PDA

View Full Version : 8/31 Trade Watch Thread



Kc61
08-28-2009, 05:24 PM
The August 31 deadline is near. Should be some action.
Maybe even some Reds trade action.

IMO the Reds will shed any salary they can -- as long as player isn't being counted on for next year.

Most likely to go is Gomes. Notably, Gomes is in the lineup against a righty pitcher again tonight. Showcase?

Other possibilities could be a reliever (Rhodes, Burton are possible).

Outside chance Reds could move a major contract, but seems doubtful from press reports and logic. Nobody is going to pay for Arroyo or Cordero's deal right now and Reds aren't in a position to give up pitching with Volquez' injury and no other closer in sight.

Brutus
08-28-2009, 05:29 PM
The August 31 deadline is near. Should be some action.
Maybe even some Reds trade action.

IMO the Reds will shed any salary they can -- as long as player isn't being counted on for next year.

Most likely to go is Gomes. Notably, Gomes is in the lineup against a righty pitcher again tonight. Showcase?

Other possibilities could be a reliever (Rhodes, Burton are possible).

Outside chance Reds could move a major contract, but seems doubtful from press reports and logic. Nobody is going to pay for Arroyo or Cordero's deal right now and Reds aren't in a position to give up pitching with Volquez' injury and no other closer in sight.

I don't see Gomes being moved. For one, Gomes is cheap enough that he probably would not pass through waivers. A cheap RHH bat on the waiver wire this late in the season? Teams would likely be all over that.

I don't see the Reds trading any of their relievers. They think Rhodes is a bargain for next season (and I agree with them), and they seem to like the rest of the core.

Other than someone getting jittery and trading for Cordero or Arroyo, I think the Reds stay put.

redsfandan
08-28-2009, 05:32 PM
I wasn't sure where to put this and it's probably more realistic after this season but anyway...

Rosenthal On Competing In The AL East By Ben Nicholson-Smith [August 28 at 2:39pm CST]

When you're in the same division as the Yankees and Red Sox, you only have so many chances to win. Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports presents the long-term strategies the Rays and Jays are likely to adopt as they try to compete with their richer division rivals:
...
•Like Crawford, Carlos Pena will be a tough sign when he hits free agency after the 2010 season.
Alonso should be ready to be someones 1st baseman in 2011. Just seems like a possible fit to me.

Also, apparently the Twins have just dealt for a couple relievers (Mahey/Rauch) so I guess they haven't thrown in the towel yet.

Kc61
08-28-2009, 05:36 PM
I don't see Gomes being moved. For one, Gomes is cheap enough that he probably would not pass through waivers. A cheap RHH bat on the waiver wire this late in the season? Teams would likely be all over that.

I don't see the Reds trading any of their relievers. They think Rhodes is a bargain for next season (and I agree with them), and they seem to like the rest of the core.

Other than someone getting jittery and trading for Cordero or Arroyo, I think the Reds stay put.

Probably, but you never know. Problem with Gomes is the five-man bench. It usually calls for a catcher, versatile multi-position guys, maybe a lefty pinch hitter. Tougher to keep a righty corner outfielder on a five-man bench.

On the other hand, Gomes is one of the few major league hitters on the team. Should they trade one of their better bats? Reds might feel they can replace him over the winter with perhaps a better defender.

It is odd to me that Nix is sitting against righty pitching and Gomes is playing. Last two games. Deadline coming up. Nix had been hot. Seems odd, no?

Doesn't matter if Gomes is claimed. Reds could threaten to pull him back unless a prospect is in the deal.

I agree Rhodes shouldn't be traded unless someone offers a real prospect. Very unlikely, agree.

I could see Nix going. I could see Burton going. That's about it.

Hernandez would be a good candidate if he was healthy.

schroomytunes
08-28-2009, 05:39 PM
Well right now I dont see us trading much of anything left on our roster. Whatever we do have the return would be so small, that maybe we would be better off letting them play than bringing up the youngsters too soon. Guys I see that could be moved are:

1)Arroyo- salary will nix any deal
2)Gomes- he is arb. eligible, wouldn't be a bad guy as a 4th OF or platoon bat
3)Nix-solid 4th/5th OF good 25th man off the bench
4)Rhodes-signed very cheap for 2010, I wouldn't move
5)Cordero- salary will nix any deal

basically Walt has moved the disposable contracts that we did have and got some cash relief as well as young guys that we wouldn't have got otherwise after the season. These guys probably wont be more than role players if they ever make the bigs, but at least there's a chance!

