "Greinke" and not "Grienke." Just thought I'd point that out. Carry on.

The Spelling Police

TheNext44
08-07-2010, 02:50 PM
They won't give up Grienke for the mere potential of Stubbs and Bailey. Someone would make a better offer. A much better offer for a Cy Young winner making 4 million. They won't settle for two guys who have largely underwhelmed and have been pushed out of jobs on their current team. The Rays would trump a Stubbs/Bailey offer with Jennings/Davis and still have more chips to ante up.

It is also possible that anyone taking Gienke would have to take on Meche's or Kendall's contract.


Would any of you do it if it took a package of Leake, Bruce and a couple B pitching prospects? That is a little closer to what it would take to pry him away.

Every time a key player becomes available, trade proposals come flying in that overestimate that players worth, and every time that player gets traded for much less than those proposals. After every trade, message boards are loaded with the same cry, "That's all it took?"

Here are the facts with Greinke:

He's having his worst year in while this season.
He is due close to $30M over the next 2+ seasons.
He will be a free agent after the 2012 season.

So the team trading for him, will only have him for a little over 2 seasons, and have to pay him close to $30M over that time.

Because of that, his price will be much lower than most think.

Jennings/Davis is about the same as Stubbs/Bailey. Davis is the same as Bailey, without the being rushed history, but also with less stuff.

Jennings is a better prospect than Stubbs was, but Stubbs has performed better in the bigs than projected, and now actually projects to be even better. Jennings is currently only a prospect. Jennings probably has more trade value than Stubbs, but not by much, and again, it really depends on who the Royals like better.

And with Crawford likely leaving, I doubt the Rays would be willing to trade Jennings. They need bats, especially in the outfield.

As for Bruce/Leake, I would rather have either one of those than Greinke considering their cost and length of team control.

mth123
08-07-2010, 03:01 PM
They won't give up Grienke for the mere potential of Stubbs and Bailey. Someone would make a better offer. A much better offer for a Cy Young winner making 4 million. They won't settle for two guys who have largely underwhelmed and have been pushed out of jobs on their current team. The Rays would trump a Stubbs/Bailey offer with Jennings/Davis and still have more chips to ante up.

It is also possible that anyone taking Gienke would have to take on Meche's or Kendall's contract.

But he's making $13.5 Million in 2011 and again in 2012. That $4 Million number is from 2009 and is ancient history. He's making $7.25 this year. He'll still require a package, but a sure thing making a lot less (say Cueto) might stack-up as an even deal.

If I were the Reds I'd build an offer around Stubbs and Volquez. The Royals receive a former All Star starter in return along with a CF to solve a long running problem in KC. Other cheap near ready guys would add to the packaage. I might offer to include a swap of Janish for Betancourt to allow the Royals to save some more dollars to sweeten the deal. Greinke is committed for $27 Million for two years and is having a bad year. I'm not sure the return would be much better than that. If somebody beats that, I'd back away from the deal.

Spitball
08-08-2010, 12:44 AM
If KC does put Greinke up, there is no telling what the market will be. He is a top of the rotation pitcher, and the Royals will not be desperate to deal him. With Guillen off the books and Meche in his last year, the Royals will have the option of not trading their best player.

A lot would depend on what happens with Cliff Lee. If he goes to the Yankees and Greinke is the best option out there, he could command a huge return. Teams looking at a short window of opportunity could get into a desperate bidding war for the best pitcher available after Cliff Lee.

buckeyenut
08-08-2010, 11:46 PM
What about Grienke, Rosia, Gordon for Bailey, Stubbs, Francisco, Boxberger, Frazier, Joseph, Sapelt?

HokieRed
08-08-2010, 11:51 PM
What about Grienke, Rosia, Gordon for Bailey, Stubbs, Francisco, Boxberger, Frazier, Joseph, Sapelt?


Just to clarify: that's 6 guys from the likely 2012 roster (all except Boxberger).

buckeyenut
08-09-2010, 01:20 PM
Just to clarify: that's 6 guys from the likely 2012 roster (all except Boxberger).

Yes, and I would absolutely give me them up now or this offseason for an ace, a stud reliever and a talented kid in need of a change of scenery. I think it is a ton of talent to give up and is hopefully enough to get it done.

edabbs44
08-09-2010, 01:27 PM
What about Grienke, Rosia, Gordon for Bailey, Stubbs, Francisco, Boxberger, Frazier, Joseph, Sapelt?

What, Brett wasn't available?

Cincy would need to give up WAY more than that, and I don't even know who this guy Rosia is. :)

KronoRed
08-09-2010, 05:14 PM
Just to clarify: that's 6 guys from the likely 2012 roster (all except Boxberger).

The 2012 roster right now, but other guys will arrive on scene and some of those guys will flame out.

marcshoe
08-09-2010, 08:23 PM
You know, I think a Greinke pick-up right now would give this team an extra boost of confidence, after the Edmonds deal, and set them on fire.

Spitball
08-09-2010, 09:39 PM
You know, I think a Greinke pick-up right now would give this team an extra boost of confidence, after the Edmonds deal, and set them on fire.

I doubt Greinke gets all the way through American League waivers and most of the way through National league waivers at this point. If he is acquired, it will most likely be during the off season.

marcshoe
08-09-2010, 09:43 PM
you're likely right, but one can dream....

redsfandan
10-16-2010, 01:53 PM
I'm resurrecting this thread since it seems that it's just a matter of time before something happens. I don't think it's a question of if a trade will happen. It's more about when and with what team(s).

Zack Greinke's uncertain future in KC
October, 16, 2010Oct 1610:20AM

A wave of high-end prospects will hit Kansas City in 2011 and 2012 -- guys like Mike Moustakas and Eric Hosmer and John Lam -- and time will be needed for some maturation before the full impact of these players is felt. The Royals will probably be in position to contend sometime in 2013 or 2014.

Zack Greinke's current contract ($13.5 million per season for each of the next two years), on the other hand, only runs through 2012.

The timeline of Greinke's career may not be in line with the organization's reconstruction plans, so the Royals intend to listen to any and all offers for the All-Star right-hander during this offseason, according to sources.

To read more about if Zack Greinke will be traded as well as Buster's analysis of Yankees-Rangers Game 1 and much, much more, you must be an ESPN Insider.
http://insider.espn.go.com/mlb/blog?name=olney_buster&id=5690637&action=login&appRedirect=http%3a%2f%2finsider.espn.go.com%2fmlb %2fblog%3fname%3dolney_buster%26id%3d5690637
Would Greinke help the Reds? Sure. But, keep in mind that the Reds would have to unload a decent amount of talent to get him and that Greinke is already expensive ($13.5M/yr) and will likely get even more expensive in the not too distant future.

I doubt Kansas City would have alot of interest in Alonso just because of the talent that they already have at 1st. I think they would be more interested in a package including one of the Reds current starting pitchers (Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Wood, Leake) plus Chapman and at least one other good prospect (maybe Mesoraco in case Will Myers doesn't stick at catcher). And Chapman alone could come close to matching the production of Grienke and at a much cheaper price.

The financial side of baseball is something that I know some would rather not even think about. While it has nothing to do with the game itself, unfortunately it's a very important aspect of trades, free agent acquisitions, and team makeup. And I think the Reds are one of those teams that just can't have more than a few players making more than $10M/yr at any one time. Arroyo, Phillips, and Cordero will make that much in 2011. Arroyo and Cordero will be gone after next year but I think Phillips will still be around and Votto will probably join him in that elite financial club with Cueto, Volquez, and Bruce not that far behind. And if the Reds acquired Greinke they might end up with two players making more than $15M/yr in a few years (Greinke and Votto). The Reds have never had one player make that much, never mind two players.

As much as I'd like to have Greinke in a Reds uniform I just don't think it makes sense for Walt to pursuit it imo.

dougdirt
10-16-2010, 01:59 PM
I think the Reds could get the deal done without Chapman and I don't think the cost conscious Royals would really ask for him either. It is going to take a lot of talent though. Perhaps a Cueto/Leake/Wood/Volquez/Bailey and two good prospects (say Dave Sappelt and Billy Hamilton).

redsfandan
10-16-2010, 02:01 PM
I think the Reds could get the deal done without Chapman and I don't think the cost conscious Royals would really ask for him either. It is going to take a lot of talent though. Perhaps a Cueto/Leake/Wood/Volquez/Bailey and two good prospects (say Dave Sappelt and Billy Hamilton).
Do you really think that would be enough? Cuz I doubt it. And I don't think that Chapman's salary would turn them away either.

Plus that doesn't address the fact that it would be hard to fit in his contract and an eventual extension.

dougdirt
10-16-2010, 02:15 PM
Do you really think that would be enough? Cuz I doubt it. And I don't think that Chapman's salary would turn them away either.

Plus that doesn't address the fact that it would be hard to fit in his contract and an eventual extension.

The Reds would be taking on 27 million over the next two seasons. The Royals, something like 8-9M with Cueto/Volquez and even less with any of the other guys. That likely could even if up a lot. Lets also note, that a guy like Cueto, had an ERA nearly half a run better than Greinke did in 2010. As for fitting him in, probably not a giant issue for 2011. 2012 can be solved by Phillips and Cordero walking. As for an extension.... worry about that later, he would be here through 2012 right now.

redsfandan
10-16-2010, 02:30 PM
The Reds would be taking on 27 million over the next two seasons. The Royals, something like 8-9M with Cueto/Volquez and even less with any of the other guys. That likely could even if up a lot. Lets also note, that a guy like Cueto, had an ERA nearly half a run better than Greinke did in 2010. As for fitting him in, probably not a giant issue for 2011. 2012 can be solved by Phillips and Cordero walking. As for an extension.... worry about that later, he would be here through 2012 right now.
I was thinking that one of the Reds current starting pitchers would be in a deal. But you're suggesting two? That's sure not going to sell me on making a deal. Also, you say his salary wouldn't be that big of an issue. I just disagree with ya on that Doug. Especially when there's THAT much money involved.

dougdirt
10-16-2010, 02:33 PM
I was thinking that one of the Reds current starting pitchers would be in a deal. But you're suggesting two? That's sure not going to sell me on making a deal. Also, you say his salary wouldn't be that big of an issue. I just disagree with ya on that Doug. Especially when there's THAT much money involved.

