PDA

View Full Version : Reds Hot Stove Rumors (Discussion)



Pages : [1] 2 3 4

savafan
11-08-2011, 07:30 PM
Figured it might be a good idea to have one thread for the smaller type rumors:

Fox9Sports FOX 9 Sports
RT @OverTheBaggy According to Cincy sports radio, #Twins have made calls inquiring about #Reds pitcher Johnny Cueto. (via @baseballblahs)

savafan
11-08-2011, 07:34 PM
Baseballblahs Mark
Rumor has it the Yankees called the Reds about Cueto, Yankees said only Montero and Banueles were out of question

Vottomatic
11-08-2011, 09:48 PM
Holy Smokes Batman!

Makes me think the Reds put the word out that everyone on the team is available for the right price. Interesting.

dougdirt
11-08-2011, 09:50 PM
Baseballblahs Mark
Rumor has it the Yankees called the Reds about Cueto, Yankees said only Montero and Banueles were out of question
Then why would we trade him? Well, I guess if they wanted to send me Curtis Granderson in return...

Joseph
11-08-2011, 09:54 PM
How bad does this team look without Cueto next year? Pretty bad I bet, assuming we don't sign a legit 1 or 2 as replacement.

Scrap Irony
11-08-2011, 10:00 PM
Cueto would take an incredible deal-- I don't think the Yankees have the guys to get it done, frankly. Even with Betances, Benuelos, and Montero, it'd be a tough pill.

klw
11-08-2011, 10:13 PM
Cueto would take an incredible deal-- I don't think the Yankees have the guys to get it done, frankly. Even with Betances, Benuelos, and Montero, it'd be a tough pill.

Well if only Benuelos, and Montero are off the table then send Sabathia and Nova and even out the money and call it a day. ;)

savafan
11-08-2011, 10:16 PM
Baseballblahs Mark
Announcers speculate Reds wouldn't be sellers on Cueto, if they were, 2 pitchers and OF prospect(guess Mesa)

Oxilon
11-08-2011, 10:23 PM
I understand that nobody is untouchable on a team, but what are the Reds trying to accomplish in trading their best young pitcher?

savafan
11-08-2011, 10:25 PM
I understand that nobody is untouchable on a team, but what are the Reds trying to accomplish in trading their best young pitcher?

I don't think the Reds are shopping him. If we're to believe the information, it sounds like teams are knocking at the Reds door begging for him.

savafan
11-08-2011, 10:32 PM
SI's Joe Sheehan says this deal should happen:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1191768/index.htm


Rays trade P James Shields to Reds for 1B Yonder Alonso and P Edinson Volquez

A deal that made sense during the summer still does, as Tampa Bay has too many starting pitchers for one rotation, and the Reds have too many first basemen for one lineup. Trying to play Alonso, a middle-of-the-order hitter, in leftfield is bad for the team's defense and the player's development. The Rays, for all their comebacky goodness, were exposed in the playoffs—again—as a team that can't score enough to get over the hump. Volquez needs a change of scenery and could be part of a once-again-rebuilt Rays pen in 2012. Shields is coming off his best season and would slot well as the Reds' No. 1 starter as Cincinnati tries to bounce back from a disappointing season.

LoganBuck
11-08-2011, 11:00 PM
SI's Joe Sheehan says this deal should happen:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1191768/index.htm

Where do you sign?

osuceltic
11-08-2011, 11:03 PM
The Cueto rumors are interesting. That's a true "trade high" scenario.

thatcoolguy_22
11-08-2011, 11:19 PM
The Cueto rumors are interesting. That's a true "trade high" scenario.



I thought I was the only person who thought this as soon as I saw the rumors. I'm a huge fan of Cueto but, he had a few injuries last year, his k/9 rate dropped for the 3rd straight season, his hr/fb took a dramtic dip, xFip 3.90, and his gb/fb rose. I'm thinking if you can receive #1 SP like return for Cueto, then you take it. 2011 might be the best of his career if his much improved rate stats go back to pre 2011 levels.

To wrap: I would entertain the idea in a vaccuum, but without knowing what compensation or additional moves will follow its tough to say if I'm for trading him.

corkedbat
11-08-2011, 11:19 PM
SI's Joe Sheehan says this deal should happen:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1191768/index.htm

Make that one happen and keep Cueto and find a LF for a deal built around guys like Bailey, Heisey, Grandal, YRod, etc. If at all possible, I'd try to deal Arroyo for Youkilis (but can't see that happening).

After that, I'd be good except for some minor deals. A reliever or two and maybe a backup SS. Possibly a closer if the price is right (as well as the talent cost).

Ghosts of 1990
11-08-2011, 11:55 PM
I really hope we don't trade Johnny Cueto. Finally began to show me last year that he's going to be a good solid TOR starter type for the next few years. We are all in next year. He's a guy you need to get through one of those playoff series we're going to be in about 11 months from now. If Chapman can help him at the TOR, lookout world.

dougdirt
11-09-2011, 12:20 AM
I really hope we don't trade Johnny Cueto. Finally began to show me last year that he's going to be a good solid TOR starter type for the next few years. We are all in next year. He's a guy you need to get through one of those playoff series we're going to be in about 11 months from now. If Chapman can help him at the TOR, lookout world.

What about Cueto suggests he can be a TOR guy? His declining strikeout rate certainly doesn't. He isn't an elite control guy either.

Superdude
11-09-2011, 12:34 AM
I thought I was the only person who thought this as soon as I saw the rumors. I'm a huge fan of Cueto but, he had a few injuries last year, his k/9 rate dropped for the 3rd straight season, his hr/fb took a dramtic dip, xFip 3.90, and his gb/fb rose. I'm thinking if you can receive #1 SP like return for Cueto, then you take it. 2011 might be the best of his career if his much improved rate stats go back to pre 2011 levels.

To wrap: I would entertain the idea in a vaccuum, but without knowing what compensation or additional moves will follow its tough to say if I'm for trading him.

You have to think that the vast majority of general managers are gonna take into account everything you just said. There may be a few old school dudes out there, but I would imagine Cueto's value is still that of a #2-#3.

thatcoolguy_22
11-09-2011, 12:42 AM
You have to think that the vast majority of general managers are gonna take into account everything you just said. There may be a few old school dudes out there, but I would imagine Cueto's value is still that of a #2-#3.

I'm not too familiar with the Yankees farm system, but offering anyone other than Montero leads to believe they might have an opinion higher than others.

Also demand creates price and if he moves, Cueto could be the best SP on the market after CJ Wilson signs. Yankees/RSox or whoever under pressure to win in 2012 could go a little overboard come Feb/Mar.

EDIT: I completely agree with what you said by the way.

MikeThierry
11-09-2011, 01:06 AM
I'm not too familiar with the Yankees farm system, but offering anyone other than Montero leads to believe they might have an opinion higher than others.

The Yankees, from what I have read, have a farm system that is in the top 5 in baseball. I know they have at least 6 top 100 players. Montero is their crown jewel but if they are offering any of those other top players in their system, it might be worth listening to.

Slyder
11-09-2011, 01:23 AM
Baseballblahs Mark
Rumor has it the Yankees called the Reds about Cueto, Yankees said only Montero and Banueles were out of question

HAHAHAHAHA *click* that would be my response to the Yanks.

reds44
11-09-2011, 01:25 AM
I think we should trade Cueto and Votto. Trading your best pitcher and best hitter who are both in their mid 20's seems like a good plan to me.

thatcoolguy_22
11-09-2011, 03:08 AM
I think we should trade Cueto and Votto. Trading your best pitcher and best hitter who are both in their mid 20's seems like a good plan to me.

Trading the best hitter that by most accounts will only wear the uniform for another 2 years and the best pitcher who has flaws in his game (and I am for trading him only if the return is equivalent to that of a #1SP would be), is completely acceptable as long as there is a clear goal and the overall team improves. Wins are wins.

fearofpopvol1
11-09-2011, 03:45 AM
I'd be worried if the Reds traded Cueto simply because the staff is already bad and that would probably make the staff worse unless a pitcher was coming back. With that said, and I do like Cueto a lot, I think his 2011 was overrated to some extent.

That Shields for Alonso and Volquez deal though? I'll drive them both to Tampa to get that done.

Dan
11-09-2011, 07:00 AM
Would the Yankees give up Brett Gardner?

lollipopcurve
11-09-2011, 07:08 AM
Would the Yankees give up Brett Gardner?

That's the target right there. Reds have had interest in Gardner in the past.

Really surprised if the Reds are willing to deal Cueto. I tend to think they'd have to be overwhelmed.

mdccclxix
11-09-2011, 08:41 AM
I don't see a match with the Yankees at all. Where would Montero play on this team? Beyond Montero, it's a bunch of Yankees prospects, and who wants any of those?

mdccclxix
11-09-2011, 08:43 AM
The Yankees, from what I have read, have a farm system that is in the top 5 in baseball. I know they have at least 6 top 100 players. Montero is their crown jewel but if they are offering any of those other top players in their system, it might be worth listening to.

An indication that this is a bad idea? A Cardinals fan thinks it's a good idea.

Slyder
11-09-2011, 09:46 AM
Would the Yankees give up Brett Gardner?

For some package of starters/prospects not named Chapman or Cueto? Okay I'd listen but NO CHANCE if the Yanks play hard ball and want either one of them.

osuceltic
11-09-2011, 10:06 AM
Would the Yankees give up Brett Gardner?

Interesting idea. Solves LF and leadoff, but creates a huge hole in the rotation. I would have to assume there would be other plans in place for the rotation spot -- James Shields would be a great start, but another starter still would be needed.

Cueto - Gardner feels a little tilted in the Yankees' favor, but I could see it as a starting point.

mace
11-09-2011, 10:22 AM
Gardner, like Heisey, plays mostly LF, can also play CF, and hits RH pitchers better than LH pitchers.

Their career splits against said righties:

Gardner: 271/354/383/738
Heisey: 288/346/539/885

Gardner steals more. Heisey has more power. Both play good defense. Gardner is a year-plus older.

So, basically, by swapping out Heisey for Gardner, you'd be giving up Cueto, a year of prime age, and 147 OPS points.

Dan
11-09-2011, 11:00 AM
Interesting idea. Solves LF and leadoff, but creates a huge hole in the rotation. I would have to assume there would be other plans in place for the rotation spot -- James Shields would be a great start, but another starter still would be needed.

Cueto - Gardner feels a little tilted in the Yankees' favor, but I could see it as a starting point.

Yeah I didn't mean for Gardner straight up. Rather, Cueto for Gardner and, say, Betances (since his was the name conspicuously absent from the list of untouchable prospects).

And yes, this would have to be paired with another trade, like Votto/Wood for Romero/Escobar/parts, or Alonso/Volquez for Sheilds to fill the hole in the rotation.

Dan
11-09-2011, 11:08 AM
I don't see a match with the Yankees at all. Where would Montero play on this team? Beyond Montero, it's a bunch of Yankees prospects, and who wants any of those?

I'd rather deal with the Yankees than the Braves. Yankees traded prospects do actually pan out, while Braves traded prospects tend to flame out. (in other words the Braves know who to hold onto...the Yanks have enough $ not to care one way or the other)

Slyder
11-09-2011, 11:10 AM
Yeah I didn't mean for Gardner straight up. Rather, Cueto for Gardner and, say, Betances (since his was the name conspicuously absent from the list of untouchable prospects).

And yes, this would have to be paired with another trade, like Votto/Wood for Romero/Escobar/parts, or Alonso/Volquez for Sheilds to fill the hole in the rotation.

Even if Cueto regresses to his norm (mid 3s ERA) Cueto is still a very good #2 starter on most teams. The gap between Cueto and the rest of what we have is so great that short of a premier starter in return I would not even think about trading Cueto. If the Yanks want some combinition of other starters besides Cueto then I would talk about it because we seem to have a decent number of guys who could land in 3-5 of our rotation to fill other needs. We currently have 1 very solid pitcher (Cueto) that we can pencil into our rotation. Even with a trade for Shields or (insert high caliber starter here) we need to keep Cueto to support them or else we will see a repeat of 2011 except you just replace Cueto's name as top pitcher with (insert acquired guy here).

Superdude
11-09-2011, 01:40 PM
Even if Cueto regresses to his norm (mid 3s ERA) Cueto is still a very good #2 starter on most teams. The gap between Cueto and the rest of what we have is so great that short of a premier starter in return I would not even think about trading Cueto. If the Yanks want some combinition of other starters besides Cueto then I would talk about it because we seem to have a decent number of guys who could land in 3-5 of our rotation to fill other needs. We currently have 1 very solid pitcher (Cueto) that we can pencil into our rotation. Even with a trade for Shields or (insert high caliber starter here) we need to keep Cueto to support them or else we will see a repeat of 2011 except you just replace Cueto's name as top pitcher with (insert acquired guy here).

I agree with this. There is probably a trade out there somewhere involving Votto that could possibly improve the team. Cueto I'm just not seeing it, at least as far as helping in the short term.

REDREAD
11-09-2011, 02:20 PM
What about Cueto suggests he can be a TOR guy? His declining strikeout rate certainly doesn't. He isn't an elite control guy either.

Again, Cueto has said this year that he's focusing more on getting outs without strikeouts, in order to go deeper into games.
It seemed to work well.
If the Reds are going to trade Cueto this year, they might as well unload everyone and start all over again..
Cueto is exactly what the team needs next year. They need to find another guy like him, not trade him.

Every year, there's these gloom and doom predictions for Ceuto.. Declining K rate, he's too short, etc, etc..
He's an affordable TOR arm.. Why in the world would we want to trade him?

RANDY IN INDY
11-09-2011, 03:23 PM
Again, Cueto has said this year that he's focusing more on getting outs without strikeouts, in order to go deeper into games.
It seemed to work well.
If the Reds are going to trade Cueto this year, they might as well unload everyone and start all over again..
Cueto is exactly what the team needs next year. They need to find another guy like him, not trade him.

Every year, there's these gloom and doom predictions for Ceuto.. Declining K rate, he's too short, etc, etc..
He's an affordable TOR arm.. Why in the world would we want to trade him?

:beerme:

Benihana
11-09-2011, 03:36 PM
Again, Cueto has said this year that he's focusing more on getting outs without strikeouts, in order to go deeper into games.
It seemed to work well.
If the Reds are going to trade Cueto this year, they might as well unload everyone and start all over again..
Cueto is exactly what the team needs next year. They need to find another guy like him, not trade him.

Every year, there's these gloom and doom predictions for Ceuto.. Declining K rate, he's too short, etc, etc..
He's an affordable TOR arm.. Why in the world would we want to trade him?

Yes.

