PDA

View Full Version : Bronson extension a done deal



Pages : 1 [2]

edabbs44
11-08-2010, 09:16 AM
Agree 100%. 2011 is one thing, beyond that a horse of an entirely different color. I'd ask the extension supporters which two of the six other starters-- Bailey, Volquez, Cueto, Chapman, Leake, or Wood--they'd want a 2012-13 Bronson to be blocking (and at a very high cost at that)? I've been a fan of WJ's but this extension makes no sense to me whatever.

You are overlooking a few things:

1) One or more of those guys could be traded for help elsewhere.

2) One or more of those guys could bottom out.

3) One or more of those guys could get hurt.

4) When you extend him, you don't have to choose now which of those guys you want to block in 2012-13. You can choose in 2012-13, which might make the answer a bit easier.

Kc61
11-08-2010, 09:58 AM
Travis Wood and Homer Bailey both have 200+ inning seasons under their belt. Why such a low total for both guys?

I don't think there is a reason to actually predict an injury to any of the guys, and I would go more like:
Cueto - 190
Volquez - 175
Wood - 190
Bailey - 190
Leake -150

I can understand extending Arroyo. The Reds might not be able to attract an All-Star level free agent pitcher.

Leaving it to Cueto, Volquez, Wood, Bailey and Leake is leaving it to potential. None of these guys has emerged as a consistent, winning starting pitcher as yet. I can understand why the Reds want one or perhaps two proven veteran starters.

I don't deny the ability of the five young guys, along with Chapman for that matter. But even toolsy pitchers sometimes don't work out.

Reds are trying to win - not just to showcase good pitching arms and talent. Arroyo is a proven winner.

Again, I'd prefer an All-Star pitcher, but if the Reds don't see that happening, it makes sense to keep their one veteran proven guy for a few years.

kaldaniels
11-08-2010, 10:17 AM
Didn't see the money talked about anywhere.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/Dan-Uggla-turns-down-Florida-Marlins-contract-offer-110810

That blurb sure makes it sound like Walt isn't gonna be sitting on his hands with all these arb-elgible guys.

OnBaseMachine
11-08-2010, 10:26 AM
I'm ok with picking up his 2011 option, but I see absolutely no reason to extend Arroyo. It's almost all downside.

I agree with this. Picking up Arroyo's option is fine but I think it's unnecessary to extend him right now.

edabbs44
11-08-2010, 10:29 AM
That blurb sure makes it sound like Walt isn't gonna be sitting on his hands with all these arb-elgible guys.

I think Walt knows what he is doing, both now and in the future. He has his plan set up for the next few years and is executing it according to his schedule. I have full confidence in what he is doing.

lollipopcurve
11-08-2010, 10:40 AM
Picking up Arroyo's option is fine but I think it's unnecessary to extend him right now.

Doing the extension now allows the team to free up some extra dollars for the 2010-2011 offseason. Makes perfect sense to do it now.

edabbs44
11-08-2010, 10:57 AM
As with most moves, you have to view this in relation to the others being made by the team. Tough to give an opinion on the first real no-brainer move of the offseason or the first of a 3-4 year plan.

Say tomorrow Walt packages a pitcher like Volquez and a prospect for a legit LF or SS, does this extension sound better?

Here's what I said at the time of the now legendary Cordero signing.


You can't look at every move in a vacuum. It makes sense but it is a bold move. If WK is expecting to make a few other bigger acquisitions, then I am all aboard. If not, then this might be a waste of money.

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1500742&postcount=88

I think there are similarities. If the FO turns around and unloads an arm or two for help elsewhere then this makes more sense. If they do not, then I'll be curious to see how it plays out.

jojo
11-08-2010, 10:58 AM
Doing the extension now allows the team to free up some extra dollars for the 2010-2011 offseason. Makes perfect sense to do it now.

Perfect sense implies the risk isn;t great and this move is not without risk. Rather than describing it as making perfect sense, i'd say its a calculated risk that tries to balance the now with downside. Hopefully, the Reds have struck an acceptable balance.

bucksfan2
11-08-2010, 11:02 AM
I agree with this. Picking up Arroyo's option is fine but I think it's unnecessary to extend him right now.

When would be the proper time to extend Arroyo?

I think an interesting dynamic is developing amongst fans and baseball talking heads. They are more than willing to extend a young player taking on a great deal of risk in the development of that player. But they are unwilling to take on the risk of extending known veterans because of the fear of aging ungracefully.

I think if you polled Reds fans they would be more willing to extend the likes of Volquez and Cueto over Arroyo when in reality Arroyo is the surest bet of the 3.

HokieRed
11-08-2010, 11:07 AM
In my view, we now have the right contract with Arroyo. We have him in 2011, during which he helps support a still young pitching staff and gives us time to sort out what we have there. But by 2012 I'm betting that 5 of the 6 younger pitchers--Chapman, Bailey, Volquez, Cueto, Wood, Leake--will be such that we want them in the rotation--and if not, that we can do at least as well in a deal or the FA market as we will with the money owed Bronson. Or, let's put it this way, if you want to win the WS in 2012, you need to hope your rotation does not include Bronson, but is made up of Chapman, Bailey, Cueto, Volquez, and probably Wood.

Benihana
11-08-2010, 11:25 AM
In my view, we now have the right contract with Arroyo. We have him in 2011, during which he helps support a still young pitching staff and gives us time to sort out what we have there. But by 2012 I'm betting that 5 of the 6 younger pitchers--Chapman, Bailey, Volquez, Cueto, Wood, Leake--will be such that we want them in the rotation--and if not, that we can do at least as well in a deal or the FA market as we will with the money owed Bronson. Or, let's put it this way, if you want to win the WS in 2012, you need to hope your rotation does not include Bronson, but is made up of Chapman, Bailey, Cueto, Volquez, and probably Wood.

This. 3 years, $39MM is too much to give Arroyo. I would much rather go year-to-year with him, and/or risk losing him after 2011 before his 10-5 rights kick in and he's unmoveable.

It would be one thing if they get a Rolen-type hometown discount and deferral to free up cash, but this deal doesn't look like that. I am not a fan.

lollipopcurve
11-08-2010, 11:27 AM
Perfect sense implies the risk isn;t great and this move is not without risk. Rather than describing it as making perfect sense, i'd say its a calculated risk that tries to balance the now with downside. Hopefully, the Reds have struck an acceptable balance.

For this offseason and the 2011 season, it makes perfect sense to extend Arroyo now, assuming the extension frees up $$$ for 2011.

Kc61
11-08-2010, 11:27 AM
Or, let's put it this way, if you want to win the WS in 2012, you need to hope your rotation does not include Bronson, but is made up of Chapman, Bailey, Cueto, Volquez, and probably Wood.

Hope is the key word. The Reds are hedging their bet - they are unwilling to go forward based on the hope that unproven pitchers will mostly all pan out.

If things turn out as you hope - if the young crew members mostly all develop into winners soon - then Arroyo presumably will be on the trade market. The Reds may have to take a financial hit to rid themselves of his contract.

But if the hope doesn't quite work out - if two or three of the young crew fail or become injured - then it will be good to have a solid veteran around.

Wheelhouse
11-08-2010, 11:50 AM
Signing Arroyo to a 2-year extension is a good move:

He's a finesse pitcher who is not subject to the same age decline as a power pitcher. In fact, those types of pitchers can improve slightly in their late 30s.

With the current lineup, and its continuing improvement, he could he be a 20-game winner in 1-3 of the next 3 years.

He's a superb playoff pitcher.

An innings-eating starter is very important for a poorly managed bullpen to be successful. Less stress=less the bad moves hurt.

redsmetz
11-08-2010, 12:05 PM
In my view, we now have the right contract with Arroyo. We have him in 2011, during which he helps support a still young pitching staff and gives us time to sort out what we have there. But by 2012 I'm betting that 5 of the 6 younger pitchers--Chapman, Bailey, Volquez, Cueto, Wood, Leake--will be such that we want them in the rotation--and if not, that we can do at least as well in a deal or the FA market as we will with the money owed Bronson. Or, let's put it this way, if you want to win the WS in 2012, you need to hope your rotation does not include Bronson, but is made up of Chapman, Bailey, Cueto, Volquez, and probably Wood.

Is it safe to say that, as reportedly structured, that Arroyo has decent trade value following the 2011 season when he doesn't yet have 10/5 rights. I'm wondering though what the rule is about trading a guy in the middle of contract and their right to demand a trade following the season.

I've said for some time that this logjam will require moving some pitcher or another, even with starting Chapman in the pen. We have a lot of young pitchers at the moment.

redsmetz
11-08-2010, 12:07 PM
Hope is the key word. The Reds are hedging their bet - they are unwilling to go forward based on the hope that unproven pitchers will mostly all pan out.

If things turn out as you hope - if the young crew members mostly all develop into winners soon - then Arroyo presumably will be on the trade market. The Reds may have to take a financial hit to rid themselves of his contract.

But if the hope doesn't quite work out - if two or three of the young crew fail or become injured - then it will be good to have a solid veteran around.

We bandy that thought around a lot here on RZ, but I can't say that's a given. There are clubs that might well see this extension as a good price for a pitcher of his caliber (presuming he has produced in 2011 as hoped).

OnBaseMachine
11-08-2010, 12:08 PM
When would be the proper time to extend Arroyo?


I would wait and see how he performs in 2011 first. Bronson will turn 34 in February and he's never been a huge stuff guy so who knows what to expect. If he has another good season in 2011, then I would look to extending him for two years. If the Reds extend him now and he goes out and stinks it up in 2011 then we're stuck with a bad contract for two more seasons. And this is coming from a big Bronson fan.

Speaking of Arroyo and extensions, the contract extension Krivsky gave Arroyo turned out to be a steal for the Reds.

RedsManRick
11-08-2010, 12:09 PM
And people continue to completely downplay, if not completely ignore, the fact that Bronson Arroyo is NOT a lock for 200 IP and a 4.00 ERA for the next 3 years. That that type of production is his absolute upside ceiling, not an average expectation which he may exceed or may fail to reach. Paying guys on the assumption they will provide their full upside value only makes sense in my book if that upside value is irreplaceable.

Yes, all our young players carry a lot of risk. So does Arroyo. All pitchers do. Arroyo may very well carry less risk than most pitchers. I'm very glad he's had a great run of durability and effectiveness. But everything we know about pitchers says that run is not likely to continue. It's a not a knock on Arroyo, it's just a reality with pitchers. He might carry less risk, but less is not zero. And the risk of relying on cheap players to emerge as effective and reliable is a very different kind of risk of ~15% of our payroll becoming tied up in somebody who no longer merits. I would argue that, if things go wrong with the former approach, you have a lot more flexibility to course correct than with the latter.

I'm all for locking up talent that you can't replace. And there are absolutely legitimate questions about our young pitchers' ability to give us 200 quality innings. But we already have Arroyo for 2011. We have time to assess our young players and see if we need Arroyo around in 2012 and 2012 (and whether or not he can sustain this level of performance). We can resign him next winter if need be. But it sounds like it ultimately comes down to a different perspective on whether or not Arroyo fits in that category of irreplaceable talent that we can't risk losing.

Kc61
11-08-2010, 12:13 PM
I would wait and see how he performs in 2011 first. Bronson will turn 34 in February and he's never been a huge stuff guy so who knows what to expect. If he has another good season in 2011, then I would look to extending him for two years. If the Reds extend him now and he goes out and stinks it up in 2011 then we're stuck with a bad contract for two more seasons. And this is coming from a big Bronson fan.

Speaking of Arroyo and extensions, the contract extension Krivsky gave Arroyo turned out to be a steal for the Reds.

If you are going to extend Arroyo, now is the time. The decision needs to be made now, up or down.

Next year, at year's end, he is a free agent. If he does well, it's much less likely he re-signs. Instead, he probably plays the free agent market.

Now, with the option, the Reds have his rights for another year. They are in exclusive position to deal with him.

It's probably now or never.

edabbs44
11-08-2010, 12:15 PM
If you are going to extend Arroyo, now is the time. The decision needs to be made now, up or down.

Next year, at year's end, he is a free agent. If he does well, it's much less likely he re-signs. Instead, he probably plays the free agent market.

Now, with the option, the Reds have his rights for another year. They are in exclusive position to deal with him.

It's probably now or never.

Very good point.

OnBaseMachine
11-08-2010, 12:15 PM
Next year, at year's end, he is a free agent. If he does well, it's much less likely he re-signs. Instead, he probably plays the free agent market.


If Arroyo turns down an extension after next season, the Reds could always offer him arbitration. If he accepts, good, if not, the Reds can get two draft picks in return.

Kc61
11-08-2010, 12:19 PM
If Arroyo turns down an extension after next season, the Reds could always offer him arbitration. If he accepts, good, if not, the Reds can get two draft picks in return.

Then you have a contending club - without a veteran starter. But with two draft choices. I don't think that's the result the Reds want.

It's always easier to wait and see how the player does next year. But that strategy comes with a big risk.

I don't think the Reds want to compete for Arroyo as a free agent. So now is the time.

OnBaseMachine
11-08-2010, 12:22 PM
Then you have a contending club - without a veteran starter. But with two draft choices. I don't think that's the result the Reds want.


2012 would be Johnny Cueto's fifth season in the big leagues...And who knows, maybe the Reds will acquire a TOR starter between now and then.

bucksfan2
11-08-2010, 12:23 PM
And people continue to completely downplay, if not completely ignore, the fact that Bronson Arroyo is NOT a lock for 200 IP and a 4.00 ERA for the next 3 years. That that type of production is his absolute upside ceiling, not an average expectation which he may exceed or may fail to reach. Paying guys on the assumption they will provide their full upside value only makes sense in my book if that upside value is irreplaceable.

200IP and 4ERA is what Bronson has done his entire career as a Red. I don't understand why that is his ceiling instead of his norm.

FWIW I would bet that its more likely that Arroyo continues to do what he does without a noticeable decline than either Volquez of Chapman become a bonified TOR starter over the next 3 years.

Kc61
11-08-2010, 12:24 PM
2012 would be Johnny Cueto's fifth season in the big leagues...And who knows, maybe the Reds will acquire a TOR starter between now and then.

Johnny Cueto is one guy. Not enough to keep the team in contention. Again, Reds are hedging their bets here. They don't want to rely solely on the prospects.

If they acquire a TOR guy, that changes the dynamics. Then I would be less willing to give the dough to Arroyo.

edabbs44
11-08-2010, 12:25 PM
2012 would be Johnny Cueto's fifth season in the big leagues...And who knows, maybe the Reds will acquire a TOR starter between now and then.

I think that WJ knows the liklihood of what the Reds will and won't be doing between now and then. If he was on the cusp of getting Greinke, I'm not sure that he would be doing this deal.

TheNext44
11-08-2010, 12:32 PM
I think the wisdom of this move depends on what the Reds payroll will be over the next few years. It really doesn't matter how much Arroyo is getting paid, unless it prevents the Reds from improving the team when they need to.

If it does, it's a bad move, if it doesn't, than who cares?

This might be a case where Jocketty isn't taking a risk, but just buying insuance he knows he can afford. Like I keep saying, we really won't be able to judge it until we know all the details.

edabbs44
11-08-2010, 12:33 PM
By the way, here's Fay's take on it:


I don’t think it’s a foregone conclusion that years will be added to Arroyo’s contract. He wasn’t interested in giving a discount when I asked him about it. And the budget will be tight as more of young players reach arbitration.


http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2010/11/08/back-and-blogging/

REDREAD
11-08-2010, 12:57 PM
The difference between a 5.10 ERA and a 3.88 ERA over 215 IP is 29 runs. That's 3 wins. We won the division by 5.0 games. By my math, we probably still win the division and are most certainly still in contention.


I disagree. The Reds went 20-13 in games Arroyo started. So you are saying replacing with Arroyo with two guys with a 5.10 ERA would give you a 17-16 record. Just doesn't make sense. Replacement level pitchers usually do not have winning records.

