PDA

View Full Version : Is Jermaine Dye Worth Bailey And A Prospect?



Krusty
12-20-2008, 06:31 AM
Is Jermaine Dye worth Homer Bailey and another Reds prospect? If the holdup to the trade was the second prospect, should the Reds give in to GM Kenny Williams demand?

Mario-Rijo
12-20-2008, 06:34 AM
Is Jermaine Dye worth Homer Bailey and another Reds prospect? If the holdup to the trade was the second prospect, should the Reds give in to GM Kenny Williams demand?

I think you will hear lots of people suggest they would "like" to keep Homer if they could, myself included. But at this point I don't believe I care about Homers future anymore, give me the playoffs or a real shot at them and I'll live with it if Homer turns it around down the road somewhere. Time to turn the page the frustration is becoming unbearable. But the 2nd prospect best not be anyone else worth keeping. No Frazier, Valaika, Soto or Alonso.

Krusty
12-20-2008, 06:40 AM
I think you will hear lots of people suggest they would "like" to keep Homer if they could, myself included. But at this point I don't believe I care about Homers future anymore, give me the playoffs or a real shot at them and I'll live with it if Homer turns it around down the road somewhere. Time to turn the page the frustration is becoming unbearable. But the 2nd prospect best not be anyone else worth keeping. No Frazier, Valaika, Soto or Alonso.

I can see Jockerty playing poker here by leaking out information about certain players. But it comes to the point if you really are interested in that team's player, you have to concede somewhat. Bottom line is what is available in free agency is nothing close to Dye's caliber of a hitter. And you just don't need one outfielder but two at least. And judging by Jockerty's acquistions of Hernandez and Rhodes, they are playing to win this year instead of another rebuilding plan. So how much weight do you put in that second prospect from making the deal happen? If the quality of the 2nd prospect determines how much of Dye's contract is paid by the White Sox in his final year, do you give up a quality prospect to go with Bailey?

Mario-Rijo
12-20-2008, 07:09 AM
I can see Jockerty playing poker here by leaking out information about certain players. But it comes to the point if you really are interested in that team's player, you have to concede somewhat. Bottom line is what is available in free agency is nothing close to Dye's caliber of a hitter. And you just don't need one outfielder but two at least. And judging by Jockerty's acquistions of Hernandez and Rhodes, they are playing to win this year instead of another rebuilding plan. So how much weight do you put in that second prospect from making the deal happen? If the quality of the 2nd prospect determines how much of Dye's contract is paid by the White Sox in his final year, do you give up a quality prospect to go with Bailey?

I think a quality prospect is a subjective term. For example there are plenty who think Juan Francisco stinks as a prospect and then you have the Rockies who basically demanded he be involved in any deal for them. So tell Williams hey I'll give you Bailey and depending on the money you are willing to send the quality of prospect will go up but will never reach my top 5 (or maybe even 10) or so prospects. If you aren't sending any money I'll give you a 2nd prospect who is more or less organizational filler but nothing more.

But I actually still prefer Garrett Atkins but what would the difference in prospects be? I'm sure Francisco would have to be a part of the deal which like Homer I am fine with myself. It depends on the 2nd prospect and if they want more than that for Atkins. With Atkins youth, contract and tad more versatility I would go a little more for him but still none of my top 4-5 prospects.

Here's my offer to each team respectively:

To Col. - Francisco, Thompson and Sean Watson

To Us - Atkins & Chris Nelson

(Or Francisco & Watson for Atkins)

To Chi - Bailey & Watson

To Us - Dye and 1.5 Million

(Or Bailey and filler straight up for Dye, say Jose Castro maybe)

camisadelgolf
12-20-2008, 07:31 AM
I think Dye is worth it, but before I'd resort to that, I'd try the free agent market first. I definitely wouldn't do the trade if the Reds could acquire two of the following four free agent outfielders:
Rocco Baldelli
Milton Bradley
Jim Edmonds
Jonny Gomes

The odds of the Reds being able to acquire two of those guys are very small, but theoretically, it's possible.

As for Dye, his career is winding down, but it isn't over yet. He would make a huge, needed difference in the lineup. My thoughts on Bailey are that he's never going to be an ace. Even though I feel he's under-appreciated by many of us on RedsZone, with some of the typical command improvements that happen with time, I think he could be an effective middle-of-the-rotation starter. For the Reds, starting pitching is a much bigger strength than the outfield at the moment, and the key to improving is trading from a strength to improve a weakness; this is a prime opportunity to do that.

Overall, the Reds may end up giving up more than they're receiving, but that's completely relative. In my opinion, the difference between Homer Bailey and Daryl Thompson is much smaller than the difference between Norris Hopper and Jermaine Dye.

