PDA

View Full Version : Marshall signed to 3yr/$16.5m Extension



Blitz Dorsey
02-26-2012, 01:24 PM
Good news to say the least:

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/02/reds-sean-marshall-nearing-agreement-on-extension-.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

reds1869
02-26-2012, 01:31 PM
Signing Marshall long term would be huge for the future and provide some security in 2013 with Madson's possible departure.

lollipopcurve
02-26-2012, 01:38 PM
Front office continues to impress.

Tom Servo
02-26-2012, 01:43 PM
Hell yeah Walt!

edabbs44
02-26-2012, 02:08 PM
Nice.

OnBaseMachine
02-26-2012, 02:08 PM
Awesome. Makes me like the deal more if they can keep Marshall around for a few years.

Blitz Dorsey
02-26-2012, 02:33 PM
Awesome. Makes me like the deal more if they can keep Marshall around for a few years.

No doubt. Giving up Wood/Sappelt/Torreyes was no joke -- definitely a good haul for the Cubbies -- but I like the deal for the Reds as is. Gives us arguably the best left-handed set-up man in MLB for the 2012 season. Or at the very least one of the best.

And then if we can top it off with signing him to a long-term deal, well that is just a complete "win" for Walt and Co. Marshall is going to be an impact player. What are the chances that Wood/Sappelt/Torreyes will never be anything more than fringe MLB players? I'd say pretty good for all three of them.

nate
02-26-2012, 02:59 PM
Here's (http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/02/reds-sean-marshall-nearing-agreement-on-extension-.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+MlbTradeRumors+%28MLB+Trade+R umors%29) an update:


MLBTR's Dan Mennella recently looked at what it would take for the Reds to sign him to a new deal and noted that Meister Sports Management will likely use the three-year, $15MM deal lefty Scott Downs signed with the Angels as a starting point.

edabbs44
02-26-2012, 03:00 PM
No doubt. Giving up Wood/Sappelt/Torreyes was no joke -- definitely a good haul for the Cubbies -- but I like the deal for the Reds as is. Gives us arguably the best left-handed set-up man in MLB for the 2012 season. Or at the very least one of the best.

And then if we can top it off with signing him to a long-term deal, well that is just a complete "win" for Walt and Co. Marshall is going to be an impact player. What are the chances that Wood/Sappelt/Torreyes will never be anything more than fringe MLB players? I'd say pretty good for all three of them.

So if the odds are pretty good that those three never amt to being more than fringe guys, how is it "no joke"?

_Sir_Charles_
02-26-2012, 04:24 PM
Wood/Sappelt/Torreyes

That was a big group to give up and I was a bit skeptical of this trade. Getting an extension goes a LONG way in making it easier to swallow. Still, I think it could've been done with different parts. Our top backup starter, our top backup OF'er and our top 2b prospect option. Don't get me wrong, I love what Marshall brings to the table, I just think we overpaid to get him.

I'm also of the opinion that they're not "fringe" guys. Not even close.

*BaseClogger*
02-26-2012, 04:34 PM
Wood/Sappelt/Torreyes

That was a big group to give up and I was a bit skeptical of this trade. Getting an extension goes a LONG way in making it easier to swallow. Still, I think it could've been done with different parts. Our top backup starter, our top backup OF'er and our top 2b prospect option. Don't get me wrong, I love what Marshall brings to the table, I just think we overpaid to get him.

I'm also of the opinion that they're not "fringe" guys. Not even close.

Thing is, "backup starter" and "backup outfielder" are easy holes to fill cheaply via free agency.

Torreyes was still a ways away and wasn't going to be able to contribute for a while. This team's window is now...

dougdirt
02-26-2012, 04:39 PM
Thing is, "backup starter" and "backup outfielder" are easy holes to fill cheaply via free agency.

Torreyes was still a ways away and wasn't going to be able to contribute for a while. This team's window is now...

Of course I am of the opinion that Sappelt was easily the best option to start in and play left field for the Reds in 2012.

_Sir_Charles_
02-26-2012, 04:47 PM
Thing is, "backup starter" and "backup outfielder" are easy holes to fill cheaply via free agency.

Torreyes was still a ways away and wasn't going to be able to contribute for a while. This team's window is now...

Technically that's true. But for a small budget team, you don't want to have to spend to fill those holes when we had capable options in house.

To be clear, I wasn't opposed to getting Marshall, not at all. I just think we could've, and should've, pulled it off using some different parts is all.

lollipopcurve
02-26-2012, 04:51 PM
I just think we could've, and should've, pulled it off using some different parts is all.

I think you should assume that if they could have got Marshall for lesser players, they would have.

PuffyPig
02-26-2012, 04:58 PM
I'm also of the opinion that they're not "fringe" guys. Not even close.

FWIW, Baseball America projects Torreyes and Sappelt as fringe guys.

_Sir_Charles_
02-26-2012, 05:08 PM
I think you should assume that if they could have got Marshall for lesser players, they would have.

Yeah, you're probably right. I just think I get irritated by it more than most because I had higher expectations than most for all 3 of those guys.


FWIW, Baseball America projects Torreyes and Sappelt as fringe guys.

And I'm sure that's one of the many reasons why the Reds pulled the trigger. I just don't agree with their projection. I view Sappelt as a solid starter with excellent defense. I foresee a future all-star with Torreyes. And a middle of the rotation starter from Wood. I know Marshall is great, but lets not forget...he's a reliever. And at the time of the deal, he was under control for what...1 or 2 years IIRC? Seems a drastic overpayment in my eyes. Great acquisition, just at too high a price.

westofyou
02-26-2012, 05:27 PM
I view Sappelt as a solid starter with excellent defense. I foresee a future all-star with Torreyes. And a middle of the rotation starter from Wood.



If either one gets 1000 MLB PA's it will be a major event, if Wood has Jimmy Anderson's career I'll be surprised.



I know Marshall is great, but lets not forget...he's a reliever.

"If you don't have outstanding relief pitching, you might as well piss on the fire and call the dogs."

Whitey Herzog

corkedbat
02-26-2012, 05:32 PM
This is very good news indeed. If the Reds miss Sappelt and/or Torreyes that much, I doubt they'd have that much trouble re-acquiring them (or someone similar) for a package less than Marshall.

corkedbat
02-26-2012, 05:35 PM
If they extend Marshall and make an arrangement with Madson to return for his option year, it would cover the "Votto Window."

757690
02-26-2012, 05:37 PM
This is very good news indeed. If the Reds miss Sappelt and/or Torreyes that much, I doubt they'd have that much trouble re-acquiring them (or someone similar) for a package less than Marshall.

I wouldn't be surprised if either or both Wood and Sappelt were available to be picked up for free sometime before Marshall leaves the Reds.