It also ignores the domino effect of when Malony or whatever other scrub gets shelled and the bullpen is used more, making it more ineffective for other games.

Bronson earns every cent of his salary. If a team wants to contend, at some point it has to pay for production.. We aren't trying to get the lowest cost per win, we are trying to make the playoffs.

edabbs44
11-08-2010, 01:02 PM
I disagree. The Reds went 20-13 in games Arroyo started. So you are saying replacing with Arroyo with two guys with a 5.10 ERA would give you a 17-16 record. Just doesn't make sense. Replacement level pitchers usually do not have winning records.

It also ignores the domino effect of when Malony or whatever other scrub gets shelled and the bullpen is used more, making it more ineffective for other games.

Bronson earns every cent of his salary. If a team wants to contend, at some point it has to pay for production.. We aren't trying to get the lowest cost per win, we are trying to make the playoffs.

The translation is definitely not as easy as RMR makes it out to be. The replacement guy will not throw 215 innings, so there is likely another 50-75 innings levied upon your bullpen. That's just one difference.

dfs
11-08-2010, 01:37 PM
If a team wants to contend, at some point it has to pay for production.. We aren't trying to get the lowest cost per win, we are trying to make the playoffs.


Yup. Trying to think like this represents a real sea change for reds fans. After years of trying to maximize value per dollar, suddenly we are faced with the need to get value. It's a different game and I sympathize (and relate) to those who have trouble seeing the change.

edabbs44
11-08-2010, 01:40 PM
Yup. Trying to think like this represents a real sea change for reds fans. After years of trying to maximize value per dollar, suddenly we are faced with the need to get value. It's a different game and I sympathize (and relate) to those who have trouble seeing the change.

Yes, the mentality needs to change. Times are different now. This is a much different ballgame for the Reds. I am more comfortable giving this money to BA now than I was in 2006.

RedsManRick
11-08-2010, 03:06 PM
200IP and 4ERA is what Bronson has done his entire career as a Red. I don't understand why that is his ceiling instead of his norm.

FWIW I would bet that its more likely that Arroyo continues to do what he does without a noticeable decline than either Volquez of Chapman become a bonified TOR starter over the next 3 years.

I'm not sure I understand your Chapman/Voqluez argument. Sure both face an uphill battle. But we also have Cueto, Bailey, Wood and Leake. Why focus on those two. That's part of my point. Giving him an extension basically locks us in to the bet that he'll keep this up for the next 3 years. Not giving him an extension leaves the door open to a bunch of possibilities, including giving him a new deal after 2011 if it's looking like we're going to need the veteran arm AND he's maintained his level of performance.

I see a lot more reasons to wait until after the season than I do to lock him up now at full market price. Do we think he's going to want more than $13M per after 2011?

RedsManRick
11-08-2010, 03:09 PM
I disagree. The Reds went 20-13 in games Arroyo started. So you are saying replacing with Arroyo with two guys with a 5.10 ERA would give you a 17-16 record. Just doesn't make sense. Replacement level pitchers usually do not have winning records.

You are conflating pitcher W/L record with team W/L record. They are not the same thing. You are also treating 20-13 as the baseline expectation for Arroyo. Why should a league average starter lead his team to a .606 winning percentage? Looks to me like that 20-13 contains a lot of information about the other 24 guys on the roster -- guys who would still be around for the replacement.

And even then, we're comparing a very favorable scenario with Arroyo to a very unfavorable scenario with the proposed replacements. I don't think we have reason to believe those two lines are equally likely.

RedsManRick
11-08-2010, 03:12 PM
The translation is definitely not as easy as RMR makes it out to be. The replacement guy will not throw 215 innings, so there is likely another 50-75 innings levied upon your bullpen. That's just one difference.

What ERA do you think we should expect from relievers in those extra innings? How many runs beyond that will be allowed as a result of the bullpen-wide increased workload?

I accounted for this in my analysis, but people continue to ignore it. Why address an argument on its merits when you can simply restate your position over and over again?

HokieRed
11-08-2010, 03:17 PM
What ERA do you think we should expect from relievers in those extra innings? How many runs beyond that will be allowed as a result of the bullpen-wide increased workload?

I accounted for this in my analysis, but people continue to ignore it. Why address an argument on its merits when you can simply restate your position over and over again?

Who's even to say the replacement guy in 2012 will not throw 215 innings (I'm not discounting RMR's analysis, with which I agree). Basically most of us are on board with BA's 2011 status; the question here is the extension. In 2012 and beyond, those innings could come from 1. Our younger pitchers, who have, as I very much expect, stepped up; 2. A FA pitcher or another acquired in trade, now paid with "Bronson's money"; or 3. Bronson himself, re-signed after a terrific (let us hope) 2011. The question regarding the extension is what we are going to get out of Bronson relative to other possibilities in 2012 and beyond--and how much it is going to cost.

mdccclxix
11-08-2010, 03:27 PM
This extension should signal the end of the Cordero era after this year...

I think 39 mil is too much for Arroyo though. I thought he'd be taking a slight discount for an extension. 13 mil...for 2 mil more you're in ace pitcher territory. I'd rather have Oswalt, for example.

RedsManRick
11-08-2010, 03:27 PM
Yup. Trying to think like this represents a real sea change for reds fans. After years of trying to maximize value per dollar, suddenly we are faced with the need to get value. It's a different game and I sympathize (and relate) to those who have trouble seeing the change.

Every team is trying to maximize value per dollar. But it's a calculus that happens at the team level. We need 90 wins and have X dollars to do it.

FA wins bring more certainty but cost a lot. Young wins carry uncertainty but are cheap.

And yet, at the end of the day, we still have something like $70M marginal dollars (above league minimum) to buy 40 marginal wins -- less than $2M/win. Obviously our young players provide massive value, leaving us a pool of discretionary money to buy wins at or near market prices. I have no problem paying market prices for wins when that approach leads to the maximize win total given your budget.

But the best strategic use of those market priced wins is paying for them when the production you receive is from a position where you have the worst alternatives. For example, paying full price to get 3 wins when you have an in house option that will give you 1 win for "free" means you're paying for 3 wins ($12M) and getting just a 2 win upgrade ($6M per marginal win). By contrast, if you have a true replacement level player at a different position, paying market price for 3 wins nets you 3 wins ($4M per marginal win).

My argument is not that Arroyo isn't worth $12M. Rather, it's that SP is one area where we have the most in-house talent, talent most likely to provide the type of production we would get from a market-priced alternative (Arroyo in this case).

Now, I'm 100% willing to engage in a conversation that says actually SP does represent the biggest opportunity for adding marginal wins -- that the alliterative market options for LF and SS that we could secure for $12M would provide less marginal value. But instead we're focused on pretending like Arroyo is rock solid lock for 3 wins of production (or more) and insisting that there's no way our in house alternative for those 215 IP would be replacement level. I've made my case there and nobody seems willing to address the argument I laid out directly.

edabbs44
11-08-2010, 03:28 PM
This extension should signal the end of the Cordero era after this year...

I think 39 mil is too much for Arroyo though. I thought he'd be taking a slight discount for an extension. 13 mil...for 2 mil more you're in ace pitcher territory. I'd rather have Oswalt, for example.

Let's not forget that this isn't a press release, it is something that Rosenthal threw out there.

edabbs44
11-08-2010, 03:31 PM
What ERA do you think we should expect from relievers in those extra innings? How many runs beyond that will be allowed as a result of the bullpen-wide increased workload?

You might get an injury or two, you might get guys worn way down as the summer carries on, more than we even saw this year. Not sure if anyone can quantify the true damage but we know it probably isn't great to have a guy walking off the mound in the 5th or 6th every game.

Especially with the inning eaters we already have in house like Homer and Volquez.

edabbs44
11-08-2010, 03:32 PM
This extension should signal the end of the Cordero era after this year...

I think that signal went up long before today.

lollipopcurve
11-08-2010, 03:40 PM
Rather, it's that SP is one area where we have the most in-house talent, talent most likely to provide the type of production we would get from a market-priced alternative (Arroyo in this case).

It's pitching. It tends to break. The need for depth is greater. You can't platoon it.

RedsManRick
11-08-2010, 03:46 PM
It's pitching. It tends to break. The need for depth is greater. You can't platoon it.

I can appreciate that. Of course, the Reds were dangerously thin in the OF for a good stretch in 2010 too...

How many starts do you think will be made by the guys you don't see as part of the opening day rotation. How many of those starts will come from a pitcher who is replacement level or worse?

bucksfan2
11-08-2010, 03:50 PM
I can appreciate that. Of course, the Reds were dangerously thin in the OF for a good stretch in 2010 too...

How many starts do you think will be made by the guys you don't see as part of the opening day rotation. How many of those starts will come from a pitcher who is replacement level or worse?

What do you consider replacement level?

RedsManRick
11-08-2010, 03:55 PM
What do you consider replacement level?

League-wide replacement level for SP is an ERA in the low 5's.

I understand there's an innings difference between Arroyo and alternatives, so feel free to also look at ERA of the extra relief innings and, if you feel so inclined, some measurement of the impact on the rest of the pen.

REDREAD
11-08-2010, 03:57 PM
I'm not sure I understand your Chapman/Voqluez argument. Sure both face an uphill battle. But we also have Cueto, Bailey, Wood and Leake. Why focus on those two. That's part of my point. Giving him an extension basically locks us in to the bet that he'll keep this up for the next 3 years. Not giving him an extension leaves the door open to a bunch of possibilities, including giving him a new deal after 2011 if it's looking like we're going to need the veteran arm AND he's maintained his level of performance.

I see a lot more reasons to wait until after the season than I do to lock him up now at full market price. Do we think he's going to want more than $13M per after 2011?

Bronson seems big on wanting respect. I think that's one reason why Wayne (wisely) gave him an extension after Harang got his.

Let me ask you this.. Say you are Bronson. Money is important to you. Let's say the Reds are telling you "Well, let's talk after 2011" now. Well, 2011 comes around, and Arroyo has had another solid year. Why in the world would he not go on the FA tour and sell himself to the highest bidder in the competitive situation he's willing to accept?

Even if he does resign with the Reds after 2011, he's going to cost us more than now.

We have to remember the human element to the game. Bronson just went to the playoffs. He's feeling good about the team now. He wants to talk. The Reds tell him "wait and see", they've lost their negotiating window. I agree with the other poster.. It's now or never. If you don't negoitate in good faith and sign Bronson now, he's gone after 2011. Now, if the Reds decide that Bronson wants too much money and decide to not extend him.. I can respect that.. but realistically, waiting until 2011 is guaranteeing that Bronson will walk.

Having Bronson on the team is no problem at all. No young pitchers will be blocked. Hopefully, one of those young pitchers can be dealt for a SS or OF.
That's probably the most cost effective way to solve our LF/SS problem. Keep Bronson and trade a young pitcher for a young position player.

REDREAD
11-08-2010, 04:03 PM
You are conflating pitcher W/L record with team W/L record. They are not the same thing. You are also treating 20-13 as the baseline expectation for Arroyo. Why should a league average starter lead his team to a .606 winning percentage? Looks to me like that 20-13 contains a lot of information about the other 24 guys on the roster -- guys who would still be around for the replacement.

And even then, we're comparing a very favorable scenario with Arroyo to a very unfavorable scenario with the proposed replacements. I don't think we have reason to believe those two lines are equally likely.


Someone said that we could replace Bronson with a replacement level guy and it would only cost us 3 wins. I doubt that, because that would mean that the replacement level guy would have a winning record in his starts. By definition, replacement level players are below average 5.10 ERA is certianly below average. IMO, Bronson didn't get a whole lot of run support. He did really well to win 17 games. Part of that is his ability to pitch deep into games. That's not something that a replacement level pitchers are able to do.

I get your math about 30 runs is worth 3 games. I just don't agree with it.
You are saying that if the 2010 team had a rotation full of replacement level pitchers, with a 5.10 ERA, our record would be 17-16 projected over a season.. which is roughly 83-84 wins.. I kind of doubt that.

I'm not guaranteeing the team will go 20-13 next year in Arroyo's starts. I just disagree with the person that said if we plugged a 5.10 ERA pitcher into Arrroyo's slot this year, that the team would've gone 17-16 in his starts and only lost 3 games in the standings (still making the playoffs).

lollipopcurve
11-08-2010, 04:05 PM
How many starts do you think will be made by the guys you don't see as part of the opening day rotation. How many of those starts will come from a pitcher who is replacement level or worse?

I don't know. Let's say two of the starters go down. That's potentially a lot of starts. You want to err on the side of depth.

lollipopcurve
11-08-2010, 04:07 PM
Of course, the Reds were dangerously thin in the OF for a good stretch in 2010 too...

An outfielder is 1 of 8. A starting pitcher is 1 of 1.

REDREAD
11-08-2010, 04:07 PM
Now, I'm 100% willing to engage in a conversation that says actually SP does represent the biggest opportunity for adding marginal wins -- that the alliterative market options for LF and SS that we could secure for $12M would provide less marginal value. But instead we're focused on pretending like Arroyo is rock solid lock for 3 wins of production (or more) and insisting that there's no way our in house alternative for those 215 IP would be replacement level. I've made my case there and nobody seems willing to address the argument I laid out directly.

Sure we are. We are just saying it would've cost more than 3 wins last year.
That the team probably wouldn't have had a winning record if Arroyo was replaced with a 5.10 ERA pitcher. Probably would've missed the playoffs too.

If the 1999 team had Guzman on opening day instead of Bere, they would've probably made the playoffs.

The young pitchers we have in house can be traded for more production at SS/LF.. there's your opportunity to make best use of your resources.
Trade Homer or Leake for a young, solid, OF that is reasonable cost for several years.

dougdirt
11-08-2010, 04:19 PM
This news saddens me as a Reds fan. It simply doesn't make an ounce of sense to me. Arroyo won't be one of the Reds 3 best starters by 2012.

lollipopcurve
11-08-2010, 04:21 PM
This news saddens me as a Reds fan. It simply doesn't make an ounce of sense to me. Arroyo won't be one of the Reds 3 best starters by 2012.

The question is, do you want him on the team in 2012?

KronoRed
11-08-2010, 04:23 PM
This is a bad deal, what was wrong with letting next year play out and see what happens?

We can say all day the Reds need to ante up but at the end of the day the Reds are and will remain a small market team that needs to be extra smart with their cash.

dougdirt
11-08-2010, 04:24 PM
The question is, do you want him on the team in 2012?

At 11+M, no, I don't. If we had the Yankees payroll, maybe. But we don't and his upgrade over another candidate isn't going to be close to worth the upgrade in pay he is getting.

camisadelgolf
11-08-2010, 04:26 PM
Since 2004, only 14 pitchers have at least 91 wins (13 wins per season). Only 12 pitchers have thrown 1,400 innings (200 IP per season). Only 13 pitchers have started at least 210 games (30 GS per season). Arroyo is one of eight pitchers to do all three.
Who are they, and how much will they earn in 2011?
??.?M Jon Garland
13.0M Bronson Arroyo
14.0M Mark Buehrle
15.0M Derek Lowe
15.3M John Lackey
16.0M Roy Oswalt
22.5M Johan Santana
23.0M CC Sabathia

These are some of the highest-paid players in the game, and Arroyo is right in the middle of them. If he has a respectable 2011, he'd get paid so much in free agency it's not even funny. 13.0M seems like a bargain compared to some of those other guys.

TheNext44
11-08-2010, 04:48 PM
You are conflating pitcher W/L record with team W/L record. They are not the same thing. You are also treating 20-13 as the baseline expectation for Arroyo. Why should a league average starter lead his team to a .606 winning percentage? Looks to me like that 20-13 contains a lot of information about the other 24 guys on the roster -- guys who would still be around for the replacement.


I think this is heart of the matter.

You are judging pitchers based on how many runs they give up, which is based on how many K's BB's and HR's they give up since that is what they have total control over. Then you translate these runs into wins to get a figure which represents what a player is worth to his team.

