PDA

View Full Version : Who to Keep? Who to Deal?



mth123
08-31-2008, 07:36 AM
We can disagree about the rankings, but one thing I think is clear is that the Reds have some depth and in the current situation that is a good thing. In order to turn things around the Reds are going to have to bring in some things that they need. Specifically a catcher, a young athletic SS who can hit a little and maybe another starter. To do that, the team is going to need to deal off a few of their young players. My thinking is that you identify a few you want to hang on to, deal others with trade value and backfill the guys that were traded with some of the sleepers coming up behind them.

Of course everyone is available in the right deal, but the likely scenario for getting what is needed without overpaying is what we're trying to identify. IMO, the keepers on offense are Frazier, Soto and Alonso. But beyond them who to deal?


1. Juan Francisco - Francisco plays the most crowded spot in the organization. The team has a young starter in EdE who may or may not be a long term answer there. At least one (Soto) if not two (Frazier) of the top guys will likley end-up there and the team has a similar but probably less in demand player in Brandon Waring coming up behind Francisco. Francisco's age and HR bat IMO have him a more valuable trade commodity than Waring and even Soto may still be undervalued by many teams. Francisco seems to be a guy the Reds could deal for other needs and not suffer much with the alternatives still on board, while avoiding the risk of his potentially fatal free swinging flaw.

2. Chris Valaika - This is a guy who has made a bit of a name for himself with his bat. For him to be successful in the big leagues though, that bat will have to be stationed at 2B. I don't believe its a certainty that he can play there. Add that the team has arguably its best player at the spot and guys like Keppinger, Rosales and even Turner, who may be able to do what Valaika can do, and he seems expendable.

3. Drew Stubbs - The OF is pretty crowded. Dickerson looks like a guy that could at least platoon in CF and with the Reds probably stuck with Freel as his platoon mate, it leaves CF a little crowded in 2009. Stubbs was a high draft pick who has the defensive chops to play the spot and has really come on in the second half of 2008. IMO he probably has a lot of trade value. I certainly wouldn't give him away, but if he could be swapped for a similar prospect at SS or C, I'd do it. Guys like Cumberland, Henry and Heisey may be able to fill the same role as Stubbs without too much of a drop off by 2010(especially Heisey in CF) but surely don't carry the trade value that Stubbs probably does. Stubbs for Taylor Teagarden? Sign me up for that one.

The pitching side is a little less clear IMO. Thompson looked like a comer early in the year, but his injury clouds the situation. Lotzkar was probably the best of the younger guys, but he too has an injury concern. Matt Maloney created some buzz last year but has had a poor season. Homer Bailey no longer qualifies as a "prospect" and he has probably had a drop in value, but IMO he's still the best bet in the minors to be a plus starter some day. Travis Wood was once highly thought of, but a couple injured and ineffective years likely have his value down. Sam Lecure, Ben Jukich and Ramon Ramirez have been effective but I'd guess have little trade value. With the Major League rotation likley set with Harang, Arroyo, Volquez, Cueto and the not yet official Micah Owings, the team needs guys who can be depth at AAA and effective replacements down the road. IMO the team should cautiously shop Bailey and Maloney (I still think Bailey will be a stud eventually). They probably have the most value of the minor league guys. Bailey because of his former status and Maloney as a high K lefty. The next guys in line who will be AAA depth are likely to be Thompson, Ramirez, Lecure, and Jukich. Wood, Dallas Buck, Jordan Smith, and Alex Smit will be in the pipeline at AA.

So the primary shop list: Francisco, Valaika, Stubbs, Bailey and Maloney. Throw in any of a number of pen arms (Fisher, Watson, Manual, Lutz, Tabor, etc.) and lesser but possibly intriguing position players (Eyman, Parker, Reed. K. Jones, Phipps, Gutierrez, etc.) and the team should be able to acquire some help in areas of need.

lollipopcurve
08-31-2008, 08:40 AM
Stubbs for Taylor Teagarden?

