PDA

View Full Version : Fay: Please don't mortgage future



OnBaseMachine
07-05-2009, 02:13 AM
I posted this in another thread but it probbaly deserves a thread of its own.

Please don't mortgage future
Reds insider
By John Fay • jfay@enquirer.com • July 4, 2009

Friday night’s loss was one of those games that make it hard – no really impossible – to stick to the old it’s-one-of-162 adage.

It was a very ugly ending to what could have been a very uplifting night for the home team.

My thoughts on the 7-4 loss to the great Albert Pujols: The killer was Arthur Rhodes walking Jarrett Hoffpauir, who was making his major league debut, on four pitches; I might have used Francisco Cordero to pitch to Pujols.

But what I took mostly out of the game had nothing to do with the outcome. Sure it would have been nice for the Reds to win. But as David Weathers pointed out, you don’t win the division on July 3. However, you can make decisions that affect the organization long term.

And it would be foolish right now to trade Homer Bailey or any of the other top arms to rent a bat for less than three months.

There’s sentiment among fans and pundits that the Reds need to make a big splash of a trade.

I wouldn’t if it meant giving up Bailey or Zach Stewart, the third-round draft pick from last year who has zipped through the minors.

Why? I don’t think this team is a Matt Holliday away from making the playoffs.

But I think a rotation with Edinson Volquez, Johnny Cueto, Bailey and Stewart could help return the franchise to sustained excellence. That’s the long-term goal. You don’t want to chuck that for a chance at one playoff run.

I know it was just one start for Bailey. But when you’ve got a 23-year-old throwing 96, 97 mph and making Pujols look bad the stuff is there.

“He was aggressive with the fastball in the strike zone,” an American League scout said. “His curveball has always been projectable (to the majors). Everyone talks about split-finger. He uses it more as a change-up. But the fastball is the key.”

Bailey agreed to a degree.

“Yeah, locating the fastball -- and I think with my previous games -- they were gonna be looking first-pitch fastball,” Bailey said. “I knew if I could get a first-pitch breaking ball over I could definitely benefit. Now it’s something else they can look at, and I tried to show them I could throw other pitches for strikes.”

Bailey would be a big chip on the trade market right now. Just like Joey Votto probably would have landed Eric Bedard two off seasons ago. No one is kicking the Reds for not doing that now, eh?

I’m not saying that the Reds shouldn’t make a move. But I don’t think you pull out all the stops just to try to make a run this season.

My guess is the Reds are looking at deals that would help the teams long term, i.e, trying to land a young shortstop.

Landing someone like Mark DeRosa would make sense if the price isn’t too high as far as prospects.

The other side of it is while you, I and most experts don’t think the Reds can make the playoffs, the guys in the clubhouse do.

One of the other things about Friday: Remember, the Reds tied it after Pujols’ grand slam. Then after, the Cardinals scored three in the ninth, the Reds loaded the bases in the bottom of the inning.

This team has been remarkably resilient.

They’ve probably got a few more good runs in them, whether they add another bat or not. They also just got Edwin Encarnacion back. Alex Gonzalez will be back in a couple of weeks.

I’d go with what they have rather than mortgagingthe future for a rent a bat, especially if it means giving up Bailey.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20090704/SPT04/307040020/1071/Please+don+t+mortgage+future

OnBaseMachine
07-05-2009, 02:18 AM
I actually agree with Fay here. While I would love to acquire another bat or even another starter, I would hate to trade away some of our top prospects for a three month rental. Instead of targeting a big name like Matt Holliday, I would go after a lesser but productive hitter like Josh Willingham, who won't cost you a top prospect. I just don't see the reason behind dealing a prospect like Zach Stewart, Todd Frazier, Yonder Alonso, or a Homer Bailey for someone who will leave after this season.

Kc61
07-05-2009, 10:17 AM
I actually agree with Fay here. While I would love to acquire another bat or even another starter, I would hate to trade away some of our top prospects for a three month rental. Instead of targeting a big name like Matt Holliday, I would go after a lesser but productive hitter like Josh Willingham, who won't cost you a top prospect. I just don't see the reason behind dealing a prospect like Zach Stewart, Todd Frazier, Yonder Alonso, or a Homer Bailey for someone who will leave after this season.

Yes, lesser but productive, the Reds' credo for the last ten years. Nobody that good, just somebody good enough to finish, say, third. Striving for not too bad, sure.

No.

This article sets up a straw man and knocks it down. Nobody wants to trade Bailey or Stewart for a three month rental. That is just not the issue.

The issue is acquiring a top player and paying him to stay. Or acquiring a long term contract in mid-stream and paying it. The question is Holliday with a 72-hour window, or some other top hitter who may be expendable but expensive.

I'd still try to hold on to top young pitching. But would I trade Alonso or Frazier or both for a Matt Holliday who can be signed? Yes.

You see, I can live with trading away a young player even if he becomes a star. I've watched the Reds dump Trevor Hoffman for nothing. It happens, mistakes are made. If the Reds are going to make a mistake, I'd rather see them make the mistake in return for a proven commodity.

