Turn Off Ads?
Page 2 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 16 to 30 of 59

Thread: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

  1. #16
    Member chicoruiz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2000
    Location
    Indianapolis
    Posts
    1,717

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    I wouldn't be shocked if someone took a shot at Asadoorian, figuring that here's a guy with a ML fastball who can be stashed in the pen for a year and even pinch hit occasionally.
    "In baseball, you don't know nothin'"...Yogi Berra

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #17
    Member JaxRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    9,523

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    I think Asadoorian wil be protected by Reds. We already shown a proclivity towards other team's coverted outfielders.

    Our guy made it to AA in his first season, with a 3.59 ERA. There's enough chaff on the roster you can make room for him.
    The lowest acceptable payroll amount for ownership to show they are not greedy pigs is 15 million more than they are currently paying. No matter what that currently is.

  4. #18
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,796

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    The Reds have 3 players on the 60 Day DL (Milton, Castro and Gil) and one on the restricted list (Jorgenson) none of whom count on the 40 man roster. Milton and Jorgenson probably won't be added back. Castro probably will because of his contract. Gil is a question mark but lets assume not. That is 1 spot needed there. Add in Pelland, Perez and possibly Asadoorian and Guevara and that means 5 spots are needed. If the Reds want to draft a player or 2 that could mean 6 or 7 spots.

    Who goes?

    Guardado? probably
    Saarloos? Yes
    Hanigan? Hmm, just added him.
    Colina?? Ditto
    Ellison?? I'd assume so
    Dumatrait? even with the poor performance he'd probably get picked. He has some value I'd think - even if its only as a throw in.
    Gosling? I think he has value as a LH long man. He can turn line-ups around but it may not be enough to save him.
    Dickerson? He'd probably get picked, but maybe Coats makes him expendable. I can't believe the Reds would put him in the AFL if they were going to let him go.
    Coats? Why'd they trade for him then?
    Stanton? I don't think they have the guts. I hear he's a stand-up guy. Maybe he'll let the team off the hook and retire.
    Coffey? I think they'd regret it and he is signed, but he may need a change of scenery now.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

    Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS

  5. #19
    Vampire Weekend @Bernie's camisadelgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    11,434

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    I think Guardado, Saarloos, and Gosling will be gone. I could be wrong, but I believe Jason Ellison is arbitration eligible, and seeing as how the Reds have a lot of depth there (Freel, Hopper, Hamilton, Griffey, Keppinger, Dunn, etc.), I wouldn't be surprised if the Reds let him go.

    Dumatrait had a god-awful rookie year, but like you said, he still has value. I think Colina (probably Jorgensen's replacement) and Coats will stay because the Reds want better looks at them. The same thing goes for Hanigan and Dickerson, as well. I don't think the Reds are ready to give up on Stanton, and as for Coffey, he has too high of a ceiling (and just high enough of a salary) to give up on him now.

  6. #20
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,796

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    Quote Originally Posted by camisadelgolf View Post
    I think Guardado, Saarloos, and Gosling will be gone. I could be wrong, but I believe Jason Ellison is arbitration eligible, and seeing as how the Reds have a lot of depth there (Freel, Hopper, Hamilton, Griffey, Keppinger, Dunn, etc.), I wouldn't be surprised if the Reds let him go.

    Dumatrait had a god-awful rookie year, but like you said, he still has value. I think Colina (probably Jorgensen's replacement) and Coats will stay because the Reds want better looks at them. The same thing goes for Hanigan and Dickerson, as well. I don't think the Reds are ready to give up on Stanton, and as for Coffey, he has too high of a ceiling (and just high enough of a salary) to give up on him now.

    I think the only guys who are gone for sure are Saarloos and Ellison and the reason is as you said, arbitration makes them probable non-tenders so they may as well be let go now to make room.

    The rest is pretty iffy. WK is not real predictable in this area and I could see him wanting to keep Castro, Gil, Guardado and all the rest. If Guardado stays the Reds may renegotiate and offer him a minor league deal with a spring training invitation at a reduced salary. That would buy a 40 man slot until after the draft. I could actually see a similar move with Gosling, Saarloos, Ellison and (everyone please forgive my next 3 word phrase) maybe even Milton. The emergence of Shearn and adding him to the 40 man has added him to the crowd, but given his performance he has to be kept on the roster now IMO.

    This exercise makes it easy to see why Bruce and Cueto weren't called up. Adding them to the 40 man would have increased the logjam and for all the other talk, this administrative stuff is important and I suspect is the real reason we aren't seeing them now.
    Last edited by mth123; 09-23-2007 at 09:13 AM.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

    Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS

  7. #21
    Redsmetz redsmetz's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2006
    Location
    Winton Place
    Posts
    11,171

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    This exercise makes it easy to see why Bruce and Cueto weren't called up. Adding them to the 40 man would have increased the logjam and for all the other talk, this administrative stuff is important and I suspect is the real reason we aren't seeing them now.
    It's always a hard sell to state that publically, isn't it? I think I'd rather worry about the 40 man situation in Spring Training or short after the season starts rather than hamstring yourself during the off-season. Plus, I believe someone like Rick Short who says both need further seasoning.