Kc61
08-28-2009, 05:44 PM
Well right now I dont see us trading much of anything left on our roster. Whatever we do have the return would be so small, that maybe we would be better off letting them play than bringing up the youngsters too soon. Guys I see that could be moved are:

1)Arroyo- salary will nix any deal
2)Gomes- he is arb. eligible, wouldn't be a bad guy as a 4th OF or platoon bat
3)Nix-solid 4th/5th OF good 25th man off the bench
4)Rhodes-signed very cheap for 2010, I wouldn't move
5)Cordero- salary will nix any deal

basically Walt has moved the disposable contracts that we did have and got some cash relief as well as young guys that we wouldn't have got otherwise after the season. These guys probably wont be more than role players if they ever make the bigs, but at least there's a chance!

Gomes being arb eligible makes a trade more likely. Reds might not want to go that route with Gomes. Might rather keep a Balentien who would presumably be a lot cheaper.

I'm guessing a Gomes deal by Monday. Don't worry, I'm never right.

WVRedsFan
08-28-2009, 05:46 PM
I would think Nix would be a better candidate to try to trade than Gomes, but this my uneducated opinion. I would think Rhodes would be a candidate and maybe popular but his low salary wouldn't let him get through waivers either. I wouldn't be surprised to see Burton go, but who knows?

Brutus
08-28-2009, 05:52 PM
Probably, but you never know. Problem with Gomes is the five-man bench. It usually calls for a catcher, versatile multi-position guys, maybe a lefty pinch hitter. Tougher to keep a righty corner outfielder on a five-man bench.

On the other hand, Gomes is one of the few major league hitters on the team. Should they trade one of their better bats? Reds might feel they can replace him over the winter with perhaps a better defender.

It is odd to me that Nix is sitting against righty pitching and Gomes is playing. Last two games. Deadline coming up. Nix had been hot. Seems odd, no?

Doesn't matter if Gomes is claimed. Reds could threaten to pull him back unless a prospect is in the deal.

I agree Rhodes shouldn't be traded unless someone offers a real prospect. Very unlikely, agree.

I could see Nix going. I could see Burton going. That's about it.

Hernandez would be a good candidate if he was healthy.

You could well be right about trying to get Gomes some extra time in front of the scouts. I'm not ruling that part of it out. Although, with Dusty Baker signing the lineup cards, Nix sitting against a righty might simply be Dusty being Dusty.

I have no doubts they'll float Gomes out there. It would be prudent to explore every possibility. But if he gets claimed, the Reds would be limited to trading with only one team. That would take a perfect match to get something done.

Mario-Rijo
08-28-2009, 06:17 PM
I would imagine everyone on the roster has been passed thru or at least attempted to be by now. They may have already been claimed but if not they probably made it thru well before now.

TRF
08-28-2009, 06:31 PM
What cracks me up is anyone thinking Gomes will platoon next year. If he's a Red, he's the starting LF. JMO.

Brutus
08-28-2009, 06:31 PM
I would imagine everyone on the roster has been passed thru or at least attempted to be by now. They may have already been claimed but if not they probably made it thru well before now.

Teams can only expose a player once, so often they'll wait until late in August to do so, as it can create a last-minute panic for those teams needing to add some help for the stretch run. Since a player only has to be exposed for two business days, yesterday would have been the last day to expose someone to waivers in order to get a deal done by Tuesday (the deadline to be eligible for a playoff roster).

It sounds like Arroyo and Cordero were already put out there. Someone like Gomes might be on the wire as we speak.

redsfandan
08-28-2009, 06:34 PM
What cracks me up is anyone thinking Gomes will platoon next year. If he's a Red, he's the starting LF. JMO.
I hope not but you may be right.

Highlifeman21
08-28-2009, 06:45 PM
What cracks me up is anyone thinking Gomes will platoon next year. If he's a Red, he's the starting LF. JMO.

Especially since I've been told that Gomes replaced Dunn's production.

We can't expect to catch lightning in a bottle in back to back years to replace Gomes' production, can we?

