Turn Off Ads?
Results 1 to 14 of 14

Thread: CIN/COL Trade Proposal

  1. #1
    Old Red Guard Reject
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,419

    CIN/COL Trade Proposal

    COL gets Bronson Arroyo

    Rockies are the defending NL champs and are competing in the tough NL West. Right now they're running Mark Redman out there every 5th day. They could use an upgrade, especially for spare parts.

    CIN gets OF Ryan Spilborghs, C Chris Iannetta and LHP (AAA) Josh Newman

    Reds need an RH OF bat and Spilborghs thumps lefties, Iannetta is a nice young catcher blocked by Torrealba's extension and Newman gives LHP depth. Reds are off the hook for 25 million over the next two years and acquire 3 guys under their control for the next few years that fill needs. With Bailey doing well at AAA and Belisle set to come back, filling Arroyo's spot does not become as difficult.
    If you ain't first, you're last! - Ricky Bobby

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #2
    Member
    Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    407

    Re: CIN/COL Trade Proposal

    Three starts and you're already trying to run Arroyo out of Cincinnati. Bronson is going to rebound. He's a boardline #2/#3 starter. Starting pitching is always vulnerable to injuries. Besides Bailey, the Reds don't have any other quality starting pitching ready for the majors (Belisle is a question mark because of his injuries and his inconsistencies last year). I'd give it more time before I try to make any big trades like the one you're proposing.

  4. #3
    Member 757690's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Dayton
    Posts
    10,307

    Re: CIN/COL Trade Proposal

    Not a bad trade, but the Reds should never trade Arroyo without getting a starting pitcher back. They are shallow enough at starting pitching, no need to trade one their most reliable ones.

  5. #4
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    Loveland, OH
    Posts
    85

    Re: CIN/COL Trade Proposal

    I don't think trading Arroyo will solve two problems at the same time, namely RH punch and C. Perhaps trading Belisle would garner a solution to one or the other. I hear he has been pitching well.
    "Pitching is the art of instilling fear by making a man flinch." - Sandy Koufax

  6. #5
    You're Welcome
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    The Mythological Land of Dayton, OH
    Posts
    405

    Re: CIN/COL Trade Proposal

    I said this in another thread about Arroyo, and I'm going to repeat it in hopes that it sinks in:

    Any life form higher up the evolutionary chain than "houseplant" does not trade a #2 starting pitcher for a role/platoon player or a package made up of role/platoon players. You only trade a #2 starter for a package of near-can't-miss young prospects, or you trade a #2 starter for a bankable and productive major-league-ready position player.

    Got it? Good.

    Seriously, there are still people 'round these parts who'd pound the hammer if the chance to crucify Krivsky about "The Trade" presented itself, and the reason why is because he traded from the "top 15" (of everday players and starters) for dime-a-dozen relievers and a utility player. At some point, you can't make up for the quality you're trading away by receiving quantity in return; a top level player cannot be replaced by any number of bench players or relievers. Three fringe pieces of Colorado's bench/minors don't add up to equal an Arroyo.

    Oh, and the "off the hook for $25 million" comment? You trade Arroyo, and you're also off the hook for what should be about 65 Quality Starts over the next 3 years. I know Arroyo's not the dominant kind of pitcher who will ever be an ace, but the camp calling him a "#4" who does nothing but eat innings in mediocre fashion couldn't be more off base. Even last year (perceived of as a crappy year for Arroyo), the guy chalked up 22 Quality Starts. That's 11th best in all of major league baseball. That's more than Harang had. That's a pitcher who leaves his team with a perfectly reasonable chance to win the game more than two-thirds of the time. That's a pitcher who did the exact same thing the year before, and should be considered a more reliable candidate to repeat the feat again (no matter how much man-love you have after two weeks of Volquez and Cueto).

    Bottom line: if you like what Arroyo did for us in 2006, then you should like his 2007 the same way (take out one six start stretch he had from May 20 to June 20 last year -- a stretch where he was obviously affected by "pitcher abuse" in his three previous starts of 120-plus pitch-count outings -- the numbers are almost identical), and have expectations for more of the same going forward. It ain't his fault that he had 22 quality starts, and in those games, his offense and bullpen screwed him over to the tune of 7 losses and 8 no decisions (6 of those no decisions ended in losses by the bullpen).

    I realize the painful reality of the Reds accruing 13 losses in Arroyo's 22 QS is something that could, conceivably, repeat if our offense keeps stinking like it has the last three games.... but that doesn't mean I'm ready to give away a guy who'll leave us with a realistic chance to win 65 games in the next three years just so I can have a right handed bat on the bnech, a fourth catcher, and a minor league reliever, not a one of them under the age of 25 or with any remarkable upside.

    No sale.

  7. #6
    Member
    Join Date
    May 2006
    Posts
    544

    Re: CIN/COL Trade Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by FlightRick View Post
    I said this in another thread about Arroyo, and I'm going to repeat it in hopes that it sinks in:

    Any life form higher up the evolutionary chain than "houseplant" does not trade a #2 starting pitcher for a role/platoon player or a package made up of role/platoon players. You only trade a #2 starter for a package of near-can't-miss young prospects, or you trade a #2 starter for a bankable and productive major-league-ready position player.

    Got it? Good.

