PDA

View Full Version : Reds have talked to agents for Baldelli, Rivera, plan to talk Burrell



Pages : [1] 2

OnBaseMachine
12-10-2008, 08:46 PM
I posted this in another thread but it probably deserves a thread of its own...

Reds have talked to agent for Baldelli, Rivera, plan to talk Burrell
Posted by JohnFay at 12/10/2008 8:12 PM EST on Cincinnati.com

In the quest for a right-handed hitting outfielder, the Reds have talked to representatives for free agents Rocco Baldelli and Juan Rivera.

The significant news: They plan to talk to Pat Burrell's representatives as well.

"They called us," Walt Jocketty said.

The Reds have not talked to any left-handed-hitting, free agent outfielders.

Burrell is one of the big dollar free agents on the market -- probably too expensive for the Reds -- but there's been little movement overall in free agency so prices could drop.

Baldelli is intriguing. He's only 26. He was budding star at 21, hitting .289 with 11 home runs and 78 RBI for Tampa Bay. But he struggled with injuries -- knee, elbow, hamstring -- after that.

He then came down with a mitochondrial disorder, a condition that slows muscle recovery and causes severe fatigue. He missed the first 116 games of the season of 2008 season. Baldelli made his way back to the majors on Aug. 11. He hit .263 in 28 games with four home runs and 13 RBIs for the Rays in 2008.

There are still questions on how much he can play.

Rivera, 29, hit .246 with 12 home runs and 45 RBI in 256 at-bats for Anaheim.

http://news.cincinnati.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=blog07&plckController=Blog&plckScript=blogScript&plckElementId=blogDest&plckBlogPage=BlogViewPost&plckPostId=Blog%3ae57bcc87-152a-4f72-96fb-cc08b1f396efPost%3aa7c9a1d6-9784-45f6-bce7-fd110ed0399e&sid=sitelife.cincinnati.com

NJReds
12-10-2008, 08:48 PM
I'd take Rivera if they could get him cheap. If Baldelli falls through the cracks (he won't, because the Red Sox will probably scoop him up) I'd take a shot. But with his condition he probably needs to be in the AL where he could DH a couple times per week.

Homer Bailey
12-10-2008, 08:48 PM
I love it. Baldelli would be a huge pick up for the Reds. I'm also glad that Walt is at least exploring the chances on all three of these guys, as they are three guys on my list.

dougdirt
12-10-2008, 08:49 PM
I would like to see Baldelli brought in as a part time player. With his condition I am not sure he can hold up over a full season of play, but playing every couple of days wouldn't be a bad thing, especially against lefties where he has hit .296/.347/.494 for his career.

OnBaseMachine
12-10-2008, 08:50 PM
I like Rocco Baldelli a lot, but can he play everyday? If not, I'd still like to see him brought in to platoon with Dickerson in CF. I also like Juan Rivera - he's been very solid in a starter role and he plays good defense. Burrell would be my third choice of the three, and I wouldn't give him anymore than two years.

Cyclone792
12-10-2008, 08:51 PM
Baldelli and Rivera? Sign me up for 90 losses then.

Burrell would be spit on by the fan base.

Homer Bailey
12-10-2008, 08:53 PM
Baldelli and Rivera? Sign me up for 90 losses then.

Burrell would be spit on by the fan base.

Probably the same fan base that thought Dunn was not a valuable player. Just because the fan base doesn't like a guy doesn't mean he wouldn't be a valuable addition.

JaxRed
12-10-2008, 08:55 PM
Now, we're talking. Dye/Bailey.... stupid move. Picking up Baldelli on a 1 year deal to let him prove his health is exactly the kind of Josh Hamilton move we need to make.

RedEye
12-10-2008, 08:56 PM
Probably the same fan base that thought Dunn was not a valuable player. Just because the fan base doesn't like a guy doesn't mean he wouldn't be a valuable addition.

I was under the impression that Burrell would be like Adam Dunn but more expensive. I don't think he's the kind of guy the Reds should pursue, whatever the fan base thinks.

dougdirt
12-10-2008, 08:56 PM
Baldelli and Rivera? Sign me up for 90 losses then.

Burrell would be spit on by the fan base.

Cyclone, I have to ask, what makes you believe either of the two guys would be brought in as a starter?

As for Burrell, who cares what the fans think? Bring in quality players, period.

Rounding Third
12-10-2008, 08:57 PM
2 year deal with Rivera and stick him in left field.

He has posted an average of these numbers in the 3 years when he was given over 100 games of playing time.

.296 / .347 / .481

He has been injured the past 2 years and I think deserves a shot at a bargain price to fill the need of a right handed hitter.

Nice little article on him
http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/free-agent-bargain-juan-rivera/

Cyclone792
12-10-2008, 08:57 PM
Probably the same fan base that thought Dunn was not a valuable player. Just because the fan base doesn't like a guy doesn't mean he wouldn't be a valuable addition.

I don't want to turn this into a Dunn thread, but if the Reds are seriously considering either of those three guys then they ought to just bring Dunn back.

Rivera can't find first base. Burrell is an older, slower, less productive, and worse defender than Dunn. I like Baldelli when he plays, but signing Baldelli would just mean that Norris Hopper would get 75 starts in left field.

Acquiring a guy like Jermaine Dye makes sense in the fact that A) he's actually good, and B) he's likely just a stopgap until Alonso forces the Reds' hands with Votto and the first base/left field situation.

Rounding Third
12-10-2008, 08:59 PM
I don't want to turn this into a Dunn thread, but if the Reds are seriously considering either of those three guys then they ought to just bring Dunn back.

Rivera can't find first base. Burrell is an older, slower, less productive, and worse defender than Dunn. I like Baldelli when he plays, but signing Baldelli would just mean that Norris Hopper would get 75 starts in left field.

Acquiring a guy like Jermaine Dye makes sense in the fact that A) he's actually good, and B) he's likely just a stopgap until Alonso forces the Reds' hands with Votto and the first base/left field situation.

Why pay $11M plus Homer Bailey and prospects for a one year stopgap when we can sign somebody like Rivera and/or Baldelli and possibly get a high reward out of them

Cyclone792
12-10-2008, 09:03 PM
Why pay $11M plus Homer Bailey and prospects for a one year stopgap when we can sign somebody like Rivera and/or Baldelli and possibly get a high reward out of them

Because Jermaine Dye would actually help win you games?

Because Homer Bailey's trade value will be nothing this time next year?

Because Jermaine Dye is then likely a Type A free agent when his contract is up?

Homer Bailey can't find the strike zone. And barring injuries that would cripple the Reds' rotation this year, he isn't going to find the Reds' rotation either. Once his option years are up, whatever trade value he has now vanishes into thin air.

The Reds have an absolute hole in left field, and the only way this offense scores enough runs to matter next season is if it's filled with an absolute impact bat. Juan Rivera's lousy on-base percentage isn't that. Rocco Baldelli and a 75-game caddy isn't that. I like Burrell, but gee if you're bringing in Pat Burrell just skip over his name and dial Adam Dunn's number.

OnBaseMachine
12-10-2008, 09:04 PM
Juan Rivera has put up this line as a starter: .289/.335/.474 - .809 OPS in 1,777 plate appearances. He's also a good defender. With the league change and if his BABIP normalizes (it was a ridiculously low .242 in 2008), he could possibly OPS in the .840 to .850ish area while supplying solid defense.

OnBaseMachine
12-10-2008, 09:05 PM
Here's a nice piece on Rivera:

Free Agent Bargain: Juan Rivera

by Dave Cameron - October 27, 2008 ∑ Filed under Daily Graphings

This afternoon, we looked at the first of several potential free agent bargains this winter - Jeremy Affeldt. This afternoon, we take a look at another guy with some potential for positive reward who wonít cost an arm and a leg. That guy is Juan Rivera.

Two years ago, Rivera hit .310/.362/.525 for the Angels, racking up a 2.45 WPA/LI mark that made him a very solid contributor to Anaheimís offense. Then, injuries struck, and the last two years have been something of a wash. He managed just 324 plate appearances between the two seasons, and the missed time cost him his shot at a regular gig in LA. Now 30 and hitting free agency, itís unlikely that a team is going to be giving him a multi-year contract without proving he can play everyday again, but if we look at his skills, heís still a pretty solid hitter.

Riveraís signature skill has always been his power, and that hasnít disappeared. Even with the health problems and limited playing time, he posted a .191 ISO last year. When you look a little deeper, thereís even more reasons for optimism. During the first three months of the season, Rivera managed all of 66 plate appearances in 30 games. He barely made it on the field from April through June, and he wasnít giving the Angels any reason to put him in the line-up more often, struggling to a .177/.227/.226 line. He had three extra base hits, all doubles, and simply wasnít hitting. However, Gary Matthews Jrís struggles created an opportunity for him to play a bit more often, from July on, he showed that the old Juan Rivera still existed.

In the final three months of the season, Rivera hit .268/.299/.505, and while the OBP isnít exactly impressive, the 22 extra base hits (12 of which were home runs) show that Riveraís still got some juice in his swing. His overly aggressive approach at the plate will always make him a low on base guy, but that kind of power is still valuable. Even with the .299 OBP, Riveraís WPA/LI over the final three months was -.07, making him essentially a league average hitter.

Now, if that was Riveraís ceiling, heíd be a nifty platoon corner OF/DH type, and that would be the end of it. But Rivera was a league average hitter while hitting .270. As a guy with both good contact and power, Riveraís got the kind of skills that could allow him to hit .290 to .310. If you donít strike out, and you hit the ball over the wall with some frequency, itís pretty hard to post a low batting average, thanks to the sheer quantity of chances you have for hits. Rivera managed to hit .269 over the final three months despite a .242 batting average on balls in play. Thatís extraordinarily low, even for a guy hitting a ton of flyballs.

If we assume that Riveraís true talent BABIP is more in the .280 range (itís .292 for his career, but weíll knock it down a bit for age and injuries), and the rest of his skills remain in tact, heís a .290 to .300 hitter. Even with his aggressive approach, .300/.340/.500 isnít out of the question.

Rivera may never get back to his 2006 prime, but heís certainly better than heís shown the last two years, and thereís no reason to think heís washed up at age 30. For a team looking for a right-handed power bat who makes good contact and offers some upside without requiring a long term, big money deal, Riveraís a good bet. Heíll never be a star, but he could be the kind of useful role player that is picked up cheaply that championship teams need.

http://www.fangraphs.com/blogs/index.php/free-agent-bargain-juan-rivera

Cyclone792
12-10-2008, 09:07 PM
Juan Rivera has put up this line as a starter: .289/.335/.474 - .809 OPS in 1,777 plate appearances. He's also a good defender. With the league change and if his BABIP normalizes (it was a ridiculously low .242 in 2008), he could possibly OPS in the .840 to .850ish area while supplying solid defense.

He doesn't walk, OBM. If the guy isn't hitting .300, he isn't helping your offense. Give him 600 PAs and he'll struggle to walk 40 times. The Reds cannot afford the risk of a .320 on-base percentage from a corner outfielder in the middle of their lineup. They just won't score enough runs next season if that's what they get.

Rounding Third
12-10-2008, 09:08 PM
Because Jermaine Dye would actually help win you games?

Because Homer Bailey's trade value will be nothing this time next year?

Because Jermaine Dye is then likely a Type A free agent when his contract is up?

Homer Bailey can't find the strike zone. And barring injuries that would cripple the Reds' rotation this year, he isn't going to find the Reds' rotation either. Once his option years are up, whatever trade value he has now vanishes into thin air.

The Reds have an absolute hole in left field, and the only way this offense scores enough runs to matter next season is if it's filled with an absolute impact bat. Juan Rivera's lousy on-base percentage isn't that. Rocco Baldelli and a 75-game caddy isn't that. I like Burrell, but gee if you're bringing in Pat Burrell just skip over his name and dial Adam Dunn's number.

Rivera's Career OBP: .331
Dye's Career OBP: .338

Rivera's Career SLG: .468
Dye's Career SLG: .491

Rivera's Age: 30
Dye's Age: 35

Rivera's Defense: Average - Above Average
Dye's Defense: Below Average - Terribe

Patrick Bateman
12-10-2008, 09:09 PM
Both Baldelli and Rivera seem like potential platoon candidates with Dickerson, as both specialize in hitting LH.

Ideally we can get a Baldelli and a Burrell, and use a trading chip like Bailey to put towards the SS hole. I'd be dissapointed if Rivera/Baldelli were the big OF haul, but I ike them as 4th OF types to play the Jeffrey Hamonds circa '99 role where he found plenty of time behind a crowded OF.

chicoruiz
12-10-2008, 09:09 PM
A Dickerson-Baldelli job share in CF just makes an incredible amount of sense to me.

edabbs44
12-10-2008, 09:12 PM
I don't want to turn this into a Dunn thread, but if the Reds are seriously considering either of those three guys then they ought to just bring Dunn back.Too late...you just did.


Rivera can't find first base. Burrell is an older, slower, less productive, and worse defender than Dunn. I like Baldelli when he plays, but signing Baldelli would just mean that Norris Hopper would get 75 starts in left field.

Couple of thoughts here:


Maybe Dunn doesn't want to come back.
Burrell, while "less productive", hasn't been that much less productive than Dunn over the last few years.
Maybe Burrell could be had cheaper and for less years than Dunn.



Acquiring a guy like Jermaine Dye makes sense in the fact that A) he's actually good, and B) he's likely just a stopgap until Alonso forces the Reds' hands with Votto and the first base/left field situation.

Dye would potentially cost Bailey and $11MM as just a "stopgap" for this season. He is also older than Burrell. Lastly, Burrell has had higher OPS+ than Dye in 3 of the last 5 seasons. I would think that Burrell would make more sense than Dye would, dependent upon the terms of the contract.

I really think those who are anti-Burrell are so because they see him as Dunn-lite and for whatever reason feel the need to automatically compare him to Dunn. Burrell would be a positive contributor to this ballclub and he would be a good addition. And, if Alonso forces their hand, then one of them can be dealt to upgrade another spot on the roster.

Cyclone792
12-10-2008, 09:12 PM
Rivera's Career OBP: .331
Dye's Career OBP: .338

Rivera's Career SLG: .468
Dye's Career SLG: .491

Rivera's Age: 30
Dye's Age: 35

Rivera's Defense: Average - Above Average
Dye's Defense: Below Average - Terribe

Lifetime Away OBP for Rivera: .323

Not to mention he hasn't even had an on-base percentage north of .300 in three years.

People should have learned enough lessons over the years that players who refuse to walk are extremely high risk when it comes to lousy on-base percentage. We're not talking about an excellent defensive shortstop here to just bat 8th and forget about; we're talking about a guy the Reds want to put in a corner outfield slot and in the middle of their lineup.

Yes, I'll pass on that quickly.

Rounding Third
12-10-2008, 09:15 PM
Not to mention he hasn't even had an on-base percentage north of .300 in three years.


You mean like the .362 OBP in 2006, 3 years ago?

He also kinda had a broken leg and was in the same outfield as Torii Hunter, Garrett Anderson, Gary Matthews Jr, and Vlad.

Could be had for cheap and is worth a pickup.

Boss-Hog
12-10-2008, 09:18 PM
Let's not turn this into yet another Dunn thread...we have enough out there for a lifetime and then some.

OnBaseMachine
12-10-2008, 09:23 PM
I wonder how well a Danny Dorn/Rocco Baldelli platoon would work in left field? Danny Dorn absolutely murders right handed pitching. Last year in Double-A Chattanooga he hit .290/.379/.592 - .971 OPS vs RHP. Of course that would still leave us in need of another RH bench player to platoon with Dickerson/Dorn on days when a LHP is on the mound.

PuffyPig
12-10-2008, 09:25 PM
He doesn't walk, OBM. If the guy isn't hitting .300, he isn't helping your offense. Give him 600 PAs and he'll struggle to walk 40 times. The Reds cannot afford the risk of a .320 on-base percentage from a corner outfielder in the middle of their lineup. They just won't score enough runs next season if that's what they get.

DYe walked 44 times last year in 634 PA's.


So I guess he's not the answer either.

Cyclone792
12-10-2008, 09:28 PM
You mean like the .362 OBP in 2006, 3 years ago?

He also kinda had a broken leg and was in the same outfield as Torii Hunter, Garrett Anderson, Gary Matthews Jr, and Vlad.

Could be had for cheap and is worth a pickup.

As I said, when he doesn't hit .300, he's worthless. He's had two good seasons, and both times it required him to hit .300. You want to take that chance, feel free, but you'll likely lose that bet. If the Reds are serious about contending for a playoff spot, they need an impact bat in left field. Juan Rivera isn't that bat.

I'm interested in the Reds playing October baseball next year. The type of dart-throwing moves with a corner outfield middle of the lineup bat aren't going to get them there.

Mario-Rijo
12-10-2008, 09:29 PM
He doesn't walk, OBM. If the guy isn't hitting .300, he isn't helping your offense. Give him 600 PAs and he'll struggle to walk 40 times. The Reds cannot afford the risk of a .320 on-base percentage from a corner outfielder in the middle of their lineup. They just won't score enough runs next season if that's what they get.

Well he hasn't exactly had a real good opportunity to prove anything at this point. Exactly 2 times he has gotten 400 PA's (more than a platoon situation) and in those 2 times he's posted .300+ BA, .360+ OBP, .465+ Slg%. He also at age 25 had been showing the improvement that you talk about with regards to talking BB's in a full season that year he was on pace for 50+ BB's. Had he not had to fight for playing time perhaps he would have settled in and improved to the point where he would have had 60 or more in a season which is your minimum for what age 26 or 27. Perhaps you are wrong about Rivera, just sayin' if you give him a chance he might just prove he's more than a free swinger.

Caveat Emperor
12-10-2008, 09:31 PM
I'm interested in the Reds playing October baseball next year. The type of dart-throwing moves with a corner outfield middle of the lineup bat aren't going to get them there.

I'd be with you, but your arguments lose all water when you say "Jermaine Dye can help the Reds win ballgames."

Trading for Jermaine Dye is buying into the same fairytale nonsense that signing Juan Rivera requires. The difference is that with Dye, you buy into the fairytale that outfielders get better with age as opposed to Rivera, that he can replicate his base-hit driven OBA on a consistent basis.

They're both crap targets, and the Reds deserve to finish in the cellar if they acquire either one.

reds44
12-10-2008, 09:32 PM
I didn't realize Rivera was 30 already, that makes him a lot less attractive. I'd love to get Baldelli and have him platoon with Dickerson though. Sign Burrell, trade Homer for a SS, then we have something.

Caveat Emperor
12-10-2008, 09:36 PM
I didn't realize Rivera was 30 already, that makes him a lot less attractive. I'd love to get Baldelli and have him platoon with Dickerson though. Sign Burrell, trade Homer for a SS, then we have something.

You actually want to pay money to a guy who has the following games played total over his career:

156
136
92
35
28

That's an abysmal track record. He has an unspecified mitochondiral-abnormality that causes him to experience extreme fatigue when playing. That kind of illness doesn't just get better overnight.

Big pass on Baldelli. That'd be like flushing perfectly good cash down the toilet.

Cyclone792
12-10-2008, 09:36 PM
Well he hasn't exactly had a real good opportunity to prove anything at this point. Exactly 2 times he has gotten 400 PA's (more than a platoon situation) and in those 2 times he's posted .300+ BA, .360+ OBP, .465+ Slg%. He also at age 25 had been showing the improvement that you talk about with regards to talking BB's in a full season that year he was on pace for 50+ BB's. Had he not had to fight for playing time perhaps he would have settled in and improved to the point where he would have had 60 or more in a season which is your minimum for what age 26 or 27. Perhaps you are wrong about Rivera, just sayin' if you give him a chance he might just prove he's more than a free swinger.

There are usually one or two players each season the Reds acquire that I'm absolutely dead set against. And there are always people who are wanting to give those players a chance. It's the grass is greener on the other side phenomena.

Juan Rivera would be one of those guys for me in 2009 if the Reds acquired him.

Homer Bailey
12-10-2008, 09:36 PM
I didn't realize Rivera was 30 already, that makes him a lot less attractive. I'd love to get Baldelli and have him platoon with Dickerson though. Sign Burrell, trade Homer for a SS, then we have something.

Can't argue with that plan.

Cyclone792
12-10-2008, 09:39 PM
I'd be with you, but your arguments lose all water when you say "Jermaine Dye can help the Reds win ballgames."

Trading for Jermaine Dye is buying into the same fairytale nonsense that signing Juan Rivera requires. The difference is that with Dye, you buy into the fairytale that outfielders get better with age as opposed to Rivera, that he can replicate his base-hit driven OBA on a consistent basis.

They're both crap targets, and the Reds deserve to finish in the cellar if they acquire either one.

Don't get me wrong, I'm not excited about Dye either. He's just a better, safer target than Rivera despite the age. I wouldn't be interested in Dye as anything but a stopgap, and I won't lie when I state that part of Dye's appeal is his likely high Type FA status.

If anything, the Dye aspect also tells you how much I wouldn't miss Homer Bailey.

reds44
12-10-2008, 09:39 PM
You actually want to pay money to a guy who has the following games played total over his career:

156
136
92
35
28

That's an abysmal track record. He has an unspecified mitochondiral-abnormality that causes him to experience extreme fatigue when playing. That kind of illness doesn't just get better overnight.

Big pass on Baldelli. That'd be like flushing perfectly good cash down the toilet.
It depends how much money and how many years he would take to acquire. If it's a multi year deal, then I don't want any part of him. If it's a one year deal for a couple mil, I think the talent is there to take a flier on.

Have him start part time against lefties for Dickerson, and keep is playing time down. He's not that much more of an injury risk than Hairston, and has more upside.

I would rather pay Baldelli than Hairston.

Mario-Rijo
12-10-2008, 09:51 PM
There are usually one or two players each season the Reds acquire that I'm absolutely dead set against. And there are always people who are wanting to give those players a chance. It's the grass is greener on the other side phenomena.

Juan Rivera would be one of those guys for me in 2009 if the Reds acquired him.

Ok, but you didn't really give a good argument other than he doesn't take enough BB's. Still he has posted very good OBP's when given the opportunities and when he wasn't hurt. I see you don't believe he can maintain that kind of OBP% while not taking enough BB's but he hasn't really had the opportunity to disprove he can't take enough BB's. I know if I got inconsistent play I'd be awfully eager to swing the bat instead of being patient also.