  8. #22
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,796

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    Quote Originally Posted by redsmetz View Post
    It's always a hard sell to state that publically, isn't it? I think I'd rather worry about the 40 man situation in Spring Training or short after the season starts rather than hamstring yourself during the off-season. Plus, I believe someone like Rick Short who says both need further seasoning.
    Agree. Hamilton and Burton should be reasons 1A and 1B why properly managing the 40 Man going into the draft is important. Teams need to leave room to grab guys like this and also teams need to leave room to protect guys who still have potential. Adding guys before they have to be, unless they are going straight to an integral major league role, bumps somebody else off or fills the roster to prevent selecting anyone.

    I have no complaints concerning Bruce and Cueto not making a September appearance in Cincy.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

    Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS

  9. #23
    The Future GoReds33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    2,463

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    Pelland, Guevara, and M. Perez. That would be who I would protect. I still like Perez. He is a cheaper Chad Moeller.
    If you can't build a winning team with that core a fire-sale isn't the solution. Selling the franchise, moving them to Nashville and converting GABP into a used car lot is.
    -LTlabner

  10. #24
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Amarillo,Texas
    Posts
    4,362

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    Quote Originally Posted by mth123 View Post
    I think the only guys who are gone for sure are Saarloos and Ellison and the reason is as you said, arbitration makes them probable non-tenders so they may as well be let go now to make room.

    The rest is pretty iffy. WK is not real predictable in this area and I could see him wanting to keep Castro, Gil, Guardado and all the rest. If Guardado stays the Reds may renegotiate and offer him a minor league deal with a spring training invitation at a reduced salary. That would buy a 40 man slot until after the draft. I could actually see a similar move with Gosling, Saarloos, Ellison and (everyone please forgive my next 3 word phrase) maybe even Milton. The emergence of Shearn and adding him to the 40 man has added him to the crowd, but given his performance he has to be kept on the roster now IMO.

    This exercise makes it easy to see why Bruce and Cueto weren't called up. Adding them to the 40 man would have increased the logjam and for all the other talk, this administrative stuff is important and I suspect is the real reason we aren't seeing them now.
    So you think the Reds may offer Milton a minor league deal? It might not be too much of a surprise, especially with the state of our starting pitching.

  11. #25
    The Big Dog mth123's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Posts
    14,796

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    Quote Originally Posted by AmarilloRed View Post
    So you think the Reds may offer Milton a minor league deal? It might not be too much of a surprise, especially with the state of our starting pitching.
    Not so much saying it will happen as much as saying Krivsky is unpredictable and it wouldn't surprise me. He seems to have no pattern.
    "All I can tell them is pick a good one and sock it." --BABE RUTH

    Having better players makes "the right time" or "the big hit" happen a lot more often. PLUS PLUS

  12. #26
    Vampire Weekend @Bernie's camisadelgolf's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2004
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    11,434

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    I think the Reds won't offer anything to Milton because there would be a mutual understanding that Milton would rather be in any Major League organization other than the Reds'. I wouldn't be shocked for Milton to get a one-year Major League deal for $500k, to be honest with you. It's a sick world we live in.

  13. #27
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,328

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    Quote Originally Posted by camisadelgolf View Post
    I think the Reds won't offer anything to Milton because there would be a mutual understanding that Milton would rather be in any Major League organization other than the Reds'. I wouldn't be shocked for Milton to get a one-year Major League deal for $500k, to be honest with you. It's a sick world we live in.
    I don't even know if its allowed that he make a low number with the amount of service time he has.....

  14. #28
    Member JaxRed's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2000
    Location
    Jacksonville, FL
    Posts
    9,523

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    He can. You just can't offer that as an arbitration offer.
    The lowest acceptable payroll amount for ownership to show they are not greedy pigs is 15 million more than they are currently paying. No matter what that currently is.

  15. #29
    The Boss dougdirt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    35,328

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    Quote Originally Posted by JaxRed View Post
    He can. You just can't offer that as an arbitration offer.
    Gotcha. Thanks. I knew there was something about offering low amounts to Vets.... just wasn't sure exactly how it worked.

  16. #30
    The Future GoReds33's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    Cincinnati, Ohio
    Posts
    2,463

    Re: Reds 40 man roster and next year's Rule 5 draft

    Chris Dickerson is useless to the Reds in my book. He can't hit whatsoever. Yes he has a little power, but that doesn't make up for his horrible average. I say that we should try and get something, anything for him.
    If you can't build a winning team with that core a fire-sale isn't the solution. Selling the franchise, moving them to Nashville and converting GABP into a used car lot is.
    -LTlabner


Turn Off Ads?

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  

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.

Thank you, and most importantly, enjoy yourselves!


RedsZone.com is a privately owned website and is not affiliated with the Cincinnati Reds or Major League Baseball


Contact us: Boss | GIK | BCubb2003 | dabvu2498 | Gallen5862 | LexRedsFan | Plus Plus | RedlegJake | redsfan1995 | The Operator | Tommyjohn25