PDA

View Full Version : Michael Bourn



mattfeet
11-10-2012, 12:28 PM
I figure it's about time to start a thread about this fella since multiple outlets have said Walt has interest and will keep in touch with Boras. I highly doubt it'll come to fruition, but I wouldnt mind if it did.

Im really beginning to wonder how much money the Reds truly have available. Last year we went from:

- Not having enough to keep Votto
------ to resigning Votto to a 1/4 billion dollars
- Since we signed Votto, Phillips is gone
------ Signed DatDude to 6yr/$72MM

I think Bob is playing the markets nearly perfectly thus far and he knows he's likely to cash in when the Reds can negotiate a new deal with FSN. Anyways, on to the topic at hand, I dont know if Bourn is a great long-term fit, but Id love to see him over the next few years.

-Matt

corkedbat
11-10-2012, 12:47 PM
I'd rather have Victorino or Pagan for less $$$ as a bridge to Billy than pay more for Bourn and lose the draft pick.

mattfeet
11-10-2012, 12:54 PM
I'd rather have Victorino or Pagan for less $$$ as a bridge to Billy than pay more for Bourn and lose the draft pick.

I agree. Like I said, I bet Bourn is looking for a 5 or 6 yr deal, probably similar to what Phillips received. I dont want the Reds to be on the hook for that deal, especially in the later years. Pagan would be my top choice, although I wouldn't mind Pierre for a stopgap. He'd be cheap, somewhat productive, and although a defensive liability, wouldnt hinder the payroll at all.

Steve4192
11-10-2012, 01:41 PM
I'd rather have Victorino or Pagan for less $$$ as a bridge to Billy than pay more for Bourn and lose the draft pick.

You can't plan your major league future around prospects. Prospects are great and all, but many of them never amount to squat. Just go back and look at any old 'top prospects list' and you will see plenty of guys ranked higher than Billy who never lived up to their promise.

As an example, I pulled some of my old Baseball Prospectuses off the shelf and found Jeremy Reed and Andy Marte ranked behind Joe Mauer as the top three prospects in baseball in 2004. Obviously, Mauer was legit, but those other two guys were complete flops. The following year was even worse, with Marte as the #1 prospect, Delmon Young as #2, Dallas McPherson at #4 and Casey Kotchman at #5. 2006 featured Young at #1 and Jeremy Hermida at #2.

My point is there are no 'sure things' when it comes to prospects. If the Reds can sign a quality MLB ballplayer they should. Billy will either force them to make room for him .... or he won't. Either way, signing a guy like Bourn would improve this team. If Billy forces the Reds to make a move to accommodate him, awesome. If not, no big deal, as the Reds already have an accomplished major leaguer manning CF.

corkedbat
11-10-2012, 02:05 PM
You can't plan your major league future around prospects. Prospects are great and all, but many of them never amount to squat. Just go back and look at any old 'top prospects list' and you will see plenty of guys ranked higher than Billy who never lived up to their promise.

As an example, I pulled some of my old Baseball Prospectuses off the shelf and found Jeremy Reed and Andy Marte ranked behind Joe Mauer as the top three prospects in baseball in 2004. Obviously, Mauer was legit, but those other two guys were complete flops. The following year was even worse, with Marte as the #1 prospect, Delmon Young as #2, Dallas McPherson at #4 and Casey Kotchman at #5. 2006 featured Young at #1 and Jeremy Hermida at #2.

My point is there are no 'sure things' when it comes to prospects. If the Reds can sign a quality MLB ballplayer they should. Billy will either force them to make room for him .... or he won't. Either way, signing a guy like Bourn would improve this team. If Billy forces the Reds to make a move to accommodate him, awesome. If not, no big deal, as the Reds already have an accomplished major leaguer manning CF.

Oh, it's not that I'm counting that much on Billy, just don't like Bourn enough to give him all that money and lose the pick.

