PDA

View Full Version : Assuming Cordero on waviers - Let him go?



RedsManRick
08-05-2008, 01:56 PM
Borrowing from the Sun Deck, what do you guys think about this? He has a no-trade, but I don't imagine that covers waivers. Presuming we could not work a trade due to his no-trade clause, would you let him go and have somebody else simply assume the contract?

I think it's highly likely nobody takes him, but if you can get out from underneath the contact, install Burton as the closer, and call up Roenicke, you'd have to think that puts us in much better position moving in to the offseason. And it would give Walt a lot more flexibility. The question is, would anybody take on the contract? Mets? Yankees? White Sox?

-edit-
Changed title to better reflect question.

flyer85
08-05-2008, 02:03 PM
Usually everyone is put on waivers ... and I highly doubt anyone claims him. It is simply to big of a risk that the Reds don't pull him back.

Strikes Out Looking
08-05-2008, 02:04 PM
There is nothing wrong with testing the waters. However, depending on Burton as your closer at this point makes me very nervous as he's had no closing experience at the big leauge level, which is why they signed Cordero in the first place.

IslandRed
08-05-2008, 02:14 PM
RMR, as I read the rules, Cordero's no-trade clause also shields him from what you're suggesting. From Cot's transactions primer:


* Trade Assignment waivers. Trade assignment waivers are utilized in August as a means to gauge trade interest. Between August 1 and the end of the season, a player may not be traded without first clearing trade assignment Major League waivers. If the player is not claimed within 47 business-day hours, he may be traded to any club. If the player is claimed by another club, the request may be revoked, allowing his current club to pull him back. However, the player’s current club also may 1) work out a trade with the claiming club within 48 ½ business-day hours, or 2) elect to allow the claiming club to take the player for a $20,000 fee and assume responsibility for his current contract. If more than one club claims a player, the club with the lower winning percentage has priority, but American League clubs have priority for AL players, and National League clubs have priority for NL players. Once a player on major league waivers has been claimed and the waiver request revoked, any subsequent request for major league waivers during the same waiver period is irrevocable. A player with a no-trade clause who is claimed on Major League waivers must be pulled back if the player’s no-trade clause allows him to block a deal to the claiming club. However, the player may waive the no-trade clause and join the claiming club.

The Reds can put him on waivers, but even if he's claimed, he isn't going unless he wants to go.

nate
08-05-2008, 02:20 PM
I think I would.

Both put him on waivers and let him go for someone else taking on his contract. I think it gives one the most flexibility in the offseason. With a lot of money, one could even dangle some of the untouchables to shore up an incredibly weak area and use money to replace the untouchable with...I dunno...touchable.

edabbs44
08-05-2008, 02:24 PM
Can we link this thread to the one when Cordero was signed? What a 180.

RedsManRick
08-05-2008, 02:28 PM
Thanks for the heads up IR. I don't think Cordero would go somewhere else to be a set up guy. I don't know what his priorities are though.

westofyou
08-05-2008, 02:31 PM
The Reds would be all the free agents target if they pulled that one, they'd be moving back into in Biittnerville on the open market with that move.

OnBaseMachine
08-05-2008, 02:32 PM
If they can get a top prospect for him then deal him. If they can't then hang on to him. He isn't having his best season but his numbers are still good. It's not like he's a liability out there like Danny Graves was. His K/9 is still strong as is his OPS against. I think he's going to be just fine.

redsmetz
08-05-2008, 02:33 PM
I know folks have basically decided that Cordero's salary is a luxury this club can't presently afford, but nothing would say "little league" like a move like this. Not to mention if he were to clear waivers and be released, we'd be on the hook for the entire contract less the major league minimum. Not a brainy move, IMO.

And, if we can't afford a contract like this, then we are too "little league" to be playing with the big boys. We ought to just pack it in.

camisadelgolf
08-05-2008, 02:33 PM
I like having him on the roster. He's a little expensive now, but the Reds can afford him (even if they extend Dunn), and in a couple years, assuming the Reds need the roster flexibility (which is highly likely in 2011), he could be traded to fill a need instead of being given away.

IslandRed
08-05-2008, 02:36 PM
I know folks have basically decided that Cordero's salary is a luxury this club can't presently afford, but nothing would say "little league" like a move like this. Not to mention if he were to clear waivers and be released, we'd be on the hook for the entire contract less the major league minimum. Not a brainy move, IMO.

Nobody's talking about releasing him. RMR was talking about the revocable trade waivers. Different thing entirely.

redsmetz
08-05-2008, 02:37 PM
Can we link this thread to the one when Cordero was signed? What a 180.

It gets a little schizophrenic around here, doesn't it? We must be getting ready for the ping pong games in the Olympics.

bucksfan2
08-05-2008, 02:44 PM
I don't understand why many have soured on Cordero so quickly. Sure he may have been signed a year too early but the Reds didn't have a better option. Who has said that Cordero's contract will prevent the Reds from signing someone this offseason. I hardly doubt that Cordero's contract will prevent the Reds from signing Dunn. Heck if the Reds had Cordero on the team in 06 and 07 they may have sniffed the playoffs.

