Punching a hole in the space-time continuum

[M2]

Say you were running a bad baseball team and you wanted to fix that. Let's also say that you could pursue a crazy idea (one that involves spending some money, which I know is crazy talk). What would a real blockbuster look like? What would be the modern equivalent of Morgan, Geronimo, Billingham, Menke and Armbrister for May, Helms and Stewart?

We all know the Blue Jays keep threatening to sell, but could you get them to divest? After all, Roy Halladay wouldn't turn the Reds around by himself. Neither would Scott Rolen. Neither would Alex Rios. Yet Halladay, Rolen and Rios? That might just be the kind of tectonic shift a franchise like the Reds would need to matter in 2010.

Could it be done in a crazy alternate universe where the only thing that changes is the Reds' willingness to take a huge gamble? I mean, what would it take?

I figure there would be a some salary headed north of the border. Let's say Bronson Arroyo and Willy Taveras are make-weight in that deal (and to be fair, the Jays probably could stand the 200+ innings Arroyo would give them). Lump in Edwin Encarnacion too because he'd be without a job in Cincinnati and Toronto seems mildly interested in him.

So that would save Toronto $20M in guaranteed money in 2010 and roughly $6M for the rest of this season, plus $50M long-term on the Rios contract. That's a powerful enticement for a discount franchise.

Yet it would take prospects too. The Jays surely would want Votto, Cueto and Bruce, and the Reds would have to fend that off. The Reds need those three in 2010 for the deal to pay off.

But could Homer Bailey, Yonder Alonso, Travis Wood, Chris Heisey (though you probably try to see if they'll bite on Stubbs instead) and Juan Francisco create enough young player heft to seal the deal? Would that plus the savings woo the Jays?

We don't live in that alternate universe so we'll never know, but it's fun to speculate on what a truly massive idea would look like.

[traderumor]

I don't think our supporting cast would be considered any better than Toronto's, and those three amigos have done little to get that team over the hump as its core.

[rotnoid]

Deals like the one you mention early on aren't going to happen in this era of free agency. I like your thinking, but I don't think the Reds can give up that many young guys in return for Rolen and Halladay who can both walk after next year.

It is going to take something that might be seen as crazy to turn this franchise around quickly though.

[flyer85]

only if you think outside the box.

Right now the market seems to be a buyers market and prospects are way overvalued and players with bad contracts are undervalued(from a baseball standpoint).

My comment a few days ago was that maybe the Reds ought to be buying instead of selling ... or do both at the same time.

[BRM]

My comment a few days ago was that maybe the Reds ought to be buying instead of selling ... or do both at the same time.

Instead they may end up doing neither.

[flyer85]

Instead they may end up doing neither.

maybe they are working on the flux capacitor.

[traderumor]

players with bad contracts are undervalued(from a baseball standpoint).

This sounds like a double negative and just blew my mind. I'm not sure you can undervalue a player with a bad contract, by definition. Please explain.

[BRM]

This sounds like a double negative and just blew my mind. I'm not sure you can undervalue a player with a bad contract, by definition. Please explain.

Good players that are expensive, perhaps? Like Cordero?

[flyer85]

This sounds like a double negative and just blew my mind. I'm not sure you can undervalue a player with a bad contract, by definition. Please explain.

from purely a baseball skill perspective (not taking finances into account). A lot of teams have talented players whose contracts are overpriced. They contribute on the field but not enough to offset how much they are paid. As long as one is willing to take on salary there is talent available for not a lot in return.

Of course the Reds are crying poverty.

[Benihana]

Yet Halladay, Rolen and Rios? That might just be the kind of tectonic shift a franchise like the Reds would need to matter in 2010.

Could it be done in a crazy alternate universe where the only thing that changes is the Reds' willingness to take a huge gamble? I mean, what would it take?

I figure there would be a some salary headed north of the border. Let's say Bronson Arroyo and Willy Taveras are make-weight in that deal (and to be fair, the Jays probably could stand the 200+ innings Arroyo would give them). Lump in Edwin Encarnacion too because he'd be without a job in Cincinnati and Toronto seems mildly interested in him.

So that would save Toronto $20M in guaranteed money in 2010 and roughly $6M for the rest of this season, plus $50M long-term on the Rios contract. That's a powerful enticement for a discount franchise.

Yet it would take prospects too. The Jays surely would want Votto, Cueto and Bruce, and the Reds would have to fend that off. The Reds need those three in 2010 for the deal to pay off.

But could Homer Bailey, Yonder Alonso, Travis Wood, Chris Heisey (though you probably try to see if they'll bite on Stubbs instead) and Juan Francisco create enough young player heft to seal the deal? Would that plus the savings woo the Jays?

http://www.redszone.com/forums/showt...ay#post1918112

I didn't have Rios in there, but I figure his contract would make him a neutral value at this point.

[traderumor]

from purely a baseball skill perspective (not taking finances into account). A lot of teams have talented players whose contracts are overpriced. They contribute on the field but not enough to offset how much they are paid. As long as one is willing to take on salary there is talent available for not a lot in return.

Of course the Reds are crying poverty.

But cash has a value. You said bad contract, which I take to mean that the player is not near worth the amount that he is due to be paid, such as a Harang or an Arroyo. I don't think you can divorce the contract consideration from the underlying talent unless you own the cattle on a thousand hills, or you're the Yankees , especially if you are speaking in the context of "overvalued" and "undervalued." By that logic, Ray Halladay is undervalued because he has a boatload of talent but is very expensive to acquire, so if currency, either in cash or in talent, is unlimited, then you can get a pretty good deal. That seems to be begging the question.

I wouldn't put Cordero in that group because he arguably is paid FMV, even if he is "overpaid" in the Reds budgetary constraints.

[redsfandan]

I wouldn't put Cordero in that group because he arguably is paid FMV, even if he is "overpaid" in the Reds budgetary constraints.

I'd stress the word 'arguably' when there are closers as good as, or better, making less.

[HokieRed]

I'd stress the word 'arguably' when there are closers as good as, or better, making less.

e.g. Ryan Franklin

[traderumor]

I'd stress the word 'arguably' when there are closers as good as, or better, making less.

Flash in the pan closers are always around. That's why in hindsight the Reds paying premium for a closer and doing little else didn't make sense, but Cordero is a consistent, established, elite bullpen performer, so you have to pay to play. Just because its the Reds paying him doesn't mean he is not worth what they are paying for his production.

[traderumor]

e.g. Ryan Franklin

poster child for flash in the pan, lightning in a bottle, blind luck, etc. and so forth.