I'm in the heck no camp.
We"ve suffered through all of Homer's growth pains. It's justing to pay off now. He's like a Latos coming from the Padres. Yes, there is still a smidge of doubt, but I'll put a solid bet on Homer being a stud from here on out. He's shown good maturity this past year and has grown up as a person and a pitcher. Let's benefit from the rewards of that.
She used to wake me up with coffee ever morning
A team should be able to go out and acquire a decent sixth or seventh starter to bide time in AAA if necessary. If the Reds have an opportunity to trade for a position of need, they should not let a dearth emergency starting pitching stop them from doing it.Originally Posted by 757690
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
I had to vote "no" as I didn't see the "Hell no, no way in hell, what in the world are you thinking, this guy is a major piece of the puzzle moving forward are you freaking insane". So yeah, I guess "no" will have to do.
And in a side note...I'm simply not getting the Denard Span lovefest.
5 years with the Twinkies.
2300 ab's
23 hr's
105 2b's
36 3b's
254 bb's
321 k's
.284 / .357 / .389 / .746 career slash line. Sorry, not seeing it...AT ALL.
WAR maybe?
4.8 last year. But the previous years...2.3 last year, 1.5 the year before. Under .700 ops both years too. What is it about this guy that has Reds fans drooling? Just the fact that he's NOT Drew Stubbs?
Dealing for a position of need from a position of surplus is great, but that's not what we'd be doing. Starting pitching isn't a "need", but it's certainly not a surplus either. You'd be filling a position of need by creating a new position of need. Dealing Homer to make room for Chapman is kinda silly IMO. Especially when you consider two things.
1. No way is Chapman ready for a full season of starting so we'll STILL need a starter for next year (at least a good portion of it).
2. Bronson comes off the books in 2014. Meaning we'll have TWO holes to fill if you deal Homer.
I'm keeping Homer (and extending him...and Latos) because we'll be looking at a rotation of Latos, Cueto, Bailey, Leake & Chapman in 2014.
If we're looking to deal any pitching...we should be looking at Corcino and Cingrani IMO. Neither will be cracking the rotation anytime soon. I'd say they're both well over 2 years away from pushing anybody out (that's IF they can at all). The only pitching prospect I'm hoarding is Stephenson.
I think it's high time for Reds fans to quit worrying about pinching pennies and start looking towards putting the best team on the field. It sure does look like that's what the FO's focus is. Time to get the fanbase on board.
Last edited by _Sir_Charles_; 10-27-2012 at 10:24 AM.
Well, the Reds got this out of the leadoff spot in 2012:
.208/.254/.327
And this out of CF:
.226/.282/.339
I see the difference between Span's career slash line and either of those slash lines as roughly 20-25 runs over 600 PAs. Two-ish wins with no defense taken into account.
Span isn't necessarily my first choice but I think it's easy to see why he could be perceived as an improvement over what the Reds put in CF in 2012.
1. Only reason to trade Bailey is if the Reds don't think he'll be good. Otherwise, he should only be traded for a star player. Cueto, Latos, Bailey and Votto are the backbone of this team for the next few years. Young successful starters are key.
2. Reds definitely need a higher OBP hitter for CF. Span probably doesn't fit because he is expensive and will cost a lot in return.
3. The likely main candidates for a trade for CF are Gregorius, Cingrani, Corcino, Leake. Some combination of, say, two of these guys and maybe Heisey or Stubbs as an additional piece.
4. If Ludwick doesn't return that complicates matters more. Reds will then have two "open" outfield positions. CF and LF. Then it's not as simple as a new CFer, but a bit more unclear how they will proceed.
5. I'd really be quite surprised if Stubbs/Heisey is still the CF tandem next year. The offensive problem in CF is so obvious, the Reds almost have to do something to change the mix.
6. There's always a chance the Reds will go for a more dramatic restructuring of the team, with more starting positions changing, but I doubt it. I expect a new CF guy and some new bench players and relievers next year.
7. If Leake goes in a deal, there will be the fifth starters' spot to fill. I'm guessing that if that happens, the fifth starter will be either Chapman or Cingrani (if Chappy stays in the pen).
Let's get the WS overwith so the important Reds' off-season can begin in earnest.