Captain Hook
11-10-2012, 07:55 PM
You can't plan your major league future around prospects. Prospects are great and all, but many of them never amount to squat. Just go back and look at any old 'top prospects list' and you will see plenty of guys ranked higher than Billy who never lived up to their promise.

As an example, I pulled some of my old Baseball Prospectuses off the shelf and found Jeremy Reed and Andy Marte ranked behind Joe Mauer as the top three prospects in baseball in 2004. Obviously, Mauer was legit, but those other two guys were complete flops. The following year was even worse, with Marte as the #1 prospect, Delmon Young as #2, Dallas McPherson at #4 and Casey Kotchman at #5. 2006 featured Young at #1 and Jeremy Hermida at #2.

My point is there are no 'sure things' when it comes to prospects. If the Reds can sign a quality MLB ballplayer they should. Billy will either force them to make room for him .... or he won't. Either way, signing a guy like Bourn would improve this team. If Billy forces the Reds to make a move to accommodate him, awesome. If not, no big deal, as the Reds already have an accomplished major leaguer manning CF.

Right! What's the worse that could happen? An OF of Bourn, Hamilton and Bruce for the next four or five years is nothing to beat yourself up over.

Reds/Flyers Fan
11-10-2012, 09:31 PM
Who knows ... Dusty might really want Bourn and may have requested that the Reds seriously pursue him as part of his extension last month.

This team isn't far away. Might as well seriously go for it the next couple of years.

And imagine the "Bourn Identity" T-shirts the Reds could market.

LegallyMinded
11-10-2012, 10:12 PM
I'd rather have Victorino or Pagan for less $$$ as a bridge to Billy than pay more for Bourn and lose the draft pick.

I'm with you on this one. Here's (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=2010&ind=1&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=6387,1677) a comparison of Bourn and Victorino over the last few years. Bourn's been better recently, but I just don't see a big enough difference to justify Bourn's much higher asking price.

Tom Servo
11-10-2012, 10:38 PM
Find the next Michael Bourn, don't pay top price for the older model.

Brutus
11-10-2012, 10:41 PM
I'm with you on this one. Here's (http://www.fangraphs.com/leaders.aspx?pos=all&stats=bat&lg=all&qual=0&type=8&season=2012&month=0&season1=2010&ind=1&team=0&rost=0&age=0&filter=&players=6387,1677) a comparison of Bourn and Victorino over the last few years. Bourn's been better recently, but I just don't see a big enough difference to justify Bourn's much higher asking price.

Bourn has accumulated roughly 4 WAR each of the past three seasons and 6 WAR this season. Each win above replacement in the majors has been worth somewhere in the neighborhood of $5 million on the open market.

That is to say that if theoretically he's asking for 5 years and $75 million or thereabouts, he would be well worth the price if he keeps doing what he's doing.

Superdude
11-10-2012, 10:58 PM
The idea of a 36 year old Bourn makes me queasy. Would much rather get two years out of Victorino and part ways.

corkedbat
11-10-2012, 11:25 PM
The idea of a 36 year old Bourn makes me queasy. Would much rather get two years out of Victorino and part ways.

I'd also rather work a trade for Span or Fowler

Vottomatic
11-11-2012, 08:00 AM
Fowler is my guy, even with the Coors Field arguments. Only 26 years old. A switch hitter. High OBP.

Steve4192
11-11-2012, 08:47 AM
Oh, it's not that I'm counting that much on Billy, just don't like Bourn enough to give him all that money and lose the pick.

I can agree with that.

To be honest, I'm not set on Bourn either. Any of the guys mentioned in this thread would be a welcome addition to the Reds IMO (though I have my doubts about Fowler due to his home/road splits). I just don't want them intentionally leaving a hole on a contending team so that a prospect has an easy path to the majors. I love me some Billy Hamilton, but he could just as easily regress to being the 700 OPS guy he was in 2011 rather than moving forward as the 800 OPS guy he was in 2012.

The Reds are capable of winning NOW. There is no reason for them to be waiting on a prospect to solve their problems. They need to go out and actively plug holes on the team and deal with the pleasant 'problem' of making room for Billy if/when he forces the issue.