Other people are arguing that you should judge a pitcher on how well he does on a game by game basis. The argument for this method is that, unlike positions players, who only affect around 5% of the outcome of any one game, a pitcher affects around 25-35% of the outcome of one game, and sometimes much more, when they pitch a great game, or get blown out. So it makes sense to use the runs/wins method for batters, but I think it makes more sense to judge pitchers on a more direct method of going game by game.

Most of the time, those two methodologies agree, but with pitchers like Arroyo, Leake and other "put the ball in play" pitchers who give a lot of innings, they tend to disagree. The perfect evidence is that you call Arroyo a league average pitcher, which he is using your method. But if you go game by game, he has been one of the best pitchers in all of baseball these last three season. I believe that there are less than 10 pitchers in the majors who have pitched the number of games and innings that Arroyo has pitched, and had the same number of wins and a similar or lower ERA, over the last three years.

It's not that people are ignoring your analysis, it's more that they disagree with the methodology that you are using. So, unfortunately, no matter how logical, fact based, and rational your analysis is, it will never win over certain people.

Personally, I think it all makes for a very interesting debate. :)

HokieRed
11-08-2010, 04:50 PM
This news saddens me as a Reds fan. It simply doesn't make an ounce of sense to me. Arroyo won't be one of the Reds 3 best starters by 2012.

Has there actually been an announcement?

edabbs44
11-08-2010, 04:55 PM
Has there actually been an announcement?

No. Rosenthal says it is happening this week, Fay would be surprised. Here is BA's agent,


"There have been discussions, but I wouldn't say I'm optimistic or pessimistic," Arroyo's agent, Terry Bross, said on Monday. "It'd be premature to comment that anything is imminent or not imminent

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20101108&content_id=16027870&vkey=news_mlb&c_id=mlb

lollipopcurve
11-08-2010, 05:00 PM
At 11+M, no, I don't. If we had the Yankees payroll, maybe. But we don't and his upgrade over another candidate isn't going to be close to worth the upgrade in pay he is getting.

The fact is, you don't know who or what "another candidate" is at this point.

They're spending on starting pitching depth. I have no problem with that.

And if Arroyo's giving them some dough back for 2011. the team's going to be better as a result of this move. I hardly see a reason for sadness.....

osuceltic
11-08-2010, 05:00 PM
This news saddens me as a Reds fan. It simply doesn't make an ounce of sense to me. Arroyo won't be one of the Reds 3 best starters by 2012.

If only we'd kept Zack Stewart, we could just slot in a Cy Young winner and let Arroyo walk ...

Sorry, Doug. But you (and you're not the only one) tend to default to every Reds prospect reaching a usually unrealistic ceiling. Jocketty and the Reds prefer to hedge their bets, and with good reason. If Volquez has another injury issue, Leake is second-half Leake instead of first-half Leake and Homer goes the way of Matt Belisle ... how good will Arroyo look? What about Chapman? Maybe he never becomes a reliable starter -- remember when Joba Chamberlain was going to go back to the rotation? And Cueto may just be exactly what he is.

Arroyo isn't a sure thing going forward, but he's a safer bet than any of the other starters.

lollipopcurve
11-08-2010, 05:03 PM
If only we'd kept Zack Stewart, we could just slot in a Cy Young winner and let Arroyo walk ...

Sorry, Doug. But you (and you're not the only one) tend to default to every Reds prospect reaching a usually unrealistic ceiling. Jocketty and the Reds prefer to hedge their bets, and with good reason. If Volquez has another injury issue, Leake is second-half Leake instead of first-half Leake and Homer goes the way of Matt Belisle ... how good will Arroyo look? What about Chapman? Maybe he never becomes a reliable starter -- remember when Joba Chamberlain was going to go back to the rotation? And Cueto may just be exactly what he is.

Arroyo isn't a sure thing going forward, but he's a safer bet than any of the other starters.

This is exactly right. It's easy to become beguiled by the hype surrounding minor leaguers, and the fact is a lot of folks on this board are relatively new to that aspect of following the team. Over time, people will learn.

westofyou
11-08-2010, 05:04 PM
Bird in the hand...

dougdirt
11-08-2010, 05:07 PM
If only we'd kept Zack Stewart, we could just slot in a Cy Young winner and let Arroyo walk ...

Sorry, Doug. But you (and you're not the only one) tend to default to every Reds prospect reaching a usually unrealistic ceiling. Jocketty and the Reds prefer to hedge their bets, and with good reason. If Volquez has another injury issue, Leake is second-half Leake instead of first-half Leake and Homer goes the way of Matt Belisle ... how good will Arroyo look? What about Chapman? Maybe he never becomes a reliable starter -- remember when Joba Chamberlain was going to go back to the rotation? And Cueto may just be exactly what he is.

Arroyo isn't a sure thing going forward, but he's a safer bet than any of the other starters.

Johnny Cueto had a better ERA than Arroyo did THIS year.
Homer Bailey has a 4.48 ERA over his last 222 MLB innings.
Travis Wood had a better ERA than Arroyo did THIS year.
Mike Leake had an ERA of 4.23 this year.
Edinson Volquez had an ERA of 4.31 this year.

I expect all of those guys to be well within that range of 3.50-4.50 ERA moving forward. There isn't a reason to think otherwise. They all have done it already and the scouting reports all suggest they should keep doing it. That doesn't even include Aroldis Chapman. He isn't even in the discussion.

That is 5 guys, today, who Arroyo doesn't bring a major upgrade over on a per inning basis. The only thing that he does better than those guys is throw less pitches per inning, thus resulting in more total innings. That is it. It isn't me or anyone else buying into pitching prospects, it is looking at what is actually there.

edabbs44
11-08-2010, 05:09 PM
This is exactly right. It's easy to become beguiled by the hype surrounding minor leaguers, and the fact is a lot of folks on this board are relatively new to that aspect of following the team. Over time, people will learn.

Walt knows how to manage a roster. I think we have all seen strong evidence of that. So when I see something like this, if it happens it makes me think that he will deal the young talent that they like least for additional helps elsewhere.

Everyone is clamoring for a Mister LF or Stud SS, how does anyone think that Cincy will be able to acquire one of these guys? The old "Francisco, Maloney and Lecure" combo? If you want talent on the field now you have to give up something people want. And the thing that a lot of people salivate over is young pitching.

This move, if it happens, makes me think that one of the younger guys is gone pretty soon.

kaldaniels
11-08-2010, 05:32 PM
Johnny Cueto had a better ERA than Arroyo did THIS year.
Homer Bailey has a 4.48 ERA over his last 222 MLB innings.
Travis Wood had a better ERA than Arroyo did THIS year.
Mike Leake had an ERA of 4.23 this year.
Edinson Volquez had an ERA of 4.31 this year.

I expect all of those guys to be well within that range of 3.50-4.50 ERA moving forward. There isn't a reason to think otherwise. They all have done it already and the scouting reports all suggest they should keep doing it. That doesn't even include Aroldis Chapman. He isn't even in the discussion.

That is 5 guys, today, who Arroyo doesn't bring a major upgrade over on a per inning basis. The only thing that he does better than those guys is throw less pitches per inning, thus resulting in more total innings. That is it. It isn't me or anyone else buying into pitching prospects, it is looking at what is actually there.

Cueto is the only pitcher you rattled off that doesn't have a HUGE "but...." that needs to be attached.

savafan
11-08-2010, 05:54 PM
We don't know what the 2012 or 2013 payroll is going to be yet. I doubt it will still be $76 million.

Secondary stats don't win ball games. There is no trophy for who has the best xFIP.

Leadership and chemistry don't show up in the box scores or on the back of baseball cards, but they're a vital key to a championship ball club.

If Bronson Arroyo is a league average pitcher, then I think we'd have a pretty good team if we had five league average pitchers in our starting rotation.

westofyou
11-08-2010, 06:00 PM
Secondary stats don't win ball games. There is no trophy for who has the best xFIP.


Secondary stats are part of the story of any winning pitcher, trying to disavow them to support your argument only cheapens your other points, which have merit on their own.

dougdirt
11-08-2010, 06:48 PM
Cueto is the only pitcher you rattled off that doesn't have a HUGE "but...." that needs to be attached.

IMO, Bronson Arroyo also has a huge "BUT...." that needs to be attached. Like, But he is in his mid 30's with declining peripherals and that probably doesn't bode well for his future".

dougdirt
11-08-2010, 06:49 PM
Secondary stats don't win ball games. There is no trophy for who has the best xFIP.


There is no trophy for who wins the most games either.

kaldaniels
11-08-2010, 07:23 PM
IMO, Bronson Arroyo also has a huge "BUT...." that needs to be attached. Like, But he is in his mid 30's with declining peripherals and that probably doesn't bode well for his future".

The Buts...

Travis Wood...but he has only pitched 1/2 season in the bigs

Homer Bailey...but he has never pitched more than approximately 100 innings in the Bigs in one season

EV...but he is coming back from TJ surgery

Mike Leake...but he fell apart in the 2nd half in 2010 (his only season)

Bronson Arroyo...but his peripherals are declining and he is in his mid-30s

Sorry but I don't think that matches up (to each his own). I'm bullish on all the guys you mentioned...but I'm not reckless enough to think that going forward it is all going to be rainbows and sunflowers for all of them (or all but 1, since Chapman is around) in terms of their performance/health.

I've heard a lot of talk about Cueto's peripherals declining...I truly don't know this...how would you compare Cueto's "decline" to Arroyos?

kaldaniels
11-08-2010, 07:25 PM
There is no trophy for who wins the most games either.

In the playoffs there is.

Couldn't resist.

dougdirt
11-08-2010, 07:26 PM
In the playoffs there is.

Couldn't resist.

Not for a single player there isn't.

kaldaniels
11-08-2010, 07:28 PM
Not for a single player there isn't.

I don't think that was what sava was saying, but I'll let him answer that one.

dougdirt
11-08-2010, 07:33 PM
I've heard a lot of talk about Cueto's peripherals declining...I truly don't know this...how would you compare Cueto's "decline" to Arroyos?

Cueto still shows the stuff to the point where his peripherals can rebound. Arroyo, not so much. And realistically, Cueto's peripherals didn't decline much from 2009 to 2010. Here were his rates for each year:



HR/BF BB% K% SO/BB
.032 8.2% 17.8% 2.16
.024 7.2% 17.7% 2.46


Realistically, he improved 3 out of 4 rates and the 4th was within 0.1% of the previous season. His rookie year had a very good strike out rate. He has declined since then. But last season I would say he actually took a step forward.

savafan
11-08-2010, 08:07 PM
Secondary stats are part of the story of any winning pitcher, trying to disavow them to support your argument only cheapens your other points, which have merit on their own.

Yes, secondary stats are part of the story of any winning pitcher, but some want to make them all of the story.


I don't think that was what sava was saying, but I'll let him answer that one.

You're right, I wasn't saying that at all, but there is something to be said for wins in that the pitcher keeps his team in the game. I understand it's a team dependent stat, but holding the other team in check is kinda mostly dependent on the pitcher.

jojo
11-08-2010, 08:30 PM
Yes, secondary stats are part of the story of any winning pitcher, but some want to make them all of the story.

Which is more important-secondary stats or leadership/chemistry?

savafan
11-08-2010, 08:36 PM
Which is more important-secondary stats or leadership/chemistry?

Hard to say. We know the effects of the secondary stats, but there is no way to gauge what leadership and chemistry mean to a team. There is no definable way to measure the importance that players like Arroyo, Rolen, Edmonds and Cabrera had on the young players in the dugout and clubhouse as well as on the field.

kaldaniels
11-08-2010, 08:40 PM
Cueto still shows the stuff to the point where his peripherals can rebound. Arroyo, not so much. And realistically, Cueto's peripherals didn't decline much from 2009 to 2010. Here were his rates for each year:



HR/BF BB% K% SO/BB
.032 8.2% 17.8% 2.16
.024 7.2% 17.7% 2.46


Realistically, he improved 3 out of 4 rates and the 4th was within 0.1% of the previous season. His rookie year had a very good strike out rate. He has declined since then. But last season I would say he actually took a step forward.

Someone was advocating shipping him out earlier due to his lower K rate I believe...wish I could find that one.

HokieRed
11-08-2010, 08:49 PM
Agree with Doug here entirely. The Stewart comparison is unfair; we have six arms other than Bronson who are vastly further along in their development than Stewart. In addition, the pro-extension folks seem to be forgetting that we will have Bronson in 2011without the extension--during which time he provides depth--and then we will have the money he would have been paid in 2012 and beyond if he's not extended. Seems to me like an obvious sacrifice of flexibility without any gain and at some risk--i.e. that Bronson's declining peripherals will catch up with him and/or that he will be an untradeable obstacle to a young pitcher with much greater upside. If Doug and others can be criticized for too much infatuation with prospects (a criticism I don't think fair), I think the pro-Bronson extension group might be criticized for a little too much memory of the rotations before BA came. The fact we were without anybody competent to start for a long time made BA seems like something of a savior when he arrived--he and Harang were the first real starters we'd had in quite a while. But the situation has now changed. I've argued elsewhere we don't want to overrate the depth of starting pitching we have, particularly in 2011, but we ought to have enough by 2012 either to do without BA or to be able to use his money to get what we need.

mth123
11-08-2010, 09:11 PM
Earlier in this thread I've been defending Arroyo against his naysayers and still hold the view that he is vastly under-appreciated by many, but unless the Reds get a big discount, an extension is a bad deal. The team needs Arroyo in 2011 no question. But 2011 will be the year that many of those questions are answered. If some of the candidates fall by the wayside, the team can deal with Arroyo then or take the $13 Million that would be going his way and go get somebody.

I view the extension this way. If 2011 through 2013 Arroyo costs around $27 Million ($9 Million per year) then its a good deal and I'd extend him. But if he wants (and I can't see why he wouldn't) $10 Million per year plus, then I'd wait and see how the kids play out. By 2012, the Reds may have found a 200 inning horse or two from the in house options. If say Wood and Bailey pan out, Cueto stays the same, Volquez tanks and Leake and Chapman spend the year in AAA or the pen and are unknowns for 2012, the Reds still would seem to have the middle of the rotation adequately filled. For $10 Million they could add a veteran arm who could more than adequately fill the fourth spot. With a bunch of kids trying to establish theselves such as the case in 2011, Arroyo's 200+ inning probaility are necessary. But by 2012, there may be a couple other 200 inning guys on hand who no longer are in the injury nexus and no longer require so much protection. The Reds wouldn't necessarily need to get a 200 inning horse to replace Arroyo by 2012. If a couple of these guys haven't developped to the point of being able to assume that role, the Reds probably can't win with or without Arroyo anyway and having the money and more open options is probably a better idea.

lollipopcurve
11-08-2010, 09:53 PM
but we ought to have enough by 2012 either to do without BA or to be able to use his money to get what we need.

"Ought to" doesn't mean it will happen.

Saying you'll be able to get what you need is easy. Getting it isn't.

You want to "get what you need"? Develop a surplus of talent. And that's what the team is doing.

HokieRed
11-08-2010, 10:09 PM
"Ought to" doesn't mean it will happen.

Saying you'll be able to get what you need is easy. Getting it isn't.

You want to "get what you need"? Develop a surplus of talent. And that's what the team is doing.

You seem to assume BA is riskless in 2012 and 2013. We could be paying 13 million a year to a very mediocre pitcher at that point. In short, saying BA will still be the same pitcher he has been is easy too.

lollipopcurve
11-08-2010, 10:23 PM
You seem to assume BA is riskless in 2012 and 2013. We could be paying 13 million a year to a very mediocre pitcher at that point. In short, saying BA will still be the same pitcher he has been is easy too.

That's worst case scenario. Yeah, it could happen. But if his history is to be trusted, there's every reason to think he'll be serviceable. Plus, if he does his usual thing in 2011, and all the other guys take a step forward, as some seem to think is nearly automatic, then Arroyo will be tradeable.

This team has spent decades short on starting pitching, and it's like we can't stand to keep it around once the team has it. Doesn't grow on trees, folks.

