Turn Off Ads?
Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 15 of 41

Thread: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

  1. #1
    Member mdccclxix's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2009
    Location
    Crown
    Posts
    3,745

    Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    I'm wondering if the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade. They seem intent on landing a leadoff/centerfielder. They could be looking for something else that would improve the offense. Price has indeed highlighted the offense needing improvement and the winter meetings are important for that.

    I don't believe the payroll will go above 110 milion, so any major free agent is out of the question, with a small, tiny chance at a surprise with Choo.

    It doesn't sound like to me that the Reds are even dreaming about trading Bailey. They want to win a championship and know their rotation is affordable and dominant the way it is. I think any Bailey rumors are less likely than say a Choo signing. His value to the Reds in 2014 is higher than teams will pay (with all the other arms being floated about) for one year of Bailey. Even trading Leake would compromise the rotation, but for 2 years this time. The rotation, and bullpen, are set.

    Phillips is still most likely to be traded, but the Reds might just jump in on the next 4 years with him. He's valuable to the all important 2014 season, that's for sure. His contract, in the context of all the TV money washing in, is average. The leverage other teams will try to use is his contract, but Walt may be able to point to Peralta, Choo and Ellsbury and say look what these players are getting! So that barrier will come down, I think. But even then, what is the return for Phillips? It's a hard comp to come up with. With Infante on the market, and Kendrick too, his value has, perhaps, never been lower. I do not think he could bring back even equal value to the team in 2014 if he was traded.

    ...Unless, the Reds decide to sell from the farm again. People will say, this is what Walt does, and their right, he trades players that have an already low shot at succeeding. So far, only Wood has burned them. People will also say, our farm is depleted and can't add enough value. But as we saw with Didi, beauty was in the eye of the beholder.

    Just looking at things with an open mind, what return would you expect from the top 10 or 20 prospects?

    Here is BA's list:

    Robert Stephenson
    Billy Hamilton
    Phillip Ervin *can't be traded until June
    Jesse Winker
    Yorman Rodriguez
    Michael Lorenzen *cant' be traded until June
    Carlos Contreras
    Nick Travieso
    Ben Lively
    Tucker Barnhart

    Some More:
    Amir Garrett
    Chad Rodgers
    Daniel Corcino
    Ryan Lamarre
    Juan Duran
    Seth Mejias-Brean
    Jon Moscot
    Jeremy Kivel
    Jose Ortiz

    One more point, if the Angels are asking Tyler Skaggs for Mark Trumbo, what can we really expect for Stephenson? Then again, Doug Fister was had for very, very little. Walt has tended towards unloading some high level prospects in each deal, so what would you think about trading Stephenson or Winker or Hamilton, etc? Are these the players that can put a Phillips trade way over the top in value/return by their addition to a deal?

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2011
    Location
    Pensacola, Florida
    Posts
    509

    Re: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    Rays asking price for Price is two ready MLB players with one being a starter and then what ever they can get. When they mean ready, no AAA seasoning needed.
    http://diamondvisits.blogspot.com/ My Minor League stadium review site.

  4. #3
    Member RadfordVA's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    917

    Re: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    No one is untouchable but if you were going to deal one of your top prospects it needs to be for someone with almost zero question marks, fits a glaring need and under control for a few years. The perfect fit for the Reds as of now would be a CF who can move to LF once Hamilton is ready. Preferably a RH bat. I do not think a player fits that who is available. The only couple I think of who has the skillset is Carlos Gomez and Yoenis Cespedes. Cespedes is a two year rental only. Both are not without question marks either. I do not think it would shock anyone if those two players had a below average year.

    So as it lines up right now I do not see any deal out there that would lend to dealing the top guys. Unlike a couple years ago when Latos was a perfect target and warranted trading top guys.

  5. #4
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,321

    Re: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    Robert Stephenson had better be untouchable for anyone who will actually be traded. Would I move him for Mike Trout or Bryce Harper? Sure. But those guys won't hit the market. Otherwise, he should be untouchable.

  6. Likes:

    Edd Roush (12-11-2013), HokieRed (12-11-2013), joshua (12-19-2013), OGB (12-14-2013), PepperJack (12-11-2013), RedlegJake (12-11-2013)

  7. #5
    Member Billy Hamilton's Legs's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Location
    Saint Louis
    Posts
    210

    Re: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    The real debate is what is the most you can sacrifice or what prospect looks valuable to another team and has performed well recently, but internal opinions suggest he doesn't project well the the majors? Stephenson, ervin, winker, hamilton and maybe a couple others are absolutely worth retaining, but who of the rest should be used as bait?
    Just call me Legs

  8. #6
    Moderator RedlegJake's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    North Kansas City, Mo
    Posts
    5,768

    Re: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    For the Reds needs Barnhart stays, add Lively and Contreras to the list of "knock me out before he goes" guys, though not on the same level as Stephenson/Ervin/Winker. Mejias-Brean's development is important, too. He should take over when Frazier becomes expensive.

    Rogers, Holmberg, Corcino, YRod, Arias, Waldrop, LeMarre - sure. Stephenson, though, guys with his ace potential and showing so far don't come along often. He should be untouchable, unless something like Doug mentioned was offered. Hamilton I would move but only in a big deal for a guy controllable for 3 or 4 years.
    No - I am not from State Farm!