If Castellini bulks on signing any FA's because of money I will be disapointed. If the Reds bulk at signing FA or resigning Dunn because it isn't the direction they want to go then that is fine with me. From everything I have seen Castellini has been willing to open up his check book when convinced that a particular move will help the Reds out. Ask yourself are the Reds better with or without Cordero.

princeton
08-05-2008, 02:48 PM
we won't have a choice of course.

but I'll play-- all of those kid pitchers that you're prematurely counting on to replace him? They'll all be terrible.

keep this guy.

Cyclone792
08-05-2008, 02:49 PM
It gets a little schizophrenic around here, doesn't it? We must be getting ready for the ping pong games in the Olympics.

My take on Cordero right now remains similar to what it was in the offseason when the deal occurred: I was fine with it.

Last year's bullpen stunk, and this bullpen needed some serious help. We saw earlier in the season the turn around in the relief performance when Cordero and Burton were leading the charge. For the most part, Cordero's struggles didn't begin until Burton landed on the DL and Dusty began overworking Cordero.

Cordero and Burton have proven to be a lethal combo. Get them some additional help next season, and we may be pretty happy with the 'pen performance.

Danny Serafini
08-05-2008, 02:49 PM
This is such an incredibly horrible idea that I'm surprised it's being discussed with the least bit of seriousness. Giving away assets for free isn't a good way to build anything.

RedsManRick
08-05-2008, 02:50 PM
I know folks have basically decided that Cordero's salary is a luxury this club can't presently afford, but nothing would say "little league" like a move like this. Not to mention if he were to clear waivers and be released, we'd be on the hook for the entire contract less the major league minimum. Not a brainy move, IMO.

And, if we can't afford a contract like this, then we are too "little league" to be playing with the big boys. We ought to just pack it in.

I'm not suggesting he should be released. If he's claimed, let the team take the contract. This isn't about getting rid of Cordero. Despite his save percentage he's a very effective reliever. The problem is that we've paid something like a 100% premium for some special "closer" skill whereby a reliever is able to apply his skill in high leverage situations better than others. Unfortunately, that skill doesn't actually exist.

The idea is to let the Yankees or Mets pay a premium to acquire a massive upgrade in an area of need for the sake of a playoff run. The Reds meanwhile get massive payroll flexibility. We could even turn around and plow 50% of that savings right back in to the bullpen and still be up enough to impact the team in other areas.

The problem with Cordero as an asset is that he costs more than he provides. Imagine you have a house worth $200,000. Unfortunately you took out a $400,000 mortgage on it. You've paid about $75,000 on it, but you're still left with a $200,000 house and $325,000 in debt. Let's say somebody else is willing to take both the house and the mortgage completely off your hands. Sure, you know don't have a home. But you do have the opportunity to get a different $200,000 house and only pay $200,000 for it, saving you $125,000 and leaving you in the same quality house.

If a player is costing you more than he's providing you value, and you don't need that production in the current year, then assuming you have an opportunity to turn cost savings back in to production by the time you need it (aka, 2009), then you gain by getting rid of that commitment. The Yankees or Mets can't afford to wait until November to shore up their bullpen if they want to win now, thus getting a player for "free" is a huge help.

dfs
08-05-2008, 02:51 PM
I know folks have basically decided that Cordero's salary is a luxury this club can't presently afford, but nothing would say "little league" like a move like this. Not to mention if he were to clear waivers and be released, we'd be on the hook for the entire contract less the major league minimum. Not a brainy move, IMO.

And, if we can't afford a contract like this, then we are too "little league" to be playing with the big boys. We ought to just pack it in.

Yup. Doing this when your club is planning on filling holes through free agency is just suicide.

Heck....this club is so bad we can't even make fun of the Pirates and the Nationals. Start pulling stunts like this and guys won't come here no matter how many dollar bills you stack up in front of them.

REDREAD
08-05-2008, 03:05 PM
Yup. Doing this when your club is planning on filling holes through free agency is just suicide.

Heck....this club is so bad we can't even make fun of the Pirates and the Nationals. Start pulling stunts like this and guys won't come here no matter how many dollar bills you stack up in front of them.


Yes, we have to remember that this is real life and not a computer game (where you can flip players on whim with no consequences).

Cordero is here at least until 2010, we might as well enjoy him.

Danny Serafini
08-05-2008, 03:12 PM
The problem with Cordero as an asset is that he costs more than he provides. Imagine you have a house worth $200,000. Unfortunately you took out a $400,000 mortgage on it. You've paid about $75,000 on it, but you're still left with a $200,000 house and $325,000 in debt. Let's say somebody else is willing to take both the house and the mortgage completely off your hands. Sure, you know don't have a home. But you do have the opportunity to get a different $200,000 house and only pay $200,000 for it, saving you $125,000 and leaving you in the same quality house.

The problem is assuming all houses are worth $200,000, when the building inspectors haven't finished going through the one on Burton Lane, and the house on Roenicke Avenue is only half built. I remember when people thought houses in the Coffey District would be worth $200,000, sadly that area of town is a bit run down now. Some luxuries are worth paying a bit extra for.

