Reds Trading Pieces

[redsmetz]

Why the hostility?

The subject of the thread is trades. I suggested that 1B is a position the Reds could easily upgrade. A quick look around the league certainly show that other teams have better first basemen than the Reds do. The list of stud first basemen in MLB is very impressive. Hatteberg and Conine are not studs. Decent hitters yes. Studs no.

I did not say that 1B is our biggest problem.

I think almost everyone looks at a player's historical performance to evaluate how they are likely to perform in the future. Is Encarnacion likely to hit .190 all season? We can predict with a high probability of success that EE will improve his batting average above .190 right? How? Because we have a much larger sample size in the past that shows he is a better hitter than that. I think we all understand the concept and agree that historical statistics are definitely relevant.

At the end of this season we will be able to look back and see that the production of Reds first basemen was not as good as 90% of the other first basemen in the league (unless Votto takes over). I think that qualifies as a situation in need of improvement.

Not hostility, just incredulity. You said very plainly in your first post: In my opinion the position of our greatest need is first base. I would respectfully disagree. And thus far, as I said, the platoon is being productive (not stud, agreed) and it's really among the least of our concerns.

The current slump may well be just that, a temporary slump. And as I have said in other threads, I'd rather have it now than later (although you can sink yourself in April just as easily in September). We've had a bad week and I can't say if it's indicative of how the season will play out or whether it's just a hiccup in a long season. Time will tell.

One of the hallmarks of WK's tenure, IMO, has been his ability to acquire parts without giving up any of our stud prospects so far - "The Trade" notwithstanding (which wasn't prospects). His moves have had mixed results and again, we'll see how these things play out over several years. I've been in the camp saying that we basically need to be nominally competitive in 2007aiming towards the start of a decent crop of prospects to start rolling in by 2008. I think that's still the MO in the front office. Again, we'll see.

But my incredulity was at your clear statement that 1st Base was our "greatest need" - it's not; not by a long shot.

[thatcoolguy_22]

Hey thatcoolguy...nice summation of what is tradeable and what isn't on this team. I appreciate your effort in starting this thread.

Seems to me that (and I am NOT advocating dealing these folks) that the most tradeable commodities for the Reds are:

1. Homer Bailey
2. Aaron Harang
3. Bronson Arroyo
4. EE
5. Adam Dunn
6. Brandon Phillips
7. Ryan Freel
8. Kyle Lohse (could go up if he keeps to crank it out like he has)

The Reds' needs? A ton, across the board. But that group would bring the hightest return. Question is, how far are the Reds willing to go in turning the team over? And when?

I agree with your top 8 but the question is bold is the only real one that needs to be asked. There are trade chips out there that will hurt this team this year (1-4) and there are people that appear to be traded regardless as well (lohse). How far away the FO perceives us to be from taking the central is everything. If only a bullpen guy and a RH bat is needed it will be small trades dealing primarily with lohse and guys in the minors. However if we get to the end of July or to the offseason and we're 18 games below .500 then I could see massive roster shake-ups in the future

[Razor Shines]

The Conine/Hatteberg numbers were based on their career numbers, not just two weeks of April extrapolated over a season. I used their career numbers, which was generous because they are both clearly well past their prime as hitters.

I am not saying they suck. I am just saying they don't stack up against the other players in the league at their position. Look at the other starting first basemen in our division: Albert Pujols (1.102 OPS in 2006), Derrick Lee (missed last year but 1.080 OPS in 2005), Lance Berkman (1.041 OPS in 2006), Prince Fielder (22 year old uber-prospect, .831 OPS in 2006), and Adam LaRoche (.941 OPS last year). Those guys make Hatteberg (37 yrs old, .767 career OPS but career year of .826 last year) and Conine (.721 OPS in 2006 and 40 yrs old) look pretty pathetic don't they?

First base is a major reason why the Reds are not very good offensively. We have decent-hitting guys playing there while our competition has GREAT-hitting guys playing there. My point was that if we are going to trade for an offensive upgrade then 1B would be the best position for the Reds to improve.

