Turn Off Ads?
Page 2 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 67

Thread: Re-sign Choo?

  1. #16
    Party like it's 1990 Blitz Dorsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    4,716

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    We never thought the Reds would be able to re-sign Votto, but they did.

    Castellini is in it to win it. If you think there is no (or very little) chance of the Reds re-signing Choo, you haven't been paying attention. Not saying it will definitely happen, but we'll make a strong run at re-signing him, no question about it. I think it greatly helps our chances that Choo seems to love being a Red and might not want to play for 3 teams in 3 years.

    That damn Ludwick contract just burns me though. I didn't mind it when I thought it was a 2-year, $15 million deal (which is was it was publicized as). Due to the Reds foolishly tacking on an "option year," it's in reality a 2-year, $19.5 million deal because there is a $4.5 million buyout in 2015 which of course the Reds will exercise. Paying Ludwick almost $10 mil a season for two years was beyond foolish.

    Again, $7.5 million a season wasn't bad at all and that's what I thought the contract was. But $9.75 per year on average? What a joke. The Reds had to be bidding against themselves there. Who else in MLB was going to give Ludwick that much money coming off ONE good year (after 2 horrible years) while playing in a hitter-friendly park. Here's your answer: Absolutely no one.

    Hopefully the overpaying of Ludwick doesn't prevent the Reds from having enough money to re-sign Choo, but I fear it could be a factor. That absurd contract given to Broxton to be a $7 million set-up man won't help matters either.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #17
    Viva la Rolen kaldaniels's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    8,190

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    I just can't see the 15 million or so spent on Ludwick being the reason an 80 million dollar deal couldn't be swung with Choo. The 80 million would be the holdup.

  4. #18
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,033

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey View Post
    We never thought the Reds would be able to re-sign Votto, but they did.

    Castellini is in it to win it. If you think there is no (or very little) chance of the Reds re-signing Choo, you haven't been paying attention. Not saying it will definitely happen, but we'll make a strong run at re-signing him, no question about it. I think it greatly helps our chances that Choo seems to love being a Red and might not want to play for 3 teams in 3 years.

    That damn Ludwick contract just burns me though. I didn't mind it when I thought it was a 2-year, $15 million deal (which is was it was publicized as). Due to the Reds foolishly tacking on an "option year," it's in reality a 2-year, $19.5 million deal because there is a $4.5 million buyout in 2015 which of course the Reds will exercise. Paying Ludwick almost $10 mil a season for two years was beyond foolish.

    Again, $7.5 million a season wasn't bad at all and that's what I thought the contract was. But $9.75 per year on average? What a joke. The Reds had to be bidding against themselves there. Who else in MLB was going to give Ludwick that much money coming off ONE good year (after 2 horrible years) while playing in a hitter-friendly park. Here's your answer: Absolutely no one.

    Hopefully the overpaying of Ludwick doesn't prevent the Reds from having enough money to re-sign Choo, but I fear it could be a factor. That absurd contract given to Broxton to be a $7 million set-up man won't help matters either.
    I explained this in response to this same misinformed post in the last thread like this one. Ludwick got a $2 Million signing Bonus, his 2013 salary is $1 Million, his 2014 salary is $7.5 Million his option year is for $9 Million with a $4.5 Million buy-out. $1 Million, plus $2 Million, plus $7.5 Million plus the $4.5 Million buy-out equals a guaranteed $15 Million. The option year enabled the Reds to defer some of the 2013 cash outlay until after 2014 when the new MLB TV contract kicks in, Votto's cost drops by $7 Million, Arroyo is off the books as is Masset and Arredondo.

    Deferring $4.5 Million until after 2014 along with the $3 Million that the Reds got along with Choo in the Stubbs, Didi deal is how the Reds were able to add Choo in the first place.

    You shouldn't be condemning that option year, you should be praising it as a crafty move by Walt to add a top notch player when the budget was already maxed out. In fact, I'd say its his best move of the off-season. Wanting Choo was a pretty easy call to make, figuring out how to pay for him with no money is the executive of the year move IMO.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

    Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS

  5. Likes:

    Homer Bailey (04-22-2013), redsfandan (04-22-2013), redsmetz (04-21-2013), Screwball (04-22-2013), thatcoolguy_22 (04-22-2013)

  6. #19
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,033

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    Quote Originally Posted by kaldaniels View Post
    I just can't see the 15 million or so spent on Ludwick being the reason an 80 million dollar deal couldn't be swung with Choo. The 80 million would be the holdup.
    Yep, along with the need to keep at least two of Latos, Cueto and Bailey. If those three all leave by the end of 2015, it won't matter of the Reds have a team full of Choos.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

    Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS

  7. #20
    Member
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    377

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    Yep, along with the need to keep at least two of Latos, Cueto and Bailey. If those three all leave by the end of 2015, it won't matter of the Reds have a team full of Choos.
    This post made me think of just how much money the current team will be making in few years, whether from the Reds or from someone else. It also made me think how seldom it has been for us to lose players in free agency that we really wanted to keep. Most of our free-agents-to-be have made it clear that they would leave, we were out of contention, and they were shipped out at the deadline -- this is what comes from being bad for a decade. But in the coming years, we might see instances where we hold players to the expiration of their deal, and then they leave, which, as I've suggested, hasn't happened all that often (unless others remind me what I've forgotten).

  8. #21
    Party like it's 1990 Blitz Dorsey's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2006
    Location
    Columbus, OH
    Posts
    4,716

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    I explained this in response to this same misinformed post in the last thread like this one. Ludwick got a $2 Million signing Bonus, his 2013 salary is $1 Million, his 2014 salary is $7.5 Million his option year is for $9 Million with a $4.5 Million buy-out. $1 Million, plus $2 Million, plus $7.5 Million plus the $4.5 Million buy-out equals a guaranteed $15 Million. The option year enabled the Reds to defer some of the 2013 cash outlay until after 2014 when the new MLB TV contract kicks in, Votto's cost drops by $7 Million, Arroyo is off the books as is Masset and Arredondo.

