PDA

View Full Version : Trade/Sell High on Homer?



Benihana
10-26-2012, 01:56 PM
This is one of those polls that will be great to look back on midway through next season.

If you could trade Homer Bailey now (presumably for a leadoff/cleanup hitting OF) would you? Do you think he has reached peak value or do you expect him to stay healthy and continue the success he exhibited towards the end of this season?

Simply put, would you sell high on Homer Bailey this offseason?

RedEye
10-26-2012, 02:05 PM
I voted "no." I just have a feeling that he's finally figured it out this time. I mean, really figured it out. Their patience has paid off. Now they should reap the reward.

WildcatFan
10-26-2012, 02:07 PM
I need something stronger than "no"

My real vote is for "Not a chance, no way, that's crazy"

mdccclxix
10-26-2012, 02:09 PM
Have to say yes on this. I don't expect a mid 3's era career from Bailey, especially in GABP. I think a team in a big park would definitely see the value he holds right now. I love how he's a big game pitcher, though, and would prefer him over Leake in that regard. Leake may be harder to trade right now, although he's not expensive either, yet. I think he's a solid #5 and could be extended this year perhaps at a very reasonable rate.

mdccclxix
10-26-2012, 02:10 PM
This isn't a salary dump. Keep him if there isn't fair value coming back.

mdccclxix
10-26-2012, 02:18 PM
You guys really think he's a #2/#3 type guy?

He could go right out next year and do the same thing, I'm not saying he can't. But I don't like extending him at the rates he can get right now. Too much risk and strain on the budget. We've got to get Latos signed first, no doubt in my mind. I like the value Bailey could bring back, especially in a package with/for other MLB starters. I think of the Kennedy/Jackson/Granderson trade. Bailey is an impact player, I'd want an impact one in return that fills a need long term, perhaps in LF or at 3b since Hamilton will hopefully be in CF (I have to remember that next time I think of Span).

mdccclxix
10-26-2012, 02:20 PM
Even if we get none of these needs addressed next year, believe me, I won't hate having Homer Bailey in the rotation. But if I'm trading from strength, I'd pick Bailey as the one who could possibly bring the most back.

Steve4192
10-26-2012, 02:34 PM
What makes you think you would be selling high?

It's not like Homer has maxed out his potential. He is just beginning to scratch the surface. Starting pitchers often take years to reach their potential. No way do I want to trade Homer just as he appears to be turning the corner.

cumberlandreds
10-26-2012, 02:34 PM
I think from what he showed the last month or so of the season you have to keep him. He was flat out dominate. If he reverts back so be it. But I think he may have figured things out. If he truly has, then you have three awfully good starters at the top of the rotation. It will be hard for any team to match that.

mdccclxix
10-26-2012, 02:39 PM
What makes you think you would be selling high?

It's not like Homer has maxed out his potential. He is just beginning to scratch the surface. Starting pitchers often take years to reach their potential. No way do I want to trade Homer just as he appears to be turning the corner.

Because I don't have the crystal ball to say he'll be better than this year, his best yet. So he's at his highest value, well, since 2005 or so.

RedsBaron
10-26-2012, 02:42 PM
Nobody is "untouchable"-it all depends on what you get back in return. If the Tigers want Joey Votto this off season and offer the Reds Miguel Cabrera and Justin Verlander, then even though I really like Votto I would have to be in favor of that trade.
As for Homer, it depends on what the Reds could get in return, but I sure wouldn't be actively trying to trade Bailey. Absent a really great offer, I would keep Homer as the Reds number 3 starter.

mdccclxix
10-26-2012, 02:42 PM
I think from what he showed the last month or so of the season you have to keep him. He was flat out dominate. If he reverts back so be it. But I think he may have figured things out. If he truly has, then you have three awfully good starters at the top of the rotation. It will be hard for any team to match that.

I think you can take everything you just said and present even further evidence as to why Homer is worth a bunch and perhaps bring in some excellent talent while managing the budget. We don't know the budget yet, so I'm playing it conservatively while also trying to improve the overall balance of the roster.

camisadelgolf
10-26-2012, 02:44 PM
I don't think people realize just how good Denard Span is. I would love to see him in a Reds uniform.
Homer Bailey + Chad Rogers for Denard Span?

mdccclxix
10-26-2012, 02:45 PM
Nobody is "untouchable"-it all depends on what you get back in return. If the Tigers want Joey Votto this off season and offer the Reds Miguel Cabrera and Justin Verlander, then even though I really like Votto I would have to be in favor of that trade.
As for Homer, it depends on what the Reds could get in return, but I sure wouldn't be actively trying to trade Bailey. Absent a really great offer, I would keep Homer as the Reds number 3 starter.

The Reds are likely in buyers mode, not sellers mode, so the dynamic will have more to do with the Reds asking about others players and then hearing what they'd like for them. Actively shopping Bailey isn't hopefully something we'll hear.

mdccclxix
10-26-2012, 02:47 PM
I don't think people realize just how good Denard Span is. I would love to see him in a Reds uniform.
Homer Bailey + Chad Rogers for Denard Span?

What would you do with Hamilton over the next 3-4 years?

camisadelgolf
10-26-2012, 02:48 PM
What would you do with Hamilton over the next 3-4 years?
Well, Span is under contract for two more years (plus a club option). My offer wasn't very reasonable when you factor in Hamilton. I'm just stating a personal preference.

Kc61
10-26-2012, 02:48 PM
I don't think people realize just how good Denard Span is. I would love to see him in a Reds uniform.
Homer Bailey + Chad Rogers for Denard Span?

I would be surprised to see the Reds acquire Denard Span.

The team IMO is very devoted to the concept of playing Billy Hamilton in CF. I just don't see them turning CF into a high paying veteran position. Even for one season. I think they will get a cheaper player and move Billy very rapidly to the major leagues.

Also seems to me that it would be a shame to trade Homer just as he seems to be maturing and healthy. The best asset you can have a top starting pitcher, I don't see the upside of trading somebody who may be just that.

Scrap Irony
10-26-2012, 02:48 PM
I don't think people know how valuable Homer Bailey really is.

Even if he repeats this season, he's a solid MOR guy.

That-- at 200 IP-- is a HUGE bargain.

Plus, he has a (good) chance at becoming a true TOR guy.

His playoff starts and September show what he's capable of. You don't trade that away.*





* This assumes he's not the centerpiece deal in a game-changing offensive player, a la Giancarlo Stanton.

mdccclxix
10-26-2012, 02:54 PM
Well, Span is under contract for two more years (plus a club option). My offer wasn't very reasonable when you factor in Hamilton. I'm just stating a personal preference.

Yeah I keep running into that, forgetting Hamilton is seen as a nearby solution.

Steve4192
10-26-2012, 02:55 PM
Because I don't have the crystal ball to say he'll be better than this year, his best yet. So he's at his highest value, well, since 2005 or so.

By that logic, Atlanta could have 'sold high' on Tom Glavine after the 1989 season despite him showing signs of turning the corner and becoming an excellent pitcher. Or they could have ditched him after disappointing 1990 season when he gave back all the gains he made in 1989. Of course, they would have missed out on a Hall of Famer and one of the best LH starters of his generation, but who cares? They sold high. That's what really matters.

By the way, Homer Bailey has about the same number of innings under his belt that Tom Glavine had after that disappointing 1990 season. Never give up on talented starting pitchers too early.

mdccclxix
10-26-2012, 02:59 PM
I don't think people know how valuable Homer Bailey really is.

Even if he repeats this season, he's a solid MOR guy.

That-- at 200 IP-- is a HUGE bargain.

Plus, he has a (good) chance at becoming a true TOR guy.

His playoff starts and September show what he's capable of. You don't trade that away.*





* This assumes he's not the centerpiece deal in a game-changing offensive player, a la Giancarlo Stanton.

