Turn Off Ads?
Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 31 to 40 of 40

Thread: Stanton, Headley, Fowler and the guys I'd give up for each

  1. #31
    All work and no play..... Vottomatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lebanon
    Posts
    7,067

    Re: Stanton, Headley, Fowler and the guys I'd give up for each

    Quote Originally Posted by Old school 1983 View Post
    Ill admit maybe it was an overpay for Stanton, and I was trying to make the point that it'll take legit prospect talent or younger major leaguers to get him rather than guys who have nothing left to prove in AAA but probably have no shot at being stars with Hamilton along with the fact that trading Hamilton and chapman would be insanely detrimental to the team this year and moving forward. I have an odd feeling that if Stanton is traded this year Nolasco will be attached.

    Cingrani
    Corcino
    Travieso

    Frazier
    Heisey

    To reds:
    Stanton
    Nolasco
    Polanco
    Ruggiano

    The bulk of the price is for Stanton. The pitchers and fraziers bat. We get the three rentals to give the fish salary relief and act as a platoon partner at third and right handed power/backup centerfield. We could keep Nolasco as depth or flip him to another team.
    No thanks. I'm not trading Cingrani, Corcino and Travieso. No way.

    Polanco is 37 years old. He's no long term answer at 3B and leaves a void there after this season.
    Reds aren't taking on Nolasco's contract for this season when first of all they don't need him.
    Ruggiano is basically Heisey.

    I'd rather give up less players, and more impactful players such as giving up our #1 prospect, Hamilton, and maybe either Cingrani or Chapman. Something like that.
    "I can't take this homerism anymore." - 10xWSChamps, August 11, 2010. A Cardinals fan having a problem with all the homerism on Redszone. Classic.

    "Man do I miss the days where were didn't need a calculator and an encyclopedia of baseball metrics to enjoy a baseball game ... - MikeS21" - 8/2/12 game thread

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #32
    Member Old school 1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,796

    Re: Stanton, Headley, Fowler and the guys I'd give up for each

    Quote Originally Posted by Vottomatic View Post
    No thanks. I'm not trading Cingrani, Corcino and Travieso. No way.

    Polanco is 37 years old. He's no long term answer at 3B and leaves a void there after this season.
    Reds aren't taking on Nolasco's contract for this season when first of all they don't need him.
    Ruggiano is basically Heisey.

    I'd rather give up less players, and more impactful players such as giving up our #1 prospect, Hamilton, and maybe either Cingrani or Chapman. Something like that.
    Hamilton is the only legitimate cf that could start in the majors pretty much at any level. Maybe yorman. The guy just isn't fast. He's once in a generation fast. If he got on the next how ever many batters would see more fastballs. You can get other power hitters. Cingrani while doing well up here relies way too much on the fastball. Chapman is a stud of a closer and yes those are important and needed for a post season run. Also he could start next year. You'd be taking the salary of ruggiano and Nolasco for the fish to make the deal. They'd get the years of heisey. If rather have heisey but the deal would make more sense for Miami that way. Nolasco is probably attached to any Stanton deal while the marlins have him. You'd have to take the cash dump for a year to get the years of Stanton. But either he or leake in the pen and use them as depth or flip him. I'm still not quite sure what's up with the Frazier infatuation. We have a third basemen of the future Henry Rodriguez. Polanco a d hannahan would be a nice platoon. Frazier is not as vital to this team as chapman or as potentially impactful as Hamilton and not as talented as Bruce but I constantly see you wanting to trade these guys. It's not just you but the second I say anything that might even be remotely critical of Frazier or mention hey we could use him in a trade to get someone better a ton of people on here come running to protect him like a 16 year old girl tries to justify dating a guy she knows is not that great and she could to better. I mean cingrani corcino Travieso heisey and Frazier for Stanton and honestly three rentals all of which could help us win this year seems like a good deal to me. Cingrani probably tops out at a 2 corcino at a 3 Travieso at a 1 5 years from now. Heisey is a backup and Frazier is a starter that offers a skillset that the reds have too much of. That'dbe a great deal for Stanton. We'd only be giving up one prospect who would be considered a future impact player in Travieso and we'd keep Stephenson who is probably going to be better.