I'm with Redsmetz on this one. You're us to team's that have first basemen who play everyday and you can't compare Hatte and Conine individually to those guys. If Hatte continues to play against rhps and Conine plays vs. the lefties, they will continue to put up good numbers. The guys you listed aren't really available or players of their caliber. I think Hatte and Conine are a perfect stop gap until Votto is ready. And I think we can win this year with a platoon of Connine and Hatte, they haven't really been our problem so far. Our problem has been most of the rest of the line-up.

[AtomicDumpling]

Not hostility, just incredulity. You said very plainly in your first post: In my opinion the position of our greatest need is first base. I would respectfully disagree. And thus far, as I said, the platoon is being productive (not stud, agreed) and it's really among the least of our concerns.

The current slump may well be just that, a temporary slump. And as I have said in other threads, I'd rather have it now than later (although you can sink yourself in April just as easily in September). We've had a bad week and I can't say if it's indicative of how the season will play out or whether it's just a hiccup in a long season. Time will tell.

One of the hallmarks of WK's tenure, IMO, has been his ability to acquire parts without giving up any of our stud prospects so far - "The Trade" notwithstanding (which wasn't prospects). His moves have had mixed results and again, we'll see how these things play out over several years. I've been in the camp saying that we basically need to be nominally competitive in 2007aiming towards the start of a decent crop of prospects to start rolling in by 2008. I think that's still the MO in the front office. Again, we'll see.

But my incredulity was at your clear statement that 1st Base was our "greatest need" - it's not; not by a long shot.

How could you be incredulous regarding the disparity between perennial All Stars and fossilized retreads? I showed very clearly why 1B is the most glaring example of a position that separates the Reds from the contenders. We have a couple of geriatric slap-hitters while the Cubs, Astros and Cardinals have top-notch sluggers producing tons of runs. That is why the Reds cannot keep up offensively.

As far as trading goes (the subject of the thread remember?), first base would be the easiest position for us to upgrade and so therefore our greatest need in terms of a trade would be to upgrade that position. If you disagree, fine. But I think many people would agree.

EE has been our weakest player so far, but most other teams do not have a third baseman that produces lots of runs either. Some do, but most don't. The number of stud hitters at 3B is not like first base around the league at all. At least EE has potential. He is still young and has shown the ability to hit in the past. Conine and Hatteberg are merely short term placeholders to throw out there until we find a better option.

I am sure more people were incredulous over your assertion that "What any player has done previously doesn't matter for now or the future" than my assertion that 1B needs an upgrade.

[Razor Shines]

How could you be incredulous regarding the disparity between perennial All Stars and fossilized retreads? I showed very clearly why 1B is the most glaring example of a position that separates the Reds from the contenders. We have a couple of geriatric slap-hitters while the Cubs, Astros and Cardinals have top-notch sluggers producing tons of runs. That is why the Reds cannot keep up offensively.

As far as trading goes (the subject of the thread remember?), first base would be the easiest position for us to upgrade and so therefore our greatest need in terms of a trade would be to upgrade that position. If you disagree, fine. But I think many people would agree.

EE has been our weakest player so far, but most other teams do not have a third baseman that produces lots of runs either. Some do, but most don't. The number of stud hitters at 3B is not like first base around the league at all. At least EE has potential. He is still young and has shown the ability to hit in the past. Conine and Hatteberg are merely short term placeholders to throw out there until we find a better option.

I am sure more people were incredulous over your assertion that "What any player has done previously doesn't matter for now or the future" than my assertion that 1B needs an upgrade.

With who exactly are we going to trade for a first baseman that's on par with the Cubs', Cards' or Astro's first baseman? Or who are an up grade over the platoon of Hatte an Conine? Sure we could probably get someone who is individually better than either Hatte or Conine, but not someone who is going to put up better numbers than a platoon of those two will. You said they are placeholders and they are, for Joey Votto. And I can accept those two until Votto is ready.

[redsmetz]

With who exactly are we going to trade for a first baseman that's on par with the Cubs', Cards' or Astro's first baseman? Or who are an up grade over the platoon of Hatte an Conine? Sure we could probably get someone who is individually better than either Hatte or Conine, but not someone who is going to put up better numbers than a platoon of those two will. You said they are placeholders and they are, for Joey Votto. And I can accept those two until Votto is ready.

