PDA

View Full Version : Johnny Cueto Reportedly Close to a 4-Year Extension



camisadelgolf
01-20-2011, 07:28 PM
http://twitter.com/Enrique_Rojas1/statuses/28227795205234688#
4 years, $27MM

UKFlounder
01-20-2011, 07:29 PM
Just saw that.

Wow.

I'm not sure what to think of this, but the team sure is signing its home-grown guys

Brief link found on twitter: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/01/reds-johnny-cueto-agree-to-four-year-extension.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

westofyou
01-20-2011, 07:34 PM
Wow...... I guess that leaves only one remaining question...How will Chris Carpenter tells his son this news?

Buckeye33
01-20-2011, 07:35 PM
An average of 6.75mill/yr. I like it a lot. I'm sure it is spread out like the Bruce and Votto deals have been but it's still a solid signing.

This bought out one of his FA years correct?

hebroncougar
01-20-2011, 07:35 PM
Holy Cow. This shocks the heck out of me.

camisadelgolf
01-20-2011, 07:37 PM
An average of 6.75mill/yr. I like it a lot. I'm sure it is spread out like the Bruce and Votto deals have been but it's still a solid signing.

This bought out one of his FA years correct?
Yes, most likely the first one.

The Operator
01-20-2011, 07:45 PM
Man, they are really doing everything they can to lock up the core of this team.

I'm always scared of long term contracts for pitchers, but I like the pro-activeness of the front office. It's a breath of fresh air.

Benihana
01-20-2011, 07:45 PM
CHEAP is my reaction. Great move IMO.

OnBaseMachine
01-20-2011, 07:52 PM
As a HUGE fan of Johnny Cueto, I love this deal. Nice job by Jocketty. Cueto is an underrated pitcher, IMO.

RedsManRick
01-20-2011, 07:56 PM
My analysis posted in the Fay thread:

According to Enrique Rojas of espndeportes.com (via mlbtraderumors.com), it's done. 4 years, $27M.

By my math, the Reds were already set to get a bargain on Cueto in arbitration and this just continues along those lines.

Cueto was a 2.8 WAR pitcher last year. If we assume just a few reasonable things, the Reds got a steal:


WAR $/WAR Multiplier Earned Salary
2011 2.8 4.50 0.4 $ 5.0
2012 2.8 4.75 0.6 $ 8.0
2013 2.8 5.00 0.8 $11.2
2014 2.8 5.25 1.0 $14.7
$38.9

Matt700wlw
01-20-2011, 08:02 PM
Bob's spending.

It seems as if he's spending on the right people!

I'm glad to be so high on Reds baseball right now....the Bengals gave me nothing, and the Bearcats are unfortunately, still wait and see...

TheNext44
01-20-2011, 08:04 PM
Fangraphs has been taking an extensive look at factors that lead to DL trips for pitchers this week. If I am reading it right (and someone please correct me if I am not) but they seem to suggest that height is not much of a factor in predicting future DL trips. Age obviously was the biggest factor, and weight (being over especially) was the biggest factor when it came to size.

In all, the actually predicted that Cueto was one of the least likely pitchers to go on the DL in the future. I would link, but there are so many articles about it, it would be too difficult. One caveat is that it is based on small sample sizes since there just aren't that many pitchers who last long enough to get enough data, but it was interesting nonetheless.

TheNext44
01-20-2011, 08:07 PM
My analysis posted in the Fay thread:

According to Enrique Rojas of espndeportes.com (via mlbtraderumors.com), it's done. 4 years, $27M.

By my math, the Reds were already set to get a bargain on Cueto in arbitration and this just continues along those lines.

Cueto was a 2.8 WAR pitcher last year. If we assume just a few reasonable things, the Reds got a steal:


WAR $/WAR Multiplier Earned Salary
2011 2.8 4.50 0.4 $ 5.0
2012 2.8 4.75 0.6 $ 8.0
2013 2.8 5.00 0.8 $11.2
2014 2.8 5.25 1.0 $14.7
$38.9

Great stuff. Thanks RMR :thumbup:

So it looks like, if Cueto stays healthy and doesn't decline over the next 4 years, the Reds will be getting his first free agent year almost for free. Looks like a bargain to me. :)

kaldaniels
01-20-2011, 08:08 PM
I love me some free agent years (year). Well done.

Griffey012
01-20-2011, 08:12 PM
I like Cueto, he has been a solid pitcher for us, and can be very good. But I am getting a bit tired of WJ looking to extend our entire team when we have a pretty solid farm system in place, and are not ay risk to losing the players via FA. Mainly I am talking about the Arroyo and Cueto extensions, since pitchers are such volatile assets, especially young ones.

The way I see it is it could turn out to be a bargain but it is just as likely to be an albatross in his 1st FA year. I would have liked to see how Cueto performed this season before pulling an extension. Now days it seems all pitchers go through a TJ surgery at somepoint, and I would hate to see us paying Cueto 8 million when still in his arbitration years if that happens.

I don't mean anything again Cueto in this post, I love him as a pitcher. He has improved every season, and was well above average last season. And I love Arroyo and Votto, I am just scared at all of the committed money being put in place 3 years down the road when it didnt have to be.

RedsManRick
01-20-2011, 08:12 PM
Perhaps I'm more bullish than most, but I really like Cueto and am thrilled with the deal.

The guy is still quite young -- just 25. He has improved every year, particularly in his walks and homers allowed. He's been durable. He's matured mentally, by all accounts. Other than the fact that he's not 6'4" and lanky, what's not to like?

For reference, 43 pitchers made at least 90 starts over the last 3 years. That's not exactly an elite group, but it means there's only 1-2 of those guys per team. Interestingly, Cueto was the 2nd youngest in that group of 43 (Felix Hernandez is 2 months younger).

RedsManRick
01-20-2011, 08:16 PM
I like Cueto, he has been a solid pitcher for us, and can be very good. But I am getting a bit tired of WJ looking to extend our entire team when we have a pretty solid farm system in place, and are not ask risk to losing the players via FA. Mainly I am talking about the Arroyo and Cueto extensions, since pitchers are such volatile assets, especially young ones.

The way I see it is it could turn out to be a bargain but it is just as likely to be an albatross in his 1st FA year. I would have liked to see how Cueto performed this season before pulling an extension. Now days it seems all pitchers go through a TJ surgery at somepoint, and I would hate to see us paying Cueto 8 million when still in his arbitration years if that happens.

I don't mean anything again Cueto in this post, I love him as a pitcher. And I love Arroyo and Votto, I am just scared at all of the committed money being put in place 3 years down the road when it didnt have to be.

On the other hand, if Cueto goes out and throws 200 IP with a 3.40 ERA and 16 wins, he could be asking for $10M next year alone.

Though I agree with your general position about being wary about locking up too many people. I think Arroyo was the big mistake. We got him at or above market value -- no bargain there.

Griffey012
01-20-2011, 08:22 PM
On the other hand, if Cueto goes out and throws 200 IP with a 3.40 ERA and 16 wins, he could be asking for $10M next year alone.

Though I agree with your general position about being wary about locking up too many people. I think Arroyo was the big mistake. We got him at or above market value -- no bargain there.

I am trying to do some research now on pitchers Arb numbers, I am much more familiar with hitters numbers. If anyone has some similar comps to Cueto as far as arb cases or know of any good references please post them or PM me.

marcshoe
01-20-2011, 08:23 PM
Good stuff. imho, Cueto's the pitcher most likely to break big.

RedsManRick
01-20-2011, 08:28 PM
I am trying to do some research now on pitchers Arb numbers, I am much more familiar with hitters numbers. If anyone has some similar comps to Cueto as far as arb cases or know of any good references please post them or PM me.