CarolinaRedleg
11-11-2011, 11:34 AM
Clayton Kershaw, anybody?

http://www.redreporter.com/2011/11/11/2554325/trade-rumors-ckershaw-ckoming-to-ckincinnati


It's been a quiet month in Redsland, but things just got interesting. According to an unnamed source, the Dodgers are not only listening on their ace Clayton Kershaw, but are close to a deal that would send him to Cincinnati.

As is well known, the Dodgers' ownership situation is in flux. Outgoing owner Frank McCourt has instructed GM Ned Coletti to curtail spending in an attempt to make the team's payroll situation more attractive to prospective buyers. Kershaw is arbitration-eligible for the first time this off-season and MLBTradeRumors projects a salary north of $8 mil. Considering that Kershaw is a favorite to win the Cy Young this year, he would easily be the most attractive pitcher on the market if they decided to make him available.

Joseph
11-11-2011, 11:36 AM
Clayton Kershaw, anybody?

http://www.redreporter.com/2011/11/11/2554325/trade-rumors-ckershaw-ckoming-to-ckincinnati

Not sure what our pal RR was trying to do, but its posted in 'fake news'.

CarolinaRedleg
11-11-2011, 11:37 AM
Wow. I feel dumb.

Been a long week. TGIF.

Sea Ray
11-11-2011, 11:49 AM
What about Cueto suggests he can be a TOR guy? His declining strikeout rate certainly doesn't. He isn't an elite control guy either.

I think he's already a TOR guy and I like the fact that he's not striking out as many guys. He's too little to pile up the pitches it takes to strike out ten per game. He's learned how to pitch so in that case I think it's a good thing that his Ks have dropped

remdog
11-11-2011, 11:55 AM
An indication that this is a bad idea? A Cardinals fan thinks it's a good idea.

:lol:

Rem

remdog
11-11-2011, 11:56 AM
Again, Cueto has said this year that he's focusing more on getting outs without strikeouts, in order to go deeper into games.
It seemed to work well.
If the Reds are going to trade Cueto this year, they might as well unload everyone and start all over again..
Cueto is exactly what the team needs next year. They need to find another guy like him, not trade him.

Every year, there's these gloom and doom predictions for Ceuto.. Declining K rate, he's too short, etc, etc..
He's an affordable TOR arm.. Why in the world would we want to trade him?

:thumbup:

Rem

vic715
11-11-2011, 12:43 PM
Again, Cueto has said this year that he's focusing more on getting outs without strikeouts, in order to go deeper into games.
It seemed to work well.
If the Reds are going to trade Cueto this year, they might as well unload everyone and start all over again..
Cueto is exactly what the team needs next year. They need to find another guy like him, not trade him.

Every year, there's these gloom and doom predictions for Ceuto.. Declining K rate, he's too short, etc, etc..
He's an affordable TOR arm.. Why in the world would we want to trade him?

Totally agree.Those worried about the K rate haven't taken into account that his whip and era went down as well.Looks like he might be pitching with his head along with his arm.

Joseph
11-11-2011, 04:03 PM
Wow. I feel dumb.

Been a long week. TGIF.

Don't feel bad, I got just as excited.

dougdirt
11-11-2011, 04:10 PM
Totally agree.Those worried about the K rate haven't taken into account that his whip and era went down as well.Looks like he might be pitching with his head along with his arm.

His ERA and WHIP went down because he had a very unsustainable batting average on balls in play and HR per FB rate. Both of those are going to go up next year, meaning his ERA and WHIP are going to also go up unless he changes something in his walk rate or strikeout rate to counteract those things. Baseball history has shown us these things happen over and over and over and only incredibly special types of pitchers can "beat" history and while I like Cueto, he isn't that type of pitcher.

Benihana
11-11-2011, 04:12 PM
His ERA and WHIP went down because he had a very unsustainable batting average on balls in play and HR per FB rate. Both of those are going to go up next year, meaning his ERA and WHIP are going to also go up unless he changes something in his walk rate or strikeout rate to counteract those things. Baseball history has shown us these things happen over and over and over and only incredibly special types of pitchers can "beat" history and while I like Cueto, he isn't that type of pitcher.

Who on the current staff will be better than Johnny Cueto in 2012?

dougdirt
11-11-2011, 04:26 PM
Who on the current staff will be better than Johnny Cueto in 2012?

I wouldn't be comfortable saying anyone WILL be. I do think some could be. Cueto is the safe bet to be the best, but he won't come close to repeating what he did this year unless he comes out and has changes in his peripherals (lower walk rate, higher strikeout rate, better K/BB, more ground balls).

Benihana
11-11-2011, 04:38 PM
I wouldn't be comfortable saying anyone WILL be. I do think some could be. Cueto is the safe bet to be the best, but he won't come close to repeating what he did this year unless he comes out and has changes in his peripherals (lower walk rate, higher strikeout rate, better K/BB, more ground balls).

IMO, we should not trade what will likely be our best pitcher, when what we need to compete is more/better pitching. That's what this topic is about.

MattyHo4Life
11-11-2011, 04:46 PM
I'd rather deal with the Yankees than the Braves. Yankees traded prospects do actually pan out, while Braves traded prospects tend to flame out. (in other words the Braves know who to hold onto...the Yanks have enough $ not to care one way or the other)

I've heard this comment a lot when the Cardinals traded JD Drew to the Braves. Everybody was saying that Adam Wainwright couldn't be very good if the Braves were willing to give him up. Well... there may be some truth to the statement, but they were very wrong about Adam Wainwright.

dougdirt
11-11-2011, 04:49 PM
IMO, we should not trade what will likely be our best pitcher, when what we need to compete is more/better pitching. That's what this topic is about.

I must have missed where someone suggested trading Cueto. I wouldn't be actively trying to do that unless it was for a pitcher who is better than he is now and is also under control for at least 2 more years.

AtomicDumpling
11-11-2011, 05:10 PM
Again, Cueto has said this year that he's focusing more on getting outs without strikeouts, in order to go deeper into games.
It seemed to work well.
If the Reds are going to trade Cueto this year, they might as well unload everyone and start all over again..
Cueto is exactly what the team needs next year. They need to find another guy like him, not trade him.

Every year, there's these gloom and doom predictions for Ceuto.. Declining K rate, he's too short, etc, etc..
He's an affordable TOR arm.. Why in the world would we want to trade him?

I don't think anybody wants to trade him. The Reds are not looking to get rid of him or give up on him. Saying the Reds should listen to offers for Cueto is not the same as saying the Reds should trade Cueto. As good as Cueto is there are players out there that are better. It would be foolish to reject a great trade offer simply because he is the Reds best pitcher. If you can get an even better pitcher for him wouldn't you do it? It all depends on what the other team is offering. If you want to get something good you have to give up something good.

I do think Cueto's reduced strikeout rate is a concern. A pitcher's K/BB and K/9IP ratios are far better indicators of future success than his prior season's ERA. He should be (and likely is) still trying to strike out batters as often as possible. The key is to throw strikes and rely on your "stuff" (movement, speed and location) to cause swings and misses. In the past he relied too heavily on tricking batters into swinging at balls out of the strike zone (the "Edison Volquez syndrome"), but this year he avoided wasting pitches much better. If you have great stuff you don't have to burn up 5-7 pitches to strike out each batter. Just trust your stuff, throw it in the zone and watch the batters strike out in 3-4 pitches. Then you can go deeper into the game and provide more value for your team.

Slyder
11-11-2011, 09:30 PM
Clayton Kershaw, anybody?

http://www.redreporter.com/2011/11/11/2554325/trade-rumors-ckershaw-ckoming-to-ckincinnati

Yes Please. If this were legit.

RedlegJake
11-12-2011, 12:28 PM
Cueto isn't good enough to be untouchable. Come on. He's not Kershaw. If someone wants to really overpay then you do it. He is good enough that he might entice an overpayment, too, and then you use extra talent you've acquired plus perhaps or part or two on hand to acquire a Pineda, or a Shields. Then you've added a pitcher just as good, or better, and added another player or two who can really help. If no one wants to knock your socks then you keep him. Dangling Cueto is almost a can't lose proposition - you win if you keep him, you win if you deal in (in those circumstances).

Slyder
11-12-2011, 11:32 PM
Cueto isn't good enough to be untouchable. Come on. He's not Kershaw. If someone wants to really overpay then you do it. He is good enough that he might entice an overpayment, too, and then you use extra talent you've acquired plus perhaps or part or two on hand to acquire a Pineda, or a Shields. Then you've added a pitcher just as good, or better, and added another player or two who can really help. If no one wants to knock your socks then you keep him. Dangling Cueto is almost a can't lose proposition - you win if you keep him, you win if you deal in (in those circumstances).

We don't have the proven arms behind Cueto to even consider trading him in a no chance to lose deal. We need to add to our pitching not trade the one guy who has been closest to the pinnacle that we have had since Jose Rijo and the 90 Reds. You take Cueto off this team without getting 2 upper rotation arms (at least) and its a waste of a very limited resource. You trade from a strength to address a weakness, the Reds have plenty of 3-5 guys already but we have only 1 who has proven on the field to be better than that.

I would rather trade Bruce AND Votto before I would consider trading Cueto. Pitchers who are proven and signed affordably are worth their weight in GOLD. We might as well nuke this thing and start over if we are serious about trading Cueto because we don't currently have the arms to compete with the NL even with him and without him we are even further behind the rest of the league.

Vottomatic
11-13-2011, 10:10 AM
Cueto isn't good enough to be untouchable. Come on. He's not Kershaw. If someone wants to really overpay then you do it. He is good enough that he might entice an overpayment, too, and then you use extra talent you've acquired plus perhaps or part or two on hand to acquire a Pineda, or a Shields. Then you've added a pitcher just as good, or better, and added another player or two who can really help. If no one wants to knock your socks then you keep him. Dangling Cueto is almost a can't lose proposition - you win if you keep him, you win if you deal in (in those circumstances).

I agree. The Reds finished 3rd and under .500. They have Votto for 2 more years or less if they decide to trade him before free agency. The Reds have small market budget constraints.

Every player on the Reds team should be available for the right price. If other teams aren't willing to overpay, then you keep them.

Vottomatic
11-13-2011, 10:21 AM
Clayton Kershaw, anybody?

http://www.redreporter.com/2011/11/11/2554325/trade-rumors-ckershaw-ckoming-to-ckincinnati

I actually read that proposed trade on another site. But maybe they got it their info from the same place. Fake news travels fast? :D

Reds get Kershaw
Dodgers get Alonso, Grandal, Bailey, Volquez

mattfeet
11-13-2011, 11:02 AM
I actually read that proposed trade on another site. But maybe they got it their info from the same place. Fake news travels fast? :D

Reds get Kershaw
Dodgers get Alonso, Grandal, Bailey, Volquez

Not worth it for that list of Reds. Id include Grandal OR Alonso + the others.

mattfeet
11-13-2011, 12:02 PM
I actually read that proposed trade on another site. But maybe they got it their info from the same place. Fake news travels fast? :D

Reds get Kershaw
Dodgers get Alonso, Grandal, Bailey, Volquez

Not worth it for that list of Reds. Id include Grandal OR Alonso + the others.

dunner13
11-13-2011, 01:44 PM
Not worth it for that list of Reds. Id include Grandal OR Alonso + the others.

Really? for a 23 year old who went 21-5, 2.28ERA 9.6 SO/9 and .977 WHIP I would give up those four guys in a second. Kershaw is one of the best pitchers in baseball and at 23 he has the potential to get even better. If the Dodgers are willing to trade him then Walt needs to make it happen.

The Operator
11-13-2011, 02:50 PM
Clayton Kershaw is the kind of pitcher you back the truck up for. He's exactly the kind of guy The Reds need to go up against the Halladay's and Lee's of the world. I'd do it in a heartbeat.

Vottomatic
11-13-2011, 04:29 PM
Really? for a 23 year old who went 21-5, 2.28ERA 9.6 SO/9 and .977 WHIP I would give up those four guys in a second. Kershaw is one of the best pitchers in baseball and at 23 he has the potential to get even better. If the Dodgers are willing to trade him then Walt needs to make it happen.

If Mez is the catcher of the future, why do we need Grandal?
If Votto is the first baseman now and of the future, why do we need Alonso?
Volquez is in the doghouse.
You have to give up talent to get talent. In this case, maybe overpay a bit.

That's 3 former #1 Reds picks. 3 guys who have major league experience. A near Cy Young contender (Volquez) coming off TJ surgery. Alonso has shown he can hit major league pitching. Bailey has had his moments. Grandal spent his first year in the minors with success.

Definitely a fair offer.

marcshoe
11-13-2011, 04:33 PM
Kind of interesting. All this is riffing off of a joke article, but it's leading to a kernel of truth: the Reds do have enough top-notch prospects to do this kind of deal. If they really did want to acquire a young TOR pitcher and if one was available, it's a doable deal, and they shouldn't be afraid to pull the trigger.

The Operator
11-13-2011, 06:57 PM
Kind of interesting. All this is riffing off of a joke article, but it's leading to a kernel of truth: the Reds do have enough top-notch prospects to do this kind of deal. If they really did want to acquire a young TOR pitcher and if one was available, it's a doable deal, and they shouldn't be afraid to pull the trigger.It's a joke article? I wasn't under the impression that RedReporter ran satirical type stuff.

RedsManRick
11-13-2011, 07:41 PM
It's a joke article? I wasn't under the impression that RedReporter ran satirical type stuff.


by Charlie Scrabbles on Nov 11, 2011 11:19 AM EST in Fake News


Read More: 111111 is practical jokes day, fake, this offseason is boring, making **** up is what blogs are all about, i think im going to have a sandwich and a soda for lunch today, completely made up trade rumors, this is fake, totally fake, not real, fake as hell, Homer Bailey (P - CIN), James Loney (1B - LOS), Edinson Volquez (P - CIN), Clayton Kershaw (P - LOS), Yonder Alonso (LF - CIN), Yasmani Grandal (C - CIN), Cincinnati Reds, Los Angeles Dodgers

The Operator
11-13-2011, 10:30 PM
ah, looked right over that. Bummer.

Mario-Rijo
11-14-2011, 07:49 AM
I actually read that proposed trade on another site. But maybe they got it their info from the same place. Fake news travels fast? :D

Reds get Kershaw
Dodgers get Alonso, Grandal, Bailey, Volquez

Doubt it would work but I'd jump all over that. And IMO so would the Reds, in fact I would imagine they might even toss in a 5th lesser player. This is a no brainer I think, although it is a fake offer it's one I'd be looking to try to make. Back up the prospects truck.

lollipopcurve
11-14-2011, 08:53 AM
Besides a closer, the Jays need an every day second baseman.

Cincinnati Reds second baseman Brandon Phillips is available.

Per Bob Elliott of the Toronto Sun.