And the argument that it's too soon for the Reds to deal is just nonsense. They are in the Central hunt on July 4, that's the test. They passed. The area of weakness is obvious. Let's fix it.

mth123
07-05-2009, 10:28 AM
The Reds have a lot of depth in the system. They could deal say Stubbs, Valaika, Maloney and Roenicke and still have pretty good prospects for all of those prospective roles. A package like that should be pretty attractive and the future really woudn't be so much at risk without them. Stubbs hasn't developed his rumored power and a Heisey/Dickerson combo will probably provide more production with only slightly less defense. Valiaka is a tweener who probably can't fend off Cozart at SS and projects behind Frazier as a supersub. Maloney is near ready but projects lower than Bailey, Stewart, Wood and the underated guys like Jordan Smith and Jeremy Horst. Roenicke is 27 in August and will struggle to fit into a crowded pen that has Cordero, Masset and hopefully Burton for the same roles (if Stewart stays in the pen he'll pass all of them by). There is plenty to deal without emptying the cupboard. I'm not big on rental players, but this team can make an acquisition that will improve the chances this year and beyond.

BCubb2003
07-05-2009, 10:33 AM
It sounds more like the Reds are thinking of selling off the present, if the thread about trading Harang is any indication.

PuffyPig
07-05-2009, 10:51 AM
Or acquiring a long term contract in mid-stream and paying it. The question is Holliday with a 72-hour window, or some other top hitter who may be expendable but expensive.



Holliday is such a poor fit for a mid-market team.

Besides giving up valuable prospects, we would have to pay an enourmous amount to have him forgo FA.

Since he plays LF, that's just too much money wrapped up in a position that can be replaced fairly easily with productive cheap players.

Kc61
07-05-2009, 11:07 AM
Holliday is such a poor fit for a mid-market team.

Besides giving up valuable prospects, we would have to pay an enourmous amount to have him forgo FA.

Since he plays LF, that's just too much money wrapped up in a position that can be replaced fairly easily with productive cheap players.

The question is not his position. And I'm not wedded to any one bat, Holliday or anyone else.

The team needs a right handed cleanup hitter to hit between Votto and Bruce. Wherever he may play defensively. Neither Phillips nor EE satisfy that need.

As for money, the Reds can afford to have one major, reasonably expensive bat.

Reds/Flyers Fan
07-05-2009, 12:19 PM
Holliday is such a poor fit for a mid-market team.

Besides giving up valuable prospects, we would have to pay an enourmous amount to have him forgo FA.

Since he plays LF, that's just too much money wrapped up in a position that can be replaced fairly easily with productive cheap players.

Yet a perfect fit in this lineup and at Great American Small Park. :cool:

OnBaseMachine
07-05-2009, 12:40 PM
FWIW:

Josh Willingham - .286/.407/.534 - .941 OPS, 147 OPS+

Matt Holliday - .273/.370/.420 - .790 OPS, 114 OPS+

Plus, Willingham is cheaper and won't cost as much in terms of prospects.

Brutus
07-05-2009, 01:11 PM
FWIW:

Josh Willingham - .286/.407/.534 - .941 OPS, 147 OPS+

Matt Holliday - .273/.370/.420 - .790 OPS, 114 OPS+

Plus, Willingham is cheaper and won't cost as much in terms of prospects.

What's interesting is that he also has a .989 road OPS (Willingham). He's been hitting very well for them and could be had for much cheaper. There's certainly an inherent injury risk with Willingham, though. But if the Reds were to upgrade left field, he's become my player of choice because of both economics and production.

Quietly, he has a 3-year road OPS of just shy of .900. Few people seem to really notice, though.

Kc61
07-05-2009, 01:29 PM
What's interesting is that he also has a .989 road OPS (Willingham). He's been hitting very well for them and could be had for much cheaper. There's certainly an inherent injury risk with Willingham, though. But if the Reds were to upgrade left field, he's become my player of choice because of both economics and production.

Quietly, he has a 3-year road OPS of just shy of .900. Few people seem to really notice, though.


What's also interesting is that Holliday's lifetime OPS is well over .900, what you look for in a major hitter. Willingham's is .844 and his highest lifetime OPS was .852 in 2006. He has a good OPS this year but he has only 161 official at bats. He's played part time this year and played part time last year, whether due to injury or whatever.

In the last two seasons with Colorado, Holliday OPS'd 1.012 and .947. And while that was for the Rockies, it was in the NL and GABP is a hitter's park. And Holliday's official at bats since 2006 -- 602, 636, 549.

So one is a part time player who hasn't had an .850 OPS since 2006. The other is a full time player who was over .940 the last two seasons.

And, fortunately for the acquiring team, Holliday started slowly in the AL this year. So maybe he'll be slightly cheaper to acquire than when at his peak.

RedsManRick
07-05-2009, 01:50 PM
What's also interesting is that Holliday's lifetime OPS is well over .900, what you look for in a major hitter. Willingham's is .844 and his highest lifetime OPS was .852 in 2006. He has a good OPS this year but he has only 161 official at bats. He's played part time this year and played part time last year, whether due to injury or whatever.

In his last two seasons with Colorado, Holliday OPS'd 1.012 and .947. And while that was for the Rockies, it was in the NL and GABP is a hitter's park. And Holliday's official at bats since 2006 -- 602, 636, 549.

So one is a part time player who hasn't had an .850 OPS since 2006. The other is a full time player who hit the daylights out of the ball the last two seasons.

