Originally Posted by Captain Hook
I don't think that it's a reach to say that the team could easily be improved if Cordero,Harang and Aaroyo were all traded for a big pile of cash to be used to spend freely on free agents or taking on other large contracts in trades.
I like to think that way too, but I don't think it works out as eaily as our minds eye can see it happening in our vision. It all seems so simple, but is it?
Large contracts under the restrictions of the budget that the current ownership has set are a hardship and do make it challenging for the general manager to make trades or player acquisitions. The general managers under Castellini and Lindner from Bowden forward in the 2000 decade have had to work under those same restrictions as player cost increased throughout that decade.
If we agreed that if the Reds were freed from those contracts to those three pitchers and that the funds were to be used on players to improve the team, what would be the areas of improvement that we would hypothetically attempt to make?
A. Pitchers to replace them, at equal to or greater than their performance levels, or something less?
B. Cost for equal to, cost for greater than, cost for less than?
C. Availability of potential pitching replacement, those that the Reds could sign, and or would be willing to come to Cincinnati for what the Reds can afford?
D. Do we go with the younger and less experienced pitchers that the Reds have on the roster and in system? That would save money, but, what about our goal to improve the team, will their performances do that?
E. Would he trade the three, paying a part of their contracts and receive prospects or large contracts back in players from the other team? If that larger contract is true, that will negate some of the funds that we were seeking to free up.
Our idea of free agents, assuming for offense or replacement pitching or both.
A. Would we seek one or two?
B. Are the free agents within the financial restrictions that we would be working with?
C. Would they be willing to sign with the Reds vs interest that they might have in signing with a team that they think has a better chance to win or whatever other intangibles interest them or their families, besides the tangibles of amount and length of contract?
D. Would this new free agent or free agents become more costly and riskier?
E. Are there any available that would be willing to sign within the financial parameters that would answer our purpose of improving the team?
Once we take on these other contracts without addressing the pitching won’t we be back in the same tight spot that the Reds have been in for this decade, and with a team that does not perform as well unless we can improve the pitching which can be very expensive, even if it is available to the Reds.
Aren’t we coming back to where Krivsky was on a given day as the general manager, and Jocketty is now, trying to make choices and decisions on how to improve the teams pitching, defense and offense with limited resources in a volatile and limited market for players? Isn’t this where Jocketty is this night?
How much of the budget are our new players in trades, free agents, or taken back contracts, how much of the budget are they going to consume? What percentage of the payroll? For how long?
So I would guess we would want some sort of balance between improving the pitching and the offense, which starts to make our pile of cash diminish quite quickly and commits us to large contracts again, doesn’t it? Especially if that budget hangs around the 70 million area?
There are a lot of hurdles and risk to be jumped over and worked around before we can be certain that the pile of cash and flexibility that would come from unloading those three contracts is turned into improving the team unless the Reds use mostly prospects and are able to be very fortunate in trades or the very limited and risky free agent market. I am not so sure that it can be easily done.
Our goals are to easily improve the team, to have a big pile of cash to spend freely on free agents or to take on or back large contracts for player or player's received in trades.
I am trying to work with your input in complete agreement, but, I am having trouble seeing how we are going to improve the team without talented pitching and at least some significant offensive talent performance increases.
I think those are going to put us right back to where Krivsky was, and Jocketty is.
I keep forgetting one point that many of us forget. To actually show improvement in the standings we also must improve the team to catch up with or to overcome the competitions efforts to improve and perform in the coming season and seasons in the near future. Can we do that on 70 million, could Krivsky or Jocketty?
The competition is real, to improve the Reds only over the previous Reds is not necessarily enough to cause an appearance of improvement against the competition.