Turn Off Ads?
Page 4 of 67 FirstFirst 123456781454 ... LastLast
Results 46 to 60 of 996

Thread: The Cozart decision

  1. #46
    Member Strikes Out Looking's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Maryland
    Posts
    3,372

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Regardless of how the Reds plan to shift players if Cozart leaves, I don't think there is a huge market for him in the first place - He's 32 and has injury history, including this season when he played 122 games. He's not worth $17 million in my opinion but I'd love to know what the Reds and others perceive as his worth on the open market.

    I predict they will not offer him a QO but will (and likely have had) ongoing discussions about bringing him back.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #47
    Moderator JaxRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    11,442

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post
    Little risk in offering any player a 1 year contract.

    I'd give it.

    Cozart will only accept it if there isn't any long term deal available.

    And the Reds would get another potential opportunity in trading him if some team needs a quality SS next year at the deadline.

    Cozart was an exceptional player last year. Even with some regression, he is a quality SS.
    This summarized my position. A one year 17.7 million deal doesn't hurt the Reds. Giving Cozart a 3-4 year 40-50 million dollar deal does. So offer the QO and hope he declines. Live with it if he doesn't and trade him at the earliest opportunity.
    The lowest acceptable payroll amount for ownership to show they are not greedy pigs is 15 million more than they are currently paying. No matter what that currently is.

  4. Likes:

    Hoosier Red (10-16-2017)

  5. #48
    RaisorZone Raisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    On Assignment
    Posts
    24,436

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by JaxRed View Post
    Live with it if he doesn't and trade him at the earliest opportunity.
    They've been trying to trade him for years. What makes you think they'll be able to with him making 17M when they couldn't this season when he was having a career year?

  6. #49
    Member paulrichjr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2003
    Location
    Savannah, TN
    Posts
    3,896

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by JaxRed View Post
    This summarized my position. A one year 17.7 million deal doesn't hurt the Reds. Giving Cozart a 3-4 year 40-50 million dollar deal does. So offer the QO and hope he declines. Live with it if he doesn't and trade him at the earliest opportunity.
    I cannot for the life of me understand how the Reds benefit by offering him a 17 million one year contract. It would destroy the budget this year. What would even be the reason to do it? The comp pick isn’t much good anymore given the new bargaining agreement. If they being him back for 3 years and $35 I can see the rationale. Otherwise no thanks. Let’s move on.
    Tim McCarver: Baseball Quotes
    I remember one time going out to the mound to talk with Bob Gibson. He told me to get back behind the batter, that the only thing I knew about pitching was that it was hard to hit.

  7. Likes:

    Griffey012 (10-13-2017)

  8. #50
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, aka, the most prosperous city in the world.
    Posts
    11,895

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    They've been trying to trade him for years. What makes you think they'll be able to with him making 17M when they couldn't this season when he was having a career year?
    He got injured at the completely wrong time.

    The teams that were contending didn't really need a SS.

    The imperfect storm so to speak.

    But I'm OK with having him for a year at $17.4M. A 1-year contract cannot damage the future of the Reds.

  9. #51
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    21,170

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    They've been trying to trade him for years. What makes you think they'll be able to with him making 17M when they couldn't this season when he was having a career year?
    We don't know what they turned down. The last few years, the Reds needed Cozart at SS, so they needed something of value back if they were to trade him.

    If he accept a QO, and they try to trade him, they just need someone to take his salary. They don't need anything of value coming back.
    Quote Originally Posted by Tony Cloninger View Post
    This team is like watching Zero Hour and thinking you are watching Airplane and waiting for the funny.

  10. #52
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    24,055

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post
    He got injured at the completely wrong time.

    The teams that were contending didn't really need a SS.

    The imperfect storm so to speak.

    But I'm OK with having him for a year at $17.4M. A 1-year contract cannot damage the future of the Reds.
    If the Reds have $20 million to spend on pitching this off-season, and use $17.4 million on Cozart, it certainly does damage the future.

    Particularly since it’s a one-year deal for Zack. He’s not the future. No long term benefit. Why throw so much money on the SS position for 2018? Does he cement the playoffs for next year?

    I think it would be a bad decision, unless the Reds are very confident Cozart will reject it.

  11. Likes:

    Griffey012 (10-13-2017),Raisor (10-13-2017)

  12. #53
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    21,064

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    We don't know what they turned down. The last few years, the Reds needed Cozart at SS, so they needed something of value back if they were to trade him.
    So as a logical extension of this argument, the Reds didn't trade him because they weren't offered something of value back?
    "This isnt stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  13. #54
    Moderator JaxRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    11,442

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    We don't know what they turned down. The last few years, the Reds needed Cozart at SS, so they needed something of value back if they were to trade him.

