PDA

View Full Version : the 3 untouchables



icehole3
07-02-2009, 08:26 AM
Kinda going off what Lance asked Doug (who by the way gave a great interview with Lance, Doug it was like you were speaking for me, I wouldve said everything you said and thats no lie)anyway, Lance's question was, "if a GM was wanting to trade with you what 3 minor league players would be untouchables?

Doug said (I agree) Alonso, Cozart, Stewart.

Im going to say add a 4th, mine would be Heisey right now. What say you.

http://www.sternfannetwork.com/forum/images/smilies/Happy/HappyWave.gif

MESSMVP
07-02-2009, 08:55 AM
I don't know if Heisey is "untouchable" but there would have to be a VERY good return if the Reds traded him. I've watched him play at Carolina. He knows how to play the game. He knows what he is doing at the plate...appears ready to give it a try on the big stage. But, I wouldn't rush him at this point just to see if he can make it. I think they are doing a good job by having him be successful at Louisville. If he and Stubbs continue what they are doing this year then the future outfield in Cincinnati looks to be strong for several years to come...especially if Dickerson continues to improve and Jay Bruce continues to settle in.

Degenerate39
07-02-2009, 09:25 AM
I'd be willing to trade Alonso. The untouchables should be Frazier, Stewart, Wood, and Cozart

medford
07-02-2009, 09:48 AM
I'd be willing to trade any player on the major league or minor league roster if the return was right, of course some players are not going to generate the return that I'd want for them. If Votto can't play LF (well of course he can, I guess the question centers more around if someone else is brought in to play LF for the next 5 years, say Matt Holliday in a trade and signing window, not that I'm holding my breath), then Alonso is definently tradable, and I'd include him in that deal provided there was a 72 hour windor to negotiate a deal and get Matt signed to a 5 year deal.

Really Cozart due to position, one of Stubbs/Heisey and possibly Stewart are the only ones I'm not going to trade based upon performance/expectations and expected return. You can also throw in Yorman and Duran into that mix, simply because there is no way you invest that money last year, then flip them so quickly.

nate
07-02-2009, 09:50 AM
I don't think there should be any untouchables.

bucksfan2
07-02-2009, 10:13 AM
I don't think there should be any untouchables.

For the right price I agree. There are several players that I wouldn't trade because they either play a premium position or I can't replace them. Here are the guys you would have to blow me away for:

Stewart - Has been better than expected. Don't know how good of a starter he can become but I am not trading him.

Cozart - Could be the answer to SS. Could challenge in ST next season. Has the glove and bat looks promissing.

Stubbs - Answer in CF. Defense, speed, and plate presence don't slump. I think he has more potential than Heisey therefore I am not trading the future CF.

Duran/Rodriguez/Soto - Young, raw, and uber talented. Am not trading them just yet.

Plus Plus
07-02-2009, 10:54 AM
I don't think there should be any untouchables.

+1

If Florida went on a 20 game losing streak starting right now and was shopping one Hanley Ramirez, and called the Reds to say that he would be theirs for Alonso, Cozart, and Soto, I think you make that trade faster than you can blink.

Everyone has a price- some price tags are just very high or only there for very specific deals :p:

flash
07-02-2009, 11:11 AM
For the right price I agree. There are several players that I wouldn't trade because they either play a premium position or I can't replace them. Here are the guys you would have to blow me away for:

Stewart - Has been better than expected. Don't know how good of a starter he can become but I am not trading him.

Cozart - Could be the answer to SS. Could challenge in ST next season. Has the glove and bat looks promissing.

Stubbs - Answer in CF. Defense, speed, and plate presence don't slump. I think he has more potential than Heisey therefore I am not trading the future CF.

Duran/Rodriguez/Soto - Young, raw, and uber talented. Am not trading them just yet.

Why is everyone so sold on Stubbs. Aside from a brief stint at AA and AAA the guy has really never done anything. If I had to pick a future Reds outfield I would like to see it would be Frazier, Dickerson, and Heisey. My 3 untouchables would be Frazier, Heisey and and Cozart. Coddington would be close although I don't know much about him. Can anyone tell me how he picked up 8 errors behind the plate? Is he really bad defensively?

One the mound Wood, Fairel, and Stewart would be untouchable?

Cedric
07-02-2009, 11:22 AM
Absolutely no untouchables. Just remember names like Ryan Anderson, Ben Mcdonald, Alex Escobar.

mac624
07-02-2009, 11:25 AM
Eveyone comes with a price, so if you think this way, no one is really "untouchable" in terms of trading, if the return is right.

However, the Reds really seem to be all about building from withing and only adding a piece here or there if absolutely needed. Adding Hernandes was absolutely needed, because catching depth was terrible, and though he wasn't highly thought of, he was an immediate upgrade.

