|
Re: Should the Reds re-sign Wilson for 2005?
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by oregonred
Agree -- Wilson one year at 3-3.5M. I'd almost consider him a must sign unless the Reds get a killer deal at the deadline this season. Reds have no other viable rotation options in waiting for April 2005 and they need THREE rotation spots filled next season -- and that assumes Claussen/Harang are your two. Moseley maybe can help in '05.
In any event, the Reds need a quality #3 veteran presence. I'm skeptical you'll find anything better than Wilson bottom-fishing on a 1 yr deal -- I think the market for viable arms is going higher in the offseason due to the attendance spike and increased parity. My guess is someone would offer Wilson a 2 yr deal and that's why the F.O. needs to move fast and ship him out if he's not signable.
Hope is that by 2006 the promising wave of Nelson/Moseley/Gardner/Pauly allows you higher upside guys to fill out your rotation holes.
|
Assuming you can't do better, signing mediocrity, hoping for young pitchers to pan out. Haven't we been here before? Wasn't DanO brought in to change things?
Investing in a #3-4 guy and gambling on #1 and #2 doesn't strike me as all that sound an idea when you could invest in #1 and possibly a #2 and gamble on that #3-4 guy.
__________________
Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong
I'm witchcrafting everybody.
Last edited by M2; 07-23-2004 at 04:58 PM.
|