    Seriously, there are still people 'round these parts who'd pound the hammer if the chance to crucify Krivsky about "The Trade" presented itself, and the reason why is because he traded from the "top 15" (of everday players and starters) for dime-a-dozen relievers and a utility player. At some point, you can't make up for the quality you're trading away by receiving quantity in return; a top level player cannot be replaced by any number of bench players or relievers. Three fringe pieces of Colorado's bench/minors don't add up to equal an Arroyo.

    Oh, and the "off the hook for $25 million" comment? You trade Arroyo, and you're also off the hook for what should be about 65 Quality Starts over the next 3 years. I know Arroyo's not the dominant kind of pitcher who will ever be an ace, but the camp calling him a "#4" who does nothing but eat innings in mediocre fashion couldn't be more off base. Even last year (perceived of as a crappy year for Arroyo), the guy chalked up 22 Quality Starts. That's 11th best in all of major league baseball. That's more than Harang had. That's a pitcher who leaves his team with a perfectly reasonable chance to win the game more than two-thirds of the time. That's a pitcher who did the exact same thing the year before, and should be considered a more reliable candidate to repeat the feat again (no matter how much man-love you have after two weeks of Volquez and Cueto).

    Bottom line: if you like what Arroyo did for us in 2006, then you should like his 2007 the same way (take out one six start stretch he had from May 20 to June 20 last year -- a stretch where he was obviously affected by "pitcher abuse" in his three previous starts of 120-plus pitch-count outings -- the numbers are almost identical), and have expectations for more of the same going forward. It ain't his fault that he had 22 quality starts, and in those games, his offense and bullpen screwed him over to the tune of 7 losses and 8 no decisions (6 of those no decisions ended in losses by the bullpen).

    I realize the painful reality of the Reds accruing 13 losses in Arroyo's 22 QS is something that could, conceivably, repeat if our offense keeps stinking like it has the last three games.... but that doesn't mean I'm ready to give away a guy who'll leave us with a realistic chance to win 65 games in the next three years just so I can have a right handed bat on the bnech, a fourth catcher, and a minor league reliever, not a one of them under the age of 25 or with any remarkable upside.

    No sale.
    What he said.

  8. #7
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Location
    Weatherford, Texas
    Posts
    2,125

    Re: CIN/COL Trade Proposal

    Ditto...

    Arroyo is going to come around...

    This team needs to cut Castro and Coffey.

    That would probably get the Reds 3-4 More Wins right there with Leads that TC will Guaranteed Blow...

  9. #8
    Member Nasty_Boy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2007
    Location
    1st Place... Finally
    Posts
    1,190

    Re: CIN/COL Trade Proposal

    I would much rather keep Bronson.

    I like Spilborghs and Ianetta but I don't know where Newman fits in. He's a solid reliever, but the Reds still have Bray in AAA. Newman may eventually be usefull to the Reds but not this season. And I don't see any of the 3 being as usefull as Bronson.

  10. #9
    You're Welcome
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    The Mythological Land of Dayton, OH
    Posts
    405

    Re: CIN/COL Trade Proposal

    Just a quick follow-up, so no one can accuse me of over-valuing Arroyo or making stuff up about his continued viability as a "#2" (and just to satisfy myself that I was not misremembering or making things up)....

    I did some quick research, and the six starts Arroyo made between May 20 and June 20, 2007, were abysmal, but they followed three consecutive starts where he was pushed to the limit. I know he's always called a "rubber-armed righty" and his hippiefied demeanor lead some to believe he's not actually working out there, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Arroyo only went 120-plus pitches three times in 2007. Two of those immediately preceeded his sucky streak (his third start of the three lead-in games was his fourth highest pitchcount of the year, too: 117).

    Cracks started to show in the final "lead-in" game, actually: though he only gave up 1 ER, he labored badly, scattered 10 hits and 3 walks while throwing a season high 129 pitches. Then came this:

    ARROYO'S SIX GAMES OF SUCK 2007
    Starts: 6 (29.2 IP, 5 IP/g)
    Wins: 0
    Losses: 4
    ERA: 10.60
    WHIP: 2.15
    K/BB Rate: 1.46
    HR/9: 2.47

    Awfulness, thy name is Bronson, right? Well, yeah... except that outside of that "dead arm period" (I know there are "pitcher abuse points," but is third degree armslaughter a crime, yet?), here's what Arroyo did in 2007:

    BRONSON ARROYO'S REST OF 2007
    Starts: 28 (181 IP, 6.2 IP/g)
    Wins: 9
    Losses: 11
    ERA: 3.18
    WHIP: 1.20
    K/BB Rate: 2.74
    HR/9: 0.99

    That's more like it. In fact, other than wins and losses (which were clearly affected by outside factors like our craptastic bullpen) those numbers are almost identical to Arroyo's 2006, when he was named the organization's best pitcher (ahead of Harang).

    [Special Bonus Observation: scanning Arroyo's game log at baseball-reference, one finds that the only other genuinely stinky start the guy had outside of his Six Games of Suck IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED his only other 120-plus pitch outing. If this isn't a trend, I don't know what is.]

    Two lessons here:

    (1) Don't let the laid-back, soft-tossing appearance fool you. Instead, pay attention to the delicate, ladyboy portion of the appearance. Arroyo needs his recovery time, and should not be over-extended (say 110-plus pitches) in consecutive starts unless you want to risk diminishing returns.

