Re: Would you...Homer Bailey for Wil Myers?
Originally Posted by REDREAD
Yep, that's exactly why I voted no.
Although I think it creates more question marks.
You trade Homer in that deal, it's a domino effect.
-- Rookie Myers in LF (probable growing pains)
-- Forced to put Chapman in rotation (question mark, plus he's not going to give you 200 IP like Homer can potentially do)
-- Chapman to the rotation means the Reds have to get a closer.. Certianly possible but another question mark.
I think the Reds are not going to get a CF this winter. It will be Stubbs until Billy H comes up. Then we have Fraizer as a question mark as well (he's not likely to OPS 900 again, I hope he can OPS 825, but is that realistic?)
I just remember how much the offense struggled in the beginning of 2012 when Rolen was hurt and Ludwick was stuggling.. I'd really like more proven production in LF than Myers. Even though Myers is highly touted, can we live with his growing pains and contend? If the Royals are willing to take minor leaguers, I'm more interested.. but if I'm trading Homer, I want a player in return that's as sure of a bet to be productive. Homer looks like about as sure of a thing as you're going to get from a pitcher at this point, and he does give the team great bang for the buck.
I keep posting similar remarks, but I like the way you state it. I agree with the dilemma you cite with growing pains with Myers, Chapman's durability as a starter, and then having to find a closer to replace him in the bullpen.
"I can't take this homerism anymore." - 10xWSChamps, August 11, 2010. A Cardinals fan having a problem with all the homerism on Redszone. Classic.
"Man do I miss the days where were didn't need a calculator and an encyclopedia of baseball metrics to enjoy a baseball game ... - MikeS21" - 8/2/12 game thread