HeatherC1212
02-26-2012, 05:38 PM
Great news! :)

Vottomatic
02-26-2012, 05:55 PM
It's always hard to let go of prospects. Some prospects you read about for years and watch their ascent through the farm system and even start licking your chops thinking about their future in the major leagues.

But when you think about so many prospects and top prospects who more often than not don't live up to the hype, and realize you got a guy who's gotten it done in the big leagues..........it helps you get over trading those prospects a little faster.

Marshall is the real deal. So is Latos.

fearofpopvol1
02-26-2012, 05:56 PM
I'm not sure about Wood as a starter, but I think he could be an effective reliever for sure, in the same mold as Marshall (albeit probably not quite as good). Like Doug, I think Sappelt can be a solid LFer too.

With all that said, if Marshall is extended, I will be much happier with the trade.

_Sir_Charles_
02-26-2012, 06:04 PM
If either one gets 1000 MLB PA's it will be a major event, if Wood has Jimmy Anderson's career I'll be surprised.


"If you don't have outstanding relief pitching, you might as well piss on the fire and call the dogs."

Whitey Herzog

Not disputing any of that, but I'd be surprised if they didn't. I'm sure you've had prospects that you were higher on than most too. Unfortunately for me, 3 of them were in this one deal. There weren't 3 kids in the system I was higher on (especially Torreyes). Such is life.

mth123
02-26-2012, 07:15 PM
Of course I am of the opinion that Sappelt was easily the best option to start in and play left field for the Reds in 2012.

CF too IMO.

Tony Cloninger
02-26-2012, 07:35 PM
This will be a fun thread to go back to at the end of 2012.

mattfeet
02-26-2012, 08:31 PM
I like this, a lot. Looking forward to seeing the details of the extension.

-Matt

Gallen5862
02-26-2012, 08:48 PM
http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/02/reds-sean-marshall-nearing-agreement-on-extension-.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

Reds, Sean Marshall Nearing Agreement On Extension
By Zach Links [February 26, 2012 at 2:11pm CST]

2:11pm: John Fay of the Cincinnati Enquirer tweets that GM Walt Jocketty also confirmed a deal is close and that the two sides want it done before games start.

MLB.com's Mark Sheldon adds that Jocketty says the deal could be done soon:

“We are talking to him,” Reds general manager Walt Jocketty said on Sunday. “It could be done soon. When we traded for him, it was also looking to sign him for the long term.”

_Sir_Charles_
02-26-2012, 09:27 PM
This will be a fun thread to go back to at the end of 2012.

Why? I don't think I've seen anybody complain about Marshall being acquired OR extended. I've probably been the most vocal about the cost to obtain him, but even I thought it was a good acquisition.

RedsManRick
02-26-2012, 11:21 PM
I'd love it for 3/15. More years or money and I'd start worrying.

WebScorpion
02-27-2012, 01:49 AM
Wood/Sappelt/Torreyes

That was a big group to give up and I was a bit skeptical of this trade. Getting an extension goes a LONG way in making it easier to swallow. Still, I think it could've been done with different parts. Our top backup starter, our top backup OF'er and our top 2b prospect option. Don't get me wrong, I love what Marshall brings to the table, I just think we overpaid to get him.

I'm also of the opinion that they're not "fringe" guys. Not even close.
I'd say they are good backups and prospects, but not our best. Chapman is our top backup starter, Heisey (or Ludwick) is our top backup outfielder, and Billy Hamilton is probably our top 2nd base prospect. We dealt from strength...Whether they overpaid or not, I don't think they shorted the team at all. That's my two cents. :dunno:

REDREAD
02-27-2012, 10:46 AM
Wood/Sappelt/Torreyes

That was a big group to give up and I was a bit skeptical of this trade. Getting an extension goes a LONG way in making it easier to swallow. Still, I think it could've been done with different parts. Our top backup starter, our top backup OF'er and our top 2b prospect option. Don't get me wrong, I love what Marshall brings to the table, I just think we overpaid to get him.

I'm also of the opinion that they're not "fringe" guys. Not even close.

Well, we can see how it pans out.
Torreyes is a long way from making the Show.

Sappelt.. honestly it was obvious that the Reds were not enamored with him, despite his minor league numbers. Now maybe the Reds evaluation of him was wrong. But he seems like an OF with limited power, fast but not a smart baserunner, and questionable ablity to make contact in the big leagues. Not sure he profiles more than a backup CF (which has some value)

Wood.. This is the only guy that might make the trade look bad. If he can regain some of 2010 magic. Still, we had a deep rotation and nowhere to play him. Maybe he had an option left this year (not sure), but for this year, Chapman/Francis can cover the #6 and #7 starter, and Tomko can cover the #8 starter. We still have pretty good depth.

I figured Walt would try to extend Marshal. He has a good track record of targeting the right pending FAs to sign and then often extending them.
If nothing else, this is proof that Walt is trying hard to get it done.

traderumor
02-27-2012, 10:55 AM
I'd do that type of trade again every day of the week. Being on the receiving end of proven top shelf major league talent is a deal with a much higher probability of turning in the Reds favor than being on the Cubs end of the deal. Sappelt and Wood are fringers and Torryes is an Aballer a long ways away from even sniffing MLB. He's just as likely (prob. more likely) to be a pack of magic beans as a productive MLB player.

klw
02-27-2012, 12:16 PM
update later today

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/02/reds-sean-marshall-nearing-agreement-on-extension-.html


MONDAY, 10:09am: Fay says Marshall will talk about the extension later today. For now, the lefty commented, "I can't say anything. But I'm very happy."
Was from a Fay Tweet.

Blitz Dorsey
02-27-2012, 12:41 PM
I'm going to stand by what I said about Wood/Sappelt/Torreyes being fringe MLBers. I don't think that's a contradiction with saying what we gave the Cubs was "no joke." I just don't think Wood, Sappelt or Torreyes will ever be anything more than fringe MLBers. That's just my opinion though. I fully recognize they all have potential to be better than that, which is why I'm not going to pretend like we gave up absolutely nothing for Marshall, but I got over losing each of them pretty quickly. This year will tell A LOT about Wood and Sappelt. They will both be needed for the Cubs. We won't know on Torreyes for a couple years at least.

Yeah, I liked all those guys too. But none of them were top-shelf prospects. Also, you have to give up something decent to get arguably the best left-handed set-up man in the game (no matter how much people want to try and devalue the role of players like Marshall).