    (2) You don't trade away this kind of production for niche players and filler. Honestly, a trade like this is the sort of chicanery I pull when I'm playing "Baseball Mogul" or something, and the opposing artificial intelligence is SOOOOO easy to fleece. I just keep piling on the mediocre (bench players who have served me well, but are getting older and more expensive, and maybe a minor league prospect if necessary) until they cough up the grade-A player I want. Computer GMs might be suckers for that, but in real life, only a dolt would trade away a 90 in exchange for a 75 and two 60s, even if you've been taught to believe that "195 is more than 90." With lesser players or in cases that are pure salary dumps? Sure, you can get away with quantity over quality... but with your top tier players (of which Arroyo is still one), you don't give up one star and consider three (or four, or five, or 10) pieces of fringe filler to be a good return.

    I don't think I over-value "Quality Starts," but I go back to Arroyo having 45 of them in the past two years. I can't help but point out that mathematical studies have shown teams should win 70% of all QS (the Reds only won 40% of Arroyo's last year, which has to be some kind of record). Arroyo doesn't have "ace" stuff where he literally takes away the opposition's chance to win the game, but the data clearly indicate he gives his team every chance to be victorious with significantly-greater-than-league-average regularity.

    Me? I value that. I'm willing to pay for that. I don't think $10m or $12m a year is too much to shell out for that, even if you just blithely assume a best-case scenario for the development of both Cueto and Volquez (and Bailey). First off, the chances of Cueto/Volquez/Bailey ALL ending up as legit top-of-the-rotation guys are slim. Secondly, for all the talk of "number two" and "number four" and "league average," the truth is that no winning team is EVER going to have exactly five starting pitchers last a whole season, each slotted according to "league averages." A successful organization is ALWAYS going to need 6 or 7 (or even more) starters producing at various times during the season, and unless they want to finish in third place at .500, they need to produce above "league average" for their slot.

    "Worst" case scenario is that all three of our young starters develop as aces, and by 2011, Arroyo is the highest paid "#5" in baseball history because we're "stuck" with his contract. Oh, and we're winning left and right because our "#5" is a "League Average #2 or #3," like they have on all good teams. More realistically, only one or two of our young pitchers develop like we hope, and we're paying a perfectly reasonable price to Arroyo to go out there in a #3 slot and give us every chance to win the ballgame. We are nowhere near deep enough to even think about trading that kind of guy away for table scraps.

    Think about it this way: I know we couldn't demand the same kind of package in return for Arroyo that Bedard or Haren commanded.... but you're freaking insane (or just plain dense) if you throw Arroyo onto the trading block with an asking price significantly less than what the A's were insisting upon in return for Joe Blanton.

    Or, to frame it another way: yes, a more productive (or more "clutch") offense combined with a less repugnant and game-blowing bullpen would have greatly changed the Reds fortunes in Arroyo's 2007 starts. Instead of going 9-13 in his QS, the Reds (even if just meeting league averages) should have gone 14-8. This would have been nice (and would be nice if we could count on this year). But, ask yourself this: what the hell good does it do to acquire these niche pieces like a RH bat off the bench and another live arm for the bullpen if you're having to give up THE VERY GUY WHOSE QUALITY STARTS YOU'RE LOOKING TO PRESERVE BY UPGRADING THE ANCILLARY PIECES OF YOUR ROSTER?

    Answer: it does no good.

    Thus endeth my rant. I have not only satisfied my need to be factually/statistically sound, but now have satisfied myself (and then some) rhetorically, as well....


    Rick
    Last edited by FlightRick; 04-13-2008 at 08:40 PM.

  11. #10
    Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Amarillo,Texas
    Posts
    4,359

    Re: CIN/COL Trade Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by FlightRick View Post
    Just a quick follow-up, so no one can accuse me of over-valuing Arroyo or making stuff up about his continued viability as a "#2" (and just to satisfy myself that I was not misremembering or making things up)....

    I did some quick research, and the six starts Arroyo made between May 20 and June 20, 2007, were abysmal, but they followed three consecutive starts where he was pushed to the limit. I know he's always called a "rubber-armed righty" and his hippiefied demeanor lead some to believe he's not actually working out there, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Arroyo only went 120-plus pitches three times in 2007. Two of those immediately preceeded his sucky streak (his third start of the three lead-in games was his fourth highest pitchcount of the year, too: 117).

    Cracks started to show in the final "lead-in" game, actually: though he only gave up 1 ER, he labored badly, scattered 10 hits and 3 walks while throwing a season high 129 pitches. Then came this:

    ARROYO'S SIX GAMES OF SUCK 2007
    Starts: 6 (29.2 IP, 5 IP/g)
    Wins: 0
    Losses: 4
    ERA: 10.60
    WHIP: 2.15
    K/BB Rate: 1.46
    HR/9: 2.47

    Awfulness, thy name is Bronson, right? Well, yeah... except that outside of that "dead arm period" (I know there are "pitcher abuse points," but is third degree armslaughter a crime, yet?), here's what Arroyo did in 2007:

    BRONSON ARROYO'S REST OF 2007
    Starts: 28 (181 IP, 6.2 IP/g)
    Wins: 9
    Losses: 11
    ERA: 3.18
    WHIP: 1.20
    K/BB Rate: 2.74
    HR/9: 0.99

    That's more like it. In fact, other than wins and losses (which were clearly affected by outside factors like our craptastic bullpen) those numbers are almost identical to Arroyo's 2006, when he was named the organization's best pitcher (ahead of Harang).

