PDA

View Full Version : Rosenthal: Reds will listen to offers on Votto



Pages : [1] 2 3

Benihana
09-17-2011, 10:16 PM
Www.mlbtraderumors.com

Also Implies Cast was the one who didn't want to trade veterans at the deadline.

PuffyPig
09-18-2011, 12:01 AM
I assume every team will "listen" to offers on any player.

I suggest the Reds should listen hard. Votto is one of the two best hitters in the game, but firstbaseman are more easily replaced than some other positions. And we have a viable replacement.

Edskin
09-18-2011, 12:10 AM
The Reds can be serious contenders in 2012, but not without a major move. We tried to stay the course this year and it didn't work. We have many pieces in place buy need at least one big move to put us over. The only thing that makes sense is dealing either Yonder or Votto. Joey could bring a treasure of a return potentially.

I think my number one priority this off season would be to see exactly what teams are willing to offer for Votto.

Scrap Irony
09-18-2011, 12:15 AM
If you were Cincinnati, would you deal Joey Votto and Drew Stubbs for Shelby Miller and Adam Wainwright?

If you were St. Louis, would you?

JaxRed
09-18-2011, 12:23 AM
If you were Cincinnati, would you deal Joey Votto and Drew Stubbs for Shelby Miller and Adam Wainwright?

If you were St. Louis, would you?

I think you deal Votto if you get the right deal. Like the Toronto deal. But this deal would be terrible for Cincy.

jojo
09-18-2011, 12:38 AM
If you were Cincinnati, would you deal Joey Votto and Drew Stubbs for Shelby Miller and Adam Wainwright?


I wouldn't do that.

SirFelixCat
09-18-2011, 12:52 AM
I think you deal Votto if you get the right deal. Like the Toronto deal. But this deal would be terrible for Cincy.

This.

The Reds don't HAVE to move Votto. They can CHOOSE to move Votto, if the haul is enormous. Kind of like what TB was reported to want for Shields...similar situation.

Make teams overpay to get the reigning MVP.

fearofpopvol1
09-18-2011, 01:39 AM
I really think the answer for the Reds to stay competitive for the longest window possible is trading Votto. I personally love Votto and his game and would love to have him around as long as possible. But the reality is he is expensive already and either a.) he's going to test free agency or b.) expect $20M+ a year from the Reds.

Given that Alonso looks apt to step in at 1B, I would look to move Votto this offseason to find a big bat for LF (who is at least average defensively) and a really good SP. And if another player needs to be thrown in to get it done, so be it. Because the Reds do have Alonso, a Votto trade for the right players should make the Reds a better overall team.

Big Klu
09-18-2011, 02:06 AM
The Reds will rue the day they traded Joey Votto, if in fact they deal him.

Caveat Emperor
09-18-2011, 02:52 AM
The Reds will rue the day they traded Joey Votto, if in fact they deal him.

Why? He's gone after 2013 anyway.

corkedbat
09-18-2011, 03:31 AM
I'd make one last push at signing him past 2013 (even if it's just for public consumption) and I'd work the best trade possible if he cannot be extended.

mth123
09-18-2011, 04:57 AM
Looks like 2012 is going to be a rebuilding year. We'll have rookies at C (Mesoraco) and SS (Cozart) and now the centerpiece of the line-up wil probably be a rookie as well (Alonso). A not ready for the role Chapman will be in the rotation and a reclamation project or two (Volquez, Wood) probably compete for another spot. Now, the guy who holds the entire line-up together will probaly get dealt for a bunch of kids. May as well deal Phillips while we're at it. Reds fans, welcome to Pittsburgh where you wait forever to get a player or two who may be able to lift the team to championship caliber and when they get there, you deal them off for younger, more affordable kids who won't be ready until a future that never arrives.

gilpdawg
09-18-2011, 05:54 AM
Looks like 2012 is going to be a rebuilding year. We'll have rookies at C (Mesoraco) and SS (Cozart) and now the centerpiece of the line-up wil probably be a rookie as well (Alonso). A not ready for the role Chapman will be in the rotation and a reclamation project or two (Volquez, Wood) probably compete for another spot. Now, the guy who holds the entire line-up together will probaly get dealt for a bunch of kids. May as well deal Phillips while we're at it. Reds fans, welcome to Pittsburgh where you wait forever to get a player or two who may be able to lift the team to championship caliber and when they get there, you deal them off for younger, more affordable kids who won't be ready until a future that never arrives.
Methinks you're reading a tad too much into what Ken Rosenthal says. Is he ever right anyway? Of course they are going to listen to offers. What team in their right mind wouldn't? Nobody is ever untouchable, but I don't see where it kicks off this doomsday scenario. If all you get offered is "a bunch of kids" then you don't do it.

mth123
09-18-2011, 07:01 AM
Methinks you're reading a tad too much into what Ken Rosenthal says. Is he ever right anyway? Of course they are going to listen to offers. What team in their right mind wouldn't? Nobody is ever untouchable, but I don't see where it kicks off this doomsday scenario. If all you get offered is "a bunch of kids" then you don't do it.

So if the issue is being able to afford Votto going forward, what could you possibly get offered that would be better than a bunch of kids? Star Players? Well, if you can't afford Votto, you can't afford those other guys either. Similar stars who play other spots would probably not be available anyway. Cheaper veteran players? Please no. Movng from excellence of a guy like Votto toward mediocrity that a package of lesser veterans would provide is the wrong idea. I don't really see many scenarios where dealing Votto helps the team for 2012. Kids means 2012 won't be a year to compete but might push the window out a couple of years (until we deal off Cueto and Bruce about the time that window arrives because the team can't afford them when their raises kick in and the window gets pushed even farther out).

I'd listen on Votto as well. If the Rockies call and offer Tulo, I'd probably pull the trigger. Same for Bautista. Asdrubel Cabrera would be a good guy to deal Votto for. None of that will happen. I might even do Votto for Ricky Romero straight up. I doubt the Jays would. Votto for Robinson Cano? Not gonna happen. Mike Stanton? No way. Justin Verlander? Yeah, right.

If you deal Votto for established players, I'm guesing you get a solid regular/who may be a borderline all star position player in his career years and a middle of the rotation pitcher at best. A deal for say, Shin Soo Choo and Justin Masterson might work, but it's more than you'd probably get. You may be able to get Choo and Fausto Carmona. I'll just keep Votto and try to win in 2012 thanks.

traderumor
09-18-2011, 08:06 AM
That doesn't even qualify as a rumor, that is Rosenthal speculating and making it appear that he heard something from the inside. I imagine the Cast comment is even his speculation. It contains nothing more than has been discussed on here ad nauseum.

lollipopcurve
09-18-2011, 08:10 AM
Would hate to see him go -- Votto would be one of the greatest Reds of all time, maybe even the greatest hitter, were he to stay long-term.

But -- if he won't sign past 2013, the team has to see what it could get, especially given that Alonso is ready.

In the end, pitching wins.

Ghosts of 1990
09-18-2011, 08:32 AM
I assume every team will "listen" to offers on any player.

I suggest the Reds should listen hard. Votto is one of the two best hitters in the game, but firstbaseman are more easily replaced than some other positions. And we have a viable replacement.

He's top 10.

I feel like he could be there for a while, but he isn't one of the best two hitters in the game.

PuffyPig
09-18-2011, 09:26 AM
Looks like 2012 is going to be a rebuilding year. We'll have rookies at C (Mesoraco) and SS (Cozart) and now the centerpiece of the line-up wil probably be a rookie as well (Alonso). A not ready for the role Chapman will be in the rotation and a reclamation project or two (Volquez, Wood) probably compete for another spot. Now, the guy who holds the entire line-up together will probaly get dealt for a bunch of kids. May as well deal Phillips while we're at it. Reds fans, welcome to Pittsburgh where you wait forever to get a player or two who may be able to lift the team to championship caliber and when they get there, you deal them off for younger, more affordable kids who won't be ready until a future that never arrives.

(sigh)

Benihana
09-18-2011, 09:47 AM
Unless there was a Bartolo Colon-like return, I'd keep him for 2012.

He will still fetch a lot after next season, and I think they owe it to the fan base to go for it in 2012. If they're out of it at the deadline, they can then look to deal Votto for a big package.

Joseph
09-18-2011, 10:03 AM
Unless there was a Bartolo Colon-like return, I'd keep him for 2012.

He will still fetch a lot after next season, and I think they owe it to the fan base to go for it in 2012. If they're out of it at the deadline, they can then look to deal Votto for a big package.

Thats my thoughts exactly.

Tony Cloninger
09-18-2011, 10:43 AM
So if the issue is being able to afford Votto going forward, what could you possibly get offered that would be better than a bunch of kids? Star Players? Well, if you can't afford Votto, you can't afford those other guys either. Similar stars who play other spots would probably not be available anyway. Cheaper veteran players? Please no. Movng from excellence of a guy like Votto toward mediocrity that a package of lesser veterans would provide is the wrong idea. I don't really see many scenarios where dealing Votto helps the team for 2012. Kids means 2012 won't be a year to compete but might push the window out a couple of years (until we deal off Cueto and Bruce about the time that window arrives because the team can't afford them when their raises kick in and the window gets pushed even farther out).

I'd listen on Votto as well. If the Rockies call and offer Tulo, I'd probably pull the trigger. Same for Bautista. Asdrubel Cabrera would be a good guy to deal Votto for. None of that will happen. I might even do Votto for Ricky Romero straight up. I doubt the Jays would. Votto for Robinson Cano? Not gonna happen. Mike Stanton? No way. Justin Verlander? Yeah, right.

If you deal Votto for established players, I'm guesing you get a solid regular/who may be a borderline all star position player in his career years and a middle of the rotation pitcher at best. A deal for say, Shin Soo Choo and Justin Masterson might work, but it's more than you'd probably get. You may be able to get Choo and Fausto Carmona. I'll just keep Votto and try to win in 2012 thanks.



Ricky Romero straight up?? Are you crazy?

The Reds should be able to get more than what you think or I assume joking about?

How is what he is making the next 2 years expensive at his production anyways?

RedLegsToday
09-18-2011, 11:13 AM
How is what he is making the next 2 years expensive at his production anyways?

Votto makes 9 million next year. Which, if the options for Phillips and Cordero are picked up, would make him the Reds 4th highest paid player next year. And he's liable to be as valuable as the 3 ahead of him combined. The Reds would be crazy to trade him before next year.

Scrap Irony
09-18-2011, 11:34 AM
How about a deal to Tampa Bay (with Drew Stubbs) for Matt Moore, Hak-Ju Lee, Upton, and James Shields?

The salaries are pretty close (within a few million) and Cincinnati grabs two TOR arms and a really nice SS prospect to add with Hamilton and Torreyes as middle infielders. (Hamilton could move to CF if all three pan out.)

Shields
Cueto
Moore
Leake
Arroyo
Chapman

C Mesoraco/ Hanigan
1B Alonso
2B Phillips
3B Rolen/ Francisco
SS Cozart
LF Upton
CF Heisey/ Sappelt
RF Bruce

You could then deal excess starters for bullpen and perhaps LF help (Bailey, Wood, and Volquez for Gordon and Soria, for example), sign a free agent closer (hello, Heath Bell) and you're good to go.

RFS62
09-18-2011, 11:39 AM
All this talk about letting Votto go now because Alonso is ready reminde me of the Dan Driessen - Tony Perez situation in the late 70's.

I know Perez then isn't Votto now, but I can't help remembering how high everyone was on Driessen and how willing we were to move Perez, one of the cornerstones of that team.

CTA513
09-18-2011, 12:23 PM
Can't Wait! - YouTube (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aBaYVo89mmY)

mth123
09-18-2011, 12:42 PM
Ricky Romero straight up?? Are you crazy?

The Reds should be able to get more than what you think or I assume joking about?

How is what he is making the next 2 years expensive at his production anyways?

If you had a strong number 2 starter, borderline ace, locked up through 2015 would you trade him for a 1B, no matter how good he is, who will make $11 Million in 2012 ($9.5 Million in Salary plus $1.5 Million in bonus) and $19 Million in 2013 ($17 Million Salary and $2 Million in bonus) and then have to deal with him walking. Consider that your team already has the top offensive player in the game in RF and is 5th in the league in runs scored while having allowed the 4th most runs in the AL. If I were the Jays GM, there is no way I would.

That's the problem here that people aren't getting. If the Reds are to deal Votto, the takers are going to be contending teams who aren't inclined to give up a whole lot of the current core talent and make holes in other spots (all harder to fill than 1B). Those teams will probably be happy to give up a ton of young ready and near ready talent for him. That would get "value" for him which seems to be the big concern, but it absolutely means punting 2012 while waiting for all that talent to mature and get ready to win down the road. If the Reds want established major league players, they simply won't get back the value that they would be giving up with Votto. We're already facing a pennies on the dollar scenario if major leaguers are the goal and trading him merely pulls forward the rebuild the Reds would face by letting him walk. I'd rather they try to win while he's still here and use all that money coming off the books when he walks to try to replace most of his production and take the two draft picks.

BuckeyeRedleg
09-18-2011, 12:49 PM
All this talk about letting Votto go now because Alonso is ready reminde me of the Dan Driessen - Tony Perez situation in the late 70's.

I know Perez then isn't Votto now, but I can't help remembering how high everyone was on Driessen and how willing we were to move Perez, one of the cornerstones of that team.

Driessen was marginally better than Perez in 1977 and comparable thereafter.

Perez was also 35 years old in 1977 and DD was 25.

If the same situation happened today I would expect the the same outcome.

mth123
09-18-2011, 12:54 PM
How about a deal to Tampa Bay (with Drew Stubbs) for Matt Moore, Hak-Ju Lee, Upton, and James Shields?

The salaries are pretty close (within a few million) and Cincinnati grabs two TOR arms and a really nice SS prospect to add with Hamilton and Torreyes as middle infielders. (Hamilton could move to CF if all three pan out.)

Shields
Cueto
Moore
Leake
Arroyo
Chapman

C Mesoraco/ Hanigan
1B Alonso
2B Phillips
3B Rolen/ Francisco
SS Cozart
LF Upton
CF Heisey/ Sappelt
RF Bruce

You could then deal excess starters for bullpen and perhaps LF help (Bailey, Wood, and Volquez for Gordon and Soria, for example), sign a free agent closer (hello, Heath Bell) and you're good to go.

Tampa Bay would laugh at that proposal. Perhaps if you added Cozart, Bailey and Stubbs they'd listen up. Getting Votto would help the offense and getting Stubbs in exchange for Upton would be a big win in terms of salary, years of control and defense without a huge drop in offense, but Moore is the reason they would be willing to trade Shields. If you leave Moore and Lee out of it you could probably get Shields, Upton and maybe a Jeff Niemann, Wade Davis or Alex Cobb if you throw Stubbs in. Votto for Shields and Upton is the kind of deal your probably looking at. If you could flip Upton or Stubbs to a team looking for a CF in exchange for some power for LF, it might work. Maybe Upton and Volquez for Carlos Quentin. FWIW, I don't think the Rays would trade Moore for Votto straight up. Not the Rays. Cash is king in TB.

The Marllins are rumored to be adding payroll in the off-season. Perhaps Votto for Logan Morrison and Anibal Sanchez would work. You may even get another role player type prospect. That would be a deal that could work. The Marlins might be inclined to make a deal like that and then go hot after CJ Wilson to replace Sanchez.

Roy Tucker
09-18-2011, 12:55 PM
It would have to be an absolute slobberknocker of a trade for me to deal Votto. He is about as sure a double-plus bat as you're going to get.

But... the realities are what the are. In the off-season, I'd make a big time contract offer to him. Give him bigger bucks for 2012 and 2013. See if its truly just money or is it he wants out of Cincinnati. If you can't re-sign him, then make that big deal.

Mario-Rijo
09-18-2011, 01:19 PM
I would rather let the guy walk for draft picks than trade him for the slop being bandied here. I don't care what position he plays, his bat is everything and he isn't poor on defense or in any aspect of the game, unbelievable. 1B may be easy to find someone to play it, but forget about that, his spot in the lineup cannot/will not be replaced for at least the next 30-40 years.

vic715
09-18-2011, 01:23 PM
The only way you trade Votto is for ready made players ready to step in and help now.We have enough prospects.
Here's my dream trade With Tampa Bay.
Votto Shields
Bailey Upton
Stubbs Longoria
Francisco
Grandil

westofyou
09-18-2011, 01:24 PM
his spot in the lineup cannot/will not be replaced for at least the next 30-40 years.


Hyperbole much?

Every player has a price and every player has a decline, he's not a God.

He's a baseball player

mth123
09-18-2011, 01:26 PM
I would rather let the guy walk for draft picks than trade him for the slop being bandied here. I don't care what position he plays, his bat is everything and he isn't poor on defense or in any aspect of the game, unbelievable. 1B may be easy to find someone to play it, but forget about that, his spot in the lineup cannot/will not be replaced for at least the next 30-40 years.

I agree. I just don't think teams are going to deal their in house stars for him. They'll try to package two or three role players who can be had w/o dealing the team's centerpiece, or they'll offer 3 or 4 highly regarded prospects. The Reds would get better value from the prospects, but it means 2012 won't be a good year IMO. Its why I'd keep him and try to win while he's here. They should have known the window would be closing after 2013 last year and made a move or two to try to win in 2011 instead of going into the season with so many iffy guys penciled into the rotation.

mth123
09-18-2011, 01:38 PM
The only way you trade Votto is for ready made players ready to step in and help now.We have enough prospects.
Here's my dream trade With Tampa Bay.
Votto Shields
Bailey Upton
Stubbs Longoria
Francisco
Grandil

Sure sign me up. TB has Longoria locked up through 2016 and only 2016 will cost them more than what Votto will make in 2012. They won't deal for Votto and pay him $30 Million over the next two years only to watch him walk. No way they include Longoria in a deal. He may have the most favorable contract in baseball (and he's better than Votto IMO as much as I love Joey). They do get a win with Stubbs vs Upton and I'm sure they'd love to have Grandal. Of course w/o Longoria, I'm not sure this deal is a win or even a small loss for the Reds. It big loss.

I think the Reds can get and afford Shields w/o dealing Joey (though it may cost them Alonso). Upton is a negative for the team receiving him unless they have a huge hole in CF. With Stubbs, Heisey and Sappelt on hand, I have no interest in paying Upton $7 Million plus in 2012 only to watch him walk after the season. Of couse if a Stubbs for Upton swap lays the foundation for getting Shields too for a few prospects I'd do that.

kaldaniels
09-18-2011, 01:41 PM
I would rather let the guy walk for draft picks than trade him for the slop being bandied here. I don't care what position he plays, his bat is everything and he isn't poor on defense or in any aspect of the game, unbelievable. 1B may be easy to find someone to play it, but forget about that, his spot in the lineup cannot/will not be replaced for at least the next 30-40 years.

3-4 years or 30-40 years?

mth123
09-18-2011, 01:43 PM
3-4 years or 30-40 years?

I'd say 30 or 40. The last time the Reds had an offensive player of that caliber was George Foster.

kaldaniels
09-18-2011, 01:49 PM
I'd say 30 or 40. The last time the Reds had an offensive player of that caliber was George Foster.

Can't was a poor word to use then. "It is probable that the Reds won't see that production for 40 years from a player" would have been allowed by the judges.

PuffyPig
09-18-2011, 05:13 PM
He's top 10.

I feel like he could be there for a while, but he isn't one of the best two hitters in the game.

Yeah he is.

fearofpopvol1
09-18-2011, 05:50 PM
I'd say 30 or 40. The last time the Reds had an offensive player of that caliber was George Foster.

San Fran won the whole thing last year. Who was their best offensive player? Was he better than Votto?

mth123
09-18-2011, 08:04 PM
San Fran won the whole thing last year. Who was their best offensive player? Was he better than Votto?

They had two championship caliber starting pitchers and a shut down bullpen. Other than Votto, the Reds have exactly zero championship caliber players. Once Votto is traded, the probability is that the Reds will have zero championship caliber players. Every champion has to have something going for them. In the Reds case, they have a championship caliber perfromer at 1B who singlehandedly elevates the offense from run of the mill to one of the top scoring offenses n the league. The players likely to be available in a Votto deal are the type that could be had without trading your one guy who makes your team special.

One of the more realistic proposals I've seen in a Votto deal in one of these threads is to Toronto for Colby Rasmus and Brandon Morrow. Rasmus of course was traded for 2 months of a disappointing mid-rotation starter, 2 middle relievers and a 5th OF/PR. Morrow has a 5.23 ERA. That is hardly receiving Lincecum or Cain in return. If the Reds want guys like that, they are obtainable for some of the team's excess parts.

Again, if the goal is to ensure you get the most value possible in return for Votto, the right deal is to ship him off for 3 or 4 high caliber kids. That may increase the team's overall value in the long run, but it does not help the team win in 2012. Personally, I think the team needs to deal a few prospects to bring in some established arms and an established middle of the order bat to go with Votto. The team has plenty of kids coming in waves. They won't miss a few even if they go on to be real good players. They'll miss Votto - a lot.

Benihana
09-18-2011, 08:31 PM
.

westofyou
09-18-2011, 08:44 PM
I'd say 30 or 40. The last time the Reds had an offensive player of that caliber was George Foster.
Foster was Slg vs the league heavy not OB%, Joey is a tad more of both.

Last 36 years.