Dan
02-27-2012, 12:46 PM
I'm going to stand by what I said about Wood/Sappelt/Torreyes being fringe MLBers. I don't think that's a contradiction with saying what we gave the Cubs was "no joke." I just don't think Wood, Sappelt or Torreyes will ever be anything more than fringe MLBers. They all have potential, which is why I'm not going to pretend like we gave up nothing for Marshall, but I got over losing all of them pretty quickly. This year will tell A LOT about Wood and Sappelt. They will both be needed for the Cubs. We won't know on Torreyes for a couple years at least.

Yeah, I liked all those guys too. But none of them were top-shelf prospects. Also, you have to give up something decent to get arguably the best left-handed set-up man in the game (no matter how much people want to devalue the role of players like Marshall).

I'm with you on that. I think Wood == Butch Henry, Sappelt == Brady Clark, and Torreys ceilings out at Fernando Vina, but has a long way to go yet.

kaldaniels
02-27-2012, 12:48 PM
I Seem to recall the notion that giving the Reds a season to have exclusive negotiating rights with Marshall as something that was not worth anything in regards to the trade. Glad to see that notion being dispelled. - And color me pleasantly suprised by this!

mattfeet
02-27-2012, 12:52 PM
MONDAY, 10:09am: Fay says Marshall will talk about the extension later today. For now, the lefty commented, "I can't say anything. But I'm very happy."

lollipopcurve
02-27-2012, 01:02 PM
One thing I really, really like about this is that it makes it easy -- and wholly appropriate -- for Baker to give more than one guy save chances. Obviously, Madson is the main guy, and he'll get the vast majority of chances, but in those stretches in which Madson's been used a lot Marshall should be teed up, doing a little apprenticing here in 2012.

dougdirt
02-27-2012, 01:51 PM
Sappelt.. honestly it was obvious that the Reds were not enamored with him, despite his minor league numbers. Now maybe the Reds evaluation of him was wrong. But he seems like an OF with limited power, fast but not a smart baserunner, and questionable ablity to make contact in the big leagues. Not sure he profiles more than a backup CF (which has some value)


Sappelt had 17 strikeouts in 118 plate appearances. That is a strikeout rate of 14.4%. In no way, shape or form is that a questionable ability to make contact. I really think far too many people remember Sappelt's "adjustment" period in his first 11 games where he went 0 walks and 8 strikeouts and completely forget the next 27 where he had 7 walks and 9 strikeouts.

redsmetz
02-27-2012, 02:01 PM
This is a question for me that I see both in the Marshall trade and the Latos trade, is it necessarily a bad thing if the players the Reds gave up do well with their new teams if these two players meet our expectations and succeed with us? I think too often, we look for these trades to be fully balanced ledgers - but isn't the purpose of a trade for the teams involved to both succeed with the move? Certainly you have some trades throughout history where the balance has been outsized, but I've said along that I'm fully expecting both the Padres and the Cubs to get value from what they've received and I'm fine with that.

Benihana
02-27-2012, 02:04 PM
IMO, Sappelt will join the long list of Ben Broussard, Brady Clark, Brandon Larson, Adam Rosales and Chris Dickerson: Redszone-overrated minor leaguers who become (at best) major league journeymen. I'm still excitedly looking forward to winning my bet with TRF over whether Alex Gordon will outperform Sappelt and Wood in 2012.

I like extending Marshall- I just hope it's not for significantly more than 3/$15M. I'm not sure if any reliever would be worth much more than that to the Reds from 2013-2015, at least at this point.

REDREAD
02-27-2012, 02:15 PM
Sappelt had 17 strikeouts in 118 plate appearances. That is a strikeout rate of 14.4%. In no way, shape or form is that a questionable ability to make contact. I really think far too many people remember Sappelt's "adjustment" period in his first 11 games where he went 0 walks and 8 strikeouts and completely forget the next 27 where he had 7 walks and 9 strikeouts.

Well time will tell. He seemed overmatched at the big league level. True, it was a small sample size.
The Reds' brass was obviously not impressed with him, despite his torrid spring training last year.
I honestly think there's no chance he outperforms what the Reds are going to use in LF this year.

I can see why the Cubs want him though.. A cheap place holder for CF while they are rebuilding.

When I said "trouble making contact", I meant being able to get hits, not avoiding Ks. That was confusing, and I apologize for that.

RANDY IN INDY
02-27-2012, 02:22 PM
Sappelt is one of those toolsy little guys that have some value and potential. The key is, will he ever, consistently, hit enough to be a starting player for any length of time.

kaldaniels
02-27-2012, 02:26 PM
This is a question for me that I see both in the Marshall trade and the Latos trade, is it necessarily a bad thing if the players the Reds gave up do well with their new teams if these two players meet our expectations and succeed with us? I think too often, we look for these trades to be fully balanced ledgers - but isn't the purpose of a trade for the teams involved to both succeed with the move? Certainly you have some trades throughout history where the balance has been outsized, but I've said along that I'm fully expecting both the Padres and the Cubs to get value from what they've received and I'm fine with that.

Absolutely. Though you are wading into an area ripe for argument saying you should only care about the Reds end of the deal, etc.

I saw a GM (It may have been Walt) say something to the effect once..."You can't win every trade big, otherwise no one will ever deal with you in the future". So yes, you hope for both teams to recieve value in a trade.

Wheelhouse
02-27-2012, 02:41 PM
Wood is a good pitcher. I remember him taking several no-hitters of some good teams into late innings....

bucksfan2
02-27-2012, 02:44 PM
IMO, Sappelt will join the long list of Ben Broussard, Brady Clark, Brandon Larson, Adam Rosales and Chris Dickerson: Redszone-overrated minor leaguers who become (at best) major league journeymen. I'm still excitedly looking forward to winning my bet with TRF over whether Alex Gordon will outperform Sappelt and Wood in 2012.

I like extending Marshall- I just hope it's not for significantly more than 3/$15M. I'm not sure if any reliever would be worth much more than that to the Reds from 2013-2015, at least at this point.

Baseball is littered with the guys you mentioned above. Guys who had an interesting skillset in the minors or guys who showed some promise in the minors. The big key for a successfully run organization is to weed out which ones will make successful major leaguers and which ones won't. You listed a bunch of guys who a lot of people thought could be starters for the Reds. Heck in years past many warranted a starting job with the Reds. Any good organization should be able to churn out 4th and 5th caliber outfielders on a yearly basis. FWIW I am higher on Wood than anyone else. Thought he could make a quality mlb starter and am surprised the Reds FO soured on him after one half of a season.

I am waiting to pass judgement on the Marshall extension until all the numbers are released. Extending good players is a good thing, as long as the $ makes sense.

edabbs44
02-27-2012, 02:48 PM
My guess is they extend for 2 years while upping his pay this year. Ending up around 3 years, $12MM.

dougdirt
02-27-2012, 02:52 PM
Well time will tell. He seemed overmatched at the big league level. True, it was a small sample size.
The Reds' brass was obviously not impressed with him, despite his torrid spring training last year.
I honestly think there's no chance he outperforms what the Reds are going to use in LF this year.