    If he accept a QO, and they try to trade him, they just need someone to take his salary. They don't need anything of value coming back.
    100% correct.

    And hopefully Cozart's team realizes this. If he takes the QO he loses the ability to decide where to go.
    Last edited by JaxRed; 10-13-2017 at 10:33 AM.
    The lowest acceptable payroll amount for ownership to show they are not greedy pigs is 15 million more than they are currently paying. No matter what that currently is.

  14. #55
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    21,064

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    If he accept a QO, and they try to trade him, they just need someone to take his salary. They don't need anything of value coming back.
    So the Reds couldn't find a partner when Cozrt was only owed $8M over two years or just $5M for 1 year but they should assume a bunch of risk because they should be able to easily trade him when he's owed $17M?

    Alright, my mind is totally blown.
    "This isnt stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  15. Likes:

    Edd Roush (10-13-2017),Raisor (10-13-2017)

  16. #56
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, aka, the most prosperous city in the world.
    Posts
    11,895

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Kc61 View Post
    If the Reds have $20 million to spend on pitching this off-season, and use $17.4 million on Cozart, it certainly does damage the future.

    Particularly since it’s a one-year deal for Zack. He’s not the future. No long term benefit. Why throw so much money on the SS position for 2018? Does he cement the playoffs for next year?

    I think it would be a bad decision, unless the Reds are very confident Cozart will reject it.
    I don't think the Reds have any chance of making the playoffs next year.

    The money given to Cozart would prevent them from signing one decent starter for next year. Considering they would also have to commit that money on a long term contract, I'd rather they spend it on a 1-year deal than going long term on some 30-year old starter.

    The Reds need to sort out their internal pitching options first before going all in.

    I consider the future more than just next year. Next year is the present. A 1-year can never damage the future.

  17. #57
    RaisorZone Raisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    On Assignment
    Posts
    24,436

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post

    I consider the future more than just next year. Next year is the present. A 1-year can never damage the future.
    It's 17M they won't have for other things.

  18. #58
    Five Tool Fool jojo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    21,064

    Re: The Cozart decision

    The only math that is working on this issue is that '75 somehow found a way to parlay two more threads simultaneously to make the exact same arguments that have already already been repeatedly stated over and over again in about a million threads over a gazillion posts including a thread that is still currently open.
    "This isnt stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner

  19. #59
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Posts
    4,982

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    We don't know what they turned down. The last few years, the Reds needed Cozart at SS, so they needed something of value back if they were to trade him.

    If he accept a QO, and they try to trade him, they just need someone to take his salary. They don't need anything of value coming back.
    The Reds could have played Porky Pig at SS and it wouldn't have really mattered. In hindsight, if Cozart is gone next year, it would have been more valuable to the future for Peraza to get all SS reps. So no, the Reds didn't need Cozart unless they needed to get 68 wins instead of 64.
    "Today was the byproduct of us thinking we can come back from anything." - Joey Votto after blowing a 10-1 lead and holding on for the 12-11 win on 8/25/2010.

  20. Likes:

    Kinsm (10-13-2017)

  21. #60
    Red's fan mbgrayson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Montana
    Posts
    2,233

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Zach Cozart just had a career year and is now eligible to be a free agent. From his standpoint, NOW is the time for him to try to get a multi-year contract. Even though the $17.4 million dollar deal sounds pretty good, it is for one year, without any no-trade protection. I predict he would turn down a QO to try to garner a multi-year deal. The risk to him is high that if he plays on a one year contract, his value could decline from where it is now.

    The other reason Zach would turn down a QO is that the new CBA reduces the 'penalty' (loss of draft pick now after 3rd round rather than first) on the team that signs him.

    From the Reds perspective, if he accepts the offer, they will have to look at a trade or an infield reconfiguration of Cozart/Senzel/Suarez et al. However, I think they will also assume that Cozart will decline the offer, and they would then get a post first round 'sandwich' pick. That's a decent return for the risk of Cozart accepting the offer.

    My prediction: Reds make the QO to Zach Cozart.
    __________________
    "I think were starting to get to the point where people are starting to get tired of this stretch of ball, Votto said. I think something needs to start changing and start going in a different direction. Im going to do my part to help make that change.


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 | cumberlandreds | Gallen5862 | JaxRed | Plus Plus | Powel Crosley | RedlegJake | RedsfaninMT | The Operator