Personally, I doubt other teams will get much out of Walt. I suspect Cleveland wanted one of our top 6 guys for DeRosa, and Walt just won't bite. Would it have helped in the short term? Sure, but not the long term. That is what makes me think that we won't be trading for a RHanded bat until will know for sure that Volquez is good to go, and then it will only be Arroyo, and I'm not sure he'll bring that great of one.

So, back to untouchables. I think there are several guys that Walt looks at and realizes that while they aren't stars, they will be very good role players to build around Votto, Bruce, Cueto, Volquez, and Bailey. It may take a couple more years to realize this vision, but I think in the long run, we will be pretty happy Walt didn't get trigger happy this season.

UC_Ken
07-02-2009, 11:38 AM
I agree that there are no untouchables because everyone has their price. That said when you have a truly special talent there no packages another team would realistically offer you that you would consider. We've had a couple of those special prospects lately with Cueto and Bruce, I don't think we have anyone on that level now.

bucksfan2
07-02-2009, 11:41 AM
Why is everyone so sold on Stubbs. Aside from a brief stint at AA and AAA the guy has really never done anything. If I had to pick a future Reds outfield I would like to see it would be Frazier, Dickerson, and Heisey. My 3 untouchables would be Frazier, Heisey and and Cozart. Coddington would be close although I don't know much about him. Can anyone tell me how he picked up 8 errors behind the plate? Is he really bad defensively?

One the mound Wood, Fairel, and Stewart would be untouchable?

Plate presence, OBP, speed, and defense is why I am high on Stubbs. IMO he possesses the tools to be the everyday CF, win a couple of GG, lead off, and have a .370+ OBP. You just can't find those guys anywhere.

flyer85
07-02-2009, 11:44 AM
I don't think there should be any untouchables.

:thumbup:

I would be more than willing to deal Alonso ... he has no place to play for the Reds.

GIDP
07-02-2009, 12:02 PM
Untouchables doesnt really mean untouchable.

Mario-Rijo
07-02-2009, 12:07 PM
Untouchables doesnt really mean untouchable.

Exactly, Untouchables these days just means don't ask unless you intend on parting with your very best.

dougdirt
07-02-2009, 01:37 PM
I don't think there should be any untouchables.

I agree. I was asked the question if there were 3 guys, who would they be. That said, if there were 4 guys who I had to mark as 'untouchable' I would go Alonso, Stewart, Cozart and one of the LA kids (Duran/Rodriguez).

gedred69
07-04-2009, 12:38 AM
Anyone's list will change, season to season. On my list right now, Wood is untouchable, but what does he do when promoted to AAA? Alonso? Only because we haven't seen enough of him yet. Heisey? It's now or never with him, he's a year older than the competition he's been playing against, (remember Larson). Stubbs? To me, he's shown flashes only, and after a good start at AAA his avg. is creeping lower. The organization has done everything imaginable to have him succeed, with ho-hum results. He has the tools though. But, in the grand scope, what are any of these guys going to bring in return? Doubtful anything better than personnel already in house.

HokieRed
07-04-2009, 06:22 PM
Alonso should be untouchable, IMHO. I think he is a franchise player and will turn out to be of much greater value than any other player we now have in the minors, many of whom I like a lot. I think--I hope--we will be looking at him in a half dozen years like the Cardinals now look at Pujols, glad we didn't trade him, wondering how we ever considered it even possible.

Betterread
07-05-2009, 09:50 PM
There are no untouchables.
Alonso is the best prospect, but now he' s got an injury.
Stewart is a reliever. Enough said.
Soto and Lotzkar have fallen off the phenom level.
I think Heisey has advanced to the top-level, and he is as close as anyone.
Wood needs more time. I have faith in him, but as a 4th or 5th crafty lefty starter.

bubbachunk
07-05-2009, 10:03 PM
There are no untouchables.
Alonso is the best prospect, but now he' s got an injury.
Stewart is a reliever. Enough said.
Soto and Lotzkar have fallen off the phenom level.
I think Heisey has advanced to the top-level, and he is as close as anyone.
Wood needs more time. I have faith in him, but as a 4th or 5th crafty lefty starter.

Stewart is only being used as a reliever to cut down on his innings this year, he will be back to starting again next year.

