Turn Off Ads?
Page 5 of 14 FirstFirst 123456789 ... LastLast
Results 61 to 75 of 201

Thread: Paul Wilson signs a 2 yr contract with the Reds

  1. #61
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,758
    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.

  2. Turn Off Ads?
  3. #62
    Matt's Dad RANDY IN INDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Brownsburg, Indiana
    Posts
    15,268
    I think it is a good gamble. Wilson has shown some signs of becoming a real good pitcher and I like it that Bowden went out and signed someone with a lot of upside. I think it will reap some rewards. Far from a "bad" gamble.

  4. #63
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,758
    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.

  5. #64
    post hype sleeper cincinnati chili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    10,840
    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.'
    ". . . acquiring J. Blanton from Oakland for, apparently, Bailey/Cueto, Votto and a lesser prospect. I do it in a second . . . The Reds' equation this year is simple: Make Matt Belisle your #3 starter . . . trade for Blanton, win 85 or more, be in the mix all summer." - Paul Daugherty, Feb. 8, 2008

  6. #65
    Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2002
    Location
    Chicago
    Posts
    523
    I like the pick-up, I just wonder what Suppan, Person or Helling wanted price wise. It will be interesting to see what, if any, budget increase we see this year, if we are in it, then we can hopefully get a stud half way through the year to help us push towards the playoffs
    Whoa whoa whoa, Miss Lippy. The part of the story I don't like is that the little boy gave up looking for Happy after an hour. He didn't put posters up or anything, he just sat on the porch like a goon and waited. That little boy's gotta think 'You got a pet. You got a responsibility.' If your dog is lost you don't look for an hour then call it quits. You get your ass out there and you find that f***ing dog!

    Mr. Madison, what you've just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.


  7. #66
    Member MattyHo4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    3,515
    Originally posted by buckeyenut
    Bottom line, great signing IMO. A little risky, but also shouldn't prevent us from making any other moves this year.
    It's difficult to evaluate the economics of this deal without knowing the reason for the structure of this contract.

    a) If the reason is that the Reds are almost out of money this year, and $500,000 is all that could fit in the budget... this isn't the greatest signing. Since the Reds refuse to increase the payroll... the $3.5 mil for 2004 will eat away at the money that will be freed up from Larkin's contract which could be used for a better pitcher.

    b) If the reason is that the Reds are trying to free up payroll room in 2003 in order to obtain a higher quality pitcher... then this would be a better deal. Wilson certainly could help the Reds, but I just don't think he is the answer. It seems like there are better pitchers available for the same type of money. After all... isn't 3.5 mil around Dessens money? Dessens is more of a guarantee than Wilson, and the Reds couldn't afford him in 2003. Unlike Dessens... Wilson may not be tradable in 2004...it's a big risk.

  8. #67
    Matt's Dad RANDY IN INDY's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Brownsburg, Indiana
    Posts
    15,268
    Point "b" is interesting. Are the Reds setting up the chance of a bigger trade or deal?

  9. #68
    post hype sleeper cincinnati chili's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2001
    Location
    Denver
    Posts
    10,840
    Originally posted by MattyMo4Life
    isn't 3.5 mil around Dessens money?
    Dessens gets $7.3 million over 2 years with a $300,000 buyout for the third year.

    So basically, Dessens is making almost twice as much ($7.6 mil guaranteed v. $4 mil guaranteed).

    I don't think he'll be twice as good. In fact, I think Wilson has about a 40/60 shot to outpitch Dessens this year.
    ". . . acquiring J. Blanton from Oakland for, apparently, Bailey/Cueto, Votto and a lesser prospect. I do it in a second . . . The Reds' equation this year is simple: Make Matt Belisle your #3 starter . . . trade for Blanton, win 85 or more, be in the mix all summer." - Paul Daugherty, Feb. 8, 2008

  10. #69
    Member MattyHo4Life's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    St. Louis
    Posts
    3,515
    Originally posted by RANDY IN CHAR NC
    Point "b" is interesting. Are the Reds setting up the chance of a bigger trade or deal?
    If there is a bigger deal in the works...then this deal would make sense. Wilson isn't the answer, but he can be part of it.

  11. #70
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Location
    Durham, NC
    Posts
    194
    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 ?

  12. #71
    Member
    Join Date
    Feb 2002
    Posts
    4,949
    Originally posted by RANDY IN CHAR NC
    Point "b" is interesting. Are the Reds setting up the chance of a bigger trade or deal?
    The fact that Wilson's contract is heavily backloaded and that he is only making $500,000 in 2003 indicates to me that the Reds are out of cash this year. The only way we make another deal IMO, is to move both Sully and White. That however, has proven extremely difficult thus far as they are both high priced relievers.