RedlegJake
08-05-2008, 03:16 PM
Revocable waivers are very misunderstood. Offering players on revocable waivers is done quite often by every team in the majors. It can possibly free up players for late season moves, and if a player is claimed you actually want to keep you simply pull him off waivers. Teams also will claim players to block possible trades, like a big chess match. Putting Cordero and others on waivers isn't mickey mouse or little league at all. It's high stakes chess that can mean something or often nothing at all. Putting a player on revocable waivers after the trade deadline does not mean you intend to give him away or no longer want him.

RedsManRick
08-05-2008, 03:23 PM
The problem is assuming all houses are worth $200,000, when the building inspectors haven't finished going through the one on Burton Lane, and the house on Roenicke Avenue is only half built. I remember when people thought houses in the Coffey District would be worth $200,000, sadly that area of town is a bit run down now. Some luxuries are worth paying a bit extra for.

I agree with the premise. I'm not suggesting that Burton or Roenicke are sure things either. But even if we decided to go back in to FA, we could sign a solid reliever capable of saving 80% of his opportunities for much less than the $13M committed to Cordero.

I have no problem with paying for luxuries. The problem is that you have to enough of the basics first. If the luxury cost of having a "proven closer" is prohibitive in securing sufficient talent elsewhere to allow him to matter, you've not accomplished anything.

And this presumes that having an established closer is a luxury worth paying for.

bucksfan2
08-05-2008, 03:24 PM
I'm not suggesting he should be released. If he's claimed, let the team take the contract. This isn't about getting rid of Cordero. Despite his save percentage he's a very effective reliever. The problem is that we've paid something like a 100% premium for some special "closer" skill whereby a reliever is able to apply his skill in high leverage situations better than others. Unfortunately, that skill doesn't actually exist.

The idea is to let the Yankees or Mets pay a premium to acquire a massive upgrade in an area of need for the sake of a playoff run. The Reds meanwhile get massive payroll flexibility. We could even turn around and plow 50% of that savings right back in to the bullpen and still be up enough to impact the team in other areas.

The problem with Cordero as an asset is that he costs more than he provides. Imagine you have a house worth $200,000. Unfortunately you took out a $400,000 mortgage on it. You've paid about $75,000 on it, but you're still left with a $200,000 house and $325,000 in debt. Let's say somebody else is willing to take both the house and the mortgage completely off your hands. Sure, you know don't have a home. But you do have the opportunity to get a different $200,000 house and only pay $200,000 for it, saving you $125,000 and leaving you in the same quality house.

If a player is costing you more than he's providing you value, and you don't need that production in the current year, then assuming you have an opportunity to turn cost savings back in to production by the time you need it (aka, 2009), then you gain by getting rid of that commitment. The Yankees or Mets can't afford to wait until November to shore up their bullpen if they want to win now, thus getting a player for "free" is a huge help.


Cordero = A horse?

RMR whose to say Cordero isn't performing to his contract? Look at the contract damaged goods Gagne got. You are basing Cordero's value on what? The only time Cordero's contract becomes a problem is if it prevents the Reds from signing someone in free agency.

Cordero is a good closer, right? Burton looks like he has stuff to be a closer, right? Now wouldn't the Reds be better off with both Burton and Cordero than just Burton. I think too often we can look at baseball and trades like we do in fantasy. In reality a trade or possible trade of Cordero is much much more complicated than it looks.

RedsManRick
08-05-2008, 03:36 PM
Cordero = A horse?

RMR whose to say Cordero isn't performing to his contract? Look at the contract damaged goods Gagne got. You are basing Cordero's value on what? The only time Cordero's contract becomes a problem is if it prevents the Reds from signing someone in free agency.

So a ridiculous contract is now the standard? Even then, a overpriced 1 year deal is very different than an overpriced 4 year deal. You pay the premium for the sake of the payflex. Cordero is used almost entirely in save situations and has saved 79% of his games. That's not elite; That's straight mediocrity. It's simply not worth $13M. David Weathers could've have done that for us this year. A decent middle reliever with a FIP in the 4.00 range can save 80% of his opportunities -- and they don't cost $13M. $13M should get you Joe Nathan, Felix Rodriguez, or Mariano Rivera -- not a Cordero.



Cordero is a good closer, right? Burton looks like he has stuff to be a closer, right? Now wouldn't the Reds be better off with both Burton and Cordero than just Burton. I think too often we can look at baseball and trades like we do in fantasy. In reality a trade or possible trade of Cordero is much much more complicated than it looks.

Cordero is a good relief pitcher. But he's not a $13M per year relief pitcher. The confusion comes when you start placing millions of dollars of value on the scarlet C. Closer isn't a position anymore than clean up hitter is. Imagine if Dunn only cost $5M instead of $15M because he bats 5th instead of being a "clean up hitter".

Cordero is a good pitcher, one who improves any staff he's on. But he's not worth $10M more than Ron Mahay, who also puts up an ERA in the mid 3's. You're right, unless the contract prohibits us from adding talent elsewhere, the money is irrelevant. So let's see how this offseason plays out. Is Dunn resigned? Are we a player in FA? What trade opportunties could we have pursued with more payroll available?


Now wouldn't the Reds be better off with both Burton and Cordero than just Burton?
The Reds would be better off with Jared Burton and $13M to spend in FA or on players acquired via trade than they would be with Burton and Cordero.

