PDA

View Full Version : Centerfield 2013



Kc61
12-04-2012, 11:05 AM
I know it's all over the other threads, but I thought I would start a separate thread limited to the question how the Reds should approach CF.

1. They could stay with Stubbs and Heisey and wait for Billy Hamilton.

2. They could make a trade or free agent signing for a current, starting player like Fowler or Victorino or Crisp or somebody else.

3. They could try to pick up someone cheaper in a trade or free agent signing. Maybe a Nyger Morgan. Possibly an Eric Young Jr.

Walt is usually full of surprises, but with Hamilton on the way I look for the third, cheaper option. Personally, I think Coco Crisp makes sense, but the Reds may opt for an even cheaper approach.

What's your bottom line on this. How will the Reds address CF? How would you address CF?

jhu1321
12-04-2012, 11:32 AM
2. I would trade for Fowler if the price is right (not including Bailey or Hamilton). We could always use him in left if Hamilton was ready but I believe his bat is a work in progress and will continue to be a hinderance to him. This would buy us some time to be patient with him. I would offer Leake, one of Corcino/Cingranni & Heisey or Stubbs. If they don't bite I move on to Crisp (puke).

PuffyPig
12-04-2012, 11:41 AM
Morgan might come quite cheap, and would be a good platoon partner for Stubbs.

mattfeet
12-04-2012, 12:53 PM
Honestly, after looking at all of these scenarios so far, I say let's keep Stubbs out there. We know we're getting a premium defender, which IS worth something. He's working with a hitting coach all winter, so maybe he'll become a better hitter in the .250+ range. While not ideal, it's still a decent stopgap until BH arrives.

-Matt

Vottomatic
12-04-2012, 01:01 PM
2. I would trade for Fowler if the price is right (not including Bailey or Hamilton). We could always use him in left if Hamilton was ready but I believe his bat is a work in progress and will continue to be a hinderance to him. This would buy us some time to be patient with him. I would offer Leake, one of Corcino/Cingranni & Heisey or Stubbs. If they don't bite I move on to Crisp (puke).

I'm with this idea.

If you can trade Leake and prospects, and get Fowler or someone comparable, then I do it.

Any trade including Bailey, Chapman, Hamilton, for a CFer, I say no to. I go free agent route at that point.

I'd really like to keep Cingrani and Corcino if possible and see how they progress this year in triple A. Only for the right deal do I trade either of them.

If potential trade partners want the world for a Fowler, etc.......I hold tight, use Heisey and Stubbs in CF, and hope Hamilton is here sooner than later.

RedlegJake
12-04-2012, 01:14 PM
I'm not terribly upset if Stubbs is out there. He is one of the most dangerous players in baseball when he reaches...scores a very very high pct of times reached...solid defense...if he adds a dozen Walks.and a dozen singles, about 1 extra on base a week (doable) he'd be solid. He just has such a horrible approach hitting I have my doubts any coach helping him. His tools are immense but he seems stubbornly resistant to changing from rumors I've read. For what rumors are worth. Maybe this seasons results finally got the message that his way isn't working anymore at this level. I would genuinely like to see that because I like the guy but call me a doubter. And the Reds shopping so openly for a leadoff bridge the Reds appear to doubt it too.

Scrap Irony
12-04-2012, 01:23 PM
I'd prefer a Leake and change deal for Fowler, as I believe he's an outsanding bet as either a leadoff guy or a #2 guy (if Hamilton ends up pushing the issue). He's got upside he hasn't hit yet and his defense should improve quite a bit coming out of Coors Field.

However, if Colorado wants too much, I'd then probably be okay with finding a platoon partner for Stubbs in CF on the cheap. A Michael Brantley, Coco Crisp, or David DeJesus wouldn't be all that poor an option as the strong side of a platoon, IMO. Gerardo Parra would also fit into that bill quite nicely.

I could also be pushed into spending a ton of money ($20 million) on a one-year contract for Josh Hamilton to play CF with a platoon of Xavier Paul and Chris Heisey playing LF. Don't think that'll happen, though.

I don't want Drew Stubbs playing CF full-time for the Reds in 2013. He's good defensively, but only hits mistakes. And he misses too many of those to be a viable starter in this league. If he could find the 111 points of slugging he lost between 2010 and last year, I might change my mind while batting him 8th in the lineup.

RedlegJake
12-04-2012, 01:46 PM
Morgan, Fowler, Victorino, Bourne, Parra, DeJesus. Are they what's left? Trade for a cheap platoon with Stubbs. Parra or Morgan...even DDeJesus. Victorino wanting 3/30 is nuts. Fowler? Don't trade Bailey! If they'd take Leake and minor leaguers maybe. Bourne is another ridiculous contract. I'd pay Upton that money but if I want Bourn I'll just wait a bit for Billy because that what I bet I'll get - only a lot cheaper and even faster!

SidneySlicker
12-04-2012, 02:03 PM
I'd go 1 or 3
I'm hoping the Reds go after Upton.
For the future I think I like Upton in LF and Hamilton in CF

PuffyPig
12-04-2012, 02:29 PM
I could also be pushed into spending a ton of money ($20 million) on a one-year contract for Josh Hamilton to play CF with a platoon of Xavier Paul and Chris Heisey playing LF. Don't think that'll happen, though.

I don't want Drew Stubbs playing CF full-time for the Reds in 2013. He's good defensively, but only hits mistakes. And he misses too many of those to be a viable starter in this league. If he could find the 111 points of slugging he lost between 2010 and last year, I might change my mind while batting him 8th in the lineup.

Paul will never man CF for the Reds on any sort of regular or semi-regular basis. Nor should he.

Hamilton is also pretty poor in CF. If the Reds decided to play him there, it certainly wouldn't be to get Pauls's bat into LF.

RedsManRick
12-04-2012, 02:54 PM
If Ludwick is resigned, I think #1 is the most likely scenario, perhaps with something like a straight trade of Heisey for a more traditional, if not all that talented, leadoff type.

dunner13
12-04-2012, 04:13 PM
I would do 1. and I think thats Walts plan to. Hamilton is one of the most exciting prospects in the game and I think he will be ready before the all star break. We can survive with Stubbs for a few months and for a budget minded team it makes a lot more sense to wait for your prospect who will be dirt cheap for the next few years then give up a bunch of prospects for someone like Fowler who is going to get very expensive soon. Fowler would be great but hes going to cost us alot in a trade and while he may only cost 4M for 13 his salary is only going to go up. Then what do you do with Hamilton? Fowler is young if you get him its to keep him long term so if you get Fowler then you don't need Hamilton so to me you would then have to trade Hamilton. Which just doesn't make any sense, just wait til June and then we will have a blazing fast leadoff hitter who we can afford and we get to keep Bailey, Corcino and whoever else the Rockies would want.

Scrap Irony
12-04-2012, 04:14 PM
Paul will never man CF for the Reds on any sort of regular or semi-regular basis. Nor should he.

Hamilton is also pretty poor in CF. If the Reds decided to play him there, it certainly wouldn't be to get Pauls's bat into LF.

I realize that, certainly.

But I'd suggest that a combination of Bruce, Hamilton, and a Heisey/ Paul platoon would greatly outproduce the Bruce, Stubbs, Ludwick OF of 2012 (or a 2013 OF of the same players).

Getting Stubbs either out of Cincinnati or on the correct side of a platoon split really enhances the team. His numbers last season were an anchor to an otherwise okay lineup.

Scrap Irony
12-04-2012, 04:19 PM
I would do 1. and I think thats Walts plan to. Hamilton is one of the most exciting prospects in the game and I think he will be ready before the all star break. We can survive with Stubbs for a few months and for a budget minded team it makes a lot more sense to wait for your prospect who will be dirt cheap for the next few years then give up a bunch of prospects for someone like Fowler who is going to get very expensive soon. Fowler would be great but hes going to cost us alot in a trade and while he may only cost 4M for 13 his salary is only going to go up. Then what do you do with Hamilton? Fowler is young if you get him its to keep him long term so if you get Fowler then you don't need Hamilton so to me you would then have to trade Hamilton. Which just doesn't make any sense, just wait til June and then we will have a blazing fast leadoff hitter who we can afford and we get to keep Bailey, Corcino and whoever else the Rockies would want.

1) I don't believe Hamilton will be ready by the All-Star break of 2013. 2014, perhaps.

2) Fowler could play LF. While slightly unorthodox, many teams have played two CF in the same OF. There may be an adjustment period, but I believe he could do it.

If he could move there, the Cincinnati OF defense would instantly become the best in the league. Fowler may not have HR power; however, because Cozart, Phillips, and Frazier all have above average power for their respective positions (not to mention Votto and Bruce) and Mesoraco profiles to eventually hit for power, his 10-15 HR isn't all that glaring a problem. And that .370+ obp would look awfully good in front of Votto along with Hamilton (when he's ready).

Imagine an offense with an average obp among the top three spots in the batting order hovering at .375. How would that look in front of Bruce, Frazier, and Phillips?

SidneySlicker
12-04-2012, 04:51 PM
1) I don't believe Hamilton will be ready by the All-Star break of 2013. 2014, perhaps.

2) Fowler could play LF. While slightly unorthodox, many teams have played two CF in the same OF. There may be an adjustment period, but I believe he could do it.

If he could move there, the Cincinnati OF defense would instantly become the best in the league. Fowler may not have HR power; however, because Cozart, Phillips, and Frazier all have above average power for their respective positions (not to mention Votto and Bruce) and Mesoraco profiles to eventually hit for power, his 10-15 HR isn't all that glaring a problem. And that .370+ obp would look awfully good in front of Votto along with Hamilton (when he's ready).

Imagine an offense with an average obp among the top three spots in the batting order hovering at .375. How would that look in front of Bruce, Frazier, and Phillips?

Well they are definitely fast tracking hamilton. I'd be very surprised if we don't see Hamilton sooner rather than later. I think they believe he's ready at the plate, they just want to make sure he's ready defensively.

Kc61
12-04-2012, 04:54 PM
I would do 1. and I think thats Walts plan to. Hamilton is one of the most exciting prospects in the game and I think he will be ready before the all star break. We can survive with Stubbs for a few months and for a budget minded team it makes a lot more sense to wait for your prospect who will be dirt cheap for the next few years then give up a bunch of prospects for someone like Fowler who is going to get very expensive soon. Fowler would be great but hes going to cost us alot in a trade and while he may only cost 4M for 13 his salary is only going to go up. Then what do you do with Hamilton? Fowler is young if you get him its to keep him long term so if you get Fowler then you don't need Hamilton so to me you would then have to trade Hamilton. Which just doesn't make any sense, just wait til June and then we will have a blazing fast leadoff hitter who we can afford and we get to keep Bailey, Corcino and whoever else the Rockies would want.

Basically agree that the Reds should plan for Billy H in centerfield. I wouldn't drop a wad of money or a ton of prospects to fill CF.

But I just don't see why the Reds need to stick with Stubbs and Heisey even temporarily.

Why not, at minimum, trade one of them for a lefty hitter who gets on base, makes some contact and plays CF?

Even on a temporary basis, the current CF tandem just doesn't work. Heisey has zero plate discipline, his K/BB rate is very poor. Stubbs, more simply, has a major contact problem.

The Reds need lefty hitting, OBP, and contact hitting. Why would Walt just sit with Stubbs and Heisey who are a big part of this problem?

So I agree that a big move is probably a mistake, but how about a relatively small move to provide some balance in CF?

RedsManRick
12-04-2012, 05:19 PM
Basically agree that the Reds should plan for Billy H in centerfield. I wouldn't drop a wad of money or a ton of prospects to fill CF.

But I just don't see why the Reds need to stick with Stubbs and Heisey even temporarily.

Why not, at minimum, trade one of them for a lefty hitter who gets on base, makes some contact and plays CF?