Precisely. I couldn't have said it better.

[AtomicDumpling]

With who exactly are we going to trade for a first baseman that's on par with the Cubs', Cards' or Astro's first baseman? Or who are an up grade over the platoon of Hatte an Conine? Sure we could probably get someone who is individually better than either Hatte or Conine, but not someone who is going to put up better numbers than a platoon of those two will. You said they are placeholders and they are, for Joey Votto. And I can accept those two until Votto is ready.

Obviously you missed my point. The point is that 1B is a weakness of the Reds. I did not say the Reds could trade for Albert Pujols. LOL

Since the thread is about trades we can't say that Votto is the answer. The original poster created this thread with the intent of identifying the trade value of the Reds' players. I think he did a good job of that. He showed that we don't have the means to acquire the likes of Pujols or Berkman. My point was that we need more offense and we do have players with enough trade value to acquire an upgrade at 1B, which was shown to be a position of weakness compared to most other teams.

Obviously this is all highly hypothetical, just like all trade conjecture. There are plenty of options to upgrade at 1B that we could afford to acquire via trade if the other team was inclined. Since 1B is the absolute easiest position to play on the field we would not be limited only to men currently playing 1B. There are several teams whose backup first basemen are superior to Hatteberg/Conine.

Just as examples I can think of off the top of my head:
Craig Wilson (age 30, career OPS .828)
Shawn Green (age 34, career OPS .855)
Ben Brousard (age 30, career OPS .793)
Kevin Millar (age 35, career OPS .839)
Ryan Klesko (age 35, career OPS .878)
Matt Stairs (age 39, career OPS .841)
Josh Phelps (age 38, career OPS .809)
Raul Ibanez (age 34, career OPS .811)


All of these players are likely to be available because they are not full time players, or in Green's case because he is in the way of the Mets best prospect Lastings Milledge, who is ready to play in the bigs.

Compare the players above to:
Scott Hatteberg (age 37, career OPS .767)
Jeff Conine (age 40, career OPS .794 but good years were long ago)

So you can clearly see that superior options at 1B are readily available if the Reds want to pay the modest price it would take to upgrade the team.
These guys would improve the team right away and could hold the fort until Votto is ready to take over.

Since the point of this thread is to identify instances where realistic trades could improve the team right now I feel that I have provided a good example. Feel free to be hostile if it makes you happy.

[rotnoid]

Since the thread is about trades we can't say that Votto is the answer. The original poster created this thread with the intent of identifying the trade value of the Reds' players. I think he did a good job of that. He showed that we don't have the means to acquire the likes of Pujols or Berkman. My point was that we need more offense and we do have players with enough trade value to acquire an upgrade at 1B, which was shown to be a position of weakness compared to most other teams.

Obviously this is all highly hypothetical, just like all trade conjecture. There are plenty of options to upgrade at 1B that we could afford to acquire via trade if the other team was inclined. Since 1B is the absolute easiest position to play on the field we would not be limited only to men currently playing 1B. There are several teams whose backup first basemen are superior to Hatteberg/Conine.

That's the point though. Sometimes the best trade is no trade at all. We are not going to trade for anything better than the Hatte/Conine platoon without creating a hole elsewhere. Trades have to make sense for the entire team, not just the position group affected.

While it's interesting to look at position comparisons, we're talking about offense here. The best places to add to the offense are the third and fourth spots in the lineup. Right now, save Dunn (and I'm not opening that can of worms) there is no core for this offense. There isn't one guy I would choose to build a team around. Consistenly successful teams have that guy, sometimes two. Until we find that guy, whatever position he plays, there are going to be some long summers around here.

[mth123]

Not hostility, just incredulity. You said very plainly in your first post: In my opinion the position of our greatest need is first base. I would respectfully disagree. And thus far, as I said, the platoon is being productive (not stud, agreed) and it's really among the least of our concerns.

The current slump may well be just that, a temporary slump. And as I have said in other threads, I'd rather have it now than later (although you can sink yourself in April just as easily in September). We've had a bad week and I can't say if it's indicative of how the season will play out or whether it's just a hiccup in a long season. Time will tell.