HokieRed
11-08-2010, 10:27 PM
That's worst case scenario. Yeah, it could happen. But if his history is to be trusted, there's every reason to think he'll be serviceable. Plus, if he does his usual thing in 2011, and all the other guys take a step forward, as some seem to think is nearly automatic, then Arroyo will be tradeable.

This team has spent decades short on starting pitching, and it's like we can't stand to keep it around once the team has it. Doesn't grow on trees, folks.

I'm entirely in favor of keeping him in 2011. The issue is what to do with him beyond that and for how much--and what else can be done with the money he's going to be paid then.

kaldaniels
11-08-2010, 11:04 PM
What do you think are the answers to these questions...

If BA throws 200 IP and 3.50 ERA in 2011, what would he make on the FA market.

If BA throws 200 IP and 5.00 ERA in 2011 what would he make on the FA market.

He's sittin' pretty right now if he has the mindset for the extension....otherwise he is really counting on a stellar '11.

HokieRed
11-08-2010, 11:29 PM
I think a better question is to consider what to pay a 35 and 36 year old pitcher who puts up his ML average year of 4.20 ERA for 206 innings in his 34 year old year. That's what the Reds, or some other team, would possibly have to consider if thinking about giving BA a free agent contract going into 2012 and 2013.

kaldaniels
11-09-2010, 12:26 AM
I think a better question is to consider what to pay a 35 and 36 year old pitcher who puts up his ML average year of 4.20 ERA for 206 innings in his 34 year old year. That's what the Reds, or some other team, would possibly have to consider if thinking about giving BA a free agent contract going into 2012 and 2013.

But the guy doesn't depend on pure speed....which lets me not worry about his age too much.

And his last 2 years have been in the top-3 years of his career.

I'm not advocating an extension today...but I think Arroyo has several good years ahead, and I think in 2012, the Reds will wish they had him (payroll aside).

jojo
11-09-2010, 12:49 AM
Hard to say.

Hard to say? Really?


We know the effects of the secondary stats, but there is no way to gauge what leadership and chemistry mean to a team.

Then why assume the effect is great?

lollipopcurve
11-09-2010, 08:25 AM
I think a better question is to consider what to pay a 35 and 36 year old pitcher who puts up his ML average year of 4.20 ERA for 206 innings in his 34 year old year. That's what the Reds, or some other team, would possibly have to consider if thinking about giving BA a free agent contract going into 2012 and 2013.

Too abstract. Teams do not operate in vacuums where GMs can diagram their perfect transactions and optimal rosters. Arroyo at 35 is not CC Sabathia at 35. The Reds roster is not the Indians roster.

Arroyo fits because he can lead a young staff, can stay healthy, is not afraid to pitch in GAB, and wants to be in Cincinnati. You have to look at the particulars -- and that doesn't mean just the peripherals.

HokieRed
11-09-2010, 01:08 PM
I've seen the particulars, and since I want to win the WS in 2012, I want five guys in the rotation who will be better than a 35 year old Arroyo projects to be.

jojo
11-09-2010, 01:39 PM
Too abstract. Teams do not operate in vacuums where GMs can diagram their perfect transactions and optimal rosters. Arroyo at 35 is not CC Sabathia at 35. The Reds roster is not the Indians roster.

Arroyo fits because he can lead a young staff, can stay healthy, is not afraid to pitch in GAB, and wants to be in Cincinnati. You have to look at the particulars -- and that doesn't mean just the peripherals.

The peripherals are the most important though so they should lead the discussion while the "particulars" color the discussion.

Also Arroyo's success is heavily dependent upon maintaining a great defense behind him. Committing to Arroyo makes other roster decisions less forgiving. In other words, replacing Rolen with a poor defender is likely to impact Arroyo greater than others in the rotation. Decisions about left field become colored by the investment in Arroyo more than they might etc...

I'm not arguing this is a deal breaker necessarily but the risk of extending him is compounded by his impact on payroll and roster decisions. As some are fond of saying, players aren't added in a vacuum.

osuceltic
11-09-2010, 01:53 PM
Redsfan320 posted this in the Chris Dickerson thread:


On the year with Cin and Mil: .206/.250/.268/.518, 20 H, 0 HR, 5 RBI, 4 SB, 0 CS, 2 2B, 2 3B, 34 K, 6 BB, in 97 AB, 106 PA, 45 G

Not that we got anything out of Edmonds, but I'm not shedding any tears after finding these numbers. "Potential" is the only thing left for Chris "Made of glass" Dickerson.

I thought it was relevant to this discussion because some of the same "go with the young guys" posters arguing against an Arroyo extension also were more than willing to roll with Dickerson in center or left field to start 2010. I feel like Dickerson showed exactly why counting on mostly unproven, sometimes injury-prone part-time talent for a full-time role is hugely risky. If you're going to give someone like that an opportunity, you better have a contingency plan in place.

I feel like almost all of these young starters are Dickerson-like in that they've shown flashes but also carry serious questions about their ability to be durable, effective, full-time starting pitchers in the bigs. I could see Leake putting up Dickerson-like numbers, or Volquez or Bailey continuing to have durability issues contributing to Dickerson-like production.

If all of them reach their ceilings, great. But how likely is that? That's why Arroyo is so valuable. He may not have the ceiling of some of these guys (although I'd argue Leake's ceiling probably is Arroyo's reality), but his floor is much, much higher. That's a lot more valuable than many realize.

kaldaniels
11-09-2010, 02:01 PM
I've seen the particulars, and since I want to win the WS in 2012, I want five guys in the rotation who will be better than a 35 year old Arroyo projects to be.

So 2012 Arroyo is worse than the 2012 Red's #5 starter? I'm not on board with that.

bucksfan2
11-09-2010, 02:12 PM
To me guys like Cueto, Bailey, Volquez, Wood, Leake, Chapman are all like shinny wrapped Christmas presents that you saw under the tree Christmas morning. They are great and exciting because you don't really know what they are. You imagination can run wild as to what is in each box that happens to bear your name. One may be a bike that you love and can ride for years to come. One may be the latest fad video game that is great until you beat it. It may have some shelf lift but it will soon be replaced by the next new fad video game. One may be that ugly sweater that you don't like but are forced to wear on occasion. When you outgrow that sweater you are overjoyed that you will never have to wear that again. Some Christmas presents are great and you use over and over again, some are used right away only to be forgotten quickly, and some just aren't really liked.

Bronson Arroyo to me is a savings bond that your Grandpa gives you. You don't think its the best gift but you continue to accumulate them year after year. You don't really understand the value of them at the time but as time passes you begin to appreciate those saving bonds, especially when they have grown in value. You may not like them as much as that bike that you still ride today, but you really appreciate them down the road.

REDREAD
11-09-2010, 02:23 PM
Johnny Cueto had a better ERA than Arroyo did THIS year.
Homer Bailey has a 4.48 ERA over his last 222 MLB innings.
Travis Wood had a better ERA than Arroyo did THIS year.
Mike Leake had an ERA of 4.23 this year.
Edinson Volquez had an ERA of 4.31 this year.

I expect all of those guys to be well within that range of 3.50-4.50 ERA moving forward. There isn't a reason to think otherwise. They all have done it already and the scouting reports all suggest they should keep doing it. That doesn't even include Aroldis Chapman. He isn't even in the discussion.

That is 5 guys, today, who Arroyo doesn't bring a major upgrade over on a per inning basis. The only thing that he does better than those guys is throw less pitches per inning, thus resulting in more total innings. That is it. It isn't me or anyone else buying into pitching prospects, it is looking at what is actually there.


Leake, Volquez, and Homer all have had recent injury issues.
Wood looked great last year, but only has 102 IP in his career.
Leake sure looked like an ace in his first 75 IP, but then fell to earth.
Cueto is the only pitcher the Reds have, that I have confidence will be in Arroyo's area of performance next year. Someone else (or maybe more than 1 guy) might be as good as Arroyo next year. If that happens, I will be thrilled, but it's premature to cut Arroyo loose now. These kids are not sure things.

I still don't understand why extending Arroyo would sadden you. He's great depth to have in the rotation. No one will be blocked. Most likely, one of Homer/Leake/Volquez will be traded for a SS or LF. How is that sad?
If Cast is willing to sign Arroyo's paycheck, what's the big deal? We are never going to be big players in the FA market, it makes a ton of sense to retain the star players that we have who want to stay here. Let's say hypothetically that Oswalt was a FA this winter.. What are the odds that the Reds could convince him to sign here? Pretty low. How about Cliff Lee? Again, low odds.

Pitchers like Arroyo are very rare, especially on the Reds. I'm thrilled he wants an extension. Our window of contending is now. We need him in the rotation. Look at it this way, even if as you say, Arroyo will be our #4 next year, that's still a big upgrade to our #6 guy who would replace Arroyo if Arroyo left.

fearofpopvol1
11-09-2010, 03:15 PM
According to Fay (on Twitter), the extension isn't done:

johnfayman Arroyo says deal is not "that close." He's on a cruise this week. #reds

savafan
11-09-2010, 06:23 PM
For the record, I'm for keeping Arroyo around for the next few years, but I did find this interesting. Most similar pitchers to Arroyo through age 33:


1. John Burkett (966)
2. Jarrod Washburn (960)
3. Erik Hanson (960)
4. Flint Rhem (959)
5. Ted Lilly (958)
6. Steve Avery (954)
7. Chris Bosio (954)
8. Milt Wilcox (952)
9. Steve Stone (949)
10. Brett Tomko (948)


Washburn's 2009 salary (age 34): $9,850,000
Lilly's 2010 salary (age 34): $13,000,000

Washburn, out of the game at 34.
Hanson out of the game at 33.
Rhem was out of the game at 35.
Avery out of the game at 33.
Bosio out of the game at 33.
Stone out of the game at 33.

westofyou
11-09-2010, 06:25 PM
For the record, I'm for keeping Arroyo around for the next few years, but I did find this interesting. Most similar pitchers to Arroyo through age 33:


1. John Burkett (966)
2. Jarrod Washburn (960)
3. Erik Hanson (960)
4. Flint Rhem (959)
5. Ted Lilly (958)
6. Steve Avery (954)
7. Chris Bosio (954)
8. Milt Wilcox (952)
9. Steve Stone (949)
10. Brett Tomko (948)


Washburn's 2009 salary (age 34): $9,850,000
Lilly's 2010 salary (age 34): $13,000,000

Washburn, out of the game at 34.
Hanson out of the game at 33.
Rhem was out of the game at 35.
Avery out of the game at 33.
Bosio out of the game at 33.
Stone out of the game at 33.

Most are LH's too

kaldaniels
11-09-2010, 06:40 PM
Most are LH's too

Plus most have last names containing 5 or less letters.

westofyou
11-09-2010, 06:42 PM
Plus most have last names containing 5 or less letters.

Genius!!!

We're on to something here.

MikeS21
11-10-2010, 08:44 AM
I suppose a three year deal would cost less per year than a one or two year deal. Thing is, I can live with one or two years of Arroyo, but I got to think that by the time that third year rolls around, the Reds are going to have to unload the contract via a trade. A 36 year old pitcher will be harder to move than a 33 year old.

My gut says trade Bronson ASAP. Get something out of him.

mth123
11-26-2010, 05:42 PM
If the Reds are still after an extension in exchange for a lower salary with Arroyo, today's signing of Jon Garland should help the Red's case. Garland hasn't been quite the successful inning eater that Arroyo is, but he's pretty good in that role. Garland's deal was $5 Million for 1 year with a vesting option that would guarantee a second year at $8 Million. That is 2 years for what the Reds are paying Arroyo for 2011. It should be a motivator for Arroyo to extend at a lower rate IMO.

mth123
11-26-2010, 06:07 PM
Over the last three years




IP St H BB K HR ER ERA H/9 K/9 BB/9 HR/9
Arroyo 636 101 621 192 411 89 293 4.15 8.79 5.82 2.72 1.26
Garland 600.2 98 638 207 335 62 275 4.12 9.57 5.02 3.10 0.93



Doesn't seem to be worthy of the difference between Arroyo making $13 Million and Garland signing as a free adent for $5 Million. Seems like Arroyo should be open to an extension for a reduced salary. Say add a year to make it 2 years for $20 Million. Arroyo has been in a tougher park, but not sure how much that will mean on the market. Arroyo may have trouble getting to $10 Million in 2012 based on those numbers.

MattyHo4Life
12-01-2010, 11:02 AM
Seems like Arroyo should be open to an extension for a reduced salary.

Why should Arroyo agree to a pay cut? His last two seasons have been his best years in the last 4 years and close to being his best seasons ever. He is the only Reds pitcher to have 200IP this year. He also led his team in wins by a big margin. For the first time ever, he has received Cy Young votes in 2010. He was a big reason why the Reds made the playoffs this year. I don't see why he should agree to a pay cut.

PuffyPig
12-01-2010, 01:26 PM
Why should Arroyo agree to a pay cut? His last two seasons have been his best years in the last 4 years and close to being his best seasons ever. He is the only Reds pitcher to have 200IP this year. He also led his team in wins by a big margin. For the first time ever, he has received Cy Young votes in 2010. He was a big reason why the Reds made the playoffs this year. I don't see why he should agree to a pay cut.

Becasue he's an OK, though non-elite pitcher.

Patrick Bateman
12-01-2010, 01:35 PM
Why should Arroyo agree to a pay cut? His last two seasons have been his best years in the last 4 years and close to being his best seasons ever. He is the only Reds pitcher to have 200IP this year. He also led his team in wins by a big margin. For the first time ever, he has received Cy Young votes in 2010. He was a big reason why the Reds made the playoffs this year. I don't see why he should agree to a pay cut.

Do you live in a shell?

In what world is the going market for Arroyo calibre pitchers 13M a year?

Garland and co. cant get half of that on the open market.

camisadelgolf
12-01-2010, 01:49 PM
Do you live in a shell?

In what world is the going market for Arroyo calibre pitchers 13M a year?

Garland and co. cant get half of that on the open market.
Here are the 12 pitchers who have thrown 1,400+ innings over the past seven seasons:

IP ERA+ AGE SAL NAME
1512.1 151 31 22.50 Johan Santana
1455.2 145 33 20.00 Roy Halladay
1513.0 131 33 16.00 Roy Oswalt
1539.0 129 30 23.00 CC Sabathia
1529.1 118 31 14.00 Mark Buerhle
1403.2 117 32 15.25 John Lackey
1471.1 111 33 13.00 Bronson Arroyo
1421.1 107 37 15.00 Derek Lowe
1458.1 106 31 5.00 Jon Garland
1430.1 103 32 18.50 Barry Zito
1418.0 103 34 7.00 Javier Vazquez
1497.0 095 35 ~1.50 Livan Hernandez
Bronson Arroyo has outperformed Derek Lowe and Barry Zito. Despite that, he'll be paid less than both of them. When you consider that he's on a one-year contract at the moment, he's a huge bargain.

backbencher
12-01-2010, 02:28 PM
Bronson Arroyo has outperformed Derek Lowe and Barry Zito. Despite that, he'll be paid less than both of them. When you consider that he's on a one-year contract at the moment, he's a huge bargain.

Compared to Barry Zito, every player in baseball is a "huge bargain."

RedsManRick
12-01-2010, 02:40 PM
Bronson Arroyo has outperformed Derek Lowe and Barry Zito. Despite that, he'll be paid less than both of them. When you consider that he's on a one-year contract at the moment, he's a huge bargain.

I'm not sure saying that a guy is being paid less than two guys who are clearly overpaid is a very strong argument.

Arroyo is being fairly compensated for the production he provides. However, we have some reasons to suspect that he won't continue to put up the same level of production in all of the next few years -- the first reason being that he's a pitcher and pitchers get hurt, even ones who have experienced significant runs of good health.

TRF
12-01-2010, 02:58 PM
I'm not sure saying that a guy is being paid less than two guys who are clearly overpaid is a very strong argument.

