I tell the Angels, Arroyo for Adenhart/Aybar and no Matthews.
I tell the Angels, Arroyo for Adenhart/Aybar and no Matthews.
Adenhart is their best prospect, per BA. Aybar is their starting SS. Arroyo costs at least 20 million dollars. If he gets hurt, the Angels are screwed. No chance they make that deal.I tell the Angels, Arroyo for Adenhart/Aybar and no Matthews.
Why? The Angles aren't in a position to trade from a surplus. They need a starting pitcher, the Reds don't need to get rid of Arroyo. They Reds can say we want Adenhart/Aybar + someone else. The Angles say no, but that doesn't help their starting pitching. Supply and Demand, the Reds have the supply the Angles have the demand.
If the Reds could flip Arroyo for a legit SS, I'd feel a lot better about our chances this season.
I see Nick Masset going to California to take a shot as a starter there with the Reds getting a A/AA prospect.
I hope you're right, but, when millions of dollars are involved, it rarely works that way. By taking on Arroyo, the Angels are handing the Reds 20 million dollars. That is the only guarantee in the transaction, and that counts for a lot because GMs answer to their owners. Jocketty can always go back to Castellini and say that even if the team did not produce a decent replacement for Arroyo, he saved Big Bob 20 million. If Arroyo craps out or gets hurt, the Angels GM is left holding the bag. This is why teams work so hard to "make the dollars work" in deals, so that neither party has to take on a double dose of risk.Why? The Angles aren't in a position to trade from a surplus. They need a starting pitcher, the Reds don't need to get rid of Arroyo. They Reds can say we want Adenhart/Aybar + someone else. The Angles say no, but that doesn't help their starting pitching. Supply and Demand, the Reds have the supply the Angles have the demand.
More likely than a big deal happening, that's for sure.I see Nick Masset going to California to take a shot as a starter there with the Reds getting a A/AA prospect.
But since the Angels are one of the few "big money" teams, they are in a unique position to have to take on the monetary risk, to make a deal like this work, without the Reds having to even the money. They are a "have".
Last edited by membengal; 03-30-2009 at 03:09 PM.
Aybar is not enough for me to give up Arroyo.
I realize he is young, but he hasn't had a good year at the plate since 2005 in AA.
Arroyo for Aybar seems like the reverse of the trade we did to get Arroyo (good pitcher for a prospect that is more flash than substance, and whose prospect label is failing).
LAA would have to kick in more to make this deal work. Shedding Arroyo's salary has questionable value, especially at this point of the year.
Also consider that Aybar is getting close to arbitration.
[Phil ] Castellini celebrated the team's farm system and noted the team had promising prospects who would one day be great Reds -- and then joke then they'd be ex-Reds, saying "of course we're going to lose them". #SellTheTeamBob
Nov. 13, 2007: One of the greatest days in Reds history: John Allen gets the boot!
Don't quite know what to say. If the Angles trade for Arroyo they aren't handing the Reds $20M. That is Arroyo's contract but the Reds don't need to trade him. The only guarantee in any contract is that the club is on the hook for the entire amount of the contract.
Its a possibility that any player can get injured. Arroyo has shown no history of injury and has taken the ball every 5th day since he has been a Red. There is a risk of injury for every player, one signed in the off season, one currently on the roster, and one traded for. I just don't see a club operating in that manner.
This is true, but that doesn't bestow a single ounce of leverage on the Reds. The decision to spend is entirely with the Angels, and their GM, if he's any good, would act as if he had little financial flexibility. That's why I'm fairly certain that if they're looking at Arroyo/Harang, they're trying to foist Matthews on the Reds, too. If they sense the Reds are in salary dump mode, they'll offer piddling prospects in return -- that's how "haves" operate.But since the Angels are on of the few "big money" teams, they are in a unique position to have to take on the monetary risk, to make a deal like this work, without the Reds having to even the money. They are a "have".
It does if the Reds have something the Angels want/need. If not, then the Reds happily tell the Angels to look elsewhere.
The Angels are going to feel out the Reds' motivations, if the Reds appear willing to deal Arroyo. You say the Reds don't have to deal Arroyo -- are you sure? Maybe the Reds, in this economy, fear they're going to have to shed payroll, and want to do so before that becomes glaringly obvious in June, when teams will offer them nothing. Baseball is a business, above all. As much as teams analyze each other's roster surplusses and deficits, they will tease out each other's financial positions, too. The Angels GM is going to open his negotiation as if the Reds are dumping salary, while the Reds are going to say it isn't. The Angels guy will say, "OK, if you're not interested in dumping dollars, let's swap contracts (Arroyo for Matthews), and I'll throw in some nice talent." If the Reds balk, the Angels guy comes back and says, "So, you are interested in cutting dollars, then, it seems." And the negotiation goes on from there.If the Angles trade for Arroyo they aren't handing the Reds $20M. That is Arroyo's contract but the Reds don't need to trade him. The only guarantee in any contract is that the club is on the hook for the entire amount of the contract.
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. |