I can see why the Cubs want him though.. A cheap place holder for CF while they are rebuilding.

When I said "trouble making contact", I meant being able to get hits, not avoiding Ks. That was confusing, and I apologize for that.

Again though, I think you are letting his "adjustment" period cloud what actually happened. His first 11 games were BRUTAL. He hit .195 with one double, 0 walks and 8 strikeouts. The next 27 games he hit .275 with 7 walks and 9 strikeouts. He even noted that he came up and was overwhelmed somewhat and was just nervous and swinging to try and hit anything. He then got settled in and calmed down and hit pretty much like he has the past two seasons sans some power (his power didn't come back from his oblique injury he suffered earlier in the year.... I expect it comes back this year - and when I say his power, I mean 15 HR's or so on a full season with 35 doubles).

OnBaseMachine
02-27-2012, 03:04 PM
From the Reds twitter page:

#Reds sign LHP Sean Marshall to 3-year extension through 2015.

https://twitter.com/#!/Reds

RedsManRick
02-27-2012, 03:04 PM
I still think Wood is a solid Ted Lilly type and Sappelt could be a Victorino clone. Who knows about Torreyes?

I really like having Marshall, but I think Sappelt would have been a great fit for us in LF and Wood, while not a good fit for GABP, will have a Ted Lilly like career as a reliable #3/4 type.

mattfeet
02-27-2012, 03:08 PM
From the Reds twitter page:

#Reds sign LHP Sean Marshall to 3-year extension through 2015.

https://twitter.com/#!/Reds

:beerme:

redsmetz
02-27-2012, 03:09 PM
Baseball is littered with the guys you mentioned above. Guys who had an interesting skillset in the minors or guys who showed some promise in the minors. The big key for a successfully run organization is to weed out which ones will make successful major leaguers and which ones won't. You listed a bunch of guys who a lot of people thought could be starters for the Reds. Heck in years past many warranted a starting job with the Reds. Any good organization should be able to churn out 4th and 5th caliber outfielders on a yearly basis. FWIW I am higher on Wood than anyone else. Thought he could make a quality mlb starter and am surprised the Reds FO soured on him after one half of a season.

I am waiting to pass judgement on the Marshall extension until all the numbers are released. Extending good players is a good thing, as long as the $ makes sense.

Does the fact that the Reds traded him mean they soured on him? Again, the Cubs were expecting something of value for the player of value they had for us. I would suggest that rather than souring on him, they found him expendable. There's a difference in that, don't you think? Certainly we had the pitching depth that made him a candidate to be traded. I think he'll do alright with the Cubs. But we filled a need we had. Good luck to him up there. That said, I hope we beat him like a drum when he's pitching against us!

LegallyMinded
02-27-2012, 03:12 PM
Glad to see Marshall locked up for more than this year, but does a 3-year extension seem a bit risky? Looking at some of the more recent three year deals for relievers-- Chad Bradford, Damaso Marte, Danys Baez, and so on-- raises some red flags. Granted, those were free agent deals, so perhaps the extension carries a bit less risk?

mattfeet
02-27-2012, 03:15 PM
Interesting quote:

"Quote of the day:RedsMGR Dusty Baker when asked if he was happy about Sean Marshalls pending contract extension "Yeah, if I'm here with him."

per JimBowden on Twitter

-Matt

dougdirt
02-27-2012, 03:23 PM
From John Fay (http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2012/02/27/reds-announce-extension/):

Walt Jocketty said that Marshall could slide into the closer’s role eventually.

Didn't Walt, upon the trade, say that Marshall wasn't going to be used as a closer? Now, without him actually pitching in any games, he can see Marshall being used as a closer? I am confused.

RedsManRick
02-27-2012, 03:24 PM
From John Fay (http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2012/02/27/reds-announce-extension/):

Walt Jocketty said that Marshall could slide into the closer’s role eventually.

Didn't Walt, upon the trade, say that Marshall wasn't going to be used as a closer? Now, without him actually pitching in any games, he can see Marshall being used as a closer? I am confused.

Well, if you're chasing of Madson on a 1-year deal, don't you have to make it pretty clear that the closer job is open? I don't think Walt wanted to use him as a closer this year if Madson was still a possibility -- but would have been fine with him in that role if Madson fell through.

Caveman Techie
02-27-2012, 03:25 PM
Nice, this has been one heck of an off-season for the Reds. Most number of impact players acquired since the early 90's. Now it just remains to be seen if those impact players perform or not.

Benihana
02-27-2012, 03:26 PM
$16.5MM over 3 years. I can live with that

mattfeet
02-27-2012, 03:26 PM
Marshall three-year extension with #Reds worth $16.5M. #MLB per Ken Rosenthal via Twitter

-Matt

RedsManRick
02-27-2012, 03:28 PM
Another note from Rosenthal

Interesting aspect to Marshall extension: $2M in performance bonuses each year. Half for games finished, half for games started

mattfeet
02-27-2012, 03:28 PM
Interesting aspect to Marshall extension: $2M in performance bonuses each year. Half for games finished, half for games started. #Reds #MLB

In other words, deal acknowledges that #Reds can use Marshall either as starter or reliever. He has incentives either way. #MLB

Again, per Ken Rosenthal via Twitter

Plus Plus
02-27-2012, 03:28 PM
Marshall three-year extension with #Reds worth $16.5M. #MLB per Ken Rosenthal via Twitter

-Matt

Rosenthal followed up that with a statement about $2m in bonuses, half for games started and half for games finished.

This is curious, and also makes me wonder if the initial $16.5m includes that bonus number in it. Regardless, I think this is decent value for a high-leverage reliever who has proven success across two seasons now.

Benihana
02-27-2012, 03:29 PM
Rosenthal followed up that with a statement about $2m in bonuses, half for games started and half for games finished.

This is curious, and also makes me wonder if the initial $16.5m includes that bonus number in it. Regardless, I think this is decent value for a high-leverage reliever who has proven success across two seasons now.

Much better value if the 16.5 includes the bonuses. The deal is noticeably worse if it doesn't include the bonuses. Either way, at this point I'm pleased.

WildcatFan
02-27-2012, 03:37 PM
It sounds like Marshall is now looking at a season-long tryout to be Cincinnati's next closer.

dougdirt
02-27-2012, 03:45 PM
Well, if you're chasing of Madson on a 1-year deal, don't you have to make it pretty clear that the closer job is open? I don't think Walt wanted to use him as a closer this year if Madson was still a possibility -- but would have been fine with him in that role if Madson fell through.