And, fortunately for the acquring team, Holliday started slowly in the AL this year. So maybe he'll be slightly cheaper to acquire than when at his peak.

Holliday has played most of his career in an superb offensive environment. Willingham has played most of his career in a poor offensive environment. Comparing the two players without adjusting for this is pointless.

Until I compiled the table below, I didn't realize just how drastic the difference has been. Given the associated costs for acquiring both players, it's vritually impossible to argue to pursuing Holliday.



Home Holliday Willingham
AVG OBP SLG OPS AVG OBP SLG OPS
2006 .373 .440 .692 1.132 .243 .321 .425 0.747
2007 .376 .435 .722 1.157 .260 .364 .436 0.800
2008 .332 .413 .584 0.997 .252 .363 .454 0.817
2009 .262 .370 .426 0.795 .278 .435 .444 0.879
----
career .348 .417 .624 1.042 .253 .357 .432 0.789


Away Holliday Willingham
AVG OBP SLG OPS AVG OBP SLG OPS
2006 .280 .333 .485 0.819 .310 .389 .565 0.954
2007 .301 .374 .485 0.860 .269 .364 .487 0.851
2008 .308 .405 .486 0.892 .255 .365 .484 0.849
2009 .283 .371 .414 0.785 .292 .382 .607 0.989
----
career .280 .350 .451 0.801 .281 .374 .521 0.895

Holliday has gotten a .200 boost from his time at Coors compared to the road. Willingham had gotten a .100 point reduction from his time in Florida. It's striking; take the two guys on the road, and it looks like Willingham has the more impressive resume'.

Mario-Rijo
07-05-2009, 01:54 PM
FWIW:

Josh Willingham - .286/.407/.534 - .941 OPS, 147 OPS+ 194 PA 2.95 MIllion for '09

Matt Holliday - .273/.370/.420 - .790 OPS, 114 OPS+ 332 PA's

Scott Hairston - .307/.364/.547 - .911 OPS, 151 OPS+ 210 PA's, 8/9 SB, Better Defense 1.25 Million for '09

Plus, Hairston is cheaper yet and won't cost as much in terms of prospects.

I added a few things to that.

OnBaseMachine
07-05-2009, 02:03 PM
I would love to see the Reds acquire Scott Hairston.

Scrap Irony
07-05-2009, 02:04 PM
If Hairston is cheaper and has better numbers, but would cost less, you have to ask why, don't you?

jojo
07-05-2009, 02:12 PM
I think Hairston and Willingham are targets that the Reds could acquire through selling off some depth from their farm. I don't think the Reds actually have enough they'd be willing to give for Holliday.

That said, both guys are having a career year over their first 200 PAs so they're a sell high guy for a contender.

Then again the cost for Willingham was high this off season-the Nats had to agree to also take a turdmeister like Olsen off of the Marlins' hands....

TheNext44
07-05-2009, 02:14 PM
Holliday has played most of his career in an superb offensive environment. Willingham has played most of his career in a poor offensive environment. Comparing the two players without adjusting for this is pointless.

Until I compiled the table below, I didn't realize just how drastic the difference has been. Given the associated costs for acquiring both players, it's vritually impossible to argue to pursuing Holliday.



Home Holliday Willingham
AVG OBP SLG OPS AVG OBP SLG OPS
2006 .373 .440 .692 1.132 .243 .321 .425 0.747
2007 .376 .435 .722 1.157 .260 .364 .436 0.800
2008 .332 .413 .584 0.997 .252 .363 .454 0.817
2009 .262 .370 .426 0.795 .278 .435 .444 0.879
----
career .348 .417 .624 1.042 .253 .357 .432 0.789


Away Holliday Willingham
AVG OBP SLG OPS AVG OBP SLG OPS
2006 .280 .333 .485 0.819 .310 .389 .565 0.954
2007 .301 .374 .485 0.860 .269 .364 .487 0.851
2008 .308 .405 .486 0.892 .255 .365 .484 0.849
2009 .283 .371 .414 0.785 .292 .382 .607 0.989
----
career .280 .350 .451 0.801 .281 .374 .521 0.895

Holliday has gotten a .200 boost from his time at Coors compared to the road. Willingham had gotten a .100 point reduction from his time in Florida. It's striking; take the two guys on the road, and it looks like Willingham has the more impressive resume'.

Nice research. And you make a good point.

However, I would like to see their overall numbers not counting this year. Basically, Willingham in on a one month hot streak, which could easily, and most likely will even out. And Holiday has been cold most of this year, both home and away. I am not sure how much that effects their overall numbers, which is why I am curious about them without this years stats.

Looking at trends, which I think is important, until this year, Holliday was getting better away from Coors, while Willingham was getting worse away from Florida. Another reason to put less emphasis on this years numbers, or wait until the end of the year to judge.

Also, this year, Holliday's away numbers, contain 69 PA's, or over 40% in places like Petco, Safco, Dodger and At&T. It's really hard to draw any hard conclusion about how well he would hit in GABP, or anywhere else.

jojo
07-05-2009, 02:22 PM
Nice research. And you make a good point.

However, I would like to see their overall numbers not counting this year. Basically, Willingham in on a one month hot streak, which could easily, and most likely will even out. And Holiday has been cold most of this year, both home and away. I am not sure how much that effects their overall numbers, which is why I am curious about them without this years stats.