IMO, if you're not willing to deal Votto b/c you're not willing to accept the team getting worse at 1B, you're probably not willing to deal Phillips, given the hole his trade would leave at 2B.

Still, I really like Toronto as a trade partner for the Reds -- lots of young arms in that system -- and if the Reds know Phillips is going to go for one of the top 2B contracts in the game, it likely makes sense to deal him. Jocketty's history is to backfill 2B, plus with the organization trying to accelerate Hamilton's development, I doubt they want to block 2B with a long-term deal right now (Cozart can always move to 2B if they like Hamilton as the long-term SS).

Intriguing rumor, because we really haven't heard it, and it's stated in no uncertain terms.

lollipopcurve
11-14-2011, 08:54 AM
Besides a closer, the Jays need an every day second baseman.

Cincinnati Reds second baseman Brandon Phillips is available.

Per Bob Elliott of the Toronto Sun.

IMO, if you're not willing to deal Votto b/c you're not willing to accept the team getting worse at 1B, you're probably not willing to deal Phillips, given the hole his trade would leave at 2B.

Still, I really like Toronto as a trade partner for the Reds -- lots of young arms in that system -- and if the Reds know Phillips is going to go for one of the top 2B contracts in the game, it likely makes sense to deal him. Jocketty's history is to backfill 2B, plus with the organization trying to accelerate Hamilton's development, I doubt they want to block 2B with a long-term deal right now (Cozart can always move to 2B if they like Hamilton as the long-term SS).

Intriguing rumor, because we really haven't heard it, and it's stated in no uncertain terms.

mdccclxix
11-14-2011, 09:41 AM
As common as it seems that teams like to back fill their 2b position, there just aren't but 4-5 other 2b that will have a 3-6 WAR season consistently. In effect, Phillips is to 2b what, say, Prince Fielder or Mark Texiera are to 1st base - an elite 1a player, slightly off the pace of those like Pedroia, or Votto, etc. I would hope the return would be commensurate with his value at that position. I don't really see a match, since their good players are either cost controlled or too far away from the majors.

Benihana
11-14-2011, 10:53 AM
Per Bob Elliott of the Toronto Sun.

IMO, if you're not willing to deal Votto b/c you're not willing to accept the team getting worse at 1B, you're probably not willing to deal Phillips, given the hole his trade would leave at 2B.

Still, I really like Toronto as a trade partner for the Reds -- lots of young arms in that system -- and if the Reds know Phillips is going to go for one of the top 2B contracts in the game, it likely makes sense to deal him. Jocketty's history is to backfill 2B, plus with the organization trying to accelerate Hamilton's development, I doubt they want to block 2B with a long-term deal right now (Cozart can always move to 2B if they like Hamilton as the long-term SS).

Intriguing rumor, because we really haven't heard it, and it's stated in no uncertain terms.

I wouldn't trade Phillips right now. I would trade him at the deadline if we are out of the race. Reds need to go for it this year. Trading Phillips to Toronto doesn't help that cause, unless its Joey Bats, Brett Lawrie, or Ricky Romero coming back (which was not the implication of this rumor/suggestion.)

If Reds are out of it come July, I'd offer him to Toronto for some combination of Drabek, McGuire, and/or Marisnick. He is the kind of asset that a lot of contending teams would really want to have, so I'd demand a lofty return.

lollipopcurve
11-14-2011, 11:00 AM
If Reds are out of it come July, I'd offer him to Toronto for some combination of Drabek, McGuire, and/or Marisnick. He is the kind of asset that a lot of contending teams would really want to have, so I'd demand a lofty return.

This is best-case scenario thinking. It assumes Phillips plays well. It assumes Toronto will still have the need and will be in contention (pretty significant assumption in the AL East).

Keep in mind that trading Phillips may mean the team can use the $$$ saved to acquire a valuable major league player.

lollipopcurve
11-14-2011, 11:22 AM
He is the kind of asset that a lot of contending teams would really want to have

How many contending teams will there be in July? How many of those will see 2B as the place to upgrade (pitching is almost always what teams are looking for at that point)? How many of those will be a good match for the Reds?

The market in summer cannot be predicted. Teams wait until the last week, even the last few days, sometimes, before deciding if they'll be in that market.

Odds are very good that the winter trade market is the best time to get return for BP, if they know they can't keep him beyond 2012.

Of course, if the plan is to go all in in 2012, you keep him. But I'd point out that 2013 is when the league goes to 2 wildcard teams. Might it be better for the Reds to aim in that direction? Saving Phillips' salary now, and getting back an arm or two that may help in 2013 (and possibly beyond) could be the way to go, especially if the money saved on BP could help sign another player who will be around in 2013 and/or could help keep Votto (at 17MM) in 2013.

Kc61
11-14-2011, 11:43 AM
How many contending teams will there be in July? How many of those will see 2B as the place to upgrade (pitching is almost always what teams are looking for at that point)? How many of those will be a good match for the Reds?

The market in summer cannot be predicted. Teams wait until the last week, even the last few days, sometimes, before deciding if they'll be in that market.

Odds are very good that the winter trade market is the best time to get return for BP, if they know they can't keep him beyond 2012.

Of course, if the plan is to go all in in 2012, you keep him. But I'd point out that 2013 is when the league goes to 2 wildcard teams. Might it be better for the Reds to aim in that direction? Saving Phillips' salary now, and getting back an arm or two that may help in 2013 (and possibly beyond) could be the way to go, especially if the money saved on BP could help sign another player who will be around in 2013 and/or could help keep Votto (at 17MM) in 2013.


Joey Votto is around for two more years. I don't think Reds should waste one of those years aiming for 2013.

I wouldn't trade Votto or Phillips. If Reds lose one or both to free agency then presumably the team could use the salary slots to acquire different free agents.

Strikes Out Looking
11-14-2011, 11:45 AM
Not that this makes any difference, but I don't think the Reds will make any deals that involve future possible top free agents until the CBA is finalized as the compensation coming back to teams losing free agents is reported to be changing. This may change how teams feel about holding on to guys in or near their free agent year.

Benihana
11-14-2011, 12:33 PM
Joey Votto is around for two more years. I don't think Reds should waste one of those years aiming for 2013.

I wouldn't trade Votto or Phillips. If Reds lose one or both to free agency then presumably the team could use the salary slots to acquire different free agents.

This. Right now, the Reds have the luxury of "going for it" for the next 2 years. I wouldn't punt one of those to focus on the other.

I'd keep Votto, Phillips, Bruce, and Cueto. Everyone else I'd be willing to discuss if it made the team better for these next two years.

Kc61
11-14-2011, 12:39 PM
This. Right now, the Reds have the luxury of "going for it" for the next 2 years. I wouldn't punt one of those to focus on the other.

I'd keep Votto, Phillips, Bruce, and Cueto. Everyone else I'd be willing to discuss if it made the team better for these next two years.

Fully agree.

Of course, one could argue that unless Votto, Phillips, Bruce and Cueto are on the market, the Reds will never get a big return and will never get over the top.

For this off-season, I would take that chance. I think the Reds have players like Alonso, Bailey, Volquez, Stubbs, Heisey, Wood, Chapman, Hanigan, Cozart, Francisco, Grandal, and other minor leaguers who could attract much interest.

I did include Chapman. I think the Reds have to listen to deals with Chapman involved because his role going forward is unclear. Wouldn't sell him cheap, but would listen on him.

I did include Cozart, but of course he only gets traded if Reds get a superior shortstop.

But agree fully that Votto, Phillips, Bruce and Cueto should stay. I would add Leake to that group by the way. Leake has great value to the Reds since he is a good GABP type and is inexpensive now.

Of course, you trade anyone in a blockbuster, steal type of deal. You never pass those up.

REDREAD
11-14-2011, 03:36 PM
I wouldn't be comfortable saying anyone WILL be. I do think some could be. Cueto is the safe bet to be the best, but he won't come close to repeating what he did this year unless he comes out and has changes in his peripherals (lower walk rate, higher strikeout rate, better K/BB, more ground balls).

I guess this is my point.
I agree, Cueto had a fantastic year, and it would be difficult for him to repeat it.
However, I think that's because it's hard to have an ERA of around 2.30, no matter who you are.
I think most pitchers that have had exceptional years have had good BABIP against.. That would be a good thing to research.. Has anyone ever had an ERA between 2.00 and 2.50 AND had an "average" or worse BABIP?

In other words, the whole argument you are making against Cueto is that he outperfromed some of his peripherals and thus he's likely to regress..
Of all the people that have had a year like Cueto, I wonder how many were in line with the peripherals that you stated above.. I'm sure a few high K guys (maybe Randy Johnson, Nolan Ryan) had some awesome years which their K, BB peripherals supported.. But I wonder about the other guys.

I will still say that it's easy (without looking at stats) to look at a pitcher that has never posted a 2.30 ERA before and then predict that he's likely to regress the next year.. A harder challenge would be to find a guy that underperformed his peripherals this year and whom you predict will be better next year because of that.. We've had a few guys like that in RZ history.. most notorious was Matt Belisle.. lots of people were convinced he was better than he really was, due to peripherals..
Just saying that if there was a statistical way to find out the people that were due for a bounce up, that would be a lot more valuable than picking guys whom have had a career year and predicting them to regress (that's pretty easy to do )

REDREAD
11-14-2011, 03:41 PM
II do think Cueto's reduced strikeout rate is a concern. A pitcher's K/BB and K/9IP ratios are far better indicators of future success than his prior season's ERA. He should be (and likely is) still trying to strike out batters as often as possible. The key is to throw strikes and rely on your "stuff" (movement, speed and location) to cause swings and misses.

I disagree with this.. Many real life pitchers have said.. "If I can induce a weak groundout on the first pitch, why should I try to strike him out?"
Cueto himself said that this year he was focusing on getting outs by ways other than strike outs.. I don't know how much more proof we need on this.
And he was very effective this year doing that.. Why ding him on having fewer K's if he's getting results? Going for less K's might mean that he gives up an extra hit or two per start (hypotethically), but if he can still win the game, does it really matter?

Should a pitcher with a 10 run lead still be trying to strike out as many batters as possible. IMO, conventional wisdom says no.. Conventional wisdom says with a big lead like that, you throw strikes, make them put the ball in play, even if you give up a few hits or HR.

Rojo
11-14-2011, 04:39 PM
Cueto himself said that this year he was focusing on getting outs by ways other than strike outs.. I don't know how much more proof we need on this.

Cueto did transform into a groundball pitcher -- from slightly below league average to well above. Even if you strike out a few less, you should expect to see a lower, sustainable babip.

Plus it's not like he's Mark Fidrych. His k-rate isn't abysmal. That's when you raise your eyebrows and get on the phone.

This might be a case where a guy changed his approach and it worked.

Frankly, we might be well suited to double-down on know-how pitchers for the rotation, bring on the heat from the pen and hit, hit, hit.

Mario-Rijo
11-14-2011, 08:30 PM
Per Bob Elliott of the Toronto Sun.

IMO, if you're not willing to deal Votto b/c you're not willing to accept the team getting worse at 1B, you're probably not willing to deal Phillips, given the hole his trade would leave at 2B.

Still, I really like Toronto as a trade partner for the Reds -- lots of young arms in that system -- and if the Reds know Phillips is going to go for one of the top 2B contracts in the game, it likely makes sense to deal him. Jocketty's history is to backfill 2B, plus with the organization trying to accelerate Hamilton's development, I doubt they want to block 2B with a long-term deal right now (Cozart can always move to 2B if they like Hamilton as the long-term SS).

Intriguing rumor, because we really haven't heard it, and it's stated in no uncertain terms.

This is a deal I think can and should be made. Phillips, Masset + for Bautista. I like BP and think he has become a very good complete player but we aren't likely gonna be able to afford the luxury of him playing 2B beyond this season if we have any shot to retain Votto which would be my focus going forward, regardless of the perception of Joeys situation. Now Bautista's dollars could possibly make keeping Votto prohibitive beyond '12 but if so then at least we would then have Bautista & Bruce going forward and still have taken our best shot at winning it all for the next 2 seasons. We may also have the option of dealing Bautista in 2 years if need be. As for the next 2 seasons well the deal can be constructed so we don't spend any additional dollars this coming year and hopefully the fans respond to the go for it attitude of the organization and make the '12 season attendance numbers a record year allowing us the wiggle room to pay everyone for '13.

Let's face it the Reds need to get the fans back, this conservative stuff will not get us moving in the right direction and Castellini has to seriously consider this as our last good chance ever (or at the very least the foreseeable future) to become relevant again.

klw
11-17-2011, 05:50 PM
Coco update per Sheldon
http://cincinnati.reds.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20111117&content_id=25994906&vkey=news_cin&c_id=cin

As for free agent Francisco Cordero, there have been no developments in efforts to re-sign the veteran closer. Jocketty said he did not see Cordero's agent, Bean Stringfellow, in Milwaukee.
Stringfellow revealed earlier this week to MLB.com that Cordero has drawn "seven or eight" interested clubs, including the Reds. Cordero's $12 million club option was not picked up by the Reds on Oct. 31.
"We're still letting them sort out the market," Jocketty said. "While we'd like to bring him back, we're moving on also."
There are several free-agent closers on the open market besides Cordero.
"If we did not sign Coco, we'd first look outside of the organization," Jocketty said.

REDREAD
11-18-2011, 11:22 AM
"If we did not sign Coco, we'd first look outside of the organization," Jocketty said.

That's encouraging.. At least an acknowledgement that the team needs help in the bullpen from the outside.

Benihana
11-18-2011, 11:34 AM
"If we did not sign Coco, we'd first look outside of the organization," Jocketty said.

That's encouraging.. At least an acknowledgement that the team needs help in the bullpen from the outside.

I'd rather first get help for the rotation, then the starting lineup from outside (assuming Alonso is dealt to address the rotation). Then we can talk about the bullpen.

mattfeet
11-21-2011, 09:58 AM
BustenESPN: Reds are talking about possible Andrew Bailey deal.

Hmmm....thoughts?

mdccclxix
11-21-2011, 10:07 AM
BustenESPN: Reds are talking about possible Andrew Bailey deal.

Hmmm....thoughts?

If we're talking minor league depth, or some of our MLB bench players, I'm okay with this. He's been similar to Oakland's closer prior to him, Houston Street. He'd be in the 3-5 million range this year and next. He could be part of a larger deal, a la Street (2 arb years left) + CarGo (rookie) = Matt Holiday (1 arb year left), but I doubt it.

mattfeet
11-21-2011, 10:07 AM
More Info: http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/reds-talking-about-andrew-bailey-deal.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

757690
11-21-2011, 10:08 AM
BustenESPN: Reds are talking about possible Andrew Bailey deal.

Hmmm....thoughts?

A good guy to look at. Solid numbers, low HR's. The price is the key.