Arroyo is being fairly compensated for the production he provides. However, we have some reasons to suspect that he won't continue to put up the same level of production in all of the next few years -- the first reason being that he's a pitcher and pitchers get hurt, even ones who have experienced significant runs of good health.

but that argument can be applied to every player, so i throw it out. He's durable, and has been durable. He isn't 37 years old. He's been an innings eater, and a bullpen saver. If all we ever look at is K/9, and radar gun readings Bronson will never measure up.

He keeps the Reds in games more than he hurts them. He's paid pretty much what the market says he should be paid based on his production.

camisadelgolf
12-01-2010, 03:15 PM
I'm not sure saying that a guy is being paid less than two guys who are clearly overpaid is a very strong argument.

Arroyo is being fairly compensated for the production he provides. However, we have some reasons to suspect that he won't continue to put up the same level of production in all of the next few years -- the first reason being that he's a pitcher and pitchers get hurt, even ones who have experienced significant runs of good health.
Maybe 'bargain' isn't the right choice of words. But if you can have him on a one-year contract at $13M, I'd say it's worth it. Cliff Lee and Bronson Arroyo have very similar stats since they both became rotation fixtures (2004), but I guarantee Lee will make significantly more money.

All pitchers with 1,200+ IP since 2004:
NAME AGE ERA+ '10SAL '11SAL
Johan Santana 31 151 20.145 22.500
Roy Halladay 33 145 15.750 20.000
Roy Oswalt 33 131 15.000 16.000
Carlos Zambrano 29 130 18.875 17.875
CC Sabathia 30 129 24.286 23.000
Dan Haren 30 123 8.250 12.750
Tim Hudson 35 120 9.000 9.000
Mark Buehrle 31 118 14.000 14.000
John Lackey 32 117 18.700 15.250
Andy Pettitte 38 115 11.750 ??.???
Ted Lilly 34 113 13.000 7.000
Bronson Arroyo 33 111 11.625 13.000
Cliff Lee 32 111 9.000 ??.???
Josh Beckett 30 110 12.100 15.750
Derek Lowe 37 107 15.000 15.000
Doug Davis 35 106 4.250 ??.???
Jon Garland 31 106 4.700 5.000
A.J. Burnett 33 105 16.500 16.500
Aaron Harang 32 104 12.500 ??.???
Javier Vazquez 34 103 11.500 7.000
Barry Zito 32 103 18.500 18.500
Kevin Millwood 36 101 12.000 ??.???
Joe Blanton 30 99 3.000 8.500
Jason Marquis 32 97 7.500 7.500
Jamie Moyer 48 96 8.000 ??.???
Jeff Suppan 35 95 12.750 ??.???
Livan Hernandez 35 95 0.900 ~1.500
AVERAGES 33 113 12.170 13.283

kaldaniels
12-01-2010, 03:19 PM
Remember, I would wager not too many think Bronson is worth 13 million per year he pitches...that is just the final year of a backloaded contract...just the way it works out.

RedsManRick
12-01-2010, 05:53 PM
He keeps the Reds in games more than he hurts them. He's paid pretty much what the market says he should be paid based on his production.

Didn't I just say that? But even so, is that really want we want from our highest paid player? He helps more than he hurts?


But that argument can be applied to every player, so i throw it out. He's durable, and has been durable. He isn't 37 years old. He's been an innings eater, and a bullpen saver. If all we ever look at is K/9, and radar gun readings Bronson will never measure up.

Throwing logic out the window simply because it can be applied broadly doesn't strike me as a smart way to do things. If committing multiple years to a pitcher is a bad idea, it's a bad idea. That no pitcher can be counted on to stay healthy for 3 years consecutively is not an argument for giving pitchers long extensions anyways. Perhaps Arroyo is the exception to the rule. But that's a risk I'm only taking if the production provided in those innings is something that's hard to get otherwise.

It's one thing to give an elite pitcher a long contract because it's the only way you can get a player like that in free agency, like a Sabathia or Roy Halladay. But what the Jon Garland contract just showed us is that league average inning eaters aren't so valuable that you need to take on significant risk to acquire them.

Let Arroyo pitch out 2011, then decide what to do. It's not likely he's going to improve, so the figures discussed for his extension are pretty much his maximum value. If he puts up another 200+ IP, 3.90 ERA season, what sorts of offers do you think he'd get in FA? Better than 3/40?

And if does get a better offer and goes elsewhere, don't you think we could a find a decent pitcher to replace him for $13M? And isn't there a decent possibility that the guy is already in the Reds org?

On the flip side, what happens if he does regress as I've suggested. Then what? Can this team really afford to be spending 15% of its payroll on it on its 4th or 5th best starter? In 2011, maybe. But what about when Cueto, Volquez, Bailey, Votto, Bruce, etc. really start getting expensive?

Don't offer him the extension and the worst case scenario is he has a good year, signs elsewhere, and the Reds have $13M to make up for the lost production elsewhere.

Sign him to the extension and the worse case scenario is $13M of dead weight.

An extension caries much more downside risk than upside value. We can easily recover from losing him. But I'd hate to be forced in to trading away a superior young player who we simply can't afford to keep because we have Arroyo on the books.

People can dismiss my argument about his peripherals all they want; but then don't go signing Barry Zito, who was a classic case of an ERA timebomb waiting to go off. I simply don't see "if he stays completely healthy and if he continues to perform better than his peripherals suggest is sustainable then he'll be worth it" as a compelling argument.

RedsManRick
12-01-2010, 05:57 PM
Remember, I would wager not too many think Bronson is worth 13 million per year he pitches...that is just the final year of a backloaded contract...just the way it works out.

Do you think he'd take a pay cut relative to 2011 on a per annum basis in an extension?

MattyHo4Life
12-01-2010, 07:35 PM
Do you live in a shell?

In what world is the going market for Arroyo calibre pitchers 13M a year?

Garland and co. cant get half of that on the open market.

I never said Arroyo was worth 13Mil per year. Actually, I've stated the exact opposite many times on this board. I don't think Arroyo was ever worth 13Mil per year. All I'm saying is that I don't think he is worth any less than he was when he signed his last contract. He hasn't declined, he has been a very good pitcher for the Reds. Why should he take a pay cut when he is doing what he's been expected to do. If the Reds thought he was worth 13Mil then, why is it different now?

Personally, I never thought the Reds should have exercised his option and just went with the current younger guys in the rotation.

kaldaniels
12-01-2010, 08:37 PM
Do you think he'd take a pay cut relative to 2011 on a per annum basis in an extension?

Bronson is in the driver's seat at this point and it really is up to him. If he has a good 2011, he is gonna make more money than signing a extension today. And of course if he throws up a 5+ ERA in 2011, he is not gonna make much at all. A lot depends on how confident BA is going into the 2011 season.

He's not gonna do a 2yr/20 million dollar deal.

But I could see a 3 yr/30 million dollar deal. Especially in light of the Garland deal, that is fair for both sides. Payroll issues aside, I would do that for sure. However, I don't have access to the psyche of the Castellinis when it comes to how much they will spend on payroll now that the Reds are a legitimate contender.

Edit for clarity - I am counting the 2011 season in those 2 proposed deals.

Patrick Bateman
12-01-2010, 08:43 PM
I never said Arroyo was worth 13Mil per year. Actually, I've stated the exact opposite many times on this board. I don't think Arroyo was ever worth 13Mil per year. All I'm saying is that I don't think he is worth any less than he was when he signed his last contract. He hasn't declined, he has been a very good pitcher for the Reds. Why should he take a pay cut when he is doing what he's been expected to do. If the Reds thought he was worth 13Mil then, why is it different now?

Personally, I never thought the Reds should have exercised his option and just went with the current younger guys in the rotation.

Because that's not how economics works. If teams gave players what they wanted Jeter would have like a 300 billion dollar contract right now.

Arroyo will get about what the market dictates. Something like a 2 year 16M deal would be a pretty reasonable compromise for both sides IMO.

I(heart)Freel
12-01-2010, 11:06 PM
I had been in favor of a Bronson extension until I really started thinking about it.

Now I think they should wait it out and offer arbitration after the 2011 season. If he has a great season, let someone else pay him too many years and let the Reds get the draft pick. If he doesn't have a great season, the Reds could bring him back strictly on their terms.

Interestingly, the Reds are in this same boat with Cordero and Phillips. Not too much chatter about their contracts (potentially) ending after this 2011 season.

Maybe the Reds know all three players will be motivated to perform based on their unsettled future?

mth123
12-02-2010, 05:35 AM
I never said Arroyo was worth 13Mil per year. Actually, I've stated the exact opposite many times on this board. I don't think Arroyo was ever worth 13Mil per year. All I'm saying is that I don't think he is worth any less than he was when he signed his last contract. He hasn't declined, he has been a very good pitcher for the Reds. Why should he take a pay cut when he is doing what he's been expected to do. If the Reds thought he was worth 13Mil then, why is it different now?

Personally, I never thought the Reds should have exercised his option and just went with the current younger guys in the rotation.

This issue is what he's likely to get on the market in his next contract. I really have no problem with Arroyo making $13 Million this year. He's been productive and signed a deal with an escalating salary and now that he's reached the pay-off, its just how things work. The Reds younger guys are all too unproven to fill the rotation with so many question marks. The Reds need Arroyo in 2011. After that, its likely that enough of these guys establish themselves and work their way up to becoming 200 inning guys themselves, that the security of Arroyo will become less a priority. An extension would be OK if the price is right. Any extension needs to take market conditions into account. To extend him at his current salary when a couple of pretty decent comps just signed deals indicating that the market is probably more in the $8 to $9 Million range for Arroyo going forward makes no sense. Now Arroyo, IMO, is better than both Garland and Vazquez, but not the difference between what those guys got and his current number better. The Reds are negotiating an extension to get a lessr salary in 2011 to free payroll room. All I'm sayiing is that these deals would seem to help the Red's case. Arroyo on the open market won't get $13 Million. Signing him to an extension that adds years at 8 figures or more would be a bad deal.

Given that the Reds have a number of options internally and can afford to wait coupled with a market showing that the current price is too high, the only thing that makes sense for the Reds is to only consider an extension for not only a lesser value due to market conditions, but even below those conditions since the team has a number of options. If I were Arroyo, I probably wouldn't agree, but there is no reason for the Reds to extend unless its a really good deal. The market is telling us what an innings eater costs. Why extend Arroyo even at those figures when there are really only two paths in 2011? The kids could all work out, the need for an eanings eater would be satisified from within and the resources could be used to lock-up Votto or Bruce; or, some of the kids could flame out and the Reds need an innings eater to fill out the 2012 rotation and go get one at Market value (which is significantly below Arroyo's current deal and his 2011 salary slot would absorb it). Both of those options will be available without extending Arroyo, so the only real reason to extend would be to get a better deal IMO. Any extension that averages $10 Million per year or more is too much IMO.

redsfandan
12-02-2010, 06:57 AM
Because that's not how economics works. If teams gave players what they wanted Jeter would have like a 300 billion dollar contract right now.

Arroyo will get about what the market dictates. Something like a 2 year 16M deal would be a pretty reasonable compromise for both sides IMO.
I'll be surprised if he doesn't get more.

I had been in favor of a Bronson extension until I really started thinking about it.

Now I think they should wait it out and offer arbitration after the 2011 season. If he has a great season, let someone else pay him too many years and let the Reds get the draft pick. If he doesn't have a great season, the Reds could bring him back strictly on their terms.

Interestingly, the Reds are in this same boat with Cordero and Phillips. Not too much chatter about their contracts (potentially) ending after this 2011 season.

Maybe the Reds know all three players will be motivated to perform based on their unsettled future?
They'll be in the same boat (in an option year) next year. But, I think most people are looking forward to Cordero leaving after this year. I could see Phillips back next year though. And I'm sure there'll be plenty of chatter about the future at 2nd in the coming months.

MattyHo4Life
12-02-2010, 07:52 AM
Because that's not how economics works. If teams gave players what they wanted Jeter would have like a 300 billion dollar contract right now.

Arroyo will get about what the market dictates. Something like a 2 year 16M deal would be a pretty reasonable compromise for both sides IMO.

Well, I know how economics work, but baseball economics work differently. Sometimes a team is at a disadvantage when trying to resign their own player. We can all guess what Arroyo would get on the open market, but nobody knows for sure until he actually tests the market. So if the Reds don't offer him what he wants....he becomes a free agent and tries to get it on the open market. Chances are he won't get it and is forced to sign a lesser contract with a different team. It's happened many times before and even to Scott Boras clients. Also, you keep mentioning Jon Garland. Jon Garland has absolutely nothing to do with this arguement. The free agent market is unpredictably different each year. Garland signed as a free agent this year... Arroyo isn't a free agent this year. Nobody knows what a pitcher like Garland or Arroyo will command next year. There are 3 big factors to deterime that. 1) state of the economy 2) supply of equal or better pitchers 3) demand, how many teams need and can afford starting pitchers.

PuffyPig
12-02-2010, 08:59 AM
Jon Garland has absolutely nothing to do with this arguement. The free agent market is unpredictably different each year. Garland signed as a free agent this year... Arroyo isn't a free agent this year. Nobody knows what a pitcher like Garland or Arroyo will command next year. There are 3 big factors to deterime that. 1) state of the economy 2) supply of equal or better pitchers 3) demand, how many teams need and can afford starting pitchers.

So, notwithstanding that you have stated that Arroyo will not accept less money than he is making now, your present position is that we might get Arroyo for 3 years and $5M per season when he becomes a FA, as "nobody knows what he will command next year", due to the ever changing factors.

MattyHo4Life
12-02-2010, 10:06 AM
So, notwithstanding that you have stated that Arroyo will not accept less money than he is making now, your present position is that we might get Arroyo for 3 years and $5M per season when he becomes a FA, as "nobody knows what he will command next year", due to the ever changing factors.

Anything can happen with the FA market, but the price probably wouldn't drop to $5Mil until it's too late for the Reds to sign him. So if he does sign for $5 Mil next year, it probably wouldn't be with the Reds. Oh, and I have no idea if Arroyo will accept less money than he is making now. I'm just saying that he probably thinks he's worth what he has been making. Similar to what Jeter is probably thinking. Will Jeter get what he has been making? Of course not, but he still thinks he's worth that amount, and that's why he is still unsigned. If talks between Jeter and the Yankees fall flat, and the Yankees decide to go another way, then Jeter would need to find a suiter on the open market. He would probably be forced to take less than $15Mil per year or retire.

OnBaseMachine
12-02-2010, 03:23 PM
From Nick Cafardo of The Boston Globe:

Bronson Arroyo extension talks with #Reds are hovering around 3 years, $35 million but with some deferred money. Arroyo not biting yet.

http://twitter.com/nickcafardo

dougdirt
12-02-2010, 03:31 PM
From Nick Cafardo of The Boston Globe:

Bronson Arroyo extension talks with #Reds are hovering around 3 years, $35 million but with some deferred money. Arroyo not biting yet.

http://twitter.com/nickcafardo

Why Reds? Why?

There are 6 reasons why not, I know that for sure. I just don't get it.

MattyHo4Life
12-02-2010, 03:47 PM
From Nick Cafardo of The Boston Globe:

Bronson Arroyo extension talks with #Reds are hovering around 3 years, $35 million but with some deferred money. Arroyo not biting yet.

http://twitter.com/nickcafardo

Maybe he wants $13Mil per year for 3 years.

lollipopcurve
12-02-2010, 04:00 PM
Maybe he wants $13Mil per year for 3 years.

Doubt it. Sounds like they're close at 35, and haggling over deferred $$$.

TheNext44
12-02-2010, 04:03 PM
Why Reds? Why?

There are 6 reasons why not, I know that for sure. I just don't get it.

Details. The key is the details of the deal.

If this is an extension starting next season, with around $1M deferred each year, it doesn't make such sense.

If it starts this season and replaces this year's salary with one around $11, and has $3M a year deferred, it does make sense.

dougdirt
12-02-2010, 04:11 PM
Details. The key is the details of the deal.

If this is an extension starting next season, with around $1M deferred each year, it doesn't make such sense.

If it starts this season and replaces this year's salary with one around $11, and has $3M a year deferred, it does make sense.

