PDA

View Full Version : One Year Rental For Michael Bourn?



Krusty
12-09-2012, 08:49 AM
With his suitors dwindling, the article mentions the Reds could sign him to a one year deal like they did with Ryan Madison and let him re-enter free agency the following season. By then, Billy Hamilton should be ready to take over the position.

So would it make sense for the Reds to sign him to similar terms to a contract that they did to Madison?

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1436084-cincinnati-reds-is-michael-bourn-suddenly-on-the-reds-radar

RedEye
12-09-2012, 09:17 AM
It would make sense, yes. And WJ would once again deserve congratulations for playing the market just right.

mattfeet
12-09-2012, 09:26 AM
It would make sense, yes. And WJ would once again deserve congratulations for playing the market just right.

:beerme:

Cedric
12-09-2012, 09:38 AM
Walt was asked this at Redsfest and said it would take a miracle. Bob took the microphone and said " let me answer this for Walt, no."

He went on to explain how the Madson deal was totally different last year. Who knows for 100% sure though.

PuffyPig
12-09-2012, 10:11 AM
It is impossible to vote "no" based on how the question is posed.

kaldaniels
12-09-2012, 10:22 AM
I don't think Bourn would ever sign a one year deal with the Reds. But of course I would do it if I'm Cincinnati. But according to a poster in the Hamilton/Stanton thread, that means I should vote no. I'm so confused.

dunner13
12-09-2012, 10:38 AM
I think if it got to the point that Bourne was willing to take a one year deal you would see enough other teams jump in that the reds wouldn't have a real chance. Theres enough money flowing in the league this year that other teams would be willing to give Bourne 8M for a year. Would be great for us if it happened but I just dont see there being any chance of it.

cinreds21
12-09-2012, 10:46 AM
Hell yes I would do this. It would be very reckless not to do it if it came down to it.

mth123
12-09-2012, 10:57 AM
It is impossible to vote "no" based on how the question is posed.

Exactly. If it is simply is Bourn better than Stubbs, its an easy yes. The question is could the Reds afford it? Would they need to deal off other stuff to fit in this season's budget?

Against RHP, there are a lot of guys better than Stubbs. Even below average guys are better than Stubbs against RHP and platooning Stubbs with one would improve the team overall. The real question is can the Reds acquire somebody without blowing a hole in the team somewhere else and/or would that player be a better option than Heisey.

Blitz Dorsey
12-09-2012, 11:37 AM
I bet it would take at least $10 million for one year, but I'd still do it. No long-term risk. Definitely overpaying, but you're only doing it for one season while your top prospect learns the trade. Also, it would be addressing our No. 1 need by far, that of a leadoff hitter who plays CF.

Do it! (Get to the choppa!)

757690
12-09-2012, 11:38 AM
I voted yes, but I figure with then Reds luck, he'll probably needtommy John surgery in spring training and be out the whole year, if the Reds signed him to a one year deal.

Vottomatic
12-09-2012, 11:49 AM
It sure seems like their attempt to upgrade the most obvious need is falling way short.

If a 1-year deal for $10M or less could be done, they should do it in a heartbeat.

But based on Castellini saying what he said, I don't look for it to happen.

At this point, I think they ship Leake off for their less expensive leadoff answer, if they do anything at all.

RedsManRick
12-09-2012, 12:48 PM
This would be an almost ideal circumstance. It's not my money, but short of a Madson situation, it's hard to lose out on a 1-year deal. The guy has been a 4.5+ WAR player four 4 years in a row now.