Johnny Footstool
08-05-2008, 03:47 PM
The Reds would spend that $13M overpaying someone else.

bucksfan2
08-05-2008, 03:57 PM
Cordero is a good relief pitcher. But he's not a $13M per year relief pitcher. The confusion comes when you start placing millions of dollars of value on the scarlet C. Closer isn't a position anymore than clean up hitter is. Imagine if Dunn only cost $5M instead of $15M because he bats 5th instead of being a "clean up hitter".

Cordero is a good pitcher, one who improves any staff he's on. But he's not worth $10M more than Ron Mahay, who also puts up an ERA in the mid 3's. You're right, unless the contract prohibits us from adding talent elsewhere, the money is irrelevant. So let's see how this offseason plays out. Is Dunn resigned? Are we a player in FA? What trade opportunties could we have pursued with more payroll available?

The Reds would be better off with Jared Burton and $13M to spend in FA or on players acquired via trade than they would be with Burton and Cordero.

Closer isn't a position? I disagree here. I know that Bill James advocates using your best pitcher in the most pressure situation. Well that is all and good on paper but it takes a certain mentality to be a closer. As a relief pitcher it is a lot easier to get outs in teh 8th inning than it is in the 9th inning. There is a reason why pitchers have been very good relieves but when you stick them in the closer slot they fail.

As I stated before in this thread it wouldn't bother me if Dunn were or weren't signed. I think Cordero's contract doesn't have any bearing on whether Dunn is signed. I think whether Dunn is signed is a decision that is made in the front office that really isn't burdened by his contract. If the front office decides that it is time to move on without Dunn then fine. If the front office decides that they want to invest their money elsewhere I am fine with that as well. Cordero's contract didn't stop the Reds from being active players in latin america. I didn't stop the Reds from drafting Alonso who looks like he is after more than slot money.

What if the Reds dump Cordero's contract this season. What does that tell other free agents? What does that tell the younger Reds? Who is going to want to commit to winning when the team will shed salary whenever?

Ron Mahay looks like he is having a good season but can he close? In his entire career he has 4 saves. Look at the Tigers they have better arms in Rodney and Zumaya (when healthy) yet Todd Jones and his high 80 mph fastball closes.

I would love to have Dunn for $5M/year but in reality that isn't going to happen. I would have loved to had Cordero for $4M like Mahay but that isn't going to happen. I would have loved to have a legit closer over the past 2 seasons but the Reds didn't. Cordero in 06 may have made the difference between a playoff slot and another disappointing season. Cordero in 07 may have led to a better baseball team. Think of how many more games the reds would have held in the 8th if the had one more bull pen arm. IMO Cordero is worth the money and will continue to be worth the money. Just because the Reds had a lackluster season in year 1 of his 4 year contract doesn't mean they will continue to do so for the remainder of his contract.

mbgrayson
08-05-2008, 04:22 PM
So a ridiculous contract is now the standard? Even then, a overpriced 1 year deal is very different than an overpriced 4 year deal. You pay the premium for the sake of the payflex. Cordero is used almost entirely in save situations and has saved 79% of his games. That's not elite; That's straight mediocrity. It's simply not worth $13M. David Weathers could've have done that for us this year. A decent middle reliever with a FIP in the 4.00 range can save 80% of his opportunities -- and they don't cost $13M. $13M should get you Joe Nathan, Felix Rodriguez, or Mariano Rivera -- not a Cordero.

Cordero is a good relief pitcher. But he's not a $13M per year relief pitcher. The confusion comes when you start placing millions of dollars of value on the scarlet C. Closer isn't a position anymore than clean up hitter is. Imagine if Dunn only cost $5M instead of $15M because he bats 5th instead of being a "clean up hitter".

Cordero is a good pitcher, one who improves any staff he's on. But he's not worth $10M more than Ron Mahay, who also puts up an ERA in the mid 3's. You're right, unless the contract prohibits us from adding talent elsewhere, the money is irrelevant. So let's see how this offseason plays out. Is Dunn resigned? Are we a player in FA? What trade opportunties could we have pursued with more payroll available?

The Reds would be better off with Jared Burton and $13M to spend in FA or on players acquired via trade than they would be with Burton and Cordero.

RMR, I agree with this 100%. I have said that we were over-paying from the beginning on Cordero.

Look at what the Mariners have done when JJ Putz got hurt. They put a young reliever, who makes MLB minimum, into the closer role. Brandon Morrow, who just turned 24, has 10 saves and 2 blown saves this year for Seattle. His ERA is 1.47, his WHIP is .90, and his K/9 is 11.54. All of these numbers are equal to or better than Cordero, at a fraction of the cost. Morrow was the Mariners 2006 1st round pick, and he is a very good pitcher. I don't mean to suggest that Morrow is a replacement level hack....no way. But Seattle has put him in a good position this year, and they have a 'closer' as good as Cordero at a low cost. Even the way they developed Putz was similar. Putz was a 6th round pick who Eddie Guardado took under his wing. When Guardado faultered, Putz was promoted to 'closer'. Beane has done the same thing in Oakland.

