Turn Off Ads?
Page 5 of 67 FirstFirst 1234567891555 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 996

Thread: The Cozart decision

  1. #61
    Member Z-Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    1,238

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    It's 17M they won't have for other things.
    What if they were more worried about years than dollars? I can't imagine they could any pitcher that would be a great help on a 1 year deal.
    WHEN DOES IT STOP!?!?

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #62
    RaisorZone Raisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    On Assignment
    Posts
    24,436

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Z-Fly View Post
    What if they were more worried about years than dollars? I can't imagine they could any pitcher that would be a great help on a 1 year deal.
    That assumes that money is only good for a single year.

  4. #63
    Member Z-Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    1,238

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    That assumes that money is only good for a single year.
    It tends to work that way.
    WHEN DOES IT STOP!?!?

  5. #64
    RaisorZone Raisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    On Assignment
    Posts
    24,436

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Z-Fly View Post
    It tends to work that way.
    17M is about half of what Chris Archer has remaining on his LTC (including the team options).

    17M can go a long way for a guy already under contract.

  6. #65
    Member Rojo Rijo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,298

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Yes. It's easier to find relievers as good as Holland, than it is to find SS as good as Cozart.
    There are 30 starting jobs available for SS.

    There are somewhere in the range of 180 jobs for relievers.

    Come on man, supply and demand is a simple concept.

  7. #66
    Member
    Join Date
    Jan 2001
    Posts
    24,367

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by PuffyPig View Post
    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.
    Well, then you’re punting on 2018. You view it as another season “to sort out their internal pitching options.” I think it’s time to start forming an actual winning baseball team.

    It’s not a matter of “all in.” It’s a matter of beginning to focus on actual major league success.

    Pitching is the #1 item. Reds need to seek it in every way. Yes, be prudent. But if $17.4 million goes to Cozart, they will have very limited options.

    Even two good set up relievers could cost $15 million next season combined. The 5.17 ERA Reds just can’t cut off their options that way. Thanks, Zack, but your fortunes are elsewhere.

  8. #67
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    21,311

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Rojo Rijo View Post
    There are 30 starting jobs available for SS.

    There are somewhere in the range of 180 jobs for relievers.

    Come on man, supply and demand is a simple concept.
    Holland is looking to get paid like a closer, not a middle reliever. There are the same number of closers in the game as starting SS. And closers get paid much less than starting SS.
    The team Matheny described several times this weekend as the team he thinks the Cardinals could be, is actually the team the Reds have become.

  9. Likes:

    New Fever (10-13-2017)

  10. #68
    Member Z-Fly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Cincinnati
    Posts
    1,238

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    17M is about half of what Chris Archer has remaining on his LTC (including the team options).

    17M can go a long way for a guy already under contract.
    Sure. I understand that this is strictly my assumption. I just don't think they are ready to commit multiyear money just yet.
    WHEN DOES IT STOP!?!?

  11. #69
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    21,311

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Griffey012 View Post
    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.
    By that logic, the Reds don't need Votto, or Suarez, or Castillo, or really anybody on the team.
    The team Matheny described several times this weekend as the team he thinks the Cardinals could be, is actually the team the Reds have become.

  12. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Mar 2002
    Location
    Calgary, Alberta, aka, the most prosperous city in the world.
    Posts
    11,998

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Raisor View Post
    It's 17M they won't have for other things.
    For other things this year. Which really doesn't matter that much to me.

    I'm not certain Cozart would accept a qualifying offer, but I'm not scared if he does.

    My prediction is they don't offer it to him.

  13. #71
    Member Rojo Rijo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,298

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Holland had TJ surgery in 2015. He's a big injury risk. And he was rather average this year.

    Plus, I would say without looking, around the same number of teams need a closer as need a starting SS. And I'm pretty sure Cozart is an improvement over more team' and current SS, than Holland is an improvement over team's current closer.
    Greg Holland was average?

    I'm assuming you know he struggled executing his main pitch (slider) for a few weeks in the second half which led to multiple bad outings. He was able to correct that.

    April - ERA 1.50
    May - ERA 1.17
    June - ERA 1.69
    July - ERA 2.25
    August - ERA 13.50
    September - ERA 1.86

    In 61 appearances he did not give up an ER in 48 of those. Only once outside of August did he allow more than 1 ER (2). He converted 41/45 saves. He had a better K/9 and BB/9 than Iglesias. He won reliever of the month in April and May and was selected as an All Star (by managers).

    That's not average

  14. #72
    RaisorZone Raisor's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2001
    Location
    On Assignment
    Posts
    24,436

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    By that logic, the Reds don't need Votto, or Suarez, or Castillo, or really anybody on the team.
    except none of them are free agents after this season.

  15. #73
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    21,311

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by Rojo Rijo View Post
    Greg Holland was average?

    I'm assuming you know he struggled executing his main pitch (slider) for a few weeks in the second half which led to multiple bad outings. He was able to correct that.

    April - ERA 1.50
    May - ERA 1.17
    June - ERA 1.69
    July - ERA 2.25
    August - ERA 13.50
    September - ERA 1.86

    In 61 appearances he did not give up an ER in 48 of those. Only once outside of August did he allow more than 1 ER (2). He converted 41/45 saves. He had a better K/9 and BB/9 than Iglesias. He won reliever of the month in April and May and was selected as an All Star (by managers).

    That's not average
    Thanks for the correction. I do agree that one bad outing can make a reliever's overall numbers look worse then he really was. He was not average last year.
    The team Matheny described several times this weekend as the team he thinks the Cardinals could be, is actually the team the Reds have become.

  16. #74
    Member Kinsm's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2017
    Posts
    1,175

    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.
    That would equate to the exact same decision they should have had this season.

    The only logical way to explain a QO with the thought that he'll accept is that the Reds are going to compete next season and they need him. I don't buy it.

  17. #75
    Member Rojo Rijo's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2015
    Posts
    1,298

    Re: The Cozart decision

    Quote Originally Posted by 757690 View Post
    Holland is looking to get paid like a closer, not a middle reliever. There are the same number of closers in the game as starting SS. And closers get paid much less than starting SS.
    There are far more teams who could use Greg Holland as their closer than there are who could use Cozart as their starting SS. There are only a handful of teams that Holland would have zero chance of being the closer on - Yanks, BoSox, Jays, Indians, Stros, and Dodgers.


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