The big question for me would be who the second prospect is. There's no way I'd add a top-10 prospect to the trade, but if we're talking about a Justin Turner-quality prospect at a position of strength (i.e. a corner position), then I'd be very tempted to accept a trade.

Krusty
12-20-2008, 07:31 AM
I think a quality prospect is a subjective term. For example there are plenty who think Juan Francisco stinks as a prospect and then you have the Rockies who basically demanded he be involved in any deal for them. So tell Williams hey I'll give you Bailey and depending on the money you are willing to send the quality of prospect will go up but will never reach my top 5 (or maybe even 10) or so prospects. If you aren't sending any money I'll give you a 2nd prospect who is more or less organizational filler but nothing more.

But I actually still prefer Garrett Atkins but what would the difference in prospects be? I'm sure Francisco would have to be a part of the deal which like Homer I am fine with myself. It depends on the 2nd prospect and if they want more than that for Atkins. With Atkins youth, contract and tad more versatility I would go a little more for him but still none of my top 4-5 prospects.

Here's my offer to each team respectively:

To Col. - Francisco, Thompson and Sean Watson

To Us - Atkins & Chris Nelson

(Or Francisco & Watson for Atkins)

To Chi - Bailey & Watson

To Us - Dye and 1.5 Million

(Or Bailey and filler straight up for Dye, say Jose Castro maybe)

Well, if the Rockies sign Tim Redding as a free agent, that makes it less of a priority of trading Atkins for a pitcher. They could sit back and wait till the end of spring training to see how Todd Helton's back is. So that brings us back to Dye. If Dye wasn't 35 years old, then giving up a second prospect that is among the Reds top 10 wouldn't be bad if the White Sox were paying for a portion of his contract too. But you run the risk of having Dye for one year then leaving via free agency while losing two quality prospects in the process. So is the better alternative to keep Bailey and the prospect and sign someone like Rocco Baldelli and hope he has a Josh Hamilton resurgence?

RedLegSuperStar
12-20-2008, 08:34 AM
Well with the moves made of resigning Lincoln, keeping Weathers, signing Rhodes, trading for Hernandez they seem to be wanting to win. Can this team do that? Not at the moment as they are going to need offense production. I like the idea of Jermaine Dye in a Reds uniform for 09. I would trade Homer Bailey and any one of the following to get him: Carlos Fisher, Josh Roenicke, Drew Stubbs, or Sam Lecure.

Highlifeman21
12-20-2008, 08:35 AM
Ya gotta give up something to get something.

Hopefully the White Sox think of Homer Bailey as something. That's my only fear.

It's very possible they do not, which means the 2nd prospect won't be a throw in, but rather it's possible Bailey could be the throw in.

HokieRed
12-20-2008, 10:17 AM
I voted no, for several reasons, but the first is the most important. I think we have no chance to contend in 2009. I suspect Walt also believes this and so what he has to do this offseason is to play a good game of looking like he's going to improve the team while really doing nothing that will hurt it in 2010 and beyond. Consider this: this team may have as many as 9 or 10 major-league ready players by 2010: Alonso, Valaika, Frazier, Dorn, Thompson, Maloney, Lecure, Roenicke, Fisher--this is not counting Bailey, Ramirez, Castillo, Herrera, Tatum, Stubbs, Henry. In short, this team is on the verge of a major personnel turnover, not just involving the big 4. A year from now WJ will be in a much more flexible position from which to deal and he/we will know a quantum leap's more about how these guys are likely to play out in future. So, IMO, the last thing I want him doing is selling low on what could be a critical part of that future or taking on some contracts--ala the previous two GM's--that will damage flexibility one year out and beyond.
That said, a prediction: the opening day left-fielder will be Jim Edmonds, and by the middle of the season, we all might just be pretty happy with that move.

RedEye
12-20-2008, 10:18 AM
I voted no. I think the Reds should be getting cash back in the deal if they include both Homer and a good prospect.

AmarilloRed
12-20-2008, 01:04 PM
What kind of prospect? One who's MLB-ready, a mid -level prospect, or one's who's filler? Hard to say without having some idea of what sort of 2nd prospect we'd be giving up.

