If Ortiz turns out to be as good as Wilson, I'll like it. Hopefully he'll be better. Personally, I'd have tryed to pick up a good FA, and kept Moseley to hopefully crack the roster later, after a solid year at Louisville.
If Ortiz turns out to be as good as Wilson, I'll like it. Hopefully he'll be better. Personally, I'd have tryed to pick up a good FA, and kept Moseley to hopefully crack the roster later, after a solid year at Louisville.
There's plenty to like.
Did you see the Reds' rotation last year?
Please put this stuff in the other thread
I really like this trade for a couple of reasons.
1.) First and foremost, it adds a quality arm to the rotation. Judging by the success a guy like Wilson had with this team last year, I think Ortiz should have a very good year. And he's actually got stuff.
2.) It forces some real competition between Claussen and Hancock for the fifth spot. Competition should (doesn't always, but should) bring out the best in those guys. IMO, the ideal situation would be Claussen winning the fifth spot and Hancock becoming the long man/swing man out of the bullpen. I think he would do very well in that role.
3.) Whether you liked Moseley as a potential starter or not (personally I think Dustin could have been a contributor this year), this Reds front office just didn't seem as high on him as Bowden did. In that way, I don't mind losing him because I don't think he was really going to get that shot here anyway. If you're not gonna use him, deal him for someone you will.
4.) Contract wise, Ortiz is still under the Reds control through 2006. That means barring a horrible 2005, we should have at least Ortiz and Wilson in the rotation the next two years. Harang, Hudson and/or Claussen keep improving and you add another starter in the next offseason, and then you start to have a decent enough rotation to go with a very good lineup for a run in 2006.
5.) I know a lot of people are talking about Ortiz's money being spent better, but IMO, this team needs both Ortiz and Wilson more than it needs Clement. We need as many quality starts as possible. Clement would be a great improvement, but we'd still be looking at Hancock, Harang, Hudson and Claussen the other four days. With Ortiz and Wilson, the quality start percentage dramatically increases.
The odds are better that Ortiz will win 10 games this year than a AAA pitcher. There is always a risk in trades but has the potential to be a big win. Serious teams trade unproven prospects with potential for major league players. I am thrilled to see us on the other end of a moving involving a minor league player.
*
Help stamp out, eliminate, and do away with redundancy.
Still, why trade for a guy who would have been non-tendered next week?
If you think small, you'll go nowhere in life.
Key word of your entire post.....might. If Dustin Mosely ever turns out to be a 15 game winner with a sub 4.00 ERA in the Major Leagues, I will consider this a bad move.Originally Posted by tom browning
We get a proven Major League pitcher who still has room to improve. He is 10 games over .500 for his career. He has World Series experience. He was not happy where he was last year and a change of senery is just what he needs. How many of our starting pitchers have drawn comparisons to Pedro Martinez?
There is not much wrong with this trade.
"Strickland Propane... Taste the meat, not the heat." - Hank Hill
That sounds like a good idea in theory. I'm not being sarcastic, but how do you sell that idea to John Allen and Dunn?
My wild guess is that Dunn gets 4-5 million this year. If he repeats a monster year in 2005, does he get 6-9 million the following year? Probably.
To "lock Dunn up" now is probably impossible. He's at the end of the rainbow now (arbitration). That ship has sailed. Now the Reds would probably have to grossly overpay to lock Dunn up. OF seldom have career ending injuries like pitchers do.
So, are you willing to give Dunn 3 years and 24+ million? Because in all seriousness, I think that's what it would take now -- a price figure that isn't going to save you any money in the arb years. And if you want to sign him into his free agent years, I imagine it would get even more astronomical.
IMO, the Reds bungled their chance to sign Dunn longterm. They aren't going to save any money doing it now that Dunn has the arbitration hammer.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
So you are saying that a decent pitcher making around 3-4 mill a year is not tradeable and would have been non tendered in a time when pitching is in demand. I don't think so.
I'm guessing that if DJ is nontendered, it would've happened anyway. Seeing Miley in the press say that he's got to play Freel everyday and seeing DanO bent on putting Kearns at 3b really squeezes DJ.Originally Posted by Cedric
I forgot to mention the worst part about this trade if it goes down, non tendering DJ because of this.
If the Reds had an ounce of sense, they'd put Freel at 3b, keep DJ at 2b, and use Wily Mo as the super 4th OF. In the near future, DanO is going to be forced to trade Dunn or Kearns. That's why this whole Kearns to 3b thing is insane (particularly with Jr's health). I'd even go so far to say that if DanO had
foresight, he'd try to sign Wily Mo longterm in preparation for dealing one of Kearns/Dunn. Or sign Kearns longterm now while his stock is down.
Signing Pena or Kearns long term is a risk now, but that's the time to do it.. if you wait until it's a sure thing (like Dunn now), it's too late, and you save no money. I'm not saying to overpay Pena/Kearns, but it should be explored.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
Maybe because there's interest from other teams and you don't want to get in a bidding war over a guy who may want more money to sign here.
Because if the Reds didn't trade for him and the Angels non-tendered him (which no one knows would have happened) there would be very little chance he would have signed with the Reds. And he pobably would have made 3.5 mill/yr as a FA, maybe more anyways.
I wouldn't give WMP and his amazing "power bat" a LT contract now, I'd overpay for OB% but not power only.
Are you implying that the baseball business isn't taking place in a vaccum?
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