He's also the quickest way to save money and get big value in return, meanwhile mitigating any risk of injury from him. If he goes out next year and pitches to his career norms or gets injured, you'll never get another chance to cash this ticket. It's a sell high, yes it hurts type of move. I think he would/could/should be in a deal for a big time player. That's what I'm shooting for. I do not want to just get rid of him. If they can afford it, and sign Ludwick or someone as impactful, I say do it. But this all arises out of the soaring payroll and a few intermediate to long term holes in LF, CF, and 3b (possibly SS and C too).

mdccclxix
10-26-2012, 03:05 PM
By that logic, Atlanta could have 'sold high' on Tom Glavine after the 1989 season despite him showing signs of turning the corner and becoming an excellent pitcher. Or they could have ditched him after disappointing 1990 season when he gave back all the gains he made in 1989. Of course, they would have missed out on a Hall of Famer and one of the best LH starters of his generation, but who cares? They sold high. That's what really matters.

By the way, Homer Bailey has about the same number of innings under his belt that Tom Glavine had after that disappointing 1990 season. Never give up on talented starting pitchers too early.

It seems their career paths have been quite different so far. Glavine didn't have injury issues. Their profiles as pitchers are different and the context for their teams are different. I can't worry that Bailey is going to be a generational pitcher.

Reds/Flyers Fan
10-26-2012, 03:07 PM
I voted "yes" for the simple reason that Homer Bailey hates GABP and it's clearly in his mind when he takes the mound. And that's half his games. I know Homer dazzled in NLDS Game 3, but that's the exception rather than the rule with him at home. And it's not like we haven't seen these end-of-season stretches of good pitching before, only to see him revert to norm back in April.

Sell high.

marcshoe
10-26-2012, 03:19 PM
What makes you think you would be selling high?

It's not like Homer has maxed out his potential. He is just beginning to scratch the surface. Starting pitchers often take years to reach their potential. No way do I want to trade Homer just as he appears to be turning the corner.

This is the point I was making on the other thread. 2012 was a career year...until 2013, maybe.

Strikes Out Looking
10-26-2012, 03:37 PM
Homer as part of a bigger package to solve some longstanding needs for the Reds -- yes.
Homer just to trade Homer -- no.

Steve4192
10-26-2012, 03:51 PM
Homer as part of a bigger package to solve some longstanding needs for the Reds -- yes.
Homer just to trade Homer -- no.

As a fan who suffered through the 2000s slow-pitch softball Reds teams, there is no greater long-standing need for the Reds than quality starting pitching.

Bailey is a solid middle of the rotation guy who is still relatively cheap AND still has the potential to turn into a top of the rotation guy. If Bailey can join Cueto and Latos as legit top of the rotation starters, the Reds are going to be handful for any team in a short series.

Vottomatic
10-26-2012, 04:32 PM
Depends on what the return is if they trade him. Giancarlo Stanton? Sign me up.

Denard Span? I wouldn't trade Homer for Span.

It just depends.

Trade high? Yes, if you get a killer return. But there is no reason to trade him otherwise.

Degenerate39
10-26-2012, 04:43 PM
Sign him up long term

Brutus
10-26-2012, 07:04 PM
I voted yes for two reasons:

1. I'm still not convinced he's 'put it together' considering a month ago we were still talking about his inconsistency, but more importantly

2. There's a guy named Aroldis in the bullpen that can be converted to a starter and probably worst-case scenario (health permitting) be an upgrade from Homer.

Homer could be parlayed into a starting centerfielder or leftfielder. I'd risk the chance he has in fact "put it together' with the knowledge that his trade value would yield the Reds a real position of need. Even if Homer Bailey is ready to realize his potential, when you have Aroldis there for the conversion the Reds need Homer less than they need an outfielder. Fans are too often only willing to trade the players they don't care about which leads me to believe if they treated baseball players like prize possessions rather than stocks, they'd make terrible stock traders. But players are assets and sometimes you have to know when to sell. To me, even if you truly believe Homer is about to turn the corner, one has to recognize there are more pressing needs and he would be the most likely to get a return that satisfies them.

757690
10-26-2012, 07:33 PM
I voted no, but only because the Reds are very shallow at starting pitching after the top six of Cueto, Latos, Arroyo, Bailey, Leake and Chapman. Most teams need 7-8 decent starting pitchers over a full season. Trading Bailey only makes the rotation more shallow.

I would trade him, if another starter came back, but what's the point?

Roy Tucker
10-26-2012, 07:34 PM
I'm in the heck no camp.

We"ve suffered through all of Homer's growth pains. It's justing to pay off now. He's like a Latos coming from the Padres. Yes, there is still a smidge of doubt, but I'll put a solid bet on Homer being a stud from here on out. He's shown good maturity this past year and has grown up as a person and a pitcher. Let's benefit from the rewards of that.

Brutus
10-26-2012, 08:45 PM
I voted no, but only because the Reds are very shallow at starting pitching after the top six of Cueto, Latos, Arroyo, Bailey, Leake and Chapman. Most teams need 7-8 decent starting pitchers over a full season. Trading Bailey only makes the rotation more shallow.

I would trade him, if another starter came back, but what's the point?

A team should be able to go out and acquire a decent sixth or seventh starter to bide time in AAA if necessary. If the Reds have an opportunity to trade for a position of need, they should not let a dearth emergency starting pitching stop them from doing it.

_Sir_Charles_
10-27-2012, 09:57 AM
I had to vote "no" as I didn't see the "Hell no, no way in hell, what in the world are you thinking, this guy is a major piece of the puzzle moving forward are you freaking insane". So yeah, I guess "no" will have to do. ;)

_Sir_Charles_
10-27-2012, 10:05 AM
And in a side note...I'm simply not getting the Denard Span lovefest.

5 years with the Twinkies.
2300 ab's
23 hr's
105 2b's
36 3b's
254 bb's
321 k's

.284 / .357 / .389 / .746 career slash line. Sorry, not seeing it...AT ALL.

WAR maybe?

4.8 last year. But the previous years...2.3 last year, 1.5 the year before. Under .700 ops both years too. What is it about this guy that has Reds fans drooling? Just the fact that he's NOT Drew Stubbs?

_Sir_Charles_
10-27-2012, 10:17 AM
A team should be able to go out and acquire a decent sixth or seventh starter to bide time in AAA if necessary. If the Reds have an opportunity to trade for a position of need, they should not let a dearth emergency starting pitching stop them from doing it.

Dealing for a position of need from a position of surplus is great, but that's not what we'd be doing. Starting pitching isn't a "need", but it's certainly not a surplus either. You'd be filling a position of need by creating a new position of need. Dealing Homer to make room for Chapman is kinda silly IMO. Especially when you consider two things.

1. No way is Chapman ready for a full season of starting so we'll STILL need a starter for next year (at least a good portion of it).

2. Bronson comes off the books in 2014. Meaning we'll have TWO holes to fill if you deal Homer.

I'm keeping Homer (and extending him...and Latos) because we'll be looking at a rotation of Latos, Cueto, Bailey, Leake & Chapman in 2014.

If we're looking to deal any pitching...we should be looking at Corcino and Cingrani IMO. Neither will be cracking the rotation anytime soon. I'd say they're both well over 2 years away from pushing anybody out (that's IF they can at all). The only pitching prospect I'm hoarding is Stephenson.

I think it's high time for Reds fans to quit worrying about pinching pennies and start looking towards putting the best team on the field. It sure does look like that's what the FO's focus is. Time to get the fanbase on board.

nate
10-27-2012, 10:51 AM
And in a side note...I'm simply not getting the Denard Span lovefest.

5 years with the Twinkies.
2300 ab's
23 hr's
105 2b's
36 3b's
254 bb's
321 k's

.284 / .357 / .389 / .746 career slash line. Sorry, not seeing it...AT ALL.

WAR maybe?

4.8 last year. But the previous years...2.3 last year, 1.5 the year before. Under .700 ops both years too. What is it about this guy that has Reds fans drooling? Just the fact that he's NOT Drew Stubbs?

Well, the Reds got this out of the leadoff spot in 2012:

.208/.254/.327

And this out of CF:

.226/.282/.339

I see the difference between Span's career slash line and either of those slash lines as roughly 20-25 runs over 600 PAs. Two-ish wins with no defense taken into account.

