Travis Wood and Mike Leake

[RedTeamGo!]

I completely agree with this. I'd also add that we didn't necessarily make a mistake just because the other team received value in the trade. They got Wood and he's been what they hoped; we got Marshall and he's been what we hoped. Sounds like an ideal trade to me.

What if Marshall barely pitches the rest of the year, if at all? I am starting to get very worried about his arm. At this point we are relying on Manny Freaking Parra as the lefty out of the bullpen. Ouch-town, Bro.

[joshua]

I don't think anyone could have predicted that Marshall would have the problems he's been having.

I think, at the time, if we would have traded them Leake instead of Wood, we would have asked for a lot more in return. And even then if Leake was traded at the time for a reliever, many on this board (myself included) would've freaked out. Leake is a good pitcher and he's only going to get better. He has the type of skills that age better and won't be fully refined fora few more years. . He has a pretty high ceiling in my opinion, and if he ends up under performing my expectations and turning into a guy who gives you the same production that Arroyo does, that's plenty good enough for me.

I'm still not completely sold on Wood being as great as he's shown this season. He's a good pitcher, but if you look at our staff up and down the organization, we had a surplus of starting pitching talent. Cueto and Latos are givens...the aforementioned Leake, Chapman who could still be turned into a starter, Cingrani who is definitely coming up next year, Stephenson who has been pitching some amazing ball in Dayton (last 5 starts: 4-0, 31.2 IP, 4 earned, (1.15 ERA), 4 walks, 42 Strikeouts)who should be ready in two years etc. I'd take all of those guys over Wood.

[wolfboy]

What if Marshall barely pitches the rest of the year, if at all? I am starting to get very worried about his arm. At this point we are relying on Manny Freaking Parra as the lefty out of the bullpen. Ouch-town, Bro.

IIRC, when we traded for Marshall, he was only signed through 2012. The extension he's currently on wasn't negotiated until after the trade. While injuries are a big concern, I don't think it's fair to count that against the trade. We gave up Wood (and others) for a year of one of the best relievers in baseball and that's what we got.

[PuffyPig]

IIRC, when we traded for Marshall, he was only signed through 2012. The extension he's currently on wasn't negotiated until after the trade. While injuries are a big concern, I don't think it's fair to count that against the trade. We gave up Wood (and others) for a year of one of the best relievers in baseball and that's what we got.

We also got the chance to sign him before he became a FA. What were the chances we would have Marshall today if we hadn't traded for him? None likely.

Walt has employed this same strategy before in trading for, and inking guys, in their walk years like MaGwire, Edmonds, Rolen, Mulder etc.

You can't separate the extension from the trade.

[kaldaniels]

I'll take the competent starter, you take the reliever, and let the chips fall as they may.

But what do you do when you have too many starters? Where are Travis Wood and Mike Leake today if you don't make that trade?

In a vacuum your statement is correct, and there is not one person that will disagree with you. But if you have a surplus of starters, which is possible, do you completely rule out trading one to upgrade your bullpen (and in this case it was for one of the league's best relievers)? It just seems silly to rule such a thing out.

[Superdude]

But what do you do when you have too many starters? Where are Travis Wood and Mike Leake today if you don't make that trade?

In a vacuum your statement is correct, and there is not one person that will disagree with you. But if you have a surplus of starters, which is possible, do you completely rule out trading one to upgrade your bullpen (and in this case it was for one of the league's best relievers)? It just seems silly to rule such a thing out.

Yep. WAR doesn't always equal value IMO. There's only so many great relievers and Marshall is one of them when healthy. When the dust settles, Wood is a pretty replaceable back end starter.

[757690]

But what do you do when you have too many starters? Where are Travis Wood and Mike Leake today if you don't make that trade?

In a vacuum your statement is correct, and there is not one person that will disagree with you. But if you have a surplus of starters, which is possible, do you completely rule out trading one to upgrade your bullpen (and in this case it was for one of the league's best relievers)? It just seems silly to rule such a thing out.

I actually don't even agree with that statement in a vacuum.

An elite lefty setup man can be more valuable to a team than an average #5 starter. The latter pitches more overall innings at a lower skill level, while the former pitches more important, high leverage innings at a higher skill level.

It won't always be the case, but certainly can be.

[kaldaniels]

I actually don't even agree with that statement in a vacuum.

An elite lefty setup man can be more valuable to a team than an average #5 starter. The latter pitches more overall innings at a lower skill level, while the former pitches more important, high leverage innings at a higher skill level.

It won't always be the case, but certainly can be.

Yeah, but that's stretching it out a bit. An average #5 starter is not very good. (That would be the 135th best starter in the major leagues) I suppose an elite lefty (a non LOOGY) could be more valuable. But when he said competent I was thinking around the lines of a #3. (Out of 150 starting pitchers in the league, the 75th best) Something that you could make a very convincing case that both Leake and Wood are.

[wolfboy]

We also got the chance to sign him before he became a FA. What were the chances we would have Marshall today if we hadn't traded for him? None likely.

Walt has employed this same strategy before in trading for, and inking guys, in their walk years like MaGwire, Edmonds, Rolen, Mulder etc.

You can't separate the extension from the trade.

Why not? You still give up the same guys whether the player in question signs an extension (Marshall) or doesn't (Choo?). The fact that Walt has been better than others at securing that long term deal doesn't mean it's a guarantee when the trade is made.