Homer Bailey
11-21-2011, 10:09 AM
A good guy to look at. Solid numbers, low HR's. The price is the key.

High FB% though. I wouldn't get sucked in by the low HR totals playing in Oakland.

That being said, I still think he's a solid target.

PuffyPig
11-21-2011, 10:20 AM
I disagree with this.. Many real life pitchers have said.. "If I can induce a weak groundout on the first pitch, why should I try to strike him out?"


Because inducung "weak ground balls" is not a repeatable skill.

REDREAD
11-21-2011, 10:22 AM
Because inducung "weak ground balls" is not a repeatable skill.

That's debatable.
Just because a pitcher's GB percentage fluctates, it does not mean it is not a repeatable skill.

A guy like Cueto can try to start an inning getting groundball outs.
Then if a guy gets in scoring position, change his approach and go for the K.
That's smart pitching. Smarter than trying to strike out every guy that comes to the plate (which is what some people are claiming good pitchers do).

Listen to what real major league starting pitchers say.. they don't go for the K every time.

757690
11-21-2011, 10:24 AM
High FB% though. I wouldn't get sucked in by the low HR totals playing in Oakland.

That being said, I still think he's a solid target.

Good home/road splits and low tERA and Sierra however. It's not like he's getting hit hard.

My biggest problem would be paying more for him because of his save total.

757690
11-21-2011, 10:27 AM
Because inducung "weak ground balls" is not a repeatable skill.

Yes it is, and anyone who has ever pitched will tell you it is. However, it is a very difficult skill to master, which is probably why it doesn't show up in the stats.

Kc61
11-21-2011, 10:43 AM
If Reds could solve the closer spot with a good pitcher earning in the $3.5 million range, that would be a huge plus.

It would likely be worth one very good prospect and, perhaps, a lesser one.

RedsZoners usually don't value closers very much. I do, and I would be willing to make such a deal.

I also wonder if this is part of a bigger deal. Do the A's, for example, have a LF the Reds might acquire with Bailey?

Kc61
11-21-2011, 10:44 AM
If we're talking minor league depth, or some of our MLB bench players, I'm okay with this. He's been similar to Oakland's closer prior to him, Houston Street. He'd be in the 3-5 million range this year and next. He could be part of a larger deal, a la Street (2 arb years left) + CarGo (rookie) = Matt Holiday (1 arb year left), but I doubt it.

Why would the A's trade Bailey for minor league depth or a bench player?

Not happening. If this deal goes, the Reds will give up one major prospect. Count on it.

mattfeet
11-21-2011, 10:45 AM
If Reds could solve the closer spot with a good pitcher earning in the $3.5 million range, that would be a huge plus.

It would likely be worth one very good prospect and, perhaps, a lesser one.

RedsZoners usually don't value closers very much. I do, and I would be willing to make such a deal.

I also wonder if this is part of a bigger deal. Do the A's, for example, have a LF the Reds might acquire with Bailey?

Adam Rosales? :lol:

lollipopcurve
11-21-2011, 10:45 AM
Do the A's, for example, have a LF the Reds might acquire with Bailey?

Not that I can see.

757690
11-21-2011, 10:51 AM
Why would the A's trade Bailey for minor league depth or a bench player?

Not happening. If this deal goes, the Reds will give up one major prospect. Count on it.

I agree, but remember, this is Beane, who believes all closers are overrated, and never likes to have one that makes real money.

hippie07
11-21-2011, 11:08 AM
John Danks?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/945989-mlb-trade-rumors-john-danks-trade-must-bring-chicago-white-sox-high-prospect

Article mentions Reds as expressing interest. Suggests Daniel Corcino as centerpiece of deal.

mdccclxix
11-21-2011, 11:11 AM
Why would the A's trade Bailey for minor league depth or a bench player?

Not happening. If this deal goes, the Reds will give up one major prospect. Count on it.

I think some of the mlb bench players (Alonso, Sappelt, Heisey, Frazier) and the minor league depth the Reds have (Grandal, Hamilton, Didi, etc) are good enough. That's who I was referring to, I think it just read wrong.

Kc61
11-21-2011, 11:27 AM
I think some of the mlb bench players (Alonso, Sappelt, Heisey, Frazier) and the minor league depth the Reds have (Grandal, Hamilton, Didi, etc) are good enough. That's who I was referring to, I think it just read wrong.

Oh, sorry, I got the impression you were thinking lesser players.

I agree, the trade would probably include at least one player, if not two, from that general group.

I would hope the Reds could avoid using Alonso in such a trade. Given his major league readiness, I think he could be used to acquire a bigger fish. (Not implicating the Marlins.)

kaldaniels
11-21-2011, 12:10 PM
OK, so you are the A's GM. What would you make the Reds give up to acquire Bailey?

Kc61
11-21-2011, 12:22 PM
OK, so you are the A's GM. What would you make the Reds give up to acquire Bailey?

I'm guessing the A's would want Grandal and an outfielder, say Heisey.

I'm guessing the Reds would want more than Bailey in return.

Benihana
11-21-2011, 12:30 PM
I would prefer Danks to Bailey. Closers with big injury histories are not my cup of tea. I would not give up Alonso or Grandal for either. Most others would be fair game though.

Benihana
11-21-2011, 12:33 PM
A Reds source agrees that Alonso is way too much for Bailey, writes MLB.com's Mark Sheldon. Sheldon notes that starting pitching is a more pressing need for the Reds than a closer.

Good. I agree.

HokieRed
11-21-2011, 12:33 PM
OK, so you are the A's GM. What would you make the Reds give up to acquire Bailey?

Given what the A's have in the outfield, you have to think the conversation is about Heisey.

Benihana
11-21-2011, 01:18 PM
Given what the A's have in the outfield, you have to think the conversation is about Heisey.

I would trade Heisey for Bailey.

thatcoolguy_22
11-21-2011, 01:20 PM
I would say either Sappelt or Heisey straight up for Bailey. Anything more than that is just a pipe dream for Beane.

Benihana
11-21-2011, 01:20 PM
I would say either Sappelt or Heisey straight up for Bailey. Anything more than that is just a pipe dream for Beane.

Agreed

RANDY IN INDY
11-21-2011, 01:51 PM
Because inducung "weak ground balls" is not a repeatable skill.

Good sinkerball pitchers would disagree. Some have made a living out of it.

PuffyPig
11-21-2011, 01:57 PM
Good sinkerball pitchers would disagree. Some have made a living out of it.

They induce more ground balls. The % of ground balls being induced being "weak" is no more than a fly ball pitcher.

If pitchers could induce weak contact, they could control BABIP.

RANDY IN INDY
11-21-2011, 02:02 PM
They induce more ground balls. The % of ground balls being induced being "weak" is no more than a fly ball pitcher.

If pitchers could induce weak contact, they could control BABIP.

Contact is often weak if the pitch rides down and in, and is hard, much more so than that of a flyball pitcher.

Benihana
11-21-2011, 02:08 PM
"The A's are very willing to trade Andrew Bailey"

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/reds-talking-about-andrew-bailey-deal.html

Given his injury history and his abbreviated track record, this scares me. I certainly wouldn't give up more than a Sappelt/Heisey type.

lollipopcurve
11-21-2011, 02:18 PM
I certainly wouldn't give up more than a Sappelt/Heisey type.

I'd prefer they try to unload Stubbs for him. Seems like a reasonable exchange, given the year Stubbs had in 2010.

I don't think Heisey or Sappelt gets it done. Bailey's numbers, pre-injury, are elite. And you figure the TJ surgery will be something he'll bounce back from.

Benihana
11-21-2011, 02:20 PM
I'd prefer they try to unload Stubbs for him. Seems like a reasonable exchange, given the year Stubbs had in 2010.

I don't think Heisey or Sappelt gets it done. Bailey's numbers, pre-injury, are elite. And you figure the TJ surgery will be something he'll bounce back from.

If they want more than Heisey or Sappelt, I'd open it up to a bigger deal- see what they'd want for Bailey and Gonzalez or Cahill. Then we could start talking about guys like Stubbs, Grandal, Corcino, etc.

757690
11-21-2011, 02:24 PM
They induce more ground balls. The % of ground balls being induced being "weak" is no more than a fly ball pitcher.

If pitchers could induce weak contact, they could control BABIP.

Not to derail this thread, but we have no idea whether pitchers can control their BABIP. All we know is that the BABIP of pitchers, who pitch enough innings to create meaningful data, is within a small range.

It is a logical fallacy to conclude that this data means that pitchers can't control their BABIP, there are many other logical explanations for this data.

In fact, McCracken, who was the first to notice this data, explicitly asked people not to draw conclusions like that from the data.

lollipopcurve
11-21-2011, 02:29 PM
If they want more than Heisey or Sappelt, I'd open it up to a bigger deal- see what they'd want for Bailey and Gonzalez or Cahill. Then we could start talking about guys like Stubbs, Grandal, Corcino, etc.

Agree, in general. However, I'd pull the trigger on Stubbs for Bailey straight up.

Patrick Bateman
11-21-2011, 02:30 PM
Contact is often weak if the pitch rides down and in, and is hard, much more so than that of a flyball pitcher.

IIRC, I believe that a higher percentage of ground balls go for hits than flyballs.

Guys like Derek Lowe who get groundballs generally don't have a history of having a lower BAPIP. Usually they will have significantly less home runs than other guys, and more DP's that help the success of a pitcher.

757690
11-21-2011, 02:34 PM
Agree, in general. However, I'd pull the trigger on Stubbs for Bailey straight up.

Me too.

I don't have much of a problem with Stubbs' offense last season, but his lack of growth as a fielder worries me greatly.

757690
11-21-2011, 02:38 PM
IIRC, I believe that a higher percentage of ground balls go for hits than flyballs.

Guys like Derek Lowe who get groundballs generally don't have a history of having a lower BAPIP. Usually they will have significantly less home runs than other guys, and more DP's that help the success of a pitcher.

That makes sense.

Think about it. A hard hit ground ball can shoot through the infield and be a base hit. Flyballs have to be well placed bloops to be a hit. If it's hit hard enough, it's not longer a flyball, it's a line drive.

This is why I think the whole separation between groundballs, flyballs and line drives needs to be reworked. It really is more about how hard you hit the ball, and that needs to be taken into account if we are to understand what really happens with balls in play. I'm hoping as PitchFX advances, we will be able to do more of this.

hippie07
11-21-2011, 02:39 PM
Wonder what it would take to get both Gio & Bailey??
Alonso, Stubbs, Homer Bailey, maybe do it??

Then maybe get a solid guy like Danks (previously rumors that the Reds are interested) with someone like Corcino & Wood.

Rotation of:
Gio
Cueto
Danks
Leake
Arroyo/Chapman/Volquez

with Bailey as the new closer... doesn't sound bad.

TRF
11-21-2011, 03:04 PM
Bailey for Stubbs is a steal.

For the A's.

GABP suppresses doubles, and for a guy with Stubbs' speed, his doubles total was very low, especially compared to his HR totals the last two years. Put him in the AL west, and his HR power might take a little dip, but not much of one, but his doubles might just... double. :) he might be looking at a .470+ SLG%. greater power numbers added to hitting where he needs to hit, 7-8 in the order and his OBP could shoot up to the .340+ range. Plus his speed would play well in those bigger OF's.

I'd want Bailey plus a minor leaguer. At least a B prospect.

ugh. I feel dirty.

dougdirt
11-21-2011, 03:19 PM
I'm hoping as PitchFX advances, we will be able to do more of this.

It is there. We just don't have access to the data right now (we may never actually get it either, but Sportsvision did release one months worth of data to some guys last year to work with).

REDREAD
11-21-2011, 04:58 PM
Bailey for Stubbs is a steal.

For the A's.

.

I agree. I would not do that trade.
They can have Heisey or Sappelt and I would throw in another medium prospect too.

Vottomatic
11-21-2011, 04:59 PM
Wonder what it would take to get both Gio & Bailey??
Alonso, Stubbs, Homer Bailey, maybe do it??

Then maybe get a solid guy like Danks (previously rumors that the Reds are interested) with someone like Corcino & Wood.

Rotation of:
Gio
Cueto
Danks
Leake
Arroyo/Chapman/Volquez

with Bailey as the new closer... doesn't sound bad.

I think that's too much to pay. I'm fine trading Stubbs and Bailey, but I think a marginal guy in addition would do it.......but not Alonso.

I'd love to obtain Gio and Bailey. Could solve 2 problems if they pan out right. Stud starting pitcher and closer.

dougdirt
11-21-2011, 07:40 PM
I think that's too much to pay. I'm fine trading Stubbs and Bailey, but I think a marginal guy in addition would do it.......but not Alonso.

I'd love to obtain Gio and Bailey. Could solve 2 problems if they pan out right. Stud starting pitcher and closer.

I just don't get the love for Gio Gonzalez. He is essentially Edinson Volquez in a much larger ballpark.

Brutus
11-21-2011, 07:41 PM
IIRC, I believe that a higher percentage of ground balls go for hits than flyballs.

Guys like Derek Lowe who get groundballs generally don't have a history of having a lower BAPIP. Usually they will have significantly less home runs than other guys, and more DP's that help the success of a pitcher.

I believe the numbers are around 23% of groundballs go for hits and 14% of flyballs.

The trick, obviously, is to keep more of those groundballs in the infield to lower the BABIP. But of course merely keeping the ball on the ground is preferable despite the extra hits since those hits are in the ballpark.

PuffyPig
11-21-2011, 07:42 PM
Not to derail this thread, but we have no idea whether pitchers can control their BABIP.

If pitchers could control thier BABIP, I'm curious as to why they don't.

It would seem to be a jazz of an idea to do so.

mth123
11-21-2011, 08:20 PM
I just don't get the love for Gio Gonzalez. He is essentially Edinson Volquez in a much larger ballpark.

Agreed. I'm not big on acquiring Bailey either unless Trevor Cahill is thrown in. $3 Million plus and some of our talent makes acquiring a starter much less likely. The best offer I'd make for Andrew Bailey would be Volquez and some lesser minor leaguers like Kris Negron or Jordan Smith. If Bailey could be had for a couple lottery tickets and salary relief, I'd take him, but I wouldn't give up a lot of value for him.

Then I'd package Masset and Stubbs for John Danks.

Will M
11-21-2011, 08:45 PM
I would trade Stubbs as a part of a deal for a solid starter. Danks. Wandy. Somebody like that. If we somehow got that starter in another fashion then Stubbs for Bailey could make sense. However, I suspect Stubbs (as part of a deal) is one of our better excess chips that we can deal. I have no problem with a trade of one of our centerfielders for Bailey but I think the Reds need to fix their #1 problem first. Then try to improve other places. IMO the #1 problem is getting a pitcher who is at least a solid #3 starter to replace Volquez/Willis in the rotation.

