And now for something completely different (Harang)

[jojo]

First, locking up Harang was a good move and the contract that it took to get it done is a good one for the Reds. A big high-five to all involved.

But now, here's something that many may not have considered:

Harang's trade value has dramatically increased with this contract. The Reds may have locked him up long term but it's not safe to assume this means they'll keep him for 4-5 years. I guess this contract is supposed to symbolize their commitment to winning and a willingness to increase payroll but they also just increased their leverage for potential trades dramatically. While a good move, signing Harang doesn't prove anything to me regarding a commitment to winning/payroll. Basically the Reds bought out his remaining arb years at somewhat of a discount (importantly they erased an unknown in the payroll ledger for those two years). It would've been incompetent beyond belief to not have extended him. Krivsky does get props for getting it done the way he did though.

Anyway, here's a list of guys on the 40-man roster that are in my view eminently trade-able based upon them being desirable enough (considering a combination of established performance, upside, contract) to both attact attention and to net something back in return that is useful (equal to or greater than what the Reds would be giving up). I'm assuming some guys like Griffey are simply untradeable because of the contract while a guy like Courmier probably could be traded but I'm ignoring erasing payroll from the books as a useful commodity. The return they might net is obviously variable (they're not listed in any particular order). Not surpirsingly, the list might resemble alot of people's list of core Reds for the future.

1. Harang
2. Arroyo
3. Edwin
4. Homer
5. Denorfia
6. Coffey
7. Bray
8. Freel

I'm not advocating that any of these guys be traded. I'm just suggesting that these are the guys any given GM would likely target. If the Reds have a disastrous first half, I wouldn't be shocked to hear that Harang or Arroyo were traded.

[kaldaniels]

First, locking up Harang was a good move and the contract that it took to get it done is a good one for the Reds. A big high-five to all involved.

But now, here's something that many may not have considered:

Harang's trade value has dramatically increased with this contract. The Reds may have locked him up long term but it's not safe to assume this means they'll keep him for 4-5 years. I guess this contract is supposed to symbolize their commitment to winning and a willingness to increase payroll but they also just increased their leverage for potential trades dramatically. While a good move, signing Harang doesn't prove anything to me regarding a commitment to winning/payroll. Basically the Reds bought out his remaining arb years at somewhat of a discount (importantly they erased an unknown in the payroll ledger for those two years). It would've been incompetent beyond belief to not have extended him. Krivsky does get props for getting it done the way he did though.

Anyway, here's a list of guys on the 40-man roster that are in my view eminently trade-able based upon them being desirable enough (considering a combination of established performance, upside, contract) to both attact attention and to net something back in return that is useful (equal to or greater than what the Reds would be giving up). I'm assuming some guys like Griffey are simply untradeable because of the contract while a guy like Courmier probably could be traded but I'm ignoring erasing payroll from the books as a useful commodity. The return they might net is obviously variable (they're not listed in any particular order). Not surpirsingly, the list might resemble alot of people's list of core Reds for the future.

1. Harang
2. Arroyo
3. Edwin
4. Homer
5. Denorfia
6. Coffey
7. Bray
8. Freel

I'm not advocating that any of these guys be traded. I'm just suggesting that these are the guys any given GM would likely target. If the Reds have a disastrous first half, I wouldn't be shocked to hear that Harang or Arroyo were traded.

I could never see Harang being traded this year period. Either 1) He will continue to pitch great, at which the Reds have an absolute bargain the next 2 years, or 2) He will digress, and be totally undesirable. I know never say never, but I see no possible scenario where the Reds would dump Harang over the next 2 years.

[lollipopcurve]

Harang was eminently tradeable before this contract happened, given that he was 2 years from FA still. I don't see this contract as increasing his tradeability at all, because any team that would have won the trade sweepstakes would have had to give up significant talent and, as a result, would have been intent on extending Harang anyway (with plenty of time to try to do so).

Given the commitment the Reds have now made, I see very little chance they will consider trading Harang in the next 2-3 years unless his performance falls off. And I have no problem with that -- if you're going to establish a core, might as well start with your starting pitchers. As suggested elsewhere, I'd be very curious about their position on trying to extend Arroyo.

[terminator]

I agree it sure doesn't hurt his trade value.

But if the Reds were to trade away an affordable, durable #1/#2 pitcher in his prime because they struggle in the first half of 2007 they should just roll up the franchise and quit. If they traded him to me it would mean that they do not think they can compete in the next five years.

[jojo]

Harang was eminently tradeable before this contract happened, given that he was 2 years from FA still. I don't see this contract as increasing his tradeability at all, because any team that would have won the trade sweepstakes would have had to give up significant talent and, as a result, would have been intent on extending Harang anyway (with plenty of time to try to do so).