I again will say that this is the smarter way of finding a closer. By developing within the organization, you save a lot of money. Small market teams like the Reds need to be smart about where they put their limited resources, and buying a slightly above average closer for top dollar, let alone for 4 years, was not a wise use of money.

princeton
08-05-2008, 04:22 PM
as stated in LAST WEEK'S thread about trading Cordero-- he has a no-trade. Only way you deal him is if the other team offers an extension. Given his age, and length of the current contract, that won't happen.

on the plus side, the longer he remains healthy and effective, the better his contract looks to the Reds :thumbup:

if we trade him, it'll be after the no-trade expires. come back in a couple of years.

Jpup
08-05-2008, 04:33 PM
I can't imagine a good reason to trade him. He's very good IMO.

Chip R
08-05-2008, 04:42 PM
as stated in LAST WEEK'S thread about trading Cordero-- he has a no-trade.


I think we should have a "trade Codero" thread every week. It's a hoot.

RedsManRick
08-05-2008, 05:05 PM
That Todd Jones is a "closer" is a perfect example that protecting a lead for an inning simply ain't that hard. He's a crappy reliever and still manages to close most games. It's not due to some magic "closer" ability, but rather that most major league pitchers can get through an inning without giving up 2 or 3 runs on a regular basis.

Accruing saves isn't a skill. Getting out hitters is. The best closers are the ones who prevent the most runs -- the saves simply come along for the ride. Cordero is a good pitcher who prevents runs, and is good in high leverage situations because of his high strikeout rate. And yes, there are some guys who shrink in pressure situations, be those tie ballgames in the 7th or 2 run leads in the 9th. But being a "closer", as if it were a specific skill set in and of itself, is just a tag created by agents looking to justify higher salaries for good relievers being used to get the last out.

As for the "what does this tell other players" question -- I think it tells them that you get paid for your production as properly measured, not for merely accruing certain stats. And it says that the Reds are going to use their resources as intelligently as possible to win.

Anyways, as has been pointed out more than once, Cordero holds the power here with his no-trade. I don't think he'd want to take a "demotion" to be a high leverage set up guy in New York or elsewhere, so the topic is probably moot.

Jim Caple with a timely article on the topic: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=caple/080805

OnBaseMachine
08-05-2008, 05:16 PM
I like having Cordero around. In addition to giving the Reds a power arm at the back of the bullpen he does other things that shouldn't be ignored like mentoring Johnny Cueto and Edinson Volquez and taking them under his wing. It's gotta be tough for a young Dominican player (or any young player) to get adjusted to new surroundings and having Cordero around has helped them a lot judging from their comments. I believe I remember reading that they refer to Cordero as their dad as an inside joke. That type of stuff shouldn't go unnoticed when judging his impact this season or in the future.

Falls City Beer
08-05-2008, 06:11 PM
Absolutely you let him go.

Whether or not it'll happen, Walt will work tirelessly at moving the guy in the offseason, you can count on that. Jocketty doesn't cotton to the yips.

TeamBoone
08-05-2008, 07:42 PM
Well, he's certainly not a reliable closer, though he receives that kind of money. It's always an adventure... one that I don't particularly like.

Not sure what the alternative would be though. If healthy, I'd take my chances on Burton.

Spring~Fields
08-05-2008, 08:55 PM
I agree with the “can do”, “go for it” group to let him go.

I want Mr. Jocketty to have all the financial tools and flexibility that he finds comfortable to work with to build his team, his immediate competitors are too far ahead not to.

princeton
08-05-2008, 09:48 PM
I think we should have a "trade Codero" thread every week. It's a hoot.

I'd option WMP to Louisville, too.

REDREAD
08-06-2008, 11:10 AM
I guess we are seeing that maybe the Brewers are a smarter franchise than the Reds after all. I admit I was excited about Cordero being signed. I think he still has a lot value in the Reds' pen.

On the flip side though, a franchise like the Reds is going to have to overpay for FAs, just like KC and Pittsburg. Hopefully we can get back to the glory days when players wanted to come here.

Spring~Fields
08-06-2008, 12:02 PM
I guess we are seeing that maybe the Brewers are a smarter franchise than the Reds after all. I admit I was excited about Cordero being signed. I think he still has a lot value in the Reds' pen.

On the flip side though, a franchise like the Reds is going to have to overpay for FAs, just like KC and Pittsburg. Hopefully we can get back to the glory days when players wanted to come here.

Dusty said that he could attract players to play in Cincinnati.

Everything should be just fine.

Chip R
08-06-2008, 12:11 PM
I guess we are seeing that maybe the Brewers are a smarter franchise than the Reds after all. I admit I was excited about Cordero being signed. I think he still has a lot value in the Reds' pen.

On the flip side though, a franchise like the Reds is going to have to overpay for FAs, just like KC and Pittsburg. Hopefully we can get back to the glory days when players wanted to come here.


We'll definitely have to overpay if we start trading guys in the middle of long term deals who may or may not have no-trade clauses in their deals.

camisadelgolf
08-06-2008, 02:14 PM
I guess we are seeing that maybe the Brewers are a smarter franchise than the Reds after all. I admit I was excited about Cordero being signed. I think he still has a lot value in the Reds' pen.

On the flip side though, a franchise like the Reds is going to have to overpay for FAs, just like KC and Pittsburg. Hopefully we can get back to the glory days when players wanted to come here.