Span isn't necessarily my first choice but I think it's easy to see why he could be perceived as an improvement over what the Reds put in CF in 2012.

Kc61
10-27-2012, 11:53 AM
1. Only reason to trade Bailey is if the Reds don't think he'll be good. Otherwise, he should only be traded for a star player. Cueto, Latos, Bailey and Votto are the backbone of this team for the next few years. Young successful starters are key.

2. Reds definitely need a higher OBP hitter for CF. Span probably doesn't fit because he is expensive and will cost a lot in return.

3. The likely main candidates for a trade for CF are Gregorius, Cingrani, Corcino, Leake. Some combination of, say, two of these guys and maybe Heisey or Stubbs as an additional piece.

4. If Ludwick doesn't return that complicates matters more. Reds will then have two "open" outfield positions. CF and LF. Then it's not as simple as a new CFer, but a bit more unclear how they will proceed.

5. I'd really be quite surprised if Stubbs/Heisey is still the CF tandem next year. The offensive problem in CF is so obvious, the Reds almost have to do something to change the mix.

6. There's always a chance the Reds will go for a more dramatic restructuring of the team, with more starting positions changing, but I doubt it. I expect a new CF guy and some new bench players and relievers next year.

7. If Leake goes in a deal, there will be the fifth starters' spot to fill. I'm guessing that if that happens, the fifth starter will be either Chapman or Cingrani (if Chappy stays in the pen).

Let's get the WS overwith so the important Reds' off-season can begin in earnest.

Brutus
10-27-2012, 11:53 AM
Dealing for a position of need from a position of surplus is great, but that's not what we'd be doing. Starting pitching isn't a "need", but it's certainly not a surplus either. You'd be filling a position of need by creating a new position of need. Dealing Homer to make room for Chapman is kinda silly IMO. Especially when you consider two things.

1. No way is Chapman ready for a full season of starting so we'll STILL need a starter for next year (at least a good portion of it).

2. Bronson comes off the books in 2014. Meaning we'll have TWO holes to fill if you deal Homer.

I'm keeping Homer (and extending him...and Latos) because we'll be looking at a rotation of Latos, Cueto, Bailey, Leake & Chapman in 2014.

If we're looking to deal any pitching...we should be looking at Corcino and Cingrani IMO. Neither will be cracking the rotation anytime soon. I'd say they're both well over 2 years away from pushing anybody out (that's IF they can at all). The only pitching prospect I'm hoarding is Stephenson.

I think it's high time for Reds fans to quit worrying about pinching pennies and start looking towards putting the best team on the field. It sure does look like that's what the FO's focus is. Time to get the fanbase on board.

Chapman would probably turn in roughly 130-150 innings. That's somewhere between 21-24 starts.

Again, I say the Reds should not let 12-14 starts -- which could be filled by a decent scrap heap acquisition -- stop them from acquiring a position they clearly need. The Reds had the best team ERA in baseball last year and Chapman would likely be an improvement over the innings he does pitch. So I'd rather take the chance the Reds need to fill those 12-14 starts than leave a hole in center or left.

It makes no sense to say they'll have two holes. If Chapman pitches nearly 150 innings this year, he'd be ready to pitch a full season the year after. There aren't two holes. There isn't a single hole created by dealing Homer. There's maybe just under a third of a season the Reds would need with one spot in the rotation. You can find someone to fill in on a short term basis if you know what you're doing. I'd MUCH rather have to worry about signing someone for a 1-year deal to be the Reds' 6th starter than figuring out who's going to play center and left.

Trading Homer, if it yields a starter at one of those two position, is the right deal.

dougdirt
10-27-2012, 12:06 PM
Chapman would probably turn in roughly 130-150 innings. That's somewhere between 21-24 starts.

Again, I say the Reds should not let 12-14 starts -- which could be filled by a decent scrap heap acquisition -- stop them from acquiring a position they clearly need. The Reds had the best team ERA in baseball last year and Chapman would likely be an improvement over the innings he does pitch. So I'd rather take the chance the Reds need to fill those 12-14 starts than leave a hole in center or left.

It makes no sense to say they'll have two holes. If Chapman pitches nearly 150 innings this year, he'd be ready to pitch a full season the year after. There aren't two holes. There isn't a single hole created by dealing Homer. There's maybe just under a third of a season the Reds would need with one spot in the rotation. You can find someone to fill in on a short term basis if you know what you're doing. I'd MUCH rather have to worry about signing someone for a 1-year deal to be the Reds' 6th starter than figuring out who's going to play center and left.

Trading Homer, if it yields a starter at one of those two position, is the right deal.

If Chapman throws 150 in 2013, that only puts him at 180 for 2014, which means he isn't getting into the playoffs.

Brutus
10-27-2012, 12:21 PM
If Chapman throws 150 in 2013, that only puts him at 180 for 2014, which means he isn't getting into the playoffs.

First off, there's no rule that he only has to increase by 30 innings. That is an arbitrary number that not every club always goes by (see Strasburg, Stephen). No club in baseball treats every player exactly the same.

Second, there are ways to stretch someone out to be available for the playoffs if need be. The Nationals didn't do it, but it would be very easy to skip a few starts the first month of the year and stretch out those extra 20-30 innings.

757690
10-27-2012, 12:22 PM
A team should be able to go out and acquire a decent sixth or seventh starter to bide time in AAA if necessary. If the Reds have an opportunity to trade for a position of need, they should not let a dearth emergency starting pitching stop them from doing it.

The Reds needed over 35 starts from their non-top five starters in each of 2010 and 2011.

With Ceuto coming off of back problems that shut him down during the playoffs, I want as many healthy pitchers going into spring training as possible. If a surplus arises then, a trade can easily be made at that point.

The Reds have plenty of minor league talent to use in trades to fill whatever holes they think they have. Trading Bailey only makes a hole their currently have, bigger.

dougdirt
10-27-2012, 12:36 PM
First off, there's no rule that he only has to increase by 30 innings. That is an arbitrary number that not every club always goes by (see Strasburg, Stephen). No club in baseball treats every player exactly the same.

Second, there are ways to stretch someone out to be available for the playoffs if need be. The Nationals didn't do it, but it would be very easy to skip a few starts the first month of the year and stretch out those extra 20-30 innings.

The Reds, in this era, have historically gone by the roughly +30 inning increase. I wouldn't bank on them going much beyond that.

jojo
10-27-2012, 12:48 PM
If the reds are going to trade a major league pitcher, it almost has to be Homer. Why would you trade Cueto or Latos and Leake has essentially no real trade value.

mth123
10-27-2012, 12:57 PM
If Chapman throws 150 in 2013, that only puts him at 180 for 2014, which means he isn't getting into the playoffs.

Chapman isn't under 23 anymore. The 30 inning rule doesn't really apply. He could go 150 in 2013 and I'd say he could push to 200 in 2014. The real issue is, moving Chapman into the rotation means they almost have to bring back Broxton for $6 Million plus. If they do that, I would not deal Bailey and not even Leake. I'd make Leake the 6th starter behind Cueto, Latos, Bailey, Arroyo and Chapman with Broxton or some one similar closing and Marshall, Lecure, Hoover, Simon and another lefty filling out the staff. Maybe that lefty is Bray, but I'd go ahead and use Cingrani. I'd deal off Arredondo and non-tender Bray and Ondrusek with Masset as a wild card based on health. That's a pretty decent staff and the conditions with a closer and an alternate starter on hand would be right for giving Chapman a try as a starter, but the money needed for Broxton probably precludes signing Ludwick or upgrading CF. The best I could see happening would be bringing Rolen back on the cheap and getting a cheap guy to share the job (Wilson Betemit is my choice) with Frazier being the primary LF. CF would start out with another season of suffering with Stubbs and Heisey and hoping Billy Hamilton is ready sooner rather than later.