Brutus
08-28-2009, 06:49 PM
Especially since I've been told that Gomes replaced Dunn's production.

We can't expect to catch lightning in a bottle in back to back years to replace Gomes' production, can we?

No one told you that. That's a strawman.

What some people said (myself included), was that Gomes production was not drastically different, and when the cost for the production is considered, he becomes a better value... assuming he continues to produce at these rates. That's what you were told.

There's a pretty large discrepancy between saying he has replaced Dunn's production and being a better value for the cost. Two very distinct stances.

Highlifeman21
08-28-2009, 08:13 PM
No one told you that. That's a strawman.

What some people said (myself included), was that Gomes production was not drastically different, and when the cost for the production is considered, he becomes a better value... assuming he continues to produce at these rates. That's what you were told.

There's a pretty large discrepancy between saying he has replaced Dunn's production and being a better value for the cost. Two very distinct stances.


Except, they've got a LF right now OPS'ing 900 in 200 PA's. While that player is not Adam Dunn, nor would he produce consistently at Adam Dunn's level, that position has been producing at a similar level.

So really, the offense is not in much of a different situation than if it still had Dunn, but it would be even more strapped for cash and have even less financial flexibility than before.

Hence, I'm fine with it.


Between Laynce Nix and Jonny Gomes, in about 470 plate appearances, their combined OPS right now is around 825.

If it was truly just a platoon between those two, that OPS is one of the most productive on the team. The 694 number you're citing is a combination of McDonald, Dickerson, Balentien and Hairston. It's not indicative of how the main two (Gomes and Nix) have played.

Baker's misuse of the personnel is responsible for the overall OPS you cite, not organizational philosophy. The main two LF guys on the roster HAVE been producing as a whole (though Nix has tailed off)


I realize that. But I consider those two the LF position. Anyone else that has played there has been due to managerial incompetence. It's not fair to say the Reds have not found suitable replacement for the position, because clearly they have - at least to this point. Usage of such replacement(s) is another issue altogether.


There's no room to include them. People are saying "the Reds have not found suitable replacements." Actually, in terms of production, they have.

In other terms...

I am so tired of hearing, "The Reds have not replaced Adam Dunn." "Woe is us." "Oh how I wish the Reds had not traded Dunn." "We took such a hit to the offense."

All the while, here you have a guy ripping the cover off the ball, who by coincidence, plays the same position. It's a slap in the face to him to say the Reds have not found anyone to replace Dunn. They may have, but people are ignoring him.

Let me put it this way:

Say you are told you have two options. One is 29 years old, the other is 28 years old (both getting into the peak years of their career, obviously). Both are poor defenders.

Player A has a consistent, proven track record. His 3-year averages with the club:

.379 / .520 / 899 OPS (6.4% HR rate)

Player B has not been consistent, though has shown upside before. His current production in a couple hundred plate appearances:

.357 / .584 / 941 OPS (7.9% HR rate)

Taking away the names. Only knowing that Player A clearly has a proven track record, but Player B is slightly younger and just now hitting his peak, you're still probably inclined to go with Player A. Right? That's safe and clearly logical.

But throw in this:

Player A is going to make $10 mil for your team
Player B can probably be had for around $2 mil or one-fifth of the cost.

I'm no economics major, but what's the better value? I know it's easy to see which one has less risk.

Gomes is no Adam Dunn. But for crying out loud the dude is carrying the Reds offense right now, and people want to continue to cry over spilled milk about how the Reds didn't keep/replace Dunn. Gomes might not be able to continue this. That's still up in the air. But he's just now hitting his prime, where players tend to break out, and he's carrying the offense.

It's really a shame people can't give him credit and give the organization credit for getting him. Instead, they want to continue to harp on Dunn being gone and ignore that the franchise could have potentially found themselves an excellent player for cheap that wants to play for the organization without costing a pretty penny.

Maybe that's just too simplistic. But as long as Gomes continues to mash, I refuse to toe the company line that the Reds didn't do anything to replace the Dunn production.


Park-adjusted, OPS+ for 3-yr average from 2005-2007:

Gomes (113)
Dunn (130)

No one would debate who the better player is. Despite the strawman accusations by some, what I'm saying is that for one fifth of the cost, the difference is negligible enough that Gomes becomes a better value on the money spent for his production.