John Danks is a decent comp and he got $3.45M last year, $6.0M in a pre-arb deal this year.

Matt700wlw
01-20-2011, 08:37 PM
This would be an offseason in which Bob Castellini has committed to $161 million in guaranteed salary.

Oh, and Volquez hasn't been decided yet...

kaldaniels
01-20-2011, 08:44 PM
This would be an offseason in which Bob Castellini has committed to $161 million in guaranteed salary.

Oh, and Volquez hasn't been decided yet...

Anyone dare to extend Edinson long term?.... I'd pass.

TheNext44
01-20-2011, 08:47 PM
I like Cueto, he has been a solid pitcher for us, and can be very good. But I am getting a bit tired of WJ looking to extend our entire team when we have a pretty solid farm system in place, and are not ay risk to losing the players via FA. Mainly I am talking about the Arroyo and Cueto extensions, since pitchers are such volatile assets, especially young ones.

The way I see it is it could turn out to be a bargain but it is just as likely to be an albatross in his 1st FA year. I would have liked to see how Cueto performed this season before pulling an extension. Now days it seems all pitchers go through a TJ surgery at somepoint, and I would hate to see us paying Cueto 8 million when still in his arbitration years if that happens.

I don't mean anything again Cueto in this post, I love him as a pitcher. He has improved every season, and was well above average last season. And I love Arroyo and Votto, I am just scared at all of the committed money being put in place 3 years down the road when it didnt have to be.

I have the complete opposite philosophy.

I think that the best way to maximize the value of long term contracts is to sign as many players to them as possible. Obviously, you need to be choosy about who you sign, but the more you sign, the less the risk is on each one.

Because no one can't predict the future, some long term contracts will cost more than they are worth, some will provide excess value, and some will end up being neutral. If you only sign one or two over a certain period, you run the risk of one of them not working out, and overall losing value on the contracts as a whole. But if you have four or five of them, then one of them being a flop won't hurt you as much.

The key is knowing which players are good bets and which ones are not. I thnk the Reds have done a pretty good job of that so far.

OnBaseMachine
01-20-2011, 08:49 PM
Anyone dare to extend Edinson long term?.... I'd pass.

I would love to see the Reds extend Volquez. I think he's going to be very good over the next few years. His changeup and fastball have always been plus pitches but his curveball really came along this year too and is now an above average pitch. Yeah, he has some control issues but as long as he keeps his walk rate around where it was in 2008 he can be successful.

The Operator
01-20-2011, 08:51 PM
I would love to see the Reds extend Volquez. I think he's going to be very good over the next few years.It would be a very shrewd move if the price was right.

This could be a great time to lock him up on the cheap.

steig
01-20-2011, 08:52 PM
I really like this signing and I hope they sign Edison to a LTD if he goes out and puts up good numbers this season. But I want to see one solid season from Edison after his Tommy John surgery

kaldaniels
01-20-2011, 08:54 PM
It would be a very shrewd move if the price was right.

This could be a great time to lock him up on the cheap.

Define cheap. I could be swayed.

kbrake
01-20-2011, 08:54 PM
I'm a fan of the Cueto deal and would be ok with a Volquez deal though I think it would be in the best interest of Edinson to try and prove what he can do in 2011 before signing any extension.

reds44
01-20-2011, 08:56 PM
I love this deal. Absolutely love it.

lollipopcurve
01-20-2011, 08:59 PM
Very nice.

blumj
01-20-2011, 09:16 PM
I like Cueto, he has been a solid pitcher for us, and can be very good. But I am getting a bit tired of WJ looking to extend our entire team when we have a pretty solid farm system in place, and are not ay risk to losing the players via FA. Mainly I am talking about the Arroyo and Cueto extensions, since pitchers are such volatile assets, especially young ones.

The way I see it is it could turn out to be a bargain but it is just as likely to be an albatross in his 1st FA year. I would have liked to see how Cueto performed this season before pulling an extension. Now days it seems all pitchers go through a TJ surgery at somepoint, and I would hate to see us paying Cueto 8 million when still in his arbitration years if that happens.

I don't mean anything again Cueto in this post, I love him as a pitcher. He has improved every season, and was well above average last season. And I love Arroyo and Votto, I am just scared at all of the committed money being put in place 3 years down the road when it didnt have to be.
It's a risk, but if you wait until you have to sign them, they cost a lot more and you can't afford as many of them.

Griffey012
01-20-2011, 09:21 PM
I have the complete opposite philosophy.

I think that the best way to maximize the value of long term contracts is to sign as many players to them as possible. Obviously, you need to be choosy about who you sign, but the more you sign, the less the risk is on each one.

Because no one can't predict the future, some long term contracts will cost more than they are worth, some will provide excess value, and some will end up being neutral. If you only sign one or two over a certain period, you run the risk of one of them not working out, and overall losing value on the contracts as a whole. But if you have four or five of them, then one of them being a flop won't hurt you as much.

The key is knowing which players are good bets and which ones are not. I thnk the Reds have done a pretty good job of that so far.

Maximizing value does not equate to lowering risk and vice versa. Signing many people to long term contracts would lower the overall risk, but also lower the overall potential of value. Risk/Payoff are positively correlated. So the more risk you take on, the more potential you have to receive a larger payoff. We have taken on a solid amount of risk with all the contracts and have to potential to get a great payoff.

The thing is your analysis here is the exactly how insurance companies operate. They are able to lower the amount of risk and variance of its potential claims by insuring a large number of similar individuals, but we are running a baseball team. Our goal is not solely to minimize risk, but to maximize "profits" or team performance under the constraints of the payroll. The goal is to waste as little money as possible. The more long term contracts we sign, the more potential we have to waste excess money. Not to mention, with the exception of Arroyo, we had all of the players under control anyway, so we did not have to worry about the risk of a long term contract not working out.

Overall we will get a ton of value out of the Bruce deal with little downside risk, and likely a good amount of value out of the Cueto deal but it carries a lot of risk due to him being a pitcher. The Votto deal carries little risk but likely will not have a big payoff compared to what he would have gotten through arb. The Arroyo deal carries a lot of risk for pretty much no payoff in excess of market value.

The Cueto deal in my opinion is a bit more high risk/high reward, I like the deal because I think Cueto is a good pitcher and can become very good. I think I just see more potential risk in the deal than others.

Griffey012
01-20-2011, 09:25 PM
I would love to see the Reds extend Volquez. I think he's going to be very good over the next few years. His changeup and fastball have always been plus pitches but his curveball really came along this year too and is now an above average pitch. Yeah, he has some control issues but as long as he keeps his walk rate around where it was in 2008 he can be successful.

Now would be a great time to buy low on Volquez. I would be all for extending him right now.

corkedbat
01-20-2011, 10:02 PM
Now would be a great time to buy low on Volquez. I would be all for extending him right now.

While many on here aren't enthralled with Volquez, I don't believe the Reds brain trust agrees. I think they see him as the potential number one out of the current crop of starters. While it wouldn't shock me to see them ink him to an LTC now, i think he;ll sign a one-year deal in the next 24 hours and try for a bigger deal next year.

As for the Cueto deal? Big kudos to BCast for stepping it up and to Walt for getting it done. Yeah, I'd have liked at least one year FA on the Votto deal, but overall, with Bronson, Bruce, Joey and Cueto, they're doing what needs to be done.

corkedbat
01-20-2011, 10:08 PM
Wow...... I guess that leaves only one remaining question...How will Chris Carpenter tells his son this news?

"Just shut up and go ask your mother for once kid."

edabbs44
01-20-2011, 10:11 PM
Now would be a great time to buy low on Volquez. I would be all for extending him right now.