Best Reds RC/27 vs the league and their OB% and SLG% vs the league


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
1975-2010
OBA vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
SLG vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
PLATE APPEARANCES displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RUNS CREATED/GAME YEAR DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE OBA SLG PA
1 Joe Morgan 1976 7.10 11.38 4.28 .115 .202 599
2 Joe Morgan 1975 6.61 11.14 4.53 .130 .125 639
3 Kevin Mitchell 1994 5.45 10.61 5.16 .087 .251 380
4 Joey Votto 2010 5.14 9.93 4.78 .092 .187 648
5 Eric Davis 1987 4.55 9.57 5.01 .060 .174 562
6 Joey Votto 2009 4.20 9.22 5.02 .075 .145 544
7 George Foster 1977 3.80 8.64 4.84 .045 .220 689
8 Joe Morgan 1977 3.52 8.36 4.84 .080 .068 645
9 Reggie Sanders 1995 3.49 8.55 5.06 .057 .157 567
10 Barry Larkin 1996 3.31 8.37 5.06 .071 .145 627
11 Ken Griffey Sr. 1976 3.26 7.55 4.28 .072 .076 628
12 Barry Larkin 1995 3.21 8.27 5.06 .054 .071 567
13 George Foster 1979 3.12 7.77 4.65 .052 .162 505
14 Barry Larkin 1991 2.95 7.34 4.39 .053 .120 527
15 Adam Dunn 2004 2.92 8.18 5.26 .046 .132 681
16 George Foster 1976 2.91 7.19 4.28 .035 .156 627
17 Kal Daniels 1988 2.86 7.04 4.18 .077 .086 589
18 George Foster 1981 2.74 7.01 4.28 .045 .143 472
19 Ken Griffey Jr. 2005 2.73 7.80 5.07 .031 .149 555
20 Barry Larkin 1998 2.72 7.81 5.09 .058 .079 626
21 Pete Rose 1976 2.67 6.95 4.28 .075 .075 759
22 Adam Dunn 2005 2.66 7.73 5.07 .049 .112 671
23 Hal Morris 1991 2.55 6.95 4.39 .049 .093 537
24 Eric Davis 1988 2.50 6.68 4.18 .043 .113 543
25 Ron Gant 1995 2.49 7.55 5.06 .046 .132 493

mth123
09-18-2011, 08:47 PM
Foster was Slg vs the league heavy not OB%, Joey is a tad more of both.

Last 36 years.

Best Reds RC/27 vs the league and their OB% and SLG% vs the league


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
1975-2010
OBA vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
SLG vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
PLATE APPEARANCES displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RUNS CREATED/GAME YEAR DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE OBA SLG PA
1 Joe Morgan 1976 7.10 11.38 4.28 .115 .202 599
2 Joe Morgan 1975 6.61 11.14 4.53 .130 .125 639
3 Kevin Mitchell 1994 5.45 10.61 5.16 .087 .251 380
4 Joey Votto 2010 5.14 9.93 4.78 .092 .187 648
5 Eric Davis 1987 4.55 9.57 5.01 .060 .174 562
6 Joey Votto 2009 4.20 9.22 5.02 .075 .145 544
7 George Foster 1977 3.80 8.64 4.84 .045 .220 689
8 Joe Morgan 1977 3.52 8.36 4.84 .080 .068 645
9 Reggie Sanders 1995 3.49 8.55 5.06 .057 .157 567
10 Barry Larkin 1996 3.31 8.37 5.06 .071 .145 627
11 Ken Griffey Sr. 1976 3.26 7.55 4.28 .072 .076 628
12 Barry Larkin 1995 3.21 8.27 5.06 .054 .071 567
13 George Foster 1979 3.12 7.77 4.65 .052 .162 505
14 Barry Larkin 1991 2.95 7.34 4.39 .053 .120 527
15 Adam Dunn 2004 2.92 8.18 5.26 .046 .132 681
16 George Foster 1976 2.91 7.19 4.28 .035 .156 627
17 Kal Daniels 1988 2.86 7.04 4.18 .077 .086 589
18 George Foster 1981 2.74 7.01 4.28 .045 .143 472
19 Ken Griffey Jr. 2005 2.73 7.80 5.07 .031 .149 555
20 Barry Larkin 1998 2.72 7.81 5.09 .058 .079 626
21 Pete Rose 1976 2.67 6.95 4.28 .075 .075 759
22 Adam Dunn 2005 2.66 7.73 5.07 .049 .112 671
23 Hal Morris 1991 2.55 6.95 4.39 .049 .093 537
24 Eric Davis 1988 2.50 6.68 4.18 .043 .113 543
25 Ron Gant 1995 2.49 7.55 5.06 .046 .132 493


OK. So not even Foster measures up. Morgan then. The point is still that guys like Votto don't come around so often. Build around them, hang on as long as possible and see how much you can win. Dealing them is a step backwards.

nate
09-18-2011, 08:58 PM
OK. So not even Foster measures up. Morgan then. The point is still that guys like Votto don't come around so often. Build around them, hang on as long as possible and see how much you can win. Dealing them is a step backwards.

Doesn't it depend on what you get back?

Ron Madden
09-18-2011, 09:08 PM
Doesn't it depend on what you get back?

I'm sure it does. :)

mth123
09-18-2011, 09:58 PM
Doesn't it depend on what you get back?

Sure. Somebody making this argument give me a realistic name.

757690
09-18-2011, 10:20 PM
Sure. Somebody making this argument give me a realistic name.

David Price?

Really not far fetched that a trade could be worked out between the two teams centered around Price and Votto.

mth123
09-18-2011, 10:34 PM
David Price?

Really not far fetched that a trade could be worked out between the two teams centered around Price and Votto.

So a team with a $41 Million payroll and looking to cut further is going to trade for a guy who will make $30 Million over the next 2 years and then become a free agent? You'd be more likely to get Price for Alonso IMO.

Benihana
09-18-2011, 10:38 PM
I am firmly entrenched in the keep Votto for 2012 camp, but here is an interesting name to consider:

Hanley Ramirez

nate
09-18-2011, 10:49 PM
Sure. Somebody making this argument give me a realistic name.

I think the argument that it might be difficult to find a trade is different than "dealing [Votto] is a step backwards."

The Operator
09-18-2011, 11:25 PM
Hanley RamirezFor Joey Votto? Never.

Hanley Ramirez might have other-worldly talent (although he had a pretty forgettable 2011 and just had shoulder surgery - we see first-hand what counting on guys with bum shoulders ends up like) but he has one of the worst attitudes I think I've ever seen in a player. I'm sure I'd grin and root for him were he a Red, but he's a cancer.

mth123
09-19-2011, 12:27 AM
I think the argument that it might be difficult to find a trade is different than "dealing [Votto] is a step backwards."

Depends whether or not they end up settling for the best offer or really hold out for a similar star in return.

IMO, the best offer will be a step backwards.

TStuck
09-19-2011, 12:34 AM
All this talk about letting Votto go now because Alonso is ready reminde me of the Dan Driessen - Tony Perez situation in the late 70's.

I know Perez then isn't Votto now, but I can't help remembering how high everyone was on Driessen and how willing we were to move Perez, one of the cornerstones of that team.

I can see this comparison, but I also see this along the lines of the trade with Houston which sent a young, power-hitting 1st baseman in Lee May along with Tommy Helms to Houston for some chump named Morgan and a few other spare parts (Geronimo, Billingham, Menke). (Definite sarcasm there!)
That trade was also made to open a spot at 1st base for a guy who had previously played some 3rd base (but wasn't especially suited for it) in Tony Perez.
I wonder what RZ would have said about this trade back in the day??

fearofpopvol1
09-19-2011, 01:11 AM
They had two championship caliber starting pitchers and a shut down bullpen. Other than Votto, the Reds have exactly zero championship caliber players. Once Votto is traded, the probability is that the Reds will have zero championship caliber players. Every champion has to have something going for them. In the Reds case, they have a championship caliber perfromer at 1B who singlehandedly elevates the offense from run of the mill to one of the top scoring offenses n the league. The players likely to be available in a Votto deal are the type that could be had without trading your one guy who makes your team special.

One of the more realistic proposals I've seen in a Votto deal in one of these threads is to Toronto for Colby Rasmus and Brandon Morrow. Rasmus of course was traded for 2 months of a disappointing mid-rotation starter, 2 middle relievers and a 5th OF/PR. Morrow has a 5.23 ERA. That is hardly receiving Lincecum or Cain in return. If the Reds want guys like that, they are obtainable for some of the team's excess parts.

Again, if the goal is to ensure you get the most value possible in return for Votto, the right deal is to ship him off for 3 or 4 high caliber kids. That may increase the team's overall value in the long run, but it does not help the team win in 2012. Personally, I think the team needs to deal a few prospects to bring in some established arms and an established middle of the order bat to go with Votto. The team has plenty of kids coming in waves. They won't miss a few even if they go on to be real good players. They'll miss Votto - a lot.

How much of a dropoff do you see from Votto to Alonso? How many wins or how much in OPS?

If you could trade Votto and get a prospect ready to step in at LF that's going to be above average (think 1-2 wins better than Heisey) and a starting pitcher in the vein of Mike Leake, how is that not a net gain? Sure, there will be a bit of a dropoff at 1B, but there would also be a gain in LF and a gain in the rotation spot and there would be payroll room saved, which could go toward getting a 3B and/or getting another bullpen arm.

What's wrong with this plan?

Mario-Rijo
09-19-2011, 01:36 AM
Foster was Slg vs the league heavy not OB%, Joey is a tad more of both.

Last 36 years.

Best Reds RC/27 vs the league and their OB% and SLG% vs the league


CINCINNATI REDS
SEASON
1975-2010
OBA vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
SLG vs. the league average displayed only--not a sorting criteria
PLATE APPEARANCES displayed only--not a sorting criteria

RUNS CREATED/GAME YEAR DIFF PLAYER LEAGUE OBA SLG PA
1 Joe Morgan 1976 7.10 11.38 4.28 .115 .202 599
2 Joe Morgan 1975 6.61 11.14 4.53 .130 .125 639
3 Kevin Mitchell 1994 5.45 10.61 5.16 .087 .251 380
4 Joey Votto 2010 5.14 9.93 4.78 .092 .187 648
5 Eric Davis 1987 4.55 9.57 5.01 .060 .174 562
6 Joey Votto 2009 4.20 9.22 5.02 .075 .145 544
7 George Foster 1977 3.80 8.64 4.84 .045 .220 689
8 Joe Morgan 1977 3.52 8.36 4.84 .080 .068 645
9 Reggie Sanders 1995 3.49 8.55 5.06 .057 .157 567
10 Barry Larkin 1996 3.31 8.37 5.06 .071 .145 627
11 Ken Griffey Sr. 1976 3.26 7.55 4.28 .072 .076 628
12 Barry Larkin 1995 3.21 8.27 5.06 .054 .071 567
13 George Foster 1979 3.12 7.77 4.65 .052 .162 505
14 Barry Larkin 1991 2.95 7.34 4.39 .053 .120 527
15 Adam Dunn 2004 2.92 8.18 5.26 .046 .132 681
16 George Foster 1976 2.91 7.19 4.28 .035 .156 627
17 Kal Daniels 1988 2.86 7.04 4.18 .077 .086 589
18 George Foster 1981 2.74 7.01 4.28 .045 .143 472
19 Ken Griffey Jr. 2005 2.73 7.80 5.07 .031 .149 555
20 Barry Larkin 1998 2.72 7.81 5.09 .058 .079 626
21 Pete Rose 1976 2.67 6.95 4.28 .075 .075 759
22 Adam Dunn 2005 2.66 7.73 5.07 .049 .112 671
23 Hal Morris 1991 2.55 6.95 4.39 .049 .093 537
24 Eric Davis 1988 2.50 6.68 4.18 .043 .113 543
25 Ron Gant 1995 2.49 7.55 5.06 .046 .132 493


And all this with Scott Rolen backing Votto, so Hyperbole? I don't think so. I think Votto is quite possibly the best pure overall hitter the Reds have ever had and if he isn't well he is right up there with a few HoF's in Morgan, Robinson & Larkin at worst so yeah one in a lifetime type of talent and RZ wants to get rid of him, it's...I don't even know I have the word for how foolish the notion is. I know what the perception has been since Votto didn't commit to a LTC but when that occured what the Reds and it's fans should have done was set out to make him feel more comfortable about staying, instead the fans slowly bought into the idea he was gone period and I don't believe that was set in Votto's head at the time but it's got to be heading that way now. Fans & now media consistently rising chatter about dealing him coupled with the Reds F.O. being lackluster in improving or even trying is pushing him out the door.

Way to return our fortunes to the last decade Reds nation, don't forget it's not just the teams fault when we end up there, you had a hand in it!

Mario-Rijo
09-19-2011, 02:09 AM
Doesn't it depend on what you get back?

Yeah so I feel completely comfortable in saying we have already lost this deal. There is no one in this organization I trust to find the right deal (if there even is one).

Mario-Rijo
09-19-2011, 02:15 AM
How much of a dropoff do you see from Votto to Alonso? How many wins or how much in OPS?

If you could trade Votto and get a prospect ready to step in at LF that's going to be above average (think 1-2 wins better than Heisey) and a starting pitcher in the vein of Mike Leake, how is that not a net gain? Sure, there will be a bit of a dropoff at 1B, but there would also be a gain in LF and a gain in the rotation spot and there would be payroll room saved, which could go toward getting a 3B and/or getting another bullpen arm.

What's wrong with this plan?

It doesn't make us any more likely to win it all. You take a real life Most Valuable Player out of the lineup and don't replace him with one and you can forget being a legitimate contender. We might be better in the regular season possibly but try beating the Phillies rotation or the Giants one in the playoffs without Votto or Pujols, Tulo etc. With Votto we have a chance and we aren't gonna replace him with one despite what the masses think about Bautista or Alonso.

fearofpopvol1
09-19-2011, 02:38 AM
It doesn't make us any more likely to win it all. You take a real life Most Valuable Player out of the lineup and don't replace him with one and you can forget being a legitimate contender. We might be better in the regular season possibly but try beating the Phillies rotation or the Giants one in the playoffs without Votto or Pujols, Tulo etc. With Votto we have a chance and we aren't gonna replace him with one despite what the masses think about Bautista or Alonso.

If you want to base your opinion on the playoffs, Votto was 1/11 (a single) against the Phillies in 2010 with a .191 OPS.

The goal is to be at least average (or above average) at every position on the field. The Reds need to improve LF, 3B, the starting rotation and the bullpen. Maybe SS too, but that depends on whether or not Cosart can be average. That's a lot of holes to fill. How do you suggest they do that given the Reds limited resources? Stay status quo?

Alonso is ready to step in for Votto. Yes, there will be a dropoff, but again, I'd ask how significant will that dropoff be? Votto will bring good players back and will free salary room. It's not farfetched to believe that trading Votto will bring back a surplus in talent and in payroll. The goal of baseball isn't to have the best player, it's to have the best team. The Reds are far off from having a good team.

If Alonso wasn't limited to 1B and not a good prospect, this would all be a moot point.

GAC
09-19-2011, 05:09 AM
It would have to be an absolute slobberknocker of a trade for me to deal Votto. He is about as sure a double-plus bat as you're going to get.

But... the realities are what the are. In the off-season, I'd make a big time contract offer to him. Give him bigger bucks for 2012 and 2013. See if its truly just money or is it he wants out of Cincinnati. If you can't re-sign him, then make that big deal.

Yep. Make the effort, but if he rebuffs them then how much of an obvious sign does this organization (and fans) need? Look to deal him.

mth123
09-19-2011, 06:15 AM
How much of a dropoff do you see from Votto to Alonso? How many wins or how much in OPS?

If you could trade Votto and get a prospect ready to step in at LF that's going to be above average (think 1-2 wins better than Heisey) and a starting pitcher in the vein of Mike Leake, how is that not a net gain? Sure, there will be a bit of a dropoff at 1B, but there would also be a gain in LF and a gain in the rotation spot and there would be payroll room saved, which could go toward getting a 3B and/or getting another bullpen arm.

What's wrong with this plan?

1. I think you'd be looking at a .175 to .200 point drop from Votto to Alonso. Assuming Alonso will OPS .850+ (which is what everyone seems to be assuming) is absurd. He may get there one day, but hitting in the major leagues is hard. Alosno's OPS at Louisville was .860. That is a .118 drop from what Votto has done in the majors this year. Its a .164 drop from last season. I'd expect around .800 from Alonso, maybe less. He may do better, but its crazy to count on it.

2. A ready to step in LF and a pitcher like Mike Leake? That is a league average pitcher (Leake has an ERA+ of 96 in 2010 and 101 in 2011) and what sounds like a question mark for LF with Josh Willingham upside. Those types can be had without dealing the team's primary star.

As I said, if you want to make that kind of deal, it may work out great in the long run, but it probably makes 2012 a rebuilding year. Dealing Votto in a deal like that turns the offense over to some question marks. What if Alonso turns out like many of the other touted 1B bats? Justin Smoak (.721 OPS), Brandon Belt (.696), Mark Trumbo (.766) Eric Hosmer (.795), Freddie Freeman (.806) may all turn out great, but even the successes so far are huge drops from what the Reds have in hand with Votto.

Personally, if I'm dealing Votto, I'm aiming higher than a number 4 starter and a decent but not rare LF bat. I don't want the next Mike Leake. I want the next Clayton Kershaw or the next Justin Verlander. I don't want the next Josh Willingham. I want the next Mike Stanton. If I'm dealing Votto, I'd want a deal similar to what the Rangers got for Mark Texiera, what the A's got for Dan Haren, or what the Royals got last season for Zack Grienke or the Rays got for Matt Garza. That is the type of talent Votto should command. You won't get that kind of talent in a deal for major leaguers, but a boatload of prospects may net that kind of haul. Problem is, it won't make the team better in 2012. If the goal is another Mike Leake or Josh Willingham, those can be added to the team for spare parts and with Votto still in the fold could raise this team up to the next level. Its more in line with what I think this team should do (I'd aim higher pitching wise though), but adding those while downgrading the offensive centerpiece from Votto to Alonso is a huge roll of the dice that IMO won't make the team better.

Dan
09-19-2011, 07:16 AM
Selling Votto is a risk. And right now I'm in the "lock him up for eternity" camp. But realistically, if an extension can't be reached, and they are looking to trade him, Toronto would make an obvious destination.

Who would I want in return? Well, for Votto and maybe Janish, I'd start by asking for Romero, continue by asking for Lind, follow that with Escobar, and finish with asking for Thames.

Then I turn around and offer Lind and perhaps Bailey to Baltimore for Guthrie.

The lineup would be along the lines of:

2b - Phillips (definitely pick up his option and extend him)
SS - Escobar (only 295 k in 2700 PA makes him ideal for hit & run, and .366 career OBP means he'll be on a lot in front of Alonso and Bruce)
1b - Alonso (has shown no reason to think he couldn't handle moving into Votto's spot)
RF - Bruce (needs to overcome his desire to try TOO hard)
LF - Thames (Young, with some pop in his bat)
C - Mez/Hannigan (Mesoraco will struggle for awhile with the bat, but should be OK)
3b - Fransisco/Frazier/Rolen (not expecting huge production, and would like to see either TF or JF take over the position regularly)
P - whoever
CF - Stubbs (Have him bat 9th to take advantage of his speed when he does get on, but he won't get so many at bats that his weaknesses are really magnified)

SP - Romero
SP - Cueto
SP - Guthrie
SP - Leake
SP - Chapman
SP - Wood
SP - Lecure

CL - Arroyo (someone suggested this and it totally makes sense at this point)

Benihana
09-19-2011, 08:08 AM
1. I think you'd be looking at a .175 to .200 point drop from Votto to Alonso. Assuming Alonso will OPS .850+ (which is what everyone seems to be assuming) is absurd. He may get there one day, but hitting in the major leagues is hard. Alosno's OPS at Louisville was .860. That is a .118 drop from what Votto has done in the majors this year. Its a .164 drop from last season. I'd expect around .800 from Alonso, maybe less. He may do better, but its crazy to count on it.

2. A ready to step in LF and a pitcher like Mike Leake? That is a league average pitcher (Leake has an ERA+ of 96 in 2010 and 101 in 2011) and what sounds like a question mark for LF with Josh Willingham upside. Those types can be had without dealing the team's primary star.

As I said, if you want to make that kind of deal, it may work out great in the long run, but it probably makes 2012 a rebuilding year. Dealing Votto in a deal like that turns the offense over to some question marks. What if Alonso turns out like many of the other touted 1B bats? Justin Smoak (.721 OPS), Brandon Belt (.696), Mark Trumbo (.766) Eric Hosmer (.795), Freddie Freeman (.806) may all turn out great, but even the successes so far are huge drops from what the Reds have in hand with Votto.

Personally, if I'm dealing Votto, I'm aiming higher than a number 4 starter and a decent but not rare LF bat. I don't want the next Mike Leake. I want the next Clayton Kershaw or the next Justin Verlander. I don't want the next Josh Willingham. I want the next Mike Stanton. If I'm dealing Votto, I'd want a deal similar to what the Rangers got for Mark Texiera, what the A's got for Dan Haren, or what the Royals got last season for Zack Grienke or the Rays got for Matt Garza. That is the type of talent Votto should command. You won't get that kind of talent in a deal for major leaguers, but a boatload of prospects may net that kind of haul. Problem is, it won't make the team better in 2012. If the goal is another Mike Leake or Josh Willingham, those can be added to the team for spare parts and with Votto still in the fold could raise this team up to the next level. Its more in line with what I think this team should do (I'd aim higher pitching wise though), but adding those while downgrading the offensive centerpiece from Votto to Alonso is a huge roll of the dice that IMO won't make the team better.

Totally agree, which is why I don't even think about shopping him until the deadline this year at the earliest.

lollipopcurve
09-19-2011, 08:48 AM
Keep in mind that Votto carries more value the more time is left on his contract. If you wait till the deadline in 2012, his value is likely to have diminished quite a bit. If he's having a subpar year, the value will be way down. Greinke and Garza were dealt in the offseason with multiple years left on their deal.

Toronto is the most logical trading partner here. Even if they're not able to bring back Bautista, there's a lot of high upside young pitching in that organization. I would not be at all surprised were the Reds to send Votto to the Jays for a package with multiple arms -- guys like Drabek, Morrow, Henderson Alvarez could be in there as well as some guys from the lower levels. Another name in that system to watch is a guy who'd fit great into that Dayton group -- high ceiling CF named Jake Marisnick. I know this is the kind of deal that would absolutely infuriate some fans, but it's also the kind of deal that teams in markets like Cincinnati have to do sometimes. Remember, there is nothing in the stable behind the current group of starters.

lollipopcurve
09-19-2011, 08:53 AM
One of the reasons the Blue Jays are a good team to investigate deals with....

This is a quote from their GM:


“We need trades to work out for both sides,” Anthopoulos said. “I have 29 (GMs) to deal with and if I’m getting burned or they’re getting burned, I’m going to cut off one of the most important ways for us to turn around and improve the club. I’m always hoping that both teams get what they want.

