Originally Posted by
SteelSD
Oh, I understand. It's just that Weaver really doesn't comp with a guy like Clement.
Sure. I agree. I'd rather find the "next" guy than the "current" high-priced guy too. That being said, I don't think it's wise to necessarily snub our noses at a productive high-priced guy if that's what's on the table.
And if you're going to sign a Type A or Type B Free Agent, do it while you you suck.
I'm not sure that classifying Clement as "erratic" is entirely accurate. But your reasoning above is why I wouldn't make a straight-up swap of Kearns for Clement. I'd want more value coming back.
Agree in principle. Disagree that productive veteran pitching shouldn't be attractive just because it costs more. It should cost more. It's less risky and can help immediately.
Good Innings are good Innings, but if you're looking at things from a cost effectiveness standpoint, productive vet SP's tend to be far more cost-effective than productive vet RP's. Without good Innings early consistently, good Innings late are practically valueless.
And yes, I'm all for "young and inexpensive and productive". But I'm also for proven immediate help. I don't think the two concepts need to be mutually exclusive. Good teams can win by focusing on both avenues concurrently.
The Reds shouldn't continue to acquire high-paid veteran Starting Pitching. They should start acquiring productive Starting Pitching- and I think that statement holds true without qualification.
Would I trade Kearns straight-up for Matt Clement? No- and I think you did a good job of covering the some of the cons for that scenario. Would I have rather signed Matt Clement as a Free Agent? Yes.
However, if the Reds traded Austin Kearns for Matt Clement/Youkilis, you're now in a scenario of value efficiency. Yes, Clement will be making about 9.5M (he's also got some performance clauses above that) in 2006 and 2007. In my estimation, Kearns will probably average about 2.25M over those two seasons. That ends up at about 7.25M per season after the swap. Furthermore, you're freeing up another resource to trade by adding a guy like Youkilis. If the guy you're dealing is Pena, you're freeing up about another milion bucks per season. If you flip Youkilis, you're not freeing up cash, but you're still looking to flip him for "young, inexpensive, productive" pitching. Finally, if Clement ends up where you hope he'd end up, you've got the potential to receive two additional high draft picks if he prices himself out of town as a Type A Free Agent.
Do it right and the scenario really becomes:
-Austin Kearns
- 14.5M
+ Replace Milton's slot = cut your Run Differential deficit in half
+ Young inexpensive productive Starting Pitcher
+ One or two high draft picks
Again, the caveat is that Clement would have to be healthy and fully capable of recapturing his K rate. Yes, you lose a player (Kearns). Yes, I think Kearns is fully capable of being a whole lot better than he has been. Yes, I would love it if the Reds could swap him for TWO young projectible guys. But for that to happen, he's going to need to dramatically improve his performance this season. As is, you can adequately replace Kearn's 2005 performance with players on the current roster while, at the same time, halving your RD deficit from the pitching side.
And yes, the presence of Eric Milton makes that 14.5M hit over two years sting a whole lot more than it would normally. Stupid signing.
Surely. But at the same time, I don't see a reason they can't do that AND immediately improve the MLB product.