The Reds might want to buy low, but does Volquez want to sell low?

PS: I like the direction this team is headed in.

Will M
01-20-2011, 10:22 PM
have we seen the exact details? i'm suprised there isn't a team option/buyout for the 5th year of the deal.

Griffey012
01-20-2011, 10:27 PM
have we seen the exact details? i'm suprised there isn't a team option/buyout for the 5th year of the deal.

I do not believe we have. I am very interested to see the specifics of the deal. If it is spread out evenly it would change my viewpoint of the deal from decent to great.

Homer Bailey
01-20-2011, 11:03 PM
"Just shut up and go ask your mother for once kid."

LOL

PuffyPig
01-20-2011, 11:18 PM
I do not believe we have. I am very interested to see the specifics of the deal. If it is spread out evenly it would change my viewpoint of the deal from decent to great.

Why?

Better for the Reds for it to be backloaded. But in any event, it should approximate what he would have gotten on a yearly basis.

Griffey012
01-20-2011, 11:26 PM
Why?

Better for the Reds for it to be backloaded..

What is your theory behind that? My thinking is that we are not adding anymore money this season via free agency, so I would prefer to see more money than we expect to be paid this season to Cueto. And if the contract turns out to not work out as favorably, it will do less damage during future years if it is spread out evenly.

reds1869
01-20-2011, 11:27 PM
It's a great time to be a Reds fan.

SirFelixCat
01-20-2011, 11:28 PM
I really like this signing and I hope they sign Edison to a LTD if he goes out and puts up good numbers this season. But I want to see one solid season from Edison after his Tommy John surgery

And there's the rub. You probably could sign him long term (3-4 years) pretty cheap right now, next season, maybe notsomuch. I think it's worth the risk since TJ surgery isn't THAT big of a deal nowadays, vs, say, a shoulder/labrum issue.

RedFanAlways1966
01-20-2011, 11:29 PM
After suffering through years (and years...) of reclamation projects on the mound, color me as impressed. I am willing to take a 4-yr risk on a good young arm. This ain't Eric Milton. Nice to see an owner-and-FO who does not forget the years (and years...) of high 4 and low 5 ERAs from the starting staff.

SirFelixCat
01-20-2011, 11:30 PM
After suffering through years (and years...) of reclamation projects on the mound, color me as impressed. I am willing to take a 4-yr risk on a good young arm. This ain't Eric Milton. Nice to see an owner-and-FO who does not forget the years (and years...) of high 4 and low 5 ERAs from the starting staff.

:thumbup::thumbup::thumbup:

Ghosts of 1990
01-20-2011, 11:37 PM
I'm happy about this.

Reds have been in line with what I wanted to see this offseason--go the way of those 90s Indians teams who locked up their young talent and created a window to win. I think we're creating a lot of fixed costs so we know exactly what we have to spend. I'm really happy with what they've done with Bruce and Cueto especially. Winning organizations do this.

MikeS21
01-21-2011, 12:10 AM
I'm happy about this.

Reds have been in line with what I wanted to see this offseason--go the way of those 90s Indians teams who locked up their young talent and created a window to win. I think we're creating a lot of fixed costs so we know exactly what we have to spend. I'm really happy with what they've done with Bruce and Cueto especially. Winning organizations do this.
Either that or the Reds FO is setting up a tremendous fire sale come 2013. Time will tell.

WVPacman
01-21-2011, 12:33 AM
I like this signing alot and it shows me this front office is willing to do anything to keep our core of players on this team.Cueto is imo over looked by the media and deserves more credit than what he is getting.He is another player that the reds had to keep if they want to continue winning and going to the playoffs.Great move reds!!:thumbup:

Caveat Emperor
01-21-2011, 02:27 AM
Not a fan of this deal. Cueto would have been my #1 target to move this offseason for an impact bat / impact prospect at SS or LF.

Ron Madden
01-21-2011, 03:20 AM
Looks pretty good to me. :)

mth123
01-21-2011, 04:44 AM
Decent deal. 4th year might be iffy.

fearofpopvol1
01-21-2011, 05:16 AM
Love this deal. I would have actually been in favor of a 5 year deal...but I understand that may have been unrealistic. Cueto has been very very good for the Reds. I think the Reds come out ahead here.

KronoRed
01-21-2011, 05:43 AM
Neat.

GAC
01-21-2011, 07:30 AM
Anyone dare to extend Edinson long term?.... I'd pass.

Someone else with more knowledge can weigh in on this, but with only a little over 2 yrs of ML service how many arb years are left? Because that is the route I'd take until he starts to re-establish himself.

redsfandan
01-21-2011, 08:37 AM
Someone else with more knowledge can weigh in on this, but with only a little over 2 yrs of ML service how many arb years are left? Because that is the route I'd take until he starts to re-establish himself.

Not positive but I think next year (2012) is his last year. Anyone else know for sure?

redsmetz
01-21-2011, 08:45 AM
Not positive but I think next year (2012) is his last year. Anyone else know for sure?

According to Baseball Reference, last year was his first arbitration year (if I'm reading it correctly) and lists 2014 as his free agency season.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/volqued01.shtml

RFS62
01-21-2011, 09:04 AM
Very nice. Everything we're doing seems so different than the past few years.

It's like the hope we ratchet up every offseason is actually not false hope now.

camisadelgolf
01-21-2011, 09:08 AM
According to Baseball Reference, last year was his first arbitration year (if I'm reading it correctly) and lists 2014 as his free agency season.

http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/v/volqued01.shtml
You're misreading it--this is his first arbitration year. 2013 should be his last arbitration year.

redsmetz
01-21-2011, 09:29 AM
You're misreading it--this is his first arbitration year. 2013 should be his last arbitration year.

I suspected I was (not the clearest way to put it), so thanks for clarifying. I did seem to get the Free Agency year correct. In the back of my mind, I kept telling myself that the big four were all first year arbs in 2011.

dunner13
01-21-2011, 09:36 AM
Love this move, seems like we are finally turning from a small market team that "trys" to compete with washed up vets and AAAA players to more of a mid market team that has some talent. Hopefully over the next few years the fans will turn out and the reds can raise the payroll to around 100million and keep a few of these guys long term and avoid a big fire sale.

bucksfan2
01-21-2011, 09:55 AM
I am not a huge Cueto fan. I don't like his physical and mental makeup. Im not saying that I don't want him in the Reds rotation, just that as mentioned by Caveat above he would have been my key trading piece this off season.

That said I have no issues with the deal. It has the potential to be a solid deal for the Reds and also increases Cueto's trade value. He will only be 29-30 by the end of this deal and still in the prime. Its really a solid deal to me and I have no issues with Cueto being in the Reds rotation for the foreseeable future.

As for Volquez there is no way I extend him. Over the course of the last couple of years he has undergone TJ surgery and also spent a 50 game ped suspension. While Volquez has shown a half season of being a TOR starter (maybe we need to get Javy back and have him say "put him in the bullpen or whatever") but other than that it has been inconsistency. I don't know if he will ever gain the consistency and it would be a huge risk in buying out his arb years. Its a risk that I would not take.

MikeS21
01-21-2011, 10:24 AM
Is it just me, or is the Cincinnati Enquirer saying that this is NOT a done deal yet? Walt is saying it is not a done deal yet.

http://news.cincinnati.com/article/20110120/SPT04/101210371/1071/Reds-Cueto-close-to-deal


ESPN Deportes reported that the deal, worth $27 million, is done.

Reds general manager Walt Jocketty denied that.