Texas has a couple of CF prospects already -- Julio Borbon and Engel Beltre. It's fun to think about prospect for prospect deals -- and it would be nice if teams made those kind of trades more often -- but the dealing from depth that the Reds may do will most likely be for a "proven veteran," like Bengie Molina. One possible complication to finding a trade partner is that the Reds don't much starting pitching in the system.

mth123
08-31-2008, 08:58 AM
Texas has a couple of CF prospects already -- Julio Borbon and Engel Beltre. It's fun to think about prospect for prospect deals -- and it would be nice if teams made those kind of trades more often -- but the dealing from depth that the Reds may do will most likely be for a "proven veteran," like Bengie Molina. One possible complication to finding a trade partner is that the Reds don't much starting pitching in the system.

Agree, Just a for instance. I haven't looked real closely for match-ups. Just trying to make the point that trading a guy like Stubbs shouldn't be out of the question. The team has depth and Stubbs has value.

kpresidente
08-31-2008, 09:57 AM
3. Drew Stubbs - The OF is pretty crowded. Dickerson looks like a guy that could at least platoon in CF and with the Reds probably stuck with Freel as his platoon mate, it leaves CF a little crowded in 2009.

Freel doesn't show a big enough split (.708 vs. 738 OPS 3-year) to make a good platoon player.

I want Stubbs to be Dickerson's platoon partner. None of our other outfield prospects provide the same defense.


All in all, if they're going to trade some of these B/C prospects to avoid a log-jam, I'd rather them go for lower-level prospects than try to package them for a big-league player. I just don't think they have that much value. I really don't want to trade any of them right now, to be honest.

redhawk61
08-31-2008, 10:01 AM
How about Dickerson as the trade piece with his highest value now. Stubbs has the potential to be the best player in the league at his position.

PuffyPig
08-31-2008, 10:40 AM
Drew Stubbs - The OF is pretty crowded. Dickerson looks like a guy that could at least platoon in CF and with the Reds probably stuck with Freel as his platoon mate, it leaves CF a little crowded in 2009. Stubbs was a high draft pick who has the defensive chops to play the spot and has really come on in the second half of 2008. IMO he probably has a lot of trade value. I certainly wouldn't give him away, but if he could be swapped for a similar prospect at SS or C, I'd do it. Guys like Cumberland, Henry and Heisey may be able to fill the same role as Stubbs without too much of a drop off by 2010(especially Heisey in CF) but surely don't carry the trade value that Stubbs probably does. Stubbs for Taylor Teagarden? Sign me up for that one.



I'm not going to debate the merits of the trade, but we have zero depth in the OF.

Going into 2009, we have, arguably, zero sure things at the majors level.

Now, Bruce will play RF, but he hasn't exactly burned it up this season. Now, I'm not saying he won't, just that he hasn't.

Our #2 OF going into 2009 is Dickerson. That's the same guy that most around here felt as little as 2-3 months ago would never cut it in the majors.

Our #3 OF going into 2009 is currently not in the Reds system.

The Reds OF is so crowded that no one plays there anymore.

dougdirt
08-31-2008, 10:44 AM
There is no untouchable in the system right now. Zero. It would be tough to give up Soto and Stubbs (just because he fits a pressing need and is in AAA currently with success), but given the right return there is certainly no one who is untouchable like we had last offseason.

mth123
08-31-2008, 10:55 AM
I'm not going to debate the merits of the trade, but we have zero depth in the OF.

Going into 2009, we have, arguably, zero sure things at the majors level.

Now, Bruce will play RF, but he hasn't exactly burned it up this season. Now, I'm not saying he won't, just that he hasn't.

Our #2 OF going into 2009 is Dickerson. That's the same guy that most around here felt as little as 2-3 months ago would never cut it in the majors.

Our #3 OF going into 2009 is currently not in the Reds system.

The Reds OF is so crowded that no one plays there anymore.