Cyclone792
12-10-2008, 09:57 PM
Ok, but you didn't really give a good argument other than he doesn't take enough BB's. Still he has posted very good OBP's when given the opportunities and when he wasn't hurt. I see you don't believe he can maintain that kind of OBP% while not taking enough BB's but he hasn't really had the opportunity to disprove he can't take enough BB's. I know if I got inconsistent play I'd be awfully eager to swing the bat instead of being patient also.

Juan Rivera is 30-years-old. He is who he is.

His lifetime MLB PA/BB rate is 15.45. His lifetime minor league PA/BB rate is 14.60. You want guys in the 12 or under crowd, not well over 12. His entire professional career - majors and minors - is a walking pile of evidence that Juan Rivera will never walk at an acceptable rate.

If he isn't hitting .300 in the major leagues with consistency and regularity, I'm not interested. Juan Rivera isn't hitting .300 with consistency and regularity, and now he's on the wrong side of 30 while coming off a broken leg.

Don't get me wrong, there are other reasons besides Juan Rivera on why I don't want Juan Rivera. But Juan Rivera himself is far good enough reason alone.

Mario-Rijo
12-10-2008, 10:06 PM
Juan Rivera is 30-years-old. He is who he is.

His lifetime MLB PA/BB rate is 15.45. His lifetime minor league PA/BB rate is 14.60. You want guys in the 12 or under crowd, not well over 12. His entire professional career - majors and minors - is a walking pile of evidence that Juan Rivera will never walk at an acceptable rate.

If he isn't hitting .300 in the major leagues with consistency and regularity, I'm not interested. Juan Rivera isn't hitting .300 with consistency and regularity, and now he's on the wrong side of 30 while coming off a broken leg.

Don't get me wrong, there are other reasons besides Juan Rivera on why I don't want Juan Rivera. But Juan Rivera himself is far good enough reason alone.

I'm not quite sure what you mean by the sentence before last but ok. I understand your point but we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not he can maintain a .300 BA, he doesn't K much and he hits with pretty good power, not sure what his LD% is but I'm guessing it's been pretty good. I'm not necc. sold on him being the #4 hitter but I tend to lean to yes he can. But more than that for the dollar amount that he alledgedly has been attached to (usually much less than 5 mill per) I am going after him strong to see if he can be more than what I should expect.

Jpup
12-10-2008, 10:12 PM
I wouldn't touch Baldelli with a 10 foot pole. You guys complain about Freel, Hairston, etc. not playing then you advocate bringing in Rocco Baldelli. Rivera would be fine as a bench guy, but I'm afraid he might not be very productive playing every day. I would hate to depend on a 30 year old that has never played a full season as a starter. With Pat Burrell, at least, you know what you are getting.

There has to be better, younger, healthier options out there. I keep hearing how great the farm system is, but I am not seeing many fruits outside of Bruce, Votto, and Cueto. Walt seems to not have any faith in Dickerson and I can understand why. If all of these guys in AA are so great, let's see them, and spend the money on a shortstop and another starter. The best idea I have seen thus far is to move Edwin to left, trade for Adrian Beltre, and find a shortstop along the lines of Erick Aybar. If you want to win now, Randy Johnson might not be a bad guy to go after for a 1 year deal. I would imagine that he would be expensive, but could be worth it.

Benihana
12-10-2008, 10:16 PM
I wouldn't touch Baldelli with a 10 foot pole. You guys complain about Freel, Hairston, etc. not playing then you advocate bringing in Rocco Baldelli. Rivera would be fine as a bench guy, but I'm afraid he might not be very productive playing every day. I would hate to depend on a 30 year old that has never played a full season as a starter. With Pat Burrell, at least, you know what you are getting.

There has to be better, younger, healthier options out there. I keep hearing how great the farm system is, but I am not seeing many fruits outside of Bruce, Votto, and Cueto. Walt seems to not have any faith in Dickerson and I can understand why. If all of these guys in AA are so great, let's see them, and spend the money on a shortstop and another starter. The best idea I have seen thus far is to move Edwin to left, trade for Adrian Beltre, and find a shortstop along the lines of Erick Aybar. If you want to win now, Randy Johnson might not be a bad guy to go after for a 1 year deal. I would imagine that he would be expensive, but could be worth it.

FWIW, Baldelli just turned 27.

Jpup
12-10-2008, 10:18 PM
FWIW, Baldelli just turned 27.

I was referring to Rivera. :)

reds44
12-10-2008, 10:18 PM
I wouldn't touch Baldelli with a 10 foot pole. You guys complain about Freel, Hairston, etc. not playing then you advocate bringing in Rocco Baldelli. Rivera would be fine as a bench guy, but I'm afraid he might not be very productive playing every day. I would hate to depend on a 30 year old that has never played a full season as a starter. With Pat Burrell, at least, you know what you are getting.

There has to be better, younger, healthier options out there. I keep hearing how great the farm system is, but I am not seeing many fruits outside of Bruce, Votto, and Cueto. Walt seems to not have any faith in Dickerson and I can understand why. If all of these guys in AA are so great, let's see them, and spend the money on a shortstop and another starter. The best idea I have seen thus far is to move Edwin to left, trade for Adrian Beltre, and find a shortstop along the lines of Erick Aybar. If you want to win now, Randy Johnson might not be a bad guy to go after for a 1 year deal. I would imagine that he would be expensive, but could be worth it.
Well unlike Freel and Hairston, Baldelli is actually good when he plays.

Hairston and Baldelli are in the same boat for me. I'd love to have them both back, but not for more than a few mil on a 1 year deal.

Jpup
12-10-2008, 10:19 PM
Well unlike Freel and Hairston, Baldelli is actually good when he plays.

Hairston and Baldelli are in the same boat for me. I'd love to have them both back, but not for more than a few mil on a 1 year deal.

Hairston was very good last year when he played and Freel was good for the Reds when he wasn't injured.

Degenerate39
12-10-2008, 10:20 PM
Doesn't Baldelli have a disease of some sorts that uses his energy up quicker than usual? No thanks.

reds44
12-10-2008, 10:20 PM
Hairston was very good last year when he played and Freel was good for the Reds when he wasn't injured.
Not lately Freel wasn't, and he was expensive.

As for Hairston, look at the last line of the previous post.

Cyclone792
12-10-2008, 10:20 PM
I'm not quite sure what you mean by the sentence before last but ok. I understand your point but we'll just have to agree to disagree on whether or not he can maintain a .300 BA, he doesn't K much and he hits with pretty good power, not sure what his LD% is but I'm guessing it's been pretty good. I'm not necc. sold on him being the #4 hitter but I tend to lean to yes he can. But more than that for the dollar amount that he alledgedly has been attached to (usually much less than 5 mill per) I am going after him strong to see if he can be more than what I should expect.

What I bolded is precisely what my last sentence foreshadowed.

You see, people love to give players like Rivera chances because they're cheap and they see some false hope with their potential. It doesn't matter if that player is 30-years-old with an extreme high-risk (or just plain bad) playing record. They say "well he's only a million or two, he's cheap, so why not?"

And then what happens?

They play. They stink. People are shocked. SHOCKED! (not me, but they are). That player keeps playing. He also keeps stinking. Then he may be "shut down for a few weeks" on the DL to hide from stinking even more. Then he's rehabbed. Then he comes back again and gets more playing time again. And guess what? He stinks again.

It's one big pile of stink that keeps growing because he's a veteran on a big league contract.

Before you know it that player has pitched 78.1 innings and been absolutely devastating to your pitching staff. Or he's gone to the plate 392 times, many of those in the leadoff slot with a terrible on-base percentage. Or he's caught 96 games behind the plate and hit worse than a pitcher from May through the end of the season.

And this all happens because the Reds bring in a "veteran" that management thinks has proven something when in reality all that veteran has proven is that he just isn't worth a casual look, much less piles of playing time.

Exhibit A: Josh Fogg (boy, the Josh Fogg discussion was exactly like this - how do people like him now?)
Exhibit B: Corey Patterson
Exhibit C: Paul Bako

And that's just from 2008.

I'm tired of going down those roads. I want the road with actual, consistent run production. That's the road that teams take when they head to the playoffs.

Caveat Emperor
12-10-2008, 10:20 PM
FWIW, Baldelli just turned 27.

Here's the pertinant information on Baldelli -- it sounds like the problem he has is genetic in origin. I feel for the kid, but stay far, far away:



Rocco Baldelli will be sidelined indefinitely - but is not retiring - because of what he said are "some type of metabolic and/or mitochondrial abnormalities,'' a condition that leaves him feeling extremely fatigued after just a brief workout.

"When I say "fatigued" my body is literally spent after a very short amount of time out on the field which makes it extremely frustrating and difficult, but it's kind of a reality right now,'' he said during a 13-minute session with reporters before Wednesday's game. "I feel like I've done a serious workout after a very short period of time, and it's a very odd feeling. ... I try not to be too dramatic when I explain what's going on, but it's not easy when you're out on the field for a very short period of time and you're done, and you're not really worth anything else out there. That's a tough thing to handle because you wonder why. You wonder why this is how your body feels.''

Baldelli, 26, said there has been no exact diagnosis but the consensus of several experts was the rare condition that limits the ability of his muscles to recover. "Basically somewhere along the line ... either my body is not making or producing or storing ATP the right way and therefore not allowing, apparently, my muscles to work as they should, and especially recover like they're supposed to on a day-to-day basis. It becomes very difficult to go out and literally be on the field every day and play.''

ATP, according to the website health.howstuffworks.com is a chemical, adenosine triphosphate, that is the energy source for muscles and "in order to continue exercising, your muscles must continuously make ATP. To make this happen, your body must supply oxygen to the muscles and eliminate the waste products and heat. The more strenuous the exercise, the greater the demands of working muscle. If these needs are not met, then exercise will cease - that is, you become exhausted and you won't be able to keep going."

Baldelli provided this description:
"I think the best way to describe it is literal muscle fatigue and cramping way before my body should be feeling these things. I would go out there and I was pretty much incapable of doing basic baseball activities, running and hitting and throwing. These were things I had done my whole life pretty easily and at some point within the last two years, we're not exactly sure why, these things started to change.''

Baldelli moved to verge of tears several times in discussing details of his condition for the first time. He indicated he did not consider the condition life-threatening, saying "it's not something I'm overly worried about as far as on a long-term basis right now. And he said he would do "everything in my power" to get back on the field, but there was no timetable for a return, whether this season or ever. The Rays will place him on the disabled list to start the season and "identify" a replacement to be part of a platoon situation in right field and provide depth at the other spots and DH.

"As far as my baseball career I'm not here to stand in front of you telling you I'm retiring,'' Baldelli said. "We're still going pursue any avenue that we can to try to figure out what is going on and have a better understanding of what is going on. But at this time throughout all of the extensive testing that we've done, we don't have a concrete answer. The doctors' consensus is these are the problems that I'm experiencing and there's probably a lot of medical proof of these things but they have been unable to specifically identify an exact reason or an exact problem down to a specific name. That's kind of frustrating.''

Baldelli said he will remain on the disabled list "indefinitely until we find out something else that could possibly improve my situation.''

Executive vice president Andrew Friedman termed Baldelli's condition "extremely rare" for professional athlete but said the Rays will work diligently to find a way to get him back on the field.
"The most important thing is I think all of us are cautiously optimistic,'' Friedman said. "I don't have a medical reason to feel that way, but I know with Rocco's determination, with our training staff, with modern medicine the way it is, I refuse to believe there's not a way we can figure this out. It may prove to be naive. It may prove to be right. We don't know yet.''

Baldelli thanked the Rays for their support, saying "this is probably as difficult and frustrating a thing I've ever had to deal with as a person. And we're going to do everything we can to fix and hopefully solve this problem.''

Before Baldelli spoke, Rays manager Joe Maddon offered this perspective:
"It's tough to figure out. It's something that he feels. It's something that unless you're inside that body you have no idea what it feels like. And it's unfortunate because you're talking about a gifted athlete right here. One of the more gifted athletes I would think in all of the American League given a chance to play on a daily basis. So it's hard. It's hard for him. It's harder for him than for us. It's frustrating for us, it's a career for him. It's a way of life. It's supporting his family in the future. It's difficutl. So we're just trying to pay attention to him and respect, because you have no idea what he feels like and it's frustrating. But it's even more frustrating for him.''

Baldelli, 26, has been sidelined since sustaining a hamstring strain in a May 15 game, and has played just twice this spring, last on March 4, because his legs haven't recovered well and don't feel right.
"It's not really encouraging right now, it hasn't really been progressing,'' Maddon said before Wednesday's game. "It's one of those day by day situations and it's not moving forward.''


http://blogs.tampabay.com/rays/2008/03/baldelli.html

Jpup
12-10-2008, 10:21 PM
Not lately Freel wasn't, and he was expensive.

As for Hairston, look at the last line of the previous post.

I liked Hairston last year, but I think the Reds would be wise to let him walk.

M2
12-10-2008, 10:23 PM
Juan Rivera is 30-years-old. He is who he is.

His lifetime MLB PA/BB rate is 15.45. His lifetime minor league PA/BB rate is 14.60. You want guys in the 12 or under crowd, not well over 12. His entire professional career - majors and minors - is a walking pile of evidence that Juan Rivera will never walk at an acceptable rate.

If he isn't hitting .300 in the major leagues with consistency and regularity, I'm not interested. Juan Rivera isn't hitting .300 with consistency and regularity, and now he's on the wrong side of 30 while coming off a broken leg.

Don't get me wrong, there are other reasons besides Juan Rivera on why I don't want Juan Rivera. But Juan Rivera himself is far good enough reason alone.

You've won me over. I was ambivalent about Rivera before, now I'm bivalent ... and not in the good way.

If he were going to come dirt cheap (e.g. for $1M or less or on a minor league deal), I could see taking a flyer on the guy, but no way do I want the Reds spending coin on this guy and handing him a starting gig. There's better options.

RedsManRick
12-10-2008, 10:23 PM
If a guy with a crappy track record has 1 really solid season, assume that the solid season was the fluke and move on. This is especially true when the season is generated on the back of unsustainable peripherals like a 27.5 LD% or a 17.7 HR/FB rate. It's not complicated.

You give guys like Rivera $800k to be your 4th or 5th OF and you smile real big if they are forced in to playing time and do well. You do not give them 7 figures and even odds (or better) at a starting job.

corkedbat
12-10-2008, 10:26 PM
Here's the pertinant information on Baldelli -- it sounds like the problem he has is genetic in origin. I feel for the kid, but stay far, far away:



http://blogs.tampabay.com/rays/2008/03/baldelli.html

I thought he had somewhat improved since then and was more hopeful that it could be controlled to some exttent.

REDREAD
12-10-2008, 10:27 PM
They're both crap targets, and the Reds deserve to finish in the cellar if they acquire either one.

Isn't that a bit harsh? Other than Dunn (who does not want to come back in all likelyhood), who do you suggest the Reds pursue?

Getting Rivera, Baldalli, or Burrell would improve the team. If the Reds do nothing about their OF, then they deserve to finish in last place.

No GM is going to turn this team into a contender in this offseason without selling off every young player and getting a huge budget (neither of which is going to happen).

I am dreading Norris Hopper starting everyday because right now, he's at the top of the depth chart in LF. He'll be backed up by rejects like Andy What'sHisHame from last year that was released several times.

Much like the Hernandez catcher acquision, I'd be happy to fill a gaping hole with a guy with upside. That's how you avoid finishing in last place. I want the team to have a legit shot at finishing 500 next year so they are tolerable to watch.

Raisor
12-10-2008, 10:27 PM
What I bolded is precisely what my last sentence foreshadowed.

You see, people love to give players like Rivera chances because they're cheap and they see some false hope with their potential. It doesn't matter if that player is 30-years-old with an extreme high-risk (or just plain bad) playing record. They say "well he's only a million or two, he's cheap, so why not?"

And then what happens?

They play. They stink. People are shocked. SHOCKED! (not me, but they are). That player keeps playing. He also keeps stinking. Then he may be "shut down for a few weeks" on the DL to hide from stinking even more. Then he's rehabbed. Then he comes back again and gets more playing time again. And guess what? He stinks again.

It's one big pile of stink that keeps growing because he's a veteran on a big league contract.

Before you know it that player has pitched 78.1 innings and been absolutely devastating to your pitching staff. Or he's gone to the plate 392 times, many of those in the leadoff slot with a terrible on-base percentage. Or he's caught 96 games behind the plate and hit worse than a pitcher from May through the end of the season.

And this all happens because the Reds bring in a "veteran" that management thinks has proven something when in reality all that veteran has proven is that he just isn't worth a casual look, much less piles of playing time.

Exhibit A: Josh Fogg (boy, the Josh Fogg discussion was exactly like this - how do people like him now?)
Exhibit B: Corey Patterson
Exhibit C: Paul Bako

And that's just from 2008.

I'm tired of going down those roads. I want the road with actual, consistent run production. That's the road that teams take when they head to the playoffs.


I don't care if we can't do it anymore, I'm giving you 80 billion rep points.

reds44
12-10-2008, 10:28 PM
I liked Hairston last year, but I think the Reds would be wise to let him walk.
You have to have somebody on the bench, though. Who would you advocate signing to sit on the bench for the Reds?

Assuming the Reds carry 13 position players:

Starters (8):
CF (Dickerson?)
SS (Gonzalez?)
LF
Bruce
Votto
Edwin
Phillips
Hernandez

Bench (5)
Hanigan
Keppinger
Hairston
Baldelli
Gonzalez (if we acquire an actual SS)/Rosales/Richar/Castillo/Free agent

That's a pretty solid bench.

Jpup
12-10-2008, 10:29 PM
I'd be happy to fill a gaping hole with a guy with upside.

I'm not sure Baldelli or Rivera have much upside.

Jpup
12-10-2008, 10:30 PM
You have to have somebody on the bench, though. Who would you advocate signing to sit on the bench for the Reds?

Assuming the Reds carry 13 position players:

Starters (8):
CF (Dickerson?)
SS (Gonzalez?)
LF
Bruce
Votto
Edwin
Phillips
Hernandez

Bench (5)
Hanigan
Keppinger
Hairston
Baldelli
Gonzalez (if we acquire an actual SS)/Rosales/Richar/Castillo/Free agent

That's a pretty solid bench.

How about some of those young guys in AA that we hear are so great.

reds44
12-10-2008, 10:30 PM
I'm not sure Baldelli or Rivera have much upside.
How can you honestly say Rocco doesn't have upside? The odds of him staying healthy aren't great, but neither were Josh Hamilton's odds of laying off the crack.

Raisor
12-10-2008, 10:30 PM
That's how you avoid finishing in last place. I want the team to have a legit shot at finishing 500 next year so they are tolerable to watch.

Is that the goal now?

Yippie, the winning starts...now?

If that's the goal, just blow it up, and start from scratch. Keep Volquez, Cueto, Bruce, and one of Votto/Alonso and everyone else is up for grab.

reds44
12-10-2008, 10:31 PM
How about some of those young guys in AA that we hear are so great.
A. You don't bring up young players to sit on the bench
B. The guys in AA to start 2009 would have been in High A/Low A last year. You want to have them skip AA and AAA?

Jpup
12-10-2008, 10:31 PM
The odds of him staying healthy aren't great

I can't see giving a contract to a guy than can't play more than a couple times a week. Truthfully, that is all you could expect.

Jpup
12-10-2008, 10:32 PM
A. You don't bring up young players to sit on the bench
B. The guys in AA to start 2009 would have been in High A/Low A last year. You want to have them skip AA and AAA?

Sure you can. That's what the ceiling is for most of them. I see no problem for some them skipping AAA. You see it all the time with teams that really have a good farm.

REDREAD
12-10-2008, 10:32 PM
I'm not sure Baldelli or Rivera have much upside.

Ok, then who should the Reds pursue? That's all I asking, what these "better options" are.

reds44
12-10-2008, 10:32 PM
I can't see giving a contract to a guy than can't play more than a couple times a week. Truthfully, that is all you could expect.
That's all I would be paying him to do. Start 2-3 times a week, pinch hit in other games. I think he could do it.

reds44
12-10-2008, 10:33 PM
Sure you can. That's what the ceiling is for most of them. I see no problem for some them skipping AAA. You see it all the time with teams that really have a good farm.
So you expect them to play to their ceiling while skipping two levels? Phenoms skip two levels, not bench players.

Caveat Emperor
12-10-2008, 10:34 PM
Isn't that a bit harsh? Other than Dunn (who does not want to come back in all likelyhood), who do you suggest the Reds pursue?

Getting Rivera, Baldalli, or Burrell would improve the team. If the Reds do nothing about their OF, then they deserve to finish in last place.

Getting Burrell would be a step in the right direction.

Getting Rivera would be asking for disappointment and failure, praying that his contact-rate and BABIP remain high enough for him to collect enough base hits to avoid being an out-machine in the lineup.

(Incidentally -- M2 once had a great line about players like this akin to: If you can't get the guys with high ceilings, at least avoid the guys with deep cellars. Juan Rivera is a prototypical "deep cellar" kind of ballplayer.)

Getting Baldelli? Well, hope that Drew Stubbs gets ready in a hurry or that Chris Dickerson is the real deal -- otherwise be prepared to start Norris Hopper in the outfield around 100 times, because Baldelli's recent history suggests he's a poor bet to see more than 50 games next season. At best his contribution is projected at marginal, at worst he's a waste of cash resources both in the acquisition and cost of space in the training room. Like I said -- I feel for the kid, but he's a guy you stay far away from.

Mario-Rijo
12-10-2008, 10:34 PM
What I bolded is precisely what my last sentence foreshadowed.

You see, people love to give players like Rivera chances because they're cheap and they see some false hope with their potential. It doesn't matter if that player is 30-years-old with an extreme high-risk (or just plain bad) playing record. They say "well he's only a million or two, he's cheap, so why not?"

And then what happens?

They play. They stink. People are shocked. SHOCKED! (not me, but they are). That player keeps playing. He also keeps stinking. Then he may be "shut down for a few weeks" on the DL to hide from stinking even more. Then he's rehabbed. Then he comes back again and gets more playing time again. And guess what? He stinks again.

It's one big pile of stink that keeps growing because he's a veteran on a big league contract.

Before you know it that player has pitched 78.1 innings and been absolutely devastating to your pitching staff. Or he's gone to the plate 392 times, many of those in the leadoff slot with a terrible on-base percentage. Or he's caught 96 games behind the plate and hit worse than a pitcher from May through the end of the season.

And this all happens because the Reds bring in a "veteran" that management thinks has proven something when in reality all that veteran has proven is that he just isn't worth a casual look, much less piles of playing time.