"We're working on a multiyear deal," Jocketty said. "A number of things have to be worked out."

redsfandan
01-21-2011, 10:35 AM
I think ESPN Deportes sometimes jumps the gun.

medford
01-21-2011, 11:02 AM
Even if you think Cueto is a good choice to be traded, I'm not sure how this deal (if true) hurts. I guess it shows they have no plans to trade him over ST, but if I'm on the other end of the deal, I like the certainty in the contract. If Cueto falls of the cliff, then his trade value falls off significantly as well. If Cueto remains the same as he was last year, then as previously pointed out, this looks like a good deal for the Reds and would increase his trade value as you'd be getting better results than you'd be paying for. If Cueto takes the next step and explodes into an All star game regular over the next 2 seasons, then this deal is incredibly cheap and would would explode Cueto's trade value as well.

I wouldn't mind seeing them extend Volquez as well, especially if they can get a bargain following the injury/suspension. However, the Reds have to have less confidence in Volquez going forward being able to get back to what he was. TJS isn't what it used to be, but there's no garuntee he recovers his all star level performance. I like his chances though, so for the right price I'd be a fan. However, if I'm Edison, I'd be inclined to wait a year if I felt like my arm was 100% and stood a good chance to reclaim that level of previous performance. He could leave a lot of money on the table if he extends a LTD now.

camisadelgolf
01-21-2011, 11:02 AM
I'm sure a physical is one of the things that first must be accomplished.

Hoosier Red
01-21-2011, 11:11 AM
Maybe we should change the thread title to Johnny Cueto agrees(or is close to agreeing) to a 4 year extension?

camisadelgolf
01-21-2011, 11:29 AM
Maybe we should change the thread title to Johnny Cueto agrees(or is close to agreeing) to a 4 year extension?
That would certainly be more accurate. :thumbup:

Edskin
01-21-2011, 11:52 AM
LTC's are inherent risks, especially in MLB where the money is astronomical and the contracts are guaranteed. There is always the risk that a player will get paid and stop working or get injured, etc...

The only way to avoid these risks is to not give out LTC's; which is to say, to not be able to compete on the field for any amount of sustained timeframe.

Life is a risk, but the successful people take measured risks; what Walt has done this off-season is 100% and ABSOLUTELY what a team with budget contsraints needs to do...lock up young players before they become too expensive and fill out the roster with productive and proven vets.

I'm just thrilled with the direction Walt has taken the Reds....can hardly wipe the smile off my face right now.

Caveat Emperor
01-21-2011, 12:06 PM
I'm just thrilled with the direction Walt has taken the Reds....can hardly wipe the smile off my face right now.

This I agree with. I'm very happy the Reds are showing a financial commitment to organization-developed talent. My only quibble is with who they're giving the money to, in this case.

OnBaseMachine
01-21-2011, 01:01 PM
From John Fay:


The spending spree shows Castellini knows the price of doing business in baseball. The way the deals are structured seems to indicate that the Reds are expecting a steady rise in attendance. Arroyo, Bruce and Cueto will only make a total of about $13 million in 2010.



http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2011/01/21/that-would-buy-a-whole-lot-of-produce/

redsfandan
01-21-2011, 01:39 PM
The spending spree shows Castellini knows the price of doing business in baseball. The way the deals are structured seems to indicate that the Reds are expecting a steady rise in attendance. Arroyo, Bruce and Cueto will only make a total of about $13 million in 2010.

Time warp baby! :)

Hoosier Red
01-21-2011, 01:59 PM
One thing I was thinking of, when's the contract with FSO scheduled to end?

We all think of the increased revenues as attendance, and that's a part of it, but more than anything, I'd think it makes sense to backload the contracts to a date after FSO renews(at what I would assume is a higher price.)

If I remember correctly, while attendance didn't really see a huge bump, FSO's ratings for the year were well above previous years.

Bumstead
01-21-2011, 02:08 PM
Nice signing! Cueto is solid and the $$ aren't huge. He's certainly worth the risk in my book.

Bum

REDREAD
01-21-2011, 02:37 PM
On the other hand, if Cueto goes out and throws 200 IP with a 3.40 ERA and 16 wins, he could be asking for $10M next year alone.
.

I agree. This is a great signing. Removes a free agent year. He will be under 30 for the length of the deal. If the Reds ever want to trade him, this makes it more attractive.

Sure, signing any pitcher for more than 1 year is a risk, but going year to year is risky too.

I really applaud Walt and Cast. They are doing their best to ensure this team is contending for the long term.

Of all the pitchers the Reds had with contract uncertainty, Cueto is the one I wanted to commit long term.

jojo
01-21-2011, 02:49 PM
Barring injury, Cueto is a good bet to be worth that contract. In my mind, the real question is how much surplus value will he produce. It's not crazy to suggest the final two years could be surplus. Also, if the contract details are accurate, that's a easily tradeable contract so the Reds even have an exit strategy. Aside from the fact pitchers always seem to be an injury risk, the Reds haven't really stuck their neck out on this one IMHO.

Griffey012
01-21-2011, 03:26 PM
From John Fay:



http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2011/01/21/that-would-buy-a-whole-lot-of-produce/

That's what scares me the most. What if we don't improve on last season and what if attendance doesn't jump?

reds44
01-21-2011, 03:40 PM
That's what scares me the most. What if we don't improve on last season and what if attendance doesn't jump?

http://static.guim.co.uk/sys-images/Business/Pix/pictures/2008/05/16/fire460.jpg

The Operator
01-21-2011, 04:31 PM
That's what scares me the most. What if we don't improve on last season and what if attendance doesn't jump?I think it's fair to assume at least some sort of significant attendance boost after winning the division.

At some point The Reds have to take a few risks to propel themselves into the echelon of consistent winners as far as franchises go. I like what they are doing. The worst outcome is they end up having to trade players that they would have otherwise lost anyway, so there's not much downside in my view.

edabbs44
01-21-2011, 06:06 PM
That's what scares me the most. What if we don't improve on last season and what if attendance doesn't jump?

Bob tears it down and gives a big middle finger to the city.

Mario-Rijo
01-22-2011, 09:04 AM
That's what scares me the most. What if we don't improve on last season and what if attendance doesn't jump?

Attendance is likely to improve at least marginally this season I would think. Just bringing back some of those who have been waiting on a commitment from the organization should give a bit of a boost. Maybe one could see an improvement as the season wore on last season and then use that prorated increase as an indicator for this season. 2012 (and beyond) is the year(s) that the Reds need to start concerning themselves with. They need to steal some of the fans back that Atlanta stole away the past decade, at least that would be a good start.

REDREAD
01-24-2011, 05:57 PM
I think they will get an attendence boost next year.
Winning the division and being competitive for a few years is going to be necessary to win back all the fans that Allen and Lindner alienated.
It's too bad the recession is going on now.. But on the plus side, the Indians are in a downturn so hopefully we will pick up some fair weather fans from the area.

After so long of the Reds being totally irrelevant, the fans might not come back immediately. Some will come back next year, but it's going to be hard to win back fans that stopped following the team 5 years ago.

Chip R
01-25-2011, 01:33 AM
Attendance is likely to improve at least marginally this season I would think. Just bringing back some of those who have been waiting on a commitment from the organization should give a bit of a boost. Maybe one could see an improvement as the season wore on last season and then use that prorated increase as an indicator for this season. 2012 (and beyond) is the year(s) that the Reds need to start concerning themselves with. They need to steal some of the fans back that Atlanta stole away the past decade, at least that would be a good start.

Attendance should increase but even in the best of times, most Reds fans are a wait-and-see bunch. If the team doesn't start out well and loses a significant player to injury, the fans may not decide to go out and watch a sub-par team.

Plus Plus
01-25-2011, 01:55 AM
Attendance should increase but even in the best of times, most Reds fans are a wait-and-see bunch. If the team doesn't start out well and loses a significant player to injury, the fans may not decide to go out and watch a sub-par team.