Superdude
10-27-2012, 01:22 PM
If the reds are going to trade a major league pitcher, it almost has to be Homer. Why would you trade Cueto or Latos and Leake has essentially no real trade value.

This team would be sitting on a golden pillow if Walt raked in a haul for Homer and some combo of Chapman and Cingrani filled in without missing a beat. Not a smart risk though considering we have no idea what Chapman looks like for more than two innings.

dougdirt
10-27-2012, 01:38 PM
Chapman isn't under 23 anymore. The 30 inning rule doesn't really apply. He could go 150 in 2013 and I'd say he could push to 200 in 2014. The real issue is, moving Chapman into the rotation means they almost have to bring back Broxton for $6 Million plus. If they do that, I would not deal Bailey and not even Leake. I'd make Leake the 6th starter behind Cueto, Latos, Bailey, Arroyo and Chapman with Broxton or some one similar closing and Marshall, Lecure, Hoover, Simon and another lefty filling out the staff. Maybe that lefty is Bray, but I'd go ahead and use Cingrani. I'd deal off Arredondo and non-tender Bray and Ondrusek with Masset as a wild card based on health. That's a pretty decent staff and the conditions with a closer and an alternate starter on hand would be right for giving Chapman a try as a starter, but the money needed for Broxton probably precludes signing Ludwick or upgrading CF. The best I could see happening would be bringing Rolen back on the cheap and getting a cheap guy to share the job (Wilson Betemit is my choice) with Frazier being the primary LF. CF would start out with another season of suffering with Stubbs and Heisey and hoping Billy Hamilton is ready sooner rather than later.

the 30+ rule is generally applied to players under 26.

757690
10-27-2012, 01:42 PM
Chapman isn't under 23 anymore. The 30 inning rule doesn't really apply. He could go 150 in 2013 and I'd say he could push to 200 in 2014. The real issue is, moving Chapman into the rotation means they almost have to bring back Broxton for $6 Million plus. If they do that, I would not deal Bailey and not even Leake. I'd make Leake the 6th starter behind Cueto, Latos, Bailey, Arroyo and Chapman with Broxton or some one similar closing and Marshall, Lecure, Hoover, Simon and another lefty filling out the staff. Maybe that lefty is Bray, but I'd go ahead and use Cingrani. I'd deal off Arredondo and non-tender Bray and Ondrusek with Masset as a wild card based on health. That's a pretty decent staff and the conditions with a closer and an alternate starter on hand would be right for giving Chapman a try as a starter, but the money needed for Broxton probably precludes signing Ludwick or upgrading CF. The best I could see happening would be bringing Rolen back on the cheap and getting a cheap guy to share the job (Wilson Betemit is my choice) with Frazier being the primary LF. CF would start out with another season of suffering with Stubbs and Heisey and hoping Billy Hamilton is ready sooner rather than later.

Agree on most counts, but I don't like Broxton as a well paid closer. He's not worth the money. He wouldn't be bad, but I doubt he'd be much better than most league minimum guys the Reds could convert into a closer. I'd much rather take a risk on Madson coming back strong from his surgery. I even think LeCure would be about as good as Broxton as a closer. Nothing special, but decent enough.

mth123
10-27-2012, 01:44 PM
the 30+ rule is generally applied to players under 26.

2014, when the 50 inning increase would occur, would be Chapman's age 26 season. I'm more worried about him getting hammered the second time through the order than I am the innings at this point.

He's no sure thing as a starter. Leaving him as the closer means they could pass on Broxton and spend the money on the OF. Moving him to the rotation means bucks for a closer and probably losing Ludwick and being stuck with Stubbs/Heisey.

mth123
10-27-2012, 01:47 PM
Agree on most counts, but I don't like Broxton as a well paid closer. He's not worth the money. He wouldn't be bad, but I doubt he'd be much better than most league minimum guys the Reds could convert into a closer. I'd much rather take a risk on Madson coming back strong from his surgery. I even think LeCure would be about as good as Broxton as a closer. Nothing special, but decent enough.

Will Madson even be ready before June? His recovery from surgery won't hit the 12 month mark until the season is a couple weeks old. Then we have that whole first year adjustment period to deal with. I'd pass unless its a minor league deal with a cheap guarantee ($1 Million or less) and some incentives.

Brutus
10-27-2012, 03:27 PM
The Reds, in this era, have historically gone by the roughly +30 inning increase. I wouldn't bank on them going much beyond that.

"Historically" isn't a hard and fast rule, though. As with almost everything in life, there are exceptions. And very few teams won't make them if they feel it's necessary to do so.

RedsManRick
10-27-2012, 06:49 PM
If Chapman throws 150 in 2013, that only puts him at 180 for 2014, which means he isn't getting into the playoffs.

I can't believe that in this day and age, with so much money in the game, teams are still content to use complete and utter guesswork when it comes to managing pitch loads. How in the world can any competent front office not be heavily invested in and utilizing bio-mechanical analysis. That doesn't mean you can predict injuries of course, but it's certainly got to be a step up from management-by-rule-of-thumb.

Red in Chicago
10-27-2012, 06:49 PM
I keep Homer. The odds of the staff being as healthy as they were this year is not likely.

I think Chapman as a starter becomes a much more hittable pitcher, missing far fewer bats. I say keep him in the pen as closer.

dougdirt
10-27-2012, 06:57 PM
I can't believe that in this day and age, with so much money in the game, teams are still content to use complete and utter guesswork when it comes to managing pitch loads. How in the world can any competent front office not be heavily invested in and utilizing bio-mechanical analysis. That doesn't mean you can predict injuries of course, but it's certainly got to be a step up from management-by-rule-of-thumb.

The same reason the league wide OBP for a leadoff hitter is about .325. They don't get it.

But, in that regard, what exactly can be done in terms of biomechanical research that begins to suggest something? Mechanics get out of whack for a variety of reasons. Arm strength comes and goes throughout the season. This is an area where I am generally interested in, but I simply don't know enough about what can be done to help us in regards to limiting the "right" workload.

RedsManRick
10-27-2012, 07:06 PM
The same reason the league wide OBP for a leadoff hitter is about .325. They don't get it.

But, in that regard, what exactly can be done in terms of biomechanical research that begins to suggest something? Mechanics get out of whack for a variety of reasons. Arm strength comes and goes throughout the season. This is an area where I am generally interested in, but I simply don't know enough about what can be done to help us in regards to limiting the "right" workload.

That teams haven't been studying this is part of the problem. I know some teams are, but for a few hundred grand a year you could have an ongoing monitoring system. If a guy like Chapman is at 150 innings but has all of his strength (or an amount comparable to most other pitchers) and is able to maintain his mechanics, why would you sit him?

How much is $500k in the whole scheme of things? Well, if you're paying a guy $5MM to make 30 starts, that's the equivalent of 3 starts -- 1 DL trip worth of production. Avoid a catastrophic injury that puts a guy out for the year and you pay for a decade of it.

Shouldn't teams know typical patters of muscle fatigue and recovery? Shouldn't they understand how different players experience fatigue and how quickly they personally recover? Shouldn't they be able to test a guy between every start? I simply don't get owners who wouldn't think twice about investing millions in QA monitoring systems or to develop an company intranet for their "real" jobs are so penny-foolish when it comes to baseball and aren't pushing their upper management to get more information when making such massive decisions.

fearofpopvol1
10-27-2012, 11:57 PM
I'm sure a deal could be had, but I get the sense that Walt wants to keep Homer. Just a gut feeling. He's been awfully patient.

If there was a time to sell high though, it would be now.

_Sir_Charles_
10-28-2012, 01:30 AM
Well, the Reds got this out of the leadoff spot in 2012:

.208/.254/.327

And this out of CF:

.226/.282/.339

I see the difference between Span's career slash line and either of those slash lines as roughly 20-25 runs over 600 PAs. Two-ish wins with no defense taken into account.

Span isn't necessarily my first choice but I think it's easy to see why he could be perceived as an improvement over what the Reds put in CF in 2012.