If that deal was out there to be had, I imagine Walt would have done it. Beyond that, you're either not upgrading or your talking about a much bigger deal. By the time you say "1-2 year rental, average or better defense in CF, OBP north of .325, not too expensive", you don't have many options out there.

Heisey for Crisp could work, if the A's wanted yet another cheap 4th OF type. DeJesus or Parra would be a decent stopgap, but both teams would probably want pitching (or a SS for the D'Backs), not another OF.

That's pretty much it as far as I can tell. After that, you're in the territory of Nyjer Morgan, Reed Johnson, etc. who are (on balance) unlikely to be upgrades.

Kc61
12-04-2012, 05:43 PM
If that deal was out there to be had, I imagine Walt would have done it. Beyond that, you're either not upgrading or your talking about a much bigger deal. By the time you say "1-2 year rental, average or better defense in CF, OBP north of .325, not too expensive", you don't have many options out there.

Heisey for Crisp could work, if the A's wanted yet another cheap 4th OF type. DeJesus or Parra would be a decent stopgap, but both teams would probably want pitching (or a SS for the D'Backs), not another OF.

That's pretty much it as far as I can tell. After that, you're in the territory of Nyjer Morgan, Reed Johnson, etc. who are (on balance) unlikely to be upgrades.

Some guys may not be upgrades in talent, but may just be better fits.

Reds have lefty/righty balance issues IMO. They also have swing and miss and OBP issues. IMO Stubbs and Heisey contribute to these issues.

Nyger Morgan is probably not a better player, but he has a lifetime .352 OBP against righties. I'd probably rather have him platooning with Stubbs than the current duo (although Morgan's 2012 was poor).

Tom Servo
12-04-2012, 05:53 PM
Remember the time we didn't acquire Alejandro De Aza to play CF? :)

reds1869
12-04-2012, 05:59 PM
Remember the time we didn't acquire Alejandro De Aza to play CF? :)

:laugh:

I'm glad I saw that thread when I did. It brought a smile to my face.

mth123
12-05-2012, 12:10 AM
Put me down for option 3. I think the Reds should go for a cheap platoon partner for Stubbs who fits the profile beter than Heisey does. Too many of the options people are clamoring for would create too many holes to acquire. The only guys on the big league roster I'd be willing to deal are Heisey and one of the journeyman RH relievers (Simon, Arredondo, Masset, Ondrusek). I'm not high on dealing any of the top 4 or 5 prospects. I'd say keep Stephenson, Hamilton, Cingrani and Grgeorious. I'd deal Corcino if I had to, but would prefer dealing Lotzkar, Lamarre, Soto, H-Rod, etc. to bring in a platoon guy. David Dejesus is my first choice. Other sleepers that I think should be considered for cheap include Gerrardo Parra, Roger Bernadina, Quentin Berry, etc.

Guacarock
12-05-2012, 02:55 AM
Jon Paul Morosi of Fox Sports tweets tonight that the Twins' Ben Revere is a trade candidate, but Minnesota might need to get a CF back, as Revere is their projected replacement for Span.

Revere hits lefty, with a split of .294/.333/.342 in 2012, and 40 stolen bases. He has no power (he's gone 1064 plate appearances in the Majors without a home run -- longer than any other current player). But he certainly profiles as a speedy, possible table setter who might well be someone the Reds are targeting. His Home/Away and Vs. R/L batting splits are almost identical, and he got paid less than $500,000 in 2012.

If he is indeed someone the Reds are pursuing, wonder who we'd be giving up in return? Seems likely Stubbs or Heisey, possibly a pitching prospect or bullpen arm.

Tom Servo
12-05-2012, 03:10 AM
Twins seem desperate for some starting pitching, I wonder if Walt can't sell them on Leake.

Guacarock
12-05-2012, 04:18 AM
Speculation at the Twins Daily blog http://twinsdaily.com/content.php?1224-Could-the-Twins-still-trade-Ben-Revere

The long and short of it: Considerable speculation building that Revere also could be traded. Reds, Phillies, Braves or Devil Rays seen as the likely dance partners. Desired return: A cost-controlled starting pitcher.

Money quote from Twins manager Ron Gardenhire. After emerging from a meeting with the team's brass at the Opryland Hotel in Nashville, Gardenhire tells MLB Network they were "trading my whole damn team."

Also of note about Revere: Speed allows him to make many spectacular catches and patrol a lot of turf, but arm is weak. He graduated from high school in Lexington, Kentucky. Was Twins' First Round pick in 2007.

lollipopcurve
12-05-2012, 09:33 AM
I revere Revere.

No, really.

jhu1321
12-05-2012, 09:39 AM
Sign me up for Revere. I'd give em Leake.

Benihana
12-05-2012, 09:45 AM
Ellsbury is the guy I want assuming Ludwick signs.

He will likely cost less in talent than Fowler as he is a FA after the season. Reds can collect high draft picks with a qualifying offer he is sure to reject, and plug Billy Hamilton in for the next five years.

If Ellsbury could be had for Leake, Stubbs, and a C-level prospect, pull the trigger Walt.

Second choice would probably be DeJesus for a one-year platoon with Stubbs.

dunner13
12-05-2012, 09:46 AM
Revere is a great young CF prospect but hes not as good as the one we already have. I don't think it would make any sense to slide revere to LF once hamilton was ready, fowler I can maybe see but not revere. The last update I saw said that we are very close to signing Ludwick for 2 @14M which would mean that LF is locked in for the next two years. So I still don't think it makes any sense to acquire a young CF unless we don't think Hamilton can handle the job. If we can get someone cheap for a year to be an upgrade over stubbs then I'm all for that but after seeing what Victoriano got I'm not sure we can get someone like that. Stubbs was horrible last year but I think theres a decent chance that he bounces back to being a player that we can live with in CF until Hamilton is ready.

Vottomatic
12-05-2012, 09:47 AM
Revere? I guess if we had him, he could come running in from CF yelling "The Cardinals are coming! The Cardinals are coming!" :D

WildcatFan
12-05-2012, 09:58 AM
Bonifacio may be available. That'd be a solid pickup.

http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/2012/12/emilio-bonifacio-could-be-available.html?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter

OldXOhio
12-05-2012, 10:04 AM
Basically agree that the Reds should plan for Billy H in centerfield. I wouldn't drop a wad of money or a ton of prospects to fill CF.

But I just don't see why the Reds need to stick with Stubbs and Heisey even temporarily.

Why not, at minimum, trade one of them for a lefty hitter who gets on base, makes some contact and plays CF?

Even on a temporary basis, the current CF tandem just doesn't work. Heisey has zero plate discipline, his K/BB rate is very poor. Stubbs, more simply, has a major contact problem.




I really think Dexter Fowler is the solution, but only if a trade does not include Homer Bailey. If that's not possible, then I would agree that WJ seek a LH hitting CF until such time that (a) Hamilton is ready or (b) another option becomes available. There is nothing that says the Reds brass thinks Billy Hamilton will be ready to be the every day CF in 2013. I get not wanting to dive deep into the FA pool for a CF option, but don't understand why Hamilton has been christened as THE option for CF anytime soon. Drew Stubbs is clearly not the every day answer. How much are we willing to spend on a straight platoon partner in the coming years?

dfs
12-05-2012, 10:13 AM
I think one of the lessons we can learn from watching Drew Stubbs is that prospects should be kept on the farm for as long as possible. Once they are up and "established" it becomes very tough to send them to AAA on a full time basis and it is very difficult to work on your game at the major league level.

Long way of saying, no matter how high I am on him, I don't count on Billy Hamilton.

I still think they will limp through with Drew Stubbs out there. Of course the problem with platooning Stubbs is you've now turned him into a 1/3 time player. You might as well look for a full time solution.

Steve4192
12-05-2012, 10:21 AM
Of course the problem with platooning Stubbs is you've now turned him into a 1/3 time player. You might as well look for a full time solution.

Better an effective 1/3 time player rather than a full-time offensive sinkhole. Stubbs is a valuable asset as a part-timer. He's a liability as a full-timer.

SidneySlicker
12-05-2012, 10:35 AM
I think one of the lessons we can learn from watching Drew Stubbs is that prospects should be kept on the farm for as long as possible. Once they are up and "established" it becomes very tough to send them to AAA on a full time basis and it is very difficult to work on your game at the major league level.

Long way of saying, no matter how high I am on him, I don't count on Billy Hamilton.

I still think they will limp through with Drew Stubbs out there. Of course the problem with platooning Stubbs is you've now turned him into a 1/3 time player. You might as well look for a full time solution.

I completely disagree. I think what works or doesn't work for one player may not be the case for the next. I think the skills of a guy like Billy Hamilton translate quicker than that of a guy like Drew Stubbs. I don't think the problem with Stubbs is that he was brought up too quickly, I just think its that he's not a very good offensive player. If a player is good enough they will make it and have a good career. If they aren't they will make it and fall off. Example Mike Trout, he's what 21? Now he's only been around 1 year and who knows what he'll do in the future, but it appears he's the real deal.

dfs
12-05-2012, 10:49 AM
Better an effective 1/3 time player rather than a full-time offensive sinkhole. Stubbs is a valuable asset as a part-timer. He's a liability as a full-timer.

Right. My point was that I would rather they either stick with Stubbs or find a replacement. I don't think finding a platoon partner to take 2/3 of the time in center will be cost effective compared to finding a replacement.

Sorry if I didn't make that clear.

Kc61
12-05-2012, 10:57 AM
I completely disagree. I think what works or doesn't work for one player may not be the case for the next. I think the skills of a guy like Billy Hamilton translate quicker than that of a guy like Drew Stubbs. I don't think the problem with Stubbs is that he was brought up too quickly, I just think its that he's not a very good offensive player. If a player is good enough they will make it and have a good career. If they aren't they will make it and fall off. Example Mike Trout, he's what 21? Now he's only been around 1 year and who knows what he'll do in the future, but it appears he's the real deal.

Agree. Keep in mind that Hamilton makes his living largely with speed. You don't wait forever to promote a speed player to the big leagues. If you wait, you may lose the player's best years on the bases.

I look for Hamilton to be the Reds CF by opening day 2014. I think this season needs a CF bridge to Billy.

SidneySlicker
12-05-2012, 11:27 AM
Agree. Keep in mind that Hamilton makes his living largely with speed. You don't wait forever to promote a speed player to the big leagues. If you wait, you may lose the player's best years on the bases.

I look for Hamilton to be the Reds CF by opening day 2014. I think this season needs a CF bridge to Billy.

Agree. My hope for Hamilton is a Sept callup, and starting in 2014. I think they just want to get him acclimated in centerfield I think they believe his offense is far enough along.

*BaseClogger*
12-05-2012, 12:49 PM
Thoughts on Ben Revere? He looks like Juan Pierre v2.0 to me, which in his prime isn't necessarily a bad thing...

Benihana
12-05-2012, 01:31 PM
Thoughts on Ben Revere? He looks like Juan Pierre v2.0 to me, which in his prime isn't necessarily a bad thing...

I don't see why we trade real pieces for a 24 year old speedy CF with no power when we have Billy Hamilton. If we're going to trade for someone, it should be a CF for this year only and/or someone who can play LF. Revere's stick cannot play in LF, especially if Hamilton is in CF.

M2
12-05-2012, 01:41 PM
Right. My point was that I would rather they either stick with Stubbs or find a replacement. I don't think finding a platoon partner to take 2/3 of the time in center will be cost effective compared to finding a replacement.

Stubbs making outrageous numbers of outs vs. RHPs is cost ineffective. A working platoon (and Stubbs is good vs. LHPs) would give the Reds production at the top of their lineup. It's game effective for sure and the only real cost concern should be whether it fits into the overall budget. Save some money here. Spend some money there.

_Sir_Charles_
12-05-2012, 01:43 PM
Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm just flat out crazy, but I really have an odd feeling that Stubbs puts together a monster season this year. K's way down, BB's way up, BA way up, HR's career high, etc. It just seems to me in the past that he's performed at his best when he's got competition pushing him. Moving Hamilton to CF is going to do just that IMO.

