Originally posted by M2
REDREAD, look at what the White Sox dealt for Bart Colon or what the Phillies dealt for Kevin Millwood. The Reds can beat that, easy. What you need is the cash to take on that kind of contract.
This is a good point.
However, both Millwood and Colon came cheap in trades
partially because they were one year away from free agency.
A move like that is great when you are close to contending.
It would've been great for 2003.. plugging in Millwood/Colon
instead of our sorry parade of #5 starters might've kept us
in the race long enough to avoid a fire sale.
However, it 2005, we're probably far away from
The Reds are at the point now where they have to accumulate
as much talent as possible. If they do trade for pitching,
it has to be pitching talent that will be around for awhile.
That's why I'm not really high on the idea of Casey for Jarvis.
There's a pretty big deficit in talent there. Casey certainly isn't
the top 1b in the league, but he's a lot better than Jarvis.
I don't think anyone is arguing that. The whole reason you'd
trade Casey is for the hope of pay-flex in 2005-2006..
But in those years, we'll likely still be in a talent gathering
phase.. Could we realistically expect the payflex money to be
dumped into the draft or on Latin/Cuban players? If we could expect
that, I'd be more inclined to accept this deal.
Or if we could get a useful player for 2004.. not necessarily great,
but useful, then I'd be more inclined to like this deal.
But it looks to me like we're trading Casey for one year of a black
hole and no promises that the payflex won't be used to "cover raises",
as it always has in the past.
If the farm system was loaded enough to give us legitimate hope for 2005,
I'd be more optimistic as well.. (that the payflex could make an impact