“We’re happy with Brandon Morrow. I’m sure the Mariners are thrilled with Brandon League. The Brewers are thrilled with Shawn Marcum, we’re thrilled with Brett Lawrie. Those are the kind of trades I want to make, because then I can pick up the phone and call those GMs and we can continue to work on things and they know we’re going to be fair and I’ll be able to make a lot more deals.”

There's a guy who knows what it takes to make a trade.

HokieRed
09-19-2011, 09:21 AM
The last time we traded an MVP we got a AAA pitcher whom we'd now have trouble getting a utility infielder for. Nobody has liked Alonso better since his drafting than I have, but Votto's in a different category altogether from anyone else on this team. Next year I take my lumps with Alonso's defense in LF and try to sign Votto long term for anything up to Ryan Howard numbers.

lollipopcurve
09-19-2011, 09:40 AM
The last time we traded an MVP we got a AAA pitcher whom we'd now have trouble getting a utility infielder for. Nobody has liked Alonso better since his drafting than I have, but Votto's in a different category altogether from anyone else on this team. Next year I take my lumps with Alonso's defense in LF and try to sign Votto long term for anything up to Ryan Howard numbers.

It all comes down to how much ownership is willing to spend. Sure, I'd love for them to keep Votto forever. He is likely the best hitter we'll see in a Reds uniform for decades. But for the team to be a consistent winner it's going to take pitching. The minute that staff becomes mediocre, or worse, the team will tank and tank hard in that ballpark.

Give me a solid pitching staff and a balanced offense.

PuffyPig
09-19-2011, 09:45 AM
in a different category altogether from anyone else on this team. Next year I take my lumps with Alonso's defense in LF and try to sign Votto long term for anything up to Ryan Howard numbers.

If Votto had been willing to add 5 years and $125M, I bet he would have beenalready signed.

If Votto continues hitting like he has, it would take at least 8 years, $200M to get him signed as a FA.

westofyou
09-19-2011, 09:51 AM
And all this with Scott Rolen backing Votto, so Hyperbole? I don't think so. I think Votto is quite possibly the best pure overall hitter the Reds have ever had and if he isn't well he is right up there with a few HoF's in Morgan, Robinson & Larkin at worst so yeah one in a lifetime type of talent and RZ wants to get rid of him, it's...I don't even know I have the word for how foolish the notion is. I know what the perception has been since Votto didn't commit to a LTC but when that occured what the Reds and it's fans should have done was set out to make him feel more comfortable about staying, instead the fans slowly bought into the idea he was gone period and I don't believe that was set in Votto's head at the time but it's got to be heading that way now. Fans & now media consistently rising chatter about dealing him coupled with the Reds F.O. being lackluster in improving or even trying is pushing him out the door.

Way to return our fortunes to the last decade Reds nation, don't forget it's not just the teams fault when we end up there, you had a hand in it!
More hyperbole, now RZ is an accessory for driving Votto out of town eh?

Poor multimillionaire, not loved by the chat board that would kill him if he made 20 million and OPSed .845.

He's a damn good ballplayer, but he's not a god.

kaldaniels
09-19-2011, 09:59 AM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_highest_paid_baseball_players

Look at this list (highest paid players of 2011). Perhaps there are a few outliers, but when most deals for those players were signed, they probably seemed to be pretty decent contracts for the expected production. But about half of those contracts are now albatrosses. Joey Votto is one of the games best players, and if he was certain to put up 2010/2011 numbers for the next 8 years, I would hand him 200 Million. But nothing is certain, and given the Reds' payroll limits, I'm not willing to give him 150 Million plus. Who knows how a 33 year old Joey Votto will perform, let alone a 36 year old one?

_Sir_Charles_
09-19-2011, 10:02 AM
The Reds will rue the day they traded Joey Votto, if in fact they deal him.

This. Good teams BUILD around players like Votto. Viable replacement? Based on less than 100 mlb AB's? Seriously people, you've got to be joking when you say you think Yonder is a "viable" replacement for Votto.

Dealing Votto would be a horrible idea. Slugging first basemen are indeed not that difficult to find....MVP caliber hitters are a VERY rare breed. You hold onto those when you get them.

_Sir_Charles_
09-19-2011, 10:04 AM
Why? He's gone after 2013 anyway.

Everybody is assuming this. I haven't read ANYWHERE that Votto wants to "test the market" or isn't wanting to play here beyond 2013. If this team is competitive, it wouldn't surprise me AT ALL if he signs an extension.

kaldaniels
09-19-2011, 10:06 AM
This. Good teams BUILD around players like Votto. Viable replacement? Based on less than 100 mlb AB's? Seriously people, you've got to be joking when you say you think Yonder is a "viable" replacement for Votto.

Dealing Votto would be a horrible idea. Slugging first basemen are indeed not that difficult to find....MVP caliber hitters are a VERY rare breed. You hold onto those when you get them.

Jr. was an MVP caliber hitter. The Reds "held" on to him. And we know the rest. Debate is allowed on this matter, but to puff up one's chest (perhaps not you, but others) and proclaim that to do anything but give Votto a huge extension would be treasonous, is a bit much.

_Sir_Charles_
09-19-2011, 10:27 AM
Jr. was an MVP caliber hitter. The Reds "held" on to him. And we know the rest. Debate is allowed on this matter, but to puff up one's chest (perhaps not you, but others) and proclaim that to do anything but give Votto a huge extension would be treasonous, is a bit much.

And how often to players go through horrific injury problems on the scale that Jr. did? Especially without one prior to the signing? Sure, ANY player can be a risk to sign for an extended contract. But if there is ever a player who's worth taking that risk, it's the ones like Votto & Jr (I hate to group them together because it's simply not fair to Votto to be compared to a future HoF'er).

I'm not saying that he's "untouchable". But the deals I've seen thrown around here...basically put, they're a joke. And the drop off from Votto to Yonder is Grand Canyon-esque.

lollipopcurve
09-19-2011, 10:28 AM
Debate is allowed on this matter, but to puff up one's chest (perhaps not you, but others) and proclaim that to do anything but give Votto a huge extension would be treasonous, is a bit much.

Fans develop emotional connections to players. GMs have to think differently.

REDREAD
09-19-2011, 11:08 AM
It doesn't make us any more likely to win it all. You take a real life Most Valuable Player out of the lineup and don't replace him with one and you can forget being a legitimate contender. We might be better in the regular season possibly but try beating the Phillies rotation or the Giants one in the playoffs without Votto or Pujols, Tulo etc. With Votto we have a chance and we aren't gonna replace him with one despite what the masses think about Bautista or Alonso.

I agree with mario and mth..
We need Votto next year to contend.
Votto is only signed two more years, which means only a contender would trade for him.. A contender is not going to trade away a #2 starting pitcher or anything else we'd want in an ideal trade if Votto was traded..
If we can't go for it in 2012, when can we?
It really doesn't bother me at all that Votto is only signed two more years.
I want to win another division title.
We will worry about 2014 when it arrives. Either Votto will be here or we'll have his payroll slot to get talent.

Alonso can be traded or stuck in LF, but let's keep our MVP as long as possible. Guys like that don't grow on trees.
The fact that next year may be Phillips last year is even more of a reason to keep Votto around. (losing Phillips is going to be a big blow too)

RANDY IN INDY
09-19-2011, 11:37 AM
I agree with mario and mth..
We need Votto next year to contend.
Votto is only signed two more years, which means only a contender would trade for him.. A contender is not going to trade away a #2 starting pitcher or anything else we'd want in an ideal trade if Votto was traded..
If we can't go for it in 2012, when can we?
It really doesn't bother me at all that Votto is only signed two more years.
I want to win another division title.
We will worry about 2014 when it arrives. Either Votto will be here or we'll have his payroll slot to get talent.

Alonso can be traded or stuck in LF, but let's keep our MVP as long as possible. Guys like that don't grow on trees.
The fact that next year may be Phillips last year is even more of a reason to keep Votto around. (losing Phillips is going to be a big blow too)

:beerme::thumbup:

HokieRed
09-19-2011, 11:39 AM
It all comes down to how much ownership is willing to spend. Sure, I'd love for them to keep Votto forever. He is likely the best hitter we'll see in a Reds uniform for decades. But for the team to be a consistent winner it's going to take pitching. The minute that staff becomes mediocre, or worse, the team will tank and tank hard in that ballpark.

Give me a solid pitching staff and a balanced offense.

Agree here with the principles. But remember that Robinson for Pappas and Hamilton for Volquez were both trades of high-achievement (in Robby's case) or high-ceiling (in Hamilton's ) for starting pitchers. I opposed both; both failed miserably. There is the same risk in a trade of Votto. I think it's always a pretty bad idea to trade a really high level position player (by this I mean one of the 15 best in baseball) for pitching; simply too many uncertainties. Bruce or Phillips I'd trade for pitching, not Votto, at least not while there is any, even the remotest, possibility of keeping him long term.

nate
09-19-2011, 12:19 PM
Depends whether or not they end up settling for the best offer or really hold out for a similar star in return.

I think there are a variety of other scenarios that benefit both trading partners.


IMO, the best offer will be a step backwards.

Then the GM should be replaced.

While it might not be possible to exchange Votto "WAR for WAR," it certainly seems possible here in internet forum-land to get solid team improvement at positions that need it most.

paulrichjr
09-19-2011, 12:29 PM
Frank Robinson Part III

(Josh Hamilton was Part II)

Benihana
09-19-2011, 12:34 PM
I agree with mario and mth..
We need Votto next year to contend.
Votto is only signed two more years, which means only a contender would trade for him.. A contender is not going to trade away a #2 starting pitcher or anything else we'd want in an ideal trade if Votto was traded..
If we can't go for it in 2012, when can we?
It really doesn't bother me at all that Votto is only signed two more years.
I want to win another division title.
We will worry about 2014 when it arrives. Either Votto will be here or we'll have his payroll slot to get talent.

Alonso can be traded or stuck in LF, but let's keep our MVP as long as possible. Guys like that don't grow on trees.
The fact that next year may be Phillips last year is even more of a reason to keep Votto around. (losing Phillips is going to be a big blow too)

Agreed. However, two semi-realistic trades that might make me consider trading Votto this offseason are:

Votto to FLA for Hanley Ramirez and Logan Morrison
Votto to TOR for Ricky Romero, Kyle Drabek, and Colby Rasmus (could substitute Deck McGuire for one of the arms)

Call them unrealistic? Fine, then I'm hanging onto Votto for this year, as we certainly don't have to trade him. That said, I actually do think there is *some* reasonable logic to both proposals, for both sides.

757690
09-19-2011, 01:52 PM
I think there are a variety of other scenarios that benefit both trading partners.

Then the GM should be replaced.

While it might not be possible to exchange Votto "WAR for WAR," it certainly seems possible here in internet forum-land to get solid team improvement at positions that need it most.

More to the point, no one knows what other teams might offer for Votto. Trades are near impossible to predict because we don't know how other team's GMs think.

That's why I'm in favor of the Reds listening on both Votto and Alonso, and just seeing which trade offers benefit the team best. And if none of them help the team more than keeping both, then keep both. It's not imperative to trade either, but it's very possible that an offer comes along that makes the team better in 2012 and beyond.

fearofpopvol1
09-19-2011, 02:08 PM
1. I think you'd be looking at a .175 to .200 point drop from Votto to Alonso. Assuming Alonso will OPS .850+ (which is what everyone seems to be assuming) is absurd. He may get there one day, but hitting in the major leagues is hard. Alosno's OPS at Louisville was .860. That is a .118 drop from what Votto has done in the majors this year. Its a .164 drop from last season. I'd expect around .800 from Alonso, maybe less. He may do better, but its crazy to count on it.

2. A ready to step in LF and a pitcher like Mike Leake? That is a league average pitcher (Leake has an ERA+ of 96 in 2010 and 101 in 2011) and what sounds like a question mark for LF with Josh Willingham upside. Those types can be had without dealing the team's primary star.

As I said, if you want to make that kind of deal, it may work out great in the long run, but it probably makes 2012 a rebuilding year. Dealing Votto in a deal like that turns the offense over to some question marks. What if Alonso turns out like many of the other touted 1B bats? Justin Smoak (.721 OPS), Brandon Belt (.696), Mark Trumbo (.766) Eric Hosmer (.795), Freddie Freeman (.806) may all turn out great, but even the successes so far are huge drops from what the Reds have in hand with Votto.

Personally, if I'm dealing Votto, I'm aiming higher than a number 4 starter and a decent but not rare LF bat. I don't want the next Mike Leake. I want the next Clayton Kershaw or the next Justin Verlander. I don't want the next Josh Willingham. I want the next Mike Stanton. If I'm dealing Votto, I'd want a deal similar to what the Rangers got for Mark Texiera, what the A's got for Dan Haren, or what the Royals got last season for Zack Grienke or the Rays got for Matt Garza. That is the type of talent Votto should command. You won't get that kind of talent in a deal for major leaguers, but a boatload of prospects may net that kind of haul. Problem is, it won't make the team better in 2012. If the goal is another Mike Leake or Josh Willingham, those can be added to the team for spare parts and with Votto still in the fold could raise this team up to the next level. Its more in line with what I think this team should do (I'd aim higher pitching wise though), but adding those while downgrading the offensive centerpiece from Votto to Alonso is a huge roll of the dice that IMO won't make the team better.

I think you could get more than the equivalent of Josh Willingham and Mike Leake for Votto at season's end. Who exactly, I have no idea. But I think you could get a great return that makes the Reds better.

I'll ask you the same question as I asked Mario-Rijo...we tried the current crop of players this year (with Votto) and it's going to likely produce a .500 team at best. How would you improve the team given the salary restrictions if you're not trading Votto that is going to put the Reds ahead of the Brewers and the Cardinals next year?

Benihana
09-19-2011, 02:30 PM
I think you could get more than the equivalent of Josh Willingham and Mike Leake for Votto at season's end. Who exactly, I have no idea. But I think you could get a great return that makes the Reds better.

I'll ask you the same question as I asked Mario-Rijo...we tried the current crop of players this year (with Votto) and it's going to likely produce a .500 team at best. How would you improve the team given the salary restrictions if you're not trading Votto that is going to put the Reds ahead of the Brewers and the Cardinals next year?

Let Cordero walk. Package some combo of Volquez/Wood/Frazier/Francisco/Heisey/Sappelt/Soto/Grandal/one or two of the Dragons for a #1 or #2 pitcher (Shields?) to team at the TOR with Cueto. Full (improved) seasons from Bailey and Leake, and one of Volquez/Wood/Chapman/Arroyo emerging as a reliable #5.

Votto and Phillips maintain production. Slight improvement out of Bruce (and maybe Stubbs). Full seasons of Cozart at SS and Alonso in LF should represent huge upgrades offensively.

That looks like it should spell significant improvement to me.

I agree that maintaining the status quo is unacceptable, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to trade Joey Votto.

marcshoe
09-19-2011, 03:12 PM
When you have a weakness, trading strength for uncertainty rarely works.

dougdirt
09-19-2011, 03:28 PM
Frank Robinson Part III

(Josh Hamilton was Part II)

Trading a crack addict with less than a full season in the majors is in no way, shape or form comparable to trading Frank Robinson.

fearofpopvol1
09-19-2011, 03:49 PM
Let Cordero walk. Package some combo of Volquez/Wood/Frazier/Francisco/Heisey/Sappelt/Soto/Grandal/one or two of the Dragons for a #1 or #2 pitcher (Shields?) to team at the TOR with Cueto. Full (improved) seasons from Bailey and Leake, and one of Volquez/Wood/Chapman/Arroyo emerging as a reliable #5.

Votto and Phillips maintain production. Slight improvement out of Bruce (and maybe Stubbs). Full seasons of Cozart at SS and Alonso in LF should represent huge upgrades offensively.

That looks like it should spell significant improvement to me.

I agree that maintaining the status quo is unacceptable, but that doesn't necessarily mean we have to trade Joey Votto.

To be honest, I don't think this is enough. You're talking about adding 1 pitcher basically. It seems to count on a lot of "what ifs" in terms of players improving, which is what we hoped for in 2011 and it largely didn't happen. It also doesn't seem to account for the drop off in defense in LF that we would be enduring either. This plan would help for sure, but enough to catapult us over the Cards and the Brewers? I don't think so.

osuceltic
09-19-2011, 03:57 PM
Trading a crack addict with less than a full season in the majors is in no way, shape or form comparable to trading Frank Robinson.

That's a pretty slanted characterization of that trade.

dougdirt
09-19-2011, 04:14 PM
That's a pretty slanted characterization of that trade.

No, it really isn't. Trying to compare trading a guy who had a .303/.389/.554 line with the Reds over 6400 PA's to trading a guy with off the field issues out the wazoo who had 337 PA's for the Reds is crazy.

bucksfan2
09-19-2011, 04:18 PM
No, it really isn't. Trying to compare trading a guy who had a .303/.389/.554 line with the Reds over 6400 PA's to trading a guy with off the field issues out the wazoo who had 337 PA's for the Reds is crazy.

The Reds traded a future MVP for garbage. He was a guy who was under their control for cheap and for 5 more years. When you go back and look at it 20 years from now it may be viewed up there with a Frank Robinson type trade.

dougdirt
09-19-2011, 04:23 PM
The Reds traded a future MVP for garbage. He was a guy who was under their control for cheap and for 5 more years. When you go back and look at it 20 years from now it may be viewed up there with a Frank Robinson type trade.

No, it won't. The Reds traded a gigantic question mark (albeit with great talent) for another big question mark (albeit with great talent). In the Frank Robinson trade, the Reds traded a known future hall of famer. How you can't see the difference between the two situations, I can't understand.

One guy = crack addict with great baseball skills and roughly 60% of one full season under his belt.

Other guy = absolutely known future hall of famer

The two situations aren't comparable. At all.

bucksfan2
09-19-2011, 04:31 PM
No, it won't. The Reds traded a gigantic question mark (albeit with great talent) for another big question mark (albeit with great talent). In the Frank Robinson trade, the Reds traded a known future hall of famer. How you can't see the difference between the two situations, I can't understand.

One guy = crack addict with great baseball skills and roughly 60% of one full season under his belt.

Other guy = absolutely known future hall of famer

The two situations aren't comparable. At all.

He wasn't a crack addict, he was a former crack addict. The Yankees didn't trade Mickey Mantle because he was a drunk did they?

Say what you want about the trade at the time. When you deal away great talent it always is revisionist history. And you always look at the trade in hindsight.

Superdude
09-19-2011, 04:41 PM
The Reds traded a future MVP for garbage. He was a guy who was under their control for cheap and for 5 more years. When you go back and look at it 20 years from now it may be viewed up there with a Frank Robinson type trade.

You're ignoring the motives of the trade though. Krivsky knew as well as anyone how much talent Hamilton had, but the guy had a horrible history of drug addiction and awful decision making. We literally had to hire Narron to hold his hand all day long. Good for him that he's stayed somewhat in line all these years, but you can't blame the GM for flipping a guy with that kind of risk.

Roy Tucker
09-19-2011, 04:42 PM
Other guy = absolutely known future hall of famer



Tangent alert....

Sure looks that way now, but I don't think it was quite that obvious in 1965.

dougdirt
09-19-2011, 04:47 PM
He wasn't a crack addict, he was a former crack addict. The Yankees didn't trade Mickey Mantle because he was a drunk did they?

Say what you want about the trade at the time. When you deal away great talent it always is revisionist history. And you always look at the trade in hindsight.

Once an addict, always an addict. You clearly don't have an understanding of how these things work. If you ever run into Josh, ask him how much cash he has on him. When he tells you, ask yourself why a guy with tens of millions of dollars has less cash in his pocket than the bum begging for money has in his cup.

As for the Mantle comparison... again it goes to show you that you simply don't have an understanding of what is going on with what Hamilton was dealing with. But hey, lets go down this road.... how many times was Mantle suspended by baseball? How many years did Mantle miss out on because he was a drunk? How many times did Hamilton get suspended by baseball because he was on crack? How many years did he miss? Why are we even pretending these two situations are comparable?

dougdirt
09-19-2011, 04:50 PM
Tangent alert....

Sure looks that way now, but I don't think it was quite that obvious in 1965.

You don't think it was obvious in 1965 that a guy with 324 HR's and a .303 lifetime average through 10 seasons in the Majors to go with 6 All Star selections wasn't a sure fire hall of famer?

HokieRed
09-19-2011, 04:51 PM
It sure was obvious to me in 1965.

Superdude
09-19-2011, 04:55 PM
And you always look at the trade in hindsight.

You can't always judge trades by the end result. There's tons of perfectly reasonable trades made that turn out to be flops, Hamilton being one of them. You have to take into account the context and see if it was sound decision making at the time. Even if you aggregate everything together in hindsight and things turn out negative, it doesn't necessarily make it bad decision making.

RedsManRick
09-19-2011, 04:57 PM
He wasn't a crack addict, he was a former crack addict. The Yankees didn't trade Mickey Mantle because he was a drunk did they?

Say what you want about the trade at the time. When you deal away great talent it always is revisionist history. And you always look at the trade in hindsight.

At age 21, Josh Hamilton was in high A and got injured. For the next 3 years, he was a crack addict who nearly died from addiction. At the age of 25, he came back to professional baseball and had 55 PA in the New York Penn League. The Reds took a flyer on him and he had a very good, unexpected breakout season at age 26. His addiction was such that the Reds had to hire a babysitter for him and he wasn't allowed to carry money.

At age 21, Mickey Mantle was in his 3rd year in the majors and was coming off a 3rd place MVP season. From ages 22-25, Mickey averaged 145 games and won back to back MVPs. When Josh Hamilton was getting drafted in the Rule V, Mickey was in the process of writing his legend. The Yankees didn't trade Mickey because he had a track record of success that could be counted on. If he had drunk his way through 3 of his prime years and hadn't reached the big leagues until he was 26, it would have been a very different conversation.

Talk about revisionist history. The Reds screwed up royally in trading Frank Robinson and some have suggested that the "old 30" line was BS to cover up other motivations. But I would hardl ycall Milt Pappas junk. He didn't work out all that well for the Reds, but he was a 27 year old coming of 3 very good years and he was the #2 starter on a 94-68 Orioles team. The Reds got a lot more for Robinson than they did for Robionson and that's a reflection of how the players they traded away were valued at the time. Apples and oranges.