M2
12-05-2012, 01:49 PM
Ellsbury is the guy I want assuming Ludwick signs.

He will likely cost less in talent than Fowler as he is a FA after the season. Reds can collect high draft picks with a qualifying offer he is sure to reject, and plug Billy Hamilton in for the next five years.

If Ellsbury could be had for Leake, Stubbs, and a C-level prospect, pull the trigger Walt.

Second choice would probably be DeJesus for a one-year platoon with Stubbs.

I'm leery of Ellsbury. The thing he has going for him is he needs a big season to get himself a big contract. Marks against him are that he's injury-prone and he hasn't been a consistent producer at the plate. He's a real crapshoot.

I'd be hesitant to part with Leake for him. I subscribe to the notion that Leake's best years are in front of him and, given that he's been a solid pitcher to date, that's a guy I don't want to part with for a one-year fix. Make it Corcino instead and I warm up to the deal a whole lot more.

Kc61
12-05-2012, 01:54 PM
I'm leery of Ellsbury. The thing he has going for him is he needs a big season to get himself a big contract. Marks against him are that he's injury-prone and he hasn't been a consistent producer at the plate. He's a real crapshoot.

I'd be hesitant to part with Leake for him. I subscribe to the notion that Leake's best years are in front of him and, given that he's been a solid pitcher to date, that's a guy I don't want to part with for a one-year fix. Make it Corcino instead and I warm up to the deal a whole lot more.

Just listening and watching some coverage of the Winter Meetings, I've heard it said that Leake has little value coming off last year.

Not sure it is correct, but everyone seems much more focused on Bailey, who the Reds likely won't trade.

I don't know if the Bosox would want Leake. And it may just be a bad time to trade Leake, coming off a sub-par season. Not sure the Reds would give up Corcino for one year of Ellsbury either.

Just a guess, I don't see Ellsbury coming over to the Reds.

Benihana
12-05-2012, 02:00 PM
Here is the thing about trading (or not trading) pitchers:

IF the reports are accurate that the Reds are exploring LTCs with both Bailey and Latos, something has got to give.

1. Chapman is moving to the rotation (95% likely)
2. Cueto, Latos, and Bailey are all locked up for at least 2+ years.
3. Arroyo is likely gone after 2013, but you have three guys to replace him in Leake, Corcino and Cingrani, all of whom already are or will be major league ready at some point this season, meaning you can't/shouldn't just sit on them until a spot opens up sometime in 2015 or 2016- those spots should be earmarked for guys like Stephenson who are still 2-3 years off.

So what gives? Why do people want to squat on 8 major league ready SP when we have significant holes to fill in the OF?
I can live with the argument of not "selling low" on Leake, that we might need him to complement some of Chapman's innings for this year. But if that's the case, why not "sell high" on one of the pitching prospects like Corcino and Cingrani? There are only so many innings to pitch in a given season.

_Sir_Charles_
12-05-2012, 02:21 PM
Here is the thing about trading (or not trading) pitchers:

IF the reports are accurate that the Reds are exploring LTCs with both Bailey and Latos, something has got to give.

1. Chapman is moving to the rotation (95% likely)
2. Cueto, Latos, and Bailey are all locked up for at least 2+ years.
3. Arroyo is likely gone after 2013, but you have three guys to replace him in Leake, Corcino and Cingrani, all of whom already are or will be major league ready at some point this season, meaning you can't/shouldn't just sit on them until a spot opens up sometime in 2015 or 2016- those spots should be earmarked for guys like Stephenson who are still 2-3 years off.

So what gives? Why do people want to squat on 8 major league ready SP when we have significant holes to fill in the OF?
I can live with the argument of not "selling low" on Leake, that we might need him to complement some of Chapman's innings for this year. But if that's the case, why not "sell high" on one of the pitching prospects like Corcino and Cingrani? There are only so many innings to pitch in a given season.

Several things.

1. You're ignoring injuries.
2. It's far from certain that Cingrani even stays a starter.
3. We have no clue how Corcino will fare in the majors.
4. We have no clue how Chapman will fare as a starter. He bombed the first go-round.
5. I don't think anybody is advocating holding onto EVERY pitching prospect. But trading Bailey right now is a bad idea as it will drastically weaken our rotation for 2013. Trading Leake right now is a bad idea as it will drastically weaken our rotation for 2014. Cueto becomes a free agent in 2015 I believe...just in time for Stephenson.

IMO, one season of Leake playing the Cincy-to-Louisville shuttle will not hurt him. It keeps him on a starters schedule and further increases his experience. Corcino/Cingrani don't look to be ready this year. But if the right deal comes along...I'm fine with trading one of them. Stephenson looks to be the heir apparent for when Cueto leaves just like Leake is the heir apparent for when Arroyo leaves.

People act like we have 8 starting pitchers right now...when in fact we have 5 1/2. Chapman won't go all season. Corcino/Cingrani are most likely not ready but we could use them if we have to (due to injuries). If the right trade comes along, fine...but I see no reason to "shop" them.

Kc61
12-05-2012, 02:28 PM
Several things.

1. You're ignoring injuries.
2. It's far from certain that Cingrani even stays a starter.
3. We have no clue how Corcino will fare in the majors.
4. We have no clue how Chapman will fare as a starter. He bombed the first go-round.
5. I don't think anybody is advocating holding onto EVERY pitching prospect. But trading Bailey right now is a bad idea as it will drastically weaken our rotation for 2013. Trading Leake right now is a bad idea as it will drastically weaken our rotation for 2014. Cueto becomes a free agent in 2015 I believe...just in time for Stephenson.

.

I don't agree, I think most teams take risks with their sixth and seventh starters. These usually are not the complete package.

If I could make a good deal for Leake, I'd do it and use Redmond, Corcino, Cingrani, and maybe one new inexpensive veteran as the tandem in line for sixth starter.

But this thread is about CF and I would NOT trade a major player or prospect for a stopgap CFer. I'd trade someone in the Lotzkar category for a one-year CFer. Maybe two such prospects.

Rojo
12-05-2012, 02:30 PM
Just listening and watching some coverage of the Winter Meetings, I've heard it said that Leake has little value coming off last year.

If this is true then the market is undervalueing him. This is why you build a pitchers park and not a hitters park.

_Sir_Charles_
12-05-2012, 02:32 PM
I don't agree, I think most teams take risks with their sixth and seventh starters. These usually are not the complete package.

If I could make a good deal for Leake, I'd do it and use Redmond, Corcino, Cingrani, and maybe one new inexpensive veteran as the tandem in line for sixth starter.

But this thread is about CF and I would NOT trade a major player or prospect for a stopgap CFer. I'd trade someone in the Lotzkar category for a one-year CFer. Maybe two such prospects.

Problem is, you can't make a good deal on Leake right now. His trade value is probably at an all-time low even though his ceiling is still high. And I don't want to have to use Redmond, C/C unless I was forced to this season. With Leake in the loop, we won't have to be forced into that situation. If the right deal presents itself, fine. But I don't actively shop any of our pitchers right now. We can fill our needs without doing that.

Personally, I'll be fine with the team as a whole once Ludwick signs.

And yes, you're right...wrong thread. Sorry. I'll drop this now.

Benihana
12-05-2012, 02:38 PM
Several things.

1. You're ignoring injuries.
2. It's far from certain that Cingrani even stays a starter.
3. We have no clue how Corcino will fare in the majors.
4. We have no clue how Chapman will fare as a starter. He bombed the first go-round.
5. I don't think anybody is advocating holding onto EVERY pitching prospect. But trading Bailey right now is a bad idea as it will drastically weaken our rotation for 2013. Trading Leake right now is a bad idea as it will drastically weaken our rotation for 2014. Cueto becomes a free agent in 2015 I believe...just in time for Stephenson.

IMO, one season of Leake playing the Cincy-to-Louisville shuttle will not hurt him. It keeps him on a starters schedule and further increases his experience. Corcino/Cingrani don't look to be ready this year. But if the right deal comes along...I'm fine with trading one of them. Stephenson looks to be the heir apparent for when Cueto leaves just like Leake is the heir apparent for when Arroyo leaves.

People act like we have 8 starting pitchers right now...when in fact we have 5 1/2. Chapman won't go all season. Corcino/Cingrani are most likely not ready but we could use them if we have to (due to injuries). If the right trade comes along, fine...but I see no reason to "shop" them.

1. No, I'm not- 6 starters is fine, 8 is hoarding.
2. Don't disagree, all the more reason to trade him in the right deal if a team really believes he can be.
3. See #2
4. No, he didn't bomb in ST last year at all. He was moved to the 'pen because of injuries there.
5. So trade Corcino and/or Cingrani. And I disagree- Cingrani DOES look to be ready at some point this year, as he already pitched and pitched well with the big club in September. Corcino could be ready at some point this year as well. Why hang onto three guys for one potential vacancy in the rotation in 2014?!

I'm not trading them for the sake of getting rid of them, but I'm advocating being proactive to help source an impact OF which we desperately need (much more than we need an 8th starter for insurance).

M2
12-05-2012, 02:49 PM
So what gives? Why do people want to squat on 8 major league ready SP when we have significant holes to fill in the OF?
I can live with the argument of not "selling low" on Leake, that we might need him to complement some of Chapman's innings for this year. But if that's the case, why not "sell high" on one of the pitching prospects like Corcino and Cingrani? There are only so many innings to pitch in a given season.

There's probably a general sense that the team is going to need more SP depth in 2013. And Chapman probably isn't ticketed for a full season in the rotation. Mind you, Redmond and Lecure provide depth as well as prospects like Cingrani and Corcino.

But, IMO, the biggest thing when you deal from (perceived) pitching depth is getting the right return. For instance, Homer Bailey as a principal for Justin Upton? Sure. Bailey for Shin-Soo Choo? No. Tony Cingrani for Dexter Fowler? I'm on board. Mike Leake as a throw-in? Absolutely not. Like Kc61 said, his value is low at the moment. I'd add that a good season, and Leake is more than capable of having one in 2013, would send his market through the roof.

If I'm Jocketty, Corcino is my trading chip of preference, at least among my pitching options. I think he deserves the prospect pub he gets, but I'm not sold on him. So I'd be trying to figure out whether he can get me what I'm looking for in the OF. Offers for other pitchers I'd be collecting in my "Under Consideration" file.

Steve4192
12-05-2012, 02:58 PM
Maybe I'm wrong and maybe I'm just flat out crazy, but I really have an odd feeling that Stubbs puts together a monster season this year. K's way down, BB's way up, BA way up, HR's career high, etc. It just seems to me in the past that he's performed at his best when he's got competition pushing him. Moving Hamilton to CF is going to do just that IMO.

I don't think you are crazy.

I don't like the odds of him posting career highs across the board, but I would not be at all surprised to see him return to his pre-2012 career norms. Something in the range of a 320+ OBP and 400+ SLG. That would elevate him from offensive sinkhole to something approaching league average for his position.

That said, I wouldn't want to bank on him bouncing back. I'd rather the Reds find someone to share the load with him just in case he sucks again.

Benihana
12-05-2012, 02:58 PM
There's probably a general sense that the team is going to need more SP depth in 2013. And Chapman probably isn't ticketed for a full season in the rotation. Mind you, Redmond and Lecure provide depth as well as prospects like Cingrani and Corcino.

But, IMO, the biggest thing when you deal from (perceived) pitching depth is getting the right return. For instance, Homer Bailey as a principal for Justin Upton? Sure. Bailey for Shin-Soo Choo? No. Tony Cingrani for Dexter Fowler? I'm on board. Mike Leake as a throw-in? Absolutely not. Like Kc61 said, his value is low at the moment. I'd add that a good season, and Leake is more than capable of having one in 2013, would send his market through the roof.