Looking at trends, which I think is important, until this year, Holliday was getting better away from Coors, while Willingham was getting worse away from Florida. Another reason to put less emphasis on this years numbers, or wait until the end of the year to judge.

Also, this year, Holliday's away numbers, contain 69 PA's, or over 40% in places like Petco, Safco, Dodger and At&T. It's really hard to draw any hard conclusion about how well he would hit in GABP, or anywhere else.

I think out of Holliday, Hairston and Willingham, Holliday is easily the better player. He's better than the other two offensively and he's better than the other two defensively.

The issue is cost.

RedsManRick
07-05-2009, 02:43 PM
I think out of Holliday, Hairston and Willingham, Holliday is easily the better player. He's better than the other two offensively and he's better than the other two defensively.

The issue is cost.

That's my issue. I don't think Beane returns a call for Holliday for less Bailey and Stubbs. I think you can get Willingham with a package of guys like Maloney, Heisey, and Fransisco.

Kc61
07-05-2009, 02:55 PM
That's my issue. I don't think Beane returns a call for Holliday for less Bailey and Stubbs. I think you can get Willingham with a package of guys like Maloney, Heisey, and Fransisco.

I wouldn't make that deal for Willingham. I'd rather have Heisey and Francisco. Maloney could go, GABP isn't for him.

I just don't think Willingham adds that much to this team. Another sixth place hitter, of which there are many. Against a righty, Dickerson perhaps does more damage.

I like Scott Hairston better than Willingham, but I think he winds up as a platoon hitter on this team. Again, not the cleanup man they need.

kaldaniels
07-05-2009, 03:09 PM
In terms of sweeting the deal for another club, what do you think about giving them their choice of Stubbs of Heisey as a PTBNL. It would essentially take the decision making of the 2 out of the Reds hands (not a way of reasoning I would typically like at all), but if it helps the Reds in terms of the return on a deal, why not.

OnBaseMachine
07-05-2009, 03:10 PM
I don't really see the point in making a trade now. This team isn't going anywhere. The time to make a move was during the offseason when guys like Bobby Abreu and Juan Rivera were available in free agency and Josh Willingham/Nick Swisher via trade. Instead, we got Willy Taveras and Mike Lincoln.

I've all but given up on hopes of contending this season. Build for 2010 where the Reds have a legit chance to be contenders IF our GM makes a couple moves.

TheNext44
07-05-2009, 03:12 PM
That's my issue. I don't think Beane returns a call for Holliday for less Bailey and Stubbs. I think you can get Willingham with a package of guys like Maloney, Heisey, and Fransisco.

If that's the case, then he will be keeping Holliday and getting draft picks next year for him. I don't think a team offers anyone as good as Bailey or Stubbs for him, let alone both.

If Beane wants to trade him, he will have to take a package similar to what the Reds got for Dunn, something just a bit better than the two draft picks they would get for keeping him and letting him walk at the end of the year.

I could be wrong.

RedsManRick
07-05-2009, 03:20 PM
If that's the case, then he will be keeping Holliday and getting draft picks next year for him. I don't think a team offers anyone as good as Bailey or Stubbs for him, let alone both.

If Beane wants to trade him, he will have to take a package similar to what the Reds got for Dunn, something just a bit better than the two draft picks they would get for keeping him and letting him walk at the end of the year.

I could be wrong.

I agree completely. I don't think he's going anywhere. Beane will take the picks. With both the Mets and Yankees in need of a LF for 2010 and beyond, I imagine Beane will be pretty comfortable that Holliday would not accept arbitration.

Kc61
07-05-2009, 03:22 PM
I don't really see the point in making a trade now. This team isn't going anywhere. The time to make a move was during the offseason when guys like Bobby Abreu and Juan Rivera were available in free agency and Josh Willingham/Nick Swisher via trade. Instead, we got Willy Taveras and Mike Lincoln.

I've all but given up on hopes of contending this season. Build for 2010 where the Reds have a legit chance to be contenders IF our GM makes a couple moves.

I know this is a frustrating series against the Cards, a tough loss Friday and a debacle today with Arroyo on the mound.

But they are pretty close in the division.

I agree with you that the failure to get a hitter this off-season was unhelpful. That was the best time to make a move. The team seemed frozen by the recession.

But they are too good to sit back and wait. Believe me, the competition won't sit still. The Reds' inaction will only push them further behind.

Castellini was willing to spend for an announcer, a manager, and a GM. One basic principle of baseball is that it's the players who play the game.

jojo
07-05-2009, 03:31 PM
Can we please quit the Arroyo trade scenarios now?

jojo
07-05-2009, 03:33 PM
These kind of games are just very tough to sit through.

Thank goodness that they won yesterday.

fearofpopvol1
07-05-2009, 03:36 PM
Given that the Reds aren't too many games out...I see no reason they shouldn't try to make a few small improvements in hopes of competing this year.

edabbs44
07-05-2009, 05:03 PM
I don't really see the point in making a trade now. This team isn't going anywhere. The time to make a move was during the offseason when guys like Bobby Abreu and Juan Rivera were available in free agency and Josh Willingham/Nick Swisher via trade. Instead, we got Willy Taveras and Mike Lincoln.