For what it's worth, I read somewhere that a number of Bengals fans are planning on canceling season ticket packages at PBS in order to start picking up tickets for GABP. It's a shame that it took one of the two franchises failing in order for some of these people to pursue Reds' tickets, but it could lead to an increased fanbase (and revenue) should the Reds keep winning.

Ron Madden
01-25-2011, 04:12 AM
I have my doubts about just how much the failure of the Bengals will boost the Reds attendance figures.

The Bengals suck more often than not. Granted the Reds were in shambles the past 15 years as well but I believe there is a difference between most Baseball Fans and most Football Fans.

Some of us enjoy both sports but I believe most Football Fans are fans of an event. They might pony up for Reds Opining Day, playoff, or WS tickets but I don't think they'll attend very many week night games during the summer. If that makes any sense.

westofyou
01-25-2011, 11:06 AM
Two different sports, two completely different fan bases and game patterns, can't see the demise of ones season making the others surge.

And if that's something that the city has to depend on (having one team suck) to get the other team to stay on pace with the rest of the nations fan bases then I'd suggest that they let one of the franchises leave, because both franchises need to thrive, and not at the expense of the other teams in town.

medford
01-25-2011, 12:40 PM
I think you'll see a couple of things happen. I think most fans have the belief that this isn't a 1 or 2 year thing that the Reds have going on, but are set up to sustain success over the next 5-10 years, and hopefully beyond. I think most see an ownership group that is committed to winning, verse another group in town that many don't even know if they would prefer to win, but obviously aren't going to the same measures as the Reds to put a winner on the field.

1st, as has been pointed out, many Reds fans have been a come when they're doing well, staying at home when their struggling. This was the group that lead to strong attendance towards the end of last season. The guy who planned to maybe go to 3 or 4 games when the season started, but as the winning continued thru summer, found themselves going to 8-10 games. Having a feeling that this season should continue the winning ways, I think this type of fan will be more inclined to purchase a ticket pack now, perhaps save a little money, have some certainty on their seat location each time out, etc.. It probably doesn't boost attendance a ton if things continue to go well, but obviously helps out if things go south, or someone else in the division runs away with things.

2nd, I know several business' that had trouble giving tickets away over the last couple of years to Bengals games. Probably the same businesses that saw their tickets being regularly used by employees and clients last year w/ the Reds. A smart business move would be to pick up a couple extra season tickets to the Reds and dropping or reducing the Bengals tickets.

another side factor is the Banks. As things are up and running down there, as well as down at the Casino a few years later, it gives the average fan something to do in addition to the Reds game w/o having to climb in their car and find another spot. May not affect the fans in Hyde Park or Covington much, but the fans coming from farther away, Mason, Dayton, Florence, etc... where you can get 6-8 hours of entertainment all in 1 trip has to be more appealling.

backbencher
01-25-2011, 01:40 PM
Two different sports, two completely different fan bases and game patterns, can't see the demise of ones season making the others surge.

And if that's something that the city has to depend on (having one team suck) to get the other team to stay on pace with the rest of the nations fan bases then I'd suggest that they let one of the franchises leave, because both franchises need to thrive, and not at the expense of the other teams in town.

But it sets up a fun question -- on October 1, 2011, which team will be in a position to play more meaningful games the rest of the year?

Chip R
01-26-2011, 11:07 AM
For what it's worth, I read somewhere that a number of Bengals fans are planning on canceling season ticket packages at PBS in order to start picking up tickets for GABP. It's a shame that it took one of the two franchises failing in order for some of these people to pursue Reds' tickets, but it could lead to an increased fanbase (and revenue) should the Reds keep winning.


Hopefully they follow through on their plans. Take it with a large grain of salt and consider the source but on the HSL last week, a caller mentioned how his group had lunch with Bob and I guess Bob said something like the Reds have only sold 10,000 season tickets. And there is a history of Reds fans not supporting the team in person until they are convinced they are contenders. Remember 2001? The Reds had back to back winning seasons, the magic from 1999 was still fresh in everyone's minds and Jr. was about to start his 2nd year with the Reds and, after a slow start, finished 2000 with .271/.387/.556 with 40 bombs and 118 RBIs. The Reds drew 2.5M they year before which, IIRC, was 2nd in franchise history only to the BRM of 1976. During ST, Jr. suffered an injury and due not only to Jr.'s injury but also to an atrocious pitching staff, the Reds won only 70 games and attendance dropped to 1.87M.

God forbid something like that happens again but I'm sure there were a lot of people that planned on going to Reds games in 2001 but with the loss of Jr. and the poor performance of the team, the majority of those people changed their minds.

OnBaseMachine
01-26-2011, 03:00 PM
From the Reds twitter page:

RHP Johnny Cueto avoids arbitration by signing a 4-year contract through the 2014 season with a club option for 2015.

http://twitter.com/CincinnatiReds

Club option for a 5th year makes me like the deal even more.

OnBaseMachine
01-26-2011, 03:05 PM
Cueto and Jocketty to hold a press conference at 5:00 according the Enquirer.

Walt Jocketty & Johnny Cueto to hold 5 p.m. news conference to announce Cueto signs 4-year deal with club option for 2015. #Reds

http://twitter.com/MissEnquirer

medford
01-26-2011, 03:08 PM
solid. I wonder what the terms are, as well as the terms on that 5th season.

OnBaseMachine
01-26-2011, 05:09 PM
From Joe Kay:

Cueto gets salaries of $3.4m, $5.4m, $7.4m and $10m. #Reds have option for 2015 at $10m with $800,000 buyout.

http://twitter.com/apjoekay

Edd Roush
01-26-2011, 05:30 PM
From Joe Kay:

Cueto gets salaries of $3.4m, $5.4m, $7.4m and $10m. #Reds have option for 2015 at $10m with $800,000 buyout.

http://twitter.com/apjoekay

Wow, that deal looks a whole lot better with the 10m option attached. Nice move by Jocketty.

membengal
01-26-2011, 05:43 PM
I sure can't find a lot of anything to complain about in that deal. Let's play ball.

SirFelixCat
01-26-2011, 05:53 PM
I sure can't find a lot of anything to complain about in that deal. Let's play ball.

:thumbup::beerme:

RedsManRick
01-26-2011, 06:00 PM
That $10M team option is quite tasty. 5 years from now, that'll be less than 2 WAR.

I think this extension could be the team's best move of the offseason when we look back a few years from now.

Benihana
01-26-2011, 06:07 PM
That $10M team option is quite tasty. 5 years from now, that'll be less than 2 WAR.

I think this extension could be the team's best move of the offseason when we look back a few years from now.

Don't forget about the Bruce extension. Both of these are :thumbup:

kaldaniels
01-26-2011, 06:13 PM
That $10M team option is quite tasty. 5 years from now, that'll be less than 2 WAR.

I think this extension could be the team's best move of the offseason when we look back a few years from now.

Of course it has a chance to be the best move when we look back. That is certain.

But with all due respect Rick, do you find this better than the Bruce deal (granted maybe you do not) ?

This coming from a guy (me) who loves the Bruce contract more than any other move over the past few years.

mth123
01-26-2011, 06:19 PM
This deal is reasonable and the option is quite nice, but Cueto is a short RH pitcher and 4 years from now he may not be much. I think 8 figures four years out to a guy with his profile is kind of risky.

I'd rather have gone 3 years with the option for the 4th, but that is probably nitpicking. All in all, its a decent move, but its not the great move many are claiming IMO. Bruce' deal was by far the gem of the off-season. If Bruce deal was a grade A, then this deal is about a C maybe a C+ IMO.