Last edited by Kc61; 10-27-2012 at 12:31 PM.
Chapman would probably turn in roughly 130-150 innings. That's somewhere between 21-24 starts.
Again, I say the Reds should not let 12-14 starts -- which could be filled by a decent scrap heap acquisition -- stop them from acquiring a position they clearly need. The Reds had the best team ERA in baseball last year and Chapman would likely be an improvement over the innings he does pitch. So I'd rather take the chance the Reds need to fill those 12-14 starts than leave a hole in center or left.
It makes no sense to say they'll have two holes. If Chapman pitches nearly 150 innings this year, he'd be ready to pitch a full season the year after. There aren't two holes. There isn't a single hole created by dealing Homer. There's maybe just under a third of a season the Reds would need with one spot in the rotation. You can find someone to fill in on a short term basis if you know what you're doing. I'd MUCH rather have to worry about signing someone for a 1-year deal to be the Reds' 6th starter than figuring out who's going to play center and left.
Trading Homer, if it yields a starter at one of those two position, is the right deal.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
If Chapman throws 150 in 2013, that only puts him at 180 for 2014, which means he isn't getting into the playoffs.
First off, there's no rule that he only has to increase by 30 innings. That is an arbitrary number that not every club always goes by (see Strasburg, Stephen). No club in baseball treats every player exactly the same.
Second, there are ways to stretch someone out to be available for the playoffs if need be. The Nationals didn't do it, but it would be very easy to skip a few starts the first month of the year and stretch out those extra 20-30 innings.
"No matter how good you are, you're going to lose one-third of your games. No matter how bad you are you're going to win one-third of your games. It's the other third that makes the difference." ~Tommy Lasorda
The Reds needed over 35 starts from their non-top five starters in each of 2010 and 2011.
With Ceuto coming off of back problems that shut him down during the playoffs, I want as many healthy pitchers going into spring training as possible. If a surplus arises then, a trade can easily be made at that point.
The Reds have plenty of minor league talent to use in trades to fill whatever holes they think they have. Trading Bailey only makes a hole their currently have, bigger.
Hoping to change my username to 75769024
The Reds, in this era, have historically gone by the roughly +30 inning increase. I wouldn't bank on them going much beyond that.
If the reds are going to trade a major league pitcher, it almost has to be Homer. Why would you trade Cueto or Latos and Leake has essentially no real trade value.
"This isn’t stats vs scouts - this is stats and scouts working together, building an organization that blends the best of both worlds. This is the blueprint for how a baseball organization should be run. And, whether the baseball men of the 20th century like it or not, this is where baseball is going."---Dave Cameron, U.S.S. Mariner
Chapman isn't under 23 anymore. The 30 inning rule doesn't really apply. He could go 150 in 2013 and I'd say he could push to 200 in 2014. The real issue is, moving Chapman into the rotation means they almost have to bring back Broxton for $6 Million plus. If they do that, I would not deal Bailey and not even Leake. I'd make Leake the 6th starter behind Cueto, Latos, Bailey, Arroyo and Chapman with Broxton or some one similar closing and Marshall, Lecure, Hoover, Simon and another lefty filling out the staff. Maybe that lefty is Bray, but I'd go ahead and use Cingrani. I'd deal off Arredondo and non-tender Bray and Ondrusek with Masset as a wild card based on health. That's a pretty decent staff and the conditions with a closer and an alternate starter on hand would be right for giving Chapman a try as a starter, but the money needed for Broxton probably precludes signing Ludwick or upgrading CF. The best I could see happening would be bringing Rolen back on the cheap and getting a cheap guy to share the job (Wilson Betemit is my choice) with Frazier being the primary LF. CF would start out with another season of suffering with Stubbs and Heisey and hoping Billy Hamilton is ready sooner rather than later.
Last edited by mth123; 10-27-2012 at 01:31 PM.
All my posts are my opinion - just like yours are. If I forget to state it and you're too dense to see the obvious, look here!
This team would be sitting on a golden pillow if Walt raked in a haul for Homer and some combo of Chapman and Cingrani filled in without missing a beat. Not a smart risk though considering we have no idea what Chapman looks like for more than two innings.
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. |
Reply With Quote