If I'm Jocketty, Corcino is my trading chip of preference, at least among my pitching options. I think he deserves the prospect pub he gets, but I'm not sold on him. So I'd be trying to figure out whether he can get me what I'm looking for in the OF. Offers for other pitchers I'd be collecting in my "Under Consideration" file.

Totally agree- not saying trade any of these guys for the sake of trading them. But let's be proactive in finding the right deal, because we certainly have a strength (that is in high demand) and need to address a weakness (where there is plenty of supply) - the very reason for the existence of the concept of trades.

With Chapman coming to the rotation, I'm actually neutral between dealing Cingrani vs. Corcino. One could be seen as redundant with Chapman while the other is redundant with Cueto, at least from a style perspective (hopefully performance too!)

Leake is my least favorite pitcher of the bunch because I see limited upside and a cost increase in the near future. However your point is well taken against selling low.

I'd be fine moving any of those three guys in a deal for Ellsbury or Choo. In the case of Upton and/or Fowler, I'd even consider moving two of them.

I probably wouldn't trade Bailey for any of them unless another high upside arm is coming back (ie Bauer or Pomeranz).

Steve4192
12-05-2012, 03:09 PM
Leake is my least favorite pitcher of the bunch because I see limited upside and a cost increase in the near future. However your point is well taken against selling low.

As Sir_Charles brought up with Stubbs having a potential bounce-back season, the same holds true for Leake IMO.

I really don't get why people are so quick to give up on him. He is just one year removed from posting a 3.86 ERA with a 1.175 WHIP and has an elite bat for his position. Yes, his 2012 was lackluster and uninspiring, but this is a kid who has posted three straight seasons of league average-ish pitching before his 25th birthday, all without the benefit of being able to hone his skills in the minor leagues. Do you have any idea how incredibly rare that is?

I could definitely see him taking a big step forward in 2013 much like Homer Bailey did in 2012.

Benihana
12-05-2012, 03:19 PM
As Sir_Charles brought up with Stubbs having a potential bounce-back season, the same holds true for Leake IMO.

I really don't get why people are so quick to give up on him. He is just one year removed from posting a 3.86 ERA with a 1.175 ERA and has an elite bat for his position. Yes, his 2012 was lackluster and uninspiring, but this is a kid who has posted three straight seasons of league average-ish pitching before his 25th birthday, all without the benefit of being able to hone his skills in the minor leagues. Do you have any idea how incredibly rare that is?

I could definitely see him taking a big step forward in 2013 much like Homer Bailey did in 2012.

There are a lot of differences between Leake and Bailey.

I think Leake is an asset as a league average starter, but I just don't think he has much upside beyond that. Unlike Bailey, he never projected to better than a #3/#4 starter, so I don't see why he suddenly would become one.

And while I agree he has an elite bat for his position, so did Micah Owings and Bill Gullickson.

However like Bailey, he is going to start to get expensive after next year. And I'd rather keep expensive pitchers like Cueto, Latos and Bailey.

Rojo
12-05-2012, 04:06 PM
With Chapman coming to the rotation, I'm actually neutral between dealing Cingrani vs. Corcino.

I'm not. Cingrani's much taller, left-handed, has better peripherals and has already gotten out some big-leaguers. For these reasons I can see making a two-in-the-bush argument for Cingrani over Leake, though I'm not sure I agree. But I'm certain that Corcino's well behind both of them.

Steve4192
12-05-2012, 04:17 PM
There are a lot of differences between Leake and Bailey.

I think Leake is an asset as a league average starter, but I just don't think he has much upside beyond that. Unlike Bailey, he never projected to better than a #3/#4 starter, so I don't see why he suddenly would become one.

And while I agree he has an elite bat for his position, so did Micah Owings and Bill Gullickson.

However like Bailey, he is going to start to get expensive after next year. And I'd rather keep expensive pitchers like Cueto, Latos and Bailey.

Projections are meaningless once a player has established himself as a major leaguer. I'm sure no one ever projected R.A. Dickey to be a Cy Young winner and top of the rotation stud, but he is. There are dozens of examples of guys who were not considered elite prospects who became elite pitchers. Heck, the Reds own Johnny Cueto was often cited as being 'too small' to start and MOR guy at best even if he did start.

Leake is a guy who is already league average and is still a baby in terms of learning his craft. I find it ludicrous to believe he can't get better just because some scout didn't project him as a TOR guy. As Dickey proved this season, you don't have to be overpowering to be a TOR pitcher. Deception, guile, control, and consistency can go a long way. IMO, Leake still has a lot of room for improvement as he gains experience. If there was ever a pitcher who could make a case for being rushed to majors and having to take his lumps, it is Mike Leake.

Kc61
12-05-2012, 04:23 PM
As Sir_Charles brought up with Stubbs having a potential bounce-back season, the same holds true for Leake IMO.

I really don't get why people are so quick to give up on him. He is just one year removed from posting a 3.86 ERA with a 1.175 WHIP and has an elite bat for his position. Yes, his 2012 was lackluster and uninspiring, but this is a kid who has posted three straight seasons of league average-ish pitching before his 25th birthday, all without the benefit of being able to hone his skills in the minor leagues. Do you have any idea how incredibly rare that is?

I could definitely see him taking a big step forward in 2013 much like Homer Bailey did in 2012.

Nobody's giving up on Leake. But right now the Reds have no left fielder and a CF tandem consisting of .610 OPS Stubbs and .22 BB/K rate Heisey.

People are just focusing on how to fill these positions with players who will help the team win the Central again and go deeper into the playoffs. If the Reds make a trade, they will need to give up value presumably.

Benihana
12-05-2012, 04:32 PM
Projections are meaningless once a player has established himself as a major leaguer. I'm sure no one ever projected R.A. Dickey to be a Cy Young winner and top of the rotation stud, but he is. There are dozens of examples of guys who were not considered elite prospects who became elite pitchers. Heck, the Reds own Johnny Cueto was often cited as being 'too small' to start and MOR guy at best even if he did start.

Leake is a guy who is already league average and is still a baby in terms of learning his craft. I find it ludicrous to believe he can't get better just because some scout didn't project him as a TOR guy. As Dickey proved this season, you don't have to be overpowering to be a TOR pitcher. Deception, guile, control, and consistency can go a long way. IMO, Leake still has a lot of room for improvement as he gains experience. If there was ever a pitcher who could make a case for being rushed to majors and having to take his lumps, it is Mike Leake.

Um, not sure if you know this but RA Dickey is a knuckleballer.

Those guys don't usually fit typical "projection standards" especially when he didn't even throw the knuckleball when he was first drafted.

As far as other guys exceeding their projected ceilings, sure it can happen (as it did with Cueto). But there is nothing about Mike Leake that suggests he'll ever be a TOR starter. Nothing.

IMO, he might get a little bit better, but he'll never be more than a #3 starter at best, and likely a #4 guy if you ask me. Those have value, but as Kc said above, you need to deal value to get value.

Steve4192
12-05-2012, 06:29 PM
IMO, he might get a little bit better, but he'll never be more than a #3 starter at best, and likely a #4 guy if you ask me. Those have value, but as Kc said above, you need to deal value to get value.

Leake has already reached the level of a #3 starter. He was 29th in the NL in ERA+ in 2011, 36th in 2012, and would have ranked 36th in 2010 if he had enough innings to qualify. That puts him squarely in the ranks of #3 starters in the NL already and he hasn't even turned 25 yet. I don't think he's ever going to be a guy who can put up a monster 150 ERA+ season (Cy Young contender), but I think he can become a guy who is consistently over 100 ERA+ (quality #3 starter) with the occasional 120+ ERA season (quality #2, borderline #1).

As far as trading value to get value, Leake's value is at an all-time low. He's the last guy I would want to trade right now. I'd rather trade someone who is likely to bring a better return. Trading Leake right now doesn't bring much in return, and IMO he is way too good to be used as a throw in (as many of the proposed trades on RZ seem to do). If I were the Reds, I'd be busting my hump right now to sign him to a contract extension while his value is depressed.

osuceltic
12-05-2012, 06:42 PM
I'm leery of Ellsbury. The thing he has going for him is he needs a big season to get himself a big contract. Marks against him are that he's injury-prone and he hasn't been a consistent producer at the plate. He's a real crapshoot.

I'd be hesitant to part with Leake for him. I subscribe to the notion that Leake's best years are in front of him and, given that he's been a solid pitcher to date, that's a guy I don't want to part with for a one-year fix. Make it Corcino instead and I warm up to the deal a whole lot more.

There are things I like about Ellsbury -- the upside (obviously), the one-year commitment (if it works, great; if not, it's over soon), the left-handed bat, the fit at the top of the lineup and, potentially, a smooth transition to left if the Reds sign him beyond 2013 and Hamilton emerges.

Having said all that, he's still a huge risk and I'm afraid the Sox will expect compensation commensurate with the MVP candidate Ellsbury and not the injury-prone, mostly average Ellsbury. Leake, an effective, cost-controlled starter seems like a high price to pay -- but at the same time, I'm not sure the Sox will be interested even if that's the Reds' offer. He isn't their kind of guy; they don't seem to value No. 4 starters. And there's no way I'd trade Homer for him.

Corcino? I just don't know enough to say yes or no. But that seems more palatable for the Reds -- even if dealing for prospects doesn't seem like a Red Sox move. I guess I'm saying I wouldn't mind rolling the dice on Ellsbury, but I'm struggling to see a trade match that makes sense from both teams' perspectives.

RedsManRick
12-05-2012, 07:06 PM
Leake has already reached the level of a #3 starter. He was 29th in the NL in ERA+ in 2011, 36th in 2012, and would have ranked 36th in 2010 if he had enough innings to qualify. That puts him squarely in the ranks of #3 starters in the NL already and he hasn't even turned 25 yet. I don't think he's ever going to be a guy who can put up a monster 150 ERA+ season (Cy Young contender), but I think he can become a guy who is consistently over 100 ERA+ (quality #3 starter) with the occasional 120+ ERA season (quality #2, borderline #1).

As far as trading value to get value, Leake's value is at an all-time low. He's the last guy I would want to trade right now. I'd rather trade someone who is likely to bring a better return. Trading Leake right now doesn't bring much in return, and IMO he is way too good to be used as a throw in (as many of the proposed trades on RZ seem to do). If I were the Reds, I'd be busting my hump right now to sign him to a contract extension while his value is depressed.

I agree, Steve. And I would add that his hitting has provided hidden value. While it's not a skill you select pitchers for, the runs produced (or not produced) by pitchers at the plate and on the bases still count in the wins and loss columns. In his ~2.5 years worth of starts, Leake has produced 2.0 fWAR offensively.

Now, looking at his BABIP and his K:BB, it's quite possible (probably likely) that those numbers are a fluke and that he'll hit like a normal pitcher moving forward. But it should at least be part of the conversation.

_Sir_Charles_
12-05-2012, 08:00 PM
1. No, I'm not- 6 starters is fine, 8 is hoarding.
2. Don't disagree, all the more reason to trade him in the right deal if a team really believes he can be.
3. See #2
4. No, he didn't bomb in ST last year at all. He was moved to the 'pen because of injuries there.
5. So trade Corcino and/or Cingrani. And I disagree- Cingrani DOES look to be ready at some point this year, as he already pitched and pitched well with the big club in September. Corcino could be ready at some point this year as well. Why hang onto three guys for one potential vacancy in the rotation in 2014?!

I'm not trading them for the sake of getting rid of them, but I'm advocating being proactive to help source an impact OF which we desperately need (much more than we need an 8th starter for insurance).

The difference in our points of view is that you're seeing 8 starters...I'm seeing 5 1/2. Corcino/Cingrani aren't ready IMO. Not even close (in regards to STARTING...not bullpen work. I agree that Cingrani looked fine in the pen. But that's a whole different animal than starting in the bigs.).