Anybody else think Walt walks away after 2012 and leaves the $19 Million owed to Votto (and his impending free agency), the $15 Million in deferrels to Arroyo and this risky 4th year for Cueto to somebody else to deal with?

kaldaniels
01-26-2011, 06:29 PM
Anybody else think Walt walks away after 2012 and leaves the $19 Million owed to Votto (and his impending free agency), the $15 Million in deferrels to Arroyo and this risky 4th year for Cueto to somebody else to deal with?

The Arroyo and Cueto deals do have a chance of ending badly, it would be foolish not to acknowledge that. The Votto deal, while I wasn't estatic about it, isn't going to turn into an albatross unless Votto totally crashes hard. Someone will take a flyer on him if the Reds don't want to pay for the third year (see V. Wells).

Walt has done a nice job of diversifying his risk this offseason.

RedsManRick
01-26-2011, 06:37 PM
Of course it has a chance to be the best move when we look back. That is certain.

But with all due respect Rick, do you find this better than the Bruce deal (granted maybe you do not) ?

This coming from a guy (me) who loves the Bruce contract more than any other move over the past few years.

Abstractly speaking, I think the Bruce contract could produce more surplus value of the life of the contract. He very legitimately could provide more than twice what he'll be getting paid --- even factoring in the arbitration adjustments. Though give its length, it also exposes the Reds a bit more in the even of a serious injury.

Speaking specifically in the context of a team that plays 81 games in a homer friendly park, I think it is much more difficult for the Reds to acquire a #2 starter significantly below market value than it is a stud corner OF.

That said, I'm thrilled about both. :D

mth123
01-26-2011, 06:49 PM
The Arroyo and Cueto deals do have a chance of ending badly, it would be foolish not to acknowledge that. The Votto deal, while I wasn't estatic about it, isn't going to turn into an albatross unless Votto totally crashes hard. Someone will take a flyer on him if the Reds don't want to pay for the third year (see V. Wells).

Walt has done a nice job of diversifying his risk this offseason.

I don't think it will be an albatross, but it might eat enough of the budget that the team around him might start being sold off. Votto will probably be worth $19 Million. Will the Reds keep him with everyobody else becoming so expensive? IMO, that Arroyo deferrel is the real problem. Good business says fund it at present value before the deal is over. That would mean a huge balloon payment to Arroyo (or his annuity) at the same time the balloon payment to Votto comes due and Cueto and Bruce start getting up there. Stubbs, Bailey and Wood will be expensive by then and replaements will be needed for Rolen and Phillips. Unfortunately, the Rolen and Phillips money coming off the books looks like its already spent so replacements will need to come from within and so far I'm not impressed with the candidates. The Reds may take a real step backwards in 2013 and the IF could be filled with holes.

fearofpopvol1
01-26-2011, 07:10 PM
Amazing deal. The fact that the option year is the same price is year 4 is great.

Honestly, I'm surprised Jocketty could pull of a deal like this given that Cueto has shown and proven quite a bit already while with the Reds.

kaldaniels
01-26-2011, 08:12 PM
That said, I'm thrilled about both. :D

Absolutely.

What would you say Rick, and I ask this looking for your expertise, to those who say that pitchers of Cueto's build rarely have long term sucess.

I think Cueto is going to be a solid, above-average pitcher who produces big time myself, but I can't explain why that is...how would you go about doing so?

PuffyPig
01-26-2011, 08:38 PM
I'd rather have gone 3 years with the option for the 4th, but that is probably nitpicking.

I bet the Reds preferred going 4+1 than 3+1.

mth123
01-26-2011, 09:02 PM
I bet the Reds preferred going 4+1 than 3+1.

Obviously, but 4 years is an eternity for a pitcher of Cueto's ilk. I'd rather not be locked in at $10 Million in that 4th year. Its not a bad deal, but its got the most risk of any deal this off-season.

RedsManRick
01-26-2011, 09:22 PM
Absolutely.

What would you say Rick, and I ask this looking for your expertise, to those who say that pitchers of Cueto's build rarely have long term sucess.

I think Cueto is going to be a solid, above-average pitcher who produces big time myself, but I can't explain why that is...how would you go about doing so?

I say show me the data. And by data, I don't mean anecdotes of players with similar builds who broke down. I mean data which shows that players of his build are more likely to break down after X years or X age than other pitchers.

What vague recollection I have of such data is that smaller pitchers don't tend to make it as far in to their 30's as do taller ones. But given that we're talking about Cueto's age 25-28 (29 if the contract is executed), I'm not sure that the logic applies.

I would also point out that while Cueto is short, he's thick, particularly in his lower body. He's more Mike Hampton or Elmer Dessens than Pedro Martinez or Roy Oswalt. Though hmmm, as anecdotal evidence goes...

He certainly worries me a great deal less than a guy like Volquez, who is both 2 years older and experienced a major injury.

TheNext44
01-26-2011, 09:55 PM
I say show me the data. And by data, I don't mean anecdotes of players with similar builds who broke down. I mean data which shows that players of his build are more likely to break down after X years or X age than other pitchers.

What vague recollection I have of such data is that smaller pitchers don't tend to make it as far in to their 30's as do taller ones. But given that we're talking about Cueto's age 25-28 (29 if the contract is executed), I'm not sure that the logic applies.

I would also point out that while Cueto is short, he's thick, particularly in his lower body. He's more Mike Hampton or Elmer Dessens than Pedro Martinez or Roy Oswalt. Though hmmm, as anecdotal evidence goes...

He certainly worries me a great deal less than a guy like Volquez, who is both 2 years older and experienced a major injury.

Fangrphs did a study on the various elements that lead pitchers to the DL the most, and found that height had very little to do with it. (I'd link it, but I don't have time to search their archives right now) The only element concerning physic that did have a noticeable effect was when a pitcher was overweight. Obviously age and previous trips were the biggest elements that lead to DL trips.

So you seem to be right on track with their research.

OnBaseMachine
01-26-2011, 10:29 PM
Link to the Cueto/Jocketty press conference:

http://mlb.mlb.com/video/play.jsp?content_id=13099561

dfs
01-26-2011, 11:00 PM
Bob tears it down and gives a big middle finger to the city.

I sure hope not. It's gonna take a lot more than one nice year to turn this franchise into the money making machine he saw in St. Louis. Consistent winning will pack the park again. One year is not going to do it.

BTW contract is reported as 4 years 27 million on the reds site.

Ron Madden
01-27-2011, 05:56 AM
Mark Sheldon mlb.com

http://reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20110126&content_id=16511012&vkey=news_cin&c_id=cin

Griffey012
01-27-2011, 12:13 PM
He certainly worries me a great deal less than a guy like Volquez, who is both 2 years older and experienced a major injury.

I would be interested to see how much more likely pitchers are in the past 10 (if the sample size is big enough) to experience additional major injuries if they have gone through Tommy John surgery. The surgery is so advanced and so routine these days it almost has become an expectation of a young pitcher's career.

Volquez delivery is what scares me more than his TJ surgery itself.

I like this deal a lot better after hearing about the club option for the 5th season. Basically if the deal works out well it is going to work out even better with the option.

PuffyPig
01-27-2011, 12:51 PM
Obviously, but 4 years is an eternity for a pitcher of Cueto's ilk. I'd rather not be locked in at $10 Million in that 4th year. Its not a bad deal, but its got the most risk of any deal this off-season.

Well, if its "obvious" that the Reds preferred 4+1 to 3+1, then it must also be obvious that they felt the risk of that 4th year was worth it, especially since they get a crack at that 5th year at what could be quite a reduced rate.

Every long term deal has risk, its why you can get a reduced salary if the player generally stays healthy.