Roy Tucker
09-19-2011, 05:05 PM
You don't think it was obvious in 1965 that a guy with 324 HR's and a .303 lifetime average through 10 seasons in the Majors to go with 6 All Star selections wasn't a sure fire hall of famer?

When you say "absolutely" and "sure fire", I'd say no.

Dale Murphy and Andruw Jones are guys off the top of my head that fell off a cliff. Probably a lot more guys like that.

Would I say he had a good shot? Heck yeah. But I wouldn't call it rock-solid and iron-clad. He still had baseball to play to get to that HoF level and, whereas he sure as heck played his tail off for many more years, that he would do that wasn't a certainty in 1965.

There actually was a little merit to the "old 30" comment. Not a lot and I disagreed with the trade then and with it now, but I can see where there was some wiggle room. His late 20's seasons fell off a bit from his mid 20's seasons. Who knew which way the curve was going to go?

dougdirt
09-19-2011, 05:16 PM
I guess Frank did fall off some from 27-29, but he was also the best hitter in the league from ages 24-26, so there wasn't much room to go but down.

Mario-Rijo
09-19-2011, 05:25 PM
Frank Robinson Part III

(Josh Hamilton was Part II)

Could there be a worse record of trading off MVP/HOF level bats, I think not. Well put!

_Sir_Charles_
09-19-2011, 06:09 PM
When you have a weakness, trading strength for uncertainty rarely works.

Simple and to the point. Not to mention correct. :beerme:

camisadelgolf
09-19-2011, 06:28 PM
I love how Jocketty said the Reds' biggest need is a middle-of-the-order bat and proceeds to be listening to offers for Votto. Per usual, something's not making a lot of sense in terms of media reports.

MikeS21
09-19-2011, 07:31 PM
Here is why you trade Votto this off-season as opposed to next off-season. In a nutshell, you will get a bigger return now, when the perception is that you don't have to trade him. If Jocketty waits until next off-season, every GM in baseball will low-ball him because they know the Reds will have to move Votto.

Here is what I'd do, I'd sit Votto's agent down the day after the season ends and make it 150% clear that the team's preference is to extend Votto two more years, with a mutual option for a third year. If Votto is still skittish about signing past 2013, then I would let them know that the team was going to put out some feelers and listen to offers, in an effort to maximize the return on investment. Again, I would re-emphasize that the team would rather build around Votto for the next 5-6 seasons, but if he doesn't see himself here in 2014-16, then the team needs to build around other players, and begin that process immediately.

oneupper
09-19-2011, 08:00 PM
Here is what I'd do, I'd sit Votto's agent down the day after the season ends and make it 150% clear that the team's preference is to extend Votto two more years, with a mutual option for a third year. .

That conversation is a non-starter. Votto is not going to sign for 2-3 years. He'd be a fool to. If Jayson Werth can get 7/126, Votto can get 7 or 8 years easy.
The REDS have to talk 2020 if they want to extend Joey.

westofyou
09-19-2011, 08:46 PM
Must be hyperbole week here.

And....I must have missed the announcement. ;)

mth123
09-19-2011, 09:03 PM
I think you could get more than the equivalent of Josh Willingham and Mike Leake for Votto at season's end. Who exactly, I have no idea. But I think you could get a great return that makes the Reds better.

I'll ask you the same question as I asked Mario-Rijo...we tried the current crop of players this year (with Votto) and it's going to likely produce a .500 team at best. How would you improve the team given the salary restrictions if you're not trading Votto that is going to put the Reds ahead of the Brewers and the Cardinals next year?

Here is one scenario,

Alonso, Stubbs, Masset and Grandal for James Shields and BJ Upton.

Upton and Volquez for Carlos Quentin

Sign Jason Isringhausen or a flat $1 Million

Here is your team. Offense intact with addition of a middle of the order LF and the pitching bolstered with the addition of Shields. A lot more upside with guys like Mesoraco, Francisco, Sappelt and Frazier on the roster in place of guys like Renteria, Janish, Lewis and Gomes and no real pressure on any of them to come in and be "the man." The forgotten benefit of all of this is that keeping Votto around gives Bruce more time to continue to grow into the main man role so the team won't be lacking in a centerpiece when Votto does leave.




# Pos Name $
1 P Johnny Cueto 5.40
2 P James Shields 7.00
3 P Bronson Arroyo 7.00
4 P Homer Bailey 1.00
5 P Mike Leake 0.60
6 P Travis Wood 0.42
7 P Sam Lecure 0.50
8 P Jose Arredondo 1.00
9 P Logan Ondrusek 0.50
10 P Bill Bray 2.00
11 P Jason Izzy 1.00
12 P Aroldis Chapman 3.25
13 C Ryan Hanigan 1.20
14 C Devin Mesoraco 0.42
15 1B Joey Votto 11.00
16 2B Br Phillips 12.00
17 SS Zach Cozart 0.42
18 3B Scott Rolen 7.80
19 IF Juan Francisco 0.42
20 IF Miguel Cairo 1.00
21 LF Carlos Quentin 9.00
22 CF Chris Heisey 0.50
23 RF Jay Bruce 5.00
24 OF David Sappelt 0.42
25 U Todd Frazier 0.42

Ex $ Injury add ons 1.50
Ex $ Fr. Cordero 1.00


Total Payrol 81.77


In 2012 Phillips, Quentin, Cairo, Izzy and Rolen come off the books which pays for all the raises and allows the pursuit of a replacement for Quentin. After 2013 Arroyo and Hanigan come off the books to provide some wiggle room to give Votto an increase. The payroll isn't really this issue its being made out to be as long as you work in the kids to keep the margins of the roster cheap. What would likely fail is thrusting these guys into the central roles on the team right away. Let Mesoraco, Francisco and Frazier play for a couple years before asking them to pick-up the slack in the middle of the order. With Votto around, they won't need to be the centerpiece. If/when Votto walks you have another $19 Million coming off the books to find the .850ish 1B that many assume Alonso will be. Its possible that Mesoraco and Francisco establish themselves as threats by then and there won't be any urgency to have to go get somebody. A guy like Soto could be worked in. It just won't work in 2012 when none of these guys (Alonso included) are established IMO. If these guys aren't cut out for it, there is still a bunch of money available to get somebody. You won't replace Votto but you'd probably be just as well off as you would have been had you dealt him and kept Alonso. The advantage is you'd have a couple years of taking a shot while the next wave grows up instead of regrouping for 2015.

Big Klu
09-20-2011, 12:05 AM
Trading a crack addict with less than a full season in the majors is in no way, shape or form comparable to trading Frank Robinson.

While I agree that Josh Hamilton still has a long way to go to be included in the same breath as Frank Robinson, Edinson Volquez may have even further to go to be included in the same breath as Milt Pappas.

dougdirt
09-20-2011, 12:50 AM
While I agree that Josh Hamilton still has a long way to go to be included in the same breath as Frank Robinson, Edinson Volquez may have even further to go to be included in the same breath as Milt Pappas.
Sure, but we also didn't trade Frank Robinson for Edinson Volquez.

fearofpopvol1
09-20-2011, 01:18 AM
Here is one scenario,

Alonso, Stubbs, Masset and Grandal for James Shields and BJ Upton.

Upton and Volquez for Carlos Quentin

Sign Jason Isringhausen or a flat $1 Million

Here is your team. Offense intact with addition of a middle of the order LF and the pitching bolstered with the addition of Shields. A lot more upside with guys like Mesoraco, Francisco, Sappelt and Frazier on the roster in place of guys like Renteria, Janish, Lewis and Gomes and no real pressure on any of them to come in and be "the man." The forgotten benefit of all of this is that keeping Votto around gives Bruce more time to continue to grow into the main man role so the team won't be lacking in a centerpiece when Votto does leave.




# Pos Name $
1 P Johnny Cueto 5.40
2 P James Shields 7.00
3 P Bronson Arroyo 7.00
4 P Homer Bailey 1.00
5 P Mike Leake 0.60
6 P Travis Wood 0.42
7 P Sam Lecure 0.50
8 P Jose Arredondo 1.00
9 P Logan Ondrusek 0.50
10 P Bill Bray 2.00
11 P Jason Izzy 1.00
12 P Aroldis Chapman 3.25
13 C Ryan Hanigan 1.20
14 C Devin Mesoraco 0.42
15 1B Joey Votto 11.00
16 2B Br Phillips 12.00
17 SS Zach Cozart 0.42
18 3B Scott Rolen 7.80
19 IF Juan Francisco 0.42
20 IF Miguel Cairo 1.00
21 LF Carlos Quentin 9.00
22 CF Chris Heisey 0.50
23 RF Jay Bruce 5.00
24 OF David Sappelt 0.42
25 U Todd Frazier 0.42

Ex $ Injury add ons 1.50
Ex $ Fr. Cordero 1.00


Total Payrol 81.77


In 2012 Phillips, Quentin, Cairo, Izzy and Rolen come off the books which pays for all the raises and allows the pursuit of a replacement for Quentin. After 2013 Arroyo and Hanigan come off the books to provide some wiggle room to give Votto an increase. The payroll isn't really this issue its being made out to be as long as you work in the kids to keep the margins of the roster cheap. What would likely fail is thrusting these guys into the central roles on the team right away. Let Mesoraco, Francisco and Frazier play for a couple years before asking them to pick-up the slack in the middle of the order. With Votto around, they won't need to be the centerpiece. If/when Votto walks you have another $19 Million coming off the books to find the .850ish 1B that many assume Alonso will be. Its possible that Mesoraco and Francisco establish themselves as threats by then and there won't be any urgency to have to go get somebody. A guy like Soto could be worked in. It just won't work in 2012 when none of these guys (Alonso included) are established IMO. If these guys aren't cut out for it, there is still a bunch of money available to get somebody. You won't replace Votto but you'd probably be just as well off as you would have been had you dealt him and kept Alonso. The advantage is you'd have a couple years of taking a shot while the next wave grows up instead of regrouping for 2015.

This plan isn't a bad idea, but I really don't like the idea of trading both Grandal and Alonso. The likelihood is in 2 years that 1 of those guys should be stepping in at 1B. This also assumes that Walt would make a trade like that, which I'm doubting.

I think Votto makes more sense because of the money he is making and because of the return he would bring. Great Prospects + Money Saved = Talent Surplus. At least, it should if done properly.

Ron Madden
09-20-2011, 04:13 AM
It sure was obvious to me in 1965.

I thought so too.

I was eleven years old in '65 and Frank Robinson was my favorite player. He could do it all run, field, throw, hit and hit for power. Willie Mays was still considered by most fans to be the best all around baseball player in the national league but not in my eyes, Frank Robinson was my Hero.

I knew then that Willie Mays was one of the best to ever play the game and was a sure fire bet for the Hall Of Fame but I was a born and bred dyed in the wool Cincinnati Reds Fan. Sure Willie was Great but so was Frank.

I actually cried when Robinson was traded to Baltimore.

Looking at it now, if I had my choice between a young Frank Robinson and Josh Hamilton I'd still pick Robby.

Ron Madden
09-20-2011, 04:13 AM
It sure was obvious to me in 1965.

I thought so too.

I was eleven years old in '65 and Frank Robinson was my favorite player. He could do it all run, field, throw, hit and hit for power. Willie Mays was still considered by most fans to be the best all around baseball player in the national league but not in my eyes, Frank Robinson was my Hero.

I knew then that Willie Mays was one of the best to ever play the game and was a sure fire bet for the Hall Of Fame but I was a born and bred dyed in the wool Cincinnati Reds Fan. Sure Willie was Great but so was Frank.

I actually cried when Robinson was traded to Baltimore.

Looking at it now, if I had my choice between a young Frank Robinson and Josh Hamilton I'd still pick Robinson.

mth123
09-20-2011, 06:39 AM
This plan isn't a bad idea, but I really don't like the idea of trading both Grandal and Alonso. The likelihood is in 2 years that 1 of those guys should be stepping in at 1B. This also assumes that Walt would make a trade like that, which I'm doubting.

I think Votto makes more sense because of the money he is making and because of the return he would bring. Great Prospects + Money Saved = Talent Surplus. At least, it should if done properly.

I'd rather not rebuild right now. Having Votto and trying to win in 2012 has more value than the prospects. I'd rather have Votto for two more years with some pieces around him, than the kids. Five years ago, when things looked hopeless, I''d have been all for dealing Votto for a truckload of high talent kids, but now is time to win.

Grandal at 1B is a horrible idea. Talk about giving away value. As a catcher he has a ton of it. As a 1B, he'd be in the lower echelon of guys in the league and we'd be looking for an upgrade immediately. Scott Hatteberg was a nice player, but he put his teams at a big disadvantage vs. the competition when seeing what other teams had at 1B. Grandal would be the same scenario. IF Votto walks, there will be plenty of cash available to go get a 1B. That assumes that some other in house candidate can't step in. Grandal is a great prospect, but the reason is because he's a catcher. If he's a 1B, he not so hot. I'd prefer Soto, Lutz, or maybe Duran as a prospect to play 1B. If one of them can't fill the role, maybe somebody on the big league roster who has a kid ready at his spot. Maybe Francisco slides over because David Vidal is ready. Maybe Frazier finds a home for his bat (I doubt he has enough bat though). Maybe the Reds just spend some of that dough coming off the books when Votto walks and fill 1B adequately. I don't get why everyone wants to punt 2012 and 2013 because of something that might happen in 2014 and may not be that huge of an issue if it does.

If you want good, established pitching, its going to cost something. If you are looking to get it from a rebuild situation, they aren't going to want Votto. A contender isn't going to trade its good estblished pitching for Votto. You may get more middle of the rotation question marks for Joey, but does anyone really think somebody like Brandon Morrow and his 5.2ish ERA is the fix for this team's pitching woes? That is likely the type of return you'll get. Contenders aren't going to deal their aces. Talk about letting Votto go with little or no return. I'd rather have Votto for 2 more years with a couple of draft picks at the end than a deal like that even with some middling OF thrown in. If you want good pitching capable of putting the team back in the hunt immediately, then dealing off some of the kids is the only way its going to happen.

As for what Walt will do? I'm guessing Chapman goes into the rotation and they sign a reliever. Most likely, that plan will include overpaying Cordero with an Arroyo like deal in place of exercising his option and finishing 3rd or 4th. Then everyone will say, "see, we don't have what it takes to win. We should have traded Votto."

oneupper
09-20-2011, 08:04 AM
I'd rather not rebuild right now. Having Votto and trying to win in 2012 has more value than the prospects. I'd rather have Votto for two more years with some pieces around him, than the kids. Five years ago, when things looked hopeless, I''d have been all for dealing Votto for a truckload of high talent kids, but now is time to win.

Grandal at 1B is a horrible idea. Talk about giving away value. As a catcher he has a ton of it. As a 1B, he'd be in the lower echelon of guys in the league and we'd be looking for an upgrade immediately. Scott Hatteberg was a nice player, but he put his teams at a big disadvantage vs. the competition when seeing what other teams had at 1B. Grandal would be the same scenario. IF Votto walks, there will be plenty of cash available to go get a 1B. That assumes that some other in house candidate can't step in. Grandal is a great prospect, but the reason is because he's a catcher. If he's a 1B, he not so hot. I'd prefer Soto, Lutz, or maybe Duran as a prospect to play 1B. If one of them can't fill the role, maybe somebody on the big league roster who has a kid ready at his spot. Maybe Francisco slides over because David Vidal is ready. Maybe Frazier finds a home for his bat (I doubt he has enough bat though). Maybe the Reds just spend some of that dough coming off the books when Votto walks and fill 1B adequately. I don't get why everyone wants to punt 2012 and 2013 because of something that might happen in 2014 and may not be that huge of an issue if it does.

If you want good, established pitching, its going to cost something. If you are looking to get it from a rebuild situation, they aren't going to want Votto. A contender isn't going to trade its good estblished pitching for Votto. You may get more middle of the rotation question marks for Joey, but does anyone really think somebody like Brandon Morrow and his 5.2ish ERA is the fix for this team's pitching woes? That is likely the type of return you'll get. Contenders aren't going to deal their aces. Talk about letting Votto go with little or no return. I'd rather have Votto for 2 more years with a couple of draft picks at the end than a deal like that even with some middling OF thrown in. If you want good pitching capable of putting the team back in the hunt immediately, then dealing off some of the kids is the only way its going to happen.

As for what Walt will do? I'm guessing Chapman goes into the rotation and they sign a reliever. Most likely, that plan will include overpaying Cordero with an Arroyo like deal in place of exercising his option and finishing 3rd or 4th. Then everyone will say, "see, we don't have what it takes to win. We should have traded Votto."

I hate you, mth. Because I agree 100% and the ending isn't happy. :(

Nasty_Boy
09-20-2011, 08:06 AM
I don't see the issue with listening to offers... It doesn't mean you have to pull the trigger. We don't know what Joey has told the Reds regarding his long term status as a member of this team, we don't know what kind of extension has been offered, and we surely don't know what teams may offer for Joey. The Reds have JV under contract the next two seasons... My hunch is the Reds fear a potential backlash by trading Joey so they are going to hold on to him and try to make a run in 2012. If the Reds fall on their face at the beginning of next season, I could see Joey becoming available next July. Pujols and Fielder possibly leaving the division also may influence what moves the Reds do or don't make this offseason. Personally, I feel that Walt has to take a chance and start moving some young guys. I can't see them leaving Arizona with Stubbs, Heisey and Sappelt still on the roster. I'm hoping that they learned their lesson on standing pat and become a little more aggressive this offseason... And for heaven sake I hope that Bob isn't voicing his opinion on baseball moves. Payroll, yes. Team construction, no.

PuffyPig
09-20-2011, 08:17 AM
While I agree that Josh Hamilton still has a long way to go to be included in the same breath as Frank Robinson, Edinson Volquez may have even further to go to be included in the same breath as Milt Pappas.

The Reds didn't really fare that bad from the trade.

Pappas was decent for a few years, and was flipped for Clay Carroll, who was excellent for a number of years.

We also got Dick Simpson in the trade, who was flipped for Alex Johnson. He was great for 2 years, and then traded for Jim McGlothin, Pedro Borbon and Vern Geishert. McGlothin was decent for a few years, and Borbon joined Carroll in anchoring out BRM bullpen for a number of years.

Geishert was flipped with a utility MI Duffy for Foster.

So, while Foster, Carroll and Borbon were helping the BGM win two world series, Robinson was finishing up his career.

Horrible trade, sure, but one that ultimately worked out just fine for us.

dunner13
09-20-2011, 08:27 AM
If the angels lose out on getting pujols or fielder this winter they might get very aggressive in coming after Votto. A package of Trout, Walden and either chattwood or richards would make me feel better about losing Votto. I know people are going to say no way the Angels give up Trout but remember Votto is probably the best young hitter in the game, hes had two seasons at MVP level, hes still fairly cheap considering the production and at his age theres no reason to think he cant keep being at MVP level for many more years.

oneupper
09-20-2011, 08:36 AM
The Reds didn't really fare that bad from the trade.

Pappas was decent for a few years, and was flipped for Clay Carroll, who was excellent for a number of years.

We also got Dick Simpson in the trade, who was flipped for Alex Johnson. He was great for 2 years, and then traded for Jim McGlothin, Pedro Borbon and Vern Geishert. McGlothin was decent for a few years, and Borbon joined Carroll in anchoring out BRM bullpen for a number of years.

Geishert was flipped with a utility MI Duffy for Foster.

So, while Foster, Carroll and Borbon were helping the BGM win two world series, Robinson was finishing up his career.

Horrible trade, sure, but one that ultimately worked out just fine for us.

I was expecting Kevin Bacon. :)

bucksfan2
09-20-2011, 09:14 AM
Once an addict, always an addict. You clearly don't have an understanding of how these things work. If you ever run into Josh, ask him how much cash he has on him. When he tells you, ask yourself why a guy with tens of millions of dollars has less cash in his pocket than the bum begging for money has in his cup.

Hamilton absolutely would have been a risk. But he would have been a risk I would have taken. What he did that one year in Cincy hadn't been seen in decades. He was a generational type talent, Ken Griffey Jr. type talent. He was absolutely worth the risk to hold onto at least through his pre-arb years. The year after they traded him he OPS'd .901. You don't think that risk would have been worth < $1M? You don't think a 1.044 OPS bat in 2010 wouldn't have been nice? Also solving a huge question mark in LF? It may have been a risk, but to me it sure as heck was a risk worth taking.

The ironic part about the whole trade is I never would have thought that Volquez was more likely to be suspended than Hamilton.

osuceltic
09-20-2011, 10:00 AM
Hamilton absolutely would have been a risk. But he would have been a risk I would have taken. What he did that one year in Cincy hadn't been seen in decades. He was a generational type talent, Ken Griffey Jr. type talent. He was absolutely worth the risk to hold onto at least through his pre-arb years. The year after they traded him he OPS'd .901. You don't think that risk would have been worth < $1M? You don't think a 1.044 OPS bat in 2010 wouldn't have been nice? Also solving a huge question mark in LF? It may have been a risk, but to me it sure as heck was a risk worth taking.

The ironic part about the whole trade is I never would have thought that Volquez was more likely to be suspended than Hamilton.

This is what drives me crazy about the people who defend that trade. They act liked they traded Josh Hamilton for some sure thing. Like they were eliminating the risk that came with Hamilton. Volquez was in no way a sure thing. There was and is risk that he'll ever be a consistent major league pitcher. With Hamilton, the drug issue was a risk, but at least you knew the talent was there.

TRF
09-20-2011, 10:16 AM
This is what drives me crazy about the people who defend that trade. They act liked they traded Josh Hamilton for some sure thing. Like they were eliminating the risk that came with Hamilton. Volquez was in no way a sure thing. There was and is risk that he'll ever be a consistent major league pitcher. With Hamilton, the drug issue was a risk, but at least you knew the talent was there.

Edinson Volquez in 2008: 206K's, 196 IP. 1.33 WHIP 3.21 ERA. How many Reds pitchers have done that in the last 10 years?

The talent is actually there. Can he get control of it enough to repeat 2008? Guess we'll know for sure next year.