No, just one of those two guys, as I figure they will make similar money over the next two seasons.

redsfandan
10-16-2010, 02:47 PM
No, just one of those two guys, as I figure they will make similar money over the next two seasons.
Thanks for clearing that up for me.

If KC would deal Greinke for Cueto or Volquez, plus Sappelt, and Hamilton I'd be tempted. I just doubt that they wouldn't want more.

RedsManRick
10-16-2010, 03:26 PM
He would be my #1 target and Volquez would be the guy I'd try to build it around. I just think he's overrated. Lots of pitchers flash #1 stuff, but an ability to command it is what separates the men from the boys. His trade value is higher than his real value.

Sappelt makes sense (though I'd like to see im in LF...) but I'd like to hold on to Hamilton if at all possible, even if it means trading two guys instead of 1. Maloney seems like a good round-out-the-trade type of guy here too, as does Burton.

The Operator
10-16-2010, 03:53 PM
Greinke certainly does seem like a "Walt move" to me.

I'd be fine dealing one of the young pitching guns (I'd try to make it someone other than Cueto though) and some other prospects as mentioned above.

Zack Greinke at the front of this rotation pitching at his potential gives The Reds that TOR guy that a team needs to go deep into the playoffs. I'd be working hard to get that done if I were Walt.

Will M
10-16-2010, 05:18 PM
Guys with big salaries have depressed trade value. Greinke won't get the Royals as much in trade as you might think. Look at recent deals for high salary guys as more of a 'back of the envelope' estimate of what KC would want. For example, if I recall the Diamondbacks got a lot less for Haren than you would think.

They also (I suspect) would want young cheap guys. For example Travis Wood not Cueto (who is entering his arbitration years).

IMO the board seems too focused on the #1 starter we will need next October. However, I think the team has more pressing needs before the luxury of upgrading a #2 or #3 starter into a #1. For example I'd rather see the team get a left fielder who can hit in the middle of the order before emptying the farm for Greinke.

Dom Heffner
10-16-2010, 10:17 PM
Guys with big salaries have depressed trade value. Greinke won't get the Royals as much in trade as you might think. Look at recent deals for high salary guys as more of a 'back of the envelope' estimate of what KC would want. For example, if I recall the Diamondbacks got a lot less for Haren than you would think.

They also (I suspect) would want young cheap guys. For example Travis Wood not Cueto (who is entering his arbitration years).

IMO the board seems too focused on the #1 starter we will need next October. However, I think the team has more pressing needs before the luxury of upgrading a #2 or #3 starter into a #1. For example I'd rather see the team get a left fielder who can hit in the middle of the order before emptying the farm for Greinke.

How can you watch the MLB playoffs and not see why people want a #1 stud?

Will M
10-17-2010, 03:01 AM
How can you watch the MLB playoffs and not see why people want a #1 stud?

1) In the last couple of years teams with a #1 stud have done well. However, this may just be an anomaly.

2) We have arms on the team that could be a #1 starter. Chapman has that potential. Everyone is down on Volquez simply because of one bad start. Yet he could certainly dominate a post season

3) Trading one of our #2/#3 guys plus key trading chips for a #1 starter prevents us from fixing other problems.

marcshoe
10-17-2010, 03:07 AM
I tend to think that Halladay's historic performance is making us focus more on a true number one starter than is realistic. The staff has a chance of being very solid and very good. While Grienke would help, of course, I don't see acquiring such a pitcher as a necessity. otoh, good as the offense was, it was ridiculously inconsistent. LF is as good a place to upgrade as there is, and adding a big bat there combined with Bruce and Stubbs maturing takes the team to the next level, I think.

Brutus
10-17-2010, 04:12 AM
1) In the last couple of years teams with a #1 stud have done well. However, this may just be an anomaly.

2) We have arms on the team that could be a #1 starter. Chapman has that potential. Everyone is down on Volquez simply because of one bad start. Yet he could certainly dominate a post season

3) Trading one of our #2/#3 guys plus key trading chips for a #1 starter prevents us from fixing other problems.

When have you known it to be an anomaly to skate by with No. 1 starters? That's been fairly recognizable for a while. It's worsened by all the off days because now teams can, with more consistency, ride their best guys through a playoff series.

Regarding No. 2: Chapman has that potential, but he wasn't a starter this year and may not be an 'ace' for another year or two. He certainly didn't help the Reds where they needed it this year.

People are down on Volquez not just because of one bad start, but because he was awful in over a third of his appearances this year.

On No. 3... disagree. The Reds have plenty of prospects. I find it hard to believe they couldn't package a few for a good, solid leftfielder. If the bar is as low as most here believe it is right now in left, the Reds wouldn't have to go far to find an upgrade.

Scrap Irony
10-17-2010, 11:46 AM
I love the idea of packaging some prospects for a TOR arm or an All Star SS or LF. However, it's much easier said than done. Grienke cannot be had for the prospect package the Reds can put together:

-- Alonso would rank fourth or fifth option in a crowded group of LF/1B/DH coming up over the next two or three years. Talk about being blocked!

-- If Alonso can't headline the deal, neither can Juan Francisco, as KC has two guys that are better options than he ready in the near future.

-- Because of his poor year, Todd Frazier can't headline a deal. Too, he doesn't have a position as of yet, and his three most likely positions would all be blocked by better players.

Offensively, the Reds cannot match up. As to pitching:

-- Chapman is both expensive and a huge gamble. He's also a signature signing for Jocketty and already a "draw". For each of these reasons, it makes little sense to add Chapman to a deal.

-- Perhaps Mike Leake would be a good headliner. He's young and cheap. He's had some major league success. However, he really struggled over the last half of the year. That really affects his trade value and likely moves him from a headline acquisition to that of a nice secondary player.

-- Travis Wood is cheap and flashed top of the rotation numbers in Cincinnati in his brief time with the big league club. But his minor league pedigree is spotty and experts may hammer the Royals if he's the headline acquisition. Too, Jocketty may be loathe to give up the only southpaw in the current rotation. (Though Chapman may also be in the rotation.)

So, to get Grienke, the Reds might be able to package Wood and Leake, plus low level, high talent guys like Yorman and Hamilton. Maybe they can go Hamilton, Leake, Wood, and Sappelt.

That's obviously a lot to pay.

Jocketty may see Bailey's August and September numbers over the past two years and think he'll take that next step. He may see Volquez's 2008 and see a TOR. He may see Chapman's talent and see TOR. He may see the numbers of Wood post-ASB or Leake pre-ASB and see TOR. Point is, if you squint, you could see an ace blossom from six different pitchers already on the team. Jocketty may say, "Why pay for an ace from outside (both in prospects and cash), when I can develop one inside?"

And he may have a point.

nemesis
10-17-2010, 01:13 PM
Something that might maybe make a difference is if the Reds were willing to take DeJesus off the Royals hands as part of the deal, giving them a bigger financial relief...

Say take Zack and DeJesus

Give them Leake who is going to be controllable the longest. Heisey as Dejesus replacement, throw in a package of Joseph, H. Rodriguez and Boxberger you might have a deal...

Scrap Irony
10-17-2010, 01:33 PM
"Taking DeJesus off their hands" would indicate that DeJesus is horrid. He's anything but. Salary relief is fine-- if the guys can't outplay his contract. But DeJesus produced last season at a $10 million level. He's getting paid around $6 million.

That's a bargain, especially considering how cheap the rest of that team will likely be.

Dom Heffner
10-17-2010, 01:49 PM
When have you known it to be an anomaly to skate by with No. 1 starters? That's been fairly recognizable for a while. It's worsened by all the off days because now teams can, with more consistency, ride their best guys through a playoff series.

Regarding No. 2: Chapman has that potential, but he wasn't a starter this year and may not be an 'ace' for another year or two. He certainly didn't help the Reds where they needed it this year.

People are down on Volquez not just because of one bad start, but because he was awful in over a third of his appearances this year.

On No. 3... disagree. The Reds have plenty of prospects. I find it hard to believe they couldn't package a few for a good, solid leftfielder. If the bar is as low as most here believe it is right now in left, the Reds wouldn't have to go far to find an upgrade.

You're going to have to preach it, brother, from here on out.

Logic doesn't work with folks that think Edinson Volquez and Bronson Arroyo are the answer.

Scrap Irony
10-17-2010, 02:45 PM
Frankly, I find that type of baiting offensive, Dom.

And a strawman, to boot.

No one is saying Arroyo and Volquez are the answer. Some are saying Bailey, Cueto, Wood, and Chapman all might blossom into TOR material.

And they very well could.

Plus Plus
10-17-2010, 03:17 PM
You're going to have to preach it, brother, from here on out.

Logic doesn't work with folks that think Edinson Volquez and Bronson Arroyo are the answer.

Why can't Edinson Volquez be a TOR starter going forward?

Will M
10-17-2010, 03:42 PM
When have you known it to be an anomaly to skate by with No. 1 starters? That's been fairly recognizable for a while. It's worsened by all the off days because now teams can, with more consistency, ride their best guys through a playoff series.

Regarding No. 2: Chapman has that potential, but he wasn't a starter this year and may not be an 'ace' for another year or two. He certainly didn't help the Reds where they needed it this year.

People are down on Volquez not just because of one bad start, but because he was awful in over a third of his appearances this year.