I don't disagree that he'd be an improvement...but an improvement worth Homer Bailey? Or Homer PLUS another player as some have opined? He seems like a decent player, but not someone worth anywhere CLOSE to the deals being tossed around here IMO.

And Span could just as easily fall back into what he was doing the 2 seasons before this year. The improvement over Stubbs is pretty minimal. The way I look at it is Span had a great year, Stubbs had a bad year...both could easily turn things around and the swap would look pretty bad.

lollipopcurve
10-28-2012, 08:24 AM
The only way you deal Bailey is for an impact bat along the lines of Upton or Headley. There are too many leadoff types available for the Reds to be sacrificing much on that front. Hamilton is going to be the guy before too long anyway.

M2
10-28-2012, 10:11 AM
Right now starting pitching depth is the Reds' calling card. I wouldn't be in a hurry to move Bailey or Leake. I think the Reds need to see what they can get for Corcino or Cingrani before they dismantle their rotation.

I certainly wouldn't be shopping Bailey.

However, the one factor that could change things would be if Chapman were to finally convert to the rotation.

Roy Tucker
10-28-2012, 11:56 AM
If the Reds got a return like the Padres did for Latos, I might think about trading Homer.

But it would have to be a big return. Homer is good now. Forget what he's done in previous seasons. He was young and foolish and growing. He's finally gotten to where we wanted him to be.

And the Reds have never had pitching like they have now. And I like that a whole lot better than the big bopper hitters/soft-tosser pitchers rosters we've seen in the past. I'll take getting run-starved every so often rather than losing a bunch of slugfests.

corkedbat
10-28-2012, 12:02 PM
* Wouldn't deal Homer unless the deal brought a CF and his rotation replacement too. I would deal Leake

* CF would be my top priority - Fowler, Span, Ellsbury, Bourn, DeJesus, Victorino, Crisp would be my targets (in that order). The arguement that you don't go after a high-OBP CF/leadoff hitter because Billy may be ready sometime in the next two years mystifies me. I can see it being a reason not so sign a FA longterm, but if you deal for a guy, it's not like you can't deal him if Billy forces his way into CF. Or maybe you move Billy back to SS and deal Cozart/Didi. Either way, not a problem I would worry about - especially now. Also allows you to avoid rushing BH.

* I expect Walt to also try and sign/acquire a Top-3 (in the rotation) to combine with Cueto and Latos. Garza would be my guess if healthy. I believe some people are over-rating the chances that moving Arolids to the rotation will result in a dominant starter. At this point, you know he's a dominant closer. Move him to the rotation and you risk causing a problem at two roster spots.

* I'd do my best to re-sign Ludwick and Navarro, but I wouldn't over-pay by much (if at all). I'd start Mes in L'Ville if he isn't the primary in the rotation. If Luddy leaves, JUpton or Choo would be my top targets. I'd also bring in an "kick the tires" on Grady Sizemore, but the deal would have to be cheap, incentive laden and no more than a year with and option. I'd want a thurough physical and even then I'd be very cautious.

* I'd try to sign Kelly Johnson to backup or rotate with Frazier @ 3B and Ludwick in LF.

* If either Madson or Broxton can be signed to a decent deal, I'd do it. Madson for an incentive-laden deal this year and a club or mutual option would work for me.

* I'd sign a couple of BU MI's for depth, but I'm also quite willing to let Cozart and Didi battle it out in ST and either platoon them in some manner or let the also-ran be the reserve.

* I would have no problem with Cingrani starting the year in the Reds pen.

* I'd consider reasonable extensions for Latos, Bailey and Cueto (his deal expires in 2014)

lollipopcurve
10-28-2012, 12:08 PM
The arguement that you don't go after a high-OBP CF/leadoff hitter because Billy may be ready sometime in the next two years mystifies me.

IT's not that you don't go after one -- it's that you don't go after a high-priced one that will cost significant talent. There's never a guarantee you can then peddle that guy to fill the hole you blew in acquiring him. Especially to fill a hole in the middle of the rotation.

Benihana
10-28-2012, 03:18 PM
* Wouldn't deal Homer unless the deal brought a CF and his rotation replacement too. I would deal Leake

* CF would be my top priority - Fowler, Span, Ellsbury, Bourn, DeJesus, Victorino, Crisp would be my targets (in that order). The arguement that you don't go after a high-OBP CF/leadoff hitter because Billy may be ready sometime in the next two years mystifies me. I can see it being a reason not so sign a FA longterm, but if you deal for a guy, it's not like you can't deal him if Billy forces his way into CF. Or maybe you move Billy back to SS and deal Cozart/Didi. Either way, not a problem I would worry about - especially now. Also allows you to avoid rushing BH.

* I expect Walt to also try and sign/acquire a Top-3 (in the rotation) to combine with Cueto and Latos. Garza would be my guess if healthy. I believe some people are over-rating the chances that moving Arolids to the rotation will result in a dominant starter. At this point, you know he's a dominant closer. Move him to the rotation and you risk causing a problem at two roster spots.

* I'd do my best to re-sign Ludwick and Navarro, but I wouldn't over-pay by much (if at all). I'd start Mes in L'Ville if he isn't the primary in the rotation. If Luddy leaves, JUpton or Choo would be my top targets. I'd also bring in an "kick the tires" on Grady Sizemore, but the deal would have to be cheap, incentive laden and no more than a year with and option. I'd want a thurough physical and even then I'd be very cautious.

* I'd try to sign Kelly Johnson to backup or rotate with Frazier @ 3B and Ludwick in LF.

* If either Madson or Broxton can be signed to a decent deal, I'd do it. Madson for an incentive-laden deal this year and a club or mutual option would work for me.

* I'd sign a couple of BU MI's for depth, but I'm also quite willing to let Cozart and Didi battle it out in ST and either platoon them in some manner or let the also-ran be the reserve.

* I would have no problem with Cingrani starting the year in the Reds pen.

* I'd consider reasonable extensions for Latos, Bailey and Cueto (his deal expires in 2014)

This seems mostly reasonable to me.

Couple notes:
1. I might try to trade Corcino or Cingrani before Leake (especially if Cingrani could somehow fetch more in a trade) but I would certainly move Leake in the right deal

2. I wouldn't sign Navarro, and I would start Mesoraco in at least a 40/60 platoon with Hanigan. He's got nothing left to prove in the minors, it's all about whether or not he can do it in the majors.

3. If Ludwick is not willing to re-sign for 2 years and <$15MM, I move on and agree with your LF priorities (Upton, Choo, Sizemore).

4. My CF priorities are Fowler, Ellsbury, DeJesus in that order. I'm not interesting in paying a lot in talent or money for Span or especially Bourn. I want a guy who could move to LF and still be above average if/when Hamilton is ready for CF.

5. Would only move Cingrani to the 'pen at this point if Chapman is moving to the rotation. Cingrani might wind up there eventually, but no reason to do it sooner and potentially diminish his value unless they need to fill the hole in the 'pen vacated by Chapman's move to the rotation.

6. I also wouldn't be surprised for Walt to reinstitute the Garza discussions. Leake for Garza and DeJesus could be interesting considering the length of their contracts.

7. I think Cozart has earned the starting SS job for now, although I wouldn't object to having DiDi on the big league roster to spell him and help backup Phillips. I wouldn't mind Rolen back but only at <$1MM and a backup role. In that capacity he'd be a nice bat for the bench, defensive replacement, and clubhouse presence for the youngsters- especially those on the left side of the infield.

Vottomatic
10-28-2012, 03:49 PM
What about thinking outside the box and trading Cueto while his value is high?

What kind of return would he merit?

Could you get a starter and a quality CFer in return?

jojo
10-28-2012, 04:00 PM
What about thinking outside the box and trading Cueto while his value is high?

What kind of return would he merit?

Could you get a starter and a quality CFer in return?

Cueto would have a pretty high trade value.

757690
10-28-2012, 04:04 PM
What about thinking outside the box and trading Cueto while his value is high?

What kind of return would he merit?

Could you get a starter and a quality CFer in return?

Not a terrible idea.