    Deferring $4.5 Million until after 2014 along with the $3 Million that the Reds got along with Choo in the Stubbs, Didi deal is how the Reds were able to add Choo in the first place.

    You shouldn't be condemning that option year, you should be praising it as a crafty move by Walt to add a top notch player when the budget was already maxed out. In fact, I'd say its his best move of the off-season. Wanting Choo was a pretty easy call to make, figuring out how to pay for him with no money is the executive of the year move IMO.
    Wait, so it IS a 2-year, $15 million deal in reality as I originally thought? I never know what to believe on the interwebs any more. Thanks for setting me straight.

    And there is no hidden money (deferred money) you are leaving out of the discussion, right? It's just a straight 2-year, $15 million deal if the Reds decline the 2015 option? If that's the case, I like that deal, just like I originally did. It's just there were several posters saying it was $15 mil deal plus the option (making it $19.5 guaranteed including the buyout).

    You seem tuned in so I believe you, just want some clarity.

  9. #22
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    15,033

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Blitz Dorsey View Post
    Wait, so it IS a 2-year, $15 million deal in reality as I originally thought? I never know what to believe on the interwebs any more. Thanks for setting me straight.

    And there is no hidden money (deferred money) you are leaving out of the discussion, right? It's just a straight 2-year, $15 million deal if the Reds decline the 2015 option? If that's the case, I like that deal, just like I originally did. It's just there were several posters saying it was $15 mil deal plus the option (making it $19.5 guaranteed including the buyout).

    You seem tuned in so I believe you, just want some clarity.
    If the Reds exercise the option, it will be $19.5 Million for 3 years. Right now its a guaranteed 2 years, $15 Million with $4.5 of it deferred in the form of the option buy-out to be paid after the 2014 season.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

    Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS

  10. Likes:

    Blitz Dorsey (04-23-2013)

  11. #23
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    165

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    Quote Originally Posted by Vottomatic View Post
    Not enough money and Hamilton in the wings. I know, I know all the arguments why it won't happen.

    But I simply don't understand why they don't try and do it anyway. We haven't had a legit leadoff hitter like this in forever. Dude is making the whole team better. Seriously.
    I'm almost to the point where I would be okay with signing just two of Cueto, Latos, and Homer if it meant keeping Choo for another 3-4 years. Wait, would that be possible keeping two of those pitchers and Choo or would you think it would just be one?

  12. #24
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    11,500

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    If the Reds exercise the option, it will be $19.5 Million for 3 years. Right now its a guaranteed 2 years, $15 Million with $4.5 of it deferred in the form of the option buy-out to be paid after the 2014 season.
    Just for clarification, it's for three years of payroll, for bookkeeping sake. However, it's for only two years of production. Still a very smart move.
    "Man, the pitch looks fast, even in slow motion." Thom Brennaman on Chapman's fastball.

  13. #25
    Worst Behavior. reds44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,481

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    He is going to play himself out of the Reds price range.
    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post
    Let's face it, you mis-hit the bun with the mustard squirter, no one will really care.

  14. #26
    Worst Behavior. reds44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,481

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    Quote Originally Posted by nate1213 View Post
    I'm almost to the point where I would be okay with signing just two of Cueto, Latos, and Homer if it meant keeping Choo for another 3-4 years. Wait, would that be possible keeping two of those pitchers and Choo or would you think it would just be one?
    Pay the pitching. Every. Single. Time.
    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post
    Let's face it, you mis-hit the bun with the mustard squirter, no one will really care.

  15. #27
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Posts
    1,000

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    Yep. Pay the pitching. You'll win with pitching over the course of the year. It isn't as sexy as the offense, but the Reds keep Cueto, Latos and Bailey healthy and together they will be in contention every year for the next 5.
    Last edited by NeilHamburger; 04-22-2013 at 01:03 AM.

  16. #28
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    165

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    Quote Originally Posted by reds44 View Post
    Pay the pitching. Every. Single. Time.
    I've always had that mind-set. But if we could put Hamilton and Choo ahead of Votto, imagine that the on-base machine that we would have (obviously assuming Hamilton transfers over). By the time we lose one of three Stephenson will be knocking on the door and Cingrani will be here along with Leake (gulp) and a potential Chapman (doubt it). I would honestly focus on retaining Latos and Homer too over Cueto. That is if Homer proves he can go back to back seasons of 200+ innings.

  17. #29
    Worst Behavior. reds44's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2003
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    25,481

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    No. You always pay the pitching. The Reds went to the playoffs with hot garbage at the top of the lineup last year and without Votto for a long time because of pitching.
    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post
    Let's face it, you mis-hit the bun with the mustard squirter, no one will really care.

  18. #30
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    165

    Re: Re-sign Choo?

    Also can't forget unbelievable second halves by Ludwick and Frazier.


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

Board Moderators may, at their discretion and judgment, delete and/or edit any messages that violate any of the following guidelines: 1. Explicit references to alleged illegal or unlawful acts. 2. Graphic sexual descriptions. 3. Racial or ethnic slurs. 4. Use of edgy language (including masked profanity). 5. Direct personal attacks, flames, fights, trolling, baiting, name-calling, general nuisance, excessive player criticism or anything along those lines. 6. Posting spam. 7. Each person may have only one user account. It is fine to be critical here - that's what this board is for. But let's not beat a subject or a player to death, please.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25