One of the hallmarks of WK's tenure, IMO, has been his ability to acquire parts without giving up any of our stud prospects so far - "The Trade" notwithstanding (which wasn't prospects). His moves have had mixed results and again, we'll see how these things play out over several years. I've been in the camp saying that we basically need to be nominally competitive in 2007aiming towards the start of a decent crop of prospects to start rolling in by 2008. I think that's still the MO in the front office. Again, we'll see.

But my incredulity was at your clear statement that 1st Base was our "greatest need" - it's not; not by a long shot.

Yeah, but the reason teams can carry good glove mediocre bats at Catcher, SS and 2B is because they have the game changing studs at 1B to make up for it. The Reds are trying to make the transition from offensive players like Griffey and Lopez up the middle to lower level offensive guys like Gonzalez and Freel (and yes compared to Griffey its a huge downgrade on offense). They are doing this without the compensating run producer manning 1B.

Conine and Hatte are doing well right now, but they won't combine for 34 HRs in 2007. Last year Conine slugged .399 with an OBP of .325. Hatte had a good year with a .389 OBP and a .436 Slg%. It will be a stretch for him to repeat that slugging % but he did have similar years in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Conine and Hat will likely cool off at some point and some one like EdE or Dunn will pick it up. The team will likely go through the season with 2 or 3 guys hot at once and not putting enough hot bats together at the same time to be average offensively. The other 3 corners are the keys to the offense and the team is commited to defenders up the middle. 1st base is really the only place to improve IMO. Would that be a huge upgrade from these first two weeks? Probably not much, but a guy whose highs are higher and whose lows aren't as bad or prolonged would increase the chances of the team having multiple guys hitting at the same time over the course of a season. Right now there aren't enough real bats to go around.

[AtomicDumpling]

That's the point though. Sometimes the best trade is no trade at all. We are not going to trade for anything better than the Hatte/Conine platoon without creating a hole elsewhere. Trades have to make sense for the entire team, not just the position group affected.

While it's interesting to look at position comparisons, we're talking about offense here. The best places to add to the offense are the third and fourth spots in the lineup. Right now, save Dunn (and I'm not opening that can of worms) there is no core for this offense. There isn't one guy I would choose to build a team around. Consistenly successful teams have that guy, sometimes two. Until we find that guy, whatever position he plays, there are going to be some long summers around here.

I agree with you completely. The Reds need a lot more than a better 1B to makes this a good offensive team.

I agree also that we don't have to make a trade, but because the thread was about trades I decided to toss a couple ideas out there to improve the team now.

I think we might be able to trade a couple of excess bullpen arms (we do have an excess) to get a minor improvement at one or more positions. That is if we want to improve this year's team. In my mind, this team will not contend this year even with a couple of minor upgrades. I would trade the excess bullpen arms for prospects that will be ready in two or three years because I think it will take that long for Krivsky to build a foundation for this team.

[redsmetz]

Yeah, but the reason teams can carry good glove mediocre bats at Catcher, SS and 2B is because they have the game changing studs at 1B to make up for it. The Reds are trying to make the transition from offensive players like Griffey and Lopez up the middle to lower level offensive guys like Gonzalez and Freel (and yes compared to Griffey its a huge downgrade on offense). They are doing this without the compensating run producer manning 1B.

Conine and Hatte are doing well right now, but they won't combine for 34 HRs in 2007. Last year Conine slugged .399 with an OBP of .325. Hatte had a good year with a .389 OBP and a .436 Slg%. It will be a stretch for him to repeat that slugging % but he did have similar years in 2000, 2002 and 2004.

Conine and Hat will likely cool off at some point and some one like EdE or Dunn will pick it up. The team will likely go through the season with 2 or 3 guys hot at once and not putting enough hot bats together at the same time to be average offensively. The other 3 corners are the keys to the offense and the team is commited to defenders up the middle. 1st base is really the only place to improve IMO. Would that be a huge upgrade from these first two weeks? Probably not much, but a guy whose highs are higher and whose lows aren't as bad or prolonged would increase the chances of the team having multiple guys hitting at the same time over the course of a season. Right now there aren't enough real bats to go around.