It really doesn't though. If you are that strapped for cash, just trade him now.

MattyHo4Life
12-02-2010, 04:13 PM
Doubt it. Sounds like they're close at 35, and haggling over deferred $$$.

That quote said that he isn't biting yet at $35Mil with some deffered money. So maybe he wants that extra $4Mil.

TheNext44
12-02-2010, 04:16 PM
It really doesn't though. If you are that strapped for cash, just trade him now.

??? Sorry i'm confused. Who said they are strapped for cash?

I was strictly referring to what I think Arroyo is worth. I think he's worth around $8M a year. I'd think that, plus some deferred money is acceptable and makes sense for both sides.

lollipopcurve
12-02-2010, 04:29 PM
That quote said that he isn't biting yet at $35Mil with some deffered money. So maybe he wants that extra $4Mil.

The use of "but" in the quote suggests the 35 isn't the problem so much as the deferred portion. Who knows if Edes has an accurate take on it, though.

camisadelgolf
12-02-2010, 04:29 PM
??? Sorry i'm confused. Who said they are strapped for cash?

I was strictly referring to what I think Arroyo is worth. I think he's worth around $8M a year. I'd think that, plus some deferred money is acceptable and makes sense for both sides.
The average player in Arroyo's situation will make about $13MM next year.

redsmetz
12-03-2010, 03:57 PM
Rosenthal is tweating that the Reds have extended Bronson:

Arroyo done with #Reds - three years, $35 million

Brutus
12-03-2010, 04:16 PM
Rosenthal is tweating that the Reds have extended Bronson:

Arroyo done with #Reds - three years, $35 million

I hope a significant portion is deferred.

edabbs44
12-03-2010, 04:19 PM
Wow...I was expecting 2 years. Hopefully this works out.

You'd have to think a trade is being considered for a bat.

TheNext44
12-03-2010, 04:21 PM
Wow...I was expecting 2 years. Hopefully this works out.

You'd have to think a trade is being considered for a bat.

It actually is for two years, as it includes 2011.

redsfandan
12-03-2010, 04:22 PM
I'll wait to see the details but, right now, I'm disappointed.

redsmetz
12-03-2010, 04:23 PM
Here's the link to Sheldon's blurb

http://marksheldon.mlblogs.com/archives/2010/12/arroyo_extended_through_2013.html

Tom Servo
12-03-2010, 04:25 PM
I'm okay with this.

camisadelgolf
12-03-2010, 04:28 PM
Seeing as how he's due to make $13M in 2011 anyway, it's basically a two-year, $22M extension. I wasn't much in favor of extending him, but he's signing for below-market value, so I'm not too bothered by it.

Kc61
12-03-2010, 04:35 PM
Arroyo has 200 plus innings for six years in a row.

He's won 15 or more games for three consecutive years.

His last two seasons were sub-4 ERA years.

He will only be 36 at the end of this contract.

I'd say this is a good deal for the Reds financially.

My guess is this sets up a trade of a pitcher for a position player.

Scrap Irony
12-03-2010, 04:36 PM
Blech. As of now, I don't like it. Seems too expensive, but perhaps Arroyo can actually pitch well enough to earn his extension.

lollipopcurve
12-03-2010, 04:38 PM
My guess is this sets up a trade of a pitcher for a position player.

I agree. Pretty darn sure it's going to happen.

Ron Madden
12-03-2010, 04:41 PM
I think it's a fair deal if the reports of the money are true.


http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/

westofyou
12-03-2010, 04:43 PM
http://content7.flixster.com/photo/32/66/32/3266329_gal.jpg

medford
12-03-2010, 05:00 PM
People keep saying he's going to make 13 mil this year, Sheldon's report says it included this season's option at 11.5 mil. either way, that about 11 - 11.75 mil per season after this season. Seems like a fair price for both sides.

I'm hoping this is the lynch pin that allows Walt to pull the trigger on a big deal for a bat. The Reds are stacked w/ solid options with lots of upside for the staff, but no one currently gives you the certainty that Bronson has provided during his run w/ the Reds. Bronson may not be your ideal top of the rotation ace, but few pitchers can take the mound as often and w/ as much success as he's had. Give them some stability near the top of the rotation, then use some of the 'utes to real in a big bat for LF or SS, or to help bring Grienke to town to headline the rotation.

JaxRed
12-03-2010, 05:09 PM
Well I'll go on record with RedsManRick and a few others. Not a smart move. Picking up his option... smart move. Extending him 2 additional years a year before you had to, and at 12 million or so... not a smart move.

WMR
12-03-2010, 05:15 PM
Why now?

What are the chances BA pitches well enough next season to raise his value/rate even higher?

Now, what are the chances something goes wrong?

TRF
12-03-2010, 05:23 PM
I'll give Walt this, he understands the psychology of being a GM. Picking up BA's option AND extending him 2 years tells the rest of the FA's out there that Cincinnati is serious, and will reward a player for performance. You can quibble over stats and what "performance" actually is, but Arroyo did his job and now has some security for the next 3 years.

pedro
12-03-2010, 05:23 PM
Why now?

What are the chances BA pitches well enough next season to raise his value/rate even higher?

Now, what are the chances something goes wrong?

My guess is that Jocketty wants some certainly in the rotation and feels that Arroyo will provide that over the length of contract. I think everyone knows that the Reds biggest trading chips are their starting pitchers and having Arroyo penciled in gives them the flexibility to trade one of the others if they want to.

Cedric
12-03-2010, 05:23 PM
Always need a horse to guarantee solid innings. I don't see any reason that Bronson will suddenly fall off with performance either.

I'd rather have went two years, but three is reasonable for what he means to this whole pitching staff.

Joseph
12-03-2010, 05:23 PM
Why now?

What are the chances BA pitches well enough next season to raise his value/rate even higher?

Now, what are the chances something goes wrong?

Here's the thing though Wily, we've been saying that since the day he arrived. Yet every year he's a solid middle of the rotation starter. Now we can argue that in our market we should have spent that money differently, but i don't expect anything different from him next year than we've gotten since he arrived. 14 wins +/-2 either way, and era in the upper 3s and 210 IP.

RedsManRick
12-03-2010, 05:28 PM
ERA FIP K/9 BB/9 HR/9 LD% BABIP DER
2006 3.29 4.15 6.9 2.4 1.2 21.2 .279 .682 (21st)
2007 4.23 4.57 6.7 2.7 1.2 20.9 .318 .678 (25th)
2008 4.77 4.50 7.3 3.1 1.3 22.9 .321 .673 (29th)
2009 3.84 4.78 5.2 2.7 1.3 18.5 .270 .705 (4th)
2010 3.88 4.61 5.1 2.5 1.2 16.3 .246 .704 (7th)

Career 4.19 4.46 6.0 2.7 1.1 19.8 .290 ---

Notice a trend? In 2009 and 2010 his ERA dropped significantly in 2009 & 2010 despite a FIP that increased slightly. In short, balls in play against Arroyo did less damage. Did he suddenly find the magic to inducing weak contact? Perhaps. His LD% dropped significantly. But his defense also improved significantly. The simple point is that a .246 BABIP is unsustainable -- period. Were a .246 BABIP reflective of a true skill, it would make Arroyo the best weak contact inducer of all-time, by an order of magnitude (Mo' Rivera's career BABIP is .273, LD% 16.6).

Bronson is being paid in part for the work of a very good defense behind him. Put any contact-heavy pitcher in front of a top notch defense and watch his ERA drop. Don't get me wrong -- if Bronson puts up 200 IP and an era in the low 4's, he'll have earned his salary more or less. I just don't see the logic in locking him in now, on the heels of a very good season he probably won't repeat, on a team with a wealth of young pitching talent it can't even fit on the roster and in a market that's seen similar pitchers sign shorter deals for less money.

TheNext44
12-03-2010, 05:37 PM
Bronson is being paid in part for the work of a very good defense behind him. Put any contact-heavy pitcher in front of a top notch defense and watch his ERA drop. Don't get me wrong -- if Bronson puts up 200 IP and an era in the low 4's, he'll have earned his salary more or less. I just don't see the logic in locking him in now, on the heels of a very good season he probably won't repeat, on a team with a wealth of young pitching talent is can't even fit on the roster and in a market that's seen similar pitchers sign shorter deals for less money.

I agree with the anaylsis. I would have rather signed Lily for roughly the same amount, but other than that, I don't see anyone else available that provides what Arroyo does, for that price, so I'm not too upset. Also, I'd like to know the details of the deferred money.

WMR
12-03-2010, 05:52 PM
Here's the thing though Wily, we've been saying that since the day he arrived. Yet every year he's a solid middle of the rotation starter. Now we can argue that in our market we should have spent that money differently, but i don't expect anything different from him next year than we've gotten since he arrived. 14 wins +/-2 either way, and era in the upper 3s and 210 IP.

I agree that he stands an excellent chance to do what you say based on prior performance...

However, I like to look at this situation as though it were an insurance actuarial table.

"On a long enough time line, the survival rate for everyone drops to zero." - Now just translate Ed Norton's words from Fight Club to deal with pitchers instead... :D

Is this a deal that couldn't have been made 10-11 months from now?

Jocketty has been pretty much Aces since he got here, though, so here's hoping his Midas Touch continues.

Tom Servo
12-03-2010, 05:56 PM
on a team with a wealth of young pitching talent it can't even fit on the roster and in a market that's seen similar pitchers sign shorter deals for less money.
People said the same thing about our young pitching talent for years and years and years until last year's crop finally put it together, and there's no guarantee it will last. You can never have enough good pitching.

mdccclxix
12-03-2010, 06:05 PM
Even if Arroyo isn't your ace, and ends up your 3 or 4, he's still the type of pitcher that can go out and win a game 3 in the playoffs. So you pay him for all the things he provides. I like the deal, especially if we can get a quality return for Volquez or Leake, my predictions for a trade.

MattyHo4Life
12-03-2010, 06:13 PM
People keep saying he's going to make 13 mil this year, Sheldon's report says it included this season's option at 11.5 mil. either way, that about 11 - 11.75 mil per season after this season. Seems like a fair price for both sides.

His extension was for $11Mil, but it could have jumped to $13Mil if he reached a certain amount of innings. It's been previously reported that he met the requirements for the $13Mil option.

RedsManRick
12-03-2010, 06:38 PM
His extension was for $11Mil, but it could have jumped to $13Mil if he reached a certain amount of innings. It's been previously reported that he met the requirements for the $13Mil option.

http://mlbcontracts.blogspot.com/2005/01/cincinnati-reds_24.html

Caveat Emperor
12-03-2010, 06:56 PM
My guess is that Jocketty wants some certainly in the rotation and feels that Arroyo will provide that over the length of contract. I think everyone knows that the Reds biggest trading chips are their starting pitchers and having Arroyo penciled in gives them the flexibility to trade one of the others if they want to.

Stop making so much sense.

RED VAN HOT
12-03-2010, 07:22 PM
A few points...

The Reds have a number of good young arms in the minors, but many are a few years away. Odds are some will make it, but they haven't yet.

Two years seems more logical, but why would we think that Arroyo would be amenable to such a deal. A two year deal would make him a FA at age 36. If he is to get a good contract, there is no better time than now.

We may be leaving out the intangibles that Arroyo brings to the team. WJ seems to have a great appreciation for good "team" guys.

As much as the Reds need a #1, they also need to maintain their pitching depth. It should not be overlooked that last year whenever a pitcher went down, someone else stepped up.

Will M
12-03-2010, 08:20 PM
This is a move that the 'old school' fans like & the 'new school' fans don't. Its tough (near impossible) for each type of fan to agree with the other. They are looking at the situation from very different viewpoints. Its like an extroverted touchy feely person trying to relate to an introverted intuitive thinker. There is just no common ground.

As other have pointed out: hopefully this frees up Walt to swing a deal involving one of the other pitchers. IMO in this case it was important to get this done now as the winter meetings are next week.

mth123
12-03-2010, 09:25 PM
Well I'll go on record with RedsManRick and a few others. Not a smart move. Picking up his option... smart move. Extending him 2 additional years a year before you had to, and at 12 million or so... not a smart move.

Arroyo has a lot of critics and I've been a big defender, but count me in the camp that doesn't like this move. An extension would have been OK if it was at a significant discount. This wasn't, so why not wait and see how the kids come along? 2011 is a year the Reds need to have him, 2012 and 2013 may not require investing 15% or so of the payroll in Arroyo. Its enough money that if it turns out the Reds need Arroyo or someone like him, they would have that $12 Million per year or so to get somebody. I like Arroyo OK, but there will be decisons we won't like that the Reds will need to make to save money over the next couple of years. Locking Arroyo up for that amount assures it.

corkedbat
12-03-2010, 10:15 PM
Maybe he really is BVast's favorite. :D

I'm a fan of Bronson and was all for picking up the option for roster stability to give the young guns a chance to step up and lead the rotation. I agree with others though in questioning two more years and at this time.

Whether they are successful or not in adding a solid bat to the meat of the order, whether or not they are able to lockup Joey and Jay the next couple of years, there will be a need to add runproducers over the next couple of years if the team is to stay competitve. Bats that are not now readily apparent in the farm system.

The cheap youngsters soon won't be. They'll take up much of the savings rolled off the books when Cordero moves on. I'm not sure that committing this money to BA at this point, with the young rotation talent that is at hand, is wise. I'll defer to Walt though.

redsfandan
12-03-2010, 10:23 PM
on a team with a wealth of young pitching talent it can't even fit on the roster and in a market that's seen similar pitchers sign shorter deals for less money.


People said the same thing about our young pitching talent for years and years and years until last year's crop finally put it together, and there's no guarantee it will last. You can never have enough good pitching.

Really? People said that about our young pitching talent 5 years ago? 10 years ago? I don't think so.

Spitball
12-03-2010, 11:49 PM
This is a move that the 'old school' fans like & the 'new school' fans don't. Its tough (near impossible) for each type of fan to agree with the other. They are looking at the situation from very different viewpoints. Its like an extroverted touchy feely person trying to relate to an introverted intuitive thinker. There is just no common ground.

As other have pointed out: hopefully this frees up Walt to swing a deal involving one of the other pitchers. IMO in this case it was important to get this done now as the winter meetings are next week.

Good post. Projections aside, the guy has been a Red and I like loyalty...even if it comes at a bit of a price. He could surely have received more if he had gone out onto the market, but he stayed. I like that.

MattyHo4Life
12-04-2010, 12:07 AM
Good post. Projections aside, the guy has been a Red and I like loyalty...even if it comes at a bit of a price. He could surely have received more if he had gone out onto the market, but he stayed. I like that.

Do you really think he could have gotten more on the open market? I doubt it, but it's really a moot point this year anyways since he still hd a year left on his contract. The real question is would he be able to get more next year. Too many factors to tell that this early. If the FA market is anything like this year or recent years and Arroyo's performance is similar to recent years, then I would think the answer would be no.

HeatherC1212
12-04-2010, 12:28 AM
For whatever it's worth, Bronson's extension was announced during the on stage celebration at Redsfest tonight and it got a lot of cheering from the crowd. I'm happy he'll be a Red for a while longer and he seemed very happy tonight too. :)

MattyHo4Life
12-04-2010, 12:54 AM
he seemed very happy tonight too. :)

I bet he did. If I'm not mistaken....35k is more than he has made in his entire career so far.

Redsfan320
12-04-2010, 08:28 AM
I bet he did. If I'm not mistaken....35k is more than he has made in his entire career so far.

Not k... M. The difference...close to poverty level, or more than I'll see in my lifetime. :D

320

I(heart)Freel
12-04-2010, 09:03 AM
Not saying it's going to happen.... but Arroyo did sign a 3-year deal once before and then promptly got shipped out of his favorite town for some guy named Pena.

The Reds *could* trade him now or soon, since the receiving team knows what kind of contract they're getting.

The Boston incident is also why Bronson had no desire to give a discount. He got burned once before.

savafan
12-04-2010, 10:35 AM
I love this deal. I don't care about unsustainable babip or too much doowop or too little shamalamadingdong or whatever...