  9. #7
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,160

    Re: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    Travieso and Garrett would be the two main chips I'd be willing to play in order to bring back major league talent. Corcino too, but I'm not sure he counts as more than a throw-in at this juncture.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  10. #8
    Member
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Shelburne Falls, MA
    Posts
    10,102

    Re: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    Travieso and Garrett would be the two main chips I'd be willing to play in order to bring back major league talent. Corcino too, but I'm not sure he counts as more than a throw-in at this juncture.
    I might wait a bit on Corcino. It's been just one bad year for him. The other two guys, could not agree more. Don't like either of them as prospects at the moment, and they probably still have some value.
    "Baseball is a very, very complex business. It's more of a people business than most businesses." - Bob Castellini

  11. #9
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,127

    Re: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    Quote Originally Posted by lollipopcurve View Post
    I might wait a bit on Corcino.
    He's a short righty who's numbers are trending down as he moves up. He can be had.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  12. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,127

    Re: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    I'd listen to offers on Winker. Looks like he's got the strike zone figured out at an early age, which is great. But I'm guessing he's closer to Daryle Ward than Larry Walker.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  13. #11
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2007
    Posts
    976

    Re: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    I would say there are three categories of minor league players who are found in big league trades:

    1) Players who are included as a primary return for the trade partner, where the trade will not get done without them in the deal (good example was Zach Stewart in the Rolen deal).

    2) Players added as throw ins to enhance the value

    3) Players who are included just to give the appearance that you got something in a trade that was mostly a salary dump.

    I would say we have four prospects in the entire org that would fall into the first group. These players, in my opinion, are more valuable to the Reds than anyone who might think about trading for them. The Reds are about to enter a new period that we have not seen in a while, where they lose key players to free agency, players that they would love to keep but can't as a small market team. They will desperately need quality but inexpensive replacements...which in turn give you some chance of at least discussing the idea of keeping some of the higher priced players. A Reds budget is always going to include some everyday players or starting pitchers who are not yet arbitration eligible. You hope those players don't kill you. You need good ones if you want to win.

    Aside from those four prospects, no other prospects they have are going to bring you much in a trade, unless you want to take on a bad contact. The Latos deal was a gem, but they don't have the depth of prospects they had in 2011.

    It is critical that they have some good drafts to rebuild the pool of prospects to a point where they were a couple years ago.

  14. #12
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,127

    Re: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    I honestly don't know the trade value of Hamilton. He's an exciting player, but GM's aren't used to evaluating/projecting players like this.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle

  15. #13
    OlafTheBlack Dan's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Woodbridge, VA
    Posts
    2,645

    Re: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    Quote Originally Posted by dougdirt View Post
    Robert Stephenson had better be untouchable for anyone who will actually be traded. Would I move him for Mike Trout or Bryce Harper? Sure. But those guys won't hit the market. Otherwise, he should be untouchable.
    I'm very much in the no-one is untouchable camp, but I completely agree with you here.
    Sabermetrics is this: A batter's goal is to extend the inning. Extend enough innings and you're going to score runs. Extend more innings than your opponent and you're going to score more runs than him.

    Forget the rain. It's never an official game until the Reds piss away a run between third base and home plate. - Bluegrass Redleg

  16. #14
    Posting in Dynarama M2's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 2000
    Location
    Boston
    Posts
    28,160

    Re: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    My untouchables list is Stephenson and Ervin (who's technically untouchable until June anyway). Hamilton would be mostly untouchable, though I'd want my evaluators to vouch for his bat. Winker I wouldn't deal unless it was for someone really talented who was going to be around for a good number of years. The guy who makes Winker possibly available is Rodriguez. They now have four serious OF prospects. Got to imagine one gets dealt in the new couple of years.

    The good thing about the Reds' system is its best prospects play where the major league team has the greatest need - outfield. Contract-wise, the Reds' IF could remain intact the next four years. In the rotation we'll have to see how many slots actually open up in the near future. I expect Latos is going to get extended. I also expect at least one of Cueto and Leake will be around after 2015. Cingrani certainly looked like he'll have a home in the rotation. So it might just be two rotation arms the system needs to produce by 2016. Stephenson and Holmberg could have that covered. Depth needs to come out of Lorenzen, Lively, Contreras, Rogers, Langfield, Travieso, Mahle, Armstrong, Garrett, Boyles, Moscot, Kivel, etc. If a few of those guys turn into something serious, the Reds look to be in good shape.
    Last edited by M2; 12-17-2013 at 02:20 PM.
    Baseball isn't a magic trick ... it doesn't get spoiled if you figure out how it works. - gonelong

    I'm witchcrafting everybody.

  17. #15
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    The Bush Leagues
    Posts
    9,127

    Re: Do the Reds need to dig into their farm for a trade?

    Quote Originally Posted by M2 View Post
    My untouchables list is Stephenson and Ervin (who's technically untouchable until June anyway). Hamilton would be mostly untouchable, though I'd want my evaluators to vouch for his bat. Winker I wouldn't deal unless it was for someone really talented who was going to be around for a good number of years. The guy who makes Winker possibly available is Rodriguez. They now have four serious OF prospects. Got to imagine one gets dealt in the new couple of years.
    Pretty much.

    The good thing about the Reds' system is its best prospects play where the major league team has the greatest need - outfield.
    I'd still prefer middle infielders.
    The widow is gathering nettles for her children's dinner; a perfumed seigneur, delicately lounging in the Oeil de Boeuf, hath an alchemy whereby he will extract the third nettle and call it rent. ~ Carlyle


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