Firstly, I'm posting in the minor league forum and referring to organizational depth. Secondly, I think the OF is going to be Bruce, Dickerson, and one of either EdE or Votto. Freel will be there and probably Hopper. Bruce, Dorn, Henry and Cumberland and maybe even Heisey may all be ready by the end of 2009. Some will wash out but there is enough similar depth that dealing a few is an idea that the team should pursue. Out of that group Bruce is untouchable and Stubbs is probably the only other one that has decent trade value unless Votto or EdE is dealt.

PuffyPig
08-31-2008, 11:25 AM
Secondly, I think the OF is going to be Bruce, Dickerson, and one of either EdE or Votto.

I doubt that EE or Votto will move to the OF for the simple reason it weakens two spots. There is currently no one in house projected to play in 2009 to take either of those postions.

It's way easier to find a LF on the FA market than a thirdbaseman or even a firstbaseman.

mth123
08-31-2008, 11:56 AM
I doubt that EE or Votto will move to the OF for the simple reason it weakens two spots. There is currently no one in house projected to play in 2009 to take either of those postions.

It's way easier to find a LF on the FA market than a thirdbaseman or even a firstbaseman.

Maybe, but I doubt that the Reds are going to sign a long term deal for a big name at 1B or LF. With Yonder and Frazier on the way I find it hard to believe that somebody won't be moved to make room. Since Walt proclaimed that both EdE and Votto were untouchable, I have to think that one will be moved to LF to make room. I also think that Yonder is probably in the long term plan since Jocketty drafted and signed him. That would probably mean Votto to the OF.

As for the weaken's at two spots stuff, Votto is to 1B play what David Ross was to catching. He does some things well but the thing he absolutely has to do, he doesn't do so well. Votto is not very good around the bag and in taking throws from the other IF. I think he costs the team a lot of baserunners because of it. His strengths actually are more useful in the OF than at 1B and his weakness at 1B is much more detrimental than it would be in LF. He's young, fairly athletic and more mobile than people may realize. If he can learn to read a fly ball off the bat, he can be pretty decent in LF where the defensive bar is pretty low anyway. Signing a stopgap 1B who can contribute a little on offense until Yonder is ready shouldn't be hard. The team could go with some one like Doug Mientkiewicz or Kevin Millar (or both) for a year. It may address the whole "veteran presence" issue that seems important to this organization as well and those type guys could still fit on the bench after Yonder arrives. Votto in LF and a stopgap at 1B would actually improve the team at 2 spots IMO. Of course that is all based on my thinking that Votto really hurts the team defensively at 1B. I'd agree that an EdE move looks less likely and probably would hurt the team until one of the kids comes along to take over at 3B.

Betterread
08-31-2008, 12:31 PM
I think Stubbs can really help the team at CF. In my opinion, keep both Dickerson and Stubbs - their fielding and athletic skills could serve them as a 4th OFer.
I think Valaika and Frazier would be good off-season trade chips.
I don't like trading younger talent (Soto, Lotzkar and Francisco) until their ceiling and liklihood of reaching it are more established. Of course, that usually means that they lose value, but you have to see if what you hoped you saw talentwise will emerge.
I would trade anyone in the farm system for a legitimate C or SS.
The Reds really need a real C and a SS.

redhawk61
08-31-2008, 12:37 PM
I think Stubbs can really help the team at CF. In my opinion, keep both Dickerson and Stubbs - their fielding and athletic skills could serve them as a 4th OFer.
I think Valaika and Frazier would be good off-season trade chips.
I don't like trading younger talent (Soto, Lotzkar and Francisco) until their ceiling and liklihood of reaching it are more established. Of course, that usually means that they lose value, but you have to see if what you hoped you saw talentwise will emerge.
I would trade anyone in the farm system for a legitimate C or SS.
The Reds really need a real C and a SS.
I'm gonna keep spreading the word until it happens, but the Reds SS of the future is currently with the Dodgers:
http://www.minorleaguebaseball.com/milb/stats/stats.jsp?n=Ivan%20De%20Jesus&pos=SS&sid=milb&t=p_pbp&pid=474443