It's not like Gomes has not done this before. His OPS+ is actually the same (139) as it was in 2005. So he's not even doing something that he has not sustained before. Unlike Jerry Hairston, and some past Reds' flash-in-the-pans, he's doing this at an age (28) that is conducive to improvement. Hairston's season came at 32 - typically the end of peak production - and had never really been replicated prior to that.

Just for some perspective, if Gomes were to finish out the season at this rate (which he's probably not likely to, but let's just use our imaginations). His two seasons of 139 OPS+ exceed all but two of Dunn's seasons playing in the same park. Dunn has been pretty consistent. And again, I'm not saying Gomes is better. I just think the guy is getting severely short-changed.

As far as the .694 in LF:

Not very relevant. The question that has been discussed is whether the Reds have a suitable replacement, not whether the scrap heap in aggregate has performed at Dunn's level. Much of the LF OPS comes from McDonald, Dickerson and Hairston as well as Nix, instead of Nix and Gomes. Most of Gomes' hot streak has been logged as 'RF' OPS due to the Bruce injury. If Gomes and Nix were in a full platoon all season, or maybe Gomes getting a majority of the at-bats, that LF OPS would actually be looking rather handsome right now.

For an organization that is strapped for cash, you bet I'll take a guy with tremendous power that is going into peak age, when he may cost only 20 cents on the dollar compared to a guy with an actually similar skillset. The guy has shown this ability before. It's not a stretch to think he can continue - especially if you consider he's not immune to improvement. I'm all for remembering 'mean' production of a player's past. But I also know that the 'mean' has been known to get bumped up at the age of 27-28.


No, what we have is a player that, for the 2nd time in his brief career, has put up an OPS+ of 140. The success of small-market teams are based on their ability to find VALUE for the money spent. However, if they spend all their resources on a couple of positions, they will suffer at other positions. Has Billy Beane taught you nothing?

This team has been strapped with too many bad contracts as it is. While Dunn produces enough that $10 mil would not be a 'bad' contract, it's still more money than the Reds can really dish out to one player without limiting themselves financially. So I'd rather be able to spend the same amount of money on three positions, and have a net gain in wins than put all my resources on one position. That's not an epidemic of anything. That's smart money management.

My 'win' calculator is from years of documented evidence that roughly 10 runs is worth a win. The difference, then, between 15 runs created given that many PA's is about 1.5 wins. If a 72-win Reds team loses Adam Dunn and replaced him with Jonny Gomes. You get a 70-win Reds team. There's nothing silly about that. Talk to the saber crowd that postulates these numbers, not me.

You can use the anecdotal player comparisons all you want. But 1.5 wins is 1.5 wins. If I can gain half a win or a win or two by spreading it out over three positions for the same money spent, that's efficient management.


Jonny Gomes, for his career, is an above-average baseball player. In other words, he's talented. You don't win games by spending $10 on one position if it means you have little money to spend on other positions. You do win games by finding quality players of good value, giving you money to upgrade positions that are of lesser quality. Keeping an Adam Dunn but not being able to improve 2-3 other terrible positions leaves the Reds in much worse shape than if they did not keep Dunn, but found quality replacement in left, upgraded third, found another quality starting pitcher, etc.

Sacrificing a few runs at one position in lieu of upgrading a few other positions is not a system of failed ideaology. Rather, it's simple common sense. It takes efficient evaluation of the players to insert, obviously, but I see nothing about Gomes that indicates he's unable to sustain this. He has a career HR rate of over 5%. He is not a product of much 'luck' as he's very much a true-outcomes type of player. He walks better than average players. And he has always had a solid LD%. He fits the mold of a value-add.





Seems like your stance is that Gomes, for the money, has replaced Dunn's production, no?

I've stated that and have not constructed a strawman in the least bit.

I've argued that regardless of money or any other justification, Gomes hasn't come remotely close to replacing anything Dunn offered the Reds.

Many others have argued that Gomes is at best a 4th OF, or an OF that desperately needs a platoon partner (I've argued this myself).

Regardless of how you wanna slice it, Gomes' production is drastically different from Dunn's production, and Gomes isn't a better value when you try and hide behind the money argument.

I appreciate your conviction to your stance, but it doesn't make it any less inaccurate.