He should get a Latos like return. Not sure there's a team that needs him that has what it takes to get him

mth123
10-28-2012, 04:10 PM
Not a terrible idea.

He should get a Latos like return. Not sure there's a team that needs him that has what it takes to get him

Mike Moustakas, Jake Odorizzi and Lorenzo Cain for Cueto and Stubbs?

Not sure I'd do it, but KC has what it would take and is rumored to be willing to deal to fix the rotation.

camisadelgolf
10-28-2012, 04:32 PM
The Bailey/Latos comparisons are some of the most ridiculous ones I've seen on RZ. Bailey = older, less successful (only one above-average season in his career), more expensive, and under team control for a shorter amount of time. You're not going to get anything close to 3 quality first-round prospects for him.

Vottomatic
10-28-2012, 04:35 PM
Not a terrible idea.

He should get a Latos like return. Not sure there's a team that needs him that has what it takes to get him

Why not make all of our pitching starters available, with the obvious common sense that we won't trade but one of them, and see who would merit the highest return?

I see no harm in this.

My prerequisite would be a top young starting pitching prospect in return along with that key position player we need, namely a CFer.

And I'm sure there'd be no offers for Arroyo. And pretty sure any offers for Leake would be not worth considering. So that leaves the 3 studs - Cueto, Latos, and Bailey.

jojo
10-28-2012, 04:39 PM
The team one 97 games this season while missing one of the best players in the majors for a significant stretch, ultimately losing in the playoffs to a team that looks like it is about to win the world series.

Gutting one of the team's greater strengths of last season seems like an unnecessarily risky strategy.

corkedbat
10-28-2012, 04:50 PM
The team one 97 games this season while missing one of the best players in the majors for a significant stretch, ultimately losing in the playoffs to a team that looks like it is about to win the world series.

Gutting one of the team's greater strengths of last season seems like an unnecessarily risky strategy.

I agree. I've been waiting decades for a Reds staff to put up numbers like that. leake is the only one I would think about trading and even then, only if they were an upgrade I thought I could bring in to take his spot. No way I trade Cueto. You'd just have to turn around and acquire another 1/2 starter. I'd be real hesitant in moving Cingrani or Corcino unless it was gonna bring a very top return. Corcino would be my choice to move before Cingrani.

757690
10-28-2012, 05:00 PM
Mike Moustakas, Jake Odorizzi and Lorenzo Cain for Cueto and Stubbs?

Not sure I'd do it, but KC has what it would take and is rumored to be willing to deal to fix the rotation.

The Reds would have to get another solid, veteran staring pitcher in return. Doesn't have to be an ace, but a nice 2-3 starter for it to make any sense.

Royals don't have that, and the teams tht do, probably don't need Cueto enough to trade away the farm to get him.

hebroncougar
10-28-2012, 05:00 PM
The team one 97 games this season while missing one of the best players in the majors for a significant stretch, ultimately losing in the playoffs to a team that looks like it is about to win the world series.

Gutting one of the team's greater strengths of last season seems like an unnecessarily risky strategy.

I was for trading Homer at first, but didn't comment. I agree with this sentiment after mulling it over quite a bit. This team is built to win now, and Homer's not that expensive. The Reds were very close to making a deep run into the playoffs after running away with the division. I say keep it intact, and go for it again.

mth123
10-28-2012, 05:17 PM
The team one 97 games this season while missing one of the best players in the majors for a significant stretch, ultimately losing in the playoffs to a team that looks like it is about to win the world series.

Gutting one of the team's greater strengths of last season seems like an unnecessarily risky strategy.

Mostly agree, just pointing out that there are teams with talent said to be looking for top arms.

IMO, the Reds need to keep all 5 of their starters, whether or not they plan to move Chapman into the rotation.

Vottomatic
10-28-2012, 05:18 PM
I was for trading Homer at first, but didn't comment. I agree with this sentiment after mulling it over quite a bit. This team is built to win now, and Homer's not that expensive. The Reds were very close to making a deep run into the playoffs after running away with the division. I say keep it intact, and go for it again.

I think the trick is, can they fill their desired upgrade at leadoff/CF by trading prospects or second-tier major leaguers (Stubbs, Heisey, Leake, Ondrusek - types)? And how sure are they of Billy Hamilton down the road in 2014?

What I see is a team with alot of options. I think they should keep an open mind this offseason and let teams come to them with trade ideas instead of pursuing others.

Also, I'd pursue Span as their #1 target, but pursue Fowler harder. Meaning, put it out there that Span is the guy they want, even if Fowler is REALLY the guy they want. Never tip your hand.

I think the Reds are in the driver's seat this offseason, and I think it will be very interesting.

_Sir_Charles_
10-28-2012, 05:32 PM
The team one 97 games this season while missing one of the best players in the majors for a significant stretch, ultimately losing in the playoffs to a team that looks like it is about to win the world series.

Gutting one of the team's greater strengths of last season seems like an unnecessarily risky strategy.

100% agree (except for the fact that they "won" 97 games *grin*). Simply put, I don't get all the posters wanting to deal off starting pitching. Has everyone so quickly forgotten what it was like to NOT HAVE IT???? CF is much easier to fix than a rotation. Leadoff is much easier to fix than a rotation. LF is much easier to fix than a rotation.

Phillips to leadoff permanently fixes one problem.
Keep at least one of Stubbs/Heisey fixes another problem.
Signing one outfielder fixes the rest.

Sure, we'd all like a boost to the offense. But not at the expense of PITCHING or DEFENSE!!!!

Vottomatic
10-28-2012, 06:19 PM
I'm not advocating trading starting pitching simply to do it. I'm saying exploring the option based on other teams bringing proposals to us isn't a bad thing. What if a Herschel Walker type deal is put on the table? You never know.

Also, half the 25 man roster was produced through our drafting, international signing, and development. At what point do we start infiltrating the "next generation" of minor leaguers? Corcino? Cingrani? Chapman to the rotation? etc.........

Which brings up total payroll cost. This team isn't going to spend $100+ million. Decisions on who to pay long term are on the immediate horizon, and replacing some of these guys with equal pieces, but cheaper, are going to have to be made.

And the old saying is true.........you have to give up quality to get something quality in return. Some of the proposals of trading our junk for a quality need isn't going to happen.

hebroncougar
10-28-2012, 08:08 PM
I think the trick is, can they fill their desired upgrade at leadoff/CF by trading prospects or second-tier major leaguers (Stubbs, Heisey, Leake, Ondrusek - types)? And how sure are they of Billy Hamilton down the road in 2014?

What I see is a team with alot of options. I think they should keep an open mind this offseason and let teams come to them with trade ideas instead of pursuing others.

Also, I'd pursue Span as their #1 target, but pursue Fowler harder. Meaning, put it out there that Span is the guy they want, even if Fowler is REALLY the guy they want. Never tip your hand.

I think the Reds are in the driver's seat this offseason, and I think it will be very interesting.

I think they will sign a Juan Pierre type to platoon with Stubbs in CF, to give Hamilton a year at AAA. If things aren't progressing well, I can see them being very aggressive in a trade in the middle of the season.

PuffyPig
10-28-2012, 09:28 PM
What about thinking outside the box and trading Cueto while his value is high?

What kind of return would he merit?

Could you get a starter and a quality CFer in return?

There's a reason why thinking outside of the box is, well, outside the box.

fearofpopvol1
10-28-2012, 10:49 PM
Right now starting pitching depth is the Reds' calling card. I wouldn't be in a hurry to move Bailey or Leake. I think the Reds need to see what they can get for Corcino or Cingrani before they dismantle their rotation.

I certainly wouldn't be shopping Bailey.

However, the one factor that could change things would be if Chapman were to finally convert to the rotation.

I thought you weren't high on Bailey at all?

Vottomatic
10-28-2012, 11:17 PM
I think they will sign a Juan Pierre type to platoon with Stubbs in CF, to give Hamilton a year at AAA. If things aren't progressing well, I can see them being very aggressive in a trade in the middle of the season.

If Juan Pierre is the answer, I'll be concerned.