  4. #33
    All work and no play..... Vottomatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lebanon
    Posts
    7,067

    Re: Stanton, Headley, Fowler and the guys I'd give up for each

    I'm considering payroll limitations and you're not. Thus trading some guys with current higher contracts or big paydays on the way.

    Also, you consistently say you have to give up something of value to get value. Yet you're so eager to trade Frazier, which speaks volumes of what you think of him........not much. So if you don't think much of him, why do you think The Fish will? Makes no sense.

    It's gonna hurt a bit to trade for Stanton. The question is........where do you want to hurt........and be realistic about what the Fish would accept in trade.

    There is also the balance that there are guys you're trading that I'd rather not part with.........and frankly, I'll go without Stanton if that's what it takes.

    The best deals are giving up quality prospects that are blocked.........such as what Walt did in the Latos deal. Alonso (blocked by Votto), Grandal (blocked by Mesoraco - who the Reds preferred at the time), Boxberger (Reds bullpen was already stellar), and Volquez (needed a change of scenery, and Reds got Latos to replace him to go with Arroyo, Bailey, Cueto, etc.). And other than Volquez having major league experience, Alonso had just a taste of it, and the other 2 were minor leaguers.

    Same with Donnie Joseph for Broxton last year. Highly touted minor league reliever for an established reliever.

    Nor do I understand your infatuation with the Fish wanting to unload Nolasco. If his contract is up at season's end, what's the big deal about dumping him? He's not even as good as any of the Reds current starters. They don't want or need him.
    "I can't take this homerism anymore." - 10xWSChamps, August 11, 2010. A Cardinals fan having a problem with all the homerism on Redszone. Classic.

    "Man do I miss the days where were didn't need a calculator and an encyclopedia of baseball metrics to enjoy a baseball game ... - MikeS21" - 8/2/12 game thread

  5. #34
    Member Old school 1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,796

    Re: Stanton, Headley, Fowler and the guys I'd give up for each

    Quote Originally Posted by Vottomatic View Post
    I'm considering payroll limitations and you're not. Thus trading some guys with current higher contracts or big paydays on the way.

    Also, you consistently say you have to give up something of value to get value. Yet you're so eager to trade Frazier, which speaks volumes of what you think of him........not much. So if you don't think much of him, why do you think The Fish will? Makes no sense.

    It's gonna hurt a bit to trade for Stanton. The question is........where do you want to hurt........and be realistic about what the Fish would accept in trade.

    There is also the balance that there are guys you're trading that I'd rather not part with.........and frankly, I'll go without Stanton if that's what it takes.

    The best deals are giving up quality prospects that are blocked.........such as what Walt did in the Latos deal. Alonso (blocked by Votto), Grandal (blocked by Mesoraco - who the Reds preferred at the time), Boxberger (Reds bullpen was already stellar), and Volquez (needed a change of scenery, and Reds got Latos to replace him to go with Arroyo, Bailey, Cueto, etc.). And other than Volquez having major league experience, Alonso had just a taste of it, and the other 2 were minor leaguers.

    Same with Donnie Joseph for Broxton last year. Highly touted minor league reliever for an established reliever.

    Nor do I understand your infatuation with the Fish wanting to unload Nolasco. If his contract is up at season's end, what's the big deal about dumping him? He's not even as good as any of the Reds current starters. They don't want or need him.
    I wouldn't want or need him either but really unless you'd want to pay a higher price that's what's it'd take. Nolasco is an 11 million dollar burden on loria on a marlins team that is going absolutely nowhere. Eating that salary for him may be the true cost of acquiring Stanton this year. Next year they will probably want more prospect wise and we will be hard pressed to outbid the cards or rangers unless we give up the ultimate trade chip. Young pitching. I completely agree with trading commodities that are blocked or that you don't need but the guys you mentioned from the latos trade had star potential whereas the guys you mentioned earlier did not.