As for Chapman bombing...I was referring to his first stint as a starter down in Louisville. He was pretty bad. So much so that they moved him to the bullpen. 2012 spring...if we get THAT Chapman, I'll do backflips...or forward rolls. :O)

And to be clear, I've got no problem trading either of the C's...but I don't see a NEED to trade either of them. If another team approaches us with a excellent offer that's a solid win for us...fine. Otherwise I keep the kids.

Rojo
12-05-2012, 08:04 PM
Having said all that, he's still a huge risk and I'm afraid the Sox will expect compensation commensurate with the MVP candidate Ellsbury and not the injury-prone, mostly average Ellsbury.

It's a tough call to make from the cheap seats. Were I WJ, this is where I'd shake the grapevine to learn more about his health, temperment, expectations and, frankly, what 2011 was all about.

Benihana
12-05-2012, 08:08 PM
And to be clear, I've got no problem trading either of the C's...but I don't see a NEED to trade either of them. If another team approaches us with a excellent offer that's a solid win for us...fine. Otherwise I keep the kids.

This is the mentality I don't understand - why not be proactive and not reactive? The latter seems very Mike Brown, whereas the best GMs (Beane, Friedman, Daniels, etc.) seem to employ the former strategy.

We don't NEED to trade anyone. But we can afford and should look to trade one or more of them to fill another need- assuming the return MAKES SENSE.

_Sir_Charles_
12-05-2012, 08:17 PM
As Sir_Charles brought up with Stubbs having a potential bounce-back season, the same holds true for Leake IMO.

I really don't get why people are so quick to give up on him. He is just one year removed from posting a 3.86 ERA with a 1.175 WHIP and has an elite bat for his position. Yes, his 2012 was lackluster and uninspiring, but this is a kid who has posted three straight seasons of league average-ish pitching before his 25th birthday, all without the benefit of being able to hone his skills in the minor leagues. Do you have any idea how incredibly rare that is?

I could definitely see him taking a big step forward in 2013 much like Homer Bailey did in 2012.

Agreed. Yes Mike's numbers went down last year. But good lord, have people so quickly forgotten that he's 3 years removed from playing college ball? This is the same guy who put up Strasberg-like numbers (link (http://www.thesundevils.com/sports/m-basebl/mtt/leake_mike00.html)) his final year in college. He's producing like a middle of the road starter in the majors at 25 years old. I see LOADS of upside with Leake. Just because he's not a power pitcher doesn't limit his odds of success. IMO, working with Hanigan instead of Mesoraco will do wonders for Leake. When he gets the ball up in the zone, flyballs turn into HR's. When he doesn't, they're ground outs. I think people overlook his dominating performances to easily.

Benihana
12-05-2012, 08:17 PM
Leake has already reached the level of a #3 starter. He was 29th in the NL in ERA+ in 2011, 36th in 2012, and would have ranked 36th in 2010 if he had enough innings to qualify. That puts him squarely in the ranks of #3 starters in the NL already and he hasn't even turned 25 yet. I don't think he's ever going to be a guy who can put up a monster 150 ERA+ season (Cy Young contender), but I think he can become a guy who is consistently over 100 ERA+ (quality #3 starter) with the occasional 120+ ERA season (quality #2, borderline #1).

As far as trading value to get value, Leake's value is at an all-time low. He's the last guy I would want to trade right now. I'd rather trade someone who is likely to bring a better return. Trading Leake right now doesn't bring much in return, and IMO he is way too good to be used as a throw in (as many of the proposed trades on RZ seem to do). If I were the Reds, I'd be busting my hump right now to sign him to a contract extension while his value is depressed.

I don't see Leake as a #3 at this point. Good #4 maybe. His upside could be a #3. Look at the Reds main competition in the NL, and who they have as #3 and #4 starters:

Giants: Lincecum & Vogelsong
Nats: Haren & Zimermann
Phillies: Halladay & Kendrick
Braves: Beachey & Minor
Cards: Lohse & Lynn/Garcia

You could argue that Leake is worse than almost all of them. I am fine not trading him this offseason, especially if people aren't ascribing much value to him.

I will say, however, that barring injury I don't envision a scenario where he is one of the three best SP on the Reds- certainly not in the next two years especially. Nor would he likely be on any of the teams listed above.

_Sir_Charles_
12-05-2012, 08:27 PM
This is the mentality I don't understand - why not be proactive and not reactive? The latter seems very Mike Brown, whereas the best GMs (Beane, Friedman, Daniels, etc.) seem to employ the former strategy.

We don't NEED to trade anyone. But we can afford and should look to trade one or more of them to fill another need- assuming the return MAKES SENSE.

Because I don't see the point in looking to trade these guys when we have no idea what Aroldis is going to do as a starter. We haven't done anything in regards to extending Latos/Bailey. We have no idea if Bronson's open to returning for a smaller contract. Lots of reasons that I'd prefer to maintain the status quo for now. If we need to make changes later on as our demands dictate...fine. But the only way we're getting a top-notch CF'er is by dealing multiple pitchers, overpaying, or taking on a contract that prohibits us from extending more valuable pieces.

The only "hole" I'm seeing in our club right now is LF. Period. Once we sign Ludwick, I see zero holes. Possibly a lefty for the pen...but it's not really that important. We've won with Stubbs/Heisey in center. I see no reason we can't continue to win with them. Especially if Billy Hamilton turns out to be what we all hope for. That means we need a short-term solution...I think Stubbs/Heisey more than fill that bill.

RedEye
12-05-2012, 08:28 PM
Look at the Reds main competition in the NL, and who they have as #3 and #4 starters:

Giants: Lincecum & Vogelsong
Nats: Haren & Zimermann
Phillies: Halladay & Kendrick
Braves: Beachey & Minor
Cards: Lohse & Lynn/Garcia

You could argue that Leake is worse than almost all of them. I am fine not trading him this offseason, especially if people aren't ascribing much value to him.


Halladay is the Phillies #3 starter?

Benihana
12-05-2012, 08:30 PM
Halladay is the Phillies #3 starter?

Sub in Hamels or Lee if you want

Benihana
12-05-2012, 08:32 PM
Because I don't see the point in looking to trade these guys when we have no idea what Aroldis is going to do as a starter. We haven't done anything in regards to extending Latos/Bailey. We have no idea if Bronson's open to returning for a smaller contract. Lots of reasons that I'd prefer to maintain the status quo for now. If we need to make changes later on as our demands dictate...fine. But the only way we're getting a top-notch CF'er is by dealing multiple pitchers, overpaying, or taking on a contract that prohibits us from extending more valuable pieces.

The only "hole" I'm seeing in our club right now is LF. Period. Once we sign Ludwick, I see zero holes. Possibly a lefty for the pen...but it's not really that important. We've won with Stubbs/Heisey in center. I see no reason we can't continue to win with them. Especially if Billy Hamilton turns out to be what we all hope for. That means we need a short-term solution...I think Stubbs/Heisey more than fill that bill.

So you didn't think last year's team was short on offense?

And that was with Ludwick and Frazier both significantly outperforming their expectations- which most reasonable people expect some kind of regression.

This team has holes in the OF. With or without Ludwick, they need more offense.

_Sir_Charles_
12-05-2012, 08:41 PM
So you didn't think last year's team was short on offense?

And that was with Ludwick and Frazier both significantly outperforming their expectations- which most reasonable people expect some kind of regression.

This team has holes in the OF. With or without Ludwick, they need more offense.

No I didn't. Especially when you consider that Votto missed considerable time, Ludwick & Rolen struggled mightily for extended periods in the first half, and Stubbs had his worst season to date. All that, and guess what, we STILL had an offense that scored runs at a rate right in the middle of the NL. We STILL had the 4th best run differential in the NL. And we STILL won 97 games, 1 win off the NL lead. I'd say our offense was fine. Could it improve? Certainly....but heck, so could the pitching. A +81 run differential and 97 wins tell me that they don't "need" more offense.

Kc61
12-05-2012, 08:57 PM
No I didn't. Especially when you consider that Votto missed considerable time, Ludwick & Rolen struggled mightily for extended periods in the first half, and Stubbs had his worst season to date. All that, and guess what, we STILL had an offense that scored runs at a rate right in the middle of the NL. We STILL had the 4th best run differential in the NL. And we STILL won 97 games, 1 win off the NL lead. I'd say our offense was fine. Could it improve? Certainly....but heck, so could the pitching. A +81 run differential and 97 wins tell me that they don't "need" more offense.

For the Reds to rest on their laurels would be a terrible, terrible mistake.

They won 97 games but played the Cubs and Astros about 36 times. They were fortunate to play in a division with two of the weakest teams in baseball, and the Reds took full advantage.

The Reds also had an amazing steak of good luck with the health of their starting pitching. And their closer was Hall of Fame quality, at least for one year. Next season they may have to rely more on offense.

With the Reds' OBP needs and failures against RHP, I just can't see the Stubbs/Heisey tandem in CF again.

How the Reds go about fixing it is a good question, there are alternatives, but sitting on their hands to me isn't a good option.

M2
12-05-2012, 09:03 PM
I'd say our offense was fine. Could it improve? Certainly....but heck, so could the pitching. A +81 run differential and 97 wins tell me that they don't "need" more offense.

Last year was, arguably, the best Reds pitching team most of us have ever seen. I'm not sure it gets much better than that. The run differential and wins total was a result of run prevention. The offense was slightly below average.

And the most glaring hole for the offense was production from the leadoff hitters (if you want to look at it from a lineup perspective) and CF (if you want to look at it from a positional perspective). Getting a CF who can hit at the top of the lineup fills both holes. It's pretty imperative that Walt get this done.

_Sir_Charles_
12-05-2012, 09:49 PM
Last year was, arguably, the best Reds pitching team most of us have ever seen. I'm not sure it gets much better than that. The run differential and wins total was a result of run prevention. The offense was slightly below average.

And the most glaring hole for the offense was production from the leadoff hitters (if you want to look at it from a lineup perspective) and CF (if you want to look at it from a positional perspective). Getting a CF who can hit at the top of the lineup fills both holes. It's pretty imperative that Walt get this done.

I don't disagree with that (except to say that it wasn't just a result of run prevention...this team DID score their fair share of runs). But, and this is a big but, with Hamilton on the way possibly, we're looking at a short term solution. My problem with these trade scenarios is that we're causing a long term problem (trading away valuable arms) to fix a short term problem (one year or even a partial year of a CF'er).

The leadoff situation can be cured by planting Phillips there IMO.

The CF situation is certainly cause for concern, but I think Stubbs bounces back some. And if he's hitting lower in the order, I think he'll be fine.

As for an improved offense...get Votto back full-time, give Frazier a full-time gig, another year of experience for Cozart, Cairo/Valdez gone from the bench, and ANY production out of Mesoraco...and I foresee improvement without any changes. I'm not saying we shouldn't try to improve. I'm saying that we're in the drivers seat in terms of any deals we look into because we're not forced into a situation of HAVING to make a deal.

Superdude
12-05-2012, 09:49 PM
For the Reds to rest on their laurels would be a terrible, terrible mistake.

They won 97 games but played the Cubs and Astros about 36 times. They were fortunate to play in a division with two of the weakest teams in baseball, and the Reds took full advantage.

The Reds also had an amazing steak of good luck with the health of their starting pitching. And their closer was Hall of Fame quality, at least for one year. Next season they may have to rely more on offense.

Everyone else in our division played the Cubs and Astros, so that's no advantage over anyone else. And as fun as Chapman was to watch, his save percentage wasn't anything Broxton can't at least come close to next season. Terrible mistake is an overstatement IMO.

corkedbat
12-05-2012, 09:53 PM
Threqad on the Sun Deck saying that Tracy Jones claimed tonight that the Reds & Red Sox were close to a deal that would send Jacoby Ellsbury to Cincy. Ostensibly, the return for Boston would be Stubbs and Corcino.