I hope this isn't like 2010 offseason when the Reds stood pat and the Cards and Brewers made positive changes which lead to the Reds mediocre 2011 season.

It's not like Votto and Phillips are getting any younger.

Caveat Emperor
10-29-2012, 12:02 AM
The team one 97 games this season while missing one of the best players in the majors for a significant stretch, ultimately losing in the playoffs to a team that looks like it is about to win the world series.

Gutting one of the team's greater strengths of last season seems like an unnecessarily risky strategy.

Standing pat is a surefire way to see the same results in 2013.

I, for one, am sick of seeing other teams celebrating.

Vottomatic
10-29-2012, 06:46 AM
Yeah, I'm not interested in being the '90's Braves. Win the division every year and fall short of winning it all.

Making the improvements is the tightrope game. Kind of like the great Reds teams of the early '70's that couldn't put it together and then they go acquire Morgan, Geronimo, Billingham. I feel this team needs those final pieces of the puzzle.

PuffyPig
10-29-2012, 06:54 AM
It's not like Votto and Phillips are getting any younger.

Well, if the "core" of the team is getting old creating more of a "win now" attitude, how does trading our Ace pitcher Cueto feed into that scenario?

BTW, Votto is 29, hardly ready for the retirement home yet.

PuffyPig
10-29-2012, 06:56 AM
Standing pat is a surefire way to see the same results in 2013.

I, for one, am sick of seeing other teams celebrating.

If the same results means having the 2nd best record in baseball and earning a cakewalk into the playoff, I'm all for it.

After that it's all a crap shoot.

757690
10-29-2012, 08:22 AM
If the same results means having the 2nd best record in baseball and earning a cakewalk into the playoff, I'm all for it.

After that it's all a crap shoot.

And being one AB away from advancing to the NLCS many times.

If over the next five years the Reds repeat what they did 2012, I would be ecstatic.

757690
10-29-2012, 08:25 AM
Yeah, I'm not interested in being the '90's Braves. Win the division every year and fall short of winning it all.

Making the improvements is the tightrope game. Kind of like the great Reds teams of the early '70's that couldn't put it together and then they go acquire Morgan, Geronimo, Billingham. I feel this team needs those final pieces of the puzzle.

Difference between the BRM of the 70's and the Braves of the '90's? One World Series Championship.

I'll gladly take 16 consecutive Division Championships, thank you.

Caveat Emperor
10-29-2012, 08:46 AM
If the same results means having the 2nd best record in baseball and earning a cakewalk into the playoff, I'm all for it.

After that it's all a crap shoot.

I have a fundamental disagreement of opinion with anyone who believes the playoffs aren't worth considering because "it's all just luck."

Championships are why you play the game. Teams are remembered for winning Championships, not nice little runs of regular season success.

PuffyPig
10-29-2012, 08:50 AM
Yeah, I'm not interested in being the '90's Braves. Win the division every year and fall short of winning it all.



There was nothing wrong with those Braves teams that prevented them from winning the world series.

They did their job, and got into the playoffs. After that, the randomness of baseball determines the winner as much as anything else.

If the 2012 playoffs were replayed you'd likely have defferent winners in many series.

The Giants may have won the world series, but does anyone believe they were the best team in baseball in 2012?

bucksfan2
10-29-2012, 08:52 AM
I thought you weren't high on Bailey at all?

This wasn't directed at me but it fit my feelings on Homer. But as the season wore along the guy was nails. On the road this season Homer had a 2.32 ERA and a WHIP of 1. When he starts to put it together at home Homer may turn into a legit #2 type pitcher, one with a Latos ceiling. Not to mention that Homer pitched an absolute gem in game 3 of the post season.

I wouldn't look into trading Homer. I think his ceiling is as high as anyone else in the system. I would look at a Cueto deal for Homer this offseason. (as well as Latos.)

PuffyPig
10-29-2012, 08:53 AM
I have a fundamental disagreement of opinion with anyone who believes the playoffs aren't worth considering because "it's all just luck."



I never said they were not worth considering. Please don't put words in my mouth.

I said that the determination of the playoff winners is as much due to randomness as anything else. The better teams have some advantage of winning, but it's not likely much more than 55% in any given series.

If "winners" could truly win when needed, you'd have baseball teams win 80% of their games, and not have seasons where barely a few teams struggle to win even 60% (like 2012).

thatcoolguy_22
10-29-2012, 10:37 AM
I voted No. However I am on the side of anyone and everyone is tradeable in the right package. If Homer is moving I want a CF or SS with the value of a number 2 SP. I think Homer's value to the Reds is higher than what most teams would be willing to pay.

M2
10-29-2012, 01:40 PM
I thought you weren't high on Bailey at all?

He's settled in a bit. I don't expect anything spectacular from him, but if he can pump out 180+ IP of respectable pitching then I see no reason to move him. We saw this year just how devastating a steady rotation can be. If another team comes in and blows the Reds away with an offer for Bailey, then jump on it, but I think there's ways to improve the lineup that don't involve moving anyone from the rotation.

M2
10-29-2012, 01:49 PM
Difference between the BRM of the 70's and the Braves of the '90's? One World Series Championship.

And people forget the BRM came really close to being one of history's great flops. The World Series losses in '70 and '72, the playoff loss in '73, dropping the division in '74 - the Reds were developing a reputation for pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory. Had the Red Sox won Game 7 in 1975 it's entirely possible the Reds would have disintegrated into self-doubt rather than ensconce themselves as one of the greatest teams of all time. The name Bernie Carbo might have become a curse in Cincinnati.

jojo
10-29-2012, 02:05 PM
And people forget the BRM came really close to being one of history's great flops. The World Series losses in '70 and '72, the playoff loss in '73, dropping the division in '74 - the Reds were developing a reputation for pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory. Had the Red Sox won Game 7 in 1975 it's entirely possible the Reds would have disintegrated into self-doubt rather than ensconce themselves as one of the greatest teams of all time. The name Bernie Carbo might have become a curse in Cincinnati.

Bernie "@!$#%!!&^!!" Carbo!!!!!!!

PuffyPig
10-29-2012, 03:12 PM
And people forget the BRM came really close to being one of history's great flops. The World Series losses in '70 and '72, the playoff loss in '73, dropping the division in '74 - the Reds were developing a reputation for pulling defeat out of the jaws of victory. Had the Red Sox won Game 7 in 1975 it's entirely possible the Reds would have disintegrated into self-doubt rather than ensconce themselves as one of the greatest teams of all time. The name Bernie Carbo might have become a curse in Cincinnati.

If that doesn't prove that playoffs are a crap shoot, what does? And there was one less round of playoffs back then.

mdccclxix
10-30-2012, 11:08 AM
Homer's ERA was 4.24 on August 26th. Then he faced the Astros 2 times, the Pirates 2 times, the Cubs 1 time, gave up 5 runs to the Dodgers and was only asked to go 4 innings vs the Cardinals in the last game of the year. End result, ERA 3.68. Believe me, 2-3 more starts following this stretch vs better teams, his ERA would have gone back up around 4. Bailey is a #4 pitcher who had the best year of his career. The point is, if the payroll is too high, and if another team wants to pay a lot for Bailey, it could end up improving the outlook in 2013, even through 2017 if a cost controlled contributor is brought back. In the end though, I can see where focusing on trading Bailey is the wrong idea. Others are confident the Reds have money to spend. So be it. If the payroll is 96 million this year, what will it be in 2014 when more raises kick in? Are we really seeing the Reds jumping into top 10 payroll status year after year? I think that's what extending Latos AND Homer would signal. I would love that. With those two pitchers you also have the chance to get them for less than a FA pickup of similar value for the next 3-4 years. It just requires the money. I've always seen the trajectory of the Reds leading to some level of sell offs, but right now that hasn't happened, in fact the total opposite did last year. They traded young cheap talent and kept the premier talent. I think the Reds, and their fans, have always wanted to spend a reasonable amount. I hope that becomes 100-120 million in the next 3-4 years. Who knows?