    Trading chapman would be a huge mistake. Look how out of wack the pen looked without Marshall. Imagine how it'd be without chapman. It'd be different if we were running out some sort of closer by committee but we are running out arguably the best closer in at least the NL stuff wise plus he has potential to start.

    Billy Hamilton is not a guy to trade. He brings assets to the reds that they sorely lack. Speed and the ability to play center. His speed is awesome. Hell turn things around in AAA and kinda is as we speak. The guy could make an impact for so many hitters just by being on base when they are up. He could also be an invaluable chip in a playoff run this year as a late inning pinch runner at least.

    I would hate to part with pitching but the simple fact of the matter is that we have an extremely solid 1-3 starters right now and signed at least through the end of next year. Arroyo is a warrior and leake is much better than he gets credit for. That's why I said we should deal pitching. We have solid pieces. I know we'd be running a risk like the dodgers did but I'd be much more willing to run that risk for Stanton especially if you could get a filler like Nolasco for the rest of the year. The depth issue could be addressed in the offseason.

    I wouldn't want to trade any of those pitchers in a perfect world but simply that is the area of this team that is blocked right now and right now pitchers are our best prospects. That's what teams are going to want.

    As far as Frazier goes he's a nice piece. I've always said that. He's a GOOD overall player but our Fans treat him like an UNEXPENDABLE ALL STAR. When in reality he is a commodity that the reds are overloaded with. The feast or famine hitter. Out of our feast or famine guys I see him as the one I'd move because he is not as good at 3b as Bruce is in right and cozart is at short. Cozart plays a more premium defensive position which would be harder to replace. Bruce is already an all star and has not reached his full potential level yet plus he's younger than Frazier. The fish would want power back to replace stanton. In reality they may want Frazier and lutz. I'd rather just give up Frazier and I would have said that before lutzs' call up. So that's my case to why Frazier should be traded. I know other people think he has value and we ought to exploit that while they still do. I really think last year was his career year.

    As far as payroll goes we have no idea what the inner workings are. All I hear is castellini hates to lose. If Walt came to him and said hey we can get Stanton but we'd have to take a payroll spike this year to get him I think he'd go for it.

    And I know what your master plan is. Trade for Stanton and trade for fowler and resign choo. It's just too many moves dependent on other moves. If one thing goes wrong for the reds they are out of luck.

    So pretty much if you want to make an offer that is better than other teams, doesnt immediately leave the reds short handed at an important position with one of the teams most irreplaceable players, and deals pieces we do not immediately need, then you're going to have to have the guts pull the trigger on giving up some young pitching.

    Giving up the prospects you mentioned and Hamilton could be easily matched by other clubs.

    Trading chapman and Hamilton or cingrani and Hamilton will hurt the reds more than trading those pitchers IMO.
    Last edited by Old school 1983; 05-13-2013 at 09:55 PM.

  6. #35
    All work and no play..... Vottomatic's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Location
    Lebanon
    Posts
    7,067

    Re: Stanton, Headley, Fowler and the guys I'd give up for each

    Quote Originally Posted by Old school 1983 View Post
    I wouldn't want or need him either but really unless you'd want to pay a higher price that's what's it'd take. Nolasco is an 11 million dollar burden on loria on a marlins team that is going absolutely nowhere. Eating that salary for him may be the true cost of acquiring Stanton this year.
    I still think you forget that the Reds have a $100M-$106M payroll this year and are probably up against their limit already. Sure, if they can swing taking on Nolasco's salary for the remainder of this year, and the Fish take into consideration the value of it to them in the trade......then I'd do it. I just don't think the Reds can. I also think it means sending them Leake or Cingrani back in the deal to replace Nolasco. Leake heads to arbitration next season. Cingrani still comes cheap. Gee, I wonder which one Loria would want.