    [Special Bonus Observation: scanning Arroyo's game log at baseball-reference, one finds that the only other genuinely stinky start the guy had outside of his Six Games of Suck IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED his only other 120-plus pitch outing. If this isn't a trend, I don't know what is.]

    Two lessons here:

    (1) Don't let the laid-back, soft-tossing appearance fool you. Instead, pay attention to the delicate, ladyboy portion of the appearance. Arroyo needs his recovery time, and should not be over-extended (say 110-plus pitches) in consecutive starts unless you want to risk diminishing returns.

    (2) You don't trade away this kind of production for niche players and filler. Honestly, a trade like this is the sort of chicanery I pull when I'm playing "Baseball Mogul" or something, and the opposing artificial intelligence is SOOOOO easy to fleece. I just keep piling on the mediocre (bench players who have served me well, but are getting older and more expensive, and maybe a minor league prospect if necessary) until they cough up the grade-A player I want. Computer GMs might be suckers for that, but in real life, only a dolt would trade away a 90 in exchange for a 75 and two 60s, even if you've been taught to believe that "195 is more than 90." With lesser players or in cases that are pure salary dumps? Sure, you can get away with quantity over quality... but with your top tier players (of which Arroyo is still one), you don't give up one star and consider three (or four, or five, or 10) pieces of fringe filler to be a good return.

    I don't think I over-value "Quality Starts," but I go back to Arroyo having 45 of them in the past two years. I can't help but point out that mathematical studies have shown teams should win 70% of all QS (the Reds only won 40% of Arroyo's last year, which has to be some kind of record). Arroyo doesn't have "ace" stuff where he literally takes away the opposition's chance to win the game, but the data clearly indicate he gives his team every chance to be victorious with significantly-greater-than-league-average regularity.

    Me? I value that. I'm willing to pay for that. I don't think $10m or $12m a year is too much to shell out for that, even if you just blithely assume a best-case scenario for the development of both Cueto and Volquez (and Bailey). First off, the chances of Cueto/Volquez/Bailey ALL ending up as legit top-of-the-rotation guys are slim. Secondly, for all the talk of "number two" and "number four" and "league average," the truth is that no winning team is EVER going to have exactly five starting pitchers last a whole season, each slotted according to "league averages." A successful organization is ALWAYS going to need 6 or 7 (or even more) starters producing at various times during the season, and unless they want to finish in third place at .500, they need to produce above "league average" for their slot.

    "Worst" case scenario is that all three of our young starters develop as aces, and by 2011, Arroyo is the highest paid "#5" in baseball history because we're "stuck" with his contract. Oh, and we're winning left and right because our "#5" is a "League Average #2 or #3," like they have on all good teams. More realistically, only one or two of our young pitchers develop like we hope, and we're paying a perfectly reasonable price to Arroyo to go out there in a #3 slot and give us every chance to win the ballgame. We are nowhere near deep enough to even think about trading that kind of guy away for table scraps.

    Think about it this way: I know we couldn't demand the same kind of package in return for Arroyo that Bedard or Haren commanded.... but you're freaking insane (or just plain dense) if you throw Arroyo onto the trading block with an asking price significantly less than what the A's were insisting upon in return for Joe Blanton.

    Or, to frame it another way: yes, a more productive (or more "clutch") offense combined with a less repugnant and game-blowing bullpen would have greatly changed the Reds fortunes in Arroyo's 2007 starts. Instead of going 9-13 in his QS, the Reds (even if just meeting league averages) should have gone 14-8. This would have been nice (and would be nice if we could count on this year). But, ask yourself this: what the hell good does it do to acquire these niche pieces like a RH bat off the bench and another live arm for the bullpen if you're having to give up THE VERY GUY WHOSE QUALITY STARTS YOU'RE LOOKING TO PRESERVE BY UPGRADING THE ANCILLARY PIECES OF YOUR ROSTER?

    Answer: it does no good.

    Thus endeth my rant. I have not only satisfied my need to be factually/statistically sound, but now have satisfied myself (and then some) rhetorically, as well....


    Rick
    A quality rant. You seem to have done some research on this subject. We may not all agree that Arroyo is a #2 (it certainly can be debated), but we can all appreciate your doing some research to prove your point.

  12. #11
    Recovering Cubs Fan
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    711

    Re: CIN/COL Trade Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by FlightRick View Post
    Just a quick follow-up, so no one can accuse me of over-valuing Arroyo or making stuff up about his continued viability as a "#2" (and just to satisfy myself that I was not misremembering or making things up)....

    I did some quick research, and the six starts Arroyo made between May 20 and June 20, 2007, were abysmal, but they followed three consecutive starts where he was pushed to the limit. I know he's always called a "rubber-armed righty" and his hippiefied demeanor lead some to believe he's not actually working out there, but the evidence suggests otherwise. Arroyo only went 120-plus pitches three times in 2007. Two of those immediately preceeded his sucky streak (his third start of the three lead-in games was his fourth highest pitchcount of the year, too: 117).