On No. 3... disagree. The Reds have plenty of prospects. I find it hard to believe they couldn't package a few for a good, solid leftfielder. If the bar is as low as most here believe it is right now in left, the Reds wouldn't have to go far to find an upgrade.

1)

2008 Phils - their best starter was Hamels ERA 3.09
2007 Red Sox - Beckett 3.27
2006 Cards - Carpenter 3.09
2005 White Sox - Buerhle 3.12

Were these guys good pitchers? Of course they were. Were they Cy Young Award winners? no. The Reds have guys in house that can be just as good as pitchers that have been the ace of several recent world series winners.
The bullpen, offense & defense all count too.

2)

IMO the team does not have a seemingly endless supply of top prospects to win now & also win later. We can't have our cake & eat it too.

3) Volquez was barely one year removed from TJ surgery. Prior to his injury (2008) he was 17-6 with a 3.21 ERA.

Will M
10-17-2010, 03:49 PM
You're going to have to preach it, brother, from here on out.

Logic doesn't work with folks that think Edinson Volquez and Bronson Arroyo are the answer.

My opinion:
1) I would LOVE for the Reds to get Grienke or someone similar
2) However, I do not feel that getting an 'ace' is a panacea for the Reds
3) I don't think the team has the resources (money & prospects) to both upgrade a rotation & fix weak spots (LF, SS, back up 3B, late inning relief, etc)

TheNext44
10-17-2010, 04:00 PM
I love the idea of packaging some prospects for a TOR arm or an All Star SS or LF. However, it's much easier said than done. Grienke cannot be had for the prospect package the Reds can put together:

-- Alonso would rank fourth or fifth option in a crowded group of LF/1B/DH coming up over the next two or three years. Talk about being blocked!

-- If Alonso can't headline the deal, neither can Juan Francisco, as KC has two guys that are better options than he ready in the near future.

-- Because of his poor year, Todd Frazier can't headline a deal. Too, he doesn't have a position as of yet, and his three most likely positions would all be blocked by better players.

Offensively, the Reds cannot match up. As to pitching:

-- Chapman is both expensive and a huge gamble. He's also a signature signing for Jocketty and already a "draw". For each of these reasons, it makes little sense to add Chapman to a deal.

-- Perhaps Mike Leake would be a good headliner. He's young and cheap. He's had some major league success. However, he really struggled over the last half of the year. That really affects his trade value and likely moves him from a headline acquisition to that of a nice secondary player.

-- Travis Wood is cheap and flashed top of the rotation numbers in Cincinnati in his brief time with the big league club. But his minor league pedigree is spotty and experts may hammer the Royals if he's the headline acquisition. Too, Jocketty may be loathe to give up the only southpaw in the current rotation. (Though Chapman may also be in the rotation.)

So, to get Grienke, the Reds might be able to package Wood and Leake, plus low level, high talent guys like Yorman and Hamilton. Maybe they can go Hamilton, Leake, Wood, and Sappelt.

That's obviously a lot to pay.

Jocketty may see Bailey's August and September numbers over the past two years and think he'll take that next step. He may see Volquez's 2008 and see a TOR. He may see Chapman's talent and see TOR. He may see the numbers of Wood post-ASB or Leake pre-ASB and see TOR. Point is, if you squint, you could see an ace blossom from six different pitchers already on the team. Jocketty may say, "Why pay for an ace from outside (both in prospects and cash), when I can develop one inside?"

And he may have a point.

Good analysis. I agree that whoever gets Greinke will be the team that matches up best, and has what the Royals want, just like with Lee and the Mariners.

However, remember that Greinke is coming off his worst season ever in terms of counting stats, and has two years that pay him $27M before he becomes a free agent. That lessens his value greatly.

And the Royals obviously think they are more than two years away from contending, or else they wouldn't trade him. Therefore, I see don't see them wanting major league ready pitchers for him, too risky. I see them wanting a large package of very young prospects, with them wanting Yorman over Yonder. To be honest, I am not sure the Reds have enough young pitching in A and AA to entice them.

Brutus
10-17-2010, 05:15 PM
1)

2008 Phils - their best starter was Hamels ERA 3.09
2007 Red Sox - Beckett 3.27
2006 Cards - Carpenter 3.09
2005 White Sox - Buerhle 3.12

Were these guys good pitchers? Of course they were. Were they Cy Young Award winners? no. The Reds have guys in house that can be just as good as pitchers that have been the ace of several recent world series winners.
The bullpen, offense & defense all count too.

2)

IMO the team does not have a seemingly endless supply of top prospects to win now & also win later. We can't have our cake & eat it too.

3) Volquez was barely one year removed from TJ surgery. Prior to his injury (2008) he was 17-6 with a 3.21 ERA.

Chris Carpenter won the Cy Young in 2005 and finished runner-up in 2006. That's not Cy Young winner?

Josh Beckett finished runner-up for the Cy Young in 2007.

Cole Hamels didn't win a Cy Young, but he was pretty darn filthy in 2008.

196 Ks, 53 walks in 227 innings.

Those guys are better than anything the Reds had this year. The Reds had several 'good' starters, but try as you might, you won't find the Reds having anyone pop up in any Cy Young voting, much less finishing first or second. You also won't find anyone with peripherals as good as those guys had.

2) No one said the Reds have an endless supply of prospects. But if the Reds use one or two starting pitchers as trade bait... along with the prospects they have (especially the wealth of lower-level guys), there should be plenty to find a SP and LF. Guys like Zack Greinke may not come very cheap--or at all. But I think it's worth trying. If Chapman becomes an ace in 2011, the Reds may not need someone like Greinke, or at least for the price. But a guy like that could have helped tremendously this year.

3) As I have stated before, people forget how ordinary Volquez was the last 3 months of 2008 (since we're looking at ERA). His peripherals rebounded in September, but nonetheless his splits:

April: 1.23 ERA
May: 1.63 ERA
June: 3.45 ERA
July: 4.54 ERA
Aug: 4.50 ERA
Sep: 4.09 ERA

He was so dominant in the first two months of 2008, and finished with solid numbers, that people tend to forget he didn't carry that early performance through the entire season. Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting he fell off the face of the earth, but he wasn't really ace material around or after the All-Star break.

PuffyPig
10-17-2010, 05:43 PM
Chris Carpenter won the Cy Young in 2005 and finished runner-up in 2006. That's not Cy Young winner?

Josh Beckett finished runner-up for the Cy Young in 2007.

Cole Hamels didn't win a Cy Young, but he was pretty darn filthy in 2008.

196 Ks, 53 walks in 227 innings.

Those guys are better than anything the Reds had this year. The Reds had several 'good' starters, but try as you might, you won't find the Reds having anyone pop up in any Cy Young voting, much less finishing first or second. You also won't find anyone with peripherals as good as those guys had.

2) No one said the Reds have an endless supply of prospects. But if the Reds use one or two starting pitchers as trade bait... along with the prospects they have (especially the wealth of lower-level guys), there should be plenty to find a SP and LF. Guys like Zack Greinke may not come very cheap--or at all. But I think it's worth trying. If Chapman becomes an ace in 2011, the Reds may not need someone like Greinke, or at least for the price. But a guy like that could have helped tremendously this year.

3) As I have stated before, people forget how ordinary Volquez was the last 3 months of 2008 (since we're looking at ERA). His peripherals rebounded in September, but nonetheless his splits:

April: 1.23 ERA
May: 1.63 ERA
June: 3.45 ERA
July: 4.54 ERA
Aug: 4.50 ERA
Sep: 4.09 ERA

He was so dominant in the first two months of 2008, and finished with solid numbers, that people tend to forget he didn't carry that early performance through the entire season. Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting he fell off the face of the earth, but he wasn't really ace material around or after the All-Star break.

You can make a similar argument for Greinke.

His ERA in the last half last year was 4.72. His xFIP last year was 3.76, with a major decrease in K-rate.

Greinke is a very good pitcher, but he's hardly an elite, shut down Ace.

RedsManRick
10-17-2010, 05:50 PM
Here's a quick look at the our starters for 2010, and the career numbers for the non-rookies:



2010 Age K/9 BB/9 HR/9 ERA FIP xFIP
Wood 23 7.5 2.3 0.8 3.51 3.42 4.17
Greinke 26 7.4 2.3 0.7 3.82 3.59 3.76
Bailey 24 8.3 3.3 0.9 4.46 3.74 3.91
Cueto 24 6.7 2.7 0.9 3.64 3.97 4.26
Volquez 26 9.6 5.0 0.9 4.31 4.00 3.87
Arroyo 33 5.1 2.5 1.2 3.88 4.61 4.60
Leake 22 5.9 3.2 1.2 4.23 4.68 4.31

CAREER Age K/9 BB/9 HR/9 ERA FIP xFIP
Greinke 27 7.6 2.3 0.9 4.17 3.34 3.76
Volquez 27 8.7 4.7 0.9 4.36 4.30 4.27
Arroyo 34 6.0 2.7 1.1 4.19 4.46 4.49
Bailey 25 6.9 4.1 1.0 5.09 4.48 4.56
Cueto 25 7.3 3.1 1.2 4.27 4.51 4.40

I know Volquez has some great raw stuff, but I have little faith that he's going to put it all together. He's no spring chicken and will never be elite until and unless he develops an ability to locate his pitches with regularity.

Considering Chapman and Maloney are all options as well, this team simply doesn't need it's full depth. Starters #6, 7 and 8 are adding basically zero value to the roster (unless they're in the bullpen). In my opinion, it would be wasteful of our assets to not flip a starter or two.

It's not so much that we NEED a #1 starter, though I think the argument for elite pitching in the playoffs isn't exactly hard to make. It's that this team doesn't have a lot of places where it can be significantly upgraded. We all know about LF and SS, but short of Matt Kemp, I've not seen too many realistic targets there.