Certainly, but according to him, he wasn't chasing Madson at the time, he was chasing Cordero.

Benihana
02-27-2012, 03:46 PM
It sounds like Marshall is now looking at a season-long tryout to be Cincinnati's next closer.


And if he succeeds in securing that role, think how much better this deal will look than Cordero's 4/$48M deal, which didn't even work out all that badly for the Reds.

Between this and having Masset locked up for the next two years, plus Arredondo/Ondrusek/Brackman/Judy et al under team control for years to come, the Reds can focus future reallocation of dollars on areas other than the bullpen for the next couple years.

RANDY IN INDY
02-27-2012, 03:54 PM
Certainly, but according to him, he wasn't chasing Madson at the time, he was chasing Cordero.

GM speak.

Vottomatic
02-27-2012, 04:01 PM
I think this deserves a sticky.

mattfeet
02-27-2012, 04:02 PM
I think this deserves a sticky.

done:)

kaldaniels
02-27-2012, 04:06 PM
From John Fay (http://cincinnati.com/blogs/reds/2012/02/27/reds-announce-extension/):

Walt Jocketty said that Marshall could slide into the closer’s role eventually.

Didn't Walt, upon the trade, say that Marshall wasn't going to be used as a closer? Now, without him actually pitching in any games, he can see Marshall being used as a closer? I am confused.

The facts of the case have now changed and he has adjusted his opinion?

Does this concern/bother you at all?

hebroncougar
02-27-2012, 04:14 PM
I am very pleased now. Wasn't too keen on giving up what we gave up for one year of Marshall. For 4, I can certainly get behind it.

Sea Ray
02-27-2012, 04:20 PM
Wood is a good pitcher. I remember him taking several no-hitters of some good teams into late innings....

Wasn't one of those teams the Cubs? I can see why they wanted him

paulrichjr
02-27-2012, 04:20 PM
I am very pleased now. Wasn't too keen on giving up what we gave up for one year of Marshall. For 4, I can certainly get behind it.


Which means the Reds got 2 high end pitchers this off season who will both be here for the next 4 years. A high price was paid but these arms aren't for just 1 year or something....

Caveat Emperor
02-27-2012, 04:22 PM
I wonder how this will sit with resident Tweeter @DatDudeBP -- extending and paying market rate to a guy that's never thrown an inning for the team while the guy who is arguably the face of the franchise still sits with an expiring contract.

Still, good deal for the Reds. I'd have preferred a 2 year extension to a 3 year (it seems like relief pitchers fall off a cliff more often than other types), but it's hard to say no to a guy with Marshall's track record.

Doc. Scott
02-27-2012, 04:24 PM
If either one gets 1000 MLB PA's it will be a major event, if Wood has Jimmy Anderson's career I'll be surprised.

I'm with you on the position players (especially Torreyes, who has about a twenty or thirty percent chance of being Jose Altuve- a player who would still be in the minors in two-thirds of organizations) but I think comparing Travis Wood to a portly soft-tosser like Jimmy Anderson is more than a little nuts.

Anderson never managed to have a full-season ERA under 5 even once. Wood is already two for two in that department. There are some pretty decent pitchers on Travis' "Similar Through Age X" list (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/woodtr01.shtml)- Ricky Romero, Charlie Leibrandt, Paul Maholm, Atlee Hammaker.

The Operator
02-27-2012, 04:31 PM
I am a little surprised by how much of RZ has soured on Travis Wood considering how much optimism and praise there was for him after 2010.

I think he was worth losing to acquire Marshall (especially with this extension) but I am more than a little concerned he may give The Reds some fits some day.

REDREAD
02-27-2012, 05:01 PM
Again though, I think you are letting his "adjustment" period cloud what actually happened. His first 11 games were BRUTAL. He hit .195 with one double, 0 walks and 8 strikeouts. The next 27 games he hit .275 with 7 walks and 9 strikeouts. He even noted that he came up and was overwhelmed somewhat and was just nervous and swinging to try and hit anything. He then got settled in and calmed down and hit pretty much like he has the past two seasons sans some power (his power didn't come back from his oblique injury he suffered earlier in the year.... I expect it comes back this year - and when I say his power, I mean 15 HR's or so on a full season with 35 doubles).

That's a good point. I do wish him the best.
If he could hit 15 HRs a year and OBP similiar to his minor league numbers, he would be a very good player. I agree with you on that.

RANDY IN INDY
02-27-2012, 05:11 PM
I still like Wood. He's the one I hated to see the Reds give up, but with the extension, it makes it much more palatable. I didn't like the trade for 1 year of Marshall.

defender
02-27-2012, 06:00 PM
I guess the extention adds on to the current contract? Meaning the Reds have Marshall for 4 years at 19.6 mil. Plus up to 3 mil in bonuses (I assume 1 mil per year, since he could not be a starter and the closer).

OnBaseMachine
02-27-2012, 06:05 PM
I still like Wood. He's the one I hated to see the Reds give up, but with the extension, it makes it much more palatable. I didn't like the trade for 1 year of Marshall.

Agreed. I'm a fan of Travis Wood. I think he'll settle in a solid #3 starter in the big leagues. Extending Marshall makes me like the deal a lot more though.

Sea Ray
02-27-2012, 06:09 PM
I always liked Wood but he did struggle last yr and I don't know why. If he can adjust then I think the Cubs will have something. If not then he'll be a five inning starter or long reliever

757690
02-27-2012, 09:07 PM
John Fay
@johnfayman
AP says Marshall will make $4.5 million in '13, $5.5 million in '14 and $6.5 million in '15. Could get $1 mill more a year if closes. #reds
36 minutes ago via Twitterrific

mbgrayson
02-27-2012, 09:08 PM
Mark Sheldon reports:


[Marshall] signed a three-year, $16.5 million contract extension with Cincinnati on Monday. The deal runs through the 2015 season...Marshall's contract carries a partial no-trade clause and he can earn up to $1 million in bonuses for games finished as a closer, and $1 million for games started should he ever become part of the rotation...[Marshall is] already set to make $3.1 million in 2012 under his current contract...
That plays out to $19.6 million for four years of service, plus possible bonuses. At almost $5 million per season, this seems likes too much to guarantee to pay a set-up man in the bullpen. If he gets injured or becomes ineffective, it will be bad deal. If he continues to be a strong set-up guy as he did last year, it will be a fair deal, and if he becomes a top-notch closer, it will be a good deal.

I just hate to see the Reds lock in a guy that long at a fairly high salary, when many of these longer term deals don't seem to work out well for the team. Lots of strong set-up guys around the league make far less: Sergio Romo made $450 K last year,a nd will make $1.575 million this year. (However, those are not free agent years).

westofyou
02-27-2012, 09:09 PM
I'm with you on the position players (especially Torreyes, who has about a twenty or thirty percent chance of being Jose Altuve- a player who would still be in the minors in two-thirds of organizations) but I think comparing Travis Wood to a portly soft-tosser like Jimmy Anderson is more than a little nuts.