RedFanAlways1966
09-20-2011, 11:29 AM
This is what drives me crazy about the people who defend that trade. They act liked they traded Josh Hamilton for some sure thing. Like they were eliminating the risk that came with Hamilton. Volquez was in no way a sure thing. There was and is risk that he'll ever be a consistent major league pitcher. With Hamilton, the drug issue was a risk, but at least you knew the talent was there.

Sometimes we forget the past. I am talking about a team that could score lots-and-lots of runs for many years. The same team that had guys like Aaron Harang (ace!), Eric Milton, Danny Graves, Paul Wilson... Acevedo, Ortiz, Claussen, Belisle, Wells, Lehr, Anderson, Owings, Fogg, Thompson, Ramirez, Pettyjohn, Livingstone, Saarloos, Dumatrait, Shearn, Williams, Mays, Germano, Michalak, Kim, Hudson, Keisler, Hancock, Sanchez, Bong, Van Poppel as starting pitchers in the years before that trade. I am not sure a "sure thing pitcher" even exists. I can remember a team in 1987 that traded a "sure thing seasoned pitcher" for a no name. That no name will be in Cooperstown before long while Doyle will only be there as a visitor. Got to take a chance sometimes.

Let us remember another thing... one relapse and all that talent is finished. That is a HUGE RISK. Ask or read about any addict.

_Sir_Charles_
09-20-2011, 11:39 AM
This is what drives me crazy about the people who defend that trade. They act liked they traded Josh Hamilton for some sure thing. Like they were eliminating the risk that came with Hamilton. Volquez was in no way a sure thing. There was and is risk that he'll ever be a consistent major league pitcher. With Hamilton, the drug issue was a risk, but at least you knew the talent was there.

The way I looked at the trade at the time was that we were trading one big risk for another big risk. The difference was that the big risk we were getting was in an area of need for the team at that time. Outfield was not a need back then. I still do that trade knowing what we knew then.

REDREAD
09-20-2011, 11:51 AM
Back to the topic.. no need to trade Votto.

Package one or two of Wood, Volquez, Homer along with some other prospects to get your solid starting pitcher. Ideally, you try to pull off a deal simliar to what the Cubs did for Garza.

Only bring back Cordero for 4 million at most.
Try to get another dependable reliever.
Either go with Alonso in LF or get a LF
Sign a veteran that can back up SS/3b without totally killing you.

IMO, it's not that difficult to get what the Reds need IF the money is there to spend.

Superdude
09-20-2011, 11:56 AM
The way I looked at the trade at the time was that we were trading one big risk for another big risk. The difference was that the big risk we were getting was in an area of need for the team at that time. Outfield was not a need back then. I still do that trade knowing what we knew then.

"knowing what we knew then" is the key. Trades are weighed and decided in real time with current facts and projections, not retrospectively. We might as well blast every GM in the league for not taking Pujols in the first round twelve years ago.

RedsManRick
09-20-2011, 01:03 PM
Edinson Volquez in 2008: 206K's, 196 IP. 1.33 WHIP 3.21 ERA. How many Reds pitchers have done that in the last 10 years?

The talent is actually there. Can he get control of it enough to repeat 2008? Guess we'll know for sure next year.

He did have a very solid year that year, but the ERA overstates the case a bit. You didn't list it but he did have 93 walks in 2008. He had the 4th highest walk rate for pitchers with 180+ IP.

FIP: 3.60
xFIP: 3.84

Your point is still valid, of course. 200 IP of a 3.84 ERA would be a welcomed addition to the staff and it's possible he gets back there. We just shouldn't confuse Volquez for an ace. The reality is that he's never really demonstrated ace potential -- he's never had the control. Sure, if he cut his walks down near 3 per 9 he could be, but that's sort of like saying if Dunn made more contact he'd be Albert Pujols. It's basically true but we don't have any reason to believe it's a realistic possibility.

Really, the big problem he's had this year has been Arroltonitis. Drop his HR rate back down to his career level (which is in line with league average) and his ERA drops by a run and a half -- or more. But right now, the walks and homers are a BAD combo. Of course, they're symptoms of the same problem -- a lack of a control; sometimes it's 2 feet outside, sometimes it's right down broadway.

In a way, he really is like a mirror image of Dunn. He's got an elite skill and when he's on, he can be dominant. But if he struggles in the area he's weak already, he falls hard.

jojo
09-20-2011, 01:08 PM
Volquez has basically had roughly half a season of stellar ERA as a Red and that occurred pre-injury.

I'm not saying he sucks but rather pointing out context.


It wouldn't surprise me if Volquez never posted an ERA below 3.50 again.

At issue is his true skill level (an important baseline for predicting his future).

Here's a breakdown of his season using the "half" split.



Volquez 2008
Season IP FIP ERA K/9 BB/9 HR/9 H/9 BABIP GB% FB% LD% HR/FB xFIP
1st 117.2 3.19 2.30 9.68 4.30 0.38 6.91 0.290 0.53 0.29 0.18 5.7 3.70
2nd 78.1 4.19 4.61 9.22 4.26 1.04 8.87 0.329 0.38 0.41 0.22 10.3 4.28



First, there is no doubt that Volquez took a step forward this season as he established himself as a legitimate major league starter.

That said, his season was a tale of two seasons. Clearly his first half was a hyperbolic one when just looking at his ERA and his second half, well, not so much. That said, looking at his peripherals, he was not a dramatically different fellow but for a couple notable exceptions. Upon closer look, his first half was driven substantially by an extremely low HR/FB rate for a starter (typically this parameter is considered out of control of a pitcher and deviations from 10-11% are expected to regress). He also demonstrated an ability to induce groundballs that was significantly higher than his career to date.

Basically in the second half his HR/FB% and GB% regressed back to expected levels. Mix in half a K less per 9 and a mild swing in his BABIP and not surprisingly, his ERA jumped dramatically.

So the point? I think Volquez's true skill level is probably captured by his "half split" xFIPs, i.e. it's somewhere between 3.70 and 4.30. Right now, it seems reasonable to split the difference and expect a xFIP of 4.00.

From that standpoint, I think an ERA of 4.00 isn't a shocking projection but one of 2.75-3.20 would be highly unlikely.

I also see no reason to expect Volquez to significantly decrease his walk rate moving forward.

osuceltic
09-20-2011, 01:12 PM
Sometimes we forget the past. I am talking about a team that could score lots-and-lots of runs for many years. The same team that had guys like Aaron Harang (ace!), Eric Milton, Danny Graves, Paul Wilson... Acevedo, Ortiz, Claussen, Belisle, Wells, Lehr, Anderson, Owings, Fogg, Thompson, Ramirez, Pettyjohn, Livingstone, Saarloos, Dumatrait, Shearn, Williams, Mays, Germano, Michalak, Kim, Hudson, Keisler, Hancock, Sanchez, Bong, Van Poppel as starting pitchers in the years before that trade. I am not sure a "sure thing pitcher" even exists. I can remember a team in 1987 that traded a "sure thing seasoned pitcher" for a no name. That no name will be in Cooperstown before long while Doyle will only be there as a visitor. Got to take a chance sometimes.

Let us remember another thing... one relapse and all that talent is finished. That is a HUGE RISK. Ask or read about any addict.

I'm not arguing that the team didn't need pitching. Of course it did. I'm just saying don't try to portray it as the Reds selling this ticking time bomb for a sure-thing pillar of the rotation. That's not the reality at all.

And I'm of the opinion that you judge trades over time, not when they're made. GMs get paid to make all of those calculations and to make good deals -- not to make good deals on paper or to win the press conference. Krivsky (who I think did a good job overall) badly miscalculated on the Hamilton trade and made a terrible deal. Anyone who argues otherwise is in denial.

RedsManRick
09-20-2011, 01:15 PM
I'm not arguing that the team didn't need pitching. Of course it did. I'm just saying don't try to portray it as the Reds selling this ticking time bomb for a sure-thing pillar of the rotation. That's not the reality at all.

Has anybody actually asserted that Hamilton was doomed or that Volquez was a sure thing?

fearofpopvol1
09-20-2011, 01:25 PM
I'd rather not rebuild right now. Having Votto and trying to win in 2012 has more value than the prospects. I'd rather have Votto for two more years with some pieces around him, than the kids. Five years ago, when things looked hopeless, I''d have been all for dealing Votto for a truckload of high talent kids, but now is time to win.

Grandal at 1B is a horrible idea. Talk about giving away value. As a catcher he has a ton of it. As a 1B, he'd be in the lower echelon of guys in the league and we'd be looking for an upgrade immediately. Scott Hatteberg was a nice player, but he put his teams at a big disadvantage vs. the competition when seeing what other teams had at 1B. Grandal would be the same scenario. IF Votto walks, there will be plenty of cash available to go get a 1B. That assumes that some other in house candidate can't step in. Grandal is a great prospect, but the reason is because he's a catcher. If he's a 1B, he not so hot. I'd prefer Soto, Lutz, or maybe Duran as a prospect to play 1B. If one of them can't fill the role, maybe somebody on the big league roster who has a kid ready at his spot. Maybe Francisco slides over because David Vidal is ready. Maybe Frazier finds a home for his bat (I doubt he has enough bat though). Maybe the Reds just spend some of that dough coming off the books when Votto walks and fill 1B adequately. I don't get why everyone wants to punt 2012 and 2013 because of something that might happen in 2014 and may not be that huge of an issue if it does.

If you want good, established pitching, its going to cost something. If you are looking to get it from a rebuild situation, they aren't going to want Votto. A contender isn't going to trade its good estblished pitching for Votto. You may get more middle of the rotation question marks for Joey, but does anyone really think somebody like Brandon Morrow and his 5.2ish ERA is the fix for this team's pitching woes? That is likely the type of return you'll get. Contenders aren't going to deal their aces. Talk about letting Votto go with little or no return. I'd rather have Votto for 2 more years with a couple of draft picks at the end than a deal like that even with some middling OF thrown in. If you want good pitching capable of putting the team back in the hunt immediately, then dealing off some of the kids is the only way its going to happen.

As for what Walt will do? I'm guessing Chapman goes into the rotation and they sign a reliever. Most likely, that plan will include overpaying Cordero with an Arroyo like deal in place of exercising his option and finishing 3rd or 4th. Then everyone will say, "see, we don't have what it takes to win. We should have traded Votto."

With Mez and Grandal both, 1 of them is not going to stick around. One of the two is likely to be traded or slid over to 1B. Grandal to 1B is not a horrible idea. I don't disagree he has more value at catcher, but he is also a cheap replacement that can be slotted in where resources can be used toward a SS, 3B or a SP.

I don't disagree that a contender won't trade it's established stud pitchers, but that's where you have to be creative. I think the Reds should be targeting a Pinero type pitcher, perhaps someone in AAA putting up stellar numbers. To suggest that Morrow is the best the Reds could do on the pitching front in a trade for Votto is just not correct.

lollipopcurve
09-20-2011, 01:29 PM
think the Reds should be targeting a Pinero type pitcher, perhaps someone in AAA putting up stellar numbers. To suggest that Morrow is the best the Reds could do on the pitching front in a trade for Votto is just not correct.


Joel Piniero? Kidding, right? Take a look at his numbers over the past several years.

Brandon Morrow has the arm of a #1-#2 starter. Not saying he's worth dealing Votto for by ANY stretch, but at least the guy has a very high upside.

fearofpopvol1
09-20-2011, 02:15 PM
Joel Piniero? Kidding, right? Take a look at his numbers over the past several years.

Brandon Morrow has the arm of a #1-#2 starter. Not saying he's worth dealing Votto for by ANY stretch, but at least the guy has a very high upside.

I didn't say Pinero specifically, just a pitcher of his mold. And what I suggested about Morrow is that I think the Reds could find someone who has been more successful than he has thus far.

_Sir_Charles_
09-20-2011, 03:38 PM
I'm not arguing that the team didn't need pitching. Of course it did. I'm just saying don't try to portray it as the Reds selling this ticking time bomb for a sure-thing pillar of the rotation. That's not the reality at all.

And I'm of the opinion that you judge trades over time, not when they're made. GMs get paid to make all of those calculations and to make good deals -- not to make good deals on paper or to win the press conference. Krivsky (who I think did a good job overall) badly miscalculated on the Hamilton trade and made a terrible deal. Anyone who argues otherwise is in denial.

Did you feel this way after the first year of the deal, end of 2008? I think most everyone was of the opinion that the deal was a win for both teams. Krivsky could not have known that Josh would get BETTER and wouldn't have a relapse. He also could not have known that Edinson would get injured and require TJ surgery and get suspended as well. You simply can't judge the trade on THOSE aspects. On performance...sure. But for Edinson, his performance was altered considerably due to the injury. (I'm not excusing his lousy performance...just pointing out that it DID effect the results). There's not a GM on the planet who could've known what the outcome of that trade would've been 1, 2 or 3 years down the line. IMO, basing an evaluation of a trade on hindsight is kinda silly.

osuceltic
09-20-2011, 03:39 PM
Has anybody actually asserted that Hamilton was doomed or that Volquez was a sure thing?

Not in so many words, but when the argument is that the Reds traded Josh Hamilton more or less because he could fall off a heroin cliff any minute, and they fail to mention that Volquez was maybe even more of a risk, it's intellectually dishonest and irritating.

_Sir_Charles_
09-20-2011, 03:42 PM
With Mez and Grandal both, 1 of them is not going to stick around. One of the two is likely to be traded or slid over to 1B. Grandal to 1B is not a horrible idea. I don't disagree he has more value at catcher, but he is also a cheap replacement that can be slotted in where resources can be used toward a SS, 3B or a SP.

I don't disagree that a contender won't trade it's established stud pitchers, but that's where you have to be creative. I think the Reds should be targeting a Pinero type pitcher, perhaps someone in AAA putting up stellar numbers. To suggest that Morrow is the best the Reds could do on the pitching front in a trade for Votto is just not correct.

Why? If they BOTH pan out as above average catchers...why wouldn't we keep them both and do what we've been doing with Hanigan & Hernandez? Split time with both of them once they're ready and you keep BOTH of them fresh longer and reduce the risk of injuries to both of them. Grandal's got a while before he's ready I think, so for a couple of years it can be Hanigan/Mesoraco. Once he's ready, Mesoraco/Grandal. Getting one (or both) some time at another position gives us even more flexibility. I see no reason to deal either right now.

osuceltic
09-20-2011, 03:44 PM
Did you feel this way after the first year of the deal, end of 2008? I think most everyone was of the opinion that the deal was a win for both teams. Krivsky could not have known that Josh would get BETTER and wouldn't have a relapse. He also could not have known that Edinson would get injured and require TJ surgery and get suspended as well. You simply can't judge the trade on THOSE aspects. On performance...sure. But for Edinson, his performance was altered considerably due to the injury. (I'm not excusing his lousy performance...just pointing out that it DID effect the results). There's not a GM on the planet who could've known what the outcome of that trade would've been 1, 2 or 3 years down the line. IMO, basing an evaluation of a trade on hindsight is kinda silly.

Again, a GM's job is to weigh all of those risks, evaluate the exchange from all sides, and then make a decision. The post-2008 outcome for Volquez was no less predictable than the 2008 outcome -- in fact, I think you can make a pretty good case that the 2008 Volquez season was much more unlikely than anything we've seen since. It was a terrible, terrible trade. It happens.

dougdirt
09-20-2011, 03:45 PM
This is what drives me crazy about the people who defend that trade. They act liked they traded Josh Hamilton for some sure thing. Like they were eliminating the risk that came with Hamilton. Volquez was in no way a sure thing. There was and is risk that he'll ever be a consistent major league pitcher. With Hamilton, the drug issue was a risk, but at least you knew the talent was there.
Are we really suggesting that Edinson Volquez doesn't have a lot of talent?

I am not saying he has Josh Hamilton type talent, because he doesn't. But there aren't many guys out there with his type of arm in baseball either.

As for what drives me crazy is people pretending that Josh Hamilton isn't a crack addict and that 40% of crack addicts don't relapse once they go clean. That is what drives me crazy. The Reds hedged their bet and took on a guy with an attitude problem in trade for a guy with a crack problem. In hindsight, they lost the deal. At the time, it was the smartest thing they could have done.


Krivsky (who I think did a good job overall) badly miscalculated on the Hamilton trade and made a terrible deal. Anyone who argues otherwise is in denial.

See above about how often crack addicts relapse. You seem to have forgotten to add that into your calculations that you think Krivsky ran. I am not in denial about it at all.

IslandRed
09-20-2011, 03:51 PM
And I'm of the opinion that you judge trades over time, not when they're made. GMs get paid to make all of those calculations and to make good deals -- not to make good deals on paper or to win the press conference. Krivsky (who I think did a good job overall) badly miscalculated on the Hamilton trade and made a terrible deal. Anyone who argues otherwise is in denial.

Miscalculated? No.

Guessed wrong? Yes.

Truth is, there was no way to truly calculate the odds of Hamilton staying clean, given all the circumstances. At best, there was a vaguely accurate guesstimate of probability, which could still go either way. Krivsky guessed wrong. Such is life in the decision-making chair. But let's not act as if it was realistic to know the right answer at the time.

bucksfan2
09-20-2011, 03:57 PM
As for what drives me crazy is people pretending that Josh Hamilton isn't a crack addict and that 40% of crack addicts don't relapse once they go clean. That is what drives me crazy. The Reds hedged their bet and took on a guy with an attitude problem in trade for a guy with a crack problem. In hindsight, they lost the deal. At the time, it was the smartest thing they could have done.

Turns out it wasn't the recovering addict that relapsed. It was the guy with attitude problems who got suspended because of drugs.

The Reds may have thought they were hedging their bets but it didn't turn out that way.

What drives me crazy about this is you have dug you line in the sand. Since Hamilton was addicted to crack at one point in his career nothing good could ever come out of him. You couldn't take that risk because at one point in his life he was a crack addict. Here is the funny thing about your percentage, 60% don't relapse. 60% succeed at staying off drugs during the rest of their lives. Heck 60% of Hamilton is a lot better than 100% of Volquez.

_Sir_Charles_
09-20-2011, 03:58 PM
Again, a GM's job is to weigh all of those risks, evaluate the exchange from all sides, and then make a decision. The post-2008 outcome for Volquez was no less predictable than the 2008 outcome -- in fact, I think you can make a pretty good case that the 2008 Volquez season was much more unlikely than anything we've seen since. It was a terrible, terrible trade. It happens.

Disagree. Totally and completely. The GM's job is to weigh those risks, yes. And he did just that. Edinson had a history of problems (attitude, control, performance) but had tremendous upside. A change of scenery can quite often be a huge key in unlocking that potential. So it was a risk (as any trade is involving prospects and especially pitchers) but one with huge upside. Hamilton had a history of problems as well (drugs most notably) and he also had tremendous upside. At the time, we had a glut of outfielders. We had Junior, Dunn, Freel, Hopper, plus Votto, Bruce & Stubbs (and others it seemed) on the way. Sure, Josh had great potential...but we had Bruce sitting down on the farm chomping at the bit too.

I will agree that Edinson had just as much of a chance as bombing in Cincy as he did of starting out great. But the EXACT SAME THING can and should be said for Hamilton. For a guy who had the history that he did...he could have VERY EASILY relapsed and disappeared off the face of the planet again. He still could. But for the Reds, why take that risk when you've got the minor league player of the year sitting down at louisville? Don't you think it makes MORE SENSE for the Reds to take that big risk on a position of need?

I'm going to stop now since we're obviously getting away from the point of this thread. I guess we could/should move this to a different thread as I think we should get back to discussing Votto.

Patrick Bateman
09-20-2011, 03:58 PM
Anyone who argues otherwise is in denial.

I simply don't understand viewpoints such as this.

There are clearly two sides to this debate. It is dificult to argue with a decent opinion without sugesting that the other side has some merit.
I don't know how you refuse to even consider Hamilton's drug adiction. Or the fact that it was stil only a 337 at bat sample size, something that Jon Nunnaly has outperformed in a similar sample.
I was against the trade at the time, but did not consider it a slam dunk because the risk with Hamilton was very obvious and needed to be considered.

_Sir_Charles_
09-20-2011, 04:03 PM
Turns out it wasn't the recovering addict that relapsed. It was the guy with attitude problems who got suspended because of drugs.

The Reds may have thought they were hedging their bets but it didn't turn out that way.

What drives me crazy about this is you have dug you line in the sand. Since Hamilton was addicted to crack at one point in his career nothing good could ever come out of him. You couldn't take that risk because at one point in his life he was a crack addict. Here is the funny thing about your percentage, 60% don't relapse. 60% succeed at staying off drugs during the rest of their lives. Heck 60% of Hamilton is a lot better than 100% of Volquez.

Big difference though. Most of that 60% who manage to stay clean...don't have the money that Hamilton does. That kind of money adds a significant amount of temptation to that equation. Not to mention the general lifestyle of a professional athlete. His risk of relapse is STILL considerably higher than the general public type of addict.

fearofpopvol1
09-20-2011, 04:08 PM
Why? If they BOTH pan out as above average catchers...why wouldn't we keep them both and do what we've been doing with Hanigan & Hernandez? Split time with both of them once they're ready and you keep BOTH of them fresh longer and reduce the risk of injuries to both of them. Grandal's got a while before he's ready I think, so for a couple of years it can be Hanigan/Mesoraco. Once he's ready, Mesoraco/Grandal. Getting one (or both) some time at another position gives us even more flexibility. I see no reason to deal either right now.

Sure, anything could happen, but how realistic is it? Can you name another tandem with 2 stud catchers? It's rare and the Reds may get back a score of other players for Grandal. I also don't think he's too far away from the majors. This upcoming season will be telling.

osuceltic
09-20-2011, 04:56 PM
I simply don't understand viewpoints such as this.

There are clearly two sides to this debate. It is dificult to argue with a decent opinion without sugesting that the other side has some merit.
I don't know how you refuse to even consider Hamilton's drug adiction. Or the fact that it was stil only a 337 at bat sample size, something that Jon Nunnaly has outperformed in a similar sample.
I was against the trade at the time, but did not consider it a slam dunk because the risk with Hamilton was very obvious and needed to be considered.

There aren't two sides. It was a terrible deal. You can make arguments to defend the decisions behind all kinds of terrible trades in baseball history. It doesn't make them less terrible. Hamilton-Volquez was a terrible trade for the Reds. Awful. There's no way around it.