    Cracks started to show in the final "lead-in" game, actually: though he only gave up 1 ER, he labored badly, scattered 10 hits and 3 walks while throwing a season high 129 pitches. Then came this:

    ARROYO'S SIX GAMES OF SUCK 2007
    Starts: 6 (29.2 IP, 5 IP/g)
    Wins: 0
    Losses: 4
    ERA: 10.60
    WHIP: 2.15
    K/BB Rate: 1.46
    HR/9: 2.47

    Awfulness, thy name is Bronson, right? Well, yeah... except that outside of that "dead arm period" (I know there are "pitcher abuse points," but is third degree armslaughter a crime, yet?), here's what Arroyo did in 2007:

    BRONSON ARROYO'S REST OF 2007
    Starts: 28 (181 IP, 6.2 IP/g)
    Wins: 9
    Losses: 11
    ERA: 3.18
    WHIP: 1.20
    K/BB Rate: 2.74
    HR/9: 0.99

    That's more like it. In fact, other than wins and losses (which were clearly affected by outside factors like our craptastic bullpen) those numbers are almost identical to Arroyo's 2006, when he was named the organization's best pitcher (ahead of Harang).

    [Special Bonus Observation: scanning Arroyo's game log at baseball-reference, one finds that the only other genuinely stinky start the guy had outside of his Six Games of Suck IMMEDIATELY FOLLOWED his only other 120-plus pitch outing. If this isn't a trend, I don't know what is.]

    Two lessons here:

    (1) Don't let the laid-back, soft-tossing appearance fool you. Instead, pay attention to the delicate, ladyboy portion of the appearance. Arroyo needs his recovery time, and should not be over-extended (say 110-plus pitches) in consecutive starts unless you want to risk diminishing returns.

    (2) You don't trade away this kind of production for niche players and filler. Honestly, a trade like this is the sort of chicanery I pull when I'm playing "Baseball Mogul" or something, and the opposing artificial intelligence is SOOOOO easy to fleece. I just keep piling on the mediocre (bench players who have served me well, but are getting older and more expensive, and maybe a minor league prospect if necessary) until they cough up the grade-A player I want. Computer GMs might be suckers for that, but in real life, only a dolt would trade away a 90 in exchange for a 75 and two 60s, even if you've been taught to believe that "195 is more than 90." With lesser players or in cases that are pure salary dumps? Sure, you can get away with quantity over quality... but with your top tier players (of which Arroyo is still one), you don't give up one star and consider three (or four, or five, or 10) pieces of fringe filler to be a good return.

    I don't think I over-value "Quality Starts," but I go back to Arroyo having 45 of them in the past two years. I can't help but point out that mathematical studies have shown teams should win 70% of all QS (the Reds only won 40% of Arroyo's last year, which has to be some kind of record). Arroyo doesn't have "ace" stuff where he literally takes away the opposition's chance to win the game, but the data clearly indicate he gives his team every chance to be victorious with significantly-greater-than-league-average regularity.

    Me? I value that. I'm willing to pay for that. I don't think $10m or $12m a year is too much to shell out for that, even if you just blithely assume a best-case scenario for the development of both Cueto and Volquez (and Bailey). First off, the chances of Cueto/Volquez/Bailey ALL ending up as legit top-of-the-rotation guys are slim. Secondly, for all the talk of "number two" and "number four" and "league average," the truth is that no winning team is EVER going to have exactly five starting pitchers last a whole season, each slotted according to "league averages." A successful organization is ALWAYS going to need 6 or 7 (or even more) starters producing at various times during the season, and unless they want to finish in third place at .500, they need to produce above "league average" for their slot.

    "Worst" case scenario is that all three of our young starters develop as aces, and by 2011, Arroyo is the highest paid "#5" in baseball history because we're "stuck" with his contract. Oh, and we're winning left and right because our "#5" is a "League Average #2 or #3," like they have on all good teams. More realistically, only one or two of our young pitchers develop like we hope, and we're paying a perfectly reasonable price to Arroyo to go out there in a #3 slot and give us every chance to win the ballgame. We are nowhere near deep enough to even think about trading that kind of guy away for table scraps.

    Think about it this way: I know we couldn't demand the same kind of package in return for Arroyo that Bedard or Haren commanded.... but you're freaking insane (or just plain dense) if you throw Arroyo onto the trading block with an asking price significantly less than what the A's were insisting upon in return for Joe Blanton.

    Or, to frame it another way: yes, a more productive (or more "clutch") offense combined with a less repugnant and game-blowing bullpen would have greatly changed the Reds fortunes in Arroyo's 2007 starts. Instead of going 9-13 in his QS, the Reds (even if just meeting league averages) should have gone 14-8. This would have been nice (and would be nice if we could count on this year). But, ask yourself this: what the hell good does it do to acquire these niche pieces like a RH bat off the bench and another live arm for the bullpen if you're having to give up THE VERY GUY WHOSE QUALITY STARTS YOU'RE LOOKING TO PRESERVE BY UPGRADING THE ANCILLARY PIECES OF YOUR ROSTER?

    Answer: it does no good.

    Thus endeth my rant. I have not only satisfied my need to be factually/statistically sound, but now have satisfied myself (and then some) rhetorically, as well....


    Rick
    Great stuff. How the hell are you not in the Big Boy room?
    FIRE DUSTY Never mind. The man is clearly a genius.

  13. #12
    Old Red Guard Reject
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,419

    Re: CIN/COL Trade Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by FlightRick View Post
    Got it? Good.

    Oh, and the "off the hook for $25 million" comment?