Anderson never managed to have a full-season ERA under 5 even once. Wood is already two for two in that department. There are some pretty decent pitchers on Travis' "Similar Through Age X" list (http://www.baseball-reference.com/players/w/woodtr01.shtml)- Ricky Romero, Charlie Leibrandt, Paul Maholm, Atlee Hammaker.

Hyperbole on my end I suppose... how about Jimmy Haynes?

Or even Bruce Chen, Hammaker had a dandy 1/2 a season once... we shall see I suppose, but that said i still part with him for Marshall

757690
02-27-2012, 09:27 PM
Mark Sheldon reports:

[QUOTE][Marshall] signed a three-year, $16.5 million contract extension with Cincinnati on Monday. The deal runs through the 2015 season...Marshall's contract carries a partial no-trade clause and he can earn up to $1 million in bonuses for games finished as a closer, and $1 million for games started should he ever become part of the rotation...[Marshall is] already set to make $3.1 million in 2012 under his current contract... [QUOTE]

That plays out to $19.6 million for four years of service, plus possible bonuses. At almost $5 million per season, this seems likes too much to guarantee to pay a set-up man in the bullpen. If he gets injured or becomes ineffective, it will be bad deal. If he continues to be a strong set-up guy as he did last year, it will be a fair deal, and if he becomes a top-notch closer, it will be a good deal.

I just hate to see the Reds lock in a guy that long at a fairly high salary, when many of these longer term deals don't seem to work out well for the team. Lots of strong set-up guys around the league make far less: Sergio Romo made $450 K last year,a nd will make $1.575 million this year. (However, those are not free agent years).

Matt Belisle and Rafeal Betancoirt are making $4M a year. Nick Masset will be making $3M a year.

Marshall is as good as most closers, so $6M a year for him isn't that bad, especially of he closes for even one of those years.

I agree you don't want to spend much on middle relief, but Marshall isn't middle relief talent. He's a hammer.

bellhead
02-27-2012, 09:52 PM
I like the signing a lot. Makes the trade a lot more bearable now. After this I think Uncle Walt may have a clue on how to build a team..:thumbup:

Now sign Madson to an extension and I'll be happy, as this will set the back end of the rotation up for the next 4 years.:beerme:

Now add in two of the top 15 arms in the National League in Cueto and Latos. What do you have?

A contender...

kaldaniels
02-27-2012, 10:04 PM
I think this makes it 90+ percent certain Madson is one and done. And that's ok with me. Can't have it all.

AmarilloRed
02-27-2012, 10:21 PM
Good news for Marshall, I agree he's most likely the closer after this year. Not so good for Brandon-I think this ends any chance for a BP extension with the Reds.

corkedbat
02-27-2012, 10:26 PM
I think this makes it 90+ percent certain Madson is one and done. And that's ok with me. Can't have it all.

I'd like to have Madson back for his option year at least, but if that is not to be, the upside (other than possible draft picks) we have him for a contract year where he is trying to land an LTC from someone as a closer.

FlightRick
02-27-2012, 10:26 PM
I wouldn't go much more than 65% certain this makes Madson one-and-done... aren't there draft picks we get if we exercise his option for 2013 that we wouldn't be entitled to if we decline?

I know there will be other considerations, money-wise (especially if we are serious about finding dollars for Phillips), and that having Marshall around provides a reason to be confident in our pen regardless of whether or not Madson stays past 2012... but there are at least a few reasons why the Reds might keep Madson around for the extra year.


Rick

kaldaniels
02-27-2012, 10:38 PM
It's a mutual one year option. If he has a decent year he declines it after this fiasco of an offseason for him.

Sea Ray
02-27-2012, 10:49 PM
I just hate to see the Reds lock in a guy that long at a fairly high salary, when many of these longer term deals don't seem to work out well for the team. Lots of strong set-up guys around the league make far less: Sergio Romo made $450 K last year,a nd will make $1.575 million this year. (However, those are not free agent years).

No question there's risk to any multiyear deal and this is no exception but after the 4 yr deal Coco got does this Marshall contract even qualify as risk? I think it's one of the safer commitments this team has made. Even if he flops we only blow about one year's worth of our commitment to Coco

edabbs44
02-27-2012, 10:56 PM
Love Walter.

RedsManRick
02-27-2012, 11:00 PM
I think this makes it 90+ percent certain Madson is one and done. And that's ok with me. Can't have it all.

As a Boras guy, I think that was a near certainty. Nice to have the next few years taken care of.

Kc61
02-27-2012, 11:14 PM
Three year extension for Marshall, signing free agent Madson, trading a boatload of prospects for Latos. What franchise is this?

I don't know if this Marshall extension will work out, but it represents a new philosophy to give up so much money and talent to acquire and lock up proven pitchers.

corkedbat
02-27-2012, 11:56 PM
It's a mutual one year option. If he has a decent year he declines it after this fiasco of an offseason for him.

If the Reds decline the option, they owe Madson a $2.5M buyout. If the Reds pick up the option, but Madson opts out, there is no buyout (at least that's the way I understand it).

MartyFan
02-27-2012, 11:59 PM
I know I shouldn't be bothered by this...BUT I AM....ESPN makes NO MENTION of this signing on their site other than on the daily transactions. Seriously? The Reds just locked up one of the best setup men in the game for four years and they make no mention of it instead opting to talk about how the no beer policy could backfire on the RedSox...wtf!?

camisadelgolf
02-28-2012, 01:05 AM
We have frequently been reminded to pay close attention to Scott Downs' deal when comparing a possible Marshall extension. Marshall will be paid less than $1M/year more than Downs, but the big differences for me are that Marshall throws more innings, is more effective against rhp, and was four years younger when he signed the contract. This looks like a great deal to me. Also, what if Marshall gets better and somehow becomes an effective starter? Could the Reds have a future C.J. Wilson on their hands?

kaldaniels
02-28-2012, 01:24 AM
As a Boras guy, I think that was a near certainty. Nice to have the next few years taken care of.

Yep. I figured the Reds would make a run at Madson or Marshall extension-wise, with the odds favoring Marshall. But I didn't expect it this soon.

And when I heard 3 yr I figured this year was restructured. Nope. He's a Red thru '15!

REDREAD
02-28-2012, 01:34 AM
Good news for Marshall, I agree he's most likely the closer after this year. Not so good for Brandon-I think this ends any chance for a BP extension with the Reds.

I wonder if the Reds will either extend Phillips or pick up Madson's option, depending on what Phillips decides to do. Maybe that's the plan.

