The Reds won't be able to take on the entire $12.95 million still owed Hinske over the next three seasons -- $3 million next season, $4.325 million in 2006 and $5.625 million in 2007 -- so the Jays will have to agree to pay part of it to make a trade.
If this is true, is the writing on the wall for Jimminez? I'm guessing Jimmeniz will get close to 3 million in 2005. Walker was shipped out when he got that pricey.
Granted though, if Hinske doesn't improve, Jimmeniz is a better player.
I'm going to buck the trend and say I wouldn't trade Graves for
Hinske. The problem is that we need help in the bullpen too.
The premise of unloading Graves is to get 7 million in payflex
to more efficiently spend on other pitching. If you could talk
the Jays into taking Graves (doubtful), there's no way they'd
subsidize Hinske's contract (my guess).
So, you unload Graves, but due to Hinske's contract, you really
haven't gained much payflex. In theory, you have 4 million for 2005,
but my guess is that Allen would hold on to that to pay off the rest
of Hinske's contract.
The other line of thought is that once you get Hinske, you could move Hinske elsewhere and
get the Graves' payflex.. but Hinske was that easy to move, wouldn't
the Jays move him there instead of accepting Graves?
So, trading Graves kills the pen and gets you a mediocre 3b (assuming
he doesn't get new life in Cincy).
The only reason this trade talk is alive is because Toronto is so desparate
to move Hinske that they'll eat a chunk of his contract. If we can get
him for a few mediocre prospects and he's heavily subsidized, then sure,
the Reds should do it. But, IMO, the bullpen is so thin that losing Graves
would cost us more wins than Hinske would add.