View Full Version : Would the Madson money have been better spent on Oswalt?

01-22-2012, 05:28 PM
It seems Oswalt is going to be had (probably by Boston) for around 8 mil, a tad less than what we gave Madson. Given the lack of SP depth the Reds face, would a rotation of Latos-Cueto-Oswalt-Leake-Bailey and a bullpen of Arroyo-Ondrusek/LeCure-Bray-Arrendondo-Masset-Marshall have made more sense for this team?

I don't think there's much question that quality SP is more valuable than quality RP, considering the discrepancies in IP. I'm also of the opinion that the need for a "set" closer is one of the most overstated in baseball. This scenario would have given us a much more stable top 5 and the option to fall back on Arroyo for spot starts/long relief.

175 innings from Oswalt + less starts for Arroyo + Marshall closing nets us more wins than a full year of Arroyo + Madson, I think. I know it's a moot point because even if we could go back in time and sign Roy over Ryan, Dusty would still slot Arroyo due to his contract/history and push Bailey out (and then we still probably would have gone after someone like Coco and let Marshall set-up), but I thought it could make for a decent discussion.

Alpha Zero
01-22-2012, 07:28 PM
I think it's a fair argument. Madson is great, but he'll only be out there for 70 innings or so next year. Oswalt will probably be more valuable, but I think he's also a riskier proposition due to his age and recent injury history. I also think that eventhough the closer spot is generally overrated, there's something to be said for having two absolute shutdown guys at the back end of your bullpen. When you factor in Madson's extremely favorable contract structure, I think Jocketty made the right call.

01-22-2012, 09:17 PM
I don't think so. Homer is out of options. Arroyo is under contract, and would have to make a potentially awkward transition to an already full bullpen. Leake was our second-best starter last year, and there's no way we're sending down Latos or Cueto. Chapman also figures to get some innings in case of injury, and LeCure can work as a spot starter. There's just no room for him, and there's no guarantee he'd be an upgrade. Jocketty got the best deal possible with Madson in this case, and even got some money deferred, while Oswalt would have costed more and been a bigger question mark.

01-22-2012, 10:21 PM
I'd say I prefer adding Madson over Oswalt. Latos, Cueto and Leake have well-established spots in the rotation already. That leaves Bailey and Arroyo as pitchers whom Oswalt could replace. Arroyo's contract, however, is such that it would be very difficult to move him to the bullpen-- GMs don't spend that much money on a long-relief guy, and wise or not, I expect the Reds to run Arroyo out there every 5th day.

That leaves Bailey, and I don't know it would be worth giving up on Bailey as a starter to acquire Oswalt. Homer has improved his walk rate every year he's been in the majors, and last year he seemed to be much more effective with his slider. Additionally, his xFIP was actually better than Oswalt's in 2011. As such, I'd like to see him given the chance to continue improving.

01-22-2012, 11:01 PM
Personally, I prefer the signing of a closer rather than a starter. We are going to be O.K. with the rotation, but we had a huge hole at the closer role.

01-22-2012, 11:55 PM
I think the money was better spend on Madson.

First and foremost I think the difference in WAR between Madson and the worst member of the bullpen is likely to be greater than the difference in WAR between Oswalt and Homer Bailey, who would have likely been odd man out if the Reds added another starter.

Additionally I'm far more confident in Madson's ability to play and produce at a high level and I am in Oswalt. Given his injury problems and advanced age, I'd rather spend the money on a sure(r) thing.

Red in Atl
01-23-2012, 12:01 AM
Heck No.

01-23-2012, 02:26 AM
Possibly. We have a pretty young rotation and a veteren presence outside of Arroyo would be awesome. If we had another 8 million to spend, I'd love to have Oswalt in the 3 or 4 slot of our rotation, and watch his innings. The problem is that Bailey can't be sent down anymore and Arroyo would hesitate to go to the pen, and his contract is pretty big and it would be a waste of money to stick him in the long man spot. I'd be more of a fan of getting Madson and then spending 3-5 million on a couple of spot starter vets we can stash down in Louisville. I really wish we kept D-Train.

01-23-2012, 06:36 AM
It would have been better spent to find someone who will get on base at a .400 clip and play left.

01-23-2012, 08:09 AM
No. I don't believe Oswalt would play for the Reds for 8 mill., unless that was his only offer.

Alpha Zero
01-23-2012, 08:20 AM
It would have been better spent to find someone who will get on base at a .400 clip and play left.

I agree with this, but I'm not sure that guy was out there to be had, especially with the limited number of trade chips remaining in the Reds' arsenal following the Latos trade.

01-23-2012, 09:26 AM
No. I don't believe Oswalt would play for the Reds for 8 mill., unless that was his only offer.

This is exactly what I was thinking. Oswalt would have to want to play in Cincy. There's no guarantee to think he would have signed here.

01-23-2012, 11:23 AM
I think Arroyo is a better option that Oswalt. I don't personally care for bronson that much but Oswalt was injured alot last year and i don't see him boncing back to his pervious self. As for not having Arroyo in the rotation, it won't happen unless he retires or goes on the DL neither of which do i see happening any time soon. I would like to see Wakefield or Jeff Francis come in on a minor league deal though as an insurance policy

01-23-2012, 09:05 PM
Per MLBTR: Reporting that Oswalt's agent has contacted Reds. Walt says they were "tapped" out and would have to get creative with the payroll. Get creative, already!!!