Exhibit A: Josh Fogg (boy, the Josh Fogg discussion was exactly like this - how do people like him now?)
Exhibit B: Corey Patterson
Exhibit C: Paul Bako

And that's just from 2008.

I'm tired of going down those roads. I want the road with actual, consistent run production. That's the road that teams take when they head to the playoffs.

I think your examples are poor choices, these are guys who have never proven to be very good. Rivera has produced when given the opportunities and well worth a flyer. Because people have made poor decisions acquiring guys who are obviously flawed doesn't make this another one.

Jpup
12-10-2008, 10:35 PM
That's all I would be paying him to do. Start 2-3 times a week, pinch hit in other games. I think he could do it.

Why do you think he would come to Cincinnati to sit on the bench? I think New York and Boston provide a better opportunity for him. I'll pass unless he wants to play for the minimum.

Jpup
12-10-2008, 10:36 PM
So you expect them to play to their ceiling while skipping two levels? Phenoms skip two levels, not bench players.

I said skip AAA, nothing about skipping AA.

reds44
12-10-2008, 10:36 PM
Why do you think he would come to Cincinnati to sit on the bench? I think New York and Boston provide a better opportunity for him. I'll pass unless he wants to play for the minimum.
Well now you are switching the questions. All I said would I would target him on a 1 year deal for a few mil. I have no idea who has offered him outside of knowing we have talked to his agent.

reds44
12-10-2008, 10:37 PM
I said skip AAA, nothing about skipping AA.
Ok, who exactly are you referring to?

There are two position players who I think have any chance of playing in the majors that were in AA last year, Dorn and Valaika.

Mario-Rijo
12-10-2008, 10:37 PM
Getting Burrell would be a step in the right direction.

Getting Rivera would be asking for disappointment and failure, praying that his contact-rate and BABIP remain high enough for him to collect enough base hits to avoid being an out-machine in the lineup.

(Incidentally -- M2 once had a great line about players like this akin to: If you can't get the guys with high ceilings, at least avoid the guys with deep cellars. Juan Rivera is a prototypical "deep cellar" kind of ballplayer.)

Getting Baldelli? Well, hope that Drew Stubbs gets ready in a hurry or that Chris Dickerson is the real deal -- otherwise be prepared to start Norris Hopper in the outfield around 100 times, because Baldelli's recent history suggests he's a poor bet to see more than 50 games next season. At best his contribution is projected at marginal, at worst he's a waste of cash resources both in the acquisition and cost of space in the training room. Like I said -- I feel for the kid, but he's a guy you stay far away from.

If you take a look at Rivera's BABIP's they haven't been all that high in fact overall they have been lower than expected for a guy hitting for such averages.

Jpup
12-10-2008, 10:37 PM
Well now you are switching the questions. All I said would I would target him on a 1 year deal for a few mil. I have no idea who has offered him outside of knowing we have talked to his agent.

The reason his agent called Jocketty is that he thinks he can get paid like a regular when he knows he isn't. Pure speculation, but logical speculation.

reds44
12-10-2008, 10:39 PM
The reason his agent called Jocketty is that he thinks he can get paid like a regular when he knows he isn't. Pure speculation, but logical speculation.
You are arguing something different right now. If he wants the Reds to pay him like a regular, then I don't want him. I've said that all along.

M2
12-10-2008, 10:40 PM
Rivera has produced when given the opportunities and well worth a flyer.

Yet the rule with flyers should be that the lowest bid wins. So maybe you do take a flyer on someone if you can't land a guy you really like, but say you can get Austin Kearns for less. Or maybe Juan Encarnacion has shown up on your doorstep looking fit and spunky.

Sounds to me like Rivera's hunting for a mid-tier commitment. I don't think he's worth that.

Jpup
12-10-2008, 10:40 PM
You are arguing something different right now. If he wants the Reds to pay him like a regular, then I don't want him. I've said that all along.

I believe that's the only way he would come to the Reds. That's one major reason I don't want him.

Jpup
12-10-2008, 10:43 PM
Ok, then who should the Reds pursue? That's all I asking, what these "better options" are.

Randy Winn, as has been discussed, wouldn't be a bad idea if he could be had cheaply. I also like Aaron Rowand. Milton Bradley is my first choice for left field.

reds44
12-10-2008, 10:43 PM
I believe that's the only way he would come to the Reds. That's one major reason I don't want him.
If that's what he wants, I don't want him either.

Mario-Rijo
12-10-2008, 10:44 PM
Yet the rule with flyers should be that the lowest bid wins. So maybe you do take a flyer on someone if you can't land a guy you really like, but say you can get Austin Kearns for less. Or maybe Juan Encarnacion has shown up on your doorstep looking fit and spunky.

Sounds to me like Rivera's hunting for a mid-tier commitment. I don't think he's worth that.

I don't know what he's asking for, he's been speculated to take as little 2-3 million per for a year or 2. I'd take that gamble myself. If he's asking for more than say 3.5 or 4 I'm not nearly as interested and especially if it's for more than 1 or maybe 2 years. I'm personally thinking of a 1 yr 3 million dollar contract with a mutual option for 4 million that either can turn down. And that's probably maximum.

RedsManRick
12-10-2008, 10:45 PM
I think your examples are poor choices, these are guys who have never proven to be very good. Rivera has produced when given the opportunities and well worth a flyer. Because people have made poor decisions acquiring guys who are obviously flawed doesn't make this another one.

He's a 30 year old LF with a career .799 OPS coming off a broken leg. It seems completely reasonable that he's not the sort of guy you should pay a few milliion bucks for. Sure, he very well could put up another .850 OPS season. But chances are he won't.

I'm all for exposing the roster to upside potential, and I think Rivera could provide that. But I wouldn't want to have to count on it or a spend a few million bucks a few hundred plate appearances to find out during a year where we're trying to compete.

Let's say you do get him on a 1 year deal for $2M. Is that your move to address LF? Do you pen him in as your starter? Does that make sense when you just flipped 2 prospects and spent a few million bucks for a mediocre 1 year upgrade elsewhere? If not, do you want to pay $2M for a 4th OF?

corkedbat
12-10-2008, 10:47 PM
I think some people are saying you don't have a chance to compete with the Cubs - why do anything if you can't pick up a top prospect?

I think it safe to say that barring a series of injuries or bad seasons by key Cubs, this team isn't going to win the division, but I don't think that's the goal this offseason.

I think Jocketty and Castellini while they'd love to win the division or make the playoffs, would settle gladly for being solid at eight positions and in the pitching staff, playing an entertaining brand of baseball and hopefully being in shouting distance of the Wild Card come the 1st of August.

Maybe the Wild Card isn't realistic either, with Philly and the Mets sitting in the East, but I don't think that means they don't try. I certainly wouldn't want to try to sell that to the fans and try selling them tickets at the same time.

I think there are moves they can make to improve this team in the short term without dealikng the key young players on this franchise (unliess you're gonna go fretting the loss of every justin Turner).

Maybe it doesn't get them to the playoffs this year, but I think the Cards, Brewers, and Astros have plenty of questions of their own. Even if they don't make the post season, I'd rather watch a team battling them for second or third place in the division, instead of struggling against the Pirates to stay out of last. And who knows? the Cubs are the Cubs afterall.

I know that some will say Daye (or any of the other names mentioned) are a waste of time/resources, but adding a Veteran like him can take pressure off Votto, Bruce, etc. while giving them another vet to watch and learn from.

Mario-Rijo
12-10-2008, 10:50 PM
He's a 30 year old LF with a career .799 OPS coming off a broken leg. It seems completely reasonable that he's not the sort of guy you should pay a few milliion bucks for. Sure, he very well could put up another .850 OPS season. But chances are he won't.

I'm all for exposing the roster to upside potential, and I think Rivera could provide that. But I wouldn't want to have to count on it or a spend a few million bucks a few hundred plate appearances to find out during a year where we're trying to compete.

I happen to think it's not a whole lot more unreasonable than to believe Jermaine Dye wouldn't fall off a cliff. If we are gonna take a chance on a guy why wouldn't it be the younger, cheaper, better defensive guy who has some upside as opposed to none or downside? I'm not just shooting off here, look at Rivera's BABIP, LD% etc. he looks to be more a potential gem than not.

Raisor
12-10-2008, 10:52 PM
By my count, Rivera has had about 800 top notch PA's worth of business.

62 PA's in 03 of .322/.344/.695 (2nd half of season)
237 PA's in 04 .358/.418/.526 (2nd half of season)
494 PA's in 06 .320/.363/.525 (full season)

I dunno, when he's good, he's really really good, but he's bad (really really bad) more often.

Cyclone792
12-10-2008, 10:56 PM
I think your examples are poor choices, these are guys who have never proven to be very good. Rivera has produced when given the opportunities and well worth a flyer. Because people have made poor decisions acquiring guys who are obviously flawed doesn't make this another one.

Except it's not a poor choice because Rivera has never proven to be good. Flukes aren't consistently good. Rivera is a fluke, not consistently good. Now he's 30 and coming off a broken leg. Sorry. Do not want.

The Reds would sign him and he'd up in a corner outfield slot getting 400 plate appearances in the middle of the order as an out-making machine. The Reds offense would struggle to score runs - again - and then people will be trying to blame Edwin Encarnacion.

Cyclone792
12-10-2008, 10:57 PM
(Incidentally -- M2 once had a great line about players like this akin to: If you can't get the guys with high ceilings, at least avoid the guys with deep cellars. Juan Rivera is a prototypical "deep cellar" kind of ballplayer.)

Low floors, that's precisely it.

Juan Rivera has a floor that's buried in a mine somewhere.

REDREAD
12-10-2008, 11:14 PM
Randy Winn, as has been discussed, wouldn't be a bad idea if he could be had cheaply. I also like Aaron Rowand. Milton Bradley is my first choice for left field.

Ok, didn't the Giants just sign Rowand to a 5 year, 60 million contract last year? I don't think he'd be available, but he would be a great addition in CF if available.

I'm not sure if Wynn can still play CF or not, because I haven't seen much of him the last few years. He's 34. He also seems to have to bat 300 in order to have an OBP over 350. Not a lot of power, but a decent player. But he's been very durable. Not a bad choice. Is he a FA?

I suspect Milton Bradley is going to get a huge contract. He's so volatile, I'm not sure I would want to risk signing him to a long term deal. There's always the risk he's going to do something really stupid. There's a good reason why he's bounced around so much.

So, I like your first two ideas, don't like Bradley though. Way too much risk and he will take a lot of $$ and years to sign.

OnBaseMachine
12-10-2008, 11:15 PM
Aaron Rowand? Stay as far away from him as possible.

REDREAD
12-10-2008, 11:18 PM
The reason his agent called Jocketty is that he thinks he can get paid like a regular when he knows he isn't. Pure speculation, but logical speculation.

I think you are talking about Rivera here. Cincy is a logical place for his agent to call. We need two more OF and probably aren't going to be big spenders on them. It's hard to guess what's going through his mind. Maybe he'd rather have an opportunity to play every day in Cincy instead of sitting on the bench in NY, even for less money. You never know.

REDREAD
12-10-2008, 11:21 PM
Yet the rule with flyers should be that the lowest bid wins. So maybe you do take a flyer on someone if you can't land a guy you really like, but say you can get Austin Kearns for less. Or maybe Juan Encarnacion has shown up on your doorstep looking fit and spunky.

Sounds to me like Rivera's hunting for a mid-tier commitment. I don't think he's worth that.

Not sure I agree that the lowest bid always wins. It depends on what the team's goal is. Sure, if the team is out of money and can only pay 500k for a rotation slot, you sign Jimmy Anderson.

But if the team has some money, doesn't it make more sense to take a flyer on the guy that you actually think has the greatest chance of rebounding? Not necessarily break the bank, but player A at 1 million might be a worst option than player B at 3 million. Example, do you take a flyer on Patterson again or Rivera (or a pick a mid level guy you like)? Patterson is going to be the lowest bid.

OnBaseMachine
12-10-2008, 11:29 PM
FWIW, I wasn't much of a Juan Rivera fan either until I read some recent posts by Johnny Footstool that changed my mind on him. I'm still not completely sold on him but I wouldn't be opposed to bringing him in on a one year (two at most) deal. I just think a league change and the GABP could do him some good... but ideally he'd be a fourth outfielder.

I'd really like to see Rocco Baldelli brought in and platooned with Danny Dorn in left. If Matt Joyce can come up and OPS .842 vs RHP then I don't see why Danny Dorn can't do the same. They are the same age (Dorn is two weeks older) and Dorn's (.915 OPS) minor league numbers blow Joyce's (.804 OPS) out of the water.

RedLegSuperStar
12-10-2008, 11:32 PM
wouldn't Rivera and Baldelli cost the Reds the same amount as Jermaine Dye in money?

*BaseClogger*
12-10-2008, 11:54 PM
How the opinions of Juan Rivera, RedsZone's darling child, change after Cyclone speaks out against him...

Mario-Rijo
12-11-2008, 12:01 AM
How the opinions of Juan Rivera, RedsZone's darling child, change after Cyclone speaks out against him...

Mine hasn't changed, but I'm sure everyone already knew that. I'm just tired of arguing.

LoganBuck
12-11-2008, 12:03 AM
Get me Pat the bat.

M2
12-11-2008, 12:11 AM
How the opinions of Juan Rivera, RedsZone's darling child, change after Cyclone speaks out against him...

Make a good argument someday and maybe someone will agree with you.

*BaseClogger*
12-11-2008, 12:13 AM
Make a good argument someday and maybe someone will agree with you.

:confused:

I never made a post in support of Rivera and I'm glad to see Cyclone convince others of his weaknesses...

M2
12-11-2008, 12:18 AM
Example, do you take a flyer on Patterson again or Rivera (or a pick a mid level guy you like)? Patterson is going to be the lowest bid.

Given the amount of time remaining in the offseason, I don't think the Reds should get stuck with either of those two options. My thinking is I want to keep the flyers on the bench, which means no one's getting $3M.

We're talking about a middle of the lineup bat here. It ought to be someone you really want or someone with big upside. Rivera's just not that guy.

M2
12-11-2008, 12:20 AM
:confused:

I never made a post in support of Rivera and I'm glad to see Cyclone convince others of his weaknesses...

That wasn't a cheap bust on Cyclone? My apologies if it wasn't, but it came across as ... well, something not too cool.

wheels
12-11-2008, 12:24 AM
It's not looking so good in LF so far, is it?

I really think Walt's hamstringing himself a bit by limiting his search to righty hitters.

Hermida's a better target than any of these guys and it's not even really close. That kid would mash at GAB.

*BaseClogger*
12-11-2008, 12:25 AM
That wasn't a cheap bust on Cyclone? My apologies if it wasn't, but it came across as ... well, something not too cool.

:redface:

Is that how it read? Not my intention at all. I meant Cyclone is very influential. I have the utmost admiration for Cyclone as a poster. I never understood why we have spent the last few months discussing Juan Rivera as a middle of the order corner outfielder. There really isn't a single part of his game that stands out to me. He would have been a nice pickup a few years, but his ship has since sailed.

I'm a little surprised by your response though...

M2
12-11-2008, 12:33 AM
:redface:

Is that how it read? Not my intention at all. I meant Cyclone is very influential. I have the utmost admiration for Cyclone as a poster. I never understood why we have spent the last few months discussing Juan Rivera as a middle of the order corner outfielder. There really isn't a single part of his game that stands out to me. He would have been a nice pickup a few years, but his ship has since sailed.

I'm a little surprised by your response though...

It read nasty to me. My bad. Sorry about the confusion. PM me if you've got any more questions, no reason to beat it into the dirt on the public board.

AmarilloRed
12-11-2008, 12:47 AM
Get me Pat the bat.

He's really the best of the 3 choices offensively. Just get ready for some ghastly LF defense, though.

redsfan4445
12-11-2008, 01:00 AM
this was on mlbtraderumours with a link: Baldelli a Red??

"Winter meetings, Day 3: Baldelli a Red?
12:25 AM Thu, Dec 11, 2008 | Permalink
Joe McDonald Email

By Joe McDonald
Journal Sports Writer

LAS VEGAS _ A group of Cincinnati Reds personnel, including manager Dusty Baker, were playing roulette Tuesday night. A member of the contingent yelled "Put it on No. 5 for Rocco Baldelli" and now it appears the Reds are having talks with his agent.

Baldelli has worn No. 5 for the Rays his entire career. The Red Sox were also interested in the Rhode Island native. He met with the Red Sox at Fenway Park a few weeks ago to educate them on his health and mitochondrial disorder.

During the meetings here at the Bellagio Hotel, it appears the Sox have stepped back with their interest in the outfielder. "

Well he wont wear #5 here.. maybe #15? or #6? ;)

Johnny Footstool
12-11-2008, 01:00 AM
Don't get me wrong, I'm not excited about Dye either. He's just a better, safer target than Rivera despite the age. I wouldn't be interested in Dye as anything but a stopgap, and I won't lie when I state that part of Dye's appeal is his likely high Type FA status.

If anything, the Dye aspect also tells you how much I wouldn't miss Homer Bailey.

What is better or safer about Jermaine Dye?

Dye also has a poor BB rate and is also useless unless he's hitting .300.

Dye broke his leg in 2001 and spent 2002 recovering. He was fine after that. Yet Rivera's broken leg is somehow sticking in your craw?

Plus Dye is older, a worse defender, and ridiculously more expensive.

Here are Dye's stats from the past 5 years:


Year Team G AB R H HR RBI BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
2004 OAK 137 532 87 141 23 80 49 128 4 2 .329 .464 .265
2005 CHW 145 529 74 145 31 86 39 99 11 4 .333 .512 .274
2006 CHW 146 539 103 170 44 120 59 118 7 3 .385 .622 .315
2007 CHW 138 508 68 129 28 78 45 107 2 1 .317 .486 .254
2008 CHW 154 590 96 172 34 96 44 104 3 2 .344 .541 .292

Not really a stat line you can set your watch to.

I don't understand why you think he's better and safer than Juan Rivera.

Krusty
12-11-2008, 02:16 AM
Okay, you guys are making me sway towards Juan Rivera's way. Two year deal with an option. I wouldn't mind Badelli either to platoon with Dickinson in CF.

blumj
12-11-2008, 07:34 AM
this was on mlbtraderumours with a link: Baldelli a Red??

"Winter meetings, Day 3: Baldelli a Red?
12:25 AM Thu, Dec 11, 2008 | Permalink
Joe McDonald Email

By Joe McDonald
Journal Sports Writer

LAS VEGAS _ A group of Cincinnati Reds personnel, including manager Dusty Baker, were playing roulette Tuesday night. A member of the contingent yelled "Put it on No. 5 for Rocco Baldelli" and now it appears the Reds are having talks with his agent.

Baldelli has worn No. 5 for the Rays his entire career. The Red Sox were also interested in the Rhode Island native. He met with the Red Sox at Fenway Park a few weeks ago to educate them on his health and mitochondrial disorder.

During the meetings here at the Bellagio Hotel, it appears the Sox have stepped back with their interest in the outfielder. "

Well he wont wear #5 here.. maybe #15? or #6? ;)
The Red Sox backing off is probably not related to Baldelli's health situation. They're supposedly talking to the D-Backs about swapping Julio Lugo for Eric Byrnes.

Degenerate39
12-11-2008, 07:41 AM
I honestly don't know how anyone here can want Baldelli. If you didn't like Dunn because it didn't look like he was hustling you probably wouldn't like this guy.

lollipopcurve
12-11-2008, 07:57 AM
I'd still look into how desperate Houston is to move Tejada. With a decent bat at SS, you could then fashion a relatively inexpensive platoon in LF (Baldelli/Dickerson?) and be looking at a lineup with 7 respectable bats, at least. I'd have no trouble with inserting Hairston in CF along with that group. Even Tavares, though I know I'm in the minority there.

edabbs44
12-11-2008, 08:27 AM
I look at Rivera and I see someone with the potential for being a useful player. The first time he had over 400 ABs (coincidentally at the "magic" age of 27), he put up a very solid stat line. he then broke his leg the following season and only came back around the middle of last year, where he seemed to be somewhat rusty.

If the guy can be had at little committment, IMO he would be worth the effort. The fact that he might end up being an out making machine with 400 PAs isn't his fault. That's on the manager. If he is an out making machine than he shouldn't be playing and that would be something that Walt would need to address with Baker. You can't be scared of adding risk/reward players just because the manager might misuse them when the risk prevails. Then the problem lies with the manager.

Cincy is in the position that they can get someone like Rivera at a price, then they should do it. Worst case is that we have a bench OFer with a career .800 OPS and little committment. Best case is you end up with a bargain who has come back from a big injury to post numbers close to 2006.

bucksfan2
12-11-2008, 08:38 AM
Baldelli intrigues me. IMO he was on the fast track to becoming a very good baseball player. Then he starts to fatigue early and doesn't recover quickly. Dr.'s don't really know what or how to diagnose let alone treat his symptoms. They say it is similar to a condition in horses. Finally h is diagnosed with a mitochondrial disease and they have found a way to treat him. Baldelli may never become a 120 game player. But if he can give you 100 games of good baseball IMO he is worth bringing along.

What is key with Baldelli is having enough position players if he is unable to go. Can Votto play LF if needed this season. What roll with Micah Owings play? Can he play 1b? Can he play OF? What if Baldelli so brought in on a two year deal as well as Abreu? I would feel much better about an outfield of Bruce, Dickerson, Baldelli, Abreu, and Hopper.

Ltlabner
12-11-2008, 09:29 AM
Worst case is that we have a bench OFer with a career .800 OPS and little committment. Best case is you end up with a bargain who has come back from a big injury to post numbers close to 2006.

Actually, the worse case is that you get 400 PA's of an out machine and paying for the privledge.

edabbs44
12-11-2008, 09:36 AM
Actually, the worse case is that you get 400 PA's of an out machine and paying for the privledge.

No. You can't stop taking chances on guys just because the manager may misuse the person. The manager is then the issue, not the player. Correct the manager and then you have an asset on your hands.

And Rivera has a career .800 OPS. It isn't like you'd be giving 400 PAs to Bako.

redsfan30
12-11-2008, 09:48 AM
My choices are Jermaine Dye and if we can't grab him, Pat Burrell.

This team needs an impact player in the middle of the order and these two are the only ones that fit that ball in my opinion.