Benihana
11-11-2012, 08:53 AM
There are 10 things I'd rather see the Reds do before signing Michael Bourn to a $70MM+ contract.

J.Upton, Ellsbury, Fowler, Hunter, Swisher, Ludwick, Youkilis, just to name a few.

M2
11-12-2012, 12:03 AM
Got a feeling Bourn might be Walt's misdirection while he goes for the targets he expects to land.

15fan
11-12-2012, 05:53 PM
Got a feeling Bourn might be Walt's misdirection while he goes for the targets he expects to land.

This.

Feign interest to drive up the price for a competitor while keeping a low profile on going after what he really wants.

That's the way to work in a competitive landscape.

Vottomatic
11-12-2012, 10:15 PM
Agreed.

The Reds are in the driver's seat. If they don't make any moves, they will again compete for the postseason easily next year with an outstanding starting rotation and solid lineup.

Sure, the Reds have room for improvement, but not in any desperate situation.

I hope this plays in their favor and they can upgrade for a fair cost.

Steve4192
11-13-2012, 07:39 AM
Agreed.

The Reds are in the driver's seat. If they don't make any moves, they will again compete for the postseason easily next year with an outstanding starting rotation and solid lineup.

Sure, the Reds have room for improvement, but not in any desperate situation.

I hope this plays in their favor and they can upgrade for a fair cost.

I'd say leadoff hitter is a pretty damn desperate situation. The Reds were dead last, by a fairly wide margin, in leadoff OBP.

_Sir_Charles_
11-13-2012, 10:36 AM
I'd say leadoff hitter is a pretty damn desperate situation. The Reds were dead last, by a fairly wide margin, in leadoff OBP.

And yet they finished first in the division by a wide margin. Sure, there's spots for improvement, but "big picture" we're sitting in a fine spot.

Steve4192
11-13-2012, 11:02 AM
And yet they finished first in the division by a wide margin. Sure, there's spots for improvement, but "big picture" we're sitting in a fine spot.

In the 'big picture' the 2012 team was incredibly healthy and had a number of guys put up career years. There are a lot of reasons to believe they will take a step back in 2013 (much like they did in 2011 after an excellent 2010). Shoring up weaknesses would go a long way towards offsetting those reasons, not to mention it might improve the Reds odds of winning a short series sprint in addition to winning the regular season marathon.

dougdirt
11-13-2012, 12:11 PM
In the 'big picture' the 2012 team was incredibly healthy and had a number of guys put up career years. There are a lot of reasons to believe they will take a step back in 2013 (much like they did in 2011 after an excellent 2010). Shoring up weaknesses would go a long way towards offsetting those reasons, not to mention it might improve the Reds odds of winning a short series sprint in addition to winning the regular season marathon.

Career years by a bunch of guys not yet at their peak years doesn't make me worried so much about them falling off the map. Injuries, perhaps more so, but I feel comfortable about getting 150 games out of Votto rather than 100 too, so that picks up some of the slack if it does happen elsewhere.

M2
11-13-2012, 12:20 PM
In the 'big picture' the 2012 team was incredibly healthy and had a number of guys put up career years. There are a lot of reasons to believe they will take a step back in 2013 (much like they did in 2011 after an excellent 2010). Shoring up weaknesses would go a long way towards offsetting those reasons, not to mention it might improve the Reds odds of winning a short series sprint in addition to winning the regular season marathon.

You're 100% correct the Reds must address the near-term leadoff situation. It's the most pressing need heading into 2013. The team can't afford to be complacent and wait on Hamilton. It either needs to find a short-term solution or someone who can drop to the #2 slot when Hamilton arrives.

traderumor
11-13-2012, 12:33 PM
In a general sense, it seems that teams that contend in consecutive years have some roster rotation, and not just in the last 5 or 6 spots on the roster, but in the rotation, in the back of the bullpen, and in the everyday lineup. Hopefully Walt learned from the 2011 follow up season that the Reds are no different.

