That line of thinking may have worked at the beginning of the winter but now we do know what the budget is.
That line of thinking may have worked at the beginning of the winter but now we do know what the budget is.
Even if it's $60 million, they're still talking about cutting payroll (Sullivan and/or White). But hey, the moment we trade some payroll and acquire someone the team really needs (read: Bartolo Colon, Javier Vasquez, etc.) I'll be the first to admit you were right and I was wrong. I just feel like I've been down this road before...
Wonder when they are going to get around to doing that?Originally posted by Raisor
"We felt it was important to add another proven starter to join Ryan Dempster, Jimmy Haynes and Danny Graves in the rotation."
Will trade this space for a #1 starter.
I've been thinking about this all day and considering how this affects the team. If you ask me if the Reds are better off this year going into spring training over last year, I'd say, "Yes. We are better off." Am I bowled over? No.
Wilson is a SLIGHT - VERY SLIGHT - upgrade over Dessens. I felt Elmer had a career year last year and probably will never come close to that kind of ERA again. (Although I'm convinced that he'll pitch like Cy Young against the Reds). If you put these guys side by side, I would probably pick Wilson over Dessens.
That said, I am very concerned about Wilson's velocity - or lack thereof. As CandyCummings pointed out earlier in the thread, the Reds still do not have a SO artist (Adam Dunn and Wily Mo Pena don't count!) A legitimate ace needs to be able to strike out people. Dempster, if he ever finds that slider from 2-3 years ago, could be that guy.
Wilson is a good pickup IF the Reds have a couple more moves waiting to happen.
“I think I throw the ball as hard as anyone. The ball just doesn't get there as fast.” — Eddie Bane
“We know we're better than this ... but we can't prove it.” — Tony Gwynn
The problem with Williamson as a starter is the number of pitches he throws. His control is such that it takes around 15-16 pitches for him to get through an inning. In 2000, he started 10 games, and averaged just over 93 pitches per start. Did he EVER make it into the 7th inning of ANY game? Best I remember, he was about a 5-6 inning pitcher.The Reds do have a legit strikeout artist, his name is Scott Williamson. I do not know recovered the Reds consider Willy, but if it is close to 100%, he needs to be in the rotation, at the top.
By the same token, this tendency to get a little wild concerns me as far as Williamson as a closer.
If Williamson can ever cut down on his pitch counts per inning, he could be awesome. But his tendency is to throw a lot of pitches, and that cuts down his effectiveness as a starter past the 5th and 6th innings.
“I think I throw the ball as hard as anyone. The ball just doesn't get there as fast.” — Eddie Bane
“We know we're better than this ... but we can't prove it.” — Tony Gwynn
In general, I think it's a good signing. The biggest potential drawback I've seen mentioned is next year's salary if he bombs.
It does bring to mind an angle for all the conspiracy theorists, though. I've thought for some time that Jimbo's back is against the wall this year. Unless the team overachieves and/or contends THIS YEAR, I believe that Bowden is on very shaky ground to be offered a new contract.
With this in mind, might he be more likely to mortgage the future with a contract like Wilson's and put all his assets into winning this year?
I'm not suggesting that he is doing this, but I'm also not discounting the possibility that it plays into his thinking.
We'll go down in history as the first society that wouldn't save itself because it wasn't cost effective ~ Kurt Vonnegut
If he has a good first half and the Reds don't he will be gone for a low level prospect or two to a team like Boston. I like the signing though.
Copied this from Tampa Bay's board on Fan Home.
From: DRays Fan in Va
Re: Paul Wilson gets 2-year deal with the Reds.
Of all the guys we have let go this off-season, he's the guy I am going to miss most. Wish him the best of luck. He should do well there. BTW, have you all seen pics of the new ballpark there in Cincy. Looks like a great park."
Who knows, '03 just might turn out to be a good year afterall!
lgj, maybe I am naive, but I am not convinced we are done yet. 500K is structured precisely so that we could possibly continue to do something else this year.
Why wouldn't Bowden go to Wilson and say, "we want to give you a 2 yr 4M contract, but we want to backload it because we have a tight budget and still want to pick up another pitcher of the Colon variety to make this team competitive going into our new stadium. But the budget opens up in year 2 because we will have the gab revenues coming in and a couple of big contracts ending". If a player wants to join a contender (and coming from TB, who wouldn't), why wouldn't you do something like that to help out the team you were going to a little, esp if the money is guaranteed and the market is slow.
We may be done, but I'm not convinced this move guarantees it. Like I said, maybe I am naive.
OK, someone mentioned this but I didn't put it together until now.
For what we would have had to pay Elmer Dessens in 2003, we will now have Jimmy Haynes, Felipe Lopez and Paul Wilson. In fact, over the next two years, we will be able to pay all three for 2M more than the Dessens contract over the two years.
As much as I like Elmer Dessens, I love that tradeoff.