But that ignores the value of:
1. removing the unknown concerning arbitration
2. removing the unknown concerning what it would take to extend him.
3. removing the unknown about whether the new team really could extend him. It's not a given that he'd want to pitch for the new team long term if he had a choice (i.e. if he found out that his wife hates Philadelphia, why would he sign a long term deal with them?).

His trade value has increased.

[jojo]

I agree it sure doesn't hurt his trade value.

But if the Reds were to trade away an affordable, durable #1/#2 pitcher in his prime because they struggle in the first half of 2007 they should just roll up the franchise and quit. If they traded him to me it would mean that they do not think they can compete in the next five years.

Doesn't that really depend upon what they got back in return? I'm not suggesting that they shop him. But why should it automatically be assumed that there couldn't be a deal offered for Harang that would be stupid to pass on?

[WMR]

The Yankees would cream in their pants at the prospect of acquiring Harang with this contract in tow.

[lollipopcurve]

But that ignores the value of:
1. removing the unknown concerning arbitration
2. removing the unknown concerning what it would take to extend him.
3. removing the unknown about whether the new team really could extend him. It's not a given that he'd want to pitch for the new team long term if he had a choice (i.e. if he found out that his wife hates Philadelphia, why would he sign a long term deal with them?).

His trade value had increased.

Your assumption ignores the value of:

1. the team wanting 20+ million dollars of flexibility in 2009 and 2010
2. the team wanting a year or two to evaluate (or trade) Harang before considering a big money commitment
3. Not making a 4 year commitment to a pitcher -- I believe some teams still hold the line at 3 years, no?

I think it's likely that some teams would not make the financial commitment and the time commitment the Reds have just made. Just a guess. But I doubt there are any teams that wouldn't have been interested in the possibility of trading for Harang before he got the contract. Teams don't get scared off by a two-year pre-free-agency window, in my estimation. One-year, yeah, but not two.

[5DOLLAR-BLEACHERBUM]

Doesn't that really depend upon what they got back in return? I'm not suggesting that they shop him. But why should it automatically be assumed that there couldn't be a deal offered for Harang that would be stupid to pass on?

Oh come on, we finally have something to be happy about. I think your reaching to say that signing our ace long term had anything to do with tradability. I have always been supportive of WK but I just found out what he has done wrong, he came to Cincinnati and it's band of miserable never on the bright side fans. Not talking to everyone obviously but theres a handfull out there that seem to have a hard time posting anything but negativity period. For a team that has struggled in the pitching department for years I doubt there is a team willing to give up enough talent to make a deal stupid to pass on.

[RedFanAlways1966]

For a team that has struggled in the pitching department for years I doubt there is a team willing to give up enough talent to make a deal stupid to pass on.

I don't know... after seeing some of this off-season's signings (and $$$$) there seems to be a lot of stupid GMs out there!

[jojo]

But I doubt there are any teams that wouldn't have been interested in the possibility of trading for Harang before he got the contract.

Right. But if teams were interested before, they would be even more interested now. Four years control at a very economical price is worth more than two years at an unknown though still economical price. I don't see how his trade value wouldn't be increased with this contract.

At this point, I doubt there are very few clubs that would automatically dismiss a four year deal for a quality starter in his prime years.

[jojo]

Not talking to everyone obviously but theres a handfull out there that seem to have a hard time posting anything but negativity period.

There is nothing negative about this thread.

[Red Heeler]

Right. But if teams were interested before, they would be even more interested now. Four years control at a very economical price is worth more than two years at an unknown though still economical price. I don't see how his trade value wouldn't be increased with this contract.

At this point, I doubt there are very few clubs that would automatically dismiss a four year deal for a quality starter in his prime years.

Players traded in the middle of a contract can demand a trade from their new team at the end of the season which could make him less attractive than he would have been before. Besides, the point is moot. How often do you see teams trade very good pitchers signed to discounted contracts before the last year of said contract?

[noskill27]

What I like about the contract is that it gives the Reds a season or two to see if Harang can step up his game or if he's peaked. As good as his other numbers are, a 3.76 ERA is too high. Was it the terrible defense or an inability on Harang's part to buckle down in tough situations? With the improved defense up the middle this year, we should get an idea. If it was the defense, then we've got a great pitcher locked up for a couple years. If it was Harang, we can trade him in a market where pitching is overvalued and hard to find. The salaries the first two years of the contract make it win-win for the Reds

[anthonyb]

I would not trade Harrang but I would trade Arroyo to the Yanks for Melkey Caberea and Philip Hughes.