WebScorpion
12-22-2008, 11:17 AM
I didn't vote because my answer would be MAYBE. It would depend upon the prospect and how much of Dye's salary we'd have to pay. I think Dye would be a great pick up for our left field hole. I think Walt is VERY interested in him, but is hoping the price will come down as the off-season progresses. I think we may get him for Bailey and a throw-in type prospect in th end. If we can get him without giving up Bailey it would be great...but I'm not holding my breath on that one. Time will tell.:)

bucksfan2
12-22-2008, 11:41 AM
Well with the moves made of resigning Lincoln, keeping Weathers, signing Rhodes, trading for Hernandez they seem to be wanting to win. Can this team do that? Not at the moment as they are going to need offense production. I like the idea of Jermaine Dye in a Reds uniform for 09. I would trade Homer Bailey and any one of the following to get him: Carlos Fisher, Josh Roenicke, Drew Stubbs, or Sam Lecure.

I don't quite understand how their moves signal a move to win now. No matter what you goal in the off season is you still have to fill out a 25 man opening day roster. They traded Freel for a position of need. Wanting to win or now the Reds needed another catcher. They filled that need with Hernandez. The signing of Lincoln made sense because he had a good season and you need bullpen arms. Weathers was offered arbitration so his acceptance isn't all that out of the norm. Rhodes serves the purpose of being a LOGGY.

A trade of Dye would signify a move to win now. A pursuit of a big name FA would signify a move to win now. Their moves so far this year signal nothing more than staying the course. Not trading any of your young talent while trying to fill roster needs.

Caveat Emperor
12-22-2008, 02:21 PM
Should've made everyone man-up and put their vote on record with a public poll here. ;)

I voted no, but that's more a comment on my dislike of Dye as a target than it is an endorsement of Homer Bailey.

I'd probably go Dye for Bailey straight up, but I wouldn't add anything resembling "prospect" status unless there was a significant amount of cash coming back to the Reds.

remdog
12-22-2008, 02:38 PM
Should've made everyone man-up and put their vote on record with a public poll here. ;)

I voted no, but that's more a comment on my dislike of Dye as a target than it is an endorsement of Homer Bailey.

I'd probably go Dye for Bailey straight up, but I wouldn't add anything resembling "prospect" status unless there was a significant amount of cash coming back to the Reds.

This begs the question: (and I don't mean this specifically to CE's reference, it was just a jumping off point regarding the headline) 'Isn't Homer Bailey a prospect?'

Rem

Mario-Rijo
12-22-2008, 02:42 PM
This begs the question: (and I don't mean this specifically to CE's reference, it was just a jumping off point regarding the headline) 'Isn't Homer Bailey a prospect?'

Rem

Technically speaking yes, but due to MLB's definition of a major leaguer no. He's no longer ROY eligible so that means he's technically not a prospect. But he's still only a prospective major leaguer too me and in that way he's a prospect.

remdog
12-22-2008, 03:03 PM
Technically speaking yes, but due to MLB's definition of a major leaguer no. He's no longer ROY eligible so that means he's technically not a prospect. But he's still only a prospective major leaguer too me and in that way he's a prospect.

I wasn't looking at it from a technical standpoint as if he's eligible for the ROY. Just wanted to know if anyone/everybody still considered him a 'prospect' in terms of talent. Or, has he sort of fallen off the ledge.

Sort of makes a difference in the way you interpret the headline. OTOH, if Homer is a prospect, well, you're already trading one prospect away. OTOH, if Homer is no longer a prospect then you're trading a mediocre pitcher and the Sox need a prospect to balance the deal.

Rem

Caveat Emperor
12-22-2008, 03:17 PM
Sort of makes a difference in the way you interpret the headline. OTOH, if Homer is a prospect, well, you're already trading one prospect away. OTOH, if Homer is no longer a prospect then you're trading a mediocre pitcher and the Sox need a prospect to balance the deal.

It's a definition which lends itself to a little ambiguity -- he's young, he has an option year remaining, was highly rated as a minor leaguer, and there appears to be some untapped upside that he has yet to show. He is also, at the present time, not ready to join a major league roster. That leads me to consider him more to be a "prospect" -- albeit one with a healthy dose of tarnish on the star.

I look at the deal as the White Sox get to rid themselves of a large contract and an aging ballplayer they don't particularly want anymore and projects to decline in production over the last two years of his deal and the Reds get to rid themselves of a headcase pitching prospect while he still has some value and potential to be salvaged. Both teams gain something too -- the Reds get an above-average RH bat, on the downswing, and the White Sox gain a power arm that, theoretically, has top of the rotation stuff if he can put it all together.

The "additional prospect" portion of the deal would just be to control how much, if any, money comes back to the Reds in this deal. Because really, neither Bailey nor Dye are players to write home about and odds are that neither one will produce to the level the acquiring side hopes for.

remdog
12-22-2008, 03:31 PM
Thanks for your reply. That was an excellent post.

Anyone else want to voice their opinion on the question at hand?