SMcGavin
12-11-2008, 09:51 AM
Jermaine Dye has many of the same OBP issues that Rivera does. Dye, in the past seven seasons, has posted an OBP over .333 just twice. And he's going to be 35. And last year was the first time since 2001 that he's played in more than 150 games.

I'm not trying to make a judgement on Dye v. Rivera. Just pointing out that if Rivera's flaws (OBP and health) scare you away, Dye might not be the guy to turn to.

RedEye
12-11-2008, 10:07 AM
Jermaine Dye has many of the same OBP issues that Rivera does. Dye, in the past seven seasons, has posted an OBP over .333 just twice. And he's going to be 35. And last year was the first time since 2001 that he's played in more than 150 games.

I'm not trying to make a judgement on Dye v. Rivera. Just pointing out that if Rivera's flaws (OBP and health) scare you away, Dye might not be the guy to turn to.

I have to agree with you. And I really don't understand why people aren't counting defense as part of the equation. Rivera, by most accounts, has been and can still be a plus defender in the outfield. Dye, by most accounts, has a good arm still and that's about it.

I understand why many posters are critical of Rivera, but taking the $, the defense, and the Reds needs into account, I'm not sure signing Rivera isn't just as good an option as trading Homer Bailey + for Jermaine Dye.

Cyclone792
12-11-2008, 11:12 AM
What is better or safer about Jermaine Dye?

Dye also has a poor BB rate and is also useless unless he's hitting .300.

Dye broke his leg in 2001 and spent 2002 recovering. He was fine after that. Yet Rivera's broken leg is somehow sticking in your craw?

Plus Dye is older, a worse defender, and ridiculously more expensive.

Here are Dye's stats from the past 5 years:


Year Team G AB R H HR RBI BB SO SB CS OBP SLG AVG
2004 OAK 137 532 87 141 23 80 49 128 4 2 .329 .464 .265
2005 CHW 145 529 74 145 31 86 39 99 11 4 .333 .512 .274
2006 CHW 146 539 103 170 44 120 59 118 7 3 .385 .622 .315
2007 CHW 138 508 68 129 28 78 45 107 2 1 .317 .486 .254
2008 CHW 154 590 96 172 34 96 44 104 3 2 .344 .541 .292

Not really a stat line you can set your watch to.

I don't understand why you think he's better and safer than Juan Rivera.

Since you used the last five years:

Dye 04-08: 20 win shares and 7.22 WARP per 162 games
Rivera 04-08: 16 win shares and 3.99 WARP per 162 games

Per rate stats, Dye has clearly been the more productive offensive force.

Dye's floor is still that of a roughly average hitter while Rivera's floor is Corey Patterson (see 2008). That's a massive difference right there. That's precisely why Dye is a safer bet than Rivera, because if they both tank then you'll at least get some value out of Dye whereas you'll be shooting yourself in the foot with Rivera.

And as I said before, Dye gives you the option of collecting draft picks. Right now he's an upper type B classification. After 2009, he has a solid chance at improving that to a Type A classification since his 2007 season will fall off the board. You're not just acquiring Dye's production, you're also acquiring Dye's ability to give you the option of collecting additional draft picks.

Look, this team has a gaping hole in left field. It also has a gaping hole in the middle of its lineup. Ramon Hernandez was a small step in the right direction toward fixing the offense, but they need a solid bat in left field. Dye may or may not provide that for you, but he at least gives you quite a bit better odds than Rivera. If this team already had a bat in left field and Rivera was a quality defensive center fielder, then my tune is different. But right now we don't have that extra bat and Rivera would be earmarked toward a corner slot. If that happens, the 2009 offense won't score enough runs to matter.

nate
12-11-2008, 11:15 AM
It's a shame that Dr. House is a fictional TV character because he could probably figure out how to cure Baldelli's disorder. Maybe it's worth taking a flyer on Baldelli (if it's possible) _and_ signing Rivera/Burell (or Dunn).

edabbs44
12-11-2008, 11:18 AM
Dye's floor is still that of a roughly average hitter while Rivera's floor is Corey Patterson (see 2008). That's a massive difference right there. That's precisely why Dye is a safer bet than Rivera, because if they both tank then you'll at least get some value out of Dye whereas you'll be shooting yourself in the foot with Rivera.

Why do you think that Rivera's floor is Patterson circa 2008?

Johnny Footstool
12-11-2008, 02:46 PM
Dye's floor is well below average. His 2007 numbers were plain awful --
.254/.317/.486 -- and he was paid about $10 million for them.

I'd rather pay a little to Rivera for what he could do than pay a lot to Dye for what he has done in the the past (occasionally).

edabbs44
12-11-2008, 03:23 PM
Dye's floor is well below average. His 2007 numbers were plain awful --
.254/.317/.486 -- and he was paid about $10 million for them.

I'd rather pay a little to Rivera for what he could do than pay a lot to Dye for what he has done in the the past (occasionally).

Really? Plain awful? I think they were a bit better than that.

Ltlabner
12-11-2008, 03:28 PM
No. You can't stop taking chances on guys just because the manager may misuse the person. The manager is then the issue, not the player. Correct the manager and then you have an asset on your hands.

But the reality is baring The Dusty going on a crime spree he's going to be the manager next year. You'd be foolish to not factor in his history of player utilization when building a team.

Especially with a player that could go from useful to painful based on usage.

You're probably right that you can't make decisions from fear of "what if" but you should at least factor it into your decision making process.

IslandRed
12-11-2008, 03:35 PM
Dye's floor is well below average. His 2007 numbers were plain awful --
.254/.317/.486 -- and he was paid about $10 million for them.

I'd rather pay a little to Rivera for what he could do than pay a lot to Dye for what he has done in the the past (occasionally).

That .803 OPS was 12th among right fielders in the majors.

It's possible Dye will have a so-so year kind of light on the OBP, but I think I agree with Cyclone here -- even if he has that kind of year e.g. 2007, he'll still be a useful player, if somewhat overpaid for the production. I'm not quite as down on Rivera but his version of a so-so year isn't going to be as productive.

SMcGavin
12-11-2008, 03:36 PM
Really? Plain awful? I think they were a bit better than that.

Agreed, but it's scary when you think about what the Reds have to give to get that guy. If Dye comes in here and goes .260/.320/.490 with poor defense, it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. Is that worth giving up Bailey, plus another decent prospect, plus $11M in payroll room? It's not likely that Dye will be a bad player in 2009 - but I think it's a reasonable possibility that he'll be an average player who cost you a lot in talent and money to acquire.

IslandRed
12-11-2008, 03:41 PM
Agreed, but it's scary when you think about what the Reds have to give to get that guy. If Dye comes in here and goes .260/.320/.490 with poor defense, it shouldn't come as a shock to anyone. Is that worth giving up Bailey, plus another decent prospect, plus $11M in payroll room? It's not likely that Dye will be a bad player in 2009 - but I think it's a reasonable possibility that he'll be an average player who cost you a lot in talent and money to acquire.

I think if Jocketty was willing to do all that, Dye would already be a Red. A couple of posts several days ago referred to "economic issues" hanging up the trade. Which would make sense. Generally speaking, when dealing for a player like Dye, a team will either pick up the money *or* give up a top prospect, but rarely both. And I imagine Jocketty probably said as much to the White Sox -- if Bailey is the centerpiece going the other way, the Sox will have to kick in some money.

SMcGavin
12-11-2008, 03:44 PM
I think if Jocketty was willing to do all that, Dye would already be a Red. A couple of posts several days ago referred to "economic issues" hanging up the trade. Which would make sense. Generally speaking, when dealing for a player like Dye, a team will either pick up the money *or* give up a top prospect, but rarely both. And I imagine Jocketty probably said as much to the White Sox -- if Bailey is the centerpiece going the other way, the Sox will have to kick in some money.

Probably right, I shouldn't have said $11M. Some cash will change hands, but I don't think the Sox are going to be paying the whole contract.

Cyclone792
12-11-2008, 03:47 PM
Dye's floor is well below average. His 2007 numbers were plain awful --
.254/.317/.486 -- and he was paid about $10 million for them.

I'd rather pay a little to Rivera for what he could do than pay a lot to Dye for what he has done in the the past (occasionally).

You're reaching if you're comparing Dye's floor with Rivera's floor, especially when Rivera's floor includes an on-base percentage south of .290. He was an absolute liability last year, and that's precisely what the Reds need to avoid at any and all cost.

Not to mention, signing Juan Rivera would require at least two years. Dye is one and done, take the picks and run. And his one is likely to be quite a bit more productive than either of Rivera's two. Note that I'd still be a little disappointed if Dye is the big bat the Reds require, but he's certainly a better option than Rivera ... partially because Rivera's simply an awful option.

remdog
12-11-2008, 04:05 PM
Part of the equasion here is: what is your goal?

If you really believe you can build a team that can make the playoffs then you have to go with Dye (or Burrell). If you are just marking time, then it seems to me that Riviera is the way to go and you hope that Alonso arrives post haste and Votto moves to LF.

Rem

bucksfan2
12-11-2008, 04:18 PM
You're reaching if you're comparing Dye's floor with Rivera's floor, especially when Rivera's floor includes an on-base percentage south of .290. He was an absolute liability last year, and that's precisely what the Reds need to avoid at any and all cost.

Not to mention, signing Juan Rivera would require at least two years. Dye is one and done, take the picks and run. And his one is likely to be quite a bit more productive than either of Rivera's two. Note that I'd still be a little disappointed if Dye is the big bat the Reds require, but he's certainly a better option than Rivera ... partially because Rivera's simply an awful option.

Are you assuming that the if the Reds trade for Dye they will decline ins 2010 option?

Its likely that the Reds would decline the option but at the same time Dye may prove to be their best bet in the OF for that season.

Rivera has shown potential to be an asset as a starting outfielder. I wonder how much his broken leg effected his numbers over the last two years. He may be a prime case for buying low, selling high. If the Reds can lock him up to a 10M 2 year contract it wouldn't be the worst thing to happen. Even he doesn't play well he becomes 4th outfielder making around what Freel makes.

wheels
12-11-2008, 04:20 PM
Are you assuming that the if the Reds trade for Dye they will decline ins 2010 option?

Its likely that the Reds would decline the option but at the same time Dye may prove to be their best bet in the OF for that season.

Rivera has shown potential to be an asset as a starting outfielder. I wonder how much his broken leg effected his numbers over the last two years. He may be a prime case for buying low, selling high. If the Reds can lock him up to a 10M 2 year contract it wouldn't be the worst thing to happen. Even he doesn't play well he becomes 4th outfielder making around what Freel makes.

There is no way I'd give Rivera 5 million per season.

No freaking way.

Falls City Beer
12-11-2008, 04:23 PM
Rivera's game is awful.

Mario-Rijo
12-11-2008, 04:25 PM
Dye gives us a hypothetical option to collect picks but we all know that's highly unlikely to happen. We 1st would have to buy out his remaining year (1M) and then offer arbitration to a 35 nearly 36 year old COF.

corkedbat
12-11-2008, 04:28 PM
I think if Jocketty was willing to do all that, Dye would already be a Red. A couple of posts several days ago referred to "economic issues" hanging up the trade. Which would make sense. Generally speaking, when dealing for a player like Dye, a team will either pick up the money *or* give up a top prospect, but rarely both. And I imagine Jocketty probably said as much to the White Sox -- if Bailey is the centerpiece going the other way, the Sox will have to kick in some money.

I'm guessing that Jocketty kicks the tires on Free Agents like Burrell, Abreu and Rivera. If he can't get a deal that is driven lower by the market, I think he revisits the Dye deal.

If Chicago will kick in $3M or more, I'd say he adds someone like Valika or Roenicke. For less than that it's prolly someone like Watson. If they send no money he might even ask for an additional prospect headed our way

Will M
12-11-2008, 04:38 PM
Part of the equasion here is: what is your goal?

If you really believe you can build a team that can make the playoffs then you have to go with Dye (or Burrell). If you are just marking time, then it seems to me that Riviera is the way to go and you hope that Alonso arrives post haste and Votto moves to LF.

Rem

Dorn will start in AAA. Why not go with a cheap RH hitter in LF then if he can't cut it as a starter Dorn could be ready by midseason.

Walt seems to think we must have a stud RH batter in LF yet the SS position is OK.
I'd rather spend bucks or talent to get a SS then go cheap in LF.

puca
12-11-2008, 04:38 PM
You're reaching if you're comparing Dye's floor with Rivera's floor, especially when Rivera's floor includes an on-base percentage south of .290. He was an absolute liability last year, and that's precisely what the Reds need to avoid at any and all cost.

Not to mention, signing Juan Rivera would require at least two years. Dye is one and done, take the picks and run. And his one is likely to be quite a bit more productive than either of Rivera's two. Note that I'd still be a little disappointed if Dye is the big bat the Reds require, but he's certainly a better option than Rivera ... partially because Rivera's simply an awful option.

Does Dye's floor somehow not include his 2003 season?

Problem with 1 and done for Dye is that to get the picks the Reds would have to offer arbitration. If Dye tanks next year the Reds don't dare.

I wouldn't pay Rivera anywhere near what he is asking, but if you can sell him on the chance to get playing time in a hitter paridise, he might be willing to take a low-ball 1 year from the Reds with the toughts of a big payday next year.

Cyclone792
12-11-2008, 04:53 PM
Does Dye's floor somehow not include his 2003 season?

Problem with 1 and done for Dye is that to get the picks the Reds would have to offer arbitration. If Dye tanks next year the Reds don't dare.

I wouldn't pay Rivera anywhere near what he is asking, but if you can sell him on the chance to get playing time in a hitter paridise, he might be willing to take a low-ball 1 year from the Reds with the toughts of a big payday next year.

Five years of quality offense since then renders that season moot. Meanwhile Juan Rivera hasn't hit a lick since 2006, and he hasn't shown any ability to consistently produce above his floor.

I shudder at the thought of the Reds even bringing him Rivera in with a low-ball offer. If they do that, then that means they'll be playing him. My point all along is I simply don't want the guy in the Reds' lineup.

Johnny Footstool
12-11-2008, 05:01 PM
Really? Plain awful? I think they were a bit better than that.

A .317 OPB is plain awful, no spinning it. The guy was an out machine.


You're reaching if you're comparing Dye's floor with Rivera's floor....

I'm not comparing floors. I'm addressing the assertion that Dye's floor isn't very low. It is.

edabbs44
12-11-2008, 05:06 PM
Meanwhile Juan Rivera hasn't hit a lick since 2006, and he hasn't shown any ability to consistently produce above his floor.

Juan Rivera broke his leg early in 2007 and missed half of 2008. So he didn't hit a lick after a year and a half layoff.

Very unfair to assess his talent level based on what happened since 2006. 2006 is a much better comp for him than 2007-2008.

edabbs44
12-11-2008, 05:08 PM
A .317 OPB is plain awful, no spinning it. The guy was an out machine.

He had an awful OBP, but not an awful year. An OPS north of .800 is not awful.

corkedbat
12-11-2008, 05:20 PM
I'm guessing they give Burrell and maybe Abreu offers in the 3yr/$36-39M range and see if they start to sweat in January if the market stays soft.

If they say no, I think they revisit the Dye trade with his 1-2yr. committment

Mario-Rijo
12-11-2008, 05:23 PM
I'm guessing they give Burrell and maybe Abreu offers in the 3yr/$36-39M range and see if they start to sweat in January if the market stays soft.

If they say no, I think they revisit the Dye trade with his 1-2yr. committment

I'd much rather have Dye than give those type of contracts to Abreu or Burrell. 2 yrs max for any COF, in fact I wish we could just give them a 1 1/2 yr contract.

Scrap Irony
12-11-2008, 05:24 PM
I don't think they're going that high, corked. I'd guess a one-year $7.5 million deal. Maybe a million or two more, but that's it.

corkedbat
12-11-2008, 05:31 PM
I don't think they're going that high, corked. I'd guess a one-year $7.5 million deal. Maybe a million or two more, but that's it.

Could well be right. Gammons said no contender would give Dunn $8M per the other night. I was just saying that at the max they might consider a bit more than what Dye would get since they hold onto the prospect.

After Texiiera & ManRam settle in some place, I think prices will come up a bit as teams scramble a bit to fill holes. I don't think any one beyond those tow get the e or 5 year deals for $15-18M/ per like we thought there would be a month or two ago.

Scrap Irony
12-11-2008, 05:39 PM
Nah, owners are colluding AND the economy is in the crapper. Players aren't going to be able to get much this off-season if they're not being courted by the Yankees or Red Sox. (It also helps if they're named CC, Teix, or ManRam. Perhaps Sheets.)

Cyclone792
12-11-2008, 05:47 PM
I'm not comparing floors. I'm addressing the assertion that Dye's floor isn't very low. It is.

But instead you're trumping Juan Rivera? If you think Dye's floor is low, where does that put Rivera's floor?

You know, I've been avoiding saying what I'm going to say in this thread, but I'm just going to go ahead and say it because it's plainly obvious. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but it's a general observation:

People must really like losing. Either that or there is a complete lack of understanding of the type of production the Reds need to acquire in order to be worth watching next year.

The types of players many people seem to be trumping aren't players that are going to help the Reds win. Mostly they're players that are going to ensure that the Reds keep losing.

Juan Rivera? In a corner outfield slot and in the middle of the lineup? Are people really serious about this? Do people understand that even a low-ball flyer on Juan Rivera is going to result in far too many plate appearances by Rivera in a Reds uniform? He's simply not going to help this offense win games. He'll help this offense lose games, but he's not going to help it win games.

The Reds have a gaping hole at left field, and some of the solutions being discussed such as Juan Rivera would turn a gaping hole into a black hole. Many people despised Adam Dunn, but the guy was a model of consistent, reliable, and serious run production. He was traded in early August, and Chris Dickerson replaced him in the lineup and beat the snot out of the ball. Dickerson's surge led a great deal of fans to believe in the false hope that the offense as currently constructed could survive without Dunn.

The reality here is that this offense can't survive without Dunn-like production, and it won't survive without it. Not without a competent replacement that could damn near match Dunn's production. I like Dickerson and believe he should be given a serious look in center field - Dusty's leash needs to be about five times what it will be with him - but it is probably universally accepted that Chris Dickerson isn't going to be the offensive force that Dunn was. What this essentially means is that the Reds offense has yet to feel Dunn's absence. They'll feel it when Dickerson's true talent kicks in though unless they can find a competent Dunn replacement for left field.

So if people want to keep losing, then fine. Go out and sign Juan Rivera and plug him in the corner outfield as Dunn's essential replacement. The offense will bury itself deeper in the toilet, and barring a trio of sub 3 ERAs from Harang, Volquez, and Cueto, the team will get its brains beat in for a 9th consecutive season.

It's time to start bringing in players that will help this team win games, and it's time to stop bringing in players who will help this team lose games. I don't think that's too much to ask at this point.

Raisor
12-11-2008, 05:58 PM
But instead you're trumping Juan Rivera? If you think Dye's floor is low, where does that put Rivera's floor?

You know, I've been avoiding saying what I'm going to say in this thread, but I'm just going to go ahead and say it because it's plainly obvious. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but it's a general observation:

People must really like losing. Either that or there is a complete lack of understanding of the type of production the Reds need to acquire in order to be worth watching next year.

The types of players many people seem to be trumping aren't players that are going to help the Reds win. Mostly they're players that are going to ensure that the Reds keep losing.

Juan Rivera? In a corner outfield slot and in the middle of the lineup? Are people really serious about this? Do people understand that even a low-ball flyer on Juan Rivera is going to result in far too many plate appearances by Rivera in a Reds uniform? He's simply not going to help this offense win games. He'll help this offense lose games, but he's not going to help it win games.

The Reds have a gaping hole at left field, and some of the solutions being discussed such as Juan Rivera would turn a gaping hole into a black hole. Many people despised Adam Dunn, but the guy was a model of consistent, reliable, and serious run production. He was traded in early August, and Chris Dickerson replaced him in the lineup and beat the snot out of the ball. Dickerson's surge led a great deal of fans to believe in the false hope that the offense as currently constructed could survive without Dunn.

The reality here is that this offense can't survive without Dunn-like production, and it won't survive without it. Not without a competent replacement that could damn near match Dunn's production. I like Dickerson and believe he should be given a serious look in center field - Dusty's leash needs to be about five times what it will be with him - but it is probably universally accepted that Chris Dickerson isn't going to be the offensive force that Dunn was. What this essentially means is that the Reds offense has yet to feel Dunn's absence. They'll feel it when Dickerson's true talent kicks in though unless they can find a competent Dunn replacement for left field.

So if people want to keep losing, then fine. Go out and sign Juan Rivera and plug him in the corner outfield as Dunn's essential replacement. The offense will bury itself deeper in the toilet, and barring a trio of sub 3 ERAs from Harang, Volquez, and Cueto, the team will get its brains beat in for a 9th consecutive season.

It's time to start bringing in players that will help this team win games, and it's time to stop bringing in players who will help this team lose games. I don't think that's too much to ask at this point.



I don't know how you used up all the (fake) rep points I gave you so quickly, so I'm going to have to hit you again.


58.7 billion (fake) rep points.

dougdirt
12-11-2008, 06:09 PM
But instead you're trumping Juan Rivera? If you think Dye's floor is low, where does that put Rivera's floor?

You know, I've been avoiding saying what I'm going to say in this thread, but I'm just going to go ahead and say it because it's plainly obvious. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but it's a general observation:

People must really like losing. Either that or there is a complete lack of understanding of the type of production the Reds need to acquire in order to be worth watching next year.

The types of players many people seem to be trumping aren't players that are going to help the Reds win. Mostly they're players that are going to ensure that the Reds keep losing.

Juan Rivera? In a corner outfield slot and in the middle of the lineup? Are people really serious about this? Do people understand that even a low-ball flyer on Juan Rivera is going to result in far too many plate appearances by Rivera in a Reds uniform? He's simply not going to help this offense win games. He'll help this offense lose games, but he's not going to help it win games.

The Reds have a gaping hole at left field, and some of the solutions being discussed such as Juan Rivera would turn a gaping hole into a black hole. Many people despised Adam Dunn, but the guy was a model of consistent, reliable, and serious run production. He was traded in early August, and Chris Dickerson replaced him in the lineup and beat the snot out of the ball. Dickerson's surge led a great deal of fans to believe in the false hope that the offense as currently constructed could survive without Dunn.