Actually, the Brewers said they might have matched the Reds' offer if they were given the opportunity. They were pretty disappointed that Cordero didn't give them that chance.

westofyou
08-06-2008, 02:42 PM
In the end, Melvin stopped at four years and $42 million, with an option year included in the package. That turned out to be $4 million shy when Cordero agreed today to a four-year deal with the Cincinnati Reds for $46 million, with an option year for another $11 million.

"It's a tough loss for us, no doubt," said Melvin, who was "a little surprised" to learn Cincinnati made the top offer to Cordero. "We'll just have to move on."

http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2007/11/24/francisco-cordero-signing-with-the-reds-surprised-doug-melvin/

Roy Tucker
08-06-2008, 02:58 PM
I'd option WMP to Louisville, too.

Move Phillips to SS too.

westofyou
08-06-2008, 03:16 PM
Move Phillips to SS too.

And get Dunn to cut down on his K's and go the other way.

KronoRed
08-06-2008, 03:20 PM
And get Dunn to cut down on his K's and go the other way.

Don't forget shorten his swing and hustle out to LF.

Team Clark
08-06-2008, 03:27 PM
Don't forget shorten his swing and hustle out to LF.

Why do the Reds need Dunn when all Norris Hopper has to do is walk more and hit more home runs? How hard is that? :D

camisadelgolf
08-06-2008, 03:28 PM
http://mlb.fanhouse.com/2007/11/24/francisco-cordero-signing-with-the-reds-surprised-doug-melvin/

"I recall we did make a proposal but we didn't get a counter (offer)," said Melvin. "We never reached any type of negotiating stage. I don't know if they gave us a chance. They never gave us a proposal."

jojo
08-07-2008, 12:20 AM
I wonder if Cordero would waive his no trade rights if Milwaukee claimed him? Surely the Cards would pounce if given the opportunity.

Falls City Beer
08-07-2008, 12:52 AM
I wonder if Cordero would waive his no trade rights if Milwaukee claimed him? Surely the Cards would pounce if given the opportunity.

I imagine getting him to toss his "no trade" would be a piece of cake. Unless money's at stake, I can't imagine the guy would want to stick around for another reordering/rebuilding.

And the feeling is mutual.

WVRedsFan
08-07-2008, 01:00 AM
I imagine getting him to toss his "no trade" would be a piece of cake. Unless money's at stake, I can't imagine the guy would want to stick around for another reordering/rebuilding.

And the feeling is mutual.

I disagree. I don't think anyone would claim him. He has shown to be pretty unreliable and with his past history in Texas, I imagine most would stay away, especially with that contract. Plus, he's the BMOC here in this "easy" market.

We're stuck with him.

REDREAD
08-07-2008, 10:18 AM
Actually, the Brewers said they might have matched the Reds' offer if they were given the opportunity. They were pretty disappointed that Cordero didn't give them that chance.

I remember Cordero going back to Milwaukee, and the Brewers telling him they already made their best offer.

There was a thread discussing whether or not Wayne pulled some kind of brilliant surprise move that Milwaukee wasn't expecting. I think the Brewers were surprised a team like the Reds would spend that much on Cordero, but they weren't surprised to find out Cordero was out to maximize his payday by going to the highest bidder.

Perhaps I am remembering wrong. Maybe Cordero did want out of Milwaukee badly. I'm guessing he gave them a chance to raise their bid though. Perhaps Melvin was being diplomatic when he said "We didn't have a chance". That sounds a lot better than "I didn't want to overpay".

princeton
08-07-2008, 10:23 AM
I imagine getting him to toss his "no trade" would be a piece of cake. Unless money's at stake, I can't imagine the guy would want to stick around for another reordering/rebuilding.

you're cute when you're this naive

CoCo's agent: "of course he'll move-- what's the extension that you're offering?"

Falls City Beer
08-07-2008, 11:11 AM
you're cute when you're this naive

CoCo's agent: "of course he'll move-- what's the extension that you're offering?"

Naive? Not sure I follow. He's entitled to be Jared Burton's setup man if he wants that job in Cincy.

princeton
08-07-2008, 11:40 AM
CoCo likes two things: strikeouts and money. if he wanted to save playoff games, or to be loyal to his teammates, he wouldn't have signed with Cincy.

he gets his strikeouts and money fix here, regardless of the role. he's also happy to get his strikeouts elsewhere-- but it'll cost you.

camisadelgolf
08-07-2008, 11:42 AM
I remember Cordero going back to Milwaukee, and the Brewers telling him they already made their best offer.

There was a thread discussing whether or not Wayne pulled some kind of brilliant surprise move that Milwaukee wasn't expecting. I think the Brewers were surprised a team like the Reds would spend that much on Cordero, but they weren't surprised to find out Cordero was out to maximize his payday by going to the highest bidder.

Perhaps I am remembering wrong. Maybe Cordero did want out of Milwaukee badly. I'm guessing he gave them a chance to raise their bid though. Perhaps Melvin was being diplomatic when he said "We didn't have a chance". That sounds a lot better than "I didn't want to overpay".

The way I recall is that Milwaukee made an offer ($40mm?), and then Cordero's people said they'd shop around. Then, Cordero's people reported back to Milwaukee's people, so Milwauke raised its offer by a couple million dollars. Then, the Reds came in, and instead of going back one more time to Milwaukee, Cordero & co. just accepted the contract the Reds offered.

dfs
08-07-2008, 11:54 AM
Naive? Not sure I follow. He's entitled to be Jared Burton's setup man if he wants that job in Cincy.