I've all but given up on hopes of contending this season. Build for 2010 where the Reds have a legit chance to be contenders IF our GM makes a couple moves.

Or like when Burrell, Bradley and Furcal were available via free agency?

Or when he could have gotten Dye via trade for Homer?

If Walt pulled the trigger on any of those guys, he would have been the villain of Cincinnati. You can't cherry-pick and say now that he could have gotten those guys. Most of the board wanted nothing to do with Rivera and many were ga-ga for Milton Bradley. Sure Walt may have been able to score Rivera or Abreu, but what if he ended up with the guys that everyone really wanted him to get? How would he look now?

When looking back I think it actually was for the best that Walt didn't go overboard for some of these guys. The future of the team is still intact. If he went all in and scored Bradley or Burrell and they performed similarly, the future wouldn't look as good.

Now...maybe he got lucky. But with this team moving closer towards respectability, I agree that he needs to get some contributors next year. Or even this year as long as he doesn't hurt the future too much and those acquired will be here next year.

Mario-Rijo
07-05-2009, 06:17 PM
I think out of Holliday, Hairston and Willingham, Holliday is easily the better player. He's better than the other two offensively and he's better than the other two defensively.

The issue is cost.

Holliday better defensively than Hairston, I doubt it as Hairston can play all 3 OF spots and pretty well. Holliday is strictly a LF I do believe, one of the better ones but still.

Sea Ray
07-05-2009, 11:00 PM
The question is not his position. And I'm not wedded to any one bat, Holliday or anyone else.

The team needs a right handed cleanup hitter to hit between Votto and Bruce. Wherever he may play defensively. Neither Phillips nor EE satisfy that need.

As for money, the Reds can afford to have one major, reasonably expensive bat.

Paying 8 figure salaries for a LF is out of the question for this team. Dunn proved that. It ain't happenin'

bucksfan2
07-06-2009, 11:01 AM
I wonder if Milwaukee is upset that they mortgaged the future for last years run?

I just don't understand the whole "don't mortgage the future" aspect of things. To me it sounds like they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing. The Reds could put together a package of Alonso + for Holliday, try to sign him or if at worst offer him arbitration, and replenish the system with a good draft.

Right now the Reds have two legitimate position players, Votto and Phillips. The only immediate prospect in the pipeline who has the ability help this season is Stubbs and it is arguable as to whether he will be called up before the late August.

Right now the Reds are .500 and 3 games back in the NL Central. The Brewers pitching could be an issue, the Cards really aren't that good of a team, and the Cubs look like they could implode any day now. This may be the best chance the Reds have to win the division in years.

reds1869
07-06-2009, 11:04 AM
Right now the Reds have two legitimate position players, Votto and Phillips. The only immediate prospect in the pipeline who has the ability help this season is Stubbs and it is arguable as to whether he will be called up before the late August.

So assuming you don't consider Bruce and Hanigan legitimate position players, I take it you don't consider them immediate prospects either? I just don't buy that. Hanigan's contributions are well documented, and Bruce is more than making up for his short comings versus lefties by playing some stellar right field.

princeton
07-06-2009, 11:08 AM
John Fay: "Reds should trade bad players for good players"

westofyou
07-06-2009, 11:13 AM
John Fay: "Reds should trade bad players for good players"

Then I have to ask....what's his user name here?

bucksfan2
07-06-2009, 11:17 AM
So assuming you don't consider Bruce and Hanigan legitimate position players, I take it you don't consider them immediate prospects either? I just don't buy that. Hanigan's contributions are well documented, and Bruce is more than making up for his short comings versus lefties by playing some stellar right field.

Jay Bruce has a sub .300 OBP and an OPS hovering around the .750 mark. Sure he is a prospect and has a tremendous upside but he hasn't made the adjustments so far this season. For what the Reds were counting on him to do this year he has disappointed.

Hanigan has been good, better than I expected, and I would say that the Reds C position is a legitimate position now. That makes them legit at P, C, 1B, and 2B.

edabbs44
07-06-2009, 11:18 AM
I wonder if Milwaukee is upset that they mortgaged the future for last years run?

I just don't understand the whole "don't mortgage the future" aspect of things. To me it sounds like they are sitting on their hands and doing nothing. The Reds could put together a package of Alonso + for Holliday, try to sign him or if at worst offer him arbitration, and replenish the system with a good draft.

Offer him arb, watch him accept and then he walks away with an obscene sum of money next year because you are paying him for Coors stats when he isn't producing them. Not a wise move.


Right now the Reds have two legitimate position players, Votto and Phillips. The only immediate prospect in the pipeline who has the ability help this season is Stubbs and it is arguable as to whether he will be called up before the late August.

Right now the Reds are .500 and 3 games back in the NL Central. The Brewers pitching could be an issue, the Cards really aren't that good of a team, and the Cubs look like they could implode any day now. This may be the best chance the Reds have to win the division in years.

You can either trade young talent away in order to try and win a weak division for one year or keep those youngsters and try to build a perennial winner. I'm going with the latter.

People are so impatient around here. We are finally seeing incremental improvement and that isn't good enough. You have to go from embarassing (2008) to division winner (2009) in one year? If it happens and you don't have to sell your soul to the devil (or Billy Beane) to do it, then great. But when you put a plan in place that seems to be working, stick to it. Even if the division sucks so bad that maybe you can steal the flag by trading your best prospect. It might make everyone feel good at the time, but that hangover will suck next year.

