Reds sign Wilson

[Reds1]

I hear this mantra every off season. I expect a few cheap bullpen pitchers to be added and maybe another Lidle or Vanderwal type signing, but today's resigning of Paul Wilson effectively took a team with a budget as tight as the Reds' out of the market for real pitching talent, which is exactly what we need. I'll have no problem admitting I was wrong if we make a trade or signing for someone of Zito/Clement/Perez/caliber - I'll be pleasantly surprised to admit I was wrong, in fact. However, I'll expect the same out of everyone who is banging the 'The offseason isn't over!' drum, if and when we do little more to improve the team.

Boss

I guess all I can be is hopeful. This is a new GM so I guess I'm giving him the benefit of the doubt, but my point is there is really not a lot out there and the Zito, Clement type guys you mentioned are way more then 3-4 million dollars. Even without signing Wilson we aren't getting those guys.

[Reds1]

Measuring against bad standards will net you bad decisions. Though I think you may have perfectly captured the Reds' mindset on this.

And what Boss said about waiting for the other shoe to drop. After the last four offseasons, I'm proceeding from the standpoint that I'll believe it when I see it.

You are right. We aren't talking about going for Zito, Clement, Perez. It's funny in my mind I don't even consider that. I guess that is sad. It is my mindset. It sure would be great to get one of those guys, but I'm not holding my breath. That's why I like this deal. I hope we get one more little better then Wilson type to round out the 5, but I'm not sure how many there are available. We know we have to get pitching from the youngsters and that's a hard way to go, but it can happen. This deal just seems fair to me. I hate to say it, but getting to 4 million guys is probably better served then 1 8 million guy when you consider our starters right now. I guess that's hard to say for sure, but I'm afraid I believe that. Hopefully the roto world write up is correct and you can get better pitchers cheaper. That way we can get 2 starters and not just focus on Wilson and then we only need 2-3 youngsters to do well instead of all 4 or all 5. Have to run.

[Raisor]

By the way, here's what I said the first time the Reds signed Wilson. My view hasn't changed.

I'm not too hip on this.

His arm could fall off at any time. He's been consistently bad the last two years, and he's a former Met.
What's not to hate?

PSR

[Reds1]

At least his arm didn't fall off the 1st year!

[M2]

The Indians are a lot closer then the Reds, especially in that dog division.

I like the Indians better too, but it's taken 90+ games to win that division each of the past six years. If you're really placing a lot of stock on strength of system then Minnesota may be in a position to own that division until someone buys it away from them. It was only 2003 when the Reds were in what was a supposedly hapless division.

Plus, you're accounting for matters of taste when arguing that one 80-82 team is way better than another suitor who finished 76-86. If it came down the Reds and Indians for Clement's services, money and contract length being equal, it would probably be a decision of whether Clement wants a shorter drive to his hometown or whether he prefers to stay in the NL.

[traderumor]

Tucked away in my mind is DanO seeming to minimize the needs in the rotation to the bullpen, so this signing may be it. Recipe for another disastrous year on the hill.

[flyer85]

I'm just not sure what you guys expect. We saw Cory Lidle and we saw Benson. This contract seems pretty fairly priced.

The Reds are not going to build a winner signing FAs to fairly priced contracts. They have to find the gems(which Wilson clearly is not) and sign them to under priced contracts.

[princeton]

The Reds are not going to build a winner signing FAs to fairly priced contracts. They have to find the gems(which Wilson clearly is not) and sign them to under priced contracts.

correct.

though I note that even the Reds can afford a few players at market value.

If the Reds see Wilson as a no. 4 starter, and now have plans to land nos. 1-3, plus a closer, then all is not lost. Say, by trading LaRue, WMP, Jimenez, Freel, and minor league arms

but if the Reds plan, as last year, to keep Wilson as ace, to sign a Lidle-type for no. 2, to add a no. 4 starter in Rule V...

[Boss-Hog]

You are right. We aren't talking about going for Zito, Clement, Perez. It's funny in my mind I don't even consider that. I guess that is sad. It is my mindset. It sure would be great to get one of those guys, but I'm not holding my breath.

I get the impression that you and the Reds are very much on the same page.

That's why I like this deal. I hope we get one more little better then Wilson type to round out the 5, but I'm not sure how many there are available. We know we have to get pitching from the youngsters and that's a hard way to go, but it can happen. This deal just seems fair to me. I hate to say it, but getting to 4 million guys is probably better served then 1 8 million guy when you consider our starters right now.