OnBaseMachine
01-27-2011, 02:24 PM
Aaron Gleeman of Hardball Talk on the Cueto deal:


Taking that kind of upfront cash is rarely a mistake for a 24-year-old pitcher, but if Cueto stays healthy the Reds will likely be very happy with the deal. Barring arm problems his first two years of free agency could be worth significantly more than $20 million and the Reds were able to gain the two additional seasons of control without going crazy on any of the salaries for arbitration seasons.



http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2011/01/27/details-of-johnny-cuetos-new-contract

REDREAD
01-27-2011, 03:10 PM
. The Reds drew 2.5M they year before which, IIRC, was 2nd in franchise history only to the BRM of 1976. During ST, Jr. suffered an injury and due not only to Jr.'s injury but also to an atrocious pitching staff, the Reds won only 70 games and attendance dropped to 1.87M.

God forbid something like that happens again but I'm sure there were a lot of people that planned on going to Reds games in 2001 but with the loss of Jr. and the poor performance of the team, the majority of those people changed their minds.

The Reds really shot themselves in the foot though.
In 2000, they were in 2nd place in the division, and decided to trade Neagle.
Doesn't exactly send the message that the team cares about winning.
Not to mention, wasn't Jack McKeon also axed after 2000 to save a few bucks? Again, not a good PR move.
They really evaporated the goodwill they gained by being competitive in 1999 and picking up Jr.

REDREAD
01-27-2011, 03:15 PM
Obviously, but 4 years is an eternity for a pitcher of Cueto's ilk. I'd rather not be locked in at $10 Million in that 4th year. Its not a bad deal, but its got the most risk of any deal this off-season.

He's so young, I'm not worried about it at all.
He'll only be 28 in 2014 (he was born in 86)

IMO, this is one of the least riskiest long term deals ever given to a pitcher.
Obviously, any contract to any pitcher is a risk.

RedsManRick
01-27-2011, 03:18 PM
Volquez delivery is what scares me more than his TJ surgery itself.

I like this deal a lot better after hearing about the club option for the 5th season. Basically if the deal works out well it is going to work out even better with the option.

This is my perspective as well. I'm not worried about recovery from the surgery. I'm worried about what led him to needing it to begin with. Switching from slider to curveball as his 3rd pitch will help, but he never threw that many sliders to begin with. He's still primarily fastball/changeup and while I'm no mechanist expert, his delivery still looks both high effort and inconsistent to me. It's why I think he'd be a much better pitcher out of the pen -- he wouldn't be forced to pitch through those times when his mechanics fall apart and he walks everybody.

Caveat Emperor
01-27-2011, 03:21 PM
I say show me the data. And by data, I don't mean anecdotes of players with similar builds who broke down. I mean data which shows that players of his build are more likely to break down after X years or X age than other pitchers.

Quoting WOY from a few years (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1546776&postcount=31) ago:


The theory is under 6 foot and the chances are the RH has a shorter shelf life, it rings pretty true in the reliever world and in the starter world there are not a plethora of them abounding through the park each summer.

Since 1945 only 32 RH pitchers shorter then 6' have had 100 starts. Meanwhile, 519 pitchers other RH's in MLB have made 100 starts or more. Only 0.060 though were shorter then 6 feet tall.


Code:
GAMES STARTED GS RSAA HT
1 Camilo Pascual 404 49 5'11"
2 Pedro Martinez 380 511 5'11"
3 Ned Garver 330 128 5'10"
4 Murry Dickson 323 122 5'10"
5 Mike Boddicker 309 67 5'11"
6 Frank Lary 292 109 5'11"
7 Virgil Trucks 283 142 5'11"
8 Nelson Briles 279 22 5'11"
9 Steve Stone 269 -22 5'10"
10 Bill Monbouquette 263 40 5'11"
11 Ray Herbert 236 -39 5'11"
12 Marty Pattin 224 21 5'11"
13 Carl Erskine 216 20 5'10"
14 Tom Gordon 203 136 5'9"
15 Cory Lidle 199 -8 5'11"
16 Paul Foytack 193 -17 5'11"
17 Bill Stoneman 170 -56 5'10"
18 Pat Jarvis 169 7 5'10"
19 Ricky Bones 164 -35 5'10"
20 Tom Phoebus 149 0 5'8"
21 Ike Delock 147 26 5'11"
22 Robert Person 135 -27 5'11"
23 Dave Giusti 133 -36 5'11"
24 Lee Stange 125 21 5'10"
25 Dave Freisleben 121 -73 5'11"
26 Francisco Cordova 112 38 5'11"
27 Scott Bankhead 110 12 5'10"
T28 Chuck Rainey 106 -29 5'11"
T28 Hank Wyse 106 -8 5'11"
30 Jim Owens 103 -55 5'11"
T31 Phil Marchildon 102 1 5'10"
T31 Francisco Barrios 102 -18 5'11"

mth123
01-27-2011, 08:34 PM
Well, if its "obvious" that the Reds preferred 4+1 to 3+1, then it must also be obvious that they felt the risk of that 4th year was worth it, especially since they get a crack at that 5th year at what could be quite a reduced rate.

Every long term deal has risk, its why you can get a reduced salary if the player generally stays healthy.

They thought Willy Taveras was worth 2 years and $6.5 Million. Once upon a time they thought Eric Milton was worth 3 years and $27 Million. They aren't always right and sometimes outsiders can disagree and even be correct on occassion.

Given the other obligations already in place, I wouldn't have guaranteed 8 figures on a 4th year for Cueto. If Cueto stays healthy and effective its probably a big win. Its a big if IMO. You have the right to think otherwise.

PuffyPig
01-27-2011, 08:40 PM
They thought Willy Taveras was worth 2 years and $6.5 Million. Once upon a time they thought Eric Milton was worth 3 years and $27 Million. They aren't always right and sometimes outsiders can disagree and even be correct on occassion.

Given the other obligations already in place, I wouldn't have guaranteed 8 figures on a 4th year for Cueto. If Cueto stays healthy and effective its probably a big win. Its a big if IMO. You have the right to think otherwise.

You'll note I didn't voice my opinion on the deal in my post.

I'm just saying the Reds likely preferred going 4+1 over 3+1.

In fact, if the Reds were only guaranteeing 3 years, I doubt that Cueto takes that deal.

reds44
01-27-2011, 08:54 PM
Cueto could stay here until he's 40 and I will always think of him as a little kid. He just looks like one lol.

TheNext44
01-27-2011, 08:56 PM
Quoting WOY from a few years (http://www.redszone.com/forums/showpost.php?p=1546776&postcount=31) ago:

Really all that list shows is that most guys under 6 feet tall can't throw hard enough to pitch in the bigs.

A meaningful study would look at the number of pitchers under 6 feet tall who pitched in the majors and compared what percentage got injured to the percentage of guys over 6 feet that got injured.

kaldaniels
01-27-2011, 09:08 PM
I don't know where that 0.060 came from in that post from WOY but that is laughable. 6% would have been just fine.

mth123
01-27-2011, 09:10 PM
You'll note I didn't voice my opinion on the deal in my post.

I'm just saying the Reds likely preferred going 4+1 over 3+1.

In fact, if the Reds were only guaranteeing 3 years, I doubt that Cueto takes that deal.

I agree with the bolded part. Its why I say its not ideal.

Cueto's mechanics seem all over the place. So many times he seems way out of whack, falling off the mound during his follow through, while other days he seems completely under control. Such inconsistency suggests arm problems down the road as the innings mount. I could be wrong, but I think its more than just "all deals to pitchers are risky" that makes Cueto an increased risk four years down the road.