    Next year they will probably want more prospect wise and we will be hard pressed to outbid the cards or rangers unless we give up the ultimate trade chip. Young pitching.
    I agree it's now or never. If Stanton survives to the offseason, the Reds will have zero chance competing against the large markets to acquire him. I think the Reds chances are slim to none now anyway.

    I completely agree with trading commodities that are blocked or that you don't need but the guys you mentioned from the latos trade had star potential whereas the guys you mentioned earlier did not.
    So far, none of the guys in the Latos trade have been much more than average, including Alonso. What the Padres got were (2) #1 picks in Alonso and Grandal. I think Boxberger was either a supplemental first rounder or second rounder.......I can't remember. And a former Cy Young candidate who won 17 games a few years back in Volquez. Volquez wouldn't make the Reds current starting rotation. Grandal is suspended for PED's. Alonso is still blocked by Votto. And Boxberger has been mediocre since the trade and more than likely wouldn't be in the bullpen. Really no loss for the Reds in that trade unless one of those guys jumps in his improvement suddenly.

    I think the problem in trying to match that trade is, atleast to me, is that there is a huge difference in trading #1 picks that are hitters, rather than trading #1 picks that are pitchers. A whole different level of value, IMHO. And so far, neither Grandal or Alonso are Pujols or Trout......nor do I think they'll ever be. I tend to value pitchers more than you appear to. I think one of your proposals had Corcino, Stephenson and Travieso going in a deal. Yikes. You do realize that both Stephenson and Travieso throw in the mid-90's and can touch 97 mph, don't you? Those guys don't grow on trees.

    So another problem is that the Reds don't have much to trade after that. Hamilton is the #1 prospect and you don't want to trade him. Who else at triple A has any value? Henry Rodriguez?

    Trading chapman would be a huge mistake. Look how out of whack the pen looked without Marshall. Imagine how it'd be without chapman. It'd be different if we were running out some sort of closer by committee but we are running out arguably the best closer in at least the NL stuff wise plus he has potential to start.
    Chapman is going to get really expensive here in a couple of years. I'm not in the camp that thinks he can be a good enough starter to make it worthwhile trying him there. Frankly, I think Hoover or Lecure could Close for this team. People laugh at that, but I think Lecure has one of the best pitching arsenal's I've seen in a long while. I really enjoy watching that guy pitch. As for Chapman starting, the Reds have 6 legit starters now. Maybe Leake or Cingrani go in a trade. You still have Corcino, Sharky Rogers (1.51 e.r.a. at Pensacola), Stephenson, Cisco, and Travieso coming to the majors probably by 2015 or 2016. Cueto, Latos, and Bailey are mostly signed through 2014 or 2015. I would rather keep Chapman at Closer if he's not to be traded. We don't need him in the starting rotation.

    Billy Hamilton is not a guy to trade. He brings assets to the reds that they sorely lack. Speed and the ability to play center. His speed is awesome. Hell turn things around in AAA and kinda is as we speak. The guy could make an impact for so many hitters just by being on base when they are up. He could also be an invaluable chip in a playoff run this year as a late inning pinch runner at least.
    You're preaching to the choir in terms of his speed. I'm just not convinced he is ever going to be anything other than mediocre in terms of a hitter. You can't steal first base. Might be time to get something for him while he still has trade value. I hope I'm wrong because I'd love to see him in CF and leading off for the Reds, if he can hit .280+ and have an OBP of .350 or higher.

    I would hate to part with pitching but the simple fact of the matter is that we have an extremely solid 1-3 starters right now and signed at least through the end of next year. Arroyo is a warrior and leake is much better than he gets credit for. That's why I said we should deal pitching. We have solid pieces. I know we'd be running a risk like the dodgers did but I'd be much more willing to run that risk for Stanton especially if you could get a filler like Nolasco for the rest of the year. The depth issue could be addressed in the offseason.
    Cueto signed through 2015. Latos signed through 2014. Bailey is rumored to want to test free agency in 2015, and that he hates pitching in GABP. Arroyo is a FA in 2014. Can the Reds afford to re-sign Arroyo? Leake arbitration eligible this offseason. Reds may have to look at starting to replace some of these guys simply due to their payroll limitations. They can't keep everyone.