And the reds never sign another free agent ever.
Who would EVER come here for a management team that behaved that way?

Falls City Beer
08-07-2008, 11:59 AM
And the reds never sign another free agent ever.
Who would EVER come here for a management team that behaved that way?

You mean how the Cards demoted an even better pitcher in Isringhausen to setup man for a while?

This crap about "no FA will ever come" is ridiculous. If the money's there, they'll come. End of discussion.

OnBaseMachine
08-07-2008, 12:08 PM
You mean how the Cards demoted an even better pitcher in Isringhausen to setup man for a while?

This crap about "no FA will ever come" is ridiculous. If the money's there, they'll come. End of discussion.

Isringhausen is better than Cordero? That is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. Good grief FCB, I know he's a Cardinal but saying Isringhausen is better than Cordero at this point is just beyond comical.

Falls City Beer
08-07-2008, 12:10 PM
Isringhausen is better than Cordero? That is hilarious. Thanks for the laugh. Good grief FCB, I know he's a Cardinal but saying Isringhausen is better than Cordero at this point is just beyond comical.

Not just this season--historically. This season Isringhausen was injured. But he was demoted. Do you honestly believe that that demotion will prevent the Cards from acquiring FA?

flyer85
08-07-2008, 12:14 PM
And the reds never sign another free agent ever.
that list of free agents who signed a multi-year deal with the Reds and made a positive impact is such a long one.

OnBaseMachine
08-07-2008, 12:16 PM
Not just this season--historically. This season Isringhausen was injured. But he was demoted. Do you honestly believe that that demotion will prevent the Cards from acquiring FA?

I don't even know if I would go that far.

Francisco Cordero:

555.1 IP
3.29 ERA
.674 OPS against
9.43 K/9
2.23 K/BB

Jason Isringhausen:

903.1 IP
3.63 ERA
.668 OPS against
7.40 K/9
1.92 K/BB

nate
08-07-2008, 12:33 PM
Not just this season--historically.

Interesting. Made me look at a comparison of the two.

Link (http://www.fangraphs.com/comparison.aspx?playerid=1158&playerid2=1243&playerid3=&position=P&page=0&type=full)

westofyou
08-07-2008, 12:42 PM
that list of free agents who signed a multi-year deal with the Reds and made a positive impact is such a long one.

Right... and none of that has to do with the teams initial stance on FA's, nor the Marge/Lindner years either.

But let's not those facts get in the way of that broad general statement of truth.

New ownership has indicated they will approach the situation differently, thus the past is not the template anymore.

flyer85
08-07-2008, 12:48 PM
New ownership has indicated they will approach the situation differently, thus the past is not the template anymore.I think the situation has as much to do with the Reds place in the hierarchy than anything. They can't match the big market clubs for the really top level free agents(even if they could spend the money the risk is inordinately high by comparison) and the ones that can be acquired in the middle tier are way overpriced. There is a very good reason for a smaller market club like the Reds to stay out of the long term free agent market unless you feel you are acquiring a final piece to the puzzle.

dfs
08-07-2008, 12:59 PM
that list of free agents who signed a multi-year deal with the Reds and made a positive impact is such a long one.
Parker pretty much defines the list doesn't he?

The comparison with Isringhausen is a blind alley. Isringhausen signed as a free agent seven years ago to be with a familiar coach and manager. After doing well with the cards for several years, he's put up a 6.28 era this season and been demoted. On the other hand Cordero signed this last offseason clearly chasing the highest dollar figure. He's put up 3.28 ERA and you're talking about demoting him, not for of performance reasons, but because he's expensive.

I agree that the free agent market is a risky place. But I don't see taking that away as an option when you do have a hole to fill. If you sign a top tier free agent to a multiyear big money contract and he performs passably in the role that you signed him for, to then play hardball with him in order to get out from under the contract you signed with him .... I think that would make it very hard to go back to that well.

Notice that after Jeff Shaw, just about everybody who signed with the reds insisted on a no-trade contract? Ever wonder why that is? It's because guys don't trust the reds front office.

redsmetz
08-07-2008, 01:07 PM
Notice that after Jeff Shaw, just about everybody who signed with the reds insisted on a no-trade contract? Ever wonder why that is? It's because guys don't trust the reds front office.

What? You wouldn't trust this guy?

http://washington.nationals.mlb.com/images/2008/01/05/2I76KeA9.jpg

Falls City Beer
08-07-2008, 01:17 PM
I don't even know if I would go that far.

Francisco Cordero:

555.1 IP
3.29 ERA
.674 OPS against
9.43 K/9
2.23 K/BB

Jason Isringhausen:

903.1 IP
3.63 ERA
.668 OPS against
7.40 K/9
1.92 K/BB

Wait a minute. You're including Izzy's nearly two seasons' worth as a failed starter there. That's not exactly fair.

Compare them *strictly* as relievers.

OnBaseMachine
08-07-2008, 01:21 PM
Wait a minute. You're including Izzy's nearly two seasons' worth as a failed starter there. That's not exactly fair.