Maybe if you consider Paul Wilson-types part of the solution; I don't. You do realize that Wilson and the same other 'youngsters' that some are counting on compiled a team ERA that ranked only ahead of the altitude-challenged Rockies, right? The same starters that had the worst collective ERA in team history?

Signing the Paul Wilson's and Cory Lidle's of the world and calling it an offseason (my prediction based on the past several years) is akin to placing a bandaid on a shotgun wound; that's how bad our starting pitching is and bringing back Wilson does very little to fix the problem. All it does is take away from what little money we have to do so.

I guess that's hard to say for sure, but I'm afraid I believe that. Hopefully the roto world write up is correct and you can get better pitchers cheaper. That way we can get 2 starters and not just focus on Wilson and then we only need 2-3 youngsters to do well instead of all 4 or all 5. Have to run.

[Milezinni]

I think Paul Wilson is as good a signing as half the pitchers on the FA market.....

He is a solid, reliable, veteran #3 or #4 on the rotation. And a pretty good chance, potential anyway, to win 12-15 games next season.
And has finally proven his arm is back in the 88-90% healthy range.

What we need is that a true #1-#2 comes up through the system/draft.

I am hoping that Hudson or Claussen, who I personally don't believe is 100% yet, will step it up another notch and give The Redsa much better rotation in '05 than we started in '04.....

Now, the bullpen on the other hand?!?

[Crash Davis]

I was trying to pinpoint exactly what it is about this signing that goes beyond the Haynes comparisons, the preference for keeping "our" guys and the acceptance of mediocrity, and I think I found it.

What are the odds on a guy like Ramon Ortiz outpitching Paul Wilson the next 2 seasons? Jeremi Gonzalez? Bruce Chen? Pedro Astacio? Elmer Dessens? Jamey Wright?

Seriously? 40/60?

Is Paul Wilson $8MM better than any of those guys? It's not just that other, cheaper alternatives were available (we've been down that road before), but I think it's more that Paul Wilson doesn't instill in me any confidence that he will outpitch those guys the next 2 seasons.

Are the odds that Paul Wilson goes Haynes on the Reds and finds himself collecting millions from his couch higher than the odds that he wins 15 games in one of the next two seasons?

I get the same feeling either way. Both scenarios are very possible. But you could say the same thing about the list of $1MM or less guys listed above.

It's bad enough giving $8MM to Paul Wilson, but the worst is that you can say goodbye to your hopes for a possible #2 like Odalis Perez or Matt Clement. Why don't we even go after those types of pitchers? That's terrible.

[cincinnati chili]

I don't like this deal. I don't expect Wilson to pull a Jimmy Haynes, and completely fall off the cliff. The guy certainly has heart. But you don't fork over $4 million/year for heart. I thought Omar Vizquel was a bad signing, but I'd rather have him for (I think) similar money, and take my chances that we can find a 4.50 ERA pitcher on the scrap heap for a lot less $$$.

[Big Donkey]

Just my two cents since I haven't rang in on this yet, not that anyone cares. Basically, it's all about if we add another pitcher. As simple as that. If it were announced tomorrow (or a week after tomorrow, more realistically, December 8th, but this is hypothetical) that the Reds have come to terms with Odalis Perez or Matt Clement or Jaret Wright or whomever, the Wilson signing is ok in everyone's book. I know people would rather have TWO of the aforementioned pitchers than Wilson, but anyone knowing our team will accept one of those along with Wilson, and then round it out with Harang, Hudson, Claussen, Hancock, Moseley or whomever else will be in contention for the back end of the rotation. If we stop here though and just worry about one bullpen arm and maybe one middle infielder, it's looked at as the worst move EVERRRRR. At least it looks to me that's what most of the people are saying.

[Raisor]

Hopefully, Wilson will become trade bait (I haven't read anything saying that he got a no-trade clause, if he did O'Brien should be fired today) by the deadline. Maybe knowing what he makes the next couple years will give some contending team the idea to trade for him.

That's about my only upside.

[Chip R]

If the Reds don't add another starter like Clement or Perez the only way this signing puts a smile on my face is if the Reds use that money they would have spent to sign one of those pitchers, to lock up Dunn long term.