Greinke represents a true upgrade over every single pitcher on this staff, save perhaps for Chapman and, if you believe he can keep it up, Wood.

I'd do a Voqluez-based trade and from there. What's crazy is that it still leaves you pushing out guys who belong there. The more I look at this, the more I think we're going to regret keeping Arroyo around, particularly if we extend him. Short of a massive shakeup, there's no way Leake makes the rotation next year and Chapman would have to bump one of the younger guys who's been here awhile. What a mess. A good mess, certainly. But a mess.

Brutus
10-17-2010, 05:53 PM
You can make a similar argument for Greinke.

His ERA in the last half last year was 4.72. His xFIP last year was 3.76, with a major decrease in K-rate.

Greinke is a very good pitcher, but he's hardly an elite, shut down Ace.

He was a shut down ace in 2009.

2.16 ERA, 2.33 FIP, 9.5 K/9, 2.0 BB/9, 0.43 HR/9

That's ace stuff if ever I've seen it.

Now I will grant you, for his career, it remains to be seen if that was an outlier or if he's more likely to hover around his career numbers (3.59 FIP, 7.6 K/9, 2.3 BB/9 and 0.9 HR/9) which make him a solid pitcher, but not terribly different from what the Reds had this year in Cueto, Bailey, Wood, etc.

Will M
10-17-2010, 07:40 PM
Chris Carpenter won the Cy Young in 2005 and finished runner-up in 2006. That's not Cy Young winner?

Josh Beckett finished runner-up for the Cy Young in 2007.

Cole Hamels didn't win a Cy Young, but he was pretty darn filthy in 2008.

196 Ks, 53 walks in 227 innings.

Those guys are better than anything the Reds had this year. The Reds had several 'good' starters, but try as you might, you won't find the Reds having anyone pop up in any Cy Young voting, much less finishing first or second. You also won't find anyone with peripherals as good as those guys had.

2) No one said the Reds have an endless supply of prospects. But if the Reds use one or two starting pitchers as trade bait... along with the prospects they have (especially the wealth of lower-level guys), there should be plenty to find a SP and LF. Guys like Zack Greinke may not come very cheap--or at all. But I think it's worth trying. If Chapman becomes an ace in 2011, the Reds may not need someone like Greinke, or at least for the price. But a guy like that could have helped tremendously this year.

3) As I have stated before, people forget how ordinary Volquez was the last 3 months of 2008 (since we're looking at ERA). His peripherals rebounded in September, but nonetheless his splits:

April: 1.23 ERA
May: 1.63 ERA
June: 3.45 ERA
July: 4.54 ERA
Aug: 4.50 ERA
Sep: 4.09 ERA

He was so dominant in the first two months of 2008, and finished with solid numbers, that people tend to forget he didn't carry that early performance through the entire season. Make no mistake, I'm not suggesting he fell off the face of the earth, but he wasn't really ace material around or after the All-Star break.

1) One point I was making is that these teams won the world series & didn't have a Cy Young Award winner that year. They won with their ace starters ERAs in the low 3s.

Yes those pitcher's numbers during the years their team won were better than any Reds starter this year. However, IMO the Reds have several guys who could match those numbers next year. We could trade Cueto & prospects for Grienke then watch Johnny outpitch him in 2011. Same for Chapman. Maybe for Wood.

2) do you think two of Volquez/Leake/Bailey/Wood & Alonso & one other Reds top five prospect will give us a middle of the order bat for left & an true ace? if so then i am all for it. however this is where i disagree with so many Redszone posters. i just don't see how Walt can pull that off. if he can't then i'd rather get a strong bat for left field rather than trade a pitcher & Alonso & other prospects for an ace and be stuck with replacement level production in left field.

an additional problem is that an ace & a cleanup hitter will add a lot of money to the payroll. Harang's money coming off the books will be eaten up with arbitration raises to Votto/Bruce/Cueto/Volquez. Hard to see Bob adding $20-25M to the payroll. Heck, if he wanted to do that he could sign Lee & Werth. Not only would the Reds be a strong favorite to win the NL Central again but they would be serious World Series contenders. Save the prospects for a July 2011 addition depending on what the team seems to need & start making room in the trophy case.

3) you make a good point about Volquez

Brutus
10-17-2010, 09:13 PM
1) One point I was making is that these teams won the world series & didn't have a Cy Young Award winner that year. They won with their ace starters ERAs in the low 3s.

Yes those pitcher's numbers during the years their team won were better than any Reds starter this year. However, IMO the Reds have several guys who could match those numbers next year. We could trade Cueto & prospects for Grienke then watch Johnny outpitch him in 2011. Same for Chapman. Maybe for Wood.

2) do you think two of Volquez/Leake/Bailey/Wood & Alonso & one other Reds top five prospect will give us a middle of the order bat for left & an true ace? if so then i am all for it. however this is where i disagree with so many Redszone posters. i just don't see how Walt can pull that off. if he can't then i'd rather get a strong bat for left field rather than trade a pitcher & Alonso & other prospects for an ace and be stuck with replacement level production in left field.

an additional problem is that an ace & a cleanup hitter will add a lot of money to the payroll. Harang's money coming off the books will be eaten up with arbitration raises to Votto/Bruce/Cueto/Volquez. Hard to see Bob adding $20-25M to the payroll. Heck, if he wanted to do that he could sign Lee & Werth. Not only would the Reds be a strong favorite to win the NL Central again but they would be serious World Series contenders. Save the prospects for a July 2011 addition depending on what the team seems to need & start making room in the trophy case.

3) you make a good point about Volquez

RE: No. 1...I'm not so much caught up in having a Cy Young winner, but generally, guys that are Cy Young caliber are more trustworthy and more dominant in the playoffs. The Reds had a solid rotation, but no one that is (at least now) a Cy Young type of pitcher.

Look at it this way... if you look at ERA, you might not see a big difference in some of those guys compared to the Reds' guys. But in reality, do you really think anyone on the Reds staff is on Chris Carpenter, Josh Beckett or Cole Hamels' level? When push comes to shove, I'd take any of those three over the Reds' pitchers in a game 7 situation and not bat an eye. That's really the point I'm making.

RE: No. 2...I don't know if it will or not, but I think it could and I'm suggesting they try. I do know this: good starting pitchers are more valuable to teams than good left fielders. The Reds have a healthy supply of "good" starting pitching. So it makes sense that there's a good chance they could trade one for a "good" left fielder. Doesn't have to be a true .900 slugger necessarily, but if they could find a guy between .775-825 and plays good defense, that's a big upgrade.

As far as the ace... I think it's gravy. They need one, though I do believe they have a few guys that can be come aces next year or going forward. Chapman, Bailey, Volquez are all capable of it. Leake, Wood and Cueto are very good pitchers that would make excellent playoff starters. But until/unless one or two of those guys step up on a consistent basis, I'd do what I can to find one.

Will M
10-18-2010, 01:24 AM
RE: No. 1...I'm not so much caught up in having a Cy Young winner, but generally, guys that are Cy Young caliber are more trustworthy and more dominant in the playoffs. The Reds had a solid rotation, but no one that is (at least now) a Cy Young type of pitcher.

Look at it this way... if you look at ERA, you might not see a big difference in some of those guys compared to the Reds' guys. But in reality, do you really think anyone on the Reds staff is on Chris Carpenter, Josh Beckett or Cole Hamels' level? When push comes to shove, I'd take any of those three over the Reds' pitchers in a game 7 situation and not bat an eye. That's really the point I'm making.

RE: No. 2...I don't know if it will or not, but I think it could and I'm suggesting they try. I do know this: good starting pitchers are more valuable to teams than good left fielders. The Reds have a healthy supply of "good" starting pitching. So it makes sense that there's a good chance they could trade one for a "good" left fielder. Doesn't have to be a true .900 slugger necessarily, but if they could find a guy between .775-825 and plays good defense, that's a big upgrade.

As far as the ace... I think it's gravy. They need one, though I do believe they have a few guys that can be come aces next year or going forward. Chapman, Bailey, Volquez are all capable of it. Leake, Wood and Cueto are very good pitchers that would make excellent playoff starters. But until/unless one or two of those guys step up on a consistent basis, I'd do what I can to find one.

ok.

trade an excess starter for a solid outfielder.
trade a #2/#3 guy & prospect(s) for an ace.
that would give us the outfielder we need and still give us a six deep rotation (the ace, Bronson, Chapman & three of Volquez/Cueto/Wood/Bailey/Leake).
sounds like a solid plan.

PuffyPig
10-18-2010, 08:38 AM
He was a shut down ace in 2009.

2.16 ERA, 2.33 FIP, 9.5 K/9, 2.0 BB/9, 0.43 HR/9

That's ace stuff if ever I've seen it.



You conveniently left out that 3.15 xFIP in 2009 didn't you, which is bookended by 3.76 in 2008 and 2010?

His K-rate dropped a full two K's per 9 last year, and his HR/FB rate went back to normal, after dropping in half the year before.

Look he's very good pitcher, but he's not a sure Ace. I wouldn't overpay for that type of pitcher when he's making huge money now and forever.

_Sir_Charles_
10-18-2010, 11:21 AM
You conveniently left out that 3.15 xFIP in 2009 didn't you, which is bookended by 3.76 in 2008 and 2010?

His K-rate dropped a full two K's per 9 last year, and his HR/FB rate went back to normal, after dropping in half the year before.

Look he's very good pitcher, but he's not a sure Ace. I wouldn't overpay for that type of pitcher when he's making huge money now and forever.

I agree with this totally. I wouldn't be against acquiring Grienke...but I wouldn't be surprised AT ALL to see 2 or 3 of our current starters put up better numbers than Zack this next season. Simply put, starting pitching is not a high priority right now and we should be focusing on what IS. Left field, solid defender, middle of the order bat. If we get that one thing done....start printing playoff tickets again.