Son of former major leaguer Ivan De Jesus, the junior De Jesus displays plus defense at shortstop; Baseball America has said that he has the organizationís best infield arm. Around two years younger than his peers, De Jesus has shown excellent plate discipline and judgment of the strike zone as evidenced by his high BB% and low K%. He also has shown the ability to hit for a moderately high average.
The negative for De Jesus is that he has displayed minimal power thus far (though he did show increased power last year). Although he has a small build, his swing has the potential for more power than his current numbers indicate; however, he needs more loft and a bigger load to reach that potential. Of course, the big positive is that De Jesus doesnít have to have much of a bat to make a major impact because his glove is so good.

Marty and Joe
08-31-2008, 12:46 PM
How about Dickerson as the trade piece with his highest value now. Stubbs has the potential to be the best player in the league at his position.

As much as it might cause others to not be happy, I agree with your thought about Dickerson. Dickerson's history and minor league numbers lend me to think he's a long-term 4th OF with good defense. There is still value in that (and, I like the idea of a Dickerson/Stubbs platoon), however, I think Dickerson's trade value may not get higher than it might be at the moment.

I've got absolutely no problem with keeping him, but, if someone were to offer something based on his perceived value today, I'd most definitely consider it.

Every player should always be available if someone is willing to overpay.

Kc61
08-31-2008, 01:04 PM
As much as it might cause others to not be happy, I agree with your thought about Dickerson. Dickerson's history and minor league numbers lend me to think he's a long-term 4th OF with good defense. There is still value in that (and, I like the idea of a Dickerson/Stubbs platoon), however, I think Dickerson's trade value may not get higher than it might be at the moment.

I've got absolutely no problem with keeping him, but, if someone were to offer something based on his perceived value today, I'd most definitely consider it.

Every player should always be available if someone is willing to overpay.

Except in a great deal for the Reds, I wouldn't trade the following guys:

Stubbs
Dickerson
Cozart
Francisco
Brandon Phillips
Tatum
Janish
Alonso

Each of these guys is reputedly an excellent defender or has great defensive potential. I would keep them. I would also keep Soto and the other very young guys who look like good prospects.

I agree with the poster who said that Frazier and Valaika are potential trade chips. I just don't know where they fit in defensively.

mth123
08-31-2008, 04:30 PM
How about Dickerson as the trade piece with his highest value now. Stubbs has the potential to be the best player in the league at his position.

In theory that's an ok idea. I guess where we disagree is on:

1. Stubbs potential.
2. Dickerson's trade value.

I'm convinced now that Stubbs will be a productive major league CF with a good glove. I'm not convinced that he'll be "the best player in the league at his position." I actually think that a platoon of Dickerson and maybe Freel for now and Chris Heisey down the road can be just as productive on offense and defense. But, given Stubbs draft status, I think he would bring back much more in trade than a Dickerson or a Heisey or both together would.

I'd choose the cost efficient and productive platoon along with a high caliber player that Stubbs could fetch at another position of need over keeping Stubbs and eventually taking scraps for the other guys who lose their value due to lack of playing time while Stubbs plays CF.

dougdirt
08-31-2008, 04:33 PM
In theory that's an ok idea. I guess where we disagree is on:

1. Stubbs potential.
2. Dickerson's trade value.

I'm convinced now that Stubbs will be a productive major league CF with a good glove. I'm not convinced that he'll be "the best player in the league at his position." I actually think that a platoon of Dickerson and maybe Freel for now and Chris Heisey down the road can be just as productive on offense and defense. But, given Stubbs draft status, I think he would bring back much more in trade than a Dickerson or a Heisey or both together would.

I'd choose the cost efficient and productive platoon along with a high caliber player that Stubbs could fetch at another position of need over keeping Stubbs and eventually taking scraps for the other guys who lose their value due to lack of playing time while Stubbs plays CF.