Rem

Blitz Dorsey
12-22-2008, 04:21 PM
I think the trade should be Bailey-for-Dye straight up. If the White Sox can find something better than that for him, good for them.

I would throw in a fringe prospect in the deal, but no one really that good. About the best I would go is Danny Dorn or someone like that. Maybe not even him though -- he's put together a couple of good seasons back-to-back in the minors.

I actually hope the Reds get Dye, but I just don't think they are going to find anything better than Homer Bailey. We know he looks like a complete bust, but he's still a power arm and there is going to be some GM out there that rolls the dice and hopes he can turn things around like Volquez did.

Highlifeman21
12-22-2008, 08:23 PM
Thanks for your reply. That was an excellent post.

Anyone else want to voice their opinion on the question at hand?

Rem

IMO Bailey is no longer a "prospect".

He's been on the merry-go-round between CIN and LOU too much to still be a prospect.

He's also put up some crappy MLB numbers, which as IIRC Cav. Emp. correctly said tarnished him.

At best, Homer Bailey is a tarnished prospect. At worst, he's just an immature, crappy MLB 5th SP, or mop up guy.

Mario-Rijo
12-22-2008, 09:57 PM
IMO Bailey is no longer a "prospect".

He's been on the merry-go-round between CIN and LOU too much to still be a prospect.

He's also put up some crappy MLB numbers, which as IIRC Cav. Emp. correctly said tarnished him.

At best, Homer Bailey is a tarnished prospect. At worst, he's just an immature, crappy MLB 5th SP, or mop up guy.

Sounds about like what I read on a Rangers board just around a year ago about Volquez. I think was something like "Hey we traded away a guy who was likely to never amount to anything more than a mop up guy. He was a bonehead whose stuff was overrated, just go look at his #'s!" Humm, wonder how that guy feels now? Truth is regardless of how people feel he will eventually do or not he's still a prospective major leaguer at 22 years old.

That said I could care less about his status. I'm ready to compete and have decided that in my own mind if Walt feels he's ready to deal him for a legit productive major leaguer then I'm gonna be alright with it no matter how Homer turns out. That said I can always go back and second guess Walt because I'm putting my trust into him that he actually knows what the hell he's doing.

WebScorpion
12-23-2008, 01:15 PM
I wasn't looking at it from a technical standpoint as if he's eligible for the ROY. Just wanted to know if anyone/everybody still considered him a 'prospect' in terms of talent. Or, has he sort of fallen off the ledge.

Sort of makes a difference in the way you interpret the headline. OTOH, if Homer is a prospect, well, you're already trading one prospect away. OTOH, if Homer is no longer a prospect then you're trading a mediocre pitcher and the Sox need a prospect to balance the deal.

Rem
Earlier in the off-season, I spent some time looking at Volquez's 2007 numbers and trying to decide what, if any, were the indicators that he was the most likely 'tarnished prospect' to finally get it and become a legitimate major league pitcher. I didn't do any in depth statistical analysis, mind you, just a cursory look at his numbers compared to a few other (at the moment, I can't remember who I used) pitchers of his ilk. What I decided was that his BB/K rate seemed to be the best indicator. Next, I looked at all the pitcher stats for 2008 and tried to find another pitcher who had similar numbers and maintained a solid BB/K rate. The only pitcher I could find whose stats were even close to Volquez was Homer Bailey. I believe Homer is still a prospect. I also believe he's the most likely pitching prospect to have a breakout season similar to Volquez. Unfortunately, a change of scenery may be a required element in the formula. So it's still just a giant gamble...if you keep him, he may never come around, and if you trade him that may be the catalyst he needs to push him into legitimacy. I'd love to hang on to him and have a home grown top of the rotation starter, but I'm not very confident that will happen. Maybe we can trade him for the same type of player in a hitter...a guy who hasn't quite lived up to all the hoopla who might benefit from a change of scenery...a guy like Jeremy Hermida. Hey, it worked for Volquez and Hamilton...why not?:thumbup:

bucksfan2
12-23-2008, 01:36 PM
The Volquez comparison continues to be made. Volquez returned a perennial MVP candidate with 1 year of MLB service. Bailey would return a former MVP candidate with a 1-2 year shelf life. The risk in trading Volquez was high but the return was much greater than 1-2 years of Dye. I think Bailey has the same untapped potential that Volquez had last season. He still has that live arm and still is very young. If he gets on a roll I think we could see a very productive season out of him.

When the greatest catcher living says "put him in the bullpen or whatever" about Volquez I retain hope that Bailey can put it all together. Volquez went from an uninspiring arm to potential CY young in the matter of months. IMO it had to deal with confidence. If Bailey could somehow start off fast he could retain that confidence throughout the entire season.