Rojo
09-20-2011, 05:12 PM
Trading bats for pitchers means you lose more times than you win. That's because pitching's harder to find. Because pitching's harder to find, find it and you win.

So you often need to trade bats for pitching.

Superdude
09-20-2011, 05:58 PM
There aren't two sides. It was a terrible deal. You can make arguments to defend the decisions behind all kinds of terrible trades in baseball history. It doesn't make them less terrible. Hamilton-Volquez was a terrible trade for the Reds. Awful. There's no way around it.

No one's refuting how awful the trade has been. It's blown up in our face, but we're talking about the reasoning behind it at the time.

westofyou
09-20-2011, 06:17 PM
turns out it wasn't the recovering addict that relapsed. It was the guy with attitude problems who got suspended because of drugs.

The reds may have thought they were hedging their bets but it didn't turn out that way.

What drives me crazy about this is you have dug you line in the sand. Since hamilton was addicted to crack at one point in his career nothing good could ever come out of him. You couldn't take that risk because at one point in his life he was a crack addict. Here is the funny thing about your percentage, 60% don't relapse. 60% succeed at staying off drugs during the rest of their lives. Heck 60% of hamilton is a lot better than 100% of volquez.

picture deleted

dougdirt
09-20-2011, 06:33 PM
Turns out it wasn't the recovering addict that relapsed. It was the guy with attitude problems who got suspended because of drugs.

The Reds may have thought they were hedging their bets but it didn't turn out that way.

What drives me crazy about this is you have dug you line in the sand. Since Hamilton was addicted to crack at one point in his career nothing good could ever come out of him. You couldn't take that risk because at one point in his life he was a crack addict. Here is the funny thing about your percentage, 60% don't relapse. 60% succeed at staying off drugs during the rest of their lives. Heck 60% of Hamilton is a lot better than 100% of Volquez.
It isn't that he was addicted to crack, it is that he IS addicted to crack. You never get over that addiction. Ever. Can you stay clean? Surely. But you are always addicted to crack once you become addicted to it.

And I never have said nothing good could have come from it. Clearly there has been good that came from Josh Hamilton. But I wouldn't be in the business of taking the side of people who are addicted to hardcore drugs in a multimillion dollar business if I didn't have to. Again, why is it that the 7 year old that I babysit for had more cash in his pocket this morning when he left for school than Josh Hamilton does at any point? It is because his family is too concerned that he will relapse if they actually give him enough money to go out and buy something. That should tell you everything you need to know about just how big of a risk it was keeping him.

Patrick Bateman
09-20-2011, 07:13 PM
There aren't two sides. It was a terrible deal. You can make arguments to defend the decisions behind all kinds of terrible trades in baseball history. It doesn't make them less terrible. Hamilton-Volquez was a terrible trade for the Reds. Awful. There's no way around it.

You are now just arguing against something that nobody else is arguing.

Okay, you are right, Josh Hamilton was a riskless investment at the time.

That is why 337 at-bats prior to being a Red he was had for free, and almost everyone on this board was actually against even acquiring him for the price of nothing.

Then again, we can actually try to evaluate a trade of a drug addict that was banned from baseball for 4 years, had not played above A ball, and was disliked in the clubhouse, required a baby-sitter, has actually relapsed, and maybe, just maybe, there is some logic there that points to Hamilton being a very risky proposition at the time for a team with hitting in spades and no pitching.

Considering Volquez was the get, there was not one other team that was willing to give up a better piece for a Frank Robinson calibre player. Something doesn't add up there. I guess you have foresight better than every single GM in baseball, well either that, or you are dealing completely in hindsight.

mth123
09-20-2011, 07:26 PM
If the angels lose out on getting pujols or fielder this winter they might get very aggressive in coming after Votto. A package of Trout, Walden and either chattwood or richards would make me feel better about losing Votto. I know people are going to say no way the Angels give up Trout but remember Votto is probably the best young hitter in the game, hes had two seasons at MVP level, hes still fairly cheap considering the production and at his age theres no reason to think he cant keep being at MVP level for many more years.


This is exactly my point. If Votto is to be dealt for value, this is the type of deal that needs to be made (though I don't see the Angels making this particular deal). Its a rebuilding move though. It won't help the Reds in 2012.

The real question is how may seasons do you want to punt before you have a good team again? My answer is zero,

mth123
09-20-2011, 07:29 PM
With Mez and Grandal both, 1 of them is not going to stick around. One of the two is likely to be traded or slid over to 1B. Grandal to 1B is not a horrible idea. I don't disagree he has more value at catcher, but he is also a cheap replacement that can be slotted in where resources can be used toward a SS, 3B or a SP.

I don't disagree that a contender won't trade it's established stud pitchers, but that's where you have to be creative. I think the Reds should be targeting a Pinero type pitcher, perhaps someone in AAA putting up stellar numbers. To suggest that Morrow is the best the Reds could do on the pitching front in a trade for Votto is just not correct.

Piniero? Joel Pniero? Really. Why not keep Votto and deal Alonso and someother kids and get something better? FWIW, I'd rather have Morrow than Piniero.

I'd rather have whatever we could get in trade for Grandal to a team that views him as a long term answer behind the plate, than have Grandal himself manning 1B. If one of Mez or Grandal is destined to be traded (a thought that I agree with), why not trade Grandal now for what we need and keep Votto?

westofyou
09-20-2011, 07:39 PM
picture deleted

Yeah I get it, we don't want reality sullying our image of Josh.

mattfeet
09-20-2011, 07:49 PM
Yeah I get it, we don't want reality sullying our image of Josh.

Or maybe people at work don't want to see a picture of Josh licking stuff off of girls when they're not expecting it.

_Matt

dougdirt
09-20-2011, 07:55 PM
Piniero? Joel Pniero? Really. Why not keep Votto and deal Alonso and someother kids and get something better? FWIW, I'd rather have Morrow than Piniero.

I'd rather have whatever we could get in trade for Grandal to a team that views him as a long term answer behind the plate, than have Grandal himself manning 1B. If one of Mez or Grandal is destined to be traded (a thought that I agree with), why not trade Grandal now for what we need and keep Votto?

Because you clearly aren't going to get anything close to the same kind of return for Grandal as you would for Votto. Of course, you know that. I am not really opposed to either plan. I am willing to trade a stash of good prospects to fill a need or two, or willing to trade Votto to fill a need or two. But my expectations on returns for those deals are quite different.

mth123
09-20-2011, 08:21 PM
Because you clearly aren't going to get anything close to the same kind of return for Grandal as you would for Votto. Of course, you know that. I am not really opposed to either plan. I am willing to trade a stash of good prospects to fill a need or two, or willing to trade Votto to fill a need or two. But my expectations on returns for those deals are quite different.

Not mine. I think dealing Votto to fill needs will be pretty problematic.

1. Votto is a two year rental who is due $30 Million over that period and presumably is set on testing the free agent waters (or we wouldn't be thinking of dealing him). No rebuilding or cost cutting team is going to deal for him. They are going to want to deal their best players for 3 or 4 kids who can form the core of their team the next time they may have a chance to be good.

2. A contending team isn't going to rip up its core to deal for one player. Contenders are going to want to deal prospects to add pieces to the major league roster without taking anything of value away from it.

3. That pretty much leaves dealing Votto to some contending team for its spare parts. If that's the deal, it doesn't really help the reds now or in the future.

Door number 2, dealing Votto for prospects, is the best way to get value for Votto in a deal. Door number 1, keeping Votto and dealing kids for established players, is the most likely way to upgrade the Reds roster.

Door Number 3, dealing Votto for established players who aren't likely to be stars in order to fill holes, is the best way to get "zonked" in this game of "Lets Make a Deal."

fearofpopvol1
09-20-2011, 11:02 PM
Piniero? Joel Pniero? Really. Why not keep Votto and deal Alonso and someother kids and get something better? FWIW, I'd rather have Morrow than Piniero.

I'd rather have whatever we could get in trade for Grandal to a team that views him as a long term answer behind the plate, than have Grandal himself manning 1B. If one of Mez or Grandal is destined to be traded (a thought that I agree with), why not trade Grandal now for what we need and keep Votto?

Doug hit the nail on the head. You can do your plan of packaging up the youngsters, but you can also expect less in return while continuing to be handicapped with payroll issues. What you want and what you'll realistically get are 2 very different things. The Reds simply have too many holes right now. 3B, LF, SP, Bullpen and potentially SS. There's no amount of prospects you're going to bundle up that will fill those holes. If you trade Votto, you have salary relief and you'll get a bunch of prospects to fill some of those holes.

Guacarock
09-21-2011, 02:08 AM
I've been reading this thread for a few days now, and I have seen several assertions made that bear refuting. Some have argued that if we trade Votto, all we can expect back is a passel of prospects. In another post, I read that if we trade Votto, we're likely to receive a mediocre starting pitcher at best. Folks have gone out on a limb to declare that any trade would push us back into a total rebuilding mode and usher in a new dark age for the Reds.

All kinds of bizarre personal projections have been made and primal fears expressed, with Redszoners reopening long-festering wounds and sores they've never laid to rest involving trades of Tony Perez, Frank Robinson or Josh Hamilton. The common underlying theme seems to be: We've been hosed anytime we've dealt a star, so we might as well bend over in advance and prepare for another royal shafting.

I find this defeatist train of thought perplexing, seeing as how any possible trade of Votto is pure conjecture at this point. We don't have the faintest idea whether he will be dealt, and if so, to whom and what the actual return would be. I would submit that, in the absence of those kinds of pertinent details, it's impossible to say whether such a trade would be beneficial to the team or an albatross we'll live to rue.

I'm not going to advocate here that we trade Votto or make him an untouchable this winter. But I am going to suggest one scenario that posits a trade of Votto that would not only possibly improve the Reds and make us more competitive in 2012, but also presumably offer a positive impact for our trade partners. That's right, I said partners, because this scenario involves three teams -- the Reds, the Blue Jays and the Braves. Mind you, it's not the only scenario out there worth considering, but it is one that strikes me as being plausible. I can envision a few other alternatives that would be just as do-able, and wouldn't render us dead in the water come next season, let alone 2-3 years hence.

The scenario:

Reds receive SS Yunel Escobar and LF Eric Thames from the Blue Jays, and SP Jair Jurrgens from the Braves.

Blue Jays receive 1B Joey Votto and SS Todd Cozart from the Reds

Braves receive SP Kyle Drabek, C Travis D'Arnaud and 3B Craig Stansberry from the Blue Jays

Here's why the trade might be enticing for each franchise:

From the Reds' standpoint: What have been our most chronic and gaping holes for the past few seasons? I would argue SS, LF and SP. This mega-deal gives us viable solutions for all three of those nagging problems. Escobar is at the peak of his game -- one of the best available SS in either league. He's not only skilled at both offense and defense, he's also a lead-off batter with a .369 OBP, 24 doubles and 11 HR. Did I forget to mention, he's signed for two more years at $5 million per season, plus there are club options to extend him, if desired, at the same $5 million per season rate for 2014 and 2015. I can't think of another SS out there who's that good and can be retained at that friendly and reasonable a rate for so long. To me, he would need to be the cornerstone of the deal.

Thames is a left-hand hitting rookie who is having a decent, if not spectacular maiden voyage in LF for the Blue Jays. His defense is nothing special but better than we've seen from Lewis and Gomes. He's currently sporting a .768 OPS with 22 doubles and 10 dingers in 330 AB. In other words, he could emerge as our answer in LF, or at worst, become a solid and capable platoon partner with Heisey, earning the bare ML minimum, but hardly representing an untested prospect.

Then we get to Jurrgens. The Braves have already hinted strongly that they intend to deal him this winter, as they have a logjam in their rotation and it's going to get more crowded once they summon uber pitching prospect Teheran. Jurrgens is hardly a mediocre SP. Before getting shut down with a right knee injury, he started 23 games this season, compiling a 13-6 record with a 2.96 ERA and in 152 IP. He earned $3.25 million in 2011, but is due to get an arb raise to the $5-$6 million range in 2012. Whoever lands him would retain rights through 2013 when he can declare for free agency, and probably will do so, being a Scott Boras client.

The cumulative amount that the Reds would have to pay Escobar, Thames and Jurrgens in 2012? About $11.5 million, or exactly what we'll owe Votto next year, according to Cot's, so this trade would be entirely salary-neutral.

Now, let's analyze the trade from the Blue Jays perspective. Can you imagine the excitement among the fan base in Toronto upon learning they have landed native son Joey Votto to join fellow Canadian Brett Lawrie and Jose Bautista in their lineup? What a potent offense, and especially considering that none of the current SP in their rotation got packaged off to consummate the deal. They would have to elevate their budget $6 million or so for 2012, but could easily anticipate a rise in attendance to cover that action. They would need to find a lead-off man to replace Escobar, but would have Cozart to hold down the fort at SS until the expected arrival in 2013 of their much touted and highly paid SS prospect Adeiny Hechavarria. Assuming he lives up to expectations, they could move Cozart over to 2B, use him in a utility role or trade him. At 1B, Votto would displace Adam Lind and Edwin Encarnacion. Toronto would have to decide who between them should man LF and who should DH. Both have plus bats, but defensive warts.

What do the Braves get here? They're the ones who would be getting the passel of prospects, three of them to be exact. But they would be precisely the kind of high-reward, high-quality prospects that the Braves need to plug obvious holes in their farm pipeline. They don't have a dominant catcher prospect anywhere in their system. D'Arnaud would change that, giving them an ML-ready catcher to caddy with McCann or bear more of the burden if McCann goes down with an injury. 3B Stansberry is not so highly touted as D'Arnaud, but enjoyed a respectable season this summer in AAA, enough to view him as a potential understudy for aged Chipper Jones. Drabek is the wild card in the deal -- once among the most highly regarded SP prospects in the game, but the victim of a downturn in 2011. Could be a red flag or simply a bump in the road, with Drabek coming out blazing in 2012. Something tells me the Braves might be interested enough to see how Drabek's future unfolds. I doubt they'd land three better prospects for Jurrgens, yet all three prospects might be expendable for the Blue Jays with Arencibia's 2011 performance at C, Lawrie at 3B and Henderson Alvarez as a rookie SP.

That's the deal. Press me and I can spell out some of the alternatives. Again, I'm not going to fall on my sword and argue that we have to trade Votto, or if we do, that it has to be a deal that takes this particular shape. All I'm saying is that before committing hari kari at the mere mention of a Votto trade, some of you need to:

A. Calm down
B. Stay open-minded
C. Realize that there are creative deals that could work for the Reds as well as many different trading partners.
D. And, finally, not condemn the front office in advance without having a clue what they're going to do, or why, or what they hope to accomplish.

reds44
09-21-2011, 02:31 AM
Here's what I do if I'm the Reds:

Sit down in the offseason with Votto's agent, and lay it down. Just say we want Votto back, what's it going to take? I'm not going to throw out numbers because I'd have to look up what Votto's market value is, but just offer him 10 years and whatever it is.

If it's still clear then that Votto wants to hit the open market, then I'd consider moving him.

And I'm not trading Votto this offseason unless I'm getting proven major league talent for him that fills holes. The Bautista deal is one you'd have to consider. If you can't get something like that, then wait and try to make a run with Votto this year and then consider prospects in the offseason.

The advantage to the Reds if they start listening now is they have all the leverage. With two years left on his deal, there's no reason to settle for anything less than everything.

Ron Madden
09-21-2011, 04:48 AM
Turns out it wasn't the recovering addict that relapsed. It was the guy with attitude problems who got suspended because of drugs.

The Reds may have thought they were hedging their bets but it didn't turn out that way.

What drives me crazy about this is you have dug you line in the sand. Since Hamilton was addicted to crack at one point in his career nothing good could ever come out of him. You couldn't take that risk because at one point in his life he was a crack addict. Here is the funny thing about your percentage, 60% don't relapse. 60% succeed at staying off drugs during the rest of their lives. Heck 60% of Hamilton is a lot better than 100% of Volquez.


While reading this thread it becomes pretty obvious just who has dug a line in the sand and refuses to see both sides of the story.

I agree 100% with Doug and others who believe dealing Hamilton for Volquez was a Good Move At The Time. Every story has two sides and this story hasn't even come to a conclusion yet.

camisadelgolf
09-21-2011, 05:47 AM
Well said, Guacarock. I really like the deal you proposed, but I think the Braves would expect a bigger return--particularly in terms of MLB-ready players. However, I could never see that deal happening with Jocketty at the helm--Escobar's attitude simply goes too far against what he preaches regarding the importance of clubhouse unity.

Dan
09-21-2011, 08:39 AM
The scenario:

Reds receive SS Yunel Escobar and LF Eric Thames from the Blue Jays, and SP Jair Jurrgens from the Braves.

Blue Jays receive 1B Joey Votto and SS Todd Cozart from the Reds

Braves receive SP Kyle Drabek, C Travis D'Arnaud and 3B Craig Stansberry from the Blue Jays

Here's why the trade might be enticing for each franchise:



I'd much rather include another player like Sappelt or Wood or Bailey and get Rickey Romero. Just leave the Braves out of it entirely.

lollipopcurve
09-21-2011, 08:59 AM
If a deal is made with the Jays and it does not include Bautista, Romero would be the next best get. However, I would also consider a package of Morrow and 3 top prospects (for example, Hutchison, Nicolino and Marisnick, with Marisnick being a must). Henderson Alvarez might be preferable to Morrow, not sure on that. But Morrow has the potential to be a middle of the rotation workhorse. Problem being, I think he hits free agency in a couple years. Not a big fan of Drabek, but he does have upside and many years of control left. So, there's still some good talent there, beyond Bautista and Romero.

marcshoe
09-21-2011, 09:13 AM
Man, most people just draw lines in the sand, but you guys are digging! I guess you're not just drawing lines; you're building trenches! :p

kaldaniels
09-21-2011, 10:55 AM
The scenario:

Reds receive SS Yunel Escobar and LF Eric Thames from the Blue Jays, and SP Jair Jurrgens from the Braves.

Blue Jays receive 1B Joey Votto and SS Todd Cozart from the Reds

Braves receive SP Kyle Drabek, C Travis D'Arnaud and 3B Craig Stansberry from the Blue Jays



Todd Cozart? Are you kidding me?

I'd much rather give up Chris Sappelt or Yasmani Mesoraco.

kaldaniels
09-21-2011, 10:58 AM
If I'm the Blue Jay's GM, I'm trying to come up with a package that would put Votto and Bautista in my lineup. Arguably 2 of the top 5 bats in the game. (With a case to be made that they are the top-2).

And if I'm the Red's GM I see what kind of package they offer and try to extract even more.

I'm not saying do it no matter what, but I'm certainly curious as to what we could pry from the Blue Jays.

lollipopcurve
09-21-2011, 11:10 AM
If I'm the Blue Jay's GM, I'm trying to come up with a package that would put Votto and Bautista in my lineup. Arguably 2 of the top 5 bats in the game. (With a case to be made that they are the top-2).

Exactly. It's a home run -- nay, grand slam -- for Anthopoulos. For Jocketty, it's a chance to get another starting pitcher and some excellent prospects. If I'm WJ, I'm willing to discuss Romero plus a top prospect (Marisnick). Even would throw in a Corcino, because Romero is signed to a very favorable LTC. What a great addition he'd be to the starting staff. IF AA won't give up Romero, you go for the next best starter plus a boatload of their best prospects. They've got some good ones. I don't see the need for Escobar -- Cozart may be good enough that paying Escobar won't be worth the extra production. I'd rather the Reds stock up on pitching.

REDREAD
09-21-2011, 11:39 AM
Did you feel this way after the first year of the deal, end of 2008? I think most everyone was of the opinion that the deal was a win for both teams. Krivsky could not have known that Josh would get BETTER and wouldn't have a relapse. He also could not have known that Edinson would get injured and require TJ surgery and get suspended as well. You simply can't judge the trade on THOSE aspects. On performance...sure. But for Edinson, his performance was altered considerably due to the injury. (I'm not excusing his lousy performance...just pointing out that it DID effect the results). There's not a GM on the planet who could've known what the outcome of that trade would've been 1, 2 or 3 years down the line. IMO, basing an evaluation of a trade on hindsight is kinda silly.

Well, no disrespect.. but if you're going to just say "No GM could've known how that trade would've came out".. then why even bother having a GM?

I didn't like the trade the day it happened. Hamilton posted a 900ish OPS, and could play a passable CF. The only other OF were the statues of Dunn and Jr. As we saw, once Josh was traded, we had a black hole in CF (Patterson and company). Dunn and Jr were not likely to be around by the time the team got better or at least had a shorter shelf life than Josh (assuming he stayed clean).. So, IMO.. this idea of saying we had a surplus of OF or we needed pitching more is not an airtight arguement.

When we got Volquez, he had potential, but generally horrible Minor league numbers. He always struggled with consistency. Got sent back down to A ball. Had a reputation for being a headcase. Volquez was super high risk.

Krivisky's philopshy was to try to get pitching at the expense of position players. But the problem is, he had a hard time identifying the correct pitching targets to acquire. So he decimated the position players, forced us to play Deno, Freel, Bako, Patterson, etc every day.. This lead to the W-L record getting worse every year.

Sure, keeping Josh was a risk, but he was the best hitter on the team while he was a Red. Volquez was basically a handful of magic beans. Sure, Volquez gave us a 1/2 year of awesome performance, but so far, that's been a fluke.
Sure, it might not be possible to guess which pitchers are going to get TJ surgery, but that's all the more reason why it's not a good idea to trade an allstar position player for a shakey pitching prospect.

I don't want to see that mistake repeated with Votto. No pitching prospect in the game is worth trading Votto for. Trading Votto is going to torpedo our chances for 2012..

Superdude
09-21-2011, 11:50 AM
Well, no disrespect.. but if you're going to just say "No GM could've known how that trade would've came out".. then why even bother having a GM?

Are you saying Krivsky should've had infinite knowledge on the future decisions made by Josh Hamilton? No trade is made with perfect foresight, and throwing a crack addict into the mix doesn't exactly make for easy projection.

_Sir_Charles_
09-21-2011, 11:54 AM
Well, no disrespect.. but if you're going to just say "No GM could've known how that trade would've came out".. then why even bother having a GM?