Vottomatic
10-30-2012, 11:11 AM
If that doesn't prove that playoffs are a crap shoot, what does? And there was one less round of playoffs back then.

You've convinced me. Let's stand pat and hope we simply get lucky next postseason. :laugh: ;) :p

osuceltic
10-30-2012, 11:56 AM
Homer's ERA was 4.24 on August 26th. Then he faced the Astros 2 times, the Pirates 2 times, the Cubs 1 time, gave up 5 runs to the Dodgers and was only asked to go 4 innings vs the Cardinals in the last game of the year. End result, ERA 3.68. Believe me, 2-3 more starts following this stretch vs better teams, his ERA would have gone back up around 4. Bailey is a #4 pitcher who had the best year of his career. The point is, if the payroll is too high, and if another team wants to pay a lot for Bailey, it could end up improving the outlook in 2013, even through 2017 if a cost controlled contributor is brought back. In the end though, I can see where focusing on trading Bailey is the wrong idea. Others are confident the Reds have money to spend. So be it. If the payroll is 96 million this year, what will it be in 2014 when more raises kick in? Are we really seeing the Reds jumping into top 10 payroll status year after year? I think that's what extending Latos AND Homer would signal. I would love that. With those two pitchers you also have the chance to get them for less than a FA pickup of similar value for the next 3-4 years. It just requires the money. I've always seen the trajectory of the Reds leading to some level of sell offs, but right now that hasn't happened, in fact the total opposite did last year. They traded young cheap talent and kept the premier talent. I think the Reds, and their fans, have always wanted to spend a reasonable amount. I hope that becomes 100-120 million in the next 3-4 years. Who knows?

Do other pitchers not get to pitch against the Astros, Pirates and Cubs? His numbers are his numbers.

mdccclxix
10-30-2012, 12:19 PM
Do other pitchers not get to pitch against the Astros, Pirates and Cubs? His numbers are his numbers.

Yes they do, and they mostly seem to do pretty well don't they? Homer also got them all in a row, so he was able to build on it. I'm not saying he's a bad pitcher, he's average, which is awesome and I'd like to keep him if the Reds have money. We'll see how it plays out.

Caveat Emperor
10-30-2012, 01:12 PM
You've convinced me. Let's stand pat and hope we simply get lucky next postseason. :laugh: ;) :p

Better, let's just not care.

After all, we had a fun time watching the regular season and they can never take that away from us. Maybe we can start flying "Had a Really Good Season" banners from the riverboat in CF. ;)

jojo
10-30-2012, 01:32 PM
Some peope on here act like they just picked door #2 and it was a donkey...

The Reds had a great season full of alot of exciting baseball and memories...

It's not like we're out $100 and left with egg on our faces as we have to figure out how to feed our new pet.


http://mariabrophy.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/lets-make-a-deal-image.jpg

PuffyPig
10-30-2012, 01:41 PM
You've convinced me. Let's stand pat and hope we simply get lucky next postseason. :laugh: ;) :p


A team should always try and improve.

But our current team doesn't have some sort of flaw which prevents them from being able to win a world series.

Our current team is without a doubt better than the Giants current team.


If we make the playoffs we'll have ,more or less, the same chance as every other team that makes the playoffs. Sure some teams chances are better than others, but it's not a material difference.

mdccclxix
10-30-2012, 01:45 PM
The extent to which our desire as fans to win a championship will drive us to games to support the players and organization should/would/could determine the only possibility we have a say in what happens. People don't want to hear it but the Giants and Cardinals have great fan support that starts with an understanding about how baseball is about momentum. At least that's how it appears to me. You can add Red Sox fans to this list. Reds fans aren't bad, but they could be better. You want a championship? Be a better fan. Beyond that, the ownership is in place to create a championship team The days of worrying about that are gone.

Vottomatic
10-30-2012, 08:53 PM
A team should always try and improve.

But our current team doesn't have some sort of flaw which prevents them from being able to win a world series.

Our current team is without a doubt better than the Giants current team.


If we make the playoffs we'll have ,more or less, the same chance as every other team that makes the playoffs. Sure some teams chances are better than others, but it's not a material difference.

Sure, we could have gotten lucky and won it all per your theory.

I'm happy about last season.

But the same flaws I saw after 2010 are partially still around - CF & LF. While Ludwick had a good season, for me, the Reds still need a potent bat behind Votto to get him pitches. I don't see the point in paying a guy $20M per year and have him unprotected and unable to get maximum value out of him. Nor do I see the point of having sub-.300 OBP guys hitting in front of him.

As I've stated before, I think the Reds are in the drivers seat because they are built to contend, as is, for next season. I think the suitors will come to them. If a Herschel Walker-type deal is offered, you have to consider it if it improves our team. Probably won't happen, but we didn't think the Latos deal would happen either.

I think the Reds have a strong roster. I think it could be stronger depending on the right smart deal. But payroll is always a concern. Walt likes guys under control for awhile.

Interesting to see how this offseason plays out.

757690
10-30-2012, 09:01 PM
Better, let's just not care.

After all, we had a fun time watching the regular season and they can never take that away from us. Maybe we can start flying "Had a Really Good Season" banners from the riverboat in CF. ;)

Reds will fly a 2012 NL Central Champs banner next season. The Giants and Nationals are the only other NL teams that will fly banners based on 2012.

Vottomatic
10-30-2012, 09:59 PM
Reds will fly a 2012 NL Central Champs banner next season. The Giants and Nationals are the only other NL teams that will fly banners based on 2012.

Giants will fly a World Series banner in 2013. I want one of those. :p

Revering4Blue
10-30-2012, 10:37 PM
Difference between the BRM of the 70's and the Braves of the '90's? One World Series Championship.

I'll gladly take 16 consecutive Division Championships, thank you.

The BRM of the 70's didn't play in a watered-down expansion era with the option of free agency. Therefore, the comparison doesn't seem valid to me.

When all is said and done, despite winning several more division titles during the 90's than the Reds, the Braves of the 90's have won just as many championships as the Reds of the 90's. While it's obviously not a popular opinion around here, IMHO, that (Championship ratio per playoff appearance) is the most relevant statistic.

Sure, I'll gladly take 16 consecutive Division Championships. Heck, I don't even care if some of them are of the wild card variety; after all, the object is simply to qualify for the postseason.

Nobody should obviously expect a World Series appearance and/or Championship each year, but I do not want our favorite team to enter the postseason each year with unaddressed holes in the lineup and/or as prohibitive league favorites just to continually fall short.

While I fully agree with the randomness of baseball element, the aforementioned scenario occurred far too often with a certain franchise in the 90's to be attributed to simply "bad luck."
I also believe that it was a heck of a lot more than positive random "good luck" bounces that resulted in the two WS championships that the Marlins won without ever capturing the N.L East Crown. They took full advantage of the opportunities presented with timely acquisitions and adjustments and won two championships. That is all that matters. As they say, "scoreboard"


So, in that respect, I fully agree with both Vottomatic and Caveat Emporer here.

jojo
10-30-2012, 10:56 PM
The BRM of the 70's didn't play in a watered-down expansion era with the option of free agency. Therefore, the comparison doesn't seem valid to me.

When all is said and done, despite winning several more division titles during the 90's than the Reds, the Braves of the 90's have won just as many championships as the Reds of the 90's. While it's obviously not a popular opinion around here, IMHO, that (Championship ratio per playoff appearance) is the most relevant statistic.


You just made that up didn't you?

Revering4Blue
10-30-2012, 10:59 PM
While I like the idea of acquiring Garza and DeJesus in one deal, as an earlier post suggested, I cannot envision a scenerio in which said deal can take place without Bailey heading to Chicago.

If it's at all possible to pull off without Bailey, I'd do it.

Revering4Blue
10-30-2012, 11:08 PM
You just made that up didn't you?

Maybe "statistic" was the wrong way to express it. But it doesn't change the fact that the Reds and Braves of the 90's have each won one WS championship, even though the Braves won several more divisional titles.

That was my point.