Throw in the conventional wisdom about short righties and it seems like a bigger risk than the another pitcher with similar stats might be.

medford
01-28-2011, 01:33 PM
The Reds really shot themselves in the foot though.
In 2000, they were in 2nd place in the division, and decided to trade Neagle.
Doesn't exactly send the message that the team cares about winning.
Not to mention, wasn't Jack McKeon also axed after 2000 to save a few bucks? Again, not a good PR move.
They really evaporated the goodwill they gained by being competitive in 1999 and picking up Jr.

I'm not sure that Trader Jack was let go to save a few bucks. I've seen it mentioned in more than one place, and more than 1 time that there things McKeon was doing in the clubhouse that PO'd several of the key figures in the organization at the time.

westofyou
01-28-2011, 04:24 PM
I don't know where that 0.060 came from in that post from WOY but that is laughable. 6% would have been just fine.

Cut and pasted from the calculator

kaldaniels
01-28-2011, 05:14 PM
Cut and pasted from the calculator

Am I allowed to respectfully disagree...cause using your numbers of 32 and 519, I am unable to find any equation that gets my calculator to produce 0.060 on the dot.

I think the correct equation would be 32/(32+519), of which I get 0.05807...

Or is using calculators that round-off now en vogue here?

In all seriousness I give you a hard time in jest, but c'mon....that figure of 0.060 gives a completely different perception than 6 percent. You could even say that only 1 in 17 pitchers are under 6 ft.

westofyou
01-28-2011, 05:19 PM
Am I allowed to respectfully disagree...cause using your numbers of 32 and 519, I am unable to find any equation that gets my calculator to produce 0.060 on the dot.

I think the correct equation would be 32/(32+519), of which I get 0.05807...


Yes that is the correct number, and yes I rounded up.

I guess I lost my RZ style guide that day.

Any way you cut it 1/17, 6%... it's not exactly a testimony to the durability of the short RH starter.

And after all that was the point, but if we want to get pedantic about it you're correct.

kaldaniels
01-28-2011, 05:20 PM
Yes that is the correct number, and yes I rounded up.

I guess I lost my RZ style guide that day.

Any way you cut it 1/17, 6%... it's not exactly a testimony to the durability of the short RH starter.

And after all that was the point, but if we want to get pedantic about it you're correct.

A humorous observation my friend, nothing more. :beerme:

RedsManRick
01-28-2011, 05:30 PM
The 6% figure is a bit of a red herring sans context. Of pitchers who made less than 100 starts, what percent are under 6 foot? If that figure is also 6%, then the ratio tells us nothing about durability. Without a baseline, you can't really draw a comparison.

westofyou
01-28-2011, 05:34 PM
The 6% figure is a bit of a red herring sans context. Of pitchers who made less than 100 starts, what percent are under 6 foot? If that figure is also 6%, then the ratio tells us nothing about durability. Without a baseline, you can't really draw a comparison.

Can't tell you that currently as my DB is at home, but I'll try and follow up on that query.

REDREAD
01-28-2011, 05:59 PM
I'm not sure that Trader Jack was let go to save a few bucks. I've seen it mentioned in more than one place, and more than 1 time that there things McKeon was doing in the clubhouse that PO'd several of the key figures in the organization at the time.

I don't deny that is possible, but with Allen, it was always about money.
Allen was mad that McKeon has all the leverage after 1999, and Allen was forced to give McKeon a raise.

I'm convinced that if McKeon was happy to work for Narron wages his entire life, he would've been here as long as Allen was. He stood up to John Allen. Allen is a petty and vindictive person, so he fired him the first chance he got.

RedsManRick
01-28-2011, 06:07 PM
You can look at this a number of ways, but I just pulled all righties between 1980 and 2010 with at least 25 GS (because I had to copy/past the csv format out of the B-R play index).

I got 688 guys: Of those, just 32 were under 72 inches tall. 38% of those guys made 100 or more starts. Of the 656 guys 6' or taller, 45% made 100 or more starts.

Now, is that a meaningful difference? You tell me. Some other ways to look at it.

Average GS by Height:


HT GS
69 145
70 80
71 119
72 122
73 135
74 131
75 142
76 135
77 128
78 146
79 128
80 84
81 108
82 135


My favorite?
https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/Jn2_Ab7gk7HqU_-otbNYXBYq_RYHcoeY__XrDF7pHHQikHhUGMBHUdA0YnyqLfe_o ojgwr7Apqfym2f7dLsSeM3Mfg=s512

Each additional inch corresponds to an extra .36 GS.

My big takeaway? Being taller helps, but it's not really predictive. If you want to know how long a guy is going to pitch, how effective he is probably tells you WAY more -- at minimum, analyze the guy based on his mechanics, not his size.

camisadelgolf
01-28-2011, 06:26 PM
One thing that may skew those numbers is that scouts and other baseball people like height in a pitcher. Therefore, they may be given more of a chance to start games.

And RMR, your link isn't showing up for me.

RedsManRick
01-28-2011, 06:45 PM
And RMR, your link isn't showing up for me.

How about now? Am trying to do it through my google docs... It's just a scatter plot of height vs. games started with a trend line that is just about flat.

The regression line formula: y = 1.3622x + 30.342, R-squared = .0006 (correlation = .024)

camisadelgolf
01-28-2011, 07:20 PM
How about now? Am trying to do it through my google docs... It's just a scatter plot of height vs. games started with a trend line that is just about flat.

The regression line formula: y = 1.3622x + 30.342, R-squared = .0006 (correlation = .024)

:thumbup:

mth123
03-19-2011, 06:28 PM
Bump

Homer Bailey
03-20-2011, 05:41 AM
Bump

You've made your steady stream of negative predictions for the Reds for this season. You've supported them with reasoning, so I haven't felt the need to challenge you on them. However, if you're going to "bump" your posts to say (what I can only presume) as an "I told you so" before we have any final diagnosis, I caution you to be called out on your other predictions.

Again, you may very well be right, but my guess is that this board isn't going to be very excited to pat you on the back if one of your ten negative predictions comes to fruition. So my advice is to just cool it on the "bump" posts, until we know more facts.

I respect you a lot as a poster, and you're on the short list of guys that "I make sure that I read every post that they make", but this one did not sit well with me. Otherwise, cheers :beerme:.

mth123
03-20-2011, 06:16 AM
You've made your steady stream of negative predictions for the Reds for this season. You've supported them with reasoning, so I haven't felt the need to challenge you on them. However, if you're going to "bump" your posts to say (what I can only presume) as an "I told you so" before we have any final diagnosis, I caution you to be called out on your other predictions.

Again, you may very well be right, but my guess is that this board isn't going to be very excited to pat you on the back if one of your ten negative predictions comes to fruition. So my advice is to just cool it on the "bump" posts, until we know more facts.

I respect you a lot as a poster, and you're on the short list of guys that "I make sure that I read every post that they make", but this one did not sit well with me. Otherwise, cheers :beerme:.

Seems to be an awful lot of conclusions to be drawn from a one word post.

PuffyPig
03-20-2011, 05:27 PM
Seems to be an awful lot of conclusions to be drawn from a one word post.

Since you have not disagreed with his conclusions, are we to believe otherwise?

OnBaseMachine
03-20-2011, 05:32 PM
I thought it was a great deal at the time and I still think it's a great deal regardless of the bicep stiffness.

757690
03-20-2011, 06:20 PM
Bump


I think the lack of response to this bump is one of the ramifications of the Reds having such a solid, winning organization.

Most everyone is pretty happy and relatively optimistic.

A few years ago, this thread would be ten pages longer.

Team message boards are the most active and interesting when the team is struggling.

Let's hope that Redzone stays boring for awhile ;)