He said Stubbs has the potential to be that guy, and he is right. He isn't that guy right now, but if his power develops some more (and I really believe it will develop into a 15-25 HR type guy) then he really could be one of the best hitting centerfielders in baseball as well as one of the best defenders.

mth123
08-31-2008, 04:42 PM
He said Stubbs has the potential to be that guy, and he is right. He isn't that guy right now, but if his power develops some more (and I really believe it will develop into a 15-25 HR type guy) then he really could be one of the best hitting centerfielders in baseball as well as one of the best defenders.

Maybe. I think they could get the same 15 to 25 HR production out of a platoon and Dickerson, at least, is every bit as good on defense. Heisey is just a cut below from what I understand.

redhawk61
08-31-2008, 04:45 PM
delete post

dougdirt
08-31-2008, 05:35 PM
Maybe. I think they could get the same 15 to 25 HR production out of a platoon and Dickerson, at least, is every bit as good on defense. Heisey is just a cut below from what I understand.

Sure, they may be able to get that kind of HR total out of someone/Dickerson.... but I don't really think that changes Stubbs potential at all because it doesn't have anything to do with him. Dickerson isn't as good as Stubbs is and isn't likely to give you similar numbers. Dickerson just swings and misses too much.

That said, I am fully prepared to go into 2009 with Dickerson penciled in at CF. I think he can handle himself just fine there until Drew Stubbs, or someone else is ready to step in and take over.

mth123
08-31-2008, 07:19 PM
Sure, they may be able to get that kind of HR total out of someone/Dickerson.... but I don't really think that changes Stubbs potential at all because it doesn't have anything to do with him. Dickerson isn't as good as Stubbs is and isn't likely to give you similar numbers. Dickerson just swings and misses too much.

That said, I am fully prepared to go into 2009 with Dickerson penciled in at CF. I think he can handle himself just fine there until Drew Stubbs, or someone else is ready to step in and take over.

I agree that Stubbs will probably be better, but they both shouldn't play and I think the combo of Dickerson and whatever Stubbs could bring back would be better than Stubbs and whatever Dickerson may fetch.

PuffyPig
08-31-2008, 08:23 PM
I agree that Stubbs will probably be better, but they both shouldn't play and I think the combo of Dickerson and whatever Stubbs could bring back would be better than Stubbs and whatever Dickerson may fetch.


Stubbs should only be traded if it's for the missing piece for us to contend in 2009.

We should be keeping players who might be superstars as we get ourselves into contending status.

Trading them to get "a little better" is senseless.

kpresidente
08-31-2008, 08:26 PM
I agree that Stubbs will probably be better, but they both shouldn't play and I think the combo of Dickerson and whatever Stubbs could bring back would be better than Stubbs and whatever Dickerson may fetch.

At least for the time being. Stubbs is still suspect in my eyes. I like the fact that he's maintained his numbers throughout his rise through the minors, it says a lot about his ability to translate that to the next level. Still, those numbers aren't particularly spectacular.

Let the plan be a platoon for right now, and if at some point a few years from now Stubbs proves he can hit RH better than Dickerson, then deal with that then.

mth123
08-31-2008, 08:35 PM
Stubbs should only be traded if it's for the missing piece for us to contend in 2009.

We should be keeping players who might be superstars as we get ourselves into contending status.

Trading them to get "a little better" is senseless.