Tom Servo
10-18-2010, 11:38 AM
So the Zack Grienke thread is the new Joe Blanton/Erik Bedard/Cliff Lee thread?

RedsManRick
10-18-2010, 12:24 PM
So the Zack Grienke thread is the new Joe Blanton/Erik Bedard/Cliff Lee thread?

What a trio! A mediocre pitcher in every way, an excellent pitcher who can't stay healthy and one of the best pitcher's in baseball.

I'd say that our last two conversations about acquiring pitching have regarded Cy Young award winners in their prime says quite a bit about the state of pitching in this organization.

cincrazy
10-18-2010, 12:24 PM
If you move Zack Grienke to the NL.... look out. We shouldn't forget that his stats will probably get a boost from switching leagues.

OnBaseMachine
10-18-2010, 12:26 PM
Buster Onley thinks the Reds will be interested in Grienke.


8. The Cincinnati Reds. They have good prospects. They could use an anchor for their rotation. They’d probably be in the running, as they were for Lee.


http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/10/18/monday-links-dreaming-of-greinke/

traderumor
10-18-2010, 12:36 PM
So the Zack Grienke thread is the new Joe Blanton/Erik Bedard/Cliff Lee thread?You say that like its a bad thing. Its the Hot Stove League throwing the first log on the fire.

Slyder
10-18-2010, 12:52 PM
Without a HAMMER at the top of the rotation we will be the Minnesota Twins. We will constantly be in contention but be an early out as we just have no way to compete against any team with even just 1 guy like Halladay, Lincecum, Sabathia, Oswalt, Cain, etc. And thats not even considering the fact that Philly had 3 of those types this year.

Chapman could be but theres a long list of guys in baseball's history that was suppose to be including Paul Wilson, Jason Isringhausen, and Bill Pulsipher with the Mets in the mid 90s. If he develops into such great another Hammer at your disposal but you need a guy like Greinke, Oswalt, etc at the top this time of year. I believe Greinke showed what he was capable of, get him and put him in a situation where he is competing I mean just look at Oswalt the last days of Houston and his season when he went to Philly if you dont think theres examples of it.

kaldaniels
10-18-2010, 12:55 PM
Buster Onley thinks the Reds will be interested in Grienke.



http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/10/18/monday-links-dreaming-of-greinke/

Did Fay just post Insider info?

dougdirt
10-18-2010, 01:40 PM
Without a HAMMER at the top of the rotation we will be the Minnesota Twins. We will constantly be in contention but be an early out as we just have no way to compete against any team with even just 1 guy like Halladay, Lincecum, Sabathia, Oswalt, Cain, etc. And thats not even considering the fact that Philly had 3 of those types this year.

Did we smack Oswalt around in the playoffs this year?

Brutus
10-18-2010, 01:48 PM
You conveniently left out that 3.15 xFIP in 2009 didn't you, which is bookended by 3.76 in 2008 and 2010?

His K-rate dropped a full two K's per 9 last year, and his HR/FB rate went back to normal, after dropping in half the year before.

Look he's very good pitcher, but he's not a sure Ace. I wouldn't overpay for that type of pitcher when he's making huge money now and forever.

Conveniently? Huh? You say that like 3.15 xFIP wasn't the 5th-best rate in all of baseball in 2009 (which it was). So how does that 'conveniently' detract from having a season that was 'ace' material?

His numbers the last four years, even without the boost in Ks in 2009 (and a few home runs less than might be expected to hit off him) were still pretty darn consistent. And consistent in a good/reliable/positive way.

This past season, his strikeouts came back into the 7's, but he also improved his groundball rate, which could only help him if that becomes a trend.

In any event, as I said, I guess it depends on just how good Greinke can be (2009 or 2010) going forward. But "conveniently" is kind of laughable. A 3.15 xFIP is better than anything the Reds have and was better than 99% of baseball in 2009.

Slyder
10-18-2010, 01:49 PM
Did we smack Oswalt around in the playoffs this year?

What did Oswalt do against SF? Down 0-1.

PuffyPig
10-18-2010, 01:56 PM
Conveniently? Huh? You say that like 3.15 xFIP wasn't the 5th-best rate in all of baseball in 2009 (which it was). So how does that 'conveniently' detract from having a season that was 'ace' material?

His numbers the last four years, even without the boost in Ks in 2009 (and a few home runs less than might be expected to hit off him) were still pretty darn consistent. And consistent in a good/reliable/positive way.

This past season, his strikeouts came back into the 7's, but he also improved his groundball rate, which could only help him if that becomes a trend.

In any event, as I said, I guess it depends on just how good Greinke can be (2009 or 2010) going forward. But "conveniently" is kind of laughable. A 3.15 xFIP is better than anything the Reds have and was better than 99% of baseball in 2009.


It's just that you left out the stat that was Greinke's worse that year, and that stat that most of us focus on when comparing pitchers. I'd call that selective. Especially when its the only year Greinke has had where he performed anywhere close to an Ace.

Slyder
10-18-2010, 01:57 PM
And for fun.

Oswalt with Houston...
6-12, 20 GS, 3.42 ERA

Oswalt with Philly...
7-1, 12 GS (1 appearance in the pen), 1.74 ERA.

TheNext44
10-18-2010, 01:58 PM
Without a HAMMER at the top of the rotation we will be the Minnesota Twins. We will constantly be in contention but be an early out as we just have no way to compete against any team with even just 1 guy like Halladay, Lincecum, Sabathia, Oswalt, Cain, etc. And thats not even considering the fact that Philly had 3 of those types this year.

Chapman could be but theres a long list of guys in baseball's history that was suppose to be including Paul Wilson, Jason Isringhausen, and Bill Pulsipher with the Mets in the mid 90s. If he develops into such great another Hammer at your disposal but you need a guy like Greinke, Oswalt, etc at the top this time of year. I believe Greinke showed what he was capable of, get him and put him in a situation where he is competing I mean just look at Oswalt the last days of Houston and his season when he went to Philly if you dont think theres examples of it.

There have only been a handful of stsrting pitchers in the history of MLB that can throw over 100 MPH and have Chapman's control. I can't think of a sinlge one who stayed healthy that didn't become a legit #1 starter. I am sure someone can, but if Chapman stays healthy, the odds are on his side.

Brutus
10-18-2010, 02:11 PM
It's just that you left out the stat that was Greinke's worse that year, and that stat that most of us focus on when comparing pitchers. I'd call that selective. Especially when its the only year Greinke has had where he performed anywhere close to an Ace.

What on earth are you reading?

Here is my original post:


He was a shut down ace in 2009.

2.16 ERA, 2.33 FIP, 9.5 K/9, 2.0 BB/9, 0.43 HR/9

That's ace stuff if ever I've seen it.

Now I will grant you, for his career, it remains to be seen if that was an outlier or if he's more likely to hover around his career numbers (3.59 FIP, 7.6 K/9, 2.3 BB/9 and 0.9 HR/9) which make him a solid pitcher, but not terribly different from what the Reds had this year in Cueto, Bailey, Wood, etc.

I didn't ignore anything. I said he had an type year (which a 3.15 xFIP does nothing to dispel) but it remains to be seen if it was an outlier.

Also, I don't use xFIP and it's probably 50/50 as to those that prefer it over FIP. I don't like normalizing home run rates because it's based on a faulty premise that all pitchers work on the 10-11%, which is inaccurate. In fact, Greinke's career rate is 8.5%.

Further, you act like his his 2009 season was all because of a 3% drop in HR/FB. Yet, Greinke had his best strikeout year, his lowest walk year and was absolutely dominant with both his fastball and slider. But you want to focus on a 3-4% drop on flyballs leaving the yard?

As I said in my original post, it's fair to question whether it's an outlier. But it cannot be denied that 2009 was a terrific season. Regardless of what someone's HR/FB rate was, we're talking about a guy that still gives up less than a homer per nine for his career and had a 9.50 K/9 and 2.00 BB/9 that year. That's flat filthy.

Tom Servo
10-18-2010, 02:59 PM
What a trio! A mediocre pitcher in every way, an excellent pitcher who can't stay healthy and one of the best pitcher's in baseball.

I'd say that our last two conversations about acquiring pitching have regarded Cy Young award winners in their prime says quite a bit about the state of pitching in this organization.
hey, tell that to 2008 Redszone!

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65320&highlight=blanton

NJReds
10-18-2010, 05:32 PM
I like the idea of going after Grienke. And maybe we could get DeJesus as a throw in (coming off of thumb surgery) and stick him in LF.

RedsManRick
10-18-2010, 05:45 PM
hey, tell that to 2008 Redszone!

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=65320&highlight=blanton

2008 RedsManRick was already on board.



Blanton isn't a bad pitcher at all, but he's not a great fit for us and is primed to cost more than he's worth.


Those numbers suggest a very Arroyo like performance with fewer K and fewer HR. Of course, those projections change with a move to the NL and to GABP.

I've have to reread the threat to be sure, but I doubt anybody was asserting he'd be an ace. However, in 2008, the idea of adding a mid-rotation guy like Blanton did seem awfully attractive to a lot of people. Now were debating the merits of adding a guy who is a solid TOR guy, if not a top-line "ace".

PuffyPig
10-18-2010, 06:59 PM
2008 RedsManRick was already on board.




I've have to reread the threat to be sure, but I doubt anybody was asserting he'd be an ace. However, in 2008, the idea of adding a mid-rotation guy like Blanton did seem awfully attractive to a lot of people. Now were debating the merits of adding a guy who is a solid TOR guy, if not a top-line "ace".

Gee, lots wanted to trade Votto, Stubbs and Wood for him, or Stubbs, Wood and Bailey.

edabbs44
10-18-2010, 06:59 PM
Did Fay just post Insider info?
Fay would have been kicked off RZ months ago.