I'd hate to see Phillips go, but I am guessing the Reds are offering him a fair deal. Maybe not as much $$ as Phillips wants, but a fair deal.
It sucks, but sometimes you have to let homegrown talent test the market. Maybe a big market team gobbles him up, maybe he decides he can't come back to Cincy due to pride.. but not much we can do, other than offer him a fair extension.. (I know Phillips is not technically home grown).

kaldaniels
02-28-2012, 01:52 AM
Just to get everyone on the same page isnt it safe to say, provided a decent season by Madson, even if the Reds pick up the option, Madson won't pick up his end?

Blitz Dorsey
02-28-2012, 02:13 AM
The person in Kal Daniels' avatar pretty much sums up this offseason for the Reds:

Winning!

Now let's hope the season itself has a similar vibe. I have a feeling it will.

Edd Roush
02-28-2012, 09:30 AM
Just to get everyone on the same page isnt it safe to say, provided a decent season by Madson, even if the Reds pick up the option, Madson won't pick up his end?

I would agree, kal. I would do whatever it takes if I am the Reds to offer him the tender necessary to receive draft pick compensation for Madson. I believe these picks are even more valuable under the new CBA because we can no longer pay way over slot and get early round talent late in the draft. Teams will now have to get their early round talent in the early rounds and therefore getting draft pick compensation for Madson is more important now than it was five years ago.

Roy Tucker
02-28-2012, 10:22 AM
I still like Wood. He's the one I hated to see the Reds give up, but with the extension, it makes it much more palatable. I didn't like the trade for 1 year of Marshall.

Agree 100%. I think Wood will be a solid starter in the next 1-3 years but this signing takes away the sting.

But to get someone like Marshall (and Latos), you can't just get them for a song. You have to give up real talent to get real talent.

_Sir_Charles_
02-28-2012, 10:35 AM
Well, I like the original deal much more now. I still hated to give up Wood, Sappelt & Torreyes, but 4 years of Marshall...that's a pill I can swallow.

Benihana
02-28-2012, 11:07 AM
I wonder if the Reds will either extend Phillips or pick up Madson's option, depending on what Phillips decides to do. Maybe that's the plan.

I'd hate to see Phillips go, but I am guessing the Reds are offering him a fair deal. Maybe not as much $$ as Phillips wants, but a fair deal.
It sucks, but sometimes you have to let homegrown talent test the market. Maybe a big market team gobbles him up, maybe he decides he can't come back to Cincy due to pride.. but not much we can do, other than offer him a fair extension.. (I know Phillips is not technically home grown).

If that's the choice I would definitely opt for Phillips.

I'd give Madson a one-year offer that qualifies for draft pick compensation, assuming he has another year like last year, there is no chance he accepts it.

Phillips I'd like to lock up for 3 or 4 years at $8-$10MM per, but I'd be fine keeping a little extra incentive and letting him play for a bit before coming to an agreement. Of course in a perfect world I'd prefer to lock up Votto first.

Sea Ray
02-28-2012, 11:27 AM
If that's the choice I would definitely opt for Phillips.

I'd give Madson a one-year offer that qualifies for draft pick compensation, assuming he has another year like last year, there is no chance he accepts it.

Phillips I'd like to lock up for 3 or 4 years at $8-$10MM per, but I'd be fine keeping a little extra incentive and letting him play for a bit before coming to an agreement. Of course in a perfect world I'd prefer to lock up Votto first.

Sure but Phillips is going to laugh at that offer and say "what did I do that warrants a 33% pay cut to $8mill?"

I like Phillips but I can't see how he works for a ballclub that has an $80 mill payroll. I really like Barry Larkin too but that last three yr contract that Carl Lindner gave him did not work for us either.

I don't see that it's a choice between Madson and Phillips because Madson is only a one yr commitment and Phillips is looking for many more than that

Benihana
02-28-2012, 11:42 AM
Sure but Phillips is going to laugh at that offer and say "what did I do that warrants a 33% pay cut to $8mill?"

He turned 30 ;)


I like Phillips but I can't see how he works for a ballclub that has an $80 mill payroll. I really like Barry Larkin too but that last three yr contract that Carl Lindner gave him did not work for us either.

I don't see that it's a choice between Madson and Phillips because Madson is only a one yr commitment and Phillips is looking for many more than that

I agree if he wants more than $35MM over a four year period. More years or more money than that and he's outta here. I'd prefer a 3 year deal personally.

PuffyPig
02-28-2012, 01:08 PM
I'd give Madson a one-year offer that qualifies for draft pick compensation, assuming he has another year like last year, there is no chance he accepts it.



No chance?

He would have jumped all over it this year.

Benihana
02-28-2012, 01:12 PM
No chance?

He would have jumped all over it this year.

My understanding is that FA have a limited window (ie a week or two after the end of the World Series) to accept their qualifying offer. If so, Madson would NOT have "jumped all over it this year."

Plus, he has a mutual option for somewhere close to the range of the qualifying offer. If he declined his option, it's pretty clear that he would decline the qualifying offer- especially if it all happens within a limited time period.

BuckeyeRedleg
02-28-2012, 01:23 PM
So we now have this guy locked up for 4 years at just under $5M per year.

A great signing, and overall, a great off-season for the Reds.

Mario-Rijo
02-28-2012, 02:26 PM
So we now have this guy locked up for 4 years at just under $5M per year.

A great signing, and overall, a great off-season for the Reds.

:thumbup:

Blitz Dorsey
02-28-2012, 03:05 PM
So we now have this guy locked up for 4 years at just under $5M per year.

A great signing, and overall, a great off-season for the Reds.

Yep, that's a great way to look at it. Imagine if the day the deal was made, it was also announced that Marshall had a 4-year, $19.5 million contract (as opposed to a 1-year, $3 mil deal). Reactions to the trade would have been much different. Everything worked out in ideal fashion.

Doc. Scott
02-28-2012, 08:55 PM
Hyperbole on my end I suppose... how about Jimmy Haynes?

Or even Bruce Chen, Hammaker had a dandy 1/2 a season once... we shall see I suppose, but that said i still part with him for Marshall


Well, me too. But someone had to say something when you tried to compare a moderately shiny red apple to an overripe, dented mango. ;)

Dom Heffner
02-28-2012, 09:46 PM
So we now have this guy locked up for 4 years at just under $5M per year.

A great signing, and overall, a great off-season for the Reds.

I am tickled freaking pink anout it. Like, he's been so domimant the past few years...just love the guy.

SirFelixCat
02-29-2012, 12:10 AM
So we now have this guy locked up for 4 years at just under $5M per year.

A great signing, and overall, a great off-season for the Reds.

