Originally Posted by registerthis
Your second sentence and your last are contradictory. If he displaces Joe Mays, and perhaps pitches better than Claussen and/or Milton, then the team *has* been improved. If he doesn't cost much to obtain, and if the cost for other, more palateable pitchers is excessive, then the pickup of a Redman-type pitcher may very well be what the Reds are looking at. And, it most certainly wouldn't be a "lateral move"--it would be an improvement, as you state in your post.
The team only improves IF
he pitches better than our current options. If
he pitches better than Harang, then he'll put us in the playoffs. It all comes down to the IF. Give the performance histories of everybody involved, I have little reason to believe that he WILL
be any better. Like you say, if the cost is very little, sure, why not acquire him? But we have every (Kearns) reason (Lopez) to believe the cost will not be minimal and even if he pitches up to his ability, the actual impact is likely less than you think. (see my other post).
I don't think anybody would turn down essentially free talent. However, if Redman was available at a very low cost, he'd be a Yankee, Cardinal, or otherwise by now.