Kc61
07-06-2009, 11:29 AM
So assuming you don't consider Bruce and Hanigan legitimate position players, I take it you don't consider them immediate prospects either? I just don't buy that. Hanigan's contributions are well documented, and Bruce is more than making up for his short comings versus lefties by playing some stellar right field.

I think the point he's making is that we are exaggerating the value of some players. The Reds have excellent depth in their organization right now, but in the area of position players there are very few difference makers.

Stockpiling pretty good players is not a winning formula unless at some point the team exchanges some for high quality.

Nobody is advocating trading Bruce. I would also hold on to Bailey and Stewart because starting pitching is the key area to home grow players.

But beyond that, this team's prospects don't seem like difference makers to me. I don't see what the big deal is to trade some for proven talent.

Sure, there are a few guys you don't trade. If anyone asked for Cueto right now, I'd hang up the phone. But most of the prospects, while good and valuable, aren't so fantastic that they need to be held onto indefinitely at the cost of current victories.

edabbs44
07-06-2009, 11:32 AM
Stockpiling pretty good players is not a winning formula unless at some point the team exchanges some for high quality.

Is Walt going to be able to exchange "pretty good players" for high quality major league players? If Cincy wants to get quality major leaguers, they better be ready to deal their best prospects.

Kc61
07-06-2009, 11:35 AM
Offer him arb, watch him accept and then he walks away with an obscene sum of money next year because you are paying him for Coors stats when he isn't producing them. Not a wise move.



You can either trade young talent away in order to try and win a weak division for one year or keep those youngsters and try to build a perennial winner. I'm going with the latter.

People are so impatient around here. We are finally seeing incremental improvement and that isn't good enough. You have to go from embarassing (2008) to division winner (2009) in one year? If it happens and you don't have to sell your soul to the devil (or Billy Beane) to do it, then great. But when you put a plan in place that seems to be working, stick to it. Even if the division sucks so bad that maybe you can steal the flag by trading your best prospect. It might make everyone feel good at the time, but that hangover will suck next year.

Which small to medium market team is a perennial winner? Very few.

And, of those, which sit with their own prospects and don't cash them in for proven talent? I think, none.

The way to become consistent is to actively manage your assets. Keep some, trade some, make the decisions. Sitting on young kids and assuming it will all work out is not a successful formula.

And virtually every team in the MLB -- no, in pro sports -- recognizes the opportunity to make the playoffs and tries to improve to get there.

It's not impatience. If the Reds were 10 back, I'd be happy to bring up more youth, cast off veterans, and watch the kids learn.

The Reds are three games out on July 6. It's an opportunity. They aren't seizing it by doing nothing.

kaldaniels
07-06-2009, 11:39 AM
Is Walt going to be able to exchange "pretty good players" for high quality major league players? If Cincy wants to get quality major leaguers, they better be ready to deal their best prospects.

I like your thinking in this thread edabbs44. One word comes to mind on your above quote. Alonso. This season, with the Reds hovering at .500, I just can't trade our top prospect of the past/future 2 years to eek us into the playoffs. The moves that will be made to make this team better will be the removal of non-productive salary dollars and replacing them with productively spent dollars. That's is the type of move that builds a team for the long haul. The pieces are in place to build a long-term contender here, and I hope the plan isn't cut short.

Kc61
07-06-2009, 11:41 AM
Is Walt going to be able to exchange "pretty good players" for high quality major league players? If Cincy wants to get quality major leaguers, they better be ready to deal their best prospects.


Depends on the situation, the contract of the player to be acquired, how anxious the seller is to sell, a lot of situations. And yes, the Reds would have to give up at least one of their top prospects, but they have a number of them and it doesn't have to be the number one guy.

Every deal stands on its own merits, but I think they should be making a move.

Kc61
07-06-2009, 11:42 AM
I like your thinking in this thread edabbs44. One word comes to mind on your above quote. Alonso. This season, with the Reds hovering at .500, I just can't trade our top prospect of the past/future 2 years to eek us into the playoffs. The moves that will be made to make this team better will be the removal of non-productive salary dollars and replacing them with productively spent dollars. That's is the type of move that builds a team for the long haul. The pieces are in place to build a long-term contender here, and I hope the plan isn't cut short.

If you could trade Alonso and some lesser prospects for Holliday, with a 72-hour window to sign him long term, would you?

edabbs44
07-06-2009, 11:43 AM
Which small to medium market team is a perennial winner? Very few.

And, of those, which sit with their own prospects and don't cash them in for proven talent? I think, none.

The Marlins, for one.


The way to become consistent is to actively manage your assets. Keep some, trade some, make the decisions. Sitting on young kids and assuming it will all work out is not a successful formula.

And virtually every team in the MLB -- no, in pro sports -- recognizes the opportunity to make the playoffs and tries to improve to get there.

There is a difference in baseball between making the playoffs because you deserve it and making it because your division sucks. If Cincy can improve this team without hurting the future, then go for it. If it is going to necessitate trading Homer/Alonso/etc or taking on an undesirable financial situation for the future, then hold.