Not sure if I'm buying it, but if this were the 2013 Cincinnati Reds, I wouldn't complain.

CF Jacoby Ellsbury
2B Brandon Phillips
1B Joey Votto
LF Ryan Ludwick
RF Jay Bruce
3B Todd Frazier
SS Zach Cozart
CA Ryan Hanigan

IF Didi Gregorious/Emmanuel Burris
IF Scott Rolen/Jack Hanrahan ?
OF Chris Heisey
OF Xavier Paul
CA Devin Mesaraco

S1 Jonny Cueto
S2 Mat Latos
S3 Aroldis Chapman
S4 Homer Bailey
S5 Bronson Arroyo
LR Mike Leake
MR Sam Lecure/Logan Ondrusek/Alfredo Simon
R7 Nick Massett/Jose Arredondo
L7 Tony Cingrani
R8 JJ Hoover
L8 Sean Marshall
CL Jonathan Broxton

Vottomatic
12-05-2012, 09:54 PM
Reds lose Arroyo after 2013. Reds will still have Latos, Cueto, Bailey, Leake, and Chapman, with Corcino and Cingrani immediately in the wings, and Stephenson a few years further out.

Reds might see some deadline offers next season if Corcino and Cingrani rake in triple A.

Let the bidders come to us later if the offers aren't in our favor now.

corkedbat
12-05-2012, 10:03 PM
Reds lose Arroyo after 2013. Reds will still have Latos, Cueto, Bailey, Leake, and Chapman, with Corcino and Cingrani immediately in the wings, and Stephenson a few years further out.

Reds might see some deadline offers next season if Corcino and Cingrani rake in triple A.

Let the bidders come to us later if the offers aren't in our favor now.

I've said for sometime that Corcino and Cingrani would probably battle for Arroyo's spot come ST 2014. They still may fight for a roster spot in 2014, but I'm not as certain that it will be Arroyo's spot anymore. While letting him walk after 2013would probably be the smart play (and probably will happen), I'm not so sure that Walt and/or BCast don't offer him another contract if he has a solid season this year. Could make them more comfortable in dealing Corcino or Cingrani this offseason.

_Sir_Charles_
12-05-2012, 10:06 PM
For the Reds to rest on their laurels would be a terrible, terrible mistake.

They won 97 games but played the Cubs and Astros about 36 times. They were fortunate to play in a division with two of the weakest teams in baseball, and the Reds took full advantage.

The Reds also had an amazing steak of good luck with the health of their starting pitching. And their closer was Hall of Fame quality, at least for one year. Next season they may have to rely more on offense.

With the Reds' OBP needs and failures against RHP, I just can't see the Stubbs/Heisey tandem in CF again.

How the Reds go about fixing it is a good question, there are alternatives, but sitting on their hands to me isn't a good option.

Again, I'm fine with improvements, but I don't want to see marginal improvements that hurt the long-term goals. Trading away a top pitching prospects (or a very solid mlb starter) to get a "possible" improvement out of CF/Leadoff is not an improvement in my book. It may be a step forward for 2013, but it's 2 steps backwards for beyond 2013. This team can STILL make changes midseason. After we've got a better idea of what Aroldis brings to the table, where we stand on Homer/Mat's contracts, etc, etc, etc.

Most of the guys I've seen put forward here in regards to the CF slot are big question marks in my opinion. Fowler looks to be a mile-high mirage. Span has very limited power and hits for a modest average (a possible improvement over Stubbs...and quite possibly a HUGE step backwards). Victorino, color me unimpressed. Upton I think is overpriced dramatically because I don't see him maintaining what he's done. Pagan is a Span clone...screams role-player to me to be honest. I don't think any of them (outside of Upton) has the ceiling that Stubbs has.

A legitimate improvement like a Choo is more than welcome...but it'll cost a fortune. And unless an extension is figured out, a 1 year rental that costs us future wins with the prospect cost, is a net loss in my eyes.

Basically put, thus far I haven't seen a realistic deal put forth here that isn't us overpaying or isn't so unrealistic that it's laughable. I hope Jocketty pulls a rabbit out of his hat, but if he doesn't, I still think this team as constructed wins back-to-back central crowns.

_Sir_Charles_
12-05-2012, 10:11 PM
Reds lose Arroyo after 2013. Reds will still have Latos, Cueto, Bailey, Leake, and Chapman, with Corcino and Cingrani immediately in the wings, and Stephenson a few years further out.

Reds might see some deadline offers next season if Corcino and Cingrani rake in triple A.

Let the bidders come to us later if the offers aren't in our favor now.


I've said for sometime that Corcino and Cingrani would probably battle for Arroyo's spot come ST 2014. They still may fight for a roster spot in 2014, but I'm not as certain that it will be Arroyo's spot anymore. While letting him walk after 2013would probably be the smart play (and probably will happen), I'm not so sure that Walt and/or BCast don't offer him another contract if he has a solid season this year. Could make them more comfortable in dealing Corcino or Cingrani this offseason.

Agree with both of these. Only difference is I wait to see what Bronson, Latos & Bailey's contract plans are before I do anything with Corcino or Cingrani. If Bronson gets extended (and Latos/Bailey) I'm much more open to dealing BOTH C's...and definitely one. But if we can't extend Homer...and Bronson opts to leave...we're going to wish we had both the kids. I think all 3 of those contract issues will be dealt with sometime by midseason...or at least have been talked about so we have some clue of where we stand.

M2
12-05-2012, 10:13 PM
The CF situation is certainly cause for concern, but I think Stubbs bounces back some. And if he's hitting lower in the order, I think he'll be fine.

Stubbs has forfeited the right to face RHPs. He's overmatched against them, always has been. That's not going to bounce back because it's a skill he doesn't have.


Thread on the Sun Deck saying that Tracy Jones claimed tonight that the Reds & Red Sox were close to a deal that would send Jacoby Ellsbury to Cincy. Ostensibly, the return for Boston would be Stubbs and Corcino.

I'd be mildly stunned if that went down. Got major misgivings about Ellsbury, but that wouldn't be such a bad price.

Anyway, let's see if this rumor gains any legs tomorrow.

Scrap Irony
12-05-2012, 10:50 PM
Ellsbury, 29, has a career 162-game slash line of .297/ .349/ .442/ .791, with 53 SB and 12 CS, 16 HR, and 73 RBI. He's the typical Jocketty type, in that he's shown great talent in the past, but has fallen on hard times due to injury. If it's for Stubbs and Corcino, this is a no-brainer.

Tom Servo
12-05-2012, 11:13 PM
Honestly, has Tracy Jones ever been right about any rumors, ever?

osuceltic
12-05-2012, 11:13 PM
Ellsbury, 29, has a career 162-game slash line of .297/ .349/ .442/ .791, with 53 SB and 12 CS, 16 HR, and 73 RBI. He's the typical Jocketty type, in that he's shown great talent in the past, but has fallen on hard times due to injury. If it's for Stubbs and Corcino, this is a no-brainer.

Yes, classic Jocketty acquisition -- buying low on a legit big-time talent and not being afraid of seeing him walk (and willing to try to sign him if it works out). It's one of many reasons the Ellsbury talk rings a little true to me.

REDREAD
12-06-2012, 12:10 AM
Last year was, arguably, the best Reds pitching team most of us have ever seen. I'm not sure it gets much better than that. The run differential and wins total was a result of run prevention. The offense was slightly below average.

And the most glaring hole for the offense was production from the leadoff hitters (if you want to look at it from a lineup perspective) and CF (if you want to look at it from a positional perspective). Getting a CF who can hit at the top of the lineup fills both holes. It's pretty imperative that Walt get this done.

I'm not totally disagreeing, but assuming they sign Ludwick, there will be no need to hit Phillips cleanup, he can leadoff. Frasier also has established himself as a presentable #6 hitter. The Reds now have the luxury of batting Stubbs #8, just like in the playoffs. Now, we can expect there to be times during the year when Dusty gives Stubbs another chance at the top of the order, but having Phillips at the top of the order for the entire season (as opposed to cleanup) fixes one tablesetter slot.

I think I could live with Cozart in the #2 slot.

So I would love to get a leadoff CF, but I don't see it as imperative, if Ludwick is signed. As far as bang-for-the-buck, the Reds might be better off spending resources on another bullpen arm as opposed to trading/signing a CF.
Of course, the object of the game is not to maximize bang for the buck though :)

Ellsbury rental would be a dream .

lollipopcurve
12-06-2012, 08:25 AM
Highly unlikely this will happen, IMO. I don't see the Red Sox wanting Stubbs -- they have Victorino behind Ellsbury, Jackie Bradley in AA and rising, and Ryan Kalish still hanging around. Acquiring Stubbs would just add confusion. And I doubt Corcino carries the day against any other pitching they could get for Ellsbury.

Ellsbury makes great sense for the Reds, but I think they'd have to give up more pitching to get him.

M2
12-06-2012, 10:27 AM
I don't see the Red Sox wanting Stubbs

I'd normally agree, but he bats right-handed and can hit a few HRs. The Sox can't scratch that itch enough. Plus, Bradley is at least a year away.

NJReds
12-06-2012, 10:38 AM
Ellsbury, 29, has a career 162-game slash line of .297/ .349/ .442/ .791, with 53 SB and 12 CS, 16 HR, and 73 RBI. He's the typical Jocketty type, in that he's shown great talent in the past, but has fallen on hard times due to injury. If it's for Stubbs and Corcino, this is a no-brainer.

It takes him three seasons to play 162 games. His near-MVP season is the exception to his otherwise good but not great career.

That said, I'm fine with Stubbs and Corcino. But not for Bailey and certainly not Latos (as Olney reported was the asking price).

Benihana
12-06-2012, 11:49 AM
The asking price for Fowler was reportedly Minor and either Teheran or Delgado.

That is akin to Leake and Cingrani. Unless Pomeranz is coming back also, I'd pass.

lollipopcurve
12-06-2012, 12:10 PM
I'd normally agree, but he bats right-handed and can hit a few HRs. The Sox can't scratch that itch enough. Plus, Bradley is at least a year away.

I think the Gomes-Napoli-Ross signings were primarily about character. They like the RH power, I know, but my sense is that they're desperate to get rah-rah blue collar guys, and Stubbs doesn't fit there, either. Problem with Bradley is that he'll be ready while they would still control Stubbs for a couple years. I really think the Sox would want to maximize the pitching return for Ellsbury, or get a legit catching prospect.

M2
12-06-2012, 12:11 PM
The asking price for Fowler was reportedly Minor and either Teheran or Delgado.

That is akin to Leake and Cingrani. Unless Pomeranz is coming back also, I'd pass.

Important to note that so far no one seems interested in paying that price.

M2
12-06-2012, 12:27 PM
I think the Gomes-Napoli-Ross signings were primarily about character. They like the RH power, I know, but my sense is that they're desperate to get rah-rah blue collar guys, and Stubbs doesn't fit there, either. Problem with Bradley is that he'll be ready while they would still control Stubbs for a couple years. I really think the Sox would want to maximize the pitching return for Ellsbury, or get a legit catching prospect.

I think the Sox think those moves are about character or market value or flex retention or an appreciation for their Strat cards (Dave Ross is Strat magic). Yet deep down in their collective subconscious it's RH power - sweet, sweet RH power. Wouldn't be surprised if some folks in the Boston front office were kicking around stopping Victorino from switch hitting: "But look at all the power he's got when he hits right-handed!"

The sad thing is it will never fill the void that Manny left.

As for Bradley, I think he might experience some growing pains in 2013.

mdccclxix
12-06-2012, 12:34 PM
Important to note that so far no one seems interested in paying that price.

The only other thing I can mention is that they wanted like 4 top prospects for Jiminez and settled for 2.

Homer Bailey
12-06-2012, 01:28 PM
Pagan with Giants, Revere to Phils, Span to the Nationals, Upton to the Braves.

Ryan Madson like 1 year deal for Michael Bourn? Make it happen Walt!