Wheelhouse
11-21-2011, 08:55 PM
Bailey for Stubbs is a steal.

For the A's.

GABP suppresses doubles, and for a guy with Stubbs' speed, his doubles total was very low, especially compared to his HR totals the last two years. Put him in the AL west, and his HR power might take a little dip, but not much of one, but his doubles might just... double. :) he might be looking at a .470+ SLG%. greater power numbers added to hitting where he needs to hit, 7-8 in the order and his OBP could shoot up to the .340+ range. Plus his speed would play well in those bigger OF's.

I'd want Bailey plus a minor leaguer. At least a B prospect.

ugh. I feel dirty.

I wouldn't trade Stubbs until he is properly coached. He has too much potential, and Dusty, nor anybody else, doesn't want to "mess with his game." Get him coached well and he could be electric.

757690
11-21-2011, 09:02 PM
If pitchers could control thier BABIP, I'm curious as to why they don't.

It would seem to be a jazz of an idea to do so.

Again, we don't know that they don't. The data doesn't say that. That's a conclusion that one may draw from the data, but it by no means is the only logical or even the best one.

757690
11-21-2011, 09:03 PM
I wouldn't trade Stubbs until he is properly coached. He has too much potential, and Dusty, nor anybody else, doesn't want to "mess with his game." Get him coached well and he could be electric.

I'm not so sure Stubbs is very coachable. Maybe it's the coaches, maybe it's him.

REDREAD
11-21-2011, 10:30 PM
If pitchers could control thier BABIP, I'm curious as to why they don't.

It would seem to be a jazz of an idea to do so.

Well, Marty thinks a ML pitcher should be able to throw a strike whenever he wants to.. But obviously, if pitchers could do that, there'd never be a nonintentional BB.

What's more likely:
1. that a pitcher can sometimes control his BABIP. However, it's difficult and can't be done on every single pitch.
2. Other than walks, Ks and HRs.. pitching is pure "luck"

I'm more inclined to believe #1. Yes, I realize that #2 is an oversimplification of the entire BABIP theory, but that's it in a nutshell.

757690
11-21-2011, 10:50 PM
It is there. We just don't have access to the data right now (we may never actually get it either, but Sportsvision did release one months worth of data to some guys last year to work with).

Awesome. Thanks for info. I guess I now need to try to get a job as an MLB GM to access them ;)

dunner13
11-22-2011, 10:45 AM
From Jimbo on Espn
"• The Reds inquired about Bailey, and the A's responded with interest in Yonder Alonso, which didn’t interest the Reds. However, a package that includes Juan Francisco and Brad Boxberger might be considered. Francisco might not have the OBP the A's prefer, but they like his power and left-handed bat. "

I don't like the idea of giving up boxberger, francisco I could live with. Maybe Francisco and Sapplet or Heisey for Bailey?

Benihana
11-22-2011, 10:57 AM
From Jimbo on Espn
"• The Reds inquired about Bailey, and the A's responded with interest in Yonder Alonso, which didn’t interest the Reds. However, a package that includes Juan Francisco and Brad Boxberger might be considered. Francisco might not have the OBP the A's prefer, but they like his power and left-handed bat. "

I don't like the idea of giving up boxberger, francisco I could live with. Maybe Francisco and Sapplet or Heisey for Bailey?

How about Francisco, Boxberger and Alonso for Bailey and Cahill/Gonzalez?

mdccclxix
11-22-2011, 11:04 AM
How about Francisco, Boxberger and Alonso for Bailey and Cahill/Gonzalez?

You'll probably have to keep adding to that. And I'm not sold that Cahill or Gonzalez would provide the high leverage upgrade I'm hoping for. I see them as #3/#4 types, and we've got that covered.

lollipopcurve
11-22-2011, 11:08 AM
The As starter to target is Brett Anderson.

TRF
11-22-2011, 11:09 AM
yes. the Reds have a ton of heir apparent for Rolen. And by heir apparent i mean mid season 2012. best to trade Francisco now.

redsmetz
11-22-2011, 11:14 AM
So if they A's are intent on Alonso, what would they have to add from their side to make this a trade we'd sign off on? A. Bailey and who for Alonso?

Benihana
11-22-2011, 11:21 AM
The As starter to target is Brett Anderson.

I agree with this in the abstract, but are you comfortable with his health- especially for 2012?

lollipopcurve
11-22-2011, 11:29 AM
I agree with this in the abstract, but are you comfortable with his health- especially for 2012?

He wouldn't be a factor till late in 2012. TJ surgery happened in July 2011. You'd have to be willing to wait a little while for him.

He's got the highest upside of any of the As starters -- doesn't walk guys like Gio and Cahill.

PuffyPig
11-22-2011, 12:05 PM
.

What's more likely:
1. that a pitcher can sometimes control his BABIP. However, it's difficult and can't be done on every single pitch.
2. Other than walks, Ks and HRs.. pitching is pure "luck"

I'm more inclined to believe #1. Yes, I realize that #2 is an oversimplification of the entire BABIP theory, but that's it in a nutshell.

If a pitcher could "sometimes" control his BABIP, wouldn't he then consistenly have a better BABIP than average? Even sthe majors best pitchers with impecable control didn't have better BABIP's over their career than average for their era.

Mario-Rijo
11-22-2011, 12:11 PM
So if they A's are intent on Alonso, what would they have to add from their side to make this a trade we'd sign off on? A. Bailey and who for Alonso?

Jemile Weeks sounds great, though I think I read where he is their lone untouchable. Heir apparent to BP.

Weeks + Bailey for Alonso + a host of candidates.

Hoosier Red
11-22-2011, 12:18 PM
If a pitcher could "sometimes" control his BABIP, wouldn't he then consistenly have a better BABIP than average? Even sthe majors best pitchers with impecable control didn't have better BABIP's over their career than average for their era.

I think it's probably easier to get a "weak out" off of a pitch that is well placed within/around the strikezone. So it is therefore possible to do so. However the amount of luck involved and the precision necessary to do it make it statistically insignificant over the long haul. It's sort of like playing roulette with one green space instead of two, and that one green space is about 1/10 of the other spaces.
On the whole, a good pitcher might be able to win. But because of the noise involved, its hard to prove.

That said, I wouldn't go looking for any particular type of pitcher who I expect to have a better BABIP, and in particular, I wouldn't try to value a pitcher with a high or low BABIP over other metrics which might tell me they're going to be good like BB rate or HR rate.

REDREAD
11-22-2011, 12:37 PM
From Jimbo on Espn
"ē The Reds inquired about Bailey, and the A's responded with interest in Yonder Alonso, which didnít interest the Reds. However, a package that includes Juan Francisco and Brad Boxberger might be considered. Francisco might not have the OBP the A's prefer, but they like his power and left-handed bat. "


This is an interesting proposal.
If the Reds had the cash to get a 1999 version of Michael Tucker, I would trade Alonso for the A's Bailey in a heartbeat (assuming his health checks out ok).
This is an opportunity to convert a DH type player into pitching we need.
I think this should be explored.

Is it easier to find a LF or a solid reliever (assuming Bailey is solid)?
Considering that Alonso is kind of miscast as a LF, I would consider this trade.

Benihana
11-22-2011, 01:06 PM
He wouldn't be a factor till late in 2012. TJ surgery happened in July 2011. You'd have to be willing to wait a little while for him.

He's got the highest upside of any of the As starters -- doesn't walk guys like Gio and Cahill.

While I really like Anderson, I'd be hesitant to trade major league pieces now for a guy that likely can't really help until 2013.

Minor league players are another story, although I would prefer to first target a pitcher that could help us this year.

schroomytunes
11-22-2011, 01:14 PM
I dunno if the A's are willing to deal for offense than I say we go for it and offer this package:

Reds trade:

Juan Francisco(3b)
Yonder Alonzo(1b-Dh)
Homer Bailey(SP)

A's trade:

Andrew Bailey(Closer)
Trevor Cahill(SP)

Our rotation than becomes 1)Cueto 2)Cahill 3)Leake 4)Volquez/Wood 5)Arroyo

-by filling the closer role via trade, it will allow us to sign a mid-tier FA leftfielder like Ryan Ludwick.

mdccclxix
11-22-2011, 01:15 PM
Sometimes I wonder why teams don't just sell their prospects for large amounts of cash. Why the player shuffling just to add some payroll flex? Instead of trading Alonso for a 3.5 million dollar closer to save 7 million from not signing Cordero, just sell the rights to Alonso for 14 million cash over 2 years and sign Cordero, or some other closer like Nathan. This is a hackneyed scenario, for sure, but still, if teams could obtain cash for guys like Alonso, it could really help them sign FA's that they like. Often the team that wants your prospect doesn't have what you want in return, so with cash you can shop around.

jojo
11-22-2011, 01:23 PM
Again, we don't know that they don't. The data doesn't say that. That's a conclusion that one may draw from the data, but it by no means is the only logical or even the best one.

Wht is he most logical interpretation then?

LoganBuck
11-22-2011, 01:58 PM
I dunno if the A's are willing to deal for offense than I say we go for it and offer this package:

Reds trade:

Juan Francisco(3b)
Yonder Alonzo(1b-Dh)
Homer Bailey(SP)

A's trade:

Andrew Bailey(Closer)
Trevor Cahill(SP)

Our rotation than becomes 1)Cueto 2)Cahill 3)Leake 4)Volquez/Wood 5)Arroyo

-by filling the closer role via trade, it will allow us to sign a mid-tier FA leftfielder like Ryan Ludwick.

Absolutely not on Cahill. He is a #4 at best in GABP. Take a close look at his stats over the last two years. He is a guy that needs a nice dose of luck, isn't a groundball machine, and doesn't miss bats. That doesn't work in the GABP.

Tom Servo
11-22-2011, 04:15 PM
Heyman says the Reds are interested in Huston Street as well.

Benihana
11-22-2011, 04:19 PM
Heyman says the Reds are interested in Huston Street as well.

I was afraid of that.

I wonder if they think a Street for Volquez and Cairo deal makes sense. Heyman thinks that they're looking for a pitcher, and they had interest in Martin Prado before.

FWIW, I'd rather focus on a lot of players before Houston Street, including guys like Seth Smith (who Colorado offered for Prado) and Drew Pomeranz from the Rockies.

lollipopcurve
11-22-2011, 04:24 PM
Heyman says the Reds are interested in Huston Street as well.

Jocketty has had interest in Street before, if I remember correctly.

Guacarock
11-22-2011, 04:34 PM
I wonder if the Reds are really after Huston Street, or just trying to make nice with his agents, the Hendricks Brothers. After all, if the Reds lose out on Street, they can always tap Hendricks' agent Pedro Borbon, bringing him back for an encore some 40 years after his Big Red Machine heyday. :laugh:

savafan
11-22-2011, 06:34 PM
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2011/11/22/jocketty-says-starter-is-priority/

Jocketty wouldn't specifically comment on Bailey, but said that obtaining a starting pitcher is his priority.

757690
11-22-2011, 07:30 PM
http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2011/11/22/jocketty-says-starter-is-priority/

Jocketty wouldn't specifically comment on Bailey, but said that obtaining a starting pitcher is his priority.

To me, that says the story is true. Jocketty, like most GM's, will just shoot down a rumor if there's nothing to it. "No comment" is the ultimate affirmation.

757690
11-22-2011, 07:47 PM
Wht is he most logical interpretation then?

That in order to accrue enough innings to log meaningful data, a pitcher has to have certain skills, such as the ability to control line drives, BABIP, HR/FB ratios. Because of this, all the pitchers who qualify will have a narrow range of stats in those areas.

Pitchers who are bad at these skills, don't last long enough to give us meaningful data.

redsmetz
11-22-2011, 07:58 PM
Here's another take about what could be a very real downside to the draft portion of this (as some here have already suggested):

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/10571/mlbs-new-cba-is-no-help-to-small-market-clubs

It wouldn't shock me to see an agent/lawyer sue MLB and the Player's association for taking away rights of draftees. We'll see.

dougdirt
11-22-2011, 08:05 PM
To me, that says the story is true. Jocketty, like most GM's, will just shoot down a rumor if there's nothing to it. "No comment" is the ultimate affirmation.
Jocketty CAN'T comment on another teams player. It is against the rules.

jojo
11-22-2011, 08:10 PM
That in order to accrue enough innings to log meaningful data, a pitcher has to have certain skills, such as the ability to control line drives, BABIP, HR/FB ratios. Because of this, all the pitchers who qualify will have a narrow range of stats in those areas.

Pitchers who are bad at these skills, don't last long enough to give us meaningful data.

Pitchers can't really control BABIP and HR/FB. For the purposes of analyzing major league pitching, who cares about pitchers who arent major league quality?

757690
11-22-2011, 08:29 PM
Pitchers can't really control BABIP and HR/FB. For the purposes of analyzing major league pitching, who cares about pitchers who arent major league quality?

Again, the stats don't tells us what they can control. They only tell us there is a small range of stats with those categories you mentioned.

It is a logical fallacy to conclude that just because there is a small range of stats in those areas, that pitchers can't control them.

One explanation of the stats is that pitchers can control them, and those that control them the best, stick around the long enough to provide meaningful data.

One example of how this approach can be helpful is a young pitcher who has good K and BB numbers, but gives up a lot of hits in his first season. If you assume that pitchers can't control BABIP, then you would assume that this pitcher will be a decent pitcher going forward and the only reason why he gave up so many hits is luck.

However, if you use the latter approach, you could argue that the reason why he is giving up so many hits is because he is not good at controlling BABIP, and until he does so he will not be productive.

757690
11-22-2011, 08:31 PM
Jocketty CAN'T comment on another teams player. It is against the rules.

But he often says things like, "that rumor is totally false," or even "I have not had any discussion with that team about that player." The fact that he's not saying something like that tells me he at least talked to the A's about Bailey.

757690
11-22-2011, 08:50 PM
Here's another take about what could be a very real downside to the draft portion of this (as some here have already suggested):

http://www.grantland.com/blog/the-triangle/post/_/id/10571/mlbs-new-cba-is-no-help-to-small-market-clubs


Thanks for the link :)
It wouldn't shock me to see an agent/lawyer sue MLB and the Player's association for taking away rights of draftees. We'll see.

Two key elements that this article ignores.

1) Small market teams that draft players with high demands will have significantly more leverage now, since the big market teams either will stay within their slot limits too, or lose early draft picks. A player can't wait out a year or slip down the draft hoping another team will give in to his demands. If there are teams that do give out big bonuses, they won't have the picks to take them anymore.

2) This frees up a ton of money that small to mid market teams can now use for their big league payroll.

