Originally Posted by Aronchis
Why prepare when it may not be in the Reds best interest? Your bias to thinking every bias they make is for a "veteren" is over the top. You could even make a arguement the Reds actually damage themselves by trading those guys...........the 2008 season. Each could in a way contribute in some form to that team.
I would veer toward different routes which can bring the same(probably bad) and the trades you think will take place, don't.
Wow, I've apparently got biases I don't even know about. And here I thought I was in favor of putting Jay Bruce in the starting lineup and going with young arms in the pen.
Sorry that I don't think jamming Bailey or Cueto into the rotation and hoping for fluffy bunny happiness is a viable plan for winning anything or for successfully developing young arms.
Anyway, the market for prospects has never been higher. If the right opportunity presents itself, the Reds have what the market wants. Bruce would be untouchable if it were my call. Push came to shove and I had to deal one of the top two arms, it would be Bailey. Homer's got the higher market value and the Reds traditionally don't teach control very well. I've got nothing against Votto, but he plays 1B. If a 1B could land me a pitcher or catcher (though don't ask me what impact catcher would be on the trade market) and Votto could land me the guy, then I'd figure out another way to cover 1B.
What I find useless is this notion that you can't possibly consider dealing a prospect when his value is high. It's completely myopic, every bit as much as the notion that you would trade all your kids away. If the Reds aren't prepared to take a more lucid approach to how they work the roster then THAT more than Dusty Baker is what will tie an anchor to the franchise bumper.