Yup, totally agree here.:beerme:

WebScorpion
02-29-2012, 01:38 AM
Hey, the last time we traded for the best setup guy in the league was....Gary Majewski! Bwahahahahahahahaha! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing021.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

wlf WV
03-17-2012, 08:25 AM
Sorry I'm late to discussions,as if it matters.:)

This changes nothing about the original trade and it's dynamics.

What if the Cubs lock up Sappelt and Woods ,and they become Allstars?

I'm tickled we have Marshall,but you cannot change the trade,only your perception thereafter.We traded Sappelt,Wood ,and Torreyes for one year of Marshall.

mattfeet
03-17-2012, 08:40 AM
^I disagree entirely. The value of the trade, as it stood originally, was not outstanding for the Reds. That said, locking up Marshall to this extension provides a lot more value for the prospects and players we dealt to the Cubs. Even if the Cubs DO extend their players, the trade still worked out for what WE need.

You see, that's the thing, when a trade goes down (big or small) you really have to try and detach yourself from the players your team sent away. The Reds got what we needed in arguably the best left-handed reliever in the game and add to that we also have him under control for 4 years. That IS a good trade for the Reds.

Playing your speculation game, what IF Wood is a career AAAA pitcher, Sappelt amounts to a Corey Patterson, and Torreyes is a journeyman while Marshall becomes an elite closer while he's with the Reds? Would that not make the trade better in your eyes? We try to project our perception of where players will be in X amount of years, but no one has the crystal ball to REALLY know where the reality lies.

The Reds made a trade under the assumption they'll be able to extend Marshall for X number of years, which they successfully completed. Walt has been on record numerous times saying they went into the trade with that mindset.

I liked the trade originally, and I like it even more now.

_Matt

lollipopcurve
03-17-2012, 08:48 AM
We traded Sappelt,Wood ,and Torreyes for one year of Marshall.

With the intent to extend Marshall. They then executed their strategy in full.

OldRightHander
03-17-2012, 09:47 AM
Hey, the last time we traded for the best setup guy in the league was....Gary Majewski! Bwahahahahahahahaha! http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys/smiley-laughing021.gif (http://www.freesmileys.org/smileys.php)

I'm glad I wasn't reading this thread last night before bed. I might have had nightmares.

traderumor
03-17-2012, 10:43 AM
Sorry I'm late to discussions,as if it matters.:)

This changes nothing about the original trade and it's dynamics.

What if the Cubs lock up Sappelt and Woods ,and they become Allstars?

I'm tickled we have Marshall,but you cannot change the trade,only your perception thereafter.We traded Sappelt,Wood ,and Torreyes for one year of Marshall.You at least have to add "and the exclusive rights to negotiate a contract extension with Marshall." Otherwise, your argument falls apart because at the time of the trade, all you have is two minor leaguers and a mediocre lefty who spent considerable time in the minors just last season, and came back to pitch out of the bullpen because of failing to perform. You are projecting the trade from what you think these players will be worth in the future, no? If all you are assessing is current value, one year of Marshall is still worth more than two minor leaguers and a fringe major league starter, at the time of the trade. Is that the level ground you want to evaluate, or can we include the extension as a pot sweetener to the deal and to better evaluate the value of the trade to the Reds/Cubs?

Tony Cloninger
03-17-2012, 10:57 AM
Sorry I'm late to discussions,as if it matters.:)

This changes nothing about the original trade and it's dynamics.

What if the Cubs lock up Sappelt and Woods ,and they become Allstars?

I'm tickled we have Marshall,but you cannot change the trade,only your perception thereafter.We traded Sappelt,Wood ,and Torreyes for one year of Marshall.

Let's just horde all those ML and hope for the best.......like last year. Last year was so much fun to watch.

You really are very late to the party....... they extended him well beyond 1 year.... so get with the party, beacuse there' s no party like a RedsZone party!

wlf WV
03-17-2012, 01:04 PM
Everybody seems offended at the notion some of us think we traded value.

No matter what assumptions we have or Walt Jocketty had doesn't change the facts at the time of the trade.

I expect Epstein and the Cubs assumed also,but that didn't change the fact of who they received.What was it 2 MLers and a mediocre lefty?

Tony Cloninger
03-17-2012, 01:07 PM
Everybody seems offended at the notion some of us think we traded value.

No matter what assumptions we have or Walt Jocketty had doesn't change the facts at the time of the trade.

I expect Epstein and the Cubs assumed also,but that didn't change the fact of who they received.What was it 2 MLers and a mediocre lefty?

I am not offended...... I do not think they traded that high of value for him..... and even if they did, that is how trades work sometimes.

If it was up to you and Doug ...you would never trade any Reds ML.

dougdirt
03-17-2012, 04:02 PM
If it was up to you and Doug ...you would never trade any Reds ML.

Whoa there.... I fully supported and was thrilled about the Mat Latos trade.

Tony Cloninger
03-17-2012, 04:03 PM
Whoa there.... I fully supported and was thrilled about the Mat Latos trade.

My apologies Doug. Should not have lumped you into that, like that.

I even thought they could have held on to Broxberger on that trade myself

PuffyPig
03-17-2012, 06:48 PM
I'm tickled we have Marshall,but you cannot change the trade,only your perception thereafter.We traded Sappelt,Wood ,and Torreyes for one year of Marshall.

In some repsect you are correct, but the fact of the amtter is, if Marshall was a FA and we had to outbid every other team, we likely wouldn't get him.

It's much easier to sign someone when he's yours, because the player has much to risk by waiting the year until FA.

It's impossible to separate the trade from the signing.

Plus Plus
03-18-2012, 11:54 AM
Everybody seems offended at the notion some of us think we traded value.

No matter what assumptions we have or Walt Jocketty had doesn't change the facts at the time of the trade.

I expect Epstein and the Cubs assumed also,but that didn't change the fact of who they received.What was it 2 MLers and a mediocre lefty?

Here in Bloomington, IL, just about the only sports talk radio that I can listen to in the car comes from Chicago. I have heard about 200 discussions about the Cubs' projected roster, projecting the Cubs' starting rotation, and the like. I can tell you that Sappelt has basically never been mentioned as anything more than an afterthought by the talking heads on 670, and that Wood is basically being lumped into the back end of the Cubs' starter battle, behind Garza, Dempster, Maholm, and probably Wells (this has been debated a lot, whether or not Wells will get a leg up on a spot), and they talk about Wood, Volstad, and Coleman being in a battle for the 5th spot in the rotation. I have never, even for a second, gotten the sense that the radio announcers on that station think of Wood or Sappelt as anything especially valuable. Furthermore, I think that I have never heard Torreyes' name, but that is to be expected since he is still in the low minors.