    Any life form higher up the evolutionary chain than "houseplant"

    only a dolt
    Rick, it's one thing to not like a trade proposal. It's entirely different to be rude and talk down to people. It's real tempting to comment on the excess of the "Baseball Mogul" analogy and compare it to Dungeons and Dragons, but, alas, I shall not go there. You could try being mature about it like 757690 and explain that logically a trade of a starting pitcher needs to garner a starting pitcher and save the "I disagree with your trade so you're automatically the biggest idiot on the planet."
    I appreciate your research on Arroyo. I agree that his last two years are pretty good, even above average (to sum it up in a few words). However, I don't see this year or the next two that follow to be above average. I'm looking at selling high before his value goes down. I know the Rockies farm system fairly well and would not consider the players mentioned as "filler" or "fodder" or anything less than ML ready players that need a change of scenery to get a chance to prove themsleves that fill needs for our Reds. I do have some bias, being that Josh Newman is my cousin.

    As for Bronson, Age is not in his favor and here's the '06-'08 trend:

    ERA:
    3.29 to 4.23 to the current 5.17

    OPS Against:
    .690 to .785 to the current .947

    Do I think he will end 08 with those numbers? No. But, I do think a decline from 07 would not be a surprise. He's been getting lit by lefties and righties both this year. 05-07 it was just lefties at a .819 OPS clip.

    Not to get into a stats "pissing contest" but I do think he is going downhill in a hurry. I hope I'm wrong for the Red sake. But, with that said, I'd gladly make any type of friendly wager on that over/under of 65 QS in the next three years. Make me an offer.
    If you ain't first, you're last! - Ricky Bobby

  14. #13
    You're Welcome
    Join Date
    May 2003
    Location
    The Mythological Land of Dayton, OH
    Posts
    405

    Re: CIN/COL Trade Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by Newman4 View Post
    Rick, it's one thing to not like a trade proposal. It's entirely different to be rude and talk down to people.
    Oh my: a bunch of snippets of things I said taken out of context and assembled all in a row to misrepresent the main thrust of my comments. I... I.... I feel so.... Dusty-Baker-like.

    But seriously: if I'd intended to be rude or condescending, you'd have known it. I'd have actually mentioned your screenname, specifically, and described a detailed account of how I believe the literal truth of a scenario in which you and the potted plant in your family room would tie at Scrabble 9 times out of 10. This, of course, would be foolish and pointless.

    What's not foolish or pointless, however, is separating the idea from the person, and rigorously examining it. A good, informative, and entertaining debate will be passionate, but tempered by a slavish devotion to facts and evidence (both in presenting ones own case, and accepting and sythesizing the evidence presented by others). And sure: that's going to result in some prickliness. But hey: that's the fun of it.

    What can I say: I refuse to accept "The sky is green, that's my opinion, and you have to respect it" as a valid stance, and I can't imagine anything more boring than watering down my wordsmithery to the point of resembling Ned Flanders. And I'm more than fine with getting as good as I give.

    I agree that his last two years are pretty good, even above average (to sum it up in a few words). However, I don't see this year or the next two that follow to be above average. I'm looking at selling high before his value goes down.
    Well, then, I guess we agree in principle. Kind of. We agree that Arroyo has been good the past two years. And we'd agree that if Arroyo could be known to be in immediate decline to the point of below-average-ness, it'd be wise to unload him.

    But then there's that pesky logical connector that we differ on. You hold onto a subjective belief in Arroyo's regression being real and significant. I hold onto the belief that there is no objective, statistical evidence for this, and the "eye-ball test" of Arroyo in 2008 yields little "actionable" information. If anything, he's been effective in two starts out of three, with a downright awful outing in the third.

    But then there's the issue of the sample size being small to the point of uselessness, but coupled with the fact that if you DO want to look deeper into the numbers, there are maybe some disturbing trends. Like Arroyo's pitches-per-plate appearance is the highest it's ever been in his career (and his strike rate the lowest)... if that's just the small sample size (and the crappy umpire last Monday, who squeezed Arroyo mercilessly, to the point of forcing Arroyo to groove one of his pitches right down Broadway in hopes of getting a strike call, only to see it jacked out of the park), then no big deal. But if it's a bona fide trend? And if my theory is that Arroyo is damned effective at getting Quality Starts and putting his team in good shape to win games but ONLY IF you monitor his pitch count? Then Arroyo's loss of pitch efficiency would be a bad thing.

    Still: I'm far from prepared to make that leap of faith, when there's so little data so far for this year, and anecdotal evidence that his only poor start may have been affected by an umpire with a strike zone that was criminally small (at least, until Valentin's final at-bat of the game).

    I know the Rockies farm system fairly well and would not consider the players mentioned as "filler" or "fodder" or anything less than ML ready players that need a change of scenery to get a chance to prove themsleves that fill needs for our Reds.
    If I used those terms, perhaps it was unwise of me; though I mean them descriptively and not prejoratively, I acknowledge that "filler" and "fodder" come with connotations of a (negative) value judgment.

    What I meant was this: Arroyo is, and with a four year track record on his side he projects to be for several more years, an every-fifth-day starting pitcher. The players you suggested getting in return for Arroyo have no track record of getting even 250 ABs in a season (or 60 IP in high leverage situations, in the case of the reliever).

    You counter with the "change of scenery and they'll blossom" argument, which is all well and good if that's what you believe. All I can do is counter with what is a factual matter of record. And what's on record is that Spillborghs is a 28 or 29 year old 4th OF (with splits that indicate he's more like a 6th OF against right hand pitching, and that he's about twice as productive at Coors Field than anywhere else)... that Iannetta is an intriguing enough prospect to Reds fans, but only because of the sucktastic nature of our current catchers (Iannetta's probably a better options, especially going forward, than Valentin or Bako, but is a coin flip with Ross; Ross has a tinch more power, Iannetta hits better for average, it seems)..... and that Newman posted highly intriguing numbers in the low minors (especially his K rate), but that was mostly in cases where he was "old" for the league; with his numbers the last two years, there's no reason to suspect he'd be any less "blocked" or "annoyed with the scenery" with the Reds (who have actually got some decent young power relievers at AA and AAA) than he is in Colorado.