Steve4192
11-13-2012, 12:39 PM
Career years by a bunch of guys not yet at their peak years doesn't make me worried so much about them falling off the map. Injuries, perhaps more so, but I feel comfortable about getting 150 games out of Votto rather than 100 too, so that picks up some of the slack if it does happen elsewhere.

I agree that some (maybe even most) of the younger guys might have just established a new level of production rather than a one-time blip, but odds are some of them did not and will regress. Also, the older guys like Ludwick and Arroyo are highly probable to regress. Either way, the Reds would wise to disregard the temptation to stand pat.

Another thing to keep in mind is the Reds were +5 versus their Pythagorean wins in 2012. Even if they perform exactly the same next year in terms of run differential, they could wind up below their Pythagorean wins and out of the playoffs.

PuffyPig
11-13-2012, 12:43 PM
In the 'big picture' the 2012 team was incredibly healthy.... .


We had some decent health, but lost Votto for about half the season, and lost Masden, Massett and Bray (3 of our top 4 bullpen guys) for the whole season.

That's quite a bit right there.

Steve4192
11-13-2012, 12:50 PM
We had some decent health, but lost Votto for about half the season, and lost Masden, Massett and Bray (3 of our top 4 bullpen guys) for the whole season.

That's quite a bit right there.

Every team has a list like that .... and a whole lot more. The fact that the Reds got 30+ starts out of every member of their starting rotation more than offsets a few injuries in the bullpen. The Reds had a historically healthy season in the rotation. A team with five guys over 30 starts has only happened nine times in the history of the game. That is EXTREMELY unlikely to happen again.

dougdirt
11-13-2012, 01:16 PM
Every team has a list like that .... and a whole lot more. The fact that the Reds got 30+ starts out of every member of their starting rotation more than offsets a few injuries in the bullpen. The Reds had a historically healthy season in the rotation. A team with five guys over 30 starts has only happened nine times in the history of the game. That is EXTREMELY unlikely to happen again.

To be fair, did anyone lose a player of Votto's caliber for 50 games? I don't think they did, because the guys of that caliber can be counted on two or three fingers. And the Reds lost Votto for those games and even when he came back, he was more Wade Boggs than Joey Votto.

Benihana
11-13-2012, 01:25 PM
To be fair, did anyone lose a player of Votto's caliber for 50 games? I don't think they did, because the guys of that caliber can be counted on two or three fingers. And the Reds lost Votto for those games and even when he came back, he was more Wade Boggs than Joey Votto.

Well the Giants lost Cabrera -not due to injury, but still- who was performing like Joey Votto, and they lost Lincecum to ineffectiveness, but still won the WS.

The Cards were without Carpenter and Wainwright for most of the year (I think?) not to mention Berkman.

The Rangers were without Feliz and Hamilton for large blocks. The Yankees without Rivera and Gardner almost all year, and even Sabathia had 2 separate trips to the DL.

Injuries happen to every team, every year. This year, Madson and Votto were the major injuries for the Reds. The other top 20 guys barely missed a week collectively.

dougdirt
11-13-2012, 02:01 PM
I see where you are going Benihana, I just don't think anyone lost was as valuable as Votto was that you named. Mostly good players in there, even some really good ones. But Joey Votto is on a different level than those guys.

What the Giants did in the playoffs doesn't do much for me. The playoffs are a crapshoot. The Giants were a very good team, so don't take it like I am saying they aren't.

_Sir_Charles_
11-13-2012, 06:29 PM
In the 'big picture' the 2012 team was incredibly healthy and had a number of guys put up career years. There are a lot of reasons to believe they will take a step back in 2013 (much like they did in 2011 after an excellent 2010). Shoring up weaknesses would go a long way towards offsetting those reasons, not to mention it might improve the Reds odds of winning a short series sprint in addition to winning the regular season marathon.

Just to be clear, I wasn't advocating standing pat.