What happened was that at first, only the big market teams were handing out the big bonuses, so players we slipping down to them. Then the smaller market teams decided to also hand out those big bonuses, which was costing them money that could be spent on the big league team. So either way, the small market teams were at a disadvantage with the old system.

This one at least gives the small market team a fighting chance.

jojo
11-22-2011, 08:58 PM
Again, the stats don't tells us what they can control. They only tell us there is a small range of stats with those categories you mentioned.

It is a logical fallacy to conclude that just because there is a small range of stats in those areas, that pitchers can't control them.

That's not a logical fallacy. Given enough time, a pitcher's babip tends to regress to .300. While it may ultimately be shown to not be completely accurate, it's the most logical conclusion to hold that pitchers exert little control over whether a batted ball is a hit or not absent evidence to the contrary.


One explanation of the stats is that pitchers can control them, and those that control them the best, stick around the long enough to provide meaningful data.

I'm not following this argument. If a pitcher could significantly effect his babip, then why wouldn't this effect become more apparent as his seasons piled up?


One example of how this approach can be helpful is a young pitcher who has good K and BB numbers, but gives up a lot of hits in his first season. If you assume that pitchers can't control BABIP, then you would assume that this pitcher will be a decent pitcher going forward and the only reason why he gave up so many hits is luck.

However, if you use the latter approach, you could argue that the reason why he is giving up so many hits is because he is not good at controlling BABIP, and until he does so he will not be productive.

I'd love to trade often with the GM who holds the latter philosophy.

redsfandan
11-22-2011, 09:00 PM
Jocketty CAN'T comment on another teams player. It is against the rules.

That's why I laughed when I saw this quote on mlbtraderumors:

ďI canít comment of other teamís players," said Jocketty, "although others are OK talking about ours. ..."

mattfeet
11-22-2011, 09:23 PM
The Angels are eyeing Ryan Hanigan in their search for a catcher.

-Matt

RANDY IN INDY
11-22-2011, 09:31 PM
I thought this was supposed to be a Hot Stove thread? How the heck did it get hijacked?

savafan
11-22-2011, 09:32 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2011/11/angels-eyeing-hanigan-in-search-for-catcher.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter


The Angels have been interested in a number of free agent pitchers this offseason, both starters and relievers, and now they're looking for an entire new battery. ESPN's Buster Olney reports that the Halos have intensified their search for a catcher, and Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports says they have their eye on Ryan Hanigan of the Reds

dougdirt
11-22-2011, 09:46 PM
Two key elements that this article ignores.

1) Small market teams that draft players with high demands will have significantly more leverage now, since the big market teams either will stay within their slot limits too, or lose early draft picks. A player can't wait out a year or slip down the draft hoping another team will give in to his demands. If there are teams that do give out big bonuses, they won't have the picks to take them anymore.
The problem with that is that a team like the Yankees can still pay a lot more for a first rounder than the Reds can. The Yankees can then slip up on rounds 3-10 to still meet their "draft budget" and it won't hurt them as much because its nothing for them to go out and spend $20M filling out their bench because they punted those picks to grab an elite talent. Smaller market teams aren't able to do such things.



2) This frees up a ton of money that small to mid market teams can now use for their big league payroll.
Not really. It free's up maybe a middle reliever's salary. An extra $5-6M goes a really long way in the draft. It doesn't go hardly anywhere on an MLB roster. In the draft, that kind of money could net you future superstars.



What happened was that at first, only the big market teams were handing out the big bonuses, so players we slipping down to them. Then the smaller market teams decided to also hand out those big bonuses, which was costing them money that could be spent on the big league team. So either way, the small market teams were at a disadvantage with the old system.

This one at least gives the small market team a fighting chance.

Actually, it takes small market teams and screws them. They were never able to compete for big free agents. Now they might not even be able to allocate money to compete on the amateur market in a way that would give them the advantage. At least in the old system, the small market teams could have an advantage in some market if they wanted it. Now, everyone plays on the same rules in the amateur ranks and the payroll discrepancy is still insane on the MLB free agent market.

757690
11-22-2011, 09:56 PM
The problem with that is that a team like the Yankees can still pay a lot more for a first rounder than the Reds can. The Yankees can then slip up on rounds 3-10 to still meet their "draft budget" and it won't hurt them as much because its nothing for them to go out and spend $20M filling out their bench because they punted those picks to grab an elite talent. Smaller market teams aren't able to do such things.


Not really. It free's up maybe a middle reliever's salary. An extra $5-6M goes a really long way in the draft. It doesn't go hardly anywhere on an MLB roster. In the draft, that kind of money could net you future superstars.



Actually, it takes small market teams and screws them. They were never able to compete for big free agents. Now they might not even be able to allocate money to compete on the amateur market in a way that would give them the advantage. At least in the old system, the small market teams could have an advantage in some market if they wanted it. Now, everyone plays on the same rules in the amateur ranks and the payroll discrepancy is still insane on the MLB free agent market.

All good points. However, even the Yankees and the Red Sox need their top draft picks to compete, and that's where this helps smaller market teams. No team can compete over the long haul if they are constantly starting their draft with the 80th best prospect. Because of this, I just don't see teams going over slot, except in exceptional cases.

dougdirt
11-22-2011, 10:06 PM
All good points. However, even the Yankees and the Red Sox need their top draft picks to compete, and that's where this helps smaller market teams. No team can compete over the long haul if they are constantly starting their draft with the 80th best prospect. Because of this, I just don't see teams going over slot, except in exceptional cases.

But that is the point, the Red Sox and Yankees DON'T need their top picks to compete. It helps when they do, but can you name one first rounder on the Yankees that they drafted who is performing a vital part on their team? You can't, because that guy doesn't exist. Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain are the only two first rounders on their team. Chamberlain is a reliever and Hughes is their Homer Bailey.

And I think you missed my point about them taking advantage of the draft. I am not saying that they will go over their limit, but that the large market teams can pay a lot more for guys in the first round who have bigger demands and then punt on picks further down the draft because they don't need the types of players you usually get out of rounds 3-10, bullpenners and bench guys, because they have the cash to fill their bench up without them coming from their system.

mdccclxix
11-22-2011, 10:46 PM
It will be interesting to see if the small market teams will try to draft the BPA (best player available) in the first few rounds, then try to hammer them into their allotted budget. If the majority of teams go along with this burden, it will have it's intended effect and the young players will not get as much money. Nor will they get an MLB roster spot. It seems like the older players sold their younger brethren out. Anyway, if BPA becomes the mantra at each pick, like Bud wants it to, the days of teams going way over slot in late rounds will be over.

Strasburg got 15 million - 7.5 was the bonus. I think all of the 15 million will have to be converted as a bonus, as there are not MLB contracts to spread money out with. Correct?

If the Nats were willing to pay that (or forced to), they would actually have to pay
15-11.5=3.5*2= 7 million + 11.5 million = 18.5 million. No more picks without further penalty. And no more picks for 2 years. Yikes. I'd say there's no way Strasburg is getting that much. Anyway.

If the Yankees were to take Strasburg at pick #30 because no one would meet the demands and they all passed:

15mil-4.5 cap=10.5 over *2 = 21 mil + 4.5 = 25.5 million. No first rounders for 2 years.

If I'm doing this right, the Yanks only pay 7 mil more for this generational talent. I think they do it and forget the first rounders the next two years and sign other falling bonus babies in the rounds 2-10. But that's just because I don't trust the Yankees.

In the case of players like Strasburg, I actually think he'd be gone by 10th pick because some large market team will be in there like Houston or Chicago.

I will have to conclude that owners and MLB must, MUST know that these steep rules will prevent all teams from giving big contracts to players. The additional leverage (lack of cash supply) teams have will hopefully drive prospects prices down throughout the draft. Then the BPA's will get drafted nearly in order? Well, until Pittsburgh signs a guy for 10 million and punts their 2nd, 3rd and 4th round picks. Who knows.

757690
11-22-2011, 10:48 PM
But that is the point, the Red Sox and Yankees DON'T need their top picks to compete. It helps when they do, but can you name one first rounder on the Yankees that they drafted who is performing a vital part on their team? You can't, because that guy doesn't exist. Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain are the only two first rounders on their team. Chamberlain is a reliever and Hughes is their Homer Bailey.

And I think you missed my point about them taking advantage of the draft. I am not saying that they will go over their limit, but that the large market teams can pay a lot more for guys in the first round who have bigger demands and then punt on picks further down the draft because they don't need the types of players you usually get out of rounds 3-10, bullpenners and bench guys, because they have the cash to fill their bench up without them coming from their system.

I've moved this discussion to the Labor deal thread, so as not to hijack the rumor thread if that's okay with you.

Plus Plus
11-22-2011, 10:56 PM
Please keep this thread for the introduction of any hot stove rumors involving the Reds. Feel free to continue the conversations (which are very interesting to read, by the way) in their own threads, or in threads that make sense to contain them in.

Benihana
11-23-2011, 12:01 AM
But that is the point, the Red Sox and Yankees DON'T need their top picks to compete. It helps when they do, but can you name one first rounder on the Yankees that they drafted who is performing a vital part on their team? You can't, because that guy doesn't exist. Phil Hughes and Joba Chamberlain are the only two first rounders on their team.

uhhhh, Derek Jeter?

dougdirt
11-23-2011, 01:14 AM
uhhhh, Derek Jeter?

Thanks Baseball Reference! On the team page it lists how guys were acquired and I just went down the "acquired" column and Jeter was a "free agent". But that kind of is the point. The Yankees have three guys from 1993-2011 who were their first round draft picks on their team right now. The team who can theoretically afford to keep anyone they want, has fewer in that time frame than the Reds had from 2007-2009 on their team to end the season (Mesoraco, Frazier, Alonso, Leake).

redsfandan
11-23-2011, 05:29 AM
The Angels are eyeing Ryan Hanigan in their search for a catcher.

-Matt

I'm not sure who I'd rather keep, Hanigan or Ramon. But, I wonder what kind of deal they'd want.

mth123
11-23-2011, 06:33 AM
I'm not sure who I'd rather keep, Hanigan or Ramon. But, I wonder what kind of deal they'd want.

Some good evidence on who you'd rather have might be that the Angels want Hanigan even though they could get Ramon without giving up any players.

Now, if the Angels would be willing to do something along the lines of Hanigan, Frazier and Volquez for Ervin Santana, then I'd grudgingly re-sign Ramon and be happy that we've got help for the rotation. Though I don't think he's a number 1, I think Santana can be a strong number 3 along the lines of Cueto while throwing more innings.

OTOH, if the Angels are only offering a low level prospect, a middle reliever or a fringe 25 man roster guy like I'd suspect, the Reds would be better with the combo of Hanigan, the extra money that they would have with Hanigan instead of Ramon and the sandwich pick they'll get when some team signs Ramon.

lollipopcurve
11-23-2011, 07:11 AM
I'm not sure who I'd rather keep, Hanigan or Ramon. But, I wonder what kind of deal they'd want.

I'd be looking to get the best possible return for the surplus -- I'm glad to hear the Reds are giving the impression they can keep Hernandez. May be a good deal out there for Hanigan. My guess is the Angels would be willing to deal some pitching.

RANDY IN INDY
11-23-2011, 07:15 AM
I've moved this discussion to the Labor deal thread, so as not to hijack the rumor thread if that's okay with you.

Thanks. It's hard to have to sift through all the other stuff to see what may or may not be happening when you don't have a lot of time to look.

lollipopcurve
11-23-2011, 08:45 AM
I like the idea of getting Maicer Izturis for Hanigan, if the Reds can extend Izturis. Would be a great utility INF -- can play 2B-SS-3B and switch hit effectively.

chicoruiz
11-23-2011, 09:03 AM
Boy, I don't know... 3.8 mil in 2012 sounds like a whole bunch of money for a utility IF...

Strikes Out Looking
11-23-2011, 09:15 AM
I'm not sure who I'd rather keep, Hanigan or Ramon. But, I wonder what kind of deal they'd want.

The best thing about this is rumor is that it keeps Corky's hopes alive in 2012!

lollipopcurve
11-23-2011, 09:16 AM
Boy, I don't know... 3.8 mil in 2012 sounds like a whole bunch of money for a utility IF...

You have a point. He's quality though -- a guy you wouldn't mind playing everyday if Rolen, Cozart or Phillips goes down. That kind of insurance at 3 spots is not easy to find.

CySeymour
11-23-2011, 09:44 AM
The best thing about this is rumor is that it keeps Corky's hopes alive in 2012!

Fear the stache!

Kc61
11-23-2011, 09:48 AM
I would try not to trade Hanigan. I think he is a very valuable player. With due respect to Ramon's excellent career, I'd much prefer to keep Ryan.

Just based on observation, Hanigan at this stage is a better defender. While he didn't have the best offensive season last year, he is a good contact hitter who can add much to the offense when going well.

I'd prefer to keep Hanigan, thank Ramon for his services, take the draft choice, and use Ramon's salary slot for another player. With Mes sharing the catching duties at the big league level next year.

lollipopcurve
11-23-2011, 09:50 AM
I would try not to trade Hanigan. I think he is a very valuable player. With due respect to Ramon's excellent career, I'd much prefer to keep Ryan.

So, you prefer Hanigan plus Janish plus the draft choice to Hernandez plus Izturis, theoretically speaking?

CySeymour
11-23-2011, 09:50 AM
I would try not to trade Hanigan. I think he is a very valuable player. With due respect to Ramon's excellent career, I'd much prefer to keep Ryan.

Just based on observation, Hanigan at this stage is a better defender. While he didn't have the best offensive season last year, he is a good contact hitter who can add much to the offense when going well.

I'd prefer to keep Hanigan, thank Ramon for his services, take the draft choice, and use Ramon's salary slot for another player. With Mes sharing the catching duties at the big league level next year.

Probably in a perfect scenario, this is true. But if the Reds are able to get something valuable back for Hannigan, they have to consider it.

Benihana
11-23-2011, 10:23 AM
Some good evidence on who you'd rather have might be that the Angels want Hanigan even though they could get Ramon without giving up any players.

Now, if the Angels would be willing to do something along the lines of Hanigan, Frazier and Volquez for Ervin Santana, then I'd grudgingly re-sign Ramon and be happy that we've got help for the rotation. Though I don't think he's a number 1, I think Santana can be a strong number 3 along the lines of Cueto while throwing more innings.

OTOH, if the Angels are only offering a low level prospect, a middle reliever or a fringe 25 man roster guy like I'd suspect, the Reds would be better with the combo of Hanigan, the extra money that they would have with Hanigan instead of Ramon and the sandwich pick they'll get when some team signs Ramon.

Agree with this. Unless it's a guy like Walden coming back, I'd rather keep Hanigan and take the draft pick from losing Razor.

dfs
11-23-2011, 10:37 AM
I like the idea of getting Maicer Izturis for Hanigan, if the Reds can extend Izturis. Would be a great utility INF -- can play 2B-SS-3B and switch hit effectively.

