Originally Posted by westofyou
Why (and I ask this seriously) would any of those guys want to hook up with the Reds at this point and time? They're rebuilding the left side of their infield, they don't have a large budget, they play in a division with 3 teams with bigger payrolls and 2 of them have really good starters.
Maybe someday, but the current state of the Reds (not to mention their history with Type A FA's) screams that this is all wishful thinking.
Grandma said, "If wishes were horses we'd all be riding now."
The Reds have a history with Type A free agents?
John Smiley, who was a great sign, and then I'm drawing a blank.
As for why sign with the Reds: A) They can pay what you think you're worth, B) Maybe you don't view them as a hopeless situation, C) They do a good job of selling you.
For instance, the Reds beat up pretty well on Matt Clement as a rule. He might look at the Reds as a place he can go and get gobs of run support. He might also like the idea of being the lead dog and, from what I've read, he's interested in being close to his western PA home. Now that's just one guy and the Reds could make every reasonable effort to land him and still miss, but I don't think players as a rule are binary about signing with winning clubs and avoiding losing clubs. The Mets and Orioles have had no problem finding people to take their money.
It was only a decade ago when Reds players actively recruited outside players to join the club because the believed Cincinnati was such a great place to play (iirc Smiley, Brantley and Larkin were the ring leaders of that operation). The pitch was something like "Do you want to spend more time on baseball and 75% less time on all the nonsense that swirls around the game? Do you want to live somewhere where you and your family can have a normal life?"
There's a lot about Cincinnati that should appeal to certain players. Others won't care for it, but I wouldn't throw a blanket assumption over the whole free agent market.