    Some points I got while reading the rest of the responses to this thread:

    1. The notion that we got Lopez, Haynes, and Wilson all for the price of Dessens is incorrect in my mind. Dessens' contract calls for $3 M this year, and it cost $333,333 alone to make that deal work. So Haynes ($2.5 M) plus that cost leaves only $166,666, below the major league minimum. So essentially this year, and it was a tradeoff between Haynes and Dessens with about half of Lopez paid for.

    2. Based on what I have read from various newspapers, Chili is correct in that Wilson had an absolutely deplorable defense around him, and thus experienced a potentially substantial dip in his numbers because of that. Thus, he may see improvement from that standpoint. However, I have looked at his stats, and numbers such as K/9 inning and BB/9 inning, both of which are not affected by defense, are lower and higher than the American League average.

    Code:
    YEAR TEAM         AGE W   L   PCT   G    GS  CG  SV  GF  IP     H    R    ER   BB   SO    ERA  RSAA
    1996 Mets         23   5  12  .294   26  26   1   0   0  149    157  102   89   71  109   5.38  -25 
    2000 Devil Rays   27   1   4  .200   11   7   0   0   0   51     38   20   19   16   40   3.35    9 
    2001 Devil Rays   28   8   9  .471   37  24   0   0   6  151.1  165   94   82   52  119   4.88   -7 
    2002 Devil Rays   29   6  12  .333   30  30   1   0   0  193.2  219  113  104   67  111   4.83   -8 
         TOTALS           20  37  .351  104  87   2   0   6  545    579  329  294  206  379   4.86  -31 
         LG AVERAGE       31  31  .501            4   2      545    558  295  269  201  391   4.45    0 
    
    YEAR TEAM          HR  H/9   BR/9  SO/9  BB/9  SO/BB SHO WP  IBB HBP BFP   BK  NW  NL
    1996 Mets          15  9.48 14.38  6.58  4.29  1.54   0   3  11  10   677  3   6  11 
    2000 Devil Rays     1  6.71 10.24  7.06  2.82  2.50   0   1   2   4   206  0   3   2 
    2001 Devil Rays    21  9.81 13.68  7.08  3.09  2.29   0   7   2  13   674  0   8   9 
    2002 Devil Rays    29 10.18 13.90  5.16  3.11  1.66   0   4   2  13   851  1   8  10 
         TOTALS        66  9.56 13.62  6.26  3.40  1.84   0  15  17  40  2408  4  25  32 
         LG AVERAGE    65  9.22 12.90  6.45  3.32  1.95   1  20  15  22  2361  2
    I guess what I am getting at is that people who I respect think this a nice pick-up, so I will most definitely keep an open-mind. I guess my problems with it were more of the ilk that 1) I don't like the second $3.5 M year - a lot of risk associated with it and 2) I was really expecting, and maybe I was naive, the addition of an impact pitcher such as a Penny, who is 24 years old, had a very, very good season in 2001, and throws 98 mph. Or Vazquez, who was an absolute beast post All-Star break 2001. What I am getting at is a young impact pitcher with good stuff who we would have control over for a few years and who would still be relatively cheap by today's standards. I guess I am just tired of seeing this organization continue to add to positions of extreme depth, i.e. 5 tool outfielders, catchers, third basemen, number 4 and 5 starters, and hardly ever address the glaring needs, such as middle infielders and top of the rotation starters.

    Throughout the abominable 2001 season I kept thinking that, come 2003, we will add a big pitcher, like a Colon, like a Vazquez, and then we will build from there. But based on this signing and Jimbo's quotes about how Prokopec will be joining the rotation, I can't help but think this is it for 2003. Our glaring weaknesses haven't been addressed, three years and counting. I guess my negative reaction towards this acquisition can be somewhat summed up by my annoyance that it really did nothing to address our weaknesses, and it added $3.5 M to a payroll (2004) that I have a suspicion will be smaller than we think it is, largely because we will lose our revenue sharing paycheck and because if we struggle in 2003 the attendance will go down.
    Last edited by letsgojunior; 01-13-2003 at 10:52 AM.

  13. #72
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,758
    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 ?
    I hope not. Danny is a SP this year, period, end of story, if you ask me.

    If willy were moved, which I hope he isn't, I think Reidling becomes your closer.

  14. #73
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,758
    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.'
    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.

    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)

  15. #74
    Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2001
    Posts
    3,758
    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.

  16. #75
    Rally Onion! Chip R's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2000
    Location
    Cincinnati, OH
    Posts
    34,435
    Originally posted by letsgojunior
    I guess what I am getting at is that people who I respect think this a nice pick-up, so I will most definitely keep an open-mind. I guess my problems with it were more of the ilk that 1) I don't like the second $3.5 M year - a lot of risk associated with it
    I wouldn't worry to much about that $3.5M for 2004 till 2004. If he's any good, he'll be gone.
    The Rally Onion wants 150 fans before Opening Day.

    http://www.facebook.com/pages/Rally-...24872650873160


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