Mario-Rijo
10-18-2010, 08:21 PM
Gee, lots wanted to trade Votto, Stubbs and Wood for him, or Stubbs, Wood and Bailey.

And some of us have learned a valuable lesson from it. ;)

Dan
10-18-2010, 08:28 PM
You know, we now have SIX, count 'em SIX, viable young candidates for the rotation next year, plus Arroyo. The last thing we should be worried about is adding another starter right now. Focus on LF and SS instead.

I'm really wondering if this entire discussion is just a natural reflex of being a Reds fan, having been without good pitching for so long we're primed to expect that to continue. It won't. At least not in the near term.

Brutus
10-18-2010, 08:43 PM
You know, we now have SIX, count 'em SIX, viable young candidates for the rotation next year, plus Arroyo. The last thing we should be worried about is adding another starter right now. Focus on LF and SS instead.

I'm really wondering if this entire discussion is just a natural reflex of being a Reds fan, having been without good pitching for so long we're primed to expect that to continue. It won't. At least not in the near term.

And none of those six are aces.

If you could parlay a starter and a prospect into an ace, why wouldn't you?

The playoffs are won by teams with great starting pitchers. The Reds have an abundance of good starting pitchers (though as has been mentioned, a few have the ability to be great in the future). Teams win in October with top tier starting pitchers. If the Reds want to get past losing in 3 games, they need to make sure they have a top tier guy manning the rotation.

TheNext44
10-18-2010, 08:58 PM
And none of those six are aces.

If you could parlay a starter and a prospect into an ace, why wouldn't you?

The playoffs are won by teams with great starting pitchers. The Reds have an abundance of good starting pitchers (though as has been mentioned, a few have the ability to be great in the future). Teams win in October with top tier starting pitchers. If the Reds want to get past losing in 3 games, they need to make sure they have a top tier guy manning the rotation.

Cueto, Volquez, Bailey and Chapman have top of the rotation stuff. Wood and Leake have shown the ability to dominate a game.

I'll bet that come September of next season, one of those guys will be that ace that you are looking for. Why risk trying tp guess who wont? Why not just keep them all and let time decide? I think the odds of an ace coming from that group are at least as good as the odds that whoever the Reds try to get to be that ace stays healthy and dominant all season long.

Cedric
10-18-2010, 09:08 PM
Cueto, Volquez, Bailey and Chapman have top of the rotation stuff. Wood and Leake have shown the ability to dominate a game.

I'll bet that come September of next season, one of those guys will be that ace that you are looking for. Why risk trying tp guess who wont? Why not just keep them all and let time decide? I think the odds of an ace coming from that group are at least as good as the odds that whoever the Reds try to get to be that ace stays healthy and dominant all season long.

What would tell you that those guys have anywhere near the chance of being an ace like Greinke already is?

If I can get Greinke and only lose Cueto and a few other prospects I would be doing cartwheels. Cueto doesn't have the peripherals to suggest he's really close to being an ace.

RedEye
10-18-2010, 09:17 PM
Can we please spell his name right in the thread title?

Greinke

Thanks,

The Spelling Police

TheNext44
10-18-2010, 09:40 PM
What would tell you that those guys have anywhere near the chance of being an ace like Greinke already is?

If I can get Greinke and only lose Cueto and a few other prospects I would be doing cartwheels. Cueto doesn't have the peripherals to suggest he's really close to being an ace.

Greinke didn't have Ace peripherals until he was 25, which is what Bailey and Cueto will be next season. What you say about Cueto could have been said about Greinke at the same age.

Slyder
10-18-2010, 09:50 PM
You know, we now have SIX, count 'em SIX, viable young candidates for the rotation next year, plus Arroyo. The last thing we should be worried about is adding another starter right now. Focus on LF and SS instead.

I'm really wondering if this entire discussion is just a natural reflex of being a Reds fan, having been without good pitching for so long we're primed to expect that to continue. It won't. At least not in the near term.

There is a difference between having quantity and having quality. We saw this year 6 solid young candidates and Arroyo how well did that fair in post season? Thats why I would be on board with taking some of the depth in the system and make a play on a guy who has been very near the quality we need to add.

Yes Chapman has the very real potential of becoming that with his stuff and 100+ mph fastball, but he has not reached there yet. For all we know about the future Chapman may turn into Kerry Wood with an injury to where he cannot be relied upon for longer outings and become an elite closer. Bailey, Cueto, and Volquez could still become that hammer but they each still have to prove it if they ever get there. Arroyo is our Jamie Moyer, he just knows how to get the most out of his stuff. You take a HUGE amount of pressure off of each of them if you can bring in a top of the cy young chart type pitcher.

Just listen to any Philadelphia interview, who do they credit with helping Cole Hamels resurgence??? Roy Halladay.

Brutus
10-18-2010, 09:55 PM
Cueto, Volquez, Bailey and Chapman have top of the rotation stuff. Wood and Leake have shown the ability to dominate a game.

I'll bet that come September of next season, one of those guys will be that ace that you are looking for. Why risk trying tp guess who wont? Why not just keep them all and let time decide? I think the odds of an ace coming from that group are at least as good as the odds that whoever the Reds try to get to be that ace stays healthy and dominant all season long.

I certainly agree all those guys have potential. But a bird in the hand is worth two in the bush, as they say. If the Reds can acquire someone that has already done it, proven it, etc., it's worth having that bird than the two in the bush.

By going out and getting someone that's proven it, you don't have to guess who's going to or not. You don't have to hold a bunch of assets until one of them booms or busts. Instead, you can parlay them into a proven commodity.

dougdirt
10-18-2010, 09:56 PM
There is a difference between having quantity and having quality. We saw this year 6 solid young candidates and Arroyo how well did that fair in post season?


We were shut out in two games. I don't think it mattered who we sent to the mound. Pitching did not lose the series for us, our team had an ERA of 2.52 in the playoffs. Why do so many continue to ignore that?

I am not against going out and getting Greinke at all. I would try to get him. I just don't think anything was going to matter this season given how it played out. We couldn't score runs and in the one game we did, our defense had four errors that led to 7 runs being scored against us.

TheNext44
10-18-2010, 10:01 PM
There is a difference between having quantity and having quality. We saw this year 6 solid young candidates and Arroyo how well did that fair in post season? Thats why I would be on board with taking some of the depth in the system and make a play on a guy who has been very near the quality we need to add.

Yes Chapman has the very real potential of becoming that with his stuff and 100+ mph fastball, but he has not reached there yet. For all we know about the future Chapman may turn into Kerry Wood with an injury to where he cannot be relied upon for longer outings and become an elite closer. Bailey, Cueto, and Volquez could still become that hammer but they each still have to prove it if they ever get there. Arroyo is our Jamie Moyer, he just knows how to get the most out of his stuff. You take a HUGE amount of pressure off of each of them if you can bring in a top of the cy young chart type pitcher.

Just listen to any Philadelphia interview, who do they credit with helping Cole Hamels resurgence??? Roy Halladay.

Kerry Wood had five TOR seasons before he blew his arm out. If Cueto, Volquez or Bailey match Wood's production over their career's, I would be a very happy Reds fan. :)

Dom Heffner
10-18-2010, 10:02 PM
Greinke didn't have Ace peripherals until he was 25, which is what Bailey and Cueto will be next season. What you say about Cueto could have been said about Greinke at the same age.

I will give you my house if Cueto and Bailey have Greinke age 25 seasons.

Attention K-Mart shoppers, you are in for a rude awakening in aisle 5...

Brutus
10-18-2010, 10:02 PM
We were shut out in two games. I don't think it mattered who we sent to the mound. Pitching did not lose the series for us, our team had an ERA of 2.52 in the playoffs. Why do so many continue to ignore that?

I am not against going out and getting Greinke at all. I would try to get him. I just don't think anything was going to matter this season given how it played out. We couldn't score runs and in the one game we did, our defense had four errors that led to 7 runs being scored against us.

If the Reds had Cliff Lee, hypothetically, maybe the Reds don't play the Phillies in the first round. Perhaps they win 2-3 more games, get the No. 2 seed, host Atlanta and win the first round.

It's not just about the playoffs, but whether the Reds may have done better down the stretch.

Dom Heffner
10-18-2010, 10:06 PM
If the Reds had Cliff Lee, hypothetically, maybe the Reds don't play the Phillies in the first round. Perhaps they win 2-3 more games, get the No. 2 seed, host Atlanta and win the first round.

It's not just about the playoffs, but whether the Reds may have done better down the stretch.

Yes, but having Yonder Alonso is so important, Brutus.

You know, he could be pretty okay, maybe.

Small market teams have tiny windows to make the playoffs.

If you don't want to go all out and get guys to nail it down and instead stick witj the Volquez's and Cueto's of the world...good luck and we'll see you in 2025.

dougdirt
10-18-2010, 10:08 PM
If the Reds had Cliff Lee, hypothetically, maybe the Reds don't play the Phillies in the first round. Perhaps they win 2-3 more games, get the No. 2 seed, host Atlanta and win the first round.

It's not just about the playoffs, but whether the Reds may have done better down the stretch.

This is a valid point. Still, outside of Bruce, Stubbs and Phillips, the rest of the team reached base 4 times in 3 games. Did those guys crap their pants or did the Phillies pitching just own everyone else? Both? I don't really know, but we won't ever really know.

Brutus
10-18-2010, 10:10 PM
This is a valid point. Still, outside of Bruce, Stubbs and Phillips, the rest of the team reached base 4 times in 3 games. Did those guys crap their pants or did the Phillies pitching just own everyone else? Both? I don't really know, but we won't ever really know.

The hitting was brutal late in the year. You'll get no arguments from me on that. I just think maybe the Reds would have been in a better position if they'd been able to make the kind of Cliff Lee deal we're talking about.