It's not impatience. If the Reds were 10 back, I'd be happy to bring up more youth, cast off veterans, and watch the kids learn.

The Reds are three games out on July 6. It's an opportunity. They aren't seizing it by doing nothing.

I am all for them doing something as long as they don't screw up next year and the year after and the year after. When they have a chance to actually be a real contender.

edabbs44
07-06-2009, 11:45 AM
If you could trade Alonso and some lesser prospects for Holliday, with a 72-hour window to sign him long term, would you?

My opinion? Not a chance.

OnBaseMachine
07-06-2009, 11:49 AM
Scott Hairston would have been a great pickup. He's still fairly young (just turned 29 in late May), is cheap, signed through 2011, and he didn't cost much in terms of prospects. I don't know where Walt Jocketty was on this one. Hairston has an .891 OPS despite playing half his games in a huge pitchers park. He's also a solid defensive outfielder.

bucksfan2
07-06-2009, 11:51 AM
I like your thinking in this thread edabbs44. One word comes to mind on your above quote. Alonso. This season, with the Reds hovering at .500, I just can't trade our top prospect of the past/future 2 years to eek us into the playoffs. The moves that will be made to make this team better will be the removal of non-productive salary dollars and replacing them with productively spent dollars. That's is the type of move that builds a team for the long haul. The pieces are in place to build a long-term contender here, and I hope the plan isn't cut short.

I was at the disaster at GABP yesterday and was talking about the mid 90's Indians. We were talking about how much talent they had on those teams but also the amount of talent they gave up via trades. Richie Sexton, Brian Giles, and Sean Casey were names that came to mind right off the top of my head. You build a winner through the farm system and you sustain a winner through the farm system. Its how you use that farm system that separates the winners from the losers.

Alonso probably would be the key cog in any trade. I just don't get everybody's resistance to trading him. Right now Votto is putting up an OPS of over 1.000. I just don't see Alonso knocking Votto off 1b unless Votto goes to the Reds and says I want to move to LF. So Alonso really has no place to play. Why not use him as trade bait? Why not use him to make your team better?

edabbs44
07-06-2009, 12:00 PM
Scott Hairston would have been a great pickup. He's still fairly young (just turned 29 in late May), is cheap, signed through 2011, and he didn't cost much in terms of prospects. I don't know where Walt Jocketty was on this one. Hairston has an .891 OPS despite playing half his games in a huge pitchers park. He's also a solid defensive outfielder.

Just throwing this out there, but maybe because he has built those stats mostly while platooning versus LHPs (1.102 OPS vs LHP against .759/RHP). His OPS has taken a hit since since he moved to full time.

OPS by month

Mar/Apr - 1.224
May - .832
June - .730
July - .769

edabbs44
07-06-2009, 12:03 PM
I was at the disaster at GABP yesterday and was talking about the mid 90's Indians. We were talking about how much talent they had on those teams but also the amount of talent they gave up via trades. Richie Sexton, Brian Giles, and Sean Casey were names that came to mind right off the top of my head. You build a winner through the farm system and you sustain a winner through the farm system. Its how you use that farm system that separates the winners from the losers.

Alonso probably would be the key cog in any trade. I just don't get everybody's resistance to trading him. Right now Votto is putting up an OPS of over 1.000. I just don't see Alonso knocking Votto off 1b unless Votto goes to the Reds and says I want to move to LF. So Alonso really has no place to play. Why not use him as trade bait? Why not use him to make your team better?

Those guys weren't traded for legit players.

If Alonso can get Cincy a young, talented guy who will succeed in Cincy for a number of years, then they have to go for it. But that is rare since those types of players don't get traded all too often.

Sea Ray
07-06-2009, 12:06 PM
I wonder if Milwaukee is upset that they mortgaged the future for last years run?


It depends on how Matt LaPorta turns out. If he comes up and looks like Adam Jones or Josh Hamilton I'd say there will be a lot of grumbling in Wisconsin.

The time to mortgage the future is when you have a good team and you want to make it better. It's clear that we don't have a good team. We have a .500 team in every sense. This is not the year to mortgage the future

OnBaseMachine
07-06-2009, 12:09 PM
Just throwing this out there, but maybe because he has built those stats mostly while platooning versus LHPs (1.102 OPS vs LHP against .759/RHP). His OPS has taken a hit since since he moved to full time.

OPS by month

Mar/Apr - 1.224
May - .832
June - .730
July - .769

I'm not saying the guy is a savior but he would've been a great pickup considering the numbers he's put up in a huge ballpark and his contract.

Sea Ray
07-06-2009, 12:19 PM
I was at the disaster at GABP yesterday and was talking about the mid 90's Indians. We were talking about how much talent they had on those teams but also the amount of talent they gave up via trades. Richie Sexton, Brian Giles, and Sean Casey were names that came to mind right off the top of my head. You build a winner through the farm system and you sustain a winner through the farm system. Its how you use that farm system that separates the winners from the losers.




Those guys weren't traded for 3 mo rentals. They were traded for younger players who were for the most part not yet eligible for free agency. They got three good years out of Ricardo Rincon, 5 years out of Bob Wickman including a league leading 45 saves in 2005 and a few good years out of our own Dave Burba.

RichRed
07-06-2009, 02:09 PM
I'm not saying the guy is a savior but he would've been a great pickup considering the numbers he's put up in a huge ballpark and his contract.

