Re: Should the Reds re-sign Wilson for 2005?
Here's the problem with re-signing Wilson: Timing.
I don't care whether Paul Wilson is your best friend, the Reds needs to go out and bring in two pitchers better than him this offseason.
Unless they move a big contract this summer, that's probably going to require some offseason wheeling and dealing and that takes time. The Reds have to figure out how much money they can pool together to get those pitching upgrades. They've probably got enough to buy a Matt Clement or Russ Ortiz no matter what.
They may not have enough for one of those guys if they sign Wilson. Likewise, if they moved Danny Graves, signing Wilson might cost them a second pitcher.
And they have to make the decision on whether to sign Wilson early in the offseason. Seeing that they need pitching upgrades, knowing that they'll have more money to get those upgrades than at any point in the recent past, I don't see how you justify STARTING your offseason program by settling on a mediocre pitcher whom you ideally want to be your #4 guy.
If the Reds could add those two pitchers quickly and if Wilson was still around and available for one year at a price that fit the Reds' budget, then feel free to sign him. But there's a timeline in play that forces teams to make choices. Re-signing Paul Wilson means that you're chosing to keep largely intact what's been one of the worst rotations in all of baseball. It limits the scale of the other moves you can make and, IMO, the Reds would be fools not to pursue those options.
You've got to have priorities. And, just my opinion, if Paul Wilson's your priority, then I hope you enjoy life as an also-ran because that's where you're headed.
Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong
I'm witchcrafting everybody.