M2
12-06-2012, 02:00 PM
Pagan with Giants, Revere to Phils, Span to the Nationals, Upton to the Braves.

Ryan Madson like 1 year deal for Michael Bourne? Make it happen Walt!

Interesting idea.

Benihana
12-06-2012, 04:57 PM
Pagan with Giants, Revere to Phils, Span to the Nationals, Upton to the Braves.

Ryan Madson like 1 year deal for Michael Bourn? Make it happen Walt!

Very interesting idea...and I'm not a big Bourn guy.

Tom Servo
12-06-2012, 05:34 PM
I'd figure the only teams still in on Bourn are Seattle, Chicago Cubs, and Texas.

Benihana
12-06-2012, 05:41 PM
I'd figure the only teams still in on Bourn are Seattle, Chicago Cubs, and Texas.

If, as expected, Texas gets Upton and Seattle gets Hamilton, then its us and the Cubs.

Maybe Walt really takes a gamble, calls up Theo and offers him Stubbs for something (they were already discussing Stubbs at the trade deadline), and Bourn has no alternative other than to take the Reds on a 1 year deal- kind of like what happened to Madson last year.

Yes there are a lot of ifs and buts, but still...

medford
12-06-2012, 06:06 PM
If, as expected, Texas gets Upton and Seattle gets Hamilton, then its us and the Cubs.

Maybe Walt really takes a gamble, calls up Theo and offers him Stubbs for something (they were already discussing Stubbs at the trade deadline), and Bourn has no alternative other than to take the Reds on a 1 year deal- kind of like what happened to Madson last year.

Yes there are a lot of ifs and buts, but still...

Even if that is the case, Bourn would have a dilema. The cubs can offer more money, and probably more years, however, they anywhere from a couple of season to a century away from competing for anything. The Reds offer him a shot at at the playoffs, if not the World Series.

would 1 year, @ 8 mil and a chance to re-enter the market next year trump 4 years @ 8 mil and maybe a shot at the playoffs in 3 or 4 seasons, or more likely a trade to somewhere else before all is said & done. He played on 1 or 2 poor Astros teams, so he knows what playing thru the dog days of August w/ no hope at the postseason looks like. Is he willing to trade a long term deal for a 1 year deal and better potential of playing meaningful games w/ football teams break camp?

M2
12-06-2012, 06:27 PM
If, as expected, Texas gets Upton and Seattle gets Hamilton, then its us and the Cubs.

The OF market is getting downright fascinating.

Are the Cubs really going to be buyers? They're deep in OF prospects and their top short- and long-term need is pitching.

Is Seattle a factor for anyone but Hamilton? They need some boom boom and I doubt they're trading any potentially meaningful prospects.

Is Texas really after any OFs outside of Upton? Also, if Texas got a CF, would Leonys Martin become available?

Does Walt Jocketty get a daily phone call from Billy Beane in which Beane says, "Dude, I will give you Coco Crisp. I can even drive him over to your house."?

Tom Servo
12-06-2012, 06:56 PM
I'm not sure what the Cubs and Epstein are planning, I just know that they've been linked to Bourn and certainly haven't been shy in the past about throwing massive amounts of money at guys.

lollipopcurve
12-06-2012, 06:59 PM
Yes, definitely a fascinating market. When I think about it, I actually like the Reds' position here. Hamilton is a year away, and they have Stubbs/Heisey. They don't have to do anything, much less overpay. They've got some pitching surplus. It's a good position to be in.

Love the idea of Bourn on a one-year deal. Thing is, there will be teams willing to throw big money at him (and I don't think that was the case with Madson last year). I'm thinking the Cubs and the Rangers (even with Greinke) and the Mystery Team. Teams are dripping money these days.

Many options out there still, I figure. Reds can always pry Colby Rasmus or Bonifacio from the Blue Jays for not much, I figure. Or Crisp. Or De Aza. Or DeJesus. Or....

M2
12-06-2012, 07:04 PM
I have a man-crush on De Aza, mostly because he was awesome for my Strat team.

klw
12-07-2012, 10:01 AM
Here is an ESPN take on the market for Bourn
http://espn.go.com/blog/sweetspot/post/_/id/31335/where-does-revere-trade-leave-bourn


2. Reds: The Reds still have Drew Stubbs and are also looking to fill left field (maybe bringing back Ryan Ludwick). Bourn makes sense for them because they need a leadoff hitter, but the $75 million price tag would still be steep. I see the Reds getting in this only if the market for Bourn collapses.

westofyou
12-07-2012, 11:34 AM
Sorry

Pocket post

Wonderful Monds
12-07-2012, 04:04 PM
Sorry

Pocket post

Is that you, Peter Gammons?

Benihana
12-07-2012, 06:39 PM
With Ludwick allegedly signed, CF seems to be the last spot to settle.

Options include a big name like Ellsbury, Fowler, and Bourn.

Or a lesser name/platoon partner like DeJesus, Crisp, and de Aza.

2 Questions

1. What would you like to see Walt do?
2. What do you think he will do?

AtomicDumpling
12-07-2012, 06:53 PM
dp

AtomicDumpling
12-07-2012, 06:56 PM
2 Questions

1. What would you like to see Walt do?
2. What do you think he will do?

1. I would rather get Gerardo Parra.
2. I still think it will be Alejandro De Aza to platoon with Drew Stubbs in centerfield. He is not a bad option, but nothing to get excited about.

RedsManRick
12-07-2012, 06:56 PM
The asking price for Fowler was reportedly Minor and either Teheran or Delgado.

That is akin to Leake and Cingrani. Unless Pomeranz is coming back also, I'd pass.

Considering that's basically what the Twins got for Revere, a guy with a career .278/.319/.323 line in 1000+ PA, you can't blame them.

westofyou
12-07-2012, 06:57 PM
I have a man-crush on De Aza, mostly because he was awesome for my Strat team.




NAME BAVG GM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI BB SO HB SH DP SB CS E
A.De Aza .321 124 467 86 150 32 10 12 65 53 113 3 0 4 39 9 5

Benihana
12-07-2012, 09:39 PM
According to MLBTR, it seems like Fowler is a lot more likely than Bourn, who Walt said "would have to drop his asking price a lot."

Assuming the cost in talent would be substantially less, I'd prefer Ellsbury on a one-year deal to Fowler, who is signed for 2-3 years and we'd have a logjam if/when Hamilton is ready.

That said, I won't be upset at all if we can get Fowler without giving up Bailey or Stephenson.

RedEye
12-07-2012, 09:48 PM
According to MLBTR, it seems like Fowler is a lot more likely than Bourn, who Walt said "would have to drop his asking price a lot."

Assuming the cost in talent would be substantially less, I'd prefer Ellsbury on a one-year deal to Fowler, who is signed for 2-3 years and we'd have a logjam if/when Hamilton is ready.

That said, I won't be upset at all if we can get Fowler without giving up Bailey or Stephenson.

Yeah, reading Walt's quotes on the matter, all he's said about Fowler is "I don't think Colorado wants to move him." Reading between the lines, I see that to say "I've made some calls and I'm still trying to get him, but they are driving a hard bargain. I'm going to try to talk them down, but not sure I can do it."

M2
12-07-2012, 11:23 PM
Yeah, reading Walt's quotes on the matter, all he's said about Fowler is "I don't think Colorado wants to move him." Reading between the lines, I see that to say "I've made some calls and I'm still trying to get him, but they are driving a hard bargain. I'm going to try to talk them down, but not sure I can do it."

That's probably a fair translation. I read it as "They say they're willing to trade him and they really need to trade him, but they're having a group hallucination when it comes to his market value."

mdccclxix
12-07-2012, 11:26 PM
Walt mentioned having a trade in place that fell though late. The timing says it could have been Ellsbury, or the recent rumors suggest perhaps Fowler.

Will M
12-07-2012, 11:26 PM
keeping Leake gives us depth at SP. this is good in general but for the 2013 team there is an additional hitch. I don't see how Chapman pitches the entire year (and hopefully postseason) in the rotation. It seems like he needs to start or finish the year in the pen to put some sort of innings limit on him. So I'd like to keep Leake around. This means getting an everyday CF for Corcino (or Cingrani) plus Stubbs or keeping Stubbs around & getting a platoon partner via trading spare parts.

RedEye
12-07-2012, 11:29 PM
Walt mentioned having a trade in place that fell though late. The timing says it could have been Ellsbury, or the recent rumors suggest perhaps Fowler.

If they pulled out of a Fowler deal at the last minute it would make sense that Walt would then say "I don't think they want to move him." Kind of like he got left at the altar or something, eh? I wonder if his voice cracked when he said it.

Tom Servo
12-07-2012, 11:38 PM
You can have depth at SP while trading Leake. Our old pal Dustin Moseley could be signed and not be a huge drop-off from what Leake would provide.

RedEye
12-07-2012, 11:40 PM
On a related point - why would Walt favor Ben Revere over a Fowler or a De Aza? From what I can tell, Revere is fast and a good OF, but he isn't really an on-base machine. Isn't that an essential part of what they are looking for in CF, someone to get on base ahead of the middle of the lineup? Not to mention he has ZERO power. Revere has the look of a younger Juan Pierre to me.

M2
12-07-2012, 11:48 PM
The Reds also have Lecure and Redmond for SP depth on top of Cingrani and Corcino climbing the ladder. I'd like them to add another AAA starter regardless of whether they trade Leake or Bailey, but it's not like the team doesn't have options if one of those two is dealt.

RedEye
12-07-2012, 11:53 PM
The Reds also have Lecure and Redmond for SP depth on top of Cingrani and Corcino climbing the ladder. I'd like them to add another AAA starter regardless of whether they trade Leake or Bailey, but it's not like the team doesn't have options if one of those two is dealt.

True dat. Combined with Gregorious/Cozart and Stubbs/Heisey they've got some real depth at positions that other teams need. I'll be disappointed if Walt can't do something useful with what he's got.

corkedbat
12-08-2012, 12:09 AM
I'm warming up to either Parra or De Aza, but wouldn't deal too much for them (unless there's a pitcher coming back in Parra's case).

I'm not worried about what's happening with Billy. Maybe Billy slips some this year and isn't ready. Maybe Ludwick reverts and Fowler or Hamilton can play LF. Maybe SlidinBilly sizzles and they flip Fowler for a 3B or something else useful. Never worry about having too much talent - that's why baseball invented trades and God invented injuries.

LoganBuck
12-08-2012, 07:33 AM
The trade that fell through was for Ben Revere. I think dougdirt posted that from Redsfest on Twitter.

Benihana
12-08-2012, 12:25 PM
The trade that fell through was for Ben Revere. I think dougdirt posted that from Redsfest on Twitter.

I'm glad that fell through. Revere strikes me as an all-around less exciting version of Billy Hamilton. What were we offering?

M2
12-08-2012, 01:52 PM
I'm glad that fell through. Revere strikes me as an all-around less exciting version of Billy Hamilton. What were we offering?

My suspicion is the Reds did not go very hard after Revere. They probably had him listed as a potential option and got a little giddy when the Phillies took themselves out of the CF market by trading for Revere.

redsmetz
12-10-2012, 06:45 AM
I've been meaning to put something forward about Drew Stubbs. I haven't read the whole thread, but I had planned on posited that perhaps his off-season work might actually pay off. I know the generally rules feels as if any players place is set in stone, other than the occasional "outlier" and hence, what a player has become is something he (and we, as a consequence) are stuck with. I understand in the whole universe of baseball statistics, this type of trend generally players out in such a manner.

That said, I found two things interesting coming out of Redsfest. I had wondered about how things were going with Stubbs and the Reds instructor. Fay had a blurb in Sunday's paper:

Drew Stubbs knows that many of his batting statistics have dropped steadily over the past three years, so the Reds center fielder is making adjustments.