My point is that they don't have crystal balls. They don't KNOW how it's going to play out. They have to make their best guess as to what the deal will end up looking like down the road and move from there. There's not a GM in the world who hasn't made a deal that didn't turn out like he'd hoped.


I didn't like the trade the day it happened. Hamilton posted a 900ish OPS, and could play a passable CF. The only other OF were the statues of Dunn and Jr. As we saw, once Josh was traded, we had a black hole in CF (Patterson and company). Dunn and Jr were not likely to be around by the time the team got better or at least had a shorter shelf life than Josh (assuming he stayed clean).. So, IMO.. this idea of saying we had a surplus of OF or we needed pitching more is not an airtight arguement.

But remember that we just had Jay Bruce win MiLB player of the year and we also had several other very good prospects coming up to fill the void. Heck, we also debuted Votto that year and he played some OF too.


When we got Volquez, he had potential, but generally horrible Minor league numbers. He always struggled with consistency. Got sent back down to A ball. Had a reputation for being a headcase. Volquez was super high risk.

Krivisky's philopshy was to try to get pitching at the expense of position players. But the problem is, he had a hard time identifying the correct pitching targets to acquire. So he decimated the position players, forced us to play Deno, Freel, Bako, Patterson, etc every day.. This lead to the W-L record getting worse every year.

Sure, keeping Josh was a risk, but he was the best hitter on the team while he was a Red. Volquez was basically a handful of magic beans. Sure, Volquez gave us a 1/2 year of awesome performance, but so far, that's been a fluke.
Sure, it might not be possible to guess which pitchers are going to get TJ surgery, but that's all the more reason why it's not a good idea to trade an allstar position player for a shakey pitching prospect.

I don't want to see that mistake repeated with Votto. No pitching prospect in the game is worth trading Votto for. Trading Votto is going to torpedo our chances for 2012..

I think you're understating the risk of keeping Josh. For that small sample that we saw, he was VERY good...but nobody knew if he could/would continue it or even if he would relapse with drugs. If Volquez was a "super high risk", then Josh was a "super duper high risk". Josh's upside was/is considerably higher than Edinson's, but the need on the team at the time balanced them out considerably.

traderumor
09-21-2011, 11:55 AM
The Hamilton/Volquez trade was viewed quite differently at the All-Star Break the year they were traded when they both attended for their new teams. I believe the consensus opinion was win/win. It has also been quiet when Hamilton is injured---again. No one seems to diss the Rays for letting him go for nothing in the first place. I also remember Volquez being the favorite target. Now, he's a pile of dog crap. So many geniuses looking back through time.

_Sir_Charles_
09-21-2011, 11:57 AM
The Hamilton/Volquez trade was viewed quite differently at the All-Star Break the year they were traded when they both attended for their new teams. I believe the consensus opinion was win/win. It has also been quiet when Hamilton is injured---again. No one seems to diss the Rays for letting him go for nothing in the first place.

Exactly. I think both GM's did very good jobs on that trade. The time-line has changed things, but nobody could foresee that.

TRF
09-21-2011, 11:59 AM
Absolutely correct REDREAD. I mean Hamilton's Major League track record to that point was... all of about half a season. Prior to that the highest level he played at was AA, 23 games. The Reds had Bruce and Stubbs in the pipeline, both highly touted (one rightfully so:) )

Krivsky didn't decimate anything. He acquired Phillips, Ross, Hatteburg and Hamilton. You do remember it was Krivsky that acquired him in the first place right? Krivsky saw the inequity of pitching, and dealt a risk, one he took in the first place, for another risk, but one in an area of need. Volquez may have been sent down to A ball, but believe me, his talent was HIGHLY thought of here in Texas. he was the V in the DVD trio of pitchers the Rangers were looking at as the future.

Oh, and the guy that replaced Krivsky? He traded Adam Dunn for Micah freaking Owings. All Dunn did was hit 95 HR's in slightly less than 3.5 seasons including his horrific 2011. 2 less than Hamilton in 4 seasons after leaving the Reds.

REDREAD
09-21-2011, 12:02 PM
. The Reds hedged their bet and took on a guy with an attitude problem in trade for a guy with a crack problem. In hindsight, they lost the deal. At the time, it was the smartest thing they could have done.
.

See, this is the problem I have.
The Reds did the dumbest thing they could've done.
They traded Hamilton for a lotto ticket.
If they didn't want the risk that Hamilton carried, they should've selected a much better prospect than Volquez to trade Hamilton for.
The game is littered with guys like Volquez that have the tools, but can't put it together on a consistent basis. Ron Villone could be dominating at times, but nobody would trade a Josh Hamilton for him.

From what I have read, Krivisky just had to have Volquez.. blindly fell in love with him and was willing to give up anything.. That's based on the Ranger's side of the story. Much like he fell in love with Maj and Bray and ended up overpaying.

reds44
09-21-2011, 12:14 PM
See, this is the problem I have.
The Reds did the dumbest thing they could've done.
They traded Hamilton for a lotto ticket.
If they didn't want the risk that Hamilton carried, they should've selected a much better prospect than Volquez to trade Hamilton for.
The game is littered with guys like Volquez that have the tools, but can't put it together on a consistent basis. Ron Villone could be dominating at times, but nobody would trade a Josh Hamilton for him.

From what I have read, Krivisky just had to have Volquez.. blindly fell in love with him and was willing to give up anything.. That's based on the Ranger's side of the story. Much like he fell in love with Maj and Bray and ended up overpaying.
The Reds traded a lottery ticket for a lottery ticket. One was a high talent, high attitude problem in Volquez. The other was a high talent, crackhead (or former crackhead if you want to be exact). One was a pitcher, one was a hitter. They both were great for a year, then Volquez blew his arm out and that was the end of that.

Not to mention the fact there were rumors that Hamilton wasn't sitting too well in the clubhouse.

It's like people here forget what Josh Hamilton was. Just because he came back preaching about God doesn't change the fact that Hamilton was a BAD BAD guy. He stole money from his gradma to support his crack addiction. It doesn't get much lower than that. Now to his credit, he seems to actually be a changed guy, there was noway of knowing that at the time though.

Roy Tucker
09-21-2011, 12:16 PM
Exactly. I think both GM's did very good jobs on that trade. The time-line has changed things, but nobody could foresee that.

http://villagetattler.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/06/crystal_ball.jpg

mdccclxix
09-21-2011, 12:21 PM
Regarding Romero, I've never seen him pitch, but his walk rate and hr rate look like they could hurt him more in Cincinnati. His FIP is 4.10 and xFIP 3.75. I'd expect a year or two improvement going from the AL east to NL Central, but in general, he's not the lock I'd be hoping for in return for Votto. I'd want him and one other like him, like a Marcum, while sending Wood, Bailey, Volquez, or someone as well.

I'm with the, "it's too early" crowd on trading Votto. When you look at what Colorado said they wanted and what they ended up with, it was much less. Probably some injury concern there that lowered the bargaining. Votto wouldn't bring that. However, the fact that the price HAD to come down to move Jiminez also had to do with the price being so high. You simply can't double the asking price from one year under contract to two years under contract, and expect that kind of return. Maybe I'm wrong and they can score a Texiera type deal. But even that deal took 2-3 years to work out for Texas because Andrus and Feliz were young prospects. The Reds should be the Braves in that deal and send the likes of Grandal, Corcino, Wood/Bailey/Volquez, and Hamilton to someone in return for a top 10 MLB talent. EDIT: Preferably a top 10 pitcher because Texiera did noting to help ATL in 2007 -08 when their pitching sucked.

TRF
09-21-2011, 12:24 PM
See, this is the problem I have.
The Reds did the dumbest thing they could've done.
They traded Hamilton for a lotto ticket.
If they didn't want the risk that Hamilton carried, they should've selected a much better prospect than Volquez to trade Hamilton for.
The game is littered with guys like Volquez that have the tools, but can't put it together on a consistent basis. Ron Villone could be dominating at times, but nobody would trade a Josh Hamilton for him.

From what I have read, Krivisky just had to have Volquez.. blindly fell in love with him and was willing to give up anything.. That's based on the Ranger's side of the story. Much like he fell in love with Maj and Bray and ended up overpaying.

Jocketty fell in love with Mark Mulder. and gave up Dan Haren.

Every GM does.

It was the right trade at the time.

_Sir_Charles_
09-21-2011, 12:29 PM
See, this is the problem I have.
The Reds did the dumbest thing they could've done.
They traded Hamilton for a lotto ticket.
If they didn't want the risk that Hamilton carried, they should've selected a much better prospect than Volquez to trade Hamilton for.
The game is littered with guys like Volquez that have the tools, but can't put it together on a consistent basis. Ron Villone could be dominating at times, but nobody would trade a Josh Hamilton for him.

From what I have read, Krivisky just had to have Volquez.. blindly fell in love with him and was willing to give up anything.. That's based on the Ranger's side of the story. Much like he fell in love with Maj and Bray and ended up overpaying.

Are you under the assumption that Hamilton wasn't a lotto ticket too? He was. Josh was by no way a "sure thing". Hamilton's lotto ticket paid off so far (albeit with numerous trips to the DL), Volquez's hasn't....yet. But what exactly did it cost the Reds? Hamilton was acquired in the rule 5 draft so he basically cost next to nothing. Krivsky basically flipped one lottery ticket for a different one that paid off in a way more suited to the Reds' needs. And don't forget, we also got some very solid production out of Daniel Ray Hererra too. One year after that trade was made, it looked to be a very solid deal for BOTH parties.

And btw...regarding the Majewski/Bray deal...in the short term it looked like we lost that deal big time, right? Look at it now. We actually won that trade. Bray is a solid reliever. Pretty much everybody else has bottomed out and amounted to nothing. Although Thompson still has time. If healthy, he's good enough to be pitching in the bigs IMO.

Rojo
09-21-2011, 01:56 PM
The game is littered with guys like Volquez that have the tools, but can't put it together on a consistent basis.

Do us a favor, find one for next year that will finish 5th in WAR for pitchers.

REDREAD
09-21-2011, 01:57 PM
Are you saying Krivsky should've had infinite knowledge on the future decisions made by Josh Hamilton? No trade is made with perfect foresight, and throwing a crack addict into the mix doesn't exactly make for easy projection.

He should've taken a look at Volquez's history at that point and realized that Volquez was an immature guy that threw hard but had trouble throwing strikes. Josh was the best bat the Reds had at the time, although there is risk that I acknowledge.

If you are going to blow a hole in the lineup trading Josh (and lets face it, before Josh was traded, no one thought Freel and hopper were good replacemnts).. If you are going to trade Josh, you just need to get something better than Volquez back. If you could get Volquez for a few B prospects. then that's fine.. If the Rangers demand Hamilton, Wayne needed to walk away.

Ultimately, Wayne proved he was unable to build a team, and thank God he was canned. Sure, a few of his gambles worked out, but he did not have a sustainable model for improving the team. You can't build a team with just Rule V picks and castoffs.

REDREAD
09-21-2011, 02:04 PM
Oh, and the guy that replaced Krivsky? He traded Adam Dunn for Micah freaking Owings. All Dunn did was hit 95 HR's in slightly less than 3.5 seasons including his horrific 2011. 2 less than Hamilton in 4 seasons after leaving the Reds.

Wayne's record speaks for itself. He was given a lot of money to spend and freedom to make moves. Other than his first year, the team's W-L record and
run differential declined each year.

I disagree with saying the Dunn-Ownings trade was bad.
Dunn was not the answer to the Reds' problems. I don't care how many HR he hit in Washington. He wanted a big payday. He might not have even wanted to stay here anymore (his comment about how his mom wouldn't listen to games because of the REds' announcers trashing him).
Also, Dunn was still insisting that he play OF everyday.. Lots of problems.
The right thing to do was let Dunn walk.. trading him for Ownings just made
it happen a few weeks earlier.


Bottom line is that 6 weeks of Adam Dunn was not worth much.
The Diamondbacks didn't even want to retain him.

Rojo
09-21-2011, 02:09 PM
Ultimately, Wayne proved he was unable to build a team, and thank God he was canned. Sure, a few of his gambles worked out, but he did not have a sustainable model for improving the team. You can't build a team with just Rule V picks and castoffs.

I'd argue that Wayne made 2010 possible.

Krivsky tried to move away from the Yankee-model (short rightfield porch/lefty sluggers) by adding up-the-middle players (Phillips, Stubbs, Meso, Cozart even AGon and David Roth), finding stuff-y pitchers (Volquez, Lohse) and fixing the bullpen.

We had the corner guys in the pipeline (Bruce and Votto -- who many wanted to trade for Erik Bedard!). I don't think he ever had the intention of keeping Josh Hamilton.

I strongly suspect that we wasn't allowed to move Jr. or Dunn. I would've liked to have seen what he would've done with them.

It's too bad, but we see it all the time. A talented guy like Krivsky doesn't play the game right and gets shunted aside for a mediocrity who caught some early breaks.

REDREAD
09-21-2011, 02:11 PM
Jocketty fell in love with Mark Mulder. and gave up Dan Haren.

Every GM does.

It was the right trade at the time.

Mulder had a much better track record than Volquez.
He was a better bet, despite getting hurt.
Looking through Volquez minor league stats.. doesn't really scream ace to me. I guess he's got a great FIP from all his K's, but IMO that's proof that FIP is flawed. Contrast that to Mulder, who was a consistent performer at the ML level and got hurt.

Rojo
09-21-2011, 02:11 PM
I disagree with saying the Dunn-Ownings trade was bad.

Wow, thanks for writing this. Saves me a lot of time arguing with you.

REDREAD
09-21-2011, 02:15 PM
Wow, thanks for writing this. Saves me a lot of time arguing with you.

And the alternative would've been to not trade Dunn and let him walk?
Or resign him to the multiyear deal he was expecting/demanding? If we gave him a 3 year deal, we
would've likely gotten the horrible 2011 he turned in for the White Sox. Also probably wouldn't have
had money to get Rolen, so no division title last year.

Sure, it would've been nice to pick up a Masset guy for Dunn, but six weeks of Dunn is not worth much. Washington was unable to find a deal for him last summer (when he was a pending FA).. They had a deal to send him to Tampa (supposedly), but Dunn refused to play DH there (again, supposedly).

Superdude
09-21-2011, 02:22 PM
He should've taken a look at Volquez's history at that point and realized that Volquez was an immature guy that threw hard but had trouble throwing strikes. Josh was the best bat the Reds had at the time, although there is risk that I acknowledge.

If you are going to blow a hole in the lineup trading Josh (and lets face it, before Josh was traded, no one thought Freel and hopper were good replacemnts).. If you are going to trade Josh, you just need to get something better than Volquez back. If you could get Volquez for a few B prospects. then that's fine.. If the Rangers demand Hamilton, Wayne needed to walk away.

Ultimately, Wayne proved he was unable to build a team, and thank God he was canned. Sure, a few of his gambles worked out, but he did not have a sustainable model for improving the team. You can't build a team with just Rule V picks and castoffs.

Before the injuries, Volquez threw almost 200 well above average innings with some of the best stuff in the league. Let's not act like Krivsky traded Hamilton for a box of toothpicks.

REDREAD
09-21-2011, 02:40 PM
Before the injuries, Volquez threw almost 200 well above average innings with some of the best stuff in the league. Let's not act like Krivsky traded Hamilton for a box of toothpicks.

And then it evened out. I agree with your point though.
Initially, Volquez worked out as a best case scenerio..
Although I would say he had an awesome 1/2 season, and the rest was not particularly great.
However, I'm not convinced at the time of the trade that it was reasonable to expect that level of performance. Maybe you disagree and think that Volquez was projectable to that level of excellence he had his first 1/2 year.
I can respect that. I disliked the trade when it was made though.

Rojo
09-21-2011, 03:57 PM
And the alternative would've been to not trade Dunn and let him walk?

A trade that brings back nothing is not a good trade.

As for Masset, no, I wouldn't wish that on anyone.

kaldaniels
09-21-2011, 04:18 PM
I'm the last to usually complain, but terrible thread hijack.

_Sir_Charles_
09-21-2011, 04:28 PM
I'm the last to usually complain, but terrible thread hijack.

I tried to walk away a couple of times and kept getting sucked back in. :laugh:

You're right of course...this should be about Votto.

Rojo
09-21-2011, 05:20 PM
I tried to walk away a couple of times and kept getting sucked back in. :laugh:

You're right of course...this should be about Votto.

Agreed.

One of my baseball precepts, is that corner bats are pretty fungible. But special bats, whether corner or not, are not. I'd say Votto is a special bat.

And with Alonso trying to shed pounds at 24, I try to keep Joey.

dougdirt
09-21-2011, 07:31 PM
Here is a trade idea....

Cincinnati gets Jose Bautista

Toronto gets Joey Votto, Daniel Corcino and Billy Hamilton

Do you pull the trigger? Why or why not?

mth123
09-21-2011, 08:51 PM
Here is a trade idea....

Cincinnati gets Jose Bautista

Toronto gets Joey Votto, Daniel Corcino and Billy Hamilton

Do you pull the trigger? Why or why not?

Yep. Jays wouldn't.

dougdirt
09-21-2011, 08:59 PM
Yep. Jays wouldn't.

What makes you so sure that they wouldn't?

mth123
09-21-2011, 09:11 PM
What makes you so sure that they wouldn't?

If they are giving up 4 years of Bautista for 2 years of Votto, theyll want the additional players to be guys who can add to the major league team to make a run at winning before Votto blows town, not guys who won't be there until after he's gone. Maybe Votto/Bailey, Votto/Stubbs or Votto/Heisey would get it done. I'm still guessing it will take Votto/Cueto to get them to pull the trigger. It doesn't make any sense for them to shorten their window by two years unless they greatly improve the chances of capitalizing on that window. Low A minor leaguers won't do that.

dougdirt
09-21-2011, 09:19 PM
If they are giving up 4 years of Bautista for 2 years of Votto, theyll want the additional players to be guys who can add to the major league team to make a run at winning before Votto blows town, not guys who won't be there until after he's gone. Maybe Votto/Bailey, Votto/Stubbs or Votto/Heisey would get it done. I'm still guessing it will take Votto/Cueto to get them to pull the trigger. It doesn't make any sense for them to shorten their window by two years unless they greatly improve the chances of capitalizing on that window. Low A minor leaguers won't do that.

Do you really think the Blue Jays are thinking "we are going to win it"? They had the best hitter in baseball this year along with a sub 3.00 ERA pitcher throwing over 200 innings and they get to look up at three teams in the standings, all 7+ games ahead of them.

As for your ideology that they would be shortening their window.... I just don't know that it would be the case. I still don't believe Votto plans on playing anywhere but Toronto when he gets to choose where he plays.

mth123
09-21-2011, 09:33 PM
Do you really think the Blue Jays are thinking "we are going to win it"? They had the best hitter in baseball this year along with a sub 3.00 ERA pitcher throwing over 200 innings and they get to look up at three teams in the standings, all 7+ games ahead of them.

As for your ideology that they would be shortening their window.... I just don't know that it would be the case. I still don't believe Votto plans on playing anywhere but Toronto when he gets to choose where he plays.

What makes you think he so hot to play in Toronto? I think he's hot to go to the highest bidder that has a chance to win regularly.

As for the Jays, they have a record above .500 and score a lot of runs. Add a good arm and they have a chance as long as they don't subtract. In 4 years that arm could be Drabek at some point. If the Window shortens to 2, they'll need an arm at its peak sooner. IMO, that means Cueto if you are talking about the Reds. I personally know that Votto/Cueto for Bautista is an overpayment, but it also doesn't make much sense for them to settle for much less if they're giving up two seasons.

jojo
09-21-2011, 10:40 PM
Votto likely wants to play in Seattle because that is where the greatest first baseman in the history of the game played (John Olerud).

camisadelgolf
09-21-2011, 11:12 PM
Votto likely wants to play in Seattle because that is where the greatest first baseman in the history of the game played (John Olerud).
I know you're saying that tongue in cheek, but since you bring him up, Olerud is one of the most underrated players of our time imho. In an era dominated by steroid-pumped, power-hitting first basemen, he managed to be a very good hitter on a yearly basis while providing Gold Glove-caliber defense. I'm not necessarily saying he belongs in the Hall of Fame, but he certainly deserves more consideration than he's been getting--especially when you consider his playoff performances.

Will M
09-24-2011, 05:21 PM
Here is a Mariners fans take on what they would give up for Votto:

http://www.ussmariner.com/2011/09/19/forget-prince-fielder-target-joey-votto-instead/

dougdirt
09-24-2011, 05:31 PM
Here is a Mariners fans take on what they would give up for Votto:

http://www.ussmariner.com/2011/09/19/forget-prince-fielder-target-joey-votto-instead/

Been talking about this one on Twitter this afternoon. I would strongly consider pulling the trigger on Pineda, League and a good prospect for Votto.

jojo
09-24-2011, 05:34 PM
Here is a Mariners fans take on what they would give up for Votto:

http://www.ussmariner.com/2011/09/19/forget-prince-fielder-target-joey-votto-instead/

Pineda and League is a reasonable start to talks about a blockbuster that would be a Votto trade but I'd rather the Reds get back position players. While Pineda is a legit TOR-type arm that would be under control forever, he's a huge risk because he's a 22 yo pitcher.

Will M
09-24-2011, 05:54 PM
Votto & Phillips for Dustin Ackley, Pineda, League & a top prospect.

Reds get a TOR arm, a closer for 2012 & get cheaper and younger.
Ms get offense big time which they need.

cinreds21
09-24-2011, 06:24 PM
I'd almost do it for just Piñeda and shortstop Nick Franklin.

jojo
09-24-2011, 07:08 PM
Votto & Phillips for Dustin Ackley, Pineda, League & a top prospect.

Reds get a TOR arm, a closer for 2012 & get cheaper and younger.
Ms get offense big time which they need.

Ackley kills that deal. Also technically, the reds can't trade Phillps.

Mario-Rijo
09-24-2011, 07:33 PM
Ackley kills that deal. Also technically, the reds can't trade Phillps.

Yeah the Reds shouldn't get quality back for just Votto and Phillips, only we have to pay thru the nose for acquisitions. And why can't they trade Phillips, as far as I know it's a matter of p/u an option only they hold.