HokieRed
10-18-2010, 10:14 PM
What was the last deal the Reds made in search of a so-called TOR potential guy? I don't want to compare Greinke to that potential TOR guy, but if we had not made that deal, we'd likely, IMHO, have been in the NLCS (or not had to face Philly, at least, in Rd. 1). Is there anymore reason to think Cliff Lee's the reason the Rangers are playing tonight than that Josh Hamilton is?

HotCorner
10-18-2010, 10:33 PM
I'm in the pro Zack Greinke camp.

HotCorner
10-18-2010, 10:34 PM
http://www.kansascity.com/2010/10/18/2327055/royals-notes-sure-greinke-is-available.html



Greinke available for trade at right price
By BOB DUTTON
The Kansas City Star
Are the Royals planning to exploit a thin free-agent market for starting pitchers by accepting trade offers for 2009 Cy Young winner Zack Greinke?

Sure they are.

TheNext44
10-18-2010, 10:34 PM
I will give you my house if Cueto and Bailey have Greinke age 25 seasons.

Attention K-Mart shoppers, you are in for a rude awakening in aisle 5...

I agree about the first part. But that in no way means that one of those six, Cueto, Bailey, Volquez, Chapman, Wood, Leake, will not be a TOR starter by the end of 2011. It just means they won't have one of the most dominating, Cy Young winning seasons in decades.

And I loved Rude Awakening. Cheech was awesome in that. So funny. I'm glad they still stock that movie at K-Mart. ;)

TheNext44
10-18-2010, 10:41 PM
Yes, but having Yonder Alonso is so important, Brutus.

You know, he could be pretty okay, maybe.

Small market teams have tiny windows to make the playoffs.

If you don't want to go all out and get guys to nail it down and instead stick witj the Volquez's and Cueto's of the world...good luck and we'll see you in 2025.

If all it took was Alonso to get Lee I think everyone on this board would jump on that deal. No one is arguing that Lee wouldn't have been a good acquisition. Some are just arguing that the price was too high, for the actual effect he would have had on the Reds chances of doing better than they did.

And for the record, I'm all for getting Greinke. I just don't want to give up any of potential starters for 2011. They are all too young, cheap and talented

Brutus
10-18-2010, 10:43 PM
If all it took was Alonso to get Lee I think everyone on this board would jump on that deal. No one is arguing that Lee wouldn't have been a good acquisition. Some are just arguing that the price was too high, for the actual effect he would have had on the Reds chances of doing better than they did.

And for the record, I'm all for getting Greinke. I just don't want to give up any of potential starters for 2011. They are all too young, cheap and talented

Based on what the Mariners ended up getting, and what the reported deal was for the Yankeees, I'm not so sure the price was very steep.

I'm not saying the Reds didn't put in a good offer and wasn't willing to part with Alonso. I don't even know if I blame them for not getting it done. Clearly they tried. But the asking price doesn't seem like it wound up being very steep.

Slyder
10-18-2010, 11:16 PM
Kerry Wood had five TOR seasons before he blew his arm out. If Cueto, Volquez or Bailey match Wood's production over their career's, I would be a very happy Reds fan. :)

My point is theres a wide spectrum of ways things could go. Nothing is given, okay fine substitute Kerry Wood for Eric Gagne then same result, same point I was trying to make.

The Operator
10-18-2010, 11:22 PM
There comes a time when, if you want to be a championship ball club, you have to make tough choices regarding roster moves and field the best team possible.

The Reds have a surplus of above average starting pitchers, but not a single ace among them. One of them may step up and be an ace, but they could just as likely regress to a lesser performance.

If the Reds can turn some of this current pitching surplus combined with certain parts in the minor leagues into an already established ace pitcher that we don't have to guess on performance wise, as well as possibly shoring up LF and/or SS, they should do it.

And this is why Walt is here. He can make these tough decisions. He traded an 18-game winning Kent Bottenfield for Jim Edmonds in the 1999-2000 offseason. He traded for Darryl Kile. The list goes on and on.

If fans had their way, The Reds may have never traded Kurt Stilwell for Danny Jackson, but instead hung onto them both, missing out on acquiring Jackson and watching Stillwell's value plummet. The hard choices have to be made.

Boss-Hog
10-19-2010, 07:37 AM
There comes a time when, if you want to be a championship ball club, you have to make tough choices regarding roster moves and field the best team possible.

The Reds have a surplus of above average starting pitchers, but not a single ace among them. One of them may step up and be an ace, but they could just as likely regress to a lesser performance.

If the Reds can turn some of this current pitching surplus combined with certain parts in the minor leagues into an already established ace pitcher that we don't have to guess on performance wise, as well as possibly shoring up LF and/or SS, they should do it.

And this is why Walt is here. He can make these tough decisions. He traded an 18-game winning Kent Bottenfield for Jim Edmonds in the 1999-2000 offseason. He traded for Darryl Kile. The list goes on and on.

If fans had their way, The Reds may have never traded Kurt Stilwell for Danny Jackson, but instead hung onto them both, missing out on acquiring Jackson and watching Stillwell's value plummet. The hard choices have to be made.
Well said. From my perspective, trading from our surplus doesn't have to net a TOR starter (though it certainly wouldn't hurt), but anywhere that could use a substantial upgrade is fine by me (LF and SS).

HokieRed
10-19-2010, 10:13 AM
Unfortunately the so-called surplus of starting pitchers includes a one guy with half a season in the major leagues, another who's one year out of Arizona State, a third with great stuff and about a 5 W/9 ratio lifetime, another who also has a great stuff but who's never put even anything close to a full season together, an enormously talented young arm who's pitched maybe 20 innings in relief above AAA, a guy whose peripherals have been in steady decline over several seasons, and Cueto, who seems to be the one we'd be most likely called upon to trade. Sorry, but I don't think we're yet to the point where we can talk about having a surplus of starting pitchers.

buckeyenut
10-19-2010, 10:52 AM
Unfortunately the so-called surplus of starting pitchers includes a one guy with half a season in the major leagues, another who's one year out of Arizona State, a third with great stuff and about a 5 W/9 ratio lifetime, another who also has a great stuff but who's never put even anything close to a full season together, an enormously talented young arm who's pitched maybe 20 innings in relief above AAA, a guy whose peripherals have been in steady decline over several seasons, and Cueto, who seems to be the one we'd be most likely called upon to trade. Sorry, but I don't think we're yet to the point where we can talk about having a surplus of starting pitchers.

Completely disagree. We absolutely have surplus of SP. What we don't have is a surplus of SP we can for sure count on. That is why you deal for a guy like Grienke, to reduce uncertainty.

backbencher
10-19-2010, 12:33 PM
Completely disagree. We absolutely have surplus of SP. What we don't have is a surplus of SP we can for sure count on. That is why you deal for a guy like Grienke, to reduce uncertainty.

Except that you don't need five starters to get through the season. You need six, or seven, or eight, or nine. And the Reds have very little in A or AA that can project into a ML rotation over the next 2-3 years.

With pitchers, there are two different needs -- the long season, and the short postseason. A team always can pick up its Cliff Lee at the trading deadline.

Slyder
10-19-2010, 01:07 PM
Except that you don't need five starters to get through the season. You need six, or seven, or eight, or nine. And the Reds have very little in A or AA that can project into a ML rotation over the next 2-3 years.

With pitchers, there are two different needs -- the long season, and the short postseason. A team always can pick up its Cliff Lee at the trading deadline.

2010 was an abberation

2009: An injured Jake Peavy, Cliff Lee, Jake Westbrook
2008: Who?
2007: Who?

Cliff Lee and Roy Halladay arent going to be on the market. Greinke is going to be it. I'd rather take my chances with doing a deal that is a win/win in December without the time restraints that come in July. I'd either go hard for Greinke or convince Oswalt you can beat us, so come join us.

RedsManRick
10-19-2010, 01:29 PM
Completely disagree. We absolutely have surplus of SP. What we don't have is a surplus of SP we can for sure count on. That is why you deal for a guy like Grienke, to reduce uncertainty.

Precisely. Having a surplus of guys with the questions marks HokieRed so clearly articulated is precisely the reason why a Greinke trade makes sense. He may not be leagues better than what we might get from from one those guys, but he's much more likely to do it and sustain it.

By my count there are 9 legitimate options. I would rank them like this:

1) Cueto
2) Wood
3) Bailey
4) Chapman
5) Volquez
6) Leake
7) Arroyo
8) Maloney
9) LeCure

The first 7 belong in a major league rotation, no doubt. Chapman could probably benefit from some more time in AAA as a stater, but I don't doubt that he'd hold his own. I believe Maloney is a major league starter too, but he's a true #4 type -- he won't kill you, but the upside is quite limited. LeCure is classic emergency starter material. But my poin tis that I'd have absolutely no problem dealing anybody on that this, save for Chapman, to get a guy can truly anchor the rotation. A guy who can dominate and throw 220 IP. A guy who is proven, but not in decline. These are guys are rarer than you might think.

Sure, 2009 was probably an outlier for Greinke, a peak season. But ignore that for a minute and you're still looking at a guy who has great command, misses bats, keeps the ball in the yard and has averaged 217 IP the last years. And he turns 27 on Thursday (he's 3 months younger than Volquez). There are 17 pitchers who threw 200 IP with a sub 3.60 FIP in 2010. Greinke was one of them. Of those 17, 10 did it in 2009 as well. Of those 10, 5 of them did it in 2008. Those five? Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay, Tim Lincecum, CC Sabathia and Zack Greinke. A few guys just missed the cut: Jon Lester, Dan Haren, Felix Hernandez and Ubaldo Jiminez. Suffice it to say that when you think of "ace", these are the types that come to mind.