Stubbs is experimenting with a shorter stride. Stubbs said he has been working with Reds minor league hitting coordinator Ronnie Ortegon at Stubbs’ offseason home in Texas, where Ortegon also lives.

“They talked a lot in the postseason about Austin Jackson of the Tigers, going from more of a leg kick to a toe tap,” Stubbs said Friday. “We’ve been tinkering with that a little bit. Obviously the longer your foot’s in the air, the more room for error you have.”

Now, of course, that doesn't answer much, but it shows at the least that some issues have been identified. The million dollar question is, can it make a difference.

The other tidbit came from Sam LeCure in answering a kid's question about who will bat lead-off this season. While Votto & Frazier essentially said Phillips (or Phillips & Cozart), LeCure rather emphatically said to not dismiss his fellow Texas alum, Drew Stubbs. Now I understand Sam's a bit of a rah-rah team guy, but he seemed intent on making that point.

Those of you who know me from my jottings here on RZ know I tend towards the sunshine & light, Pollyannish side, but I've never agreed completely with the belief that it's not possible for a player to improve their game. Yes, that's very difficult to do at the top level. And I fully agree, at the very least, the club must getting an able partner to match with Stubbs that can maximize what his history has shown he can do. But I, for one, am interested in seeing what Stubbs does in Spring Training. I know this thread pre-supposes that Stubbs is not the answer (and I completely understand why that is), but still I'm pulling for him and hope he shows he's learned some things over the off-season.

camisadelgolf
12-10-2012, 07:38 AM
Just like it was time to give up on Jose Bautista during 2009, it's time to give up on Drew Stubbs during 2012.

M2
12-10-2012, 11:26 AM
Just like it was time to give up on Jose Bautista during 2009, it's time to give up on Drew Stubbs during 2012.

Yep, Drew Stubbs is on the cusp of replicating the freakiest, most unlikely superstar turn of modern baseball history.

chicoruiz
12-10-2012, 01:46 PM
That's why I'm in favor of getting a guy at about the level of a Roger Bernadina... It sends just the right message to Stubbs: "We have to do better than we did last year, but if you turn out to be the person who makes us better, there's no huge roadblock in your way that we can't bench".

RedEye
12-10-2012, 01:47 PM
Yep, Drew Stubbs is on the cusp of replicating the freakiest, most unlikely superstar turn of modern baseball history.

I know you are being sarcastic, but somehow the things that Dusty and the coaches say lately make me actually think they believe this statement.

Rojo
12-10-2012, 01:47 PM
He's always going to be a k-prone, low BA player. I think the best you can hope for is that he finds his powerstroke and maybe adds some walks.

Even then he's still probably a liability against righties.

RedlegJake
12-10-2012, 01:58 PM
No one could possibly root more for Stubbs but it is simply a fact that permanent major tirnarounds in mid career are rare. Ill be happy with a modest improvement in obp that lets his baserunning add value and a cheap effective platoon partner for at least some ABs the other way. Maybe a shortened stride will equal a split second more recognition time and increase his contact rate a bit? Counting on tht is foolish though. Hope Walt lands a DeJesus/Parra etc partner. THEN I'll be willing to lay some hope on Drew making real strides with a hedged bet in the hip pocket.

Rojo
12-10-2012, 02:04 PM
I know you are being sarcastic, but somehow the things that Dusty and the coaches say lately make me actually think they believe this statement.

Frankly, I want players and coaches believing it.

Read the Brian Downing section in Bill James's last Historical Abstract. Inspirational.

M2
12-10-2012, 04:31 PM
I know you are being sarcastic, but somehow the things that Dusty and the coaches say lately make me actually think they believe this statement.

I chalk that up to things you say about a player until you find someone to replace him.

RedEye
12-10-2012, 09:55 PM
I chalk that up to things you say about a player until you find someone to replace him.

Very possible. But they also seem pretty darn dedicated to giving him every opportunity to "play his way out" of whatever funk he happens to be in. Those two things combined lead me to believe that they actually think he can turn the corner -- and that they aren't just paying lip service to the idea.

RedEye
12-10-2012, 09:55 PM
Frankly, I want players and coaches believing it.

Read the Brian Downing section in Bill James's last Historical Abstract. Inspirational.

Interesting. Could you give me a massively abridged version of what James says about Downing?

powersackers
12-10-2012, 10:02 PM
Has Stubbs ever put up one month of stats that live up to his pedigree?

Superdude
12-10-2012, 10:17 PM
Has Stubbs ever put up one month of stats that live up to his pedigree?

What was his pedigree? I'd say 2010 was about as much as anyone expected.

RedEye
12-11-2012, 12:46 AM
Has Stubbs ever put up one month of stats that live up to his pedigree?

There was a month or so after the All-Star break last year where he was pretty awesome. Without stretch he would have been really abysmal at the plate.

Then again, if you consider that his pedigree coming out in the draft was something like "super fast and athletic outfielder with great power potential and serious contact issues" (obviously I'm paraphrasing) then I suppose he fits it to a tee.

Kc61
12-11-2012, 12:55 AM
Stubbs line against righties last year was .186/.259/.282/.541.

mdccclxix
12-11-2012, 10:12 AM
Stubbs line against righties last year was .186/.259/.282/.541.

That looks like a terminal diagnosis to me.

RedsManRick
12-11-2012, 10:31 AM
It's worth noting that despite hitting more groundballs than ever in 2012 (GB have the highest natural BABIP), Stubbs BABIP dropped 50 points last year, 40 points below his prior career average. Because he still had a .290 BABIP, that's easy to overlook. We might just say that he was getting lucky before last year. But elite speed is one of those things that correlates with a reliably higher than average BABIP. So what happened?

In 2012, he had a .241 BABIP on GB. In 2011 that was .328. In 2010 that was .360. In 2009 that was .315.

One of a few things happened.
- He start hitting a lot more weak grounders
- Teams started defending him very differently
- He stopped being really freaking fast

If that overall BABIP went back up to .330, that's going to be about 25 points of AVG/OBP and 30 to 40 points of slugging. Then he's looking at a line of .240/.310/.370. That's certainly nobody's idea of a star, particularly against RHP, but it's easily playable.

I think we've attributed too much of Stubbs' decline to his contact issues and not accounted enough for what looks to be a a nice helping of bad luck. That's not to say we shouldn't be worried about his contact issues or trying to improve in CF, just more even handed in our narrative.

Kc61
12-11-2012, 11:10 AM
It's worth noting that despite hitting more groundballs than ever in 2012 (GB have the highest natural BABIP), Stubbs BABIP dropped 50 points last year, 40 points below his prior career average. Because he still had a .290 BABIP, that's easy to overlook. We might just say that he was getting lucky before last year. But elite speed is one of those things that correlates with a reliably higher than average BABIP. So what happened?

In 2012, he had a .241 BABIP on GB. In 2011 that was .328. In 2010 that was .360. In 2009 that was .315.

One of a few things happened.
- He start hitting a lot more weak grounders
- Teams started defending him very differently
- He stopped being really freaking fast

If that overall BABIP went back up to .330, that's going to be about 25 points of AVG/OBP and 30 to 40 points of slugging. Then he's looking at a line of .240/.310/.370. That's certainly nobody's idea of a star, particularly against RHP, but it's easily playable.

I think we've attributed too much of Stubbs' decline to his contact issues and not accounted enough for what looks to be a a nice helping of bad luck. That's not to say we shouldn't be worried about his contact issues or trying to improve in CF, just more even handed in our narrative.

So if the stars align, if things go well, Stubbs can become a .680 OPS hitter.

I don't think that's a very strong case for keeping him as a regular player.

RedEye
12-11-2012, 11:18 AM
So if the stars align, if things go well, Stubbs can become a .680 OPS hitter.

I don't think that's a very strong case for keeping him as a regular player.

I agree. But I don't think anyone is arguing he should continue being a regular player. I think we're just trying to figure out why Reds management seems to be toying with the idea of throwing him out there again in 2013.

Kc61
12-11-2012, 12:11 PM
I agree. But I don't think anyone is arguing he should continue being a regular player. I think we're just trying to figure out why Reds management seems to be toying with the idea of throwing him out there again in 2013.

And, FWIW, I have no problem with Stubbs being on the team as a platoon man in CF. He might be a little expensive for that role, but as a player I'm fine with that.

While I admire much about Chris Heisey, my own opinion is that Stubbs is preferable to keep around. Love his defense, he's an adequate hitter against lefties. Just needs a LHH partner out there.

RedEye
12-11-2012, 12:20 PM
And, FWIW, I have no problem with Stubbs being on the team as a platoon man in CF. He might be a little expensive for that role, but as a player I'm fine with that.

While I admire much about Chris Heisey, my own opinion is that Stubbs is preferable to keep around. Love his defense, he's an adequate hitter against lefties. Just needs a LHH partner out there.

Stubbs would be a perfect 4th OF / late inning D replacement. He's like Super Herm Winningham!

Rojo
12-11-2012, 03:58 PM
Interesting. Could you give me a massively abridged version of what James says about Downing?

I lived in SoCal and would catch an occassional Angels game on TV. I didn't follow closely but I noticed the same thing about Downing that James outlines.

Downing came up as a sort of pudgy, non-remarkable part-time catcher. After five seasons with the White Sox, he was thrown in to a multiplayer trade to the Angels. After one lackluster season with the Angels, he put up a 142 OPS in 1979 at age 28. He then got hurt and played in 30 games the next season.

At age 30 he came back from injury as a big, slow, injury-hobbled leftfielder. It seemed like a desperate move to salvage his career. But he could always pick up walks, he now added power and by the end of the season he was the Angels lead-off hitter. Over the next 11 full seasons (up to age 41) his OB never fell below .350, usually hitting lead-off.

As James points out he morphed from a pudgy-faced guy with sandy blond hair to a dark-haired Christopher Reeves clone. He stopped wearing glasses. He didn't get contacts, he just stopped wearing glasses.

In retrospect he might've been a PED candidate, but he would've been a very early adopter. And his numbers weren't eye-popping.

RedEye
12-11-2012, 05:03 PM
I lived in SoCal and would catch an occassional Angels game on TV. I didn't follow closely but I noticed the same thing about Downing that James outlines.

Downing came up as a sort of pudgy, non-remarkable part-time catcher. After five seasons with the White Sox, he was thrown in to a multiplayer trade to the Angels. After one lackluster season with the Angels, he put up a 142 OPS in 1979 at age 28. He then got hurt and played in 30 games the next season.

At age 30 he came back from injury as a big, slow, injury-hobbled leftfielder. It seemed like a desperate move to salvage his career. But he could always pick up walks, he now added power and by the end of the season he was the Angels lead-off hitter. Over the next 11 full seasons (up to age 41) his OB never fell below .350, usually hitting lead-off.

As James points out he morphed from a pudgy-faced guy with sandy blond hair to a dark-haired Christopher Reeves clone. He stopped wearing glasses. He didn't get contacts, he just stopped wearing glasses.

In retrospect he might've been a PED candidate, but he would've been a very early adopter. And his numbers weren't eye-popping.

Many thanks! I remember Downing's 1987 Topps card well because it was one of the last ones I needed to complete my set. Other than that, though, he was totally off my radar.

Benihana
12-11-2012, 05:18 PM
So who picked Shin Soo-Choo in the poll? for 2013 CF :devil:

_Sir_Charles_
12-11-2012, 06:00 PM
So who picked Shin Soo-Choo in the poll? for 2013 CF :devil:


A legitimate improvement like a Choo is more than welcome...but it'll cost a fortune. And unless an extension is figured out, a 1 year rental that costs us future wins with the prospect cost, is a net loss in my eyes.


Me. I just didn't think we'd be able to afford him. I underestimated the wheeling-and-dealing abilities of Mr. Jocketty. Well...IF this gets done. :O) And as for CF...I didn't care where they played him. He's capable defensively (as is Bruce). My concern was getting his bat in the lineup as it fits flawlessly.