Originally Posted by Redsfaithful
Who would you have gotten instead for $4 million?
It was Ortiz for $4 million, or Hancock for the league minimum in the rotation. I'd rather have Ortiz at $4 million.
I'm completely not one of those people who says over and over that you can't criticize the front office because you don't know that better deals were out there ... but this time I am.
I haven't seen any better deals that O'Brien has turned down. Clement wasn't an option. Hudson wasn't an option. Mulder wasn't an option. Not if you really want the Reds to be thinking long term.
Tell me, anyone, what you'd prefer the Reds have done. Who should they have signed, that's already signed somewhere else? Out of the people who've been traded in the past few weeks, who should the Reds have nabbed?
These moves make 2005 a little more interesting.
I haven't seen anyone show how they hurt 2006 or 2007.
Targets shift. Goals shouldn't.
It wasn't just Ortiz's money. At a minimum it was Ortiz plus Wilson (which will cost roughly $7.5M in 2005). I figure the Reds probably could have lumped another $1M on top of that without feeling a pinch.
You take that money and you start going after the kinds of pitchers who can make a difference. What you don't do is stop that hunt and settle for rotation filler like Wilson and Ortiz. The key is having the money on hand when the opportunity presents itself. The Reds no longer have the money, making the opportunity a moot point.
I want no part of paying crummy pitchers because it's hard work to get good ones. If you have to play longshots have the good sense not to lavish millions upon them. The option that right now looks to be off the table is making a serious addition to the front of the rotation.