And, BTW, on a completely unrelated note, for those folks who have been putting Felipe Lopez in trade talks for Vasquez or Colon etc, my guess is that Lopez is now close to as untouchable as Dunn or Kearns. He is about the same age, plays a key position where we have little to nothing in the system and has a high upside. These are guys who could be your 2-3-4 for the next 10-15 years if we didn't have Jr to work in there for the next 5 yr or so. They are young kids and we have to give them time and patience, but there are few teams with that kind of core.
I hope not. Danny is a SP this year, period, end of story, if you ask me.Originally posted by NCRed
Interesting point. Would anyone think that Willy is a trade target and could be packaged with someone for Colon/Vasquez type and then move Danny back to closer ?
If willy were moved, which I hope he isn't, I think Reidling becomes your closer.
Jays have a lot of depth in the MI prospect area. And they had some attittude problems with him and have chosen to go with someone else as their future shortstop. So the fact they gave him up cheap is no surprise.Originally posted by cincinnati chili
buckeyenut: I was with you until your comparison of Lopez to Dunn/Kearns. Lopez is definitely not untouchable and won't be until he has more than one good half season in the minors. He's very promising, considering he's still so young. But the fact that the Jays unloaded him for a pitching prospect that wasn't even one of the A's top prospects shows that he'll have to cut down on his errors and hit much more consistently to be 'untouchable.'
But to the Reds, Lopez is golden. We have no MI depth in the minors and a superstar SS ready to retire. Lopez is the same age as Dunn/Kearns and is said to have Tejada - like upside. And we gave up the "ace" of our staff to get him. So, IMO, he is close to untouchable.
The difference between Dunn/Kearns untouchable and Lopez untouchable is Dunn/Kearns are untouchable because they are so incredibly talented. Lopez is close to untouchable because he is talented at a difficult to acquire position of extreme organizational scarcity.
That said, he is still a tier or two below Dunn/Kearns on the untouchable list, IMO
My near untouchable list, in order would be Dunn, Kearns, Jr, Williamson, Lopez, Basham, Gruler, Reidling, Moseley. After that, anyone could be dealt without too much problem IMO. And I would be willing to deal anyone on that list in the right deal. (Dunn would take one of OAK big three, Prior or Beckett plus)
Let me just say this. When I heard that the Reds signed Paul Wilson, I was very happy. When I heard it was a 2 yr 4M deal, I wasn't thrilled, but could live with it. Haynes is the guy he has been frequently compared to and that is 500K less than Haynes will make. When I heard it will be 500K this year and 3.5M next year, I absolutely love this pickup.
Time value of money alone knocks 100K off this deal (which BTW pays for at least part of those Rule 5 pickups) which is a big deal to us. But more importantly, ML minimum is 300K. This guy will make only 200K more than a Jose Acevedo would have. That is a wise use of money.
And top it off, the 3.5M is paid out in a year when, a) we lose the 7.5M/yr we pay Larkin, b) likely lose the Stinnett (1.15M option - 250K buyout) contract and the White (3.5M option - 250k buyout) contract, and c) have been in GAB a year and have full revenues calculated into our budget. Of course, we will have arb guys as always, but I also have to think that all the nontenders this year will continue to correct the market, even through arbitration. So, I think we may be in fairly good shape budget wise next year even if Wilson flops. If he puts up ace numbers or maybe even middling Haynesesque numbers, we will have a relative bargain and definitely wouldn't have any problem dealing him at that point if we needed to.
Bottom line, great signing IMO. A little risky, but also shouldn't prevent us from making any other moves this year.
And we are wondering why the guy collapsed and added 1 run onto his ERA over the last month or so? Ugh.Originally posted by cincinnati chili
Check out his pitch counts from July 3 through August 3 (in chronological order):
119, 113, 124, 112, 123, 123
OK so right now just to look at ins and outs, we have Dessens and Walker going out and Wilson and Lopez coming in at the ML level. Not a complete wash because of Lopez being so young and iffy to really contribute this year, but Larson potentially offsets that. And we will pay those guys 800K rather than the almost 7M it would have cost for Dessens/Walker. So a 5-6M savings on moves that really haven't hurt this team at all for 2003.
We had to find a position for Larson and give him a chance after his production last year. We've done that. We still have an OF and MR glut we need to deal with. And we still need an ace and a leadoff hitter. But I cannot find fault with what we have done so far.
Big key is, are we done? I still firmly believe we are not. MON is still holding up the market and we still don't know how much our arb guys will cost. I firmly believe we will make additional moves at some point before spring training. The key is will we stand in place with those moves or get better or get worse to save $$.
Right now, I think this team AS IS will compete for the division. I think we will be in it till the trade deadline if we don't have any major injuries. If no major injuries, we are buyers at the deadline, maybe even getting our ace then for a playoff push. If we have injuries, we are a seller, dealing off potentially valuable pieces like Casey, White, Sullivan, Boone, LaRue, maybe even Haynes or Wilson to contenders.
If we get an ace and/or a leadoff hitter before opening day, I think we can survive one, maybe even two major injuries to key cogs.
Posting Permissions
|
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. |