    I wouldn't want to trade any of those pitchers in a perfect world but simply that is the area of this team that is blocked right now and right now pitchers are our best prospects. That's what teams are going to want.
    I'd trade a pitcher. But not 3 of them like you proposed. And as I've shown, the current starters may all be gone by 2015 or 2016. We need replacements. I hate trading too much pitching.

    As far as Frazier goes he's a nice piece. I've always said that. He's a GOOD overall player but our Fans treat him like an UNEXPENDABLE ALL STAR. When in reality he is a commodity that the reds are overloaded with. The feast or famine hitter. Out of our feast or famine guys I see him as the one I'd move because he is not as good at 3b as Bruce is in right and cozart is at short. Cozart plays a more premium defensive position which would be harder to replace. Bruce is already an all star and has not reached his full potential level yet plus he's younger than Frazier. The fish would want power back to replace stanton. In reality they may want Frazier and lutz. I'd rather just give up Frazier and I would have said that before lutzs' call up. So that's my case to why Frazier should be traded. I know other people think he has value and we ought to exploit that while they still do. I really think last year was his career year.
    I'd trade Frazier if that's what it took. But as I said earlier, you seem to undervalue him but think the Fish would value him. Makes no sense. And the only replacement for Frazier would be HRod at Louisville. HRod had a ton of errors in Spring Training. And he's not exactly lighting it up at Louisville. Not a quality third baseman replacement in the Reds system.

    As far as payroll goes we have no idea what the inner workings are. All I hear is castellini hates to lose. If Walt came to him and said hey we can get Stanton but we'd have to take a payroll spike this year to get him I think he'd go for it.

    And I know what your master plan is. Trade for Stanton and trade for fowler and resign choo. It's just too many moves dependent on other moves. If one thing goes wrong for the reds they are out of luck.

    So pretty much if you want to make an offer that is better than other teams, doesnt immediately leave the reds short handed at an important position with one of the teams most irreplaceable players, and deals pieces we do not immediately need, then you're going to have to have the guts pull the trigger on giving up some young pitching.

    Giving up the prospects you mentioned and Hamilton could be easily matched by other clubs.

    Trading chapman and Hamilton or cingrani and Hamilton will hurt the reds more than trading those pitchers IMO.
    I'm not really interested in draining the farm system to obtain Stanton. Thus my 1 (Cingrani) for 1 (Stanton) proposals or 2 (Hamilton/Chapman) for 1 proposals. I seriously doubt the Reds want to gut the system either considering they have to consider total payroll, and will need cheaper options in the coming years.

    Just say no if the deal ain't right. Has to work for both sides. And there simply might not be a match between the Fish and the Reds.
    "I can't take this homerism anymore." - 10xWSChamps, August 11, 2010. A Cardinals fan having a problem with all the homerism on Redszone. Classic.

    "Man do I miss the days where were didn't need a calculator and an encyclopedia of baseball metrics to enjoy a baseball game ... - MikeS21" - 8/2/12 game thread

  7. #36
    Savante SpiritofStLouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Dregs of the diseased mind
    Posts
    273

    Re: Stanton, Headley, Fowler and the guys I'd give up for each

    I know it's fun to speculate, but realistically, their are at least a dozen teams that have more to offer the Marlins than Cincinnati.

    Not saying it can't happen, but maybe if you offered Cingrani, Hamilton, Stephenson and a lower prospect, you might get talks going.
    We can share the women, we can share the wine.

  8. #37
    Member Old school 1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,796

    Re: Stanton, Headley, Fowler and the guys I'd give up for each

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofStLouis View Post
    I know it's fun to speculate, but realistically, their are at least a dozen teams that have more to offer the Marlins than Cincinnati.