    And therein lies the beauty of baseball: I may feel pretty confident that this trade proposal amounts to the Reds getting utterly fleeced... but there are just enough instances of the "change of scenery" argument coming true that (short of me actually buying the Reds and inserting all three Rockies as full-time, everyday players just out of spite and to prove you wrong) there's no way I can prove my unimpeachable, certifiable, scientific, logical superiority in this matter.

    C'est la vie, I guess.

    I'll still stick to my guns on the "three role players cannot ever possibly equal the value of one above-average full-time player" thing, though. I doubt there's a stat or equation to prove it, but just think about it this way: we're giving up Arroyo, and we have nothing in-house and are receiving nothing in this trade that would count as adequate replacement for him. [Going back to Quality Starts, we lose the likelihood of 20 of them when Arroyo leaves, and what are we left with? Fogg, who had a "career year" in 2007, only posted 12 of them. Also just 12 for Belisle, who many think of as a legit #3. Volquez? Only has 3 of them in 19 career starts, including zero so far in 2008. Bailey? Got 1 out of 6 last year. Yes, there is potential in there, but nothing I'd wager on producing as well as Arroyo.]

    And for the privilege of giving up Arroyo's production and not being able to replace it, our return is three guys for whom there are no real prospects for producing on a regular basis or outside of niche situations. The best chances would be Iannetta's, if he proves himself capable enough of holding down 400 ABs for a couple of years as a "bridge" between the end of Ross and (hopefully) the emergence of Mesarasco or somebody who doesn't suck.

    Those numbers just don't add up, unless you operate under the assumption that Arroyo regresses so badly that he's legitimately below league-average, or is a risk to be injured and make fewer than 15 starts in all of the next three seasons.

    I do have some bias, being that Josh Newman is my cousin.
    I figured as much. He's the only player of the 3 you mention I was unfamiliar with, so I had to look him up, and once I saw he was from Ohio, I put last name with screenname, and made an assumption or two...

    As for Bronson, Age is not in his favor and here's the '06-'08 trend:

    ERA:
    3.29 to 4.23 to the current 5.17

    OPS Against:
    .690 to .785 to the current .947
    As noted above, the "current" numbers are as yet meaningless, really. And two data points isn't enough to count as a "trend." Especially when I went to great lengths to provide an explanation for how the 2007 numbers were a preventable mistake and an anomoly moreso than indicative of the start of a linear trend.

    But, with that said, I'd gladly make any type of friendly wager on that over/under of 65 QS in the next three years. Make me an offer.
    Tell you what: I recognize that suggesting Arroyo would exactly duplicate his past two years feats for the next three years was probably a bit of hyperbolic rhetoric on my part... but in the name of standing behind my rhetoric (which is the finest in all the land), I'll agree to a modified wager. Instead of QS as a "counting stat," let's give me a bit of protection in the case of injury, and use Percent of Quality Starts.

    Conveniently enough, a fully healthy Arroyo would probably make almost exactly 100 starts in three full seasons, so we can just keep the same number: a QS% of 65% is what I'll boldly prognosticate!

    I anxiously await October 1, 2010.


    Rick

  15. #14
    Old Red Guard Reject
    Join Date
    Mar 2006
    Posts
    1,419

    Re: CIN/COL Trade Proposal

    Quote Originally Posted by FlightRick View Post
    Oh my: a bunch of snippets of things I said taken out of context and assembled all in a row to misrepresent the main thrust of my comments. I... I.... I feel so.... Dusty-Baker-like.

    But seriously: if I'd intended to be rude or condescending, you'd have known it. I'd have actually mentioned your screenname, specifically, and described a detailed account of how I believe the literal truth of a scenario in which you and the potted plant in your family room would tie at Scrabble 9 times out of 10. This, of course, would be foolish and pointless.

    What's not foolish or pointless, however, is separating the idea from the person, and rigorously examining it. A good, informative, and entertaining debate will be passionate, but tempered by a slavish devotion to facts and evidence (both in presenting ones own case, and accepting and sythesizing the evidence presented by others). And sure: that's going to result in some prickliness. But hey: that's the fun of it.

    What can I say: I refuse to accept "The sky is green, that's my opinion, and you have to respect it" as a valid stance, and I can't imagine anything more boring than watering down my wordsmithery to the point of resembling Ned Flanders. And I'm more than fine with getting as good as I give.



    Well, then, I guess we agree in principle. Kind of. We agree that Arroyo has been good the past two years. And we'd agree that if Arroyo could be known to be in immediate decline to the point of below-average-ness, it'd be wise to unload him.

    But then there's that pesky logical connector that we differ on. You hold onto a subjective belief in Arroyo's regression being real and significant. I hold onto the belief that there is no objective, statistical evidence for this, and the "eye-ball test" of Arroyo in 2008 yields little "actionable" information. If anything, he's been effective in two starts out of three, with a downright awful outing in the third.

