Originally Posted by REDREAD
I was hoping they would sign Bradford all during the last offseason.
I can't believe Baltimore got him that cheap.
Would've added the solid RH reliever that our pen desparately needed.
There's no reason to give a relatively expensive, multiyear contract to a guy like Stanton who is obviously old and fading, particularly when the Reds already had Cormier under contract.
It just wasn't a good risk at all. A lot of folks called it before the season started.
If they really wanted Stanton, they should've just offered him a one year deal. At least that way, they wouldn't be sabotaging 2008.
Wayne has shown poor judgement by giving multiyear deals to players he shouldn't be. It was dumb to give Freel and Castro multiyear deals, and many people called it at the time as well.
The only reason Stanton came to the Reds was because they were the only team to add a potential third year on Stanton's contract. When the signing happened, I was a little skeptical, but I still think Stanton can turn things around next year. (I'm not saying he will--I'm just saying it's possible.)
Obviously, Chad Bradford would've been a better player to sign. The Orioles might have regrets about it when they're paying him $3.5M in 2009, but for now, it looks like a good season. However, of the 20 or so contracts I listed, no more than a fourth of them would've helped the Reds more than hurt them. Mike Stanton's chances of success this year might not have been great, but I think his odds were better than the majority of options the Reds had. For the record, I think many pitchers are aware of GABP's reputation and avoid signing here at all costs, so perhaps that's a factor in who the Reds can sign.