Mario-Rijo
09-24-2011, 07:36 PM
Been talking about this one on Twitter this afternoon. I would strongly consider pulling the trigger on Pineda, League and a good prospect for Votto.

How about you let us know what you've heard because you have just been relentless in your desire to trade away one of the best players in baseball. You certainly can't be this convinced over what we all know.

dougdirt
09-24-2011, 08:02 PM
How about you let us know what you've heard because you have just been relentless in your desire to trade away one of the best players in baseball. You certainly can't be this convinced over what we all know.

I think you are confusing want to with understanding that we need to make the best of our assets and payroll limitations. I want to keep Joey Votto on this team for the next 8 years or so. I also understand that simply isn't anything close to a realistic expectation.

Right now, the Reds owe Joey Votto 26.5M over the next two seasons. Is he going to be worth that? Short of a major injury, absolutely. But that doesn't mean that the Reds can't be better without him. They could be. The refusal to accept such a notion doesn't get us anywhere.

Right now, the Reds have to look at some options. What makes them better, say Michael Pineda, Brandon League, a top end prospect, Yonder Alonso at first base and about $24M to spend on other team issues over those two seasons, while also retaining the rights to a 22 year old pitcher who is currently 6th in baseball in strikeout rate?

I don't know the answer to the above question, but I do know that its worth looking deeper into rather than just brushing it aside because Joey Votto is one of the 5 best hitters in baseball.

I root for the team name on the front of the jersey more than I do for the players. I really like Joey Votto. He is easily the best hitter the Reds have had in an incredibly long time, easily since before I was born I know that much. But that doesn't mean that he is the only solution to "how do the Reds win the division".

mth123
09-24-2011, 08:14 PM
It doesn't change Doug's point, but the Reds actually owe Votto $30 Million over the next two years. He's owed a salary of $9.5 Million with $1.5 Million in signing bonus for 2012 and a salary of $17 Million with a $2 Million signing bonus in 2013.

The Reds have a couple other guys who will cost more than their salary. Scott Rolen's salary in 2012 is $6.5 Million, but he has $1.33 Million in Signing Bonus due as well making hs cost $7.8 Million.

Aroldis Chapman's 2012 salary is $2 Million but he's owed $1.5 Million in signing bonus.

Bronson Arroyo is owed a salary of $7 Million in 2012 but has $15 Million in deferred money due from 2014 to 2021, I assume the team will fund some portion of that in 2012.

As for Votto's trade value, it's true that he's one of the top 4 or 5 bats in the game, but position, money and years of control most certainly figure into his trade value. I don't see any circumstance where the Mariners would deal Ackley for him. Not even straight up.

jojo
09-24-2011, 08:18 PM
Yeah the Reds shouldn't get quality back for just Votto and Phillips, only we have to pay thru the nose for acquisitions. And why can't they trade Phillips, as far as I know it's a matter of p/u an option only they hold.

I'm not sure where the attitude is coming from but please don't project biased assumptions by putting words into my mouth.

The Ms are clearly rebuilding and are clearly interested in acquiring as many young, good position players that they control for many years as they can. Ackely fits what they are trying to do to a tee and they love him to boot. Any demand to include a young, major league ready position player who projects to be above average pretty much kills the deal.

The Reds can only trade Phillips IF the pick up his option (so again, technically they can't trade him). And when they do pick up his option, guess what? It makes no sense for the Ms to trade Ackley so they can pay Phillips $12M for a year.

Votto would allow them to move Smoak to DH. In essence two positions are taken care of and the Ms could then work like banshees to convince Votto to stay. Phillips just blows open a hole because Ackley already is a solution that allows payroll to be allocated to other areas.

Clearly the Reds can and should get quality back for Votto. But also just as clearly, the deal has to make sense for the other team.

cinreds21
09-24-2011, 08:23 PM
I think I'm the only one that would rather trade Yonder than Votto. I just don't see why the Reds don't cash in on Yonder now. Trade him in a deal for Shields. They need a first baseman. I love Yonder's bat, but just him in left is not going to sit right with me at all. I'd much rather have Shields (or someone on that level) than toy with Yonder in left all next year.

mth123
09-24-2011, 08:26 PM
I think I'm the only one that would rather trade Yonder than Votto. I just don't see why the Reds don't cash in on Yonder now. Trade him in a deal for Shields. They need a first baseman. I love Yonder's bat, but just him in left is not going to sit right with me at all. I'd much rather have Shields (or someone on that level) than toy with Yonder in left all next year.

You're not the only one. I'd much rather deal Yonder than Votto. Ideally we could keep both and get a pitcher for some combo of Stubbs/Bailey/Wood/Volquez but I just don't see getting a pitcher the caliber of what is needed without dealing one of Votto or Yonder. Maybe if they'd deal Chapmman. They should seriously consider that IMO.

cinreds21
09-24-2011, 08:34 PM
Yonder, Wood and Volquez/Grandal for Shields. I'd do that in a heartbeat.

jojo
09-24-2011, 08:35 PM
I think I'm the only one that would rather trade Yonder than Votto. I just don't see why the Reds don't cash in on Yonder now. Trade him in a deal for Shields. They need a first baseman. I love Yonder's bat, but just him in left is not going to sit right with me at all. I'd much rather have Shields (or someone on that level) than toy with Yonder in left all next year.

Yonder probably makes more sense or the Ms too.

dougdirt
09-24-2011, 08:35 PM
I think I'm the only one that would rather trade Yonder than Votto. I just don't see why the Reds don't cash in on Yonder now. Trade him in a deal for Shields. They need a first baseman. I love Yonder's bat, but just him in left is not going to sit right with me at all. I'd much rather have Shields (or someone on that level) than toy with Yonder in left all next year.

I think nearly everyone would rather trade Alonso than Votto. I think those of us saying to trade Votto just think that you can become a better team with the cash savings/return you would get by keeping Alonso and trading Votto than the other way around.

mth123
09-24-2011, 08:38 PM
Yonder, Wood and Volquez/Grandal for Shields. I'd do that in a heartbeat.

I would too. Rays rotation is 8 deep. Doubt they have any interest in Wood and probably only passing interest in Volquez. Alonso, Grandal, Stubbs and Masset for Shields and Upton. Flip Upton to a 3rd team for a LF power bat.

cinreds21
09-24-2011, 08:40 PM
I would too. Rays rotation is 8 deep. Doubt they have any interest in Wood and probably only passing interest in Volquez. Alonso, Grandal, Stubbs and Masset for Shields and Upton. Flip Upton to a 3rd team for a LF power bat.

Good point.

I don't think I'd deal Stubbs. I don't know why everyone wants to get rid of him. He is what he is. Sapp isn't going to wow everyone enough as a replacement. And I don't want Heisey there either. Keeping Stubbs is the only real option right now.

mth123
09-24-2011, 08:46 PM
Good point.

I don't think I'd deal Stubbs. I don't know why everyone wants to get rid of him. He is what he is. Sapp isn't going to wow everyone enough as a replacement. And I don't want Heisey there either. Keeping Stubbs is the only real option right now.

Sappelt will have a higher OPS, nearly as much range with a weaker arm and less spurty power. Heisey provides plenty of insurance should Sappelt falter. I think the league has Stubbs figured out. Guys know they can K him by getting ahead with fat ones and then getting him to chase. If he hasn't adjusted by now, I have to think he may be in a downward spiral similar to what we saw with Corey Patterson after his first couple of seasons in Chicago, I get that the 200 plus Ks have reduced his value, I just don't see it going higher. After 2012 he'll be arb eligible which will further erode his value. Stubbs is the one guy they could deal who may have some value and would lead to little or no drop off. IMO his defense is over rated as well.

RedsManRick
09-24-2011, 09:04 PM
So what in addition to Yonder would it take to get Pineda?

jojo
09-24-2011, 09:21 PM
So what in addition to Yonder would it take to get Pineda?

The Ms need a young corner outfielder and catcher with no real potential answers in their system. They also need a shortstop and third baseman but might be able to solve that. They could also use legit arms for the rotation. They have some stud arms in the minors but they are a little ways off.

I'd think the Ms would be all over guys like Yonder and Heisey etc... They need a catcher badly too.

Ghosts of 1990
09-25-2011, 12:44 AM
If Jay Bruce doesn't show something next year, I think he's the guy you trade and you use every resource you have to re-sign Votto; the only sure thing we have.

corkedbat
09-25-2011, 01:07 AM
If you get a decent deal you trade Votto while you can get top return for him. The chances of resigning him without him testing the market is zero.

Benihana
09-25-2011, 09:03 AM
The Ms need a young corner outfielder and catcher with no real potential answers in their system. They also need a shortstop and third baseman but might be able to solve that. They could also use legit arms for the rotation. They have some stud arms in the minors but they are a little ways off.

I'd think the Ms would be all over guys like Yonder and Heisey etc... They need a catcher badly too.

Alonso, Grandal, and Heisey for Pineda?

Maybe add Volquez or Wood if they throw in League for the pen?

Cueto
Pineda
Leake
Bailey
Arroyo/Chapman

lollipopcurve
09-25-2011, 09:47 AM
Alonso, Grandal, and Heisey for Pineda?

Way overpay. Pineda is a 22 year old pitcher. He's huge. In other words -- injury risk. He has not established durability yet. You don't throw position players like Alonso and Grandal at a pitcher like that. The track record must be better. The risk must be lower.

Jpup
09-25-2011, 10:37 AM
If Jay Bruce doesn't show something next year, I think he's the guy you trade and you use every resource you have to re-sign Votto; the only sure thing we have.


What are you talking about? Bruce's OPS is .811 and he has 31 homers. What do you mean by "show something"? That's pretty good for a 24 year old.

Benihana
09-25-2011, 11:07 AM
Way overpay. Pineda is a 22 year old pitcher. He's huge. In other words -- injury risk. He has not established durability yet. You don't throw position players like Alonso and Grandal at a pitcher like that. The track record must be better. The risk must be lower.

If it is than the pitcher is not available.

You have to take risk in order to get an arm the caliber of Pineda.

Grandal is a catcher in AA. Heisey is a 4th OF.
Pineda could get TJ surgery in a year, or he could contend for the Cy Young.
There's only one way to find out.

If he could be had for Heisey and one of Alonso/Grandal, Walt should be fired for not already having made that deal.

kaldaniels
09-25-2011, 12:11 PM
If Jay Bruce doesn't show something next year, I think he's the guy you trade and you use every resource you have to re-sign Votto; the only sure thing we have.

When is this going to stop?

PuffyPig
09-25-2011, 12:13 PM
If Jay Bruce doesn't show something next year, I think he's the guy you trade and you use every resource you have to re-sign Votto; the only sure thing we have.

(sigh)

AT 24 years of age, Bruce has shown plenty.

When Votto was the exact age as Bruce, he had just gotten his first cup of coffee with the Reds, and was waiting for his first full season. He had 4 career HR's. Bruce has 99.

westofyou
09-25-2011, 01:02 PM
That's a wonderful way to build a team in today's environment, ink young budding stars to nice manageable contracts and trade them before they hit their peak so you can ink other older players at astronomical franchise record deals.

IRRC it worked out great earlier this century for the Reds.

lollipopcurve
09-25-2011, 01:04 PM
If he could be had for Heisey and one of Alonso/Grandal, Walt should be fired for not already having made that deal.

For one of Alonso/Grandal, OK. Not for both.

mth123
09-25-2011, 01:28 PM
I like Pineda a lot, but his ERA+ is only 103 which would make him a middle of the rotation guy similar to Leake. He has a lot of upside but only 171 IP against major league hitters. I'd happily deal Alonso or Grandal along with a lesser arm or two and even throw in Heisey, but he's still a question mark IMO and I would not deal established stars like Votto or Cueto in a deal where he's the top target.

PuffyPig
09-25-2011, 06:54 PM
That's a wonderful way to build a team in today's environment, ink young budding stars to nice manageable contracts and trade them before they hit their peak so you can ink other older players at astronomical franchise record deals.

IRRC it worked out great earlier this century for the Reds.

What budding stars signed to nice manageable contracts did the Reds trade?

Raisor
09-25-2011, 07:13 PM
If Jay Bruce doesn't show something next year, I think he's the guy you trade and you use every resource you have to re-sign Votto; the only sure thing we have.

:bang:

westofyou
09-25-2011, 08:09 PM
What budding stars signed to nice manageable contracts did the Reds trade?

If ya want to get pedantic about my off the cuff statement that was written with tongue firmly in cheek, I'd say... not signed, but traded was Cameron.

757690
09-25-2011, 08:19 PM
I like Pineda a lot, but his ERA+ is only 103 which would make him a middle of the rotation guy similar to Leake. He has a lot of upside but only 171 IP against major league hitters. I'd happily deal Alonso or Grandal along with a lesser arm or two and even throw in Heisey, but he's still a question mark IMO and I would not deal established stars like Votto or Cueto in a deal where he's the top target.

He's also a severe flyball pitcher. Great for Safeco, not so much for GABP.

I agree with your assessment of his trade value. He's worth a top prospect like Marcum and Garza were, but not an established player.

jojo
09-25-2011, 08:38 PM
He's also a severe flyball pitcher. Great for Safeco, not so much for GABP.

I agree with your assessment of his trade value. He's worth a top prospect like Marcum and Garza were, but not an established player.

A high strikeout, low walk pitcher can be very successful in GABP regardless of batted ball tendencies.

757690
09-25-2011, 08:53 PM
A high strikeout, low walk pitcher can be very successful in GABP regardless of batted ball tendencies.

I agree. But you can't ignore a .81 GB/FB rate with a 44.8 FB rate.

I'd be joyed if the Reds added Pineda for prospects, just not overjoyed.

jojo
09-25-2011, 08:58 PM
I agree. But you can't ignore a .81 GB/FB rate with a 44.8 FB rate.

I'd be joyed if the Reds added Pineda for prospects, just not overjoyed.

You probably should be overjoyed.

Benihana
09-25-2011, 09:33 PM
For one of Alonso/Grandal, OK. Not for both.

I'd do both.

757690
09-25-2011, 09:55 PM
You probably should be overjoyed.

The last time I was overjoyed was when Kristen Bell made a surprise appearance at a comedy show featuring her fiancé Dax Shepard. So it takes quite a bit to get me overjoyed.

lollipopcurve
09-26-2011, 09:52 AM
I'd do both.

Alonso and Grandal? For Pineda? He of the 4.40 ERA away from Safeco? Of the 5.15 ERA in the 2nd half?

This kid is 6'7" and weighs 260. That's 260 at 22 years old. If his work habits are not excellent, he's headed to 300 lbs. That's a risk. In 2010 he throws 140 innings in the minors, with a bit of a fade in the 2nd half (though it coincided with a promotion to AAA). This year he goes about 180 in the bigs, with a sharp 2nd half fade.

He's got the big upside, but the floor, as with all pitching prospects, is low. Pineda is NOT a sure thing. IMO, you don't trade 2 prospects the caliber of Alonso and Grandal for pitching unless you're getting a sure thing. A major-league proven, durable, innings eating, mid- to top-of the rotation anchor. Shields, a guy like that.

Plus, I would not deal Grandal yet. Mesoraco looks a little jumpy at the plate to me. The Reds have to get the decision right between these two young catchers.

Benihana
09-26-2011, 11:30 AM
Alonso and Grandal? For Pineda? He of the 4.40 ERA away from Safeco? Of the 5.15 ERA in the 2nd half?

This kid is 6'7" and weighs 260. That's 260 at 22 years old. If his work habits are not excellent, he's headed to 300 lbs. That's a risk. In 2010 he throws 140 innings in the minors, with a bit of a fade in the 2nd half (though it coincided with a promotion to AAA). This year he goes about 180 in the bigs, with a sharp 2nd half fade.

You know who else is that size?

CC Sabathia and Aaron Harang

And Pineda's numbers are better than both at the same age. Also better K/BB numbers than David Price and King Felix at the same age FWIW.


He's got the big upside, but the floor, as with all pitching prospects, is low. Pineda is NOT a sure thing. IMO, you don't trade 2 prospects the caliber of Alonso and Grandal for pitching unless you're getting a sure thing. A major-league proven, durable, innings eating, mid- to top-of the rotation anchor. Shields, a guy like that.

If Shields could be had for Alonso and Grandal, I'd do that too (before Pineda). However I think it would cost more than that, and I don't think I'm prepared to sell this low on Stubbs.

What pitcher other than Shields fits the criteria you speak of (that might be available)? Anibal Sanchez is a HUGE injury risk.


Plus, I would not deal Grandal yet. Mesoraco looks a little jumpy at the plate to me. The Reds have to get the decision right between these two young catchers.

The Reds have had two years to make that decision. They could do like you suggest, and continue to wait to make a call- much like they've done with Stubbs/Heisey, Wood/Bailey/Volquez, Frazier/Francisco, Sappelt et. al. That's gotten them really far in terms of making trades and improving the overall talent base.

lollipopcurve
09-26-2011, 11:51 AM
You know who else is that size?

CC Sabathia and Aaron Harang

And Pineda's numbers are better than both at the same age.

Pineda's numbers are not better than CC's at the same age. CC's are better by a lot. Through his age 22 season, CC had 3 full seasons in the bigs, going 180, 210 and 197 innings. 4.30s ERA in both age 20 and 21 seasons, 3.60 in age 22. Pineda has a 1 full year in the majors, at 171 innings. His ERA was around 3.80, I think. CC had proven himself to be durable over 3 full seasons. Pineda, who lost almost his full age 20 season to injury, has not shown that yet -- not even close.

Harang was no good until he was 27.


If Shields could be had for Alonso and Grandal, I'd do that too (before Pineda). However I think it would cost more than that, and I don't think I'm prepared to sell this low on Stubbs.

Yes, the Reds might have to give up more, but I'd certainly consider it. Depends on the asking price.


What pitcher other than Shields fits the criteria you speak of (that might be available)?
Anibal Sanchez is a HUGE injury risk.

There may be no others. But I'd talk to the As about Gio Gonzalez and to the Giants about Cain and Bumgarner. Both those teams need offense badly.

Benihana
09-26-2011, 12:15 PM
Pineda's numbers are not better than CC's at the same age. CC's are better by a lot. Through his age 22 season, CC had 3 full seasons in the bigs, going 180, 210 and 197 innings. 4.30s ERA in both age 20 and 21 seasons, 3.60 in age 22. Pineda has a 1 full year in the majors, at 171 innings. His ERA was around 3.80, I think. CC had proven himself to be durable over 3 full seasons. Pineda, who lost almost his full age 20 season to injury, has not shown that yet -- not even close.

Harang was no good until he was 27.


Sorry, Pineda had significantly better K and BB numbers. His ERA and WHIP were slightly worse than Sabathia's in CC's third season, but substantially better than CC's first two seasons (this was Pineda's first).

I'm not saying Pineda = CC Sabathia, but I think he has a decent chance to be a legitimate #1 starter, especially given the success he has already shown at the major league level. Guys like that aren't frequently available when they are 22.


Yes, the Reds might have to give up more, but I'd certainly consider it. Depends on the asking price.

...


There may be no others. But I'd talk to the As about Gio Gonzalez and to the Giants about Cain and Bumgarner. Both those teams need offense badly.

So how about let's stand pat? That strategy has worked out great the last two years. Let's hoard all prospects, and not take on any risk at the chance of improving the team.

Giants arent trading Cain or Bumgarner without Bruce or Votto coming back. Personally, I'd prefer to deal prospects rather than our MVP, especially prospects who are blocked at their respective positions.

dougdirt
09-26-2011, 12:59 PM
There may be no others. But I'd talk to the As about Gio Gonzalez and to the Giants about Cain and Bumgarner. Both those teams need offense badly.

Gio Gonzalez has the control of Edinson Volquez and 70% of the stuff. Is that really what we want to go after to try to bolster our rotation?

I don't think the Giants would even begin to explore trading Cain or Bumgarner.

mdccclxix
09-26-2011, 01:08 PM
It's always tougher to find true value with pitchers from Oakland, LA, Seattle, etc. The pitching environment is sometimes responsible for a good portion of their success. I like finding guys in the AL east that's why Shields is my top pick right now.

dougdirt
09-26-2011, 01:11 PM
It's always tougher to find true value with pitchers from Oakland, LA, Seattle, etc. The pitching environment is sometimes responsible for a good portion of their success. I like finding guys in the AL east that's why Shields is my top pick right now.

That is why you look for guys with stuff, strikeouts and low walks. That plays in all ballparks.

cinreds21
09-26-2011, 02:01 PM
Pineda's numbers are not better than CC's at the same age. CC's are better by a lot. Through his age 22 season, CC had 3 full seasons in the bigs, going 180, 210 and 197 innings. 4.30s ERA in both age 20 and 21 seasons, 3.60 in age 22. Pineda has a 1 full year in the majors, at 171 innings. His ERA was around 3.80, I think. CC had proven himself to be durable over 3 full seasons. Pineda, who lost almost his full age 20 season to injury, has not shown that yet -- not even close.

Harang was no good until he was 27.



Yes, the Reds might have to give up more, but I'd certainly consider it. Depends on the asking price.



There may be no others. But I'd talk to the As about Gio Gonzalez and to the Giants about Cain and Bumgarner. Both those teams need offense badly.

I'd easily take him over Shields. However, I really, really doubt the A's would trade him. And they don't match up well at all as trade partners.

lollipopcurve
09-26-2011, 02:14 PM
And they don't match up well at all as trade partners

They do, in my opinion. They need offense. We've got a lot of young offensive players, both guys with full seasons of MLB experience and guys on the cusp. 3B, 1B, OF -- we could help them in all those areas. They don't need a catcher, but there's still a match there, I think.

cinreds21
09-26-2011, 02:20 PM
They do, in my opinion. They need offense. We've got a lot of young offensive players, both guys with full seasons of MLB experience and guys on the cusp. 3B, 1B, OF -- we could help them in all those areas. They don't need a catcher, but there's still a match there, I think.

Well they don't really need Yonder. They have Barton (who isn't a sure thing by all means) and they have Chris Carter) and maybe one more guy in the minors. Then they really don't need Yas either because they have Suzuki and they have Max Stassi in the minors. You'd have to deal Yonder or Yas for someone like Geo.