Brutus
08-28-2009, 08:21 PM
Seems like your stance is that Gomes, for the money, has replaced Dunn's production, no?

I've stated that and have not constructed a strawman in the least bit.

I've argued that regardless of money or any other justification, Gomes hasn't come remotely close to replacing anything Dunn offered the Reds.

Many others have argued that Gomes is at best a 4th OF, or an OF that desperately needs a platoon partner (I've argued this myself).

Regardless of how you wanna slice it, Gomes' production is drastically different from Dunn's production, and Gomes isn't a better value when you try and hide behind the money argument.

I appreciate your conviction to your stance, but it doesn't make it any less inaccurate.

You stated that "since I've been told Gomes has replaced Dunn's production."

That's not what I said in any single one of those quotes you provided. I said his value might exceed that of Dunn for the production, but I never said the production replaced or exceeded it. In fact, the closest I came to saying it replaced it was when I immediately added - "at least to a point."

My 'inaccuracy' has already shown that over a 3-year period, normalizing their stats to 600 PA's, Dunn was only worth about 15-20 runs more than Gomes. That was before park factors adjusted the stats to their home parks (Tampa and Cincinnati at the time). If you want to debate the accuracy of Runs Created, that's fine. We can do that. But over 600 PA's, if you can't find a drop in 15 runs for a fifth of the cost to be at least a similar value, then I just don't know what to say.

15 runs over 600 PA's. That is what their park-adjusted numbers over a 3-year period equaled. That's to say that based on their aggregate rates in 3 years, going from Dunn to Gomes in the same amount of PA's was worth a drop in 15 runs. Is that a lot? Not in my mind. It's certainly a downgrade, but for $8 mil or more less per season, that's a better value.

It's like buying generic corn flakes instead of Frosted Flakes (R). It might not taste quite as good, but it's cheaper and still has a little bit of the same flavor for a lot less.

Highlifeman21
08-28-2009, 08:44 PM
You stated that "since I've been told Gomes has replaced Dunn's production."

That's not what I said in any single one of those quotes you provided. I said his value might exceed that of Dunn for the production, but I never said the production replaced or exceeded it. In fact, the closest I came to saying it replaced it was when I immediately added - "at least to a point."

My 'inaccuracy' has already shown that over a 3-year period, normalizing their stats to 600 PA's, Dunn was only worth about 15-20 runs more than Gomes. That was before park factors adjusted the stats to their home parks (Tampa and Cincinnati at the time). If you want to debate the accuracy of Runs Created, that's fine. We can do that. But over 600 PA's, if you can't find a drop in 15 runs for a fifth of the cost to be at least a similar value, then I just don't know what to say.

15 runs over 600 PA's. That is what their park-adjusted numbers over a 3-year period equaled. That's to say that based on their aggregate rates in 3 years, going from Dunn to Gomes in the same amount of PA's was worth a drop in 15 runs. Is that a lot? Not in my mind. It's certainly a downgrade, but for $8 mil or more less per season, that's a better value.

It's like buying generic corn flakes instead of Frosted Flakes (R). It might not taste quite as good, but it's cheaper and still has a little bit of the same flavor for a lot less.

Explain to us yet again how you're normalizing over a 3 year period for 600 PAs.

Are you taking a 3 year average and projecting it over 600 PA, or are you looking at the total PA over 3 years, and then normalizing to 600 PA?

... b/c I'm pretty sure that you'd be hard pressed to reasonably show (without cherry-picking stats, of course) how Gomes comes close to similar levels of production to that of Dunn.

Pretty sure you're trying to take the best Gomes' ever done, and comparing it to Dunn's averages, which is the only way the two of those might look remotely similar.

Given that Gomes is a platoon player, I don't know how your money argument has a leg to stand on. Dunn isn't a platoon player, so while you're saying that Gomes is 1/5 of Dunn's cost, Gomes has all of 1456 career ABs in 487 career games to Dunn's 4305 in 1258 respectively.

Gomes has played in basically 5 seasons to Dunn's 9. But, if you want to cherry-pick 2005 to the present for both players, Dunn has played in 757 games and had 2577 ABs to Gomes' 474 games and 1427 ABs.

So, assuming their current salaries, Dunn's making 5 times more than Gomes, but Gomes appears in 63% of the games Dunn appears in, and has only had 55% of the ABs. So that backs up your "bargain" claim, right?