Too often we treat workload like a given. We shouldn't. Some guys are effective but not durable (Bedard, Josh Johnson). Others are durable but not as effective (Arroyo, Livan Hernandez). Very few are both. Durability is a skill and Arroyo is the only guy on the Reds staff with a track record of it. Greinke would not only be an upgrade performance wise, but he'd be an upgrade in reliability. Maybe the Reds assets would be better deployed in a trade for a SS or LF. If the right guys were on the market, I'd agree. But I don't see any real acknowledgement that those guys are on the market. I say we don't let the perfect (trade) be the enemy of the good (trade).

_Sir_Charles_
10-19-2010, 01:38 PM
Precisely. Having a surplus of guys with the questions marks HokieRed so clearly articulated is precisely the reason why a Greinke trade makes sense. He may not be leagues better than what we might get from from one those guys, but he's much more likely to do it and sustain it.

By my count there are 9 legitimate options. I would rank them like this:

1) Cueto
2) Wood
3) Bailey
4) Chapman
5) Volquez
6) Leake
7) Arroyo
8) Maloney
9) LeCure

The first 7 belong in a major league rotation, no doubt. Chapman could probably benefit from some more time in AAA as a stater, but I don't doubt that he'd hold his own. I believe Maloney is a major league starter too, but he's a true #4 type -- he won't kill you, but the upside is quite limited. LeCure is classic emergency starter material. But my poin tis that I'd have absolutely no problem dealing anybody on that this, save for Chapman, to get a guy can truly anchor the rotation. A guy who can dominate and throw 220 IP. A guy who is proven, but not in decline. These are guys are rarer than you might think.

Sure, 2009 was probably an outlier for Greinke, a peak season. But ignore that for a minute and you're still looking at a guy who has great command, misses bats, keeps the ball in the yard and has averaged 217 IP the last years. And he turns 27 on Thursday (he's 3 months younger than Volquez). There are 17 pitchers who threw 200 IP with a sub 3.60 FIP in 2010. Greinke was one of them. Of those 17, 10 did it in 2009 as well. Of those 10, 5 of them did it in 2008. Those five? Cliff Lee, Roy Halladay, Tim Lincecum, CC Sabathia and Zack Greinke. A few guys just missed the cut: Jon Lester, Dan Haren, Felix Hernandez and Ubaldo Jiminez. Suffice it to say that when you think of "ace", these are the types that come to mind.

Too often we treat workload like a given. We shouldn't. Some guys are effective but not durable (Bedard, Josh Johnson). Others are durable but not as effective (Arroyo, Livan Hernandez). Very few are both. Durability is a skill and Arroyo is the only guy on the Reds staff with a track record of it. Greinke would not only be an upgrade performance wise, but he'd be an upgrade in reliability. Maybe the Reds assets would be better deployed in a trade for a SS or LF. If the right guys were on the market, I'd agree. But I don't see any real acknowledgement that those guys are on the market. I say we don't let the perfect (trade) be the enemy of the good (trade).

Okay, I was fully in the camp of passing on Greinke due to my seeing our needs in other areas as being of more import. Thanks to some really solid arguments in this thread (Rick's most prominently), consider me in the other camp now. If we can get the deal done without completely emptying the cupboard, do it. However, I'd like to see some sort of contract extention in place prior to it (or at least some kind of assurance).

It doesn't happen very often, but a message board argument actually swayed my thinking. Well done gents.

BrooklynRedz
10-19-2010, 01:52 PM
Completely disagree. We absolutely have surplus of SP. What we don't have is a surplus of SP we can for sure count on. That is why you deal for a guy like Grienke, to reduce uncertainty.

A player with Grienke's psychological issues profiles as a very poor target for any club looking to reduce uncertainty. The cost in talent and dollars to acquire and extend isn't worth it for a player that relies on playing with toy Tonka trucks to calm his nerves before and during starts.

lollipopcurve
10-19-2010, 02:03 PM
Too often we treat workload like a given. We shouldn't. Some guys are effective but not durable (Bedard, Josh Johnson). Others are durable but not as effective (Arroyo, Livan Hernandez). Very few are both. Durability is a skill and Arroyo is the only guy on the Reds staff with a track record of it. Greinke would not only be an upgrade performance wise, but he'd be an upgrade in reliability. Maybe the Reds assets would be better deployed in a trade for a SS or LF. If the right guys were on the market, I'd agree. But I don't see any real acknowledgement that those guys are on the market. I say we don't let the perfect (trade) be the enemy of the good (trade).

This is well stated. However, there is going to be a feeding frenzy for Greinke this winter. It's a slim market for SP, and the Royals are likely going to be able to command a very steep price. Other ways of improving the roster will come more cheaply. Not saying Greinke is a poor target in the abstract -- he's a great target -- but the conditions of the 2010-2011 winter market may not make his acquisition the smartest move the team can make this offseason.

Slyder
10-19-2010, 02:32 PM
A player with Grienke's psychological issues profiles as a very poor target for any club looking to reduce uncertainty. The cost in talent and dollars to acquire and extend isn't worth it for a player that relies on playing with toy Tonka trucks to calm his nerves before and during starts.

Think Votto and Greinke could use each other to help get through any possible problems, IF there were any situations to arise? Those who have gone through similar situations tend to better understand it than others from the outside.

bucksfan2
10-19-2010, 02:40 PM
I don't know about Grienke. Just glancing at his numbers 2009 was far and away his best season. The issue you have to consider is which Grienke are you getting? The dominant Cy Young award winner? Or the good yet unspectacular pitcher. I am not going to go all in on Grienke if I am not positive that I can get the best out of him.

camisadelgolf
10-19-2010, 02:54 PM
Greinke

Brutus
10-19-2010, 04:28 PM
I don't know about Grienke. Just glancing at his numbers 2009 was far and away his best season. The issue you have to consider is which Grienke are you getting? The dominant Cy Young award winner? Or the good yet unspectacular pitcher. I am not going to go all in on Grienke if I am not positive that I can get the best out of him.

Even if you don't get 2009 Greinke, 2007, 2008 & 2010 Greinke gave the Royals this:

544 IP
470 K (7.78 per 9)
147 BB (2.43 per 9) - 3.2 K/BB
51 HR (0.84 per 9)
3.80 ERA
3.39 FIP

Even without getting 2009 version of him, that's some pretty good numbers to be getting.

bucksfan2
10-19-2010, 04:39 PM
Even if you don't get 2009 Greinke, 2007, 2008 & 2010 Greinke gave the Royals this:

544 IP
470 K (7.78 per 9)
147 BB (2.43 per 9) - 3.2 K/BB
51 HR (0.84 per 9)
3.80 ERA
3.39 FIP

Even without getting 2009 version of him, that's some pretty good numbers to be getting.

You going to empty the cupboard for that version?

Im not suggesting that Greinke was a bad pitcher in those years, just saying that I wouldn't pay a market premium for that.

Brutus
10-19-2010, 04:45 PM
You going to empty the cupboard for that version?

Im not suggesting that Greinke was a bad pitcher in those years, just saying that I wouldn't pay a market premium for that.

I don't empty the cupboard for anyone. But I pay fair market value for him knowing that he has 2009 upside in addition to an already terrific resume.

If fair market value is one of their starting pitchers, a high level prospect and a mid level prospect, then yes, I do pay for that.

TheNext44
10-19-2010, 04:57 PM
I don't empty the cupboard for anyone. But I pay fair market value for him knowing that he has 2009 upside in addition to an already terrific resume.

If fair market value is one of their starting pitchers, a high level prospect and a mid level prospect, then yes, I do pay for that.

If talking value, you have to figure in the $27M he will get over the next two years. For the Reds, that makes it impossible to addd anything else for next season. That means Gomes in left, Janish/Cozart/Cabrera at SS, and Francisco backing up Rolen. Not saying Greinke is not worth getting, but that has to be considered when considering how much to give up.

And the Royals are two years at least away from contending, which is why they are willing to trade Greinke. I don't them wanting anything other prospects.

Brutus
10-19-2010, 05:03 PM
If talking value, you have to figure in the $27M he will get over the next two years. For the Reds, that makes it impossible to addd anything else for next season. That means Gomes in left, Janish/Cozart/Cabrera at SS, and Francisco backing up Rolen. Not saying Greinke is not worth getting, but that has to be considered when considering how much to give up.

And the Royals are two years at least away from contending, which is why they are willing to trade Greinke. I don't them wanting anything other prospects.

Who says it's impossible? We don't know what the payroll will be. Something tells me the Reds will OK the addition of payroll if given the opportunity to add someone like Greinke.

And actually, wouldn't that mean no Cabrera and no Ramon? If they thought they could pull that trade off, they could actually save themselves $6 million by going with Janish & Mesoraco.

redsfandan
10-19-2010, 05:04 PM
Okay, I was fully in the camp of passing on Greinke due to my seeing our needs in other areas as being of more import. Thanks to some really solid arguments in this thread (Rick's most prominently), consider me in the other camp now. If we can get the deal done without completely emptying the cupboard, do it. However, I'd like to see some sort of contract extention in place prior to it (or at least some kind of assurance).

It doesn't happen very often, but a message board argument actually swayed my thinking. Well done gents.
Greinke makes $13.5M/yr now. How much do people think an extension would cost? Cuz I really have doubts about the wisdom of the Reds committing ALOT of money to a BIG extension to a pitcher when they've never had any player make that much before. Financial limitations are kinda important. If the Reds acquired him I'd hope they'd let him go when his contract is up and collect the draft picks as compensation. Greinke would be a nice bridge to help allow the young guys to have not quite as much pressure to fulfill all of their potential as soon as next year. But, as much as we may like the guy, I just couldn't give the kind of extension required to a pitcher. Especially when the Reds have got some nice arms already that are under their control for awhile to go. If we want to give alot of money to a new guy I'd much rather it be Werth and then leave the pitchers be and shortstop to Janish and Cozart (or an inexpensive stopgap if needed).