[757690]

Yeah, but that's stretching it out a bit. An average #5 starter is not very good. (That would be the 135th best starter in the major leagues) I suppose an elite lefty (a non LOOGY) could be more valuable. But when he said competent I was thinking around the lines of a #3. (Out of 150 starting pitchers in the league, the 75th best) Something that you could make a very convincing case that both Leake and Wood are.

I guess it's linguistics.

Competent to me means: Able to play the game at the major league level. I think most #5 starters fit that definition.

I would call what you are calling "competent", "average," which is better than just competent.

But my main point is just that it's possible. And even with using "average" instead of "competent" I think there are some relievers who are more valuable to their team than an average starter.

[kaldaniels]

I guess it's linguistics.

Competent to me means: Able to play the game at the major league level. I think most #5 starters fit that definition.

I would call what you are calling "competent", "average," which is better than just competent.

But my main point is just that it's possible. And even with using "average" instead of "competent" I think there are some relievers who are more valuable to their team than an average starter.

Again, #5 starters would be the 120-150th best starters in the league. If I had any of those guys in my rotation on a regular basis, I would be actively trying to replace them...so I guess they are able to play the game at the major league level, simply because there is a spot for them, but that's about it.

Plus, being able to stick in a big league rotation is much more difficult to do than realized. If we took a snapshot of the top 150 starters in the game today, I just wonder how many of them were established starters 3 years ago or how many will be established starters 3 years in the future. Probably many more than not, but a good bit of guys flame out.

So for me, a guy like Mike Leake is the epitomy of competent. Without looking, he is probably a tick below league average in terms of starting performance. However, he is durable, consistent, and has stuck around. I just don't believe there are that many guys out there who are truly "competent" pitchers. Once you drop a rung below a guy like Leake on the ladder you are getting into either guys with 4.50+ ERA (yeah bad stat ) or guys that aren't durable or consistent. I may have higher standards but that isn't competent to me.

[M2]

I've got nothing against Travis Wood. I think he's a perfectly serviceable pitcher. Yet before anyone gets carried with the adoration of him, I suggest you take a look at the BABIP line in his career stats: http://www.baseball-reference.com/pl..._batting::none

[PuffyPig]

Travis Wood is a decent starter, bjt he's not close to elite or even very good. The only real thing that's improved this year is his BABIP.

Unless he's the one that has finally solved that puzzle, let's wait until it normalizes.

[OGB]

Worth considering:

Homer Bailey is a free agent in 2015. Johnny Cueto, Matt Latos, and Mike Leake are free agents in 2016. Travis Wood is arbitration eligible this offseason and will likely make $3.5-6* or more depending on how he finishes. He is a free agent in 2017.
For the Reds to maintain financial stability, they'll most likely need to add 2 pre-arbitration priced pitchers to the rotation by 2015. Right now it would seem to be Cingrani, and then possibly Corcino, Rogers, or maybe (fingers crossed) Stephenson.
If you extend Homer Bailey, then Leake (in his final year of arbitration) would be battling it out for consideration for the 5 spot with a young guy. Battling in the sense, of do we trade a vet because it makes financial sense.
Hopefully, Cueto, Latos, and/or Bailey will be extended before 2015 rolls around. If they are, then the idea of having Wood in the rotation isn't terribly realistic anyway.
Travis was definitely caught up in an interesting numbers game/time to be a Reds starter. For the first time in 2 decades they had a wealth of SP options, and since so many of them are going to graduate to being high priced guys right around the same time, you can only realistically look at keeping 2, maybe 3, as long term Reds. Beyond that, you need to start introducing your next wave of talent that pitches for the league minimum for a couple seasons.


*Pulled those out of my butt after looking at what Leake and Porcello got this offseason

[757690]

Again, #5 starters would be the 120-150th best starters in the league. If I had any of those guys in my rotation on a regular basis, I would be actively trying to replace them...so I guess they are able to play the game at the major league level, simply because there is a spot for them, but that's about it.

Plus, being able to stick in a big league rotation is much more difficult to do than realized. If we took a snapshot of the top 150 starters in the game today, I just wonder how many of them were established starters 3 years ago or how many will be established starters 3 years in the future. Probably many more than not, but a good bit of guys flame out.

So for me, a guy like Mike Leake is the epitomy of competent. Without looking, he is probably a tick below league average in terms of starting performance. However, he is durable, consistent, and has stuck around. I just don't believe there are that many guys out there who are truly "competent" pitchers. Once you drop a rung below a guy like Leake on the ladder you are getting into either guys with 4.50+ ERA (yeah bad stat ) or guys that aren't durable or consistent. I may have higher standards but that isn't competent to me.

I understand your point, but disagree.

One summer, I managed a retail store, decades ago. I hired many high school kids to handle the register and other basic duties. Most were competent employees. They did what they were asked to do without drama. I would never expect them to last or to perform more important roles.

If one is merely competent, to me that means they can do the job asked of them for now, but nothing more. Baseball is filled with players who can fill a job for a short time, but are not reliable for the long term. For that period when they are doing the job, they are competent. When they stop doing the job, they aren't competent and stop being used. Xavier Paul is a good example of this on the current Reds.

Again, this is simply semantics.