    Not saying it can't happen, but maybe if you offered Cingrani, Hamilton, Stephenson and a lower prospect, you might get talks going.
    It's fun to speculate but for the reds to be able to land Stanton I think they may have to be willing to take on the salaries of some players the marlins have that they want off of the payroll. My basic point with Stanton is I think the reds would have to seriously overpay for him. Pretty much to the point where it could actually do more long run damage than Stanton would be worth. If they could get him for less by all means. I think the reds would be better off going after someone like Headley. He wouldn't come cheap but he wouldn't be in Stanton's price range, would make the team D better and still be able to fill the four hole

  9. #38
    Savante SpiritofStLouis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    The Dregs of the diseased mind
    Posts
    273

    Re: Stanton, Headley, Fowler and the guys I'd give up for each

    Quote Originally Posted by Old school 1983 View Post
    It's fun to speculate but for the reds to be able to land Stanton I think they may have to be willing to take on the salaries of some players the marlins have that they want off of the payroll. My basic point with Stanton is I think the reds would have to seriously overpay for him. Pretty much to the point where it could actually do more long run damage than Stanton would be worth. If they could get him for less by all means. I think the reds would be better off going after someone like Headley. He wouldn't come cheap but he wouldn't be in Stanton's price range, would make the team D better and still be able to fill the four hole
    At this point, I think anybody that wants Stanton is going to have to overpay. He is extremely talented, young and cost controlled for now.

    He is the crown jewel of Miami's club, and there are enough teams that would want him that a bidding war would certainly ensue.

    As for Headley, San Diego has been trying for almost a month to re-sign him, but as of yet he has resisted. Whether or not San Diego relents at the trade deadline remains to be seen.

    Personally, if I was the Reds I wouldn't part with what it would take to get him. Their farm system just isn't deep enough right now to pare off their top prospects for one player.

    If it were me, I'd wait until July, see if Ludwick is coming back, then scoop up a bat that's an impending FA. Teams are always willing to do a salary dump or trade a player they have no hope of re-signing.
    We can share the women, we can share the wine.

  10. #39
    Member Old school 1983's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2013
    Posts
    1,796

    Re: Stanton, Headley, Fowler and the guys I'd give up for each

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofStLouis View Post
    At this point, I think anybody that wants Stanton is going to have to overpay. He is extremely talented, young and cost controlled for now.

    He is the crown jewel of Miami's club, and there are enough teams that would want him that a bidding war would certainly ensue.

    As for Headley, San Diego has been trying for almost a month to re-sign him, but as of yet he has resisted. Whether or not San Diego relents at the trade deadline remains to be seen.

    Personally, if I was the Reds I wouldn't part with what it would take to get him. Their farm system just isn't deep enough right now to pare off their top prospects for one player.

    If it were me, I'd wait until July, see if Ludwick is coming back, then scoop up a bat that's an impending FA. Teams are always willing to do a salary dump or trade a player they have no hope of re-signing.
    I could see a play for Michael young but he doesn't bat 4. Anyone fit that profile?

  11. #40
    Where's my chair? REDREAD's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Posts
    21,134

    Re: Stanton, Headley, Fowler and the guys I'd give up for each

    Quote Originally Posted by SpiritofStLouis View Post
    If it were me, I'd wait until July, see if Ludwick is coming back, then scoop up a bat that's an impending FA. Teams are always willing to do a salary dump or trade a player they have no hope of re-signing.
    Yeah, that's what I see happening.
    That's more of Walt's style.
    You are right, at the trade deadline, there's plenty of decent players available that are pending free agents which are not that expensive to acquire.

    Heck, look at Rolen and Broxton as examples for the Reds.

    Or when Walt got Larry Walker for the Cards (although I can't remember what the Cards gave up for him).

    Let's say that Ludwick is lost for the year. I'm pretty confident that Walt can find a guy to fill in LF capably for the rest of the year without giving up someone like Billy Hamilton, Cingrani, Leake, etc.
    Thank you Walt and Bob for going for it in 2010-2014!

    Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!


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