I'm thinking Todd Frazier can fill that utility infield role if Miguel Cairo starts to lose Dusty's trust.

The reds don't need depth in the infield or outfield.
They need quality pitchers.

Rich Thompson seems to have figured out how to pitch at the major league level and it looks like he's just on the edge of arbitration. You want Hannigan, give up Thompson and an AA thrower and I'll be happy to welcome back Ramon.

mdccclxix
11-23-2011, 10:43 AM
Although I'm not sure the degree it's important, I think Hannigan's defense and game calling and receiving are all valuable, and destabilizing this staff is not a great idea. I'd want an overpay (of course, who doesn't) for Hannigan. I also really value his OBP in the lineup. Although, I do think 50% of the at bats is more than enough and he does wear down, effecting his offense.

lollipopcurve
11-23-2011, 10:44 AM
I'm thinking Todd Frazier can fill that utility infield role if Miguel Cairo starts to lose Dusty's trust.

I think that's wishful thinking. Not a true middle infielder by any stretch, and shaky at 3B too, from what he showed in 2011.

Valaika is much better suited for the role than Frazier. I still think Izturis is a significant upgrade from anyone the Reds could use in that role, which is an underrated one, IMO.

RANDY IN INDY
11-23-2011, 11:02 AM
I think it may be underrated, but I still think that pitching is where the Reds need to be looking to add salary, not a bench player, and Hannigan is a real good defensive catcher, and that is nothing to sneeze at.

Kc61
11-23-2011, 11:02 AM
So, you prefer Hanigan plus Janish plus the draft choice to Hernandez plus Izturis, theoretically speaking?

Yes. I would prefer the Hanigan side of that.

Obviously he is not untouchable, but I would demand quite a bit for Ryan. My preference would be to keep him.

lollipopcurve
11-23-2011, 11:12 AM
and Hannigan is a real good defensive catcher, and that is nothing to sneeze at.

No, it sure isn't. The more I think about this, the more I think he's worth more than Izturis.

nemesis
11-23-2011, 02:05 PM
I still think Izturis is a significant upgrade from anyone the Reds could use in that role, which is an underrated one, IMO.

+1

It gives the Reds a very Viable veteran option at SS should Cozart go down or not be ready yet.

Walt has stated that a veteran SS who'll play more than SS is a must on his shopping list. If you look at the FA UT available there really isn't any. Also add in the bench is going to be RH heavy. Less Francisco I don't see another LHer on the bench out of Spring Training... I think this is a deal to make...

bucksfan2
11-23-2011, 02:35 PM
I think it may be underrated, but I still think that pitching is where the Reds need to be looking to add salary, not a bench player, and Hannigan is a real good defensive catcher, and that is nothing to sneeze at.

Hanigan is a very good defensive catcher and good at getting on base. However there are some serious questions about him being able to play a starting catchers roll. If he is going to be a once a week back up catcher then I don't see a whole lot of reason not to trade him if you can get value in return.

The question is, if you buy Mesoraco as the starting catcher for years to come, couple that with Grandal being the top prospect in your system, does it make sense to trade Hanigan?

Kc61
11-23-2011, 02:57 PM
Hanigan is a very good defensive catcher and good at getting on base. However there are some serious questions about him being able to play a starting catchers roll. If he is going to be a once a week back up catcher then I don't see a whole lot of reason not to trade him if you can get value in return.

The question is, if you buy Mesoraco as the starting catcher for years to come, couple that with Grandal being the top prospect in your system, does it make sense to trade Hanigan?

I would agree that it pays to trade Hanigan if he is to play once a week.

But he's not.

Next year, I'd expect him to split the position with Mesoraco. I don't think Mesoraco is going to be a full-time starter as yet.

As for Grandal, he's at AAA for most of next year, in all likelihood.

lollipopcurve
11-23-2011, 03:02 PM
Next year, I'd expect him to split the position with Mesoraco. I don't think Mesoraco is going to be a full-time starter as yet.

I don't see Mesoraco sitting 40% of the games (with Hanigan catching 2 of the 5 starters). But we shall see.

Mario-Rijo
11-23-2011, 03:11 PM
I don't see Mesoraco sitting 40% of the games (with Hanigan catching 2 of the 5 starters). But we shall see.

I do, Dusty is still the manager of this club and he cares about things like continuity (specifically communication), defense and the like too much to start the youngster out at anything more than 2 times thru one round of the rotation. And he may very well be right in doing so for now. Hanny is far and away the best at executing behind the plate and helping his pitchers be at their best and he is a tremendous value with his contract plus he has his strengths offensively. If the Angels want Hanigan they are gonna have to make us an offer we can't refuse, unless of course we are already rebuilding. And god knows I have been a Macier fan for a long time but he simply isn't enough for the value Ryan brings. Though I'd like to get my hands on Macier. Can we deal our rights to Ramon and fluff for Izturis, now that is something i'd jump right on?

Gallen5862
11-23-2011, 03:30 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

Free Agent Arbitration Offer Tracker
By Tim Dierkes [November 23 at 12:46pm CST]

Please note that in the tracker I have marked Matt Capps, Francisco Cordero, Octavio Dotel, Ramon Hernandez, and Darren Oliver as having received arbitration offers even though they technically will not. As part of the new CBA, MLB and the players association agreed that these five players will change from Type A to B and the clubs will not have to offer arbitration to receive compensation. For the purposes of the tracker, I consider that an automatic arbitration offer, since compensation will still happen.

mth123
11-23-2011, 07:28 PM
I think it may be underrated, but I still think that pitching is where the Reds need to be looking to add salary, not a bench player, and Hannigan is a real good defensive catcher, and that is nothing to sneeze at.

Agreed. Dealing Hanigan for Izturis and resigning Ramon will add about $7 Million in Salary in 2012. The Reds need that money for a starting pitcher. Add that the staff will immediately get worse if Hanigan's innings go to Ramon. Mesoraco is probably going to be on defensive par with Ramon at 1st (at least as far as his impact on the pitcher goes), making both halves of the catching tandem average at best. Hanigan is a superior catcher and the staff performs significantly better when he's back there. Dealing Hanigan and eating up the cash that will prevent adding a starter is a double whammy for a staff that already has lots of issues.

If the Reds were to deal Hanigan, I'd propose letting Corky be the other half with Mesoraco. It would be a big boost for the staff as compared with Ramon and the dollar difference would allow the team to pursue the starter they need.

Ron Madden
11-24-2011, 06:19 AM
I'm not sure who I'd rather keep, Hanigan or Ramon. But, I wonder what kind of deal they'd want.

I know who I'd keep and right now it would be Hanigan by a landslide.

traderumor
11-24-2011, 09:39 AM
I don't see Mesoraco sitting 40% of the games (with Hanigan catching 2 of the 5 starters). But we shall see.I'd say performance will determine that. Mesoraco was not overly impressive during the cup of coffee period and needs to earn the job by performance.

Scrap Irony
11-24-2011, 09:50 AM
I know who I'd keep and right now it would be Hanigan by a landslide.

See, I see Hernandez as the better player (by a fairly wide margin, despite his age). He's much, much better offensively and, according to the best defensive metrics we have for catchers, they're about even defensively.

Now, when you add in salary, the "lost" draft pick, age, and how many starts the back-up catcher would have, it becomes very interesting.

But as to value, I don't understand how anyone can objectively claim Hanigan as the better player (and would be happy to be convinced-- via numbers.)

Raisor
11-24-2011, 12:26 PM
See, I see Hernandez as the better player (by a fairly wide margin, despite his age). He's much, much better offensively and, according to the best defensive metrics we have for catchers, they're about even defensively.



As a Red Hernandez has about 20 points of OPS over Hanigan, so I'm not sure how you can say "farily wide margin"

RANDY IN INDY
11-24-2011, 12:40 PM
With Mesoraco, who I think will hit very well, I would much rather have Hannigan, unless he brings something truly useful in a trade. As Raisor points out, 20 points of OPS doesn't seem like a wide margin, anyway, and Hannigan is younger and less likely to break down.

wlf WV
11-24-2011, 12:44 PM
See, I see Hernandez as the better player (by a fairly wide margin, despite his age). He's much, much better offensively and, according to the best defensive metrics we have for catchers, they're about even defensively.

Now, when you add in salary, the "lost" draft pick, age, and how many starts the back-up catcher would have, it becomes very interesting.

But as to value, I don't understand how anyone can objectively claim Hanigan as the better player (and would be happy to be convinced-- via numbers.)They had about the same offensive metrics in 2010.
Bill James projects:

Hernandez-2012 wOBA .314

Hanigan-2012 wOBA .324

Will M
11-24-2011, 02:49 PM
Scenario A)
Reds keep Hanigan who is signed through 2013. his salary is 2012:$1.2M & 2013:$2.05M
Reds get a draft pick when Ramon signs elsewhere

Scenario B)
Reds sign Ramon for 2012 at $3M
Reds trade Hanigan for players
Reds have to pay the salaries of those players

I agree with those who think those players better be really good to make up for the fact that...
1) we lose our 2nd catcher for 2013
2) we spend more money
3) we lose the draft pick

Its tough to imagine a scenario where dealing Hanigan makes sense.
maybe there is a multi player trade out there if a team really zeros in on Hanigan.

The_jbh
11-24-2011, 05:46 PM
This team is building to win in 2012. Mesaraco's cup of coffee did not inspire confidence he's ready to be the guy six days a week. I think it is best keep both catchers fresh, and ease our C of the future into the role. Hanigan is a very good catcher, who has built a great relationship with our starters. He can mentor Mesaraco and provide some continuity.

I think it would be a major mistake to cut him loose. He's been in the system of a long time. Catcher is the only position where I value that. I think Hanigan is an important part of the catcher transition for this franchise.

mth123
11-24-2011, 06:18 PM
This team is building to win in 2012. Mesaraco's cup of coffee did not inspire confidence he's ready to be the guy six days a week. I think it is best keep both catchers fresh, and ease our C of the future into the role. Hanigan is a very good catcher, who has built a great relationship with our starters. He can mentor Mesaraco and provide some continuity.

I think it would be a major mistake to cut him loose. He's been in the system of a long time. Catcher is the only position where I value that. I think Hanigan is an important part of the catcher transition for this franchise.

Me too. It's why the only way I'd deal him would be if it fixes the rotation or some one massively overpays.

cinreds21
11-25-2011, 03:11 AM
Any thoughts on Wood and Francisco for Bailey? It probably would take more than that. I'm just trying to think of how the Reds could get value for guys they don't, as of right now, have spots for.

mth123
11-25-2011, 07:08 AM
Any thoughts on Wood and Francisco for Bailey? It probably would take more than that. I'm just trying to think of how the Reds could get value for guys they don't, as of right now, have spots for.

I'd rather have Francisco than Andrew Bailey. The Reds have a nice spot as a part time 3B/LHPH on the bench that Francisco fits in and when Rolen goes after the 2012 season, Francisco is the best option at 3B. Wood is about the only depth they have for the rotation (the AAA starters are all chaff) and IMO woud fit well as a lefty arm in the pen. Personally, if they would just leave Chapman in the pen, I don't think they need a reliever. Chapman, Masset, Bray, Arredondo, Ondrusek, Wood and Lecure is a fine pen. Boxberger, Fisher, Horst, Christiani and maybe Donnie Joseph at some point are solid depth in the minor leagues. resources are limited. They need to use them for what they need not what they already have. I'd only add a reliever if they need to deal one like Masset or Bray to get a starter. Then I'd be after one of many cheap middle relief guys on the market and not somebody who would take talent and a lot payflex to acquire.

The Reds need an established starting pitcher. That is not Andrew Bailey and its not Chapman either.

Kc61
11-25-2011, 09:56 AM
I'd rather have Francisco than Andrew Bailey. The Reds have a nice spot as a part time 3B/LHPH on the bench that Francisco fits in and when Rolen goes after the 2012 season, Francisco is the best option at 3B. Wood is about the only depth they have for the rotation (the AAA starters are all chaff) and IMO woud fit well as a lefty arm in the pen. Personally, if they would just leave Chapman in the pen, I don't think they need a reliever. Chapman, Masset, Bray, Arredondo, Ondrusek, Wood and Lecure is a fine pen.

The Reds need an established starting pitcher. That is not Andrew Bailey and its not Chapman either.


I agree about Francisco and Andrew Bailey.

I do not agree on the bullpen. Masset was not very good last year. Ondrusek faded. Wood wasn't good. Lecure faded. Bray was good then faded. Chapman was great and bad alternatively.

With Coco likely gone this team needs new blood in the pen. I know guys were overworked but I have no confidence the current group will come back strong enough to suffice next year.

I also disagree with those counting heavily on Chapman as a starter next year. Let's be real. He hasn't started for a long while. He was hurt this winter. His control is iffy. I hope he becomes Cy Young but he's likely a long reliever until later in 2012 when - if all goes well - he might join the rotation.

I doubt he will close, Reds seem to want to stretch Aroldis out.

Finally, I agree with you that the Reds need established starting pitching.

Brutus
11-25-2011, 09:57 AM
Until/unless Francisco improves his walk or strikeout rates, or both, he's nothing more than a replacement level player with pop. He should not be the reason the Reds don't trade for a dominant bullpen arm.

marcshoe
11-25-2011, 10:22 AM
One thing I wouldn't worry about is the Reds having too many quality starting pitchers.

I've been a fan of Gio, but his walk rate scares me. While I would feel mostly positive about the Reds picking him up, he wouldn't be one of my top choices, simply because I'm afraid that his lack of control means that his success might not be sustainable, yet the numbers he's put up the last couple of years mean that he's going to cost a lot of talent.

Of course Shields is the top name mentioned. I like Danks as well. Neimann would be okay, but not worth Alonso. I still think Wandy might be less expensive as far as talent goes if you can take the salary.

mth123
11-25-2011, 10:42 AM
One thing I wouldn't worry about is the Reds having too many quality starting pitchers.

I've been a fan of Gio, but his walk rate scares me. While I would feel mostly positive about the Reds picking him up, he wouldn't be one of my top choices, simply because I'm afraid that his lack of control means that his success might not be sustainable, yet the numbers he's put up the last couple of years mean that he's going to cost a lot of talent.

Of course Shields is the top name mentioned. I like Danks as well. Neimann would be okay, but not worth Alonso. I still think Wandy might be less expensive as far as talent goes if you can take the salary.