I don't disagree with your assessment. My point was that 1B is NOT our most pressing need. Of course, I repeated my point that I don't expect a lot of 2007 - if we compete, it will be by virtue of some luck and a division that is wide open (I don't know that I agree the wide openness means this is a lousy division - I frankly think it's fairly competitive). That said, many have stated that Hatt & Conine are holding the fort while the stud player develops, hopefully by 2008 with one of them remaining as the back up. That doesn't mean either (or both) can't be traded this year. That's certainly a possibility and I think that's part of WK's method.

[mth123]

I don't disagree with your assessment. My point was that 1B is NOT our most pressing need. Of course, I repeated my point that I don't expect a lot of 2007 - if we compete, it will be by virtue of some luck and a division that is wide open (I don't know that I agree the wide openness means this is a lousy division - I frankly think it's fairly competitive). That said, many have stated that Hatt & Conine are holding the fort while the stud player develops, hopefully by 2008 with one of them remaining as the back up. That doesn't mean either (or both) can't be traded this year. That's certainly a possibility and I think that's part of WK's method.

But it is a pressing need. Defenders up the middle + hold the fort guys at 1B = average at best offense. It became a pressing need by virtue of the exchange from Lopez/Aurilia to Gonzalez, Kearns/Pena to Freel and Ross 2006 to Ross 2007. This team is designed to be no better than average offensively and reliant upon a repeat of Ross 1st half 2006 numbers to be even that. The other moves that this team made necessitated an upgrade at 1B. Hatte/Conine even at their best aren't good enough to make up for the lack of offense up the middle as the team is currently constructed.

That is saying nothing intended to knock Hatte/Conine as much as it is knocking the make-up of the team. It was noted a number of times in the offseason that the direction to defense is great but the team is limited by the low ceiling standing on 1B. You can get by with a 1B combo like this just fine with some high offensive output at the defensive spots.

That means, to get enough offense as currently constructed, the team needs to forsake a little defense up the middle by putting Freel on 2B with Phillips at SS and Gonzo subbing for both (with Phillips moving back and forth) based on who is slumping and who is hot. Hamilton plays CF on a daily basis and another OF that can spell these guys with RH pop needs to be brought in. Only that will get enough bats with POP in the line-up at the same time and that's still pretty iffy if EdE, Dunn and Griffey don't all slug at .475 plus and Hamilton doesn't hit as the league adjusts to him. In order to stay with the defenders, who won't add compensating offense when the sluggers are slumping and whose slumps are likely to be longer and lower, a team needs game changers at the corners and Hatte and Conine are not that. I think the defenders are here to stay and I'd be surprised if you see Phillips at SS at all and we'll only see Freel in the MI on rare occassions. This team will struggle for offense by design.

[redsmetz]

But it is a pressing need. Defenders up the middle + hold the fort guys at 1B = average at best offense. It became a pressing need by virtue of the exchange from Lopez/Aurilia to Gonzalez, Kearns/Pena to Freel and Ross 2006 to Ross 2007. This team is designed to be no better than average offensively and reliant upon a repeat of Ross 1st half 2006 numbers to be even that. The other moves that this team made necessitated an upgrade at 1B. Hatte/Conine even at their best aren't good enough to make up for the lack of offense up the middle as the team is currently constructed.

That is saying nothing intended to knock Hatte/Conine as much as it is knocking the make-up of the team. It was noted a number of times in the offseason that the direction to defense is great but the team is limited by the low ceiling standing on 1B. You can get by with a 1B combo like this just fine with some high offensive output at the defensive spots.

That means, to get enough offense as currently constructed, the team needs to forsake a little defense up the middle by putting Freel on 2B with Phillips at SS and Gonzo subbing for both (with Phillips moving back and forth) based on who is slumping and who is hot. Hamilton plays CF on a daily basis and another OF that can spell these guys with RH pop needs to be brought in. Only that will get enough bats with POP in the line-up at the same time and that's still pretty iffy if EdE, Dunn and Griffey don't all slug at .475 plus and Hamilton doesn't hit as the league adjusts to him. In order to stay with the defenders, who won't add compensating offense when the sluggers are slumping and whose slumps are likely to be longer and lower, a team needs game changers at the corners and Hatte and Conine are not that. I think the defenders are here to stay and I'd be surprised if you see Phillips at SS at all and we'll only see Freel in the MI on rare occassions. This team will struggle for offense by design.