The reality here is that this offense can't survive without Dunn-like production, and it won't survive without it. Not without a competent replacement that could damn near match Dunn's production. I like Dickerson and believe he should be given a serious look in center field - Dusty's leash needs to be about five times what it will be with him - but it is probably universally accepted that Chris Dickerson isn't going to be the offensive force that Dunn was. What this essentially means is that the Reds offense has yet to feel Dunn's absence. They'll feel it when Dickerson's true talent kicks in though unless they can find a competent Dunn replacement for left field.

So if people want to keep losing, then fine. Go out and sign Juan Rivera and plug him in the corner outfield as Dunn's essential replacement. The offense will bury itself deeper in the toilet, and barring a trio of sub 3 ERAs from Harang, Volquez, and Cueto, the team will get its brains beat in for a 9th consecutive season.

It's time to start bringing in players that will help this team win games, and it's time to stop bringing in players who will help this team lose games. I don't think that's too much to ask at this point.
Or Juan Rivera goes out there and gives you a season like 2006 in an easier league in an absolute haven for hitters. You keep harping on the negative for people harping on the positive.

Is he going to give you a .380 OBP? No, he probably isn't. That doesn't mean he can't give you a .350 OBP and slug .500 for you. Sometimes you build a TEAM by adding a bunch of solid to slightly above average players to your core types of guys (Votto/Bruce/Harang/Volquez/Cueto).

My personal expecation of Rivera? Probably .290/.335/.500 if he plays in Cincinnati. Add in some good defense and you have yourself a solid player there.

While this team needs offense, it surely needs some defense too. It needs better players than it currently has. Is Juan Rivera better than Norris Hopper? Absolutely and its not close. What is his upside? About a .900 OPS. Yeah, his floor is relatively low also considering his limited last two seasons. Thats what you pay scouts for. Is he more 2004-2006 or more 2007/2008 now after the injuries? You seem to think he is more 2007/2008. A lot of others think he is more 2004-2006 based on the fact that he was injured the past two seasons.

So let me ask you this, if he is more 2004-2006 and healthy, does he not improve this baseball team?

Kc61
12-11-2008, 06:11 PM
But instead you're trumping Juan Rivera? If you think Dye's floor is low, where does that put Rivera's floor?

You know, I've been avoiding saying what I'm going to say in this thread, but I'm just going to go ahead and say it because it's plainly obvious. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but it's a general observation:

People must really like losing. Either that or there is a complete lack of understanding of the type of production the Reds need to acquire in order to be worth watching next year.


So if people want to keep losing, then fine. Go out and sign Juan Rivera and plug him in the corner outfield as Dunn's essential replacement. The offense will bury itself deeper in the toilet, and barring a trio of sub 3 ERAs from Harang, Volquez, and Cueto, the team will get its brains beat in for a 9th consecutive season.

It's time to start bringing in players that will help this team win games, and it's time to stop bringing in players who will help this team lose games. I don't think that's too much to ask at this point.

It's hard to promote acquiring an older veteran around here. Folks around here usually like prospects and unproven, younger players. I have no problem with that, if the player fits the bill.

I'm very confident that Walt is trying for Dye and, if he doesn't get him, he will try for Burrell. And while these guys aren't Dunn clones, it's hard to duplicate Dunn's particular skill set. So the left fielder will likely have less power, lower OBP, but perhaps a higher BA and fewer strikeouts.

Walt must know that the need is for a cleanup type hitter, not another sixth or seventh hitter. Reds have those types already.

nate
12-11-2008, 06:11 PM
I don't know how you used up all the (fake) rep points I gave you so quickly, so I'm going to have to hit you again.

x2.

Cyclone792
12-11-2008, 06:17 PM
Or Juan Rivera goes out there and gives you a season like 2006 in an easier league in an absolute haven for hitters. You keep harping on the negative for people harping on the positive.

Is he going to give you a .380 OBP? No, he probably isn't. That doesn't mean he can't give you a .350 OBP and slug .500 for you. Sometimes you build a TEAM by adding a bunch of solid to slightly above average players to your core types of guys (Votto/Bruce/Harang/Volquez/Cueto).

My personal expecation of Rivera? Probably .290/.335/.500 if he plays in Cincinnati. Add in some good defense and you have yourself a solid player there.

While this team needs offense, it surely needs some defense too. It needs better players than it currently has. Is Juan Rivera better than Norris Hopper? Absolutely and its not close. What is his upside? About a .900 OPS. Yeah, his floor is relatively low also considering his limited last two seasons. Thats what you pay scouts for. Is he more 2004-2006 or more 2007/2008 now after the injuries? You seem to think he is more 2007/2008. A lot of others think he is more 2004-2006 based on the fact that he was injured the past two seasons.

So let me ask you this, if he is more 2004-2006 and healthy, does he not improve this baseball team?

As I said. People either really like losing, or there is a lack of understanding on the type of production of production the Reds need to acquire for next year.

What you're suggesting for Rivera is unrealistic and unlikely. You may not like that answer, but it's the truth. This is the same argument I saw nearly three years ago when Wily Mo Pena was dealt for Bronson Arroyo. People were assuring me then that Wily Mo Pena was going to provide that type of production you think Rivera can provide.

And you know what? I'm still waiting to see it. The names change, but the beat goes on. Meanwhile the team still sucks.

M2
12-11-2008, 06:18 PM
Walt must know that the need is for a cleanup type hitter, not another sixth or seventh hitter. Reds have those types already.

A #3 type would be fine too.

Kc61
12-11-2008, 06:22 PM
A #3 type would be fine too.


Sure, a higher BA, slightly less power guy, would be fine too.

To me, having followed Reds baseball for many years, the team needs Ron Gant, or Kevin Mitchell, or Dave Parker, or Greg Vaughn. A high level veteran hitter who can provide some clout for a year or two. The team has a long history of success finding such guys. Jermaine Dye, for one, makes sense because his contract status fits the bill -- one or two years left.

Raisor
12-11-2008, 06:41 PM
Using Baseball-Reference.com's RC numbers, Rivera has been worth about 1.5 more runs per 100 PA's then Hopper over their careers.

dougdirt
12-11-2008, 06:52 PM
As I said. People either really like losing, or there is a lack of understanding on the type of production of production the Reds need to acquire for next year.

What you're suggesting for Rivera is unrealistic and unlikely. You may not like that answer, but it's the truth. This is the same argument I saw nearly three years ago when Wily Mo Pena was dealt for Bronson Arroyo. People were assuring me then that Wily Mo Pena was going to provide that type of production you think Rivera can provide.

And you know what? I'm still waiting to see it. The names change, but the beat goes on. Meanwhile the team still sucks.

WMP = can't make contact at any kind of successful rate.
JR = Can make contact at a very successful rate.

Thats just simply a terrible comparison. Top it off that Juan Rivera has a track record, even if it was 2004-2006 of providing above average offensive value that was repeatable, while when WMP was showing he was 'good' was striking out over 30% of the time he stepped to the plate. Rivera strikes out around 11-12% of the time he steps to the plate.

But I would love for you to project me each player on the team then tell me why they will have such a season, and then show how we 'need' a player of Dunn's ilk to have a winning season, assuming Rivera is in your left field for 500 PA.

For the group of Votto/Bruce/Phillips/Encarnacion/Dickerson/Hernandez these are the two combined projections:


Player PA H 1B 2B 3B HR R RBI BB SO AVG OBP SLG
Marcels 2806 690 443 137 11 99 352 364 235 480 .275 .341 .456
James 3718 939 582 190 19 148 496 501 334 699 .280 .349 .480

Marcels seems a bit more realistic than the James projections, but even still, thats a fairly solid line from those 'starting 6'. The problem that Marcels has Bruce getting 426 PA, Dickerson just 261 and Votto just 503, which those guys are looking at more than that. Still, the overall AVG/OBP/SLG looks strong. So we still need a SS, other platooning CF and then a LF. If we can get league average guys from SS and LF that gives us another 500 PA of .334OBP/.408 SLG from the SS and a .352OBP/.461SLG from the LF. Those two look like they will keep the projections from Marcels pretty close don't they?

So now I guess I have to ask, is there a problem with these rate stats for the 6 starters listed above according to Marcels that you see?


Player AVG OBP SLG
Votto .296 .365 .493
Encarnacion .271 .351 .453
Phillips .272 .313 .448
Bruce .271 .336 .464
Hernandez .259 .323 .410
Dickerson .282 .367 .485

The only one that stands out as not really likely is Dickerson's slugging and maybe his AVG slightly, although I figure he can be close given he likely doesn't face lefties to often.

So if they can get just league average type production out of SS and LF, where do they need more offensive help at?

Cyclone792
12-11-2008, 06:56 PM
Top it off that Juan Rivera has a track record, even if it was 2004-2006 of providing above average offensive value that was repeatable, while when WMP was showing he was 'good' was striking out over 30% of the time he stepped to the plate. Rivera strikes out around 11-12% of the time he steps to the plate.

You believe that Juan Rivera will post a .290/.335/.500 line. What you don't know is that line just doesn't happen. Something has to give, BA, walks. Guys don't slug that high with a paltry .045 IsoD and that type of BA.


SEASON
1955-2005
AVERAGE >= .290
OBA <= .335
WALKS displayed only--not a sorting criteria
PLATE APPEARANCES displayed only--not a sorting criteria

SLG YEAR SLG AVG OBA BB PA
1 Matt Williams 1993 .561 .294 .325 27 619
2 Alfonso Soriano 2002 .547 .300 .332 23 741
3 Garret Anderson 2002 .539 .306 .332 30 678
4 Robin Yount 1980 .519 .293 .321 26 647
5 Ellis Valentine 1977 .504 .293 .331 30 541

Five players out of over 4,000 in 50+ years of data. That's 0.125 percent.

Lottery ticket players are something I steer away from. Juan Rivera is a truckload of scratches and sniffs.

dougdirt
12-11-2008, 07:11 PM
Five players out of over 4,000 in 50+ years of data. That's 0.125 percent.

Lottery ticket players are something I steer away from. Juan Rivera is a truckload of scratches and sniffs.

And yet players within small fluctuations of that line do exist. From 1990-2007 with 350 AB's there were 45 guys who hit between .280-.300/.325-.345/.485+.

Its a rare breed, but not nearly as rare as you originally made it out to be. A guy with power who makes lots of contact certainly has the potential to put up that kind of line in GABP. Maybe not an exact replica of what I said, but something quite similar.

Cyclone792
12-11-2008, 07:19 PM
And yet players within small fluctuations of that line do exist. From 1990-2007 with 350 AB's there were 45 guys who hit between .280-.300/.325-.345/.485+.

Its a rare breed, but not nearly as rare as you originally made it out to be. A guy with power who makes lots of contact certainly has the potential to put up that kind of line in GABP. Maybe not an exact replica of what I said, but something quite similar.

Yep, a whopping 45 in 18 years. That's 2.5 per year. Not to mention your comparison is invalid once you lumped in guys with an .065 IsoD. That's a different breed of player than a .045. As I said, a rarity.

Hell, Rivera will ground into a double play for every two walks he takes. But that's another story itself.

If you like lottery ticket players, feel free. I'm tired of losing so I'm not interested.

Falls City Beer
12-11-2008, 07:22 PM
Yep, a whopping 45 in 18 years. That's 2.5 per year. Not to mention your comparison is invalid once you lumped in guys with an .065 IsoD. That's a different breed of player than a .045. As I said, a rarity.

Hell, Rivera will ground into a double play for every two walks he takes. But that's another story itself.

If you like lottery ticket players, feel free. I'm tired of losing so I'm not interested.

As others have pointed out, even if he sucks, he'll still play all the time because, well, they paid him good money, so he has to play.

RedsManRick
12-11-2008, 07:23 PM
As I said. People either really like losing, or there is a lack of understanding on the type of production of production the Reds need to acquire for next year.

What you're suggesting for Rivera is unrealistic and unlikely. You may not like that answer, but it's the truth. This is the same argument I saw nearly three years ago when Wily Mo Pena was dealt for Bronson Arroyo. People were assuring me then that Wily Mo Pena was going to provide that type of production you think Rivera can provide.

And you know what? I'm still waiting to see it. The names change, but the beat goes on. Meanwhile the team still sucks.

I think a problem with this conversation is the lack of discussion about how chance works. This is another in a line of parlay bets.

We argue about each bet independently. Ramon Hernandez might bounce back to form. Juan Rivera might do what he's done a few years back. Jerry Hariston Jr. will put it together. Corey Patterson might find his stroke. Mike Lincoln's arm still has some life in it. Etc. Sure, a decent argument can be made supporting the optimistic side of any of those arguments.

The problem is that some people want to build a team that can only succeed if they win each bet in the parlay. Unfortunately, 50%*50%*50%*50%*50% is not 50%; it's 3%.

Sure, sometimes Jerry Hairston, Mike Lincoln, Jose Guillen, Joe Randa, or Jeremy Affeldt put up good numbers. But with equal or greater regularity, Josh Fogg, Rheal Cormier, Corey Patterson, Paul Bako, Mike Stanton, Tony Womack, or Joe Mays don't work out. The team falls way short of winning. Some fans blame Corey Patterson for not being Jerry Hairston. But the problem was needing the production of Jerry Hairston to begin with.

If you have to rely on ?? production at more than a small number of spots to win this year don't waste your marginal resources on lottery tickets in a most likely futile attempt to hit the jackpot. Save your money and start truly addressing the number and scale of ?? to begin with.

Cyclone792
12-11-2008, 07:23 PM
As others have pointed out, even if he sucks, he'll still play all the time because, well, they paid him good money, so he has to play.

It'd be a damn shame too. A real damn shame.

Mario-Rijo
12-11-2008, 07:48 PM
I think a problem with this conversation is the lack of discussion about how chance works. This is another in a line of parlay bets.

We argue about each bet independently. Ramon Hernandez might bounce back to form. Juan Rivera might do what he's done a few years back. Jerry Hariston Jr. will put it together. Corey Patterson might find his stroke. Mike Lincoln's arm still has some life in it. Etc. Sure, a decent argument can be made supporting the optimistic side of any of those arguments.

The problem is that some people want to build a team that can only succeed if they win each bet in the parlay. Unfortunately, 50%*50%*50%*50%*50% is not 50%; it's 3%.

Sure, sometimes Jerry Hairston, Mike Lincoln, Jose Guillen, Joe Randa, or Jeremy Affeldt put up good numbers. But with equal or greater regularity, Josh Fogg, Rheal Cormier, Corey Patterson, Paul Bako, Mike Stanton, Tony Womack, or Joe Mays don't work out. The team falls way short of winning. Some fans blame Corey Patterson for not being Jerry Hairston. But the problem was needing the production of Jerry Hairston to begin with.

If you have to rely on ?? production at more than a small number of spots to win this year don't waste your marginal resources on lottery tickets in a most likely futile attempt to hit the jackpot. Save your money and start truly addressing the number and scale of ?? to begin with.

But the whole thing in a nutshell is this, those guys you mentioned for the most part when given the opportunity have largely not produced much (sans Rivera and Guillen). Rivera has produced and quite well when given the chance and when healthy. He has done what we would ask of any Red which is to have a good OBP% and a good Slg%. But because he doesn't simply take enough walks we are to assume that he can't possibly repeat it? Their have been many a player who has had the skill set to get on base at a high clip without walking as much as many would like. Why is it a stretch to believe that Juan Rivera isn't one of those players who has the skill set to hit for a high average consistenly? I'm not gonna state he is as good as a Pete Rose or a Tony Gwynn but they had both higher averages and higher OBP%'s than what I am speculating for Rivera, no he's not that repeatable but he has proven to have a .290+ repeatable stick.

The guy has proven it IMO, he has had a .300+ career average in the minors along with a .350/.485 line, he has also produced a .285 career major league line despite inconsistent playing time and 2 freak injuries (neither of which seem like the re-occuring type) with a .331/.468 OBP/SLG. I don't think it's a stretch to say that this same guy can have a .290/.340/.480/.820 OPS. Now is that enough for a middle of the order hitter, surely not ideal and arguably even respectable for a #4 type. But combining that line with good defense, cheap salary and being he's from the Angels likely good baserunning he's a very, very good value.

Or to put it another way he may not be what we should be looking for but unless another Holliday type becomes ava. he is the most reasonable solution for the money/years that's ava.

nate
12-11-2008, 07:52 PM
Yep, a whopping 45 in 18 years. That's 2.5 per year. Not to mention your comparison is invalid once you lumped in guys with an .065 IsoD. That's a different breed of player than a .045. As I said, a rarity.

Hell, Rivera will ground into a double play for every two walks he takes. But that's another story itself.

Impossible.

He'll be hitting behind Brandon Phillips.

dougdirt
12-11-2008, 08:05 PM
Cyclone, let me ask this.... Give a guy 500 PA who strikes out 12% of the time, walks 6.5% of the time and has a career IsoP of .184 and put him in Cincinnati and what do you see him doing?

My math tells me we will see that guy strikes out 60 times, walks 33 times and puts the ball in play 407 times. So basically it comes down to what kind of power do you think he is going to show over that time.

Given the 500 PA, 12% K rate and 6.5% BB rate here is what he would do, AVG wise depending on the HR output/BABIP


PA K BB AB BIP (inc HR)
500 60 33 467 407


Non HR Hits with 10 HR 15 HR 20 HR 25 HR AVG W 10 HR 15 HR 20 HR 25 HR
BABIP 0.270 107 106 104 103 0.251 0.259 0.266 0.274
BABIP 0.280 111 110 108 107 0.259 0.268 0.274 0.283
BABIP 0.290 115 114 112 111 0.268 0.276 0.283 0.291
BABIP 0.300 119 118 116 114 0.276 0.285 0.291 0.298
BABIP 0.310 123 121 120 118 0.285 0.291 0.300 0.306


So basically, to me at least, it comes down to whether you think he can have some power in his bat to the tune of a HR every 24 AB's or so which has been his career average. If you think that and he carries a league average BABIP of .290-.310 he is going to hit about 20 HR and hit you .283-300 and likely slug .450+. If you think his power will increase by coming to Cincinnati, then odds are you think his average will be in a slightly higher range if his BABIP is normal. If you think he has no power, then you feel he is going to hit much lower than that.

Added
So lets just go ahead and say he can be league average in BABIP at .300 and he keeps his 2B/AB career rate and his HR/AB rate. That puts him on page to hit .291/.338/.478 over those 500 PA. Is that really out of reach?

edabbs44
12-11-2008, 08:15 PM
As I said. People either really like losing, or there is a lack of understanding on the type of production of production the Reds need to acquire for next year.

What you're suggesting for Rivera is unrealistic and unlikely. You may not like that answer, but it's the truth. This is the same argument I saw nearly three years ago when Wily Mo Pena was dealt for Bronson Arroyo. People were assuring me then that Wily Mo Pena was going to provide that type of production you think Rivera can provide.

And you know what? I'm still waiting to see it. The names change, but the beat goes on. Meanwhile the team still sucks.

If this team isn't going to get the players it needs to thrust them into the next level right now, then Juan Rivera is the type of guy they need to target as long as the terms of the contract do not hinder them in any way moving forward.

Rivera had a very solid 2006, then gets injured in early 2007. They bring him along slowly in 2008, only getting 95 PAs in the first half.

The second half sees him post a phenomenal July, a solid Sept and a miserable August (where, some might say, he was quite the unlucky one with a sub .200 BABIP).

The guy has upside. I'm not sure why some choose to ignore that.

SteelSD
12-11-2008, 09:08 PM
If this team isn't going to get the players it needs to thrust them into the next level right now, then Juan Rivera is the type of guy they need to target as long as the terms of the contract do not hinder them in any way moving forward.

Rivera had a very solid 2006, then gets injured in early 2007. They bring him along slowly in 2008, only getting 95 PAs in the first half.

The second half sees him post a phenomenal July, a solid Sept and a miserable August (where, some might say, he was quite the unlucky one with a sub .200 BABIP).

The guy has upside. I'm not sure why some choose to ignore that.

I don't think anyone ignores that. Unfortunately, the reality is that low-IsoD hitters like Rivera simply don't project well and they don't age well either. He doesn't have scary power. He's not fast. He really doesn't have a singular special skill set that would somehow project to compensate for his pitiful IsoD.

I have no problem throwing a million or two (no more) for a year at a Juan Rivera as long as it's for him to be a backup OF who can spell Bruce or Dickerson against a tough LH SP or for him to jump off off the bench late in the game to hit against one of these scary LOOGY's I keep hearing we need to be worried about. And if he goes all Jose Guillen while filling in for an injured starter, then more power to him (and more trade power to the Reds).

But to spend real money on a guy like that as part of a master plan is the kind of silly risk the Reds need to start avoiding if they're serious about winning baseball games sometime this century. And I think we agree on that point.

M2
12-11-2008, 09:17 PM
He doesn't have scary power. He's not fast. He really doesn't have a singular special skill set that would somehow project to compensate for his pitiful IsoD.

He's also a fairly poor defensive OF. I don't know where that misconception got started that he somehow has defensive skills. Maybe somebody got him mixed up with Ruben Rivera.

Johnny Footstool
12-11-2008, 09:37 PM
He had an awful OBP, but not an awful year. An OPS north of .800 is not awful.

For the money he was being paid, yes it was.

Johnny Footstool
12-11-2008, 09:45 PM
But instead you're trumping Juan Rivera? If you think Dye's floor is low, where does that put Rivera's floor?

You know, I've been avoiding saying what I'm going to say in this thread, but I'm just going to go ahead and say it because it's plainly obvious. This isn't directed at anyone in particular, but it's a general observation:

People must really like losing. Either that or there is a complete lack of understanding of the type of production the Reds need to acquire in order to be worth watching next year.

The types of players many people seem to be trumping aren't players that are going to help the Reds win. Mostly they're players that are going to ensure that the Reds keep losing.

Juan Rivera? In a corner outfield slot and in the middle of the lineup? Are people really serious about this? Do people understand that even a low-ball flyer on Juan Rivera is going to result in far too many plate appearances by Rivera in a Reds uniform? He's simply not going to help this offense win games. He'll help this offense lose games, but he's not going to help it win games.

The Reds have a gaping hole at left field, and some of the solutions being discussed such as Juan Rivera would turn a gaping hole into a black hole. Many people despised Adam Dunn, but the guy was a model of consistent, reliable, and serious run production. He was traded in early August, and Chris Dickerson replaced him in the lineup and beat the snot out of the ball. Dickerson's surge led a great deal of fans to believe in the false hope that the offense as currently constructed could survive without Dunn.