Not so fast.

Big Klu
08-28-2009, 08:54 PM
It is odd to me that Nix is sitting against righty pitching and Gomes is playing. Last two games. Deadline coming up. Nix had been hot. Seems odd, no?

I also think that it's odd that Gomes plays LF and Balentien (or Nix) plays RF on the road, but Balentien plays LF and Gomes plays RF at GABP.

Brutus
08-28-2009, 09:01 PM
Explain to us yet again how you're normalizing over a 3 year period for 600 PAs.

Are you taking a 3 year average and projecting it over 600 PA, or are you looking at the total PA over 3 years, and then normalizing to 600 PA?

... b/c I'm pretty sure that you'd be hard pressed to reasonably show (without cherry-picking stats, of course) how Gomes comes close to similar levels of production to that of Dunn.

Pretty sure you're trying to take the best Gomes' ever done, and comparing it to Dunn's averages, which is the only way the two of those might look remotely similar.

Given that Gomes is a platoon player, I don't know how your money argument has a leg to stand on. Dunn isn't a platoon player, so while you're saying that Gomes is 1/5 of Dunn's cost, Gomes has all of 1456 career ABs in 487 career games to Dunn's 4305 in 1258 respectively.

Gomes has played in basically 5 seasons to Dunn's 9. But, if you want to cherry-pick 2005 to the present for both players, Dunn has played in 757 games and had 2577 ABs to Gomes' 474 games and 1427 ABs.

So, assuming their current salaries, Dunn's making 5 times more than Gomes, but Gomes appears in 63% of the games Dunn appears in, and has only had 55% of the ABs. So that backs up your "bargain" claim, right?

Not so fast.

I took the aggregate totals in 3 years and normalized them over 600 PA's. I'm not cherry-picking anything, nor am I trying to stack up only the best he's done. I'm taking the first three full years in Tampa. I didn't include last year (as he was injured) but I also did not include this year (as people are insinuating it's something of an anomaly).

I took 2005-2007 for both Dunn and Gomes. Gomes produced (in aggregate) about 85 runs per 600 plate appearances. Dunn was about 105. That, however, was before their park-factors. With park adjustments, it comes to about a difference in roughly just under 15 runs created.

Gomes had well over 1,200 plate appearances in that time, too. So no one can claim sample issues.

Gomes had some injury problems, so it stands to reason that one could question whether he'd be able to withstand a full season. However, that Gomes didn't play as many games in that period had much to do with the fact the Rays had several people rotating playing time. They had Baldelli, Cantu, Hollins, Crawford and Huff during those years rotating between the corner outfield spots and DH. So it's not completely that he was incapable of playing a full season. They simply had a lot of guys that were getting at-bats at those positions and producing.

There's no cherry-picking here. Gomes' career numbers suggest over every 600 PA's, he's worth no more than about 15 runs less than Dunn. The question then is not did he play as much as Dunn, but can he play as much as Dunn. If the answer is yes, then what you're looking at is a better value for the money - which has been my position.

HokieRed
08-28-2009, 10:12 PM
Gomes now at .954. I just don't see the case for trading him.

mth123
08-28-2009, 10:18 PM
Gomes now at .954. I just don't see the case for trading him.

Me either. Unless they just can't afford to go to arb with him.

Kc61
08-28-2009, 10:25 PM
Well, Nix is apparently injured so that explains why Gomes keeps playing against righties. Also makes the Reds very shorthanded in the outfield. So maybe my prediction that Gomes will go is wrong. Wouldn't be the first time.

FWIW, Gomes looks terrific offensively tonight against the Dodgers. Making a good case to stay around.

GADawg
08-29-2009, 01:15 AM
Gomes now at .954. I just don't see the case for trading him.

i'm with you...around here it seems that anyone productive is targeted for trade 'cause they might be worth something....and then the complaining ensues cause "we" don't have anyone productive:rolleyes:

TheNext44
08-29-2009, 01:45 AM
Gomes now at .954. I just don't see the case for trading him.

If you value the new defensive metrics, they place his overall value at around 1 win, offense and defense combined. His defense has been that bad this year, and every year he has played in the majors.

1 win really is pretty bad for an everyday LF.

BTW, I still like keeping Gomes to platoon if possible, but that is a rational case for trading him.