    But then there's the issue of the sample size being small to the point of uselessness, but coupled with the fact that if you DO want to look deeper into the numbers, there are maybe some disturbing trends. Like Arroyo's pitches-per-plate appearance is the highest it's ever been in his career (and his strike rate the lowest)... if that's just the small sample size (and the crappy umpire last Monday, who squeezed Arroyo mercilessly, to the point of forcing Arroyo to groove one of his pitches right down Broadway in hopes of getting a strike call, only to see it jacked out of the park), then no big deal. But if it's a bona fide trend? And if my theory is that Arroyo is damned effective at getting Quality Starts and putting his team in good shape to win games but ONLY IF you monitor his pitch count? Then Arroyo's loss of pitch efficiency would be a bad thing.

    Still: I'm far from prepared to make that leap of faith, when there's so little data so far for this year, and anecdotal evidence that his only poor start may have been affected by an umpire with a strike zone that was criminally small (at least, until Valentin's final at-bat of the game).



    If I used those terms, perhaps it was unwise of me; though I mean them descriptively and not prejoratively, I acknowledge that "filler" and "fodder" come with connotations of a (negative) value judgment.

    What I meant was this: Arroyo is, and with a four year track record on his side he projects to be for several more years, an every-fifth-day starting pitcher. The players you suggested getting in return for Arroyo have no track record of getting even 250 ABs in a season (or 60 IP in high leverage situations, in the case of the reliever).

    You counter with the "change of scenery and they'll blossom" argument, which is all well and good if that's what you believe. All I can do is counter with what is a factual matter of record. And what's on record is that Spillborghs is a 28 or 29 year old 4th OF (with splits that indicate he's more like a 6th OF against right hand pitching, and that he's about twice as productive at Coors Field than anywhere else)... that Iannetta is an intriguing enough prospect to Reds fans, but only because of the sucktastic nature of our current catchers (Iannetta's probably a better options, especially going forward, than Valentin or Bako, but is a coin flip with Ross; Ross has a tinch more power, Iannetta hits better for average, it seems)..... and that Newman posted highly intriguing numbers in the low minors (especially his K rate), but that was mostly in cases where he was "old" for the league; with his numbers the last two years, there's no reason to suspect he'd be any less "blocked" or "annoyed with the scenery" with the Reds (who have actually got some decent young power relievers at AA and AAA) than he is in Colorado.

    And therein lies the beauty of baseball: I may feel pretty confident that this trade proposal amounts to the Reds getting utterly fleeced... but there are just enough instances of the "change of scenery" argument coming true that (short of me actually buying the Reds and inserting all three Rockies as full-time, everyday players just out of spite and to prove you wrong) there's no way I can prove my unimpeachable, certifiable, scientific, logical superiority in this matter.

    C'est la vie, I guess.

    I'll still stick to my guns on the "three role players cannot ever possibly equal the value of one above-average full-time player" thing, though. I doubt there's a stat or equation to prove it, but just think about it this way: we're giving up Arroyo, and we have nothing in-house and are receiving nothing in this trade that would count as adequate replacement for him. [Going back to Quality Starts, we lose the likelihood of 20 of them when Arroyo leaves, and what are we left with? Fogg, who had a "career year" in 2007, only posted 12 of them. Also just 12 for Belisle, who many think of as a legit #3. Volquez? Only has 3 of them in 19 career starts, including zero so far in 2008. Bailey? Got 1 out of 6 last year. Yes, there is potential in there, but nothing I'd wager on producing as well as Arroyo.]

    And for the privilege of giving up Arroyo's production and not being able to replace it, our return is three guys for whom there are no real prospects for producing on a regular basis or outside of niche situations. The best chances would be Iannetta's, if he proves himself capable enough of holding down 400 ABs for a couple of years as a "bridge" between the end of Ross and (hopefully) the emergence of Mesarasco or somebody who doesn't suck.

    Those numbers just don't add up, unless you operate under the assumption that Arroyo regresses so badly that he's legitimately below league-average, or is a risk to be injured and make fewer than 15 starts in all of the next three seasons.



    I figured as much. He's the only player of the 3 you mention I was unfamiliar with, so I had to look him up, and once I saw he was from Ohio, I put last name with screenname, and made an assumption or two...



    As noted above, the "current" numbers are as yet meaningless, really. And two data points isn't enough to count as a "trend." Especially when I went to great lengths to provide an explanation for how the 2007 numbers were a preventable mistake and an anomoly moreso than indicative of the start of a linear trend.



    Tell you what: I recognize that suggesting Arroyo would exactly duplicate his past two years feats for the next three years was probably a bit of hyperbolic rhetoric on my part... but in the name of standing behind my rhetoric (which is the finest in all the land), I'll agree to a modified wager. Instead of QS as a "counting stat," let's give me a bit of protection in the case of injury, and use Percent of Quality Starts.

    Conveniently enough, a fully healthy Arroyo would probably make almost exactly 100 starts in three full seasons, so we can just keep the same number: a QS% of 65% is what I'll boldly prognosticate!

    I anxiously await October 1, 2010.


    Rick
    Ah, but Rick, age is not on Arroyo's side here. Thus, part of the value argument. Therefore the 65 QS is dependent on his increasing age. 65 QS is the over/under.

    BTW, if Arroyo was traded in a better deal as you mentioned you would prefer, do you not feel like Bailey would not adequately replace him in 09 and 10? (at a much cheaper rate I might add)
    If you ain't first, you're last! - Ricky Bobby


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