Betterread
07-05-2009, 10:12 PM
Stewart is only being used as a reliever to cut down on his innings this year, he will be back to starting again next year.
In my opinion, that would be a mistake from a development persepctive. And 'm not sure about your assumption. Why promote him to AAA if you're just cutting down on his innings. He is a proven stud as a reliever. As a starter, he failed miserably in college. As a minor leaguer, he has shown that he is a great 5 inning starter, maybe 6 innings. I am excited about an awesome reliever ready to join the Reds. I'm less excited about him as a project that needs 2-3 years of starting experience to even know what we have.
Prior examples come to mind - Thomas Pauly and Sean Watson.
Stewart has better stuff. The Reds need to handle him properly.

bubbachunk
07-05-2009, 10:29 PM
In my opinion, that would be a mistake from a development persepctive. And 'm not sure about your assumption. Why promote him to AAA if you're just cutting down on his innings. He is a proven stud as a reliever. As a starter, he failed miserably in college. As a minor leaguer, he has shown that he is a great 5 inning starter, maybe 6 innings. I am excited about an awesome reliever ready to join the Reds. I'm less excited about him as a project that needs 2-3 years of starting experience to even know what we have.
Prior examples come to mind - Thomas Pauly and Sean Watson.
Stewart has better stuff. The Reds need to handle him properly.

We have a bunch of relievers and they are not that hard to find compared to a mid to top of the rotation starter. He was also only pitching 5-6 innings to get him reacclimated to starting as he had been only a reliever for the past couple of years.

HokieRed
07-06-2009, 12:03 AM
We have a bunch of relievers and they are not that hard to find compared to a mid to top of the rotation starter. He was also only pitching 5-6 innings to get him reacclimated to starting as he had been only a reliever for the past couple of years.


Agree. I expect the organization to give Stewart a good chance as a starter before making any decision on this. I would be surprised if there's any decision about this until well into next season.

dougdirt
07-06-2009, 01:01 AM
In my opinion, that would be a mistake from a development persepctive. And 'm not sure about your assumption. Why promote him to AAA if you're just cutting down on his innings. He is a proven stud as a reliever. As a starter, he failed miserably in college. As a minor leaguer, he has shown that he is a great 5 inning starter, maybe 6 innings. I am excited about an awesome reliever ready to join the Reds. I'm less excited about him as a project that needs 2-3 years of starting experience to even know what we have.
Prior examples come to mind - Thomas Pauly and Sean Watson.
Stewart has better stuff. The Reds need to handle him properly.

Stewart is being moved to the pen to limit his innings. Not an assumption. They are promoting him to AA because they think its where he will best learn to attack more professional hitters because he clearly had success against guys in AA (albeit in a short sample). As a starter in college where he 'failed miserably' he was facing metal bats and well, he had THREE starts at Texas Tech. Three. Its not going to take 2-3 years of experience to 'know what we have'. It may take him 2-3 years to build up his innings to 190 or so, but not to really know what you have.

Redmachine2003
07-06-2009, 01:39 AM
The amazing thing about Stubbs is that he is not very productive at least this year and last. He doesn't score runs and doesn't drive in runs. With his speed, hitting in the top of the lineup, and the way he swipes bases he should score around 100 runs. But the production just isn't there for a guy who gets on base almost 40% of the time.

dougdirt
07-06-2009, 02:42 AM
The amazing thing about Stubbs is that he is not very productive at least this year and last. He doesn't score runs and doesn't drive in runs. With his speed, hitting in the top of the lineup, and the way he swipes bases he should score around 100 runs. But the production just isn't there for a guy who gets on base almost 40% of the time.

Sounds like you have an issue with the guys batting behind him then.

Highlifeman21
07-06-2009, 10:56 AM
I don't think there should be any untouchables.

Quoted for truth.

Why limit your negotiations if you have untouchables? If a team wants your players bad enough, they'll pony up and offer you something worthwhile.

If they don't, then you keep your prized possessions.

RedlegJake
07-06-2009, 11:45 AM
Untouchable is just a term meaning most valued prospects. I'm pleased and surprised Doug included Cozart and I wholeheartedly agree.

Benihana
07-06-2009, 04:47 PM
There are no untouchables, but I have a slightly different take on why:

This system doesn't have any bona fide prospects at a position of true need. 18 months ago, the Reds had Cueto and Volquez but no rotation depth after Harang and Arroyo. They also had Joey Votto and a 38-year-old below average 1B. Finally, they had Jay Bruce, who was at the time the undisputed #1 prospect in all of baseball.

Those guys were untouchable.

These days, the Reds top prospect (Alonso) is blocked by a 25-year-old future All-Star and team captain. Their second best prospect (Stewart) is probably the closest thing to untouchable, but pitching is arguably one of the deeper parts of the major league roster, and it is unclear as to whether or not Stewart can/will be a starter in the majors. Relief prospects will always be worth less. The biggest prospects at positions of need are Cozart, Stubbs, and Heisey. Stubbs and Heisey are redundant, as neither will hit enough to start anywhere other than CF. Therefore, neither is untouchable as either one could team with Dickerson and replace the other. Finally, while I like Zack Cozart, the Reds have yet to demonstrate they are convinced that he is the long-term answer at SS. He has had a great year so far, but he is far from untouchable- particularly if the Reds go out (as so many wish they would) and acquire a young, 0-2 guy at the major league level (ie Yunel Escobar.)