The reality here is that this offense can't survive without Dunn-like production, and it won't survive without it. Not without a competent replacement that could damn near match Dunn's production. I like Dickerson and believe he should be given a serious look in center field - Dusty's leash needs to be about five times what it will be with him - but it is probably universally accepted that Chris Dickerson isn't going to be the offensive force that Dunn was. What this essentially means is that the Reds offense has yet to feel Dunn's absence. They'll feel it when Dickerson's true talent kicks in though unless they can find a competent Dunn replacement for left field.

So if people want to keep losing, then fine. Go out and sign Juan Rivera and plug him in the corner outfield as Dunn's essential replacement. The offense will bury itself deeper in the toilet, and barring a trio of sub 3 ERAs from Harang, Volquez, and Cueto, the team will get its brains beat in for a 9th consecutive season.

It's time to start bringing in players that will help this team win games, and it's time to stop bringing in players who will help this team lose games. I don't think that's too much to ask at this point.

You speak as if you know.

I'm sorry, but you don't.

You've stated your opinion. And that's fine. But it's not scripture.

My opinion is that the Reds would be better off acquiring Juan Rivera than Jermaine Dye. I'd rather drop $4-5 million on Juan Rivera than give up $11 million and Homer Bailey for Jermaine Dye.

My opinion is that guy like Juan Rivera would be a good gamble for the Reds because he's relatively young, he has a high ceiling, and he would be relatively cheap.

edabbs44
12-11-2008, 09:59 PM
I don't think anyone ignores that. Unfortunately, the reality is that low-IsoD hitters like Rivera simply don't project well and they don't age well either. He doesn't have scary power. He's not fast. He really doesn't have a singular special skill set that would somehow project to compensate for his pitiful IsoD.

I have no problem throwing a million or two (no more) for a year at a Juan Rivera as long as it's for him to be a backup OF who can spell Bruce or Dickerson against a tough LH SP or for him to jump off off the bench late in the game to hit against one of these scary LOOGY's I keep hearing we need to be worried about. And if he goes all Jose Guillen while filling in for an injured starter, then more power to him (and more trade power to the Reds).

But to spend real money on a guy like that as part of a master plan is the kind of silly risk the Reds need to start avoiding if they're serious about winning baseball games sometime this century. And I think we agree on that point.


I agree that Rivera isn't going to get this team to where they need to be. But, if this teamisn't going after the better options, he isn't the worst choice. I'd rather take a shot on him than giving the job to Hairston or someone else with limited upside, as long as that shot doesn't hinder the future of the team.

M2
12-11-2008, 10:17 PM
But, if this team isn't going after the better options, he isn't the worst choice.

That's sort of on the team then, isn't it? I mean, there are a number of better options out there and nothing's stopping the Reds from going after them.

edabbs44
12-11-2008, 10:32 PM
That's sort of on the team then, isn't it? I mean, there are a number of better options out there and nothing's stopping the Reds from going after them.

Depends on what the mandate is.

Win this year or else with unlimited funds? Then yeah, that would be on the team.

Have a set amt of money to spend where a top option (Dunn, Burrell, Abreu) would sap the majority of the capital? Rivera isn't such a bad choice.

M2
12-11-2008, 11:02 PM
Depends on what the mandate is.

Win this year or else with unlimited funds? Then yeah, that would be on the team.

Have a set amt of money to spend where a top option (Dunn, Burrell, Abreu) would sap the majority of the capital? Rivera isn't such a bad choice.

There are guys you could trade for too. The mandate ought to be getting the best player you can.

Let the Pirates sign Rivera. He seems to be their type.

edabbs44
12-11-2008, 11:11 PM
There are guys you could trade for too. The mandate ought to be getting the best player you can.

Let the Pirates sign Rivera. He seems to be their type.

If that was the mandate, they'd be in on Manny and Teixeira.

M2
12-11-2008, 11:17 PM
If that was the mandate, they'd be in on Manny and Teixeira.

So because you can't get one of the top two position player free agents on the market, you throw up your hands up and settle for Juan Rivera?

edabbs44
12-11-2008, 11:20 PM
So because you can't get one of the top two position player free agents on the market, you throw up your hands up and settle for Juan Rivera?

Listen, I am all for going after talent. That has been my mantra for the past few years.

But this discussion started around a comment where Rivera's floor was CPatt '08. That's bull.

Mario-Rijo
12-11-2008, 11:36 PM
He's also a fairly poor defensive OF. I don't know where that misconception got started that he somehow has defensive skills. Maybe somebody got him mixed up with Ruben Rivera.

Bargain Starting 9 (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=crasnick_jerry&id=3725295)


Juan Rivera, outfielder
Six years ago, Baseball America rated Rivera as the No. 5 prospect in the Yankees system. In his first week with the big club in June 2002, Rivera got lost on the subway on his way to Yankee Stadium, then fractured his kneecap when he collided with a golf cart in the outfield while shagging fly balls. Can you say "star-crossed"?

Rivera drifted to Montreal and then the Angels, and appeared to be on the verge of a breakthrough with a 23-homer, 85-RBI season in 2006. But he missed almost the entire 2007 season with a broken leg, and his on base percentage this year was an unsightly .282.

Still, Rivera has exceptional raw power, and he's a capable outfielder even at 6-2 and 225 pounds. Maybe he won't emerge as the 2009 version of Ryan Ludwick, but feel free to file him under "intriguing."

Several executives said a two-year contract in the $6 million to $8 million range is reasonable for Rivera. And if he prefers a one-year deal with the intention of going back on the market in 2010, that's even better. Philadelphia, Cincinnati, Atlanta and the Mets are among the clubs looking for outfield help, and the Angels could decide to re-sign Rivera once they address their main offseason priorities.

Also in a Keith Law Chat Law stated that Juan Rivera is an asset in LF or RF.

Matt700wlw
12-11-2008, 11:55 PM
When I saw his name, I said, 'intriguing,' to myself. At a low cost, a team like the Reds has nothing to lose and a ton of something to gain......and if you can bring him in, along with an established RH hitter, even better....the money is there to spend. He's (financially) a little more risk than Josh Hamilton was (and there was a ton of flack for signing a drug addict).... but what if that raw talent nets similar results? You're stuck with one hell of a problem, again :)

M2
12-12-2008, 12:12 AM
Listen, I am all for going after talent. That has been my mantra for the past few years.

But this discussion started around a comment where Rivera's floor was CPatt '08. That's bull.

Got to be honest, I've lost track of where this discussion started.

Anyway, I don't think Rivera's floor is Patterson. I'd say more like late model Emil Brown.

My bigger problem is I don't expect Rivera can deliver much better than his career averages with poor defense. He's the kind of corner guy who's a #6 hitter on a good team (if he's on his game).

Maybe he's got Jose Guillen-like future (e.g. the big fish in numerous small ponds). I think what Cyclone touched on is Rivera would in many ways represent the Reds becoming comfortable with being an also-ran. Hermida and Young are out there with their best year in front of them. I'd much rather roll the dice on a Nelson Cruz.

M2
12-12-2008, 12:29 AM
Mario, Jerry Crasnick and Keith Law aren't what I consider authorities.

I've got eyes of my own and he's nowhere near what he was when he was coming up with the Yankees. I'm pretty sure he rates poorly in most any available defensive rating system you can find. He was never all that fast and, partially due to injury, he's lost a step or two. He also got credit for being a better fielder than he is because of his arm.

Mario-Rijo
12-12-2008, 02:16 AM
Got to be honest, I've lost track of where this discussion started.

Anyway, I don't think Rivera's floor is Patterson. I'd say more like late model Emil Brown.

My bigger problem is I don't expect Rivera can deliver much better than his career averages with poor defense. He's the kind of corner guy who's a #6 hitter on a good team (if he's on his game).

I would say the odds are that is the likely scenario a #6 hitter. However I do think it's possible that if LF is all his & he stays relatively healthy he can hit 30 HR's and drive in 100 all while hitting close to .300. That's a respectable #4 hitter.


Maybe he's got Jose Guillen-like future (e.g. the big fish in numerous small ponds). I think what Cyclone touched on is Rivera would in many ways represent the Reds becoming comfortable with being an also-ran. Hermida and Young are out there with their best year in front of them. I'd much rather roll the dice on a Nelson Cruz.

That I wouldn't have argued with if it fit the player. And even still I wouldn't disagree completely with it if that's actually what he was arguing. Who wouldn't want an ideal option or even more ideal. His belief (and many others) that a player cannot have sustained success without taking certain # of walks (I'm assuming no less than 10-ish+% of his pa's if he is young, and no less than 15-ish% if older and preferably more) is widely accepted as truth for the most part and I don't disagree. However there are players that have done this very thing and there is and will be more who can do it (hit for average and get on base at a reasonable clip while not walking more than 10%+ of the time).

I have been in this discussion before and was told I wasn't allowed to use those people as examples because they are outliers. How can Cyclone just state that Rivera isn't an outlier without backing it up? I realize he's a smarter guy than I but that doesn't mean I am going to take him at his word on everything that he states, we've all been wrong before although I won't state that I necc. know of a particular time he has been.

All I'm saying is the same thing I have been told from day 1 here. If you are gonna state your opinion as fact prove it. And I don't think it can be proven as of this moment that he isn't a consistent .280-.290 hitter when given the opportunity to play and show it. That all stated I think he can be, I have never argued that he will be.

Mario-Rijo
12-12-2008, 02:19 AM
Mario, Jerry Crasnick and Keith Law aren't what I consider authorities.

I've got eyes of my own and he's nowhere near what he was when he was coming up with the Yankees. I'm pretty sure he rates poorly in most any available defensive rating systems you can find. He was never all that fast and, partially due to injury, he's lost a step or two. He also got credit for being a better fielder than he is because of his arm.

That may be true I have seen very little of his fielding and relied on Law and Crasnick for that info. I just find it odd that Law of all people would state something positive (in fact really positive) about anybody. His m.o. is usually the reverse of that.

M2
12-12-2008, 02:26 AM
That may be true I have seen very little of his fielding and relied on Law and Crasnick for that info. I just find it odd that Law of all people would state something positive (in fact really positive) about anybody. His m.o. is usually the reverse of that.

True, Law does seem to reach for disapproval when presented with complexity. That said, my guess is Law really hasn't paid much attention to Rivera's defense since he was a prospect with the Yankees.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 06:22 AM
Cyclone, let me ask this.... Give a guy 500 PA who strikes out 12% of the time, walks 6.5% of the time and has a career IsoP of .184 and put him in Cincinnati and what do you see him doing?

As soon as you mentioned strikeout rates, I stopped reading. It's not pertinent information. It doesn't tell me anything useful.

You want something useful? Start with his IsoDs and his IsoPs and go from there. So long as his IsoD stinks, his IsoP isn't going anywhere in the right direction. Those are the dots that people forget to connect, and those are the dots that bite people in the rear every single time.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 06:28 AM
You speak as if you know.

I'm sorry, but you don't.

You've stated your opinion. And that's fine. But it's not scripture.

Rivera's a 30-year-old hack. It's what he's been his entire professional career. So long as he's a hack - and odds are he will be - his power will be greatly limited. And we already know he can't find first base. Decades of historical data is on my side on this.

Low IsoDs age poorly. Low IsoDs also mean low IsoPs. Rivera is the definition of low IsoD too.

osuceltic
12-12-2008, 07:36 AM
This is from Jayson Stark:


Other hitters

There are close to 100 bats still on the market. And most of them look as if they're going to have big trouble getting anywhere near the paycheck they had in mind.

The Phillies, Angels and Mets have serious interest in Raul Ibanez, so he'll be fine. The Cubs and Rays have zeroed in on Milton Bradley. And you can bet your inauguration tickets that Adam Dunn will land in Washington if Teixeira doesn't. But guys such as Bobby Abreu, Pat Burrell and Jason Giambi look as though they're in for hefty pay cuts and maybe no more than a two-year deal. And everybody else would be best advised to grab for the first decent paycheck that comes along.

Burrell for cheap on a two-year deal? Sign me up.

lollipopcurve
12-12-2008, 07:41 AM
Burrell for cheap on a two-year deal? Sign me up.

I'd rather have Abreu. Go Abreu-Votto-Phillips-Bruce-EdE, or some variant of that, in the 2-5. Abreu's just a very tough out.

osuceltic
12-12-2008, 07:55 AM
I'd rather have Abreu. Go Abreu-Votto-Phillips-Bruce-EdE, or some variant of that, in the 2-5. Abreu's just a very tough out.

It's clear the Reds would prefer a RH hitter, whether you agree with that thinking or not. And while Abreu has had seasons (including '08) where he has been good against lefties, he also has had seasons (including '07) where he was very bad against them. Plus he'll be 35 next season (maybe).

I could live with Abreu, but I think the clear preference for the Reds will be Burrell.

By the way, it's a mortal lock that either one of these guys will drive me to drink at some point if they join the Reds. They're just that type of player. But for the price and considering the need, they would be great values.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 08:01 AM
I'd rather have Abreu. Go Abreu-Votto-Phillips-Bruce-EdE, or some variant of that, in the 2-5. Abreu's just a very tough out.

Bobby Abreu would be one of the best things that could happen to the 2009 Reds lineup. Bat him 3rd and leave him alone.

jojo
12-12-2008, 08:24 AM
If Burrell is a target, I'd rather the Reds pick up Gabe Gross (assuming the Rays cut him loose) and platoon him with Baldelli.

I'm not a huge fan of Abreu but I could live with him for a year though given his defense, he'd likely be a payroll extravagance.

Truthfully, I'd much rather the Reds avoid the name brand solutions for the corner that are available via free agency in favor of either a platoon or a trade for a solution that wasn't such a defensive compromise.

edabbs44
12-12-2008, 08:42 AM
Bobby Abreu would be one of the best things that could happen to the 2009 Reds lineup. Bat him 3rd and leave him alone.

Thoughts on how he would affect the 2010-2011 lineup and budget, which is what might come with the 2009 version of Abreu?

BRM
12-12-2008, 09:10 AM
So the Reds are going to sign the lesser productive bat simply because he hits right handed? Lovely, just lovely.

Johnny Footstool
12-12-2008, 10:07 AM
Rivera's a 30-year-old hack. It's what he's been his entire professional career. So long as he's a hack - and odds are he will be - his power will be greatly limited. And we already know he can't find first base. Decades of historical data is on my side on this.

Low IsoDs age poorly. Low IsoDs also mean low IsoPs. Rivera is the definition of low IsoD too.

I don't think Dye's IsoD is worth $11 million in his age 35 season. If the Reds are going to gamble, I'd rather it be on a cheaper guy who is approaching his prime.

Side note: Friggin' Raul Ibanez is getting $10 million a year. I believe Rivera will put up similar (if not better) numbers at a much cheaper price.


Bobby Abreu would be one of the best things that could happen to the 2009 Reds lineup. Bat him 3rd and leave him alone.

Agreed. You're talking sense now.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 10:53 AM
I don't think Dye's IsoD is worth $11 million in his age 35 season. If the Reds are going to gamble, I'd rather it be on a cheaper guy who is approaching his prime.

Side note: Friggin' Raul Ibanez is getting $10 million a year. I believe Rivera will put up similar (if not better) numbers at a much cheaper price.

Juan Rivera won't touch Ibanez's level of production; they're a completely different breed of player. He's been a consistent .350+ OBP and 11ish PA/BB the last few years. When it comes to expanding a slugging game and ramping up the IsoP, the difference between a PA/BB ratio of 11 and 15 is very important (12 is the approximate cutoff I use with prospects when evaluating their projectability).

Note that this doesn't mean I thought the Reds should have signed Ibanez; I wouldn't have been in favor of that either.

I don't particularly want Dye either, but I'd rather have him than Rivera. On a scale of 1-10 with 10 being what I really want, Dye's about a 4. Meanwhile Rivera's less than zero, and Abreu's more like a 7.

lollipopcurve
12-12-2008, 10:58 AM
Friggin' Raul Ibanez is getting $10 million a year. I believe Rivera will put up similar (if not better) numbers at a much cheaper price.

Cheaper price, yes. Similar or better numbers, really doubt it.

osuceltic
12-12-2008, 11:19 AM
The disdain for Burrell kind of amuses me. The guy is a right-handed Dunn for all intents and purposes, and the same crowd still crying for Dunn seems to be completely against Burrell.


Pat Burrell, 2004-08
.257 .365 .455 107
.281 .389 .504 128
.258 .388 .502 122
.256 .400 .502 127
.250 .367 .507 125

Career
.257 .367 .485 119

Vs. LHP
.276 .410 .540 .950

Vs. RHP
.251 .352 .467 .819

Adam Dunn career vs. LHP
.235 .359 .474 .833

Dunn last season vs. LHP
.195 .351 .422 .773

Bobby Abreu career vs. LHP
.280 .372 .404 .776

This team has Votto and Bruce in the middle of the order and Alonso on the way. They need a legitimate RH bat. I don't know how anyone can argue that. Stick another LH bat between those guys and you're virtually ensuring each of them sacrifice one at-bat per game (close games, anyway) to a tough loogy.

Stacking up OPS numbers and choosing the highest regardless of RH or LH is great in theory. In reality, balance matters. Every team in the sport strives for balance in the lineup. Are they all stupid?

I can't believe I've become the Pat Burrell Guy. I'm not a huge fan of his overall game. But this team desperately needs a RH bat, and if his price tag really is dropping to the 2-3-year, $21-24 million level, I don't see a better option out there.

BRM
12-12-2008, 11:33 AM
The disdain for Burrell kind of amuses me. The guy is a right-handed Dunn for all intents and purposes, and the same crowd still crying for Dunn seems to be completely against Burrell.


I don't see any disdain for Pat Burrell on here. Just because people state he is less productive and older than Dunn doesn't mean they hate the guy.

M2
12-12-2008, 11:40 AM
Hey osu, how come no vs. RHP numbers for Dunn and Abreu?

FWIW, I don't have any major problem with Burrell.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 11:42 AM
This team has Votto and Bruce in the middle of the order and Alonso on the way. They need a legitimate RH bat. I don't know how anyone can argue that. Stick another LH bat between those guys and you're virtually ensuring each of them sacrifice one at-bat per game (close games, anyway) to a tough loogy.

Stacking up OPS numbers and choosing the highest regardless of RH or LH is great in theory. In reality, balance matters. Every team in the sport strives for balance in the lineup. Are they all stupid?

One thing you're forgetting to realize is when Alonso pushes his way into the lineup, then one of Bruce/Votto/new bat has got to go ... or Alonso goes. Which one is it? There will essentially be just three spots for four guys, and if the stopgap RH bat that everyone wants to acquire goes, then you're back to the three lefties people seem to want to avoid.

Are you against having Bruce, Votto, and Alonso in the same lineup? Because when people say they want a RH bat right now, it's like they're also saying they're against having that trio in the same lineup.


I can't believe I've become the Pat Burrell Guy. I'm not a huge fan of his overall game. But this team desperately needs a RH bat, and if his price tag really is dropping to the 2-3-year, $21-24 million level, I don't see a better option out there.

Given how much you didn't care for Dunn, Burrell will eat at your inner nerve. I guarantee it. He'll eat at the inner nerve of just about every Reds fan who never cared for Dunn. He's an older, slower, slightly lesser productive version of Dunn. His defense is worse than Dunn's. He'll hit a few more singles than Dunn, but he'll also hit around 10 fewer homers. The end result will be about 10 more points in BA but 20 points less in SLG.

For the record, I don't have a problem with Burrell. I know his game, I'm fine with his game, and I know the type of production to expect. The Reds want to sign him? Cool with me. But I also know the howling on here about his BA and strikeouts will be eerily similar to the howling about Dunn's BA and strikeouts.

I can just hear it now from the masses: Our big free agent signing is hitting .250, striking out all the time, and loafing in the outfield! We could have kept Dunn if we wanted to keep this around!

BRM
12-12-2008, 11:48 AM
Hey osu, how come no vs. RHP numbers for Dunn and Abreu?


They both mash right handers. You already knew that, I'm sure.

Abreu vs RHP, career:

.308 .417 .534 .951

Dunn vs RHP, career:

.252 .392 .539 .931

RedEye
12-12-2008, 11:48 AM
Given how much you didn't care for Dunn, Burrell will eat at your inner nerve. I guarantee it. He'll eat at the inner nerve of just about every Reds fan who never cared for Dunn. He's an older, slower, slightly lesser productive version of Dunn. His defense is worse than Dunn's. He'll hit a few more singles than Dunn, but he'll also hit around 10 fewer homers. The end result will be about 10 more points in BA but 20 points less in SLG.

For the record, I don't have a problem with Burrell. I know his game, I'm fine with his game, and I know the type of production to expect. The Reds want to sign him? Cool with me. But I also know the howling on here about his BA and strikeouts will be eerily similar to the howling about Dunn's BA and strikeouts.

I can just hear it now from the masses: Our big free agent signing is hitting .250, striking out all the time, and loafing in the outfield! We could have kept Dunn if we wanted to keep this around!

So... after reading you contributions to this thread, which have altered if not completely changed my view of Rivera, am I correct in thinking that you would prefer Dye as the Reds acquisition? Maybe I missed a post somewhere in there.

Also, what do people think of the possibility of signing Jason Giambi? I know that he's got a load of baggage, he's a LH hitter, and Votto would have to move to the OF... but if Walt REALLY wants to add an impact bat who would change the way the lineup works, Giambi, along with Manny, seem to be the two best candidates out there. And, of course, I think Giambi could be acquired for less money, which is why I ask.

BRM
12-12-2008, 11:50 AM
Also, what do people think of the possibility of signing Jason Giambi? I know that he's got a load of baggage, he's a LH hitter, and Votto would have to move to the OF... but if Walt REALLY wants to add an impact bat who would change the way the lineup works, Giambi, along with Manny, seem to be the two best candidates out there. And, of course, I think Giambi could be acquired for less money.

Adding Giambi and moving Votto to LF would weaken the Reds defense at two spots, 1B and LF. Giambi would clearly upgrade the offense though.

M2
12-12-2008, 11:55 AM
They both mash right handers. You already knew that, I'm sure.

Oh yeah, I just thought it was a telling omission.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 11:58 AM
So... after reading you contributions to this thread, which have altered if not completely changed my view of Rivera, am I correct in thinking that you would prefer Dye as the Reds acquisition? Maybe I missed a post somewhere in there.

Also, what do people think of the possibility of signing Jason Giambi? I know that he's got a load of baggage, he's a LH hitter, and Votto would have to move to the OF... but if Walt REALLY wants to add an impact bat who would change the way the lineup works, Giambi, along with Manny, seem to be the two best candidates out there. And, of course, I think Giambi could be acquired for less money, which is why I ask.