Compare them *strictly* as relievers.

Do I get to exclude Cordero's bad 2000 season? Another thing we need to look at when making this comparison is Cordero has spent the majority of his career pitching in small hitter friendly ballparks like in Texas and Cincy, whereas Isringhausen has had the privilege of pitching in pitcher friendly ballparks like Oakland, Shea Stadium, and Busch Stadium.

Falls City Beer
08-07-2008, 01:27 PM
Do I get to exclude Cordero's bad 2000 season? Another thing we need to look at when making this comparison is Cordero has spent the majority of his career pitching in small hitter friendly ballparks like in Texas and Cincy, whereas Isringhausen has had the privilege of pitching in pitcher friendly ballparks like Oakland, Shea Stadium, and Busch Stadium.

Why throw out his 2000 season? He wasn't a starter. Just do an apples to apples comparison.

And Izzy pitched a lot in Busch, which was the equivalent of Cinergy--a pretty neutral park.

OnBaseMachine
08-07-2008, 01:29 PM
And Izzy pitched a lot in Busch, which was the equivalent of Cinergy--a pretty neutral park.

This is his 13th year in the majors and he spent only four of those seasons in the old Busch Stadium.

Falls City Beer
08-07-2008, 01:44 PM
This is his 13th year in the majors and he spent only four of those seasons in the old Busch Stadium.

He's been a full-time reliever for 10 seasons. He's never spent more time as a reliever in any other stadium. Don't be obtuse.

As a reliever, Izzy buries Cordero.

OnBaseMachine
08-07-2008, 02:03 PM
He's been a full-time reliever for 10 seasons. He's never spent more time as a reliever in any other stadium. Don't be obtuse.

As a reliever, Izzy buries Cordero.

And yet Cordero has a better ERA, higher K/9, better K/BB, and similar OPS against.

nate
08-07-2008, 02:10 PM
He's been a full-time reliever for 10 seasons. He's never spent more time as a reliever in any other stadium. Don't be obtuse.

As a reliever, Izzy buries Cordero.

Not that Izzy isn't good, but "buries" Cordero?

In what stat? Time on the DL?

OnBaseMachine
08-07-2008, 02:15 PM
Not that Izzy isn't good, but "buries" Cordero?

In what stat? Time on the DL?

Isringhausen is a Cardinal, Cordero is a Red. Playing for the Cardinals automatically makes him a better person and a better pitcher. ;)

Spring~Fields
08-07-2008, 02:21 PM
Don't forget shorten his swing and hustle out to LF.

Can't have those base cloggers and their high OBP getting in the way. ;)

Spring~Fields
08-07-2008, 02:23 PM
Why do the Reds need Dunn when all Norris Hopper has to do is walk more and hit more home runs? How hard is that? :D

But, Corey Patterson can do both and he is speedy. :)

Patterson an extension while Dunn and Hopper walk ?

flyer85
08-07-2008, 02:26 PM
How did this morph into a Izzy or Coco debate?

redsmetz
08-07-2008, 02:35 PM
How did this morph into a Izzy or Coco debate?

It's Redszone?

flyer85
08-07-2008, 02:36 PM
It's Redszone?Then where are the Dunn and Stubbs diatribes?

Falls City Beer
08-07-2008, 04:21 PM
Not that Izzy isn't good, but "buries" Cordero?

In what stat? Time on the DL?

As a reliever, yes. He's a much better reliever than Cordero.

But yeah, Izzy did suck as a starter.

redsmetz
08-07-2008, 04:48 PM
As a reliever, yes. He's a much better reliever than Cordero.

But yeah, Izzy did suck as a starter.

Clearly you've never spoken to my in-laws who are convinced he's worthless. I guess it just depends on your perspective.

Spring~Fields
08-07-2008, 06:38 PM
Clearly you've never spoken to my in-laws who are convinced he's worthless. I guess it just depends on your perspective.

:lol:

*BaseClogger*
08-07-2008, 07:30 PM
Isringhausen
584.3 IP as RP
8.1 K/9
3.8 BB/9
0.68 HR/9


Cordero
551.3 IP as RP
9.4 K/9
4.2 BB/9
0.65 HR/9

I don't see vastly different pitchers. Does this matter? Case closed...

Topcat
08-07-2008, 07:49 PM
Not the kind of message. I would want to send free agents in coming years.

mbgrayson
08-09-2008, 02:07 AM
I think we should 'see if he might sneak through waivers, and then trade him....'

As I said in THIS THREAD (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63824)on November 27th, 2007:

I predict that we will all be looking at the acquisition of Mr. Cordero as ‘Eric Milton II’ in a few years.

RedsManRick
08-09-2008, 02:53 AM
I think we should 'see if he might sneak through waivers, and then trade him....'

As I said in THIS THREAD (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showthread.php?t=63824)on November 27th, 2007:

There's a very big difference between "not worth the money" and "not worth a roster spot and league minimum".

camisadelgolf
08-09-2008, 03:20 AM
There's no doubt that Cordero is over-paid, but the need was so big at the time of the signing that he could justify a lot of his high salary. After this year, Jeremy Affeldt, Mike Lincoln, and Dave Weathers, et al could all be gone, which would only increase the need.