Wandy is my choice as well. Stubbs, Volquez, and Janish would be a good deal for both teams. Wandy to the Reds rotation. Janish, for all his problems could probably be the starter for a few teams. Houston is one of those teams. With Volquez going the other way, its about an $8 Million increase for 2012 for the upgrade. The Reds can handle that and moving Janish along with Volquez removes 2 arb cases. The team would actually have a few million for a bullpen arm if they want to sign a middling one or for a deadline acquisition. I really don't think its necessary to add anything else though. An established starter who slots in as at least a number three is all that is missing IMO and a deal for Wandy should be able to address that without creating another hole that needs to be filled from the outside.

There are other starters I like better, but IMO they woud require Votto, Bruce or Alonso to acquire. I think the Reds could acquire Wandy without removing anyone from the middle of the order. Heisey and Sappelt will be fine handling Centerfield. It won't be as pretty as Stubbs loping stride, but it will probably be as effective as far as turning batted balls into outs go and the offense would get a boost from either as opposed to Stubbs.

Vottomatic
11-25-2011, 10:49 AM
I'm in the keep Juan Francisco camp.

Rolen is done or near done. His contract is up after next season. Francisco is the ONLY likely respectable replacement for him at third base without hitting the free agent route. It also frees up about $8M when Rolen retires.

I think the Reds could get Wandy for Stubbs straight up. But they have to be willing to take on additional salary.

In fact, I think if the Reds were aggressive enough, they could get Wandy, Shields, and Andrew Bailey in different trades.

Then I'd keep Chapman in the bullpen. Bring up Boxberger to get his feet wet.

Pick up Wandy and Shields, and you have starting pitchers to deal (Volquez, Bailey, Wood), with Arroyo going nowhere because of salary, and Leake and Cueto finishing out the rotation.

By the way, I liked the idea of trading for Choo too.

mth123
11-25-2011, 11:02 AM
Until/unless Francisco improves his walk or strikeout rates, or both, he's nothing more than a replacement level player with pop. He should not be the reason the Reds don't trade for a dominant bullpen arm.

I share the concern, but in spite of the dire predictions for Francisco every year, he continues to improve his OPS as he moves up. Every year, for a few years now, we've been hearing how pitchers at the next level will chew him up and every time, it never happens.

I also just think that the dominance of the bullpen arm is overstated. This team needs starting pitching. Adding a guy like Andrew Bailey as he is heading into arb and then having to probably go on the market for a LH bat will probably eat up $5 Million of the payflex. That would probably preclude getting the needed starter.

Some other red flags where Bailey is concerned are the injury bugs that have held him under 50 appearances each of the last 2 years and the fact that the Home/Road splits that show his OPS against 230 points higher on the road. Oakland is a wonderful place to pitch and creates a lot of fools gold. I'd be fine signing Bailey for a couple million as a free agent, but to give up players and close to $4 Million in salary for him doesn't sound lke a good idea IMO.

IslandRed
11-25-2011, 11:38 AM
I share the concern, but in spite of the dire predictions for Francisco every year, he continues to improve his OPS as he moves up. Every year, for a few years now, we've been hearing how pitchers at the next level will chew him up and every time, it never happens.

Obviously, Francisco has great power and his bat will run into enough mistakes from time to time to prop up the SLG and make the OPS half-respectable. But unless he makes considerable strides in the art of taking ball four or not swinging at off-the-plate strike three, he's going to be a world-class out machine. (That .289 OBP last season in Cincinnati -- and there's not even a whiff of bad luck to it, although sample size can be argued -- is what I'm looking at.) Simply put, I don't think he'll hit for a high average in the show, and his walk rate is so low it won't help much. Couple that with defense I'd consider merely adequate by major-league standards, and I'm not going to be heartbroken if they look elsewhere for an heir to Rolen.

Scrap Irony
11-25-2011, 11:44 AM
Shields is my top target, but I'd much rather go John Danks than Wandy, as he's younger and could be extended if need be. Too, his stuff profiles well and he's a southpaw.

I'd guess a Bailey/ Stubbs/ B- prospects package would net both Danks and Carlos Quentin. Of course, it'd bump payroll significantly, but I'm cool with that, certainly.

Vottomatic
11-25-2011, 12:09 PM
Reds annually seem to sign an aging veteran SS to either start or backup. Who do they sign this offseason?

mth123
11-25-2011, 12:13 PM
Reds annually seem to sign an aging veteran SS to either start or backup. Who do they sign this offseason?

Nobody I hope.

Dan
11-25-2011, 06:25 PM
Reds annually seem to sign an aging veteran SS to either start or backup. Who do they sign this offseason?

I'd like to see them sign Ramon Santiago, but my guess is he re-signs with the Tigers.

cinreds21
11-26-2011, 03:08 PM
Assuming the Reds need another lefty in the pen, I'd like the Reds to get either Tony Sipp or Rafael Perez from Cleveland. I'm not sure if they need another starter (they look pretty full at the moment,) but I wonder if Volquez for one of those lefties would suffice. Thoughts?

Vottomatic
11-27-2011, 10:36 PM
Angels Eyeing Hanigan In Search For Catcher
By Mike Axisa [November 22 at 8:08pm CST]

The Angels have been interested in a number of free agent pitchers this offseason, both starters and relievers, and now they're looking for an entire new battery. ESPN's Buster Olney reports that the Halos have intensified their search for a catcher, and Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports says they have their eye on Ryan Hanigan of the Reds (Twitter links).

Slyder
11-27-2011, 10:39 PM
What is the point of trading Hanigan? I've always thought he was a great 1b option and for what he costs his value to this team is with his defense and handling of the pitching staff. Short of a deal "we cannot refuse" I'd rather we just let Ramon go to FA and start with Mesigan as our starting catcher.

mattfeet
11-27-2011, 11:18 PM
Covered two pages back. :)

MikeS21
11-28-2011, 07:39 AM
What is the point of trading Hanigan? I've always thought he was a great 1b option and for what he costs his value to this team is with his defense and handling of the pitching staff. Short of a deal "we cannot refuse" I'd rather we just let Ramon go to FA and start with Mesigan as our starting catcher.
I'm not sure there is anyone in the entire organization that Walt shouldn't at least listen to an offer for. And if you can lump a couple players - say Hannigan and Heisey/Sappelt, you may get a nice return.

Slyder
11-28-2011, 08:00 AM
I'm not sure there is anyone in the entire organization that Walt shouldn't at least listen to an offer for. And if you can lump a couple players - say Hannigan and Heisey/Sappelt, you may get a nice return.

Hanigan's value IMO is much greater with the team in terms of his game calling than what the market would bring in return for him IMO. I don't have the numbers in front of me but he always seemed to get better games out of this staff that Ramon did (but Ramon made up with more pop in the bat). I want Hanigan around to try and teach Mesoraco and see if he can help him "fulfill the potential". I just don't see a point in trading a guy that creates a hole and then having to hope to find Paul Bako career year (for similar or more money) to be the caddy for when Mesoraco needs a day off. With Hanigan you know what you're getting (solid eye, solid defense, and a solid game caller).

4th/5th of are always available for minor pieces but the catcher (even a backup) can be valuable as they are usually needed more often with starters getting banged up throughout the year.

Scrap Irony
11-28-2011, 02:12 PM
I don't have the numbers in front of me but he always seemed to get better games out of this staff that Ramon did (but Ramon made up with more pop in the bat).

B-R did a catcher's defense study and Hanigan and Hernandez were rated almost exactly the same, IIRC.

mdccclxix
11-28-2011, 03:36 PM
2:05pm: Broxton is down to a small handful of teams and will choose before the Winter Meetings next week, says ESPN's Jerry Crasnick in a series of tweets. Crasnick says Broxton seeks a one-year deal to re-establish value, and about a dozen teams requested his medical records. The Rangers were in on him before signing Joe Nathan, and the Rockies discussed him as an option if they trade Huston Street. Crasnick thinks the Rays, Marlins, Red Sox, Twins, and Reds could be in the mix.

MONDAY, 12:13pm: A friend of Broxton tells Joel Sherman of the New York Post that all things being equal, the reliever wants to be close to his Georgia home. Sherman finds the Braves unlikely, but thinks the Marlins or Rays make sense. Abbott told Dylan Hernandez of the L.A. Times this morning that a tentative deal should be reached in the next few days, but his client won't be returning to the Dodgers.

The Florida teams are closer to Georgia, but Cincinnati is on I 75. The tight lipped way this is developing has some Waltness to it.

mdccclxix
11-28-2011, 04:03 PM
The Rockies are exploring signing catcher Ramon Hernandez and the Angels like Chris Iannetta, writes Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports. However, a Rosenthal source describes the discussion between the two teams involving Iannetta as "just conversation (that) never got real far." Iannetta, 28, has more value to the Rockies than any other team, because he can void his 2013 club option if traded.

The Reds' Ryan Hanigan is also on Jerry Dipoto's wish list for the Angels, as Rosenthal told us six days ago. Meanwhile the Rockies are not considered close to signing Hernandez, who had the good fortune of being reclassified as a Type B free agent. The Rockies are the first team to be linked to Hernandez this winter.

Ramon will continue to be a value pickup it appears thus far.

757690
11-28-2011, 04:07 PM
The Florida teams are closer to Georgia, but Cincinnati is on I 75. The tight lipped way this is developing has some Waltness to it.

I would love for Broxton to re-establish his value as a Red in 2012, then leave for big bucks.

LoganBuck
11-28-2011, 04:23 PM
Broxton's arm is shot. Sure I would take a cheap flier. Not getting into a bidding war for him.

REDREAD
11-28-2011, 04:55 PM
Two key elements that this article ignores.

1) Small market teams that draft players with high demands will have significantly more leverage now, since the big market teams either will stay within their slot limits too, or lose early draft picks. A player can't wait out a year or slip down the draft hoping another team will give in to his demands. If there are teams that do give out big bonuses, they won't have the picks to take them anymore.

2) This frees up a ton of money that small to mid market teams can now use for their big league payroll.

.

I totally agree here.
The author argues that the Rangers can no longer spend 17+ million/year on international draft picks.. Well, they can use that money on payroll, hiring better scouts, etc.

Slotting draft picks in the new CBA is bad for the draftees and international players that used to easily be able to get millions of dollars. Now the kids have no leverage. Scott Boras isn't going to be able to demand a 10 million dollar signing bonus now (or at least not as often).

If anything, this agreement HELPS the small market teams. Now the Rangers and Yankees can no longer spend an infinite amount of money to sign every promising Latin pitcher.

I wonder if the new CBA penalties apply to the Japaneese posting fees? I am guessing they do. Again, this helps everyone. No more 50 million dollar posting fees (without a great penalty). Everyone can bid on these players now.

Vottomatic
11-28-2011, 05:14 PM
Anything that puts Scott Boras in his place, is alright with me.

dougdirt
11-28-2011, 05:22 PM
Anything that puts Scott Boras in his place, is alright with me.

Problem is, Boras makes his money on MLB guys a lot more than draft picks. The real people getting hurt here are the draft picks, not Scott Boras. What does an agent take, 5%? You think he is making money on 2-10M deals from the draft picks or the $100M deals his MLB clients are signing?

camisadelgolf
11-28-2011, 06:41 PM
Agents typically bring in 3-5%.

dougdirt
11-28-2011, 08:02 PM
Agents typically bring in 3-5%.

Exactly. The new draft rules don't hurt Scott Boras at all.

marcshoe
11-28-2011, 08:31 PM
Broxton's arm is shot. Sure I would take a cheap flier. Not getting into a bidding war for him.

I'm not in favor of throwing a lot of money at Broxton, but he had successful surgery to remove bone spurs from his elbow, so I'm not sure his arm's shot. Here's what his agent says:



As his own agent, BB Abbott admitted to The Times' Dylan Hernandez, Broxton may no longer be able to simply throw the ball past hitters.

"The days of Jonathan Broxton throwing 99 and 100 [mph] might be over," Abbott said. "But I think he can reinvent himself. He's still going to be 93-97.

"He's relied on one thing and that's power. Ö He's going to have to be a chameleon. It might be a power slider or a power cutter. He's going to have to transition."
Going through a transition while proving youíve healed from injury is not going to attract Broxton a multiyear contract. Abbott is already talking about him signing a one-year contract while re-establishing his value.

surgery-for-jonathan-broxton-goes-well-but-now-what.html (http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/dodgers/2011/09/surgery-for-jonathan-broxton-goes-well-but-now-what.html)

Sounds as if he may be available for a relatively cheap one-year contract.

Vottomatic
11-28-2011, 09:44 PM
Exactly. The new draft rules don't hurt Scott Boras at all.

Maybe one of these days we'll agree on something. I've yet to see you agree with anyone on anything since I moved up to the ORG though.

I'll keep my fingers crossed though. :thumbup:

dougdirt
11-28-2011, 10:11 PM
Maybe one of these days we'll agree on something. I've yet to see you agree with anyone on anything since I moved up to the ORG though.

I'll keep my fingers crossed though. :thumbup:

I agree with jojo, brutusthepimp and redsmanrick all of the time. I guess I just don't go out of my way to say "I agree with this" unless there is something else that I need to add to what they said, but those guys are usually pretty thorough when they make replies.

savafan
11-29-2011, 12:01 AM
http://mlbbuzz.yardbarker.com/blog/mlbbuzz/cardinals_reds_and_tigers_interested_in_dotel/8385025


Free-agent reliever Octavio Dotel has garnered interest from a number of teams, and the Cardinals, Reds and Tigers are among those that have inquired about him, according to a major-league source.

corkedbat
11-29-2011, 12:02 AM
The Reds hace evidently inquired about Dotel (setup or closer?).

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/

On down the page it says the Pirates will listen to offers on McCutcheon. No sure how serious they are or how hard they'd listen to a division rival, but I'd love to have mMutcheon and make Stubbs available in another deal. I'd put together a pretty strong offer if I was Walt.

REDREAD
11-29-2011, 12:59 AM
Exactly. The new draft rules don't hurt Scott Boras at all.

Except Boras has made it clear in his interviews that he basically has an agenda to basically "break the system".. give as much money to the players as possible. That's why he's had picks not sign and re-enter the draft the following year. It's all about his personal vendetta vs the owners. (Ok, maybe vendetta is a little overdramatic).

Boras has more than enough money to retire comfortably. He's not in it for the money.. He's in it to try to win battles.

REDREAD
11-29-2011, 01:03 AM
On down the page it says the Pirates will listen to offers on McCutcheon. No sure how serious they are or how hard they'd listen to a division rival, but I'd love to have mMutcheon and make Stubbs available in another deal. I'd put together a pretty strong offer if I was Walt.

Man, if McCutchen was available, back up the prospect truck and get him.
Trade Alonso for pitching and we are well on our way to getting back on track.

Unfortunately.. it looks like the McCuthen rumor was just something Keith Law made up:

http://aol.sportingnews.com/mlb/story/2011-11-28/pirates-no-interest-in-trading-andrew-mccutchen