The Reds would have to do some homework on Giambi's ability to play a full season of competent first base, plus they'd also have to deal with getting Votto ready to play left field. I'm certainly not at all opposed to it; the Reds would just have to do some homework regarding the defensive outlook.

As a stopgap hitter for 2009 only, I'd rank them something like this:

Giambi
Abreu
Burrell (pretty much all three close to a wash, contract money/length would likely be the deciding factor on which option is best/worst among this group. Dunn is also part of this group, likely higher than Burrell ... possibly lower than Giambi and Abreu depending on contract terms)


Dye






Lots of other players, including current Reds prospects








Rivera (I could have hit enter a bunch more for more white space here, but I think people get the point)

BRM
12-12-2008, 11:58 AM
Oh yeah, I just thought it was a telling omission.

Especially considering the Reds are actually weaker against RHP than LHP.

BRM
12-12-2008, 12:00 PM
I like your preference list Cyclone. Although I'd prefer Abreu to Giambi simply because he wouldn't require moving Votto off 1B.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 12:15 PM
I like your preference list Cyclone. Although I'd prefer Abreu to Giambi simply because he wouldn't require moving Votto off 1B.

Right, they're all pretty interchangeable at the top. Depends on defensive outlooks, contract terms, etc. I was mostly trying to view it strictly from the angle of 2009 hitter.

BRM
12-12-2008, 12:16 PM
Right, they're all pretty interchangeable at the top. Depends on defensive outlooks, contract terms, etc. I was mostly trying to view it strictly from the angle of 2009 hitter.

I know. I actually am too. If all those names are available on 1 year deals, I'd take Abreu for the reason I listed above.

nate
12-12-2008, 12:21 PM
Is there any wisdom into signing Abreu and Baldelli? Make Baldelli a "project" who plays when he can while helping him try to find a cure for his disorder. Even if he can only play 60% of the time, he'd be a better player coming off the bench than we've had in a long time.

RedEye
12-12-2008, 12:22 PM
Right, they're all pretty interchangeable at the top. Depends on defensive outlooks, contract terms, etc. I was mostly trying to view it strictly from the angle of 2009 hitter.

So I take it that Hermida is in the "lots of other players" category, right? Below Dye by several notches?

If the Reds are going to go for an impact bat, I say go after Giambi or Abreu--high OBP players who are really game-changing and would provide a disciplined, work-the-count countercurrent against Dusty's "hack your brains out" approach.

But the more I think about it, the more I hope that Walt is targeting someone like Hermida or Delmon Young (why the heck wasn't Walt in on the whole Willingham thing?) This whole "stopgap impact hitter for 2009 plan" doesn't seem too attractive to me because there are so many potholes along the way (negotiating a contract that won't be prohibitive, dealing with the poor defense brought by almost all the candidates, not giving up too much in a trade, etc.) whereas signing a young player to grow with the emerging nucleus of players has lower risk financially and higher reward over the long term.

edabbs44
12-12-2008, 12:32 PM
They both mash right handers. You already knew that, I'm sure.

Abreu vs RHP, career:

.308 .417 .534 .951

Dunn vs RHP, career:

.252 .392 .539 .931

Abreu hasn't mashed righties since 2006.

dougdirt
12-12-2008, 12:38 PM
As soon as you mentioned strikeout rates, I stopped reading. It's not pertinent information. It doesn't tell me anything useful.

You want something useful? Start with his IsoDs and his IsoPs and go from there. So long as his IsoD stinks, his IsoP isn't going anywhere in the right direction. Those are the dots that people forget to connect, and those are the dots that bite people in the rear every single time.

So a guy that can consistently put the ball in play with good power isn't pertinent information and tells you nothing useful?

You bring up that if his isoD stinks his Isop isn't going in the right direction, yet for his career his isoD stinks by your standards and yet his isoP is a strong .184. You seem to miss the dots that players can have very AVG driven OBP and still be solid players, especially if they show better than slap power. Guys who do that generally don't strike out all too often, you know, like Juan Rivera.

Between 1960-2007 Players with an isoP of .150+, K% of 11-13% and a walk rate of 6-7% with at least 300 AB's had a combined line of .286/.334/.470. Those skills are what Juan Rivera seems to represent. Not a ton of walks, few strikeouts and power. Walk rate, K rate and power can really tell us a lot about a player and to suggest that K rate doesn't is not very factual. It gives us the amount of times a player is going to put the ball in play, thus in theory racking up more hits, which is going to increase his AVG, OBP and SLG.

BRM
12-12-2008, 12:40 PM
Abreu hasn't mashed righties since 2006.

Mashed is a bit of a stretch given his last two seasons numbers. I agree.

redsfan4445
12-12-2008, 12:58 PM
just posted on rotoworld.com:

"The Reds are planning to contact the agent for outfielder Pat Burrell.
The team's No. 1 priority right now is adding a right-handed bat and Burrell fits the bill. They have also spoken with representatives for Rocco Baldelli, Juan Rivera, and have made efforts to trade for Jermaine Dye. The Reds are thought to have $10 million available to spend."

Looks like Walt is going to find out what it would cost.. I still wish Rios was an option..

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 12:58 PM
You bring up that if his isoD stinks his Isop isn't going in the right direction

I've been bringing this up for over two years now. Others around here have been bringing it up even longer. If you're just now paying attention, then you're behind the times.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 01:00 PM
So I take it that Hermida is in the "lots of other players" category, right? Below Dye by several notches?

If the Reds are going to go for an impact bat, I say go after Giambi or Abreu--high OBP players who are really game-changing and would provide a disciplined, work-the-count countercurrent against Dusty's "hack your brains out" approach.

Hermida vs. Dye depends on the trade cost. Hermida's got some serious warts, including his defense. He's pretty much a laughingstock out there (Hermida's defense did make me laugh a few times last season).

I'd be happy with Abreu. The Giambi issue depends on the defensive outlook, but offensively I'd be happy with that too.

dougdirt
12-12-2008, 01:12 PM
I've been bringing this up for over two years now. Others around here have been bringing it up even longer. If you're just now paying attention, then you're behind the times.
Sigh....
I guess its impossible to be a hitter worth anything when you rely on your contact abilities to get on base rather than walking. Glad you cleared that up for me. I have to get in touch with Andre Dawson and tell him that he wasn't really that good of a hitter because of his 5.4% walk rate despite his .203 IsoP, which apparently can't happen.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 01:15 PM
Sigh....
I guess its impossible to be a hitter worth anything when you rely on your contact abilities to get on base rather than walking. Glad you cleared that up for me. I have to get in touch with Andre Dawson and tell him that he wasn't really that good of a hitter because of his 5.4% walk rate despite his .203 IsoP, which apparently can't happen.

That's one of the biggest strawmen I've seen in quite some time.

RedEye
12-12-2008, 01:18 PM
Per MLBTR:


Troy E. Renck of the Denver Post says to expect outfielder Willy Taveras to join the free agent market:

The Nationals' unwillingness to take Taveras and Juan Morillo for Tim Redding — a deal Colorado thought was done — will lead the Rockies to non-tender the center fielder today, making him a free agent.

Tracy Ringolsby of the Rocky Mountain News agrees he'll be non-tendered, noting the Yankees, Red Sox, Reds, Marlins, and White Sox also had trade discussions for Taveras.

The horror. The horror.

dougdirt
12-12-2008, 01:19 PM
That's one of the biggest strawmen I've seen in quite some time.

Straw man like when you compared Rivera to Wily Mo Pena despite an extreme difference in the two players skill sets as to why Rivera isn't a good idea?

Well then feel free to actually explain why that Juan Rivera or players like him, can't be successful players. You obviously think they can't but have yet to actually support your position other than 'guys with low IsoD don't have high IsoP'. Yet there is Rivera, with his low walk rate and a high IsoP.

LoganBuck
12-12-2008, 01:31 PM
15 pages. Check

Several very nice nuggets. Check

Scratched out retinas. Check

jojo
12-12-2008, 01:35 PM
I think Doug is saying that he is A OK with the isoP associated with JR's isoD considering his UZR and PMR (correct me if I'm wrong Doug). :cool:

In '08 (a somewhat down year offensively) a major league average hitter had an IsoD=.069 and an IsoP=.152.

Marcels thinks Rivera would do this in '09: IsoD=.051; IsoP=.178 (wOBA= .332). Bill James likes him better but lets go with the lower projection to make sure he isn't getting any undue love.

Basically Marcels projects Rivera to be something like a league average bat in '09. Rivera has had a good reputation as a defender but last season he seemed to have a neutral defensive value (and he's not getting younger). Lets call him a +5 defender assuming he's healthy (feel free to say he's a 0 defender-my feelings wont be hurt). So league average is worth 2 wins (+20) over replacement. Give him another +5 (or not) for bringing his glove to the game. Then he gets dinged -7.5 runs because he uses his glove in left field (positional adjustment). Add that up and he might be projected to be worth 13.5 to 18.5 runs or 1.4 to 1.9 wins depending upon your view of his defense. As a caveat, Marcels doesn't consider park so a move to GABP would probably give Rivera a boost compared to his Marcels projection

Rivera is a guy who might give you average in left field (ignoring park) by that "thumb in the air" analysis. In GABP, the chances that he could be league average increase.

dougdirt
12-12-2008, 01:40 PM
I think Doug is saying that he is A OK with the isoP associated with JR's isoD considering his UZR and PMR (correct me if I'm wrong Doug). :cool:

In '08 (a somewhat down year offensively) a major league average hitter had an IsoD=.069 and an IsoP=.152.

Marcels thinks Rivera would do this in '09: IsoD=.051; IsoP=.178 (wOBA= .332). Bill James likes him better but lets go with the lower projection to make sure he isn't getting any undue love.

Basically Marcels projects Rivera to be something like a league average bat in '09. Rivera has had a good reputation as a defender but last season he seemed to have a neutral defensive value (and he's not getting younger). Lets call him a +5 defender assuming he's healthy (feel free to say he's a 0 defender-my feelings wont be hurt). So league average is worth 2 wins (+20) over replacement. Give him another +5 (or not) for bringing his glove to the game. Then he gets dinged -7.5 runs because he uses his glove in left field (positional adjustment). Add that up and he might be projected to be worth 13.5 to 18.5 runs or 1.4 to 1.9 wins depending upon your view of his defense. As a caveat. Marcels doesn't consider park so a move to GABP would probably give Rivera a boost compared to his Marcels projection

Rivera is a guy who might give you average in left field (ignoring park) by that "thumb in the air" analysis.

Right. I am not out there advocating that Rivera is going to go out and give you a .900 OPS. I do think given the park and his ability to put the ball in play along with the park he will be playing half of his games in that getting league average production out of him isn't a crazy idea and given the price it may cost to acquire him should certainly be explored.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 01:46 PM
Straw man like when you compared Rivera to Wily Mo Pena despite an extreme difference in the two players skill sets as to why Rivera isn't a good idea?

Yet the most fundamental similarity with those players is neither can control the strike zone. Pena swings at crap and misses, Rivera swings at crap and makes weak outs. Outs are outs regardless of how they're made.

People have long contended that Wily Mo Pena could start slugging the crap out of the ball without needing to boost his walk total. It was a false hope and unlikely to happen, and it hasn't happened. Why? He doesn't walk. He swings at crap. And as a result, his slugging potential has a low cap on it.

Andre Dawson was a very good hitter and partially a freak of nature, but he's actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Why? Because if he'd have taken even 20 more walks per season, he'd have been an absolute monster. Far FAR greater than he was. I'm not talking about just the value of turning 20 outs into 20 walks; I'm also talking about the IsoP boost he'd have seen with that increase in IsoD. This is what you're missing, I've tried to explain this in a half dozen ways, and I'm pretty much running out of ideas on angles to explain this.

If you think a player is going to boost his power numbers from his traditional past, then that player is going to have to boost his plate discipline. Fairy dust just doesn't sprinkle down from the sky and turn a .180 IsoP into a .210 IsoP without a significant and sustained boost in walks. You might see it for a fluke season, but it'll fade quickly.

Want another example? Brandon Phillips. If he took 20 more walks per year, his power numbers and overall game would be unfathomable. The overall production boost would be huge for both him and the team.

Of course, the next step people take is ... "well I think he can take 20 more walks then." Sorry, not likely. Not when your professional career PA/BB ratio stinks to the level of Juan Rivera's or Wily Mo Pena's. And especially when you're Juan Rivera and you're already on the wrong side of 30.


Well then feel free to actually explain why that Juan Rivera or players like him, can't be successful players. You obviously think they can't but have yet to actually support your position other than 'guys with low IsoD don't have high IsoP'. Yet there is Rivera, with his low walk rate and a high IsoP.

I already have explained it over and over and over and over again. I just did it again above. I'm not doing it again from now on. If you're unable to comprehend it, then that's your problem, not mine.

dougdirt
12-12-2008, 02:22 PM
Yet the most fundamental similarity with those players is neither can control the strike zone. Pena swings at crap and misses, Rivera swings at crap and makes weak outs. Outs are outs regardless of how they're made. WMP strikes out over 30% of the time. Rivera is at about 12%. Rivera also boasts a strong IsoP with that, suggesting that those 'weak outs' you speak of are not always that.



People have long contended that Wily Mo Pena could start slugging the crap out of the ball without needing to boost his walk total. It was a false hope and unlikely to happen, and it hasn't happened. Why? He doesn't walk. He swings at crap. And as a result, his slugging potential has a low cap on it.
WMP still slugs the crap out of the ball, his problem is that he can't make enough contact for it to actually matter. He doesn't necessarily need to boost his walk total, he may just need to make a lot more contact. His Average and thus his OBP is low because he lacks both a good number of balls put into play (because of his insanely high K rate) and a low number of walks. His slugging has a cap because his average also has a cap and his average has that cap because he just doesn't put the ball in play enough to rack up enough hits.



Andre Dawson was a very good hitter and partially a freak of nature, but he's actually a perfect example of what I'm talking about. Why? Because if he'd have taken even 20 more walks per season, he'd have been an absolute monster. Far FAR greater than he was. I'm not talking about just the value of turning 20 outs into 20 walks; I'm also talking about the IsoP boost he'd have seen with that increase in IsoD. This is what you're missing, I've tried to explain this in a half dozen ways, and I'm pretty much running out of ideas on angles to explain this.
If he had done this or if he had done that isn't relevant. He did what he did and was a good player for it. If he did something else he could have been better. But he didn't. Its like saying if Adam Dunn made more contact on pitches he swings at and misses he would be a better player. Its true, he would be. But he doesn't, so he is as good as he is and not better. If Rivera walked more he would be an offensive force. He doesn't, so he looks to be an average to slightly above average player. If Adam Dunn made more contact on pitches he swings at and misses he would be a great player rather than a very good one. These guys are what they are.



If you think a player is going to boost his power numbers from his traditional past, then that player is going to have to boost his plate discipline. Fairy dust just doesn't sprinkle down from the sky and turn a .180 IsoP into a .210 IsoP without a significant and sustained boost in walks. You might see it for a fluke season, but it'll fade quickly.
Or you could see it from going to a a weaker league and into a hitters haven like the NL and GABP. Power doesn't have to do with walking. Power has to do with what you do on a baseball you put into play. Yes, most power hitters do draw walks and they likely do so because they have good eyes. Your opinion seems to be guys draw walks because they have good eyes. I am of the opinion that a guy like Rivera makes a ton of contact because he also has a good eye and when he gets a strike, he hits it. From 2005-2008 his Zone contact percentage has been 93%. When the guys swings, he hits the ball, especially if its in the strikezone.



Want another example? Brandon Phillips. If he took 20 more walks per year, his power numbers and overall game would be unfathomable. The overall production boost would be huge for both him and the team.
Brandon Phillips doesn't make nearly the same amount of contact as Rivera does though. You keep bringing examples to the table that aren't comparables for Rivera. Given their K rates and walk rates Rivera is likely to put the ball in play 20 more times, which would likely result in 6 or 7 more hits, which OBP wise is worth a boost in 10 to 12 points, also another at least 11 or 12 points of slugging if they were all singles. That of course doesn't take in the additional 4 walks he would have than Phillips which is worth another 7 points. So now we are looking at Rivera having been on base 10 or 11 more times than Phillips. Thats 17-18 points of OBP difference right there. Again, the two players don't have similar skill sets, Phillips over 600 PA would walk 4 times fewer and strike out 23 more times than Rivera would.



Of course, the next step people take is ... "well I think he can take 20 more walks then." Sorry, not likely. Not when your professional career PA/BB ratio stinks to the level of Juan Rivera's or Wily Mo Pena's. And especially when you're Juan Rivera and you're already on the wrong side of 30.
His power is going to drop off from his career norms because he is 31 in GABP? I seriously doubt that.



I already have explained it over and over and over and over again. I just did it again above. I'm not doing it again from now on. If you're unable to comprehend it, then that's your problem, not mine.
Its hard to understand something when the examples being used as comparables make very little sense. Thats not my problem, its yours. You want to use a good example, find someone who walks about 6% of the time and strikes out about 12% of the time (something none of your examples could do) all while also having a good isoP. Then I will listen to your explanations of why or why something won't happen. But when you are going to use non similar batters, you aren't going to convince someone that can think for themselves that you are right simply because you are using some numbers. That type of thing may work on some people. Its not going to work on me, I know better.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 02:33 PM
Simple question, Doug:

When strikeouts go down, what's more likely to go up? Hits or walks?

Mario-Rijo
12-12-2008, 02:37 PM
So If I get what you are saying Cyclone than it's this. You don't dispute that Rivera is a capable of a line close to what he has done throughout his major league career. You only dispute that he isn't likely to improve that line except for perhaps a short variation here or there.

Or in other words his career line of .284/.331/.468/.799 should pretty much stay about the same with only at best a slight jump here or there but not a great deal of improvement. For example I could reasonably expect a line of .290/.340/.480 or .275/.320/.440 (or worse) but I should never expect a line of say .310/.360/.500?

But you feel like he isn't likely to actually do anything close to his career #'s except for a dramatic decrease with more playing time. And therefore wouldn't improve us at all but actually make us worse than if we had a legitimate offensive player. So if I have this right what do you feel we could realistically expect out of him offensively if we did sign him and he played a full season with us?

dougdirt
12-12-2008, 02:46 PM
Simple question, Doug:

When strikeouts go down, what's more likely to go up? Hits or walks?

Walks. That has very little to do with Rivera though.

Look, I am with you on guys like Pena and Phillips. They need to walk more or strikeout less (in Pena's case a whole lot less). To strikeout less doesn't always mean a player stops chasing pitches. It could also mean that they make more contact with pitches that they swing at within the zone (hittable pitches). Rivera has a very good ability to hit pitches within the zone that he swings at. Comparing him to Brandon Phillips isn't a good comparison. Phillips swings more at pitches in the zone and out of the zone. Phillips also makes 12.5% less contact on pitches out of the zone and 4% less contact on pitches within the zone.

While walks are the easier solution there is a reason for that. Players have a skill set and most players aren't equipped with the skillset of Juan Rivera to make as much contact as he does. Its easier for players to change the pitches they swing at than it is for a player to change his ability to put the bat on the ball. Rivera has the ability unlike most to put the bat on the ball at a high frequency.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 02:47 PM
So If I get what you are saying Cyclone than it's this. You don't dispute that Rivera is a capable of a line close to what he has done throughout his major league career. You only dispute that he isn't likely to improve that line except for perhaps a short variation here or there.

Or in other words his career line of .284/.331/.468/.799 should pretty much stay about the same with only at best a slight jump here or there but not a great deal of improvement. For example I could reasonably expect a line of .290/.340/.480 or .275/.320/.440 (or worse) but I should never expect a line of say .310/.360/.500?

But you feel like he isn't likely to actually do anything close to his career #'s except for a dramatic decrease with more playing time. And therefore wouldn't improve us at all but actually make us worse than if we had a legitimate offensive player. So if I have this right what do you feel we could realistically expect out of him offensively if we did sign him and he played a full season with us?

You're on the right track, yes.

If Rivera was 26, I probably have a different tune. But the peak age of players is 26-27 years old, and Rivera's over 30 with a history of a poor walk rate. Without a better walk rate, he doesn't see sustained improvement anywhere else. Given his age and how poor his walk rates have been, I don't see a better walk rate ever happening either. He might see a short, temporary fluke improvement, but it won't last.

As for those batting lines, the most likely line for Rivera is that .760 OPS you posted. That first line of an .820 OPS is absolute high end, but not really likely. That last line of an .860 OPS pretty much will never happen except for an incredibly lucky fluke season. Those are the type of seasons teams get themselves in trouble with because they'd sign a guy like that to big money and then he'll fall back and tank.

SteelSD
12-12-2008, 02:52 PM
WMP strikes out over 30% of the time. Rivera is at about 12%. Rivera also boasts a strong IsoP with that, suggesting that those 'weak outs' you speak of are not always that.

In 2008, AL average IsoP was .153. Rivera's career IsoP is .184. That's a decent IsoP, but it's not special. To contrast, the median IsoP for the 2008 MLB Batting Title qualifiers posting a .500 or higher SLG was .244. The median IsoD for the same group was .088. Rivera is making a lot of weak outs because he doesn't have a solid command of the strike zone. He's swinging at baseballs he can't do much with (waits for RFS to post the Ted Williams zone chart) and his putrid career IsoD of .047 is evidence of that. He isn't fast enough to mitigate the amount of poor contact he makes. If he were, both his IsoD and IsoP would be higher.

Frankly, you and Cyclone are BOTH right in some regards, which makes me curious as to why the discussion is so heated. You're right that Juan Rivera could be a league-average LF in the right situation. That's not exactly high praise or going out on a limb, but it's an accurate statement. Cyclone has stated that IsoD really matter and does help in a projection of a player's IsoP because a low IsoD informs us about the potential for a high IsoP. That's an accurate statement as well and I fail to see what the big tiff is about.

I'm probably the last person to act as a peacemaker, but some of these discussions are getting a bit bizarre.

osuceltic
12-12-2008, 02:53 PM
Oh yeah, I just thought it was a telling omission.

Not an omission at all. I assume everyone here knows Dunn and Abreu are good against RHP. The issue is balance. Votto was good against lefties last season, but his minor league numbers suggest he has had problems -- and LHH vs. LHP is one of those things that can fluctuate.

You keep saying the Reds struggled against RHP. And that's true enough. But as this team builds for '09 and beyond, it does so assuming significant improvement and a full season from Bruce, improvement from Votto, no more Patterson and Bako, potentially a full season of Dickerson ... I think they have to make the assumption that they will be much better against RHP going forward.