Bronson's my favorite Red. I love his personality. I love his grit and desire. I love that he'll be around 3 more years, period.

lollipopcurve
12-04-2010, 11:02 AM
I love this deal. I don't care about unsustainable babip or too much doowop or too little shamalamadingdong or whatever...

Bronson's my favorite Red. I love his personality. I love his grit and desire. I love that he'll be around 3 more years, period.

Great post!

jojo
12-04-2010, 11:11 AM
Not saying it's going to happen.... but Arroyo did sign a 3-year deal once before and then promptly got shipped out of his favorite town for some guy named Pena.

The Reds *could* trade him now or soon, since the receiving team knows what kind of contract they're getting.

The Boston incident is also why Bronson had no desire to give a discount. He got burned once before.

I think the difference between the deal that brought him to the Reds and a hypothetical deal that would bring about his departure is that this extension would make it harder to trade him given the amount he's owed.

Over the last 2 seasons, wins have been worth $3.5 to 4M on the open market so with his extension, he's being paid like the Reds expect 9 to 10 WAR over his contract (roughly 3 WAR/yr).

From that standpoint the contract is an overpay as he's averaged 2.5 WAR/season as a Red and that's trended down from 4.2 WAR his first season to 1.7 WAR each of the last two. Furthermore, his WAR is largely dependent upon his ability to pile on innings rather than his peripherals and this extension spans his age 34-36 seasons. It seems pretty unlikely that the Reds will receive any surplus value. Rather, the appropriate question seems to be how much of an overpay will this be.

That said, the FA market seems to be getting more expensive both in amount paid and years this off season so it's possible that the cost of WAR will significantly rise during the next three years. At $5M/WAR, Arroyo would be paid like a 2.2 WAR/pitcher. If he stays healthy, that's not nutty especially given Jocketty seems committed to fielding an exceptional defense behind Arroyo (which would tend to help Arroyo outperform his WAR). Certainly it has to be assumed Jocketty has a better handle on the pulse of the market than we would.

I might have picked up Arroyo's option. I probably wouldn't have extended him.

Benihana
12-04-2010, 11:11 AM
After some consideration, I will wait to judge this extension until after the other shoe drops.

For instance, if this leads to Walt packaging Leake with Alonso, it's a good deal.
If the Reds don't trade one of their arms to get a young, significant upgrade?LF or SS, then I would have rather waited until at least midseason to discuss such an extension.

WMR
12-04-2010, 11:45 AM
Not saying it's going to happen.... but Arroyo did sign a 3-year deal once before and then promptly got shipped out of his favorite town for some guy named Pena.

The Reds *could* trade him now or soon, since the receiving team knows what kind of contract they're getting.

The Boston incident is also why Bronson had no desire to give a discount. He got burned once before.

Pretty sure Bronson is a 10-5 guy now, correct?

jojo
12-04-2010, 11:55 AM
Pretty sure Bronson is a 10-5 guy now, correct?

Bronson hasn't earned the 10 part yet.

WMR
12-04-2010, 11:58 AM
Bronson hasn't earned the 10 part yet.

His MLB debut was June 12, 2000 for the Pittsburgh Pirates. (His service time has got to be extremely close??)

jojo
12-04-2010, 12:10 PM
His MLB debut was June 12, 2000 for the Pittsburgh Pirates. (His service time has got to be extremely close??)

Believe it or not, his service time is still a little over a season and a half short.

WMR
12-04-2010, 12:10 PM
Believe it or not, his service time is still a little over a season and a half short.

Wow! Thanks jojo.

MattyHo4Life
12-04-2010, 01:38 PM
The Reds *could* trade him now or soon, since the receiving team knows what kind of contract they're getting.

I don't think that would be such a good idea. After reading this thread, it seems like Bronson may be the most popular Red except for Votto.

traderumor
12-04-2010, 03:16 PM
I love this deal. I don't care about unsustainable babip or too much doowop or too little shamalamadingdong or whatever...

Bronson's my favorite Red. I love his personality. I love his grit and desire. I love that he'll be around 3 more years, period.I looked for doowop and shamalamadingdong on wikipedia and it mentioned something about "Otis! My man!" Didn't say anything about sabrmetrics :confused:;)

edabbs44
12-04-2010, 04:10 PM
Like the Jeter deal, I think this deal is about more than just numbers.

WMR
12-04-2010, 04:28 PM
Yeah who else is going to star in those JTM commercials with the Creeper or regale us with mediocre alternative rock performances?


;)

Mario-Rijo
12-04-2010, 07:55 PM
I love this deal. I don't care about unsustainable babip or too much doowop or too little shamalamadingdong or whatever...

Bronson's my favorite Red. I love his personality. I love his grit and desire. I love that he'll be around 3 more years, period.

How long did Aarons popularity last when his numbers took a nosedive? How far are you willing to accept that in any player? I'm not saying his will because he does strike me as a Moyer type guy who will have value until he is into his 40's. But it's certainly very possible that he won't produce much longer.

MattyHo4Life
12-04-2010, 08:00 PM
I know that Bronson is a popular player. I get that. What I don't get is why did this extension have to get done now? If a discount was given, then I understand it, but there wasn't a discount. This is a deal that could have been done at the end of next season. You never know what will happen to a player during any given season. It just seems a little risky to make this type of deal a year before you really need to do it.

savafan
12-04-2010, 08:32 PM
I know that Bronson is a popular player. I get that. What I don't get is why did this extension have to get done now? If a discount was given, then I understand it, but there wasn't a discount. This is a deal that could have been done at the end of next season. You never know what will happen to a player during any given season. It just seems a little risky to make this type of deal a year before you really need to do it.

Because, when you have youngsters like Jay Bruce and Joey Votto that you're looking to sign to long term deals, extending a popular player like Arroyo shows them that you're serious about contending for the long haul.

OnBaseMachine
12-05-2010, 01:32 AM
I would have waited until after this season to see how he performed before approaching him about an extension.

MattyHo4Life
12-05-2010, 01:54 AM
I would have waited until after this season to see how he performed before approaching him about an extension.

I agree... I don't think you lose anything by waiting until after the season. I don't think you offend the player, most teams wait until after the season for extensions.

Mario-Rijo
12-05-2010, 08:54 AM
I would have waited until after this season to see how he performed before approaching him about an extension.

I agree with one caveat, I wouldn't have offered to extend him at all, ever. I like Bronson but I'm ready to see what these youngsters can do. Heck they would had a tough time getting the option year out of me. I think a better use of those funds would be using it to lock up youngsters now before their cost gets prohibitive.

TRF
12-05-2010, 02:08 PM
it is a gamble, but it also sends a message to agents and players that the team is rewarding success. It gives FA's something to think about rather than avoid.

Big Klu
12-05-2010, 06:51 PM
I looked for doowop and shamalamadingdong on wikipedia and it mentioned something about "Otis! My man!" Didn't say anything about sabrmetrics :confused:;)

http://j.bdbphotos.com/pictures/I/7/I7N9A6U.jpg

savafan
12-05-2010, 08:46 PM
http://j.bdbphotos.com/pictures/I/7/I7N9A6U.jpg

You know how old Otis Nixon is? He's 206.

REDREAD
12-06-2010, 12:01 AM
I know that Bronson is a popular player. I get that. What I don't get is why did this extension have to get done now? If a discount was given, then I understand it, but there wasn't a discount. This is a deal that could have been done at the end of next season. You never know what will happen to a player during any given season. It just seems a little risky to make this type of deal a year before you really need to do it.

My guess is that if the Reds had waited until the end of 2011 season, Bronson would've tested the FA waters.. I mean, why wouldn't he?

Bronson has been one of the better players on the Reds the last few years. I'm thrilled he wants to stay.. According to someone's WAR analysis, maybe we are paying him an extra 2-3 million year.. I can live with that. A team like the Reds can't just go out and sign whatever free agent they want at market price. Who is to say that Lily or Garland would want to come here?

Walt knows what he's doing. I think Arroyo will earn his money. This deal only added 2 years to this contract. I can live with that.

As I said earlier, we are finally in a position where we shouldn't be worried about optimizing run differential per dollar. Bronson is a key part of the team now. It's good to retain him and send the message that the Reds are serious about trying to contend every year.

Thank you Cast and Walt for bringing this franchise back to life. It's always risky to give big money to a pitcher, but Bronson is as good of a risk as anyone.

OnBaseMachine
12-07-2010, 12:23 PM
From John Fay:

Heard Arroyo's contract defers money for 2011. Not sure how much. Could give #Reds some wiggle room.

http://twitter.com/johnfayman

TRF
12-07-2010, 04:59 PM
Yes, the mentality needs to change. Times are different now. This is a much different ballgame for the Reds. I am more comfortable giving this money to BA now than I was in 2006.

This makes zero sense. You harped on this deal when it was WK, but praise it when it's Jocketty making the deal. Since you likely have no idea why the first deal was made you have to look at each deal with the facts available.

FACT: neither deal NEEDED to be made at the time. Arroyo was under Reds control for the upcoming season(s)

FACT: the money is about the same.

FACT: BA is seen as a stabilizing piece of the rotation, then and now.

The Reds needed Bronson in 2008 (BTW the extension was given in 2008, not 2006.) That contract and Harang's laid the foundation for the contracts that followed. Short 3-4 year deals for 10+ mil per season. Enough money to entice players and their agents without hamstringing the club with an aging player making 15+M (Werth).

I really see no way you can defend this contract (I like it) based on your previous stance.

OnBaseMachine
12-11-2010, 01:15 PM
Ken Rosenthal has the details of the contract.


Arroyo will receive $6.5 million in 2011 and $7 million in ’12, according to contract information obtained by FOXSports.com. His 2013 salary is $18 million, but all but $3 million will be deferred without interest.



http://mlbbuzz.yardbarker.com/blog/mlbbuzz/details_of_arroyos_deferrals/3773788

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 02:20 PM
Ken Rosenthal has the details of the contract.



http://mlbbuzz.yardbarker.com/blog/mlbbuzz/details_of_arroyos_deferrals/3773788

Interesting structure. As long as they account for the deferral properly, this is good stuff.

Edd Roush
12-11-2010, 02:20 PM
Ken Rosenthal has the details of the contract.



http://mlbbuzz.yardbarker.com/blog/mlbbuzz/details_of_arroyos_deferrals/3773788

Those terms certainly change my opinion of the deal. Major financial relief over the entirety of the deal. I am now in favor of the deal. Still don't want to lock up another pitcher to a long-term deal not named Greinke.

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 02:22 PM
This makes zero sense. You harped on this deal when it was WK, but praise it when it's Jocketty making the deal. Since you likely have no idea why the first deal was made you have to look at each deal with the facts available.

FACT: neither deal NEEDED to be made at the time. Arroyo was under Reds control for the upcoming season(s)

FACT: the money is about the same.

FACT: BA is seen as a stabilizing piece of the rotation, then and now.

The Reds needed Bronson in 2008 (BTW the extension was given in 2008, not 2006.) That contract and Harang's laid the foundation for the contracts that followed. Short 3-4 year deals for 10+ mil per season. Enough money to entice players and their agents without hamstringing the club with an aging player making 15+M (Werth).

I really see no way you can defend this contract (I like it) based on your previous stance.

Extension was given after 2006 season, actual date was 2/8/07. I was 39 days off.

And you forget that the team is in a different state right now. I can't understand why this keeps getting lost in these discussions. Timing is everything.

membengal
12-11-2010, 04:07 PM
Oh good grief, edabbs, if Krivsky hadn't extended him when he did, Bronson wouldn't be available to extend now by Jocketty. I am flabberstunned at the contortions you are undertaking to differentiate the two situations.

TheNext44
12-11-2010, 04:26 PM
Extension was given after 2006 season, actual date was 2/8/07. I was 39 days off.

And you forget that the team is in a different state right now. I can't understand why this keeps getting lost in these discussions. Timing is everything.

I agree with you, the situations and structure of the deal are diferent enough to make it logical to like one deal over the other. Although to be fair, we only know this now, after the details have been revealed.

The first extension was after a career year, and paid him as if that was his true talent level. It also was done before it needed to be done, and the Reds got nothing in return for it being executed early. In fact, by executing it when they did, they ended up paying more than they would have if they waited, since salaries on average dropped considerably the next few seasons.

This second extension was done early so it could reduce the amount due this season, and defer a large chunk of it for way after Bronson retires. It didn't need to be done now, but doing it now saved the Reds payflex all three years.

Like I've been saying over and over again. we can't judge this seond extension until we know the details. Now that we know the details, it looks like a very smart move.

mth123
12-11-2010, 04:34 PM
W/O the first extension Arroyo probably isn't a Red in 2010 and the Reds don't make the play-offs.

He was signed to hold down a spot in the rotation while providing competent innings. The Reds weren't exactly flush with replacements and were turning to guys like Josh Fogg, Luke Hudson, Matt Belisle, the Lizard, etc. I think the Reds got exactly what they paid for.

TheNext44
12-11-2010, 04:37 PM
W/O the first extension Arroyo probably isn't a Red in 2010 and the Reds don't make the play-offs.

He was signed to hold down a spot in the rotation while providing competent innings. The Reds weren't exactly flush with replacements and were turning to guys like Josh Fogg, Luke Hudson, Matt Belisle, the Lizard, etc. I think the Reds got exactly what they paid for.

The first extension worked out and was a good idea. The timing and details of it... not so much.

mth123
12-11-2010, 04:40 PM
The first extension worked out and was a good idea. The timing and details of it... not so much.

I get the timing aspect of it all, but I'm guesing that the first extension will prove to have been a much better idea than the second.

TheNext44
12-11-2010, 06:04 PM
I get the timing aspect of it all, but I'm guesing that the first extension will prove to have been a much better idea than the second.

This new extension only adds around $4M to the payroll total over the next 3 seaons.

He was due $13M in 2011. He is now due $17M over the next three with $15M deferred.

He gets:

2011: $6.5M saving $7.5M in payflex in 2011.
2012: $7.5M about what he should be worth.
2013: $3M with $15M deferred.

The Reds get an innings eater for three seasons, save payflex this year, and add a very fair amount the next two. I'd say that's at least as smart as the first one.

Will M
12-11-2010, 07:05 PM
Serious question: We have heard that the 2011 payroll will be slightly higher than 2010. Then we keep hearing from various places that the Reds are 'at payroll'. Yet here is $6.5M off the books for 2011 ($13M we would have paid Bronson minus the $6.5M we actually will pay him). Even with an $80M payroll I thought that the team had a few million dollars left before the restructuring of Bronson's deal. Now add $6.5M to that. So is the team really 'at payroll'? Or is there some money left?

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 08:30 PM
Oh good grief, edabbs, if Krivsky hadn't extended him when he did, Bronson wouldn't be available to extend now by Jocketty. I am flabberstunned at the contortions you are undertaking to differentiate the two situations.

The two situations are different, with or without contortions. Timing is key.

TRF
12-11-2010, 09:11 PM
The two situations are different, with or without contortions. Timing is key.

wrong. again.

Timing isn't everything when you are trying to change a culture of losing. You keep ignoring that.

If you have an owner committed to winning and willing to expand payroll, Signing Harang, Arroyo and Cordero are EXACTLY what you do.

There is no 2010 division title without Krivsky's foundation.

edabbs44
12-11-2010, 09:17 PM
There is no 2010 division title without Krivsky's foundation.

I'm not sure that anyone has said anything disputing that.

mth123
12-11-2010, 09:48 PM
The two situations are different, with or without contortions. Timing is key.

If you ask me, your logic concerning the timing is backwards. At the end of 2007, this team couldn't get a reasonable pitcher to look twice in its direction. It had a couple young guys who were touted and some lesser young guys behind them that the team hoped would develop. That can't be done with a bunch of kids and 5 inning pitchers filling the rotation. Arroyo represented more than his fair share of competitive innings. Innings that would provide a foundation for the staff and allow those kids to develop. The Reds had no internal option to do the job Arroyo does (still don't for 2011) and little hope of acquiring one. Signing him was a move that made sense at the time IMO.