Yeah, after putting up 19 homers and a .881 OPS in 382 career PAs in Petco, it's fun to think what he might be able to do in GABP.

savafan
07-06-2009, 02:13 PM
Sometimes you have to mortgage the future to build the cashbox of the present also. Making moves to strengthen the team for a playoff run also helps to boost attendance, so even if you don't succeed at making it to the fall classic, you still increase your revenue that you can put toward payroll in the future. It's all a vicious cycle. In order to be successful, you have to do something. What is the definition of insanity? Trying the same thing over and over and expecting different results.

Nasty_Boy
07-06-2009, 02:26 PM
I guess it depends on the return for Alonso, but I think the guy is going to be big time. I'm of the way of thinking that when you have 2 guys that are as good, or can be as good, as Alonso and Votto that you find a way to get them both in the lineup. I'm more than fine with this team not making any moves at the deadline and making a few moves in the offseason that could put this team at the top of the division.

Ltlabner
07-06-2009, 02:26 PM
Mortgage the future? Not a good idea unless BCast plans to go all-in, bump payroll to $100,000,000, get several big arms/bats, etc. But to go hog wild on one player, when the team has several significant issues, doesn't make a ton of sense. We're more than "one player" away.

Make several crafty, out-of-the-box trades that don't lock up a war-chest of payroll into one guy and/or trade away every last shred of talent in the farm system? Yea, I'm totally on board for that.

Kc61
07-06-2009, 02:26 PM
The Reds play in a home run park, yet they are 13th or 14th in the league in all the key percentage offensive stats (OBP, SLG, BA, OPS). Someone should please explain how that gets fixed by promoting the current prospects and trading for pretty good bench or borderline starting hitters.

I don't see the impact bats at vacant positions in this system that will so dramatically improve the offense. I do think a major cleanup hitter would do more than anything else to improve that offense. A true compliment for Votto from the right side, leaving Bruce/Phillips/EE to play supporting roles.

Someone draw the roadmap to a high echelon offense without a big deal. Consider that every player must have a position he can play reasonably well. Thank you.

Sea Ray
07-06-2009, 02:40 PM
Someone draw the roadmap to a high echelon offense without a big deal. Consider that every player must have a position he can play reasonably well. Thank you.

I think we do need to acquire that impact bat but not a 3 mo rental. We need to be on the receiving end of a Matt LaPorta.

Caveat Emperor
07-06-2009, 02:53 PM
Part of the problem is with the term "Mortgaging the Future" -- it's way too nebulous.

To me, mortgaging the future would mean an outright sell in the minors -- guys like Frazier, Alonso, Cozart, Valaika, Stubbs, Heisey and Wood all being dealt in various packages for short term help (guys on 1 year deals, guys unlikely to sign long-term, guys who fill a current "need" but aren't worth nearly what is being paid to get them, etc.)

But just as that wouldn't be a great idea, it's similarly silly to horde prospects like some wayward character from The Lord of the Rings and expect they'll all turn into golden horses pulling the chariot to the promised land in the future. Not saying that happens all the time, but sometimes the attitude moves perilously close to "No way, no how" on too many guys and "Only if some team goes off their rocker and we can fleece them" on others.

Heck, it'll probably be impossible for this team to find ML playing time for all the CFs in the system (Dickerson, Heisey, Stubbs) next year -- there's nothing wrong trading one of them to fill some other need if the situation arises. That isn't "Mortgaging the Future," that's smart assett redeployment. Ditto Yonder Alonso; he's a great bat, but getting him to Cincinnati would require a position change for the guy who is far and away the most talented hitter on the team (Votto). If the right deal is on the table and it takes Alonso to get it done, is trading a 1B prospect really "Mortgaging the Future" when Joey Votto is already on the roster?

Sometimes I feel we follow the Reds organization too closely to be objective. We get attached to prospects as soon as they're drafted and start penciling them into future lineups. We forget, sometimes, that the best thing a prospect can bring to the organization isn't his eventual contributions on the field but rather the more advanced / experienced player or player that fills a more pressing need via trade.

paulrichjr
07-06-2009, 03:02 PM
Just curious but besides the CC trade last year was there any big time deals made for high level prospects? It seems like last year some decent veteran talent was traded for much less talent than a Drew Stubbs.

edabbs44
07-06-2009, 03:30 PM
Mortgage the future? Not a good idea unless BCast plans to go all-in, bump payroll to $100,000,000, get several big arms/bats, etc. But to go hog wild on one player, when the team has several significant issues, doesn't make a ton of sense. We're more than "one player" away.

Make several crafty, out-of-the-box trades that don't lock up a war-chest of payroll into one guy and/or trade away every last shred of talent in the farm system? Yea, I'm totally on board for that.

We agree on something?

http://www.stellman-greene.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/whoa.png

Ltlabner
07-06-2009, 03:37 PM
We agree on something?

Whoa.

A sure sign of the apocalypse.

:D

jojo
07-06-2009, 03:43 PM
Whoa.

A sure sign of the apocalypse.

:D

You two also agree with Fay.... :cool:

edabbs44
07-06-2009, 03:52 PM
You two also agree with Fay.... :cool:

No problem there b/c he is correct.