Could they use another good LH hitter? Absolutely. They need more good players, period. But the more immediate need is for a RH hitter for the middle of that lineup -- one who can produce well enough against righties to justify the lineup slot (Phillips can't) and one who can punish any situational lefty they try to use to nullify Votto and Bruce.


Given how much you didn't care for Dunn, Burrell will eat at your inner nerve. I guarantee it.

I know, I know.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 02:57 PM
Walks. That has very little to do with Rivera though.

Look, I am with you on guys like Pena and Phillips. They need to walk more or strikeout less (in Pena's case a whole lot less). To strikeout less doesn't always mean a player stops chasing pitches. It could also mean that they make more contact with pitches that they swing at within the zone (hittable pitches). Rivera has a very good ability to hit pitches within the zone that he swings at. Comparing him to Brandon Phillips isn't a good comparison. Phillips swings more at pitches in the zone and out of the zone. Phillips also makes 12.5% less contact on pitches out of the zone and 4% less contact on pitches within the zone.

While walks are the easier solution there is a reason for that. Players have a skill set and most players aren't equipped with the skillset of Juan Rivera to make as much contact as he does. Its easier for players to change the pitches they swing at than it is for a player to change his ability to put the bat on the ball. Rivera has the ability unlike most to put the bat on the ball at a high frequency.

Congrats, you got the question right. Of course, you just blew your theory right out the window with it. Juan Rivera can make all the contact he wants, but it isn't helping him produce worthwhile offense. He's merely flipping strikeouts for other types of outs, and there's minimal run value for that.

Mario-Rijo
12-12-2008, 02:59 PM
You're on the right track, yes.

If Rivera was 26, I probably have a different tune. But the peak age of players is 26-27 years old, and Rivera's over 30 with a history of a poor walk rate. Without a better walk rate, he doesn't see sustained improvement anywhere else. Given his age and how poor his walk rates have been, I don't see a better walk rate ever happening either. He might see a short, temporary fluke improvement, but it won't last.

As for those batting lines, the most likely line for Rivera is that .760 OPS you posted. That first line of an .820 OPS is absolute high end, but not really likely. That last line of an .860 OPS pretty much will never happen except for an incredibly lucky fluke season. Those are the type of seasons teams get themselves in trouble with because they'd sign a guy like that to big money and then he'll fall back and tank.

Fair enough. Let me ask you this also then. Is he worth a gamble for LF assuming he isn't misplaced as the #4 hitter (over say EE) at around 3 million per year (for 1 year with at most w/ a team option) assuming also that we aren't able to acquire that significant bat? Would you take a gamble on him in late January if all other clearly better options were unavailable to us?

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 03:06 PM
Fair enough. Let me ask you this also then. Is he worth a gamble for LF assuming he isn't misplaced as the #4 hitter (over say EE) at around 3 million per year (for 1 year with at most an option) assuming also that we aren't able to acquire that significant bat? Would you take a gamble on him in late January if all other better options were unavailable to us?

No, it'd be a waste of time and money. If the Reds' situation reaches that point, then it's obvious there's little hope for 2009 contention. By then, I'm looking at internal options who are cheaper with probable better upside and who would have a good chance to match what Rivera would likely post anyway.

The Reds need a pile of run value to acquire still. A big bat in left and a nice glove at short are the two absolutely necessary pieces they need. Anything less and they're hoping for a miracle from Harang, Volquez, and Cueto.

dougdirt
12-12-2008, 03:07 PM
Congrats, you got the question right. Of course, you just blew your theory right out the window with it. Juan Rivera can make all the contact he wants, but it isn't helping him produce worthwhile offense. He's merely flipping strikeouts for other types of outs, and there's minimal run value for that.

Not close to what I said at all, or really what happens. Either BABIP generally is wrong, or its generally right. Trading strikeouts for balls in play is going to lead to hits, which is going to lead to higher average, thus higher OBP. Would it be ideal if a guy never swung at a pitch more than 2 or 3 inches out of the zone? Sure, but there aren't many Albert Pujols out there. Everyone chases some pitches, the difference is, some guys can actually make contact with a lot of those types of pitches.

And while it is ideal to trade strikeouts for walks, its not the only answer to pitches outside of the zone. You seem to be of the idea that if a pitch isn't a strike if its not swung at, that is simply shouldn't be swung at. I think there are certain players who can take some of those pitches and turn them into hits. Juan Rivera being one of those types of players.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 03:09 PM
In 2008, AL average IsoP was .153. Rivera's career IsoP is .184. That's a decent IsoP, but it's not special. To contrast, the median IsoP for the 2008 MLB Batting Title qualifiers posting a .500 or higher SLG was .244. The median IsoD for the same group was .088. Rivera is making a lot of weak outs because he doesn't have a solid command of the strike zone. He's swinging at baseballs he can't do much with (waits for RFS to post the Ted Williams zone chart) and his putrid career IsoD of .047 is evidence of that. He isn't fast enough to mitigate the amount of poor contact he makes. If he were, both his IsoD and IsoP would be higher.

Frankly, you and Cyclone are BOTH right in some regards, which makes me curious as to why the discussion is so heated. You're right that Juan Rivera could be a league-average LF in the right situation. That's not exactly high praise or going out on a limb, but it's an accurate statement. Cyclone has stated that IsoD really matter and does help in a projection of a player's IsoP because a low IsoD informs us about the potential for a high IsoP. That's an accurate statement as well and I fail to see what the big tiff is about.

I'm probably the last person to act as a peacemaker, but some of these discussions are getting a bit bizarre.

You just said in two short paragraphs what it's taken me six pages to try to say.

Kudos, Steel, and right on the money.

SteelSD
12-12-2008, 03:15 PM
No, it'd be a waste of time and money. If the Reds' situation reaches that point, then it's obvious there's little hope for 2009 contention. By then, I'm looking at internal options who are cheaper with probable better upside and who would have a good chance to match what Rivera would likely post anyway.

The Reds need a pile of run value to acquire still. A big bat in left and a nice glove at short are the two absolutely necessary pieces they need. Anything less and they're hoping for a miracle from Harang, Volquez, and Cueto.

You're right of course from the perspective of the Reds' contention chances in 2009 if Juan Rivera is the only guy they can get to man LF. However...

Even in what might be a lost season, there may be value to something akin to a one-year 2M deal for Rivera with a 3.5M team option and a 500K buyout. The theory here is that it's a cheap enough deal that if someone better comes available during the season, the acquisition of Rivera wouldn't preclude the Reds from being players in that trade market. Secondly, even though the stars would have to align properly, should Rivera make good in the GAB that might push him to the status of solid trade chip at the deadline and the acquiring team would then have the option to re-up him if he does well at a slightly inflated salary. OR, should the Reds actually project to contend in 2010 and Rivera proves himself in 2009, 3.5M isn't a bad bargain for even a league-average LF (or 4th OF/platoon option). If he sucks, you only wasted 2.5M total.

I can see where a well-structured cheap enough deal might help the Reds regardless of their projected status at the end of January 2009.

dougdirt
12-12-2008, 03:22 PM
You're right of course from the perspective of the Reds' contention chances in 2009 if Juan Rivera is the only guy they can get to man LF. However...

Even in what might be a lost season, there may be value to something akin to a one-year 2M deal for Rivera with a 3.5M team option and a 500K buyout. The theory here is that it's a cheap enough deal that if someone better comes available during the season, the acquisition of Rivera wouldn't preclude the Reds from being players in that trade market. Secondly, even though the stars would have to align properly, should Rivera make good in the GAB that might push him to the status of solid trade chip at the deadline and the acquiring team would then have the option to re-up him if he does well at a slightly inflated salary. OR, should the Reds actually project to contend in 2010 and Rivera proves himself in 2009, 3.5M isn't a bad bargain for even a league-average LF (or 4th OF/platoon option). If he sucks, you only wasted 2.5M total.

I can see where a well-structured cheap enough deal might help the Reds regardless of their projected status at the end of January 2009.

Thats basically what I am saying. I don't think Rivera is going to give us 100 RC or anything, but we aren't going to pay him like he is either. If he can be had for 2-3 million for a year or two, I am on board and I feel pretty confident he can be around league average with the chance that he is a bit above league average thanks to GABP and the extra power it gives just about everyone.

At this point I am concerned with having guys at every position that are at least average. I am of the belief that Rivera can be that in left field and throughout the last 4 pages of this thread I have shown why I believe that. I feel that if the Reds can be average in LF and at SS, then they are on their way to a winning season, although not likely to be a contending season. But average at some positions to go with the pitching which I think will be above average in the rotation and bullpen and Votto/Bruce, there is that chance that something strange happens and they go from a low 80's win team to a high 80's win team and can contend.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 03:27 PM
You're right of course from the perspective of the Reds' contention chances in 2009 if Juan Rivera is the only guy they can get to man LF. However...

Even in what might be a lost season, there may be value to something akin to a one-year 2M deal for Rivera with a 3.5M team option and a 500K buyout. The theory here is that it's a cheap enough deal that if someone better comes available during the season, the acquisition of Rivera wouldn't preclude the Reds from being players in that trade market. Secondly, even though the stars would have to align properly, should Rivera make good in the GAB that might push him to the status of solid trade chip at the deadline and the acquiring team would then have the option to re-up him if he does well at a slightly inflated salary. OR, should the Reds actually project to contend in 2010 and Rivera proves himself in 2009, 3.5M isn't a bad bargain for even a league-average LF (or 4th OF/platoon option). If he sucks, you only wasted 2.5M total.

I can see where a well-structured cheap enough deal might help the Reds regardless of their projected status at the end of January 2009.

The two problems are that I don't see that contract happening (he'll get more cash and years), and I don't see the Reds handling him intelligently. The Reds seem to be making it clear that they're looking for a middle of the order corner OF bat. I have no doubt they'll acquire a guy to put in that slot, but I do have doubt that they'll acquire a guy that actually belongs in that slot.

If you or I had our fingers on the controls, I'd think about it. But guys like Rivera get teams like the Reds in trouble. They'll stick him in the middle of the lineup and think they're getting something better than what they have. If he sucks, they'll still play him every day. That's just the Reds' way of doing things. If he has a fluky good season, they'll blow more money on him trying to keep him (and then we'll see the likely crash'n burn afterward). That's also just the Reds way of doing things.

Mario-Rijo
12-12-2008, 03:29 PM
No, it'd be a waste of time and money. If the Reds' situation reaches that point, then it's obvious there's little hope for 2009 contention. By then, I'm looking at internal options who are cheaper with probable better upside and who would have a good chance to match what Rivera would likely post anyway.

The Reds need a pile of run value to acquire still. A big bat in left and a nice glove at short are the two absolutely necessary pieces they need. Anything less and they're hoping for a miracle from Harang, Volquez, and Cueto.

Hmm, I see your point but I look at it in a different way. I think with the lack of overall depth we have at the OF position in the organization we will have to acquire some OF's regardless. And I don't feel we have anyone who even has a legit chance of making the roster out of S/T as anything more than a 4th/5th OF except for Dorn who is a bit of a stretch and still needs some work vs. LHP's. I guess we could try Stubbs in CF and Dickerson in LF but that likely means Stubbs could be hitting leadoff for a while and that's probably gonna get ugly as well. I don't think the organization feels they are ready either so I expect people to be added. I personally would take a chance on Rivera due to those reasons if we cannot get that clearly better offensive player. I think the circumstances are ripe for him to have a good season like the one he had in '06 if he plays in this park/division.

But I think I understand people's reasoning for going after a LHH bat rather than signing Rivera or the like. But I would give Rivera a 1 year deal before I'd sit through 3 years of Burrell.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 03:37 PM
Hmm, I see your point but I look at it in a different way. I think with the lack of overall depth we have at the OF position in the organization we will have to acquire some OF's regardless. And I don't feel we have anyone who even has a legit chance of making the roster out of S/T as anything more than a 4th/5th OF except for Dorn who is a bit of a stretch and still needs some work vs. LHP's. I guess we could try Stubbs in CF and Dickerson in LF but that likely means Stubbs could be hitting leadoff for a while and that's probably gonna get ugly as well. I don't think the organization feels they are ready either so I expect people to be added. I personally would take a chance on Rivera due to those reasons if we cannot get that clearly better offensive player. I think the circumstances are ripe for him to have a good season like the one he had in '06 if he plays in this park/division.

But I think I understand people's reasoning for going after a LHH bat rather than signing Rivera or the like. But I would give Rivera a 1 year deal before I'd sit through 3 years of Burrell.

Dorn would get embarrassed by big league southpaws, but he'd do ok against righty pitching. Find a cheap platoon partner for him that rakes lefties, and you might have something. Problem is that combo still likely leaves the Reds short of what they need.

Burrell gives this team a fighting chance at the 2009 playoffs if the remaining series of moves are carried out accordingly. Rivera puts the stamp on yet another losing season regardless of the remaining series of moves.

dougdirt
12-12-2008, 03:43 PM
Rivera puts the stamp on yet another losing season regardless of the remaining series of moves.

I just can't get behind this line of thinking. You said you agreed with Steel when he suggested that Rivera could be league average. But you now say that adding a league average left fielder would put a stamp on a losing season no matter what other moves are made.

That means that the Reds would be league average or better at 1B, 2B, LF, RF, C, 1-4 in the rotation and the bullpen looks pretty solid. CF has its questions as does SS. 3B is going to be league average or better offensively.

I just can't see where that would make the Reds promised of having a losing season no matter what else they do.

Mario-Rijo
12-12-2008, 03:53 PM
I just can't get behind this line of thinking. You said you agreed with Steel when he suggested that Rivera could be league average. But you now say that adding a league average left fielder would put a stamp on a losing season no matter what other moves are made.

That means that the Reds would be league average or better at 1B, 2B, LF, RF, C, 1-4 in the rotation and the bullpen looks pretty solid. CF has its questions as does SS. 3B is going to be league average or better offensively.

I just can't see where that would make the Reds promised of having a losing season no matter what else they do.

I think what he is saying is that we wouldn't be over league average enough in enough spots to be more than average.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 03:53 PM
I just can't get behind this line of thinking. You said you agreed with Steel when he suggested that Rivera could be league average. But you now say that adding a league average left fielder would put a stamp on a losing season no matter what other moves are made.

That means that the Reds would be league average or better at 1B, 2B, LF, RF, C, 1-4 in the rotation and the bullpen looks pretty solid. CF has its questions as does SS. 3B is going to be league average or better offensively.

I just can't see where that would make the Reds promised of having a losing season no matter what else they do.

No, here's what Steel said: "Juan Rivera could be a league-average LF in the right situation."

And I don't necessarily disagree with that. In fact, this is what I said in a response to Mario: "As for those batting lines, the most likely line for Rivera is that .760 OPS you posted. That first line of an .820 OPS is absolute high end, but not really likely."

So no, I don't disagree that he could be league average, but at the same time I also know it's nowhere near a given. Meanwhile you're putting the stamp of league average on Rivera as a given.

And FWIW, even if Rivera is league average, league average in left field won't cut it in 2009. They need better than league average. Hell, they need much better than league average. This is a team that needs to make a 150 run-value swing to put itself in position for the playoffs. Putting Juan Rivera in left field chops the head off that attempt.

Mario-Rijo
12-12-2008, 03:57 PM
No, here's what Steel said: "Juan Rivera could be a league-average LF in the right situation."

And I don't necessarily disagree with that. In fact, this is what I said in a response to Mario: "As for those batting lines, the most likely line for Rivera is that .760 OPS you posted. That first line of an .820 OPS is absolute high end, but not really likely."

So no, I don't disagree that he could be league average, but at the same time I also know it's nowhere near a given. Meanwhile you're putting the stamp of league average on Rivera as a given.

And FWIW, even if Rivera is league average, league average in left field won't cut it in 2009. They need better than league average. Hell, they need much better than league average. This is a team that needs to make a 150 run-value swing to put itself in position for the playoffs. Putting Juan Rivera in left field chops the head off that attempt.

Mainly because we aren't likely to make that sort of swing in any other area. LF is where the swing is probably gonna have to come from.

M2
12-12-2008, 04:00 PM
Mainly because we aren't likely to make that sort of swing in any other area. LF is where the swing is probably gonna have to come from.

Bingo.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 04:01 PM
Mainly because we aren't likely to make that sort of swing in any other area. LF is where the swing is probably gonna have to come from.

Exactly!

This goes back how many pages when I said that the Reds have yet to feel the absence of Dunn's production because Chris Dickerson isn't going to put up a 1.000 OPS (and I flat out like Dickerson - I really, really like Dickerson and want him in center field in 2009).

Dunn and Dickerson combined to hit .248/.384/.545/.929 last season. That's a big batting line, and that is what they need to replace to have a fighting chance at the playoffs should they work out their other series of necessary moves.

What people need to sit down and then think about is what kind of corner outfielder out there is going to give them the best shot at that production?

dougdirt
12-12-2008, 04:05 PM
No, here's what Steel said: "Juan Rivera could be a league-average LF in the right situation."

And I don't necessarily disagree with that. In fact, this is what I said in a response to Mario: "As for those batting lines, the most likely line for Rivera is that .760 OPS you posted. That first line of an .820 OPS is absolute high end, but not really likely."

So no, I don't disagree that he could be league average, but at the same time I also know it's nowhere near a given. Meanwhile you're putting the stamp of league average on Rivera as a given.

And FWIW, even if Rivera is league average, league average in left field won't cut it in 2009. They need better than league average. Hell, they need much better than league average. This is a team that needs to make a 150 run-value swing to put itself in position for the playoffs. Putting Juan Rivera in left field chops the head off that attempt.

Teams can't be better than league average at every position. Although I believe you are referring to a 90 win team, while I am more thinking of getting to a winning season to start with. Really, we have already improved CF and C by far (much more so than the downgrade from Dunn's time in Cincinnati to league average in LF). I would also venture to say we get better production at 2B, 3B, 1B and RF next year as well and don't think its out of line to think that (although how much improvement isn't likely a ton, especially from Phillips and likely EE).

But still, you said Rivera would be the end of a winning season, which to me means 82 or more wins.

Mario-Rijo
12-12-2008, 04:05 PM
Exactly!

This goes back how many pages when I said that the Reds have yet to feel the absence of Dunn's production because Chris Dickerson isn't going to put up a 1.000 OPS (and I flat out like Dickerson - I really, really like Dickerson and want him in center field in 2009).

Dunn and Dickerson combined to hit .248/.384/.545/.929 last season. That's a big batting line, and that is what they need to replace to have a fighting chance at the playoffs should they work out their other series of necessary moves.

What people need to sit down and then think about is what kind of corner outfielder out there is going to give them the best shot at that production?

I agree but I still have a hard time stomaching a 3 or more year deal for Burrell. Dye for Homer I'm starting to really think is as ideal as we could do regardless of the $$$'s involved. It's a short term solution to allow us to see if our future is in the minors. God I wish we would have beaten that Holliday deal.

Cyclone792
12-12-2008, 04:13 PM
I agree but I still have a hard time stomaching a 3 or more year deal for Burrell. Dye for Homer I'm starting to really think is as ideal as we could do regardless of the $$$'s involved. It's a short term solution to allow us to see if our future is in the minors. God I wish we would have beaten that Holliday deal.

If the Reds come through on their other series of moves and a three year contract to Pat Burrell is the last thing standing in the way of a legitimate playoff run, then you've got to do it. Having two years of Burrell remaining on contract after 2009 is an extremely small price to pay for a legit shot at something the Reds haven't seen since 1995.

Not to mention, when teams like the Reds start winning, weird things start happening. Fans start showing up to games. Fans start tuning into more games. Money starts flowing in at a thicker pace. The franchise suddenly starts having a bit more flexibility in getting creative and being able to absorb the impact of a slightly larger and longer deal to a guy who produces like Burrell.

Mario-Rijo
12-12-2008, 04:15 PM
I should also add that I think Walt may be bringing these guys in to try to prompt Williams to eat a few dollars more of his offer. Will Willams flinch or will Walt do so or are they both to stubborn to get it done? My guess is Walt will have to budge if it's to get done.

Kc61
12-12-2008, 04:23 PM
Teams can't be better than league average at every position. Although I believe you are referring to a 90 win team, while I am more thinking of getting to a winning season to start with. Really, we have already improved CF and C by far (much more so than the downgrade from Dunn's time in Cincinnati to league average in LF). I would also venture to say we get better production at 2B, 3B, 1B and RF next year as well and don't think its out of line to think that (although how much improvement isn't likely a ton, especially from Phillips and likely EE).

But still, you said Rivera would be the end of a winning season, which to me means 82 or more wins.

So, in other words, Walt doesn't have to worry about getting the best hitting left fielder because some fans see all this improvement coming from the current lineup. Huh?

Right now, as I see it, there's improvement in one spot. Catcher. Period.

Centerfield is not improved. We have no idea who will be playing center field. Dickerson had a hot month for the Reds (excluding his Ks). But he played mostly left field with the Reds. The only public comment I've heard about him is Dusty saying he gets hurt a lot. So put a big question mark next to centerfield.

And why is improvement due at 2B, 1B, and 3B? Yes, it's fair to say that Bruce will improve in RF, he was advanced so quickly last year. But Votto? One might expect him to plateau or maybe even step back after a strong rookie year. EE and Phillips? Nobody knows if they will have good years or bad.

The Reds, like all teams, need a strong middle of the lineup. Right now, that middle is Votto, ???, and Bruce. I want them to add Mr. ???

The Reds have plenty of complimentary hitters. Phillips, EE, Dickerson, maybe Hairston, Keppinger, Hernandez. What they need is another main hitter to go with Votto and Bruce in the middle of the lineup.

Will M
12-12-2008, 04:23 PM
I should also add that I think Walt may be bringing these guys in to try to prompt Williams to eat a few dollars more of his offer. Will Willams flinch or will Walt do so or are they both to stubborn to get it done? My guess is Walt will have to budge if it's to get done.

Walt is much more patient than I am. there are still a lot of options out there. if Williams holds out on the Dye deal Walt can say 'well we'll just go get Burrell'

side note: why not get a guy like Abreu for LF and go 'all in' to get JJ Hardy as the RH bat? Hardy is rumored to be available as the Brewers have a stud prospect ready for the bigs.

one thing that scares me a lot about both Dye & Burrell is the poor D.
EE is still at 3B and Kep or Gonzo is pencilled in at SS. Are we looking at another weak defensive team for 2009?