Realistically these things are not going to happen. So many people bemoaned the signing of Gonzalez and to think now, just with a wave of your hand, we're now going to sit him? His signing to a 3 year deal was a clear acknowledgment of the need for good defense up the middle, something (along with catching help) that is sorely lacking in our system. I'm guessing that three years is about the time the FO expects before someone different comes along. The Hatt/Conine platoon, as I've said repeatedly, is a caretaker position plain and simple.

While I'd love for the 2007 team to win the division, I think it's built to stay competitive, nothing more. If everyone plays as they have for the last week, that will be an unmitigated disaster. I don't think they will. They won't be world killers, but they'll be in the thick of things. The integral point I keep saying is that we have not gotten rid of any of our top prospects in moving towards the future. The very fact that we presently have only two homegrown players on this roster means that's a good step forward, because we're approaching the day, IMO, when that will be different (NB: the 1976 Reds had 5 of their starting 9 signed by the Reds - and at least half of their pitching staff).

[mth123]

Realistically these things are not going to happen. So many people bemoaned the signing of Gonzalez and to think now, just with a wave of your hand, we're now going to sit him? His signing to a 3 year deal was a clear acknowledgment of the need for good defense up the middle, something (along with catching help) that is sorely lacking in our system. I'm guessing that three years is about the time the FO expects before someone different comes along. The Hatt/Conine platoon, as I've said repeatedly, is a caretaker position plain and simple.

While I'd love for the 2007 team to win the division, I think it's built to stay competitive, nothing more. If everyone plays as they have for the last week, that will be an unmitigated disaster. I don't think they will. They won't be world killers, but they'll be in the thick of things. The integral point I keep saying is that we have not gotten rid of any of our top prospects in moving towards the future. The very fact that we presently have only two homegrown players on this roster means that's a good step forward, because we're approaching the day, IMO, when that will be different (NB: the 1976 Reds had 5 of their starting 9 signed by the Reds - and at least half of their pitching staff).

I know its not going to happen. I'm just saying without lights out guys on the corners something like that needs to happen to provide enough offense. I agree that competitive at best is all we can hope for and for me 2007 is about seeing which pieces step up and provide solid answers as the team marches toward true contention in 2009. That doesn't mean that I don't want to see the team win every game now that the season is in full swing.

I'm also happy that all the top prospects are still in place. Some of the lesser prospects are off to good starts. Maybe a few can be exchanged for a role player or two to help out in 2007 (or be used as backfills for major league players that are dealt). Any trade now will probably only be a tweak for 2007. There may be some young talent brought in at the deadline if the team falls from contention and guys like Lohse are pitchng well and can be auctioned to the highest bidder.

[redsmetz]

I know its not going to happen. I'm just saying without lights out guys on the corners something like that needs to happen to provide enough offense. I agree that competitive at best is all we can hope for and for me 2007 is about seeing which pieces step up and provide solid answers as the team marches toward true contention in 2009. That doesn't mean that I don't want to see the team win every game now that the season is in full swing.

I'm also happy that all the top prospects are still in place. Some of the lesser prospects are off to good starts. Maybe a few can be exchanged for a role player or two to help out in 2007 (or be used as backfills for major league players that are dealt). Any trade now will probably only be a tweak for 2007. There may be some young talent brought in at the deadline if the team falls from contention and guys like Lohse are pitchng well and can be auctioned to the highest bidder.

I agree completely. I've never thought that Krivsky had a specific multi-year plan, but rather gradually rebuilding the entire organization while keeping a reasonably competitive team on the field in the interim years. You know, "Rome wasn't built in a day" etc.

I was reading Fay's analysis (which I guess he's going to do regularly now) and he kept writing about Krivsky going down to Louisville (a planned trip per WK) and that it wasn't to shore up the ML team right now and saying it wasn't time to panic. Fay wrote "that's not what fans want to hear." I thought that he's not talking for me - it's way too early to panic, it's way to early to start throwing people overboard. It's a small slice of the seasonal pie and we've got players who aren't going to hit below .200 all season - it will level out.