I don't see Stubbs as a guy who could be a superstar. I see .775 OPS with very good defense. Good player in CF, not a superstar. I say flip him now for a SS of the future or a C of the future. I don't advocate dealing him for a one year rental or a journeyman stopgap, but for a similarly talented player at another position. If you can't find a match that brings back some one who can make an actual impact, then by all means keep him and see what happens.

redhawk61
08-31-2008, 09:19 PM
I don't see Stubbs as a guy who could be a superstar. I see .775 OPS with very good defense. Good player in CF, not a superstar. I say flip him now for a SS of the future or a C of the future. I don't advocate dealing him for a one year rental or a journeyman stopgap, but for a similarly talented player at another position. If you can't find a match that brings back some one who can make an actual impact, then by all means keep him and see what happens.
.775 OPS..Tori Hunter is a career .796 OPS

Stubbs will steal more bases and take more walks than Hunter, but hit with slightly less power, while playing GG defense...So why can't Stubbs be a "superstar". Given your .775 OPS prediction

mth123
08-31-2008, 09:40 PM
.775 OPS..Tori Hunter is a career .796 OPS

Stubbs will steal more bases and take more walks than Hunter, but hit with slightly less power, while playing GG defense...So why can't Stubbs be a "superstar". Given your .775 OPS prediction

Not enough slugging IMO. Stubbs may have a decent OBP but he needs to slug more than .400. He's not going to be the threat that Hunter is. Steals don't impress me much. They are a lot of risk (just watch the Reds for a week and count how many outs they make in the name of trying to steal a base) and add little in terms of creating runs. Its good for a fantasy team, but that's about it. Stubbs downside is if he doesn't add some pop, pitchers won't let him walk so much and the OBP could go south as well.

The point remains that I think the Reds could deal Stubbs for something very useful elsewhere and still get that .775 OPS out of the guys who remain. Those other guys that weren't first round picks won't bring in the additional help the team needs.

RedlegJake
08-31-2008, 10:50 PM
Every scout I've read who has anything to say about Stubbs thinks the pop will definitely come. I think "superstar" is a bit strong, personally I reserve that for the top ten or twelve players of a generation but I think he is looking more and more like a player who will reach at least some of his potential and in Stubb's case that is a heck of a lot. Watch him on video or TV and you can see how much better he is than other guys on the field - the way he moves, the instincts, speed, everything Drew struggles with seems mechanical and with the "eye". And the bat is improving rapidly. I look for progression when judging if a guy will meet expectations and in his case you can definitely see it (the improvements).

RED VAN HOT
09-01-2008, 05:30 PM
I'll take what is likely to be an unpopular position. I am ready to write off next year as a rebuilding year with long shot playoff potential. The Reds need to sift through a number of B/C grade prospects and determine who fits into their long range plans. Toward that end I would look to move players on the major league roster who do not fit into the long range plans. Freel and Hopper come to mind. A year ago, few were seriously considering Dickerson to be a prospect. He may never have higher trade value than he does now. Keeping EE is dependent on teaching him to use the whole field as a hitter and to throw accurately. I'm more optimistic about the former. Votto is a solid hitter whose defense will improve. I think people are being too quick to confer stardom on Alonzo. He won't be in the majors next year in any event. If after the 2009 season Alonzo appears ready to make the jump, then would be the time to consider trading Votto. A power hitter named Joey would command a king's ransom from a NY team. As for pitching, I hope we have seen the last of Belisle, Coffey, and Majewski. These players may yet have major league careers, but I am convinced they will not be in Cincinnati.

Further, I would not be anxious to spend Mr Castellini's money next year unless it for an exceptional young player with high potential and low risk of injury. Overpaying for mediocrity has been a problem in the past. It ties up payroll and blocks the progression of young talent. If I did trade, it would be major (possibly minor) leaguers at deep positions for A grade prospects at organizationally thin positions. Use 2009 to fill in as many pieces from within the organization as possible. The idea would be to spend the money in 2010 to obtain the specific pieces that are still needed. It pains me to suggest pushing out the date for achieving excellence, because I thought 2009 would be that year. I can only hope I won't be saying the same thing again next year.

If the Reds were to trade prospects, it seems to me that the way to do it is to approach a team about obtaining a specific player from them, and then let that team begin naming the prospects it would accept in return. I would not trade Stubbs or Cozart. Any of the wealth of infielders could be considered for trade.