Originally Posted by cincinnati chili
And by "D," I think they might have been better off doing nothing. I think they're record will be very similar to last year, and they'll be stuck with bad LTCs making the signing of Dunn very difficult.
Unless the signing of Dunn wouldn't matter. Maybe DanO is forbidden to give Dunn a LTC. I think it's highly possible that Allen now has a policy of going year-to-year until he's forced otherwise. And it may not be that bad of a policy in some cases. The time to lock up young players and save money is before they establish themselves. I'm not sure there's been a LTC that saves significant money after the player busts out. Of course, there's always the risk that Dunn goes into 70 Hr territory next year. But the Reds do control Dunn for 3 more years (I think). By then, Milton's contract is off the books.
Wilson, Milton, and Ortiz might all flop, but I think signing them is a lot better than doing nothing. Their replacements would likely be: Claussen, Hancock, and Acevado/Robertson. That's certainly a downgrade.
If the only justification of giving them a "D" is that it MIGHT hurt our chances of signing Dunn/Kearns longterm, I'm not that worried. I can buy the arguement that maybe the money could've been spent on better FAs (hypothetically, but I'm not sure that in reality we had a chance to get Clement/Perez at any price).
Edit: I do agree with you on one thing. The Reds had a lot of "luck" last year, so it's possible their W-L may not improve. However, I think their W-L will be better than if they had done nothing this winter. Thanks.