Now, OTOH. the team has many internal options, and, based on its play-off appearance and young core, is a place where available arms won't give the automatic no. The timing now says Arroyo is less likely to be a necessity after 2011 and, if some one like him is needed, would be obtainable within the confines of his salary slot. There is less need to extend him today than there was last go around. The reported discount in 2011 is pretty good, so if the Reds use that savings to add a significant piece then the trade off is probably still worth it. My first reaction was to hate the extension now, but if the right acquisition is made as a result of it, I'd change that position. We'll have to wait and see what happens.

Will M
12-12-2010, 04:13 AM
Ken Rosenthal has the details of the contract.



http://mlbbuzz.yardbarker.com/blog/mlbbuzz/details_of_arroyos_deferrals/3773788

"The players’ union, accounting for the deferrals, says the present-day value of Arroyo’s deal is $28.9 million"

So in essence the contract adds $15.9M in todays dollars to sign him for 2012 & 2013.

Griffey012
12-12-2010, 12:49 PM
"The players’ union, accounting for the deferrals, says the present-day value of Arroyo’s deal is $28.9 million"

So in essence the contract adds $15.9M in todays dollars to sign him for 2012 & 2013.

And Arroyo at 8 million per is not to shabby.

backbencher
12-12-2010, 01:15 PM
This new extension only adds around $4M to the payroll total over the next 3 seaons.



They will have to account for the deferrals during the '11-'13 seasons, so the payroll hit in '12 and '13 is likely at least the $8MM per year that players' union projects (net of the benefits of the '11 deferral), and probably more.

Still, it's enough for me to get past my misgivings of extending Arroyo. That's a very solid deal.

MattyHo4Life
12-12-2010, 01:52 PM
Jocketty is the master at deferring salaries. It can be helpful when it's needed. I'm not sure it was needed in this instance. The problem you run into is that when too many players agree to deferring salaries, then you have a lof of money owed in the future and it affects the future payroll. That can be a problem when your younger guys need extended. I'm doubtful about deferring money in this case, because I don't really think you guys need Arroyo past this season. You have enough young pitchers, and this may only tempt Walt to trade some of that younger talent for aging vets.

TheNext44
12-12-2010, 02:23 PM
They will have to account for the deferrals during the '11-'13 seasons, so the payroll hit in '12 and '13 is likely at least the $8MM per year that players' union projects (net of the benefits of the '11 deferral), and probably more.

Still, it's enough for me to get past my misgivings of extending Arroyo. That's a very solid deal.

Thanks. I'm not smart enough to understand how these referrals work in terms of yearly payroll, but that makes sense.

I do know that Linder cheated by counting all of Griffey's deferred money towards each year's payroll as an excuse to not spend money on improving the team. This was particularly insulting since Griffey agreed to defer money for the sole purpose of freeing up money to improve the team.

I have a feeling the opposite will happen with Cast. While technically counting the deferred money each year into payflex, I can see where he just raises the payroll knowing that he's not really spending all the money each year. So if Arroyo is due $6.5M this year, but the deferred money takes him up to $9.5M, I could see Cast just adding $3M to the payroll, especially if it let's him get a player he wants.

TheNext44
12-12-2010, 02:28 PM
Jocketty is the master at deferring salaries. It can be helpful when it's needed. I'm not sure it was needed in this instance. The problem you run into is that when too many players agree to deferring salaries, then you have a lof of money owed in the future and it affects the future payroll. That can be a problem when your younger guys need extended. I'm doubtful about deferring money in this case, because I don't really think you guys need Arroyo past this season. You have enough young pitchers, and this may only tempt Walt to trade some of that younger talent for aging vets.

Good points. But the benefit of (and main reason for) this deferred deal is that it frees up payflex this year when the payroll is a bit tight.

You are right, however, that he can't keep doing this without hurting future payrolls.

IslandRed
12-12-2010, 02:29 PM
If this is structured the way most deferrals are, the Reds will be funding an annuity, so the $15 million in deferred money will cost the Reds somewhat less than that out of pocket. Without knowing the funding structure, we know how much Arroyo will be receiving in salary for the next three seasons, but we don't know for certain how much it'll count towards the payroll each year or if the funding will take money out of the Reds' coffers beyond 2013. But given the way his salaries are, we'd suspect the bulk of it is being funded in the third year.

mth123
12-12-2010, 02:49 PM
Thanks. I'm not smart enough to understand how these referrals work in terms of yearly payroll, but that makes sense.

I do know that Linder cheated by counting all of Griffey's deferred money towards each year's payroll as an excuse to not spend money on improving the team. This was particularly insulting since Griffey agreed to defer money for the sole purpose of freeing up money to improve the team.

I have a feeling the opposite will happen with Cast. While technically counting the deferred money each year into payflex, I can see where he just raises the payroll knowing that he's not really spending all the money each year. So if Arroyo is due $6.5M this year, but the deferred money takes him up to $9.5M, I could see Cast just adding $3M to the payroll, especially if it let's him get a player he wants.

He didn't cheat though. He funded those deferrals by putting aside money at present value to fund higher costs down the road. It still got him a cash discount on the deal w/o a massive mortgage to be paid now. I'm sure that the amount that the Reds budgeted took the payments into the annuity into account. That is still a discount, but not for the entire amount of the deferral.

I hope the Reds do something similar now with Arroyo. I like the discount, but the Reds budget beyond 2013 doesn't need to be constrained by funding Arroyo's deferral. If they can pay Arroyo $3 Million in 2013 and put say $10 Million in an annuity that pays out the $15 Million over time, its still a significant discount w/o affecting the future. Maybe they should even stick a million or two in 2011 and 2012 into the annuity since Arroyo has given such a large discount in those years. Its better than giving it to another Miguel Cairo.

Brutus
12-12-2010, 02:55 PM
If this is structured the way most deferrals are, the Reds will be funding an annuity, so the $15 million in deferred money will cost the Reds somewhat less than that out of pocket. Without knowing the funding structure, we know how much Arroyo will be receiving in salary for the next three seasons, but we don't know for certain how much it'll count towards the payroll each year or if the funding will take money out of the Reds' coffers beyond 2013. But given the way his salaries are, we'd suspect the bulk of it is being funded in the third year.

Basically the club is required to fund a certain dollar amount (I believe $2 or $3 million) in an escrow account to cover deferrals. Payments are made out of the escrow account and it's simply replenished.

Some clubs pay annuities, but deferrals most generally are not technically an annuity (though obviously the concept is the same).

IslandRed
12-12-2010, 03:24 PM
Basically the club is required to fund a certain dollar amount (I believe $2 or $3 million) in an escrow account to cover deferrals. Payments are made out of the escrow account and it's simply replenished.

Some clubs pay annuities, but deferrals most generally are not technically an annuity (though obviously the concept is the same).

I guess it would mostly depend on the terms -- how many years until the player start drawing money, how many years will he draw it -- as to whether it's worth the trouble to set up an actual annuity or whether it's just deferred cash.

TheNext44
12-12-2010, 03:25 PM
He didn't cheat though. He funded those deferrals by putting aside money at present value to fund higher costs down the road. It still got him a cash discount on the deal w/o a massive mortgage to be paid now. I'm sure that the amount that the Reds budgeted took the payments into the annuity into account. That is still a discount, but not for the entire amount of the deferral.

I hope the Reds do something similar now with Arroyo. I like the discount, but the Reds budget beyond 2013 doesn't need to be constrained by funding Arroyo's deferral. If they can pay Arroyo $3 Million in 2013 and put say $10 Million in an annuity that pays out the $15 Million over time, its still a significant discount w/o affecting the future. Maybe they should even stick a million or two in 2011 and 2012 into the annuity since Arroyo has given such a large discount in those years. Its better than giving it to another Miguel Cairo.

Sorry, I didn't mean he literally cheated. I just meant that he lied to Griffey.

Griffey re-worked his contract to defer money for the sole purpose of freeing up money for the Reds to use to improve the team. However, Linder used Griffey's whole salary every year in the payroll, making it seem higher than it really was, and then saying that they couldn't add any more players because the payroll was too high.

That discount that you are talking about was never used in the official payroll numbers that the Reds released to the press. It was just pocketed by Linder. That's the cheating I was referring to.

mth123
12-12-2010, 03:34 PM
Sorry, I didn't mean he literally cheated. I just meant that he lied to Griffey.

Griffey re-worked his contract to defer money for the sole purpose of freeing up money for the Reds to use to improve the team. However, Linder used Griffey's whole salary every year in the payroll, making it seem higher than it really was, and then saying that they couldn't add any more players because the payroll was too high.

That discount that you are talking about was never used in the official payroll numbers that the Reds released to the press. It was just pocketed by Linder. That's the cheating I was referring to.

Or, the two or three Million per year that he was saving was actually used to buy other players, just not the several Million that Griffey was expecting. If Griffey was deferring say $9 Million per year and the Reds were using $6 Million of it to fund the annuity and the other $3 Million on players, its all that Griffey or anyone else should expect. I hope that deferrals are always handled the way that Griffey's was. No way do I want the team to have to take $15 Million from its operations in the future to pay a long gone Arroyo. If they can save a few Million in 2011 to 2013 by paying into an annuity that pays the deferrals that is great and really all we should expect this "savings" to net the team. No way do I think the entire $15 Million in deferred money should be spent currently. If they can take the cash out to pay that down to $10 Million, then the other $5 can go to add players, but paying the $15 Million to players now and then having to pay it out of future operations to Arroyo later seems like a recipe for disaster IMO.

TheNext44
12-12-2010, 03:54 PM
Or, the two or three Million per year that he was saving was actually used to buy other players, just not the several Million that Griffey was expecting. If Griffey was deferring say $9 Million per year and the Reds were using $6 Million of it to fund the annuity and the other $3 Million on players, its all that Griffey or anyone else should expect.

Only Linder didn't use any of the saving towards players. If Griffey was due $10M, and deferred $5M of it, Linder counted the entire $10M toward payroll that year. I believe that Linder did count it correctly the first year, but then changed it to counting the whole salary the next few years. Once Cast took over, he went back to counting it correctly.

mth123
12-12-2010, 04:05 PM
Only Linder didn't use any of the saving towards players. If Griffey was due $10M, and deferred $5M of it, Linder counted the entire $10M toward payroll that year. I believe that Linder did count it correctly the first year, but then changed it to counting the whole salary the next few years. Once Cast took over, he went back to counting it correctly.

Maybe he reported it that way. How do you know that the number wouldn't have been lower without the savings from the deferral?

TheNext44
12-12-2010, 04:18 PM
Maybe he reported it that way. How do you know that the number wouldn't have been lower without the savings from the deferral?

Lionder reported Griffey's salary as $12.5M nearly every season. That was the exact same salary that was reported for those years when it was signed. However, Griffey had agreed to defer some of that, so he actually recieved less during those years.

mth123
12-12-2010, 05:55 PM
Lionder reported Griffey's salary as $12.5M nearly every season. That was the exact same salary that was reported for those years when it was signed. However, Griffey had agreed to defer some of that, so he actually recieved less during those years.

I know. So maybe it only cost the Reds 10 Million? So if the Reds budget was $70 Million reporting Griffey's money as $12.5, how do you know that the extra $2.5 didn't go to players. Maybe the budget was only $67.5 Million in the first place. If Griffey hadn't deferred, its highly possible the reported number would have just been lower because that $2.5 Million wouldn't have been spent on other players. The Reds would have reported a payroll of $67.5 Million instead of $70.0 and Griffey would have counted the same $12.5 Million that the team was reporting. Don't confuse how it is reported with how much was really available to spend.

MattyHo4Life
12-12-2010, 06:03 PM
Are the Reds still paying on Griffey's salary?

Caveat Emperor
12-12-2010, 06:06 PM
Are the Reds still paying on Griffey's salary?

My understanding was that they were setting money aside for his deferred payments along the way (which, really, defeats the purpose of deferred money entirely), so there's not out of pocket cost to the team right now.

TheNext44
12-12-2010, 06:25 PM
I know. So maybe it only cost the Reds 10 Million? So if the Reds budget was $70 Million reporting Griffey's money as $12.5, how do you know that the extra $2.5 didn't go to players. Maybe the budget was only $67.5 Million in the first place. If Griffey hadn't deferred, its highly possible the reported number would have just been lower because that $2.5 Million wouldn't have been spent on other players. The Reds would have reported a payroll of $67.5 Million instead of $70.0 and Griffey would have counted the same $12.5 Million that the team was reporting. Don't confuse how it is reported with how much was really available to spend.

What you are suggesting is what I think Cast will do. But I am pretty positive that Linder did not do things that way. Why am I positive?

Because Bowden was always trying to make moves to bring in what the Reds needed and was consistently shot down by Linder because the move cost too much. It wasn't until around 2005, way into Griffey's tenure and deferrment deal, that Linder started to spend any money for players in an attempt to improve the team. And we all know how tha turned out.

Bowden had a deal to bring in Rolen the year he went to the Cards, and Linder shot it down because of money. Bowden even made a deal to bring in Chuck Finley that same year and the deal added $100K to the budget, and Linder said no because it added to the budget.

If you want to re-write history and turn Linder into an owner that cared about winning, then go ahead. But there are only a few things that I know with certainty...

Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy...
Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon...
I will always love my dog more than my girlfriend...

and Carl Linder would never spend extra money on payroll when he didn't have to.

mth123
12-12-2010, 06:39 PM
My understanding was that they were setting money aside for his deferred payments along the way (which, really, defeats the purpose of deferred money entirely), so there's not out of pocket cost to the team right now.

It doesn't completely defeat the purpose of the deferral, it just is different than most people's expectations. The purpose of a deferral is to invest lower present value money to pay higher future expenses later. Keeping with the Griffey example, his salary was $12.5 Million with about half deferred. The Reds, for example, may have paid about $10 Million each year with Griffey getting his $6 Million or so, the fund or annuity getting about $4 Million and the other $2.5 Million permanently freed up for investing in other things be it the minor league system or to pay for suspects like Castro, Conine or Cormier. In the future when it comes time to pay Griffey, the fund should have earned enough money on its own to pay the additional $2.5 Million. It does make one wonder though, if the Reds are funding the deferral currently (like I hope) how much they are saving. Investments aren't earning much these days.

This isn't a baseball only thing. Deferrals and setting up funds based on present value dollars to pay future value dollars later is fairly common in business. Baseball is just one of the few places to defer money without setting up funding as they go. Its a way to get in too deep real fast.

mth123
12-12-2010, 06:51 PM
What you are suggesting is what I think Cast will do. But I am pretty positive that Linder did not do things that way. Why am I positive?

Because Bowden was always trying to make moves to bring in what the Reds needed and was consistently shot down by Linder because the move cost too much. It wasn't until around 2005, way into Griffey's tenure and deferrment deal, that Linder started to spend any money for players in an attempt to improve the team. And we all know how tha turned out.

Bowden had a deal to bring in Rolen the year he went to the Cards, and Linder shot it down because of money. Bowden even made a deal to bring in Chuck Finley that same year and the deal added $100K to the budget, and Linder said no because it added to the budget.

If you want to re-write history and turn Linder into an owner that cared about winning, then go ahead. But there are only a few things that I know with certainty...

Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy...
Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon...
I will always love my dog more than my girlfriend...

and Carl Linder would never spend extra money on payroll when he didn't have to.

I'm not a Lindner fan so much, but I think your expectations are off. Bowden was publicly saying stuff about deals and how money would be spent to generate excitement in a dying product. If you base your assumption of how things were by Bowden's statements, that sounds like a house of cards ready to collapse at any moment. Bowden was basically a guy who no one really could believe anything he said. I think he knew exactly how much of the Griffey savings were available, but he knew the fanbase didn't so he used that to try and drum up excitement with some deceptive statements. I think he knew that he didn't have the money for Rolen or Finley.




Lee Harvey Oswald killed John F. Kennedy...
Neil Armstrong was the first man on the moon...
I will always love my dog more than my girlfriend...



and Jim Bowden didn't tell the truth...